- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Does anyone care if Trump hung out with Epstein?
Posted on 6/6/25 at 12:55 pm to PhtevenWithaV
Posted on 6/6/25 at 12:55 pm to PhtevenWithaV
quote:Link?
Trump claims he had proof Epstein was a pedophile
1
Posted on 6/6/25 at 12:56 pm to NC_Tigah
Do you need a link to the beginning of the thread or something here? Are you Joe? Did you forget your Exelon again?
Posted on 6/6/25 at 12:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:It's exactly what was claimed. Let's do this again ...
Your "cover up" language is a straw man.
quote:
The claim as he was hitting on another members daughter and her father threatened to call the police if Trump didn't.
Perhaps more disturbingly, there was no police report and the staff who worked there at the time have denied any knowledge of the ban. It's either not true or Trump told the teen he had banned Epstein to keep her quiet about the incident.
Posted on 6/6/25 at 1:00 pm to PhtevenWithaV
quote:Negative.
Do you need a link to the beginning of the thread
Link Trump's claims he had proof Epstein was a pedophile.
Posted on 6/6/25 at 1:10 pm to NC_Tigah
That is not a cover up 
An example of a "cover up" in this scenario would be paying the victims off, manipulating records to remove their interactions from outside view, etc.
You're using strawmen to make the arguments seem more extreme, and therefore absurd (first using "criminal" then "cover up") to avoid the actual discussion. You're substituting one silencing technique (strawman to absurdity) in substitution of another (The "Trump kicked Epstein out of MAL" talking point).
That talking point is used because the implication is when Trump found out, he kicked Epstein out. The questioned raised, however, are when did Trump know, or when should he have known? He makes comments in 2002 about how Epstein likes young women. Then Epstein is indicted in 2006 and then again in 2007, all well prior to October 2007. I do not personally think Trump is an idiot, so I'm not one to pretend that the alarm bells shouldn't have been ringing at the latest in 2006.
An example of a "cover up" in this scenario would be paying the victims off, manipulating records to remove their interactions from outside view, etc.
You're using strawmen to make the arguments seem more extreme, and therefore absurd (first using "criminal" then "cover up") to avoid the actual discussion. You're substituting one silencing technique (strawman to absurdity) in substitution of another (The "Trump kicked Epstein out of MAL" talking point).
That talking point is used because the implication is when Trump found out, he kicked Epstein out. The questioned raised, however, are when did Trump know, or when should he have known? He makes comments in 2002 about how Epstein likes young women. Then Epstein is indicted in 2006 and then again in 2007, all well prior to October 2007. I do not personally think Trump is an idiot, so I'm not one to pretend that the alarm bells shouldn't have been ringing at the latest in 2006.
Posted on 6/6/25 at 1:15 pm to SlidellCajun
Epstein’s own lawyer stated that there was nothing that would implicate President Trump. They were friends until Trump found out he was doing his shady shite at Mar A Lago and kicked him out. The people investigating, commented that Trump was the only one questioned that personally called after being questioned to see if there was anything he could do personally to help with the investigation. There is nothing there. If there was the Dems would have used it already. If there is something there then Trump should fry like the rest of them should so let’s release the list and stop the bullshite!!!
Posted on 6/6/25 at 1:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:No. Sorry.
An example of a "cover up" in this scenario would be paying the victims off, manipulating records to remove their interactions from outside view, etc.
The claim is the father was going to the police, but Trump promised he'd go to the police instead. Yet, despite the assurances, he never went to the police. Further he took measures to silence the girl. Those are the claims. They "seem more extreme" because what was claimed was more extreme.
Just as was your misleading intimation that Epstein groomed (or worse) underage girls at MAL.
Now we have another nitwit claiming Trump "must have known" about was Epstein was doing because they were "next door neighbors." It's layering stupid atop the absurd.
Posted on 6/6/25 at 1:31 pm to NC_Tigah
Ignoring you tripling down on the strawmen above...
Why are you calling one of Epstein's victims a liar?
That was literal testimony at Maxwell's trial.
quote:
Just as was your misleading intimation that Epstein groomed (or worse) underage girls at MAL.
Why are you calling one of Epstein's victims a liar?
That was literal testimony at Maxwell's trial.
quote:
Now we have another nitwit claiming Trump "must have known" about was Epstein was doing because they were "next door neighbors." It's layering stupid atop the absurd.
quote:
That talking point is used because the implication is when Trump found out, he kicked Epstein out. The questioned raised, however, are when did Trump know, or when should he have known? He makes comments in 2002 about how Epstein likes young women. Then Epstein is indicted in 2006 and then again in 2007, all well prior to October 2007. I do not personally think Trump is an idiot, so I'm not one to pretend that the alarm bells shouldn't have been ringing at the latest in 2006.
