Even After A Group Of Epstein Victims Go Public Trump Still Says It Is A Hoax
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
@tizzywoman
This is the rapist’s response to the press conference.
HE IS THE FUCKEN HOAX!
video
(1) TizzyWoman 🗽 ☮️ ~ Keep moving forward on X: "This is the rapist’s response to the press conference. HE IS THE FUCKEN HOAX! #DemsUnited https://t.co/ehLPT6WIkN" / X
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
197 visitors
Trump thinks he is king and god, and everyone must bow to his will.
Thomas Massie , a Republican congressman who has become an advocate for the victims, says his fellow Republicans are afraid of the White House.
In his own press conference Massie just basically alleged the White House arranged a jet flyover above the victims press conference to disrupt it , drown it out, and as a show of "force".
Oh bullshit. Try to keep up. When it comes to Epstein/Trump connection, there is not there.....there. Give it up!
Yes, an NBC News Reporter Pitched This Question to the Epstein Victims. Their Answer Won't Please Dems.
Jeffrey Epstein Victims' Lawyer: 'There's Not a List'
Did you actually see what the lawyer said ? I did.
You take a shot at it - why is Trump still calling this issue a hoax? If he's not implicated at all why isn't he releasing all the information?
Good point!
(Why indeed?)
Many on the left thought they had yet another ‘gotcha’ with Trump the burst into flames within 15 minutes.
They just need to sit back, take a breath and shut the hell up because he will be their president for 3.5 years whether they like it or not.
We had to deal with Biden’s incompetence for the last 4 so they have zero to bitch about.
yes, Bidens best in the world economy vs Trumps' failing fast tarrif disast deter anyone from having a legitimate beef, with the POS in chief.
So which victim implicated Trump? Which victim implicated anyone other than Epstein/Maxwell?
I didnt see the whole thing, which lasted for a couple hours, but I dont think any of them specifically implicated Trump. One of them did say that Epstein showed her a picture of trump and said they were good friends.
In any event, what is your point? A dozen or so women stood in front of cameras today and said they were raped by Epstein and suggested the Trump DOJ is covering it up. Two Republican congresspeople were there, Massie and Taylor-Greene. Marjorie said that if the victims giver her names of who is implicated she will read the list on the floor of the House.
And after all this Trump still said the issue is a hoax.
The hoax is there is some massive coverup of people other than Epstein who raped girls. That Epstein raped girls isn't questioned by anyone. The FBI and some of the best lawyers in the world worked with the victims to find other people to hold responsible. They've found no one. The civil lawsuit against Giuliani had to be withdrawn to avoid a defamation suit and a civil suit is not a difficult burden to carry.
Until someone, somewhere brings forth credible evidence against anyone other than Epstein/Maxwell, occam's razor suggests that all there is at this point.
On what basis is this story a hoax? AFTER the victims press conference ,Trump said in the oval office that the issue is a hoax. What is the hoax?
If has no involvement why is he preventing all the information coming out?
Is he actually dumb enough to make himself look guilty?
Where is any credible truth or evidence that Trump is preventing relevant information from coming out? There is no credible information to come out,
I literally just explained that.
The victims literally said there is a cover up. There is a cover up, otherwise all the information would be released.
Nothing keeps these victims from sharing eveything they know at that press conference. Nothing has stopped them the last 7 years from doing that, or suing the people who abused them. They are the cover up, if one exists.
Well, they say they are afraid.
They did say that they are compiling their own list of names involved, and MTG told them that if they give her names she will announce them on the House floor. I guess we'll have to see what happens with that.
No, that's not true. What Trump said is this is a Democrat hoax.
Since it is Democrats who are pushing the story, the onus is on Democrats to provide evidence this is not a hoax. Democrats can gather all the evidence they need from the survivors. Why haven't Democrats done that? Is it because Democrats want to push a hoax instead of disclose facts?
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!!!
Are you serious? Didn't trump campaign on releasing all the files? Pam Bondi said trump is in the files, and since then, trump has calmed up.
Everything that Trump fears or doesn't want to face is a hoax in his tiny mind and tiny vocabulary.
