Epstein Files

post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion

◄ 1 2 3 ... 517 518 519 ... 682 683 684 ► Go

Go to page...

01/15/2026 18:07

Subject: Epstein Files

quote

Anonymous

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In light of Sascha Barros’ story, we ALL need to grapple with the fact that the president of theUnited States is, factually, one of the most dangerous and sadistic people to ever walk this Earth. I am not exaggerating.

Everyone needs to read this. Some of you will not believe it’s true. But you REALLY need to ask yourself - WHAT IF IT IS?

https://www.threads.com/@ms.princesscat/post/DTY99ZWjcqs?xmt=AQF0R1JlEKRay03Y2Caa_HcC5f_QdAPjpI0WUrjLHUCvt6j4UPPO5ZfaTrC6xsBgR8DhdhIT&slof=1

'

Is this anywhere but on Threads?

He says that he is constantly erased from the internet. He says he has been putting his story out there for a decade, and it disappears. It is not outlandish to think these men would/could do this, considering who they are. He says that he was on tv a few times as a kid and even got in some trouble as a teen and made the news. Yet he is “Casper the Ghost” online.

He called for a polygraph.

His story explains a lot - from these men adopting boys and then they are gone to Trump’s incontinence.

Is easy to pass a polygraph if you are a sociopath. Sorry this is too outrageous to believe it is real.Even from someone like me who absolutely hates Trump.

+1. I haven’t looked into it in any detail, but what’s listed here doesn’t seem to fit any of the real-life patterns.

You see, that’s the thing. It does fit real life. Everything he has been saying for years tracks with the info we have from the files. His dad’s name is all over the files. Listen to his interview. Remember, Epstein said Trump is the worst of the worst. So apparently he did things even Epstein wouldn’t do. And Epstein bought a the island to rape kids, had framed pics of a dead girl, and so much more.

Oh, and Sascha explained that they would sexually assault you and then force you to sexually assault someone else while they videotaped. And then they had you trapped.

What is this? Is this fact?

It is not fact. I’d appreciate the discussion focused on things beyond some f’ing zero-followers Substack ‘investigator’ and this crackhead making excessively lurid claims. IDNGAF that he is a veteran or anything else with respect to him. The posters here interested in that BS likely overlap with QAnon types and the true crime shut-ins on the Bryan Kohberger threads here.

Also just want to note that these crimes were real crimes when they ‘just’ involved women and girls.

It’s curious you are so enraged to fill your post with insults and cursing.

Just makes me think there is something to the story.

Most here think the topic worth investigating, which would determine if the allegations are true or not. But you yelling and cursing is not a bit persuasive and comes off more like Trump giving someone the finger when the truth is spoken.

The social media sites are really trying to keep this story suppressed, but MSN just picked it up.

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/who-is-sasha-riley-and-why-is-alleged-epstein-survivors-testimony-audio-going-viral/ar-AA1U8Yxy?ocid=BingNewsSerp

I could easily see this being true and I have assumed all along Clarence Thomas is somehow involved.

Yep.

Go back and listen to Anita Hill's testimony. It all makes sense now. It's just so appalling that he is a SC Justice.

Explain ?

Because he talked a lot about pornography with her. And just the fact that he was obsessed with sex as it seems these other allegedly involved people were.

During this period at the Department of Education my working relationship with Judge Thomas was positive. I had a good deal of responsibility and independence. I thought he respected my work and that he trusted my judgment.

After approximately three months of working there, he asked me to go out socially with him. What happened next, and telling the world about it, are the two most difficult things-experiences of my life.

It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration and sleepless nights that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone but my close friends.

I declined the invitation to go out socially with him and explained to him that I thought it would jeopardize at -what at the time I considered to be a very good working relationship. I had a normal social life with other men outside the office. I believed then, as now, that having a social relationship with a person who was supervising my work would be ill-advised. I was very uncomfortable with the idea and told him so.

I thought that by saying no and explaining my reasons, my employer would abandon his social suggestions. However, to my regret, in the following few weeks, he continued to ask me out on several occasions.

He pressed me to justify my reasons for saying no to him. These incidents took place in his office or mine. They were in the form of private conversations, which not-would not have been overheard by anyone else.

My working relationship became even more strained when JudgeThomas began to use work situations to discuss sex. On these occasions he would call me into his office for reports on education issues and projects, or he might suggest that because of the time pressures of his schedule we go to lunch to a government cafeteria.

After a brief discussions of work, he would turn the conversation to a discussion of sexual matters. His conversations were very vivid. He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes.

He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involving various sex acts. On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess.

Because I was extremely uncomfortable talking about sex with him at all, and particularly in such a graphic way, I told him that I did not want to talk about this subject. I would also try to change the subject to education matters or to non-sexual personal matters, such as his background or his beliefs.

My efforts to change the subject were rarely successful.

Throughout the period of these conversations, he also from time to time asked me for social engagements. My reaction to these conversations was to avoid them by eliminating opportunities for us to engage in extended conversations.

This was difficult because, at the time, I was his only assistant at the Office of Education-or Office for Civil Rights. During the latter part of my time at the Department of Education, the social pressures, and any conversation of his offensive behavior, ended. I began both to believe and hope that our working relationship could be a proper, cordial and professional one.

When Judge Thomas was made chair of the EEOC, I needed to face the question of whether to go with him. I was asked to do so, and I did.

The work itself was interesting, and at the time it appeared that the sexual overtures which had so troubled me had ended.

I also faced the realistic fact that I had no alternative job. While I might have gone back to private practice, perhaps in my old firm or at another, I was dedicated to civil rights work, and my first choice was to be in that field. Moreover, at that time, the Department of Education itself was a dubious venture. President Reagan was seeking to abolish the entire department.

For my first months at the EEOC where I continued to be an assistant to Judge Thomas, there were no sexual conversations or overtures. However, during the fall and winter of 1982, these began again. The comments were random and ranged from pressing me about why I didn't go out with him to remarks about my personal appearance. I remember his saying that some day I would have to tell him the real reason that I wouldn't go out with him.

He began to show displeasure in his tone and voice and his demeanor and his continued pressure for an explanation. He commented on what I was wearing in terms of whether it made me more or less sexually attractive. The incidents occurred in his inner office at the EEOC.

One of the oddest episodes I remember was an occasion in which Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office. He got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?"

On other occasions, he referred to the size of his own penis as being larger than normal, and he also spoke on some occasions of the pleasures he had given to women with oral sex.