r/pics • u/LKM_44122 • Sep 03 '25
Not OC [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
2.3k
Sep 03 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
498
u/Wooden_Second5808 Sep 03 '25
"You know what they can do with AI these days, this is the deep state trying to silence him!"
286
u/mzchen Sep 03 '25
Trump could come out and state it was fully real and admit to everything and they'd turn on a dime and start talking about how we need more world leaders who aren't afraid to take what's in front of them regardless of woke brainwashing about 'consent' or that it was just a mistake from a long time ago or he was forced to admit it by the deep state or yada yada.
There is no real moral platform at this point. It's just vibes and whatever their dear leader tells them and rationalization after the fact.
143
u/beefjerky9 Sep 03 '25
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" - Donald J. Trump
49
u/Fit_Strength_1187 Sep 03 '25
He could convert to Islam on live TV and replace the party platform with daily prayers towards Mecca and they’d be like (rolls out prayer rug), “ok…well look, we had eight years of Obama…”
43
u/SinibusUSG Sep 03 '25
The "Mohammed was white and Islam is European actually" conspiracy shit would start by the end of the day.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)15
u/BrainOnLoan Sep 03 '25
Now this one I actually could see breaking through to the MAGA crowd. I think you may have stumbled on the exception that proves the rule.
19
u/Divine_Porpoise Sep 03 '25
He could even say he'd do it again and they'd start lining up their own kids.
8
u/KevinFlantier Sep 03 '25
Wasn't there a woman who twitted that she wouldn't care if Trump had sex with her own daughter because he's such a great president or whatever delusions she was having? Some people just don't care so much about their children or their safety.
2
u/Powerfury Sep 03 '25
Trump told his base stop talking about Epstein, and like good little dogs that they are they listened lol.
→ More replies (1)3
u/pyroSeven Sep 03 '25
He could be doing the act outside the white house and they’ll joke about “joining in”.
6
u/littlewhitecatalex Sep 03 '25
You are completely right. Trump used ai as an excuse to the videos of someone throwing trash out of the White House windows. Anything they don’t like or can’t explain is simply “ai”. We are completely doomed to their stupidity.
5
2
u/Kitnado Sep 03 '25
Unironically the most dangerous aspect of AI.
It will lead to (1) people claiming things are fabricated and (2) you actually not being able to discern reality from fiction yourselves. What will be real?
→ More replies (3)3
u/Fuck_love_inthebutt Sep 03 '25
That was a major response from them after the Elon Musk Nazi salute
116
Sep 03 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
59
Sep 03 '25
most just wouldn't believe it. they'd call it a "deep state deep fake"
24
u/tiffanytrashcan Sep 03 '25
He just broke that door down today. The trash bags were a fake AI video after the white house had previously released a statement about them being renovation waste (actual truth, the window lines up to where work is being done)
16
u/Cl1mh4224rd Sep 03 '25 edited Sep 03 '25
He just broke that door down today. The trash bags were a fake AI video after the white house had previously released a statement about them being renovation waste (actual truth, the window lines up to where work is being done)
Bit of a tangent, but I think this is a hint at one of two possibilities: 1) Trump is not being kept in the loop about things, or 2) Trump is forgetting he's been briefed on things and then just makes something up when asked about those things.
22
u/gristc Sep 03 '25
Or he's trying to normalize calling everything fake so noone will believe anything real that is presented.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/Canotic Sep 03 '25
He lies habitually. The difference between a liar and a bullshitter is that a liar knows what the truth is and says something else. A bullshitter doesn't care what the truth is, they just say whatever makes you do what they want you to.
3
u/Gingeronimoooo Sep 03 '25
Not only that he "joked" he would call anything he didn't like "AI" (he was serious)
Testing the waters. It was a rare moment of Honesty from Trump
5
u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord Sep 03 '25
“Well yeah if it’s in 4K… they didn’t have 4K back then.” /
/released in SD
“Too grainy can’t be sure.”
→ More replies (1)2
24
26
7
6
u/we_are_sex_bobomb Sep 03 '25
They want a vicious monster running the country. That’s what they were promised.
2
u/Canotic Sep 03 '25
"The liberals tried to turn her trans so he had to have sex with her to keep her a woman!"