“Helping Thomas Massie and Liberal Democrats with their attention-seeking, while the DOJ is fully supporting a more comprehensive file release effort from the Oversight Committee, would be viewed as a very hostile act to the administration,” a White House official said.
In other words, the DOJ wants to release the file only after they have had time to remove certain parts of it.
I can assure you that if Trump was accused of anything nefarious in those files, the Biden administration would have leaked them about a month before the election.
Winder why they didn’t leak anything?
You make that assertation based on what evidence?
I dont think Trump raped any of these girls. I think he knew a good amount about it because Epstein told him what he was doing, and Trump kept it quiet. At the time it didnt seem like something that might be important to him down the road.
It is not public knowledge what, if anything, Trump did that was an illegal act. It would not be a surprise if Trump had engaged in something illegal. However, the idea that Trump was unaware of Epstein's activities is improbable, and that is what I suspect Trump is trying to hide.
Supposedly they talked about women all the time. We know Epstein was attracted to "jail bait", and we know Trump was too. My own feeling is that Trump didnt rape 14 or 15 year old girls but was not averse to hearing about Epstein's adventures.
Why do you think Trump would know what Epstein was doing? Trump parted ways with Epstein years ago when he finally found out
Yeah, great hypothesis ... Trump parted ways with Epstein on moral grounds. Good grief, man.
Whether Trump is trying to hide something I cannot say. Don't have access to the files. But here's the stupendously large elephant in the room. The Biden admin had the same access to the files, did they not? Do you find it believable that there was something in the files that could implicate Trump or his allies and the Democrats wouldn't use it to bring Trump down? What reasonable person would believe that?
At this point, I find it far more likely that there's nothing there and releasing everything will only serve to create conspiracies by people with axes to grind concerning anyone named in anything in them. That is, a lot of people who have done nothing wrong will be put under a cloud of suspicion for the rest of their lives simply because their name appeared in the files somewhere.
My guess is that it is salacious and borderline illegal. That is not the makings of something that would bring Trump down, so I can see them not pursuing this. I doubt there is anything that proves Trump had sex with an underage girl, but given the established business practices of Epstein, I can see Trump not wanting it to surface.
The other point is this. What makes you think that Trump is the only high-profile individual who might be embarrassed / worse by what took place in the Epstein environment? If the details are known to both D and R and embarrass/incriminate both (or compromise foreign leaders), neither would pursue release.
A guy who brags about grabbin women buy the pussy, was found guilty in civil court of sexual assault/RAPE, then convicted for still denying he harassed her while harassing her and then fined $84 MILLION or so, with twenty few other women also accusing the scumbag in chief, as well being a 34 time convicted felon for paying off playmates and pornstars, and all while there are plenty of videos and documentation that Trump was one of Epstein's besties, just makes it appear that Trump was most likely Epstein's wing man, or in Trumps case, his Kamikaze Pilot wingman.
Does the 'Right' forget that incompetent Garland (and also due to and Activist unSupreme quart) couldn't even get it started early enough to get Trump on his admitted document thefts and played out in front of US insurrection attempt, why would they a tempt to float this much harder to prove case ?
I can't. They've never passed on anything that could be made to suggest Trump has done something nefarious, even if it wasn't. Pretty much like how Republicans never passed on using anything that even gave the impression of something bad concerning Biden.
Nothing, because...
... is a point I've made several times in the past.
It always amazes me that there are people who would believe that. How can anyone believe that in a campaign the one side would not release anything that could paint the other side in a bad light.
I will be blunt . "Both-sidesism" is the one thing more responsible for the mess we are in than anything else. Donald Trump has never for one second been mentally or morally fit to be president of the United States. And yet he has been allowed to be the Republican nominee three times in the past 10 years. This is a massive failure on the part of the American people. But its not Hillary Clintons fault or Nancy Pelosi's fault or Joe Bidens fault or Kamala Harris' fault. It is the Republicans and their voters fault.
