Trump Presidency Round 2

[sixstar]

Well, now’s the time, the Epstein emails show the Pedo President being implicated. Time to see if we’ll have any of the IE folks change their tune. I’m setting the line at 0.5 people outright condemning him.

I believe Trump was involved, but the emails do not implicate Trump.

Epstein wrote in emails that Clinton "likes them young" and spoke of flying with Clinton. Does that also implicate Clinton?

USA Today, NPR, BBC, AP News, and WaPo all asserted that mere association does not constitute allegations or evidence, that there was no implication of illegality, and that single-sided emails are not evidence of wrongdoing.
Same thing with Epstein's emails about Prince Andrew and Dershowitz.

A single person's claim can't meet the standard of implication.

And I don't believe that either side is protecting pedos. I think that the files are being withheld due to powers beyond the executive and legislative branches. This would explain why Ds didn't release the files to sink Trump previously, and why Rs aren't releasing the files despite promises to do so.

 

[TorontoGold]

I believe Trump was involved, but the emails do not implicate Trump.

Epstein wrote in emails that Clinton "likes them young" and spoke of flying with Clinton. Does that also implicate Clinton?

USA Today, NPR, BBC, AP News, and WaPo all asserted that mere association does not constitute allegations or evidence, that there was no implication of illegality, and that single-sided emails are not evidence of wrongdoing.
Same thing with Epstein's emails about Prince Andrew and Dershowitz.

A single person's claim can't meet the standard of implication.

And I don't believe that either side is protecting pedos. I think that the files are being withheld due to powers beyond the executive and legislative branches.

The emails show a history of Epstein communicating that Trump a patron of his operation. Importantly, this was before his political aspirations.

I have no issue saying Clinton participated in Epstein’s operation. I think he should face all of the same anger that Prince Andrew has gotten.

I’ll leave the legal decisions to lawyers, but media orgs having legal disclaimers does not stop the public from making assertions on what has been displayed in the public. When I issue financial statements that contain an opinion on the presentation of the financials and that they presented fairly in all material respects, that does not mean there isn’t errors within them. So while the emails are not the final nail in the coffin, they are part of the encompassing portfolio of Trump’s history of sexual abuse.

People on this forum wanted to see if Trump was implicated on an “Epstein list or files”, you and I would both agree that email communication would constitute a file in which Epstein has documented Trump’s involvement.

I don’t care to stick my head in the sand and go “golly well the powerful folks will cover this up!” when we do have evidence of involvement by those people. Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump should not be able to sleep well at night for what they participated in.

No one on these forums stopped themselves from calling Biden a pedo or criminal for his past because of legal standards. I don’t think I defended him and certainly don’t care for his reputation being tarnished by any allegations, so I find it pretty weird that others are jumping to fight on the margins.

 

[RDU Irish]

I believe Trump was involved, but the emails do not implicate Trump.

Epstein wrote in emails that Clinton "likes them young" and spoke of flying with Clinton. Does that also implicate Clinton?

USA Today, NPR, BBC, AP News, and WaPo all asserted that mere association does not constitute allegations or evidence, that there was no implication of illegality, and that single-sided emails are not evidence of wrongdoing.
Same thing with Epstein's emails about Prince Andrew and Dershowitz.

A single person's claim can't meet the standard of implication.

And I don't believe that either side is protecting pedos. I think that the files are being withheld due to powers beyond the executive and legislative branches. This would explain why Ds didn't release the files to sink Trump previously, and why Rs aren't releasing the files despite promises to do so.

Epstein was a honeypot op creating leverage on rich and powerful. Three letter agencies and Mossad had their hands so far up in this thing that it stays under cover for "national security interests" or some other bullshit excuse to condone degeneracy.

Can't expose Mossad's influence over our degenerate politicians like Bill fucking Clinton - everyone knows it but we sure AF can't admit it.

 

[RDU Irish]

The emails show a history of Epstein communicating that Trump a patron of his operation. Importantly, this was before his political aspirations.

I have no issue saying Clinton participated in Epstein’s operation. I think he should face all of the same anger that Prince Andrew has gotten.

I’ll leave the legal decisions to lawyers, but media orgs having legal disclaimers does not stop the public from making assertions on what has been displayed in the public. When I issue financial statements that contain an opinion on the presentation of the financials and that they presented fairly in all material respects, that does not mean there isn’t errors within them. So while the emails are not the final nail in the coffin, they are part of the encompassing portfolio of Trump’s history of sexual abuse.

People on this forum wanted to see if Trump was implicated on an “Epstein list or files”, you and I would both agree that email communication would constitute a file in which Epstein has documented Trump’s involvement.

I don’t care to stick my head in the sand and go “golly well the powerful folks will cover this up!” when we do have evidence of involvement by those people. Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump should not be able to sleep well at night for what they participated in.

No one on these forums stopped themselves from calling Biden a pedo or criminal for his past because of legal standards. I don’t think I defended him and certainly don’t care for his reputation being tarnished by any allegations, so I find it pretty weird that others are jumping to fight on the margins.

Now explain Trump kicking his ass out of Mar A Lago? Doesn't compute. Did Epstein try to ensnare Trump? Probably. Did he succeed? Getting kicked out of Mar A Lago indicates Trump was disgusted by the guy after being targeted. Do I know this? Of course not but it makes a lot more sense than the TDS ramblings of the walls are closing in crowd.

 

[GATTACA!]

Now explain Trump kicking his ass out of Mar A Lago? Doesn't compute. Did Epstein try to ensnare Trump? Probably. Did he succeed? Getting kicked out of Mar A Lago indicates Trump was disgusted by the guy after being targeted. Do I know this? Of course not but it makes a lot more sense than the TDS ramblings of the walls are closing in crowd.

There it is lol

 

[Irish#1]

Well, now’s the time, the Epstein emails show the Pedo President being implicated. Time to see if we’ll have any of the IE folks change their tune. I’m setting the line at 0.5 people outright condemning him.

Line is being set that low because we know that financial crimes do not matter to our friends.

???

Pretty much everyone on IE has said he should burn if it's shown he was participating.

 

[drayer54]

Dems end destruction of the American government for no discernible reason so naturally they’re shifting focus to a dead pedophile. Sharp representation.

 

[TorontoGold]

Now explain Trump kicking his ass out of Mar A Lago? Doesn't compute. Did Epstein try to ensnare Trump? Probably. Did he succeed? Getting kicked out of Mar A Lago indicates Trump was disgusted by the guy after being targeted. Do I know this? Of course not but it makes a lot more sense than the TDS ramblings of the walls are closing in crowd.

Explain? Ok, so he kicked him out in 2007. There is no documented proof from Trump or anyone else that he gave law enforcement any help with an investigation. So, you want to wishcast that Trump kicked him out because he was a creep but like not too much of one to tell law enforcement about it? The attorney who represented a victim said that Trump gave them details to help their case, but not the authorities? Doesn't compute.

He should be given the Prince Andrew treatment, as should Clinton and Dersh. The TDS crowd running to save their favorite from any sort of criticism is a tale as old as time.

???

Pretty much everyone on IE has said he should burn if it's shown he was participating.

The emails don't do anything for you? Seems like you had no issue when it was Hunter and Joe. Don't think you held any restraint there.

Rule #1 in politics when you're in trouble. Go on the offensive to try and flip the narrative.

So they found more docs at Joe's place. Not good Joe. BTW Joe, cooperating and telling everyone you're cooperating doesn't absolve you. It just means you're trying to deflect.

If that was deflecting, what does not cooperating and telling everyone it's a hoax while there is continuous streams of evidence coming out? Might be time to give up the defense.

 

[ozzman]

Funny thing about getting kicked out of Mar a Lago.

 

[sixstar]

The emails show a history of Epstein communicating that Trump a patron of his operation. Importantly, this was before his political aspirations.

Again, by definition, this is not implication. it is a one-sided, uncorroborated statement made by Epstein; this is not evidence. Unverified claims carry no legal, evidentiary weight. Courts cannot and do not treat statements like these as reliable.

I have no issue saying Clinton participated in Epstein’s operation. I think he should face all of the same anger that Prince Andrew has gotten.

