I hope Jeffrey Epstein sings like a bird. And if some Democrats go down, so be it

  
Via:  tessylo  •  one week ago  •  110 comments

I hope Jeffrey Epstein sings like a bird. And if some Democrats go down, so be it

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T













I hope Jeffrey Epstein sings like a bird. And if some Democrats go down, so be it


























e497f140-2474-11e9-bb7e-d3a95f2cbb6c Jill Filipovic,The Guardian 22 hours ago 






5786530833a01d83ff9f018173c4c686
Photograph: STRINGER/Reuters

I hope Jeffrey Epstein sings like a bird.

The wealthy and well-connected financier and registered sex offender was arrested this week in New York on accusations of child sex trafficking. He just may bring a lot of bad men – and a few bad women – down with him.

Epstein allegedly groomed and recruited dozens of underage girls, many of them vulnerable runaways, for sex with him and his friends. Despite being caught by authorities, Epstein has largely evaded serious punishment. Thanks to heroic reporting by Julie K Brown at the Miami Herald, Americans learned that back in 2008, Epstein was given an exceptionally favorable plea deal by then-prosecutor Alex Acosta – now Trump’s secretary of labor. The deal was shamefully hidden from Epstein’s victims, and while it forced Epstein to register as a sex offender, it allowed him near-total freedom for the 13 months he was technically in jail – he was allowed to leave the facility to work in his luxurious private office instead of serving life in prison.

It’s unclear why Epstein was given such favorable treatment. But given who his friends are, speculation has run rampant that his powerful connections (and the potential wrongdoings of other powerful men) may have had a hand in keeping him in relative freedom.

Epstein’s friends and contacts include President Donald Trump, President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and high-powered attorney Alan Dershowitz, among many others. In 2002, Trump characterized Epstein as a “terrific guy” who enjoyed the company of girls “on the younger side.”

In the immediate aftermath of Epstein’s arrest, Twitter exploded with political gotchas. On the right, it’s near-gospel that President Bill Clinton and Epstein are jet-setting pals, and that Clinton is at best complicit and at worst a participant in Epstein’s sex crimes. (We know Clinton used Epstein’s private jet for work related to the Clinton Foundation; according to Clinton, they were always accompanied by Secret Service agents or Clinton Foundation staff.)


On the left, Trump opponents wonder if the president was ever a participant in Epstein’s sexual crimes. Trump was at one point accused by a young woman of raping her at Epstein’s New York home when she was 13; the lawsuit in which those accusations were made was withdrawn by the accuser. We also know that Trump and Epstein socialized, that Trump’s various phone numbers were written in Epstein’s notorious little black book, and that Epstein was once asked whether he had ever been around Trump and underage girls – and he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

This is not a story in which anyone should find satisfaction. Dozens of vulnerable girls were allegedly sexually exploited and abused by Jeffrey Epstein. A great many adults, who should have done the right thing and stood up for these children, chose to look the other way. A few may have even participated in exploitation and rape.

The only way forward is to demand accountability from Epstein, his co-conspirators, and his enablers, without exception and without excuse. Who knew what was going on? Who participated? How, exactly, did Epstein get such a sweet plea deal in Florida?

Wherever these questions lead prosecutors and reporters must follow. And the public must demand real accountability, no matter the answers.

What happens next will be revealing. Any person who participated in or knew about Epstein’s alleged trafficking ring should face (in addition to jail time) total public rejection. If they hold public office, they must resign or be forced out. If they are a lion of politics or public life, they must retreat, live with this profound shame, and know it will taint their legacy forever.

Unfortunately, this isn’t how we’ve treated abusive and predatory men for most of human history. While that’s changing – the #MeToo movement has made an incredible impact – it still seems that a man’s punishment remains contingent on who he is, how powerful he is, and who his allies are. It’s also looking increasingly partisan. While Democrats are far from innocent when it comes to letting badly-behaved men off the hook, the American left has largely stepped up in recent years and demanded accountability from its own. Well-loved men like Al Franken have stepped down in the wake of sexual misconduct. Men whose bad behavior has been long known, like Bill Clinton, are seeing their legacies stained as modern feminists are increasingly willing to criticize their bad acts. When it comes to Epstein, the left is ready and willing to take down anyone who let him get away with his crimes – whoever they are, and however they vote.

But is the political right ready and willing to do the same? Aside from the hopeful conservative claims that Clinton is going down, the actual commitment of conservatives to punishing men for sexual wrongdoing is an outstanding question. Many, many times over, we have seen prominent conservative figures accused of sexual harassment or assault, only to have the most prominent figures on the right just deny it. Women who accuse liberal men of wrongdoing, the thinking seems to be, are to be believed. Women who accuse right-wing men are liars.

Just look at Brett Kavanaugh, who sits on the Supreme Court despite a credible claim of sexual assault and attempted rape. Or Donald Trump, who has been accused of sexual misdeeds by more than two dozen women – and most recently of rape. Or Alex Acosta, Trump’s labor secretary, who is the reason Jeffrey Epstein isn’t sitting in federal prison. Too many of the same people salivating over the possibility that some liberal men will be indicated in the Epstein case are too happy to shrug off serious allegation of sexual crimes when those allegations are leveled against men whose politics they share.

Holding people accountable for abusing girls should be a nonpartisan affair. Sadly, in the Trump era of lowered expectations and even more dismal behavior, we can’t even count on that.

  • Jill Filipovic is the author of the The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness


















Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Tessylo
1  seeder  Tessylo    one week ago

On the left, Trump opponents wonder if the president was ever a participant in Epstein’s sexual crimes. Trump was at one point accused by a young woman of raping her at Epstein’s New York home when she was 13; the lawsuit in which those accusations were made was withdrawn by the accuser. We also know that Trump and Epstein socialized, that Trump’s various phone numbers were written in Epstein’s notorious little black book, and that Epstein was once asked whether he had ever been around Trump and underage girls – and he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

This is not a story in which anyone should find satisfaction. Dozens of vulnerable girls were allegedly sexually exploited and abused by Jeffrey Epstein. A great many adults, who should have done the right thing and stood up for these children, chose to look the other way. A few may have even participated in exploitation and rape.

The only way forward is to demand accountability from Epstein, his co-conspirators, and his enablers, without exception and without excuse. Who knew what was going on? Who participated? How, exactly, did Epstein get such a sweet plea deal in Florida?

Wherever these questions lead prosecutors and reporters must follow. And the public must demand real accountability, no matter the answers.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2  seeder  Tessylo    one week ago

What happens next will be revealing. Any person who participated in or knew about Epstein’s alleged trafficking ring should face (in addition to jail time) total public rejection. If they hold public office, they must resign or be forced out. If they are a lion of politics or public life, they must retreat, live with this profound shame, and know it will taint their legacy forever.

Unfortunately, this isn’t how we’ve treated abusive and predatory men for most of human history. While that’s changing – the #MeToo movement has made an incredible impact – it still seems that a man’s punishment remains contingent on who he is, how powerful he is, and who his allies are. It’s also looking increasingly partisan. While Democrats are far from innocent when it comes to letting badly-behaved men off the hook, the American left has largely stepped up in recent years and demanded accountability from its own. Well-loved men like Al Franken have stepped down in the wake of sexual misconduct. Men whose bad behavior has been long known, like Bill Clinton, are seeing their legacies stained as modern feminists are increasingly willing to criticize their bad acts. When it comes to Epstein, the left is ready and willing to take down anyone who let him get away with his crimes – whoever they are, and however they vote.

But is the political right ready and willing to do the same? Aside from the hopeful conservative claims that Clinton is going down, the actual commitment of conservatives to punishing men for sexual wrongdoing is an outstanding question. Many, many times over, we have seen prominent conservative figures accused of sexual harassment or assault, only to have the most prominent figures on the right just deny it. Women who accuse liberal men of wrongdoing, the thinking seems to be, are to be believed. Women who accuse right-wing men are liars.

Just look at Brett Kavanaugh, who sits on the Supreme Court despite a credible claim of sexual assault and attempted rape. Or Donald Trump, who has been accused of sexual misdeeds by more than two dozen women – and most recently of rape. Or Alex Acosta, Trump’s labor secretary, who is the reason Jeffrey Epstein isn’t sitting in federal prison. Too many of the same people salivating over the possibility that some liberal men will be indicated in the Epstein case are too happy to shrug off serious allegation of sexual crimes when those allegations are leveled against men whose politics they share.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @2    one week ago
. When it comes to Epstein, the left is ready and willing to take down anyone who let him get away with his crimes – whoever they are, and however they vote.

