Today, 07:21 AM
Sorry but when did I change your story? I'm pretty sure I didn't. In fact I know I didn't.
Now I missed your request for an explanation of the cognitive dissonance so I'll now gladly give it. I could care less about the fact that some people have connected certain journalists to Epstein's pedophilia just for attending his parties. That's a red herring. Have any of those journalists made remarks about Epstein liking young women? Have any of those journalists been sued by any of Epstein's victims? Have any of those journalists had employees who went on to become victims of Epstein? No? Then really there was absolutely no reason for you to bring up those journalists except as a way to deflect from Trump. It's kind of a "innocence by association" tactic. The real comparison is between Trump and Clinton. Both have established reputations for being raunchy when it comes to women. Both have had multiple women come out and make accusations. Clinton had to admit to some of his dalliances. Trump openly bragged about some of his, both in writing his books and when he thought he was off camera on his reality TV show. And, so far, neither Trump nor Clinton have actually been convicted of rape. Bill Clinton's defenders defend his as vigorously as you are defending Donald Trump. I defend neither. I believe acting like Clinton is some sex demon while pretending Trump somehow is not is cognitive dissonance. And yes, I would say the same thing to someone defending Bill Clinton. Now you may not agree with what I'm saying, but I hope at the very least you at this point understand it.