Virginia Giuffre sued Prince Andrew, alleging that he had sex with her when she was trafficked, and that case was settled out of court (unofficial estimate of ~12M GBP). Virginia explicitly stated that she did not observe Trump or Clinton participating in sexual acts. No one has officially accused Trump or Clinton of participating.

So while the emails are not the final nail in the coffin, they are part of the encompassing portfolio of Trump’s history of sexual abuse.

Let's be accurate because in America, people are innocent until proven guilty:

Trump's proven history of sexual abuse comprises exactly one civil case with E Jean Carroll, in which a jury found him liable (not convicted of) sexual abuse. Nothing in that Carroll case has any connection to Epstein.

And while Trump has been accused of numerous sexual harassment, assault, or rape incidences, he has never been criminally convicted of any of them. You can't use speculations as facts.

That said, I acknowledge that "where there's smoke, there's fire." And I acknowledge that it's incredibly difficult to prove rape against someone as rich and powerful as Trump. Personally, I think its highly likely that Trump has taken advantage of women. But even so, that is an entire different discussion than sexual trafficking and pedophilia.

Conclusions must be based on verified facts, not speculation. You and I both agree that connecting unrelated dots without evidence is dangerous and inaccurate, yes?

People on this forum wanted to see if Trump was implicated on an “Epstein list or files”, you and I would both agree that email communication would constitute a file in which Epstein has documented Trump’s involvement.

The one-sided emails with uncorroborated claims state that Trump had knowledge of Epstein's activities, not that he participated in them. There are no direct communications from Trump that acknowledge these claims.

Where is the corroborating evidence that proves his involvement?

I don’t care to stick my head in the sand and go “golly well the powerful folks will cover this up!” when we do have evidence of involvement by those people. Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump should not be able to sleep well at night for what they participated in.

I agree that any guilty party should be punished by the full extent of the law, once guilt is proven.

I find it pretty weird that others are jumping to fight on the margins.

Until either corroborating evidence appears or an Epstein victim testifies under oath that a specific person did something illegal, the legal standard remains the same: one-sided emails do not implicate anyone. This is not fighting on the margins; this is how evidence works.

 

[GATTACA!]

Again, by definition, this is not implication. it is a one-sided, uncorroborated statement made by Epstein; this is not evidence. Legally, unverified claims carry no evidentiary weight. Courts cannot and do not treat statements like these as reliable.



Virginia Giuffre sued Prince Andrew, alleging that he had sex with her when she was trafficked, and that case was settled out of court (unofficial estimate of ~12M GBP). Virginia explicitly stated that she did not observe Trump or Clinton participating in sexual acts. No one has officially accused Trump or Clinton of participating.



Let's be accurate because in America, people are innocent until proven guilty:

Trump's proven history of sexual abuse comprises exactly one civil case with E Jean Carroll, in which a jury found him liable (not convicted of) sexual abuse. Nothing in that Carroll case has any connection to Epstein.

And while Trump has been accused of numerous sexual harassment, assault, or rape incidences, he has never been criminally convicted of any of them. You can't use speculations as facts.

That said, I acknowledge that "where there's smoke, there's fire." And I acknowledge that it's incredibly difficult to prove rape against someone as rich and powerful as Trump. Personally, I think its highly likely that Trump has taken advantage of women. But even so, that is an entire different discussion than sexual trafficking and pedophilia.

Conclusions must be based on verified facts, not speculation. You and I both know that connecting unrelated dots without evidence is dangerous and inaccurate.



The one-sided emails with uncorroborated claims state that Trump had knowledge of Epstein's activities, not that he participated in them. There are no direct communications from Trump that acknowledge these claims.

Where is the corroborating evidence that proves his involvement?



I agree that any guilty party should be punished by the full extent of the law, once guilt is proven.



Until an either corroborating evidence appears or an Epstein victim testifies under oath that a specific person did something illegal, the legal standard remains the same: one-sided emails do not implicate anyone. This is not fighting on the margins; this is how evidence works.

Yap yap yap.

Imagine Biden being given these insane levels of unreasonable doubt.

 

[sixstar]

Yap yap yap.

Imagine Biden being given these insane levels of unreasonable doubt.

Requiring evidence to implicate someone is not an "insane level of unreasonable doubt." Here in the real world, that's called due process.

what did I say that was inaccurate? Be specific.

 

[SeekNDestroy]

Requiring evidence to implicate someone is not an "insane level of unreasonable doubt." Here in the real world, that's called due process.

what did I say that was inaccurate? Be specific.

Due process? What’s that? (Just an observation regarding our current treatment of the fifth amendment, not anything you wrote)

 

[TorontoGold]

Again, by definition, this is not implication. it is a one-sided, uncorroborated statement made by Epstein; this is not evidence. Unverified claims carry no legal, evidentiary weight. Courts cannot and do not treat statements like these as reliable.

That's nice. We're on IE, not in court. I don't seem to remember you holding any of our other fellow posters to legal standards for their posts. I might have forgotten you doing it for the Biden crime family stuff. Feel free to show me where you challenged them.

Virginia Giuffre sued Prince Andrew, alleging that he had sex with her when she was trafficked, and that case was settled out of court (unofficial estimate of ~12M GBP). Virginia explicitly stated that she did not observe Trump or Clinton participating in sexual acts. No one has officially accused Trump or Clinton of participating.

Got it, so a legal settlement for civil matters and Andrew suffered greatly from. Why should Trump not face the same for his case for Carroll? He was found liable of sexual abuse. It was done with a jury verdict. All more objective than an out of court settlement. You're asking the public to treat Trump significantly less harsh than Andrew. Would you like to argue on Andrew's behalf with people about how he's criminally not at fault?

Let's be accurate because in America, people are innocent until proven guilty:

Trump's proven history of sexual abuse comprises exactly one civil case with E Jean Carroll, in which a jury found him liable (not convicted of) sexual abuse. Nothing in that Carroll case has any connection to Epstein.

And while Trump has been accused of numerous sexual harassment, assault, or rape incidences, he has never been criminally convicted of any of them. You can't use speculations as facts.

That said, I acknowledge that "where there's smoke, there's fire." And I acknowledge that it's incredibly difficult to prove rape against someone as rich and powerful as Trump. Personally, I think its highly likely that Trump has taken advantage of women. But even so, that is an entire different discussion than sexual trafficking and pedophilia.

Conclusions must be based on verified facts, not speculation. You and I both agree that connecting unrelated dots without evidence is dangerous and inaccurate, yes?

Unrelated evidence? I would say the guy who did the bad things implicating other people over a significant period of time, before the person implicated ascended to top job in the world, would hold some value. I would also find the documentary evidence of pictures and documents that show these people interacting to be evidence. He maintained relationships with a known sex trafficker and pedophile, he was actually found civically liable for sexual abuse, let's remember how tough it is for even the rich and powerful to even face civil judgements.

Sure seems like an awful lot of coincidences that line up for him being a sex pest. Remember, we had no issue with the Biden crime family title, so we shouldn't be holding legal standards for calling him the Pedo President. You and I both agree that maintaining standards are important, yes?

The one-sided emails with uncorroborated claims state that Trump had knowledge of Epstein's activities, not that he participated in them. There are no direct communications from Trump that acknowledge these claims.

Where is the corroborating evidence that proves his involvement?

Trump's birthday card to him? Seemed like a pretty weird card to me IMO.

I agree that any guilty party should be punished by the full extent of the law, once guilt is proven.

That's great. I'm not a prosecutor so my burden of evidence is much lower to an internet forum. Plenty of folks here make statements based on circumstantial evidence that are not held to legal standards. The playoffs haven't started, and yet people are calling teams "playoff teams" - I guess you're going to let them know that technically they can't be called that because they haven't officially been chosen, right?

Until either corroborating evidence appears or an Epstein victim testifies under oath that a specific person did something illegal, the legal standard remains the same: one-sided emails do not implicate anyone. This is not fighting on the margins; this is how evidence works.

