- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 6,824
- Points
- 113
But conservatives have tried to use false claims and conspiracies of pedophilia against liberals for over a decade, and then there was this…
Transgenderism - A Thread of Its Own
- Thread starter Tim Steelersfan
- Start date
I get the differences in ideology on any number of subjects between the left and right, but it's absolutely insane that pedophilia is one of them.
How can anyone argue for it?
How can anyone argue for it?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 12,056
- Reaction score
- 17,178
- Points
- 113
how can anyone argue the difference between a man and a woman?
It's the same folks who have mental defects.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,414
- Reaction score
- 22,307
- Points
- 113
And liberals are doing it right now. Let’s take Whoopi Goldberg for example. On her show, her and her cronies are blabbering about how Trump must be guilty because his name is in the files, bleating that **** every day until……..her name was in the files. Then it becomes “having your name in the files doesn’t mean you’re guilty of anything.” Crazy how that works.
Politics is the purest form of hypocrisy. They are all hypocrites in some manner or another. You read through the threads in this forum and it’s full of hypocrisy, you and I included. To discuss politics you have to be a hypocrite to some degree, because at some point you are going to do or say the very thing you hammered someone else for. 99% of people will defend or dismiss or accuse based on political ideology. Just about everyone in this forum is guilty of it.
You know, I’m hoping republicans get their **** together and get all of these files released, minimally redacted. I hope all politicians understand this isn’t going away. Even though I know better, I hope all that are guilty are held accountable. Probably have a better chance of Santa Clause fulfilling that wish list than our own politicians, but a guy can dream.
its YOUR assertion that all Conservatives are pedos.
prove it.
or is this a case of accusing other that which you do or have done?
touched kids lately, pedodyte?
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,300
- Reaction score
- 7,792
- Points
- 113
Except like most of the conspiracy theories in the last 10 years it turns out it's true about you communists.
And before you try to lie and say "BuT TrUmP" remember as Burgundy points out if there was anything about Trump and underage girls in those files it would have been released in 2016.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 6,824
- Points
- 113
Pizza Gate was not true.
We’ve been through this over and over and over. It was an active investigation and the files were sealed. People are learning about their contents now, not in 2016.
The files with testimony of a credible witness testifying that Trump forced her to have oral sex with him when she was 13 have been removed. If you don’t think a cover up is going on, you’re incredibly naive at best.
Because she was not credible and that was found not to be true.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 6,824
- Points
- 113
Uh, no. The FBI interviewed her four times and her testimony was used in Epstein’s trial.
US Edition Privacy Policy Feedback
Sunday, Mar 1st 2026 4PM 74°F 7PM 62°F 5-Day Forecast
EXCLUSIVE: Troubled woman with a history of drug use who claimed that she was assaulted by Donald Trump at a Jeffrey Epstein sex party at age 13 MADE IT ALL UP
- On Friday, a lawsuit filed against Donald Trump by 'Katie Johnson' was dramatically dropped
- Speculation that the suit was dropped because of threats or a pay-off by Trump went viral
- But DailyMail.com has learned that the claims against Trump were fiction
- 'Katie Johnson's' shocking allegations first emerged in a lawsuit filed in California in April
- She claimed she was lured to a sex party by pedophile Jeffrey Epstein where she was forced into rough role-play sex with presidential candidate
- On Wednesday Johnson suddenly cancelled a press conference at which she was set to reveal herself for the first time
- Before that, she told her story to DailyMail.com
- Clinton supporters had seized on the story as a possible knock out blow
When the civil suit was initially filed last April, Trump's legal team branded the allegations 'disgusting at the highest level' and a 'hoax' clearly framed to 'solicit media attention or, perhaps... simply politically motivated'.
Clinton supporters had seized on the story as a possible knock out blow.
Then, last Wednesday, Katie Johnson suddenly cancelled a packed press conference at which she was set to reveal herself for the first time, saying she was 'too afraid' following a series of 'threats' against her.
On Friday, six months after legal papers were filed, the civil lawsuit was dramatically dropped.
Social media erupted with claims that the woman had been paid off by Trump or was so terrified by threats to her life from Trump supporters that she was forced to withdraw her claims.
But DailyMail.com has learned that the real reason the suit was dropped is because the claims were simply NOT true.
The woman first sued Trump and Jeffrey Epstein under the name Katie Johnson - a name we know not to be her real identity - on April 26 in California federal court and filed an amended complaint in New York federal court in October, claiming she was subject to rape, criminal sexual acts, assault, battery and false imprisonment.
The court papers offered no corroborative evidence that her claims were true.
News that the allegations were dropped dismayed Hillary supporters who had hoped the claims would be the knock out blow for Trump's election campaign - already rocked in recent weeks by a string of sex assault claims.
Thousands of loyal Hillary followers had opened a discussion about the rape claims on Twitter and other social media networks hoping to damage Trump's push for the White House.
The Huffington Post jumped on the bandwagon of anti-Trump sentiment after she made her claims, asking: 'Donald Trump Is Accused Of Raping A 13-Year-Old. Why Haven't The Media Covered It?'
