This obviously the correct lens but note that the 2008 plea deal was so neutered by the time of settlement it made it somewhat easy to stay friends with him.
This is of course ontop of the 2006 Florida prostitution charge though.
Especially when Epstein was paying off journalists at the NYT and intimidating other outlets.
But point being those people that were friends with him had to know. Whether it was socially acceptable by the elite because the public wasn't aware isn't very relevant.
I read the gp as saying you should just check the sources, not defending.
I mean here's a weird example. Searching Donald Trump there's the headline
(1994-06 Wexner Mansion NYC)
Donald Trump forced to perform oral sex and physically abused 13-year-old female plaintiff and 12-year-old female.
Like that sounds weird... DT forced to rape? That doesn't make sense to me. The longer summary reads
A declaration from Tiffany Doe (pseudonym) testifying that she witnessed Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump sexually abuse a 13-year-old girl and other minors during parties from 1990-2000 in New York City.
It references House Oversight 025937. The actual document looks much more like that summary. Here's a snippet
7. It was at these series of parties that I personally witnessed the Plaintiff being forced to perform various sexual acts with Donald J. Trump and Mr. Epstein. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein were advised that she was 13 years old.
It gets worse so if you want to look further it's Case 1:16-cv-04642 Document 1-2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 2.
So far the paragraph summaries seem to be accurate in my poking around but the headlines are mixing ordering and have other weird errors like this. Anyways, always good to check when things are as serious as this...
13. I personally witnessed Mr. Epstein physically threaten the life and well-being of the Plaintiff if she ever revealed the details of the physical and sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of Mr. Epstein or any of his guests.
14. I personally witnessed Defendant Trump telling the Plaintiff that she shouldn't ever say anything if she didn't want to disappear like the 12-year-old female Maria, and that he was capable of having her whole family killed.
15. After leaving the employment of Mr. Epstein in the year 2000, I was personally threatened by Mr. Epstein that I would be killed and my family killed as well if I ever disclosed any of the physical and sexual abuse of minor females that I had personally witnessed by Mr. Epstein or any of his guests.
Doesn't make it true but this seems to be consistent across different accounts and serves as a possible explanation to your note as well as why so many people might have quiet for so long.
I think it is less about if he actually made any hits on people but rather that the threat existed. The question is not "has such threats been followed through" but "does the person being threatened have a reasonable belief that the threat is legitimate."
To that, I think the answer is an unambiguous "yes". If someone who is rich, well connected, and successfully covering up heinous crimes at a large scale, then yes, I believe a person threatened has a reasonable belief that such a threat is credible.
Seriously, we are talking about a world famous pedo who was pimping out girls to presidents, royals, billionaires, and when he was finally convicted he was only charged with prostitution and got a extremely light sentence that everyone now calls a "sweetheart deal." So years after does a witness have a credible belief that such a man can post a significant threat to her and her family?
Do you seriously believe that no person has any reason to fear Epstein? I find that laughable considering how much conspiracy there is about him being murdered and how the accusations are towards varying high profile people. You're trying to say that Epstein is a puppy dog that's all bark and no bite?
I agree, nothing is proven but it's absolutely laughable to claim that such a threat is not credible.
Not really. After Epstein got convicted in 2008, he set about trying to rehabilitate his image, to be seen as a philanthropist, a patron of science, and (perversely) a supporter of women and girls. He hired reputation management consultants to help carry out the project, with one of the models they used being Mike Milken (of Drexel infamy), who ultimately secured a pardon from Trump. A lot of prominent people, knowingly or not, served as "useful idiots" in this project, often due to financial incentives that were not wholly selfish. For example, the MIT and Harvard scientists whose labs and research he funded, and who visited his island for science-themed retreats. Clinton was probably another of Epstein's useful idiots, being lured in through his Clinton Global Initiative and the promise that Epstein, with his ample wealth, could help greatly expand it.
A significant number of Trump associates actually went to jail for Russia-related business, and I don't think it's been entirely ruled out for himself. Of course, it has not yet been proven either and I doubt it will be in his lifetime.
