Fortunately whether it's credible or not, whether the media picks it up or not, we can rely upon you to find it and share it with the world

aggie93 said:

---

akm91 said:

---

Trump would've been outted already if there were something there. I think his relationship with Epstein was one of casual acquaintence on friendly terms until Epstein's banishment from MAL.

---

That is what I have thought as well up until some of this new evidence. Some of these women coming forward are going to be a problem as well.

This is the woman who "retracted" her testimony saying she was threatened by Maxwell if she came forward.

‼️BREAKING! Epstein victim Sarah Ransome DOUBLES DOWN on her claims!

She says the only reason that she previously retracted her statements is because her life was threatened by Ghislaine Maxwell!

This is the woman who named Donald Trump! pic.twitter.com/bNikR1vsmf

— Chris Nelson 🇺🇸 🏝 (@ReOpenChris) January 9, 2024

New account from an Epstein accuser talking about meeting with Trump.

Maria Farmer (Epstein Victim) speaks out on Maxwell, Epstein, and Donald Trump. This is compelling stuff. pic.twitter.com/ToCiPUtOYO

— Unfiltered☢Boss (@Unfilteredboss1) January 9, 2024

Don't know how credible either is but more of this is going to be in the press.

---

It doesn't have to be credible because the media and Democrats will run with it nonstop. Just look at the crazy chick who claims Trump raped her in a department store.

The Trumpers should realize that this is what the media and Democrats are going to do and stop getting offended when it is pointed out.

MROD92 said:

---

Fortunately whether it's credible or not, whether the media picks it up or not, we can rely upon you to find it and share it with the world

---

Yes, I am definitely the problem and not the court docs or the Epstein accusers saying things about Trump. Just so I am clear though, do you think they are only lying about Trump or about Clinton and everyone else as well?

aggie93 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

I havent seen the docs, but do they specifically state those three are on film? Do they say anything about Trump being on film?

Is what Jr saying either inaccurate or untrue?

---

This is the link if you want to read it Daily Mail

A little graphic and talks about some fetish stuff for Trump as well as some of the others such as Clinton and Brin. As I said it also has the accusations and the recanting and back and forth. My point on Junior is he linked the article and mentioned how it listed others but didn't mention how it talked about Trump. That's just not smart. You can't really push out an article that was recanted to make your Dad look ok but then say that the other people listed were guilty. It makes no sense. Either deny it all or deny none of it.

I just think Trump is going to have a very hard time saying that everyone else mentioned in the Epstein stuff was guilty and is scum but he was completely innocent. None of it is going to stand up in Court unless the pictures come out or a witness is willing to stand by their testimony so it's not about legal liability. So how do you say that you should read what this woman is saying about Clinton but the part she says about Trump is false? That's the line he is walking right now.

---

Trump isn't going to say anything about it. His most germane comments were to wish Maxwell well.

She was probably pretty cool and said nice things to him.

I read where Trump is likely " John Doe 174" in the Epstein document released ?

Foreverconservative said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

I read where Trump is likely " John Doe 174" in the Epstein document released ?

---

PPPLLLLLEEEAASSEE

If they had anything on Trump it would be purposely leaked immediately and three years ago. You forget they literally invented the pee pee tape story because after spying on him with the NSA and FVEY for years they had zilch.

---

I have no idea what that has to do with I posted.

Reports are that Trump is " John Doe 174" in the initial Epstein released files.

I have no idea if that means they " have anything on him." I didn't mention peeing, spying, etc..

aggie93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Stop with your obsession. It's disgusting.

---

So it doesn't bother you that the girl who settled her case with Prince Andrew for sexual abuse gave sworn testimony she was recruited by Epstein from Mar a Lago while under age? Nothing to see here? I'm the "obsessed" and "disgusting" one for posting it?

---

Why would it bother someone?

By her own account, she was a girl who had a troubled childhood. Her dad worked at MarALago. She was 17 and trying to 'fix up her life' and so he got her a job working as a locker room attendant in the female locker room.

That's where Maxwell met her, and promised to help her get a career as a masseuse. They used that promise to lure her away for Epstein's illegal activities. What happened after the girl left that had absolutely nothing to do with MAL.

A few years later, Epstein and Maxwell were banned by Trump, from MAL.

Im confused on why you're taking issue with Trump, with regard to this situation? The only thing he did, was own a property, which gave a dad and his daughter a job. Nothing else had anything to do with him.

Leaving out context, and only focusing on pieces of the story, paints a different picture than the truth.

