It's what Epstein would have wanted, after all
Those of us blessed with common sense know that the POTUS is a fucking pedo and Epstein's top co-conspirator. But now the evidence is starting to circle around him real close!
What's most amazing about it is, with any other POTUS, this would have been career-ending a thousand times over already. Remember Clinton's BJ? But no: for some unfathomable reason, the raging orange pedo is still president.
Shame on the GOP elected officials for allowing that. If it was truly the party of family values and Christian value they claim it is, they would not allow Trump to soil the White House a minute longer.
Trumps secret weapon is that he was a known unrepentant piece of human garbage before he was elected, so none of this shit can touch him because none of it makes him look any worse than the shit stained moron pedo that we already knew he was.
Hey, HEY! You've forgotten to mention the corruption, the racism, the rapes (and sexual assaults), the many fines for dodgy businesses, the 6(SIX!) money laundering bankruptcies, the 34 criminal convictions...
no, wait, the 34 convictions came after he was elected.
AHH, fuck it, well throw them in anyways because they came between elections. As did the insurrection stuff and the top secret documents treason stuff so we can lump them in as well.
So from now on you'll mention them all as well or so help me I'll give you a bottom slapping that even the meanest dominatrix in town would say was too harsh!!!
...some unfathomable reason...
When Clinton was imoeached there was no social media and Fox News was just getting started. It takes time to brainwash and radicalize enough votersto shield all of your actions.
Remember Clinton's BJ?
Isn't it funny and weird that with new evidence "Which one?" is a valid question?
I recently looked up if there were any house representatives that voted on the BJ impeachment. Amazingly, I think there were still 4 to 5. A couple GOP and a couple Democrats. They all voted for impeaching Trump, but the GOP Senate protected Trump yet again.
Never vote Republican, ever!
Democrats have blocked two impeachment votes on Trump in the last year. Both parties are working together to protect him.
for some unfathomable reason,
The reason is that on average, Republicans have never had any principles.
What I find incredibly interesting is that he HAD to know his name was all over the files, and yet he ran on the whole "we're gonna release the files" platform... when all he had to do was shut up and don't even mention the files AT ALL, and his goldfish-memoried followers would've forgotten about it completely - even though we've had quite a lot of damning things happen during his previous presidency when he tried to swipe it all under the rug by having Epstein arrested then "suicided" in prison (as to whether Epstein was killed, or extracted to a safe location, I won't speculate, what's sure is that he did not kill himself).
But nooooo, he has to loudly claim he will release the files, then fuck around with it so long that Congress has to order the very public release of the files, causing more and more people to jump onto them and start extracting information, and he HAD to know that by allowing Musk to gut public services while putting absolutely feckless idiots in charge of those places, there's no way the files were scrubbed properly of any damning information...
it's like the orange turd is playing a video game and is intentionally choosing the worst-for-him option at every branch of the decision tree...
As you mentioned, his idiotic MAGA followers have the memory of a goldfish, and Trump bet on them forgetting his promise like they forgot all his other promises.
All the orange utan normally had to do is to declare that something will happen in two weeks, then two weeks later, everybody has forgotten.
But not with the Epstein thing. For some reason, the MAGA morons seem to latch onto this pedo thing a lot harder than onto anything else their cult leader threw at them and they don't let go.
They latch onto it because while they're indeed bigoted racist twats, one thing they and we can both agree on is that diddling kids is bad.
Unfortunately at this point comes in their advanced cognitive dissonance, ignoring any and all evidence - things that have been very much in your face since the late 90s, early 2000s really, but especially after 2016 - of cheetoh in chief being a paedo. They'll gladly go after any and all paedos, even ones just randomly accused of it (see the whole Biden sniffing kids thing), except for Dear Leader. Which I find incredibly troubling, but at the very least some of them got disillusioned by how botched the tangerine turd handled the release of the files... Small victories and all.
"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell, 1984
Yes this is The South Carolina Witness
Not sure what that title is all about though, it makes it sound like they paid a settlement for Trump, when the body of the text doesn't claim that.
What it should say is 'Epstein’s estate paid a settlement to a person who also accused Trump'
It also goes on about the fund, but court records show she was ineligible for the compensation program, her attorney told The Post and Courier that she got a settlement directly from Epstein’s estate.
Lol, exactly. The Epstein estate paid this victim because Epstein abused her. Trump was secondary to that, incidental even.
I wrote a big long comment about this in a related thread, but this, what you said, is the heart of it.
The Epstein estate didn't pay this victim for Trump, or on Trump's behalf. The Epstein estate paid her because Epstein was a pedophile child-raper with his own liability to the victim, and because paying her was easier and less expensive for the estate and all involved than not paying her and possibly having her sue in the future with more/better evidence.
The only question is are newsweek incompetent or malicious - publishing that title and letting it stay up? I can't figure out what the hell they meant by it, just seems straight up wrong.
You're right. Its the suggestion of guilt by association, for clicks and views.
I mean it's a fair suggestion, multiple Epstein victims making allegations against Trump aint coincdence. The title is just straight up misinformation though - implying the estate paid the victim a settlement for Trump. Or is that what you mean, they're assuming that's what it was for because he's guilty?
No, apologies for being unclear. I'm trying to say that the title was written that way to create the suggestion of guilt by association in the eyes of anyone who is just skimming past.
I should add that I've spent a lot of time on the DoJ site, and I think they are BOTH guilty of a great deal more than anything the media has reported.
Fuck sake just giving maga more ammo to smear the media as untrustworthy.
If youve discovered anything I’ve not covered on Trump let me know and I’ll add it to the trumpfilesindex!
thank you kind internet stranger for clearing that up! i was thinking that sounded a little too wild to be true
I misread the headline's "abuse" as a verb, and it felt equally feasible.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.