Jeffrey Epstein arrested on sex trafficking charges

Cody montana

Have they blamed Obama yet?

Eric Cartman

drunkmonkey wrote: »

We covered this, I'm of the opinion she was an opportunist backed by Hillary, is this the one that wanted 100 million?

it is, the same story is going to be repeatedly peddled out here.

1) it was filed in 2016 in both new york and california, in district courts that cannot award 100 million dollars, should have been filed in a federal court but wasn't
2) was never re-filed correctly
3) incidents alleged to happen in 1994 but despite a plea in 2008 for victims of epstein to come forward there was nothing.

Boggles

Lets entertain the CT she was paid by the Clintons do it.

1. Trump hadn't got the nomination yet, all though he was almost assured of it.

2. The DNC and the Clintons wanted Trump, the poll numbers indicated nothing but a win against him.


Trying to destroy him and get him to drop out before he was nominated makes zero sense, especially as they wanted him to be nominated.

Eric Cartman

Boggles wrote: »

Lets entertain the CT she was paid by the Clintons do it.

1. Trump hadn't got the nomination yet, all though he was almost assured of it.

2. The DNC and the Clintons wanted Trump, the poll numbers indicated nothing but a win against him.


Trying to destroy him and get him to drop out before he was nominated makes zero sense, especially as they wanted him to be nominated.

Maybe not the clintons, some dems would still be interested in pushing it, that close to the nod its possible they wanted to cause chaos and have to have the republicans pick a different candidate half way through the campaign,

It makes a lot of sense that somebody (possibly even another republican) paid for this to happen.

Boggles

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Maybe not the clintons, some dems would still be interested in pushing it, that close to the nod its possible they wanted to cause chaos and have to have the republicans pick a different candidate half way through the campaign,

It makes a lot of sense that somebody (possibly even another republican) paid for this to happen.

The DNC party were all on the same page, the polls suggested Clinton would lose to the other top 3 candidates one on one. Donald was the one they badly wanted.

TBH when Donald got the nod, I actually thought he was a Clinton plant. :pac:

Stop moaning ffs

I want to know how much I’d get from a mystery man or faction, to come out and make a rape allegation against trump on national media in the US and this probably ruining my own life forever to be hounded and possibly threatened by his base and by his media lackies who will no doubt go digging up or inventing dirt about me and my life and publishing it in all available media and platforms to being me down.

What kind of price could I ask for that?




Or maybe just perhaps those making these allegations are actually telling the truth

evolving_doors

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Women all over the world coming out and finally being able to tell of the creepy to grotesque treatment they received at the hands of men theyve encountered in their lives wasn’t funded or bankrolled by anyone.

If that was the case then where are they now with the Epstein case. This wasn't just sexual harassment by men in power towards women in the workplace , the Epstein case is about child enslavement and sexual abuse of minors!

Where's the protest?

Penn

evolving_doors wrote: »

If that was the case then where are they now with the Epstein case. This wasn't just sexualities harassment by men in power towards women in the workplace , the Epstein case is about child enslavement and sexual abuse of minors!

Where's the protest?

Protest against what? He's been arrested and is facing charges pending further investigation. If he gets another sweetheart deal this time, given the publicity surrounding it now, there would be protests. But there's no reason to protest at this stage. Let the investigation take its course.

drunkmonkey

Boggles wrote: »

Trying to destroy him and get him to drop out before he was nominated makes zero sense, especially as they wanted him to be nominated.

On the slight off chance he did win, it could destroy the Clinton's. I'm sure they knew that. It's now happening as they've nothing left to throw at him, the Russian thing was a farce, it's Hillary needs to answer questions about the Russians. They've had clear access to power for years, now there shut out as Trump is in charge, they've never been weaker. I expect Hillary to go to Jail before all this is finished. There's so much corruption she's linked to it's impossible get your head round it.

Full disclosure, I bet on Trump to win not for a second did I think Hillary could beat him and as things stand I expect him to do it again.