Ags77 said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

I read where Trump is likely " John Doe 174" in the Epstein document released ?

---

PPPLLLLLEEEAASSEE

If they had anything on Trump it would be purposely leaked immediately and three years ago. You forget they literally invented the pee pee tape story because after spying on him with the NSA and FVEY for years they had zilch.

---

I have no idea what that has to do with I posted.

Reports are that Trump is " John Doe 174" in the initial Epstein released files.

I have no idea if that means they " have anything on him." I didn't mention peeing, spying, etc..

---

Trump flew on the plane. It's really pretty simple

AgGrad99 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Stop with your obsession. It's disgusting.

---

So it doesn't bother you that the girl who settled her case with Prince Andrew for sexual abuse gave sworn testimony she was recruited by Epstein from Mar a Lago while under age? Nothing to see here? I'm the "obsessed" and "disgusting" one for posting it?

---

Why would it bother someone?

By her own account, she was a girl who had a troubled childhood. Her dad worked at MarALago. She was 17 and trying to 'fix up her life' and so he got her a job working as a locker room attendant in the female locker room.

That's where Maxwell met her, and promised to help her get a career as a masseuse. They used that promise to lure her away for Epstein's illegal activities. What happened after the girl left that had absolutely nothing to do with MAL.

A few years later, Epstein and Maxwell were banned by Trump, from MAL.

Im confused on why you're taking issue with Trump, with regard to this situation? The only thing he did, was own a property, which gave a dad and his daughter a job. Nothing else had anything to do with him.

Leaving out context, and only focusing on pieces of the story, paints a different picture than the truth.

---

I have repeatedly said I see no evidence of criminal activity by Trump. Still Maxwell/Epstein did recruit her out of MAL. We know that years later Trump kicked him out for messing with a 14 year old but since context matters that was AFTER he and Epstein had fallen out. You can't have it both ways. There is also the 2 other witnesses. One who recanted her story but said she did so after Maxwell threatened her and that one had Trump having sex in Epstein's NYC house (though we don't know names or ages). The other gave a "Trump is a perv" story and that when Epstein came out to get him said "That girl isn't for you, come with me" and left to go with Epstein.

If you want to say that we shouldn't trust the Epstein women and that unless there is hard evidence we should assume innocence that's fine. That means basically everyone walks though and shouldn't be smeared including Clinton and pretty much everyone but Prince Andrew. Or you can say that anyone involved with Epstein is suspect and is not someone we want as President or should be trusted. The only thing helping Trump's case is that he kicked him out of MAL and helped with the case years later but once again that was AFTER he had a falling out with Epstein over Real Estate.

Feel free to keep threading the needle though, that's fine. Everyone should be innocent until proven guilty in terms of the law.

When those witnesses show up on 60 Minutes in September/October though and start saying whatever they are going to say good luck convincing people Trump was really a standup guy. I'll still vote for him over any D but I'd really rather not have to be concerned about things like that in addition to all of his other legal fun and everything else. Oh and of course all of this is still pretty open ended and we don't know what else might be out there or how it might be used. Maybe nothing, maybe not. Looks like the consensus is to FAFO though.

I'm not 'having it both ways', Im not threading a needle, and am in no way defending Trump. I dont know what he did or didnt do. You're arguing points I'm not making.

What Im saying is, with regards to the story you were posting and commenting about, it makes no sense to involve Trump.

His ONLY relation to that story, is that he owns a property where the dad and his daughter were working. Other than that, according to those involved, he has zero to do with anything.


And who isnt 'trusting' the women? The complete story I posted about was literally all from her very own account.

Foreverconservative said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

I read where Trump is likely " John Doe 174" in the Epstein document released ?

---

PPPLLLLLEEEAASSEE

If they had anything on Trump it would be purposely leaked immediately and three years ago. You forget they literally invented the pee pee tape story because after spying on him with the NSA and FVEY for years they had zilch.

---

Yeah, Im with you.

With all of the nothing burgers leaked for the last almost 8 years now (Russia hoax, tax returns, two ridiculous impeachment sham trials, the lie about Russian bounties on troops, etc, etc, etc) in an attempt to "GET TRUMP" there is zero chance they would have sat on proof Trump was involved until just now. This one would have dropped the day of his Inauguration if they had anything on him. They would have subpeona'd Epstein and Maxwell themselves to testify and gave them both immunity in exchange.