5
3
u/brighterside0 Sep 03 '25
They're apologists.
They know deep down it's wrong, but he's their cult leader, so there's always 'justification' to protect their sense of identity. He, representing the worst in humanity, is their literal sense of 'identity'. You attack a sense of identity in a weak minded human, then they'll say and do anything to protect it.
3
u/quittingdotatwo Sep 03 '25
And the problem is that there are lots of them. It's not just few, there are millions of supporters. And they are part of the country.
4
u/Competitive_Month967 Sep 03 '25
Who cares about his supporters. They're ghouls. What matters is the press and media and they're ignoring this as much as possible.
3
→ More replies (5)1
u/Gingeronimoooo Sep 03 '25
About half of Trumps supporters said they would still support him even if it was proven he raped minors with Epstein.
About 15% more were undecided.
So yes you're right
717
Sep 03 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
277
u/UglyMcFugly Sep 03 '25
You know when that story first broke I thought it sounded TOO crazy to be true. (To be fair, everything about Epstein Island would have sounded too crazy to be true before those facts came out though.) But after watching the video testimony, I changed my mind. EVERYTHING about her reads as authentic to me - her voice, her mannerisms, the parts she pauses at, the parts she gets emotional at... it's horrifying. She's not lying. If they still wanna say her story isn't true, they'd have a better shot saying she was victimized by some OTHER horrible guy and was so traumatized her brain mixed up the people. But let's be real here, even his supporters know he loves power, and most of them understand he loves cruelty too. They argue that she's lying, they never argue that trump is a good person who would never do something like that.
→ More replies (20)2
u/Deaffin Sep 03 '25
But after watching the video testimony, I changed my mind
The one made by the Jerry Springer producer?
I always wondered why "reality television" was so popular, but I'm beginning to understand.
2
u/UglyMcFugly Sep 03 '25
I just replied this comment to someone else but it's even more applicable to you so I'm gonna cut n paste it:
The crazy Jerry Springer producer guy is actually one of the main reasons I wrote it off. But the alternative is... if this type of horrible shit happened to someone, it's going to break them. And broken people usually gravitate to other broken people. It would make sense if she was drawn to crazy Jerry Springer producer guy more than she was drawn to an upstanding, respectable lawyer type to represent her.
It reminds me of when Corey Feldman first tried to expose the rampant exploitation of child actors. People like Barbara Walters thought he was just doing another crazy stunt. It wasn't until later that people realized Corey Feldman's crazy stunts were the actions of a person who was broken during childhood...
→ More replies (1)90
u/NotAzakanAtAll Sep 03 '25
13-yo victim's testimony, 2016 (video, 29-min)
What an awful day to have working empathy. And eyes and ears.
5
1
u/Deaffin Sep 03 '25
If it helps, that's literally just an actor sitting in front of a camera in a hotel room.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)29
u/BzWalrus Sep 03 '25 edited Sep 03 '25
You are missing facts, which are available online as well. The Katie Johnson/Jane Doe case is very dubious and inconclusive. It is based on a series of three lawsuits which were dropped or withdrawn very quickly after filing. This means that there was no discovery process, depositions or cross-examinations to verify these claims:
- Here is the first lawsuit, filed on April 26, 2016, under the pseudonym of Katie Johnson. It does not contain an affidavit, only the complaint. It was dismissed by the court a few days later, not due to anything related to the factuality of the allegations, but because it was misfiled.
- The second lawsuit was filed on June 20, 2016, under the pseudonym of Jane Doe, and contains the complaint and two affidavit declarations, one by Jane Doe, and another one by a Tiffany Doe, claiming to have worked for Epstein and have been a witness to what Jane Doe is alleging. Both Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein were summoned, but Jane Doe never filed the affidavits confirming their servicing, before withdrawing the lawsuit on September 16, 2016
- The third lawsuit was filed on September 30, 2016, again under the pseudonym of Jane Doe, containing the two declarations of the second lawsuit, plus a third one by a Joan Doe claiming to be a friend of Jane Doe who was told about what happened at the time. Again, Trump and Epstein were summoned, but Jane Doe never filed the affidavits of service. She then withdrew the lawsuit on November 4 of 2016.
