this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2025
1426 points (99.8% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
7579 readers
1081 users here now
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm struggling to reconcile this with the previous reason given for not releasing the files, that they were a national security risk. So, releasing no evidence would have been a risk to national security after Epstein was dead?
Trump probably collected millions in extortion money from everybody on that list
The government lies.
It doesn't matter when or where you read this, it's always true.
Yes and no. It depends on the part of the government in question.
Take the Government Accountability Office. I pretty much trust anything they put out. The same goes for NASA, and until this year, NOAA.
OSHA also tends to get a pass.
Homeland Security or the FBI? My sodium intake becomes dangerously high.
And that's even before Trump returned to power.
Perhaps switch to black salt?
The expression is, take it with a grain of salt.
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/take-with-a-grain-of-salt.html
The subtext being that the FBI and Homeland Security lie so much, that if you take everything they say with a grain of salt, you'll be at risk of dying from too much salt.
Were they a risk because they were dirt on politicians? We could have resolved that by getting rid of those politicians.