The only play they have is insinuation and trying to stretch the truth so brain-rot useful idiots will think he was involved to distract from the fact that Bill Clinton was on there and most definitely deeply involved.

Seems to be working OK for them given the posts of some of our resident Ags that aren't super pumped about Donald.

AgGrad99 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Stop with your obsession. It's disgusting.

---

So it doesn't bother you that the girl who settled her case with Prince Andrew for sexual abuse gave sworn testimony she was recruited by Epstein from Mar a Lago while under age? Nothing to see here? I'm the "obsessed" and "disgusting" one for posting it?

---

Why would it bother someone?

By her own account, she was a girl who had a troubled childhood. Her dad worked at MarALago. She was 17 and trying to 'fix up her life' and so he got her a job working as a locker room attendant in the female locker room.

That's where Maxwell met her, and promised to help her get a career as a masseuse. They used that promise to lure her away for Epstein's illegal activities. What happened after the girl left that had absolutely nothing to do with MAL.

A few years later, Epstein and Maxwell were banned by Trump, from MAL.

Im confused on why you're taking issue with Trump, with regard to this situation? The only thing he did, was own a property, which gave a dad and his daughter a job. Nothing else had anything to do with him.

Leaving out context, and only focusing on pieces of the story, paints a different picture than the truth.

---

He wants to bash Trump & propose illogical conspiracy theories (all the while ignoring those that have been proven true) just to grandstand & declare he'll vote for Trump while ensuring the negativity he spews will turn off voters on the fence. He is a FANTASTIC asset to the Republican party no doubt!!

AgGrad99 said:

---

I'm not 'having it both ways', Im not threading a needle, and am in no way defending Trump. I dont know what he did or didnt do. You're arguing points I'm not making.

What Im saying is, with regards to the story you were posting and commenting about, it makes no sense to involve Trump.

His ONLY relation to that story, is that he owns a property where the dad and his daughter were working. Other than that, according to those involved, he has zero to do with anything.


And who isnt 'trusting' the women? The complete story I posted about was literally all from her very own account.

---

Actually he owned the property that she met Maxwell at and later sued and got paid by Prince Andrew because she was trafficked by Epstein. So by definition Epstein and Maxwell used MAL to Traffic her because that is where they met her and "lured her away" from.

Does that mean Trump was involved? No. Does that mean Trump knew what was going on? No. It sure isn't good though. It is worse when you realize that for every piece of information we DO know about what Epstein did we know there is a LOT more we DON'T know because it was destroyed, redacted, or simply has not been released.

So maybe Trump is completely innocent of everything. That's fine, but if you say that it also means that just about everyone named in the Epstein files is innocent because you can't prove they did anything illegal or exactly what the levels of involvement were. There are at least 3 women who we have information from and all 3 had a connection to Trump or mentioned Trump in some way. How many more women did Epstein have? 10? 50? Maybe none.

I just am tired of all of this mess and I'm not going to carry water for Trump anymore. I'm not going to say he did anything I don't know that he did but I'm not going to assume he didn't either. You are welcome to think as you please.

Oh, and when the media does decide to go nuclear on Trump over this stuff I can absolutely assure you they won't worry about context and benefit of the doubt for Trump so look forward to lots more fun discussions on exactly what Trump did or didn't know or what he did or didn't do 25 years ago. The sure as hell aren't going to burn Bill Clinton and let Trump walk.

PepeSilva.gif

AgGrad99 said:

---

If they met her at chilis, while working as a waitress, should we implicate Brinker international?

That's ridiculous

With regards to everything else you posted...I think you're replying to the wrong poster.

---

MAL is Trump's home, it is a privately owned venue and hotel as well. Trump also had an established relationship with Epstein and flew on his plane, went to his houses, and was seen with him at parties having a good time together. We don't know the extent of how close was to her and her father but as you said, they both worked for him there.

As for the rest it all is connected. You can't just take one thing and then say you have to look at that one thing in the context you want to look at it in and then ignore everything else. I'm laying out as much of the picture as I can. The bigger issue to me is it is going to be impossible to prove or disprove Trump exactly how involved Trump was. If you are ok with that or you think what you have seen makes Trump completely innocent then so be it.

Everyone gets an opinion.

aggie93 said:

---

taxpreparer said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Stop with your obsession. It's disgusting.

---

So it doesn't bother you that the girl who settled her case with Prince Andrew for sexual abuse gave sworn testimony she was recruited by Epstein from Mar a Lago while under age? Nothing to see here? I'm the "obsessed" and "disgusting" one for posting it?