Except Bill Clinton...

These allegations are of course, old news.  When Gawker (a left wing site) started digging into the story a few years ago, much of the political left went ballistic.  Not at Epstein, but at Gawker, for possibly damaging Hillary Clinton.  

If you care about Epstein being prosecuted, you should be very thankful for the Trump administration who is trying to put the scumbag in jail.  Wouldn't be happening under Clinton, just like it didn't under Obama. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1    one week ago
Except Bill Clinton...

Ever hear of Al Franken?  Democrats (for the most part) hold themselves to the same standards that they hold others.  If Epstein sings, or his videos provide evidence to others that partook of his services, Democrats will be calling for their resignation no matter which side of the aisle they sit.  Republicans, not so much.

Republicans have shown, time and again, that as long as the politician has an (r) next to their name, they will let them get away with anything.  Up to and including pedophillia (anyone remember Roy Moore).

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1    one week ago

Clinton and Obama's administrations have absolutely nothing to do with this.  

It is not the Rump administration trying to put the scumbag Epstein in jail.  

If Bill Clinton is guilty he should go to jail.  I have seen absolutely no allegations against him for child rape or child sex trafficking.  Believe you me if there was any proof of that whatsoever behind that, it would have come out a long time ago.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.1    one week ago
Absolutely Ozz.

When it comes to Epstein, the left is ready and willing to take down anyone who let him get away with his crimes – whoever they are, and however they vote.

But is the political right ready and willing to do the same? Aside from the hopeful conservative claims that Clinton is going down, the actual commitment of conservatives to punishing men for sexual wrongdoing is an outstanding question. Many, many times over, we have seen prominent conservative figures accused of sexual harassment or assault, only to have the most prominent figures on the right just deny it. Women who accuse liberal men of wrongdoing, the thinking seems to be, are to be believed. Women who accuse right-wing men are liars.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.2    one week ago
the Rump administration trying to put the scumbag Epstein in jail

Do you honestly not understand how our government works? This is comedy of the highest order. The refusal to acknowledge reality is truly astoudning. Frankly, without Newstalkers, I wouldn't believe someone was capable of making such an argument. 

By all means, explain what branch of government  is investigating and prosecuting Epstein in your world. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.1    one week ago

It thought we were talking about Jeffrey Epstein?

But of course, for every Franken, there's a Clinton, or Menendez, or Bobby  Scott, or Cardenez etcetc..

The allegations about Epstein, and Clinton's journeys with him on the Lolita Express were ignored by Democrats. Why are they mad at Epstein now?

 

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.7  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.5    one week ago

We weren't talking about Obama either

but since you mentioned it...

Wouldn't be happening under Clinton,

Supposition on your part.

just like it didn't under Obama.

It happened under the Bush DOJ and Epstein was fulfilling his side of the secret Florida Circuit Court deal during the Obama years.

Seems like double jeopardy or a double cross to reopen it.

Only after federal prosecutors agreed to drop their investigation of Epstein, did he agree to plead guilty to two prostitution charges in Palm Beach County Circuit Court. In federal court records, prosecutors claim one of the key reasons they agreed to drop their case was Epstein’s agreement to settle lawsuits filed against him by dozens of his underage victims. https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime--law/epstein-paid-three-women-million-end-underage-sex-lawsuits/8GEJk4YYa2X4ffig4HAqyJ/

The Obama DOJ, like the Trump DOJ,

did nothing to block the lawsuits which led to the ruling in February where a Federal court decided that the

prosecutors violated the federal Crime Victim's Rights Act. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.7    one week ago

d Epstein was fulfilling his side of the secret Florida Circuit Court deal during the Obama years.

when did he stop fulfilling it? 

Seems like double jeopardy or a double cross to reopen it.

That's what the Trump DOJ is doing. These crimes took place in New York.  The same arguments for prosecuting Epstein for the New York assaults  were always available to the Obama DOJ. 

he Obama DOJ, like the Trump DOJ,

did nothing to block the lawsuits 

What do you imagine they could have done? Does the DOJ have the power to quash private lawsuits?

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.9  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.7    one week ago

'prosecutors violated the federal Crime Victim's Rights Act'

BINGO!

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.10  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.8    one week ago
Does the DOJ have the power to quash private lawsuits?

Is it still a "private" lawsuit when it reaches the Federal Appeals Court level?

The main role of the DOJ is to oversee the US Attys, solicitor generals and the Federal courts,

so I would think, at the appeals level, yes, one would consider the Courts ability to decline a case,

send it back to lower courts

or agreeing to hear the case, as equivalent to quashing it should the court or the AG decide not to be involved.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.10    one week ago
uit when it reaches the Federal Appeals Court level?

The DOJ can't stop a Court of Appeals from hearing an appeal.  The DOJ can't stop anyone from filing a lawsuit or order a Court not to proceed with a case. It's up to the Courts, and the courts alone, to handle a case on its merits.  All the DOJ can do is argue a position. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.12  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.11    one week ago
The DOJ can't stop a Court of Appeals from hearing an appeal.

I did not say that.

It's up to the Courts, and the courts alone, to handle a case on its merits.  All the DOJ can do is argue a position.

Maybe that's the way it's supposed to work.

Recently, this Administration, ignored ethics committees, and hired whom ever it pleased to,

granting top secret clearances to whomever it pleases regardless of back ground checks and conflicts of interest.

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the AG or someone else in the Executive Branch can't pick up a phone and

express it's wants to any court officer.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.12    one week ago
aybe that's the way it's supposed to work.

Okay. Than provide an example where the DOJ ordered a Federal court to decline a case or "send it back to the lower courts.". . Saying it's "possible" something happened is just a cop out.  Just about an wacky conspiracy can be justified by saying something is "possible." 

 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.14  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.5    one week ago
It thought we were talking about Jeffrey Epstein?

Then why did YOU bring up Clinton?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.14    one week ago

Because the author claimed that when it comes to Epstein,  democrats are willing to take down anyone.

Their continued championing of Clinton proves that wrong.

It’s the topic.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.16  XDm9mm  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.2    one week ago
It is not the Rump administration trying to put the scumbag Epstein in jail. 

Really?   Here's a little bit of information you're likely unaware of.

The case against Jeffery Epstein is being handled by the SDNY.  The SDNY is an acronym for the Southern District of New York.  Now you ARE aware of course that the Southern District of New York is in fact a district of the United States Department of Justice and the cases handled by that office are in fact handled by United States Attorneys.

Now unless something happened overnight that the rest of the universe is unaware of, the SDNY is an element of the US Department of Justice which in fact is an element of the administration of President Trump as the current US Attorney General, who those SDNY attorneys report to, is Attorney General Barr.

Just sayin.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.17  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.15    one week ago
Their continued championing of Clinton proves that wrong.

There currently is no connection between Clinton and Epstein, other than as simple associates from years ago.  Calling out Clinton is just another lame assed attempt at a deflection.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.18  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.17    one week ago

It just burns my ass that most of these pieces link bill Clinton to this scumbag first and as a friend.  Like you said, they were associates and it appears that Epstein has done some laudable things but they are far outweighed by his deplorable sex trafficking and pedophilia

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.19  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.18    one week ago
It just burns my ass that most of these pieces link bill Clinton to this scumbag first and as a friend.

I don't care enough to be upset by it, but the suggested relationships do seem laughably innocuous. 

I almost expect to see "Clinton and Epstein were both seen wearing yellow ties during the month of June, 2001" offered as "conclusive proof" of wrongdoing.

It seems to be just brainless clickbait.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.5    one week ago
The allegations about Epstein, and Clinton's journeys with him on the Lolita Express were ignored by Democrats.

Right and they re-elected him anyway...

Oh wait. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.1.20    one week ago

Right and they re-elected him anyway

Did you respond to the wrong person again? Please pay better attention to who you are responding to.  

I said Democrats continue to champion Clinton with regards to Epstein. This thread proves it. You should read it before posting. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.22  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.21    one week ago

There's no reason not to champion Clinton

There are no allegations against him.

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.23  WallyW  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.17    one week ago

WRONG!

