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

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1148631086735474690

I wasn't a fan…I was not a fan of his

“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

mcmoustache

FartyBlartFast wrote: »

Mcmoustache, for some weird reason board won't let me quote your post about Trump claiming to have banned Epstein in 2007, when numerous high profile people were likely ditching him following his arrest, not out of morals but out of their own interest.

Which makes me wonder why the poster Eric Cartman is claiming Trump banned Epstein in 2000? Perhaps Eric can answer his source for that?

I didn't see Cartman make that claim.

batgoat

drunkmonkey wrote: »

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.

Do you think historical victims should be jailed if they only have circumstantial evidence? You can claim all you want about her but I was calling you out on wanting to have her jailed. You want people you view as political opponents jailed.

And I favour both sides facing convictions if there is sufficient evidence. But you've managed to make this into a partisan rant about why people you don't like should be jailed.

mcmoustache

Boggles wrote: »

Ah now. I'd be inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt here. He doesn't really seem to know what he's saying these days.

drunkmonkey

batgoat wrote: »

Do you think historical victims should be jailed if they only have circumstantial evidence? You can claim all you want about her but I was calling you out on wanting to have her jailed. You want people you view as political opponents jailed.

And I favour both sides facing convictions if there is sufficient evidence. But you've managed to make this into a partisan rant about why people you don't like should be jailed.

No I want her jailed along with the woman eating the glass in the restraunt last week. Ford made a deliberate false alligation designed to cause maximum impact to someone which could have led to a jail sentence.
It's nothing to do with politics, it's about not believing every woman that turns on the water works especially if they are trying to gain more than justice.
Ford will be back in the spotlight next week and rightly so.
I take a very dim view or false allegations and statements. The law doesn't seem to give too hoots about it. Nor our virtuous Leo.

FartyBlartFast

mcmoustache wrote: »

FartyBlartFast wrote: »

Mcmoustache, for some weird reason board won't let me quote your post about Trump claiming to have banned Epstein in 2007, when numerous high profile people were likely ditching him following his arrest, not out of morals but out of their own interest.

Which makes me wonder why the poster Eric Cartman is claiming Trump banned Epstein in 2000? Perhaps Eric can answer his source for that?

I didn't see Cartman make that claim.

Post 159 on this thread - "Donald barred epstein for such behaviour in 2000 , in 2002 he made reference to epstein enjoying 'younger women'"

I am curious where he got that fact from, and am also a little curious if he thinks commenting on Epstein liking them "younger" was an admonishment or compliment (esp as trump called Epstein a "terrific guy" in the same sentence, which Cartman seems to have missed).

FartyBlartFast

drunkmonkey wrote: »

batgoat wrote: »

Do you think historical victims should be jailed if they only have circumstantial evidence? You can claim all you want about her but I was calling you out on wanting to have her jailed. You want people you view as political opponents jailed.

And I favour both sides facing convictions if there is sufficient evidence. But you've managed to make this into a partisan rant about why people you don't like should be jailed.

No I want her jailed along with the woman eating the glass in the restraunt last week. Ford made a deliberate false alligation designed to cause maximum impact to someone which could have led to a jail sentence.

Bill Clinton has no shortage of accusers - should these women also be jailed?

Eric Cartman

FartyBlartFast wrote: »

Bill Clinton has no shortage of accusers - should these women also be jailed?

All false accusers should be jailed. But yet again theres a burden of proof to prove its false. If at any time it can be shown now or in the future that these women received money to encourage them to make accusations then it should make jail time

drunkmonkey

FartyBlartFast wrote: »

Bill Clinton has no shortage of accusers - should these women also be jailed?

Should we take everything they say as Gospel. There's a lot in this so I'd be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. At the same time if one of them put in a claim for 100 million dollars you'd have to question their motives.

I'm specifically referring to Christine Ford, her claim was too obvious a blatant lie and she's going to pay dearly for it next week.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Boggles wrote: »

To be fair Trump back then would call his arch enemies a terrific guy.

I would read that as an under handed fake compliment.

FartyBlartFast

drunkmonkey wrote: »

FartyBlartFast wrote: »

Bill Clinton has no shortage of accusers - should these women also be jailed?

