When Behavior Doesn't Match the Narrative: The Epstein Files and Trump

[forkup]

Simple question: If there had been any damning information about Trump in the Epstein files, don't you think that when the Democrats were in power, they would have released it? Of course! It was an election year, and they could have easily torpedoed his campaign with it. So, why not? If there was something so scandalous in those files about Trump, why didn't Democrats release it when they had unfettered access to the files during Biden's administration? They had plenty of chances.

The behavior doesn't match the narrative. It will continue not to, unless and until the files are released in full. I invite the leftists to stop acting like they know what's in the files. Just because his name appears in the files doesn't necessarily imply any wrongdoing on Trump's part. That's not how any of this works. You give the benefit of the doubt until contrary evidence is given.

No not at all. See, unlike what you think, Democrats are much more responsible when it comes to governing then modern day Republicans. It''s what makes them sombad at politics on this environment because if the other side simply has no bounds you're at a tremendous disadvantage. And Epstein has been a source of endless conspiracy theories.

Releasing those files that have a bunch of names and facts in them like for instance the card that the WSJ is reporting on fuels those conspiracies.

The problem with it is, that those kinds of things aren't criminal just embarrassing. Presumably many more people are mentioned in similar ways. Therefore the responsible thing to do would have been not to release them. Both to protect the victims of Epstein by not making them go through the exact spectacle this is causing now, but also to protect the people whose only crime is associating with Epstein. And who you can't proof in a court of law are guilty.

What this is a self-own, people like Patel and Bondi, and Trump set up an expectation regarding the Epstein files thinking they could play politics with it. The kind of politics you're describing. Only to find out it's impossible to do when the exact thing you want to do, namely fueling conspiracies to damage your political opponent damages you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Democrats are much more responsible when it comes to governing then modern day Republicans

Nothing but doubletalk.

 

[cnm]

Hmm, maybe I shouldn't have asked such a pointed question. Not gonna get many replies from the other side...

If 'pointed question' has the value of 'multiple, self-answered questions'.

 

[forkup]

Nothing but doubletalk.

Nothing but completely ignoring what I said.

You asked a question. I answered it. If you don't like the answer complain to Bondi and Patel. They're the ones that made you believe that Democrats were in cahoots with Epstein. So I find this hilarious. For ones hubris and not caring about the rules has caught up. So own it.

I want these files to be released and see you guys squirm some more. See you trying to.explain why Trump sends a card with a drawing of a naked woman and speaking of shared secrets with a pedo. It's glorious.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nothing but completely ignoring what I said.

You asked a question. I answered it. If you don't like the answer complain to Bondi and Patel. They're the ones that made you believe that Democrats were in cahoots with Epstein. So I find this hilarious. For ones hubris and not caring about the rules has caught up. So own it.

I want these files to be released and see you guys squirm some more. See you trying to.explain why Trump sends a card with a drawing of a naked woman and speaking of shared secrets with a pedo. It's glorious.

Your response is childish. I don't find it worth my time to engage your invective.

 

[cnm]

"We" this.

"We" that.

That's what bona-fide cults do. Pot calling the kettle black.

I love it. After referring to 'the Democrats'.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I love it. After referring to 'the Democrats'.

That's what they are, right? There is no inference behind it.

 

[Care4all]

Well, no.

You seem to think the Democrats are as corrupt as you are. That is not the case. We are not like you.

Democrats don't politicize the justice system. They've never done so, and only those most deeply in the thrall of Satan, those headed for an eternity in hell, only souls that depraved will claim otherwise. Democratic admins stay hands off.

You and your side, you suckle at the anus of corruption, which leaves you unable to understand that normal people aren't as depraved as you are. You're corrupt party hacks, so you assume Democrats have to be corrupt party hacks as well. Ethical behavior is so alien to you, you can't even imagine someone else behaving ethically.

Again. We are not like you. We are not like you. Get that through your head.

Yep! 100% correct!

 

[forkup]

Your response is childish. I don't find it worth my time to engage your invective.

Oh I see childish, huh?

You posted a thread built entirely on a flawed assumption: that if there had been anything on Trump in the Epstein files, Democrats would’ve released it and since they didn’t, he must be innocent. I pointed out why that’s not a sound inference: because Democrats, for better or worse, don’t play that kind of reckless game. You didn’t answer the point. You just called me names.

I can back up my claims with logic and sources. You ducked the argument and tried to discredit me instead. That’s not just childish it’s dishonest.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You posted a thread built entirely on a flawed assumption: that if there had been anything on Trump in the Epstein files, Democrats would’ve released it — and since they didn’t, he must be innocent.

Slow it down there, pardner. I originally said I wasn't going to engage your invective, but this statement caught my ire.

The argument you make, both you and others, assumes his guilt. The way justice works in civilized society is "innocent until proven guilty."

He is innocent until it is proven that he did something illegal or unconscionable. You employ flawed 'guilt by association' arguments to infer guilt. All of this is an intellectually lazy and dishonest practice. But take solace, it is not unique to your side, as the right does this too, but I have seen the left employ it far more often.

I strongly advise you not to insult my intelligence. You aren't driven by objectivity, but by hatred and malice of one man.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I can back up my claims with logic and sources.

Then do it. Don't resort to testing my patience. Go. Now.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm seeing a lot of celebrating from the Left this morning, that TRUMP IS IN THE FILES.

The thing is, there may be many people "in the files" who didn't do anything wrong. Epstein was the P Diddy of politics/business, with all kinds of people circulating through his orbit.

If the celebration is about this comically clumsy attempt at a coverup, I can certainly see that. But I'm not aware of proof of him participating in the ugly stuff yet.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm seeing a lot of celebrating from the Left this morning, that TRUMP IS IN THE FILES.

The thing is, there may be many people "in the files" who didn't do anything wrong. Epstein was the P Diddy of politics/business, with all kinds of people circulating through his orbit.

If the celebration is about this comically clumsy attempt at a coverup, I can certainly see that. But I'm not aware of proof of him participating in the ugly stuff yet.

And this is the winning post so far.

 

[cnm]

That's what they are, right? There is no inference behind it.

You obviously don't have the comprehension to understand the point, so explaining it will be a waste of time.

 

[cnm]

That's what they are, right? There is no inference behind it.

So why the **** are you bitching about 'we' when you started it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You obviously don't have the comprehension to understand the point, so explaining it will be a waste of time.

Then leave. You are not obligated to stay here unless you crave the attention.

 

[cnm]

Then leave. You are not obligated to stay here unless you crave the attention.

You are not obligated to provide light entertainment yet you do.

Where did your condition on my obligation come from, your arse?

 

[forkup]

Slow it down there, pardner. I originally said I wasn't going to engage your invective, but this statement caught my ire.

The argument you make, both you and others, assumes his guilt. The way justice works in civilized society is "innocent until proven guilty."

He is innocent until it is proven that he did something illegal or unconscionable. You employ flawed 'guilt by association' arguments to infer guilt. All of this is an intellectually lazy and dishonest practice. But take solace, it is not unique to your side, as the right does this too, but I have seen the left employ it far more often.

I strongly advise you not to insult my intelligence. You aren't driven by objectivity, but by hatred and malice of one man.

I'm not making assumptions at all. Not a single one. Saying your inference is flawed for presuming his innocence is not a presumption of guilt. The only assumption here is that them not leaking it, means Trump can't be guilty. In fact, when I say this.

but also to protect the people whose only crime is associating with Epstein. And who you can't proof in a court of law are guilty.

It also includes Trump. So yes I hate the man. No it isn't affecting my objectivity. So the fact that it catches your ire is a consequence of you making assumptions about me that are contradicted by what I say. And I would say that "catches my ire", but it's par for the course. Hope me mentioning your lack of reading comprehension doesn't "insult your intelligence."

 

[forkup]

Then do it. Don't resort to testing my patience. Go. Now.

Sure. Let’s start here:

post hoc

www.law.cornell.edu

You're making a classic post hoc fallacy, assuming that because Democrats didn’t leak the Epstein files and Trump was included, that somehow proves Trump didn’t do anything wrong. That’s not how logic works.
It also doesn’t prove he did, and I’ve said that explicitly. So the only person making assumptions here is you.

Got another statement you think I can’t back up? Go ahead. Name it.

Oh, and by the way: Obama didn’t leak that Trump was under FBI investigation in 2016, even though it would’ve helped Clinton politically. And you guys still think he somehow did even now. As a distraction no less for this Trump mess. Want sources for that too?

 

[MarcATL]

Well, no.

You seem to think the Democrats are as corrupt as you are. That is not the case. We are not like you.

Democrats don't politicize the justice system. They've never done so, and only those most deeply in the thrall of Satan, those headed for an eternity in hell, only souls that depraved will claim otherwise. Democratic admins stay hands off.

You and your side, you suckle at the anus of corruption, which leaves you unable to understand that normal people aren't as depraved as you are. You're corrupt party hacks, so you assume Democrats have to be corrupt party hacks as well. Ethical behavior is so alien to you, you can't even imagine someone else behaving ethically.

Again. We are not like you. We are not like you. Get that through your head.

Thread done!