- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bill Clinton to Snitch on Trump
Posted on 2/5/26 at 8:23 pm to LSUgrad88
Posted on 2/5/26 at 8:23 pm to LSUgrad88
quote:
Go ahead and link me to that “more than established” proof. Just so you know, you saying it a bunch of times doesn’t make it proof. Not that this will stop you from doing that.
I expect the same from you showing Trump is a pedophile.
0
Posted on 2/5/26 at 8:25 pm to AGGIES
quote:
It is fascinating. But he is complying with a subpoena.
Ummmmmm. He already missed the date on the subpoena you dumb frick.
Posted on 2/5/26 at 8:30 pm to LSURep864
quote:
I am conservative Christian whole voted for Trump
But did you vote for him 3 times?
Posted on 2/5/26 at 8:33 pm to DaleDenton
quote:
Bill going to commit perjury, again?
It depends on the meaning of is.
Posted on 2/5/26 at 8:34 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
Dude, I can tell you that I did vote for him 3 times, and would vote for him 100 more. But he’s the worst President in history and is a vicious pedophile.
I kid, of course. Except about the voting for him part. That part’s not a joke.
I kid, of course. Except about the voting for him part. That part’s not a joke.
Posted on 2/5/26 at 8:48 pm to SoFlaGuy
Surely they will get him this time. 
I mean, surely the husband of the woman who concocted Trump/Russia collusion wouldn't lie, would he?
I mean, surely the husband of the woman who concocted Trump/Russia collusion wouldn't lie, would he?
Posted on 2/5/26 at 8:49 pm to davyjones
5 pages of mostly gibberish of 1/3 of the posters parroting bs talking points.
Is there even a shred of evidence pointing to Trump at any gathering other than at Mar a Lago before he kicked out Epstein?
As for Clinton...I imagine the testimony to be like this: "Oh, I saw him with an underage girl..." Oh, you were there too? Oh...no ....
Can he testify to anything without implicating himself or just throwing out hearsay bs. I bet he was one of those crazy callers....
Is there even a shred of evidence pointing to Trump at any gathering other than at Mar a Lago before he kicked out Epstein?
As for Clinton...I imagine the testimony to be like this: "Oh, I saw him with an underage girl..." Oh, you were there too? Oh...no ....
Can he testify to anything without implicating himself or just throwing out hearsay bs. I bet he was one of those crazy callers....
Posted on 2/5/26 at 8:52 pm to SoFlaGuy
I doubt it. Both of them are pretty skilled lawyers, so they’re just going to do a lot of talking without saying anything.
Posted on 2/5/26 at 8:52 pm to dafif
quote:
Is there even a shred of evidence pointing to Trump at any gathering other than at Mar a Lago before he kicked out Epstein?
Certainly nothing that I’ve seen, nothing reliable or credible for sure. Any serious attempt to get a response to that is typically met with a swift and forceful change of subject.
Posted on 2/5/26 at 8:53 pm to SoFlaGuy
Monica will be in the audience wearing her blue dress
rotflmao:
rotflmao:
This post was edited on 2/5/26 at 9:01 pm
Posted on 2/5/26 at 8:53 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Ummmmmm. He already missed the date on the subpoena you dumb frick.
You sound smart!
Posted on 2/5/26 at 8:55 pm to AGGIES
Well he certainly doesn’t sound not smart!
Posted on 2/5/26 at 8:55 pm to AGGIES
Be careful, he has an LLM.
Posted on 2/5/26 at 8:56 pm to SoFlaGuy
Posted on 2/5/26 at 8:56 pm to davyjones
its an idle threat, from a drowning man, nothing more than that
Posted on 2/5/26 at 8:59 pm to supatigah
Wait, who’s the man we’re talking about? I ain’t gonna lie, I can be a little slow sometimes. Still an absolute genius, just a slow genius every now and then.
Posted on 2/5/26 at 8:59 pm to boosiebadazz
In September 2025, House Speaker Mike Johnson initially claimed Trump was an "FBI informant" who helped "take this stuff down." Johnson's office tried to back track hours later saying that Trump "was the only one more than a decade ago willing to help prosecutors expose Epstein." Johnson has said nothing sense after he was called out on this by Trump. Trump himself called out Johnson on Truth Social, saying the claim was "ridiculous" and "not true," but he hasn't addressed it further since.
