~a
(i mean i see it now obviously, but i had to search for it, and it seems like quite the footnote in articles i've found.) ~a
paul: "hours spend on his campaign was 'community service'". i didn't see mention of this in the press. ~a
paul: fantasy and reality are different, paul. he didn't cover up any dead (or molested in the case of jeffrey epstein) kids. the speeding ticket on the other hand, that is fucked. ~a
paul: no I don't think that is right. Democrats are usually willing to take out their own trash when it comes to rape. see the "me too" movement for tons of examples. based on that alone, I think if pizzagate had been real, then Ds would have taken it very seriously. ~a
a: Not to beat a dead horse, but it seems pretty relevant: We just saw a huge percentage of Democrats be willing to overlook a candidate for attorney general weasel out of a speeding ticket, claim hours spend on his campaign was "community service", and, oh, fantasize about killing people's children. -Paul
a: "that seems completely batshit crazy to me" Oh, I 100% agree. But I guess I'm pretty willing to believe people will overlook anything when it comes to their own party. -Paul
mig: yeah. thanks for your thoughts on this. i bet he had some super incriminating info, on a bunch of people, probably trump included, but nothing that would stand up in court: and/or that evidence wouldn't have helped him get out of jail ever. those people set up a situation where he had a chance to kill himself and he took it (or they had him killed, honestly i'm not sure which). ~a
a: more importantly, why didn’t epstein himself volunteer such information, the emails being released certainly show that he intensely disliked Trump in recent years. - mig
mig: "If Epstein had something truly damning about Trump it probably would leaked well before this" yes i agree with this logic. i can think of tons of reasons it wouldn't be leaked. but yeah you're right. ~a
paul: ok covvvering up child rape, is easy to dismiss and excuse away? that seems completely batshit crazy to me. i guess it's all a hypothetical. still, crazy. this is literally pizzagate. just as hypothetical. but like, pizzagate? ~a
This is just getting really fucking dumb. - mig
people are wishcasting super hard on whats out there now. There’s been an already debunked claim that Trump and Epstein spent thanksgiving together in 2017, and that a remark about Trump blwoing bubba means he gave Putin a bj? - mig
that being said my guess there will be some tangentially embarrassing stuff for Trump in these files but I don’t think we’re going to get the jackpot some people are hoping for. If Epstein had something truly damning about Trump it probably would leaked well before this. - mig
a: if he actually participated he should be impeached and it would be an absolute disgrace if he wasn’t. - mig
a: Just knowing about it... I guess that's easier to dismiss and excuse away? -Paul
a: Is this about the Epstein theories? I mean, one would think participation in the sexual abuse of minors would be a bridge too far for congressional Republicans but... who knows? -Paul
paul/mig: if it turns out that, 100% for sure, trump knew about (or participated in) sexual abuse of minors (or adults): then what? what would you suggest we / republicans in congress do next? anything at all? ~a
mig: i agree. that's a strategy. but it seems like a "oh shit we're fucked, what do we do" strategy to me. literally everybody is saying that the democrats caved. even middle-of-the-road or borderline-pro-liberal news outlets are painting this a terrible for the democrats. ~a
a: how was it not a strategy? Even the caving was strategic! The exact amount of democrats needed to pass the CR crossed and none of those democrats are up for re-election in 2026. That’s not a coincindence. - mig
mig: you're suggesting this was a strategy decided on by the democrats, when i don't see it that way. there were many individuals here: and a majority was unable to come together to make a budget, that's sorta how a budget works. and is why a shutdown can even happen. if you want a government, you need to fund it. one or both sides had to concede to something eventually. republicans refused to budge even an inch and the dems caved. ~a
a: was that ever a realistic outcome? Threatening a shutdown to try and get what you want seems like a poor strategy. Didn’t work for Trump in 2018 or Cruz in 2013. Not sure why it would work here. - mig
mig: "for fucking nothing". i mean yeah, that's exactly how i feel too, obviously. but, i assume they were hoping to get private aca health insurance plans funded. and failed. (i agree, it all seems for nothing: but worse: now this will happen again.) ~a
a: yes it was a cave. if they were going to cave why not cave earlier instead of upending everyone’s lives for fucking nothing? - mig
mig: they caved? this is caving. they were trying to keep the private aca health insurance plans funded, but caved. ~a
https://x.com/mkraju/status/1987679515850485822 assuming this is deal that will end the shutdown what in the fucking fuck where democrats holding out for? The promise of a aca vote was offered pretty early on, and democrats aren’t getting any of their initial demands. what-the-fuck - mig
a: "neither of them are evil" Also fair, although I do think Jones is about as close as you can get through speech alone. Fantasizing about killing somebody is one thing, but extending it to their children... that's pretty dark. -Paul
a: "i've *never* told you to vote for the lesser of two evils" Fair, which is why I hadn't brought it up before now. Just thought it was amusing given what people normally chastise me for. -Paul
paul: i've *never* told you to vote for the lesser of two evils. also, in this case miyares is not the lesser of two evils. also, i know we're speaking rhetorically, but neither of them are evil. jones did an evil thing once, and miyares is allowing an autocrat to autocrat. ~a
ok. ~a
a: But here, where there WASN'T a non-evil option to vote for (unless you count a write-in), I decided to vote for the lesser of two evils (which I think Miyares clearly is in this case) and I'm being told: "No, don't vote for the lesser of two evils in THIS case" -Paul
a: And I don't know what Miyares has to do with this. The ironic thing is that for like 20+ years people on the left have been screaming at me to vote for the lesser of two evils and I've largely refused because there was a non-evil option to vote for. -Paul
a: "maybe, make this argument, like, a week ago? and make it without miyares" I'm not sure what you're asking here. You're saying I should've argued that fantasizing about killing people who disagree with you is bad earlier? I'm being 100% serious: I thought that was obvious. -Paul
a: And I don't know of anybody (including Jay Jones) disputing the contents of the call afterwards. -Paul
a: "I didn't question the veracity of the texts. only the rest" I think it's fair to be skeptical, but as near as I can tell the person making those claims wasn't really enthusiastic about coming out with this info and did it in response to the texts leaking. -Paul
I did initially think demanding he drop out felt maybe too much but after repeated “I’ve taken accountability” without really specifying how and his subsequent alleged statements of thinking cops dying was “good” had put me in the “its disqualifying” camp. - mig
a: I did add “I’m sorry also doesn’t feel like enough”. - mig
i was elected 6 weeks ago. speaker mike johnson refuses to swear me in. ~a
mig: ah yes thank you, i had forgotten. "expecting Jones to drop over this might be unreasonable also" i do vaguely remember this. you didn't think he should drop out? if you didn't think he should drop out, that kinda says something, right? paul: you, obviously, do think jones should have dropped out over this? ~a
a: i *did* actually bring this up around when the revelations happened. - mig
mig/paul: maybe, make this argument, like, a week ago? and make it without miyares. ~a
paul: I didn't question the veracity of the texts. only the rest. ~a
paul: "Does an apology matter?" "is it meaningless to apologize?" "never..." "i'm so sorry" ~a
a: there really hasn't been much accountability for Bill Clinton. - mig
paul: she's going for epstein is terrible: but also suggesting that raping a 15 year old is ~nbd. like, what is her point exactly? that we shouldn't prosecute 15-yo-rape? that we shouldn't prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law? that what epstein did was somehow borderline? 15 is not "barely legal". right? not jumping down her throat without the facts is one thing. but i wouldn't back her so quick. ~a
paul: "that's something I'm a little sympathetic to" maybe listen to what she has said before you get her back. cnn.com has some of the context. it also isn't the full clip, but yeah she's saying "15" is "barely legal". i have a hard time generously interpreting her words. ~a
paul: "a lot of this is still hypothetical about Trump" what? no. there are hundreds of non-hypothetical-unforgivable things that trump has done. you agree, right? ~a
paul: "depends on the issue" yes but i was more specific. i said "rape". ~a
a: Because honestly, that's something I'm a little sympathetic to. I feel like words have meaning and it's important to use the right words and if we start referring to sex with a 15 year old as pedophilia then we diminish how awful true pedophilia is. -Paul
