Jeffrey Epstein arrest

[Crunch]

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

[Crunch]

Meant to have this quote in there:

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.

[Crunch]

Interesting

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[Crunch]

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:

“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:

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:

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

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[D.W.]

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)

[scifibum]

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.

[scifibum]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[scifibum]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[D.W.]

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.   

[rightleft22]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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/ 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.

[D.W.]

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.

[Fenring]

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?

[Seriati]

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.

[Crunch]

So here’s the deal that was cut:

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.

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.

[D.W.]

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!

[Fenring]

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.

[rightleft22]

 

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. 

[TheDrake]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[Crunch]

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?

[Crunch]

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*.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[TheDrake]

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:

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.

[rightleft22]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[Crunch]

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?

[Fenring]

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.

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.

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.

[Crunch]

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.

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.

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.

[Crunch]

Theory:

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[DJQuag]

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

[DJQuag]

Theory:

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.

[Crunch]

Actually, no.  You are wrong again. TDS is making you crazy.

[Crunch]

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.

[DJQuag]

 

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."

[Crunch]

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.

[Crunch]

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:

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:

“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?

[NobleHunter]

The defense attorneys of Epstein and co-conspirators probably.

[Seriati]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[Crunch]

Did you not read what I wrote? Seriously, what’s wrong with you?