Bill Clinton to be identified in previously redacted Jeffrey Epstein documents: Report

"Exploited sexual abuse ..."? Trump literally LOST a court case and will have to pay millions for said abuse, are you saying nobody should report on that?

 

Interesting she's in sharp focus but people on either side are slightly fuzzy.

 

???? No, the court case was for what he said publicly, not his "sexual abuse". Much like most all the cases against Trump are for his words.

 

Once upon a very long time ago I used to get surprised by the ability of Trump supporters to ignore widely reported facts. I used to get shocked that things that are beyond dispute could be so comprehensively filtered out of the mind. Now I am surprised when I don't encounter it.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-carroll-trial-fe68259a4b98bb3947d42af9ec83d7db

So, now you can move to the 'he didn't really do it' set of excuses, but you don't get to claim the decision didn't happen.

 

If all there is , is what Epstein said, then it is nothing but hearsay.

 

Much of the left running defense for pedophiles in the DNC already.

 

The problem is your understanding of what facts actually are. Widely reported does not equal fact. Journo opinions are not fcat just because they are backed by the papers. Civil trials are based largely on feelings and bias and definitely do not constitute facts.

Your shock, was caused not by others ignoring facts..but by your own lack of understanding of what facts actually are. The right ignores opinions and interpretation given by the left.

 

Yea, cause everything on Google is the honest truth!!

 

The poster I responded to flat out denied that there was a civil judgement against Trump for sexual assault. That is a FACT. In response I posted the FACT that there WAS a civil judgement against Trump for sexual assault.

Are you denying it happened? Are you denying the verdict the way that other poster did? I don't care if you agree with it or not, but it happened. Please do not insult our intelligence by claiming otherwise.

 

A civil judgement is irrelevant. A who's feelings matter the most issue. Nothing about it is factual.

 

The fact that it happened is factual, which was the ONLY point I was making. Still, thanks for providing a fine example of the tendency for Trump supporters to completely ignore facts in favour of their feeling. Very on brand.

 

And you think MSM is a Trump sympathizer..

Now that's comedy gold for sure

 

Yeah, that's not how Civil Trials work....

 

My mistake. Forgot how they changed the statute of limitation laws so they could bring actions for what occurred 28 years ago, for one single year, specifically for this case against Trump.

 

Probably because Trump is mentioned twice while Clinton is mentioned 50 times. And Because Trump was mentioned because Epstein went to Trumps Casino while Clinton was mentioned because Bill liked them young.

 

Although Bill Clinton will be identified, the real shockers will be other bigwigs in Business and Politics from both sides of the aisle.

 

Trump likes them young too. There is a 24 year age difference between him and Melania

 

Yep, "relevant" indeed!
Which is why Trump had to put up 5.5 million while appealing the E J Carroll verdict.


Trump sets aside $5.5 million in first step to satisfy E. Jean ...

CNN.com
https://www.cnn.com › 2023/06/23 › politics › trump-e...

Jun 23, 2023 — Lawyers for Donald Trump asked a judge on Friday to sign off on an agreement with E. Jean Carroll's attorneys to transfer $5.5 million to a ...

 

Now that we all know the front runner for the GOP definitely is a sexual predator and visited Epsteins Island, how many of his adoring fans will suddenly find morals they buried years ago in order to support and defend him for the last few years.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say none of them. They will dig up new excuses for supporting him.

 

Just an FYI since you don't seem to know what's going on, Trump didn't visit Epstein Island. That's not the context he was mentioned in. Come on Walter, do better.

 

I like how your best defense of the Trump rape allegation is that it should have been barred by the statute of limitations.

 

read the articles and then feel free to have your post deleted

 

?????The court rejected her rape allegation. AND all her allegations regarding what was done 28 years ago NOW would be barred under the law. The Statute of limitations were suspended for one single year. Perhaps even the NY legislature could see the absurdity of the law and so limited its effect to one single year

 

Epstein has a different definition of "young"

 

How does anybody know he ever went to Epsteins Island? Scheumer is blocking the release of his flight logs and I would think if they showed Trump went to the Island he would have released them a long time ago.