The search interest in Jamie Raskin has surged following his recent allegations regarding former President Donald Trump’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein. Raskin claimed that Trump is mentioned “more than a million times” in the unredacted Epstein files, which has sparked significant media attention and curiosity among the public. This claim positions Raskin at the center of a compelling political and legal narrative, driving many to seek more information.
Furthermore, Raskin’s involvement in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee’s discussion of Epstein’s alleged cover-ups has added to his visibility. His opening statement at a recent hearing, where he criticized Attorney General Bondi for her handling of Epstein-related matters, emphasizes his active role in addressing such high-profile topics. This has led to increased searches as people look for the latest updates and implications of these developments.
Additionally, Raskin’s plea to the Maryland Legislature regarding redistricting has garnered attention, especially following the Senate president’s opposition. This issue resonates with ongoing discussions about electoral fairness and representation, further contributing to heightened interest in Raskin and his political maneuvers. Together, these factors create a compelling case that prompts many to search for information about Jamie Raskin and his current activities.
Watch the Moment
Internet Reacts
J
Bondi the Pedophile protector
F
Child Rapist protector*
A
Child (R)apist
C
Yes, that’s the definition of “pedophile.”
P
Technically, a pedophile might not act on their urges. A child rapist has.
F
The definition of “Pedophile” is a person sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. It isn’t a person who has had any sexual contact with children. A “Child Rapist” is a person who has raped a child/children – whether they are attracted to them or not. A “Child Rapist” may be a pedophile, but a “Pedophile” is not necessarily a child rapist.
E
No, it’s not…
J
And what’s worse? She’s been protecting them since BEFORE trumps second term.
P
She is no better than Gillaine Maxwell.
C
She’s probably fucking kids too
H
Backed by MAGA pedophile protectors.
P
Pedo Pam….
O
To be fair – anybody protecting Trump have owned themselves that nickname.
E
It’s wild how one party in this country thinks rules/norms/laws still matter and the other just openly laughs at the idea of being constrained by such silly concepts.
C
That is the weakness of all laws: lol make me
Q
Right. We refused to use violence and incarceration to enforce the laws against Republican politicians during bidens term. They noticed.
E
Kinda not true. We locked up all those Jan 6 folks that stormed the capital, and if it wasn’t for the Supreme Court, they would have locked up Trump as well.
M
Don’t forget about Merrick Garland slow-walking any investigations into trump for Jan 6 and stealing classified documents.
Q
Waited 2 years to start then investigation and then paused it at every opportunity
L
Funny how conservatives seem attracted to crazy conspiracy theories about lizards and Jewish space lasers when actual conspiracies between right-wing villains in the US Congress and the Supreme Court plot to overturn the constitution by giving up power to their fascist King Trump.
T
it’s no coincidence, it’s on purpose and by design, just like they spread fake conspiracies about democrats and pizzagate as a distraction and muddying the waters in response to the first leaks about Epstein, to the accusations against Trump, and the creepy hideous things Trump said about children, teens and his own daughter.
S
The most-obviously-biased judge of all time, Cannon, is why the classified docs thing went nowhere.
M
I remember all the articles about this at the point (or a lot, anyway) pointing out that she was gunning for a SC seat at a later time because she basically just killed the investigation and likely helped him back into the white house
S
She’s probably proud of herself as being a major implement in promoting wanton depravity, destroying personal freedoms and harming children
E
The merrick Garland angle has been wildly overblown. In fact, it really feels like a bot fueled campaign to redirect anger for Trump getting into office to someone in the democratic establishment instead of the naked partisans in robes sitting on the Supreme Court The real culprits are the Supreme Court and “judge” aileen cannon
L
Thank you. Yes garland was weak and slow moving but that on its doesn’t mean that the results of the investigations would have resulted any differently. Why do we have to balance our anger at both democrats and republicans when it’s the republicans actually causing all the issues?!? The GOP is the enemy. Getting unreasonably angry at the side trying to stop it but not being super effective only helps the side actually doing the shit we want the democrats to stop!!
H
> Why do we have to balance our anger at both democrats and republicans when it’s the republicans actually causing all the issues?!? Some of us were sentient in 2009, when Obama happily let the big banks who created the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression walk away without even a slap on the wrist. It’s impossible to argue that Republicans aren’t significantly worse, but if you think Dems have any interest in protecting YOU over the donor class, then you haven’t paid attention in decades.
–
Kinda totally true. They only locked up those in the 99%
E
Yeah, they need america to NOT vote them back in to get that one percent. A lot of them were under investigation, but they were able to run out the clock. Getting an attorney general and experienced prosecutor as president would have been so awesome to root out all of the corruption and sedition from the first term. Don’t you agree?
