If Trump was implicated in wrongdoing in the Epstein files, how come Obama or Biden never exposed them?

[QP!]

wrongdoing ​

how come Obama or Biden never had the Epstein Files investigated or exposed?

- Because it was clear many powerful men from both political parties, including Clinton and key donors were implicated in them and whether that lead to criminal charges or not, it could end up looking for worse for the dem party then the GOP or Trump, based on what might be found and exposed. It was a hornets nest nobody wanted to kick.

^ Easy answer. Thread dead and stupid.

 

[Diogenes]

how come Obama or Biden never had the Epstein Files investigated or exposed? - Because it was clear many powerful men from both political parties, including Clinton and key donors were implicated in them and whether that lead to criminal charges or not, it could end up looking for worse for the dem party then the GOP or Trump, based on what might be found and exposed. It was a hornets nest nobody wanted to kick. Easy answer.

Who told you that?

Thread dead and stupid.

So you keep saying.

 

[QP!]

Who told you that?



So you keep saying.

Read this statement again as you are stuck on stupid...

"... Because it was clear many powerful men from both political parties, including Clinton and key donors were implicated in them and whether that lead to criminal charges or not, it could end up looking for worse for the dem party then the GOP or Trump, based on what might be found and exposed. It was a hornets nest nobody wanted to kick. Easy answer...."

^^^ No one tells you that. That is a conclusion drawn from the facts and PROVEN out now as all sorts of powerful rich men, implicated in the files are losing powerful jobs, and facing criminal investigations, who are not named Trump.

You keep wanting to know how we know opening these files could lead to blow back on people not named Trump including Dems while not recognizing that is EXACTLY what is happening now with Bill Gates, Larry Summers, Prince Andrews and many more.

So why did Obama and Biden not open this up not knowing who the blow back would hit worse. ...

^ that question answers itself to anyone not stupid.

 

[Diogenes]

That is a conclusion drawn from the facts and PROVEN out now as all sorts of powerful rich men, implicated in the files are losing powerful jobs, and facing criminal investigations, who are not named Trump.

Isn't there another word for a conclusion drawn from the "facts" ( as yet not presented)?

 

[QP!]

Isn't there another word for a conclusion drawn from the "facts" ( as yet not presented)?

yes 'correct' is that word.

The conclusions have been PROVEN out as this investigation of the Epstein files lead to exactly what i said. Many powerful men and donors implicated and now paying a price, some even facing criminal investigations. Clinton amongst those being implicated and looked into as well as Trump.

So EXACTLY what i said. Obama and Biden and all the prior POTUS, knew this case would implicate powerful people across the spectrum and no one knew who would the look the worst coming out of it by the time things were all exposed.

 

[Diogenes]

yes 'correct' is that word.

Is that a fact?

The conclusions have been PROVEN out as this investigation of the Epstein files lead to exactly what i said.

So you say. By whom?

Many powerful men and donors implicated and now paying a price, some even facing criminal investigations. Clinton amongst those being implicated and looked into as well as Trump.

Is that so?

So EXACTLY what i said. Obama and Biden and all the prior POTUS, knew this case would implicate powerful people across the spectrum and no one knew who would the look the worst coming out of it by the time things were all exposed.

Argument by repetition?

 

[QP!]

Is that a fact?



So you say. By whom?



Is that so?



Argument by repetition?

Yes the repetition is correct, unlike yours that is wrong.

The "whom" is the ones who ended up the subject of this Congress investigation. Google for yourself what is happening to Prince Andrew, Bill Gates, Larry Summers and many others, including criminal investigations now opening.

I know you only read magat media so you are not aware of any of this, but the consequences are starting just as i said and they are not just partisans getting implicated.

 

[Diogenes]

If you do not vote that means you can be presumed to have tacitly acknowledged that Trump was never implicated in wrongdoing in the Epstein files.

 

[Diogenes]

Yes the repetition is correct, unlike yours that is wrong.

Think so?

The "whom" is the ones who ended up the subject of this Congress investigation. Google for yourself what is happening to Prince Andrew, Bill Gates, Larry Summers and many others, including criminal investigations now opening.

You made the claim. If you cannot back it up, I understand completely.

I know you only read magat media so you are not aware of any of this, but the consequences are starting just as i said and they are not just partisans getting implicated.

How would you know what I read?

 

[QP!]

Think so?



You made the claim. If you cannot back it up, I understand completely.



How would you know what I read?

i did back it up. I mentioned Gates, Summers and Prince Andrew amongst others.

I know what you read as you are unaware what is happening with any of them and you need proof anyone but Epstein has been implicated.

 

[Diogenes]

i did back it up. I mentioned Gates, Summers and Prince Andrew amongst others.

You think mentioning someone proves your premise?

I know what you read as you are unaware what is happening with any of them and you need proof anyone but Epstein has been implicated.

Is that so? Please explain how you allegedly "know" what I read.

The burden of proof lies with the claimant. Got any?

 

[QP!]

You think mentioning someone proves your premise?



Is that so? Please explain how you allegedly "know" what I read.

The burden of proof lies with the claimant. Got any?

yes.

If you ask 'was anyone implicated in the bank robbery' and i mention 'your neighbour was implicated and i name him', that proves my premise.

Be less stupid.

I know what you did not read as you did know Bill Gates, CLinton, Larry Summers and others were implicated.