There is no "both sides" when it comes to Trump. Why wasnt he stopped when he stood on debate stages in 2015 and 2016 and made a mockery of the primary process? In the very first debate he talked about blood coming out of a female moderator. Then he gave the other candidates idiotic nicknames, which may have been fitting because all the idiots laughed when he called Rubio "Little Marco" or told Carly Fiorina she was too ugly to be president.
But most importantly, why wasnt he kicked out of the Republican Party following Jan 6th 2021 ? It is disgraceful FOREVER that the GOP allowed him to run again after he tried to steal the 2020 election.
I dont want to hear this both sides nonsense any more. It is absurd.
Donald Trump being a miserable human being has absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats not releasing anything salacious from the Epstein files during the campaign had there been anything there. The Biden administration had the DOJ and had the files, had there been anything do you honestly think they would have refrained from releasing any of it during the campaign?
The comment you replied to had nothing to do with "both-sideism" as you call it.
It is a shame that this amazes you, given we even have a recent example.
Merrick Garland was extremely cautious in how he approached the Jan 6th investigations. He wanted to ensure he had a solid case given he was indicting a former PotUS. He was so cautious that he enabled Trump's attorneys the opportunity to delay legal actions until it was no longer feasible. Note how he operated even though he has mountains of evidence and a very strong legal case against Trump.
If the material is merely salacious and borderline illegal, that would tarnish a normal politician but not 'grab em by the pussy' Trump. Trump is a known adulterer (e.g. Sunny Daniels, Karen McDougal,...), and a corrupt sleazebag — this has been incorporated into his image; the voters already have this factored in. The fact, if established, that he had sex at Epstein's place would not move the dial and arguably make the Biden administration look petty.
So, it would not surprise me at all if Biden / Garland made a political calculation not to indict Trump if the case were weak. And if the facts were merely salacious but not illegal, not pursuing a futile attempt to embarrass/damage an out-of-office Trump. ( On top of that, the former PotUS status brings special considerations. )
Reality is more complex than you seem to recognize. It is not as childishly simple as: 'find dirt, expose dirt'.
I try not to respond but this is so like you. You're talking about taking him to court and I'm talking about during the campaign. As we've seen for the past several election cycles, it is definitely 'find dirt and expose dirt'. Do everything you can to throw mud on the other candidate. That you don't recognize that we're talking about two completely different things is telling.
You did not read my comment carefully if you think I was not including the campaign.
Slow down, take a breath, and attempt to read objectively.
Again with the naive claim. No, Snuffy, we are talking about dirt that would be coming from a sitting PotUS. The details would have to be released by that administration against a former PotUS. If the details are merely salacious, this would almost certainly backfire given the target is Trump.
Political reality is far more complex than you seem to recognize.
I guess that is why you specifically said "in a campaign"
no, it’s your “my side should be able to lie, cheat and plunder without criticism “ but every slight infraction by the others is worse than Hitler that explains where we are.
Progressives refusal to hold their side to any standard or norm enables trump to act the same way.
Do you seriously believe that Trump is only guilty of "slight infractions" against the norms and traditions of American political conduct? Or that he is remotely ethical? Or honest? A lot of people dont believe the story of the Venezuelan drug runners as told by Hegseth. Why wouldnt Americans believe their secretary of defense ? Because the people Trump surrounds himself with have shown themselves to be not worthy of any respect. Why? Because they bow and scrape to the most corrupt president this country has ever seen. And many of them are lunatics in their own right. I read this morning that Laura Loomer , who has no official title and no security clearance was able to cancel a meeting between a Democratic member of the oversight committee and an administration intel official. This is the kind of insanity we see every day.
Bothsidesism is employed all the time because it is the only possible play you guys have.
You need me to spell everything out to you? Do you not remember the timeline? For most of Biden's presidency, Trump was talking about running again.
You proudly supported a man who claimed mitt friggin Romney was going to enslave black people. It’s about a lot more than trump.
[✘]
That was a metaphor.
And if Trump had said the same thing?
Sure just like they accused romney and Ryan of murdering senior citizens. Metaphors,
When Harry Reid lied about Romney cheating on his taxes and publicly laughed about it to your cheers, that was allegory, right?
