From: LeftistDon'tMatter <IronWhite@SystemicPatriotism.org>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Trouble In Paradise
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2025 19:56:37 -0400
Organization: laughing at far leftists
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 15:35:45 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>On 2025-09-09 15:21, pothead wrote:
>> On 2025-09-09, AlleyCat <katt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 16:40:42 -0700, Alan says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2025-09-08 06:09, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hillary Clinton: Release the Epstein files!
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill Clinton: Honey? What the fuck!!??
>>>
>>> Which explains why Obama/Biden and the Democrats were so desperate to keep them locked away...
>>>
>>> ... exactly.
>>>
>>> If Trump was involved as much as you Drag-Queen-loving liberals HOPE he is, the Democrats would have leaked the information when
>>> they had the files for 4+ years.
>>>
>>> Check the time lines, stupid.
>>>
>>> Trump had a falling out with Epstein... remember?
>>>
>>> There is no law that says Republicans can't protect Democrats, and vice versa, if the consequences are too dire.
>>>
>>> Trump's not the one being protected.
>>
>> It's logic and common sense. Two traits the left do not posess.
>>
>> If Trump was directly implicated in the files, as in spending time with underage or trafficked,
>> threatened girls of any age, the democrats would have been all over it.
>
>The files were sealed by the courts at the time they had the power...
>
>...you forget that after the 2018 midterms, the Democrats no longer
>controlled the House.
>
>>
>> Why go though all of the trouble and risk of suddenly bringing all types of lawfare
>> against Trump when releasing the files implicating him as a pedo, sicko would have sunk
>> his political career faster than the Lusitania?
>>
>> This only makes sense to the left who are clinging to their final attack on Trump.
>>
>> At least to me, BOTH sides are trying to protect very famous and powerful people.
>> That's the only logical explanation although I suspect Clinton is all over the list.
>So lacking evidence you believe "Clinton is all over the list"...
>
>...but somehow the accruing evidence of Trump's involvement is proof to
>you he isn't all over it?
There is no accruing evidence of Trump's involvement, dumbass.