This is exactly how fighting on the margins works - you are applying legal standards to a forum in which opinions are given routinely that do not meet the legal standard. See how people called Joe Biden a bunch of different names or claims, did you see these threads filled with legal classifications for these claims? No, because I don't think anyone wants to defend some old man sniffing some child's hair or asking them to put sunscreen on his legs. But these threads have you, #1, and Bishop trying to defend Trump on legal definitions - kinda weird.

 

[drayer54]

That's nice. We're on IE, not in court. I don't seem to remember you holding any of our other fellow posters to legal standards for their posts. I might have forgotten you doing it for the Biden crime family stuff. Feel free to show me where you challenged them.



Got it, so a legal settlement for civil matters and Andrew suffered greatly from. Why should Trump not face the same for his case for Carroll? He was found liable of sexual abuse. It was done with a jury verdict. All more objective than an out of court settlement. You're asking the public to treat Trump significantly less harsh than Andrew. Would you like to argue on Andrew's behalf with people about how he's criminally not at fault?



Unrelated evidence? I would say the guy who did the bad things implicating other people over a significant period of time, before the person implicated ascended to top job in the world, would hold some value. I would also find the documentary evidence of pictures and documents that show these people interacting to be evidence. He maintained relationships with a known sex trafficker and pedophile, he was actually found civically liable for sexual abuse, let's remember how tough it is for even the rich and powerful to even face civil judgements.

Sure seems like an awful lot of coincidences that line up for him being a sex pest. Remember, we had no issue with the Biden crime family title, so we shouldn't be holding legal standards for calling him the Pedo President. You and I both agree that maintaining standards are important, yes?



Trump's birthday card to him? Seemed like a pretty weird card to me IMO.



That's great. I'm not a prosecutor so my burden of evidence is much lower to an internet forum. Plenty of folks here make statements based on circumstantial evidence that are not held to legal standards. The playoffs haven't started, and yet people are calling teams "playoff teams" - I guess you're going to let them know that technically they can't be called that because they haven't officially been chosen, right?



This is exactly how fighting on the margins works - you are applying legal standards to a forum in which opinions are given routinely that do not meet the legal standard. See how people called Joe Biden a bunch of different names or claims, did you see these threads filled with legal classifications for these claims? No, because I don't think anyone wants to defend some old man sniffing some child's hair or asking them to put sunscreen on his legs. But these threads have you, #1, and Bishop trying to defend Trump on legal definitions - kinda weird.

This all feels like Russiagate. We hate Trump so you know it’s probably not a distraction from recent events and clearly ready for Primetime. Trump is going to win more lawsuits from this. This all seems pretty logically debunked and again- if the left had something damning here, they would have ran it during the election DOJ weaponization of 2024. The media is being careful to dodge lawsuits but too many of these loons drink the kool aid.

 

[GATTACA!]

Requiring evidence to implicate someone is not an "insane level of unreasonable doubt." Here in the real world, that's called due process.

what did I say that was inaccurate? Be specific.

Due process is necessary for legal charges. Trump doesn't need to be convicted of a crime to be impeached. Clinton did something unbecoming of the office and lied about it. Trump blew past unbecoming decades ago and has lied about Epstein over and over again. Before this latest dump of files according to Trump he hadn't interacted with Epstein since he kicked him out of Mar a Lago. Guess he forgot spending his first Thanksgiving as president with him.

Nixon was set to be impeached and forced out for obstructing justice. Trump is doing everything in his power to obstruct the release of the Epstein files. He cut Maxwell a sweetheart deal and moved her to a minimum security facility to buy her silence. He had 1,000 FBI agents scrubbing the files looking for his name.

Where there's smoke there's fire. People are going to start asphyxiating soon there is so much smoke here. Idk why it's so difficult for you cultist to just say "Yeah this all looks horrible. If Trump is truly innocent he should release everything immediately."

 

[TorontoGold]

This all feels like Russiagate. We hate Trump so you know it’s probably not a distraction from recent events and clearly ready for Primetime. Trump is going to win more lawsuits from this. This all seems pretty logically debunked and again- if the left had something damning here, they would have ran it during the election DOJ weaponization of 2024. The media is being careful to dodge lawsuits but too many of these loons drink the kool aid.

