The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Crunch on July 08, 2019, 07:47:59 AM

Title: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 08, 2019, 07:47:59 AM
Will this be something? Epstein is pretty connected, he was able to use those connections to minimize the consequences of his prior sexual trafficking and underage solicitation activities. Those connections may have exceeded their shelf life by now (e.g. Bill Clinton) so Epstein may actually name some names this time.

This could get pretty epic
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 08, 2019, 07:52:09 AM
Meant to have this quote in there:

Quote
Christine Pelosi, a Democratic National Committee official and daughter of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, warned conspicuously on Saturday evening that it is "quite likely that some of our faves are implicated" in the "horrific" sex-trafficking case against politically connected financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 08, 2019, 08:10:31 AM
Interesting

Quote
Prosecutor in the newest Jeffrey Epstein case is Maureen Comey, daughter of former FBI director James Comey (who may have helped to hide some of Hillary Clinton's wrongdoings).

The Clinton’s are directly connected to Epstein- both his crimes and his prosecution(s). Maybe we’re seeing a real Machiavellin play to take down Trump (lots of pics of Trump and Epstein out there fr NY social events). Leftist power brokers may be willing to burn a few of their own if they can implicate Trump.

Information is being pumped out pretty furiously so it’s hard to sort fake news from real right now.

Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDeamon on July 08, 2019, 11:05:56 AM
The Democrat new guard is probably more than willing to throw the Clintons under the bus if they have reason to believe there is a chance that Trump could suffer collateral damage as a consequence. After all, the Clintons themselves were reportedly friends with the Trump Family prior to Trump's 2016 run. So all kinds of cross-ties are likely to be found "in interesting places."

But on the Trump side of things, IIRC with regards to Epstein, they might be able to demonstrate Trump was "aware" of shenanigans going on, but it's unlikely they're going to manage to demonstrate he was involved in any of them. So best they can try to do is smear him with guilt by association due to his "money talks" approach to things in general, and thus not cutting ties with the guy.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 08, 2019, 11:31:28 AM
Well, if you look at social media where this is blowing up it's pretty clear that Epstein only had one person he ever knew in his entire life and that person is Trump. There are pictures of the 2 at various social media gathering which clearly prove that Trump was just like Epstein. TDS has made these people so incredibly stupid.

It's things like:
Quote
“I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. 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 on the younger side. Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”
That's a quote in New Yorker from a 2002 article. With 20/20 hindsight, maybe not a great line to throw out there but by itself proves nothing. Maybe Trump knew something, maybe he didn't and was just getting in a dig in on Epstein. Either way, it's pretty thin and little more than guilt by association at this point (and a lot of people are trying that particular fallacy on for size). Virtually nothing about Bill Clinton is being said despite his more than 26 trips over 3 years on Epstein's plane (known as the "Lolita Express"). It's worth noting that Clinton dismissed his secret service detail for these flights. But muh Trump ...

Here's another:
Quote
From a 2010 deposition of Jeffrey Epstein:

“Q. Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?
“A: Though I'd like to answer that question, at least today I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights, sir.”

Sounds bad I guess but it's what a lawyer would tell you to do. It's also the response Epstein gave to every single question. Which means Epstein merely listened to his lawyer, not that Trump was involved.

About that case:

Quote
After the settlement was announced, attorney Edwards was interviewed outside the courthouse.   He shared much about the case and then answered the interviewer’s question about whether Donald Trump was somehow related to the case since Epstein was a reportedly a friend of Trump
Quote
Question from reporter: Our current President has had relationships with Epstein in the past and there are those, Katy Johnson and maybe other victims who’ve accused Trump of being involved in things like this.

In my experience, Trump supporters will not listen to anything along those lines.  Obviously, we’re not in the court of law here right now, but are those claims, although that case was dropped, it was dropped before it went to court.  In your opinion as a lawyer, in your experience is there anything you can say as to the validity of those claims and whether there will be anything more about that?

Edwards: Nothing at all.  The only thing that I can say about President Trump is that he is the only person who, in 2009 when I served a lot of subpoenas on a lot of people, or at least gave notice to some pretty connected people, that I want to talk to them, is the only person who picked up the phone and said, let’s just talk.  I’ll give you as much time as you want.  I’ll tell you what you need to know, and was very helpful, in the information that he gave, and gave no indication whatsoever that he was involved in anything untoward whatsoever, but had good information.  That checked out and that helped us and we didn’t have to take a deposition of him in 2009.

Reporter:  Do you have any information on James Patterson’s claims that Trump had Epstein kicked out of Mar-a-logo?

Edwards: I definitely have heard that. I definitely have heard that and I don’t know if it was Trump himself as opposed to a manager…

It's considered "common knowledge" that Trump banned Epstein but, you know, who really knows right now. However, Trump being the only person to assist the prosecution of Epstein 10 years ago would indicate that Trump felt he had nothing to hide nor nothing to fear from Epstein and what he could reveal. Also consider, these are federal charges now when it was just state charges before - that means the Trump DOJ is going after Epstein (assuming I have this correct, there's a lot of noise but I don't think it NY State charges). If Trump was worried about this, I doubt his DOJ would be going after him and, depending on how big a player Trump is at this game, he could be driving it to take down Democrats. Chuck Schumer has been mentioned but, still, nothing to confirm that so maybe it's just BS but the Pelosi quote about faves sounds ominous for some Democrats.

This may be a hell of a ride.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Fenring on July 08, 2019, 12:25:32 PM
The Democrat new guard is probably more than willing to throw the Clintons under the bus if they have reason to believe there is a chance that Trump could suffer collateral damage as a consequence. After all, the Clintons themselves were reportedly friends with the Trump Family prior to Trump's 2016 run. So all kinds of cross-ties are likely to be found "in interesting places."

No, they will not throw the Clintons under the bus. You all need to stop thinking of party politics as being about trying to win the next election. The party itself is merely a facade in front of the interests they serve, and those interests have goals that include but are not restricted to winning the next election. "They" won't throw the Clintons under the bus because "they" are managed by groups which include the Clintons.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Fenring on July 08, 2019, 12:33:29 PM
Either way, it's pretty thin and little more than guilt by association at this point (and a lot of people are trying that particular fallacy on for size). Virtually nothing about Bill Clinton is being said despite his more than 26 trips over 3 years on Epstein's plane (known as the "Lolita Express"). It's worth noting that Clinton dismissed his secret service detail for these flights. But muh Trump ...

It's worth noting that someone like Eptein can't have just been running an a la carte private business just like that, with world powers attending regularly and everything is kept on the DL. I haven't a clue what the structure of this operation was like, but it could be any or all of the following:

a) Epstein was the front-man for the operation that was cooperatively set up by various powerful people (like Presidents)
b) It was working in tandem with the FBI as a honeypot to gather incriminating information for blackmail
c) It was working in tendem with the mob as a honeypot to gather incriminating information for blackmail
d) This was a place of business for power players, where attending was required for being "in"; probably not unlike those Satanic outings they have in the woods periodically.

Either way you don't just 'bring down' an operation like this because too many people are implicated and the system is set up so that no one can talk. Epstein personally did too much to avoid any chance at all of prosecution, but it's trivial compared to what I'm sure actually happened.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: D.W. on July 08, 2019, 12:55:34 PM
Quote
That's a quote in New Yorker from a 2002 article. With 20/20 hindsight, maybe not a great line to throw out there but by itself proves nothing.
  20/20?  I think the legally blind could teach the man when he should just stay quiet. 

Nothing he says proves anything.  (that's the problem)
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: scifibum on July 08, 2019, 01:19:18 PM
Any of you people read the indictment? The conspiracy alleged is between Epstein and his employees. The crimes involved are the same ones reported previously (just some new allegations regarding the times and mechanisms of conspiracy).

BTW, on social media posts about this case, Bill Clinton is getting mentioned as often as Trump, and pretty much entirely to the effect of "if he was involved, he should go to prison too". That's if you set aside the allegations that leftists are going to try to excuse or ignore any involvement of Democratic leaders, which appear to be based on nothing.

But again, the indictment doesn't name any co-conspirators other than Epstein's own employees.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: scifibum on July 08, 2019, 01:25:39 PM
Quote
Either way you don't just 'bring down' an operation like this because too many people are implicated and the system is set up so that no one can talk. Epstein personally did too much to avoid any chance at all of prosecution, but it's trivial compared to what I'm sure actually happened.

I could be wrong, but it seems like you're imagining an organized crime operation rather different from what is described in the indictment. Maybe there's more to come, but it's premature to assume that people outside of Epstein's employ were involved.

I would stipulate that it's very likely that prosecutors will never know about all the instances in this pattern of sexual abuse though.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Fenring on July 08, 2019, 01:35:58 PM
I could be wrong, but it seems like you're imagining an organized crime operation rather different from what is described in the indictment. Maybe there's more to come, but it's premature to assume that people outside of Epstein's employ were involved.

I would stipulate that it's very likely that prosecutors will never know about all the instances in this pattern of sexual abuse though.

What I'm saying is that they would never bring an indictment for what was probably really going on, so they'll stick to a far lesser type of case so that they can at least put a few people away. And yes, I'm imagining an organized crime situation. Depending on how the level of participation was that might change what "organized" means. Let's say a club of illegal activity (like child prostitution) is known by many famous people, who all swear to silence about it. Is their silence, and perhaps even spreading word of mouth, on behalf of this business what we might call an "organized" activity? Or does that require actual monetary input of capital, where on actual business partners are part of the "organized" crime? And what if certain parties participate in terms of quid pro quo but don't directly benefit monetarily; for instance "I'll send over XYZ celeb to stay at your club, and you help me with a problem" sort of arrangement? Is that organized crime? The difficulty in these matters is assuming that the only two options are either that a lone wolf is operating all by himself, or that a room of cigarette smoking men sitting in leather chairs are plotting evil deeds.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: scifibum on July 08, 2019, 01:41:14 PM
That kind of thing would not surprise me. Bill Clinton being part of it would not surprise me (his behavior toward Lewinsky was certainly predatory). Trump likewise.

But I don't want to assume those kinds of things. I know there are some allegations against Trump and Dershowitz in connection with Epstein, but AFAIK they haven't been corroborated by anything so far.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Fenring on July 08, 2019, 02:09:22 PM
But I don't want to assume those kinds of things. I know there are some allegations against Trump and Dershowitz in connection with Epstein, but AFAIK they haven't been corroborated by anything so far.

I'm not suggesting I can spell out what sort of operation this was. Only that it's implausible to me that some criminal-type guy ran a shady business involving enslaved child prostitutes and had clientele of the sort of he, just like that. It's not just wishful thinking, but rather I suspect it's actually impossible. Human trafficking is, I think, a much more significant industry than we ever hear about, but the sort of high-profile outfit that caters to power players doesn't just set up shop and open its doors for business. It would have to be carefully set up and arranged in just such a way that all involved felt relatively safe, both in terms of media silence, law enforcement and customs, payment and debts, as well as keeping aware of who knows what and what connections in turn they have. The amount of details that must be tracked and monitored to keep a business like this going are huge, and no one that powerful would trust some schmo to do it unless they had a high-level guarantee behind it. That's just common sense, unless we want to assume that people like Bill Clinton are idiots.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Fenring on July 08, 2019, 02:41:45 PM
But again, the indictment doesn't name any co-conspirators other than Epstein's own employees.

Just a small detail, by the way, but one clause in the indictment does say that certain parties "known and unknown" were involved in the organization of it. This may be standard legal jargon but it does not actually rule out that there are co-conspirators that are known; it just means they refuse to name them in a public document at this time. Perhaps related to that is the fact that only U.S.-based residences are named in the indictment, and not the infamous island.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: D.W. on July 08, 2019, 03:02:23 PM
Saying only an idiot would get into situations like that misses a big part of the equation.  When you have money and power it is (or appears to be, I sure wouldn't know) easy to believe you are above the law and can get whatever you want.  A life of getting "whatever you want" can lead to a rather toxic mix of boredom and taboo thrill seeking.  That said I'm kinda naively shocked that there are local (domestic US) networks.  I could see people arranging to go out of country and having connections to do just that... but when it pops up here somehow I'm always surprised. 

Guess I'm not quiet jaded enough yet.   :-\
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: rightleft22 on July 08, 2019, 05:08:45 PM
I got to go with idiot. There is no excuses for not knowing that sex with minors is wrong even if you think you can get away with it or the rules don't apply to you.
Idiot is probably the kindest label I would use.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDeamon on July 08, 2019, 05:11:17 PM
That said I'm kinda naively shocked that there are local (domestic US) networks.  I could see people arranging to go out of country and having connections to do just that... but when it pops up here somehow I'm always surprised. 

