The Art of (Epstein) Distraction

[perplexed]

Sure I do. If its its baseless they dont know. Cause if they did know they could prove it.

Just take a deep breath and realize you don't know and you are just throwing a tantrum.

 

[rjs330]

Yes, it is.

Gee this sounds like schoolyard stuff.

Wolff had unusual access to Trump with thousands of interview hours on tape as well as interviews with Epstein. His word is not proof, but it is evidence no matter how desperately you may deny it.

All those thousands of interview hours and no released interview with Epstien saying Trump was with under 18 year old girls.

His words are just words. And as I pointed out, he never said Trump.was with topless under 18 year olds. No matter how much you want it to be true.

Silly taunting: I know you are but what am I.

Lol, getting to am I?

That was not even an accusation but speculation; well, the second half is speculation. Even you, surely, aren't disputing the first half?

I believe this whole conversation started when you accused Trump of being with topless under 18 year olds. And since then have been unable to show anything of the sort. Including the statement made by Wolff. You made an unproven accusation.

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

Thats not speculation, thats an accusation and one you have been unable to prove. Even by your own source who never said that.

Unless the exact phrase is found the meaning isn't there? No paraphrasing allowed!

Unknown has a definition. It does NOT mean under 18 in any definition. And the word topless doesn't appear either. That is not a paraphrase that is a fabrication.

Your emotions may not allow you to accept Michael Wolff as a source, but beyond "Nu-uh!" you've shown nothing to discredit him as a source.

I didn't know anything about Wolff as a journalist. So I had no emotions tied to him. Still dont. But when I looked him up to see what he was all about I discovered that other journalists discovered not find him credible. Some do. That's why he is questionable. Which leads me to want more than just some vague statement from him and some flat out fabrications from you apart from what he actually said.

 

[rjs330]

Just take a deep breath and realize you don't know and you are just throwing a tantrum.

Standing up for someone who.made a baseless claim isnt a good response. Here was rhe claim:

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

The claim has been shown to be baseless. If you are going to make such a wild accusation then you should have some actual evidence of such a claim. She made a statement of FACT. Yet has produced NO support for that statement. Even the source she used did NOT claim that.

 

[perplexed]

Standing up for someone who.made a baseless claim isnt a good response. Here was rhe claim:

??? I was mainly standing up for myself , you accused me of lying and I know that I am not , it simply is not constructive.

 

[rjs330]

??? I was mainly standing up for myself , you accused me of lying and I know that I am not , it simply is not constructive.

Perplexed you originally responded to a response I gave to Daisy. I wasn't even talking to you. You injected yourself into the debate.

I never accused you of anything. So I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[DaisyDay]

Gee this sounds like schoolyard stuff.

It does that.

All those thousands of interview hours and no released interview with Epstien saying Trump was with under 18 year old girls.

You've read all the interviews? I find that surprising.

His words are just words. And as I pointed out, he never said Trump.was with topless under 18 year olds. No matter how much you want it to be true.

What were his words? What was the meaning?

Lol, getting to am I?

Eh? That's the taunt.

I believe this whole conversation started when you accused Trump of being with topless under 18 year olds. And since then have been unable to show anything of the sort. Including the statement made by Wolff. You made an unproven accusation.

Not so.

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

Yep, that's the claim Wolff made, in effect.

Thats not speculation, thats an accusation and one you have been unable to prove. Even by your own source who never said that.

You've lost the train here. The speculation I was referring to was that much of the contents that had been taken by the FBI from Epstein's safe may have been disappeared. That is not an accusation, it is speculation.

"Even by your own source who never said that." The source of my speculation? And again, the contents of the investigation/prosecution have under Trump's, Patel's and Bongino's control for the last six months and suddenly the latter two declare there is no.

Unknown has a definition. It does NOT mean under 18 in any definition. And the word topless doesn't appear either. That is not a paraphrase that is a fabrication.

"Unknown" is not the phrase used. "Of an uncertain age" when referring to a woman has a long literary history. And no, I paraphrased, I did not fabricate. Your accusation is false.

I didn't know anything about Wolff as a journalist. So I had no emotions tied to him. Still dont. But when I looked him up to see what he was all about I discovered that other journalists discovered not find him credible. Some do. That's why he is questionable. Which leads me to want more than just some vague statement from him

Wanting is not getting, so rant away.

and some flat out fabrications from you apart from what he actually said.

I am not lying. Your accusations are false. I suggest you stop.

 

[DaisyDay]

??? I was mainly standing up for myself , you accused me of lying and I know that I am not , it simply is not constructive.

He was accusing me of lying. He has done this throughout this thread. Otherwise, I agree, it is not constructive, but some people do that when consumed by emotion.

 

[perplexed]

Perplexed you originally responded to a response I gave to Daisy. I wasn't even talking to you. You injected yourself into the debate.

I never accused you of anything. So I have no idea what you are talking about.

