666
Trump’s alleged ‘sexual proclivities’ graphically detailed in new Epstein documents
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
666 points (95.9% liked)
News
35867 readers
2988 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, it's not nothing... Far from even.
How do you even... what the fuck did he do?
P.4
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/1332/16/giuffre-v-maxwell/
And there’s the admission of definite Kompromat on everyone that ever had sex around Epstein.
Epstein knew where these tapes were hidden and was absolutely imho assassinated for that knowledge.
I don’t doubt there are tapes, but in this case the same woman already said she lied about the tapes.
She also maintained, "Jeffrey kept a trove of surveillance on every person who had ever visited his properties”.
Like I said, I’m sure that is the case. But she’s not credible given she already admitted to lying about her testimony.
It needs to be independently corroborated.
You can’t say “oh yeah I lied about that, but promise I’m telling the truth now”.
I wouldn’t say every other thing ever. But it certainly brings in reasonable doubt when you’re talking about literally the same exact case.
It’s hard to trust someone saying that there are tapes, when they already admitted to making up stories about there being tapes. It’s not like she made up a story about hearing there were tapes. She claimed she personally had the tapes.
And again, I would be absolutely confident Epstein did have tapes. It would have been stupid of him not to. But this gals credibility about them is shot.
It was kind of rhetorical. I don't actually want to know how he hurt a girl's nipples badly enough for it to be visible to someone else later on.
I took one for the team. Flicking and sucking until they were raw.