2025 Jeffrey Epstein Files

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Fishmalk Observer said:
Yeah, better than what we got with the mushbrain and cackles. See yah in 6-8 months then.
Click to expand...
Be prepared for disappointment, it could a nothing burger that's been beat to death. Still not a good look to base a campaign strategy around a nothing burger, and have your base rally to it.
 
Fishmalk Observer said:
Indeed. As we all know, Trump will never get elected1 time 2 times 3 times get all the swing state win the popular get hegseth confirmed get jfk jr confirmed deport millions of mexicans defund Usaid defund the DoE get rid of TRO's get 16 million from Paramount.

Toodles
Click to expand...
Too bad fighting inflation, strengthening our infrascture against natural disasters and keeping us out of wars wasn't on that list. Damn shame. No we are given squabbling over alleged pedophiles, billionaires and documents.
 
There's a legal principle I can't remember the name of which basically is that statements someone makes which worsen their own standing are more easily assumed truthful, because there's not really a reason to lie to worsen your own position. This is especially true when people aren't aware that they're worsening their own position that way. Archaeologists have made use of it too, the way we know about most of the elements of something like the Roman Empire which don't jive with modern sensibilities (like that time a 6 year old got raped before being killed because the law didn't really have provisions for execution of a virgin) are because the Romans themselves preserved the record and just didn't see it as bad.

tl;dr, if someone tells you in private straight up that they're a sex pest you probably aren't losing much by believing them and proceeding to no longer associate with them because them lying in such a case really raises more questions than answers
 
Active User said:
There's a legal principle I can't remember the name of which basically is that statements someone makes which worsen their own standing are more easily assumed truthful, because there's not really a reason to lie to worsen your own position. This is especially true when people aren't aware that they're worsening their own position that way. Archaeologists have made use of it too, the way we know about most of the elements of something like the Roman Empire which don't jive with modern sensibilities (like that time a 6 year old got raped before being killed because the law didn't really have provisions for execution of a virgin) are because the Romans themselves preserved the record and just didn't see it as bad.
Click to expand...
Statement Against Interest
 
Active User said:
There's a legal principle I can't remember the name of which basically is that statements someone makes which worsen their own standing are more easily assumed truthful, because there's not really a reason to lie to worsen your own position. This is especially true when people aren't aware that they're worsening their own position that way. Archaeologists have made use of it too, the way we know about most of the elements of something like the Roman Empire which don't jive with modern sensibilities (like that time a 6 year old got raped before being killed because the law didn't really have provisions for execution of a virgin) are because the Romans themselves preserved the record and just didn't see it as bad.

tl;dr, if someone tells you in private straight up that they're a sex pest you probably aren't losing much by believing them and proceeding to no longer associate with them because them lying in such a case really raises more questions than answers
Click to expand...
That's cool. Still doesn't show it happened.

But I get it man, it would be so much easier to hate orange man bad if this was chyna and you had to prove your innocence instead of having to prove your accusatory claims. God damn, I hate living in a free country :(
 
Active User said:
Tl;dr, if someone tells you in private straight up that they're a sex pest you probably aren't losing much by believing them and proceeding to no longer associate with them because them lying in such a case really raises more questions than answers
Click to expand...
The Billy Bush interview, turns out it wasn't a private interview.
Que "but it was locker room talk!"
 
Fishmalk Observer said:
That's cool. Still doesn't show it happened.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned, statements against interest are indeed the types of things that people will use in court to show that something happened. The claim made is that Trump did something he said he did. If you choose to believe he was arbitrarily lying in that conversation despite it being against his own interests, then how would you be able to trust him enough to TRVST THE PLVN? Doesn't exactly seem like a reliable person.

This is, of course, setting aside that you do not need to meet a judiciary standard to dislike somebody, especially not on this website. I don't think the favorite conspiracies of the A&N race, be they loony or reasonable, are going to be proven in courts of law anytime soon. But does that actually matter when it comes to perception?
 
Active User said:
As I mentioned, statements against interest are indeed the types of things that people will use in court to show that something happened. The claim made is that Trump did something he said he did. If you choose to believe he was arbitrarily lying in that conversation despite it being against his own interests, then how would you be able to trust him enough to TRVST THE PLVN? Doesn't exactly seem like a reliable person.