I do not have to prove that to you any more than if i said 'Trump was impeached in his 1st term' and you denied it i would have to prove that to you.

At a certain point with OBVIOUS FACTS the burden on proof to get off magat media and read something more is on. This one, being public and in the news right now, and you not knowing about any of it and thus denying it, is on you.

 

[Diogenes]

If you ask 'was anyone implicated in the bank robbery' and i mention 'your neighbour was implicated and i name him', that proves my premise.

You keep omitting the qualifying term "wrongdoing", which is in the thread title.

I know what you did not read as you did know Bill Gates, CLinton, Larry Summers and others were implicated.

Is that so?

I do not have to prove that to you.

Not unless you want to persuade me.

At a certain point with OBVIOUS FACTS the burden on proof to get off magat media and read something more is on. This one, being public and in the news right now, and you not knowing about any of it and thus denying it, is on you.

How are your speculative opinions "obvious facts" without verifiable corroboration?

Naturally, I'll understand if you refuse to answer the question I asked.

 

[QP!]

You keep omitting the qualifying term "wrongdoing", which is in the thread title.




Is that so?



Not unless you want to persuade me.



How are your speculative opinions "obvious facts" without verifiable corroboration?

Naturally, I'll understand if you refuse to answer the question I asked.

'wrongdoing' changes nothing. Everything i said applies with that word.

Obama and Biden would have no clue if that 'wrongdoing implications' would stop at Trump or be worst for Trump or Clinton or any of their rich donors. Nothing changes. Same consideration that opening an investigation to look for 'Trump wrong doing with Epstein' could implicate Dems and donors worse.

And it is not my job to persuade an idiot of obvious facts on nightly news that you will see if you stop only reading magat media. If you want to deny Trump was impeached or that powerful people are ALREADY getting consequences and blow back for the implications from the Epstein files being opened, that is on you.

 

[Diogenes]

'wrongdoing' changes nothing.

Does it not? Then why do you keep omitting it?

Obama and Biden would have no clue if that 'wrongdoing implications' would stop at Trump or be worst for Trump or Clinton or any of their rich donors. Nothing changes. Same consideration that opening an investigation to look for 'Trump wrong doing with Epstein' could implicate Dems and donors worse.

Could. Or, maybe not.

And it is not my job to persuade an idiot of obvious facts on nightly news that you will see if you stop only reading magat media.

It's the job of the one making a claim to prove the claim. That would be Y O U in this case.

If you want to deny Trump was impeached or that powerful people are ALREADY getting consequences and blow back for the implications from the Epstein files being opened, that is on you.

Irrelevant.

 

[QP!]

Does it not? Then why do you keep omitting it?

Duh, because it is a meaningless word in the sentence that changes nothing so why would i include it when it is redundant?

None of the facts or statements i have put out change with that word in. NOT ONE.

 

[Diogenes]

Duh, because it is a meaningless word in the sentence that changes nothing so why would i include it when it is redundant?

Meaningless? I'm not sure you understand what "redundant means.

None of the facts or statements i have put out change with that word in. NOT ONE.

Prove your claims, then. I'll wait.

 

[QP!]

Meaningless? I'm not sure you understand what "redundant means.




Prove your claims, then. I'll wait.

Yes meaningless as it changes nothing thus in or out it does not matter to my points.

You are not sure about most things, thus why Trump calls you the 'Poorly Educated' that he loves.

You can wait. I am not proving to you that Trump was impeached or that Bill Gates, Larry Summers, Prince Andrew and others are facing consequences as a result of the implications. You can keep denying it, even as the rest of us see it in real time.

You are the one who looks stupid denying it when it is currently in the news and if you were off magat media you would see it.

 

[Diogenes]

Yes meaningless as it changes nothing thus in or out it does not matter to my points.

So you say. Very convenient, isn't it?

You are not sure about most things, thus why Trump calls you the 'Poorly Educated' that he loves.

Another baseless generality?

You can wait. I am not proving to you that Trump was impeached or that Bill Gates, Larry Summers, Prince Andrew and others are facing consequences as a result of the implications. You can keep denying it, even as the rest of us see it in real time.

Nobody asked you to prove that "Trump was impeached or that Bill Gates, Larry Summers, Prince Andrew and others are facing consequences as a result of the implications", did they?

You are the one who looks stupid denying it when it is currently in the news and if you were off magat media you would see it.

If that's so, post some links that prove your claim. Do I need to remind you want your claim was? Here it is:

The rich powerful donors who were in the Epstein files were desired by both parties which was why no DoJ since GWB.Sr wanted to touch those files. There was no partisan gains to be made as both houses would be burned.

 

[QP!]

So you say. Very convenient, isn't it?



Another baseless generality?



Nobody asked you to prove that "Trump was impeached or that Bill Gates, Larry Summers, Prince Andrew and others are facing consequences as a result of the implications", did they?



If that's so, post some links that prove your claim. Do I need to remind you want your claim was? Here it is:

Not conveniant. Factual.

You are denying Larry Summers, Prince Andrew and Bill Gates and others are facing any consequences for the implications they face from the Epstein files.

You are then demanding i educate you on it while refusing to educate yourself on what is CURRENT news. The proof of both houses being at risk of being burned down is that CURRENTLY those facing consequences are not on any one side of the partisan lines. My point is proven.

Sorry but you refusing to take responsibility for yourself and get off magat media and thus not seeing current news is on you.