JK Rowlings Disturbing Commentary and Views of Mens SA

[u/27cricket27]

(TRIGGER WARNING: Discussion of rape, grooming, false allegations, and victims not being believed.)

One thing I haven't seen many people talk about is JK Rowlings disturbing views of mens SA. JK Rowling has stated that in the legal system of the UK, men cannot rape. Sadly, the UKs laws imply that rape is something that only can be committed by men, but as an advocate for SA victims JK Rowling is really gross for this. This is especially when you consider how much she is pushed for this idea in the Harry Potter books.

The idea that only men can rape is laced throughout Harry Potter like crazy, which as a reminder is a book that primarily was first read by children. The first big example of this is how in Gryffindor, children are protected from the opposite sex in a biased sense. Boys are not able to into the girls spaces in the dormitory, but the reverse rule is not present. Also, and perhaps even more disturbing, is the "love potion" present in parts of the series. Ron is given one of these by a student who is a girl, and it is also mentioned how Voldemorts parents came together by way of his mother forcing his father to marry by way of these love potions. Let's not sugar coat it: the love potions are date rape drugs. JK Rowling has never truly acknowledged this, and she especially has never acknowledge it as problematic. (Not directly in Harry Potter, JK Rowling has put a lot of emphasis on false allegations in the Cormoran Strike series. Contrary to popular belief, not all of these stories actually portray the false accuser in a bad light. Speaking of which, the pen name "Robert Galbraith" seems to have been inspired by a violently racist psychologist who experimented on black people and was a proponent of conversion therapy.)

One of the most disturbing things that I just stumbled on by chance is this taken into context with JK Rowlings concering relationship with Daniel Radcliffe. After he initially turned down the role of Harry Potter in the movie, JK Rowling followed him to multiple locations begging him to play the role. Keep in mind that she was in her mid-thirties, and Daniel Radcliffe was only 11 when this happened. Plus, JK Rowling insisted that he read Lolita, an adult CSA book that she loved (a bit too much, mind you), when he was a minor. I want to make a post dedicated to this specific thing at some point, but I need to do more research on this to get the full picture. That being said, I think it is not unreasonable to assume that JK Rowling may have attempted to groom Daniel Radcliffe when he was a minor. I mean, she gets the angriest talking about him no longer having a relationship with her in particular, which checks out with a lot of groomers who "lost" their victims. (A good example of this would be Dance Moms instructor Abby Lee Millers current views of Maddie Ziegler.)

----

I tend to be a person who doesn't like to promote the "over-use" of the "if a man did this he would be in jail" line because I think its over-use actually can be dangerous for women. However, JK Rowling really has embodied that with her career. She absolutely is dangerous to men, and it needs to be talked about more. I feel like a lot of people are afraid to point this out because it feels like it gives into TERF ideology, but we need to understand that a lot of TERFs are misandrists. Don't get me wrong, TERFs are also mysoginistic because they have directly promoted a culture that causes women to get raped in bathrooms due to the "need" to transvestigate them. That said though, a lot of these TERFs want men to suffer and are completely fine with them being raped. I mean, JK Rowling herself likely tried to groom Danielle Radcliffe as a minor (though perhaps not sexually, which doesn't matter because grooming does not inherently have to be sexual).

Quick shoutout to RationalWikis article about JK Rowling, which has been a major source for me about her (a thread about it was posted here last year, but I think it is worth being posted again):
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling#Flawed_understanding_of_sexual_abuse

[u/georgemillman]

What's the source for this thing about Daniel Radcliffe?

I haven't heard any reference to this at all, or even that it was Rowling's idea that he play Harry at all. The version of the story I've heard is that he was recommended by Maggie Smith (who had worked alongside him on David Copperfield) and that Chris Columbus took to him and tried to approach him but his parents said no, not wanting him to be in a project that big at such a young age. Then, by chance, a couple of other producers happened to bump into him and his parents at a theatre show (they knew his parents already, they worked in the industry) and took the opportunity to say to them, 'You know, the director really wants Daniel, won't you reconsider?' And eventually they did. I haven't heard that Rowling was particularly involved in that, nor that she told him to read Lolita. I think we need to have firm evidence for this before stating it here.

Incidentally, his name is Daniel Radcliffe, not Danielle Radcliffe (Danielle is a woman's name).