Harry Palmr

I've been looking through Epstein's little black book and it's fair to say he knew all sorts and not obvious all sorts either - Mariella Frostrup and Lloyd Grossman for example. the Heseltine family, Eddie Irvine and so on.

drunkmonkey

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Or maybe just perhaps those making these allegations are actually telling the truth

No she's a gouger, wants 100 million not justice. If she wanted justice she had plenty of opportunities. Unless she produces real evidence it's a fairytale. Did you believe Christine Ford? She should have been locked up. It's too easy make a false claim about anyone and there's little fear of reprecussion.

4068ac1elhodqr

Strange that there is so little coverage of this significant story in the media, with it's major implications.

Guess it's impact stretches far and wide, and up at the very upper, powerful reaches of high society,
- who have instead instructed and decided the run the 'dancing parrot' story instead, as a main headline news item this week.

mcmoustache

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I've been looking through Epstein's little black book and it's fair to say he knew all sorts and not obvious all sorts either - Mariella Frostrup and Lloyd Grossman for example. the Heseltine family, Eddie Irvine and so on.

Another reason that this is a lot bigger than some Trump/Clinton partisan pissing contest.

Epstein was trafficking a lot of girls and they were hardly just for him. i'd say there were heaps of powerful people taking part in this. There's also the small matter of who was helping him and where where they getting these girls. There are a lot of people along that chain.

Then there was the cover-up which again would have needed help from powerful people. The man got something like a year and a half and only had to spend one night a week behind bars. That stinks to high heaven.

Harry Palmr

re Accumulator

Well it depend where you are looking - I tend to find people who opine that the media isn't covering a story are not really paying attention or are wilfully misrepresenting the fact of the matter.


https://www.google.com/search?q=jeffrey+epstein&newwindow=1&rlz=1C1AOHY_en&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj25NC9gajjAhVvShUIHWgiBW4Q_AUIESgC&biw=1152&bih=775

mcmoustache

Nolan Savory Warden wrote: »

Strange that there is so little coverage of this significant story in the media, with it's major implications.

Guess it's impact stretches far and wide, and up at the very upper, powerful reaches of high society,
- who have instead instructed and decided the run the 'dancing parrot' story instead, as a main headline news item this week.

Harry Palmr wrote: »

re Nolan Savory Warden

Well it depend where you are looking - I tend to find people who opine that the media isn't covering a story are not really paying attention or are wilfully misrepresenting the fact of the matter.


https://www.google.com/search?q=jeffrey+epstein&newwindow=1&rlz=1C1AOHY_en&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj25NC9gajjAhVvShUIHWgiBW4Q_AUIESgC&biw=1152&bih=775

It's sure getting coverage now but Epstein did manage to get quite a few stories pulled or altered. He was a powerful piece of shít.

4068ac1elhodqr

Harry Palmr wrote: »

re Accumulator
Well it depend where you are looking - I tend to find people who opine that the media isn't covering a story are not really paying attention or are wilfully misrepresenting the fact of the matter.

Thanks for the lesson on how to operate the 'go' button on googlebot's (rolleyes) 30 trillion unique individual pages of cached or indexed webpages.

Maybe have a look at any of the main news aggregators (multiple sources, multiple countries), and national/intl frontpages of this weeks newspapers instead for a better fact of the matter.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I've been looking through Epstein's little black book and it's fair to say he knew all sorts and not obvious all sorts either - Mariella Frostrup and Lloyd Grossman for example. the Heseltine family, Eddie Irvine and so on.

Stephen hawking.

That said Epstein is a physicist by education.

notobtuse

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

What is it that whenever trumps in any kind of difficult spot

BUT HILLARY

Gets rolled out.

You have no argument whatsoever if that long dead hollow whataboutery is your only argument

Comparisons are a valid argument here in the US as it illustrates the art of unequal justice and media treatment… dependent upon whether you have a ‘R’ or ‘D’ tagged behind your name.

"The little black book" was from when people literally had books full of numbers. Look through it and you'll see that being in it means very little. I think I remember utility companies etc.

MadYaker

The plea deal that this Alex Acosta guy got for Epstein should have been a massive scandal! And now this guy is Trumps sec of Labor, while Trump and Epstein were and clearly friends at the time. The whole thing stinks https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html

notobtuse

One thing that will captivate the media will be the prominent names that come out from this (well… the prominent names with an ‘R’ behind them, anyway. 'D's' will probably get the kid glove treatment from the media). It doesn’t necessarily mean any of them participated in Epstein’s illegal acts. But they will need to explain what they knew about what was going on. My prediction is high-priced lawyers and reputation management specialists are going to be in high demand in the coming months.