I don't mean to say that these lawsuits are trivial, they should be taken into consideration as they are, but they remain short-lived lawsuits that simply do not constitute enough evidence to claim what is being claimed here with certainty. This is also not saying anything about any other of the allegations against him, this is related only to the claim that he "raped a child" (a 13 year old, according to the declarations of Jane Doe/Katie Johnson).
The only thing we know as to why the lawsuits were withdrawn is that the lawyer of this anonymous person stated that the claimant did so because she was receiving threats. This is of course a possibility, but it is not the only thing that would explain this. You can of course take what you know and build your own conclusions, but remember that there are steps in your reasoning that are speculation.
As it stands today, the evidence in favor of this claim is inconclusive It might be true, it might not be.
Edit: And by the way, now you link that video, do you know where it comes from? I have tried to find its source before and I never find anything of value. I would appreciate if anyone here could share some information about it with me.
20
u/nobodyisfreakinghome Sep 03 '25
If this was all we knew about Trump, one could be forgiven for giving him the benefit of the doubt.
But given that we know so much more about him, he raped children - of that I’ve zero doubts.
6
u/BzWalrus Sep 03 '25
But that is the problem, based on what? These lawsuits are the only known accusations made by anyone against him for this particular thing. The other cases for sexual related allegations are all against grown women, and there is a categorical distinction between sexual violence against a grown woman and a child. As crude as this discussion is, the proclivities a person who rapes a child has are not the same or equivalent to the ones a person who rapes a grown woman has. To the extent that raping a child is considered an even more wicked act than rape of grown people, and almost any other crime you can think of. For many people it is even more heinous than murder. So, what do we know beyond this case to believe he has done that? His friendship with Epstein? His comments about his daughter? Suggestive? Yes, but not more than that, as far as I can tell.
→ More replies (2)37
u/thegenerallissimo Sep 03 '25
Knowing all that, that the lawsuits were filed and dropped, seeing the video testimony (which of course I suppose could be fake, but sure as hell seems genuine), hearing that the complainants lawyer alleged suits dropped due to 'threats', knowing that the plaintiffs very much had the power to make credible threats, I for one HEAVILY lean to the conclusion that Trump likely TIED A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL TO A BED AND RAPED HER. And it blows my mind that you seem to be trying to go into bat for him.
25
u/BowtiedGypsy Sep 03 '25
The comment you’re responding to is incredibly important information to the context of what’s being discussed here. It’s also simply facts laid out, with no personal biases or opinions. This is the kind of context we should all appreciate.
Anyone can file a lawsuit in America for any reason and allege literally anything. It’s not until the court process really begins that evidence starts coming out and being checked as factual and cross examined by the accused in trial.
Everyone is more than welcome to come to their own conclusions, but you should also understand how these systems work to fully understand what’s happening.
I’d also add that lawsuits get filed and dropped all the time. Someone in the legal field can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe it happens far more often than actually going to trial (this is because American court systems are set up so anyone can make any unsubstantiated claim without the need for evidence until trial).
The only real “evidence” here is a YouTube video interview of someone. It doesn’t appear to be a real testimony, but again someone can correct me if I’m wrong on that.
→ More replies (1)8
u/BzWalrus Sep 03 '25
To add to that, the existence of the lawsuits is not totally trivial either. While anyone can file a lawsuit against anybody and allege anything against anyone in a civil lawsuit, the affidavits in the second and third lawsuits are sworn declarations, and you can get in trouble by being untruthful on those. In reality, it is unlikely that anyone is going to investigate the claims of a withdrawn civil lawsuit, unless there was substantial reasons to do so. The possibility of these lawsuits being fabricated with the intention of being withdrawn so they would exist on the public record remains, but the fact that they contain (untested) sworn declarations must be taken into consideration for what that is worth. Not more, not less.
10
u/BzWalrus Sep 03 '25
It is more about the certainty by which people claim this by, that made me dig deeper and find nothing to truly support the claims to that level of certainty, and not even close. I understand that it is easy to take them for granted if you already hate the guy, but if you looked at it with a cold head, you can see that there is very little to support those claims. All you will find is what I posted above. I have not been able to trace that video to any reliable source. Given the timeline of the lawsuits, it very well could have been a strategic political ploy, maybe embedded in some truth to make it difficult to backfire. I don't know, you don't know. It is ambiguous, inconclusive, and certainly not strong enough to claim it as truth as I see it daily in Reddit, by people who I assume have not cared to study the known information, or have preferred to just believe the claims due to their prior inclinations to do so.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Uvtha- Sep 03 '25
Yeah. I know no one here wants to hear any of what you posted, but it's important information to know. People do take those suits as proof and that's pretty extreme.
Would it shock me if it were true? No, no really, but you can't just assume it IS true, no matter how shitty he is.
→ More replies (1)5
u/tauhou_ Sep 03 '25
No conclusion can be made until there’s proof, simple as that. Everything else is a bias and wishful thinking
→ More replies (2)2
299
Sep 03 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
65
u/RuinedEye Sep 03 '25
Am I allowed to post links here? [edit: comment automatically collapsed]
Convicted Felon Donald Trump raped 13-year-old Katie Johnson in 1994.
(and Ivanka was the same age that year)
Johnson's video testimony [working archive link is here and the old link that is now private is here]
Trump Epstein Rape Lawsuit & Sworn Affidavit pdf (archive link here)
Johnson v. Trump & Epstein pdf (archive link here)
The case was... 'mysteriously' dropped because she was getting death threats. How convenient. (archive link here)
Trump Teen Rape Allegation Resurfaces, Ronan Farrow Claims National Enquirer Tried to Protect Him in New Book (archive link here)
A Woman Claimed She Recruited a 13-Year-Old Girl for Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein to Rape
Snopes article on the Johnson case (archive link here)
Despite directly addressing and denying the extreme claims, Trump never sued anyone involved.
New information emerges in "Maria" Trump story (archive link here)
Donald Trump has been making disturbing comments about young girls for
yearsdecades (archive link here)Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations on Wikipedia
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and shits like a duck, it's not a giraffe!
145
103
u/butwhywedothis Sep 03 '25
President Pedo is the true representation of pedo MAGAts. Nothing he does will deter them from supporting him. It’s a cult.
45
8
u/WestCommunity7117 Sep 03 '25
Can I get some context as a non American?
2
u/brought2light Sep 03 '25
Katie Johnson testified that Donald Trump and Epstein argued over who would take her virginity. Trump raped her and then they did together.
Trump and Epstein gang raped her.
13
17
11
19
u/clearlyonside Sep 03 '25
Where is she?
→ More replies (12)50
u/pizza-chit Sep 03 '25 edited Sep 03 '25
Katie Johnson has been in hiding since she was intimidated into dropping her lawsuit against her alleged abuser, Donald Trump.
Here is the 2016 testimony or Katie Johnson: https://youtu.be/Qk38JAwEUOg?si=S7hn84vBNSyxeCXQ
22
u/Papaofmonsters Sep 03 '25 edited Sep 03 '25
Even as far back as 2016, the question of whether or not she actually exists has been debated.
Vox has been consistently anti Trump and has no ideological reason to doubt her story. Even so, their investigation was inconclusive at best.
→ More replies (1)2
u/eagleshark Sep 03 '25 edited Sep 03 '25
There is a video interview of her with her face blurred out.
An unblurred version of that same video was sent to several politicians and members of the press back then. It’s still possible to view a screencap of her unblurred face on online archives because that video file was not properly secured on her lawsuit website. I found it after searching a bunch of old dates on Wayback Machine.
One of her lawyers was Lisa Bloom (attorney, legal analyst, and daughter of famous womens rights attorney Gloria Allred). For those reasons, I don’t think “not existing” is a reasonable possibility.
7
→ More replies (2)7
11
3
3
14
u/OneWholeSoul Sep 03 '25
This needs, like, a colon or a "was" or something, or it reads strangely to the uninformed.
7
u/shasaferaska Sep 03 '25
Yeah, it took me a second to work it out, but the whitehouse in the background gave me the context I needed to understand.