[✘]
A Trump supporter on twitter
I see it every day, John.
Kindly take your whataboutism elsewhere, I refuse to play.
WTF are you talking about? There is no hint of whataboutism in my post @2.2.13 or @2.2.15. What is the point of just making shit up out of the blue?
One out of 75+ million that voted for him. Great statistical sample.[✘]
[✘]
Isn't it amazing that we need to be mind readers to figure out what was meant but not typed in a post.
[✘]
You do not have to read minds, you simply have to use the most basic of common sense.
Since we are talking about the period after Trump left office and before he was reelected, the release would by definition include the time Trump was campaigning. And since Trump was hinting (almost immediately) at running again and was not term-limited, the campaign consideration would naturally factor into the decision. And, of course, the fact that Trump was a former PotUS also factors into the decision.
See? Real simple. Extremely obvious. That is why it never occurred to me that I needed to spell it out that, of course, my comments include the time Trump was campaigning. And, just to be super super clear, it includes the time when he was hinting at running and the time after he formally announced his campaign.
So now, putting this together, it is reasonable that an administration would not seek to disparage a former PotUS with salacious material. Former PotUS' are treated special; not advantageous for the current administration. And when it looked like Trump might run again, it would likely backfire if the administration released salacious material against a direct political opponent ... especially given this is Trump.
So a reasonable hypothesis is that this material is salacious and/or illegal, but not strong enough to move to indicting a former PotUS.
I could agree with all of that except that all of your posts above in this thread did not make any mention of his campaign. You talked about the legal case and how careful they were in that. But you NEVER made any mention of the campaign. Go back to your post of 2.2.13 and tell me where in there you said anything about the campaign. All you talk about is Garlands attempt to bring charges (indict) against Trump.
So if you want to be clear, you need to be sure to be clear and include everything you want to include. Otherwise you didn't say it. We've gone around too many times for me to just assume you mean anything that is not clearly spelled out in your posts.
And I call bullshit on this. It is very reasonable that a campaign (by Biden so that we're clear, or Harris after Biden dropped out) would leak information to a friendly media source in order to get it out on the opposition. This has gone on too many cycles already for anybody to think it would not happen here.
And again you cycle back to indicting, ie a court case. All I have ever done in this thread is talked about the campaign and had there been anything in the documents that could have been used to paint Trump in a bad light FOR THE CAMPAIGN, I'm very confident that it would have been leaked / released to the press. The Biden team had all the documents at the time.
So what? Do people have to spell out every little detail? Obviously, Snuffy, we are talking about a duration that includes the campaign. Absolutely obvious.
I just explained to you in the post you replied to why I did not explicitly mention the campaign because it is obvious. So now you want me to show you where I mentioned the campaign? Hello?
Again, your complaint is ridiculous. The fact that you could not recognize that the time period when the Biden administration could release this material includes the campaign is on you. People should not have to explain something this obvious.
Only if it is advantageous. The 'leak' would have to be substantive (backed up by evidence), and that means it would have to be formally released by the Biden administration. Is this not obvious??
Yeah, Snuffy, that was the other side of my original comment.
Seems all you have are petty little complaints. Your only 'argument' is that campaigns routinely put forth dirt on their opponents, but you fail to recognize the specifics of:
There is little advantage to be gained by Biden holding the smoking gun of released salacious material on a former PotUS who is largely immune from being hurt by salacious material. The likelihood of a backfire is quite high. That happens too. Backfires.
As noted, your 'argument' is simplistic and does not consider the nuances of political reality.
[✘] The thing is JR... we have this "democracy" thing going on, which apparently involves each voter making their own decision about who they think is fit or unfit or mentally capable or not. Crazy, I know.[✘]
So we cycle back to where making a reply to you requires that we are also able to read minds. Either that or we should just 'assume' something else in the conversation.
The onus is on the person making the statement to be sure the statement is clear and understandable. That does mean that the reader should not assume that you also wanted to include something that you didn't say.
Seems like you're just trolling and trying to get other people to take the bait and earn tickets. Have a nice day.