Clinton racked up frequent flyer miles on the Lolita Express.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.24  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.22    one week ago

 are no allegations against him

 It's a fact he flew dozens of times on the Lolita Express. I'm willing to call the report in Vanity Fair that Epstein has pictures of Clinton molesting  girls an allegation,  but if you want to call that a fact I won't stop you. 

But thanks for proving my point, though. Saint Billy, Pure as the driven snow, to his devoted cult. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.25  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.21    one week ago
Did you respond to the wrong person again?

Are you claiming that I did shit I didn't do again? 

Please pay better attention to who you are responding to.  

I responded to your comment. 

I said Democrats continue to champion Clinton with regards to Epstein.

Actually, that NOT what you said in the comment I replied to. 

This thread proves it.

Address the reply that I made to the comment I replied to. 

You should read it before posting.

Why? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.26  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @2.1.23    one week ago
Clinton racked up frequent flyer miles on the Lolita Express.

Prove it!

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.27  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.16    6 days ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

Just sayin.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
2.1.28  SteevieGee  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1    6 days ago

Actually Sean, I say bring it.   If there's prosecutable evidence of a crime by Bill Clinton he should be prosecuted.  If there's prosecutable evidence of a crime by Trump he should be prosecuted.  If there's prosecutable evidence of a crime by Acosta he should be prosecuted.  Do you agree with me Sean?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @2    one week ago
Men whose bad behavior has been long known, like Bill Clinton, are seeing their legacies stained as modern feminists are increasingly willing to criticize their bad acts. When it comes to Epstein, the left is ready and willing to take down anyone who let him get away with his crimes – whoever they are, and however they vote.

That has absolutely not been my experience with "the left" or "modern feminists".  Many people on this very forum have defended Bill Clinton and still defend Bill Clinton....while lambasting Matt Lauer....which makes even less sense than some of the other stuff they say.

The highest probability is that there will be some finger pointing and accusations which will be exceedingly difficult or impossible to prove, so people will believe what they're inclined to believe already and we'll be arguing about it until the next shiny object appears.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2    one week ago

I'm sure your experience with 'the left' or 'modern feminists' are all encompassing then.

Whatever.  

 
 
 
lib50
2.2.2  lib50  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2    one week ago

Gawd.  Mansplaining feminists to women. 

Here is my feminist perspective on this topic.  I don't care what party you are, what sex you are, what your position is and what color you are, if you are part of this, you go down.  I supported Franken resigning.   I don't care if Clinton Trump or the pope is involved, they need to answer to their deeds, even if it were enabling and not participating.    Can you freaking say the same about republicans or is it the usual no standards?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  lib50 @2.2.2    one week ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.1    one week ago
I'm sure your experience with 'the left' or 'modern feminists' are all encompassing then. Whatever.  

You will notice that I limited my comment to "my experience", which should have been a clear indication that it was not a blanket statement to cover everyone.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2.5  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @2.2.2    one week ago
Gawd.  Mansplaining feminists to women. 

Using the term "mansplaining" is the equivalent of hiding behind your mother's skirt.  It's the idiot language for people whose thoughts don't need more than 140 characters.  It identifies the user as a person incapable of expressing their thoughts and therefore unlikely to have thoughts worth expressing anyway.  Don't be that person.

Here is my feminist perspective on this topic.  I don't care what party you are, what sex you are, what your position is and what color you are, if you are part of this, you go down.  I supported Franken resigning.   I don't care if Clinton Trump or the pope is involved, they need to answer to their deeds, even if it were enabling and not participating.    Can you freaking say the same about republicans or is it the usual no standards?

I would not endeavor to speak for Republicans as a whole, as it seems I find myself increasingly unlike most of the current group.  I can say I believe that you will likely consider any action short of public crucifixion to be insufficient.  It also seems very clear that anyone accused in this episode will be condemned without trial in your mind.

For me personally, my opinion will depend on what evidence is produced.  I will also probably trust the court system, whose members will have insight into vast amounts of evidence you and I will never see.  I do think the early accusations of "Bill Clinton rode on his jet" or "he played golf with Donald Trump" are complete bullshit for the brainless.

 
 
 
lib50
2.2.7  lib50  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.5    one week ago

I've already said I'm waiting for what they find before I make a judgement on any person's guilt or innocence,  why are you adding things in I didn't say?   I'm speaking about every person being held responsible for their actions and giving victims their justice.  And I specifically included both parties.   When the outcome happens, I will make a personal judgement. 

As for your mansplaining mansplaining, just a big sigh.  You don't ever speak to my main point (which is of course why you go into your explanation of what a feminist is and what words they are supposed to use),  trying to get somebody to commit to standards you expect 'your side' to adhere to without immediate knee-jerk defense.  I've not defended any person, including Clinton. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2.8  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @2.2.7    one week ago
I've already said I'm waiting for what they find before I make a judgement on any person's guilt or innocence,  why are you adding things in I didn't say?

You said no such thing.  You said "if you are part of this" and then included "not participating".

   I'm speaking about every person being held responsible for their actions and giving victims their justice.  And I specifically included both parties.   When the outcome happens, I will make a personal judgement.

You sound very much as though you've already made it, and are just waiting for the list of people upon which to pour your scorn. 

As for your mansplaining mansplaining, just a big sigh.

If you're smart enough to have intelligent thoughts, you don't need bullshit words like "mansplaining" or "libtard".  You don't need other bullshit words like "Obummer" or "Frump" or "Shrub".  Sorry if you don't like that, but use of those words identifies intellectual inferiority.

  You don't ever speak to my main point

Of course I did.  You just didn't like the answer.

 
 
 
lib50
2.2.9  lib50  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.8    one week ago

No, you damn well did NOT answer my question, and you ARE adding things into my written words.    Your recap is wrong,  you misinterpret what I mean by participating, I was specifically speaking to the sexual abuse, but there are other things besides, like recruiting, paying, etc that would be crimes.   What part of 'a part of this' do you think people should get away with?  

Your patronizing and sanctimonious  MANSPLAINING lecture on words can go right back to where it originated, and no, Jack, you DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION.  Not one place in this have I spared a democrat more than a republican and have made it clear that was my position.   Your insults to my intelligence are duly noted.  As is your inability to answer the question.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @2    one week ago
Just look at Brett Kavanaugh, who sits on the Supreme Court despite a credible claim of sexual assault and attempted rape. Or Donald Trump, who has been accused of sexual misdeeds by more than two dozen women – and most recently of rape.

So...two very unhappy facts here.

First, "credible" is in the eye of the beholder.  There are tens of millions of people who would not call Dr. Ford's accusations "credible".  Given the number of years that passed, her emotional state, the lack of corroborating evidence, and the lack of support she got from other people who she claimed were there, it is certainly understandable how lots of people questioned the credibility of her accusations.

Second, there were three accusations against Brett Kavanaugh.  The other two were later confirmed to be nonsense.

This is just one example of a HUGE problem.  Women complain loudly that people don't believe them when they bring accusations.  OK...fine.  They also complain that only 7% of accused rapists are actually convicted.  Then they complain that only 2% of rape accusations are proven false.   Well...the math on that actually works out to show that of the rape accusations that are actually resolved, 22% (2 of every 9) are fabricated.  That's a MASSIVE credibility problem, and it undermines any actions people attempt to take.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @2.3    one week ago

[Removed]

 
 
 
lib50
2.3.2  lib50  replied to  Jack_TX @2.3    one week ago

Do you know how many rapes are never even reported?  Where did your stats come from?   And NOTHING from the Kavanaugh hearings showed they were 'nonsense'.   Millions and millions of women have had similar situations and know Kavanaugh was not being truthful. Your attitude and that of millions of others (mostly MEN) is why women have such difficulty coming forward in the first fucking place.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684

Moreover, official figures suggest the number of rapes and sexual assaults which are never reported or prosecuted far outweighs the number of men convicted of rape because of fake accusations.

Indeed it far outweighs the number of fake accusations, period.