This is, of course, setting aside that you do not need to meet a judiciary standard to dislike somebody, especially not on this website. I don't think the favorite conspiracies of the A&N race, be they loony or reasonable, are going to be proven in courts of law anytime soon. But does that actually matter when it comes to perception?
Click to expand...
Are they considered proof? That's a simple y/n question
 
Fishmalk Observer said:
Are they considered proof? That's a simple y/n question
Click to expand...
Nothing in the legal world is a simple yes or no question. The answer is going to depend on if you consider testimony as proof or not, since the statement against interest stuff is a hearsay exception. Ultimately testimony is going to make up a large amount of the backing for whatever decision is reached so if forced to oversimplify, I would say yes.
 
Drip Torch said:
Too bad fighting inflation, strengthening our infrascture against natural disasters and keeping us out of wars wasn't on that list. Damn shame. No we are given squabbling over alleged pedophiles, billionaires and documents.
Click to expand...
Because of Trump, the country is currently the best it's been since September 10th 2001.
 
I'm retarded, and haven't followed this shitshow too closely, so could someone please pat me on my stiickered helmet and explain.

What kind of files, specifically, are there supposed to be? Excel spreadsheets of who fucked which child prostitute when, and financial data associated with that? Blackmail videos of politicians fucking kids?

Because if it's just who Epstein hung out with, then it's going to be most every politician and celeb in existence. Who may have fucked kids, or grannies, or trannies, or diaperfurs (I'm certain Epstein could and would procure all of the above, and then some), or may have just been there for BBQ. Because "networking" was, like, this guy's whole schtick.
 
Apteryx Retardi said:
What kind of files, specifically, are there supposed to be?
Click to expand...
- Videos and surveillance tapes from Epstein's houses from various US States and the Bahamas.
- Surveillance video from Les Wexner's homes and yacht.
- Entry logs for flights, his homes, and chartered yachts.
- Cellular and wi-fi data for any guests whose phones pinged towers or wireless devices on his island or in his homes.
- Financial data from his shell and investment companies and the people who had money with him (often in the hundreds of millions).
- Any sort of rolodex or phone contact or email contact list.
- His various reddit accounts as we know that Ghislaine Maxwell had access to administrative accounts on that site.
 
The man The only man said:
This thread is slowly becoming Trump Enslavement Syndrome 2.0. That people here are unironicly believing in the WSJ and their letter; where are your braincells? Furthermore, the letter is so fucking retarded that it is actually backfiring on the left.
It is so fucking gay that people create this headcanon and try to force it into reality. The WSJ implied him being best friends with a sex trafficker/pedophile, of course he is going to sue. This shit is like Watergate 2.0, but this time the media is even more retarded.
Click to expand...
Fishmalk Observer said:
Wow, that's crazy. They had all this ''proof'' and yet they got nothing to charge him with during the 4 years of mush brain?

Man, democrat must be really fuckign stupid, about as much as their followers. I didn,t think it was possible.
Click to expand...
GlupShitto said:
So who's ready to admit they're wrong and that Trump's innocent? It's all an Obama HOAX.
Click to expand...
Cool. 👍

So where are the files?
 
TheHarbinger said:
- Videos and surveillance tapes from Epstein's houses from various US States and the Bahamas.
- Surveillance video from Les Wexner's homes and yacht.
- Entry logs for flights, his homes, and chartered yachts.
- Cellular and wi-fi data for any guests whose phones pinged towers or wireless devices on his island or in his homes.
- Financial data from his shell and investment companies and the people who had money with him (often in the hundreds of millions).
- Any sort of rolodex or phone contact or email contact list.
- His various reddit accounts as we know that Ghislaine Maxwell had access to administrative accounts on that site.
Click to expand...
This is the most comprehensive and precise request I have seen so far. Under-informed people breathe the words “list” and “files” like it’s so simple and easy but the truth isn’t nearly as neat and clean as that. And it requires quite a lot of reading between the lines. And at the end of it, most people are not going to like what they discover.

Obviously we are talking about children being harmed so it’s already a tragedy, but what went on is far worse than that, I struggle to put it into words.
 
Übertroon said:
That's interesting because I looked up the New York Times archive and there were no articles about Epstein until 2018
And a Trump connection isn't made until 2019
There is no thread on Epstein in connection with Trump older than 6 years on reddit
Click to expand...
Übertroon said:
That wasn't what was talked about. I responded to a comment saying that Trump's relationship with Epstein was mentioned repeatedly in his first run for president, but in fact it wasn't mentioned by anyone until Epstein was charged and later killed himself in the third year of Trump's presidency
Click to expand...
Übertroon said:
Find me an outlet then, cause I looked up several of the larger ones and they were radio silent until 2019
Click to expand...
June 21, 2016 5:03 PM
Fishmalk Observer said:
Are they considered proof? That's a simple y/n question
Click to expand...
This is coming from a guy who argued that since Epstein files implicating Trump didn't leak then they must not exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom