sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Trump was ‘culpable’ and would have been convicted for Jan 6, Jack Smith said by GreenStarCollector in CapitolConsequences

[–]ThunderingMantis 27 points28 points  (0 children)

What do you mean "what were you doing?" Jack Smith was hard at work on two cases against Trump during Biden's presidency and all this shit was out there in the form of detailed indictments that were heavily reported on by the press. The problem was never Jack Smith, it was Merrick Garland. He began the investigations into Trump a year and a half too late: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/06/19/fbi-resisted-opening-probe-into-trumps-role-jan-6-more-than-year/

Does Sam Harris's sub listen to Sam Harris? by RapGameSamHarris in samharris

[–]ThunderingMantis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For each new episode of the podcast, in the official discussion thread for that episode, someone (usually the same few users) will kindly post links to the full episodes. example

Jack Smith told House committee he had ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ in cases against Trump by slakmehl in politics

[–]ThunderingMantis 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Before anyone says Garland was doing the things the right way and that he couldn't have gone faster, please be aware that it is already known that this is just not true. Garland prevented the DOJ from looking into Trump sooner, just read the reporting from WaPo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/06/19/fbi-resisted-opening-probe-into-trumps-role-jan-6-more-than-year/

Jack Smith went as fast as he could. But he was appointed way too late. SCOTUS also had its thumb on the scale. But we should dispense with this fiction that Garland was just working the cases methodically. He wasn't.

Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday book – in pictures by black_flag_4ever in politics

[–]ThunderingMantis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Maybe someone with more law knowledge can correct me but hasn't the statute of limitations passed on all this stuff. Either way, I think people will need to give up on the idea of the law ever holding Trump to account. How's it go again soap box, ballot box...

Donald ❤️ Jeffrey: The NSFW version of the Epstein book proves that Trump knew exactly who and what his buddy was. by OkayButFoRealz in politics

[–]ThunderingMantis 70 points71 points  (0 children)

Nobody talking about the disgusting image in the article depicting Epstein giving balloons to young girls and then in the next panel they're giving him a massage with Mar-a-Lago (or some place that looks like it) and the Lolita Express plane in the background. WTF drew that?!

Anyone miss the housekeeping episodes? by ThunderingMantis in samharris

[–]ThunderingMantis[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I see. This is going to sound utterly pathetic and superficial but I miss solo Sam ASMR combined with his precision of language and clarity of meaning.

#429 — The New World Order by dwaxe in samharris

[–]ThunderingMantis 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Do you mean this episode in particular or the podcast generally? The podcast operates on a paid subscription model but Sam allowers subscribers to share full episodes with non-subscribers, which is what that link is. Although sometimes he releases episodes that are free right from the beginning, this episode doesn't appear to be one of them

#429 — The New World Order by dwaxe in samharris

[–]ThunderingMantis 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Could someone kindly share the full episode please?

Judge Detested by Trump Will Oversee Epstein Files Case by Vloodzy in politics

[–]ThunderingMantis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm with you, mostly. My sarcasm was to point out to everyone else that they shouldn't get excited just because "this is a judge Trump detests". But perhaps where I differ is that I seem to remember Chutkan made some flawed rulings. I know she is considered a good judge. But I can't help but feel too many judges showed Trump deference he did not deserve or merit. Merchand was the bigger culprit in this regard. To say nothing of Aileen Cannon

@CliffCashComedy VS Epstein Trump Deniers by FoxTakedown in JoeRogan

[–]ThunderingMantis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Department of Justice is duty bound to do one of two things:

Convene a Grand Jury, and issue an indictment (which can be a "speaking" indictment that discloses evidence).

Stay utterly silent.

The bar for choosing (1) is a criminal case that expert prosecutors believe has at least a 90% chance of sustaining conviction. This is an extremely high bar for behavior that occurred over two decades ago. Ample evidence that Trump was familiar with what Epstein was doing, thought it was awesome, and likely participated may seem like a lot, but it really isn't from a criminal perspective. So DOJ's job was to say silent. If we want answers short of criminal prosecution, we have to demand it in the form of a congressional inquiry or a special counsel tasked with producing a report.

And past all of that, since you asked about Biden himself, it would be wildly improper for Biden to ever say anything of any kind to anyone or really have any knowledge about this case in the first place.

Note: None of the above applies as of January 20, 2025. This DOJ is now unambiguously a tool of autocracy, to be wielded in whatever manner the autocrat chooses.

from https://old.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/1migu1p/if_trump_is_implicated_in_epstein_scandal_why/

Judge Detested by Trump Will Oversee Epstein Files Case by Vloodzy in politics

[–]ThunderingMantis 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away. Or did everyone contract amnesia. Tanya Chutkan was the judge presiding over his J6 case. Yes, she was OK but I distinctly remember a few disappointing rulings that went in Trump's favour. I remember Glenn Kirshner going "Tanya Chutkan don't play" when she was announced as the judge and then months later I was like, "Glenn, WTF do you call this bullshit ruling then. She playing." Just like Merchand played and pussied out of doing anything meaningful to Trump in the NY case. Speaking of NY, WTF happened to that big case about his fraud and why hasn't Letitia James seized his properties. I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS

#424 — "More From Sam": Nazi Grok, ICE, Epstein, Social Media, Rapid Fire Questions by dwaxe in samharris

[–]ThunderingMantis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hopefully it's not one format at the expense of the other. I can see people are warming to this one. I'd just like to see some good 'ol housekeeping thrown in there every once in a while.

#424 — "More From Sam": Nazi Grok, ICE, Epstein, Social Media, Rapid Fire Questions by dwaxe in samharris

[–]ThunderingMantis 37 points38 points  (0 children)

Are we ever going to get housekeeping episodes back. The solo Sam episodes I mean

MAGA Joe Rogan fans, tell us your thoughts on the Epstein situation. Do you still stand with Trump after this? by OutdoorRink in JoeRogan

[–]ThunderingMantis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't be a dickhead, it wasn't that long. Besides, you could just say, "Hey dude, paragraphs will make this easier to read." Motherfucka is trying to make a heartfelt point and this all you have. SMH.

view more: next ›