Figures from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics suggest only 35% of all sexual assaults are even reported to the police.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-men-are-more-likely-to-be-raped-than-be-falsely-accused-of-rape

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/false-accusations-of-rape-which-are-rare-should-not-be-the-priority/2018/10/05/969910ce-c820-11e8-9c0f-2ffaf6d422aa_story.html

https://web.stanford.edu/group/maan/cgi-bin/?page_id=297

Only about 2% of all rape and related sex charges are determined to be false, the same percentage as for other felonies (FBI). So while they do happen, and they are very problematic when they do, people claim that allegations are false far more frequently than they are and far more frequently than for other crimes. Put another way, we are much more likely to disbelieve a woman if she says she was raped than if she says she was robbed, but for no good reason. On a related note, only about 40% of rapes are ever reported to the police, and this is partly because victims know that if their claim becomes public, their every behavior will be scrutinized, they will be shamed for their sexual history, and they will be labeled as lunatic, psychotic, paranoid, and manipulative. Just because someone does not report their crime does not mean it did not happen. Furthermore, only one in two claims lead to prosecution, so if the DA decides not to prosecute, that says nothing about whether or not it happened. ( http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-new-home/201810/rape-allegations

the terms unfounded and false are not the same. Though a report might be regarded as unfounded, rape may still have taken place in actuality.

Nor do retractions of rape allegations necessarily mean that the claim was false. A victim may decide to withdraw her allegations if she is presently safe, has recovered sufficiently from the immediate effects of the trauma, or if she is warned of the potential costs of continuing with the proceedings—such as having to face “a grueling cross-examination by the defense attorney.”3,4

Finally, let us keep in mind that those rapes that are reported to the police are only a portion of all rapes that take place. According to some estimates, more than two-thirds of rapes are never disclosed.5 Which means that the percentage of false rape allegations is that of only reported rapes.

In summary, false allegations of rape appear to consist of a small percentage of rape claims, and even a smaller percentage of all rapes.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @2.3    one week ago

Your stats are highly questionable.  You need to provide a source.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.3.4  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @2.3.2    one week ago
Do you know how many rapes are never even reported? 

It is impossible to know that which is never reported.

Where did your stats come from?

The same FBI figures you cited.  Surely you do not object to statistics you cite.

And NOTHING from the Kavanaugh hearings showed they were 'nonsense'.

I did not indicate they were.  Please read carefully.  The other two accusations were nonsense, including the one brought by Michael Avennati.

Millions and millions of women have had similar situations and know Kavanaugh was not being truthful.

They "know" he was being untruthful, despite not having been there, most of them not even knowing who he was before his nomination, and not knowing Dr. Ford or who she was.

Riiiiight.

How is that, exactly?  "Women's intuition"?  Did they have visions?  Did the angel Gabriel announce it to them?  Was it on the Hallmark Channel?   Or are they just projecting their own emotional issues onto a situation they know absolutely nothing about?

The irony of you spouting ridiculous garbage like that and then complaining that people don't believe women is enough to knock the earth out of orbit.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.3.5  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.3    one week ago
Your stats are highly questionable.  You need to provide a source. 

They are the same FBI stats lib50 is using.  I'm not sure why they would be questionable.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.3.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.1    one week ago

Hardly a civil reply.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.7  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @2.3.6    one week ago

Same to you.  The deal is off.  I don't appreciate being talked down to and patronized

I hardly consider that civil

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.3.8  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.7    one week ago
I don't appreciate being talked down to and patronized

I do not believe I have behaved in a patronizing fashion.  I promise you'll know when it happens.

The deal is off.

I do hope you'll reconsider.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.9  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @2.3.8    one week ago

Okay.  Fair enough

Reconsidered

 
 
 
lib50
2.3.10  lib50  replied to  Jack_TX @2.3.4    one week ago

There are fucking studies, Jack,  about things like this.   But know what?  I'm done with your  bullshit.   You obviously don't know shit from shinola about women's experiences throughout their lives, nor do you care to learn.  You don't read informative articles to learn,  you pick out something and pretend the rest doesn't exist because you don't want to know it.  You spew insults as opposed to answering questions, and you have a knee jerk defense of conservatives that requires you to deflect with 'Clinton' or 'women are emotional and must use words men like'.   I can't wait for the 'me too' movement to take down the assholes who feel enabled to speak to things they've never encountered.   Now how do you like my take on you?  The difference is, I'm speaking to MY experiences as a woman, and you are speaking to women's experiences as a man who doesn't even care enough to pretend to care. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.3.11  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @2.3.10    6 days ago
There are fucking studies, Jack,  about things like this. 

Yes.  That are never going to be fully accurate because of the sampling errors inherent with nature of the emotional trauma associated with the topic.

  But know what?  I'm done with your  bullshit.

Meaning "you're done with somebody daring to challenge your tirades". 

Or does "bullshit" include "challenging statistics you then cite in the same post"? 

   You obviously don't know shit from shinola about women's experiences throughout their lives, nor do you care to learn.

Whereas you are a complete expert on men's experiences?

  You don't read informative articles to learn,  you pick out something and pretend the rest doesn't exist because you don't want to know it.  You spew insults as opposed to answering questions, and you have a knee jerk defense of conservatives that requires you to deflect with 'Clinton' or 'women are emotional and must use words men like'.

I have defended Clinton....not that you're paying attention to much of anything in this fit of rage you're having.

As far as insulting... if I am to be accused, I suppose I may as well start living up to to the name.  The irony of you telling somebody else they are insulting is 10,000 kinds of hilarious.

   I can't wait for the 'me too' movement to take down the assholes who feel enabled to speak to things they've never encountered.

You could have left off the last 5 words of that sentence.

   Now how do you like my take on you?

It's a fine a piece of emotional angry raving nonsense.

  The difference is, I'm speaking to MY experiences as a woman, and you are speaking to women's experiences as a man who doesn't even care enough to pretend to care. 

The difference is that I don't believe the rest of the world should have to adopt my opinions simply because I've had certain experiences.  

The difference is that I don't fly into an angry fit every time somebody offers an alternative point of view that doesn't "validate" my experiences.

The difference is that I understand completely that my personal experiences are not those of other people, and pretending they give me some sort of magical omniscience into a situation I had nothing to do with is more than a little batshit crazy.

Do you know Jeffrey Epstein?  Then do attempt to explain how your "experiences as a woman" have any relevance whatsoever to this particular case?  Do tell.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.12  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @2.3.11    6 days ago
REY EPSTEIN JULY 8, 2019

Everything We Know About the Sex Crimes Case Against Jeffrey Epstein


Jeffrey Epstein Photo: Rick Friedman/Corbis via Getty Images

On Saturday, billionaire financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was arrested for the alleged sex trafficking of dozens of minors in New York and Florida between 2002 and 2005. In a criminal indictment unsealed Monday, federal prosecutors claimed that Epstein lured underage girls, some as young as 14, to his luxurious homes in Manhattan and Palm Beach under the guise of paying them cash for massages. He then molested them and encouraged them to recruit other young girls to return with them. The victims who returned with new victims were paid a finder’s fee.

“In this way, Epstein created a vast network of underage victims for him to sexually exploit, often on a daily basis,” the U.S. Attorney’s office said in a statement.

The hedge-fund manager and former friend of presidents Trump and Clinton faced similar charges a decade ago but escaped federal prosecution via a widely criticized, shockingly lenient plea deal. After a decade of legal efforts by many of his victims — and, more recently, increased scrutiny from lawmakers and the media — Epstein faces prosecution by the notoriously tough Southern District of New York and a long prison sentence if convicted.

Here is everything we know about the new case against Epstein, the developments that preceded and followed his arrest, and what the charges could mean for him and his friends.

A New Investigation Brings New Charges

According to the Daily Beast and Miami Herald, the Southern District of New York’s public-corruption unit, with an assist from the office’s sex-trafficking unit, has been investigating Epstein for months and conducting interviews with his victims. Arrested Saturday, Epstein now faces one count of sex trafficking and one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. The case is focused on victims he lured to his homes in both New York and Florida.

Epstein infamously avoided federal charges — and the potential lifetime sentence that could have come with them — a decade ago after he was accused of molesting dozens of underage girls at his mansion in Palm Beach, Florida. He was instead allowed to plead guilty to two counts of soliciting prostitution from a minor. Epstein was forced to register as a sex offender and sentenced to 18 months in prison, but he only served 13 months in all — and got to spend 12 hours a day at an office, six days a week, as part of his work-release privileges. In return, Epstein’s secret plea deal shielded him and four alleged accomplices from federal prosecution.

The new charges against Epstein carry a 45-year maximum sentence. Prosecutors are also seeking the forfeiture of his 21,000-square-foot townhouse on East 71st Street, where some of his alleged crimes took place. Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, said in a press conference Monday that investigators also found “nude photographs of what appeared to be underage girls” at the Upper East Side home. The indictment implicates several of Epstein’s employees, who are accused of helping the billionaire arrange the encounters and ensuring “that minor victims were available for encounters upon his arrival in Florida,” according to the indictment.

