Summary: Author Michael Wolff alleges that Jeffrey Epstein showed him photos of Donald Trump with topless young women at Epstein’s Palm Beach home. Trump’s campaign has denied the claims, calling Wolff a “disgraced” writer. Wolff also expressed skepticism about Epstein’s death, suggesting it was implausible but also questioning the possibility of a cover-up.
His voters know. Or they are idiots. The propaganda brigades can appeal to their ignorance as cult members, on the other side they have to appeal to “both sides are just as bad” indifference.
So fucking what? I’m sure lots of guys have had half named women sitting on their lap at one point during their life.
I’ll just leave this here
And it also must be mentioned that the case was dropped due to some very definitely extralegal threats and strong-arming of the victim and her family.
None of the Epstein info has been released. Still.
Not that I support the guy at all, but you lot really need to stop saying “this is definite” and “it is fact” every time there’s an allegation made about something you don’t like. Not just Trump; anything. Unless you are one, y’all need to save that kind of dumb shit for dumb people, even if you like what you’re hearing.
Take Trump out of it for a second. This is literally a scenario of…
"A guy says a dead guy did a thing that makes another guy look bad, right before a big event involving that other guy "
Could be true. Could be not true. It’s hardly the kind of information that should be landing a half-competent mind onto a decision.
Take Trump out of it for a second
But then it becomes a completely different scenario.
Trump has repeatedly admitted to molesting women, he’s bragged about forcing his way into women’s locker rooms, he joked openly and without judgement of epstein’s love of kids, he has scores of sexual assault allegations, he has enough money and clout to cover up his rapes and he’s been convicted of illegally covering up legal but embarrassing sexual encounters.
Trump has definitely molested children, it is a fact. It’s literally beyond a shadow of a doubt.
What you’re after is news pieces that confirm your position. Dangerous.
then it becomes a completely different scenario.
No. No it does not.
At the end of the day…
A guy is saying a dead guy did a thing that makes another guy look bad, right before a big event involving that other guy.
Literally, this is “Trust me, bro.”
Be it Trump, Elmo, or a box of Skittles, this preface does not change. Acknowledge that first, then you can go start conversations about Trump molestations as much as you like.
Don’t be like a red hatter and get caught in echo chambers.
that affirm your position.
I’m looking for news that affirms reality. Trump’s public record words and actions already left no doubt that he’s molested children. This writer’s credible but unsourced account is just to remind people that trump has molested children, something that most people realize from trump’s words, actions, associates attitude.
When something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, hangs out with ducks, eats bread at the park, and admits in public and private to being a duck - it’s unreasonable to argue that we can’t assume it’s a duck.
Im looking for news that affirms reality.
You…affirm your reality…by looking forr news…that does so?
With the intent and purpose of rational thought, it’s supposed to be the other way around.. In by doing this, it is the premise of “fact checking” and the antithesis of misinformation.
That’s how reality, by definition, works. A statement is made. We look to confirm it. It is real if confirmed. You don’t look for statements to confirm a hypothesis and say, “Well, that’s my reality.”
What you just said is no different to stating that you look for Google results that back up what you want to hear…
Are you trying to prove my point for me?
Trump’s public record words and actions already left no doubt that he’s molested children. This writer’s credible but unsourced account is just to remind people that trump has molested children, something that most people realize from trump’s words, actions, associates attitude.
That’s unrelated to anything I’ve said and I don’t know why you thought I’d want to hear it.
When something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, hangs out with ducks, eats bread at the park, and admits in public and private to being a duck - it’s unreasonable to argue that we can’t assume it’s a duck.
That’s an unrelated example of abductive reasoning. Again, I don’t know why you picked me to share that with. If it bears any relation to what I’ve said, it’s irony in that by saying it, you’re proving my point further.
Duur let’s remove the statement from the context to prove I am not afraid to use logic to defend a pedophile. You do understand how fucking tone death this is.
You didn’t seem to understand that workout proof we can’t accuse trump, even tho he is a horrible piece of shit that deserves to rot in jail. As much as I’d love to see him get arrested and imprisoned, we cannot simply take someone’s word that someone else did those horrible things, otherwise trump would have already made all of his enemies go to jail with his stupid bullshit accusations. I also think that trump very very likely did those things, but for the justice system we need proof, and someone saying that someone else did something isn’t proof, it’s hearsay and not taken as evidence by law
Oh sure its the law, logic, or whatever fucked up reason you have in your head. I just see a pedophile defender. Pick a different hill unless, you know, birds of a feather…
Well, I’ll just add that even if this is true it will sway nobody.
Trump is a rapist caught on tape bragging about how easy it is to assault women. Very few Trump supporters are unaware of this fact and yet that are still Trump supporters.
That he’s assaulted women simply isn’t newsworthy for his fascist followers. He’s hurting the right people and that’s all that matters to them.
Sadly, about the only thing he could do to lose support would be to insult his followers or the USA. They’ll forgive him for pretty much anything else, including rape and murder.
Not only caught on tape, he was found civilly liable for raping E. Jean Carrol.
Thank you for being a wise thoughtful person, im canadian so it doesn’t matter how I feel, just wanted tonsay it’s nice to see some civility here
No half competent mind is voting for trump unless they are in the top .01%
“A guy said some dead guy did something he is known for doing, like a lot” has some measure of credibility with the common person on the street.
You must be one of the special ones.
Why, thank you!
You’re pretty special yourself! 🌟
Love this community.
Oh wow the passive aggressiveness is palpable. I bet you are the life of the party!
It makes it more possible but still proves nothing.
That’s just confirmation bias. You assume it’s true because it makes sense given other things you know.
If I make up a fact that you are a technology enthusiast, people can assume it’s true, you are using Lemmy, it makes sense. And it might be true, but it doesn’t change the fact I completely made it up.
Trump has definitely molested children. He’s a serial rapist whose hang-out buddies are some of the world’s most prominent pedophiles.
Even if trump wasn’t specifically asking for children, there’s no way he’s checking IDs before he sexually assaults victims of trafficking.
He specifically talked about walking into locker rooms…
Dressing rooms.
The locker rooms were where he went to brag about the raping.
Right, it’s so hard keeping the details straight…
What do they call young women?
You probably wouldn’t risk a lot by putting your money on “too young”.
If you got to ask that question it’s pedophile status
Legal. Probably why they used that term.
Legal. Probably why they used that term.
I doubt it.
There’s no point mentioning it at all if the topless women were obviously legal, but plenty of reasons to be unclear if they were obviously underage.
Mentioning epstein and “young” women very clearly implies underage, without opening the door to defamation.
Mentioning Epstein and “young” women very clearly implies underage, without opening the door to defamation.
Nailed it.
There was a time that having topless women sitting in your lap would have killed a presidential campaign.
Maybe the author is 80 years old and thinks that’s still scandalous.
It is interesting to see how different acceptable public behavior is now.
I presume that anyone following politics knows that can’t hurt trump, at least.
I think we kind of said the same thing.
Ah, I think I misunderstood then. It sounded to me like you were saying that young meant young but still of legal age.
Show the peepee tape or sit down. No one gives a shit about, I heard once or I saw something one time…shit or get off the pot
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s very plausible that a millionaire in the 80’s/90’s would have done gross stuff with children, but until there’s evidence I can’t say it happened.
Now his multiple documented cases of serial assault are another situation.
The Daily Beast - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Daily Beast:
Wiki: mixed - There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.
MBFC: Left - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
Search topics on Ground.News
