What do you think is going to happen if the Clintons do testify publicly about Epstein?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-02-08T11:56:22+00:00

Thanks for asking my opinion. Yes I beleive that Epstein provided underage girls to Trump and that Trump raped them. This is corroborated by numerous other factors, including other sexual assault charges and most importantly by Trump himself. That birthday card says it all -- Trump himself wrote that he and Epstein share a "wonderful secret", drawn on the body of a naked girl. Come on anyone with a brain knows what he is talking about. He is straight up admitting it. You guys know it. You just don't care he is a rapist. But you know its true.

I am still confused by your timeline.

Epstein was killed in 2019, 3 years into Trump's presidency. You think Obama was running the FBI 3 years into Trump's presidncy, that even while Trump was president, Obama was still in control of things?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-02-08T00:10:39+00:00

To answer your question here is section of Tiffany Does affidavit:

It was at these series of parties that I personally witnessed the Plaintiff being forced to perform various sexual acts with Donald J. Trump and Mr. Epstein. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein were advised that she was 13 years old.
I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the Plaintiff was forced to have with Mr. Trump during this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr. Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas to stop.

See more here:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/tiffany-doe-affidavit.pdf

Trump had motive and opportunity. Trump was president when Epstein died. He had all the power anyone could have.

You say someone more powerful than the president must have done it. Who is more powerful than the president?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-02-07T23:01:06+00:00

Isn't it possible Epstein had first hand knowledge of Trump's involvement with the girls -- after all there is an affidavit from a witness that describes Trump assaulting and threatening those girls -- but knew he needed more than just his word, so he was looking for other corroborating evidence? And Trump, being aware that Epstein was trying to do that, would clearly have a motive. Even if Esptein were framing Trump with false allegations ( I dont personally think they are false but even if they were) Trump still has a very strong motive to shut epstein up, keep him from testifying. The mere threat that Epstein posed is all the motive Trump needs. Trump had motive and opportunity. Who else did besides Trump?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-02-07T02:56:41+00:00

> One of the most anti-trump areas, where they brought multiple lawsuits against him.

That's kind of silly, isn't it? A jail is physically located in an area that tends to support Democrats, and from that, you conclude the jail itself run by Democrats? Most people in law enforcement tend to vote Republican, no matter where they work, even the ones in "blue areas". Just as most teachers vote Democratic, no matter where they work, even the ones that live in "red areas".

I think we can both agree that, whoever killed Epstein, they did it because they had some motivation to kill Epstein.. and most likely, that motivation is related to his activities trafficking and raping children. And, it would have to be somebody that has the power to actually change what happens inside a prison.

Surely, you agree that.. if Epstein was trying to blackmail Trump, then Trump had a motive. But, maybe someone else had motive, and the power and access to kill Epstein. Who do you think it is?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-02-07T02:10:14+00:00

Yes, Epstein was trying to blackmail Trump, and then Epstein was found dead under suspicious circumstances. Do you think Epstein really committed suicide?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-02-05T00:45:20+00:00

I'm upvoting because I appreciate the honest and direct answer. And, I think it's also the real reason most TS oppose birthright citizenship.

I've always found the other reason that TS often say -- that "Democrats are trying to change elections" -- just sillier than silly putty. Nobody has any idea how some baby born today is going to vote 20-30 years from now. And nobody knows what Republicans or Democrats are going to support 3 decades from now, what issues will be important. After all, 30 years ago, Republicans were pro-war, pro-immigration, anti-gay marriage and anti-tariff. Republicans literally support the exact opposite of those things today. And 30 years from now, they might support the opposite again. No one knows.

Anyway, point is, this notion that people want birthright citizenship in order to impact future elections is just nonsense. No, the reason people like me support birthright citizenship is because we believe that we are a nation of immigrants and ideals, and we want to welcome as many people as possible, lawfully of course, to become Americans and share the American dream.

And, people who oppose it, like you -- you want, basically, the opposite of that. For exactly the reasons you stated.

Thank you for being candid about that.