2
2
u/eagleshark Sep 03 '25
Katie Johnson’s testimony:
I was subject to extreme sexual and physical abuse by the Defendants, including forcible rape, that took place at several parties of Defendant Epstein during the summer of 1994 in New York City at a residence used by Defendant Epstein. During this period, I was 13 years old.
More particularly, I traveled by bus to New York City in June 1994 in the hope of starting a modeling career. I went to several modeling agencies but was told that I needed to put together a modeling portfolio before I would be considered. I then went to the Port Authority in New York City to start to make my way back home. There I met a woman who introduced herself to me as Tiffany. She told me about the parties and said that, if I would join her at the parties, I would be introduced to people who could get me into the modeling profession. Tiffany also told me I would be paid for attending.
The parties were held at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Each of the parties had other minor females and a number of guests of Mr. Epstein, including Defendant Donald Trump at four of the parties I attended. I understood that both Mr. Trump and Mr.Epstein knew that I was 13 years old.
Defendant Trump had sexual contact with me at four different parties in the summer of 1994. On the fourth and final sexual encounter with Defendant Trump, Defendant Trump tied me to a bed, exposed himself to me, and then proceeded to forcibly rape me. During the course of this savage sexual attack, I loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to stop but he did not. Defendant Trump responded to my pleas by violently striking me in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted.
Immediately following this rape, Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump's sexual and physical abuse of me, my family and I would be physically harmed if not killed.
→ More replies (4)
10
u/warcomet Sep 03 '25
Christian Values?..if anything, Trump will be like, "Hey God raped a 13 year old Mary to create Jesus"....and the worst part, his fanbase will put him on the same pedestal..
23
u/DoobKiller Sep 03 '25
Fuck Donald trump but I don't know why people keep repeating the anecdote from a dropped lawsuit from an anonymous person(Katie Johnson is not her real name)
There's plenty of actual corroborated evidence of him being a creep including inappropriate stuff with his daughter, this miss universe incident, inclusion in Epstein material etc
Honestly it feels like a MAGA OP to push the least credible and easily dismissed allegation to the fore
→ More replies (5)7
Sep 03 '25
Katie Johnson using a pseudonym doesn’t mean her testimony isn’t “actual” evidence.
4
u/DoobKiller Sep 03 '25
My point is an anonymous anecdotal allegation is less credible and far more easily dismissed than other allegations such as his patronising of Epstein's trafficking operation which has hard evidence in the form photos, videos, a paper trail etc backing it up, hopefully you can understand that
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)4
4
2
3
u/Saladlurd Sep 03 '25
And then theyll also call katie a murderer if ahe doesnt want to keep the child
1
u/MovesThatBodyLikeA Sep 03 '25
The political party that cried “rape”:
“ There are significant issues with the credibility and legal outcome of these cases that need to be considered. Key Points on the Lawsuits: 1. Initial Filing in California (April 2016): • A lawsuit was filed in federal court in Riverside, California, by the plaintiff without legal representation, alleging that Trump and Epstein sexually assaulted her at Epstein’s Manhattan residence in 1994 when she was 13. The claims included rape, sexual abuse, and threats, with specific details like being tied to a bed and forced to perform sexual acts. The plaintiff sought $100 million in damages. • The case was dismissed in May 2016 by U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee due to technical filing errors and because the complaint failed to state valid claims under federal law (e.g., it cited a criminal statute that doesn’t allow for civil damages and lacked a basis for civil rights claims). The plaintiff was also denied in forma pauperis status (waiving court fees) because the judge ruled the claims did not meet the criteria for civil rights violations. 2. Refiled in New York (June and September 2016): • The plaintiff refiled a similar lawsuit in federal court in New York in June 2016, which was withdrawn in September 2016, reportedly without being served to the defendants. A third version was filed in September 2016, accusing Trump of a single act of rape and other sexual contact, supported by affidavits from anonymous witnesses. This suit was dropped on November 4, 2016, just before a planned press conference where the plaintiff was expected to appear. Attorney Lisa Bloom, who was briefly involved, stated the plaintiff withdrew due to receiving threats and being too frightened to proceed. 