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

ClaytonB said:
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...
Click to expand...
In your own quotes they never explicitly say that Epstein had no clients. "No client list" is not the same as "no clients."
 
Invisible Man said:
That was a civil settlement.

So, when you said, "They did go after higher profile Epstein clients though." you really mean the US Justice Department went after zero Epstein clients. Is that accurate?
Click to expand...

The rot was elevated by Trump even in his first adm. Barr, whose father was Epstein's boss at Dalton School, and who DEFENDED EPSTEIN at Kirkland Ellis, was appointed AG by Trump. Barr and his DOJ oversaw the entire Metropolitan Correctional Center affair which is at the centre of Epstein's escape/assassination/suicide.

www.newsweek.com

William Barr Says He's Recused From Epstein Case Over Legal Conflict

"I am recused from that matter because one of the law firms that represented Epstein long ago was a firm I subsequently joined for a period of time," Barr told reporters on Monday.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
 
Invisible Man said:
That was a civil settlement.

So, when you said, "They did go after higher profile Epstein clients though." you really mean the US Justice Department went after zero Epstein clients. Is that accurate?
Click to expand...

There were civil lawsuits and they even jailed Ghislane. They put Epstein in prison but he ended up killing himself.

The US under Trump cracked down on sex trafficking globally.

This was spearheaded by Ivanka who is a champion of women's rights and safety thats how Donald raised her to be.

Trump ordered the FBI and other US law enforcement organizations to make it a priority through executive orders.

www.nytimes.com

The Larry Nassar Case: What Happened and How the Fallout Is Spreading (Published 2018)

The string of events in American gymnastics that ended in a Michigan courtroom began nearly two years ago. Here’s a look at the scandal as it continues to unfold.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
Last edited:
nikcers said:
There were civil lawsuits and they even jailed Ghislane. They put Epstein in prison but he ended up killing himself.

The US under Trump cracked down on sex trafficking globally.

This was spearheaded by Ivanka who is a champion of women's rights and safety thats how Donald raised her to be.

Trump ordered the FBI and other US law enforcement organizations to make it a priority through executive orders.

www.nytimes.com

The Larry Nassar Case: What Happened and How the Fallout Is Spreading (Published 2018)

The string of events in American gymnastics that ended in a Michigan courtroom began nearly two years ago. Here’s a look at the scandal as it continues to unfold.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
You are taking great pains to avoid directly answering the question.

But it appears the answer is yes. When you said, "They did go after higher profile Epstein clients though," what you actually meant was that you are aware of a total of zero Epstein clients that the US Justice Department has gone after so far.
 
Invisible Man said:
In your own quotes they never explicitly say that Epstein had no clients. "No client list" is not the same as "no clients."
Click to expand...

WHOOOSH

That's the point. The point is that they're not trying to deny Epstein had clients, instead, they're denying that there is a client list and the purpose of this denial is exactly the same as "his head went back and to the left"... it's a foil to deflect attention away from the FACTS of the case. Whether there was a literal sheet of paper entitled, "CLIENT LIST", or not, the fact remains that Epstein worked with hundreds, maybe thousands of people in the circles of DC power-elite, in order to do all kinds of dirty deals (including money-laundering) and, based on the evidence available from his first case where he was convicted of sex crime involving minors, trafficking underage girls, both to himself and his buddies. Since the DC "eLiTeS" don't want this subject to continue being talked about (Trump: "Are we still talking about this guy?"), they are trying to Wag The Dog by denying the client LIST exists, taking a beating in the media for a couple weeks while MAGA vents its fury then, forever after, whenever anybody asks, "What about Epstein's clients?", the WH Press Secretary can retort, "Pam Bondi already told you: THERE IS NO CLIENT LIST." The equivocation between Epstein's clients and his client LIST is intentional, this is called weaponized ambiguity.

But you go ahead and keep pushing that same weaponized ambiguity here, don't let me interrupt you... :rolleyes:
 
Invisible Man said:
You are taking great pains to avoid directly answering the question.

But it appears the answer is yes. When you said, "They did go after higher profile Epstein clients though," what you actually meant was that you are aware of a total of zero Epstein clients that the US Justice Department has gone after so far.
Click to expand...

You can't charge someone with a crime on suspicion alone. We aren't a banana republic.

They charged Epstein and Ghislane with crimes because there was evidence.
 
ClaytonB said:
WHOOOSH

That's the point. The point is that they're not trying to deny Epstein had clients, instead, they're denying that there is a client list and the purpose of this denial is exactly the same as "his head went back and to the left"... it's a foil to deflect attention away from the FACTS of the case. Whether there was a literal sheet of paper entitled, "CLIENT LIST", or not, the fact remains that Epstein worked with hundreds, maybe thousands of people in the circles of DC power-elite, in order to do all kinds of dirty deals (including money-laundering) and, based on the evidence available from his first case where he was convicted of sex crime involving minors, trafficking underage girls, both to himself and his buddies. Since the DC "eLiTeS" don't want this subject to continue being talked about (Trump: "Are we still talking about this guy?"), they are trying to Wag The Dog by denying the client LIST exists, taking a beating in the media for a couple weeks while MAGA vents its fury then, forever after, whenever anybody asks, "What about Epstein's clients?", the WH Press Secretary can retort, "Pam Bondi already told you: THERE IS NO CLIENT LIST." The equivocation between Epstein's clients and his client LIST is intentional, this is called weaponized ambiguity.

But you go ahead and keep pushing that same weaponized ambiguity here, don't let me interrupt you... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Epstein merely having a list of names and phone numbers isnt evidence of a crime.

Neither is someone releasing names and phone numbers on the internet and calling it epsteins list.
 
nikcers said:
Epstein merely having a list of names and phone numbers isnt evidence of a crime.

Neither is someone releasing names and phone numbers on the internet and calling it epsteins list.
Click to expand...

WHOOOSH-squared

You bots are tireless, but the text you generate is only fuel for the flames and exposes the DS agenda that much more clearly --- Nobody cares, and it doesn't matter, whether Epstein ever owned a literal "black book" or kept a literal "client list" with a "list of names" or not! Doesn't matter! Those terms: "black book", "client list", etc. are a figure of speech called a metonymy, like when we say, "The White House announced a new trade deal today". Can the White House literally announce anything?? Obviously not. That's a metonymy. "Epstein's black book", likewise, is a metonymy. This story is a classic Wag The Dog trick. "We are denying the rumors of the B-3 bomber." Nobody was talking about a B-3 bomber until you brought it up to deny it. Nobody was talking about a LITERAL sheet of paper titled, "Client List" until Pam Bondi went lock-jaw on these denials that there is an Epstein Client List.

But again, you bots go ahead and keep amplifying this weaponized, Wag The Dog narrative, it just makes it all the more obvious what DC is really up to....
 
ClaytonB said:
WHOOOSH-squared

You bots are tireless, but the text you generate is only fuel for the flames and exposes the DS agenda that much more clearly --- Nobody cares, and it doesn't matter, whether Epstein ever owned a literal "black book" or kept a literal "client list" with a "list of names" or not! Doesn't matter! Those terms: "black book", "client list", etc. are a figure of speech called a metonymy, like when we say, "The White House announced a new trade deal today". Can the White House literally announce anything?? Obviously not. That's a metonymy. "Epstein's black book", likewise, is a metonymy. This story is a classic Wag The Dog trick. "We are denying the rumors of the B-3 bomber." Nobody was talking about a B-3 bomber until you brought it up to deny it. Nobody was talking about a LITERAL sheet of paper titled, "Client List" until Pam Bondi went lock-jaw on these denials that there is an Epstein Client List.

But again, you bots go ahead and keep amplifying this weaponized, Wag The Dog narrative, it just makes it all the more obvious what DC is really up to....
Click to expand...
If you want a justice system like that go to a country like Russia where merely being accused of being a CIA plant can get you in prison.

We dont do that here because that turns justice on its head.

We have a little thing called innocent until proven guilty.
 
ClaytonB said:
WHOOOSH

That's the point. The point is that they're not trying to deny Epstein had clients, instead, they're denying that there is a client list and the purpose of this denial is exactly the same as "his head went back and to the left"... it's a foil to deflect attention away from the FACTS of the case. Whether there was a literal sheet of paper entitled, "CLIENT LIST", or not, the fact remains that Epstein worked with hundreds, maybe thousands of people in the circles of DC power-elite, in order to do all kinds of dirty deals (including money-laundering) and, based on the evidence available from his first case where he was convicted of sex crime involving minors, trafficking underage girls, both to himself and his buddies. Since the DC "eLiTeS" don't want this subject to continue being talked about (Trump: "Are we still talking about this guy?"), they are trying to Wag The Dog by denying the client LIST exists, taking a beating in the media for a couple weeks while MAGA vents its fury then, forever after, whenever anybody asks, "What about Epstein's clients?", the WH Press Secretary can retort, "Pam Bondi already told you: THERE IS NO CLIENT LIST." The equivocation between Epstein's clients and his client LIST is intentional, this is called weaponized ambiguity.

But you go ahead and keep pushing that same weaponized ambiguity here, don't let me interrupt you... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
To recap. In post 154 I said something that was accurate.
In post 155 you quoted what I said in post 154, and then started your reply with the word "No," followed by saying a bunch of things that in no way contradicted anything I had said. And now you say that your whole point all along was simply to agree with me.

I'm not sure why you started your reply in 155 with, "No."

Perhaps, "Whoosh," refers to the sound your own words make while going over your own head.
 
nikcers said:
You can't charge someone with a crime on suspicion alone. We aren't a banana republic.

They charged Epstein and Ghislane with crimes because there was evidence.
Click to expand...
I understand. A simple, "yes," would have sufficed.

Perhaps you would like to retract your earlier claim that they had gone after high profile Epstein clients.
 
Invisible Man said:
I understand. A simple, "yes," would have sufficed.

Perhaps you would like to retract your earlier claim that they had gone after high profile Epstein clients.
Click to expand...
They did. They also went after Epstein and Ghislane.

They charged people they have evidence to charge with a crime.

How would you like a system that you could be charged for a crime on suspicion alone?

All of us here would be charged under such a system for simply supporting a politician who goes against the status quo as being enemies of the state.

Should you go to jail for voting for Ron Paul or Rand Paul or even Donald Trump?
 
Invisible Man said:
Who are some of these clients they went after?
Click to expand...
They went after everybody that they could. They chased every dead end. Our culture hates people who harm children and women.

At the end of the day you can only charge people when there is evidence of a crime. You cant charge people on suspicion alone.

In our system if you can't prove a crime the suspect is legally innocent. Thats why OJ Simpson went free in our system. They couldnt prove his guilt.

To bring federal charges against someone you have to have evidence. It cannot be based on your suspicion alone. Our system does this to protect law abiding citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
Glenn Greenwald on DOJ: NO Epstein Client List
Replies
1
Views
22
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
jmdrake
Republican Congressman Claims Biden Somehow Destroyed The Epstein Files
Replies
8
Views
64
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Tucker w/Glenn Greenwald on Epstein, corporate media and other hot topics
Replies
1
Views
81
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Tucker with Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri
Replies
0
Views
1K
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
unknown
Fitton comin for ya. Judicial Watch goes after Trump admin over Epstein client list.
2
Replies
22
Views
209
acptulsa
acptulsa
Back
Top