|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Justice Department Told Trump in May That His Name Is Among Many in the Epstein Files@WSJ
July 23, 2025 3:08 pm ET
When Justice Department officials reviewed what Attorney General Pam Bondi called a “truckload” of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein earlier this year, they discovered that Donald Trump’s name appeared multiple times, according to senior administration officials.
In May, Bondi and her deputy informed the president at a meeting in the White House that his name was in the Epstein files, the officials said. Many other high-profile figures were also named, Trump was told. Being mentioned in the records isn’t a sign of wrongdoing.
The officials said it was a routine briefing that covered a number of topics and that Trump’s appearance in the documents wasn’t the focus.
They told the president at the meeting that the files contained what officials felt was unverified hearsay about many people, including Trump, who had socialized with Epstein in the past, some of the officials said. One of the officials familiar with the documents said they contain hundreds of other names.
They also told Trump that senior Justice Department officials didn’t plan to release any more documents related to the investigation of the convicted sex offender because the material contained child pornography and victims’ personal information, the officials said. Trump said at the meeting he would defer to the Justice Department’s decision to not release any further files.
The meeting set the stage for the high-profile review to come to an end. Bondi had said in February that Epstein’s client list was “sitting on my desk right now to review.” Trump said last week in response to a journalist’s question that Bondi hadn’t told him that his name was in the files.
The administration didn’t publicly announce the decision until weeks later on July 7, when the Justice Department posted a memo on its website. The statement, which was unsigned, stated that a thorough review had turned up no list of Epstein’s clients, no evidence that would lead to an investigation of uncharged third parties and no additional documents that merited public disclosure. It said that much of the material would have been sealed in a trial to protect victims and to block the dissemination of child pornography.
Typically, the FBI doesn’t disclose materials that aren’t related to a charged offense.
“This is another fake news story, just like the previous story by The Wall Street Journal,” said White House communications director Steven Cheung.
who could have seen this coming? especially since Trump very much in advance called it a HOAX and engineered by Democrats. and the "enemy of the people"... and the Deep State... and have you checked out Hillary's mails yet?
you go 4th estate, finally showing some bite.
|
I might have missed it coming up, but crazy that Colbert got canceled not just him but the Late show itself. For those who might think it was not Trump, he bragged about it and said the others are next. Pretty surprised out resident cancel culture hater BJ has not said his piece on it yet.
|
Are the stupid fucks that said there is no Epstein list about to call a Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper "liberal media"?
|
Northern Ireland26047 Posts
On July 24 2025 09:03 LightSpectra wrote:
Are the stupid fucks that said there is no Epstein list about to call a Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper "liberal media"?
Almost certainly yes.
That said I dunno how big a deal I find this whole Epstein list thing. In the absence of additional evidence, like merely associating with the guy doesn’t to me = part of some paedo cabal. Which I have said previously incidentally.
I may atypically agree with oBlade on something.
Where I find segments of the right contemptuous is they don’t share my initial premise, and they just vacillate depending on who is or isn’t implicated in said list.
On July 23 2025 17:27 oBlade wrote:
Yes, he asked about Epstein, the reason I mention February is she had literally just gotten into office and wanted to brag proudly about all the related transparency that was supposed to be forthcoming, not merely limited to Epstein. You're allowed to answer without utter rigidity because it's a TV news interview and not a court of law. It's also called conversation. There wasn't time to "have" something at that point to get angry at her for not having. It was a "what are you going to do" question not a "you promised this half a year ago where the fuck is it" into dodging, which is more appropriate now.
MLK stuff was released, most of the family hated it because it contained prejudicial stuff from the perspective of the government keeping tabs on him as a subversive and somehow this tarnishes his legacy rather than the government's.
JFK stuff was released, it just doesn't have the smoking gun of the mob ordering Jack Ruby to kill Oswald. Transparency doesn't mean there's got to be a revelation. That's an assumption. This is why I am starting to blame the government less for not releasing stuff in hindsight, because whatever they release people just come up with ways to claim they're actually still hiding something else, and this is never-ending because once the well is poisoned, nobody is credible enough to overturn it.
Especially the bolded.
Paedophiles aren’t especially common. Folks who like borderline underage people, yeah more so.
I don’t think, remotely that such activities were limited entirely to Epstein and Maxwell, but nor do I believe that everyone who crossed their paths was part of some underage sex trafficking thing. Prince Andrew was credibly accused, did a shit job of refuting those accusations and I personally think he is a nonce.