You don't need to trust the media or care about his views on immigration to know that the guy got 34 felony convictions (for attempting to cover up mere infidelity with a porn star), that he's lost a lawsuit regarding sexual assault claims, and that sexual assault claims against him go back to the 70s and involving at least 28 women and him walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants.
Then there's the non-sexual stuff. If you want to say it's "shady" being twice impeached, or hanging his own arrest photo next to the oval office, or the huge number of business lawsuits, or the way he's now able to sue himself and win, or that he's now pardoning convicted co-conspirators etc., that's on you: as the quote goes, democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
The possibility of pee tapes was funny, but did anyone really care if golden shower was a liquid reference or a "24 carat (plated)" like his redecoration of the oval office?
> Show me where it’s a felony to use your own money to cover up an affair?
The "falsified business records" bit, for which he was convicted under felony charges. Those bits, where he was convicted as a felon, are what makes it a felony.
Likewise, it wasn't a crime for Bill Clinton to have an affair with any of the White House interns (AFAICT Paula Jones was before then), but then Clinton went and lied about affairs under oath, which was.
There's a reason why I put emphasis on "mere infidelity".
> My esteemed colleagues in the bar would be outraged if a legal theory half as aggressively creative as this one was brought against a gang murderer. They would leap at the chance to handle the appeals pro bono.
The fact he was convicted says otherwise on the first part, and the observation that he's still having trouble getting competent lawyers to defend him even now he's back in office speaks poorly of either your esteemed colleagues or of your estimation of them.
> what fundamentally differentiates people who simply don’t like Trump for all the legitimate reasons to dislike Trump from the people who go full blown Rachel Maddow is deep-seated liberal universalism
You should know this isn’t me.
I was honestly optimistic for this Presidency. The corruption and lawlessness were annoying. But the masked ICE agents openly defying the law struck a nerve. And now we’re seeing folks like Megyn Kelly advocate for dismissing child rape.
That Trump is acting guilty, and has taken this from a fringe conspiracy theory to something worth considering, is almost besides the point. My condemnation is of the partisan dismissal of the crime per se, not Trump’s involvement.
> But the masked ICE agents openly defying the law struck a nerve.
The ICE agents are masked because people think they can violently interfere with federal law enforcement. People voted for the guy that promised mass deportations, and the government is entitled to carry out that policy and respond to violent resistance to those operations.
Nobody is “dismissing” Epstein’s crimes. Megyn is reacting to people trying to smear Trump as a “child rapist” and “pedophile” based on zero evidence.
> The ICE agents are masked because people think they can violently interfere with federal law enforcement
Actually it is wearing masks interferes with legal law enforcement. You know how we know, because FBI told ICE that. Because now anyone can wear a mask and pretend to be ice to kidnap people. That really interferes with law enforcement man
> ICE agents are masked because people think they can violently interfere with federal law enforcement
Not a problem for all other law enforcement. The precedent being set--that masked men can disappear people from the street--is dangerous and un-American.
> People voted for the guy that promised mass deportations, and the government is entitled to carry out that policy and respond to violent resistance to those operations
Sure. None of this requires a mask.
Also, the only injuries ICE officers have suffered have been due to e.g. being dragged by a car [1]. None have been due to someone tracking them down ex post facto.
> Megyn is reacting to people trying to smear Trump as a “child rapist” and “pedophile” based on zero evidence
She argued Jeffrey Epstein is not technically a pedophile. (A defense she similarly mounts with zero evidence.) She described a 15-year old as "barely legal," which is nonsense and disgusting and deeply unsettling given she literally has a daughter around that age.
And until now, Trump has been going out of his way to block the government from fulfilling his campaign promise around the Epstein files. (After his AG lied that they don't exist.) As a result, it took Democrats in the Congress releasing the e-mails to get Larry Summers to step down [2].
Yes it is. Trump cut ties because Epstein was poaching employees. That was confirmed by the employee in question, Virginia Giuffre, who always maintained that she was a normal masseuse at Mar-a-Lago: https://abcnews.go.com/US/virginia-giuffre-trump-jeffrey-eps...
You swallowed "Trump cut ties" whole, on a thread discussing messages that prove that wasn't the case. Wow. If I'm ever accused of dozens of felonious depravities I'mma call you.
