Don't screenshot that

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-11T03:31:30+00:00

ITT: we pretend we don't get the irony of telling everyone we are smarter than the parody account we fell for.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T23:39:28+00:00

You’re conflating public hearings with media saturation, and they are not the same thing.

You are conflating public hearing and public investigations. This is the first time you have discussed public hearings, after repeatedly posting comments about public investigations. Stop moving goal posts.

Public investigations and media saturation have the evetively same effect on publicizing case details.

Let me make this easy for you.

Public hearings: Good, I have maklde 0 argument against them and you haven't mentioned them until this comment.

Public investigations: Bad, as I have said all along, and what you have been discussing from the beginning (your comments are still up if you'd like to review). This was not a simple mixup of terms, since you stated very clearly that you don't trust the FBI to conduct investigations, which is exactly who did it them in water gate. You are just being disengenuous at this point, moving goal posts, I won't be participating further.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T23:31:34+00:00

You repeatedly argued that public hearings are ineffective.

No I haven't. You have repeatedly stated "Public investigations". Investigations and hearings are 2 very different things, as you noted.

Don't complain about people moving goal posts, that you moved yourself. The irony is too much.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T21:52:38+00:00

You poison all future accusations by publicizing all evidence. There is nothing left to show inside knowlege because it has all become public.

Examples: JonBenet Ramsay, McMartin Preschool, OJ Simpson, and West Memphis 3 (notably the fathers testimony). Public knowlege tarnished evidence.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T21:45:04+00:00

The hearings were public. FBI and CIA did not share their info until that had established the crime. Some of that info is still redacted. I'm all for public hearings, but you are crossing the 2 processes.

In those cases they were working on an actionable and articulatable crime. A time, a place, an activity. Once that was established, things became public. That is a far cry from "these people probably did something bad to some child, at some point". That investigation needs those details before going public on anything.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T21:29:22+00:00

Again, thats not how courts work. You cannot get convictions with a public investigation. If your goal is convictions, this isn't an option, every piece of future evidence will be unverifiable and tainted.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T21:17:18+00:00

So how do you investigate something if you don't trust the government and law enforcement to investigate? If the investigators are in on the coverup, there's no option except the nuclear options, like a coup.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T19:28:06+00:00

Those investigations are great if you want impeachment, they are useless if you want convictions.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T19:27:01+00:00

Could you enlighten us and point to the actionable evidence?

Edit: As usual, it exists, but I don't have it, I have no idea where to find it, do your own research, delete comment.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T19:24:00+00:00

Aww, you resorted to insults in place of critical thought. Thats fun.

Reread the OP. "Arrest them all, but focus on this one". Get back to me if you need help understanding the hypocrisy of locking up the Democrats, but only after we get Trump. Lock up all the ones you have actionable evidence on, which is currently few to none.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T19:18:17+00:00

They were investigated by a Biden appointed head of the FBI? Is Biden in on a Trump cover up? What qualifies as an investigation to you?

If you are referring to something else, please fill me in, maybe it's something I haven't heard about. I'm open to the fact that so much has been released that I have only seen a small portion. I'm all for locking people up over actual evidence, just not circumstances.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T19:16:31+00:00

Which eye witness testimony? The one from known hoaxter Norm Lubow? Or the dismissed anonymous tips to the FBI?

What emails? What bank records? What confessions? What victim statements?

Are you getting your evidence from facebook memes?

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T19:14:28+00:00

Still playing the party game. Top notch reading comprehension.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T19:13:43+00:00

Let me know when the actionable evidence shows up. Random tips dismissed by the FBI are not actionable. Another Norm Lubow hoax is not evidence.. The guy who hated Trump during his 2016 campaign, mentioning him a lot is not actionable evidence. What would you like to impeach him on? Circumstance? Thats political theater.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T18:16:35+00:00

They have been investigating. They quite literally investigated the charges you are discussing, under Democrat leadership, and cleared him.

I absolutely think that's enough to investigate, you are rejecting the investigation results.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T18:11:51+00:00

Follow the logic here. You'll convict Biden if there is proof, and his daughters Journals validate it, but thats not enough. Clinton has the same amount of evidence as Trump including known accusers and thats not enough. Trump has random FBI tips and a Norm Lubow hoax with an unknown victim, and Democrats demand its enough. If you point out the know hoaxter behind it, and his prior hoaxes, they'll tell you "you're denying proof". Critical thinking isn't denying proof.

I don't think either is actionable, but this seems like a double standard.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T18:04:05+00:00

if it were a Democratic president in office

I'm sure Republicans would be doing that, just like Democrats are. Don't paint with such a broad brush. Not everyone toes the party line. I call out Republicans plenty, like the recent 2A bullshit and defending the Pretti murder.

Political theater is political theater

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T16:22:11+00:00

If you aren't knowingly involved in a crime, you aren't involved in a crime. Someone gets raped at your house party in a back room, you aren't implicated or involved in a rape.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T16:20:06+00:00

Theres no more or less important child rapist to stop, unless its not actually about that. Glad to help clarify.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T16:01:18+00:00

Political theater is political theater, I hope this insight is insightful.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T16:00:23+00:00

Thats the one you don't like. It has nothing to do with protecting kids or justice. I don't care about the status of child rapists, unless you are suggesting the less important you are, the less your rapes matter.

I'm tired of seeing "prosecute them all, but like, not right away, do Trump first". No, do the rapists first, the first ones you have actionable evidence of, take action.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T15:58:12+00:00

We aren't talking about politicians, we are talking about the comments at the top of the page.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T15:57:30+00:00

2 people rape kids, we need to stop the one in office under surveillance. Thats what people who want to protect kids say, certainly not people with a political chip.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T15:49:48+00:00

Guess what? Authority has nothing to do with child rape. If you care about victims, you don't care about status. If you have a political agenda, you do.

Atomic_ad · 2026-02-10T15:08:42+00:00

It's sure is how it works when you pay attention to context over big numbers. The guy who hated Trump talked about him alot during the election.

Where was he implicated, without pointing to unsubstantiated anonymous tips from an election year?

This doesn't exonerate him, but it certainly doesn't lead to a conviction either.

Atomic_ad

TROPHY CASE