Jeffrey Epstein
-
@JC said in Jeffrey Epstein:
@Crucial Re: "Once again muckraking with zero evidence of wrongdoing.", whilst I don't disagree that there's zero evidence, I don't consider it to be muckraking. There are any number of huge scandals that have broken because journalists looked where they apparently shouldn't. All of those investigations would have started from a position of zero evidence and just something that smelled bad. And in many cases the only reason anybody in authority even bothered to look for any evidence was because of the pressure built through stories like this.
"Clinton in a flux, not knowing what to do? Yet earned millions on the speaking circuit.
Clinton needed friends and money? Evidence points to the opposite." OK, let's assume you're right, he didn't need the money or the contacts, his relationship with Epstein was based on a genuine mutual friendship. Is that supposed to be less worrying?It was more that the article reads as if Clinton was desperate and needed Epstein when the evidence shows that he already had stuff in place, it was furthering contacts to expand that was likely the driver to get in with someone that was by all accounts a bit of a network enabler.
As for the investigative journalism aspect, I'm all for that if what is written has factual conclusions rather than throwing a bunch of 'maybes' around based on association and then disclaiming them with a one liner to avoid libel.
I guess what is tempering my belief in much of this is the association with QAnon type theorising and conspiracy rubbish. Makes me want to see harder evidence.
-
@Crucial said in Jeffrey Epstein:
@JC said in Jeffrey Epstein:
@Crucial Re: "Once again muckraking with zero evidence of wrongdoing.", whilst I don't disagree that there's zero evidence, I don't consider it to be muckraking. There are any number of huge scandals that have broken because journalists looked where they apparently shouldn't. All of those investigations would have started from a position of zero evidence and just something that smelled bad. And in many cases the only reason anybody in authority even bothered to look for any evidence was because of the pressure built through stories like this.
"Clinton in a flux, not knowing what to do? Yet earned millions on the speaking circuit.
Clinton needed friends and money? Evidence points to the opposite." OK, let's assume you're right, he didn't need the money or the contacts, his relationship with Epstein was based on a genuine mutual friendship. Is that supposed to be less worrying?It was more that the article reads as if Clinton was desperate and needed Epstein when the evidence shows that he already had stuff in place, it was furthering contacts to expand that was likely the driver to get in with someone that was by all accounts a bit of a network enabler.
As for the investigative journalism aspect, I'm all for that if what is written has factual conclusions rather than throwing a bunch of 'maybes' around based on association and the disclaiming them with a one liner to avoid libel.
I guess what is tempering my belief in much of this is the association with QAnon type theorising and conspiracy rubbish. Makes me want to see harder evidence.
Fair enough. I guess my feeling is that, given that powerful people want to keep this on the down-low, the investigating organisations could do with a timely reminder that the world is watching and there will need to be some answers. The old canard of political motivation that's been used in the past can't be allowed to cloud the fact that there are genuine questions here.
-
I think it’s more than fair to say , just because you have been to that island , or were friends with Epstein, doesn’t mean you have had sex with minors .
It’s like saying , you have a mate that roots hookers , you do too , or if you have been to red light districts to drink and party , you have sex with hookers .
But it may mean you have to explain your case to the authorities:)
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Jeffrey Epstein:
I think it’s more than fair to say , just because you have been to that island , or were friends with Epstein, doesn’t mean you have had sex with minors .
It’s like saying , you have a mate that roots hookers , you do too , or if you have been to red light districts to drink and party , you have sex with hookers .
But it may mean you have to explain your case to the
authoritieswife -
@Virgil said in Jeffrey Epstein:
@kiwiinmelb said in Jeffrey Epstein:
I think it’s more than fair to say , just because you have been to that island , or were friends with Epstein, doesn’t mean you have had sex with minors .
It’s like saying , you have a mate that roots hookers , you do too , or if you have been to red light districts to drink and party , you have sex with hookers .
But it may mean you have to explain your case to the
authoritieswifeI go to Pattaya for the golf
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Jeffrey Epstein:
I think it’s more than fair to say , just because you have been to that island , or were friends with Epstein, doesn’t mean you have had sex with minors .
It’s like saying , you have a mate that roots hookers , you do too , or if you have been to red light districts to drink and party , you have sex with hookers .
But it may mean you have to explain your case to the authorities:)
Its not quite that simple
Firstly there is a big different between hookers and underage girls or boys
Also there is a difference between before 2008 (maybe someone never knew) and after 2008. Most well known people would know to take care afterwards.
And a difference between meeting Epstein in a social setting and either visiting his Island. In some cases more than once. Or having a financial relation with him. Esp after 2008.But even with hookers. There is a difference between
You have a mate that roots hookers and
You have a mate that roots hookers at a certain house and you had many visits with your mate to the house in question. Maybe you went just to keep him company but ... -
I'd suggest that it's really quite simple; what was your relationship to Epstein after he was charged?
-
@antipodean said in Jeffrey Epstein:
I'd suggest that it's really quite simple; what was your relationship to Epstein after he was charged?
Does before that not count?
Oh, that's right the actual accusations against Trump are from pre-2008. We are talking about possible actions by Clinton and others that no one has actually alleged in court.
-
@Crucial said in Jeffrey Epstein:
@antipodean said in Jeffrey Epstein:
I'd suggest that it's really quite simple; what was your relationship to Epstein after he was charged?
Does before that not count?
Why would it? If you're an acquaintance then the only problem would be if you were involved in the same activities.
Oh, that's right the actual accusations against Trump are from pre-2008.
What's that got to do with it?
-
Also worrying that large scale raping of children yields plenty of authorities and leaders in the know but never any action. Grooming gangs in UK the same. Despite eerily accurate victim statements.
Odd with all the virtue signalling and unsurprisingly the " Me too" movement conspicuous by their lack of noise and action.
-
@Crucial said in Jeffrey Epstein:
@antipodean said in Jeffrey Epstein:
I'd suggest that it's really quite simple; what was your relationship to Epstein after he was charged?
Does before that not count?
Oh, that's right the actual accusations against Trump are from pre-2008. We are talking about possible actions by Clinton and others that no one has actually alleged in court.
So what if they haven’t been alleged in court? I don’t think you can have it both ways, the other week we didn’t see you criticising the media from publishing unsubstantiated allegations about Trump knowing Putin had put a bounty on US soldiers. IMO that was a legitimate story then and this is a legitimate story now. Or neither is.
-
@Frank said in Jeffrey Epstein:
There's a tendency with the public to want it to be true that powerful rich men are pedos.
Not just the political angle, but the anti-elite angle.
I think one thing that is making people angry is that once you gain enough wealth and political connections, you are essentially above the law. Epstein used to boast about it all the time, and the absolute farce of the 2008 trial and plea deal offered to him, without consulting the victims or even allowing them to speak in court, certainly plays into that. He should have been put away for life then but was given a weak slap on the wrist because of his connections. That's not right.
-
-
@Tim said in Jeffrey Epstein:
@Hooroo I don't know who the interviewer, JS, is, but V is Virginia Giuffre. These are from the newly unsealed documents from her law suit against Ghislaine Maxwell.
Is it common for legal documents to contain mistakes like that?