493
top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] dogsnest@lemmy.world 79 points 4 months ago

There's no way Trump's on the list.

Nope.

Uh uh.

Negatory, Pigpen.

No way, José.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

If he’s not on the list, it’s because he was omitted. Friendship or maybe just a really good patron.

[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 9 points 4 months ago

He's in the yellow pages of the book

[-] Nollij@sopuli.xyz -2 points 4 months ago

If we're being honest, Trump probably wasn't a patron. Not because of his morals or anything, but because he would've been excluded.

Epstein knew that what he was doing needed to be kept quiet. Trump has always been the loudest person in any room, making him a massive liability.

It's unlikely that Epstein would've told him anything.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

? We're talking about a guy who has cheated on every wife he's had. We're talking about a guy who was convicted of falsifying records to cover up the fact that he was paying someone to keep quiet. We are talking about someone with probably countless sexual improprieties.

Trump is actually pretty good at keeping his mouth shut. He's just also good at bragging about himself and selling himself to rubes.

[-] Today@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

There's a video of him saying Epstein likes beautiful young women even more than he does, or somethinh like that.

[-] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 0 points 4 months ago

And it's statements like that (and many more) which would make Epstein unwilling to take the risk.

It's not really about Trump; it's about Epstein.

[-] zzx@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

I get what you're saying, but I still wouldn't be surprised if Trump was in the book... Sometimes people are dumb and filled with hubris.

We can all agree that Trump was a "customer" (ew) of Epstein though right?

[-] binomialchicken@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 months ago

Might have been getting services without paying formally, but rather Epstein was cozy with him as a networking opportunity. Probably just sampled the wares when in the company of Epstein, rather than calling to book appointments.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee -1 points 4 months ago

Which is innocuous on its own, and only really carries new connotations since the revelations about Epstein.

[-] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 0 points 4 months ago

You're focusing on the wrong guy. Do you think Epstein would've taken the risk?

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago

Supposedly part of the point of Epstein doing this was to trap other powerful people. Trump, while stupidly braggadocios, has a history of committing crimes and not confessing to them.

He seems like a perfect target.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

didnt trump run a beauty pageant and would walk into the dressing room to ogle contestants?

[-] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 5 points 4 months ago

Yup, and in a very public way. As I said, this has nothing to do with Trump's morals or anything. It's about Epstein's risk tolerance.

[-] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Idk I don't think he was some mastermind. He was just a rich guy. I doubt he even thought it was wrong, just a neat thing to share with friends. He knew he was well beyond the justice system.

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 59 points 4 months ago

Why edit it out? His base isn't going to care. And even if they did, fox controls the narrative. "It was just locker room talk."

[-] MartianRecon@lemmus.org 14 points 4 months ago

Because as sad as it is there are people who can be swayed, and this is Fox being on team republican and not being a media company.

[-] Spitzspot@lemmings.world 30 points 4 months ago

Convicted felon Donald Trump needs a nappy change from his secret service detail.

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago

Can the president control if that file is sealed or not? Surely Biden would unseal it if it were politically beneficial to him.

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago

If there is a file that lists of all the people compromised by Epstein that could be released, you can bet there would be at least a few major Dem players on it along with the names we know, or at least strongly suspect are on it. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans nor any party in any other nation wants that information released.

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

Good point. Basically everybody in all sectors of government on the list… Should be released regardless…

[-] Juice@midwest.social 3 points 4 months ago

More like government, finance, business, academia, media, entertainment

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Of course, but they don’t have the legal power to stop its release the way politicians do.

[-] Good_morning@lemmynsfw.com 17 points 4 months ago

Of all the leaks we get, such as the NYT website, why can't someone leak that list?

[-] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago
[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

You joke but literally that. The Franklin conspiracy had a body count and it's like the small version.

[-] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I was being flippant, but not joking. Two former presidents a member of the British Royal Family, half of Hollywood and I'm sure a boat load of people with real power.

It'll remain a secret.

this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
493 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19016 readers
3574 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS