Epstein Arrested

[∞∞∞]

Not one person in this thread is defending Clinton.

Half dozen Conks have come on to defend Trump. Tells you all you need to know.

Get used to it...
Nobody will admit voting for the guy
and he'll be re-elected

They voted for him knowing he's a sexual deviant (and likely rapist, possible pedophile), pathological liar, veteran-basher, con-man, racist, and a stupid human being. And they still support him.

But 10 years from now it'll be just like the War on Terror all over again:

"I never supported Trump."

Her emails though...

[kalm]

Not one person in this thread is defending Clinton.

Half dozen Conks have come on to defend Trump. Tells you all you need to know.

Get used to it...
Nobody will admit voting for the guy
and he'll be re-elected

This thread delivers!

[UNI88]

Sure, he's a shitbag, but there is no evidence he colluded with Russians to influence the election or participated in Epstein's pedo activities. The Clintons however .........

If a Democrat did 1/100,000,000th of what Trump has done, I would be defending them and you would be calling for their lynching.

FYP

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Get used to it...
Nobody will admit voting for the guy
and he'll be re-elected

They voted for him knowing he's a sexual deviant (and likely rapist, possible pedophile), pathological liar, veteran-basher, con-man, racist, and a stupid human being. And they still support him.

But 10 years from now it'll be just like the War on Terror all over again:

"I never supported Trump."

Her emails though...

The CS.com Sob Sisters...

Clitz, Treep and Reek



BTW Clitz - why is it that you're the only one allowed a protest vote, but everybody else is disingenuous or lying? Or did you actually vote for Clinton?

[BDKJMU]

Get used to it...
Nobody will admit voting for the guy
and he'll be re-elected

They voted for him knowing he's a sexual deviant (and likely rapist, possible pedophile), pathological liar, veteran-basher, con-man, racist, and a stupid human being. And they still support him.

Yep, they voted for Clinton knowing most of those things.

[SeattleGriz]

Not one person in this thread is defending Clinton.

Half dozen Conks have come on to defend Trump. Tells you all you need to know.

Get used to it...
Nobody will admit voting for the guy
and he'll be re-elected

I'll admit I'm voting for him next time! While in Washington, anything except a vote for a Dem is a throw away vite, it will count on popular vote.

I'm hoping Trump wins both electoral and popular. Heads will go splodey if Trump wins popular vote.

[AZGrizFan]

They voted for him knowing he's a sexual deviant (and likely rapist, possible pedophile), pathological liar, veteran-basher, con-man, racist, and a stupid human being. And they still support him.

But 10 years from now it'll be just like the War on Terror all over again:

"I never supported Trump."

Her emails though...

The CS.com Sob Sisters...

Clitz, Treep and Reek



BTW Clitz - why is it that you're the only one allowed a protest vote, but everybody else is disingenuous or lying? Or did you actually vote for Clinton?

[UNI88]

They voted for him knowing he's a sexual deviant (and likely rapist, possible pedophile), pathological liar, veteran-basher, con-man, racist, and a stupid human being. And they still support him.

Yep, they voted for Clinton knowing most of those things.

So is Trump more like Clinton or AOC?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Unless you’re intimately involved, you don’t know that. The first investigations began in 2005. I’d be willing to bet his pedophila began long before that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sure it did, but there is no reason to believe his pedophilia was widely known at that before 2005. Before then, he was known mostly as just another NY billionaire. However, Chelsea Clinton wasn't married until 2010, long after Epstein was a known pedo and the woman who appears in those photos was implicated.

There is no reason NOT to believe it wasn't known. Your argument is that it's ok to be associated with someone b/c he wasn't publicly out as a pedophile. I'm not sure about your logic. Just because he wasn't known to the public doesn't mean the friends knew something. And given the scope of the operation, and the multiple people involved, it sounds like it wasn't a secret.

[AZGrizFan]

Yep, they voted for Clinton knowing most of those things.