It seems to me that a decent chunk of the population don’t believe that, and think that the ‘elites’ are just sauntering around casually doing such things with impunity. And no evidence, or indeed the lack thereof will disabuse them of that notion.
I don’t preclude such possibilities but gimme summat concrete like.
|
Just going to reshare these two posts:
On July 07 2025 22:27 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2025 19:34 oBlade wrote:If Trump were raping children decades ago, it would have come out in the last 10 years. You mean like the accusations of Katie Johnson? Something exactly like that would've come out, and in fact did? Why is it so easy for Trump supporters to believe in conspiracy theories like the "Deep State" or a "cabal of globalists" or "a pizza restaurant with no basement was harvesting adrenochromes in its basement", but it's inconceivable that a billionaire who said that Jeffrey Epstein was a "terrific guy," and added, "It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side", who bragged about walking into the changing room of underage beauty pageants, who gave Ghislaine Maxwell well wishes several times after she had already been indicted for trafficking Epstein's sex slaves, who gave a cabinet position to the prosecutor responsible for Epstein's sweetheart deal, would've had sex with one of his trafficked girls? Ah, right, because of the "leftist media". They surely wouldn't have covered that up. The same media that spent more time talking about Obama being an elitist for putting Dijon mustard on his burger than Trump having been found by a court of law to have raped Jean Carroll. That media.
On July 17 2025 01:03 KwarK wrote:
Financial managers like Epstein typically offer their clients and associates unique experiences or access as a way of winning business. Tickets to events, access to celebrities, parties etc. This is normal business practice in the industry.
We know that guests at some of his parties had sex with children (prince Andrew for example).
We know that Trump/Clinton are sexual predators and that Trump in particular has an interest in underage girls (for example his brags about abusing his power over the miss teen USA pageant).
We know that they repeatedly flew to the island where the underage sex parties were held on a plane called the Lolita Express to attend parties.
We know that Trump knew what was going on because he’s on video talking about how he and Epstein both love young girls and they have that in common.
We know Acosta (Trump cabinet appointee in 2017) intervened in Epstein’s previous trial for raping minors to get him released. Lied to the judge a bunch too.
We know that Epstein died disappeared in government custody while under protection while on suicide watch and that the footage of his death was deleted. He never stood trial and the evidence of the crimes of him and his associates has all been sealed.
We do not know that every person who went to Epstein’s island attended a party and had sex with underage girls. It seems very unlikely to me that everyone he propositioned would have accepted because most people don’t want to have sex with kids.
But it seems exceptionally unlikely to me that he wasn’t cultivating a network of rich and influential people for whom he offered access to rape children. That much seems pretty obvious, none of the victims have ever alleged that it was only Epstein and not his clients too.
So that leaves us with two possibilities.
1. Trump, a known rapist and sexual predator with a confessed interest in underage girls, flying on the Lolita Express to the island where the underage sex parties where happening and knowing about the underage girls but being in a different room when they actually raped the girls.
2. He was involved.
We don’t really have a luxury of a third option in which he’s not a rapist (court found that he was), not a close friend of Epstein (he said he was), not aware of the underage girls (he’s on tape talking about them), not at the parties (frequent flier to the island). Also one of the Epstein victims alleges she was raped by Trump.
The idea that Trump, and Clinton for that matter, didn’t fuck kids on Epstein’s island has always seemed rather outlandish to me. They’re sexual predators who are friends with the guy who procures rape victims for his friends and they repeatedly went to the place where the rape victims were kept. Of course they fucking did.
|
On July 24 2025 09:28 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2025 09:03 LightSpectra wrote:
Are the stupid fucks that said there is no Epstein list about to call a Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper "liberal media"? Almost certainly yes. That said I dunno how big a deal I find this whole Epstein list thing. In the absence of additional evidence, like merely associating with the guy doesn’t to me = part of some paedo cabal. Which I have said previously incidentally. I may atypically agree with oBlade on something. Where I find segments of the right contemptuous is they don’t share my initial premise, and they just vacillate depending on who is or isn’t implicated in said list. Show nested quote +On July 23 2025 17:27 oBlade wrote:
Yes, he asked about Epstein, the reason I mention February is she had literally just gotten into office and wanted to brag proudly about all the related transparency that was supposed to be forthcoming, not merely limited to Epstein. You're allowed to answer without utter rigidity because it's a TV news interview and not a court of law. It's also called conversation. There wasn't time to "have" something at that point to get angry at her for not having. It was a "what are you going to do" question not a "you promised this half a year ago where the fuck is it" into dodging, which is more appropriate now.
