nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Jeffrey Epstein arrested on sex trafficking charges

Harvey Weinstein

Jeffrey Epstein arrested on sex trafficking charges.

Epstein was arrested for sex trafficking of MINORS, considering who Epstein is connected to this is potentially huge and could conceivably see major figures in the political, business, entertainment etc world go down.

Interestingly a browse of the 'Liberal' media headlines from Ireland and abroad shows that they are downplaying/obscuring the most significant point that it was trafficking of Minors IE Children.

Find more posts tagged with

clinton

epstein

Quick Links

Comments

drunkmonkey

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

BUT HILARY!!!

Riddle me this, why did she allow Ghislaine Maxwell to her daughter's wedding. Which Clinton influenced Acosta.
She's either a complete bimbo or a liar. I'll let you figure that one out.

Stop moaning ffs

It’s hysterically funny and pathetic at the same time that the trump defenders *still* bang on about Hillary. As if that’s going to shift focus away from Trumps behaviours and crimes and misdemeanours. Even if she’s guilty of all the imagined and uncorroborated crimes these lads accuse her of,
She’s not the issue now. The man in the Oval Office is and he’s surrounded by rapists pedos and conmen. And he’s chief among them.

How desperate must it be if that’s the only argument they have

BUT HILARY!!!

Eric Cartman

batgoat wrote: »

You have absolutely no proof that she lied. Should all historical rape complainants go to jail? Cause it's not uncommon for that to occur as was the case with everyone to Saville to church abuse. You've concluded she's lying but you don't have proof. She had no reason to lie and it's effectively wrecked her life by coming out.

Luckily its innocent till proven guilty and in 73 years donald trump has never been accused of child sex abuse till he ran for election, now under his watch theyre trying to nail epstein again (a man donald banned from his resort for this behavior) and you still say ‘but youve no proof she lied’

You actually find it easier to believe that donald trump viciously raped a 13 year old girl and that nobody has gone after him since 1994 till the year he ran for election , than you do that a woman not of means may lie about the man ‘everyone hates’ under the offchance of getting 100 million dollars or the definite chance of getting money off whoever approached her and ‘encouraged’ her to make the allegation, in the one exact way you can make this kind of allegation without perjuring yourself and getting in trouble for it. Police report, nah, file it in the right court - nah, file it incorrectly ina district court so its published but not actioned - bingo.

Call me Al

MadYaker wrote: »

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

The journalist Julie Brown who has investigated this story has done a podcast with Alec Baldwin

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-julie-brown-broke-open-the-jeffrey-epstein-story/id472939437?i=1000441124569

She explains we how this whole story has evolved. How he found the girls (he was organising through a high school at one point) and how his trial evolved.

Its well worth a listen for decent details when you don't want to be sidetracked and sifting through nonsense stories like PizzaGate.

evolving_doors

notobtuse wrote: »

In this current atmosphere #meetoo seems to be trumping political affiliation. This too shall pass.

#metoo is over

drunkmonkey

batgoat wrote: »

You've concluded she's lying but you don't have proof. She had no reason to lie and it's effectively wrecked her life by coming out.

Well it's about to get a little more wrecked in the next week or so. We can't believe things just because women say them. To assume all women tell the truth all the time just like Hillary & Christine makes for a very dangerous society, one we seem to relish at the moment.
To quote her class mates "Female classmates and friends at area schools recalled a heavy drinker who was much more aggressive with boys than they were."
You can believe her, I certainly won't be, why did she scrub her social media accounts before putting on the crocodile tears? She's a Trump hater, that's why.

Penn

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Now in fairness Bill Clinton (with his record) gets the benefit of the doubt too no?

How many Women have accused him of rape? Quite a few as it happens.

He visited Epsteins Island multiple times yet theres very little questioning of this is there?
He also flew on the 'Lolita Express' at least 26 times and yet he gets the benefit of the doubt 'with his record'

Nobody connected to any of this should get the benefit of the doubt. Clinton, Trump, Prince Andrew... none of them. If there is any reasonable evidence of any of them being involved in any way they should face a thorough investigation and be charged with any crimes they have committed.

The reason this thread is turning out how it is is because some people, when any criticism is directed at Trump have to deflect, blame Hillary, and throw about conspiracy theories.

More attention is likely to be focused on Trump because he is the current sitting President of the USA. That does not mean either of the Clintons get a pass or the benefit of the doubt if they had any involvement or even knowledge of what was happening.

evolving_doors

Penn wrote: »

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.

Do you think he was the only person involved?

I suggest it was a network of people with power and influence.

But if that doesn't justify any protest then I don't know what did.

batgoat

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Nothing will happen ford that was my point, lie her head off without reprecussion for political reasons.
Hillary Clinton is one crooked lady, I hope Trump takes her down.

You have absolutely no proof that she lied. Should all historical rape complainants go to jail? Cause it's not uncommon for that to occur as was the case with everyone to Saville to church abuse. You've concluded she's lying but you don't have proof. She had no reason to lie and it's effectively wrecked her life by coming out.

hetuzozaho

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Hillary Clinton is one crooked lady, I hope Trump takes her down.

Would be fantastic! And then for the icing on the cake - take himself down. They are all truly awful folk.

Stop moaning ffs

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Fair enough but much of the conversation here seems to focus on Trump whereas this case involves many many people including the leaders of other nations.

Clinton of course was always the one with the deepest ties to Epstein, with him being a large donator to multiple Clinton charities and concerns.

