• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged why the release of names associated with Epstein mean little to absolutely nothing.

wareyin said:
This is an example of a policy violation
Click to expand...
Which means it was improper, correct?
wareyin said:
that was not found to be illegal and that the DOJ declined to prosecute over.
Click to expand...
The DOJ declined to prosecute, but nothing in that story indicates that the leak was lawful. Note: not lawful is not synonymous with criminal. I didn't say criminal. I avoided that word for a reason, because I'm not alleging criminality.
wareyin said:
This 2017 memo also has ◊◊◊◊ all to do with your contention that the Biden administration would have leaked information damaging Trump if it benefitted them politically. That 'leak' happened under the Trump administration in 2017.
Click to expand...
That leak happened from an anti-Trump FBI member. Do you think there are no more anti-Trump FBI members, that Comey was the only one?
wareyin said:
The fact remains: The DOJ was legally constrained from releasing Epstein evidence because of the ongoing Ghislaine Maxwell prosecution and appeals.
Click to expand...
That investigation does not limit the FBI's ability to investigate Trump if they found evidence of illegal behavior by Trump among those files.
wareyin said:
The lack of a charge is proof of legal procedure, not proof of innocence.
Click to expand...
It's not proof of innocence in the sense that a lack of evidence doesn't prove innocence. But the lack of an investigation is, in fact, strong evidence that they didn't have any evidence against Trump. Again, YOU are the one alleging that they would act improperly by not investigating criminal acts, not me.
 
plague311 said:
Yes, you tend to do this combined with your newly found ability for super-disingenuousness. Narrow it to the point that it's "technically" correct.
Click to expand...
This is basically an admission on your part that you are incapable of any nuance or depth of thought.
plague311 said:
This has been addressed multiple times. There was an active court case and investigation going on.
Click to expand...
One active case DOES NOT, and never has, precluded other investigations. That's not how it works.
plague311 said:
You and I aren't the same. We're built different.
Click to expand...
That's for ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ sure. I would hate to be compared to you.
 
Venom said:
This case isn't about "molesting kids". It's about a rich guy who lived a double life who, in a short period in the 1990s and 2000s, received sexualized massages from young women around Palm Beach and New York, some of whom were underage, in exchange for money.
Click to expand...

Uhm, he didn't lead a double life. This was the bulk of his life and it was pretty well known. He was prosecuted and given a sweetheart deal for it. Are you seriously downplaying sex trafficking right now? Are you defending Epstein's behavior?
Venom said:
When it came to those high schoolers in Palm Beach, many lied about their age or used fake IDs to get in the house. That's prostitution. And prostitution is illegal in the U.S. for the most part and there will be some technically underage females who get caught up in it.
Click to expand...

Are you...are you now victim blaming? Saying the young girls, not only wanted this, but went out of their way to be molested and trafficked? I know I have to be missing something because if that is what you're saying that's...well that's something. I don't even know what to call it. I'm hoping this is like sarcasm, or a poe or something.
Venom said:
Problem is the case has gotten QAnonized over the years, in large part due to plaintiff's lawyers and one of the prominent accusers, as well as advocacy journalists who reframed the scandal in Palm Beach into sex-trafficking to prominent people, with Epstein as the pimp.
Click to expand...

Supported by the information we have available. What Epstein did was horrific.
Venom said:
Showing up "in the files" itself doesn't mean anything. It's ragebait.
Click to expand...

Already addressed, but showing up in the files should at least warrant the question of "why was the name in the files?"
Venom said:
Here's a document filed in 2016 and only released unredacted in January 2024 (p. 6). What it should have done is debunk the rumors that Clinton went to Epstein's island or that star witness Virginia Roberts ever met him. But it didn't. Because nobody seems to read "the files" they want released.
Click to expand...

Clinton means nothing to me. If he did anything inappropriate then he should suffer the consequences. If he didn't do anything wrong, then cool. As zigg has pointed out, if he hasn't been arrested by now then I guess he's good to go.
Venom said:
In any case, Roberts denied wrongdoing by Clinton on multiple occasions. But the fact that he was even mentioned in past filings was enough for speculation like this, from pres. candidate Donald Trump no less. Red meat for QAnontards who have hijacked the story.
Click to expand...

Ok.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
This is basically an admission on your part that you are incapable of any nuance or depth of thought.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. It's laughing at the fact that you have to drag people into the weeds. Trust me, I understand everything you're saying even when you're spitting stupid arguments at me about things I've never claimed. Insulting me might work better if you had a decent handle on reading comprehension.
Ziggurat said:
One active case DOES NOT, and never has, precluded other investigations. That's not how it works.
Click to expand...

Cool, again, never said it did. I said that was the reason Biden didn't use the documents. For the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thousandth time, because you're either too stupid or ignorant to have seen me write it before, I'm not claiming Trump did something illegal. I'm not saying he even did something worthy of opening an investigation. So quit ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ bringing it up to me. I don't give a ◊◊◊◊.
Ziggurat said:
That's for ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ sure. I would hate to be compared to you.
Click to expand...

Finally something we can agree on. I take great pride in not being in a cult, and being able to avoid having to defend a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ pervert on a messaging forum. I can't imagine my life being that pathetic, and me having to sell out my morality like that.

Good for you for lacing that boot up and wearing it though.
 
