Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Jeffrey Epstein arrested on sex trafficking charges

1697071727375»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    No the deal did not yield Trump $54M profit. He spent a reported 25 million renovating and improving the property. Then there are auctioneers fees and solicitors fees ( realtor and legal ). He probably only made something in the low to mid twenty million. Still not bad going…if other people were willing to pay 90 or 93 million for his improved property why would'nt he hav sold it to the highest bidder for 95 million, Russian or not? He is a businessman. Businessmen strive to make maximum profit when they can.

    Do not forget $70m was paid for Ron Perelman's Palm Beach estate in 2004, and the $81.5m was paid in April for a nearby Palm Beach property….none of which were as good as Trumps. Thats what good businessmen sometimes do, buy cheap after spotting a bargain, or off someone in receivership, do it up and sell it on for as much as possible 4 years later.

    If he could not do that he had no business being the man behind the Apprentice for so long. Fair play to him.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    Testify about what? Unlike Clinton, Trump did not get multiple free private transportations in Epsteins private jet to long distance destinations, or get a "massage" from one of Epsteins traficked abuse victims?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,890 ✭✭✭Sudden Valley


    I thought Trump did get trips on Epstein's jet and there are allegations in the files against him? I could understand why trump would not be for testifying but not sure why anyone else would be against him having to answer questions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,653 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    By all accounts, Trump had an incredibly close relationship with Epstein and has implied multiple times that he was aware of his behavior. On top of that, his wife had a well established relationship with Epstein. He's also mentioned plenty throughout the Epstein files. That's excluding the amount he has been been omitted from the files.

    Meanwhile Hillary Clinton had no real relationship with him but you think she think she should testify... That's a pretty odd double standard.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    Trump and Epstein had a falling out in the early 2000s over a real estate deal in Palm Beach, after which Trump reportedly banned Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago club. Maybe Trump got to know something of Epstein's character by then.

    It is not unusual for billionaires to know each other, or to have met each other at charity functions or whatever, if they moved in the same social circles. Even in this country, think of the tent at the Galway races back in the day, many politicians mingled with many business people.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,628 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    He seemed to know a bit about his character when he made that comment about Jeffrey liking some of them on the younger side. The fact he was making a joke about it would indicate he was comfortable with that side of his character



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,653 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    Pretty clearly you have a massive double standard. On top of that, he's likely responsible for Ghislaine Maxwell being moved to a lower security prison. So both him and Melania seem far closer than Hillary Clinton was to Epstein. He equally is responsible for effectively shutting down further investigations into Epstein last year. Plus he himself is a rapist.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,053 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    Conservative MP on BBC Question Time last night claimed that Peter Mandelson was given severance pay "so he wouldn't say something embarrassing." which she says "is a breach of the ministerial code. Reports Mandelson insisted on extra pay and received it.

    Im not sure the documents say that it was so 'he wouldnt say anything embarrassing'. That might just be the Tories spin on it. Even so it raises obvious questions.

    The Treasury ultimately agreed to a payment of £75,000.

    ….Meanwhile, a Treasury document claimed that negotiations over Lord Mandelson's severance payment began with a suggestion from the peer that he could be entitled to a sum equal to the remainder of the salary for his four-year appointment, totalling £547,201.

    Following his sacking, an email shows Lord Mandelson also told a Foreign Office official he wanted to leave the US "with the maximum dignity and minimum media intrusion", arguing he remained a civil servant and "expect to be treated as such".

    Jones told MPs Lord Mandelson's position on severance pay was "inappropriate and unacceptable".

    Giving a statement in Parliament on the documents, the PM's chief secretary said the government "wouldn't have wanted to pay £1" to Lord Mandelson but a settlement was agreed to avoid even higher costs from a drawn-out legal claim.

    The Conservatives questioned why ministers agreed to any sum, while the Liberal Democrats called for Lord Mandelson to donate any payment to charity.

    Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said Sir Keir should consider his position as PM in light of the documents.

    She said the release exposed that he "has not been honest with the country" about the extent of what he knew about the relationship between Lord Mandelson and Epstein.


    ….



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,759 ✭✭✭✭Esel
    Not Your Ornery Onager


    The story I read was that Trump barred Epstein from his club because Epstein was recruiting Trump's 'towel girls' for his own clients.

