It was also indefensible. A few years back she campaigned on prosecuting pedophiles and, well, as AG she refused to do that. She went as far as protecting them.
Republicans simply don’t use words the same way others do. If you say you like flowers in the garden you mean they should be there. If they say they like flowers in the garden, they mean they would like to be paid to control whether they are there.
We’re not that deep. One is bad enough. Biden was not senile or a pedophile. That was an obvious attempt to rub smear off of Trump. We do comprehend the existence of propaganda, it’s just that we can’t do anything about it anymore than you can.
I can't believe you are making me defend this guy.
It is creepy as shit and I wouldn't allow him near my kids, but there is a very specific legal definition of pedophile and looking isn't the same as touching. It dilutes the term when you use it the wrong way.
> Pedophilia is defined as a sexual interest in prepubescent children.
When they touch them they're not a pedophile, they're a pedophile molester or a pedophile rapist. It has adds an additional word.
He likes looking at children in states of undress. He's a pedophile.
And, if dozens of people are to be believed across multiple lawsuits and 30,000 files at the FBI he's going to literal war to hide, he's a pedophile rapist too.
>It is creepy as shit and I wouldn't allow him near my kids, but there is a very specific legal definition of pedophile and looking isn't the same as touching. It dilutes the term when you use it the wrong way.
Then why wouldn't you allow him near your kids? If he isn't legally speaking a pedophile, what would you be worried about?
If it were the case that "looking isn't the same as touching", child porn wouldn't be illegal. Trump is a pedophile because he's attracted to underage girls, he isn't not a pedophile if he looks but doesn't touch.
And there is a mountain of (granted circumstantial) evidence from the Epstein files that have been released to suggest he's probably done more than just look.
Republicans have been following their overtly pro-pedophilia agenda for a while now. Bondi didn't hear from any victim, she failed to protect them and censor their informations in the files, while putting extra care in hiding the pedophile oligarchs that abused them.
If she broke any state laws anywhere, that won't help her. Presidential pardons don't affect state crimes, and state pardons don't affect federal crimes. It is the closest thing to a check and balance on the power.
It's not like state laws couldn't pertain to Pam Bondi, but the dominant framing around her is going to be federal officer exercising her powers, rightly or wrongly, over a federal office and while under the direction of the president.
Trump's abuse of the presidential pardon is so hideous, I wouldn't be surprised if this power granted by the original US Constitution is amended after he leaves, in response to his unprecedented lack of respect for it. However, I also wouldn't be surprised if nobody in power ever possesses the strength of character or simple morality to do so.
Giuliani selling them was the chef's kiss of ultimate, naked transactional prerogative exploitation of a traditional mechanism for exceptional humanitarian redress.
I don't think we should change it. I think we as a nation need to understand the person we put in that office has that power, and choose accordingly. It's there for a reason. Sometimes, it's perfectly acceptable for the President to say "fuck this shit" for the good of the Nation. With that power though, comes the responsibility to wield it with respect. This country put the man abusing it in power. No one had second bloody thoughts. No one listened. No one looked ahead. Changing the system won't fix that. Only changing ourselves will. Now you have an undeniable example of the destructive potential of a truly, unrepentantly, criminally inclined President. Consider yourselves lucky if we actually have a peaceful transition of power out of this Administration. Then don't fuck up again. The stakes of statecraft are high. It's about damn time we started acting like it.
How so? Serious question too, as last I heard of any pardons it was Biden giving his son, and others, blanket pardons going back to 2014. Didn't even think that was possible to just willy nilly give pardons on anything and everything for a whole decade.
I guess I wasn't paying enough attention, for what would she get charged? I know about the illegal appointments of US attorneys, the vindictive attempted prosecutions against Trump's perceived enemies, and some problems with the Epstein file releases, but I thought all those were under the category of "incompetency". Did she lie to congress or something like that?
I support this. We should prosecute these people and Bondi's excuse that the economy would collapse was so ridiculous as to be insulting. If crimes were committed the perpetrators must be prosecuted no matter who they are.
This means the Epstein connection must be much deeper
than we already knew. We kind of need a global movement
here that investigates all of those party-goers. Invading
another country also serves as an ideal distraction.
111 comments
> two senile pedophiles as president in sequnce
two? Who was the one other than Trump? (Which we don't even know that one for sure. We just know he protects them from prosecution)
He has himself admitted to being a pedophile...
It is creepy as shit and I wouldn't allow him near my kids, but there is a very specific legal definition of pedophile and looking isn't the same as touching. It dilutes the term when you use it the wrong way.
> Pedophilia is defined as a sexual interest in prepubescent children.
When they touch them they're not a pedophile, they're a pedophile molester or a pedophile rapist. It has adds an additional word.
He likes looking at children in states of undress. He's a pedophile.
And, if dozens of people are to be believed across multiple lawsuits and 30,000 files at the FBI he's going to literal war to hide, he's a pedophile rapist too.
>It is creepy as shit and I wouldn't allow him near my kids, but there is a very specific legal definition of pedophile and looking isn't the same as touching. It dilutes the term when you use it the wrong way.
Then why wouldn't you allow him near your kids? If he isn't legally speaking a pedophile, what would you be worried about?
If it were the case that "looking isn't the same as touching", child porn wouldn't be illegal. Trump is a pedophile because he's attracted to underage girls, he isn't not a pedophile if he looks but doesn't touch.
And there is a mountain of (granted circumstantial) evidence from the Epstein files that have been released to suggest he's probably done more than just look.
> Presidential pardons don't affect state crimes
What good has this done in any of the hundreds of scumbag drug and human trafficker cases that have been let free via Presidential pardons?!
Did a State come step in afterwards, in any, ever?
It’s almost as if they were criminals all along.
or Pam Bondi?
P2025 had a plan but it was always going to struggle against the president's personality issues.