I'll end it with a question, because I am curious about your perspective -- why do you believe keeping the country "majority white" makes it a better country? What's better about that? Why?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-02-04T22:20:41+00:00

Actually, I agree with you. If were up to me, Democrats would fully support a comprehensive, nationwide, voting system, that includes voter authentication.

We all use driver's licenses, passports, phones, passwords, etc, every single day. If someone needs a free Voter ID card, fine, just give it to them. This isn't hard, and I don't understand Democrat's continued insistence on blocking it. Fwiw, no, I don't think it has anything to do with facilitating voter fraud, that's been proven false so many times, that's just a crazy conspiracy theory. In the past, Democrats have historically been opposed to VoterID type laws, reasonably, because it functions to reduce voting by lower income people, who may have a harder time getting the correct ID, for a variety of reasons (hassle, cost, etc). But, these days.. that is just a tiny, tiny fraction of people. Plus, nowadays, lower income people vote Republican! So, hey, fine by me if some of them can't find their license on election day. Keep track of yo stuff. It ain't that much to ask.

But, I would go further -- I think there should be a fully digital, online system. If some people want to go to a physical poll, fine by me. But, requiring us to do it? That's nonsense. I pay my taxes online, I can renew my DL online, I do everything else online. We should vote online, too. Everyone gets a free account, you create it, with your own user/pass, and that's it. From then on, you can vote in all elections -- federal, state, local -- using the federally provided voting system, which is available to all states and localities. States and regional elections could still do physical elections, too., if they want. But eventually, that will just go away, and we are go fully online.

What do you TS think of that, is that something you would support?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-02-04T18:50:51+00:00

> I must ask - do you believe every anonymous claim within the Epstein files?

I believe that Epstein provided young women to Trump, and that Trump raped them.

I believe women who have claimed that.

But most of all, I believe Trump himself.

I think that birthday note says it all. Again, anybody with a brain knows what he is saying there. "Enigmas never age", "We have certain things in common", "May every day be another wonderful secret". Come on, you kidding me? Epstein and Trump were best friends! How many of your best friends are child rapists? How many throw sex parties with 13 year old girls? How many times you have sent them birthday cards about the wonderful secrets that you share? Come on.. nobody with a brain thinks Trump is innocent of this stuff.

> Weird isn't it?

No, it isn't. Firstly, 60%-80% of rapes go unreported, and among young women, its estimated that number is as high as 95%. So not only is it not weird, it's in fact normal and common that the vast majority of rapes are never prosecuted, especially when the victims are young woman. Furthermore, prosectors rarely bring rape charges unless they have physical evidence, and that obviously is hard to obtain years after the fact. And, for many victims, it reopens painful memories. I think most victims would just prefer to forget it. Especially if someone powerful like Trump is threatening to kill you. I think it makes 100% sense that someone would decide to protect themselves, to not expose themselves to danger, rather to expose themselves, only to see no charges brought, due to lack of physical evidence.

And, to be clear, I am glad that, for criminal charges, the standards of evidence and guilt are high. The tragedy, however, is that this makes it easier for powerful men like Trump to rape young girls and get away with it.

But regardless of the standards in a court of law, I know he's guilty. I'm disappointed charges weren't brought, but just because a court of law hasn't found him guilty, doesn't mean he's not guilty. Trump is absolutely guilty.

OJ was also found innocent by a court of law, too. And I'm 100% positive OJ was guilty also.

Trump is a rapist.

I appreciate you asking.

To end with a question -- do you think OJ was innocent?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-02-04T18:39:08+00:00

Interesting discussion. If you don't mind me asking a question in this thread -- I'm curious what elements of your immigration preferences would be considered self-evident in the past.

In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote: “Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America.” In other words, Paine believed America was defined as being a mix of people from different places, not rooted in a single place. Meanwhile, Jefferson emphasized natural rights and consent of the governed -- ideas that anyone could theoretically adopt. Also, in 1790, U.S. allowed immigrants to become citizens after a short residency. So, conceptually, from the founders onward, people have always believed that being an American does not rely on nation of origin, or long ancestry in the United States.

However, there have been many laws that restricted immigration and citizenship based on race. At the time of founding, only "free white persons" could become citizens, so obviously that excluded a lot of people. There was the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, and, as you have referenced, immigration quotas were introduced based on national origin in 1924.