MLK stuff was released, most of the family hated it because it contained prejudicial stuff from the perspective of the government keeping tabs on him as a subversive and somehow this tarnishes his legacy rather than the government's.
JFK stuff was released, it just doesn't have the smoking gun of the mob ordering Jack Ruby to kill Oswald. Transparency doesn't mean there's got to be a revelation. That's an assumption. This is why I am starting to blame the government less for not releasing stuff in hindsight, because whatever they release people just come up with ways to claim they're actually still hiding something else, and this is never-ending because once the well is poisoned, nobody is credible enough to overturn it. Especially the bolded. Paedophiles aren’t especially common. Folks who like borderline underage people, yeah more so. I don’t think, remotely that such activities were limited entirely to Epstein and Maxwell, but nor do I believe that everyone who crossed their paths was part of some underage sex trafficking thing. Prince Andrew was credibly accused, did a shit job of refuting those accusations and I personally think he is a nonce. It seems to me that a decent chunk of the population don’t believe that, and think that the ‘elites’ are just sauntering around casually doing such things with impunity. And no evidence, or indeed the lack thereof will disabuse them of that notion. I don’t preclude such possibilities but gimme summat concrete like.
I think a lot of the Epstein-adjacent rich people arent strictly pedophiles, but theyre so insulated from challenge or difficulty in their life and have so much access to literally any worldly pleasure that pedophilia is simply like a flavor of ice cream they keep around to sample when theyre tired of vanilla, chocolate, mint, etc.
Wheres the excitement in sleeping with random beautiful women when youre a billionaire and can have whoever or whatever you want? I wouldnt be surprised if these sorts of people also fuck animals and engage in any other number of horrific sex acts, not because theyre actually wired to find those things attractive, but because their psychology is so warped by their power and money that they seek any taboo or thrill they can.
|
Northern Ireland26047 Posts
On July 24 2025 09:40 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2025 09:28 WombaT wrote:On July 24 2025 09:03 LightSpectra wrote:
Are the stupid fucks that said there is no Epstein list about to call a Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper "liberal media"? Almost certainly yes. That said I dunno how big a deal I find this whole Epstein list thing. In the absence of additional evidence, like merely associating with the guy doesn’t to me = part of some paedo cabal. Which I have said previously incidentally. I may atypically agree with oBlade on something. Where I find segments of the right contemptuous is they don’t share my initial premise, and they just vacillate depending on who is or isn’t implicated in said list. On July 23 2025 17:27 oBlade wrote:
Yes, he asked about Epstein, the reason I mention February is she had literally just gotten into office and wanted to brag proudly about all the related transparency that was supposed to be forthcoming, not merely limited to Epstein. You're allowed to answer without utter rigidity because it's a TV news interview and not a court of law. It's also called conversation. There wasn't time to "have" something at that point to get angry at her for not having. It was a "what are you going to do" question not a "you promised this half a year ago where the fuck is it" into dodging, which is more appropriate now.
MLK stuff was released, most of the family hated it because it contained prejudicial stuff from the perspective of the government keeping tabs on him as a subversive and somehow this tarnishes his legacy rather than the government's.
JFK stuff was released, it just doesn't have the smoking gun of the mob ordering Jack Ruby to kill Oswald. Transparency doesn't mean there's got to be a revelation. That's an assumption. This is why I am starting to blame the government less for not releasing stuff in hindsight, because whatever they release people just come up with ways to claim they're actually still hiding something else, and this is never-ending because once the well is poisoned, nobody is credible enough to overturn it. Especially the bolded. Paedophiles aren’t especially common. Folks who like borderline underage people, yeah more so. I don’t think, remotely that such activities were limited entirely to Epstein and Maxwell, but nor do I believe that everyone who crossed their paths was part of some underage sex trafficking thing. Prince Andrew was credibly accused, did a shit job of refuting those accusations and I personally think he is a nonce. It seems to me that a decent chunk of the population don’t believe that, and think that the ‘elites’ are just sauntering around casually doing such things with impunity. And no evidence, or indeed the lack thereof will disabuse them of that notion. I don’t preclude such possibilities but gimme summat concrete like. I think a lot of the Epstein-adjacent rich people arent strictly pedophiles, but theyre so insulated from challenge or difficulty in their life and have so much access to literally any worldly pleasure that pedophilia is simply like a flavor of ice cream they keep around to sample when theyre tired of vanilla, chocolate, mint, etc. Wheres the excitement in sleeping with random beautiful women when youre a billionaire and can have whoever or whatever you want? I wouldnt be surprised if these sorts of people also fuck animals and engage in any other number of horrific sex acts, not because theyre actually wired to find those things attractive, but because their psychology is so warped by their power and money that they seek any taboo or thrill they can.
I mean yeah but you’re basically describing P Diddy/Puff Daddy/Sean Combs, who’s got a net worth of hundreds of millions of dollars but nonetheless is going down.
I’m not precluding possibilities, or that those who were wronged are too scared or otherwise reticent to come forward.
But in the absence of that, thus far it could be considerably more limited in scope than some are making out.
Virginia Giuffre was one who did, and for me Prince Andrew’s defence was sorely, sorely lacking in credibility. It’s a disgrace that him playing a reduced public role as a royal was his ‘punishment’.
I’d prefer to see a proper investigation than the publication of some list that will likely tar many an innocent person by association.
|
I mean yeah but you’re basically describing P Diddy/Puff Daddy/Sean Combs, who’s got a net worth of hundreds of millions of dollars but nonetheless is going down.
Hes not really going down in any meaningful way, all of the serious charges that came with the longer prison sentences failed, so hes looking at like a max of 10 years, and I wouldnt be surprised if hes only going to get like 4 years or something lol.
But in the absence of that, thus far it could be considerably more limited in scope than some are making out.
I mean, was he trafficking hundreds of thousands of girls in a highly orchestrated overseas slave trade network? Probably not, but thats a really high bar given the vastest majority of space below that bar is still Heinously Evil. It seems entirely reasonable to assume he was pimping out 100+ girls to his little friends over the course of his career in R-rated B movie level villainy, I would frankly find it harder to believe he only harmed a number of girls in the double digits.
|
United States43246 Posts
On July 24 2025 10:04 WombaT wrote:
Virginia Giuffre was one who did
This is the Virginia Giuffre who was working as a spa attendant at Mar-a-Lago aged 16, right? The one who Ghislaine Maxwell found at Mar-a-Lago and then propositioned to come “massage” Epstein, right?
Weird coincidence.
|
Northern Ireland26047 Posts
On July 24 2025 10:07 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +I mean yeah but you’re basically describing P Diddy/Puff Daddy/Sean Combs, who’s got a net worth of hundreds of millions of dollars but nonetheless is going down. Hes not really going down in any meaningful way, all of the serious charges that came with the longer prison sentences failed, so hes looking at like a max of 10 years, and I wouldnt be surprised if hes only going to get like 4 years or something lol. Show nested quote +But in the absence of that, thus far it could be considerably more limited in scope than some are making out. I mean, was he trafficking hundreds of thousands of girls in a highly orchestrated overseas slave trade network? Probably not, but thats a really high bar given the vastest majority of space below that bar is still Heinously Evil. It seems entirely reasonable to assume he was pimping out 100+ girls to his little friends over the course of his career in R-rated B movie level villainy, I would frankly find it harder to believe he only harmed a number of girls in the double digits.
Well let’s see the receipts. A list of people Epstein ever associated with is not that, and in the (likely, I agree) event his crimes spiralled further out than were prosecuted, innocent people will be tarred with that brush.
I’m not especially interested in elite paedo cabals or whatever, I’m interested in what actually happened.
And the problem with just pissing out the Epstein list is it doesn’t do that, it just implicates potentially innocent people in noncery.
What should happen is a proper fucking inquiry/inquest where people affected can safely have their testimonies taken and vetted, and anonymised where possible. Fat fucking chance but hey, one can but hope.
I’m sure the truth lies somewhere between it just being Epstein and Maxwell (and Prince Andrew), and literally anyone Epstein ever invited over, I’d just rather know the craic personally.
|
Are you asking for a ledger of all of the girls that Epstein trafficked with like names and ages and who they were forced to have sex with?
