@quizzicalaxolotl.bsky.social
Yeah.... this is not a 'both sides' kind of thing. Even if the minor was entirely willing and tried to actively seduce Epstein..... he's still a criminal for entering into that relationship.
Because that's how it works.
Because that's how it works.
November 16, 2025 at 2:21 AM
Yeah.... this is not a 'both sides' kind of thing. Even if the minor was entirely willing and tried to actively seduce Epstein..... he's still a criminal for entering into that relationship.
Because that's how it works.
Because that's how it works.
I mean - I think the whole 'illegal' thing here is the adult involving himself with a minor.
You don't typically see a minor being tried for being involved with an adult. Do you?
You don't typically see a minor being tried for being involved with an adult. Do you?
November 16, 2025 at 2:20 AM
I mean - I think the whole 'illegal' thing here is the adult involving himself with a minor.
You don't typically see a minor being tried for being involved with an adult. Do you?
You don't typically see a minor being tried for being involved with an adult. Do you?
I'm confused as to how this is being presented as a new or original take?
Wasn't this one of the widely thought of reasons they weren't bothering to come to the table?
Wasn't this one of the widely thought of reasons they weren't bothering to come to the table?
November 16, 2025 at 2:13 AM
I'm confused as to how this is being presented as a new or original take?
Wasn't this one of the widely thought of reasons they weren't bothering to come to the table?
Wasn't this one of the widely thought of reasons they weren't bothering to come to the table?
I both believe the scenario where they were too intimidated to contradict him, even on something this dumb - and the scenario where they did sit him down and tell him, and that he has no memory of that conversation.
November 16, 2025 at 2:11 AM
I both believe the scenario where they were too intimidated to contradict him, even on something this dumb - and the scenario where they did sit him down and tell him, and that he has no memory of that conversation.
Wait.... he said 'groceries is an old fashioned word' again?
Like, this month?
Like, this month?
November 16, 2025 at 2:09 AM
Wait.... he said 'groceries is an old fashioned word' again?
Like, this month?
Like, this month?
That's crazy.
That's absolutely insane.
If only they would all just come out at once they could normalize it a bit in their growth-stunted social-circles
That's absolutely insane.
If only they would all just come out at once they could normalize it a bit in their growth-stunted social-circles
November 15, 2025 at 6:22 PM
That's crazy.
That's absolutely insane.
If only they would all just come out at once they could normalize it a bit in their growth-stunted social-circles
That's absolutely insane.
If only they would all just come out at once they could normalize it a bit in their growth-stunted social-circles
Was kinda surprised at how much attention that's getting.
Yeah. It's awful that the 'scandal' here is 'oh no he might have blown a consenting adult' and not 'all the underage girls'
I guess everyone is just used to the latter.
Yeah. It's awful that the 'scandal' here is 'oh no he might have blown a consenting adult' and not 'all the underage girls'
I guess everyone is just used to the latter.
November 15, 2025 at 6:21 PM
Was kinda surprised at how much attention that's getting.
Yeah. It's awful that the 'scandal' here is 'oh no he might have blown a consenting adult' and not 'all the underage girls'
I guess everyone is just used to the latter.
Yeah. It's awful that the 'scandal' here is 'oh no he might have blown a consenting adult' and not 'all the underage girls'
I guess everyone is just used to the latter.
Good lord.
'thank you mr president for your social media post. i'll take this bullshit seriously and not blink at the fact we're looking into your current world-famous scandal for -other- perpetrators. "
They're not even trying.
'thank you mr president for your social media post. i'll take this bullshit seriously and not blink at the fact we're looking into your current world-famous scandal for -other- perpetrators. "
They're not even trying.
November 15, 2025 at 7:05 AM
Good lord.
'thank you mr president for your social media post. i'll take this bullshit seriously and not blink at the fact we're looking into your current world-famous scandal for -other- perpetrators. "
They're not even trying.
'thank you mr president for your social media post. i'll take this bullshit seriously and not blink at the fact we're looking into your current world-famous scandal for -other- perpetrators. "
They're not even trying.
Better question, why don't -you?-
November 15, 2025 at 6:58 AM
Better question, why don't -you?-
And herein lies the part that maga doesn't quite seem to grasp.
Was Clinton guilty?
We don't feel any need to defend him. Prosecute if there's evidence.
Was Clinton guilty?
We don't feel any need to defend him. Prosecute if there's evidence.
November 15, 2025 at 6:58 AM
And herein lies the part that maga doesn't quite seem to grasp.
Was Clinton guilty?
We don't feel any need to defend him. Prosecute if there's evidence.
Was Clinton guilty?
We don't feel any need to defend him. Prosecute if there's evidence.
?
I dunno man. It seems 100% unimportant right now. Let's say he's somehow involved in the epstein thing. How does that affect the left at all?
I dunno man. It seems 100% unimportant right now. Let's say he's somehow involved in the epstein thing. How does that affect the left at all?
November 15, 2025 at 6:53 AM
?
