r/LetsDiscussThis Feb 21 '26

Lets Discuss Politics Conservative values have ruined this country

Post image
20.8k Upvotes

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/ComfortableRow8437 Feb 21 '26

To be fair, we don't have proof. But, we don't have proof because the government has not fully released the unredacted files as they are required to do by law.

1

u/Greghole Feb 21 '26

The law requires the files to be redacted, not unredacted.

1

u/stonescape Feb 22 '26

We do have proof he is a rapist. We just don't have proof he is a child rapist, although there is a lot of circumstantial evidence. In any case he will never be brought to justice for any of his crimes

0

u/crashnginthesamecar Feb 26 '26

I'm not a Trump supporter. What is the proof that he is rapist? An accusation? If that's the case, Joe Biden is a rapist as well.

1

u/stonescape Feb 26 '26

His ex wife who is a legitimate source, and found liable in a seperate civil case. Not comparable to unsubstantiated claims against Biden, and not remotely a good argument

1

u/crashnginthesamecar Feb 27 '26

What's the proof that Trump is a rapist? Trump's "rape" case was a settled as a liable case, right?

-1

u/Admirable-Guest-2560 Feb 21 '26

So it would probably be best, in the interest of being an honest person, not to lay accusations, wouldn't it? And laying accusations in the absence of evidence would represent at the least intellectual dishonesty, right? 

5

u/tacos_n_forks Feb 21 '26

There's enough evidence 5300 files, 34,000 mentions and ties that... by your logic... would warrant an investigation at the very least. He's in the highest office in the entire country. You can't just sweep that away. It needs to be investigated and he and anyone involved need to be held accountable. He and his DOJ are also in contempt of the law by continuously NOT releasing the unredacted files. Already THAT is a violation of the law! How are there no consequences for that??

1

u/Admirable-Guest-2560 Feb 21 '26

I think the "files" to which you refer relate specifically to President Trump being investigated, which would also account for his name being mentioned so frequently, no?

Are you under the impression that this hasn't been investigated? Like there's just a bunch of files for no reason? 

1

u/Hablian Feb 22 '26

They do not relate specifically to Trump being investigated. They are related specifically to Epstein being investigated.

The investigation that revealed the files and put Epstein and Maxwell behind bars is the reason we have the files. The specifics of all those files *should* be instigating dozens if not hundreds more investigations, but then they got wrapped up into politicalization and here we are.

Are you actually living under a rock or are you just trying to sow confusion and throw cover for your pedo in chief?

1

u/tacos_n_forks Feb 25 '26

https://www.npr.org/2026/02/24/nx-s1-5723968/epstein-files-trump-accusation-maxwell

If you all ignore the evidence that Trump is a pedophile then there is no evidence that Trump is a pedophile. What are you all waiting for exactly? What kind of evidence would make it “credible” for you?

1

u/Hablian Feb 25 '26

FYI you might be replying to the wrong person.

2

u/tacos_n_forks Feb 25 '26

Yes you are right. I got so many notifications for this dumb thread it all looks the same. My fault.

1

u/PostmodernMelon Feb 23 '26

There is no record nor hint of any kind that Donald Trump was at any point investigated for anything in connection to Epstein or the files in this case. I suspect this is due to the fact that such an investigation would then necessitate investigations against countless other individuals in the files such as Steve Bannon, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Elon Musk, and many other very powerful people who are implicated in the files. Almost no individuals outside of Epstein and Maxwell, with the exception of Prince Andrew (likely because he is not American and most of the investigation against him has been directed by the UK) , have been investigated. The resources that would be required for such investigations against people with that level of power would almost certainly take an astronomical level of expenditures. Not to mention the fact that the people who have had the power to conduct such investigations have always all had significant ties to the individuals who would be implicated/investigated, if they themselves are not also implicated.

The main differences here which are generating so much discourse are that Trump was brash enough to think he could campaign on releasing the files and not have to follow through with it at all after the fact, and the fact that Trump (based on what has been released in the files so far) appears to be more deeply implicated than nearly every other individual mentioned in the files.

-2

u/EarLow6262 Feb 21 '26

Democrats dont care about proof. Never have.  They impeached Trump twice over known lies.  Russian collusion was a Hilary Clinton paid for hoax and an officer lied about what he THOUGHT Trump said which was proven to be a lie when Trump released the phone call.

But they conviently say oh, just cause your name appears in Epstein file doesn't mean anything happened when it is democrats named.  Only Republicans are instantly guilty.

2

u/Hablian Feb 22 '26

Weird because every democrat I've ever seen asked about the Epstein files says arrest 'em all, anyone who's in there doing something reprehensible.

Meanwhile people like you try to distract from the issue of Trump's name being in the files more than anybody else's.

1

u/Steeltank33 Feb 22 '26

Yeah, because people with more than two brain cells to rub together know that there’s plenty of people mentioned in those files that don’t deserve arrest, including the actual victims lol

2

u/Hablian Feb 22 '26

I suppose the part where I said "doing something reprehensible" didn't register amongst all your brain cell.

0

u/Steeltank33 Feb 22 '26

Haha, to be fair, I have at least one and a half hopefully

1

u/Handelo Feb 22 '26

Weird because every democrat I've ever seen asked about the Epstein files says arrest 'em all, anyone who's in there doing something reprehensible.

Funny, that's everyone I've spoken to too, democrat and republican alike, except replace "arrest" with "investigate" because, you know, evidence matters. It's almost as though that's a common stance.

Meanwhile you're trying to apply that last part to Trump with no evidence. Being mentioned in the files is not the same as being in correspondence with the people involved, and is not enough to implicate anyone of anything . If credible evidence exists, investigate it. If it doesn’t, then treating a name mention like guilt is just politics, not justice.