Trump's Epstein note is Real

[User]

54 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

She said there was a threat. If she took it seriously, there would be no police report because then they'd just kill her. 

 

Of course, that wouldn't bother you either.

OK, some people on here said you might be a pedophile too, no? So... I guess by your standards, you think they are right and should be believed?

Your logic is absurdly dumb. If the threat was serious, you would actually report it to the authorities so they could be identified and stopped. 

How was the threat made? If electronic, these things can be traced, same with mail, or other methods. 

Hell, you still have no idea what the threat actually was. You have no idea. 

[Chrissy1979]

31 minutes ago, User said:

OK, some people on here said you might be a pedophile too, no? So... I guess by your standards, you think they are right and should be believed?

Your logic is absurdly dumb. If the threat was serious, you would actually report it to the authorities so they could be identified and stopped. 

How was the threat made? If electronic, these things can be traced, same with mail, or other methods. 

Hell, you still have no idea what the threat actually was. You have no idea. 

Neither do you. But you have made your conclusion already. I have no reason to doubt her story, but I haven't declared it to be true or false. The only thing I know for sure is you guys are lying when you say you know she's lying. And the fact that you would lie and disparage an alleged victim is low...even by your extremely low standards 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Chrissy1979 said:

Speaking of behavior that strongly suggests lying...there you go. Lol

LOL sorry kiddo, but that's normal rational thought. I can see why you didn't recognize it  

1 hour ago, Chrissy1979 said:

She said there was a threat. If she took it seriously, there would be no police report because then they'd just kill her. 

 

 

Oh but she WOULD just come out and talk about it in public right???? 

She's SOOO scared that she couldn't file a police report, but felt comfortable with public speaking and filing a private case which she then withdrew from. 🙄🙄🙄🙄

You have achieved peak stupid. 

[CdnFox]

23 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

 I have no reason to doubt her story,

You have EVERY reason to doubt her story. It was shown that this was all a put up job for media clicks, not a single drop of evidence was ever produced about any of it and she pulled her case not once but TWICE....  which indicates she wasn't afraid enough to file again so where were all these death threats then?

Again by that logic i have no reason to doubt you're a pedophile. 

For rational people you need proof, not a lack of proof, before you give weight to something.  And "i hate donald trump so i HOPE this is true" is not evidence. 

She's a liar, you're a liar.  Big shock   

Edited October 12, 2025 by CdnFox

[User]

1 hour ago, Chrissy1979 said:

Neither do you. But you have made your conclusion already. I have no reason to doubt her story, but I haven't declared it to be true or false. The only thing I know for sure is you guys are lying when you say you know she's lying. And the fact that you would lie and disparage an alleged victim is low...even by your extremely low standards 

Where did I say she was lying?

What about your victims?

[gatomontes99]

4 hours ago, Chrissy1979 said:

She said there was a threat. If she took it seriously, there would be no police report because then they'd just kill her. 

 

Of course, that wouldn't bother you either.

Your entire argument is that one statement means there is a grand conspiracy. We don't know if this threat was legitimate, perceived, imaginary or a lie. Yet, you have a multi-step, grand conspiracy concocted in your head with no supporting evidence. 

This is the perfect example of a leftist living in fantasy land. Everything in her argument is fabricated and believed because it fits a narrative that matches her feelings. 

[Chrissy1979]

16 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Your entire argument is that one statement means there is a grand conspiracy. We don't know if this threat was legitimate, perceived, imaginary or a lie. Yet, you have a multi-step, grand conspiracy concocted in your head with no supporting evidence. 

 

No, I have no conspiracy. I stopped at "We don't know if this threat was legitimate, perceived, imaginary or a lie."

You guys are the ones who decided she's a liar, even though you admit: "We don't know if this threat was legitimate, perceived, imaginary or a lie."

That's all I've called out: calling an alleged victim a liar, even though "We don't know if this threat was legitimate, perceived, imaginary or a lie."

[gatomontes99]

25 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

No, I have no conspiracy. I stopped at "We don't know if this threat was legitimate, perceived, imaginary or a lie."

You guys are the ones who decided she's a liar, even though you admit: "We don't know if this threat was legitimate, perceived, imaginary or a lie."

That's all I've called out: calling an alleged victim a liar, even though "We don't know if this threat was legitimate, perceived, imaginary or a lie."

You literally just said she wasn't filing a police report because she took it seriously. That must be some grand conspiracybthat they have spies in the police station and she'd be killed if she even stepped foot in the building. 

[Chrissy1979]

22 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

You literally just said she wasn't filing a police report because she took it seriously. That must be some grand conspiracybthat they have spies in the police station and she'd be killed if she even stepped foot in the building. 

I have no idea if she filed a police report or not. I was merely speculating why she might not have if she didn't.

Unlike you, I don't form conclusions based on nothing but a desire to defend Epstein and his associates.

[gatomontes99]

2 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

I have no idea if she filed a police report or not. I was merely speculating why she might not have if she didn't.

Unlike you, I don't form conclusions based on nothing but a desire to defend Epstein and his associates.

You understand you just came to a false conclusion right there? I used your words. You made up some grand conspiracy that I want to defend Epstein, even though you will never find me uttering any words that even remotely do that. I am the one running around saying we should lock them all up, R and D. 

In fact, your conclusion is based on nothing more than what you want to be true because it matches how you feel. There is no logical explanation for your conclusion. You dislike me and you dislike Epstein, so I must be his buddy, right? Is it possible you used the same feeling association method to determine Trump must be guilty?