Posted on 6/6/25 at 1:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
I love Trump but if there’s credible evidence then I’m done. Of course I expect no consequences for any liberal on the list. Further, if the dems thought there was evidence they would have used it prior to now
Posted on 6/6/25 at 1:39 pm to Jaydeaux
I don't think Trump had sex with any minors, but I also don't think he found out about Epstein's behavior in late summer/early fall 2007. That would make him a 85-IQ type.
Posted on 6/6/25 at 1:40 pm to SlidellCajun
quote:
Does anyone care if Trump hung out with Epstein?
Posted on 6/6/25 at 1:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:False. Literally. False.
Why are you calling one of Epstein's victims a liar?
That was literal testimony at Maxwell's trial.
(1) The testimony regarded Maxwell, not Epstein at MAL.
(2) The testimony regarded first contact, not grooming.
(3) There was nothing, no indication whatsoever, pointing to knowledge of any MAL personnel, much less Trump, as to what Maxwell was doing.
Posted on 6/6/25 at 1:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't think Trump had sex with any minors, but I also don't think he found out about Epstein's behavior in late summer/early fall 2007. That would make him a 85-IQ type.
Don't you think there can be a distinction (and possibly a pretty broad gulf) between "hearing rumblings" about people and being ablsolutely certain all of such things are true, and that there is not necessarily a bright line on where it would be deemed acceptable to associate in any capacity whatsoever with such a person under such rumblings and not?
Do you immedieately and completely dissasociate yourself from any person as soon as you hear a scurrilous rumor about them?
Posted on 6/6/25 at 1:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Ignore what you like. I'm simply restating exactly what was posted, your odd characterization of it notwithstanding.
Ignoring you tripling down on the strawmen above...
Posted on 6/6/25 at 1:47 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
False. Literally. False.
(1) The testimony regarded Maxwell, not Epstein at MAL.
quote:
“Jane,” the first accuser to testify against Ghislaine Maxwell at her sex trafficking trial, agreed that Jeffrey Epstein introduced her to Donald Trump when she was 14 years old, long before he became a U.S. president.
“Mr. Epstein introduced you to Donald Trump, correct?” Maxwell’s attorney Laura Menninger asked.
“Jane” answered in the affirmative.
Pressed by Menninger, “Jane” agreed that she said Epstein drove her to Mar-a-Lago in a dark green car when she was 14.
LINK
quote:
(2) The testimony regarded first contact, not grooming.
quote:
(3) There was nothing, no indication whatsoever, pointing to knowledge of any MAL personnel, much less Trump, as to what Maxwell was doing.
Jeff Epstein showed up to MAL to introduce Trump to a random 14 year old girl.
Posted on 6/6/25 at 1:48 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:No. No. Trump was already more or less dissociated from Epstein. The question is, do you kick someone out of an exclusive Club "as soon as you hear a scurrilous rumor about them?"
Do you immedieately and completely dissasociate yourself from any person as soon as you hear a scurrilous rumor about them?
Posted on 6/6/25 at 1:49 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Don't you think there can be a distinction (and possibly a pretty broad gulf) between "hearing rumblings" about people and being ablsolutely certain all of such things are true, and that there is not necessarily a bright line on where it would be deemed acceptable to associate in any capacity whatsoever with such a person under such rumblings and not?
Sometime between the first and second criminal indictment, at the latest
Posted on 6/6/25 at 1:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
criminal indictment
That's an interesting line for someone who has taken the positions you have taken with regard to these in other settings.
Posted on 6/6/25 at 1:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Interesting embellishments.
Jeff Epstein showed up to MAL to introduce Trump to a random 14 year old girl.
Let's decompile them for you.
Was the testimony actually that "Jeff Epstein showed up to MAL to introduce Trump to a random 14 year old girl"?
Or was the testimony "Jeff Epstein showed up to MAL with a 14 year old girl, and while there, introduced her to Trump"?
Further, what was the testimony regarding the nature of that conversation? How and under what pretext was the girl introduced?
Was the testimony that the 14y/o was being abused at that point?
Posted on 6/6/25 at 1:58 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
That's an interesting line for someone who has taken the positions you have taken with regard to these in other settings.
There's more context than just that (the quotes from 2002, the introduction to 14 year olds, etc.)
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News