Guess I'm not quiet jaded enough yet.   :-\

Try checking out https://truckersagainsttrafficking.org/ (https://truckersagainsttrafficking.org/) some time, those networks do exist in the United States, they're more common than we'd like to think. Awareness and education campaigns are helping force them deeper underground, but they're very much around.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: D.W. on July 08, 2019, 05:47:32 PM
Ya I know they do.  That's what I was getting at.  It's like a fresh shock every time one's uncovered.  Part of me always goes, "not here!"  But sometimes the truth is uglier than even I want to admit.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Fenring on July 08, 2019, 05:47:45 PM
I got to go with idiot. There is no excuses for not knowing that sex with minors is wrong even if you think you can get away with it or the rules don't apply to you.
Idiot is probably the kindest label I would use.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. I used the term "idiot" in reference to the fact that powerful people (e.g. like Bill Clinton) wouldn't just wander into a child porn paradise without knowing in advance that there are certain safeguards against it getting out. But you seem to responding to the idea that they must be idiots for not knowing that illegal minor action is immoral. Did you stop to think that they might do it *because* it's immoral? Or at least that such a term is irrelevant to them?
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Seriati on July 08, 2019, 06:10:58 PM
This one is complicated.  I'm guessing that as a rich and powerful guy Epstein probably made a lot of connections with people that had nothing to do with this, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if most of the people he knew didn't really have a solid basis to believe he was doing something illegal.  I mean it's pretty common knowledge that people who abuse their families often have the communities in which they live convinced that they are upstanding and moral people, and often even their close friends.  I mean after the fact people will identify suspicious things but real time it'd be a leap to jump to the horrible.

So does it look bad that Clinton flew all those times, and ditched his escort?  Sure, but that doesn't mean he was involved in anything as heinous as messing around with kids.  Surely Epstein could have thrown some parties with 18 year olds, and Bill would have plenty of incentive to ditch the secret service if he was traveling on a plane with a bunch of prostitutes, or even just easy college girls.

I imagine the prosecutors will have a hard time being sure about whether some people that knew Epstein or flew on his plane had any idea about the other things that Epstein was up to, or even participated with anyone underage.  Or maybe they have clear evidence that shows it.  Or maybe they are just pit bulls and everyone is guilty in their eyes.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 09, 2019, 08:12:54 AM
So here’s the deal that was cut:

Quote
In June 2008, after Epstein pleaded guilty to a single state charge of soliciting prostitution from girls as young as 14, he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Instead of being sent to state prison like the majority of sex offenders convicted in Florida, Epstein was housed in a private wing of the Palm Beach County stockade. He was able to hire his own security detail and was allowed "work release" to his downtown office for up to 12 hours a day six days a week. He served 13 months before being released for a year of probation. While on probation he was allowed numerous trips on his corporate jet to his homes in Manhattan and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Additionally, “the government agreed to grant immunity from all federal criminal charges to Epstein, along with four co-conspirators and any unnamed “potential co-conspirators”. The deal halted the investigation and sealed the indictment. Epstein agreed to plead guilty to state prostitution charges, register as a sex offender, and pay restitution to three dozen victims identified by the FBI.”

Given the scale and scope of Epstein’s criminal activity, that’s one hell of a deal. Jaw dropping.

They essentially let him off, knowing he’d just continue - he was registered in New York State as a level three (high risk of reoffense) sex offender. This deal held for more than a decade.

So why now? Epstein went on his pervy way and it was ignored but now they’re after him.

Quote
The fact that the Southern District of New York is handling this provides the answer. With the Clinton-Obama-Mueller Collusion Hoax having collapsed, and the Democrat-controlled House investigations going nowhere, the SDNY is now the only real weapon left with which to try to decapitate the Trump presidency. The SDNY is going to try and get Epstein to rat on Trump. That is, they are going to force him to read lies from a pre-written script in open court to once again smear the President as either a pretext for impeachment or to destroy his bid for reelection.

That actually has a pretty good chance of being accurate. The SDNY, with its Comey connection, has been called outas the next avenue for getting Trump on collusion. It would be no surprise they’d pivot to Epstein and squeeze that low life to say something to damage Trump.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: D.W. on July 09, 2019, 09:26:18 AM
He's a standup guy who shows nothing but respect to women.  Nobody will buy it Crunch.  Don't worry.  Those evil scheeming Dem's won't win!
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Fenring on July 09, 2019, 10:09:21 AM
It wouldn't surprise me that there's some peripheral connection between Eptein and Trump. Crunch's hunch may not be out to lunch. However the way the game works is that no one can talk because if they do everyone goes down with them, including Dem people. So if this is what they want they're playing a dangerous game thinking they can control the flow of information and close the dam when they wish. More likely that Eptein commits suicide in his cell by two shotgun blasts to the back of the head.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: rightleft22 on July 09, 2019, 10:12:30 AM
 
Quote
Did you stop to think that they might do it *because* it's immoral? Or at least that such a term is irrelevant to them?
I did. I just can't get my head around how someone gets there, the amount of mental gymnastics evolved to justify it if just for them self's. Or is it all unconscious just a drive to feel something.
 
Calling people like this idiots may be oversimplification and missing big part of the equation I just don't feel like digging any deeper. I don't care why the did it, or why they thought they could get away with such behavior, or how they justified it for themselves, or why society tends to look away in such matters and for such people until it slaps us in the face . 

If its proven they broke the law society needs to hold them accountable. *censored* like this shouldn't become a partisan issue. If were not held accountable or get to be responsible for who we are and what we do Love is not possible. 



Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDrake on July 09, 2019, 10:37:23 AM
I'm getting a vibe that die hard trumpians are going to find themselves trying to justify arguing that eptein should not have been charged because it was politically motivated. Me, I don't care about the motivation, I'm just glad he's being charged.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Seriati on July 09, 2019, 11:03:11 AM
Why would we argue that?  I don't understand how the first deal happened.  Prosecutors in today's environment are wielding too much uncontrolled discretion.  Epstein is a gross example, and with "co-conspirators" receiving immunity - to me - the deal is so gross that it should be legal to set it aside as a clear result of some kind of illegal deal.  Smollet, to a much less extent, is a similar case to me on the abuse of prosecution judgment.  We have the inverse in NY, where the Attorney General flat out said she would be abusing her discretion to investigate everyone connected to Trump until she found crimes to put them in jail.

Honest to goodness, this is the kind of crap that led us to revolt from England, and it should be intolerable to any free people.

The only word of caution is technical.  How is this not a violation of double jeopardy?  It was a federal deal, and this is a federal prosecutor, so even the SC's recent backslide to allow state crimes on the same charges shouldn't apply.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDrake on July 09, 2019, 11:52:17 AM
As I understand it, they are sneaking around the plea deal. He was given immunity from the rape charges, but they are charging him with trafficking and conspiracy. Different charges, technically? And I don't know exactly how that original deal happened. Clearly, we know it is because he is wealthy and powerful. Poor people don't get sweetheart deals. Possibly, he had Kompromat on people in a position to make his problems go away - related or unrelated to his crimes. Or it could have been simple bribery.

Lost in the mix is that the dude who made the deal is our current Labor Secretary.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 09, 2019, 12:12:33 PM
He's a standup guy who shows nothing but respect to women.  Nobody will buy it Crunch.  Don't worry.  Those evil scheeming Dem's won't win!

The FBI and CIA did nothing but follow DNC oppo research. Everyone will buy it D.W. Don't worry. That evil Trump won't win.

You're using sarcasm, I'm using recent history. Tell me which is more compelling.

I'm getting a vibe that die hard trumpians are going to find themselves trying to justify arguing that eptein should not have been charged because it was politically motivated. Me, I don't care about the motivation, I'm just glad he's being charged.

I'm getting the vibe that the left will find themselves trying to justify it based on "it's just sex" arguing that Democrats should not be charged because it's politically motivated. History is a wonderful teacher.

It wouldn't surprise me that there's some peripheral connection between Eptein and Trump. Crunch's hunch may not be out to lunch. However the way the game works is that no one can talk because if they do everyone goes down with them, including Dem people. So if this is what they want they're playing a dangerous game thinking they can control the flow of information and close the dam when they wish. More likely that Eptein commits suicide in his cell by two shotgun blasts to the back of the head.

There is a connection between Trump and Epstein. NY billionaires travel in the same circles (although Trump seems to have cut Epstein loose). Why wouldn't they think they can control the flow of information? Seriously, they literally do control it - ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, they're essentially DNC media outlets. From the Russia collusion hoax to the Kavanaugh hearings, the left controlled the messaging. Why would this be any different?
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 09, 2019, 12:14:59 PM
Lost in the mix is that the dude who made the deal is our current Labor Secretary.

It's not lost, people are noticing, and Acosta needs to start talking. That whole *censored*ty secret bargain needs to be opened up and those that cut it need to answer for it and explain how it happened because that was some bull*censored*.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDeamon on July 09, 2019, 12:42:12 PM
Quote
Did you stop to think that they might do it *because* it's immoral? Or at least that such a term is irrelevant to them?
I did. I just can't get my head around how someone gets there, the amount of mental gymnastics evolved to justify it if just for them self's. Or is it all unconscious just a drive to feel something.
 
Calling people like this idiots may be oversimplification and missing big part of the equation I just don't feel like digging any deeper. I don't care why the did it, or why they thought they could get away with such behavior, or how they justified it for themselves, or why society tends to look away in such matters and for such people until it slaps us in the face . 

If its proven they broke the law society needs to hold them accountable. *censored* like this shouldn't become a partisan issue. If were not held accountable or get to be responsible for who we are and what we do Love is not possible.

It gets more complicated though. Age of consent in 30 states within the US is 16 years of age, not 18(although many of those laws may come with footnotes).

Much of Canada has age of consent also at 16. Some parts of Mexico has an age of consent that can be as young as 12 years old according to wiki. "Sexual tourism" is a real thing, and the only aspect of it that moves into clearly illegal territory is with regards to transport of a minor in order to move them into a jurisdiction where sex with them is legal where it otherwise wouldn't be(and it then also moves you into the domain of needing to demonstrate intent if you are the prosecutor).

I'm not sure what the consent laws are on Epstein's private island(as I haven't bothered to figure out which national jurisdiction applies there), but in general you do have to contend with the issue that in many cases what is going on may not be illegal where it happened. It might scummy as can be, and utterly deplorable, but it's legal.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDrake on July 09, 2019, 12:56:58 PM
I'm not sure what the consent laws are on Epstein's private island(as I haven't bothered to figure out which national jurisdiction applies there), but in general you do have to contend with the issue that in many cases what is going on may not be illegal where it happened. It might scummy as can be, and utterly deplorable, but it's legal.

US virgin islands. wiki:

Quote
The age of consent is 18. There is however a close-in-age exemption that allows minors 16 and 17 years old to consent with someone no more than five years older than themselves and minors 13 to 15 years old to consent with one another, but not with anyone 16 or over.

So there's no loophole there.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: rightleft22 on July 09, 2019, 01:02:37 PM
When It comes to stories like this I don't know what to do or think.
What does my outrage, self righteousness, disappointment, disgust, bewilderment, opinion... influence?

A part of me feels that as a society and individual we must bear witness to such events, stand up and say we see you even if they spit back into our faces... 
yet another part is tired.... Everything changes and stays the same.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Fenring on July 09, 2019, 01:10:27 PM
TheDeamon,

That girl a ways back who escaped from Epstein and testified about him was captured and enslaved, and stated that the same was done to others. The age of consent laws on the island are irrelevant in terms of this, notwithstand what Drake mentioned about the Virgin Islands. Oh yeah, she also mentions how everything that happened there was recorded, which is one reason I think it may have been a honeypot operation, and if so why nothing significant would ever be blown open about it other than a few falls guys going down.

Crunch, when I say they may not be able to control the flow of information I mean in the extremely unlikely event that the dam breaks loose and all hell rains down. But I do not think that will happen, because too many interested parties would intervene before it ever came to that. They're too much 'businessmen' to go that far for almost any reason. I doubt this ends any way other than some behind-closed-doors deal we never hear about, and the offical ending will be weak-sauce. Of course I'd be very happy to be proven wrong if this matters should happen to turn into a firestorm.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 09, 2019, 01:31:23 PM
I doubt this ends any way other than some behind-closed-doors deal we never hear about, and the offical ending will be weak-sauce. Of course I'd be very happy to be proven wrong if this matters should happen to turn into a firestorm.

