The Art of (Epstein) Distraction

[essentialsaltes]

He would like to have answered that question without incriminating himself. What else can that mean but that Trump liked them too young, as well?

I mean, it's easy to leap to that, but consider the situation.

Epstein is facing crimes (or lawsuits) relating to underage women, so every question that includes that phrase could be met with the 5th.

I suppose if we had more of the tape, we'd see if all questions that mention girls get the same treatment. Obviously, he answered some questions involving Trump, so Trump is not a nexus of crime. In this particular circumstance, I hasten to add.

 

[public hermit]

I mean, it's easy to leap to that, but consider the situation.

Epstein is facing crimes (or lawsuits) relating to underage women, so every question that includes that phrase could be met with the 5th.

I suppose if we had more of the tape, we'd see if all questions that mention girls get the same treatment. Obviously, he answered some questions involving Trump, so Trump is not a nexus of crime. In this particular circumstance, I hasten to add.

Yeah, that makes sense if I understand. So when he says, "I would like to answer that," it isn't necessarily a reference to Trump. It's just another potentially incriminating question for him? Well, that's not nearly as exciting as what I was saying.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I haven’t confused anything. The DoJ and the FBI were weaponized under the Biden administration, and I have no doubt that this was one of the many things they investigated to try to pin as much as they could on Trump.

I really what you "have no doubt" about. Faith is useless as evidence. If there is evidence that the DOJ under AG Garland tried to "pin" Epstein crimes on Trump then show it, other wise, shut it.

Whether they revealed anything depended on what the investigation revealed. If you are so naive as to suggest that there was no weaponization of those agencies from the left (and even from before Biden, while Trump was in office) look no further than the dossier (funded by Hillary and her campaign) and the FBI coverup of it by Comey, et. al., the Hunter Biden laptop scandal that the FBI had for a year and the heads of all the intel agencies lied about it, denying its validity and claimed it was Russian interference, changing the course of the election, and NOW The proof that Obama was instrumental in the creation and perpetuation of the collusion hoax, instructing the FBI to manufacture evidence that Trump was complicit in rigging the 2016 election.

I'm not going to take a half hour to sort out the confused state of your understanding of these "issues". I don't see anything in your list that is fully correct.

So, no, I haven’t confused anything. All this is WHY people elected Trump in the first place when they just suspected the swamp was in command, and why they elected him again when all these scandals started being exposed.

People were told he would hate the people they hated and seek vengence against them and other lies by the media. We who didn't vote for him knew that too. It's why we didn't want him.

 

[rjs330]

They did release something like 900 pages in which Donald has more than a cameo.

Like I said we all.know. And we all know if there was anything there that incriminated him or linked him to underage sex it would have been front page news. There is nothing there. But you just keep hoping there is cause thats all you got.

 

[rjs330]

It can't be nice to have your name associated with Epstein, but Trump's reluctance to live up to his promised transparency just feeds into the conspiratorial mindset.

Of Democrats if rhey believe that there is something there about him. The question that should be asked what evidence is there about others beside Trump that would cause problems.

I've already mentioned reason why they might not want it all released. And none of it has to do with Trump.

 

[A New Dawn]

I really what you "have no doubt" about. Faith is useless as evidence. If there is evidence that the DOJ under AG Garland tried to "pin" Epstein crimes on Trump then show it, other wise, shut it.

I'm not going to take a half hour to sort out the confused state of your understanding of these "issues". I don't see anything in your list that is fully correct.

People were told he would hate the people they hated and seek vengence against them and other lies by the media. We who didn't vote for him knew that too. It's why we didn't want him.

You didn’t want him because he is collapsing the leftist agenda.

And don’t tell me to “shut it” just because you refuse to see the hateful games the left plays because you have your own eyes closed.

 

[DaisyDay]

Like I said we all.know. And we all know if there was anything there that incriminated him or linked him to underage sex it would have been front page news.

Do you mean like the photos of him at Epstein's with topless young adolescents on his lap?

There is nothing there.

A pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell on the horizon?

But you just keep hoping there is cause thats all you got.

What an emotion laden, false accusation!

 

[public hermit]

I mean, it's easy to leap to that, but consider the situation.

Epstein is facing crimes (or lawsuits) relating to underage women, so every question that includes that phrase could be met with the 5th.

I suppose if we had more of the tape, we'd see if all questions that mention girls get the same treatment. Obviously, he answered some questions involving Trump, so Trump is not a nexus of crime. In this particular circumstance, I hasten to add.

A quick follow up: I came across a clip yesterday evening where Epstein used that same phrasing ("I would like to answer that...") to a different question. I"m not going to take the effort to try and find it again, but you're right.

 

[essentialsaltes]

At Trump’s insistence, GOP launches a new January 6 committee​

 

[DaisyDay]

At Trump’s insistence, GOP launches a new January 6 committee​

Where’s Doge when you need it?

 

[perplexed]

Like I said we all.know. And we all know if there was anything there that incriminated him or linked him to underage sex it would have been front page news. There is nothing there. But you just keep hoping there is cause thats all you got.

We don't actually all know that . Just because lots of people clearly have it in for Trump you cannot assume everybody does , Also if people might not want anything related to Epstein to be released to protect an intelligence asset.

I actually have doubts anything really bad will come out but it would not be a big shock if it did.

The bigger issue is the broken promise of getting justice for the victims of pedophiles

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Where’s Doge when you need it?

They kinda stopped talking about it after Elon fell out of favor with Trump and 100+ Texans died.

 

[rjs330]

Do you mean like the photos of him at Epstein's with topless young adolescents on his lap?

Why wasn't that front page news?

Oh I know why, because they dont exist. If you have them, you should give them to the New York Times.

 

[DaisyDay]

Why wasn't that front page news?

Oh I know why, because they dont exist. If you have them, you should give them to the New York Times.

Take it up with Michael Wolff.

 

[rjs330]

We don't actually all know that . Just because lots of people clearly have it in for Trump you cannot assume everybody does

Those LOTS of people include Democrat politicians and Democrat media. Are you trying to tell me that NONE if them would? You know better than that.

Also if people might not want anything related to Epstein to be released to protect an intelligence asset.

I think that is a reasonable consideration. The whole Trump narrative is not.

The bigger issue is the broken promise of getting justice for the victims of pedophiles

Most certainly. Epstien killing himself kind of ruined that.

 

[rjs330]

What an emotion laden, false accusation!

Pardon me, I was just pointing out a logical conclusion to your posts, including your statements regarding the non-existant pictures.

 

[rjs330]

Take it up with Michael Wolff.

Interesting that he didnt produce them either.

 

[perplexed]

Those LOTS of people include Democrat politicians and Democrat media. Are you trying to tell me that NONE if them would? You know better than that.

Which particular democrat politician or member of the democrat media looked through all the governments material on Epstein looking for dirt on Trump? when did they did do it ?

 

[perplexed]

Epstien killing himself kind of ruined that.

What about promises for just made after Epstein killed himself

 

[A New Dawn]

Which particular democrat politician or member of the democrat media looked through all the governments material on Epstein looking for dirt on Trump? when did they did do it ?

That would most likely be Merrick Garland, most likely early on in the Biden administration, when they weaponized the DoJ.