but what she is saying here is true. epstein was first arrested something around 15years ago and his connections to MG were widely reported as was his arrest and what it was for. sure it might've been a bit suppressed but the info was out there. it doesn't imply secret knowledge that pao said that, talking about a party in 2011, well after epstein's first arrest.
ugh. jesus christ i really shouldn't have to explain this. people are accusing her of having apparently been in epstein's 'ring' or whatever, because she said 'we all knew' in 2011. however the shit epstein was up to was already known because he was arrested somewhere around 2005. and Ghislain's connections to epstein and i'm pretty sure even her involvement was widely reported/hinted at.
so for pao to say 'we all knew' doesn't prove she had intimate knowledge. and if we're going to take one part of her tweet at her word, why not the part where she's being critical of the party organizer for inviting MG? i get that you don't like pao but you don't have to put on a tin foil hat and start making connections that aren't proven or even hinted at by her posts to try to smear her as having connections to a pedo. you might as well be out there telling people about adrenochrome (which came from a movie and isn't real).
so for pao to say 'we all knew' doesn't prove she had intimate knowledge.
No one but you is claiming this. No one is making connections between Pao and Ghislane over this. No one is claiming she had secret knowledge. None of that is in question or the issue.
In fact, you seem incapable of recognizing why this is receiving criticism, given your repeated (repeated) defense of Pao and her tweet.
so what? her saying she knew about something which was already widely known and reported for years doesn't implicate her of having secret, criminal, inside knowledge is so what. guess you need an IQ of at least 80 to get that one. my apologies.
Lol at her trying to do damage control
Did she already delete the tweet? At the time of the last archive creation about 10 minutes ago it was still up.
She’s locked her account 😂😂
Doesn't make a difference to me, since she blocked me for calling her out for wanting to ban President Trump on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/C_L_I_C_K/status/1179165542919409670
Idk I was looking at the archive link
but what she is saying here is true. epstein was first arrested something around 15years ago and his connections to MG were widely reported as was his arrest and what it was for. sure it might've been a bit suppressed but the info was out there. it doesn't imply secret knowledge that pao said that, talking about a party in 2011, well after epstein's first arrest.
How does it make the scenario any better?
ugh. jesus christ i really shouldn't have to explain this. people are accusing her of having apparently been in epstein's 'ring' or whatever, because she said 'we all knew' in 2011. however the shit epstein was up to was already known because he was arrested somewhere around 2005. and Ghislain's connections to epstein and i'm pretty sure even her involvement was widely reported/hinted at.
so for pao to say 'we all knew' doesn't prove she had intimate knowledge. and if we're going to take one part of her tweet at her word, why not the part where she's being critical of the party organizer for inviting MG? i get that you don't like pao but you don't have to put on a tin foil hat and start making connections that aren't proven or even hinted at by her posts to try to smear her as having connections to a pedo. you might as well be out there telling people about adrenochrome (which came from a movie and isn't real).
No one but you is claiming this. No one is making connections between Pao and Ghislane over this. No one is claiming she had secret knowledge. None of that is in question or the issue.
In fact, you seem incapable of recognizing why this is receiving criticism, given your repeated (repeated) defense of Pao and her tweet.
So what?
so what? her saying she knew about something which was already widely known and reported for years doesn't implicate her of having secret, criminal, inside knowledge is so what. guess you need an IQ of at least 80 to get that one. my apologies.
Yeah but it makes her complicit. She knew and she didn't say or do anything about it.
I guess you need an IQ above room temperature to get that.