Harvey, if you really didn’t touch them wimmins inappropriately I suggest you start wearing a bodycam 24/7

Harvey Weinstein

batgoat wrote: »

Numerous people in this thread have stated that Bill is suspect and favour him facing a conviction if there's proof. Couldn't care less where on the spectrum a person sits.

Fair enough but much of the conversation here seems to focus on Trump whereas this case involves many many people including the leaders of other nations.

Clinton of course was always the one with the deepest ties to Epstein, with him being a large donator to multiple Clinton charities and concerns.

drunkmonkey

volchitsa wrote: »

Hillary Clinton is why Acosta is a member of Trump's cabinet?
Jeez I really have heard it all now.

No no, she was shoe in to be president, listen to the reporter who's been on this case for years.

volchitsa

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You can bet your bottom dollar it will. It was Hillary who was pulling Acosta's stings not Trump or Obama. I'd presume it's why he's not fired yet he'll help hang her high.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bill-clinton-not-telling-truth-epstein-investigative-journalist

Hillary Clinton is why Acosta is a member of Trump's cabinet?
Jeez I really have heard it all now.

drunkmonkey

batgoat wrote: »

Btw, if Bill is found guilty of crimes in relation to Epstein. I'll happily see him jailed but this nonsense about jailing Ford or Clinton is nonsense.

Nothing will happen ford that was my point, lie her head off without reprecussion for political reasons.
Hillary Clinton is one crooked lady, I hope Trump takes her down.

batgoat

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Now in fairness Bill Clinton (with his record) gets the benefit of the doubt too no?

How many Women have accused him of rape? Quite a few as it happens.

He visited Epsteins Island multiple times yet theres very little questioning of this is there?
He also flew on the 'Lolita Express' at least 26 times and yet he gets the benefit of the doubt 'with his record'

Numerous people in this thread have stated that Bill is suspect and favour him facing a conviction if there's proof. Couldn't care less where on the spectrum a person sits.

notobtuse

rossie1977 wrote: »

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

In this current atmosphere #meetoo seems to be trumping political affiliation. This too shall pass.

Harvey Weinstein

StringerBell wrote: »

No no, this one is gonna all get stuck on the Clintons. Nothing like a BUT HILLARY!! or assuming any kind of wild speculation about them is correct, while obviously the Donald with his record gets the never ending benefit of the doubt :rolleyes:

Now in fairness Bill Clinton (with his record) gets the benefit of the doubt too no?

How many Women have accused him of rape? Quite a few as it happens.

He visited Epsteins Island multiple times yet theres very little questioning of this is there?
He also flew on the 'Lolita Express' at least 26 times and yet he gets the benefit of the doubt 'with his record'

drunkmonkey

StringerBell wrote: »

No no, this one is gonna all get stuck on the Clintons. Nothing like a BUT HILLARY!! or assuming any kind of wild speculation about them is correct, while obviously the Donald with his record gets the never ending benefit of the doubt :rolleyes:

You can bet your bottom dollar it will. It was Hillary who was pulling Acosta's stings not Trump or Obama. I'd presume it's why he's not fired yet he'll help hang her high.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bill-clinton-not-telling-truth-epstein-investigative-journalist

Stop moaning ffs

StringerBell wrote: »

And Weiner, Frankin, Wu, Conyers, Spacey etc

There is certainly a different set of standards between the two parties but it ain't the way the OP suggested.

Circle the wagons v circle firing squad

The Weinstein and spacey stories were both everywhere and for a good long while.
I wouldn’t call that an easy time

batgoat

drunkmonkey wrote: »

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.

You want to lock up a person who had a pretty credible story and no proof of actually lying. You also think Hillary will get locked up even though she hasn't done anything worth jailing her over? Basically you want to lock people up that you don't like for political reasons.

Btw, if Bill is found guilty of crimes in relation to Epstein. I'll happily see him jailed but this nonsense about jailing Ford or Clinton is nonsense.

StringerBell

rossie1977 wrote: »

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

And Weiner, Frankin, Wu, Conyers, Spacey etc

There is certainly a different set of standards between the two parties but it ain't the way the OP suggested.

Circle the wagons v circle firing squad

FartyBlartFast

Deleted User wrote: »

Hardly creepy if taken in isolation. And if ye want to be Partisan, Trump was a Democrat at the time.

Not sure how that changes his commenting on a well known serial pedophile who was known to use his (Trumps) clubs where plenty of underage girls worked as a hunting ground, as a "terrific guy" who "likes them young"?

StringerBell

Cody montana wrote: »

Have they blamed Obama yet?

No no, this one is gonna all get stuck on the Clintons. Nothing like a BUT HILLARY!! or assuming any kind of wild speculation about them is correct, while obviously the Donald with his record gets the never ending benefit of the doubt :rolleyes:

FartyBlartFast

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). 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.

I'm not sure where you get this idea? When a high profile democrat politician called Anthony Weiner was found sending pictures of his dick to teenagers he got absolutely raked over the coals (rightfully), had his career utterly destroyed (rightfully) and was one of the biggest news stories of the year in American politics (rightfully).

When Roy Moore went harassing and molesting little girls it was also a major scandal, and one of the biggest media stories of the year. Except unlike Weiner he won the Republican primary and came within about 1% of being elected as a US senator. Next year, he is running again with a big chance of winning.

[Deleted User]

Hardly creepy if taken in isolation. And if ye want to be Partisan, Trump was a Democrat at the time.

I'll await the release of the documents that were announced before his arrest. If they get blocked, and they probably will because there's an appeal window from people named, it will be annoying.

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

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

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.