Dershowitz states that there is an Epstein list and he has seen it. Not good at all for the attorney general or the FBI director. Or Alina Habbaba.

[Jerry]

Show us the video or the quote of Trump calling his supporters traitors and that he doesn't want them on the team anymore.

Quote from his Truth Social rant, er, I mean post today:

>>...my PAST [capital letters by Trump] supporters have bought into this bullshit [the "Jeffrey Epstein Hoax"] hook, line, and sinker. They haven't learned their lesson and probably never will, even after being conned by the Lunatic Left for eight long years...all these people want to talk about, with strong prodding by the Fake News and the success-starved Dems, is the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax. Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats' work. don't even think about talking about our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don't want their support anymore!<<

So to recap, any Trump voters who decline to immediately buy into the new Party Line of nothing-to-see-here-move-along, a Party Line which as I recall you were emphatically rejecting yourself only a few days ago, are weaklings and PAST supporters who've been conned by the Dem-Mediacrats and are doing that Party's work for them...and Trump doesn't want their support anymore, which he says quite specifically.

I think my original brief summary is totally accurate.

Here's the irony: we had a little disagreement in our first exchange on this topic where I suggested it might be better to let it all go and you said no way, it wouldn't be right to do that.

But as the days have gone by...and Trump keeps digging the hole deeper with these increasingly frantic claims that it's all now a hoax and a Dem-Mediacrat dirty trick...I find myself moving further and further in the direction of your original position.

Look, it didn't have to be this way. Maybe there is no list. Maybe there never was a conspiracy. Maybe it's like Dershowitz says. All they had to do was get in front of a microphone and explain that...lay it out. Instead, they turn on a dime and suddenly we're being told not to talk about it. It can't help but make a thinking person a little suspicious.

 

[91Joe95]

Look, it didn't have to be this way. Maybe there is no list. Maybe there never was a conspiracy. Maybe it's like Dershowitz says. All they had to do was get in front of a microphone and explain that...lay it out. Instead, they turn on a dime and suddenly we're being told not to talk about it. It can't help but make a thinking person a little suspicious.

This is good, but I don't think Trump's stance is nearly as confrontational as suggested. Last night Laura Trump was stating Trump understands the frustration and thinks more info will be released. We'll see.

 

[LudicrousSpeedGO!]

Quote from his Truth Social rant, er, I mean post today:

>>...my PAST [capital letters by Trump] supporters have bought into this bullshit [the "Jeffrey Epstein Hoax"] hook, line, and sinker. They haven't learned their lesson and probably never will, even after being conned by the Lunatic Left for eight long years...all these people want to talk about, with strong prodding by the Fake News and the success-starved Dems, is the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax. Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats' work. don't even think about talking about our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don't want their support anymore!<<

So to recap, any Trump voters who decline to immediately buy into the new Party Line of nothing-to-see-here-move-along, a Party Line which as I recall you were emphatically rejecting yourself only a few days ago, are weaklings and PAST supporters who've been conned by the Dem-Mediacrats and are doing that Party's work for them...and Trump doesn't want their support anymore, which he says quite specifically.

I think my original brief summary is totally accurate.

Here's the irony: we had a little disagreement in our first exchange on this topic where I suggested it might be better to let it all go and you said no way, it wouldn't be right to do that.

But as the days have gone by...and Trump keeps digging the hole deeper with these increasingly frantic claims that it's all now a hoax and a Dem-Mediacrat dirty trick...I find myself moving further and further in the direction of your original position.

Look, it didn't have to be this way. Maybe there is no list. Maybe there never was a conspiracy. Maybe it's like Dershowitz says. All they had to do was get in front of a microphone and explain that...lay it out. Instead, they turn on a dime and suddenly we're being told not to talk about it. It can't help but make a thinking person a little suspicious.

He never called them traitors as you had stated. I've learned to not trust establishment Rs as much as I don't trust establishment Ds. You could have simply provided his post and not lied about Trump calling his supporters traitors. What he wrote was not good but you clearly distorted it and attempted to make it more damning.

 

[Frank Lee]

This is good, but I don't think Trump's stance is nearly as confrontational as suggested. Last night Laura Trump was stating Trump understands the frustration and thinks more info will be released. We'll see.

Unless this is a 4-D Chess move, someone on Trump's team, be it Miller, Junior, or whoever, needs to respond with an answer explaining how the Epstein situation was laid out to the public over the past five years, that our concerns are undeed valid, and what is actually the truth in the matter.
Telling us that the immorality, the possible crimes, and the possible cover up by Barr and by the rest of the DOJ are fake and not of our concern is insulting. And again, can someone else in the White House understand this and step forward?

 

[Jerry]

This is good, but I don't think Trump's stance is nearly as confrontational as suggested. Last night Laura Trump was stating Trump understands the frustration and thinks more info will be released. We'll see.

Breaking News: Trump might favor a Special Prosecutor to investigate the issue. This will possibly come out in a planned interview tonight.

I hope this is accurate because it's an excellent idea and takes a lot of heat off.

Of course it also directly contradicts the notion that the whole thing is a Dem-Mediacrat hoax but whatever.

Donald Trump supports special prosecutor for Epstein case, ally says

Trump's comments so far have not been enough to quell supporters who are still demanding answers in the Jeffrey Epstein case.

www.newsweek.com

 

[91Joe95]

Breaking News: Trump might favor a Special Prosecutor to investigate the issue. This will possibly come out in a planned interview tonight.

I hope this is accurate because it's an excellent idea and takes a lot of heat off.

Of course it also directly contradicts the notion that the whole thing is a Dem-Mediacrat hoax but whatever.

Donald Trump supports special prosecutor for Epstein case, ally says

Trump's comments so far have not been enough to quell supporters who are still demanding answers in the Jeffrey Epstein case.

www.newsweek.com

If there's one thing I've noticed in these last 6 months, Trump isn't terribly concerned about optics. He makes the news cycle move so fast that stories just don't last. I say that as someone else thinks this issue is important and more should be done.

 

[Jerry]

He never called them traitors as you had stated. I've learned to not trust establishment Rs as much as I don't trust establishment Ds. You could have simply provided his post and not lied about Trump calling his supporters traitors. What he wrote was not good but you clearly distorted it and attempted to make it more damning.

Well I didn't put the word traitor in quotes but rather accurately summarized the thrust of what the man said. And what he said was that the people in question, the PAST supporters, were now effectively playing on the other side's team. He also said he didn't want their support anymore. If you want to rationalize away the plain meaning of the words in that social media post, have at it.

Meanwhile, are you or are you not still holding to the earlier view that you expressed here about the Epstein case? Because if you are, Trump apparently thinks you're a weakling and a Dem-Mediacrat tool. His words, not mine.

All this said, the nice thing is that Trump may change his tune completely overnight. In fact, he may change it in a few hours, according to the Newsweek report that I linked above.

 

[PSU Blue]

What does "client list" mean? We know he had a lot of clients through his investment firms. Does this mean people he sold kids to or had videos on?

That's exactly the point. He was rich and powerful, if he said meet me in Miami for a trip on my yacht and dinner, I'd be there. It doesn't mean I knew anything about his "side" business. And why would he need to blackmail anyone when he was worth slightly under a billion. And by the way, if I had this innocuous meeting with him, and the attorney general said I was on some list of something that meant nothing and it hurt my image in public, I would sue her for everything. What do people think the list is?

 

[LudicrousSpeedGO!]

Well I didn't put the word traitor in quotes but rather accurately summarized the thrust of what the man said. And what he said was that the people in question, the PAST supporters, were now effectively playing on the other side's team. He also said he didn't want their support anymore. If you want to rationalize away the plain meaning of the words in that social media post, have at it.

Meanwhile, are you or are you not still holding to the earlier view that you expressed here about the Epstein case? Because if you are, Trump apparently thinks you're a weakling and a Dem-Mediacrat tool. His words, not mine.

