Really? Trump divorces himself from Epstein 20 years earlier and you find that what? Criminal? Immoral? Objectionable? But the democrats were friendly with Epstein AFTER his conviction for things and that includes the Clintons and Plaskett so far.Awesome. NOW this thread shows its true intent.
You have no morals, no character, no conscience, and no platform to stand on. At least a bot has a standard. Originally Posted by Schwarzer Ritter
Just calling balls and strikes.....but where is that explanation I'm waiting for? Originally Posted by Schwarzer Ritter
Its inexplicable: Obama and Biden had the Epstein files for yearsAcosta was a Florida government officer with a thin connection to Trump when the deal was made. What does that have to do with Trump? Like several sources admitting now, Biden, let me repeat, BIDEN did not release the files and the democrats did not demand their release...until Trump was in office. No, this is a democrat web of intrigue. Imagine that Kameltoe won, would we see any of this?
I’m not sure of the history here. Bush and Obama and Biden were president during the time Epstein was investigated prosecuted and convicted. But then again so was Trump.
The crimes occurred during Bush’s presidency. The deal that Epstein got occurred in 2007. The prosecutor Acosta that gave him the deal is a long time republican who served under Trump as Secretary of Labor.
This only became a thing because Trump, when asked, told the press that he was going to release the Epstein documents and then changed his mind.
This is a mess of Trump’s own making and has nothing to do with Obama or Biden. Originally Posted by txdot-guy
Just calling balls and strikes.... Originally Posted by Schwarzer RitterRight! Good for you! You have a Troll thread to maintain and this kind of "ball and strike calling" will ensure that it remains true to its real intent:
You have no morals, no character, no conscience, and no platform to stand on. At least a bot has a standard. Originally Posted by Schwarzer Ritter
Acosta was a Florida government officer with a thin connection to Trump when the deal was made. What does that have to do with Trump?.... Originally Posted by Schwarzer RitterNone whatsoever. I mean, other than his fealty ended up getting him into Trump's cabinet as Secretary of Labor. But I'm sure it was solely due to meritocracy. Nothing to see here! Well...except that he was forced to resign. But really, none of that is significant. Please, this isn't why we are here! Let's get back to the TROLLING!
I think folks need to know what it means with so many thread using the word:It's why I ain't trying, for sure!
inexplicable adjective
in·ex·pli·ca·ble ˌi-nik-ˈspli-kə-bəl
: incapable of being explained, interpreted, or accounted for
: unable to be explained or understood Originally Posted by CG2014