I wrote “cut ties” because that’s the wording used by the post I was responding to. My point is to respond to the innuendo that Guiffre was providing some sort of sexual services at Mar-a-Lago when she consistently maintained that Trump wasn’t involved in anything like that. Please point me to the email that “proves that wasn’t the case.”
What I don't understand is the pretense of defending Trump at all. I mean, it's clear that even if you watched Trump assault a 13 year old with your own eyes, it wouldn't impact your support for him. Why pretend that there is some moral divide between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump in this when you can just say "I support Donald Trump no matter what, and despite Bill Clinton no matter what"?
Personally I've never been shocked that some of the most powerful people in the world like to go to a private sex-island where they could do as they pleased. That's precisely the incentive to becoming so incredibly powerful in the first place: to be able to pursue personal gain with increasingly less consequences.
Clinton at least has not been in office for 25 years. Trump is still in office. Surely the priority should be to get the bad people out of institutions asap...?
Pre-2009 records on Trump there are nasty. One example:
> ... It was at these series of parties that I personally witnessed the Plaintiff being forced to perform various sexual acts with Donald J. Trump and Mr. Epstein. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein were advised that she was 13 years old. I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the Plaintiff was forced to have with Mr. Trump during this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr. Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas to stop.
Only difference between Clinton and Trump is that Trump is still president.
That's a lie that has already been proven false since Trump's entire trip was documented.
Love how we have actual evidence against people but discussions always devolve into some conspiracy related to Trump.
----
Based on the available evidence, there is no confirmed meeting between Trump and Epstein in 2017. While both men were in Palm Beach during Thanksgiving week 2017, there is no direct evidence they met.
Here's what we know about their presence in Palm Beach that week:
- Trump was at Mar-a-Lago from November 21-26, 2017
- Epstein owned a mansion in Palm Beach and was known to be in the area
- Epstein mentioned both Trump and himself being "down there" (Palm Beach) in an email exchange on November 23, 2017
While there were claims circulating online that Trump spent Thanksgiving with Epstein in 2017, these claims have been thoroughly investigated and found to be unsubstantiated
Trump's official calendar for that week shows his activities included:
- Thanking military members on a virtual call
- Visiting Coast Guard members at Lake Worth Inlet Station
- Playing golf with Tiger Woods and Dustin Johnson
Even if Trump cut off ties with Epstein in 2017, he should clearly be held accountable for his past actions. Here's 2 pretty damning emails:
---
Epstein to Maxwell 2011-04-02
> i want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump... [VICTIM] spent hours at my house with him ,, he has never once been mentioned. police chief. etc. im 75% there
---
Epstein to Ruemmler 2018-08-23
> you see, i know how dirty donald is. my guess is that non lawyers ny biz people have no idea. what it means to have your fixer flip
With any other administration I would have granted you that leap in logic, but we already learned, three years ago, from Stephanie Grisham that he held off the books meetings specifically to circumvent record keeping laws. So I think a slightly higher standard of evidence is needed before we dismiss the possibility that he met with the pedo who likely had dirt on him.
The Bill Clinton entity is interesting.
> 2009: Bill Clinton discontinued association with Jeffrey Epstein
> 2010: Jeffrey Epstein provided flights on jets to Bill Clinton
> 2010-2011: Jeffrey Epstein traveled via private aircraft with Bill Clinton
> 2011: Ghislaine Maxwell piloted helicopter for Bill Clinton
> 2014: Bill Clinton alleged presence at sex parties
> 2015: Bill Clinton distanced relationship from Jeffrey Epstein
Wasn't very good at discontinuing the relationship it seems.
Guess there is precedent for him lying about sexual activities though.
I think a sentiment analysis between the friendliness and social meetups between Epstein and other individuals would be useful.
Who were his friends after 2008 when he was first convicted?
Those who were still friends with him after 2008 were in on it or guilty by association, if not legally, socially.
Friends like Reid Hoffman and Larry Summers...
> From: Reid Hoffman
> Sent: 7/6/2015 5:04:31 PM
> To: jeffrey E. [jeeyacation@gmail.com]
> Subject: RE: ICYMI
> slow progress.
> planning to see you in August.
> Hope you're well.
Larry Summers has too many to list. Doesn't look good though digging through them.