• 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:
So far the only conspiracy theory you have found seems to be Pizza-gate, and you and that author want to exonerate Epstein because Pizza-gate was a baseless conspiracy theory. Comparing your 'but those teenage girls wanted it, they forced themselves on poor Epstein' defense with 9/11 conspiracy theory debunking? That's....very off base.
Click to expand...
Forget the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ NYT author. I brought that article up as an interesting deviation from the uncritical nonsense you usually see in the mainstream media.

If you paid any attention to the thread in the last 10 pages, the conspiracy theory introduced by ONE Epstein accuser and her lawyers is responsible for most of the public interest in this case in 2025. There is no Epstein story without them. And she, Virginia (Roberts) Giuffre, has long been exposed as a fantasist at best, or to be charitable, a woman with severe memory problems.

V

Merged Post in thread 'why the release of names associated with Epstein mean little to absolutely nothing.'

plague311 said:
I will go wherever the ◊◊◊◊ I want whenever the ◊◊◊◊ I want to and no one will tell me differently.

You can argue till you're blue in the face about terrible Epstein has been treated and I, in response, can laugh at you, which I am doing right now.
Click to expand...
Let's back up a bit. For one you claimed "hundreds of victims" dispute what I said. The conspiracy theory that Epstein was a pimp for the pedophile elite doesn't come from hundreds of victims. It came from Virginia Roberts and her lawyers [2009 lawsuit][2014 motion]. If you're thinking of Sarah Ransome's fairy tales or...
 
Last edited:
i don't agree with that at all. a large part of the interest in 2025 has revolved around the contents of the documents leaked and released to the public, the trump admin's handling of them, and trump's bizarre behavior
 
dirtywick said:
i don't agree with that at all. a large part of the interest in 2025 has revolved around the contents of the documents leaked and released to the public, the trump admin's handling of them, and trump's bizarre behavior
Click to expand...
dirtywick, the content of recently released documents are interpreted by the public largely from the CT perspective.

For example...the April 2011 email with Epstein emailing Maxwell about Trump and how he was "the dog that hasn't barked" was just after the Sharon Churcher articles came out. Remember, Churcher was the first journalist who published Virginia Roberts allegations (at the time not naming Andrew or Alan Dershowitz as abusers yet).

This was Prince Andrew's response in the emails
Epstein also emailed with “The Duke”—an apparent alias for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the British royal who was stripped of his titles of prince and Duke of York last month. Epstein forwarded “the Duke” an email in March 2011 about an upcoming Daily Mail story about Giuffre’s allegations against Andrew.
“The Duke” wrote back: “What? I don’t know any of this. How are you responding?”

“Just got it two minutes ago. I’ve asked g lawyers to send a letter,” Epstein said. “I’m not sure how to respond, the only person she didn’t have sex with was Elvis.”


“The Duke” replies, “Please make sure that every statement or legal letter states clearly that I am NOT involved and that I knew and know NOTHING about any of these allegations. I can’t take any more of this my end.”

Two days later, Epstein sends “the Duke” an email, “You ok? these stories are complete and utter fantasy. I don’t know and have never met Al Gore, Clinton was never on the island.. the telephone book is not mine, it was stolen by my houseman that is currently in prison for doing so.”

“The Duke” also wrote to Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s associate who was convicted of sex trafficking, in an email that she forwarded to Epstein, “Hey there! What’s all this? I don’t know anything about this! You must SAY so please. This has NOTHING to do with me. I can’t take any more of this.”
Click to expand...
It's true--Epstein never met Al Gore. In fact Gore was a friend of one of Roberts' attorneys, David Boies.
Bill Clinton was never on the island as I showed in a previous post.

These were private communications and it's funny how most mainstream journalists are portraying these as bombshell evidence that Epstein was conspiring to discredit witnesses. It's a joke dude.
 
Helen said:
Isn't it high time we did something about all these men who, apparently, have no impulse control?
Click to expand...

Just like the argument is that people wouldn't take bribes if they were properly paid, men who can't keep their fingers to themselves are just not getting laid enough by underage bombshell blondes - turns out, as always, it's the women's fault
 
Venom said:
dirtywick, the content of recently released documents are interpreted by the public largely from the CT perspective.