Get unlimited access to Intelligencer and everything else New York.
LEARN MORE »

The Details of Epstein’s Arrest and Arraignment

The 66-year-old former hedge-fund manager was arrested and taken into federal custody on Saturday afternoon at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey, where he had just returned in his private jet after a few weeks in Paris. Epstein was then transferred to Manhattan Correctional Center to await his arraignment in federal court in New York on Monday.

Federal agents also executed search warrants for Epstein’s Manhattan home early Saturday evening, breaking down the door of his Upper East Side townhouse, according to witnesses. Federal agents do not appear to have raided Epstein’s other three homes, however, and it’s not clear why.

More Victims and Witnesses Have Come Forward

Per the Miami Herald’s law-enforcement sources, the indictment against Epstein “includes new victims and witnesses who spoke to authorities in New York over the past several months.”

We’ll almost certainly never know how many girls Epstein molested or allowed to be molested by others. Police originally identified more than three dozen possible victims when they investigated in 2005 and 2006. The Herald has since identified nearly 80 girls molested by Epstein, most of whom were listed only as “Jane Doe” in court documents to protect their identities as minors. Most were girls between the ages of 13 and 16 when they were targeted by Epstein as far back as 2001. Many also came from low-income households and thus may have been more susceptible to the cash-for-massage ploy Epstein allegedly used to lure girls to his homes. Witnesses have also testified in subsequent civil-court proceedings that hundreds of additional victims were brought to Epstein from around the world.

The Lead-Up to a Long-Overdue Indictment

Epstein’s arrest came as a welcome surprise to many, but the momentum for new charges against him has been building since last year. In November, the Miami Herald published an explosive investigative report that revealed horrifying new details about Epstein’s crimes and their effects on his many victims. The report included on-the-record, firsthand accounts from four of those victims and exposed the secret plea deal Epstein’s lawyers negotiated with former prosecutor and current Department of Labor secretary Alexander Acosta.

The Miami Herald report prompted Nebraska senator Ben Sasse to prod the Justice Department to investigate the plea deal negotiated by Acosta. The deal, in which Epstein pleaded guilty to two state charges of soliciting prostitution from a minor, granted him and his potential accomplices immunity from federal charges. In February, the DOJ announced its inquiry into “allegations that Department attorneys may have committed professional misconduct in the manner in which the Epstein criminal matter was resolved.” Also in February, a U.S. district judge ruled that because prosecutors did not inform victims of the plea or provide the opportunity to testify about it, the deal violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.

But on June 25, the Department of Justice decided otherwise: Federal prosecutors announced they would not void Epstein’s non-prosecution deal. The next day, however, a federal appeals court in New York ordered the unsealing of almost 2,000 pages of records regarding a 2015 defamation case against Epstein.

How Do the New Charges Avoid Double Jeopardy?

If the reports of what Epstein will be charged with are accurate, there appear to be several ways that federal prosecutors are not running afoul of the U.S. Constitution by targeting Epstein with the same charges on the same facts for a second time. One law-enforcement source familiar with the case emphasized to the New York Post that the new indictment covers additional crimes not addressed in the earlier case, like Epstein bringing several victims across state lines between Florida and New York, as well as crimes he committed after the ones that led to his first arrest.

The Washington Post similarly reported on Sunday that

A person familiar with the matter said prosecutors do not have significant double jeopardy concerns or concerns about Epstein’s previous plea, meaning the charges probably involve new victims or new alleged wrongdoing.

How Does the Southern District of New York’s Reputation Factor Into the Case?

Writing for the Daily Beast, former SDNY prosecutor and current NBC legal analyst Mimi Rocah emphasized that her former office would offer no special treatment to Epstein nor offer him any cooperation agreements for implicating other powerful men unless he provided “some very valuable and verifiable information” in exchange:

Short of a cooperation agreement with the government—which in the SDNY famously means full cooperation against all possible other subjects and targets—Epstein will serve at least 10-15 years in prison (possibly more depending on the number of counts) if convicted. In addition, in my experience as a prosecutor involved in trafficking cases in the SDNY, that office is not in the practice of giving slap-on-the-wrist deals to sex offenders and will prosecute the case fairly but with appropriate zeal. The fact that the FBI also reportedly executed a search warrant at Epstein’s New York residence suggests either that they had probable cause to believe there was more recent conduct that occurred there and/or that evidence from his past crimes was likely to be found there this many years later. That search could yield important new evidence.

Why Is the SDNY’s Public Corruption Unit Handling the Case?

Gene Rossi, a trial analyst for Law&Crime, suggested that the PCU providesflexibility to add more charges, like money laundering, corruption, or tax-related crimes, noting that he would be surprised if the sex-trafficking charges were the only charges. “The sky’s the limit,” he added.

But Rocah insisted it was “too soon to say” why the PCU got the case:

It could mean that a public official is being investigated or will be charged with Epstein. That could be a minor public figure or a major one. It could mean that SDNY is investigating misconduct in the plea that Epstein was given in 2008. Or it could mean none of those things.  

Will There Finally Be a Cost for Acosta?

In 2008, federal prosecutors in Miami — led by former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta — drafted a 53-page indictment against Epstein, including charges that could have put him in prison for life. But Acosta made a deal with Epstein’s legal team that resulted in 13 months in jail and a non-prosecution agreement for any possible federal charges. According to a copy of the non-prosecution agreement, the likelihood of a federal charge had been high: The FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s office determined that from 2001 to September 2007, Epstein had conspired to persuade minors to engage in prostitution, conspired to transport minors across state lines for the purpose of illicit sexual conduct, and recruited a minor across state lines to engage in a commercial sex act.

According to the Miami Herald, Acosta met privately with one of Epstein’s lawyers, Jay Lefkowitz — a former colleague in D.C. — and gave Epstein’s legal team a bizarre amount of control over the plea deal’s terms. (Other Epstein lawyers included Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr.) “Thank you for the commitment you made to me,’’ Lefkowitz wrote to Acosta after their meeting, referring to Acosta’s promise that he would not contact “any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses or potential civil claimants.” The deal was kept secret until it was finalized.

As the Trump administration’s secretary of Labor, Acosta has already faced calls for his resignation. With Epstein’s arrest over the weekend, the calls are getting louder, including messages from former senator Mike Gravel, Representatives Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Ted Lieu, and Virginia Senator Tim Kaine.

Who Else Could Be Implicated?

Though Epstein has had a massive social network — as evidenced by the publication of his “little black book” by Gawker in 2015 — it’s unclear if, or how many of, his contacts will be in legal jeopardy after his indictment is unsealed on Monday. The Miami Herald has identified two possible enablers who “could be charged or named as cooperating witnesses”:

Among those potentially on the list: Ghislaine Maxwell, a 57-year-old British socialite and publishing heir who has been accused of working as Epstein’s madam; and Jean-Luc Brunel, who, according to court records, was partners with Epstein in an international modeling company.

For her part, Maxwell, whose social circle included such friends as Bill and Hillary Clinton and members of the British Royal family, has been described as using recruiters positioned throughout the world to lure women by promising them modeling assignments, educational opportunities and fashion careers. The pitch was really a ruse to groom them into sex trafficking, it is alleged in court records.

In an interview on MSNBC on Sunday, the Herald’s star reporter on the Epstein story, Julie K. Brown, expanded her thoughts on the possible consequences following the indictment:

Needless to say, these are very powerful people and I think that they’re sweating a little bit, especially today. We don’t know how much, how deep this went, how far-reaching it went in government, but there have been a lot of names that I could see on these message pads [listing clients] on a regular basis as part of the evidence — these message pads where they would call and leave Epstein messages, such as, “I’m at this hotel.” Why do you do that, unless you’re expecting him to send you a girl to visit you at your hotel?

So there are probably quite a few important people, powerful people, who are sweating it out right now. We’ll have to wait and see whether Epstein is going to name names.

For some people at the ends of the political spectrum on social media, Epstein’s arrest has played out like a partisan Rorschach test. Many right-wing personalities and members of the MAGA crowd have speculated that Epstein will name or otherwise expose and ruin Bill Clinton. The former president, who has himself been credibly accused of sexual misconduct and was friends with Epstein, has been previously scrutinized for the numerous trips he took on the financier’s private plane.

