- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
Plausible and would probably work more as a rearguard defense to keep as many people from bolting as possible. At this point, I think it's hard to deny.
2025 Jeffrey Epstein Files
- Thread starter Osama Bin Laden
- Start date
-
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
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2024
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
Devil's advocate but he could be talking without any familiarity. Grab her by the pussy was the most important ammo they had against Trump the first election cycle. People were already calling him a pedophile at the time because we call everyone a pedophile we don't like.
Mike Stoklasas Spock Ears
Resident white trash tattoo + vag wash expert
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2021
The “grab snatch” part is a clear reference to Trump’s infamous “grab ‘em by the pussy” comments in the Access Hollywood tapes. As bad as those tapes were, the woman Trump was referring to in the recordings was of age and even married, so Jeffrey is poisoning the well here.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2023
Well, I would say that pretty much says it all. Epstein would have no reason to lie in a letter he sent to another pedophile which he never expected anyone to see or read other than the intended pedo recipient. Of course, all this really does is provide fairly decent proof that he did indeed kill himself, the rest of it was obvious to anyone that wasn't a retard.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
Damn, the cover up goes deeper than I thought
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2019
I can't believe I'm saying this, but maybe Epstein DID kill himself.
Maybe.
Still wondering just how many of the black boxes on these documents are there to protect sitting members of the US government or other NATO countries, though, instead of victims. Trump or no Trump, I think the general public is getting a bit sick of not being allowed to know which of their leaders like to fuck kids because it's "too sensitive". I mean shit, people weren't even supposed to see that letter and it's a bit nebulous what Epstein even meant there (could have just been a reference to the "grab them by the pussy" controversy, if we're playing defense lawyer). Just imagine how much of the censored portions of these documents contains similar content.
Unless there are some charges filed against people that are named in these documents, this is all looking a bit bread and circus to me.
Maybe.
Still wondering just how many of the black boxes on these documents are there to protect sitting members of the US government or other NATO countries, though, instead of victims. Trump or no Trump, I think the general public is getting a bit sick of not being allowed to know which of their leaders like to fuck kids because it's "too sensitive". I mean shit, people weren't even supposed to see that letter and it's a bit nebulous what Epstein even meant there (could have just been a reference to the "grab them by the pussy" controversy, if we're playing defense lawyer). Just imagine how much of the censored portions of these documents contains similar content.
Unless there are some charges filed against people that are named in these documents, this is all looking a bit bread and circus to me.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2024
This is also (once again) ignoring that Jeffrey, Bannon, and the Democrats didn't have anything despite coordination.
Unless we're conveniently forgetting the emails (again) from just last month
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2024
>IMPLYING
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2022
Like I mentioned with zoomers, large segments of the population sort of move based on inertia. It's like they lack a sense of self, or any sort of individual capability whatsoever. I don't like believing this is some sort of intrinsic characteristic because it absolves them of any responsibility, depending on how you look at it.
If a lack of impulse control/long-term consideration can be considered inherent* or otherwise outside of the individual's control, it's almost absolving them of responsibility for their situation because their circumstances were outside of their control. "You're poor because poor people are stupid and have no impulse control," rather than it being the other way around.
It puts people like that retard you describe in a state of diminished responsibility, which is win-win because it gives non-poors a reason to think themselves special and gives those sorts of poors an excuse to continue living their low-impulse, instant-gratification lifestyle because they "can't help it." It's easier than trying to explain every possible factor or variable that lead to them having no long-term concerns or a lack of discipline.
If someone is limited by things outside their control (poor job market, shit economy, etc) it only justifies why they haven't taken an option or action that simply isn't available to them in their situation, which might be why they're poor. It doesn't, however, then force them into certain unsavoury actions that they're otherwise fully in control of.
There's this sentiment (you've likely seen it in media and whatnot) that someone's financial situation might "force" them to commit crime, as though they were compelled into action by some invisible entity with a gun to their head. But no, in the end, it was their hand and personal justification that did it, often leading them to conclude they had no actual choice in the matter. Considering their individual context might give way to mercy or something, but the action was ultimately decided by the criminal, right?
There's a similar principle for when people turn their wants into needs, or addictions into compulsions. Taking away individual decision as a factor or placing limitations based on who/what they are can do more to enable the worst aspects of society than enable** I.E "What's the point of trying if you've been limited from the very outset to do anything?" / "I can't change because of [x]", etcetera.
There's an exact scenario you describe as having happened in the UK once. 19 year old poor got £15 million. He did, indeed, piss it away. It supports your argument, but absolving him of any wrongdoing because of "Coutts" is something I'd use to justify mine.
TLDR: Give me 10 million dollars and I just won't do that shit.
*A similarly unpopular sentiment is parental responsibility. "It's not unpopular, everyone agrees parents are responsible for their kids," you might think, but it's in fact so unpopular that the government will end up taking on the responsibility of a parent's fuck-up to absolve the parents of having any role in a tragedy.
Any (young) tranny, school shooter, or kid murdered/raped by someone they met on the internet, are largely a result of their parents being shit at their role because - barring few exceptions - most of this could've been stopped at home. A lot of the internet safety activism is pushed by the parents of children who were otherwise unsupervised or limited in their internet usage, and effectively want to absolve themselves of any blame in their kid's death/actions when, objectively speaking, it might've been prevented if they were actually supervising it at home. The UK's on-paper justification for the OSA is the result of a teenager being killed by someone they met on Facebook, and the USA's KOSA is in-part because a teenager killed themselves doing a tiktok challenge (even though the parents warned the kid about tiktok they still allowed him to have it on his phone?) - parents who want to be utterly guilt-free putting the blame on something that wasn't theirs to control.
TLDR: Parents are let off the hook too frequently and make everyone else suffer just so they don't have to hold themselves accountable.
**This segue sounds extremely random, but this sort of ties into the race-realism thing, where if blacks are inherently prone to violence and have a limitation of intelligence, then in a way it can be used to absolve them in the same away a child is held less accountable for something than their parents and puts the responsibility of stopping their natural behaviours on non-blacks – a burden, if you will. Even the token Conservative ones, such as Thomas Sowell, still pins ultimate blame for African-American predilection toward crime on Southern whites. Doesn't explain why blacks didn't develop like the Southern whites did but whatever. The long and short of it is: broad description should not serve as an excuse/justification for individual action. If blacks were to accept universally tomorrow that they were violent, dumb savages, would that enable or impede them individually to commit crime?
People love being free agents, right up until the moment shit starts going wrong for them, then they like pinning it on other causes they either had no control in or something they feel otherwise compelled to do.
TLDR: If you give people an explanation/reason for bad behaviour, they'll often take it as a justification and then later an excuse for their own actions. If they "can't help it," then it nixes any moral quandary in the bud and they'll just fucking do it.
Fishmalk Observer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2023
Weren't the guard niggers ? Imagine if the big conspiracy wasn't that he was murdered to stop him from talking, but they "lost" the camera footage because it shows the DEI niggers failed their suicide watch egregiously.
Pholidota
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2021
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2021
My conspiracy is he did kill himself but was allowed to. Someone came into his cell or cornered him at lunch or whatever and said the powers that be are going to do you a mercy and let you go out on your own terms. We will cut the cams for privacy/dignity/courtsey so your final moments arent on camera, with a tone of "if you dont do it we will". Prob gave him the tools also.
Thats my opinion of what the conspiracy is. He was allowed to kill himself.
Last edited:
D-X-G-X
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2022
Turns out they didn't redact it properly because the government is incompetent, as usual:
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2022
No. If you want my opinion, Epstein is salting the Earth. Trump could save him, he isn't. "So fuck him! After all I've done for him! I'll drag him down with me!!!!". The Epstein emails flat out confirm Epstein had NOTHING on Trump. Epstein has been assmad and malding about it for years. He banked everything on Virginia Guiffre banging him because what Epstein liked to do was pair people in romantic relationships. When that fell apart, he had no backup.
The closest thing Epstein had to dirt on Trump was the relationship with Bannon, but even those emails are very fucking clear Trump is an arbitrary 3rd party who isn't involved.
You faggots can reach all you want, but nothing released so far alleges Trump is an actual diddler. Just take your L and move your goalposts like you always do.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2024
Little confused trying to follow along, but I think I get the gist.
Odds of this being relevant or even true? This is some shit Dems would have gobbled the fuck up years ago if it was even slightly plausible.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
Salting the Earth for who? The intended recipient was another pedophile and he never received the letter in any case even though he attempted to post it.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2022
Somewhere along the lines, Epstein had TDS. Probably close to his execution. He liked to claim Trump was a pedophile constantly despite not having any proof of it.
It's probably about as true as my uncle working at Nintendo.