I dont think one exists and I dont think Epstein was dumb enough to keep receipts that are detailed and specific enough to incriminate all of his clientele, its not going to be like financial records with numbers attached.
The level of proof I think youre asking for likely doesnt exist.
|
Considering how Trump talked about Epstein, it's hard for me to believe much of anyone that went as far as going to his island didn't at least know what he was up to there. That's not as bad as doing it yourself, but it's not a lot better.
The people that have a random photo with him at a fancy party I could believe were more or less oblivious (but barely).
|
Northern Ireland26047 Posts
On July 24 2025 10:33 KwarK wrote:This is the Virginia Giuffre who was working as a spa attendant at Mar-a-Lago aged 16, right? The one who Ghislaine Maxwell found at Mar-a-Lago and then propositioned to come “massage” Epstein, right? Weird coincidence.
She was happy to file lawsuits against both Maxwell and Epstein prior to Trump being President, as well as accuse Prince Andrew subsequently.
If Trump was implicated, I’m unsure why she didn’t implicate him. He was just some business mogul at that time, indeed if we’re talking upsetting the establishment going after a British royal is probably a bigger fish.
Indeed not that public opinion would sway such things, but I’m sure as a morale boost throwing Trump in there would have been well-received.
I 100% believe her on Prince Andrew incidentally, and she showed a lot of courage in coming forward, which, amongst the other factors I mentioned is why I think her lack of any accusation of Trump indicates that at least to her experience, he wasn’t partaking in these things.
|
Northern Ireland26047 Posts
On July 24 2025 10:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
Considering how Trump talked about Epstein, it's hard for me to believe much of anyone that went as far as going to his island didn't at least know what he was up to there. That's not as bad as doing it yourself, but it's not a lot better.
The people that have a random photo with him at a fancy party I could believe were more or less oblivious (but barely).
We had a guy in our year at school, good, well-liked guy. Got subsequently done for underage activities. Which came as a surprise as, surprisingly he never voiced that particular proclivity. Wonder why not eh?
As I’m at pains to state, I’m not precluding the possibility that Epstein IslandTM was a hub of such activities, and considerable amounts of people were in the know.
But I think one has to actually show that. Otherwise Epstein being a wealthy financier and political donator, with all the schmoozing that entails is just as plausible.
|
United States43246 Posts
On July 24 2025 11:00 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2025 10:33 KwarK wrote:On July 24 2025 10:04 WombaT wrote:
Virginia Giuffre was one who did This is the Virginia Giuffre who was working as a spa attendant at Mar-a-Lago aged 16, right? The one who Ghislaine Maxwell found at Mar-a-Lago and then propositioned to come “massage” Epstein, right? Weird coincidence. She was happy to file lawsuits against both Maxwell and Epstein prior to Trump being President, as well as accuse Prince Andrew subsequently. If Trump was implicated, I’m unsure why she didn’t implicate him. He was just some business mogul at that time, indeed if we’re talking upsetting the establishment going after a British royal is probably a bigger fish. Indeed not that public opinion would sway such things, but I’m sure as a morale boost throwing Trump in there would have been well-received. I 100% believe her on Prince Andrew incidentally, and she showed a lot of courage in coming forward, which, amongst the other factors I mentioned is why I think her lack of any accusation of Trump indicates that at least to her experience, he wasn’t partaking in these things.
She also named Dershowitz which doesn’t much surprise me.
I’ll readily believe she’s not naming Trump because she wasn’t personally raped by Trump. But the fact that Trump’s resort was employing 16 year old spa attendants and Trump’s close friends the groomers were trafficking them straight out of Mar-a-Lago doesn’t put him in a good light.
|
Northern Ireland26047 Posts
On July 24 2025 11:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2025 11:00 WombaT wrote:On July 24 2025 10:33 KwarK wrote:On July 24 2025 10:04 WombaT wrote:
Virginia Giuffre was one who did This is the Virginia Giuffre who was working as a spa attendant at Mar-a-Lago aged 16, right? The one who Ghislaine Maxwell found at Mar-a-Lago and then propositioned to come “massage” Epstein, right? Weird coincidence. She was happy to file lawsuits against both Maxwell and Epstein prior to Trump being President, as well as accuse Prince Andrew subsequently. If Trump was implicated, I’m unsure why she didn’t implicate him. He was just some business mogul at that time, indeed if we’re talking upsetting the establishment going after a British royal is probably a bigger fish. Indeed not that public opinion would sway such things, but I’m sure as a morale boost throwing Trump in there would have been well-received. I 100% believe her on Prince Andrew incidentally, and she showed a lot of courage in coming forward, which, amongst the other factors I mentioned is why I think her lack of any accusation of Trump indicates that at least to her experience, he wasn’t partaking in these things. She also named Dershowitz which doesn’t much surprise me. I’ll readily believe she’s not naming Trump because she wasn’t personally raped by Trump. But the fact that Trump’s resort was employing 16 year old spa attendants and Trump’s close friends the groomers were trafficking them straight out of Mar-a-Lago doesn’t put him in a good light.
