Well said. Excellent post. 👏👏👏👏
This ☝️. 100% this☝️.
People need to understand that just because a person's name was released, it doesn't implicate or prove they're guilty of anything.
Um, no. Nothing has been pulled out from under my feet. And I'm not looking to have my mind changed on the matter. I don't like or trust them, either.
All I'm doing is trying to help those who insist on arguing make better arguments.
And yes, you had already told me that there was no need to argue about it. But sadly, you're not in control over what everyone else does, and if people want to argue about it, they will. And I just want them to be better prepared when they do.
✌️
Thanks for the post! This will really help others make better arguments! 👍
I don't think people are dooming, saying that the files being made public won't change anything. They're not saying that nothing will happen, legally speaking.
We're just talking about what will happen because the names were released to the public. Because the investigators and prosecutors have had that information all this time. It's not new to them.
Maybe it will sway some opinions this way or that with the public, but I don't think much will change. The public just really doesn't care much.
I don't think making the names involved in the Epstein case public will change anything, legally speaking.
After all, the prosecutors already had all this information all these years. It's just that the names were withheld from the public.
Honestly, I don't think many people other than Anons are going to care at all. They haven't cared for the past four and a half years.
I think the only people it will really impact is us, and that's because it's probably going to backfire on us. Way too many people think that just because someone's name was released it means they were involved in all the sexual abuse and other crimes on Epstein's island. And now they're telling normies these things, trying to red pill them. Or they're using it to gloat and trying to rub it in liberals' faces.
Here are the issues with that:
Just because someone's name was released doesn't mean they were involved with anything going down on the island.
President Trump's name was released because he was mentioned in someone else's deposition stating that they never saw him on the island.
Slick Willy was mentioned in someone else's deposition saying that they had heard from someone else that he liked his girls young. I can't find anything where he is mentioned going to the island. And as to Clinton liking his girls young, no shit. He was having an affair with Monica Lewinski when she was 22 and he was 50. "Young" is not synonymous with "underage" or "child".
Then you have the names of the investigators and other DOJ involved in handling the case. Then there are the names of the victims and witnesses and all the other people who were just mentioned like with President Trump.
People really need to stop assuming that just because someone's name was released that it implicates, let alone proves that they are guilty of anything.
Because when normies hear this, they're going to either look it up themselves or go to the fact-checking places. Then they're going to see that the person they were told was guilty of all these horrible crimes was an investigator or witness in the case, or was just mentioned by others like President Trump.
And that's going to make the person claiming they were guilty of something look like an idiot. And by extension, it's going to negatively impact the public's opinion of Q and Anons.
So yeah, I think this is going to turn around and bite us on the ass.
Thanks for the link!
Well, that's a relief.
I really think things are getting a bit out of hand here and people need to stop automatically accusing every name being made public of being sex offenders.
Many names on that list are the victims, the investigators, and people just mentioned in depositions involving Epstein.
Trump is on that list because someone involved in the depositions mentioned him.
Similarly, Freeh is mentioned simply because he had information regarding Clinton's travel.
Yet people are ready to tar and feather him just because his name is mentioned.
I think this has the potential to backfire in a HUGE way if people aren't careful.
I can just imagine how many anons are running around, trying to convince others that someone on that list is a pedophile and that person then looks it up and it turns out it was an investigator involved in the case or something of that nature.
That's not going to go down well.
Perhaps we should break out some of those research skills we're known for and not accuse people unjustly.
What I'm saying is that people are going around saying that people on that list are child sex offenders and rapists just for being on the list.
But when people point out that Trump is on the list too, the argument shifts to "Oh, his name was just brought up and he never went to the island."
But there are other people on that list who never went to the island, either. Their names were on that list for other reasons. Yet they're still guilty.
You really don't see the issue with this?
I don't understand what your argument is here.
How does the age of my account dispute anything I just said?
But he is on it. You can't excuse him because he never actually went to the island, and ignore that many others on that list never went to the island either. Like Clinton.
Yes, in another post someone explained that to me.
The issue I have is that there are many people on that list of names that were just released that had similar stories.
But the problem is that if you listen to people here talk about it, everyone on those lists are guilty of going to Epstein's island and being involved with the child sex trafficking.
And when people point out that Trump is on those same lists, the response is "Oh, he doesn't count because he never actually went to the island." But they ignore the possibility that there might be other stories like his, and just say everyone else on the list is guilty.
I see people saying that Bill Clinton is a pedophile because his name is on that list, yet it's a scenario like Trump's where he never actually went to the island. But people don't care about his context.
Do you see the issue here?
Ok, this all looks a little questionable.
People are saying that the people named in those documents are the ones who went to Epstein's island, and most likely were involved in sex trafficking of children, right?
But then you point out that Trump was mentioned but it was in the context of not going to the island.
Just glancing at some of these, it's obvious that there's more than just Trump that aren't being implicated as going to the island.
I see a couple of the investigators named. I see several of the victims named.
I see Clinton named, but it's saying he didn't visit the island.
I think we need to be very careful of using this to try to red pill anyone (or even gloat about it) until someone has the time to go through it all and make a list of those on the list who actually went to Epstein's island.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just don't want to look like an asshole yet again when what I'm telling my friends and family doesn't quite pan out. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Do you have a link that takes me to it? The only ones I've seen are the ones where they're like still encoded.
Ok, and how do we know that's the context? And how do we know what the context of everyone else on the list is? How do we know some of the others weren't under the same context?
Yeah, I should have used it. Sorry. I won't forget next time.
Ok, I'm confused as shit here. I'm missing something important. Can someone help my dumb ass out here?
I thought that the only thing that happened was the names on the list (at least some of them) were made public. Everyone already knew the lists existed, so it's not some huge surprise.
And is Trump on the list or not? The MSM is saying he was on there, some Anons here are saying he wasn't, some are saying he was, but somehow it's different than the others.
Ok, how is it misdirection? I'm confused as shit here.
Is Trump on the list or not, and if he is, then what is different about his being on the list to separate him from Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew?
Ok, so trump is on the list?
Where are you getting the idea that the list is separated between guilty or not guilty?
Yeah, sometimes it's hard to judge tone just on the written word.
I think the public might be past having the info dripped to them.
They most likely have heard about it already, since they learned about "QAnon" (their word, not mine) during the pandemic.
And it's not like we haven't been blasting that information to them in online forums, for years.