a: "did you hear megyn kelly's take on this?" No. I am completely ignorant of any spats involving Megyn Kelly. Was she making the differentiation between pedophilia and what Epstein did? -Paul
a: Either way, it's not like I want to try to defend Trump on anything. He's awful regardless of if he is completely innocent with Epstein. -Paul
a: "fantasy and reality are different" Very true, but so is actively doing something vs... just staying quiet about something? Also I think nobody disagrees that Jones did what he did but I think a lot of this is still hypothetical about Trump. -Paul
a: "Democrats are usually willing to take out their own trash when it comes to rape" I think the records are mixed and depends on the issue. For example, Democrats seem to have been largely silent about the antisemitism in their ranks lately whereas Republicans seem to be having a civil war over it. -Paul
mig: directing bondi to open an investigation seems the perfect way to do that. now you can redact whatever you want and use the "active / ongoing prosecution" as the excuse. ~a
mig: yes i agree. except that's not what bondi told trump a few months ago. she told him that he was very much all over the files. other congressional republicans said the same. i assume it's not just that one bj joke? it now feels likely they plan to release redacted shit, and call it done. ~a
a: i dunno maybe the most embarrassing thing in there was the blowing bubba stuff and thats why he’s 180’d on releasing them. - mig
agreed. especially since the whitehouse has had a full year to get their ducks in a row. ~a
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/17/larry-summers-steps-back-from-public-commitments-deeply-ashamed-by-epstein-revelations-00655712 I’m going to guess the epstein files will probably have more dire consequences for people not named Trump than Trump himself. - mig
paul: "I guess I'm pretty willing to believe people will overlook anything when it comes to their own party" did you hear megyn kelly's take on this? "barely legal type" = "15-year-old"? "there's a difference between a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old, you know". "i was under 10" "i was under 14"? kinda disgusting, if you hear the full quote. she's like "maybe it's a distinction without a difference", but her guest is like "no". ~a
seems like a pretty typical "rules for thee" ~a
(i mean i see it now obviously, but i had to search for it, and it seems like quite the footnote in articles i've found.) ~a
paul: "hours spend on his campaign was 'community service'". i didn't see mention of this in the press. ~a
paul: fantasy and reality are different, paul. he didn't cover up any dead (or molested in the case of jeffrey epstein) kids. the speeding ticket on the other hand, that is fucked. ~a
paul: no I don't think that is right. Democrats are usually willing to take out their own trash when it comes to rape. see the "me too" movement for tons of examples. based on that alone, I think if pizzagate had been real, then Ds would have taken it very seriously. ~a
a: Not to beat a dead horse, but it seems pretty relevant: We just saw a huge percentage of Democrats be willing to overlook a candidate for attorney general weasel out of a speeding ticket, claim hours spend on his campaign was "community service", and, oh, fantasize about killing people's children. -Paul
a: "that seems completely batshit crazy to me" Oh, I 100% agree. But I guess I'm pretty willing to believe people will overlook anything when it comes to their own party. -Paul
mig: yeah. thanks for your thoughts on this. i bet he had some super incriminating info, on a bunch of people, probably trump included, but nothing that would stand up in court: and/or that evidence wouldn't have helped him get out of jail ever. those people set up a situation where he had a chance to kill himself and he took it (or they had him killed, honestly i'm not sure which). ~a
a: more importantly, why didn’t epstein himself volunteer such information, the emails being released certainly show that he intensely disliked Trump in recent years. - mig
mig: "If Epstein had something truly damning about Trump it probably would leaked well before this" yes i agree with this logic. i can think of tons of reasons it wouldn't be leaked. but yeah you're right. ~a
paul: ok covvvering up child rape, is easy to dismiss and excuse away? that seems completely batshit crazy to me. i guess it's all a hypothetical. still, crazy. this is literally pizzagate. just as hypothetical. but like, pizzagate? ~a
This is just getting really fucking dumb. - mig