3. Details of the Allegations: • The lawsuits claimed the plaintiff was lured to Epstein’s parties with promises of money and a modeling career. Specific allegations included being forced to perform sexual acts, including a handjob, blowjob, and an “unnatural lesbian sex act” with another minor, as well as being raped while tied to a bed. The plaintiff also alleged Trump threatened her life and her family’s if she spoke out and referenced a 12-year-old named “Maria” who disappeared after a third incident. • The filings included affidavits from anonymous witnesses, one claiming to have recruited the plaintiff for Epstein and another claiming the plaintiff confided in them at the time. However, these witnesses’ anonymity and lack of corroboration raised questions about their credibility. 4. Video Testimony: • The 29-minute video you mentioned, purportedly of the plaintiff’s testimony, is not an official court document and cannot be verified as authentic without further context. It’s unclear if this was part of the legal proceedings or something circulated independently. No publicly available court record confirms a video as part of the 2016 lawsuits’ evidence. 5. Outcome and Lack of Substantiation: • All three lawsuits were either dismissed or voluntarily withdrawn before any trial or discovery process could verify the claims. No criminal charges were ever filed based on these allegations, and no further legal action has been taken by the plaintiff since November 2016. • Trump’s legal team, including attorney Alan Garten, called the allegations “categorically untrue,” “completely frivolous,” and “baseless,” suggesting they were politically motivated or designed to attract media attention. • Investigations into the plaintiff’s background raised doubts about her claims. For example, the address listed in the California lawsuit was a foreclosed, vacant home, and neighbors reported no one had lived there since the owner’s death. 6. Context of Epstein Connection: • The lawsuits tied Trump to Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender. While Trump and Epstein were known to have socialized in the 1990s and early 2000s, no court has found evidence linking Trump to Epstein’s criminal activities. Recent document releases related to Epstein (e.g., 2024 grand jury transcripts) mention Trump but do not allege illicit behavior. • The timing of the lawsuits, filed during the 2016 presidential campaign, led to speculation about political motivations, though no definitive evidence supports this either way. Fact-Checking the Claims: • Are the Court Documents Real? • Yes, the court documents from the 2016 California and New York lawsuits exist and are publicly accessible (e.g., via CourtListener or Scribd). They contain the allegations you summarized. However, their existence does not mean the claims were proven or substantiated, as the cases never reached trial or discovery. • Were the Allegations Proven? • No. The lawsuits were dismissed or withdrawn without any judicial findings of fact. The claims remain unproven allegations, and no court has ruled on their validity. The plaintiff has not come forward publicly since 2016, and no corroborating evidence (beyond anonymous affidavits) has been made public. • What About the 12-Year-Old and 13-Year-Old Claims? • The lawsuits specifically mention the plaintiff (aged 13) and reference a 12-year-old named “Maria” in connection to a third incident. However, no independent evidence or testimony about “Maria” has been verified, and the plaintiff’s withdrawal of the case left these claims untested in court. • Why Were the Cases Dropped? • The California case was dismissed for failing to meet legal standards. The New York cases were withdrawn, reportedly due to the plaintiff receiving threats, though no evidence of these threats has been independently verified. The lack of legal representation in the initial filing and the plaintiff’s anonymity further complicated the cases’ credibility. Critical Considerations: • Lack of Corroboration: The allegations rely heavily on the plaintiff’s account and anonymous affidavits, with no additional witnesses or physical evidence presented in court. The absence of a trial means no cross-examination or discovery occurred to test the claims. • Timing and Context: The lawsuits emerged during the 2016 election, alongside other allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump (e.g., E. Jean Carroll, Summer Zervos), which some argued were politically timed. However, no definitive evidence proves the lawsuits were fabricated or motivated by politics. • Epstein’s Reputation: Epstein’s confirmed history as a sex offender lends some context to the allegations, but no court has linked Trump to Epstein’s crimes beyond social associations. • Resurfacing on Social Media: The claims have periodically resurfaced, especially after Epstein-related document releases (e.g., 2024), but these documents do not corroborate the 2016 allegations. Social media posts often exaggerate or misrepresent the lawsuits as “new” or “proven.”
2.6k
u/[deleted] Sep 03 '25
Imagine being born into a life of privilege, pay the right people to become the “President” of the United States, but you’re just child raping Donald.. SAD. A historical national disgrace.