Accusations of sex crimes toward children have also been a central focus of some of the most bizarre (and contagious) conspiracy theories on the far right. And the fact that Robert Mueller led the FBI at the time of the original charges against Epstein has not gone unnoticed by those who still see the former special counsel as one of the president’s deep-state enemies. Speaking of which, there’s a Comey involved too:

Meanwhile, some #resistance diehards have suggested that Epstein’s arrest will lead to the surefire end, or at least the surefire justification for the end, of Trump’s presidency (thus succeeding where all of the previous scandals involving Trump have failed).

What About Trump?

Donald Trump — who has been credibly accused of sexual misconduct or assault by more than 20 women — offered some now notorious, and notably specific, praise for Epstein to New York in 2002:

Epstein likes to tell people that he’s a loner, a man who’s never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Trump’s connection to Epstein will certainly be subject to further scrutiny in the coming weeks, as will any of the pictures of them together.

Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre claimed in court documents that she was recruited to give Epstein massages while she was working as a towel girl at Mar-a-Lago. Giuffre, who was then 15, alleged that Epstein’s friend Ghislaine Maxwell had recruited her to be Epstein’s “sex slave.”

Another woman, identified in court records only as “Jane Doe,” alleged during Trump’s presidential campaign that he had raped her at a party at Epstein’s New York mansion in 1993, at the age of 13. A Trump lawyer denied her claim, and the woman later dropped the lawsuit because she was too afraid to go through with it, according to her lawyer, Lisa Bloom.

In her interview with MSNBC, Miami Herald reporter Julie Brown added:

They went to dinner parties at each other’s houses. Trump was also on his plane, probably not as much as a lot of other people because, you know, Trump had his own plane. But they had a lot of social relationships. And the other interesting thing is Trump had a modeling agency, and Epstein also had a stake in a modeling agency, which they suspect he used to bring in underage girls from overseas.

There is a comment in one of the court files where Epstein is quoted as saying, ‘I want to set up my modeling agency the same way Trump set up his modeling agency.’ I don’t know what that means, but it is curious he was trying to do something similar to Trump.

There have been unconfirmed claims that Trump has tried to distance himself from Epstein. According to court documents filed by a lawyer representing three of Epstein’s alleged victims, Trump banned his former friend from Mar-a-Lago because he “sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club.” But the same lawyer later said in an interview that he was unable to confirm that claim, though he did emphasize that Trump was cooperative and helpful as he built his case against Epstein.

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.

Despite the 2002 comment in New York, a lawyer for Trump denied that he and Epstein had a social relationship, according to the New York Times. Another denial came in 2015 when Gawker published Epstein’s contact list, which contained what appeared to be every conceivable number for reaching Trump and his wife. “Mr. Trump only knew Mr. Epstein as Mr. Trump owns the hottest and most luxurious club in Palm Beach, [redacted], and Mr. Epstein would go there on occasion,” the lawyer said.

If Trump or His Administration Wanted to Interfere in the Case, Could They?

Yes. Attorney General William Barr could legally do so and has repeatedly shown a willingness to put loyalty to Trump above all else — though he did tell Congress he might recuse himself from Epstein-related cases since he worked for one of the firms behind Epstein’s controversial plea deal.

And yes, Trump could pardon Epstein if he were so inclined.

What About Bill Clinton?

On Monday, the former president released a statement denying any knowledge of Epstein’s convicted and alleged sex crimes, and that they haven’t spoken in over a decade.

A Missed Opportunity to Expose Epstein’s Abuse

Vicky Ward, who wrote a 2003 profile about Epstein for Vanity Fair, revealed at the Daily Beast on Sunday that her profile had originally contained a highly credible allegation that Epstein had molested a 16-year-old girl, but it was cut from the published version by then-editor Graydon Carter. Ward said that Epstein — who had pointedly and repeatedly asked her, “What do you have on the girls?” during their interviews — denied the accusation and tried to discredit it in some unsettling ways:

He called Graydon. He also repeatedly phoned me. He said, “Just the mention of a 16-year-old girl… carries the wrong impression. I don’t see what it adds to the piece. And that makes me unhappy.”

Next, Epstein attacked both me and my sources. Letters purporting to be from the women were sent to Graydon, which the women claimed (and gave evidence to show me) were fabricated fakes. I had my own notes to disprove Epstein’s claims against me.

And then there was Epstein himself, who, I’d be told after I’d given birth, got past security at Condé Nast and went into the Vanity Fair offices. By now everyone at the magazine was completely spooked.

Ward said that Epstein spooked her too, enough so that she had a guard placed on her newborn twins after he had asked her what hospital they were being treated at. When the allegation of molestation was cut, she was devastated:

I began to cry. It was so wrong. The family had been so brave. I thought about the mother, her fear of the dark, of the harm she feared might come to her daughters. And then I thought of all the rich, powerful men in suits ready to talk about Epstein’s “great mind.”

In the end, she wrote, Carter said he believed Epstein over the mother and two daughters who had made the claim. Vanity Fair, in a statement to the Daily Beast, explained that “Epstein denied the charges at the time and since the claims were unsubstantiated and no criminal investigation had been initiated, we decided not to include them.”

Ward insisted that she does not blame Carter for making what he thought was the right call at the time, but that “it has often struck me that if my piece had named the women, the FBI might have come after Epstein sooner and perhaps some of his victims, now, in the latest spate of allegations, allegedly either paid off or too fearful of retribution to speak up, would have been saved.”

A Larger System at Work

In a Twitter thread over the weekend, author Summer Brennan worried that many following the Epstein case were missing an essential point about what his crimes reveal:

I’ve followed this story and individual for a long time. It needs to be understood that this is about much more than the actions of individual men, but a *system* of powerful men using underage girls as luxury goods to offer, trade, etc. There is a world in which this is the norm. A class of (mostly) uber-powerful men who think the rules do not apply to them. One of them is in the White House.

In the early 2000s, Epstein made a point of befriending prominent or upcoming scientists, journalists, famous actors, and politicians, most of whom were likely never shown this side of things, especially if they were women. Young women who *were* shown this secret world of exploitative male power, often victimized themselves, were given the impression that this was just the way things were and they had no power to change it. But it shouldn’t be that way.

Meanwhile Prince Andrew, one of the most prominent people directly implicated in all of this, walks around virtually unscathed. 

So I do hope coverage of this story does not cop out and make it about the actions of a sick individual, but instead accurately depicts Epstein as what he was/is: a power broker in a world where this sort of behavior is the price of entry.

This post has been updated throughout to include additional analysis and information.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.13  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @2.3.11    6 days ago

Sampling errors?  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.3.14  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.13    6 days ago
Sampling errors?

Certainly.  Not errors in the "not done properly" sense of the word, but errors in "the sample isn't representative of the population at large" sense of the word.

Rape is obviously a very traumatic experience, and that trauma manifests itself in many ways.  Most victims don't like to talk about it, and for some that is most certainly going to include taking a survey about it.

Any study done on victims of a crime who haven't come forward is going to rely on their willingness to disclose information they have previously chosen to withhold.  So you won't ever really know the true data.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.15  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @2.3.14    6 days ago

Still doesn't make sense to me.  

 
 
 
lib50
2.3.16  lib50  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.15    6 days ago

Nothing Jack says here makes sense,   just a bunch of patronizing drivel  with continuous mansplaining and lecturing how to write posts with the words he feels acceptable. And telling women how they should process their encounters with sexual abuse.   Constantly throwing out the 'feelings and emotion' insults for good measure.  Tá sé ag caint caca.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.3.17  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.15    6 days ago
Still doesn't make sense to me.  

Not everybody is going to be truthful and accurate talking about rape.  That means the results of any study are going to be flawed. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.3.18  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @2.3.16    6 days ago
Nothing Jack says here makes sense,

*eyeroll*  Is pouting really the best you can do?  

   just a bunch of patronizing drivel

Less patronizing than your hyper-emotional statements deserve.

  with continuous mansplaining and lecturing how to write posts with the words he feels acceptable. And telling women how they should process their encounters with sexual abuse.

You process your own encounters however you like.  You still don't know shit about incidents for which you were not present.  

The "mansplained" truth you find offensive is that the world simply does not care about your personal issues, and that has nothing to do with you being female.  Presuming otherwise simply reflects entitlement.  