people are wishcasting super hard on whats out there now. There’s been an already debunked claim that Trump and Epstein spent thanksgiving together in 2017, and that a remark about Trump blwoing bubba means he gave Putin a bj? - mig
that being said my guess there will be some tangentially embarrassing stuff for Trump in these files but I don’t think we’re going to get the jackpot some people are hoping for. If Epstein had something truly damning about Trump it probably would leaked well before this. - mig
a: if he actually participated he should be impeached and it would be an absolute disgrace if he wasn’t. - mig
a: Just knowing about it... I guess that's easier to dismiss and excuse away? -Paul
a: Is this about the Epstein theories? I mean, one would think participation in the sexual abuse of minors would be a bridge too far for congressional Republicans but... who knows? -Paul
paul/mig: if it turns out that, 100% for sure, trump knew about (or participated in) sexual abuse of minors (or adults): then what? what would you suggest we / republicans in congress do next? anything at all? ~a
mig: i agree. that's a strategy. but it seems like a "oh shit we're fucked, what do we do" strategy to me. literally everybody is saying that the democrats caved. even middle-of-the-road or borderline-pro-liberal news outlets are painting this a terrible for the democrats. ~a
a: how was it not a strategy? Even the caving was strategic! The exact amount of democrats needed to pass the CR crossed and none of those democrats are up for re-election in 2026. That’s not a coincindence. - mig
mig: you're suggesting this was a strategy decided on by the democrats, when i don't see it that way. there were many individuals here: and a majority was unable to come together to make a budget, that's sorta how a budget works. and is why a shutdown can even happen. if you want a government, you need to fund it. one or both sides had to concede to something eventually. republicans refused to budge even an inch and the dems caved. ~a
a: was that ever a realistic outcome? Threatening a shutdown to try and get what you want seems like a poor strategy. Didn’t work for Trump in 2018 or Cruz in 2013. Not sure why it would work here. - mig
mig: "for fucking nothing". i mean yeah, that's exactly how i feel too, obviously. but, i assume they were hoping to get private aca health insurance plans funded. and failed. (i agree, it all seems for nothing: but worse: now this will happen again.) ~a
a: yes it was a cave. if they were going to cave why not cave earlier instead of upending everyone’s lives for fucking nothing? - mig
mig: they caved? this is caving. they were trying to keep the private aca health insurance plans funded, but caved. ~a
https://x.com/mkraju/status/1987679515850485822 assuming this is deal that will end the shutdown what in the fucking fuck where democrats holding out for? The promise of a aca vote was offered pretty early on, and democrats aren’t getting any of their initial demands. what-the-fuck - mig
a: "neither of them are evil" Also fair, although I do think Jones is about as close as you can get through speech alone. Fantasizing about killing somebody is one thing, but extending it to their children... that's pretty dark. -Paul
a: "i've *never* told you to vote for the lesser of two evils" Fair, which is why I hadn't brought it up before now. Just thought it was amusing given what people normally chastise me for. -Paul
paul: i've *never* told you to vote for the lesser of two evils. also, in this case miyares is not the lesser of two evils. also, i know we're speaking rhetorically, but neither of them are evil. jones did an evil thing once, and miyares is allowing an autocrat to autocrat. ~a
ok. ~a
a: But here, where there WASN'T a non-evil option to vote for (unless you count a write-in), I decided to vote for the lesser of two evils (which I think Miyares clearly is in this case) and I'm being told: "No, don't vote for the lesser of two evils in THIS case" -Paul
a: And I don't know what Miyares has to do with this. The ironic thing is that for like 20+ years people on the left have been screaming at me to vote for the lesser of two evils and I've largely refused because there was a non-evil option to vote for. -Paul
a: "maybe, make this argument, like, a week ago? and make it without miyares" I'm not sure what you're asking here. You're saying I should've argued that fantasizing about killing people who disagree with you is bad earlier? I'm being 100% serious: I thought that was obvious. -Paul
a: And I don't know of anybody (including Jay Jones) disputing the contents of the call afterwards. -Paul
