dogcows Posted May 5 Posted May 5 Ok then get rid of him AND Trump. Anybody pretending to care about the Epstein files while still supporting the man featured in them the most is just plain full of . Quote
seafoam1 Posted May 5 Posted May 5 14 minutes ago, dogcows said: Ok then get rid of him AND Trump. Anybody pretending to care about the Epstein files while still supporting the man featured in them the most is just plain full of . Here comes the TDS. Can't avoid it with libtards around.. Quote
seafoam1 Posted May 5 Posted May 5 2 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said: Pedo Chuck Liberals love him. Quote
Maximum Overkill Posted May 5 Author Posted May 5 7 minutes ago, seafoam1 said: Liberals love him. The Pedo Party Quote
SaintsInDome2006 Posted May 5 Posted May 5 <<<Federal Election Commission records show that Schumer received seven $1,000 donations from Epstein between 1992 and 1997, first as a US congressman from New York and then when he was vying to be the state’s senator in 1998, an election he won.>>> 2019 NYP Quote
kilroy69 Posted May 6 Posted May 6 I bet you that Epstein funneled so much money to so many politicians from both sides. I have said this before. I think that Epstein took over for Heidi Fleiss. Not in a direct exchange but in a vacuum he was who provided what the rich and famous wanted. There is someone RIGHT NOW that learned from Epstein's mistake and is now set up in a non extradition country, probably in Africa or a cruise ship that never stops. Quote
Tree of Knowledge Posted May 6 Posted May 6 2 hours ago, Maximum Overkill said: It’s a Hebrew thing. 1 Quote
SaintsInDome2006 Posted May 6 Posted May 6 11 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said: It’s a Hebrew thing. Huh, like Trump’s daughter & son in law? There’d been rumors about Ivanka. Quote
Tree of Knowledge Posted May 6 Posted May 6 31 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said: Huh, like Trump’s daughter & son in law? There’d been rumors about Ivanka. Trump! 24/7/365. 1 Quote
SaintsInDome2006 Posted May 6 Posted May 6 11 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said: Trump! 24/7/365. Lol, cmon, it’s Epstein, they go together like Rodgers & Hammerstein, like ham & rye, like Leopold & Loeb, like Melanija & Zampolli, like… Quote
Tree of Knowledge Posted May 6 Posted May 6 1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said: Lol, cmon, it’s Epstein, they go together like Rodgers & Hammerstein, like ham & rye, like Leopold & Loeb, like Melanija & Zampolli, like… More like Batman & The Joker, Ness & Capone, Sherlock Holmes & Moriarty, Wyatt Earp & The Clantons. It was Father Trump that brought Epstein down. Let’s never forget that and Trump has been fully exonerated from any wrongdoing. 2 Quote
SaintsInDome2006 Posted May 6 Posted May 6 3 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said: More like Batman & The Joker, Ness & Capone, Sherlock Holmes & Moriarty, Wyatt Earp & The Clantons. It was Father Trump that brought Epstein down. Let’s never forget that and Trump has been fully exonerated from any wrongdoing. Lol. I’m guessing the term he actually asked them to use was ‘daddy’. Quote
cyclone24 Posted May 6 Posted May 6 Lol they dont care. We could post liberals all day that were VERIFIED there (unlike trump) and they wont care. they dont care past getting trump which is why yiu see a correlation between how much they still care and them FINALLY realizing its not going to happen. everyone else on the list? They have no interest. Absolutely bizarre how they act with this list Quote
SaintsInDome2006 Posted May 6 Posted May 6 4 minutes ago, cyclone24 said: Lol they dont care. We could post liberals all day that were VERIFIED there (unlike trump) and they wont care. they dont care past getting trump which is why yiu see a correlation between how much they still care and them FINALLY realizing its not going to happen. everyone else on the list? They have no interest. Absolutely bizarre how they act with this list I care about this stuff. Let’s talk about it. The donations were between 1992 & 1997. Should Schumer be confronted about it? Quote
cyclone24 Posted May 6 Posted May 6 15 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said: I care about this stuff. Let’s talk about it. The donations were between 1992 & 1997. Should Schumer be confronted about it? I guess what im saying is especially with all we have going on from both sides today…we want to dig into chuck from 35 years ago? Not sure i see that dog hunting so to speak. Its all just really really hard to prove. 1 Quote
dogcows Posted May 6 Posted May 6 26 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said: I care about this stuff. Let’s talk about it. The donations were between 1992 & 1997. Should Schumer be confronted about it? So the tweet that opened this thread was a blatant lie. It claimed the donations were after Epstein’s convictions. Seems like 99% of the threads started by Max Overdose are just plain disinformation. Quote
Hardcore troubadour Posted May 6 Posted May 6 6 minutes ago, dogcows said: So the tweet that opened this thread was a blatant lie. It claimed the donations were after Epstein’s convictions. Seems like 99% of the threads started by Max Overdose are just plain disinformation. Good point DC. And now that you have pointed that out, we can all go forward with the thought that anyone involved with Epstein should be judged if they had been with pre and post Epstein conviction being the line of culpability. Glad we cleared that up. Quote
SaintsInDome2006 Posted May 6 Posted May 6 23 minutes ago, dogcows said: So the tweet that opened this thread was a blatant lie. It claimed the donations were after Epstein’s convictions. Seems like 99% of the threads started by Max Overdose are just plain disinformation. Correct. Schumer hadn’t gotten a JE donation for a good 9-10 years before his conviction. Quote
SaintsInDome2006 Posted May 6 Posted May 6 17 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: Good point DC. And now that you have pointed that out, we can all go forward with the thought that anyone involved with Epstein should be judged if they had been with pre and post Epstein conviction being the line of culpability. Glad we cleared that up. IMO you should. After the conviction there was no excuse for people with resources. Before conviction or publicity of JE’s crimes it needs to be gaged based on how close people were to him. Quote
seafoam1 Posted May 6 Posted May 6 24 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said: IMO you should. After the conviction there was no excuse for people with resources. Before conviction or publicity of JE’s crimes it needs to be gaged based on how close people were to him. Yeah, and if one of your siblings commits murder, since you know them, you should serve time for murder too. That makes perfect sense, right? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.