Trump is playing political jujitsu. Trump (and allies like Musk) have strategically allowed or amplified perceptions of his involvement in the Epstein scandal to bait Democrats into aggressively demanding full document releases under the Epstein Files Transparency Act (signed by Trump in November 2025), only for the files to potentially backfire by exposing more Democratic ties (e.g., to Bill Clinton or donors like Bill Gates, Reid Hoffman).
If Democrats realized Trump had minimal or no incriminating involvement, (or worse he was the confidential informant who helped put Epstein in jail) they would immediately back off to avoid highlighting their own vulnerabilities and wasting political capital on a fight that doesn't deliver the desired anti-Trump bombshell.
This is a savvy, game-theory take on the partisan dynamics
House Democrats, led by figures like Rep. Robert Garcia and Rep. Jamie Raskin, have been releasing selective Epstein emails starting in November 2025 mentioning Trump (e.g., Epstein telling Ghislaine Maxwell that a victim "spent hours" at his house with Trump), explicitly to "raise glaring questions" about Trump's relationship and pressure for broader DOJ releases. They accused the Trump DOJ (under AG Pam Bondi) of redacting or deleting materials, like photos of Trump with Epstein and Maxwell, to shield him—calling it a "White House cover-up."
Trump initially resisted releases, labeling them a "Democrat hoax" designed to target him, but flipped under pressure from both MAGA base and Democrats, signing the bill and directing investigations into Democratic ties (e.g., Clinton, Summers).
This all fits squarely into how Trump operates.
Trump is playing political jujitsu. Trump (and allies like Musk) have strategically allowed or amplified perceptions of his involvement in the Epstein scandal to bait Democrats into aggressively demanding full document releases under the Epstein Files Transparency Act (signed by Trump in November 2025), only for the files to potentially backfire by exposing more Democratic ties (e.g., to Bill Clinton or donors like Bill Gates, Reid Hoffman).
If Democrats realized Trump had minimal or no incriminating involvement, (or worse he was the confidential informant who helped put Epstein in jail) they would immediately back off to avoid highlighting their own vulnerabilities and wasting political capital on a fight that doesn't deliver the desired anti-Trump bombshell.
This is a savvy, game-theory take on the partisan dynamics
House Democrats, led by figures like Rep. Robert Garcia and Rep. Jamie Raskin, have been releasing selective Epstein emails starting in November 2025 mentioning Trump (e.g., Epstein telling Ghislaine Maxwell that a victim "spent hours" at his house with Trump), explicitly to "raise glaring questions" about Trump's relationship and pressure for broader DOJ releases. They accused the Trump DOJ (under AG Pam Bondi) of redacting or deleting materials, like photos of Trump with Epstein and Maxwell, to shield him—calling it a "White House cover-up."
Trump initially resisted releases, labeling them a "Democrat hoax" designed to target him, but flipped under pressure from both MAGA base and Democrats, signing the bill and directing investigations into Democratic ties (e.g., Clinton, Summers).
This all fits squarely into how Trump operates.
This post was edited on 2/5/26 at 9:02 pm
Posted on 2/5/26 at 9:00 pm to dafif
quote:
As for Clinton...I imagine the testimony to be like this: "Oh, I saw him with an underage girl..." Oh, you were there too? Oh...no ....
Can he testify to anything without implicating himself
That's the thing.
I can believe that it's theoretically possible that Trump was part of a ring of people who had sex with underage victims.
I can't, in any possible universe, believe that Trump was part of a ring of people who had sex with underage victims and Bill Clinton wasn't. Especially since he seems to show up (Clinton, I mean) in one out of every 3 Epstein file pictures I've seen.
And I don't think I'm the only one.
Posted on 2/5/26 at 9:01 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
I can believe that it's theoretically possible that Trump was part of a ring of people who had sex with underage victims.
That’s because you’re a moron. All evidence is to the contrary.
Posted on 2/5/26 at 9:01 pm to wackatimesthree
Can I assume that you also believe that it’s possible for Clinton to have done such, and in the same universe Trump did no such thing??
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News