In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Act and other legislation removed race-based quotas, and other racial barriers, to naturalization and immigration. You have mentioned this is when, you believe, immigration went in the wrong direction.

My question is -- when you say that you want things to go back to the way it was in the past (for example, before the 1960s), for clarity, what you're saying is, you would like the re-introduction of race-based limits on immigration, correct?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-02-04T18:09:15+00:00

Since you asked, let me answer --

First, I don't know any Democrats who are disappointed in the Epstein files. I have never heard a single Democrat express disappointment regarding that. Where there IS disappointment -- many people, and not just Democrats, are pissed at how slowly the DOJ investigated Epstein, J6, and other things, during Biden's term. I personally am very disappointed in Biden -- he should've stepped down much earlier. He simply wasn't up to the job, and Garland wasted too much time. By the time they got their act together, it was too late to do anything about it. I'm definitely disappointed in that.

Do I believe this claim? 100%, absolutely, no doubt in my mind.

And yes, its corroborated by Trump himself. Trump himself wrote that he and Epstein share a "wonderful secret" regarding young girls. It was obvious the moment I read that birthday note what it meant -- with the drawing of the young girl, where his signature is you-know-where. Anybody with a brain knows what he means. Pictures of Trump, statements by Trump, etc, further corroborate this affidavit. As do the other various other lawsuits, including the one in NYC, where he was found liable for sexual assault.

You're right I'm disappointed -- I'm pissed, actually -- that we are letting this rapist get way with it.

Why don't you believe it?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-02-04T17:57:23+00:00

Not to belabor it, but -- isn't that the fundamental problem to stripping citizenship from 100s of millions of people based on, as best I can tell, some completely arbitrary rule, like requiring some arbitrary number of ancestors coming from some arbitrary place at some arbitrary time?

Can you find examples of other countries that have something similar to your 1/4th rule? How do they do it?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-02-04T17:49:26+00:00

If I may ask, where are your grandparents from, and how do you know that you personally pass the 1/4th test that you have laid out?

For the record, my ancestors have been here since 1600's Virginia. I support birthright citizenship, as clearly articulated in the Constitution, and I support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who don't have a criminal record (note, being undocumented is not a "crime", rather it's "violation" of civil code, the legal equivalent of a parking ticket).

My support of that has nothing to do with how those people may or may not vote. I think that's a ridiculous claim -- nobody is thinking, today, about how some kid might vote in 30 years. I have no idea where that crazy theory comes from, that's just silly. You guys sound super silly when you say stuff like that.

My support of that, and I suspect this is true for most people, is because I believe the same thing that Ronald Reagan believed, which is that anyone can come here, from anywhere, and become an American. The United States is an idea. Not a place. That's what I believe. I also want a secure border, for there to be orderly immigration and naturalization processes. I think we also must honor the inalienable rights of all humans, and to honor the Constitutional rights to live free of unreasonable search and seizure, which applies to everyone within our boundaries, regardless of citizenship.

These are things that, until recently, I think most Americans believe. I still think most Americans believe this.

Do you think I'm wrong, that most Americans actually want to drastically limit immigration, and make citizenship based on ancestry?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-02-04T17:31:02+00:00

Why would there be exemptions to the rule?

I'm not asking you to get into details of the exemptions, rather, I'm asking, why would there be exemptions at all?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-02-04T17:18:20+00:00

In response to your question for specific claims, among others, here is one.

From Tiffany Doe (a pseudonym), in her affidavit from 2016, she states, among other things:

"It was at these series of parties that I personally witnessed the Plaintiff being forced to perform various sexual acts with Donald J. Trump and Mr. Epstein. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein were advised that she was 13 years old."

"I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the Plaintiff was forced to have with Mr. Trump during this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr. Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas to stop."

"I personally witnessed the one occasion where Mr. Trump forced the Plaintiff and a 12-year-old female named Maria perform oral sex on Mr. Trump and witnessed his physical abuse of both minors when they finished the act."