I don't know. Doing it once, sure. Doing it a second time? That would be a real trick and you know, you just know, that would be the "proof" that Trump was involved in all this. Maybe that's the end game though, just enough to derail the election in 2020 then it all disappears from public media. That wouldn't surprise me.

But with Trump as the target, I think it becomes pretty public and, depending on who Epstein agrees with prosecutors to name, becomes another minimal sentence deal for Epstein. Of course, if Epstein refuses to name Trump, Epstein may spend the rest of his life in jail.

What if this is a twofer? They derail Trump's re-election and also break the Clinton stranglehold on the DNC?
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Fenring on July 09, 2019, 03:14:05 PM
I don't know. Doing it once, sure. Doing it a second time? That would be a real trick and you know, you just know, that would be the "proof" that Trump was involved in all this.

There's too much sarcasm and double-sarcasm for me to parse what you're actually saying here.

Quote
Maybe that's the end game though, just enough to derail the election in 2020 then it all disappears from public media. That wouldn't surprise me.

I don't personally think that elections have been 'on the rails' since Bush 43's first term.

Quote
What if this is a twofer? They derail Trump's re-election and also break the Clinton stranglehold on the DNC?

To whatever extent the Clintons still have a 'stranglehold' on the DNC, it's out of the public eye and any accusation would do little to curtail such activities. The 'behind the scenes' action doesn't require any kind of good public standing to operate.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 09, 2019, 04:06:59 PM
I don't know. Doing it once, sure. Doing it a second time? That would be a real trick and you know, you just know, that would be the "proof" that Trump was involved in all this.

There's too much sarcasm and double-sarcasm for me to parse what you're actually saying here.

I'm saying doing the same kind of secret, weak, deal a second time is going to be very difficult to pull off without people losing their minds. But, if it does happen, the story will somehow be that Trump got involved (through the DOJ probably) and that is "proof" of Trump being a pedo like Epstein.

Quote
Maybe that's the end game though, just enough to derail the election in 2020 then it all disappears from public media. That wouldn't surprise me.

I don't personally think that elections have been 'on the rails' since Bush 43's first term.

I'm talking about derailing the Trump 2020 campaign. That's most likely the real goal in all this.

Quote
What if this is a twofer? They derail Trump's re-election and also break the Clinton stranglehold on the DNC?

To whatever extent the Clintons still have a 'stranglehold' on the DNC, it's out of the public eye and any accusation would do little to curtail such activities. The 'behind the scenes' action doesn't require any kind of good public standing to operate.

Until recently, they had the power to control the DNC enough to pre-select Hillary as the candidate. That kind of power structure does not disappear overnight. Perhaps 'behind the scenes' actions over the last couple of years have not worked. Now it's time to wreck them publically.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 09, 2019, 04:12:25 PM
Theory:

Quote
So, apologies in advance, but I want to do a quick little THREAD to explain my theory of what the Epstein story really is. I promise this isn't some crazy Pizzagate conspiracy about space lizards, just a neat little explanation that IMO perfectly fits the known facts (0/13):

(1/13) Let's take as our starting points two givens.
(A.) You are a committed, unrepentant pedophile
(B.) Because of your old job in private banking, you are very connected to lots of very, very wealthy people
We'll also assume a goal:
(Z.) You want to become very rich

(2/13) The obvious route is, well, obvious: you could just be a pimp, offering underage prostitute services to very rich people. This has two problems: you're very disposable (see: DC madam), and it's also not super lucrative. You can't charge millions of dollars up front.

(3/13) The second level though follows instantly: You don't need to charge up front, just get them to have underage sex, and then blackmail them afterwards for hush money. Better ROI, but you're still a liability, and producing and receiving big bribe money raises big questions.

(4/13) So, what to do? Well, the second idea has some merits. First, you need to recruit people in. Have lots of massive parties at your spacious home (check), invite top academics, artists, politicians to encourage people to come (check), and supply lots of young women (check)

(5/13) You don't even have to do anything, and most people invited might even be totally unaware of the real purpose of the parties! But, sooner or later, some billionaire will get handsy, she'll escort him to a room with a hidden camera, things happen. Morning after, you strike.

(6/13) You inform him she was really 15, but you offer him a nice, neat way to buy your silence: a large allocation to your hedge fund, which charges 2/20 (check). To ensure nobody else asks questions, you also take the extraordinary step of demanding power of attorney (check)

(7/13) The fund is offshore in a tax haven (check) and nobody will see the client list (check). Of course, you don't really know anything about investing, instead making up some nonsense about currency trading (check), and nobody on Wall Street has ever traded with you (check)

(8/13) The fund itself doesn't need investment personnel (check), only some back office people to process the wires (check). You don't want to money from non-pedophiles, or they'll notice you've just put it in a S&P 500 fund, so you reject all incoming inquiries (check)

(9/13) A $20 million wire from Billionaire X to you with no obvious reason will raise many questions, and the IRS will certainly want to know what you did to warrant it. A $5 million quarterly fee for managing $1 billion in assets? Nobody bats an eye.

(10/13) Because of this structure, you're extraordinarily secretive about client lists (check) because they aren't clients, they're pedophiles paying you bribes, and they also are very secretive, which is why no letters or return streams ever leak (check)

(11/13) Occasionally you may also try this trick on other people: important political figures, mayors, prosecutors, etc. They don't invest in the fund, but it's nice to have them in your pocket. Others (academics, artists, etc.) can just be bought with money as a PR smokescreen.

(12/13) And, of course, the scam can be kept going as long as people are willing to pay, which is forever. If you're ever caught, just lean on some of your other friends in government to lean on the prosecutor to get you a sweetheart deal. There's almost zero risk.

(13/13) And the last piece of the puzzle is the evidence. You'd want it somewhere remote, but accessible: a place the US can't touch but you have an excuse to visit all the time to update. Remember that offshore fund?

I bet there's a *very* interesting safe deposit box there.

It works. Could be accurate, maybe.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Fenring on July 09, 2019, 04:24:12 PM
That's interesting, Crunch, but if someone tried that trick on the wrong people a "CIA squad" would appear one day and their entire operation would be scrubbed. I suppose it's not out of the realm of possibility, and indeed I have had speculations that the high art world is often used as a money laundering scheme, so I suppose it might be the case that the financial sector could do the same thing. That being said, I think it's far more likely that if powerful people are in on that kind of adventure island then the power lies with them rather than with the operator. Or perhaps a very affluent player originally set this up for his buddies, and becoming a 'buddy' becomes a sort of elite status thing and gets you to the island, which in turn increases the sphere of power of the operation. Whatever the situation is, if it's a honeypot it's almost certainly not of the type where someone in a weak position is pissing off powerful people; it's more likely an already powerful group collecting other powerful people if it's something like this at all.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: DJQuag on July 09, 2019, 04:34:58 PM
I'm getting a vibe that die hard trumpians are going to find themselves trying to justify arguing that eptein should not have been charged because it was politically motivated. Me, I don't care about the motivation, I'm just glad he's being charged.

This.  So very much this.

I honestly don't care if Clinton or anyone else gets pulled in. Underage sex trafficking. Charge them all.

If Trump gets pulled in (and I don't know how that's possible, given his past hahahs oh god just kidding) well I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he had sex with a 15 year old who looked like they were 20
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: DJQuag on July 09, 2019, 04:37:03 PM
Theory:

Quote
So, apologies in advance, but I want to do a quick little THREAD to explain my theory of what the Epstein story really is. I promise this isn't some crazy Pizzagate conspiracy about space lizards, just a neat little explanation that IMO perfectly fits the known facts (0/13):

(1/13) Let's take as our starting points two givens.
(A.) You are a committed, unrepentant pedophile
(B.) Because of your old job in private banking, you are very connected to lots of very, very wealthy people
We'll also assume a goal:
(Z.) You want to become very rich

(2/13) The obvious route is, well, obvious: you could just be a pimp, offering underage prostitute services to very rich people. This has two problems: you're very disposable (see: DC madam), and it's also not super lucrative. You can't charge millions of dollars up front.

(3/13) The second level though follows instantly: You don't need to charge up front, just get them to have underage sex, and then blackmail them afterwards for hush money. Better ROI, but you're still a liability, and producing and receiving big bribe money raises big questions.

(4/13) So, what to do? Well, the second idea has some merits. First, you need to recruit people in. Have lots of massive parties at your spacious home (check), invite top academics, artists, politicians to encourage people to come (check), and supply lots of young women (check)

(5/13) You don't even have to do anything, and most people invited might even be totally unaware of the real purpose of the parties! But, sooner or later, some billionaire will get handsy, she'll escort him to a room with a hidden camera, things happen. Morning after, you strike.

(6/13) You inform him she was really 15, but you offer him a nice, neat way to buy your silence: a large allocation to your hedge fund, which charges 2/20 (check). To ensure nobody else asks questions, you also take the extraordinary step of demanding power of attorney (check)

(7/13) The fund is offshore in a tax haven (check) and nobody will see the client list (check). Of course, you don't really know anything about investing, instead making up some nonsense about currency trading (check), and nobody on Wall Street has ever traded with you (check)

(8/13) The fund itself doesn't need investment personnel (check), only some back office people to process the wires (check). You don't want to money from non-pedophiles, or they'll notice you've just put it in a S&P 500 fund, so you reject all incoming inquiries (check)

(9/13) A $20 million wire from Billionaire X to you with no obvious reason will raise many questions, and the IRS will certainly want to know what you did to warrant it. A $5 million quarterly fee for managing $1 billion in assets? Nobody bats an eye.

(10/13) Because of this structure, you're extraordinarily secretive about client lists (check) because they aren't clients, they're pedophiles paying you bribes, and they also are very secretive, which is why no letters or return streams ever leak (check)

(11/13) Occasionally you may also try this trick on other people: important political figures, mayors, prosecutors, etc. They don't invest in the fund, but it's nice to have them in your pocket. Others (academics, artists, etc.) can just be bought with money as a PR smokescreen.

(12/13) And, of course, the scam can be kept going as long as people are willing to pay, which is forever. If you're ever caught, just lean on some of your other friends in government to lean on the prosecutor to get you a sweetheart deal. There's almost zero risk.

(13/13) And the last piece of the puzzle is the evidence. You'd want it somewhere remote, but accessible: a place the US can't touch but you have an excuse to visit all the time to update. Remember that offshore fund?

I bet there's a *very* interesting safe deposit box there.

It works. Could be accurate, maybe.

Facebook fake news Crunch strikes again. Lol he literally cut and pasted from his Facebook buddies.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 09, 2019, 05:30:02 PM
Actually, no.  You are wrong again. TDS is making you crazy.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 09, 2019, 05:32:39 PM
I'm getting a vibe that die hard trumpians are going to find themselves trying to justify arguing that eptein should not have been charged because it was politically motivated. Me, I don't care about the motivation, I'm just glad he's being charged.

This.  So very much this.

I honestly don't care if Clinton or anyone else gets pulled in. Underage sex trafficking. Charge them all.

If Trump gets pulled in (and I don't know how that's possible, given his past hahahs oh god just kidding) well I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he had sex with a 15 year old who looked like they were 20

This is why the left thinks it will work. It fits a confirmation bias and a willingness to believe anything, no matter how absurd. With media control and this kind of audience, it’s pretty easy to do.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: DJQuag on July 09, 2019, 08:54:52 PM
 :'(
I'm getting a vibe that die hard trumpians are going to find themselves trying to justify arguing that eptein should not have been charged because it was politically motivated. Me, I don't care about the motivation, I'm just glad he's being charged.

This.  So very much this.

I honestly don't care if Clinton or anyone else gets pulled in. Underage sex trafficking. Charge them all.

If Trump gets pulled in (and I don't know how that's possible, given his past hahahs oh god just kidding) well I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he had sex with a 15 year old who looked like they were 20

This is why the left thinks it will work. It fits a confirmation bias and a willingness to believe anything, no matter how absurd. With media control and this kind of audience, it’s pretty easy to do.

Yep. The same confirmation bias that would make you think Clinton is guilty. Both of them have a past that makes them being pulled into this believable.

Then again, Trump himself bragged he could shoot someone in broad delight and his supporters would explain it away, so I'm quite sure if it did come out he was banging 15 year olds ya'll would be like "But Bill Clinton did it."
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 10, 2019, 07:02:34 AM
I didn’t say Clinton is guilty. I have agreed that it looks worse for him than Trump but it’s not proof of anything. I don’t think you really know what anyone said about anything here, you’re just making up the positions you want people to have and getting your feelz on.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 10, 2019, 08:12:38 AM
Lost in the mix is that the dude who made the deal is our current Labor Secretary.

It's not lost, people are noticing, and Acosta needs to start talking. That whole *censored*ty secret bargain needs to be opened up and those that cut it need to answer for it and explain how it happened because that was some bull*censored*.

So a little is leaking out:

Quote
What is striking about Acosta's case is that he is being excoriated not for doing too much to defend a sex offender but too little to punish or convict — that is, he is being criticized not as a defense attorney, like Sullivan, Pattis, or Adams, but as a prosecutor.  Just as defendants and their counsel must weigh their risks of conviction, so too must prosecutors assess the risks and costs of failing to meet that much higher burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Epstein served jail time and probation and was compelled to register as a sex offender.  Acosta has stated that "the plea deal's results were 'better' than risking a trial, which he said had 'a reduced likelihood of success.'"  Not only do the media seek to revisit that prosecutorial discretion, but they have already passed judgment.  If Acosta had tried the case and lost, the result would have been horrible, compelling the victims to testify in a new trauma.

So the argument is that Acosta was not very confident in getting the conviction. Epstein had the kind of money to hire a dream team defense a la OJ Simpson and, perhaps, the case wasn’t that strong so conviction was uncertain. Add in the trauma of forcing the victims to testify in the face of that legal onslaught (e.g what Hillary Clinton did to Kathy Shelton) and Acosta decided to take the sure conviction over a rather poor chance in court.

So, thats the story. It’s reasonable. But there was a lot other bull*censored* here that needs explanation before I can buy off on it. The whole thing needs to be unsealed and reviewed.

Trump weighs in:

Quote
“I can only say this: From what I know -- and what I do know is that he’s been a great -- really great Secretary of Labor. The rest of it we’ll have to look at. We’ll have to look at it very carefully, but you’re talking about a long time ago. And again, it was a decision made, I think, not by him but by a lot of people. So we’re going to look at it very carefully. We’ll be looking at that very carefully,” he said.

I tend to think it’s true that Acosta wasn’t making this decision in a vacuum. Who else was involved?
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: NobleHunter on July 10, 2019, 10:21:19 AM
The defense attorneys of Epstein and co-conspirators probably.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Seriati on July 10, 2019, 11:31:49 AM
So the argument is that Acosta was not very confident in getting the conviction. Epstein had the kind of money to hire a dream team defense a la OJ Simpson and, perhaps, the case wasn’t that strong so conviction was uncertain. Add in the trauma of forcing the victims to testify in the face of that legal onslaught (e.g what Hillary Clinton did to Kathy Shelton) and Acosta decided to take the sure conviction over a rather poor chance in court.

So, thats the story. It’s reasonable. But there was a lot other bull*censored* here that needs explanation before I can buy off on it. The whole thing needs to be unsealed and reviewed.

The argument is not reasonable.  Even if you "bought" it, it wouldn't remotely explain immunity for co-conspirators.  And the level of "conviction" for crimes of this magnitude is grossly unreasonable.  The more likely explanation is that Acosta didn't think he was good enough to win and was afraid losing would hurt him down the road, for promotions, politics, whatever, or that he thought having given up the deal would earn him favors.

Fact is bringing the case to court would have destroyed Epstein win or lose almost as effectively as putting him in jail, the idea that you'd not get a good "result" when you'd get the whole sordid thing exposed is nonsense.  Or to put it another way, how did being "not gulity" work out for OJ?  He stayed out of jail, but the most of the country decided to treat him like he was guilty.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Fenring on July 10, 2019, 11:38:46 AM
Or to put it another way, how did being "not gulity" work out for OJ?  He stayed out of jail, but the most of the country decided to treat him like he was guilty.

For someone whose career rode on public celebrity that would more or less end their career. It's debatable whether or not having your career ended is a 'big enough price' for such a crime. But Epstein was never in the public persona game, so his image being sullied would be of little relevance to him if he could continue playing power games with important people. At best they might keep him at arm's length because he's been 'outed' and might be more trouble than he's worth.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDrake on July 10, 2019, 11:43:10 AM
Quote
A judge ruled Thursday that federal prosecutors, including future Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, violated the law when they did not tell victims the government had struck a deal not to prosecute Jeffrey Epstein, a politically connected billionaire accused of molesting dozens of young girls.

The ruling was a stinging rebuke for prosecutors and how they behaved in a grim, high-profile case that has drawn increased scrutiny in recent months. A Miami Herald investigation last year highlighted the allegations and Acosta’s role in cutting a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, while a Justice Department office said it is exploring whether the federal prosecutors who reached the deal committed “professional misconduct.”

District Judge Kenneth A. Marra was blunt, ruling that prosecutors had acted improperly in reaching the agreement with Epstein — which stopped federal action in exchange for him pleading guilty to a state charge — without telling the victims. Marra, based in West Palm Beach, Fla., wrote in a 33-page ruling that the actions violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), which entitles victims to know about significant events in their cases.

Got a defense for not telling the victims, Crunch? I'm sure you'll come up with something.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 10, 2019, 01:26:59 PM
Did you not read what I wrote? Seriously, what’s wrong with you?
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 10, 2019, 01:29:31 PM
More about Acosta:

Quote
Epstein’s name, I was told, had been raised by the Trump transition team when Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. attorney in Miami who’d infamously cut Epstein a non-prosecution plea deal back in 2007, was being interviewed for the job of labor secretary. The plea deal put a hard stop to a separate federal investigation of alleged sex crimes with minors and trafficking.

“Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?” Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he’d had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)

One meeting? Who told Acosta it was above his paygrade and to leave it alone?
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: D.W. on July 10, 2019, 01:34:42 PM
Does Trump get credit for draining the swamp if the swamp is drained in reaction to TDS?  :P 
I kinda think it should count.

I mean obviously the drain is IN the swamp... so how else was this suppose to work? 
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 10, 2019, 01:42:41 PM
Trump getting the left to line up in a circular firing squad is definitely to his credit. It’s amazing to see him accomplish this over and over again.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: D.W. on July 10, 2019, 01:49:50 PM
Swamp creatures come in all flavors.  I don't morn their exits.  :P
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 10, 2019, 03:48:28 PM
We hear from Acosta. Here's the summary:

Quote
Acosta said something like, when I came onto the case, there was already a deal in place to let Epstein off with no jail time whatsoever and no admission of having committed any sexual offenses; I and my prosecutors pushed to at least get some jail and a plea to soliciting an underage girl.

He now says that most of the witnesses against him didn't want to testify against him, because they didn't want to be identified. He's saying that this sort of plea arrangement is common, as prosecutors have to weigh seeking real justice against a sex offender, versus protecting his victims from further humiliation and pain.

He's stressing that at least his team got Epstein to admit to a crime that would force him to register as a sex criminal.

He now stresses that it's highly unusual that a federal prosecutor would intervene in a state case -- and remember, he's saying the state had already given Epstein a complete pass -- and pointing out that it's big deal that he even got involved at all to get something harsher. Without naming Harvey Weinstein, he points out that some sex offenders are let off with no charges at all.

He's pointing out that the female career prosecutor who handled this worked out an odd concession from Epstein: That any victim who came forward to sue him civilly would have her lawyer paid for by Epstein, and that he would have to plead no contest to the suit, agreeing to pay restitution. That career prosecutor did not want to notify potential victims, because Epstein could use knowledge of this deal to say, if they had to go to trial, "The DOJ is basically recruiting witnesses against me via this I-must-pay-restitution agreement. These 'victims' are just coming forward due to the smell of money in the air." So they decided to not notify victims until after Epstein agreed to plead guilty.

So from this, it sounds like Acosta inherited a *censored* sandwich and tried to make it as palatable as possible. I kind of get the rationale here but I still don't like it. I'd very much like to know who cut the deal that Acosta inherited.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: D.W. on July 10, 2019, 03:53:39 PM
That does tidily make him look like one of the few who at least tried to do SOMETHING.  An another helpless cog in the machinery.  Regardless of how accurate all that is, it's a darn nice piece of work.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDrake on July 10, 2019, 05:02:49 PM
Quote
He's saying that this sort of plea arrangement is common, as prosecutors have to weigh seeking real justice against a sex offender, versus protecting his victims from further humiliation and pain.

Shouldn't that decision be up to the victims? The ones who weren't told about the potential deal?
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 10, 2019, 05:23:31 PM
I don't know if it should be up to them, that's the prosecutor's discretion. However, while I think it's pretty *censored*ty they weren't notified there was a rationale for it that could have favored Epstein at a criminal trial had those notifications gone out (the prosecution recruiting and paying witnesses to testify against Epstein on Epstein's dime). I can see how a defense team could shred the prosecution witness for that and completely let Epstein walk free.

This was a very terrible deal all the way around, no other way to see it. But it seems like Acosta tried to salvage it. I'm not 100% convinced of that but it's the story we got so far so what can we do? Maybe more will come out.

Who pushed this deal before Acosta walked into it? Above his paygrade? Come on, that's movie line. One thing I've seen floated about that "CIA involvement" thing is that the CIA was using Epstein to snare foreign recruits. If you believe the whole blackmail thing, it's possible they let him run to keep getting leverage over someone influential in a foreign government or business. It's terrible but, given the CIA's history, not completely unbelievable.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDrake on July 10, 2019, 05:43:01 PM
If the CIA tells you not to prosecute a pedophile rapist, maybe its time to go to the press.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 11, 2019, 09:03:39 AM
OK, Acosta inherited the deal from Barry Krischer:

Quote
The Florida prosecutor who allowed Jeffrey Epstein to get away with the abuse of children is a very popular guy in Palm Beach.

The YWCA of Palm Beach County (“eliminating racism, empowering women”) offers the Barry Krischer Humanitarian Award and the Domestic Violence Council has a Barry Krischer scholarship.

Last year, the ADL honored Krischer with its Jurisprudence Award.

The Florida Bar had honored Kirscher with a lifetime achievement award and he’s still listed as a member in good standing. Even Jeb Bush had bestowed a Peace at Home award on the prosecutor.

Krischer sits on the Criminal Justice Commission and offers training to law enforcement, court personnel and child welfare providers on dealing with crimes of sexual violence. His bio states that he remains active in “child welfare issues” through his work with the Department of Children and Families.

Krischer is also the guy that went after Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter - he's a hardcore Democrat with a zero-tolerance policy of prosecuting juveniles as adults.

Quote
But after Epstein had abused underage girls, Krischer, according to the detective on the case, ignored police efforts to charge him with four counts of unlawful sexual activity with a minor and instead the billionaire abuser was indicted only on a minor charge of solicitation of prostitution.

Interviews with over a dozen girls and witnesses were ignored.

The victims were not notified of when they needed to appear before Krischer’s Grand Jury. Calls by the police to issue warrants for the arrest of Epstein and his associates were ignored by Kirscher’s subordinates. Eventually, Kirscher’s people stopped taking phone calls from the police. 

The Palm Beach police chief claimed that information was being leaked to Epstein’s lawyers and wrote a public letter attacking Krischer and urging him to disqualify himself from the case. Instead the travesty went on. State prosecutors allowed Epstein to skip sex offender counselling, and hire a private shrink.

When the judge asked assistant state prosecutor Lanna Belohlavek if all the victims had signed off on the deal, she claimed that they had. The lawyer for the victims has said that was not the truth.

As a sex offender, Epstein should have been in state prison, but instead he received a private wing in the Palm Beach County stockade.

“There’s significant budget cuts in the county already, and sending him to the county jail and not the Dept. of Corrections is a significant cost to the taxpayer and the county,” the judge had objected.

But reporting to the stockade allowed Epstein to hire Palm Beach sheriff’s deputies as his security while he spent the day in his office on his work release program. The deputies stayed in the front room of his office, during the time that he was supposed to be in prison, while visitors went into his private office.

The deputies stopped calling Epstein an “inmate” and began referring to him as a “client”.

This jail arrangement is illegal. It was managed by Palm Beach Sheriff Ric Bradshaw, also a Democrat. Bradsaw and Krischer are well known as political allies - sounds like they were colluding on this treatment.

