Trump COVER UP of DARK PAST BACKFIRES…GOP PANICS!!

[robosmith]

13 hours ago, West said:

 

 

Your tweets are NEVER EVIDENCE. Cite the Congressional record IF YOU CAN. LMAO

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

@robosmith

Tweenkie-Poo...Virginia Giuffre has testified that Trump was never involved.

You mean in HER BOOK? Her having no knowledge is NOT EVIDENCE of a NEGATIVE. Duh

Epstein's EMAIL says Trump spent many hours at HIS HOUSE with one of the victims. Duh

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

So the best you whiney little biatches can say is that it "appears" that Trump knew about Epstein's fixation on young girls, but said nothing.

Epstein's email also says ^this.

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Too bad, so sad. You've struck out yet again.

You're so desperate you don't even understand you've posted LOGICAL ERRORS.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Venandi said:

And the fact that they talked at some length at Epstein's place isn't terribly surprising to me. He knew her because she worked for him briefly and the only reason he even hired her was because she was the daughter of the maintenance man he employed at Mar a Lago.

At first I thought dumping all of the information into the public domain was a bad idea because it tended to tarnish far too many innocent people and victims alike, placing all of them under a spotlight in the public domain that they didn't deserve to wither under. I was prepared to trust the DOJ (of any administration) to investigate and bring charges where appropriate as opposed to tarring and feathering all and sundry.

I didn't anticipate the level of the self serving cherry picking that would take place though and I've had a change of heart because of it. I now say dump it all, let the chips scatter as they will and let the great axe fall where the offence lays.

Democrats may find themselves suddenly defanged and more on the defensive about "their guy(s)" than they anticipated.

So... up to now I considered the contents to be a criminal matter as opposed to a political one and thought it reasonable to protect the innocent from scrutiny and abuse. I now think Robo deserves to wear the consequences of the very data dump he longs for and in response to his selective snippets of self serving appetizers served out of context I'm now in favour of stuffing the entire menu up his left nostril and passing out Gravol to anyone inclined to vomit. 

No current Democratic Officials care about protecting PAST pedophiles in the Democratic Party. Let them FRY.

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

You mean in HER BOOK? Her having no knowledge is NOT EVIDENCE of a NEGATIVE. Duh

Epstein's EMAIL says Trump spent many hours at HIS HOUSE with one of the victims. Duh

Epstein's email also says ^this.

You're so desperate you don't even understand you've posted LOGICAL ERRORS.

No Sally. YOU'RE desperate and look like a complete goof pushing this garbola.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I agree but, we have to anticipate that very little real "evidence" will ever come to light. I believe the reason for that is, those involved with Epstein were very powerful people and would obviously kill to keep their names out of the fray.

What robo "deserves" is an award for the nerve to act like a child and embarrass himself over and over. If anyone should be nervous about anything that might be revealed by exposing all the info in these "supposed" damning documents, it would be those who buy loads of arms and don't really want the sun to shine on said purchases. People like...oh just off the top o' my head...Netanyahu and his government? The Saudis? Iran?

Peace in the Middle East is indeed...a messy business.

You are the one who has embarrassed yourself and you don't even understand HOW. LMAO

54 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

You got a source for ^this?

[robosmith]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

No Sally. YOU'RE desperate and look like a complete goof pushing this garbola.

^STILL doesn't understand "LOGICAL ERROR." LMAO

[Nationalist]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You are the one who has embarrassed yourself and you don't even understand HOW. LMAO

You got a source for ^this?

No...and I'd bet your source is rather questionable.

Let's see it. Oh wait...it's Chrissy-Baby. Got it.

Edited November 13, 2025 by Nationalist

[Legato]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

^STILL doesn't understand "LOGICAL ERROR." LMAO

What has a vending machine that produces soda when coffee is selected to do with pushing garbage.

[robosmith]

Just now, Nationalist said:

No...and I'd bet your source is rather questionable.

Let's see it.