So is Trump more like Clinton or AOC?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Mmmm…..man, that's a tough call.

[Ibanez]

Prosecute anyone involved with Epstein, but let's not pretend a known sexual predator like Trump wasn't likely involved.

Wrong- You’re confusing Trump with Clinton..

Are you forgetting about the Hollywood Access video? Trump isn't exactly respectful of women, especially when he "grabs them by the pussy."

[Ibanez]

They voted for him knowing he's a sexual deviant (and likely rapist, possible pedophile), pathological liar, veteran-basher, con-man, racist, and a stupid human being. And they still support him.

But 10 years from now it'll be just like the War on Terror all over again:

"I never supported Trump."

Her emails though...

The CS.com Sob Sisters...

Clitz, Treep and Reek



BTW Clitz - why is it that you're the only one allowed a protest vote, but everybody else is disingenuous or lying? Or did you actually vote for Clinton?

What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

[∞∞∞]

Wrong- You’re confusing Trump with Clinton..

Are you forgetting about the Hollywood Access video? Trump isn't exactly respectful of women, especially when he "grabs them by the pussy."

And there is a major difference between Clinton and Trump (if both don't turn out to be pedophiles). One had a consensual relationship with a woman; the other assaults them.

Regardless, both should be prosecuted if there's a connection with Epstein.

[CAA Flagship]

And there is a major difference between Clinton and Trump (if both don't turn out to be pedophiles). One had a consensual relationship with a woman; the other assaults them.

Regardless, both should be prosecuted if there's a connection with Epstein.

You are an engineer. Math should be your strength.

https://www.businessinsider.com/these-a ... on-2017-11

These are the sexual-assault allegations against Bill Clinton

Four women over the past few decades have publicly accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault or harassment. One woman accused Clinton of raping her.

[css75]

Get used to it...
Nobody will admit voting for the guy
and he'll be re-elected

They voted for him knowing he's a sexual deviant (and likely rapist, possible pedophile), pathological liar, veteran-basher, con-man, racist, and a stupid human being. And they still support him.

But 10 years from now it'll be just like the War on Terror all over again:

"I never supported Trump."

Her emails though...

Proof?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

CID wants to play the Republican "Trigger Game"
Where anybody that makes a valid point contrary to a Republican position is called a baby or triggered

It's an interesting tactic
most commonly used by children that have no valid counter position

And this "triggered game" coming from a guy who fancies himself as deeply logical
who's been spending an inordinate amount of reverse spin logic defending Trump
and degrading himself in the process

[CitadelGrad]

There is no reason NOT to believe it wasn't known. Your argument is that it's ok to be associated with someone b/c he wasn't publicly out as a pedophile. I'm not sure about your logic. Just because he wasn't known to the public doesn't mean the friends knew something. And given the scope of the operation, and the multiple people involved, it sounds like it wasn't a secret.

If you have some evidence that Trump knew before the incident at Mar A Lago (which resulted in Trump banning Epstein), then present it.

You seem to believe that speculation is evidence. It isn't.

You post reads a lot like the Muller Report -- there is no evidence to support Russian collusion allegations, but there is no evidence Trump didn't collude, therefore he is probably guilty.

There is no reason not to believe Ibanez is a pedo, but there is no evidence he isn't, therefore Ibanez is likely a pedo.

Are you starting to see the logical fallacy here? This is what happens when you demand proof of a negative and set aside the whole presumption of innocence thingy.

[Ivytalk]

CID wants to play the Republican "Trigger Game"
Where anybody that makes a valid point contrary to a Republican position is called a baby or triggered

It's an interesting tactic
most commonly used by children that have no valid counter position

And this "triggered game" coming from a guy who fancies himself as deeply logical
who's been spending an inordinate amount of reverse spin logic defending Trump
and degrading himself in the process

I prefer the cynical old broad with the Manhattan.

The one that reminds me of you.

[Chizzang]

If you have some evidence that Trump knew before the incident at Mar A Lago (which resulted in Trump banning Epstein), then present it.