In words you'll understand...previous experiences do not make your current comments less crazy, despite the fact that you're clearly unaccustomed to being challenged.

   Constantly throwing out the 'feelings and emotion' insults for good measure.  

And you constantly back up my statements, albeit accidentally.  I forgot to say thanks, BTW.  

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
2.3.19  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.1    4 days ago

It is always the good one, that gets "deleted". I want to read the "juicy stuff". 

 
 
 
Karri
2.3.20  Karri  replied to  Jack_TX @2.3    2 days ago
They also complain that only 7% of accused rapists are actually convicted.  Then they complain that only 2% of rape accusations are proven false.   Well...the math on that actually works out to show that of the rape accusations that are actually resolved, 22% (2 of every 9) are fabricated. 

I think you need to reread your own words.  7% are convicted.  2% of reported accusations are false.  These are percentages of different things.  How many of the 7% who are convicted are proven false?  I assure it is not 2%.

 
 
 
Karri
2.3.21  Karri  replied to  Jack_TX @2.3.4    2 days ago
How is that, exactly?  "Women's intuition"?  Did they have visions?  Did the angel Gabriel announce it to them?  Was it on the Hallmark Channel?   Or are they just projecting their own emotional issues onto a situation they know absolutely nothing about?

Most likely it is because of the woman's own experience.  It is also because of his own testimony.  Personally, he came off like a mean drunk -- with a current BAL over 0.08!

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
2.4  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Tessylo @2    4 days ago

It is time, way past time, to take down Dump, the most corrupt creature to ever sit in the Oval Office. He was Epstein's best friend during the Rich Guys Orgies with teenager sponsored by this puke and attended by main of the Rich & Filthy.

There is NO justification for Trump's actions in the past or present.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3  Trout Giggles    one week ago

I want Epstein and all his criminal cronies to get thrown in prison for the rest of their natural born lives

 
 
 
Snuffy
3.1  Snuffy  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    one week ago
I want Epstein and all his criminal cronies to get thrown in prison for the rest of their natural born lives

I'm with you, I want everybody guilty of this to be thrown in prison for life. And I hope they have a long and healthy life, so they can "enjoy" every day locked away.

 
 
 
Karri
3.2  Karri  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    2 days ago

Here! Here!  That deserves a standing ovation.

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Karri @3.2    23 hours ago

thank you very much

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4  FLYNAVY1    one week ago

The laws are there to protect those that can't protect themselves from predators like Epstein.  I don't care who they are or if their last names begin with a "C" or a "T".  I want them brought before a court and if found guilty, put behind bars.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5  Nerm_L    one week ago

An article published last December by OpenSecrets explains why Jeffrey Epstein was offered a plea deal.  

Billionaire sex offender Epstein gave heavily to Democrats, until he didn’t -- OpenSecrets.org

From the article:

"The Herald’s look into the plea negotiations revealed “an unusual level of collaboration between federal prosecutors” led by Alexander Acosta, President Donald Trump’s current Secretary of Labor, and Epstein’s legal team of political powerhouses — Alan Dershowitz, Kenneth Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, Roy Black and Jack Goldberger.

A series of stories in the Miami Herald revealed the terms in which the U.S. Attorney’s Office under Acosta negotiated with Epstein’s lawyers to hide the details of the agreement from the victims, to keep the terms of the deal under seal, and to cancel the grand jury subpoenas."

 
 
 
Don Overton
5.1  Don Overton  replied to  Nerm_L @5    one week ago

Nice try Nerm, but no banana 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Don Overton @5.1    one week ago
Nice try Nerm, but no banana 

The point is that the plea deal wasn't to protect Jeffrey Epstein.  The prosecution records are still out there.  Now that Epstein is being prosecuted again (and obviously violated the conditions of the original plea deal) those existing records could be unsealed.

If Democrats can demand public disclosure of grand jury records and material related to the Mueller investigation then Democrats can also demand public disclosure of material related to the Epstein plea deal.  And there is valid justification for disclosure of the Epstein records.

Where's the investigative zeal?  

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.1    one week ago

Of course the deal was to protect Epstein.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.2    one week ago
Of course the deal was to protect Epstein.  

No.  Epstein was let off the hook to avoid implicating others.  Who?  That information is in the sealed records.

BTW, should Epstein's legal team be held accountable?

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.3    one week ago

It was to protect him thanks to Acosta

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.5  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.4    one week ago
It was to protect him thanks to Acosta

Why protect Jeffrey Epstein?  For Alex Acosta this would have been a prosecutor's high profile win that would have benefited Acosta politically.

There's more to the story; unseal the records.  As long as the records remain sealed, Acosta is prevented from disclosing details.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.4    5 days ago

Acosta has resigned.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7  seeder  Tessylo    one week ago

So?

You left this out.  

'As part of the non-prosecution agreement from 2008, Epstein served 13 months in the Palm Beach County stockade after pleading guilty to two minor prostitution-related charges.

Tuesday’s trial, which was settled out of court, was the result of a complex dispute between Edwards — the lawyer who represented several of the victims — and Epstein. The settlement was connected to the litigation that sought to undo the controversial non-prosecution agreement.

The Palm Beach trials were expected to be a rare opportunity for the dozens of women connected to Epstein to make public their accounts of how they were sexually exploited.

The decades of lawsuits ended with an apology from Epstein, not to the women who were sexually exploited by Epstein, but to the lawyer who represented them.

Correction: The original version of this story incorrectly stated the time frame and context of Jeffrey Epstein’s interaction with federal prosecutor Alex Acosta. It also did not note that Sen. Chris Dodd returned Epstein’s contribution.

Research contributions were made by Kaitlin Washburn.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @7    one week ago
Epstein served 13 months in the Palm Beach County stockade after pleading guilty to two minor prostitution-related charges.

And I read somewhere that he got out of the jail 6 days a week, was allowed to go to his office and still jet everywhere he wanted to go.

That's some prison time....

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1    one week ago

Exactly TG, I heard the same thing.

The horror!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Ronin2
7.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.1    6 days ago

He was on the "I can make so many politicians, and people in power, lives hell sentence."

I am surprised he is not in protective custody by now. He must have those in power convinced he will fall on his sword rather than trying to take a plea deal in exchange for information on those he associated with.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @7.1.2    6 days ago

???

 
 
 
Split Personality
8  Split Personality    one week ago
Bradley Edwards, attorney for two victims who brought the lawsuit, told the decision should mean the non-prosecution agreement is thrown out — possibly exposing Epstein to federal charges once again. The agreement also granted immunity to anyone who assisted Epstein in finding the underage girls or concealing the abuse.

"Rather than work to correct the injustices done to the victims, the government spent 10 years defending its own improper conduct," Edwards said in an email. "It is time for the government to work with the victims, and not against them, to hold everyone who committed these crimes accountable."

The Miami U.S. attorney's office declined comment Thursday. The Justice Department, however, recently opened a separate investigation into the handling of the Epstein case to determine whether prosecutors committed professional misconduct.

U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Oversight Subcommittee, said in a prepared statement that the Justice Department should reopen its non-prosecution agreement so Epstein and anyone else who abused these children are held accountable.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-case-judge-says-prosecutors-violated-victim-rights-in-jeffrey-epstein-sex-abuse-case/

Even more interesting since Edwards was once part of a law firm hired by Epstein and was involved in suits and counter suits against

Epstein, Edwards & Rothstein, his previous attorneys. After Rothstein lost his case and closed the law firm Epstein went after the firms assets

and the individual lawyers many of whom had to settle with him or were charged in a ponzi scheme which Rothstein had started.

Edwards escaped any charges and retaliated with this lawsuit alleging that the secret deal violated the victims rights.

Good for Edwards. Bad for Epstein.

 
 
 
luther28
9  luther28    6 days ago

I hope Jeffrey Epstein sings like a bird. And if some Democrats go down, so be it

Degenerate behavior should have no political boundaries and whomever may be found guilty of involvement should receive the maximum penalty in my opinion.

But the reality is that the folks living in this sphere dwell on a different plane than we mere mortals and answer to an alternate set of rules than you and I as evidenced in Mr. Epstein's original deal. Personally I think the victims should have been allowed to stone him to death (with rocks not weed), which would have made this comment moot.

 
 
 
Tessylo
10  seeder  Tessylo    6 days ago

I wanted to highlight this part for those detractors who won't take the time to read the whole article:

What About Trump?