I dunno man. It seems 100% unimportant right now. Let's say he's somehow involved in the epstein thing. How does that affect the left at all?
I dunno man. It seems 100% unimportant right now. Let's say he's somehow involved in the epstein thing. How does that affect the left at all?
This may be an over-simplification...
but if the redaction are literally just black bars placed over text, don't we know the number of characters that would fit underneath?
So while we'd be guessing at whatever name it might be - couldn't we tell if it -wasn't- Giuffre?
but if the redaction are literally just black bars placed over text, don't we know the number of characters that would fit underneath?
So while we'd be guessing at whatever name it might be - couldn't we tell if it -wasn't- Giuffre?
November 13, 2025 at 9:21 PM
This may be an over-simplification...
but if the redaction are literally just black bars placed over text, don't we know the number of characters that would fit underneath?
So while we'd be guessing at whatever name it might be - couldn't we tell if it -wasn't- Giuffre?
but if the redaction are literally just black bars placed over text, don't we know the number of characters that would fit underneath?
So while we'd be guessing at whatever name it might be - couldn't we tell if it -wasn't- Giuffre?
They absolutely don't say he did 'nothing wrong'.
They just don't directly say he was involved with the pedophilia.
But if we're trusting the emails, as we clearly are - then we also have to accept Trump knew about the pedophilia and did nothing.
They just don't directly say he was involved with the pedophilia.
But if we're trusting the emails, as we clearly are - then we also have to accept Trump knew about the pedophilia and did nothing.
November 13, 2025 at 9:17 PM
They absolutely don't say he did 'nothing wrong'.
They just don't directly say he was involved with the pedophilia.
But if we're trusting the emails, as we clearly are - then we also have to accept Trump knew about the pedophilia and did nothing.
They just don't directly say he was involved with the pedophilia.
But if we're trusting the emails, as we clearly are - then we also have to accept Trump knew about the pedophilia and did nothing.
Yes.
Because we already absolutely know they'd willingly screw with the counts to 'counteract the rampant voter fraud'.
You know - the fraud they still don't have evidence for. After almost a decade.
Because we already absolutely know they'd willingly screw with the counts to 'counteract the rampant voter fraud'.
You know - the fraud they still don't have evidence for. After almost a decade.
November 13, 2025 at 9:15 PM
Yes.
Because we already absolutely know they'd willingly screw with the counts to 'counteract the rampant voter fraud'.
You know - the fraud they still don't have evidence for. After almost a decade.
Because we already absolutely know they'd willingly screw with the counts to 'counteract the rampant voter fraud'.
You know - the fraud they still don't have evidence for. After almost a decade.
Oh.... I don't think he's capable of anything but 'nuh uh!' until the very end.
November 13, 2025 at 3:19 PM
Oh.... I don't think he's capable of anything but 'nuh uh!' until the very end.
I'm still about 50/50 on such a $500 bet.
But I can't believe I'm saying -that-
But I can't believe I'm saying -that-
November 13, 2025 at 3:17 PM
I'm still about 50/50 on such a $500 bet.
But I can't believe I'm saying -that-
But I can't believe I'm saying -that-
A clap in between each of those words.
Because this can't be overstated.
Because this can't be overstated.
November 13, 2025 at 3:15 PM
A clap in between each of those words.
Because this can't be overstated.
Because this can't be overstated.
Certainly.
As far as whether it's appropriate - I guess it -is- a situation though.
<munches popcorn>
As far as whether it's appropriate - I guess it -is- a situation though.
<munches popcorn>
November 13, 2025 at 3:14 PM
Certainly.
As far as whether it's appropriate - I guess it -is- a situation though.
<munches popcorn>
As far as whether it's appropriate - I guess it -is- a situation though.
<munches popcorn>
Well... that's a question that was not on my bingo card.
November 13, 2025 at 3:08 PM
Well... that's a question that was not on my bingo card.
Yeah :)
Sitting there wistfully thinking 'i bet Kim Jong never has to deal with this'
Sitting there wistfully thinking 'i bet Kim Jong never has to deal with this'
November 13, 2025 at 3:06 PM
Yeah :)
Sitting there wistfully thinking 'i bet Kim Jong never has to deal with this'
Sitting there wistfully thinking 'i bet Kim Jong never has to deal with this'
Sure.
But we can certainly raise the 'suspicion-o-meter' a few solid clicks given the sheer bulk of new material that -didn't- make it to the 'top-secret burn bag'
But we can certainly raise the 'suspicion-o-meter' a few solid clicks given the sheer bulk of new material that -didn't- make it to the 'top-secret burn bag'
November 13, 2025 at 6:45 AM
Sure.
But we can certainly raise the 'suspicion-o-meter' a few solid clicks given the sheer bulk of new material that -didn't- make it to the 'top-secret burn bag'
But we can certainly raise the 'suspicion-o-meter' a few solid clicks given the sheer bulk of new material that -didn't- make it to the 'top-secret burn bag'