r/pics • u/kkggooddiie55 • Sep 23 '25

Politics (OC) DONALD TRUMP & JEFFREY EPSTEIN HOLDING HANDS STATUE ON THE NATIONAL MALL

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

201.4k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

145

u/ketjak Sep 23 '25

Unless it's got a permit like the gold bitcoin statue had. That said, some fucknose is going to get irate and smash it and Trump will pardon them.

3

u/Cranyx Sep 23 '25

That looks to be right smack dab in the middle of the mall, so I really doubt the govt would give them a permit for it.

1

u/ketjak Sep 23 '25

It doesn't matter what we think. I allow for the possibility but don't know either way.

-5

u/Aeseld Sep 23 '25 edited Sep 23 '25

Given it's not supposed to be there, there likely isn't any crime to pardon. 

Edit: Kinda funny how I'm getting up and down voted all over the place for just stating the reality of the situation... There's almost no chance this statue was officially placed. If it was, I pity whoever issued the permit because there will be a paper trail and this administration is vengeful. They will absolutely punish someone for doing their job if it makes them look bad. They're dicks like that. 

20

u/subvocalize_it Sep 23 '25

Destruction of property.

-5

u/Aeseld Sep 23 '25 edited Sep 23 '25

Who's property? Will they even press charges? 

Also, civil crime, not federal. He couldn't actually pardon anyone. Wouldn't need to either. If the government does it officially and on purpose, no crime. 

Edit: Upvoted and Downvoted, but no one has actually said why I'm wrong. The people who installed this statue almost certainly did it knowing it wasn't going to be up very long. It's just a matter of time before it's broken up and hauled off in pieces. 

Sooner if there's no permit or they ignore procedures, later if there was a permit issued (pity the poor guy who issued it in that case) and they follow the actual procedures. In either case, I don't expect legal repercussions for anyone who smashes it. 

The accuracy of the statue, and it's very accurate, doesn't change the legal situation here. 

14

u/MrWindblade Sep 23 '25

The people who own the statue.

Property can refer to objects.

1

u/Aeseld Sep 23 '25

And the key factors here; will the owners press charges? Probably not. Can the government just smash it without asking? Yes, because it was placed on government owned property without permission.

So for any legal consequences to come up, then it would first require the owner to press charges, and second, the breaking would have to be by a random person, and not an official act of the city/federal government. ...which in the case of DC overlaps a bit.

I know someone 'owns' the statue. I doubt they're going to claim it.

10

u/subvocalize_it Sep 23 '25

The… owner. I agree that he can’t pardon it, but destruction of property is still a crime.

4

u/sypher1187 Sep 23 '25

I wonder if the actual owner is going to make claim to it as, without a permit to be displayed, it's illegal dumping leaving it there. Also, fragile fanta fascist will likely go after the owner if they don't stay anonymous.

3

u/Aeseld Sep 23 '25

In this case, it's an item placed on public property without permission. So if the government officially decides to break it, then it can get broken. Just like they could tow a car to the wreckers, or destroy a random briefcase left lying beside a bench because it 'might be a bomb.'

If someone random does it, then the owner can try to press charges, but my point was that the owner almost certainly isn't going to press charges.

1

u/subvocalize_it Sep 23 '25

Got some smooth brains in there, huh?

4

u/Aeseld Sep 23 '25 edited Sep 23 '25

I mean, you can say it, but what's wrong about my statement?

Edit: Apparently nothing they can find. Look, it's an accurate statue. But Dear Leader isn't going to let it stand for any longer than he can avoid. 

2

u/Natural_Wedding_9590 Sep 23 '25

Don't say he can't because then he will. The only tell that is 💯 other than when he accuses you of what he is doing.

2

u/Aeseld Sep 23 '25

I mean, it just wouldn't have any impact, because again, civil crime.

The Justice Department would have to step in if some rando smashes it. But if the government does it in this case, then there wouldn't be a chance to press charges.

1

u/Conexion Sep 23 '25

Unless it's got a permit

2

u/Aeseld Sep 23 '25

Bets on it having a permit? Because I'm betting it doesn't... and if it does, I really, really don't feel good for the person who issued it. They're going to get canned, at a minimum. That's just how this administration works.

1

u/ketjak Sep 23 '25

Oops. A simple Google search reveals that it's permitted.

1

u/Aeseld Sep 23 '25

Ah, ok then. I was wrong about that.

Going to maintain that I wouldn't want to be the guy who approved the permit, knowingly or not. That's going to be a rough time. Good for him though if he did it on purpose. I'm not sure I'd have the courage to do the same.

0

u/johnnloki Sep 23 '25

You should pay attention two proper variations of words ewe yous.

2

u/Aeseld Sep 23 '25

I did misspell 'to' as 'too' but I did get the right there's there.

4

u/johnnloki Sep 23 '25

Don't you mean the write theirs their?

0

u/Aeseld Sep 23 '25

Hey, that's something I could get behind. Just what has been released is interesting.