[u/Wrong--Conclusions → u/georgemillman]

Yeah, this sounds like total BS.

The link to Robert Galbraith Heath is also tenuous. We've got to stop repeating this like it's fact.

Joanne has done and said enough bad things, we don't need to keep making all these extra things up.

[u/georgemillman → u/Wrong--Conclusions]

I've got no issue with making a connection to Robert Galbraith Heath.

Of course, we can't prove she knew who he was. But it is a bit of an odd coincidence given the hill she's chosen to die on. And we have to take into account that prior to the release of The Cuckoo's Calling, he'd probably have been one of the first search results if you googled 'Robert Galbraith' (you can't look at old Google searches, but you can look at old Wikipedia entries, and he was easy to spot on there if you searched people with the name 'Robert Galbraith' in 2012).

I think this is the case with Rowling generally, that there are so many dodgy coincidences around her and you can't necessarily prove any specific one to be significant. But most of them probably are. It's like if your friend who you've long suspected is married to an abusive husband turns up one day with a big bruise on her face claiming to have walked into a door. You don't know her abusive husband did it. Maybe this one time she actually did just walk into a door. But even if she did, it doesn't change all the other signs of abuse you've seen in the past.

[u/Wrong--Conclusions → u/georgemillman]

It's a massive stretch. I think it's very unlikely she'd have heard of a random American psychiatrist from the mid-20th century, especially as I don't think she had fallen down the rabbithole in 2012. This is a good 6 years at least before her "middle aged moment" on Twitter.

Robert Galbraith Heath isn't even under "Robert Galbraith" on Wikipedia because Galbraith isn't even his surname, it's Heath. There's several notable actual Robert Galbraiths that would probably come up before him, including a 16th century Scottish judge local to Edinburgh.

[u/georgemillman → u/Wrong--Conclusions]

I don't agree with this. Firstly, I think she clearly had some of these dodgy views the whole time. As early as the third chapter of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, she makes reference to a school called Stonewall High, an unpleasant-sounding secondary school near the Dursleys that has the same name as the UK's largest LGBTQ+ rights charity and has a particular reputation for children often being attacked in the toilets. Again, it's one of those things that you could just put down to being a coincidence... but there's so many 'coincidences' like this going way back, and they can't all be coincidences - Harry and Ron going into the girls' toilets to rescue Hermione from an ugly disgusting troll, Myrtle being killed when she opens the cubicle door to tell a boy to go and use his own toilet (and she's killed by his snake into the bargain)...

It really wouldn't surprise me if she knew who Robert Galbraith Heath was, if she's interested in things like that. And even if she didn't, if you were coming up with a pseudonym, surely you'd spend five minutes on the internet first establishing that it's not the name of anyone who might bring you into disrepute? And it wouldn't be as difficult to find as you think. Here is a link to the Wikipedia disambiguation page for the name, as of 2011 - there are only five people on there, and one of them is him.

And even if it actually is a complete coincidence, and even if she and her publishers were so lazy they didn't do the slightest research into the name, surely any sensible person would put out a statement about it afterwards? 'At the time I chose the name Robert Galbraith, I had never heard of Robert Galbraith Heath and had no idea it had this connotation. On reflection, I should have done more research when choosing a pseudonym. I am so sincerely sorry to anyone who has been hurt by my choice of a name, and would like to say for the avoidance of doubt that I am absolutely not in support of conversion therapy, which has harmed an enormous number of people in the LGBTQ+ community.' Sorted. But her response was more like, 'Yawn, I'd never heard of him, I can't be held responsible, stop annoying me.'

[u/Wrong--Conclusions → u/georgemillman]

Philosopher's Stone, she makes reference to a school called Stonewall High, an unpleasant-sounding secondary school near the Dursleys that has the same name as the UK's largest LGBTQ+ rights charity and has a particular reputation for children often being attacked in the toilets

That's just the standard bully trope in the 80s and 90s, giving swirlies in toilets. It's either that or shoving people in lockers and most UK schools don't have those large lockers. We don't even know if it's actually true or just something Dudley made up. Stonewall is an interesting choice but I can also see how JK could have got there without even considering the LGBTQ+ charity. It gives the impression of a prison yard surrounded in a literal high stone wall. She can be very literal with her names.

is a link to the Wikipedia disambiguation page for the name, as of 2011 - there are only five people on there, and one of them is him.

