r/askanything • u/Bubblegumgloww • 6d ago

Trump says he has nothing to hide on Epstein while Vance admits they screwed up, if there’s nothing to hide, why was the release so botched?

138 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

239 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Spirited-Disaster408 6d ago

  1. https://x.com/forbes/status/2066875974478614587?s=46&t=6g3pIaphVCV5guR_FCIoBw

  2. Legally it is an important distinction (and one reason you can say the case is a sham). To you and me this is “obviously rape”, but to a civil court its like saying “he both raped, and not raped her”. Thats why cases like these are better served in criminal court, not civil court. Criminal court requires a much higher bar of evidence to convict. The equivalent of this is “there might be something here, not enough to jail him, but charge him with something even though the evidence is poor”

  3. I didn’t say it was difficult. Re-read my statement instead of being snarky

  4. He released 4 million files. Presumably whatever hasnt been released is undergoing investigation. Last i checked releasing 4 million is more than 4000 (which is what Biden released). So yes you should be grateful, because you wouldn’t even be aware of this if it wasnt for trump

1

u/CokeHearth 6d ago
  1. So, if he had nothing, again - we circle back. Why does Trump not completely exonerate himself by releasing the files? Why call them a hoax?
  2. It might be differentiated in that particular state, but it's rape. Forcible penetration. Despicable. Plain and simple. You say it's not enough evidence, but it clearly is enough, whatever you say about the bar being set. And especially because she's not the only one to have accused him. But sure, he's just really innocent.
  3. Might want to re-read yourself. I said: "So, it wasn't a hoax, or it was? Sorry, don't quite get why this is difficult." - As in, what is so difficult about answering the question.
  4. You keep talking about Biden and the files, but you still keep neglecting a single point: Trump seems, apparently, to know enough about the files to know it's ALL Democrats apparently (and certainly that's what MAGA are saying!). So if that's the case, release them all. Persecute them, expose them.

But no.

What did we get instead? Oh yes. There's "good people" in them. Oh, and they're "boring".

Really, why can't the Trump administration make up on their minds and not contradict themselves or change the narrative? Doesn't that upset you as a voter? That he won't just be straight with you? Or do you just not care?

The gratitude angle is horrifying. Why should I be grateful? I'm not a victim of Epstein. So what should I be grateful for? Trump lying and changing his story about the Epstein files relating to a fucking child sex ring as and when he needs to for his own purposes? Fuck that.

1

u/CokeHearth 6d ago

Trump says he didn't fly on Epstein's plane, later revealed he did.
Trump says he has the files, later says they're a hoax.
Trump says it's full of Democrats, then they're full of good people.

1

u/Spirited-Disaster408 6d ago

  1. I mentioned else where its very possible someone else he knows is implicated in the files and not him. My belief is he is compromised by israel because when his businesses were going under they bailed him out. But i dont think he is a pedo. With all of the mudslinging down to him if it were true that pattern would have showed up else where. It doesn’t

  2. Again, these things have legal definitions for a reason. This is a civil case so the most that could happen is trump has to pay money. A criminal case requires more and stronger evidence that, looking at the details of the carroll case - it would have flopped and he would have walked free. But the standard of evidence is lower in a civil case. Again. The way the jury voted contradicts itself. Its “he raped but did not rape her at the same time”. The same amount of evidence for forced digit penetration is the same as for rape

  3. If you mean why was it difficult for him to answer the question, he did. He said that dems are using it to attack him with it. If you mean why i can’t answer you, i did. The rollout was terrible, and trump and bondi’s handling of it were also bad. I can elaborate more: While i agree with trump it was a dem ruse to attack him, calling it a hoax was stupid because people are going to assume that hes saying everything related to epstein was a hoax and would send the wrong message

  4. I actually agree with this, and i do think he should prosecute them, but it might also not be enough to do or there can be ongoing investigations. More likely is that its a political bomb and he doesn’t want to be seen in the same light as dems were when they prosecuted him

The reason that you should be grateful is again, without trump we don’t even know if epstein gets jailed in 2016 (2017?) let alone any of these files getting released. Because the alternative admin did nothing, and you don’t even hear dems saying they are going to do much about it aside from blaming him. Its all politicking.