Should we take everything they say as Gospel. There's a lot in this so I'd be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. At the same time if one of them put in a claim for 100 million dollars you'd have to question their motives.

I'm specifically referring to Christine Ford, her claim was too obvious a blatant lie and she's going to pay dearly for it next week.

So once money becomes involved in these lawsuits they should be jailed?

If that is your threshold, then shouldn't Clintons accusers be jailed too, as their suits would have involved money? After all, Clinton was not found guilty on any of them as best I know.

Personally, I don't think these women on neither side should be jailed.

FartyBlartFast

Eric Cartman wrote: »

FartyBlartFast wrote: »

Bill Clinton has no shortage of accusers - should these women also be jailed?

All false accusers should be jailed. But yet again theres a burden of proof to prove its false. If at any time it can be shown now or in the future that these women received money to encourage them to make accusations then it should make jail time

If it can be proven that they did so for nefarious, intentional reasons then I generally agree.

The thing is, Ford has not been proven to be that. And neither as best I know have any of the other Trump accusers, or Clinton accusers.

PS can I get that source for Trump banning Epstein in 2000 as you claimed?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

FartyBlartFast wrote: »

If it can be proven that they did so for nefarious, intentional reasons then I generally agree.

The thing is, Ford has not been proven to be that. And neither as best I know have any of the other Trump accusers, or Clinton accusers.

PS can I get that source for Trump banning Epstein in 2000 as you claimed?

Are you asking for the exact date or just any reference to the story (because that’s easy to find).

notobtuse

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'm specifically referring to Christine Ford, her claim was too obvious a blatant lie and she's going to pay dearly for it next week.

Ford should be swept to the dustbin of history. Ford made almost a million dollars from her attacks, got interviews, honors and acclaims. Seems she made out quite nicely with all those unsubstantiated and zero supported claims. Let the floodgates of baseless accusations commence. Sadly, they’ll do nothing more than cost the accused mega-bucks and take away from legitimate cases of abuse and rape. Throwing darts to see what sticks, with no consequences, is a sad state of affairs we're in.

kowloon

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

The whole thing of him being ‘attacked’ on Hampstead Heath. At 3am. Walking his dog?
That story alone tells the story.
Spacey is beyond rapey.

He could also be a werewolf.

FartyBlartFast

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

FartyBlartFast wrote: »

If it can be proven that they did so for nefarious, intentional reasons then I generally agree.

The thing is, Ford has not been proven to be that. And neither as best I know have any of the other Trump accusers, or Clinton accusers.

PS can I get that source for Trump banning Epstein in 2000 as you claimed?

Are you asking for the exact date or just any reference to the story (because that’s easy to find).

A reference to any date of the year 2000 specifically will do, regarding Trump banning Epstein.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

FartyBlartFast wrote: »

A reference to any date of the year 2000 specifically will do, regarding Trump banning Epstein.

Why specifically 2000. I may have missed something here.

Guy:Incognito

It's weird how people on an Irish discussion board go so out of their way to defend Donald Trump (or anyone else in America that is involved with this stuff)

Twisting and selectively quoting , fighting to prove how great he is.

batgoat

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Should we take everything they say as Gospel. There's a lot in this so I'd be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. At the same time if one of them put in a claim for 100 million dollars you'd have to question their motives.

I'm specifically referring to Christine Ford, her claim was too obvious a blatant lie and she's going to pay dearly for it next week.

You haven't demonstrated that it was blatantly false at all. You made a single claim about her being aggressive towards men, that proves nothing. You want to jail a person with no basis and that position actively discourages most cases of rape or sexual assault from being reported. Ford never showed any interest in making money from the case btw and it wrecked her life to come forward. In addition there were even a handful of the GOP who didn't view the claims as blatantly false.

You also weirdly want Hillary Clinton to be jailed. You have no actual basis for doing so. Weirdest part is you seem likely to believe in the far more bizarre claims such as pizzagate.

mcmoustache

batgoat wrote: »

You also weirdly want Hillary Clinton to be jailed. You have no actual basis for doing so. Weirdest part is you seem likely to believe in the far more bizarre claims such as pizzagate.

