<inserts "ALLEGEDLY" after every sentence>Animalmother wrote: ↑Tue Feb 10, 2026 11:55 am(61 guests online? Is the site being monitored by the FBI?)
Trump: Impeach is the new Orange
Re: Trump: Impeach is the new Orange
Re: Trump: Impeach is the new Orange
"allegedly" UAE Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem was sending torture videos to Epstein... Still looking for verification, but a few Reps had half an hour yesterday with the unredacted files and "some really sick stuff there" was the general response...
˙ƃuıʇıɹʍ ʎuıʇ ʎllɐǝɹ uʍop ǝpısdnEverything on the internet is 100% true.
– Abraham Lincoln
Re: Trump: Impeach is the new Orange
187 guests now. Is someone here secretly a nanobot hive?
Re: Trump: Impeach is the new Orange
Going to post "Epstein" then look at the guests...62 atm...
˙ƃuıʇıɹʍ ʎuıʇ ʎllɐǝɹ uʍop ǝpısdnEverything on the internet is 100% true.
– Abraham Lincoln
-
Lenny Solidus
- Posts: 1193
- Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2021 10:31 am
- Location: RTB
Re: Trump: Impeach is the new Orange
It was 290 not long ago.
Building the future, and keeping the past alive - are one and the same thing.
My YT:- https://www.youtube.com/@lennytothequantum3317
My YT:- https://www.youtube.com/@lennytothequantum3317
Re: Trump: Impeach is the new Orange
I'm sure Dave's mentioned having to restrict signups or something as the forum has been getting inundated by bots for years now.
On the Epstein stuff; I can absolutely believe that the guy was murdered, there's just too much at stake for the people at the top, but I'm not really sure just how stupid you'd need to be to have a staffer at the DoJ drafting a press release about the "suicide" a day before you carry it out (and yes, I'm well aware that these people aren't particularly bright, but this is a very special kind of stupid where you need to purposefully defy all logic). It's just another person that needs to be in on it. Just, why? What advantage would it give you? It's not like these things take an age to write, or can be passed through focus groups to see what the reaction will be. That said, the defence of the idea is completely ridiculous too. What possible reason would you have for drafting these things before they're needed just in case, but not leaving the date part blank?
Honestly the date mix-up thing sounds the most plausible explanation - human error is far more believable than dumbfounding idiocy, but I can't fathom why they wouldn't go for that straight away instead of lying about them keeping a library of obituary statements "just in case".
On the Epstein stuff; I can absolutely believe that the guy was murdered, there's just too much at stake for the people at the top, but I'm not really sure just how stupid you'd need to be to have a staffer at the DoJ drafting a press release about the "suicide" a day before you carry it out (and yes, I'm well aware that these people aren't particularly bright, but this is a very special kind of stupid where you need to purposefully defy all logic). It's just another person that needs to be in on it. Just, why? What advantage would it give you? It's not like these things take an age to write, or can be passed through focus groups to see what the reaction will be. That said, the defence of the idea is completely ridiculous too. What possible reason would you have for drafting these things before they're needed just in case, but not leaving the date part blank?
Honestly the date mix-up thing sounds the most plausible explanation - human error is far more believable than dumbfounding idiocy, but I can't fathom why they wouldn't go for that straight away instead of lying about them keeping a library of obituary statements "just in case".