All this said, the nice thing is that Trump may change his tune completely overnight. In fact, he may change it in a few hours, according to the Newsweek report that I linked above.

You clearly extrapolated on Trump's words and used the word traitor for a reason. Your exact words "They're all traitors and Trump doesn't want them on the team anymore." You also started out your post by saying that he spazzed out. Your choice of language seems like an attempt to be divisive. We know that you are an establishment R and never wanted Trump. Fine. But you are doing exactly what Rs say that Ds do. You are an establishment guy, so it doesn't surprise me. You are reluctantly a Trump voter or perhaps not even. Bottom line, if you are willing to restate someone else's words while adding charged wording that they did not use, then why should anyone trust you?

I can accept that Trump wants his supporters to push this aside because he has other things cooking. I can also state unequivocally that he was wrong on this issue and that doesn't change my support of his efforts on other issues. I'm still not 100% sold on his tariff methods either. That's the thing with non-establishment folks (right, center, and left). We think for ourselves. We can align with Rs or Trump when they are in the right and not when they clearly aren't.

 

[Jerry]

You clearly extrapolated on Trump's words and used the word traitor for a reason. Your exact words "They're all traitors and Trump doesn't want them on the team anymore." You also started out your post by saying that he spazzed out. Your choice of language seems like an attempt to be divisive. We know that you are an establishment R and never wanted Trump. Fine. But you are doing exactly what Rs say that Ds do. You are an establishment guy, so it doesn't surprise me. You are reluctantly a Trump voter or perhaps not even. Bottom line, if you are willing to restate someone else's words while adding charged wording that they did not use, then why should anyone trust you?

I can accept that Trump wants his supporters to push this aside because he has other things cooking. I can also state unequivocally that he was wrong on this issue and that doesn't change my support of his efforts on other issues. I'm still not 100% sold on his tariff methods either. That's the thing with non-establishment folks (right, center, and left). We think for ourselves. We can align with Rs or Trump when they are in the right and not when they clearly aren't.

OP, you keep calling me an "Establishment R" even after I've told you several times over the years that I'm not a Republican at all. I'm a registered Independent who's been highly critical at times of the "Republican Establishment." But apparently the fiction is more important to you than the reality for whatever reason.

Yes, I extrapolated...interpreted...analyzed...whatever...Trump's words and did so accurately. How you can rationalize away the clear meaning of what he said, I don't know. However, I did not "lie" about his post and your use of that word to characterize my comment is, forgive me, juvenile. Liar, liar, pants on fire. That's the fallback position of people who have no other argument.

As for an "attempt to be divisive," holy crap, dude, what do you call Trump's social media post today? He's the guy sowing division and kicking people off the team. And in the process he's calling them weaklings who are tools for the other side. All because they want answers on Epstein. I mean, at some point you have to take the orange-colored glasses off.

I voted for Trump three times -- I would do so again -- and have made very clear my position on him and on the Republicans...whether Establishment or not. My position is the only thing that matters is keeping the Evil Party out of power. At this point, if I thought burying Epstein would help more than exposing him for that purpose, I'd be on board.

In any case, I'm not a follower of Trump. I'm not a follower of anybody. I'm a follower only of my own moral principles and priorities.

I thought Matt's opening monologue today on this issue was dynamite...23 minutes long and well worth the listen:

 

[LudicrousSpeedGO!]

OP, you keep calling me an "Establishment R" even after I've told you several times over the years that I'm not a Republican at all. I'm a registered Independent who's been highly critical at times of the "Republican Establishment." But apparently the fiction is more important to you than the reality for whatever reason.

Yes, I extrapolated...interpreted...analyzed...whatever...Trump's words and did so accurately. How you can rationalize away the clear meaning of what he said, I don't know. However, I did not "lie" about his post and your use of that word to characterize my comment is, forgive me, juvenile. Liar, liar, pants on fire. That's the fallback position of people who have no other argument.

As for an "attempt to be divisive," holy crap, dude, what do you call Trump's social media post today? He's the guy sowing division and kicking people off the team. And in the process he's calling them weaklings who are tools for the other side. All because they want answers on Epstein. I mean, at some point you have to take the orange-colored glasses off.