Trump also isn’t very bright, or known for his attention to detail. I can see that going on under his nose and he’s completely oblivious.
He is also a transactional, amoral piece of shit, so I can 100% see him actively facilitating that if it suited him.
Trump is a horrendous human being, I don’t know if he’s guilty of this or not, and we’re unlikely to ever find out. A sensible country would launch a bipartisan and rigorous inquiry, but the US is not currently a sensible country
|
On July 24 2025 09:40 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2025 09:28 WombaT wrote:On July 24 2025 09:03 LightSpectra wrote:
Are the stupid fucks that said there is no Epstein list about to call a Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper "liberal media"? Almost certainly yes. That said I dunno how big a deal I find this whole Epstein list thing. In the absence of additional evidence, like merely associating with the guy doesn’t to me = part of some paedo cabal. Which I have said previously incidentally. I may atypically agree with oBlade on something. Where I find segments of the right contemptuous is they don’t share my initial premise, and they just vacillate depending on who is or isn’t implicated in said list. On July 23 2025 17:27 oBlade wrote:
Yes, he asked about Epstein, the reason I mention February is she had literally just gotten into office and wanted to brag proudly about all the related transparency that was supposed to be forthcoming, not merely limited to Epstein. You're allowed to answer without utter rigidity because it's a TV news interview and not a court of law. It's also called conversation. There wasn't time to "have" something at that point to get angry at her for not having. It was a "what are you going to do" question not a "you promised this half a year ago where the fuck is it" into dodging, which is more appropriate now.
MLK stuff was released, most of the family hated it because it contained prejudicial stuff from the perspective of the government keeping tabs on him as a subversive and somehow this tarnishes his legacy rather than the government's.
JFK stuff was released, it just doesn't have the smoking gun of the mob ordering Jack Ruby to kill Oswald. Transparency doesn't mean there's got to be a revelation. That's an assumption. This is why I am starting to blame the government less for not releasing stuff in hindsight, because whatever they release people just come up with ways to claim they're actually still hiding something else, and this is never-ending because once the well is poisoned, nobody is credible enough to overturn it. Especially the bolded. Paedophiles aren’t especially common. Folks who like borderline underage people, yeah more so. I don’t think, remotely that such activities were limited entirely to Epstein and Maxwell, but nor do I believe that everyone who crossed their paths was part of some underage sex trafficking thing. Prince Andrew was credibly accused, did a shit job of refuting those accusations and I personally think he is a nonce. It seems to me that a decent chunk of the population don’t believe that, and think that the ‘elites’ are just sauntering around casually doing such things with impunity. And no evidence, or indeed the lack thereof will disabuse them of that notion. I don’t preclude such possibilities but gimme summat concrete like. I think a lot of the Epstein-adjacent rich people arent strictly pedophiles, but theyre so insulated from challenge or difficulty in their life and have so much access to literally any worldly pleasure that pedophilia is simply like a flavor of ice cream they keep around to sample when theyre tired of vanilla, chocolate, mint, etc. Wheres the excitement in sleeping with random beautiful women when youre a billionaire and can have whoever or whatever you want? I wouldnt be surprised if these sorts of people also fuck animals and engage in any other number of horrific sex acts, not because theyre actually wired to find those things attractive, but because their psychology is so warped by their power and money that they seek any taboo or thrill they can.
It probably also helps that being/staying a billionaire basically requires you to be a sociopath or something similar. On the path to being a multi-billionaire, you are regularly confronted with situations where you have a choice between hoarding more money you could never possibly spend and doing good like eradicating malaria, allowing your employees to have breaks instead of having to piss in bottles, paying your employees a livable wage. And you always have to choose to hoard more money you can never spend in your dragons hoard.