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 6,824
- Points
- 113
This is nonsense. That lawsuit was dropped almost a decade ago. The first interview of this accuser wasn’t until 2019.
US Edition Privacy Policy Feedback
Sunday, Mar 1st 2026 4PM 74°F 7PM 62°F 5-Day Forecast
EXCLUSIVE: Troubled woman with a history of drug use who claimed that she was assaulted by Donald Trump at a Jeffrey Epstein sex party at age 13 MADE IT ALL UP
The woman who alleged that Donald Trump raped her at age 13 at one of billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's notorious 'sex parties' fabricated the story, DailyMail.com has learned exclusively.
- On Friday, a lawsuit filed against Donald Trump by 'Katie Johnson' was dramatically dropped
- Speculation that the suit was dropped because of threats or a pay-off by Trump went viral
- But DailyMail.com has learned that the claims against Trump were fiction
- 'Katie Johnson's' shocking allegations first emerged in a lawsuit filed in California in April
- She claimed she was lured to a sex party by pedophile Jeffrey Epstein where she was forced into rough role-play sex with presidential candidate
- On Wednesday Johnson suddenly cancelled a press conference at which she was set to reveal herself for the first time
- Before that, she told her story to DailyMail.com
- Clinton supporters had seized on the story as a possible knock out blow
When the civil suit was initially filed last April, Trump's legal team branded the allegations 'disgusting at the highest level' and a 'hoax' clearly framed to 'solicit media attention or, perhaps... simply politically motivated'.
Clinton supporters had seized on the story as a possible knock out blow.
Then, last Wednesday, Katie Johnson suddenly cancelled a packed press conference at which she was set to reveal herself for the first time, saying she was 'too afraid' following a series of 'threats' against her.
On Friday, six months after legal papers were filed, the civil lawsuit was dramatically dropped.
Social media erupted with claims that the woman had been paid off by Trump or was so terrified by threats to her life from Trump supporters that she was forced to withdraw her claims.
But DailyMail.com has learned that the real reason the suit was dropped is because the claims were simply NOT true.
The woman first sued Trump and Jeffrey Epstein under the name Katie Johnson - a name we know not to be her real identity - on April 26 in California federal court and filed an amended complaint in New York federal court in October, claiming she was subject to rape, criminal sexual acts, assault, battery and false imprisonment.
The court papers offered no corroborative evidence that her claims were true.
News that the allegations were dropped dismayed Hillary supporters who had hoped the claims would be the knock out blow for Trump's election campaign - already rocked in recent weeks by a string of sex assault claims.
Thousands of loyal Hillary followers had opened a discussion about the rape claims on Twitter and other social media networks hoping to damage Trump's push for the White House.
The Huffington Post jumped on the bandwagon of anti-Trump sentiment after she made her claims, asking: 'Donald Trump Is Accused Of Raping A 13-Year-Old. Why Haven't The Media Covered It?'
Last edited:
Short rope, tall tree to anyone involved in this.
To argue this topic based on the letter following anyone's name is simply moronic.
To argue this topic based on the letter following anyone's name is simply moronic.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 12,056
- Reaction score
- 17,178
- Points
- 113
pFlogtard still 0-fer.
the smackdowns on the window licker continue
the smackdowns on the window licker continue
Why is that nonsense?
The NPR link you posted mentions the plaintiff in the Daily Mail story but makes no mention of the case being dropped, but rather delved into it.
It also mentions that that the 2019 interview does not implicate Trump.
Only the first interview, conducted July 24, 2019, is in the public database. That interview does not mention Trump.
Yes dropped a decade ago but the age of the documents in the Epstein files are irrelevant.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to pull here.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 14,294
- Reaction score
- 22,309
- Points
- 113
I'm pretty sure that you do, really.
Are we talking about the same 13 yr old discussed in the Daily Mail?
The same 13 yr old who said she made it all up?
The same case you yourself said was dropped a long time ago, but out of the other side of your mouth you’re saying she is a credible witness?
I admit I’m confused. Please clarify.
"you support pedophilia and pedos."
/Pedodyte, most ASSuredly
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 6,824
- Points
- 113
The three other interviews did mention Trump and those are the ones that are missing. Coincidence?
If you know that for a fact, then maybe you should contact NPR and fill them in.
The Justice Department declined to answer NPR's questions on the record about these specific files, what's in them and why they are not published.
The reason to DOJ did not answer:
After publication, the Justice Department reached out to NPR, taking issue with how its responses to questions were framed. Department of Justice spokeswoman Natalie Baldassarre reiterated DOJ's stance that any documents not published are privileged, are duplicates or relate to an ongoing federal investigation.
That article is nothing but speculation.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 6,824
- Points
- 113
Or the DOJ should just obey the law. You were for the release of the files before you were against it. What changed?
maybe try reading before making your mind up?
1. Privileged - see below
2. Duplicates - i'm sure even your smooth brain can figure that out
3. ongoing federal investigation - that is where you should hang your hat. remember, you were defending the Biden autopen assministration for "ongoing federal investigation" before you were against "ongoing federal investigation". what happened? orange you going to say?