[Chrissy1979]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

You understand you just came to a false conclusion right there? I used your words. You made up some grand conspiracy that I want to defend Epstein, even though you will never find me uttering any words that even remotely do that. I am the one running around saying we should lock them all up, R and D. 

In fact, your conclusion is based on nothing more than what you want to be true because it matches how you feel. There is no logical explanation for your conclusion. You dislike me and you dislike Epstein, so I must be his buddy, right? Is it possible you used the same feeling association method to determine Trump must be guilty?

You don't seem to know what a conspiracy is 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Chrissy1979 said:

No, I have no conspiracy. I stopped at "We don't know if this threat was legitimate, perceived, imaginary or a lie."

That's not accurate. You've said again and again and again that you believe it to be true. You did not say that it may or may not be true, if that's the case then you have to discount it and take it out of the equation because it's completely unverified

Hypochrissy strikes again

[Chrissy1979]

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's not accurate. You've said again and again and again that you believe it to be true. You did not say that it may or may not be true, if that's the case then you have to discount it and take it out of the equation because it's completely unverified

Hypochrissy strikes again

No, I never said that. I said you don't know she's lying. There's a difference, but I don't expect you to catch such things.

Just like when I said you had no evidence the Kirk shooter was a leftist. You then shrieked and called me a liar for saying he wasn't one. You have a chronic miscomprehension problem.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Chrissy1979 said:

No, I never said that.

You did.  You absolutely said you believed her.  Word for word.

Oh dear, are you having to go back and rewrite what you said yet again because you realize it makes you look ridiculous? It must be so hard being you. I just tell the truth so I don't have to work at it at all

Quote

I said you don't know she's lying. There's a difference, but I don't expect you to catch such things.

That is not what you said, you said that you believed her. What I said was based on the balance of probabilities which is a legitimate legal bar of proof it's fairly obvious she lied.

Quote

Just like when I said you had no evidence the Kirk shooter was a leftist. You then shrieked and called me a liar for saying he wasn't one. You have a chronic miscomprehension problem.

 Now you insisted that he was a right winger and explained why you thought that way. You tried to sell that notion as hard as you could until finally you had to give up when hilariously it turned out that not only was he a leftist but was dating a transsexual at the time   LOL   That was pretty funny  

There is a significant body of evidence to suggest that she lied. You absolutely 100% directly said you believed her.

But if you're conceding now that there's no reason to believe her then fair enough, let's move forward with that. There is no reason to believe there was any threat. We're in agreement. So all that leaves us with is she recanted her claims twice.

[Chrissy1979]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You did.  You absolutely said you believed her.  Word for word.

Oh dear, are you having to go back and rewrite what you said yet again because you realize it makes you look ridiculous? It must be so hard being you. I just tell the truth so I don't have to work at it at all

That is not what you said, you said that you believed her. What I said was based on the balance of probabilities which is a legitimate legal bar of proof it's fairly obvious she lied.

 Now you insisted that he was a right winger and explained why you thought that way. You tried to sell that notion as hard as you could until finally you had to give up when hilariously it turned out that not only was he a leftist but was dating a transsexual at the time   LOL   That was pretty funny  

There is a significant body of evidence to suggest that she lied. You absolutely 100% directly said you believed her.

But if you're conceding now that there's no reason to believe her then fair enough, let's move forward with that. There is no reason to believe there was any threat. We're in agreement. So all that leaves us with is she recanted her claims twice.

I said I have no reason not to believe her. That means she could be lying (I don't know), but neither of us have any evidence she is. You say an alleged lack of a police report is evidence she's lying. One could also just as easily say the lack of a defamation suit from the notoriously litigious Trump is evidence he's guilty.  

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Chrissy1979 said:

I said I have no reason not to believe her.

You have said that as well but you also definitely said you believe her. Claiming you had no reason not to was your justification for believing her.

And no, you can't file a defamation suit against somebody for filing a lawsuit.

Especially seeing as she retracted her claims. Besides which, what the hell are you going to sue us 14-year-old for, her Barbie collection?

And it's interesting that this 14-year-old's parents never piped up during this whole time to talk about the threats to the family despite the fact the kid was talking about it publicly.

The whole thing is such an obvious put up job it isn't funny it's not a legitimate accusation

[Chrissy1979]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

You have said that as well but you also definitely said you believe her. Claiming you had no reason not to was your justification for believing her.

And no, you can't file a defamation suit against somebody for filing a lawsuit.

Especially seeing as she retracted her claims. Besides which, what the hell are you going to sue us 14-year-old for, her Barbie collection?

And it's interesting that this 14-year-old's parents never piped up during this whole time to talk about the threats to the family despite the fact the kid was talking about it publicly.

The whole thing is such an obvious put up job it isn't funny it's not a legitimate accusation

But you can file a defamation suit against someone for making false statements against their character. That's what a defamation suit always means. But initiating the suit would require disclosure to find out if it's really defamation. Can't have that, can you? Lol

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Chrissy1979 said:

But you can file a defamation suit against someone for making false statements against their character.

Not if it's a court case.

I see your legal acumen is as strong as your sense of honesty    

 

[Nationalist]

7 hours ago, Chrissy1979 said:

Unlike you, I don't form conclusions based on nothing but a desire to defend Epstein and his associates.

Well this is just pure bullshit.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Well this is just pure bullshit.

Almost pure, but in order to save costs now that she's been defunded by the democrats she's mixing in a little horse shit and bat shit to save money.  Also, now it's enriched with frauduline!!!