Topic: BOMBSHELL: ABC News Killed Epstein-Clinton Story, Says Anchor In Hot Mic Video (Read 769 times)

https://truepundit.com/jeffrey-epsteins-private-banker-at-deutsche-executive-suicide-before-feds-questioned-him/

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/clintons-vacationed-extensively-epsteins-new-mexico-baby-making-ranch-report

Still waiting for that quote.

goodluck with your ignorance

edit to reply to below

the video itself is the quote. along with all other evidence that is PUBLICLY available FOR DECADES
research:
mar a lago
virginia roberts
epstein
search out stuff between 1990-2008

goodluck

I like how you turned this back around on me as if I have the burden of proof of showing Trump is innocent. You made the claim about what was said in the video.


Why don't you quote it chumpy the clown? Oh right, you won't because you will be forced to admit your quote isn't what was said in the video, and you will have to walk it back and will squirm around trying to say it was implied. It was neither said nor implied. You took reality and then took it 8 more steps further to try to imply knowledge and complicity of Trump which is absolutely not supported by the statement in the video.

But everybody else forgot which video.

 

i even told you the time to watch the video

go on.. i dare you to quote the words from 6:50 onwards

i guarantee that if you honestly did quote it. you would have the words wher the context that
at mar a lago virgina roberts was recruited into epsteins scheme and its likely(not far fetched) that others were too

you will also have to admit that trump had connection to epstein so the lawyer would had to contact him and trump had info to help with the case

go on try and do the usual grammar nazi crap...
or atleast understand the context

or just move on with your life because you wont win the debate that trump knew nothing.. sorry but he did.
end of

have a good year

I did watch the video, several times just to be sure. I am not correcting punctuation or word syntax. The words you claimed were in the video simply were not there. You are full of shit, and worse yet you think its A-OK because your imagination works with your confirmation bias, so you just accept it as fact. I just want it to be 100% clear for everyone reading this exactly what you call a standard of evidence, and in this case, it is your imagination and nothing more.

watch the video YOU linked(or are you saying you photoshopped it)
dont be lazy. do some research

you can argue for many many pages about how verbatim letter for letter my word are compared to the video.. like a grammar nazi.. but the context is the context. which is backed up by other sources too

i bet you dont even know the source material on virginia roberts or mar a lago

go play your grammar nazi games elsewhere. it doesnt dis-prove anything but makes you sound like your either dumb or high

Cools series of logical fallacies.

You made a provably false statement to support your argument. That is significant and needs to be addressed. You have fun pointing the finger back at me. Maybe work on some more Photoshopped pics while you are at it.

so many posts and your still not using your brain
ok we get it your a trump loyalist and you only prefer to watch fox news so your knowledge is limited
ok we get it your not even willing to do research

do you even understand the context of what was said
do you even understand the locations, people, timelines involved

atleast take a break from trolling and do your research

That was not said in the video. I know in the fantasy you live in in your mind it is all the same, but for the people who live in reality, the fact that neither of the people featured in the video said that matters. You took what was said in the video, then took it eight steps further and just pretended like its no big deal you just added a bunch of bullshit that was never proven or even said. This is a great demonstration of the complete lack of logic and creative interpretation you call evidence.

i said what i said.
i said it several times..
i quote myself saying it
i quoted you quoting me saying it
do you not understand that!!

if you think its bullshit, then you have never seen a cow have a bowel movement because you obviously have no clue whats bull shit and whats not bullshit
how many times do i have to tell you that the video and media show evidence of it happening.
did you not even bother looking at the evidence or do you think you can change all of media, all of the court documentation, all the lawyers, all the history.. by simply trolling me

how about look at the source material.
look at it properly

have a nice year

Cheerleaders, well shit, flip the switch clearly that is evidence of guilt and not the delusional ravings of an insane person looking to build a narrative against Trump.