[✘]
You are simply writing obnoxious posts.
One need not 'read a mind' when the situation is obvious. You are actually trying to claim that you could not figure out that during the time when Biden would have been able to expose the Epstein files that this overlaps the time period from when Trump first hinted at running again, through the time when he formally announced, and through the entire campaign.
How, exactly, could it NOT overlap?
Your complaint is ridiculous.
What bait? I make a point and you come back with the truly stupid complaint that I did not explicitly spell out to you the obvious fact that Biden's opportunity to release the Epstein files overlapped Trump's campaign? And no matter how clearly I explain this, you just keep coming back with the same obtuse complaint.
And you think I am the problem??
That is some rather substantial projection by you.
Well if Trump keeps refusing to have all the info released-- we'll never know.
Good point, trump has prevented the victims who posses all the information about who abused them and their lawyers from any form of communication the last twenty years.
Unless the victims name Trump, have proof Trump was there and trafficked them or was on receiving end of their services, then unfortunately it's a moot point.
Did Trump run in same circles as Epstein, yes. Was Trump seen on camera / video with Epstein in public, yes. Did Trump send Epstein the b-day card with gutter-crap words, yes. Is Trump mentioned in the files, more than likely. BUT, even that sick-o scum-bucket bastard shouldn't be considered the engineer of the rape train if it's not true. Conductor, perhaps. Brakeman, maybe.
Again, until someone or "someones" come out and say it 100% with receipts, then tick-turd is going to continue, well, turding...and he's going to continue to deflect, deflect, deflect and call it a Dem conspiracy, even though one of the things he ran on was releasing the files.
Nor a conspiracy perhaps, but lefties want so much for it to be true. All the files have been released already.
Jeffrey Epstein Victims' Lawyer: 'There's Not a List'
Yes, an NBC News Reporter Pitched This Question to the Epstein Victims. Their Answer Won't Please Dems.
Prove it.
Nope:
U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said she got "a lot of pushback" from President Donald Trump's administration over signing a petition tied to a bill pushing for the release of files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
MTG says she got 'a lot of pushback' from Trump administration on Epstein files petition
In the Sept. 3 interview , which came a day after Greene met privately with some of Epstein's victims, Bolling asked, "Do you expect you're gonna get a little pushback from the administration for getting involved in this?"
“Oh, I got a lot of pushback. I got phone call after phone call last night," Greene said. "They didn’t want me to sign the discharge petition.
Don't the survivors know who they survived? Seems like a number of victims should be able to name names. The sensitive, caring Democrats could take testimony under oath and release all the information without releasing any of the victims names. That would be the common sense thing to do which explains why Democrats won't.
The obvious solution would be to dump the whole mess in Kash Patel's lap since he was a leading conspirator. Patel should be motivated to find all the files. But the best time for the data dump would be between March and May of next year. It's likely that a number of Democratic donors could be outed.
Right now the lawyers are lining up for civil litigation. The attorneys don't want to kill the payday. Free money!!!!!!
Have to wonder how many of them were bribed to sign a non- disclosure agreement? That has historically been the Trump family's M.O. when little Donny raped all the little girls growing up. Why do you think his folks shipped him off to an all-male military school? It was cheaper in the long run.
The answer would be none since they're speaking publicly.
When did you become intimate with the Trump family? Were you there when Donny raped all the little girls? Is that your M.O.?
The survivors said they were going to name names, Republican Thomas Massie said he will read them aloud on the house floor.
So MAGA wanted the files and Trump promised it to them and now all they get are previously released files with Trump flipping calling everything a hoax.
Trump was the one pounding the drum on total release, but now they release duplicates, offer redacted info, and pretend it's a hoax?
Democrats joined MAGA in asking for full transparency and release of ALL files unredacted even if there were Democrats implicated.
Why don't all Republicans join MAGA and Democrats in demanding full disclosure?
I remember when Republicans called John Kerry a flip flopper but this whole mess has more Republican flip flopping it truly makes your head spin. Up is down and down is up, blah, blah. Release the files!