It's NOT MY POST, lDIOT. LMAO

1 minute ago, Legato said:

What has a vending machine that produces soda when coffee is selected to do with pushing garbage.

You're the expert on pushing ^garbage.

[Legato]

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

It's NOT MY POST, lDIOT. LMAO

You're the expert on pushing ^garbage.

Then you have no clue about logical errors. Your echo chamber definition has been basterdised.

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, Legato said:

Then you have no clue about logical errors. Your echo chamber definition has been basterdised.

WRONG. It IS ILLOGICAL for ANYONE to state that lack of knowledge is proof of non-existence.

Quote

The statement is correct because it's a logical fallacy to claim non-existence based on a lack of knowledge or evidence. This is known as an argument from ignorance, or a variation of the saying "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". The absence of evidence for something does not automatically prove that it does not exist; it only means that its existence has not been proven yet. 

• It's a logical fallacy: Claiming something is false because it hasn't been proven true is an illogical leap in reasoning. The same applies to the reverse: claiming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.
• It ignores possibility: A lack of knowledge or evidence only proves ignorance of something's existence, not its non-existence. It is possible that something exists, but we simply lack the means to find or confirm its presence.
• Example: If you don't see a stone after a window is broken, it's reasonable to conclude that a stone wasn't thrown through it. However, this is based on a logical expectation: if a stone had been thrown, there would be a stone present. This is different from claiming a person doesn't exist because you don't know them, as there is no expectation for a person to be in your vicinity simply because you exist. 

 

[Legato]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

WRONG. It IS ILLOGICAL for ANYONE to state that lack of knowledge is proof of non-existence.

 

Which has not been proven yet.

[Nationalist]

33 minutes ago, Legato said:

Which has not been proven yet.

Except to robo and Chrissy-Baby...

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

You mean in HER BOOK? Her having no knowledge is NOT EVIDENCE of a NEGATIVE. Duh

Epstein's EMAIL says Trump spent many hours at HIS HOUSE with one of the victims. Duh

And you fell for it:

 

 

[robosmith]

26 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Except to robo and Chrissy-Baby...

You're the one who's claimed that Trump's NON-INVOLVEMENT has been proven by LACK of KNOWLEDGE. LMAO

[gatomontes99]

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

You're the one who's claimed that Trump's NON-INVOLVEMENT has been proven by LACK of KNOWLEDGE. LMAO

So you are going to ignore that the redacted email you quoted was actually from the woman that said Trump had no involvement? 

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Except to robo and Chrissy-Baby...

Thanks for proving you STILL don't understand your own CLAIMS are ILLOGICAL even after it was explained to you. LMAO.

[User]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

WRONG. It IS ILLOGICAL for ANYONE to state that lack of knowledge is proof of non-existence.

Exactly! This is why Unicorns and Bigfoot clearly exist. 

 

[Down East]

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

Thanks for proving you STILL don't understand your own CLAIMS are ILLOGICAL even after it was explained to you. LMAO.

You do understand that the last administration had all the same information that the current one has........right?

Do you really believe that Biden's DOJ held onto it for any moral purpose?

Do you really believe that the Democrat controlled DOJ wouldn't have used any bit of impropriety as a sledge hammer against Trump?

[robosmith]

13 hours ago, Down East said:

You do understand that the last administration had all the same information that the current one has........right?

Almost all the recent Epstein Files were held by SDNY.

Just cause ANYONE in authority COULD have examined "the same information," does not mean they did and "had all."

What is your point?

 

13 hours ago, Down East said:

Do you really believe that Biden's DOJ held onto it for any moral purpose?

I don't "believe" anything without EVIDENCE. Seems you HAVE NONE.

13 hours ago, Down East said:

Do you really believe that the Democrat controlled DOJ wouldn't have used any bit of impropriety as a sledge hammer against Trump?

What I believe is that there MAY BE Democrats or their benefactors who would have been harmed by a thorough investigation.

And that Trump et al were FOOLS to promote the ISSUE which will now come back to BITE HIM IN THE ASS.