Do you deny you made this bullshit statement?

you deny that trump and epstein had social activities?
you deny that trump and epstein had many parties involving young ladies at mar a lago?

first of all
the 1992 party video trump/epstein and many cheerleaders at mar a lago

secondly
the lawyer said at another party at mar a lago trump introduced V.Roberts to epstein

by the way. it was not a single party. as time does not work like that.
her age wouldnt fit the time like of the 1992 party video nor what trump told the lawyer

atleast try to use your brainstem, research the evidence do the maths. actually check things out. dont just have blind loyalty to things

you gain nothing from trying to pretend what your pretending
the evidence is there. even if your ignorant. you are the one that remains ignorant. the rest of the world moves on without you

You made a claim certain statements were made in the video. They were not. The rest is an invention of your own misfiring brainstem. Have fun dancing around this fact pretending it is just obvious without proof you are right as all good delusional boys do.

so what are you trying to assert,?
are you saying the girl was a ghost or a time traveller and just appeared.
are you saying the party never happened and trump nver socialied and introduced pople to epstein
are you saying the house wasnt trumps

or you can accept reality.
she walked through the door coz she got an invite to trumps party. and then got introduced to epstein
if you want to make foolish things about pretending she didnt attend such parties or how trump didnt own the house or how epstein was not introduced to her or that epstein didnt even go to the party, or whatever dumb stuff your trying to assum

.. well thats your fail in not realising your video link actually revealed the layer saying how the girl got introduced to epstein via trumps parties

watch the video
or go sober up
maybe atleast think rationally before hitting the reply button
the video speaks for itself
as does all the other quotes and media stuff over the last couple decades

Is that supposed to be clever? Who gets drunk at 8am BTW? You made this claim:


This didn't happen in the video, and the fact you think it did is solid evidence of your inability to examine information critically and free of delusion. Your interpretations are not facts, they are delusions. I would tell you to go sober up, but you probably belong on drugs.

try again when you have sobered up

both video and news articles show this:
trump socialised with epstein alot
epstein main victim was introduced at trumps party when she was younger than 17
trump for years knew of his proclivities.
trump gave info to lawyers that helped convict epstein

the context is the same thing.

because your becoming boring.
you have shown no evidence that trump was not involved. your links actually proved his involvement
he just paid his way to give info in private instead of being summoned to court. purely to distance himself after the fact

now go sober up

Thanks for the lengthy fact avoidan't screed. Let the record show he didn't answer my question. Like I said, everyone can see the giant gaps in your logic, and you don't care to see them, so lets just skip it.

the context is the same, the result is the same, the wording means the same.
just because the words are not written verbatim (every single letter of the alphabet in the same order) does not mean the context and meaning are different.
you can troll all you like about word positioning .. but thats just an empty troll response. the context and meaning = same
whats your next empty troll.. grammar, punctuation?
how boring and predictable when your left scraping the bottom of the barrel for any response

anyways

just watch the video YOU linked
actually watch it
stop being ignorant

the girl introduced and raped by epstein and his pals was introduced at trumps parties
trump also knew of epsteins proclivities before banning him

time does not lie
1992+ parties and social interactions with epstein
2002 trump saying he knew about epsteins preference for the younger ladies and being proud to call him a friend
2008 trump tries to disassociate himself from epstein but only when lawyers started calling trump

trump didnt dis-associate himself in 2002 nor 1992
nor any year inbetween

did you know that UK's prince andrew got divorced due to the revelations of him also being one of the pals that raped the girl mentioned in the video YOU linked. yep. way back before the millenium it was public knowledge. the UK actually supported fergi and treated andrew as a jerk. because the public had morals.
it was public info. and even trump knew that prince andrew was wrapped up in such activities with epstein before the millenium, because it was public knowledge

funny thing is the NEWS media had the footage and the articles and made them public. same goes for clintons ties to epstein..
so this whole topic that it was supposedly hushed up until 2015+ and how it only become public once a person got fired for releasing studio footage of a anchor saying she had evidence is stupid. the footage and evidence was public for decades. even the lawyers knew it all.
thus the recent topic about news anchor bombshell is not a bombshell .. and is just some drama about someone being fired to putting footage on youtube

have fun trying to deny the PUBLIC information of the last couple decades
have a good year,