This is a thread started by someone else about Epstein Court Docs that are being released, that's all I am doing. If you don't want to read about what is being released just don't read it.

---

Did she work MAL? The article says "she was turned away." That sounds like she was not hired.

---

"lured away" not turned away.

---

Reading fail on my part. Oops.

Faustus said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

I havent seen the docs, but do they specifically state those three are on film? Do they say anything about Trump being on film?

Is what Jr saying either inaccurate or untrue?

---

This is the link if you want to read it Daily Mail

A little graphic and talks about some fetish stuff for Trump as well as some of the others such as Clinton and Brin. As I said it also has the accusations and the recanting and back and forth. My point on Junior is he linked the article and mentioned how it listed others but didn't mention how it talked about Trump. That's just not smart. You can't really push out an article that was recanted to make your Dad look ok but then say that the other people listed were guilty. It makes no sense. Either deny it all or deny none of it.

I just think Trump is going to have a very hard time saying that everyone else mentioned in the Epstein stuff was guilty and is scum but he was completely innocent. None of it is going to stand up in Court unless the pictures come out or a witness is willing to stand by their testimony so it's not about legal liability. So how do you say that you should read what this woman is saying about Clinton but the part she says about Trump is false? That's the line he is walking right now.

---

Trump isn't going to say anything about it. His most germane comments were to wish Maxwell well.

She was probably pretty cool and said nice things to him.

---

Shes definitely cool. She helped groom the underage girls, how could she not be

They didn't meet her at his house...but the club's facilities.

My point remains the same

Got him…finally

AgGrad99 said:

---

They didn't meet her at his house...but the club's facilities.

My point remains the same

---

Brinker international has no relationship with the person involved. Trump had a relationship with Epstein and Maxwell. MAL is also a home and a club, though I would assume as you did that they met in the facilities.

BTW, I would not be surprised if she didn't explore suing Trump and MAL since she met there btw.

You're really starting to come across as having an unhealthy case of TDS. it's really strange.

captkirk said:

---

---

Are sure about those fact ? I mean really sure ? I can't believe our unbiased middle of the road honorable journalists/press/media would leave out a damming phrase of " Bill Clinton likes them young ' that is something only a marxist who pro diddling of children urinalist would do. Please recheck his sources .

Not happy seeing Trumps name show up on the list. Doesn't mean he's involved in the child trafficking stuff like Clinton clearly is. It's obvious the media is trying to tie Trump in on this to temper the damage done to Bill, but the truth needs to come out now and not much later in the primary season

I thought everybody has known for quite a while that Trump had flown on that plane numerous times, out of Florida to New York area.

The most damning part of these depositions? Democrat prosecutors asked every Epstein victim if Trump had raped them. None of them ever brought his name up but Democrat prosecutors couldn’t help themselves. They never asked if they were raped by Hunter or Joe. Wonder why… https://t.co/E3u4cBSBbv

— @amuse (@amuse) January 9, 2024

Quote:

---

Im confused on why you're taking issue with Trump, with regard to this situation? The only thing he did, was own a property, which gave a dad and his daughter a job. Nothing else had anything to do with him.

---

Let me clear it up for you. It's called TDS. Dude takes issue with Trump breathing.

Well, OK, that may be a slight exaggeration.

Rockdoc said:

---

I thought everybody has known for quite a while that Trump had flown on that plane numerous times, out of Florida to New York area.

---

The issue is there is a lot more that has come out than just flying on the plane The Daily Mail article is certainly a lot of new information for instance as well as some of the additional testimony about the other girl who was lured away by Maxwell from MAL. The issue is it was retracted when she first spoke out years ago but she has since said she only did so because Maxwell threatened her. So it becomes a matter of what do you believe.

I still have not seen anything illegal Trump has done nor any reason to think he raped anyone or slept with an underage girl. As to how much he knew what was going on and how close he was to Epstein is what is harder to tell. I have no problem with saying Trump is innocent because there is no hard proof but I also think if you do that you have to be consistent with how others are treated like Clinton and the rest. Either they are stained or they aren't, they should be held to the same standard. The biggest evidence against Clinton for instance is the "he likes them young" comment (but Lewinsky was "young" and legal) and the backrub picture but that was from a woman who was of legal age as well. He flew on the jet more than Trump too.

Those are some of the facts as I understand it.

Its how the significant new developments are defined, by you, that's problematic and annoying.

Just a reminder that one Alex Jones been ranting about this Epstein deal for more than a decade.