I don’t know about that, Trump is 0/1 is civil cases with sexual abuse being involved. Legally Trump has been found to be worse than Prince Andrew, and you’ll still defend him.

You were so sure Joe was a criminal, but will defend Donny Diddler to end. Strange priorities.

 

[sixstar]

That's nice. We're on IE, not in court.

It's okay to admit that you were incorrect in stating that the emails implicate Trump.

I don't seem to remember you holding any of our other fellow posters to legal standards for their posts. I might have forgotten you doing it for the Biden crime family stuff. Feel free to show me where you challenged them.

I average less than 1 post per day here, so I don't track everything. Give me some example posts you want me to respond to.

Got it, so a legal settlement for civil matters and Andrew suffered greatly from. Why should Trump not face the same for his case for Carroll? He was found liable of sexual abuse. It was done with a jury verdict. All more objective than an out of court settlement.

Where did I say that Trump shouldn't face consequences for his actions? He already did. He owes more than $88M in damages. Those are his consequences. Sucks for him. I have zero pity for Trump here.

Now explain how that has any ties at all to Epstein.

You're asking the public to treat Trump significantly less harsh than Andrew.

Stop reaching. I never said that.

Unrelated evidence? I would say the guy who did the bad things implicating other people over a significant period of time, before the person implicated ascended to top job in the world, would hold some value. I would also find the documentary evidence of pictures and documents that show these people interacting to be evidence. He maintained relationships with a known sex trafficker and pedophile, he was actually found civically liable for sexual abuse, let's remember how tough it is for even the rich and powerful to even face civil judgements.

Sure seems like an awful lot of coincidences that line up for him being a sex pest. Remember, we had no issue with the Biden crime family title, so we shouldn't be holding legal standards for calling him the Pedo President. You and I both agree that maintaining standards are important, yes?

Suspicion is fine. Asserting a conclusion requires evidence.

Maintaining standards? Truth is the standard. The following points are all objectively, irrefutably true:

• Patterns aren't proof
• Photos aren't evidence of criminal participation
• Sexual assault against an adult woman is not evidence of involvement in pedophilia or sex trafficking
• No Epstein victim has accused Trump of participating
• Giuffre explicitly stated that she never saw Trump participate

I do agree that maintaining standards is important.
So what specific evidence links Trump to Epstein's trafficking?

Trump's birthday card to him? Seemed like a pretty weird card to me IMO.

If authentic (still TBD), it would absolutely add to the body of evidence.

That's great. I'm not a prosecutor so my burden of evidence is much lower to an internet forum. Plenty of folks here make statements based on circumstantial evidence that are not held to legal standards.

You told me your sources of truth are data and academic sources. Data requires evidence. I just expect you to apply your own standard consistently.

This is exactly how fighting on the margins works - you are applying legal standards to a forum in which opinions are given routinely that do not meet the legal standard. See how people called Joe Biden a bunch of different names or claims, did you see these threads filled with legal classifications for these claims? No, because I don't think anyone wants to defend some old man sniffing some child's hair or asking them to put sunscreen on his legs. But these threads have you, #1, and Bishop trying to defend Trump on legal definitions - kinda weird.

1. I'm not defending that narcissist. Like I said, I think he has taken advantage of many women.
2. I'm simply applying the principle that you said guides your sources of truth: data and evidence.
   1. Did your standard change, or does it only apply to people you like?
      

Due process is necessary for legal charges. Trump doesn't need to be convicted of a crime to be impeached. Clinton did something unbecoming of the office and lied about it. Trump blew past unbecoming decades ago and has lied about Epstein over and over again. Before this latest dump of files according to Trump he hadn't interacted with Epstein since he kicked him out of Mar a Lago. Guess he forgot spending his first Thanksgiving as president with him.

Yeah, legal charges and impeachment have different standards. But impeachment still requires verified evidence of misconduct; these emails are insufficient. The Thanksgiving claim is still unverified, so we can't treat it like a fact until it's proven.

Nixon was set to be impeached and forced out for obstructing justice. Trump is doing everything in his power to obstruct the release of the Epstein files. He cut Maxwell a sweetheart deal and moved her to a minimum security facility to buy her silence. He had 1,000 FBI agents scrubbing the files looking for his name.