Speaking of pizza gate, is there anyone on here still taking the Seth Rich conspiracy seriously? Just curious is all.

FartyBlartFast

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

FartyBlartFast wrote: »

A reference to any date of the year 2000 specifically will do, regarding Trump banning Epstein.

Why specifically 2000. I may have missed something here.

Eric Cartman was claiming Trump banned Epstein from his resorts in the year 2000, and commented he made reference to Epstein liking them young in 2002.

I'm curious why he omitted that Trump - in that same sentence - called Epstein a "terrific guy", and why he is claiming Trump banned Epstein in 2000 when I've yet to see anything referencing this.

FartyBlartFast

Double post

Franz Von Peppercorn II

FartyBlartFast wrote: »

Eric Cartman was claiming Trump banned Epstein from his resorts in the year 2000, and commented he made reference to Epstein liking them young in 2002.

I'm curious why he omitted that Trump - in that same sentence - called Epstein a "terrific guy", and why he is claiming Trump banned Epstein in 2000 when I've yet to see anything referencing this.

The terrific guy is pretty meaningless, Trump says that all the time. If anything reading between the lines trump was alluding to the rumours on Epstein.

The date of the banning isn’t that relevant as the banning definitely happened.

Guy:Incognito

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The terrific guy is pretty meaningless, Trump says that all the time. If anything reading between the lines trump was alluding to the rumours on Epstein.

If you widen the gaps between the lines enough you can read anything you want in there to justify it meaning whatever suits your argument.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The date of the banning isn’t that relevant as the banning definitely happened.

The date very much does matter,because it was at the time he was facing a trial for the offences that he was. Putting it out there that Trump banned him does exactly what it has done , gives people a story to point to and say "sure look, he banned him"

Its basically building an alibi.

FartyBlartFast

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

FartyBlartFast wrote: »

Eric Cartman was claiming Trump banned Epstein from his resorts in the year 2000, and commented he made reference to Epstein liking them young in 2002.

I'm curious why he omitted that Trump - in that same sentence - called Epstein a "terrific guy", and why he is claiming Trump banned Epstein in 2000 when I've yet to see anything referencing this.

The terrific guy is pretty meaningless, Trump says that all the time. If anything reading between the lines trump was alluding to the rumours on Epstein.

The date of the banning isn’t that relevant as the banning definitely happened.

what other examples of Trump calling his enemies "terrific guys" and so on do you know of? Can't say I'm that familiar with this happening, but I'm open to being shown some.

I'm also not sure how Trumps lawyers claiming something happened means it "definitely happened" given that the guy has a bit of an epic track record of lying.

Nonetheless, the date is highly relevant as a lot of people would have been distancing themselves from Epstein in 2007, after his arrest. Doing so in 2000 is a fully different context, which if I am correct is what Eric Cartman had alluded to.

As things stand, Trump was calling Epstein a terrific guy who loved them young in 2002 and had not banned him from any of his clubs, resorts etc. I'm just asking for you, Eric Cartman (as he claimed it), or someone else to show me otherwise.

Pa ElGrande

Here is some background from PBS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E29yw0BPHPY

Politically connected financier Jeffrey Epstein is facing up to 45 years in prison on charges he ran a sex-trafficking ring in the early 2000s that included girls as young as 14. Lisa Desjardins talks to former federal prosecutor Elie Honig about how unusual it is to bring charges this old and why Epstein's previous plea deal with Alex Acosta, now labor secretary, was "completely indefensible."

FunkyDa2

Here's an interesting read...

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/03/jeffrey-epstein-200303

drunkmonkey

Maybe Bill is in the clear after all, this video makes sense of bill saying 4 flights, https://www.foxnews.com/us/james-patterson-epstein-worse-weinsteins-cosby

OptimusTractor

Not sure if this was mentioned but Stuff They Don't Want You To Know did an excellent podcast on this fella.

ceadaoin.

FunkyDa2 wrote: »

Here's an interesting read...

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/03/jeffrey-epstein-200303

And an article from the author of that piece stating that she tried to include the accounts of girls who claimed to have been abused by him, but her editor instructed that they be removed.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-tried-to-warn-you-about-sleazy-billionaire-jeffrey-epstein-in-2003?ref=scroll