re: House Panel Finds No Evidence Linking Trump to Epstein Crimes

quote:

---

a week ago he was describing a scene with a man having another man's ejaculate all over his face and wanting to watch him clean it off and swallow it.

---

Your face

and funny how thats your favorite one

quote:

---

You’re interacting with an alt with 14 posts.

---

I'm aware.

quote:

---

Knock off the queer shite. I understand that's the culture in Texas, but again, I like women.

---

That's exactly what a deeply closeted gay man who's ashamed of his intellect and inability to pay off bets would say

quote:

---

I couldn't care less.

---

and yet....

quote:

---

Now let's see if all the Epstein cryers hold true to wanting the names.

---

I hope they do, but I'm not holding my breath.

You have failed to earn my respect. Good day.

As per your failure, I did not read your reply to this post.

Oh man, I don't think I'll ever recover from such a vicious burn.

My favorite was when the deep state ran 40,000 Trump queries in the investigation, added them to the case file, then leaked to the press that “Donald Trumps name appears 40,000 times in the Epstein case file”.

I don’t think Trump did anything bad with Epstein

I do think he is covering for friends/family though

Having read through many of the files myself, his inner circle was constantly around or associated with Epstein

quote:

---

As I was saying in my previous post, and this post perfectly illustrates, it does not matter how much evidence is released. For people that want to hold on to that feeeeeelinnnng no evidence will ever be enough. It's simply not possible to prove a negative.

He has an alibi? For the people who won't stop believing, the people supplying the alibi are obviously liars. The victims say that he didn't do shite except trying to help? Well, what about potential other victims we don't know about and they're still trying to hide in the "unreleased files?"

If they dumped more files today and told these people, "ok, that's it. That was all of them." And they still found nothing...well, the don't stop believers would simply say that it's Trump's DoJ and they're obviously lying and still holding on to the evidence that satisfies their fantasy.

It's ironic as hell when these same people try to label other people as "conspiracy theorists."

---

I never called you a conspiracy theorist. I’m simply pointing out that you have drawn a conclusion that is not based on the data. I’m not saying he is guilty or innocent. I’ve given you numerous analogies but nothing seems to click for you. Here is another - what do you think happens when you do a 20 day trial in one day? A lot of evidence gets dropped and not used. Could it be critical to the case? You bet. It’s better to be slow and thorough than rush to judgement.

There is evidence against trump but the DOJ hasn’t released and it’s unclear if the FBI ever investigated it as none of the files related to this has been released. Members of congress have confirmed it exists, but they can’t do anything until the DOJ releases it. Again, this could be a truthful account, or it could be someone lying in search of $$$. But hiding it doesn’t allow a conclusion to be drawn. You are aware of it, but you dismiss it because it doesn’t work for your narrative. I, on the other hand, say, let’s look at it, investigate it, and bring the person into to testify to evaluate whether this is truthful or false. I haven’t made a judgment on whether it is worthy or not, but the panel that wrote the report came to a conclusion as it was not included in their report.

A court of law has not weighed in on this - just a Republican led panel (which I doubt any democrats participated in the writing of the report). That’s propaganda - it’s not a thorough, objective process that a court would carry out.

Most of the people want to use the report to vindicate him, and I’m simply pointing out that the investigation was lacking in the individuals that were brought in to testify, some of the individuals were not even required to be under oath when testifying, and this non-court willfully made a decision to not include evidence they were aware of in their report along with the millions of other files that have not been released. If that doesn’t seem fishy to you, then I don’t think you are very objective. And just to be clear, fishy doesn’t mean a crime has been committed, but why not just be transparent about it all? The whole point is to put away child predators and I don’t care which side of the isle you are on in this scenario if the evidence supports it.

There are people here that hope he is innocent and there are people here that hope he is guilty. I don’t fall into either camp. I’d say the jury is still out until the evidence that they currently have is addressed.