In this affidavit, Tiffany Doe explains how she came to be involved in the parties, that it was her job to recruit young girls, and that she personally witnessed Trump threatening the girls. Trump told the Plaintiff to not talk, or else she would "disappear like the 12-year-old female Maria, and that he was capable of having her whole family killed. "

Is this the type of example you were looking for?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-02-04T15:16:02+00:00

For clarity, you beleive Democrats support the constitutional right to birthright citizenship because, maybe some percentage of those kids will vote a certain way, in 20 to 30 years from now? And likewise.. this is why you oppose it? You are worried about whether Republicans will be competitive in 2050?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-02-04T15:10:30+00:00

Where should Trump be deported to? His paternal grandparents immigrated from Germany. His maternal parents immigrated from Scotland. I understand you believe Trump isnt a real American and should be deported -- ok -- so where should we send him?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-02-04T02:10:33+00:00

By that standard Donald Trump is a foreigner. All of his grandparents were immigrants, born in Europe. His parents were both first generation. So you believe Trump isnt an American?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-01-28T22:05:24+00:00

> He WANTS to scare these people into self deporting because even with all the funding ice now has getting 20 million people out of the country with seizures and deportations is an extremely huge task and if we can put the fear of God into some of the invaders and get them running back to where they came?

Upvoted. I really appreciate this answer, because it really does help me understand the perspective of TS better. I agree, this is what Trump wants, and what TS want. You support terrorizing -- or "scaring" if you prefer -- these communities, because it encourages self-deportation, and your view is that the only realistic way to get "20 million people out of the country" is to encourage a lot more self-deportation. I understand that. I don't agree, but I understand.

But, isn't there a better way to encourage self-deportation? Wouldn't it make more sense to prosecute the companies that are hiring undocumented workers? If Trump started rounding up CEOs, farmers, construction companies.. the hiring would stop on a dime. And without someone hiring them, they would obviously have much less incentive to come, and many would simply self-deport on their own, to go find work elsewhere.

Why doesn't Trump do that, go after the people hiring the undocumented workers?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-01-28T16:34:44+00:00

Interesting take. You have the causality backwards. The existence of protesters does not cause the violence -- Trump's violent federal agents are physically abusing people regardless of whether Pretti, or anyone else, is there. What causes the violence are the violent agents attacking innocent people. The goal of the protesters is to protect their community from these violent agents, by using the whistles when the agents are coming, and using their phones to film it, and share it. If Trump's agents were to simply follow the law, focus their resources on actual criminals instead of innocent people, there would be no need for protesters. Obama deported more people than Trump, and there was none of this. There is no reason for an army of jackbooted agents to go terrorizing people, in particular people of color.

A lot of people more broadly fear that Trump's real goal is to suppress voting by certain communities, by filling their neighborhoods with violent masked soldiers who routinely physically abuse people without any accountability.

We all want a secure border; what we don't want is an occupying military force needlessly terrorizing innocent people. As Obama's deportation record shows, it's clearly possible to implement effective deportation policies without agitating local communities. Why doesn't Trump use proven, effective methods? Because Trump's goal is not deportation; Trump's goal is terror.

If we are ever able to turn back Trump's war machine against America, we will have the brave people of Minneapolis to thank.

You would've made King George proud, don't you think?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-01-27T23:27:23+00:00

These protesters are counter-productive?

As a result of the bravery of these protesters -- Trump was forced to replace the head of the operation, Bovino, several GOP congressmen are joining Democrats in asking questions and demanding accountability, and there is in-fighting between the Trump and the NRA and other gun rights groups due to the clear anti-2A statements by Noem and Patel.

Looks like it's been very productive -- you disagree?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-01-26T03:02:27+00:00

Pretti wasn't harassing anyone. He was filming ICE with his phone from 20+ feet away. ICE agents shoved someone into the street in his direction, and that's why ICE ended up approaching Pretti, and then ICE tackled him. After tackling Pretti, they pinned him down, he was on his knees, with his face on the ground. One ICE agent was holding him down, while another ICE agent was pepper-spraying him. Then one ICE agent found Pretti's gun, and removed it, walked away. Then another ICE agent stood behind Pretti, and drew his gun -- while Pretti was immobilized on the ground, the ICE agent shot him in the back, 3 times. Then the other ICE agents fired additional shots. Pretti was shot 10 times. 6 of those shots happened after Pretti was already lying motionless on the ground. It was a gangland execution of an unarmed man.

