General Discussion

Oliver Bolliver Butt

(122 posts)

23. I don't follow

Thu Jul 24, 2025, 02:21 PM

Jul 24

If he hadn't socialized with Trump in the presence of young females under 18, he could have said no. If indeed his only choices were to say yes, incriminating himself, or to say no and perjure himself, then that incriminates not only him, but also Trump.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

" Stunning Video Of Epstein Being Asked If He's Been With Trump And Women 'Under 18' " [View all] emulatorloo Jul 24 OP

Nice work from Meidas. However... ananda Jul 24 #1

Sorry, this is a big nothing-burger Wiz Imp Jul 24 #2

Which means the answer is yes. Under oath. Mr.WeRP Jul 24 #3

Huh? Did you even read what I wrote? Wiz Imp Jul 24 #5

I didn't know "socializing" with someone in the presence of under 18s was a crime... Justice matters. Jul 24 #10

Obviously it isn't, but Epstein knew if he said yes to that question the next question would likely address Wiz Imp Jul 24 #14

I understand that. He knew they had clear evidence or credible witness(es) of his crimes. Justice matters. Jul 24 #18

Poorly worded question popsdenver Jul 24 #25

you can't implicate the other person without implicating yourself Oliver Bolliver Butt Jul 24 #24

His lawyer, any lawyer, would have instructed him... reACTIONary Jul 24 #20

He didnt to all questions Johonny Jul 24 #36

There is a nuance to fifth amendment jurisprudence ..... reACTIONary Jul 24 #37

So anyone who reads the 5th is guilty? Callie1979 Jul 24 #26

At least one person thinks that dpibel Jul 24 #35

Yeah, no. Maybe time to revisit diagramming from English class in elementary school? W_HAMILTON Jul 24 #19

Exactly. There would have no reason to assert the 5th unless inappropriate behavior(s) occurred with Texin Jul 24 #21

I don't think that's a standard... SickOfTheOnePct Jul 24 #27

I don't follow Oliver Bolliver Butt Jul 24 #23

That was my point. His presence in a situation where illegal behavior(s) by another were taking place, Texin Jul 25 #46

Invoking the 5th was an ANSWER! ProudMNDemocrat Jul 24 #4

Nope. Wiz Imp Jul 24 #6

Are we now... SickOfTheOnePct Jul 24 #7

Context matters. H2O Man Jul 24 #8

Ok SickOfTheOnePct Jul 24 #15

When one is H2O Man Jul 24 #16

So basically ... SickOfTheOnePct Jul 24 #17

This was not in court. H2O Man Jul 24 #22

He's dead... so it doesn't really matter FBaggins Jul 24 #43

This is one clip H2O Man Jul 24 #44

Recommended. H2O Man Jul 24 #9

I'm genuinely curious how this seeming non-answer implicates anyone. live love laugh Jul 24 #31

Fair question. H2O Man Jul 24 #39

Whoop de do. maxsolomon Jul 24 #11

But only criminals plead the fifth according to the orange don Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jul 24 #12

Pleading Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights, sir. Kid Berwyn Jul 24 #13

Seems to me... SickOfTheOnePct Jul 24 #28

"...assert my Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights" Grins Jul 24 #29

I have been wondering the same. I may(?) have some insights Raine1967 Jul 24 #34

Stunning because he was ASKED but didn't answer?? live love laugh Jul 24 #30

"Women" under the age of 18 MorbidButterflyTat Jul 24 #32

Trying to make everyone forget it is pedophilia, or statutory rape. niyad Jul 24 #41

Videos are numerous and were intended to blackmail folks allegorical oracle Jul 24 #33

I imagine it more like this... Montauk6 Jul 24 #38

JFC, mediate, you ASSHOLES!!! There is NO SUCH THING as "UNDERAGE WOMEN" niyad Jul 24 #40

Absolutely! SheltieLover Jul 24 #42

There Would Be No Jeopardy If The Answer Was No. DallasNE Jul 24 #45

Something that caught my eye in this exchange was the last sentence peggysue2 Jul 25 #47