G
If your supreme court refuses to lock up someone who attempts to coup your government. You replace the supreme court.
E
I would love to. We have to find a way. Otherwise, we’ll never get out of this mess
F
Give credit where credit is due: The Republicans in congress refused to impeach Trump.
T
Those same people are gleeful to use violence against poor or non white people to enforce laws.
T
You’re right. The constitution is an amazingly forward thinking document, but they failed to wonder “What if the president is just an insanely corrupt asshole?”
S
No, I think they did prepare for that. They failed to imagine that he would be actively supported by a large number of complicit, elected officials.
P
There really isn’t anything that can be done if the people in charge of enforcing the law decide that they do not need to follow the law. The only real options are preventative, stop those people from ever getting into those positions. That requires an educated, informed, and active populace. Things that have been undermined for decades now by both parties letting media monopolies exist, doing nothing to combat misinformation, allowing the economy get to the point that many people need two jobs to survive and repeated cutting funding to education.
W
The constitution and framers planned specifically for the case of a bad egg, hence the mechanisms for censure, impeachment, etc. The assumption was that overall, even if elected officials disagreed on the methods, that GENERALLY their loyalties would lie with their constituents and their goals would be the betterment of the country as a whole, or at the very least the state that they represented. Their backup plan for if the government becomes filled with assholes was the 2nd amendment. There’s no way to write a contingency for a corrupt government based on a mechanism that must be triggered and carried out by the same government, hence the mechanism must be triggered and carried out by the citizens.
T
If they knew that the House would eventually be capped at 435 and then not expanded as population multiplied to the level that it has, they would be livid.
O
It is unfortunate and completely, irrevocably human that the ultimate, final authority over all things is force. Only through the application of force are things possible. Without it, words mean nothing. Will elections be enough? What is the consequence for not complying or adhering to election results? Without a consequence, it is nothing.
S
I just think it’s wild how she can blatantly not answer questions under oath? At one point they asked her if she indicted anyone and she said “this is all meant to distract the American people from how good the Dow is doing!”
R
Simple, she Maga, the absolute belligerence of the movement is why they are never head to higher account and why they have so much appeal. It’s “I’m a motherfucking asshole and i am PROUD OF IT.” “I can respect that.”
C
I think the reason most of us resist resorting to it is that we know when the dam breaks it’s gonna be so bad that, bad as this is, it’s better than that. For now.
T
Right now there isn’t even a kid with their finger in the dyke, and the leak that is already emptying the dam is growing larger every day.
S
Is it exclusively human though? Force is used in nature to dominate and establish hierarchies as well. I’m not saying it’s right, but I do think it’s Primal and a regression to the “Ape” part of our DNA If anything, we have evolved because of our ability to collaborate and use teamwork, which is the opposite of domination. So the more we act like this, the more we devolve back to our ancestors and THAT is not a good thing. edit: I wooshed on the comment I replied to, my bad !
O
I said it is absolutely human nature, in other words. Never said exclusive. I’m not waxing poetic about the universe, just society. How does a pacifist society punish someone? Exile. The violence is exposure to the elements and societal abandonment, the threat death if they return. That is also force. Cooperative groups of early farmers united for mutual gain, and held each other accountable through the threat of punishment for breaking their rules. Simple as that.
S
Apologies! I misunderstood your words initially and agree that I wish we could get past our violent nature to advance further together. We’ve made strides in the past but this timeline feels like we are being pulled backwards.
O
You’re good, I didn’t write terribly clearly either. My point was moreso that even a pacifistic, idealist society can only be free of crime (of all kinds) by force. Even Sweden’s justice system, famous for actually rehabilitating criminals, is only possible by having armed officers forcibly restraining these people into cells. They lost their freedom, is the use of force here. The prisoners cannot just walk out unopposed, but if they could it would be because the police are gone, the consequences are gone. Humans are greedy, foolish, instinctive, and emotional beings. They will sometimes take what they can, if they can get away with it. Many will cooperate together for prosperity of their own free will, without requiring any form of coercion, but that is only because they know they can rely on an authority system to exert force on their behalf, also known as a government. They will need to protect their hard work and effort so others cannot steal it. The people will demand justice for harm done against them, taking it into their own hands only if they must. Force is the final authority.
J
The covenant without the sword are mere words. Even the old testament knew this.
M
The ultimate defense: NO U
C
“Rules are only meaningful if people agree to follow them. Otherwise, they’re just words.” Lion-o, *Thundercats* (S1E1 “Exodus”) This was the 80s, people. You grew up with this stuff. Start putting it in to practice.
Additional Sources:
Axios – Trump is in the unredacted Epstein files “more than a million times,” Raskin alleges