Last edited:

pam bondi gives up the game already by saying they will not be releasing the full files due to an ongoing investigation into the dems only.

this is, of course, after their statement earlier in the year that there was nothing in the files to warrant any investigation at all. oh wait, she stuttered, new info came out i guess

anyway, nothing suspicious here. just some normal rich guys banging barely legals and once in a while a barely illegal which is fine and not at all gross. they lied about their age. if they even did it, it's a dem hoax after all. but the dems did it, which is not the hoax part i guess. which is why every time it's brought up trump walks the other way shaking and sweating.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
Uhm, he didn't lead a double life. This was the bulk of his life and it was pretty well known. He was prosecuted and given a sweetheart deal for it. Are you seriously downplaying sex trafficking right now? Are you defending Epstein's behavior?
Click to expand...
He was known for having young women around as girlfriends, as assistants, proteges, and sex partners. A Hugh Hefner type of guy. That was what was publicly known forever about him. Stop conflating it with the high schoolers at Palm Beach.

plague311 said:
Are you...are you now victim blaming? Saying the young girls, not only wanted this, but went out of there way to be molesting and trafficked? I know I have to be missing something because if that is what you're saying that's...well that's something. I don't even know what to call it. I'm hoping this is like sarcasm, or a poe or something.
Click to expand...
Read the the records in the possession of the State Attorney at Palm Beach. Read the 2020 OPR report.

TL;DR version is the women in his criminal case ranged in age from late teens to early twenties, many of them recruited without his direct involvement by other women, some in fact did lie to gain access so they could get $300 for a massage. That is a big reason the case against him wasn't as strong then. Many women did not like the publicity or they refused to testify against Epstein and even leaked investigative info to him. Girlfriends, boyfriends, parents, Epstein's assistants, knowingly or unknowingly were entangled in the trafficking web, by legal definition of trafficking, this relatively novel concept at the time. That's why those "co-conspirators" were given immunity from prosecution. The co-conspirators clause in his non-prosecution agreement was later reinterpreted by conspiracy theorists, evidently the ones you get your information from, as these prominent associates like Bill Clinton and Bill Gates and such. It's nonsense.

They did renege on that non-prosecution agreement in order to get Ghislaine Maxwell. There were serious issues with that trial. But the point is if they want Epstein's co-conspirators, the logical thing to do knowing what actually happened with underage girls at Palm Beach is to investigate these obscure assistants and boyfriends and housekeepers.

plague311 said:
Already addressed, but showing up in the files should at least warrant the question of "why was the name in the files?"
Click to expand...
Sure but my point is and will always be NOBODY GIVES A ◊◊◊◊ about investigating WHY other than a small handful of investigative journalists who are constantly shamed for asking the most basic questions about the conspiracy theory. All of the mainstream media, most of the alternative media, and most of our elected officials are hooked on the QAnon narrative.
 
i'll say there's thousands of pages of reports you linked to in that post. you'll have to help me narrow down what to look for or provide some quotes from them. i don't really have time to comb through all that without some direction at least.
 
dirtywick said:
i'll say there's thousands of pages of reports you linked to in that post. you'll have to help me narrow down what to look for or provide some quotes from them. i don't really have time to comb through all that without some direction at least.
Click to expand...
Imagine the absolute state of having an opinion, while boasting that you can't be bothered to even read the reports.

International Skeptics Forum? More like International Saps Forum, amirite?
 
theprestige said:
Imagine the absolute state of having an opinion, while boasting that you can't be bothered to even read the reports.

International Skeptics Forum? More like International Saps Forum, amirite?
Click to expand...

Oh good, theprestige is on his high horse again with another contradicting statement.
theprestige said:
Even a guilty man deserves a fair trial, even in the court of public opinion.
Click to expand...

Says who? Why?
 
Rebecca Watson is in the Epstein Files.


Transcript at the link:
Look. I know that on this channel, I often criticize prominent people for actions that I find detestable: accepting dark money and failing to disclose it, producing propaganda for Big Oil, silencing critics with phony libel lawsuits, and on and on. And inevitably in the comments there will be people saying that I’m a hypocrite because nobody’s perfect and one day someone will air out MY dirty laundry and reveal to the world that I’m not what I seem.

Well, after several decades in the public eye, I am finally faced with this exact scenario. Emails I sent fourteen years ago, which I expected to remain private, have just been made public by a congressional committee.

That’s right: I’m in the Epstein files.
Click to expand...
 
plague311 said:
I don't dispute it. The hundreds of victims dispute it though and the evidence of what happened on the island. The documented evidence.
Click to expand...
Most victims have not even gone public. When plaintiffs lawyers helped set up the Epstein victims compensation program, there was apparently no adversarial process to determine who was a victim and the nature of their abuse from Epstein. Is it wrong to ask why or explore that further? Particularly if we're purely fact finding and aren't personally invested in the result? In fact, besides a small handful of public accusers, most of the Palm Beach high schoolers that the story revolves around are unknown. And they are increasingly forgotten, which, to be fair, is what a lot of them wanted. What concerns me is the handful of women invited on to all these shows and documentaries and news segments whose claims are uninvestigated, because they are free to say almost anything.

plague311 said:
It does also beg the question, if he and Maxwell did nothing wrong then why is Maxwell in prison?
Click to expand...
Maxwell is in prison as a co-conspirator of Epstein for procuring minors for Epstein. That's what they alleged, that's what she was convicted of.

But her indictment and trial occurred in climate of paranoia and conspiracism. "Epstein didn't kill himself", "release the list!", etc. Out of supposedly hundreds (even thousands by some accounts) of victims, the prosecution produced FOUR, two were disqualified right away cause nothing they alleged was illegal, but were allowed to testify anyway, three used pseudonyms, as if they were being hunted down by NWO assassins two decades later (They got Epstein, after all). It raises the fair question--what would've happened if all of the grown witnesses testified openly, faces and names known, Anouska De Georgiou (Kate) and Annie Farmer were not allowed to testify, and there was a more objective jury?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom