so explain to me what pro drivor, english 5th language, couldn't.
I was defending his "Trump is likely covering for the pedos" point, cause i largely agree.
It is fair to say they were friends that were around it other constantly, and THAT drastically increases the chances that he raped kids or at best knew about the rape and said/did nothing.
I like your new schizo theory that Trump defends pedophiles by prosecuting against those same pedophiles. If you were the sole judge of every soul, you would send everybody to hell; even Jesus Christ and all the apostles.
blackmail was not occurring at his party. again, you are english LAST language, so you don't understand this. when they say FROM the trump party, epstein is reminding the person he is speaking to, maxwell, about the last time they would have seen that person. the most recent engagement. they had a large amount of blackmail victims from all appearances, and it seems that it was necessary.
okay but if someone is protecting child molestors i have no doubt they are one too, so if he is, i would even be willing to say he probably is a child molestor. you have failed, in any way, to DEMONSTRATE where he ies protecting them. how. who is he protecting? what in these documents implies any protection is being given?
i'm sorry but you are not convicting someone of protecting pedophiles because JEFFREY EPSTEIN, a man who was already KNOWN TO HATE TRUMP, said that he liked young women, to an NYT REPORTER begging for dirt on trump. he provided literally no evidence of this, and used language that doesn't even imply anyone was underage. who gives a fuck if trump is oogling 18 year olds? epstein would have said kids children or little girls or something to that effect. the cope that you are using to turn 'young women' into 'children' is beyond me.
WOMEN. a woman is an ADULT female. seriously. why are you so fucking dense? if they're talking about children, why do they keep saying women? literally for decades everyone assumed that trump meant 20s and 30s, because that's the age he kept trading for. seriously. you keep saying he's not a pedo, and then pointing to lines like this that could ONLY imply he is also someone who likes underage girls, but then every line is also women, and he's never been seen with an underage person in his life. he cut off epstein the moment it was revealed he was fucking with his club members and trump never had anything to do with him afterward, as far as any records, including epstein's own, show. notice how after 2006 in his emails he stops having any contact with trump, same for maxwell?
except he is literally the only one who has consistently been said to have done something. i guess we're just pretending he didn't cut epstein off? he wasn't said to have given a tip to the fucking cops? he wasn't the only one who was cooperative with giuffre's attorney? seriously, this is cope too you migger-lover. there's no consistency here. how in the fuck is he protecting pedophiles when he was the only one who seems to be NOT connected with epstein, when even new york times reporters were begging for it. steve bannon apparently was connected, and he was trying to get dirt on trump for epstein, and got nothing.
Please point out where I said that what user Pro Drivor was posting implicated anything, let alone Donald Trump:
Once again, learn to read properly. The message clearly states the guy was being blackmailed by a girl who attended one of Trump's parties. The blackmailing - and who knows what it was, or if it even occurred - did not take place AT the party.
Wow, doubling down on your assholery. "Doesn't necessarily point to" implies it may point to, which of course it doesn't. And "serial child molester?" lol, fuck off with your nonsense attempts to throw shade.
Old quote, old news, proves nothing.
We are allowed to separate if we vote to. The rules were all codified in the run-up to the last Quebec referendum, and in his zeal to scare Quebecers out of voting to secede, Jean Chrétien codified the process in such a way that we will bankrupt Canada on our way out as a special little bonus.
right here. this is you, saying word for word that we don't engage with content honestly, and that anything this guy posts swill be dismissed as false with no engagement. that we say that 'evidence' which is what you are referring to his post here as is going to get him called fake and gay.
i've always heard positive things about alberta, especially from canadian libs who tell me it's the america of canada, and they hate it. the only thing i'm really worried about if it does pass is how ugly the map is gonna look.
The last one is my favorite because whenever I see Trump with his grandchildren, he seems like a very sweet loving grandpa and wherever I see any other politician with children they look hungry.
That's Emil, not Todd. He's the lead writer for Bethesda and why their stories have sucked for two decades. When he revealed that tidbit, he was soying over thinking it was such a cool clever callback and revealed he had no idea that it was a war crime or what the tone is original Fallout even was.
I know that has been said, but there is no evidence
Meh not really a tip per se. Investigation were being carried out already and he cooperated(This is a plus for him obviously)
His reluctance to release information and the non-prosecutions from the DOJ lead me to believe he covered for diddlers migger.
You guys are going to have to fight an uphill battel, you sure your premier(governor?) is really down to get dirty?
They ran in the 1% of 1% social circles. You can't exactly get out of interacting with complete assholes when there's only maybe a few hundred people in the US, and a hundred or so in New York, all of whom make up the US economy and political sphere. People forget that Epstein was an influence merchant. He was everywhere, doing everything, and the blackmail and island were next to nothing in terms of his social and business connections.
Really nigga?
A rich guy hung out with another rich guy. Obviously he knew everything about what that guy did in his bedroom.
Battel? Ok saar.
Being fair, Trump was a high profile person heavily connected to many industries from politics to Hollywood. Shit happening at his parties is likely par for the course given so much of that scene are shady fucks. He likely wouldn't even know who around him is suspect of anything given the secrecy of it all.
Hypothetically, how would Trump even deal with them? We are in a period right now of rampant jury nullification based on political bias. Not only the people he will be going after can afford a crack team of lawyers, but he jury might be inclined to find them innocent just to spite Trump.
nate being the soldier who does that, and then waving at the journalists, honestly was a great piece of lore, but you are correct that emil didn't understand it. he thought it was heckin' cool, but it is actually a very good idea of what the people who were in the military pre-war were like, and would have made a lot more sense as to why Nate can be such an awful, immoral freak. or, you could roleplay that his time in cryo fucked up his brain, or gave him a chance to reevaluate his life for 200 years, locked in syndrome style.
wrong, right after epstein's 2006 charges he had ghislaine remove trump. this is also the exact time he was said to have cut contact. this is as much evidence as him 'hesitating to release the list' is.
but he literally did it without any further pushing than an act of congress. he didn't even veto it. the reason he didn't want to release it is because he knew exactly what is happening now would happen. they would continue to dig through every bit of data, literally, for anything with his name on it, strip it of all context, and lie about it until the end of time.
It proves that Trump was throwing shade at him and showing disapproval while still being publicly diplomatic with a man who had extensive ties to high level CIA operatives.
I have the strangest feeling that a lot of the people being performatively angry about not imprisoning or outright killing everyone ever vaguely associated with Epstein would cry foul if for example, you started trying to railroad Jay-Z over being Diddy's best friend with little evidence of wrongdoing other than 'he was his best friend so he's obviously a pedo defender'.
Ah neat. You're doing that thing where you're changing your question. This was the question, remember?