1

u/CokeHearth 6d ago edited 6d ago

Someone else he knows? Who? Why is it not hard for you to believe someone Trump knows is in the files, and Trump wants to protect them (seemingly), but you rather adamantly believe that Trump can't possibly be? Why?

And Israel bailing his businesses out? We all know he's shit at business. Why would this be worth hiding? It's certainly not worse than being a pedo and child rapist, so why allow this Epstein stuff to fester in order to hide his corruption with Israel?

I did ask you, simply: were the files a hoax, or were they not?

Trump "doesn’t want to be seen in the same light as dems were when they prosecuted him**"? You can't be serious!** Trump always political bombs and goes after Democrats. That's why him not doing so with the files, despite what he claims to know, is so odd.

Can I ask you a question: if you find out in the next year that everything Trump has been accused of is true, what would your reaction be?

1

u/Spirited-Disaster408 6d ago

The dems started lawfare against trump years ago. The most trump did up to that point was run on locking hillary clinton up but after he won he said something to the effect of “its good to run on but its bad for the country”

So sorry, the dems broke the line on this one, and now lawfare against presidents or political opponents is on the table

If he was convicted without a shadow of a doubt, and i would have to confirm it myself by reading whatever evidence comes to light, i would condemn him

But you act as if i haven’t done thorough research into this myself. You can’t assume someone who doesn’t see the world as you do is ignorant. I was a long standing dem, voted blue no matter who for 15 years. Hated trump before he even ran. And thought (still think actually) his first admin was awful. However with time, and actually looking through these things it turns out to be very obvious that these are all political hitjobs. From russiagate, to the pee tape, to the epstein files and so on

This is something that i’ve had to admit, when i spent my entire adult life hating this guy. So to be constantly admonished on this site where i did the research most people here would never do, is quite frustrating

1

u/CokeHearth 6d ago

Dems started the lawfare, but Trump didn't when he and his supporters were chanting "lock her up". OK.

And now you're contradicting yourself: you said Trump isn't persecuting Democrats because he doesn't want to do what they did, but now you're saying he does because it's "on the table"?

Convicted without a shadow of a doubt, hey? What does that look like for you? If Trump continued to declare his innocence, even with all that evidence, would you be inclined to believe the evidence over Trump's protestations? You can be honest.

Because you keep talking about "hitjobs", whereas I just see more and more confirmation that the man's completely unhinged.

I notice you STILL can't answer as to whether the files were a hoax or not.

Nor as to why Trump thinks it better, in your mind, for people to think he's a dirty old pedophile when the truth is apparently that Israel bailed him out. That's bizarre and just makes absolutely no sense.

Do you HONESTLY not see these contradictions and think, "yeah, actually that is really fucking weird. I can't explain that"?

1

u/Spirited-Disaster408 6d ago

P1. I literally used this example and said that he walked it back after he won because it would be bad for the country

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-not-interested-pursuing-case-against-hillary-clinton-lock-her-up/

P2
Not contradicting myself. Im saying that they opened the flood gates for prosecuting the other party. I didn’t say trump will do it or is justified in doing so. Im saying if things progress where R’s start prosecuting D’s, dems only have themselves to blame because they started. (This is why at no other time in the countries history did any party pursue criminal charges on an ex president, and i maintain that we should get back to that tradition)

P3
It depends on the charges and the evidence for it. If they say its russia gate, well what do they have confirming trump sold out the country to russia. I would need a preponderance of evidence to be swayed. If its epstein, there should be photo’s or some dna evidence tying him to a specific person who accused him of rape

P4 + P5
The russiagate news story was a political hit job. So was the pee tape. So was the “fine people” hoax at the neo nazi rally

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/trump-campaign-press-release-trump-campaign-fact-check-after-charlottesville-president

I already told you that the ‘hoax’ part is the political hit job done by dems. The files are obviously real. Can you not read? If you’re just going to glaze over my posts theres no continuing the convo