Donald Trump — who has been credibly accused of sexual misconduct or assault by more than 20 women — offered some now notorious, and notably specific, praise for Epstein to New York in 2002:

Epstein likes to tell people that he’s a loner, a man who’s never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Trump’s connection to Epstein will certainly be subject to further scrutiny in the coming weeks, as will any of the pictures of them together.

Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre claimed in court documents that she was recruited to give Epstein massages while she was working as a towel girl at Mar-a-Lago. Giuffre, who was then 15, alleged that Epstein’s friend Ghislaine Maxwell had recruited her to be Epstein’s “sex slave.”

Another woman, identified in court records only as “Jane Doe,” alleged during Trump’s presidential campaign that he had raped her at a party at Epstein’s New York mansion in 1993, at the age of 13. A Trump lawyer denied her claim, and the woman later dropped the lawsuit because she was too afraid to go through with it, according to her lawyer, Lisa Bloom.

In her interview with MSNBC, Miami Herald reporter Julie Brown added:

They went to dinner parties at each other’s houses. Trump was also on his plane, probably not as much as a lot of other people because, you know, Trump had his own plane. But they had a lot of social relationships. And the other interesting thing is Trump had a modeling agency, and Epstein also had a stake in a modeling agency, which they suspect he used to bring in underage girls from overseas.

There is a comment in one of the court files where Epstein is quoted as saying, ‘I want to set up my modeling agency the same way Trump set up his modeling agency.’ I don’t know what that means, but it is curious he was trying to do something similar to Trump.

There have been unconfirmed claims that Trump has tried to distance himself from Epstein. According to court documents filed by a lawyer representing three of Epstein’s alleged victims, Trump banned his former friend from Mar-a-Lago because he “sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club.” But the same lawyer later said in an interview that he was unable to confirm that claim, though he did emphasize that Trump was cooperative and helpful as he built his case against Epstein.

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.

Despite the 2002 comment in New York, a lawyer for Trump denied that he and Epstein had a social relationship, according to the New York Times. Another denial came in 2015 when Gawker published Epstein’s contact list, which contained what appeared to be every conceivable number for reaching Trump and his wife. “Mr. Trump only knew Mr. Epstein as Mr. Trump owns the hottest and most luxurious club in Palm Beach, [redacted], and Mr. Epstein would go there on occasion,” the lawyer said.

 
 
 
Karri
10.1  Karri  replied to  Tessylo @10    2 days ago
According to court documents filed by a lawyer representing three of Epstein’s alleged victims, Trump banned his former friend from Mar-a-Lago because he “sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club.”

This has bugged me since the first time I heard it.  If Trump had reason to believe that his friend sexually assaulted an underage girl at his club, why didn't he report it to the authorities?

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Karri @10.1    yesterday
'If Trump had reason to believe that his friend sexually assaulted an underage girl at his club, why didn't he report it to the authorities?'

Because he and Epstein had child raping parties in NY and at Mar-a-Lago.  

 
 
 
Karri
10.1.2  Karri  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.1    19 hours ago

That is what I'm guessing.  And, I am sure, Epstein probably has proof.

 
 
 
freepress
11  freepress    6 days ago

They can all go down, this should never be a partisan issue. Yet we see one political party treading water, peddling excuses and even embracing pedophiles and men who sexually exploit, assault and abuse women. 

The old saying "you know a man by the company he keeps" has never been truer than we see now. Trump and his appointed campaign officials and many of his associates, as well as several Republicans in office across the country are being found out as sex offenders. 

I never defended Clinton for his lying and the Lewinsky affair, but at least she was an adult. Seems like Republicans have so many scandals going on from the Kraft sex scandal connected to Mar-a-Lago to the credible accusations against Trump and the infamous "Gym" Jordan in Ohio. Republican excuse immoral behavior but expect Democrats to be saints.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
11.1  r.t..b...  replied to  freepress @11    6 days ago
and abuse women. 

Children...many children. And you are correct, this is not a partisan issue. Let the indictments come down, the trials held, and the sentences meted out. This is insidious and parsing words over which party is more culpable only detracts from the heinous nature of the offense.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  r.t..b... @11.1    6 days ago

And you are correct, This is not a partisan issue

I'd hate to see what you think is partisan, if you think that post wasn't.

This is a shot at justice long denied.  It's amazing so many people are upset by it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.1    6 days ago

How was freepress's statement partisan?

Who's upset?

We want to see scumbag Epstein and Rump's victims to see justice.   

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @11.1.2    6 days ago

How was freepress's statement partisan?

Thank you for my morning laugh. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
12  Paula Bartholomew    6 days ago

I don't give a rat's ass if they are Dem or Repub.  All who are involved need to be held accountable, no matter what their party affiliation is.

 
 
 
luther28
12.1  luther28  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @12    6 days ago

Yup

 
 
 
CB
13  CB     5 days ago

All who are involved should be held accountable. (I have not read through the list of 84 comments yet.)

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
14  Eat The Press Do Not Read It    4 days ago

Well, Trump, Clinton, Allen Dershowitz, (the liberal attorney turned Trump ARSE licker, and, many, many more high profile arse-wipes are pissing their panties, or, so I am told by my "sauces".

I have to check my appointment books. I may be summoned, too. Living in NYC at various time in the '60s and '70s, I was a played out "player". 

"I can't recall, your honor. It was just one long, hedonistic blurred memory of pleasure, upon on pleasure. I have no recollection. I might have attended those social gatherings".

 
 
 
CB
14.1  CB   replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @14    2 days ago

What-r-ya saying there ETP?!! Don't accept any summons! 'Crusty' old men ought to be somewhere quiet nursing their kneecaps!

 
 
 
Tessylo
14.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @14    yesterday

Clinton is not pissing his pants.  I wouldn't consider Dershowitz a liberal.  

Dershowitz should be worried.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15  Vic Eldred    yesterday

Jill Filipovic needs to learn about the necessity for evidence & due process.

As for Epstein, reporters need to begin their investigative journey by looking at the politicians whom he donated money to.

 
 
 
Tessylo
16  seeder  Tessylo    yesterday

Regarding evidence, there is a shitload of it and they are building on that.  Cases are popping up everywhere including the other places where he has homes.  

'As for Epstein, reporters need to begin their investigative journey by looking at the politicians whom he donated money to.'

Why?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
16.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @16    yesterday

[Delete]

 
 
 
Tessylo
17  seeder  Tessylo    yesterday

Of course I read my own article.  Ms. Ford is credible.  

'Finding out who has enabled & protected Epstein might be related to who he donated money to? Don't you think?'

Nope. 

Also the scumbgag didn't donate all that much to Democrats (I know that is what you're talking about) and many that he did donate to (Democrats) returned it.   

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
17.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @17    yesterday
Ms. Ford is credible.  

Not without EVIDENCE!

You may want to click on the reply button when you reply to a comment.

 
 
 
Tessylo
17.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @17.1    yesterday

'You may want to click on the reply button when you reply to a comment.'

Huh?

Ms. Ford is credible.  

You should going off topic now - Ms. Ford was in the last paragraph of the article - not the topic of this whole seed.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
17.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @17.1.1    yesterday

[delete]

 
 
 
Tessylo
17.1.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @17.1.2    yesterday

She is/was credible.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
17.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @17    yesterday
[delete]
 
 
 
Tessylo
17.2.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @17.2    yesterday

So the legal firm who defended Epstein.

So what?

You need to stop going off topic now.  

Kamala Harris is not the topic of this seed.  Neither are donations by Epstein.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
17.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @17.2.1    yesterday

Then I guess you shouldn't have said:

"Also the scumbgag didn't donate all that much to Democrats (I know that is what you're talking about) and many that he did donate to (Democrats) returned it"

 
 
 
Tessylo
17.2.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @17.2.2    yesterday

I SAID MANY, I DID NOT SAY ALL

 
 
 
Enoch
18  Enoch    yesterday

Dear Friend Tessylo: A political commentator I saw on television siad this. 

"If Bernie Madoff and Harvey Weinstein had a son, he would be Jeffrey Epstein". 

E.

 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



XDm9mm
Freedom Warrior
Raven Wing
Dean Moriarty
Sunshine
Jasper2529
pat wilson
Tacos!
Dismayed Patriot
XXJefferson#51

devangelical
Sean Treacy
Ed-NavDoc
Snuffy


55 visitors