    Not your ornery onager



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭Mike Murdock


    Starmer has really made a balls of the whole thing.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,053 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    New revelations in Mandelson-Epstein scandal.

    …….Emails between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson appear to suggest the sex offender supplied illegal drugs to the Labour grandee after his conviction.

    Messages show the two men discussing the use of anti-anxiety pill Xanax, with Mandelson relying on his disgraced friend for medical advice, according to the Mail on Sunday.

    In the UK, Xanax is a Class C controlled substance, making it illegal to buy or supply. It is also controlled in the US due to the risk of addiction.

    Files released by the US Department of Justice include emails where Mandelson and Epstein discuss ‘triangles’ – understood to be a nickname for Xanax due to their shape.

    One exchange shows Epstein asking Mandelson: ‘feeling bettter [sic]?’

    Mandelson, who was then serving in government as the UK’s business secretary, responds by asking: ‘How will I get more triangles ?!’…………



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 150 ✭✭dmn22


    Rep. Dan Goldman speaking out against Trump/Epstein relationship today on the House floor.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,214 ✭✭✭wildgreen


    The war with Iran is keeping Epstein out of the media but surely the consequence is that it will be back in the media closer to the Midterm elections?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,932 ✭✭✭take everything


    In the video, Wasserman-Schulz who has reviewed unredacted files, talks about how there is comprehensive systematic covering up of perpetrators' names, not victims.

    At the 9 minute mark, she gives the example of someone (not Epstein) corresponding with Epstein, where they reference abusing a 10 year old child (whose image is redacted).

    So, this stuff was not all 17 year olds (not that that would ever be an excuse anyway).

    So there is evidence of systematic redaction of people engaged in wrongdoing (not victims), not just Epstein, where that wrongdoing involves actual children.

    And people are weirdly complacent or (to be charitable) ambivalent about this.

    And a war in Iran (quite probably) started because of it.

    Insane.

    Post edited by take everything on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭silliussoddius


    When are people going to accept that Epstein is in the Trump files?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,759 ✭✭✭✭Esel
    Not Your Ornery Onager


    Jimmy Kimmel has been referring to them as the Trump-Epstein Files ™ for a good while.

    Not your ornery onager



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 132 ✭✭The Venus Project


    I have spoken in other threads on NATO and Soc Dems about American university networks, Ivy League and otherwise, and how they can be viewed as elitist. Are they being targeted as part of the Epstein investigation and are they worth exposing? But first, let us look into further, the reach of these networks. Without naming names, we personally know various members very high up in the Republican party and various businessmen with funds the size of the GDP of Ireland.

    What this mean is that at a phonecall we can have things arranged and executed, if needs be, to establish, a connection between international and Irish groups of political or criminal origin, and by looking into those groups and establishing existence of contact with parties of questionable origin, we can determine the intentions of said groups. What this entails is exposing the underground networks on both sides of the Republican spectrum in Ireland both criminal and conservative or nowadays communist and socialist but also the Courts and their private investigative abilities, information gathering reach and so on. And before anyone howls, this is live situation with outcomes on the Iranian situation so be careful what words you use to defame said networks as they have insight here.

    But let us look at the reach of those networks in America and whether they are worth exposing or framing as elitist, criminal, perverse, perverted or otherwise. Firstly, what we have is various people in Ireland exercising the spread of disinformaiton to try and expose these networks. And this is a protracted, poisonous mission of deep inferiority and envy they have had for centuries reaching back into their various Catholic backgrounds. Various actors in the States can have them looked into behind the scenes, politically, and with great integrity. No criminal behaviour, no golden handshakes, no chinese walls.

    As for the business networks, they are constantly trying to convince people, and twist arms, into deals that would make business sense but might have ethical shortcomings. They are best avoided for fear of falling into the spheres of influence of these agencies and of potential manipulation. We avoid Republcians generally, but support the Democrats depsite being right wing in Ireland and we are FG supporters here.

    But are these networks worthy of investigation into criminality and in connection with Epstein? What I do know is that most of these men are several times divorcees and best avoided ethically. It is best to stay on a good terms with them while staying at a s distance. There are good and bad in both, and the next generation are our country brethren from Ireland. I wouldn't have it any other way - we will rebuild our network separately depsite not getting in this generation.

    Post edited by The Venus Project at


Advertisement
Advertisement