You have the capacity to do good beyond our wildest dreams, at basically no relevant cost to yourself, and you always choose egoism.
|
On July 24 2025 10:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
Considering how Trump talked about Epstein, it's hard for me to believe much of anyone that went as far as going to his island didn't at least know what he was up to there. That's not as bad as doing it yourself, but it's not a lot better.
The people that have a random photo with him at a fancy party I could believe were more or less oblivious (but barely).
Or been to his NY or Paris houses frequented by underage girls, filled with raunchy art and sex paraphernalia. Remember the news reports after that raid? Not even DJT can be that dumb.
|
On July 24 2025 13:25 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2025 09:40 Zambrah wrote:On July 24 2025 09:28 WombaT wrote:On July 24 2025 09:03 LightSpectra wrote:
Are the stupid fucks that said there is no Epstein list about to call a Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper "liberal media"? Almost certainly yes. That said I dunno how big a deal I find this whole Epstein list thing. In the absence of additional evidence, like merely associating with the guy doesn’t to me = part of some paedo cabal. Which I have said previously incidentally. I may atypically agree with oBlade on something. Where I find segments of the right contemptuous is they don’t share my initial premise, and they just vacillate depending on who is or isn’t implicated in said list. On July 23 2025 17:27 oBlade wrote:
Yes, he asked about Epstein, the reason I mention February is she had literally just gotten into office and wanted to brag proudly about all the related transparency that was supposed to be forthcoming, not merely limited to Epstein. You're allowed to answer without utter rigidity because it's a TV news interview and not a court of law. It's also called conversation. There wasn't time to "have" something at that point to get angry at her for not having. It was a "what are you going to do" question not a "you promised this half a year ago where the fuck is it" into dodging, which is more appropriate now.
MLK stuff was released, most of the family hated it because it contained prejudicial stuff from the perspective of the government keeping tabs on him as a subversive and somehow this tarnishes his legacy rather than the government's.
JFK stuff was released, it just doesn't have the smoking gun of the mob ordering Jack Ruby to kill Oswald. Transparency doesn't mean there's got to be a revelation. That's an assumption. This is why I am starting to blame the government less for not releasing stuff in hindsight, because whatever they release people just come up with ways to claim they're actually still hiding something else, and this is never-ending because once the well is poisoned, nobody is credible enough to overturn it. Especially the bolded. Paedophiles aren’t especially common. Folks who like borderline underage people, yeah more so. I don’t think, remotely that such activities were limited entirely to Epstein and Maxwell, but nor do I believe that everyone who crossed their paths was part of some underage sex trafficking thing. Prince Andrew was credibly accused, did a shit job of refuting those accusations and I personally think he is a nonce. It seems to me that a decent chunk of the population don’t believe that, and think that the ‘elites’ are just sauntering around casually doing such things with impunity. And no evidence, or indeed the lack thereof will disabuse them of that notion. I don’t preclude such possibilities but gimme summat concrete like. I think a lot of the Epstein-adjacent rich people arent strictly pedophiles, but theyre so insulated from challenge or difficulty in their life and have so much access to literally any worldly pleasure that pedophilia is simply like a flavor of ice cream they keep around to sample when theyre tired of vanilla, chocolate, mint, etc. Wheres the excitement in sleeping with random beautiful women when youre a billionaire and can have whoever or whatever you want? I wouldnt be surprised if these sorts of people also fuck animals and engage in any other number of horrific sex acts, not because theyre actually wired to find those things attractive, but because their psychology is so warped by their power and money that they seek any taboo or thrill they can. It probably also helps that being/staying a billionaire basically requires you to be a sociopath or something similar. On the path to being a multi-billionaire, you are regularly confronted with situations where you have a choice between hoarding more money you could never possibly spend and doing good like eradicating malaria, allowing your employees to have breaks instead of having to piss in bottles, paying your employees a livable wage. And you always have to choose to hoard more money you can never spend in your dragons hoard. You have the capacity to do good beyond our wildest dreams, at basically no relevant cost to yourself, and you always choose egoism.
Yeah, society as its structured right now heavily rewards a combination of the worst possible personality traits. Society selects for evil and them empowers evil, even if its not systematically intended, it seems to be the systematic result.
|
I think the American people are going to have to accept that they wilfully elected a paedophile.
I'm sure the right will double, triple or quadruplethink their error out of existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
