roflWow you still don't get it.
Champagne irony.
It does nothing of the sort. Read mate, just readThe article does the same thing as Mal, brings up 6000 year old Nazi conspiracy theories to discredit the story.

The article specifically notes that a lot of the conspiracy chatter re: Epstein was true, or at least substantiated. Conversely, the article also notes that stuff like Q and Pizzagate is not true. The whole article is about cookers leveraging Epstein (true) to validate their Q/Pizzagate theories (not true).The QAnon and Pizzagate people — they really have embraced Epstein as the most obvious example of these sort of high-level traffickings. Of course, with Epstein, a lot of it was true. He was doing these things, he was connected to this absolutely abhorrent behavior.
But part of what happens is we lose the ability to discern noise from signal. So you’re tarring as a pedophile anybody who had any kind of association with Epstein. And of course, most of the people who were associated with Epstein had nothing to do with what he was doing. Some of them may have known about it, some of them may have looked the other way. And they certainly have a lot of hard questions to answer about their associations with Epstein and what they knew. But just because a person had a meeting with Jeffrey Epstein doesn’t make them part of sex trafficking rings. But it’s very easy to point at all of these people and say, “They’re all working together. They’re all hiding the same things. They’re all doing the same horrible things. And we’re the only people who will talk about it.”
if you unable to decipher the meaning of words in plain english I'm not sure where we go from here