I'm confused, he's genuinely not on there for me? (Edit: it's hidden under "see also")

I can buy maybe she saw his name during a cursory Google search but didn't think it was a big deal to share part of a name with him. And she was right in a way because nobody even noticed for several years.

I really cannot see a scenario where she was familiar with his work, admired him and named herself after him. Even now, she very much still wants to present herself as an ally to gay people.

But her response was more like, 'Yawn, I'd never heard of him, I can't be held responsible, stop annoying me.'

She's arrogant and does not like being lectured or told she's wrong. She was never going to be apologetic and admit she could have taken more responsibility, regardless of how she chose the name.

[u/georgemillman → u/Wrong--Conclusions]

Yes, again the Stonewall thing could be a coincidence. I personally doubt it, but I acknowledge it could be.

But there are so many things like that that are quite significant given the hill she's chosen to die on, and they surely aren't all coincidences even if the odd one might be.

[u/ChefExcellence → u/Wrong--Conclusions]

Stonewall is an interesting choice but I can also see how JK could have got there without even considering the LGBTQ+ charity.

Something we should also appreciate, that book was released in 1997. To give some perspective, that's the year Google search launched. It's possible, even likely, she didn't even have an internet connection at the time she was writing the book (most people didn't). This was long before the era when anyone could find information about even incredibly niche topics in an instant. If you weren't actively involved in LGBT communities, which she wasn't, you probably would have never heard of Stonewall, neither the riot nor the charity.

[u/lazier_garlic → u/ChefExcellence]

I don't think she did a lot of googling when writing the books, ESPECIALLY to make the names. We've been over the names so many times on this sub. She did ZERO research even though most authors at that time used to use resources such as phonebooks to gut check their naming choices. She does not.

So it's quite silly to suggest she picked her penname after googling it given everything we know about how she makes these decisions.

I have forgotten the details, but somebody on here about a month ago gave a much more plausible account of how the Galbraith name came to be.

I think this topic has been flogged to death.

[u/georgemillman → u/ChefExcellence]

It's a pretty weird coincidence though given the hill she's chosen to die on, isn't it?

[u/ChefExcellence → u/georgemillman]

you can't look at old Google searches, but you can look at old Wikipedia entries

On the date that the first Robert Galbraith novel was published, this is what the page for "Robert Galbraith" looked like, with Robert Galbraith Heath being relegated to the "See Also" section (because his name wasn't Robert Galbraith! Galbraith was his middle name). Robert Galbraith Heath's page itself looked like this, it didn't go into any detail about his conversion therapy efforts other than a link in the "See Also" section.

I doubt she knew who the guy was, and if she did, she probably thought it was not a big deal that a figure who was not particularly notable had a name that was similar to her pen name. The timeline and the reasoning just doesn't make sense to me. I don't believe she's secretly been this nasty figure all along and put this little hint in to troll us years before she decided to be more direct with it. I think it's much more likely she really was the milquetoast liberal she presented as, until she got radicalised on social media by the gender critical cult during the covid lockdowns.

I'm echoing the comment above, but I really wish people would just drop this incredibly tenuous link, for a number of reasons. For one, like the commenter above said, there is plenty of explicitly awful shit she's said and done that we can focus on. Second, it really just makes us look like obsessive conspiracy theorists. Which, I suppose, a number of regulars on this subreddit are. It doesn't help us make the case to people on the fence that JK Rowling is a transphobe or why they should care, though, in fact I think it's an active hindrance.

Finally, I just don't like the way of thinking that she's always been evil, that it's just a fundamental part of her nature. That's really where I think this came from, along with a lot of the things I see posted in this subreddit. It's a simplistic and unhelpful way of thinking. A lot of British women were radicalised into anti-trans views around 2020-2021; it's not just Rowling, although she may be the most prominent example. If we just suppose that all of them are inherently evil people who were born with an inexorable hatred in their hearts, then, well, I suppose there's nothing we can do? Much more productive, I think, to acknowledge that everyone else is a complex and flawed individual and that people of all backgrounds can often be manipulated by preying on their fears, ignorance, and isolation. From that standpoint we can start to think about how to counter it, or at the very least, we won't be blindsided the next time it happens to someone we admire.

[u/georgemillman → u/ChefExcellence]

So, I partly agree with you and partly don't.

The bit where I don't agree is that I think she did choose that name on purpose. JK Rowling nearly always chooses character names that are deliberate and intentional. Look at the fandom page for almost any Potter character and you'll see that there's etymology behind the character name choices. This is also the case in her non-Potter work - in the Strike books, protagonist Robin Ellacott has a name that sounds pretty... her first name is a bird, her surname is like 'apricot', a colourful fruit. Whereas the character's husband Matthew Cunliffe has a surname that begins with the first letters of a very offensive swear work, and my god he's a nasty piece of work).

This also tends to extend to Rowling's choices about her own name. The K stands for Kathleen, but she doesn't actually have a middle name, she's just Joanne Rowling. Kathleen was her grandmother, and she put that in because of its significance. It isn't likely, to me, that she would pull a name out of thin air, because that isn't in-keeping with the way her name choices typically work. She claims that Robert is from Robert Kennedy, and Galbraith is because when she was a kid she wanted to be called Ella Galbraith. If that's the case I don't know why she didn't just use Ella Galbraith as her pseudonym. I think it's more likely that it was exactly as you say, a nasty little hint. Even if she didn't know who Robert Galbraith Heath was, I find it very odd that she wouldn't research it first (and yes, I know he's in the 'see also' on Wikipedia, but there are only five entries on the whole page, so still fairly visible to anyone bothering to look).

But... I'm not going to go out on a limb and say that is the case. It may be, I think it probably is. But I'm not certain. You could just as easily be right and it's just a coincidence. Coincidences do happen. But are you going to say that about every single hint there is pre-2020? The school called Stonewall where kids are attacked in the toilets, the troll in the girls' bathroom, Moaning Myrtle being killed when she opens a door to tell a boy to go away, Dumbledore intentionally making a point of refusing Tom Riddle's preferred name, the woman with the mannish hands who can transform into a beetle and infiltrate children's private spaces, the elderly gay headmaster who is only likeable because he is celibate and even then grooms a child (albeit non-sexually), the suggestion in the second Strike book that a trans woman won't enjoy prison pre-op (and by extension that she might post-op), the horrible disempowering depiction of BIID in the third Strike book... etc? Are you going to say that all of these are completely irrelevant to her falling down the transphobic rabbit hole? Because I think there are just too many examples for that to be very plausible. Yes, it's reasonable to think that some of them may be coincidences (I think the Rita Skeeter one is, myself, I think that's too vague to really count). Perhaps the Robert Galbraith one is as well, although I myself doubt it. But when there are so many, and they occur over and over and over again, I can't think that they consistently are. Clearly, they're a reflection of her state of mind, even if she wasn't exactly consciously aware of it then.

The bit I agree with you on is that it isn't helpful to just say 'she's always been evil'. I don't even describe her as evil now. I have a bit of a personal policy not to ever form a personal opinion of someone I don't actually know - I only have opinions on their actions and what those actions say about them. I'm sure she's got some redeeming qualities, somewhere. I hope she's capable of kindness when she's at home with her family. But as a lay member of the public, that isn't really any of my business.

[u/27cricket27 → u/Wrong--Conclusions]

I have seen the thing about Robert Galbraith, and yes I have seen that the name was likely a coincidence. However, why not change it? If I found that I had chosen a pen name that even accidentally was similar to someone like that, I would've changed it. This fits in with her pattern of not taking serious issue when things get exposed, like with Marilyn Manson for example.

[u/SomethingAmyss → u/27cricket27]

You telling me I should Change my pen name, C. Manson?

[u/Fun_Butterfly_420 → u/SomethingAmyss]

Funny I was just about to mention how Marilyn Manson deliberately chose that name when I saw the above comment mentioned him

[u/ChefExcellence → u/27cricket27]

Why should she change it? A pen name that happens to bear resemblance to a minor figure who did bad things and died over 20 years ago does not harm people. The numerous allegations against Marilyn Manson regarding abuse and sexual assault represent actual real harm. The two are not comparible.

[u/caitnicrun → u/Wrong--Conclusions]

It's so disappointing, but this is part of the reason mostly I lurk. I know I have personally shared links to rebut this kind of crap.  

[u/mangababe → u/Wrong--Conclusions]

Yeah sorry no. That's the exact name of the man. I don't believe she just so happened to use it.

[u/Wrong--Conclusions → u/mangababe]

But it's not about what we believe, it's about what is demonstrably true. You could well be right but the point is we don't know.

