Thread by @soychicka

It's past time that both parties come to an agreement:

Anyone with past business or social ties to Jeffrey Epstein / Ghislaine Maxwell must not hold any federal public office.

They've already cast their judgement as flawed.

Let those who haven't lead.
wjla.com/news/nation-wo…

For every individual qualified to hold an office of public trust who has been besmirched by affiliation with Epstein, there are undoubtedly dozens of others who are equally qualified - without having shown their judgement to be tainted.

Now, I'm not talking about accepting simple campaign contributions here, which are often made and processed by lowly campaign staffers.

I'm talking about candidates who have visited one of Epstein's homes, or willingly engaged on multiple occasions (or a single time after 2006).

I'm not saying that just because someone's phone number was in Epstein's black book they're tainted...

but if they were listed, or if they invested in any of the Epstein-linked entities (i.e. L Brands) or were early investors in the properties of Edge Foundation dinner guests-

they should be questioned extensively about the extent of their association with Epstein.

In fact, they should be forthcoming and freely make honest public statements about the extent of their association.

And to ensure the integrity of our democracy, it's the duty of their opponents to investigate the veracity of their claims, but also to refrain from fabricating smears based solely on insinuation.

These are the check and balances we need for our democracy to remain healthy.

But for those who had business contracts with Epstein, if the black book had the names of their household staff or emergency contact information - those are the ones who have problems.

Big problems.

And they need to address those problems head-on.

If any of these candidates who does not issue a proactive statement about any past relationships with Epstein

THEY
DO
NOT
DESERVE
ANY
POSITION
OF
PUBLIC
TRUST.

If any of these candidates do not immediately answer any questions about their association with Jeffrey Epstein in real time

THEY
DO
NOT
DESERVE
ANY
POSITION
OF
PUBLIC
TRUST.

And it's up to journalists and citizens - especially in IOWA to make sure these questions are answered.

assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1508…

documentcloud.org/documents/6250…

The names in the documents above are those who need to be addressed.

You can find the unredacted version elsewhere on teh innerwebs if you want to see the details to verify numbers and names were accurate. .. but I won't share it here.

If you have specific questions about any of the individuals included, I'll try to help fill in gaps.

@agentHades1 has also done an excellent job giving background on many of the #EpsteinAssociates, especially those in the weeds.

https://twitter.com/Agenthades1/status/1162794323848548352

@RepJeffries just said "There's a toxic mess at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue", but the White House is not the only place it can be found.

There are presidential candidates on BOTH sides who needs to be forthcoming, but there are it's Senators + Representatives as well.

And It's all our job to try to clean it up.

Especially those of you in Iowa right now.

But anyone else who cares should look at their local candidates - on both sides, BEFORE your primaries.

https://twitter.com/sfpelosi/status/1147657745253855233?s=20

I also believe that, on the forms for a candidate's name to be listed on the ballot, anyone running for office should be required to state - under penalty of perjury - if they have any involvement in, or connection to those charged/convicted of predatory behaviour.

And that candidate should be required to waive any affirmative statute of limitations defense for both criminal and civil cases, should anyone claim that they're lying.

This isn't a normal job application.

A candidate's denial needs to be a sworn matter of public record.

and there need to be consequences when they lie.

Any candidate who is deemed to have perjured themselves on the form must immediately be removed from office, be barred from holding future public office, and receive a significant criminal penalty.

But until there is an official proclamation from both parties that anyone who has served Epstein's interests in any way is persona non grata, it's up to us to ensure the primary process is used to cleanse the slate.

On both sides.

(So long as the primary wasn't cancelled.)