??? So you have never made the claim I say things I know not to be true???

 

[rjs330]

You've read all the interviews? I find that surprising.

As I said, no released interview. You said there were thousands hours. And DOJ under Biden most certainly could have released something to indicate Trump was with juveniles. They didn't. So you still are stuck with nothing despite those thousands of hours you mentioned.

What were his words? What was the meaning?

That Trump was sitting with some girls and Wolff had no idea how old they were.

Not so.

Oh, where's the proof for your accusation then?

Yep, that's the claim Wolff made, in effect.

No, that's the claim YOU made.

You've lost the train here. The speculation I was referring to was that much of the contents that had been taken by the FBI from Epstein's safe may have been disappeared. That is not an accusation, it is speculation.

No ive stuck with your original accusation. I even quoted it to remind you and everyone else.

The whole contents being disappeared is a secondary distraction. A speculation road I'm not going to go down with you.

The source of my speculation?

The source you used to try and back your accusation.

Patel's and Bongino's control for the last six months and suddenly the latter two declare there is no.

Incomplete thought.

 

[rjs330]

And again, the contents of the investigation/prosecution have under Trump's, Patel's and Bongino's control for the last six months and suddenly the latter two declare there is no.

And before that the Biden DOJ had it for four years and never accused or speculated that Trump was involved with juvniles, like you did. You are all alone on this one.

Unknown" is not the phrase used. "Of an uncertain age"

Okay, uncertain, which means not known or established, not determined or not having sure knowledge.

So I dont think that helps your case. Even Wolff didn't speculate.

And you STILL have no photographs.

Wanting is not getting, so rant away.

Yes and you still dont have any photographs. Just the statement of a questionable journalist. Who also didn't support your accusation.

I am not lying. Your accusations are false. I suggest you stop.

Your accusation was a fabrication. Do I need to quote you again?

 

[rjs330]

??? So you have never made the claim I say things I know not to be true???

Oh for heaven's sake. Go back to your post #105. Then follow it backward. You replied to a statement I made to Daisy not to you. So I dont know what you are talking about in reference to you.

 

[A2SG]

It’s displayed here on a daily basis for all to see. I’ve not seen a person on the left here who is willing to look at the good that’s been done by Trump while propping up the treasonous and illegal “accomplishments” of the leaders on their own side.

Care to show an example? Just so I know, since I haven't seen what you think you've seen. Except, of course, for when MAGA supporters do it.

I guess you can see it that way when you refuse to see the good that he does because “orange man bad”.

I guess I just have a difficult time trusting someone who is a convicted felon and has been proven guilty of fraud on multiple occasions. Call it a character flaw if you want to.

But, as it’s been mentioned numerous times, it’s humorous to see people who didn’t care one iota about Epstein and his perverse activities for YEARS suddenly care because Trump hasn’t done something about it in his first couple months. It reminds me of fake outrage.

I couldn't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys about Epstein or anything involving him. I just find it humorous how hard Trump is trying to create distractions from the release of the Epstein files that he himself promised to release, and how quickly the MAGA faithful are tripping over themselves to carry water for him all the while trying to pretend this administration is the "most transparent ever."

It's comedy gold!

-- A2SG, would be even better if it were a movie, maybe with Adam Sandler playing Trump....

 

[A2SG]

In the Palm Beach real estate deal dispute theory of their falling out, it was Epstein who cut off Trump because Trump screwed Epstein on the deal. Supposedly, Epstein asked Trump to come along to the auction for advice, but Trump went behind Epstein's back and secretly outbid him.

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

-- A2SG, sounds about right.....

 

[DaisyDay]

And before that the Biden DOJ had it for four years and never accused or speculated that Trump was involved with juvniles, like you did. You are all alone on this one.

And for the entire four years, Epstein had been dead for years. I am not alone in this. Have you not heard of Virginia Giuffre? Donald John has been declaring, in public, for attribution, that he was upset that Epstein "stole" her, that he "stole" a 16 year old spa employee.

Okay, uncertain, which means not known or established, not determined or not having sure knowledge.

It is a literary phrase, "a woman of an uncertain age" which Wolff used as an inversion: "girls of an uncertain age".

So I dont think that helps your case. Even Wolff didn't speculate.

There are none so blind.

And you STILL have no photographs.

You might as well put that in your signature. Why would I have photographs? I won't have them tomorrow either. I have never ever had them, never claimed to have them.

The actual claim is that Epstein showed them to Wolff, then returned them to his safe which was later raided by the DOJ.

Happy now? Still claiming that I'm making it all up?

Yes and you still dont have any photographs.

You might as well put that in your signature. Why would I have photographs? I won't have them tomorrow either. I have never ever had them, never claimed to have them.

Just the statement of a questionable journalist. Who also didn't support your accusation.

Your accusation was a fabrication. Do I need to quote you again?

I've asked you to stop accusing me of lying. At this point, you should apologize for your libel.