Quote
After 13 months of this, there was another year of house arrest in which Epstein was able to fly his jet around the country and around the world. Before long, he was partying with the smart set, including Charlie Rose, Katie Couric, Woody Allen and Chelsea Handler.

The people he's partying with ... what's their political affiliation?

Quote
The Palm Beach police chief had referred the case to the FBI, hoping to hit Epstein with federal charges. The Feds were able to assemble a 53-page indictment.

That fits with Acosta's story about inheriting the deal and trying to turn it into something and Acosta may have developed the best deal he could get after all.

In the end, we have a very aggressive Democrat prosecutor suddenly going soft and doing everything he can to give a very wealthy Democrat donor a free pass until Acosta got on the scene. Even then, the Democrat sheriff made sure it was as easy on the Democrat donor as possible. After which, Epstein goes on to party with Democrat celebs.

Has anybody checked phone records to see how many calls there were between Krischer and the Clinton's?

Quote
These days, Krischer is one of the founders of The Children's Place at Home Safe, an organization that claims to help abused children of around the same ages as Epstein's victims.

Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 11, 2019, 09:24:22 AM
Quote
Convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein never once checked in with city cops in the eight-plus years since a Manhattan judge ordered him to do so every 90 days — and the NYPD says it’s fine with that.

After being labeled a worst-of-the-worst, Level 3 sex offender in 2011, Epstein should have reported in person to verify his address 34 times before he was arrested Saturday on federal child sex-trafficking charges.

Violating requirements of the state’s 1996 Sex Offender Registration Act — including checking in with law enforcement — is a felony punishable by up to four years in prison for a first offense.

Subsequent violations carry a sentence of up to seven years each.

But the NYPD hasn’t required the billionaire financier — who owns a $77 million Upper East Side townhouse — to check in since he registered as a sex offender in New York over the controversial 2008 plea bargain he struck in Florida amid allegations he sexually abused scores of underage girls in his Palm Beach mansion.

Several current and former high-ranking NYPD officials were shocked to learn from The Post that the department had given Epstein a pass on his periodic check-ins, with one saying, “It makes no sense.”

Quote
The NYPD maintains that Epstein, 66, wasn’t required to check in with New York cops because he claims his primary residence is a private island, Little St. John, in the US Virgin Islands.

But state Supreme Court Justice Ruth Pickholz considered and rejected that very argument by defense lawyer Sandra Musumeci during the Jan. 18, 2011, hearing.

Musumeci insisted that Epstein wasn’t a “resident of New York” and that his seven-story townhouse at 9 E. 71st St. was a “vacation home” at which he had no plans to ever stay “longer than a period 10 days.”

Pickholz insisted that Epstein would have to abide by the mandatory reporting requirements for Level 3 offenders.

“I am sorry he may have to come here every 90 days,” she said, according to an official transcript. “He can give up his New York home if he does not want to come every 90 days.”

Judge ordered to check in every 90 days. Never does it once. NYPD says that's OK.

Quote
The NYPD cop assigned to monitor Epstein has repeatedly complained to Vance’s Sex Crimes Unit that Epstein wasn’t in compliance, according to a source familiar with the matter.

But prosecutors told the cop to merely send Epstein a letter reminding him of his reporting requirement.

Right. OK. Sounds like whatever happened down in Florida continued in NY. Who are the power brokers in NY that would have the kind of connections to Epstein and juice to pull this off?
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: scifibum on July 11, 2019, 12:45:52 PM
Why would we argue that?  I don't understand how the first deal happened.  Prosecutors in today's environment are wielding too much uncontrolled discretion.  Epstein is a gross example, and with "co-conspirators" receiving immunity - to me - the deal is so gross that it should be legal to set it aside as a clear result of some kind of illegal deal.  Smollet, to a much less extent, is a similar case to me on the abuse of prosecution judgment.  We have the inverse in NY, where the Attorney General flat out said she would be abusing her discretion to investigate everyone connected to Trump until she found crimes to put them in jail.

Honest to goodness, this is the kind of crap that led us to revolt from England, and it should be intolerable to any free people.

The only word of caution is technical.  How is this not a violation of double jeopardy?  It was a federal deal, and this is a federal prosecutor, so even the SC's recent backslide to allow state crimes on the same charges shouldn't apply.

Well, there are a number of reasons it's not a violation of double jeopardy.

1) He was not tried for or acquitted of the crimes he is now charged with.

2) The non-prosecution agreement was with SDFL, and the agreement lacked language (which is typically included in such agreements) specifying which districts were bound by the agreement. SDNY has cited case law that says SDNY is not bound by SDFL's agreements (because hoops that would involve them in the agreement were not jumped). Epstein's lawyers will be making the opposite argument, but various experts who are commenting on the case seem largely in agreement that SDNY has the law right.

In fact, the lack of such language in the agreement makes it look shady.

3) The fed/state divide IS in effect here - he only pleaded to state crimes in the previous deal.

#2 is the most important reason why this prosecution isn't invalid. He wasn't charged with federal crimes that he should have been charged with. Some of those crimes occurred in SDNY and they have no legal obligation to honor an agreement made by SDFL. SDFL could have done the work to get SDNY's buy in on the previous deal, and they didn't. That's probably because it was a bad deal made for bad reasons.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: scifibum on July 11, 2019, 12:48:44 PM
BTW, Acosta's apologetics on this deal are pretty weak. Past court filings establish that his office had a 53 page indictment drafted against Epstein. You don't get that far with a weak case you don't think you can win.

I do believe that they might have thought Epstein's team would make their lives very hard and jeopardize their case. OJ got off, after all. It wasn't a good reason to give him a sweetheart deal and break the law with regard to notifying the victims. Sure, Epstein agreed to make it a bit easier for the victims who were in the know to collect damages, but all that really amounts to is paying them more than he originally wanted to.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDrake on July 11, 2019, 03:48:52 PM
While we're at it....

Manhattan DA's office asked judge to lower Jeffrey Epstein's sex offender status in 2011 (https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/09/us/jeffrey-epstein-sex-offender/index.html)

Quote
There, Epstein's attorneys asked that he be given Level 1 offender status, the least restrictive level. Meanwhile, the State of New York Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders reviewed his history of abuse allegations and recommended he be classified as a Level 3 sex offender, the highest possible risk level.
But in a strange turn, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office agreed with Epstein's team. When the case went before the Manhattan Supreme Court in January 2011, the prosecutor asked that Epstein be labeled a Level 1 sex offender.
That argument drew pointed questions from Judge Ruth Pickholz, who said she had never seen the prosecutor's office make a "downward argument" like this, according to an appeals court filing. She rejected the request and termed Epstein a Level 3 sex offender.

But this makes it okay.

Quote
The DA's office says that argument was a mistake based on a legal misunderstanding, and that the office later agreed with the judge's determination.

Did I do that?
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 11, 2019, 04:19:08 PM
BTW, Acosta's apologetics on this deal are pretty weak. Past court filings establish that his office had a 53 page indictment drafted against Epstein. You don't get that far with a weak case you don't think you can win.

I dunno, those lawyers whip out 53 pages like nothing. I haven't seen the indictment but it's probably got everything but the kitchen sink in it. Compare that with what Krischer tried to deliver.

I do believe that they might have thought Epstein's team would make their lives very hard and jeopardize their case. OJ got off, after all. It wasn't a good reason to give him a sweetheart deal and break the law with regard to notifying the victims. Sure, Epstein agreed to make it a bit easier for the victims who were in the know to collect damages, but all that really amounts to is paying them more than he originally wanted to.

Acosta came to the game essentially after a deal was already cut with Krischer's office. That only happened because the police chief saw Epstein getting away with it and escalated to the FBI. It's actually kind of surprising that Acosta got that deal off the table and his in play.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 11, 2019, 04:25:30 PM
Quote
Lawyers for Jeffrey Epstein proposed a bail package on Thursday that would allow the multimillionaire alleged sex trafficker to remain out of jail pending trial and live instead in home detention at his Upper East Side mansion, one of the largest residences in Manhattan and valued at $77 million, according to court documents.

The arrangement -- sure to draw the scrutiny of prosecutors, who have already asked a judge to have him detained without bail -- also would put Epstein under electronic monitoring by GPS, require him to post a "substantial" personal recognizance bond secured by his Manhattan home, and deregister and ground his private jet.

Quote
Along with home detention, Epstein's lawyers propose that he consent to US extradition from any country, require anyone who enters his New York home aside from his attorneys to have prior approval from federal authorities and have a live-in court-appointed trustee who would be required to report violations of his bail conditions.

$77 million bail! That's some serious green. But I bet that doesn't mean much to a guy of Epstein's wealth. I don't know if agreeing to extradition is really enforceable, the host country probably has some rules of their own.

Quote
Prosecutors, however, have said both in a written bail memorandum and in court that Epstein, 66, is a substantial flight risk.
"He is a man of nearly infinite means, your honor," Assistant US Attorney Alex Rossmiller told a judge on Monday, "and, as set forth in our submission, he has tremendous incentives to use those means to flee prosecution."

Citing his wealth, with luxury properties around the world, including a private island he owns in the Caribbean, and the seriousness of the charges he faces, prosecutors wrote to the court that "he cannot meet his burden of overcoming the presumption that there is no combination of conditions that would reasonably assure his continued appearance in this case or protect the safety of the community were he to be released."

If this guy gets bail, I'd be somewhat surprised if he didn't just disappear. All that money that nobody knows how he got and the connections, he could fall off the face of the earth.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: D.W. on July 11, 2019, 04:47:33 PM
And if he doesn't get bail, given the rumors and speculation flying around, maybe he disappears before trial anyway.  Just by different means.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 11, 2019, 04:56:23 PM
Crossing the Clinton's is definitely bad for your health.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: D.W. on July 11, 2019, 05:10:07 PM
Or maybe someone just wonders out loud on twitter why nobody's done anything about this guy already since "the system" seems incapable?
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDrake on July 12, 2019, 01:04:25 PM
Yes, yes. The Clintons are serial murderers. CDS?

And Alex, before you go...

Quote
Alexander Acosta, the US labor secretary under fire for having granted Jeffrey Epstein immunity from federal prosecution in 2008, after the billionaire was investigated for having run a child sex trafficking ring, is proposing 80% funding cuts for the government agency that combats child sex trafficking.

Acosta’s plan to slash funding of a critical federal agency in the fight against the sexual exploitation of children is contained in his financial plans for the Department of Labor for fiscal year 2020. In it, he proposes decimating the resources of a section of his own department known as the International Labor Affairs Bureau (ILAB).

The bureau’s budget would fall from $68m last year to just $18.5m. The proposed reduction is so drastic that experts say it would effectively kill off many federal efforts to curb sex trafficking and put the lives of large numbers of children at risk.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDeamon on July 12, 2019, 04:37:21 PM
Yes, yes. The Clintons are serial murderers. CDS?

And Alex, before you go...

Quote
Alexander Acosta, the US labor secretary under fire for having granted Jeffrey Epstein immunity from federal prosecution in 2008, after the billionaire was investigated for having run a child sex trafficking ring, is proposing 80% funding cuts for the government agency that combats child sex trafficking.

Acosta’s plan to slash funding of a critical federal agency in the fight against the sexual exploitation of children is contained in his financial plans for the Department of Labor for fiscal year 2020. In it, he proposes decimating the resources of a section of his own department known as the International Labor Affairs Bureau (ILAB).

The bureau’s budget would fall from $68m last year to just $18.5m. The proposed reduction is so drastic that experts say it would effectively kill off many federal efforts to curb sex trafficking and put the lives of large numbers of children at risk.

You do realize that could be because they've discovered there is "significant overlap" with other agencies who also have jurisdiction in such cases? More specifically, agencies with law enforcement mandates. (ICE, FBI, etc) I can see how Labor has a finger in that pie, and a justification for it, but seriously? Only so many agencies can "take point" on a specific issue.

Labor's funding cut may correspond to increased funding in relevant efforts in other agencies.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: DJQuag on July 12, 2019, 07:01:46 PM
The more I see threads like this, the more I'm convinced that anyone on either side who really gets dug in probably has a mental health disease or disorder.

Lol. Look at what you all are saying. Imagine if the other side with a different president was trying to shovel you that BS.

Liberals, conservatives, whatever. Imagine the president you hate, and imagine it isn't Trump but Obama. Or vice versa. Aren't you at least a little embarrassed?
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: D.W. on July 12, 2019, 07:19:44 PM
We don't have to imagine.  Both on display all the time.  Why in the world would we want to take things seriously and treat it all as if we were rational adults?

