Trump : "I will doxx Epstein Client list if I'm elected"

[unknown]

A few 22yos just clowned this fucker.

 

[Occam's Banana]

 

[acptulsa]

Trump Announces He Will Declassify Files on Epstein, JFK, and 9/11 (VIDEO)

 

[Occam's Banana]

 

[Occam's Banana]

 

[Occam's Banana]

 

[unknown]

 

[Madison320]

I didn't pay that much attention to this case but to me the biggest logical contradiction is that I thought there was a huge sex trafficking network, with 1000s of girls, and now they're saying Epstein was the only one committing sex crimes with the victims?

 

[TheTexan]

I didn't pay that much attention to this case but to me the biggest logical contradiction is that I thought there was a huge sex trafficking network, with 1000s of girls, and now they're saying Epstein was the only one committing sex crimes with the victims?

Clearly just a misunderstanding

It was actually nothing they were playing board games

 

[ClaytonB]

 

[ClaytonB]

I didn't pay that much attention to this case but to me the biggest logical contradiction is that I thought there was a huge sex trafficking network, with 1000s of girls, and now they're saying Epstein was the only one committing sex crimes with the victims?

There were no victims. Jeffrey Epstein was wanking himself to CP while Ghislaine Maxwell watched, between flights of Bill Clinton and Bill Gates visiting the island, strictly for business purposes. Just ask Virginia Giuffre. Oh wait, you can't, she accidentally got run over by a bus on purpose and then suicided herself as she swore on Twitter she would never do under any circumstances. People are crazy. Except for Jeffrey Epstein's friends, they are all totally normal people only interested in boring business stuff. By the way, that's why Melinda divorced Bill, because he kept visiting Jeffery Epstein on his island, to talk about educational scholarships and other boring stuff that can only be talked about on a private island, definitely not via a phone call or in a cafe or hotel like normal people.

 

[Invisible Man]

and now they're saying Epstein was the only one committing sex crimes with the victims?

Are they actually saying that explicitly?

I haven't kept up with everything. But I feel like if you assume they're engaging in sophistry, and you keep listening carefully to what they do and don't say, you realize that they avoid saying anything that specific. Saying Epstein didn't have a client list isn't the same thing as saying he didn't have clients, and it also isn't the same thing as saying he didn't have records of who those clients were. That may be what it would mean to any ordinary person. But when and if something comes out later that contradicts that, they can just say, "all we said was that we never had any list of clients that Epstein himself had written."

Similarly, saying he killed himself still leaves unanswered a number of questions surrounding the circumstances of that, including questions about who else was involved in his killing of himself and how it managed to take place without guards preventing it or even knowing about it. They carefully avoid telling the whole story, and the little bits they do say, while saying them in a way that they try to make sound like the whole story, could still be technically true, while also concealing much more important details that are left out.

 

[Madison320]

Are they actually saying that explicitly?

I haven't kept up with everything. But I feel like if you assume they're engaging in sophistry, and you keep listening carefully to what they do and don't say, you realize that they avoid saying anything that specific. Saying Epstein didn't have a client list isn't the same thing as saying he didn't have clients, and it also isn't the same thing as saying he didn't have records of who those clients were. That may be what it would mean to any ordinary person. But when and if something comes out later that contradicts that, they can just say, "all we said was that we never had any list of clients that Epstein himself had written."

Similarly, saying he killed himself still leaves unanswered a number of questions surrounding the circumstances of that, including questions about who else was involved in his killing of himself and how it managed to take place without guards preventing it or even knowing about it. They carefully avoid telling the whole story, and the little bits they do say, while saying them in a way that they try to make sound like the whole story, could still be technically true, while also concealing much more important details that are left out.

From what I understand they're saying there's no client list and basically the investigation is over.

I didn't follow it that closely either but I always thought the real crime was that lots of famous people were abusing underage girls and no one even got accused of a crime. Whether there was a list seems irrelevant to me. A list is just a piece of evidence and there should be lots of other evidence as well. The fact that they're saying there no list and it's over seems that they are implying that Epstein and Maxwell were acting alone.

Someone should ask them if the investigation is over, does that mean they think Epstein and Maxwell acted alone? That no one else was committing crimes?

 

[Invisible Man]

From what I understand they're saying there's no client list and basically the investigation is over.

I didn't follow it that closely either but I always thought the real crime was that lots of famous people were abusing underage girls and no one even got accused of a crime. Whether there was a list seems irrelevant to me. A list is just a piece of evidence and there should be lots of other evidence as well. The fact that they're saying there no list and it's over seems that they are implying that Epstein and Maxwell were acting alone.

Someone should ask them if the investigation is over, does that mean they think Epstein and Maxwell acted alone? That no one else was committing crimes?

I agree that that's what I've heard them say. I have not heard them say that Epstein did not have any clients. "Implying" something for them means nothing at all. I agree with your last sentence. Someone should ask them that. I expect that when and if they are asked that they will give a vague answer.

 

[ClaytonB]

I agree that that's what I've heard them say. I have not heard them say that Epstein did not have any clients. "Implying" something for them means nothing at all. I agree with your last sentence. Someone should ask them that. I expect that when and if they are asked that they will give a vague answer.

No, they've been plenty explicit. Trump explicitly asked why we are even still talking about Epstein at all, saying it "feels disrespectful" to even be talking about it in the aftermath of the Texas floods, as though God is on speed-dial for natural disasters whenever the DC Establishment wants to "move on" to other topics (such as moving on from stained dresses, and things of that nature, aka moveon.org)

If they were merely saying "there is no client LIST, but there were clients", then Bondi would just say that and the whole tempest in the teapot would be over. But she will not say that, because what she's IMPLYING is also what she's SAYING. The point is to deny that there is any client list and, therefore, that there were any clients. They know they're going to take a beating in the press, but that is also the point: get through the short-term pain now, and then reap the long-run gains of "asked and answered" whenever anybody asks in the future about "Epstein's clients". "Bondi already told you, there is no client list". The ambiguity is intentional, it's called weaponized ambiguity...

 

[Voluntarist]

The entire press corps ought to just start laughing hysterically anytime someone from this administration starts talking. You can't take any of them seriously ... standing there saying, "These aren't the droids we're looking for ... move along"

 

[ClaytonB]

 

[Occam's Banana]

The entire press corps ought to just start laughing hysterically anytime someone from this administration starts talking.

In order for anything like that to happen, they'd first have to become something other than establishment-mouthpiece hacks.

 

[Anti Globalist]

A delusional take I saw someone post on social media:

I have an alternative to this. And hear me out because in my conspiracy theorist head, this is exactly what I would do to ensure successful prosecution and imprisonment. Let's just say, for the sake of debate, they, in fact, have the client list. They put this current story out so, behind the scenes, they can get all their ducks in a row in the legal sense. Build an ironclad case, as it were. No loopholes, no technicalities. They lull the people on the list into a false sense of security, releasing this very statement. They create a holding facility (i.e. Alligator Alcatraz). The State Department then quietly revokes the passports of all parties involved so they cannot flee to a non-extradition country. Then all at once, in a massive, coordinated operation, they arrest the people on the list. I wouldn't put it past Trump to do this. They have already established they are capable of subterfuge with the bombing of Iran. Not out of the realm of possibility that they could, in fact, be doing this very thing. Not saying they are. Simply coming up with an alternate explanation. And I would be screaming at the top of my lungs in joyous triumph if this was the case.

 

[CCTelander]

In order for anything like that to happen, they'd first have to become something other than establishment-mouthpiece hacks.

.

Comrade, is not the very purpose of a “free” press to serve the interests of the state?

And is it not better to leave state interests TO thecstate, and its otgans?

So it would seem that all is well and going exactly as it should, no?