And the DOJ has stated that everything that could be released has been and the remainder is porn videos. Yeah, I know this is the Trump DOJ. Believe it or not. Their track record for this is not the greatest, case in point the "missing minute" from the Epstein prison video has been found when they said it didn't exist. About the only way to clear this up I believe would be to continue to release the files to Congress so that a bi-partisan committee can see everything. But the other side of that question is, considering how split the country is now would both sides believe Congress in this matter.
I'm all for releasing everything unredacted. If the survivors want to name names, by all means do it. I do have to wonder why they've waited so long to do so. What are the machinations going on with all of this? I dislike the comparison but I do get some flashbacks to Christine Blasey Ford.
And that is Bullshit. They have a ridiculous amount of info that most certainly Could be released, and Trump and cump ran on if elected, total transparency (LOL) as Kash Patel Bongino, etc. rallied supporters on releasing the Epstein"list" that Bondi claimed on Fox 'entertaintmeant fro gullibles" claimed she had the list on her desk, only to claim a short time later there was "no" list, or was it a Know Know list that they wanted no one to see because of he, and he would be Trump, the only clown who ran on the list, as there is know no known anyone, besides Donald the Epstein wingman Trump, that could stop the release of a ridiculous amount of unreleased information about the who's and what;s about this perverted putz, and I can think of NO ONE else Trump would go to such lengths to protect from this lists potential exposure, than himself, cause pretty damn sure Slick Willy and many other prominent Dems are on it. Pretty damn sure plenty other Repubs are on it as well, but only Trumps name being on it, as reported by many that Trump was informed of his name being on the list that doesn;t now exist, and there was another slightly known drone who alleged the reason the list didn't now exist is because
number 47, as claimed by Trumps besty and former #1 with the son who overshadowed Trumpy in their 1 press release piece, did state that TRUMP was the reason there would be know release of this piece due to the piece of shit Don the Con was named by Elon Musk, as just that.
Someone do please explain as day, why Elon would make such a claim if Trump was not the one to blame, for it would make know sense, and usually cause Trump to commit about ANY offense to get back at Elon, cause you Musk have heard by now, Trump is on a vengeance vendetta and a real go after N getter any and all who said anything, even very tiny small, against the elementary student , that would be quite prudent that it was Slick Willy the ex Dem prez with the name of Billy that was the classless bully pulpit shouting willy nilly iz the one with the jizzy stain that needs addressin, and it's not Trump, that was underage girls undressin, but come now.
WhY would Elon say that via a public exclamation if not because it was an accurate truth, and that is WHY I believe Trump did not pursue his vengeance further, for believe Elon might just of had some evidence to back up his spoken truth.
Trump is the ONLY reason they are milkin this release of over , what, I believe i herd like a hundred thousand pages in the DOJ's possession, but even the rights obsession, has been overruled via Trumps obvious guilty obsession to silence this, as he, calls it, Democratic hoax, that he insults every damn victim with such quotes, but it is for he only that he cares, and this should have already bin quite obvious to any and all, cause the LIAR in Chief, doesn't do things small, and the bigger the crimes, the bigger someone else is gonna fall, cause when it comes to Trump, it is all he knows, as in all
I can't understand why the progressives, liberals, and socialists continue searching for additional hills to die on as they persist in committing political suicide. Don't they ever learn their smear campaigns have not worked and never will.
If Trump was guilty of any illegal behavior, why would he have brought up the subject of the files to begin with? There is no evidence of his involvement in or knowledge of Epstein's activities until 2008, when Trump broke away from him. There is also no evidence that Trump is keeping the files from being released. The left has another three plus years to kick Trump around, it's almost a given that J D Vance will carry on making America great again,
Are you unaware that Trump's base is split over the Epstein files? It is not just opponents of Trump.
Didn't he say the other day that he can do anything he wants because he is president? Yep
Trump has been rapist since he was a teenager. He has gone on to a life of crime in many other endeavors simply because he has no morals or sense of right and wrong. He learned early on that since he was a rich Trump, that he was above the law. Now that he is president and suffering from dementia it has only gotten worse.