Everything in his power? Be specific and factual.

Trump publicly opposed releasing more files. What else? Or does that constitute everything in his Presidential power?

Your other points are speculative unless you can answer these questions:
What evidence proves he cut her a sweetheart deal? How do you know that Trump ordered this?
What evidence proves he ordered FBI agents to scrub files? Dick Durbin's allegation isn't evidence without documents.

Idk why it's so difficult for you cultist to just say "Yeah this all looks horrible. If Trump is truly innocent he should release everything immediately."

Lazy. You know I'm not a Trump cultist. It's just easier for you to paint with a broad brush than to argue on facts.

Like I already said: I want all the files released and all guilty people to be punished to the full extent of the law. I don't care who they are.

 

[Bishop2b5]

This all feels like Russiagate. We hate Trump so you know it’s probably not a distraction from recent events and clearly ready for Primetime. Trump is going to win more lawsuits from this. This all seems pretty logically debunked and again- if the left had something damning here, they would have ran it during the election DOJ weaponization of 2024. The media is being careful to dodge lawsuits but too many of these loons drink the kool aid.

This is going to be just like 8 years ago in here. The usual suspect beta boys will squeal, "This is it!" "The smoking gun!" "Got him!" "Down he goes!" and "The walls are closing in!" day after day after day until nothing comes of it other than providing the rest of us with a laugh. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[LifelongFan]

The Mossad videos could be released and MAGA would say he was just practicing wrestling moves.

 

[RDU Irish]

Explain? Ok, so he kicked him out in 2007. There is no documented proof from Trump or anyone else that he gave law enforcement any help with an investigation. So, you want to wishcast that Trump kicked him out because he was a creep but like not too much of one to tell law enforcement about it? The attorney who represented a victim said that Trump gave them details to help their case, but not the authorities? Doesn't compute.

He should be given the Prince Andrew treatment, as should Clinton and Dersh. The TDS crowd running to save their favorite from any sort of criticism is a tale as old as time.



The emails don't do anything for you? Seems like you had no issue when it was Hunter and Joe. Don't think you held any restraint there.





If that was deflecting, what does not cooperating and telling everyone it's a hoax while there is continuous streams of evidence coming out? Might be time to give up the defense.

WALLS ARE CLOSING IN!! THIS IS THE BIG ONE ELIZABETH!

You guys are something else.

 

[LifelongFan]

The Mossad videos could be released and MAGA would say he was just practicing wrestling moves.

This is of course a joke. The real next step for MAGA is just excusing pedophilia like Megyn:

 

[sixstar]

Megyn's statement is legally accurate. Both state and federal laws distinguish between victims under the age of 14 and victims aged 14-17. And punishments are significantly higher for exploitation of younger victims. That is factual. You can look it up.

 

[TorontoGold]

I average less than 1 post per day here, so I don't track everything. Give me some example posts you want me to respond to.

You didn't track the laptop story, really? Come on now, I found two posts of yours on the MSM coverup of the laptop, but nothing on the "Biden crime family" from the same period. I don't care for retrospective responses. You saw the posts and didn't care.

Where did I say that Trump shouldn't face consequences for his actions? He already did. He owes more than $88M in damages. Those are his consequences. Sucks for him. I have zero pity for Trump here.

Now explain how that has any ties at all to Epstein.

Stop reaching - I never accused you of that. I said Trump should have the same punishments as Andrew has received - public disgrace. I'm not sure who's wealthier the Royal Family or Trump but for people who have images worth more than money, the biggest punishment is their image being hurt. Tell me why the public shouldn't hold Trump in the same light as Andrew, he's suffered greater legal losses than Andrew, if we're going to play the "legally speaking..." game.

Stop reaching. I never said that.

I said he should be treated the same as Andrew, and you spun this into a "legally xyz". Andrew settled outside of court.

Yes or no - should Trump be disgraced similarly to Andrew. Remember this is all based on evidence that was not tried in the courts.

Suspicion is fine. Asserting a conclusion requires evidence.

Maintaining standards? Truth is the standard. The following points are all objectively, irrefutably true:

• Patterns aren't proof
• Photos aren't evidence of criminal participation
• Sexual assault against an adult woman is not evidence of involvement in pedophilia or sex trafficking
• No Epstein victim has accused Trump of participating
• Giuffre explicitly stated that she never saw Trump participate

I do agree that maintaining standards is important.
So what specific evidence links Trump to Epstein's trafficking?

Remember, I'm not asking for any jail time, I am simply stating he should be publicly shamed like Andrew.

You told me your sources of truth are data and academic sources. Data requires evidence. I just expect you to apply your own standard consistently.

If I'm doing a forensic audit, and I see the main entity communicating with a related party making mention of an arrangement, I am going to see that as an indication of impropriety. If this related party has a long documented history of concerning practices that include legal matters against that person, I'm going to use that in my analysis of the situation. Within material terms, there is enough evidence provided here that if I was going to opine on this I would include memo's on this within my audit file. There isn't enough to materially disclose as there isn't formal legal matters concerning this, but if I was asked to provide a response to a question I would have to mention this as a legal threat and acknowledge the potential for liability.

If I was the CPA firm engaged on any of Trump's companies that had intangible assets based on Trump's image/likeness I would have to perform impairment testing on the worth of those assets because the seriousness of threats facing him.

1. I'm not defending that narcissist. Like I said, I think he has taken advantage of many women.
2. I'm simply applying the principle that you said guides your sources of truth: data and evidence.
   1. Did your standard change, or does it only apply to people you like?

Then you agree he should face the same public shame that Andrew has?

Explained above.

 

[GATTACA!]

Megyn's statement is legally accurate. Both state and federal laws distinguish between victims under the age of 14 and victims aged 14-17. And punishments are significantly higher for exploitation of younger victims. That is factual. You can look it up.

Way to prove his point.

 

[Irish#1]

Explain? Ok, so he kicked him out in 2007. There is no documented proof from Trump or anyone else that he gave law enforcement any help with an investigation. So, you want to wishcast that Trump kicked him out because he was a creep but like not too much of one to tell law enforcement about it? The attorney who represented a victim said that Trump gave them details to help their case, but not the authorities? Doesn't compute.

He should be given the Prince Andrew treatment, as should Clinton and Dersh. The TDS crowd running to save their favorite from any sort of criticism is a tale as old as time.



The emails don't do anything for you? Seems like you had no issue when it was Hunter and Joe. Don't think you held any restraint there.





If that was deflecting, what does not cooperating and telling everyone it's a hoax while there is continuous streams of evidence coming out? Might be time to give up the defense.

Your problem and it continues to be your problem is that if someone doesn't spell it out exactly like you want, then you take it the wrong way. Let me make it as clear as I can for you. Do I think Trump was up to no good? Yes I do.

BTW........I have not read any news on this since yesterday morning or got caught up on the posts here, so if something else was announced since then don't get your panties in a ringer by this post.

 

[ozzman]

Way to prove his point.

 

[Irish#1]

If you sell 20 years into a 50 year mortgage you’re going to have no equity built up to be able to afford that new house.

It's part of the equation, but not all of it. Appreciation of the homes value will provide some equity.

 

[Irish#1]

Trump calls on Justice Department to investigate Jeffrey Epstein's relationship with political and other figures

The president said he will ask Pam Bondi to investigate former President Bill Clinton and others' relationships with the late convicted sex offender, a former friend of Trump's.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[TorontoGold]

Your problem and it continues to be your problem is that if someone doesn't spell it out exactly like you want, then you take it the wrong way. Let me make it as clear as I can for you. Do I think Trump was up to no good? Yes I do.

BTW........I have not read any news on this since yesterday morning or got caught up on the posts here, so if something else was announced since then don't get your panties in a ringer by this post.

lol re-read your posts about the first news about the Biden laptop story. You had no issue with not taking a legal standard for offering an opinion, but for Trump that seems different.

I know news media you consume might be a bit confusing or altered by AI so I only go by what's posted on these forums as sources I know you've read.