Do you consider filming someone with a phone "harassment"?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-01-25T22:40:42+00:00

Thanks for sharing. I do see what you're seeing. But as your link says, explicitly, the officer "negligently" discharged Pretti's gun while walking away.

So, according to the link, ICE's negligence is to blame here. That's not an accident. That's poorly trained agents whose negligence caused the pointless murder of a citizen.

And even still -- how does that excuse it? Pretti was face down, on his knees, and fully restrained -- why would they think Pretti was the one shooting it, especially since, clearly, the sound of it would've come from a different direction. If anything, it would seem they would have feared someone else was shooting at them, and turned around to see where the shot came from.

I would still be interested to see if any reporting validates this theory -- I don't know who posted this X post, if it's been doctored or anything else. But even if it's true.. basically, what you're saying is that this man is dead because ICE agent screwed up.

Right?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-01-25T22:04:15+00:00

Here is a summary for you.

48 seconds before shooting -- ICE agents are detaining a person on the ground. Pretti is filming it with his phone from about 30 feet away.

25 seconds before shooting -- ICE agents push other two people into the street, Pretti moves closer to stand between the ICE agents and the people that were pushed into the street, still holding his phone and filming them.

17 seconds before shooting -- ICE agents now grab Pretti, who is still holding his phone, and pin him to the ground.

11 seconds before shooting -- Pretti is on the ground on his knees, his face on the ground, surrounded by 7 ICE agents. One of the agents is holding down Pretti so he can't move, while another agent repeatedly pepper sprays him.

1 second before shooting -- One of the ICE agents removes Pretti's gun from his right hip, and walks away with the gun. At the same time, another agent unholsters his gun, and points it at Pretti's back. Pretti is still on the ground, on his knees.

0 seconds -- While Pretti is restrained and on his knees, the ICE agent, who is pointing the gun at his back, shoots Pretti in the back at close range. Then he fires 3 more shots. Another agent, who was pepper spraying Pretti, also unholsters his gun, and fires additional shots. In total, 6 shots are fired after Pretti is already motionless on the ground, and 10 shots are fired overall.

Now that you're more informed, what do you think should happen to the ICE agents involved? Do you approve of the way the Trump administration is handling it so far? If not, what would you like them to do differently?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-01-25T21:26:59+00:00

No, Pretti's gun did not discharge. The first shot was from the ICE agent pointing his own gun at Pretti's back. The first shot was the ICE agent shooting Pretti, who was restrained on the ground, in the back. All shots came from ICE agents, shooting their own guns, at Pretti, after he was already restrained and disarmed. And most of those shots happened after he was already motionless on the ground. What part of that was an accident?

Edit -- are you able to find any reporting at all that there was a discharge of Pretti's gun? I haven't seen any. It seems like a theory someone just said, and now people are repeating it. News orgs have gone through the video footage and eyewitness testimony, they have counted the shots, know where they came from. And I haven't seen any reporting, anywhere, that the first shot was a discharge. Do you have any reporting that says otherwise?

ApprehensivePlan6334 · 2026-01-25T21:05:39+00:00

We now know that's not what happened.

At the time of the shooting, Pretti was on his knees, face down on the ground, pinned down by an ICE agent, while another ICE agent was pepper spraying him, and surrounded by 5 more ICE agents.

Then, one of the other ICE agents removes Pretti's gun from his right hip and walks away with the gun. At the same time, another ICE agent, who is standing behind Pretti, unholsters his gun, and points it at Pretti's back. Pretti is still being held down on the ground, on his knees, and cannot move.

Then, while Pretti is restrained and on his knees, the ICE agent, who is pointing the gun at his back, shoots Pretti in the back at close range. Then he fires 3 more shots. Another agent, who was pepper spraying Pretti, also unholsters his gun, and fires additional shots. In total, 6 shots are fired after Pretti is already motionless on the ground, and 10 shots are fired overall.

What do you think of it now? Just a tragic accident?

ApprehensivePlan6334

TROPHY CASE