a: "I didn't question the veracity of the texts. only the rest" I think it's fair to be skeptical, but as near as I can tell the person making those claims wasn't really enthusiastic about coming out with this info and did it in response to the texts leaking. -Paul
I did initially think demanding he drop out felt maybe too much but after repeated “I’ve taken accountability” without really specifying how and his subsequent alleged statements of thinking cops dying was “good” had put me in the “its disqualifying” camp. - mig
a: I did add “I’m sorry also doesn’t feel like enough”. - mig
i was elected 6 weeks ago. speaker mike johnson refuses to swear me in. ~a
mig: ah yes thank you, i had forgotten. "expecting Jones to drop over this might be unreasonable also" i do vaguely remember this. you didn't think he should drop out? if you didn't think he should drop out, that kinda says something, right? paul: you, obviously, do think jones should have dropped out over this? ~a
a: i *did* actually bring this up around when the revelations happened. - mig
mig/paul: maybe, make this argument, like, a week ago? and make it without miyares. ~a
paul: I didn't question the veracity of the texts. only the rest. ~a
paul: "Does an apology matter?" "is it meaningless to apologize?" "never..." "i'm so sorry" ~a
~a
(i mean i see it now obviously, but i had to search for it, and it seems like quite the footnote in articles i've found.) ~a
paul: "hours spend on his campaign was 'community service'". i didn't see mention of this in the press. ~a
paul: fantasy and reality are different, paul. he didn't cover up any dead (or molested in the case of jeffrey epstein) kids. the speeding ticket on the other hand, that is fucked. ~a
paul: no I don't think that is right. Democrats are usually willing to take out their own trash when it comes to rape. see the "me too" movement for tons of examples. based on that alone, I think if pizzagate had been real, then Ds would have taken it very seriously. ~a
a: Not to beat a dead horse, but it seems pretty relevant: We just saw a huge percentage of Democrats be willing to overlook a candidate for attorney general weasel out of a speeding ticket, claim hours spend on his campaign was "community service", and, oh, fantasize about killing people's children. -Paul
a: "that seems completely batshit crazy to me" Oh, I 100% agree. But I guess I'm pretty willing to believe people will overlook anything when it comes to their own party. -Paul
mig: yeah. thanks for your thoughts on this. i bet he had some super incriminating info, on a bunch of people, probably trump included, but nothing that would stand up in court: and/or that evidence wouldn't have helped him get out of jail ever. those people set up a situation where he had a chance to kill himself and he took it (or they had him killed, honestly i'm not sure which). ~a
a: more importantly, why didn’t epstein himself volunteer such information, the emails being released certainly show that he intensely disliked Trump in recent years. - mig
mig: "If Epstein had something truly damning about Trump it probably would leaked well before this" yes i agree with this logic. i can think of tons of reasons it wouldn't be leaked. but yeah you're right. ~a
paul: ok covvvering up child rape, is easy to dismiss and excuse away? that seems completely batshit crazy to me. i guess it's all a hypothetical. still, crazy. this is literally pizzagate. just as hypothetical. but like, pizzagate? ~a
This is just getting really fucking dumb. - mig
people are wishcasting super hard on whats out there now. There’s been an already debunked claim that Trump and Epstein spent thanksgiving together in 2017, and that a remark about Trump blwoing bubba means he gave Putin a bj? - mig
that being said my guess there will be some tangentially embarrassing stuff for Trump in these files but I don’t think we’re going to get the jackpot some people are hoping for. If Epstein had something truly damning about Trump it probably would leaked well before this. - mig
a: if he actually participated he should be impeached and it would be an absolute disgrace if he wasn’t. - mig
a: Just knowing about it... I guess that's easier to dismiss and excuse away? -Paul
a: Is this about the Epstein theories? I mean, one would think participation in the sexual abuse of minors would be a bridge too far for congressional Republicans but... who knows? -Paul
paul/mig: if it turns out that, 100% for sure, trump knew about (or participated in) sexual abuse of minors (or adults): then what? what would you suggest we / republicans in congress do next? anything at all? ~a
mig: i agree. that's a strategy. but it seems like a "oh shit we're fucked, what do we do" strategy to me. literally everybody is saying that the democrats caved. even middle-of-the-road or borderline-pro-liberal news outlets are painting this a terrible for the democrats. ~a