I voted for Trump three times -- I would do so again -- and have made very clear my position on him and on the Republicans...whether Establishment or not. My position is the only thing that matters is keeping the Evil Party out of power. At this point, if I thought burying Epstein would help more than exposing him for that purpose, I'd be on board.

In any case, I'm not a follower of Trump. I'm not a follower of anybody. I'm a follower only of my own moral principles and priorities.

I thought Matt's opening monologue today on this issue was dynamite...23 minutes long and well worth the listen:

First, if you are an I, my apologies. I seriously thought you were an establishment R based on you posting history. I suppose I missed or had forgotten the I. I don't take notes on everyone here.

However, I still think that you misrepresented Trumps words as he did not refer to his supporters as traitors. I still feel that your language choice with traitor and spazz out were overdramatic. Traitor was inaccurate.

Nothing against your son but I don't waste time on podcasts of any sort. If he every wants to condense it into a paragraph or two, I would be happy to read it.

 

[Frank Lee]

So, how was this dem/Epstein hoax supposed to work? What was its intended outcome?

 

[AvgUser]

First, if you are an I, my apologies. I seriously thought you were an establishment R based on you posting history. I suppose I missed or had forgotten the I. I don't take notes on everyone here.

However, I still think that you misrepresented Trumps words as he did not refer to his supporters as traitors. I still feel that your language choice with traitor and spazz out were overdramatic. Traitor was inaccurate.

Nothing against your son but I don't waste time on podcasts of any sort. If he every wants to condense it into a paragraph or two, I would be happy to read it.

You’re quibbling over semantics.

This is clearly a walks like a duck, talks like a duck tirade from trump

 

[Frank Lee]

Comey's daughter and Epstein/Maxwell prosecutor just canned at SDNY. FWIW

 

[91Joe95]

Comey's daughter and Epstein/Maxwell prosecutor just canned at SDNY. FWIW

That's a shame.

 

[LudicrousSpeedGO!]

You’re quibbling over semantics.

This is clearly a walks like a duck, talks like a duck tirade from trump

Traitor is a strong word, and Trump did not say it. I'm only asking for honesty. Jerry's words were "They're all traitors..." which is not what Trump said. That's not semantics. It's misrepresenting what someone else said. When you do that, your credibility takes a hit.

For you as a Trump hater, you appear to condone misrepresenting his words. After all, that is what they often feed you on MSNBC.

 

[Jerry]

First, if you are an I, my apologies. I seriously thought you were an establishment R based on you posting history. I suppose I missed or had forgotten the I. I don't take notes on everyone here.

However, I still think that you misrepresented Trumps words as he did not refer to his supporters as traitors. I still feel that your language choice with traitor and spazz out were overdramatic. Traitor was inaccurate.

Nothing against your son but I don't waste time on podcasts of any sort. If he every wants to condense it into a paragraph or two, I would be happy to read it.

Thank you for that. I appreciate you dialing back a bit. In the end, we're on the same team and I think we want the same thing for our country.

We can agree to disagree on the accuracy of my thumbnail description of Trump's post yesterday.

Make no mistake: I think Trump has assembled a great team around him...in contrast to his first administration...and I love a lot of stuff that he's done in a very short period of time. Yesterday marked the fewest intercepts of illegal crossers at our southern border in many years.

That said, I'll continue to express criticism or concern as I think warranted. And if he does or says stuff that I believe serves the interests of the Evil Party, as happened yesterday, then I'll candidly state my opinion on that.

Re Epstein, as is clear earlier in the thread, my emotions are conflicting. In fact, I initially made the case...before Trump spazzed out...that since we don't know the truth of the matter and apparently never will...and therefore since the popular conspiracy theories can never be proven...it's probably better to let it all die a quiet death. For that reason, I opposed the calls for Pam Bondi's resignation.