You seem to believe that speculation is evidence. It isn't.

You post reads a lot like the Muller Report -- there is no evidence to support Russian collusion allegations, but there is no evidence Trump didn't collude, therefore he is probably guilty.

There is no reason not to believe Ibanez is a pedo, but there is no evidence he isn't, therefore Ibanez is likely a pedo.

Are you starting to see the logical fallacy here? This is what happens when you demand proof of a negative and set aside the whole presumption of innocence thingy.

You didn't read the Report...
Because it says just the opposite of what you said

It says:
There's mountains of evidence - but no proof

[CitadelGrad]

If you have some evidence that Trump knew before the incident at Mar A Lago (which resulted in Trump banning Epstein), then present it.

You seem to believe that speculation is evidence. It isn't.

You post reads a lot like the Muller Report -- there is no evidence to support Russian collusion allegations, but there is no evidence Trump didn't collude, therefore he is probably guilty.

There is no reason not to believe Ibanez is a pedo, but there is no evidence he isn't, therefore Ibanez is likely a pedo.

Are you starting to see the logical fallacy here? This is what happens when you demand proof of a negative and set aside the whole presumption of innocence thingy.

You didn't read the Report...
Because it says just the opposite of what you said

It says:
There's mountains of evidence - but no proof

It didn't specify the evidence.

[AZGrizFan]

If you have some evidence that Trump knew before the incident at Mar A Lago (which resulted in Trump banning Epstein), then present it.

You seem to believe that speculation is evidence. It isn't.

You post reads a lot like the Muller Report -- there is no evidence to support Russian collusion allegations, but there is no evidence Trump didn't collude, therefore he is probably guilty.

There is no reason not to believe Ibanez is a pedo, but there is no evidence he isn't, therefore Ibanez is likely a pedo.

Are you starting to see the logical fallacy here? This is what happens when you demand proof of a negative and set aside the whole presumption of innocence thingy.

You didn't read the Report...
Because it says just the opposite of what you said

It says:
There's mountains of evidence - but no proof

[Skjellyfetti]

If you have some evidence that Trump knew before the incident at Mar A Lago (which resulted in Trump banning Epstein), then present it.

You seem to believe that speculation is evidence. It isn't.

It's speculation about Clinton as well.

But, the truth is - it looks bad for both of them at this point. Because of circumstantial evidence. Not proof. But, evidence...




Speculation without evidence would be that Trump banned Epstein because he tried to fuck Ivanka.

[AZGrizFan]

If you have some evidence that Trump knew before the incident at Mar A Lago (which resulted in Trump banning Epstein), then present it.

You seem to believe that speculation is evidence. It isn't.

It's speculation about Clinton as well.

But, the truth is - it looks bad for both of them at this point. Because of circumstantial evidence. Not proof. But, evidence...

Speculation without evidence would be that Trump banned Epstein because he tried to fuck Ivanka.

If it's speculation about Clinton, then it's nothing but absurd allegations against Kavanaugh. FFS.

[Chizzang]

You didn't read the Report...
Because it says just the opposite of what you said

It says:
There's mountains of evidence - but no proof

Every. legal. interpretation.says.the.same.thing.

mountains of circumstantial evidence

[CID1990]

CID wants to play the Republican "Trigger Game"
Where anybody that makes a valid point contrary to a Republican position is called a baby or triggered

It's an interesting tactic
most commonly used by children that have no valid counter position

And this "triggered game" coming from a guy who fancies himself as deeply logical
who's been spending an inordinate amount of reverse spin logic defending Trump
and degrading himself in the process

Methinks thou doth protest too much

I’m not the one who is beating two dead horses over and over and over (that sounds sort of trigger-y)

One is the “wink wink suuure you didn’t vote for Trump” suggestion

The other one is that you’ve somehow taken issue with me pushing at times against some of the more ridiculous dramatics over Trump

^^^^ these two are getting pretty tiresome