172
Documents linked to associates of Jeffrey Epstein made public
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
172 points (98.3% liked)
News
23267 readers
3983 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Fun fact: did you know Bill Clinton updated the terms of getting food stamps in the 90's to where if you have ANY drug related non violent felony you cant get food assistance for the rest of your life. He conveniently left Pedophiles off of that list.
What a weird claim. Making a vague accusations that "since Clinton is a pedophile, he intentionally gave himself a loophole to get food stamps in the future."
Like, dude was rich as a president and has hundreds of millions now. To my knowledge, there is no way to revoke the 200k/yr pension either.
The above, if it's true, is likely just a case of a mundane government fuckup, not some grand plot to allow a hundred millionaire to collect $120/month if he needed to.
Nope, never said he was a pedophile or that the story told about him being there was true. Simply stated a VERY REAL law that he passed and the fact that he didnt add pedophiles to the list of people who were banned from getting food stamps for life for commiting crimes. You can search that up in 2 seconds, btw. Also youre completley stupid if you think I was suggesting in any way Clinton was going to get stamps for himself LMAO the fact that you jumped to that conclusion is incredibly stupid. I am saying that he seemed to have a soft spot towards the pedos and sexual predators because he left them off of the list of those reforms. Would you like to "quote" more things I never said?
Bro, go JAQ off somewhere else.
Talking about how intersting it is that Clinton "personally and totally on purpose" excluded pedophiles from some dumbass "tough on crime" law in an Epstein thread, a thread about a shithole pedophile that trafficked children to other shithead pedophiles where Clinton's name has already been mentioned.
Yeah, just a coicidence that you brought the two topics together. You totally were not inferring anything stupid or outlandish at all by "just asking questions."
When did I ask a question? Just asking questions doesnt apply. I was pointing out that whether or not he did any of that shit on Epstien island he absolutely passed a law that banned almost every criminal act from getting any type of welfare except pedophiles. You can jump through as many mental gymnastics as you want to try and say that I said something I did not or inferred something I didnt that does not change anything about what I said. Also you quoted me as "personally and totally on purpose" which I also did not say. Lol but thats ok stay mad. I said nothing that wasnt the truth. Clinton seemed to like them old enough to be secretary age if I recall correctly. Also youve quoted me saying many things I never did like for one why the fick would Bill Clinton ever need foodstamps like you quoted in your first comment? That is simply stupid and willfully trying to put words in my mouth. I saw a thread about Clinton and Pedophiles and thought, "hey you know what this reminds me of?" Youve made quotes several times for things that I never said and you still have upvotes haha you love to see it. I challenge you to actually quote anything I said and prove it wrong. Misquoting me just makes you seem antagonistic and honestly the fact that you said (quoting me on something I never said) that clinton was setting himself up to get stamps makes you a dumbass lol I said, he made reforms and didnt include pedohilia or sexual assault crimes of any nature to those reforms which is an indisputable 100% fact.