a: how was it not a strategy? Even the caving was strategic! The exact amount of democrats needed to pass the CR crossed and none of those democrats are up for re-election in 2026. That’s not a coincindence. - mig
mig: you're suggesting this was a strategy decided on by the democrats, when i don't see it that way. there were many individuals here: and a majority was unable to come together to make a budget, that's sorta how a budget works. and is why a shutdown can even happen. if you want a government, you need to fund it. one or both sides had to concede to something eventually. republicans refused to budge even an inch and the dems caved. ~a
a: was that ever a realistic outcome? Threatening a shutdown to try and get what you want seems like a poor strategy. Didn’t work for Trump in 2018 or Cruz in 2013. Not sure why it would work here. - mig
mig: "for fucking nothing". i mean yeah, that's exactly how i feel too, obviously. but, i assume they were hoping to get private aca health insurance plans funded. and failed. (i agree, it all seems for nothing: but worse: now this will happen again.) ~a
a: yes it was a cave. if they were going to cave why not cave earlier instead of upending everyone’s lives for fucking nothing? - mig
mig: they caved? this is caving. they were trying to keep the private aca health insurance plans funded, but caved. ~a
https://x.com/mkraju/status/1987679515850485822 assuming this is deal that will end the shutdown what in the fucking fuck where democrats holding out for? The promise of a aca vote was offered pretty early on, and democrats aren’t getting any of their initial demands. what-the-fuck - mig
a: "neither of them are evil" Also fair, although I do think Jones is about as close as you can get through speech alone. Fantasizing about killing somebody is one thing, but extending it to their children... that's pretty dark. -Paul
a: "i've *never* told you to vote for the lesser of two evils" Fair, which is why I hadn't brought it up before now. Just thought it was amusing given what people normally chastise me for. -Paul
paul: i've *never* told you to vote for the lesser of two evils. also, in this case miyares is not the lesser of two evils. also, i know we're speaking rhetorically, but neither of them are evil. jones did an evil thing once, and miyares is allowing an autocrat to autocrat. ~a
ok. ~a
a: But here, where there WASN'T a non-evil option to vote for (unless you count a write-in), I decided to vote for the lesser of two evils (which I think Miyares clearly is in this case) and I'm being told: "No, don't vote for the lesser of two evils in THIS case" -Paul
a: And I don't know what Miyares has to do with this. The ironic thing is that for like 20+ years people on the left have been screaming at me to vote for the lesser of two evils and I've largely refused because there was a non-evil option to vote for. -Paul
a: "maybe, make this argument, like, a week ago? and make it without miyares" I'm not sure what you're asking here. You're saying I should've argued that fantasizing about killing people who disagree with you is bad earlier? I'm being 100% serious: I thought that was obvious. -Paul
a: And I don't know of anybody (including Jay Jones) disputing the contents of the call afterwards. -Paul
a: "I didn't question the veracity of the texts. only the rest" I think it's fair to be skeptical, but as near as I can tell the person making those claims wasn't really enthusiastic about coming out with this info and did it in response to the texts leaking. -Paul
I did initially think demanding he drop out felt maybe too much but after repeated “I’ve taken accountability” without really specifying how and his subsequent alleged statements of thinking cops dying was “good” had put me in the “its disqualifying” camp. - mig
a: I did add “I’m sorry also doesn’t feel like enough”. - mig
i was elected 6 weeks ago. speaker mike johnson refuses to swear me in. ~a
mig: ah yes thank you, i had forgotten. "expecting Jones to drop over this might be unreasonable also" i do vaguely remember this. you didn't think he should drop out? if you didn't think he should drop out, that kinda says something, right? paul: you, obviously, do think jones should have dropped out over this? ~a
a: i *did* actually bring this up around when the revelations happened. - mig
mig/paul: maybe, make this argument, like, a week ago? and make it without miyares. ~a
paul: I didn't question the veracity of the texts. only the rest. ~a
paul: "Does an apology matter?" "is it meaningless to apologize?" "never..." "i'm so sorry" ~a