The operative word in quiet death is "quiet." If Trump would simply shut up and stop demanding blind obedience, which he's not going to get from anyone who thinks for themselves, then we can move on. At this point, however, I think they should tell us the real reason they want to instantly drop the subject and shut down all discussion of it.

As for Matt's show yesterday, no problem, 23 minutes is a tall ask. Anyway, he got an excellent audience response. Some viewers said it was the best DW piece they'd ever seen.

Matt reviewed where things stood, praised the accomplishments of Trump's young presidency but indicated he wasn't inclined to take orders from the President or anyone else on the subject of Epstein...and then, most importantly, placed the frustration over Epstein in the larger context of a two-tiered system of justice where a whole lot of people have gotten away scot-free with a whole lot of stuff in recent years, despite pledges to finally hold them accountable.

 

[AvgUser]

Traitor is a strong word, and Trump did not say it. I'm only asking for honesty. Jerry's words were "They're all traitors..." which is not what Trump said. That's not semantics. It's misrepresenting what someone else said. When you do that, your credibility takes a hit.

For you as a Trump hater, you appear to condone misrepresenting his words. After all, that is what they often feed you on MSNBC.

Quack quack quack

 

[AvgUser]

Traitor is a strong word, and Trump did not say it. I'm only asking for honesty. Jerry's words were "They're all traitors..." which is not what Trump said. That's not semantics. It's misrepresenting what someone else said. When you do that, your credibility takes a hit.

For you as a Trump hater, you appear to condone misrepresenting his words. After all, that is what they often feed you on MSNBC.

Interesting.

Do you condone trump lying about literally everything that comes of his mouth? Didn’t think so. Have a good day

 

[LudicrousSpeedGO!]

Thank you for that. I appreciate you dialing back a bit. In the end, we're on the same team and I think we want the same thing for our country.

We can agree to disagree on the accuracy of my thumbnail description of Trump's post yesterday.

Make no mistake: I think Trump has assembled a great team around him...in contrast to his first administration...and I love a lot of stuff that he's done in a very short period of time. Yesterday marked the fewest intercepts of illegal crossers at our southern border in many years.

That said, I'll continue to express criticism or concern as I think warranted. And if he does or says stuff that I believe serves the interests of the Evil Party, as happened yesterday, then I'll candidly state my opinion on that.

Re Epstein, as is clear earlier in the thread, my emotions are conflicting. In fact, I initially made the case...before Trump spazzed out...that since we don't know the truth of the matter and apparently never will...and therefore since the popular conspiracy theories can never be proven...it's probably better to let it all die a quiet death. For that reason, I opposed the calls for Pam Bondi's resignation.

The operative word in quiet death is "quiet." If Trump would simply shut up and stop demanding blind obedience, which he's not going to get from anyone who thinks for themselves, then we can move on. At this point, however, I think they should tell us the real reason they want to instantly drop the subject and shut down all discussion of it.

As for Matt's show yesterday, no problem, 23 minutes is a tall ask. Anyway, he got an excellent audience response. Some viewers said it was the best DW piece they'd ever seen.

Matt reviewed where things stood, praised the accomplishments of Trump's young presidency but indicated he wasn't inclined to take orders from the President or anyone else on the subject of Epstein...and then, most importantly, placed the frustration over Epstein in the larger context of a two-tiered system of justice where a whole lot of people have gotten away scot-free with a whole lot of stuff in recent years, despite pledges to finally hold them accountable.

I'm not on a team though unless it is team USA. That simply means that I agree with many of Trump's efforts but disagree on a few. But I absolutely abhor when people put words in another's mouth. Perhaps you didn't realize that your words could be seen that way. But that is not what Trump said which is why I asked for a clip or quote. I think that we have to be very careful about trying to summarize what someone else has said (Trump, other posters, etc.) because we inject our own language that often is inflammatory, and the meaning gets twisted.

I disagree with your thought on letting the Epstein issue die a quiet death. Evil wins if that happens. It will happen again and more brazenly if no one is held accountable. Also, many who committed sexual assault on minor sex slaves will go unpunished and likely are already repeating these crimes.