FartyBlartFast

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think many would be surprised. Donald barred epstein for such behaviour in 2000 , in 2002 he made reference to epstein enjoying 'younger women'

One incorrectly filed court filing and a photo of them taken before trump discovered what epstein was doing (which he was barred for) is all anyone has linking him.

Is there a source for Trump Ba Ning Epstein? I've seen it mentioned on this thread a lot, but haven't seen a link to it anywhere.

Because in 2002 when Trump said Epstein likes them young, he also called him a terrific guy. That's a strange way to distance yourself from someone, and is a strange comment to make about someone that you know for certain is a pedophile.

mcmoustache

FartyBlartFast wrote: »

Is there a source for Trump Ba Ning Epstein? I've seen it mentioned on this thread a lot, but haven't seen a link to it anywhere.

Because in 2002 when Trump said Epstein likes them young, he also called him a terrific guy. That's a strange way to distance yourself from someone, and is a strange comment to make about someone that you know for certain is a pedophile.

It was in a court filing by Trump's legal team. If I remember correctly, he had got it on with a club member's daughter. I haven't seen any reason to think that this didn't happen.

In any case, it doesn't mean a whole lot. Trump might have had to have him barred but it doesn't mean that he would have had to fall out with him.

You do realise "young" can mean 18-20, when you're 25, nevermind when you're 50-60... One of my friends is always after that age group and he's 34. I'd say he's like them young.

rossie1977

notobtuse wrote: »

One thing that will captivate the media will be the prominent names that come out from this (well… the prominent names with an ‘R’ behind them, anyway. 'D's' will probably get the kid glove treatment from the media).

The media went soft on Harvey Weinstein for sure...

FartyBlartFast

mcmoustache wrote: »

FartyBlartFast wrote: »

Is there a source for Trump Ba Ning Epstein? I've seen it mentioned on this thread a lot, but haven't seen a link to it anywhere.

Because in 2002 when Trump said Epstein likes them young, he also called him a terrific guy. That's a strange way to distance yourself from someone, and is a strange comment to make about someone that you know for certain is a pedophile.

It was in a court filing by Trump's legal team. If I remember correctly, he had got it on with a club member's daughter. I haven't seen any reason to think that this didn't happen.

In any case, it doesn't mean a whole lot. Trump might have had to have him barred but it doesn't mean that he would have had to fall out with him.

Thanks, but is there a link, or are we just taking hearsay at face value on this?

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise "young" can mean 18-20, when you're 25, nevermind when you're 50-60... One of my friends is always after that age group and he's 34. I'd say he's like them young.

But we actually know now that they were as young as 14 and not 18-20.

mcmoustache

FartyBlartFast wrote: »

Thanks, but is there a link, or are we just taking hearsay at face value on this?

Washington post mentions it.

It's a claim by a lawyer representing Trump, Alan Garten, and there's no reason that a Trump lawyer would ever lie.

The relationship, whatever it was, appears to have cooled by 2007. Garten said in an interview Monday that although Epstein was never a member of Mar-a-Lago, Trump prohibited him from visiting the club around that time, as a reaction to criminal charges that had been filed against Epstein.

“He banned him from stepping foot on the property,” Garten said. He said Trump’s private attorneys were not contacted during the more recent investigation of Epstein, which resulted in a 14-page federal indictment unsealed Monday.

I must have not remembered correctly.

mcmoustache

mcmoustache wrote: »

But we actually know now that they were as young as 14 and not 18-20.

Yep, but the comment was made four years before his arrest. That, and the fact that "certainly enjoys his social life" doesn't really sound like something you'd say about getting girls around for "private massages"..

Time will tell. I prefer Occam's Razor.

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise "young" can mean 18-20, when you're 25, nevermind when you're 50-60... One of my friends is always after that age group and he's 34. I'd say he's like them young.

TBF, it is quite creepy, all the same, even if he is your friend, and also from what I see of older men who "like them young" the problem is that the age of the girls they are attracted to doesn't move up much as they themselves age, if anything it often gets younger as they get richer and/or more jaded.