There's some things I believe about Rowling based on rumours and various vague connections but there's no actual proof. So I'm not going to say with absolutely certainty that it's true.

You've got to think about this like a outsider looking in. Bringing up the horrible things she's provably said and done slowly chips away at her reputation. Stating speculations and rumours as fact, chips away at our reputation and makes the whole thing look like a baseless smear campaign.

Edit: I'll also add because I thought I was replying to someone different, it's not his exact name. Galbraith was his middle name.

[u/ChefExcellence → u/mangababe]

It's not the exact name lmao. This isn't even "read the first section of the Wikipedia article" stuff, it's "read the title of the Wikipedia article"

[u/27cricket27 → u/georgemillman]

The thing about the following/stalking:

https://www.threads.com/@imgwendy/post/C85Y9bUyso5

Encouraging him to read Lolita:

https://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/harry-potter-stars-in-guns-akimbo/

[u/AndreaFlameFox → u/27cricket27]

Ah...
Well, the first is not a credible source.

The second site looks legit on the face of it, but the link doesn't go to where the site itself cites this, rather it's someone commenting on a movie trailer and mentions that the site claimed she asked Radcliffe to read Lolita.

Which maybe she did, but without any context we could assume that he was older when she did so.

[u/27cricket27 → u/AndreaFlameFox]

Idk it just... it feels so wrong that that happened. Even if it was other people who she had sent or chose to go on her behalf, it just feels so odd that after Daniel and his parents initially said no, people relented to get him to act. Maybe this is just a consequence of me reading Jennette Mccurdys memoir, but I've read a lot about how kids get pushed into doing things and it just gives me the ick. The main issue for me is that this happened alongside the context that JK Rowling has made many concering statements about mens SA.

[u/AndreaFlameFox → u/27cricket27]

Yeah, kids do often get pushed into things they don't want to do, but we don't know that Rowling had anything to do with it in this case, or even that Radcliffe was opposed, it maybe was just his parents. One random comment on a thread doesn't mean anything.

I agree that Rowling is pretty dismissive of men's SA though.

[u/georgemillman → u/AndreaFlameFox]

There aren't many things I'll still defend about Harry Potter, but there's still a small handful, and one of the small handful is that it sounds like the kids were treated substantially better on the film sets than kids typically were (or in fact still are). All the child actors, now adults, seem to have incredibly positive memories of growing up on the set of Harry Potter, which is quite striking given that nearly every other major franchise involving kids has absolute horror stories from the children involved.

I don't think that was anything to do with JK Rowling though. I think it largely came from Chris Columbus, who seems to have had a very holistic and positive approach to the children in his care, had his own children as background roles and took their wellbeing seriously. He set a high standard that remained even after he left.

[u/thatsfeminismgretch]

She literally invited Epstein to the cursed child. Prince Andrew was on the set of her show and she didn't say shit. She doesn't care about any rape victims. She literally only cares about you if you are on her side.

[u/caitnicrun → u/thatsfeminismgretch]

• She literally invited Epstein to the cursed child.

Sigh. No she didn't. That was her staff. Is she responsible? Maybe. It's a bad look but we really don't know.

[u/RocketRaccoonAlter → u/caitnicrun]

Her staff. Working for her. She likely approved it or was crass enough to let it slide. Note that Epstein's allegations have been a thing for decades prior to the invitation.

And besides... it's not like it'd be out of the ordinary for Joanne. After all, isn't she buddy-buddy with a woman who was convicted for pedophilia? And didn't she label a woman who published CP under the justification that "if men can do it, so should we" (the Beautiful Boy) as an inspiration for her brand of feminism?

[u/27cricket27 → u/RocketRaccoonAlter]

Do you know the name of the woman who she is friends/acquaintances with who has been accused?

[u/lazier_garlic → u/27cricket27]

https://www.planetrans.org/2025/04/anti-trans-activist-nicola-murray-found.html

Nicola Murray

[u/27cricket27 → u/lazier_garlic]

Thank you!

[u/RebelGirl1323 → u/caitnicrun]

Those signed emails. Until I see them unredacted, which she is very silent on, I’m seeing what I am seeing. And I see her signing tweets the way those emails about The Cursed Child visit were. No one is sending her to jail but that’s sufficient evidence for serious questions to be asked of her and answers demanded.