Talk about a recipe for mental health problems.  I prefer to participate in selective absurdity.  It's preventative medicine.  :)
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: DJQuag on July 12, 2019, 07:23:14 PM
We don't have to imagine.  Both on display all the time.  Why in the world would we want to take things seriously and treat it all as if we were rational adults?

Talk about a recipe for mental health problems.  I prefer to participate in selective absurdity.  It's preventative medicine.  :)

Money.

Sad, innit?
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDrake on July 13, 2019, 02:03:44 PM
I'm totally fine with significant overlap on sex trafficking. The department of energy can get in on it for all I care. But you have no basis for claiming that it was a redundancy in the first place.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 25, 2019, 07:53:29 AM
Quote
Accused pedophile and wealthy Manhattan financier Jeffrey Epstein was found injured and in a fetal position inside his cell at a New York City jail, according to sources close to the investigation.
Epstein, who is being held in Metropolitan Correctional Center during his trial for conspiracy and sex trafficking, was found semi-conscious with marks on his neck, two sources told News 4. Investigators are trying to piece together exactly what happened, saying details remain murky.

Two sources tell News 4 that Epstein may have tried to hang himself, while a third source cautioned that the injuries were not serious and questioned if Epstein might be using it as a way to get a transfer.

A fourth source said an assault has not been ruled out, and that another inmate was questioned. The inmate who investigators have talked to in Lower Manhattan facility has been identified as Nicholas Tartaglione, according to two sources. Tartaglione is a former police officer in Westchester County who was arrested in December 2016 and accused of killing four men in an alleged cocaine distribution conspiracy, then burying their bodies in his yard in Otisville in Orange County, according to court records.

Anyone surprised?
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDrake on July 25, 2019, 09:22:33 AM
The only surprise is that you haven't attempted to blame the Clintons.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: D.W. on July 25, 2019, 09:23:03 AM
Shocked!  Who would have dreamed it could go down like that?   ;D

TBH it's probably a good thing.  With extra scrutiny now his odds of making it to trial are significantly higher than I put them at initially. 
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: D.W. on July 25, 2019, 09:26:12 AM
Come on TheDrake, this is a perfect opportunity for bipartisan muckraking.  It's equally plausible someone is trying to protect Trump as it is the Clintons.  Everyone's got a reason to don their tinfoil hats and sharpen their partisan knives in anticipation. 

Powerful people exploiting the weak in the most revolting way possible and trying to conceal it from the world.  Our current political reality in a microcosm. 
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: scifibum on July 25, 2019, 01:19:29 PM
I'm not buying that it could be someone trying to protect someone powerful, unless it was a (very lame) volunteer. Too inept. If you're powerful enough to order a prison hit and believe that you'll get away with doing that, you're not going to half-ass it like this.

I do think he needs extra scrutiny and I would hope that they carefully guarded the hospital excursion. While it's still unlikely that he'll escape in some dramatic fashion, it's not out of the question given his resources and evident lack of anything to lose.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDrake on July 25, 2019, 01:32:27 PM
Quote
Come on TheDrake, this is a perfect opportunity for bipartisan muckraking.  It's equally plausible someone is trying to protect Trump as it is the Clintons.  Everyone's got a reason to don their tinfoil hats and sharpen their partisan knives in anticipation. 

CNN's article on this has gratuitously jammed in - "Video shows Trump partying with Epstein in 1992 02:35".

Way to go CNN, way to go.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: D.W. on July 25, 2019, 02:12:23 PM
Quote
If you're powerful enough to order a prison hit and believe that you'll get away with doing that, you're not going to half-ass it like this.
Why take the risk of hiring a hit man when social engineering cultish followers need only to have suggested to them what is good for their idols / cause?  The "very lame" are the perfect tool anymore.  No fingerprints or money trail leading back to you.  You don't even need to face serious condemnation for these fringe crazies either. 

You know, were you the type to buy the conspiracy angle on this one.  Self harm is far more likely, but not nearly sensational enough for this news cycle.   8)
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDeamon on July 25, 2019, 02:23:35 PM
Quote
Come on TheDrake, this is a perfect opportunity for bipartisan muckraking.  It's equally plausible someone is trying to protect Trump as it is the Clintons.  Everyone's got a reason to don their tinfoil hats and sharpen their partisan knives in anticipation. 

CNN's article on this has gratuitously jammed in - "Video shows Trump partying with Epstein in 1992 02:35".

Way to go CNN, way to go.

If it is the NBC archival footage it was interesting to see the difference between NBC and ABC in reporting it, haven't looked at CNN.

ABC said the video was "a party attended by cheerleaders" while NBC said "a party attended by NFL Cheerleaders." Which I was actually surprised by in NBC's case. I would have pegged them for being more ambiguous as to the age of the cheerleaders, as ABC's report did.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on July 26, 2019, 08:32:00 AM
Quote
If you're powerful enough to order a prison hit and believe that you'll get away with doing that, you're not going to half-ass it like this.
Why take the risk of hiring a hit man when social engineering cultish followers need only to have suggested to them what is good for their idols / cause?  The "very lame" are the perfect tool anymore.  No fingerprints or money trail leading back to you.  You don't even need to face serious condemnation for these fringe crazies either. 

You know, were you the type to buy the conspiracy angle on this one.  Self harm is far more likely, but not nearly sensational enough for this news cycle.   8)

I don’t believe self harm at this point. Epstein has massive wealth and connections. He’ll pull together a dream team legal defense to work every detail. He has every reason to believe he can get away with this again. If he’d been convicted already, then self harm might be what happened but right now I don’t see it.

I think he was sent a message that he can be gotten to any time and any place. It was probably a warning to keep his mouth shut about some of those connections.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on August 10, 2019, 09:52:10 AM
Epstein is dead. The story right now is that he hung himself but details are thin.

Strange to lose a guy while on suicide watch. I suppose it happens. Especially the day after court docs naming a few names get published. But, these things happen.

I suppose there’s no need for a trial now. No need for anything else to be investigated.

Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Fenring on August 10, 2019, 05:39:38 PM
I'm very, very not surprised, but also still quite sad to hear this. Whatever childlike part of me hopes there is any chance of "the bad guys being found and prosecuted" won't stop hoping even though I know that doesn't (and in many cases can't) happen as things are. No one who "belongs to intelligence" is going to ever testify. There will be no 'big reveal.'
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on August 11, 2019, 09:28:21 AM
It’s frustrating that Epstein will never cut a deal for leniency and name others. Depending on who they were, he could have likely gotten in single digit range for years in prison. Maybe even low single digits. His estate will settle out to some victims but it’s unlikely all the others involved with him will be punished in any meaningful way.

A former inmate described the cell. 8 feet high ceilings, no bars or fixtures to hang from, paper sheets, guards check every 9 minutes when not on suicide watch. Seems hard to hang yourself.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDeamon on August 11, 2019, 10:57:15 AM
A former inmate described the cell. 8 feet high ceilings, no bars or fixtures to hang from, paper sheets, guards check every 9 minutes when not on suicide watch. Seems hard to hang yourself.

If he was determined enough, it could be done even from a bed frame inches above the ground. Although the people with the willpower to see that through are very exceptionally rare, instincts being what they are. I'd also expect that method to take even longer to complete, which would still make his death while under suicide watch very unusual.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Fenring on August 11, 2019, 11:05:35 AM
A former inmate described the cell. 8 feet high ceilings, no bars or fixtures to hang from, paper sheets, guards check every 9 minutes when not on suicide watch. Seems hard to hang yourself.

If he was determined enough, it could be done even from a bed frame inches above the ground. Although the people with the willpower to see that through are very exceptionally rare, instincts being what they are. I'd also expect that method to take even longer to complete, which would still make his death while under suicide watch very unusual.

I was thinking about this the other night. I doubt most people, even if given certain tools, would be able to hang themselves *quietly* so that no one could hear the feet kicking the bars or the bed knocking around. Give the average person a literal rope and I doubt they'd be able to quickly and quietly hang themselves in a cell. In this case, a cell on a suicide watch with nothing on the ceiling, no rope, no belt, and presumably nothing other than his bed and clothes. Maybe he's a survivalist wizard and spun his own hair into twine, and that into a rope.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDeamon on August 11, 2019, 03:04:37 PM
In this case, a cell on a suicide watch with nothing on the ceiling, no rope, no belt, and presumably nothing other than his bed and clothes. Maybe he's a survivalist wizard and spun his own hair into twine, and that into a rope.

Pants and/or shirt would be more than sufficient to the task for self-strangulation for most people. That's a lot of cloth you're talking about. Pants are by far the easier of the two. It's just there are social conventions regarding body modesty that most people won't overcome to such an extent that I doubt they put the suicide watch people in paper clothing or otherwise lock them up in next to nothing.

Given Epstein's alleged background, I doubt body modesty was too much of an issue for him. So given he was in a private cell, I doubt he would have thought very hard about removing his pants. (Doubly so if he had underwear)
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 11, 2019, 07:49:19 PM
I wonder which way Occam's razor leans on this one.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDeamon on August 11, 2019, 11:20:32 PM
The Tin Foil Hat crowd will be chewing this one over for a very long time, without regard to whatever gets made public at this point.

Between Bill Clinton being indirectly implicated, another sitting President having had past ties to the man, and ranking Democrats having acknowledged his trial could endanger a number of "their darlings" as well... Yeah, plenty of powerful people had reasons to want him dead. The older report about him "belonging to Intelligence" also makes for deep-state fodder even without the previously mentioned stuff.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on August 12, 2019, 08:26:00 AM
In this case, a cell on a suicide watch with nothing on the ceiling, no rope, no belt, and presumably nothing other than his bed and clothes. Maybe he's a survivalist wizard and spun his own hair into twine, and that into a rope.

Pants and/or shirt would be more than sufficient to the task for self-strangulation for most people. That's a lot of cloth you're talking about. Pants are by far the easier of the two. It's just there are social conventions regarding body modesty that most people won't overcome to such an extent that I doubt they put the suicide watch people in paper clothing or otherwise lock them up in next to nothing.

Given Epstein's alleged background, I doubt body modesty was too much of an issue for him. So given he was in a private cell, I doubt he would have thought very hard about removing his pants. (Doubly so if he had underwear)

I’ll be interested in what he would have tied it to. Supposedly No overhead fixtures, no doorknob. Or are there?

Details are still sketchy so I don’t really know a lot about this but it seems pretty suspect.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Seriati on August 12, 2019, 10:34:21 AM
Pants and/or shirt would be more than sufficient to the task for self-strangulation for most people.

You should read the article about the impossibility of this happening.  Your assuming he was in normal clothes, he wasn't.  Everything given to the prisoner is designed to fail in a suicide attempt.  It's also fascinating that he wasn't checked for hours, and that his cellmate was transferred out hours before.

This is one of those times when the conspiracy formula almost has to be correct.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Mynnion on August 12, 2019, 11:47:43 AM
The billion dollar question will end up being what happens to the investigation?  Does it end?  There seem to be lots of powerful people on both sides of the political spectrum that might benefit from Epstein's investigation vanishing.  Think of all the money wasted in investigating someone who can't be held accountable?

Based on personality and comments I would not be surprised if information existed indicating criminal behavior on both Bill and Donald.  It does seem to me that those currently in power have more to lose if damning information is found.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Pete at Home on August 13, 2019, 11:49:52 AM
The Clinton homicidal fairies godmother strikes again. Amazing how these inconvenient people go.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on August 15, 2019, 08:20:12 AM
Report today from the autopsy is that Epstein had multiple broken bones in his neck. Apparently this is consistent with strangulation and it strongly implies he did not die by simply hanging. I’m not sure if it does or not but conspiracy types will certainly love this detail.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: LetterRip on August 15, 2019, 11:41:24 AM
Report today from the autopsy is that Epstein had multiple broken bones in his neck. Apparently this is consistent with strangulation and it strongly implies he did not die by simply hanging. I’m not sure if it does or not but conspiracy types will certainly love this detail.