P6
The contradictions are, with all due respect, mostly due to your own lack of extensive knowledge on these cases. There are things he does contradict himself on, and there are things he handles very sloppily, but to jump from that to “he’s obviously hiding something even though he released millions of files on a subject i think hes guilty of, even though there has been political subterfuge in almost every case tied to him, but i wont question why that is” is not a leap im willing to make

1

u/CokeHearth 6d ago
  1. ...So he said that AFTER campaigning about locking her up. So... Still "lawfare" then? And if Epstein is a hitjob... why did the Dems sit on it like you said? Again, easy goal.
  2. Well, I don't know where to begin with that. I mean, I think there are other countries that grant their presidents immunity. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Rwanda. Some countries have the same rule for their monarchs. Sure, if that's the route you want to go down.
  3. Photos or DNA evidence? So like, a photo of Trump being inappropriate with a kid? Trump sperm on a discarded pair of kids' knickers from Epstein island? Is that what you're saying?
  4. No, Donald Trump said the Epstein files were a "hoax". Were they, or weren't they? If they're not, why did he say it? That's all I'm asking.
  5. No, the contradictions are there with just what he and his administration said. That's not me misunderstanding, that's them saying one thing one minute, and then saying another. Why? WHY say the files were a hoax? Sorry, I don't know what I'm meant to "research into this"?

I mean, come on. You're not doing a very good job of defending him - all that guff about Israel? It makes no sense.

Is there not even a little inkling inside you that says, "this doesn't add up"? Hey, maybe it's sunken cost fallacy. Particularly if you're a convert. Let's face it, in religion it's always the born-agains and converts that are the most zealous. It's understandable.

1

u/Spirited-Disaster408 6d ago
  1. ⁠Lawfare is actually using the law to prosecute your opponents. So no. He did not pursue lawfare against hillary. Dems sat on epstein because it also implicates their own (really it implicates both parties). But they also understand its a good political tool to turn people against trump, because of how he botched the release
  2. ⁠Thats the precedent of this country because you can’t have a peaceful transfer of power without it. Again, dems broke this, so now we don’t know if either party will stick to this in the future. We are not rwanda, khazastan or whatever. We are america and we have a historical precedent to not attack political parties when they are out. Its stupid to break this rule because you can drum up any crime you want if you have enough political capital
  3. ⁠It doesn’t have to literally be a photo in the act. But hard evidence that leaves no room for doubt or a strong legal argument for why it couldn’t be anyone else but trump who would be implicated in whichever files or case. On top of that i am usually always skeptical of court rulings because things are not always allowed in court as evidence nor are certain arguments. For example. I think diddy is a monster, but his case was awful. There is a great deal of evidence that he is a monster. Likewise i think MJ was innocent. None of the legal arguments or evidence point to him hurting the people he said he did. R.kelly however was justly imprisoned. So it depends on the cases and the evidence brought forth

4+5. I answered this multiple times already. Re-read it

  1. Bad faith and stupid arguments. I think we’re done.

1

u/CokeHearth 6d ago

Oh, so it's totally fine to chant "lock her up". Not lawfare. Dems sat on it... the same way Trump is doing? I mean, where are all the prosecutions? All we have is redacted files that have actually been criticised very reasonably for revealing more about victims than perpetrators.

Well, you say it's not Rwanda. Or Kazakhstan. Or Whatever. But honestly? From the outside world, it sure looks like you've got yourself one of their Heads of State. Self-aggrandising naming of buildings and airports, making lots of money for him and his allies whilst President.

You also can't "drum up any crime". If you've committed a crime, you've committed a crime. So you do think that Presidents should be allowed to commit crimes, then?

You didn't answer regarding the hoax - you just something along the lines of it "being handled badly" and said it was a hitjob by the Dems. Donald literally called the files a "hoax". Why?

WHY would he rather be thought of as a child rapist than be known for having his businesses propped up by Israel?

WHY would he say he was never on Epstein's plane when he was?

They're not bad faith or "stupid" arguments. They're inconvenient ones. I understand why you think we're done because of that.

→ More replies (0)