You called her sick-o. That's personal. She wasn't asking for child porn to be released.Please notice that I had everything in quotes, because I was paraphrasing her position, i.e. what she wrote. If I am to be warned for pointing out her demand that kiddie porn be released to the public, then I hope she was treated appropriately for having demanded that child-porn be released to the public.
It was her position. She wrote it. We were discussing it. I mentioned that the file was full of child porn. I posted Bondi's video explaining such. It was all part of the discussion.
How about this, you attach Pam Bondi's video clip to the 12B rule and warn everyone that demanding the "Epstein file" be "released to the public" is a blatant call for kiddie porn to be released to the public, and that you won't stand for it.
Otherwise, you have a 12B rule that is now being used to protect people who are demanding kiddie porn be released to the public, by punishing those who point out the posters who are demanding that kiddie porn be released to the public. I'm guessing that wasn't the original intent of the 12B rule.
I did that, and pointed out that she was therefore calling for child porn to be released to the public. Her response was "Fuck You" and reitereated her demand for the kidie-porn's release. Obviously she's a sick-o, and you didn't say anything ... but you did warn me when I paraphrased her own stated position.
So how did she somehow not violate the rule? If she did not violate the rule, then I can't possibly have violated the rule by simply having stated (paraphrased) her position accurately. After all, it's her position that I paraphrased and nothing more. I didn't add anything.
You're a moron. That's personal too.You called her sick-o. That's personal.
She was demanding it.She wasn't asking for child porn to be released.
Not a 12b violation, dummy.You're a moron. That's personal too.
Nope she didn't. She demanded that files be released, not child porn.She was demanding it.
trump was involved. That is absolutely beyond question. trump may have "lost" all of Giuffre's employment records, but we know she started out on this journey as a 14 year old bikini wearing towel girl employed by trump to work in a men's changing room at mar-a-lardo.The hoax is Democrats insisting that Trump is involved with zero evidence to back it up.
trump needs it to be a "hoax" so he can pardon one of those people.Hard to believe that the "whole" thing is a hoax, considering two people were convicted for the crimes.
She was 16, and nobody claims she did anything illegal while working for Trump....Trump needs no defense.trump was involved. That is absolutely beyond question. trump may have "lost" all of Giuffre's employment records, but we know she started out on this journey as a 14 year old bikini wearing towel girl employed by trump to work in a men's changing room at mar-a-lardo.
trump's defense is that while he is involved, it was just extreme incompetence, not criminal involvement. That is called plausible deniabiliy. And it is a real legal defense. It works especially well when added to "losing" all the records.
What is not a real defense is this claim she was never there.
Nor is calling someone a sick-o, moron.Not a 12b violation, dummy.
Let me know when you start to get it.That's personal too.
Of course she did; you simply have no sense of logic, but I am repeating myself ... again.Nope she didn't.
... after being informed that all of those files were hundreds of child porn videos downloaded by Epstein. Ask someone to help you with the logic.She demanded that files be released,
Giuffre was 14 when started working for trump. She was 16 when she was trafficked to Maxwell. A child being trafficked is illegal.She was 16, and nobody claims she did anything illegal while working for Trump....Trump needs no defense.
Calling her sick-o is suggesting something. Learn logic.Nor is calling someone a sick-o, moron.
Let me know when you start to get it.
Of course she did; you simply have no sense of logic, but I am repeating myself ... again.
... after being informed that all of those files were hundreds of child porn videos downloaded by Epstein. Ask someone to help you with the logic.
Bull ShitGiuffre was 14 when started working for trump. She was 16 when she was trafficked to Maxwell. A child being trafficked is illegal.
When trump found out that Maxwell and Epstein were trafficking children, why didn't he try to track down the children he gave them?
trump is slopping makeup onto the backs of his hands. he claims it is because he is bruising his hand shaking so many hands, but have you ever seen him shake a bunch of hands? And why would it be both hands, one usually would only shake the right hand? If he were getting such horrible bruises, why would he continue shaking hands?I think we need more of a release of his health files.
The alt right has gone from claiming that Giuffre will expose the Democrats, to saying nobody cares who she exposes... It is almost like they realize she has never met a major Democrat, though she had met the most important Republican.GUESS WHAT NOBODY CARES
He is trying so hard to bait someone to commit a 12B against him. Not going to work.Calling her sick-o is suggesting something. Learn logic.
Like she believes the narrative? Child porn is something they throw around in hope the gullible will believe it.
Release the names of those responsible. Stop with the smokescreen.
The alt right has gone from claiming that Giuffre will expose the Democrats, to saying nobody cares who she exposes... It is almost like they realize she has never met a major Democrat, though she had met the most important Republican.
Of course you don't. You fawn over Trump and MAGA too much.![]()
Neither do 80%+ of the population. The Epstein files are another J6 dead end off a cliff issue for the Democrats.
Calling you a moron is suggesting something.Calling her sick-o is suggesting something.
Are you once again pretending that you speak for other people? Your king is tipped.Like she believes the narrative?