There's no way Trump's on the list.
Nope.
Uh uh.
Negatory, Pigpen.
No way, José.
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
494 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4376 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If he’s not on the list, it’s because he was omitted. Friendship or maybe just a really good patron.
He's in the yellow pages of the book
If we're being honest, Trump probably wasn't a patron. Not because of his morals or anything, but because he would've been excluded.
Epstein knew that what he was doing needed to be kept quiet. Trump has always been the loudest person in any room, making him a massive liability.
It's unlikely that Epstein would've told him anything.
? We're talking about a guy who has cheated on every wife he's had. We're talking about a guy who was convicted of falsifying records to cover up the fact that he was paying someone to keep quiet. We are talking about someone with probably countless sexual improprieties.
Trump is actually pretty good at keeping his mouth shut. He's just also good at bragging about himself and selling himself to rubes.
There's a video of him saying Epstein likes beautiful young women even more than he does, or somethinh like that.
And it's statements like that (and many more) which would make Epstein unwilling to take the risk.
It's not really about Trump; it's about Epstein.
I get what you're saying, but I still wouldn't be surprised if Trump was in the book... Sometimes people are dumb and filled with hubris.
We can all agree that Trump was a "customer" (ew) of Epstein though right?
Might have been getting services without paying formally, but rather Epstein was cozy with him as a networking opportunity. Probably just sampled the wares when in the company of Epstein, rather than calling to book appointments.
Which is innocuous on its own, and only really carries new connotations since the revelations about Epstein.
You're focusing on the wrong guy. Do you think Epstein would've taken the risk?
Supposedly part of the point of Epstein doing this was to trap other powerful people. Trump, while stupidly braggadocios, has a history of committing crimes and not confessing to them.
He seems like a perfect target.
didnt trump run a beauty pageant and would walk into the dressing room to ogle contestants?
Yup, and in a very public way. As I said, this has nothing to do with Trump's morals or anything. It's about Epstein's risk tolerance.
Idk I don't think he was some mastermind. He was just a rich guy. I doubt he even thought it was wrong, just a neat thing to share with friends. He knew he was well beyond the justice system.
Why edit it out? His base isn't going to care. And even if they did, fox controls the narrative. "It was just locker room talk."
Because as sad as it is there are people who can be swayed, and this is Fox being on team republican and not being a media company.
Convicted felon Donald Trump needs a nappy change from his secret service detail.
Of all the leaks we get, such as the NYT website, why can't someone leak that list?
Murder I guess.
You joke but literally that. The Franklin conspiracy had a body count and it's like the small version.
I was being flippant, but not joking. Two former presidents a member of the British Royal Family, half of Hollywood and I'm sure a boat load of people with real power.
It'll remain a secret.
Can the president control if that file is sealed or not? Surely Biden would unseal it if it were politically beneficial to him.
If there is a file that lists of all the people compromised by Epstein that could be released, you can bet there would be at least a few major Dem players on it along with the names we know, or at least strongly suspect are on it. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans nor any party in any other nation wants that information released.
Good point. Basically everybody in all sectors of government on the list… Should be released regardless…
More like government, finance, business, academia, media, entertainment
Of course, but they don’t have the legal power to stop its release the way politicians do.