• BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Trump has not been accused of criminal wrongdoing, and one’s appearance in the Epstein files does not suggest otherwise.

    It sounds to me that “The Independent” has been bought and paid for. Not only has he been accused thousands of times, he is a convict.

    • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      The second statement is simply false. 10,000 mentions alone are not a conviction, but they sure as fuck suggest he had something to do with it, Mr Journalist

    • how_we_burned@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Trump has not been accused of criminal wrongdoing, and one’s appearance in the Epstein files does not suggest otherwise.

      It sounds to me that “The Independent” has been bought and paid for. Not only has he been accused thousands of times, he is a convict.

      Have you not heard of defamation???

      It’s the most standard boiler plate statement journalist are forced to insert into their stories by their legal department.

      Although this raises an interesting point. If Trump sued the independent for defamation clearly he would have much to lose in discovery hence he probably wouldn’t do it, so you could potentially come out and call Trump a pedophile.

      Then again Trump seems to be killing a lot of people, rule of law be damned

      It’s why subtext is so important, because this is clearly implied in the article ie Trump is guiltily of hideous crimes hence why the DoJ had to, illegally, delete/scrub files with information in that clearly showed his culpability