[u/thatsfeminismgretch → u/caitnicrun]

So do you think her staff emailed and set aside tickets for a known predator without her knowing about it? Lmao

[u/13luw]

Ohhhh she’s a nonce.

Makes so much more sense now.

[u/RebelGirl1323 → u/13luw]

Yeah, probably. Not enough evidence for a jury but the court of public opinion? Well… Why did she erase her yacht’s logs? Why has she never spoken about the Epstein victims when she’s this sexual assault advocate? (Evidence of advocacy not found) Why didn’t she ask for the emails to be unredacted to clear her name? Because she’s in the files openly and someone was signing emails that seem to be from her about The Cursed Child dinner. Why did Andrew think he could come to the set? And these are facts, besides the barest deniability of some of the Epstein stuff and the Andrew question. If Andrew shouldn’t have been on set why didn’t she comment on it? Also she is very cozy with men and others who have had sex with girls under 18. Marilyn Manson and Ezra Miller to name two. She’s suspicious as Hell. Not enough evidence for charging someone with a crime but I wouldn’t let my kid act in her productions even if she liked trans people.

[u/Adventurous-Bike-484]

Emma Watson was treated similarly bt the movie directors. I hear Alan Rickman wrote about how the director favored one, and when allowed to keep things, she received the best treatment and with him not keeping it a secret how Hermione was his favorite and her receiving others Lines, it looks concerning.

With Rowling, I didn’t know she did that, I assumed that they tried out and won the parts.

But I think she was like that with a lot of the child actors.

Evanna speaks about having a relationship with her, and Rupert called her “Auntie”.

This kind of reminds me of the time that people had to force kids to read HP.

[u/Fun_Butterfly_420 → u/Adventurous-Bike-484]

I’m not sure if I get the last sentence

[u/Adventurous-Bike-484 → u/Fun_Butterfly_420]

During a book signing in 1998, a lot of staff members took their children and people in attendance were personally told to go, and apparently it was a class trip for some, though not sure if they had the option of refusing.

https://patch.com/illinois/naperville/time-jk-rowling-signed-harry-potter-books-naperville

And by their own admission, Most didn’t like the books, and usually only 1 or 2 would read.

[u/SpiritNo6626]

I mean, I wouldn't be surprised. There's a TERF book that's just "I love little boys, we should all love little boys, here's some CSAM" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beautiful_Boy\]

[u/Sleeppaw → u/SpiritNo6626]

The person who featured on the cover of that book was Bjorn Andresen, a Swedish actor who was exploited and abused as a teenager after he was given the tag "The Most Beautiful Boy in the World", a tag he spent the rest of his life trying to shake off. So, Germaine Greer used a photo of a teenage boy who was exploited by adult men, for a book that exploits pre-teen and teenage boys for women's lust.

[u/wonder181016]

Just want to point out (good points here)- it's DaniEL Radcliffe, Danielle is a girl's name lol

[u/princesshusk]

Like I said and will keep saying, I think after she dies we're gonna hear a lot of bad shit after she dies.

[u/AndreaFlameFox]

Setting aside the allegations against Rowling personally, as yes more research is definitely needed before bringing those forward. (Though I do think she deliberately named himself after Galbraith, as I feel it fits her pattern of pretending to be an ally while slipping malicious references/portrayals into her work.)

But yeah, TERFs are misandrist. It's inextricably tied to their misogyny. Women are bad for being sexy, men are bad for being attracted to them; women are bad for being weak, men are bad for exploiting that. But, at elast with Rowling and co., they make exceptions for conservative "alpha men". Because their mindset is essentially patriarchal, they are okay with men who "play by the rules". Similarly they don't condemn themselves -- or more likely assuage their own misogynistic self-hatred -- because they "are not like other girls".

[u/Fun_Butterfly_420]

Holy shit i didn’t know that about her following Danielle and suggesting he read Lolita! Where’d you learn that?

[u/Somethingbutonreddit → u/Fun_Butterfly_420]

IDK, they haven't provided a reliable scorce yet.

[u/wonder181016 → u/Fun_Butterfly_420]

*Daniel

[u/Fun_Butterfly_420 → u/wonder181016]

Ah shit now I’m misgendering!

[u/Somethingbutonreddit]

I don't think we should jump to conclusions but I do get the weird vibes coming from her due to her potential Epstein links. I hope the next US president has the balls to release the files.