Actually the 'broken bones' are the hyoid - which is consistent with hanging as well as strangulation.  Given that he is elderly it is extremely common for the hyoid to break during a hanging.  If it had been other neck bones (cervical vertibrate) then it would be more reasonable to suspect foul play or if he had been in his early 20's (there is a 25% chance overall risk of hyoid being broken during a hanging, but it is drastically lower at young ages, and dramatically higher for elderly) - but the hyoid being broken is quite common in hanging of elderly even from short distances so doesn't tell us much - it doesn't rule out strangulation but it isn't evidence supporting it either.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: D.W. on August 15, 2019, 11:54:13 AM
While it's a bummer that you are trying to discredit a perfectly good conspiracy theory, now at least we can occupy our time wondering how it is LetterRip knows so much about hanging the elderly?    >:(
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: LetterRip on August 15, 2019, 11:56:34 AM
This article covers the range of different findings for hyoid fractures in hangings,

https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/jeffrey-epstein-hyoid-bone-broken-neck/

Some studies have found up to 76% of hangings with hyoid fractures.  The difference in studies appear to be largely due to age composition.

I'm not opposed to the idea that someone had him killed to prevent embarrassment or criminal implications - the number of powerful people with the connections who are potentially at risk are fairly numerous though (Clinton, Trump and Prince Andrew are just three that jump immediately to mind).
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Fenring on August 15, 2019, 11:57:35 AM
While it's a bummer that you are trying to discredit a perfectly good conspiracy theory, now at least we can occupy our time wondering how it is LetterRip knows so much about hanging the elderly?    >:(

And so much about Epstein's hanging specifically. It's almost as if he was there...  ;)
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: LetterRip on August 15, 2019, 11:58:11 AM
While it's a bummer that you are trying to discredit a perfectly good conspiracy theory, now at least we can occupy our time wondering how it is LetterRip knows so much about hanging the elderly?    >:(

Heheh, definitely not to knock off relatives for the inheritance - I'm going to inherit bills.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: LetterRip on August 15, 2019, 12:07:14 PM
Ooops - correction, the 76% was for strangulation or hanging, for hanging the highest rate I've seen is 67%,

Quote
The various authors have reported the incidence of hyoid bone fracture from nil/rare to as high as 67% in hanging cases. Keeping the above facts into consideration, the present study was undertaken with the aim of studying the presence of hyoid bone fractures in hanging cases.

[...]

Betz [24] found the incidence of throat skeleton fractures to be as high as 67%.

[...]

In teenagers and young adults, the joints are cartilaginous and mobile and they calcify irregularly as the age increases in middle and later life. [1, 2] These natural joints may be mistaken as the fractures, if dissection is not done meticulously. There is also the possibility of fractures being post-mortem, due to incorrect autopsy techniques, inexperienced forensic pathologist, body transit trauma, improper handling in the mortuary etc. [1, 2]

[...]

In the studies where the incidence was found to be nil, the teenage and young adult were most commonly involved age groups. [6, 9] In our study, the mean age was 28.8 years and cases who were more than 40 years victims were 12.4%. In studies which reported higher incidence, the mean age was also high like, 35 years. [16- 20, 22] Morlid [17] also observed that the different age composition may be the reason behind the variations in the incidence of hyoid bone fractures. Meera [8] also only found the fractures in cases which were more than 40 years of age.

The other factors which can be considered as the reason for these variations are gender, height of suspension, the difference in the types of ligature material and type of hanging. But Feigin [15] concluded that the height of suspension, gender of the decedent and ligature width were not predictive of the Fractures. Nikolic and Charoonnate [16, 18] also concluded that the hyoid bone fracture is not correlated with the type of hanging.

http://medind.nic.in/jal/t13/i3/jalt13i3p239.pdf
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on August 15, 2019, 12:37:45 PM
Report today from the autopsy is that Epstein had multiple broken bones in his neck. Apparently this is consistent with strangulation and it strongly implies he did not die by simply hanging. I’m not sure if it does or not but conspiracy types will certainly love this detail.

Actually the 'broken bones' are the hyoid - which is consistent with hanging as well as strangulation.  Given that he is elderly it is extremely common for the hyoid to break during a hanging.  If it had been other neck bones (cervical vertibrate) then it would be more reasonable to suspect foul play or if he had been in his early 20's (there is a 25% chance overall risk of hyoid being broken during a hanging, but it is drastically lower at young ages, and dramatically higher for elderly) - but the hyoid being broken is quite common in hanging of elderly even from short distances so doesn't tell us much - it doesn't rule out strangulation but it isn't evidence supporting it either.

The report is that multiple bones were broken although maybe that’s from the attack by his cell mate a few weeks ago?
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: LetterRip on August 15, 2019, 01:13:27 PM
The report is that multiple bones were broken although maybe that’s from the attack by his cell mate a few weeks ago?

Yeah I've seen the reports that say 'multiple bones' but none have specified anything other than his hyoid.  Additional bones are possible in both hangings and strangulations.

Unfortunately a professionally staged suicide will be quite difficult to detect if they are prepared, especially if it is more an assisted suicide.  Only if he fought back, struggled, etc. and they had to improvise (blunt force trauma, strangulation of breaking his neck in such a way that it would be inconsistent with a hanging) or left DNA under the nails etc. we probably will never know.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: LetterRip on August 15, 2019, 01:20:52 PM
Another report found 72.5% of hangings had hyoid fractures,

Quote
A 2018 forensic pathology paper by Zátopková et al found that hyoid fractures in hanging victims occurred in 72.5 percent of the 178 cases studied. Another paper from 1996 by Pollanen and Chiasson said the hyoid is fractured in one-third of all homicides by strangulation.

"Fractures of the human hyoid bone encountered in forensic anthropology cases involving apparent homicide victims have been interpreted as markers of strangulation," the paper's abstract states.

"Caution is required in this assessment since modifications of the hyoid bone, cervical vertebrae, and cartilage of the trachea, thyroid and larynx may be the results of arrested ontogenetic development, hard-force trauma, autopsy mishandling and pathology.

"Only by examining all of the preserved osseous and cartilaginous structures of the neck may the forensic anthropologist achieve an accurate reconstruction of the manner of death associated with hyoid bone fractures."

https://www.newsweek.com/jeffrey-epstein-autopsy-neck-hyoid-bone-broken-suicide-homicide-1454457

Also as pointed out in the paper I referenced - incompetence of the Medical Examiner (or those handling the body) can give false positives.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Lloyd Perna on August 15, 2019, 01:35:24 PM
Report today from the autopsy is that Epstein had multiple broken bones in his neck. Apparently this is consistent with strangulation and it strongly implies he did not die by simply hanging. I’m not sure if it does or not but conspiracy types will certainly love this detail.

Actually the 'broken bones' are the hyoid - which is consistent with hanging as well as strangulation.  Given that he is elderly it is extremely common for the hyoid to break during a hanging.  If it had been other neck bones (cervical vertibrate) then it would be more reasonable to suspect foul play or if he had been in his early 20's (there is a 25% chance overall risk of hyoid being broken during a hanging, but it is drastically lower at young ages, and dramatically higher for elderly) - but the hyoid being broken is quite common in hanging of elderly even from short distances so doesn't tell us much - it doesn't rule out strangulation but it isn't evidence supporting it either.

Actually, If we go to the source of the report, The Washington Post, there is a bit more information.

Quote
An autopsy found that financier Jeffrey Epstein suffered multiple breaks in his neck bones, according to two people familiar with the findings, deepening the mystery about the circumstances around his death.

Among the bones broken in Epstein’s neck was the hyoid bone, which in men is near the Adam’s apple. Such breaks can occur in those who hang themselves, particularly if they are older, according to forensics experts and studies on the subject. But they are more common in victims of homicide by strangulation, the experts said.

So it seems that other neck bones were also broken.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Fenring on August 15, 2019, 01:40:05 PM
Also, it bears mentioning that Epstein couldn't have hanged himself because there was nothing to hang from. I've read that some people kill themselves in a sitting position using a door or bed as leverage to strangulate themselves. However this is not the same type of strangulation as when someone kicks away the chair, falls, and is hanging from the chandelier. I've also read that the clothes and sheets in that facility are supposed to be designed to be extremely fragile and will tear before being pulled with enough force to kill yourself with them.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: LetterRip on August 15, 2019, 02:02:36 PM
So it seems that other neck bones were also broken.

The only bone they are reporting on though is the hyoid - it is clear whoever passed the information on wasn't a pathologist or even passingly familiar with pathology so until we get a more detailed report I don't think we can conclude it was in fact 'multiple bones'.

Fenring,

Quote
Also, it bears mentioning that Epstein couldn't have hanged himself because there was nothing to hang from. I've read that some people kill themselves in a sitting position using a door or bed as leverage to strangulate themselves. However this is not the same type of strangulation as when someone kicks away the chair, falls, and is hanging from the chandelier.

He apparently was in a cell with bunkbeds, and used a sheet.

Quote
Jeffrey Epstein was found hanging in his lower Manhattan jail cell with a bedsheet wrapped around his neck and secured to the top of a bunk bed, The Post has learned.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/12/jeffrey-epstein-hanged-himself-with-prison-bedsheet-source/

Quote
I've also read that the clothes and sheets in that facility are supposed to be designed to be extremely fragile and will tear before being pulled with enough force to kill yourself with them.

It only takes a few pounds of pressure, it doesn't have to support your body weight, only be enough to put pressure on the carotid.  Even the strength of toilet paper twisted around a few times has enough strength to do it.  That said, it would have to support more weight to break the hyoid - not sure how much to be sufficient to fracture an elderly hyoid.

The sheets might be designed to not support a neck break via a drop snap; but they'd certainly work for the method described in the nypost.

Also a broken hyoid can occur during post mortem handling by guards, by the transport to the ME, or by the ME.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Fenring on August 15, 2019, 03:33:12 PM
Yes, LR, the official narrative usually has to be able to be theoretically possible, although that doesn't speak to how probable or believable it is. An extremely interesting confluence of events must occur to create this scenario:

-He is nearly killed a few weeks ago, a judge orders a suicide watch.
-Somehow (I believe) this is apparently lifted a few days ago, unclear why this would be allowed.
-Both (!) guards had fallen asleep while this happened.
-There should be a camera on the cell, and I've heard it might have been turned off. I'll try to read more on this point; maybe it exists and hasn't been discussed by anyone? That would be almost weirder than if it was magically turned off.
-A guy on a suicide watch was apparently given a sturdy bedsheet and a bunk bed?? And not just 'some' suicide risk, but the guy literally everyone in the world thought was going to be assassinated in jail and were just waiting for the shoe to drop.
-No one heard anything.

This is a guy who should have been kept in cryogenic suspension and guarded at the pentagon, and instead whoopsie, look at all these separate bits of bad luck. And magically they're not just bad luck for him, but bad luck for anyone who might want to know what happened. Oops! I guess a few low-level bureaucrats and the two guards will be fired for this (and rehired elsewhere next month). I've read that the guards may have also falsified records but I'm not sure about that one yet.

Cue: <scene from The Naked Gun with the fireworks factory exploding>
DREBIN: Nothing to see here! Move along! Nothing to see here!

And I'll reiterate what I mentioned earlier, which is that if you give a random shmo a bedsheet and a bunk bed, I bet you they will have a lot of trouble killing themselves with it. Bunk beds aren't all that high up, so your feet and legs are going to be clattering around, maybe even hitting the floor. Bedsheets get surprisingly fat when twisted around and rolled up (like as if you were rope-ifying it) and might be difficult to tie around as you would with a noose. I guess it would be unethical to request some TV show to run experiments on whether average people can kill themselves like this on average. I almost think you'd have to have been instructed (or dare I say it, trained) on how to execute this kind of suicide with good confidence you'll succeed. Don't forget - most suicides you hear about are going to be tainted by survivorship bias (or in this case, success bias); you don't read about all the people who tried various mundane ways to die and failed. I suspect it's not that easy to *be sure* you'll get something like this right on the first try. In Epstein's case one failure would mean spending the rest of his jail term in a straightjacket, most likely.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: D.W. on August 15, 2019, 03:37:56 PM
You left out that his roomie was also recently removed, and that they had been running those guards on excessive overtime the week leading up to it.  While, "oh ya, they were overworked, sleepy on the job makes sense..."  It's also a good groundwork to lay in advance.  /tinfoilhat

There was also a headline about someone hearing yelling or around the time he was found, but the piece was amazingly short / vague as to be mostly nonsensical. 
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Fenring on August 15, 2019, 03:47:47 PM
You left out that his roomie was also recently removed, and that they had been running those guards on excessive overtime the week leading up to it.  While, "oh ya, they were overworked, sleepy on the job makes sense..."  It's also a good groundwork to lay in advance.  /tinfoilhat

It's true that if they were greatly overworked it could explain why falling asleep might be a thing. But both of them? Anyhow it's somewhat aburd if you think about this as an actual explanation: "Well you know, they were so overworked that they both fell asleep at once, and Epstein was just waiting for this and watching for those little zzz's to begin, and patiently waited to kill himself until the coast was clear and they were out for the count. In hindsight it might have been a bad idea to put the guard chairs right in front of his cell where he could see them sleeping. Ah well, live and learn."

You'd have to actually accept something like that for this narrative to even make sense. Otherwise it's an abusrd coincidence that he just happened to do it while they just both happened to be asleep.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDeamon on August 15, 2019, 06:03:39 PM
And I'll reiterate what I mentioned earlier, which is that if you give a random shmo a bedsheet and a bunk bed, I bet you they will have a lot of trouble killing themselves with it. Bunk beds aren't all that high up, so your feet and legs are going to be clattering around, maybe even hitting the floor. Bedsheets get surprisingly fat when twisted around and rolled up (like as if you were rope-ifying it) and might be difficult to tie around as you would with a noose. I guess it would be unethical to request some TV show to run experiments on whether average people can kill themselves like this on average. I almost think you'd have to have been instructed (or dare I say it, trained) on how to execute this kind of suicide with good confidence you'll succeed.

When I was attending my Navy "Strand School" (BEE) somebody in an adjacent barracks(on a different shift) attempted(&completed) suicide by hanging himself from the desk/bed combo in his (4 man) room according to the rumor mill at that time. The bed part of the combo is about 5 feet above the floor. I remember a few people making comments about how determined he must have been to see that through.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on August 15, 2019, 06:08:29 PM
Also, it bears mentioning that Epstein couldn't have hanged himself because there was nothing to hang from. I've read that some people kill themselves in a sitting position using a door or bed as leverage to strangulate themselves. However this is not the same type of strangulation as when someone kicks away the chair, falls, and is hanging from the chandelier. I've also read that the clothes and sheets in that facility are supposed to be designed to be extremely fragile and will tear before being pulled with enough force to kill yourself with them.

It’s hard to get details but I have been lead to believe he was able to tie his sheets to the upper bunk frame somehow. If that’s accurate, I suppose he could have tied it short and roll/jumped off the top bunk in a kind of tight position to get the jerk he needed to break multiple bones. Is that possible? I dunno, seems like it wouldn’t be but I really don’t know.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDrake on August 15, 2019, 06:53:12 PM
Or he actually DID have the cellmate he was supposed to have, who broke his pedophile neck. When the guards came around again they freaked out, because they had been smuggling drugs for the killer. They swept him out of there, and then declared that they found him alone.

Isn't this fun?
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: scifibum on August 15, 2019, 07:30:32 PM
Has anyone done the one where they sewed his face onto John Travolta
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: D.W. on August 16, 2019, 10:25:23 AM
Has anyone done the one where they sewed his face onto John Travolta
Actually...  maybe
I saw something I didn't even bother clicking on that was critiquing the shape of his ear from 2 pictures... 
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on August 16, 2019, 02:43:22 PM
One of the things we can say, Trump’s accusers have never committed suicide. Clinton accusers, they kill themselves in droves.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDrake on August 16, 2019, 03:08:06 PM
What's funny about that foolish statement is that Epstein never accused the Clintons of anything. So he's not a Clinton accuser.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDeamon on August 16, 2019, 03:13:31 PM
What's funny about that foolish statement is that Epstein never accused the Clintons of anything. So he's not a Clinton accuser.

Depends on how you define "accuse" in this case. That it also make fun of another Clinton trope is just icing on the cake.

Epstein had information that could implicate Bill Clinton in unsavory things. By implicating Bill, he's "accusing"Bill.

Much like Vince Foster was believed to have information which could endanger("accuse") the Clintons and decided to suicide instead.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDrake on August 16, 2019, 03:28:02 PM
Words mean something. Accuse doesn't mean "might potentially be able to implicate". It's not like he was on the verge of testifying, nor would it be clear that he's more likely to implicate Clinton than dozens of other powerful people.

Cohen is the direct parallel. Cohen didn't commit suicide, Epstein did.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDrake on August 16, 2019, 03:28:51 PM
Maybe associating with the Clintons just makes a person deeply depressed to the point of taking their own life.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Fenring on August 16, 2019, 03:35:57 PM
Maybe associating with the Clintons just makes a person deeply depressed to the point of taking their own life.

Lot of depressed people in Libya.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDeamon on August 16, 2019, 04:38:27 PM
Words mean something. Accuse doesn't mean "might potentially be able to implicate". It's not like he was on the verge of testifying, nor would it be clear that he's more likely to implicate Clinton than dozens of other powerful people.

Cohen is the direct parallel. Cohen didn't commit suicide, Epstein did.

Vince Foster did commit suicide though, and as a White House General Consul, he actually was in a position more comparable to Cohen in regards to Trump.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on August 17, 2019, 09:14:26 AM
ME rules it a suicide. Epstein’s lawyers are objecting to that.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on August 17, 2019, 09:18:06 AM
What's funny about that foolish statement is that Epstein never accused the Clintons of anything. So he's not a Clinton accuser.

Why defend Clinton at this point? He was on the Lolita Express multiple times. He was on pedo island. He was directly attached to the things Epstein was offering. Epstein didn’t have to accuse Clinton to be a threat to Clinton. Clinton is already very credibly and blatantly implicated in Epstein’s activities 

We don’t need to be pedantic here.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on November 06, 2019, 06:32:43 PM
Ok, back in the news. This time, it’s ABC itself complicit in enabling Epstein.

Quote
“I’ve had the story for three years… we would not put it on the air,” Robach said on the hot mic. “It was unbelievable what we had, Clinton, we had everything.”

Quote
“I tried for three years to get it on to no avail. And now it’s all coming out and it’s like these new revelations and I freaking had all of it,” Robach said. “I’m so pissed right now.”

Robach had a witness, attorney statements, and photographs. Three years ago.

Why would ABC news spike this in 2016? Well, Clinton was running for President for one thing. ABC says there just wasn’t sufficient proof. Robach says the British royal family killed it

The proof standard is an obvious lie. Does anyone think the queen or princes have this kind of pull at ABC? No. That’s just silly. It’s Clinton. But I doubt anyone really cares.

So what we have is ABC killing a story and protecting what may be one of the most predatory pedophiles around, enabling Epstein to continue raping young girls for another three years. All to protect Hillary. This is some nuclear bull*censored*, despicable. How many more children were raped?

ABC is now pulling out all the stops to identify and expose the whistleblower that made this information available and sharing the leaker's name to CBS, where the person is now said to work -- to get him fired/deplatformed. Of course.




Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Fenring on November 07, 2019, 12:11:31 AM
The proof standard is an obvious lie. Does anyone think the queen or princes have this kind of pull at ABC? No. That’s just silly. It’s Clinton. But I doubt anyone really cares.

I have no problem with theorizing about criminal complicity and corruption, but this statement is quite wrong. The Queen totally does have that much power, and probably more. I wouldn't be surprised if she was a significant shareholder (I don't know that she is, but wouldn't be surprised). My point is you don't know who has pull with these organizations, and that's no accident.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: LetterRip on November 07, 2019, 01:41:05 AM
Quote
The proof standard is an obvious lie. Does anyone think the queen or princes have this kind of pull at ABC? No. That’s just silly. It’s Clinton. But I doubt anyone really cares.

According to Fox News,

Quote
one network insider thinks it’s more probable the Disney-owned news organization was simply protecting their chance at access with Buckingham Palace and the Duke of York.

“ABC News has been fawning grotesquely over the royal family for years, desperate for an interview with Kate [Middleton] they will never, ever get. All journalism is greatly subordinate,” the ABC News insider told Fox News.

[...]

ABC News president James Goldston recently dined with members of the royal family, including Prince Charles, according to Page Six.

[...]

 "Then, the Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways. We were so afraid we wouldn’t be able to interview Kate and Will, that also quashed the story.”

https://www.foxnews.com/media/abc-news-jeffrey-epstein-prince-andrew-amy-robach

Also ABC News has a podcast dedicated to the royal family.

https://www.laughingplace.com/w/news/2019/10/03/abc-news-announces-the-heirpod-a-new-podcast-covering-the-royal-family/

So the President of ABC News is in their circle of friends and ABC News has a royal family focus, the woman who did the work for the story is recorded as saying that the royal family killed it - it seems rather plausible that they have the pull to get a story killed.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on November 07, 2019, 07:15:46 AM
Oh, well, then. Totally worth letting more kids get raped I guess. That podcast must be something.

It’s all about priorities at ABC News.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDrake on November 07, 2019, 09:08:17 AM
Lr didn't say anything about it being okay that the story was pulled. He's refuting your argument that it had to be Clinton by demonstrating another motive for ABC to kill the story.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on November 07, 2019, 12:04:52 PM
I’m not saying he did, I’m taking about ABC News division.

In related news, CBS carried out the revenge for ABC and fired the whistleblower. I would assume that person has been blacklisted.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDeamon on November 07, 2019, 12:06:57 PM
I’m not saying he did, I’m taking about ABC News division.

In related news, CBS carried out the revenge for ABC and fired the whistleblower. I would assume that person has been blacklisted.

Probably about to have an incoming job offer from a conservative media outlet.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on November 07, 2019, 01:41:41 PM
Yeah, I guess there won’t be a ton of coverage about this whistleblowers rights.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on November 08, 2019, 08:01:05 AM
 CBS News fired a *female* staffer because she may have helped leak the tape of another female reporter railing against ABC for spiking the Epstein story for 3 yrs, which was about powerful men turning underage girls into sex slaves. The feminist, MeToo crowd, crickets. The left in general, if they even acknowledge this occurred (virtually none do), are trying to deflect and defend (see upthread) to protect Clinton.

This is unbelievable bull*censored*.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: D.W. on November 08, 2019, 09:24:47 AM
It's unbelievable, because it's bull*censored*. 

This is JUST popping up in the news cycles.  Up-thread was discussing that you are wrong about your assertion that ONLY the vast network of Clinton's defenders have this kinda juice, that's it.

Why do you think this Me Too movement was such a long time coming?  The system is setup to such that it takes a lot (too much) weight to tip the scales.  Pretty much everybody knows that already. 

But keep on shouting that it's the left who accepts and lets this happen.  I'm sure someone will actually take away that the right is the place to look for champions of women and those in need of support, defense and affirmation.   ::)

Ease up there Pizzagate
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on November 08, 2019, 05:39:46 PM
It’s been a 3 year cover up. Would’ve been longer but for a whistleblower.

Clinton was specifically named. But, it’s the queen if England that kept the lid on this all those years. The story was killed during Clinton’s campaign, but it’s really the royal family that ABC news was protecting so they could do a podcast.

That’s the story you want to run with. It’s laughable. Literally, out loud laughable.
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: Crunch on November 08, 2019, 05:58:04 PM
By the way, you know who also works at ABC News? George Stephanopolous.

He’s the chief anchor and political correspondent on ABC News, coanchor with Robin Roberts on Good Morning America, and host of This Week, ABC's Sunday morning current events news program.Stephanopoulos also serves as a regular substitute anchor on ABC World News Tonight.

The guy is ABC News.

He’s also extremely close to the Clinton’s, having helped with the campaign back in the 90’s and was the press secretary for Bill Clinton’s administration. Stephanopoulos also went to Epstein’s post conviction dinner party, had a grand time I’m sure.

But it’s the royal family that killed the story and kept it suppressed for 3 years. The Clinton’s, impossible!
Title: Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
Post by: TheDeamon on November 08, 2019, 06:47:23 PM
It’s been a 3 year cover up. Would’ve been longer but for a whistleblower.

Clinton was specifically named. But, it’s the queen if England that kept the lid on this all those years. The story was killed during Clinton’s campaign, but it’s really the royal family that ABC news was protecting so they could do a podcast.

That’s the story you want to run with. It’s laughable. Literally, out loud laughable.

One other question in regards to this. If the Queen of England was "killing" news coverage that would have embarrassed the Clinton Campaign in 2016, does this mean we need to investigate Foreign Interference in favor of the Clintons now?

What is the valuation in terms of campaign contributions for the Queen having killed this story in 2016 in comparison to the Stormy Daniels situation?

This also paints England in an interesting corner, consider Mr. Steele is a Brit with MI6 connections as well...