For example...the April 2011 email with Epstein emailing Maxwell about Trump and how he was "the dog that hasn't barked" was just after the Sharon Churcher articles came out. Remember, Churcher was the first journalist who published Virginia Roberts allegations (at the time not naming Andrew or Alan Dershowitz as abusers yet).

This was Prince Andrew's response in the emails

It's true--Epstein never met Al Gore. In fact Gore was a friend of one of Roberts' attorneys, David Boies.
Bill Clinton was never on the island as I showed in a previous post.

These were private communications and it's funny how most mainstream journalists are portraying these as bombshell evidence that Epstein was conspiring to discredit witnesses. It's a joke dude.
Click to expand...

what’s your take on what trump is so worried about

edit

the trump admin is trying to cover up the contents of the investigation, whatever your interpretation of any given email or piece of evidence, which a coverup is ctish by nature. so imo this will appear to have some things in common with a ct, since they are conspiring.

in any case, you still owe thermal a citation from the evidence you presented to make your case.
 
Last edited:
Venom said:
Forget the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ NYT author. I brought that article up as an interesting deviation from the uncritical nonsense you usually see in the mainstream media.
Click to expand...
To combat uncritical nonsense you brought up an author who lacks critical thinking so badly that he compares the actual conviction of a sex traffic ring to Pizza-gate? Well that's not a good plan.
Venom said:
If you paid any attention to the thread in the last 10 pages, the conspiracy theory introduced by ONE Epstein accuser and her lawyers is responsible for most of the public interest in this case in 2025. There is no Epstein story without them. And she, Virginia (Roberts) Giuffre, has long been exposed as a fantasist at best, or to be charitable, a woman with severe memory problems.

V

Merged Post in thread 'why the release of names associated with Epstein mean little to absolutely nothing.'

plague311 said:
I will go wherever the ◊◊◊◊ I want whenever the ◊◊◊◊ I want to and no one will tell me differently.

You can argue till you're blue in the face about terrible Epstein has been treated and I, in response, can laugh at you, which I am doing right now.
Click to expand...
Let's back up a bit. For one you claimed "hundreds of victims" dispute what I said. The conspiracy theory that Epstein was a pimp for the pedophile elite doesn't come from hundreds of victims. It came from Virginia Roberts and her lawyers [2009 lawsuit][2014 motion]. If you're thinking of Sarah Ransome's fairy tales or...
Click to expand...
As dirtywick has already pointed out, Trump is the one who campaigned on promising the release the Epstein files, which had the effect of making the public think there was something in them. And then when he was elected, Trump suddenly said they were a hoax. His AG said they were on her desk one day, then that they didn't exist the next day, and now has announced that she can't release them because they are being used to investigate Democrats.

There's the source of the 2025 interest.
 
Venom said:
dirtywick, the content of recently released documents are interpreted by the public largely from the CT perspective.

For example...the April 2011 email with Epstein emailing Maxwell about Trump and how he was "the dog that hasn't barked" was just after the Sharon Churcher articles came out. Remember, Churcher was the first journalist who published Virginia Roberts allegations (at the time not naming Andrew or Alan Dershowitz as abusers yet).

This was Prince Andrew's response in the emails

It's true--
Epstein never met Al Gore. In fact Gore was a friend of one of Roberts' attorneys, David Boies.
Bill Clinton was never on the island as I showed in a previous post.

These were private communications and it's funny how most mainstream journalists are portraying these as bombshell evidence that Epstein was conspiring to discredit witnesses. It's a joke dude.
Click to expand...
Just going to point out that is an unverifiable claim. Which isn't to say Gore had ever met epstein, just that you can't prove a negative.

That being said, there's tons irony, schadenfreude, fun to be had in all this.
A. Really this mostly being pushed by the craziest folks in the MAGA coalition, the Qanon crowd that thinks there's a ring of pedophile endrocrine vampires among the worlds elites, especially the Dems.
B. What there likely is, is a lot of rich, powerful, and famous folks that hung out with Epstein even after he was a known predator and perv.
C. What there probably isn't is clear evidence that any of those folks actually partook of Epstein's predations. I seriously doubt will find emails where epstein or maxwell say, so and so ◊◊◊◊◊◊ this underage girl.
D. What B and C mean is that folks of every political bent will go fishing for names they don't like and probably find some.
 
wareyin said:
To combat uncritical nonsense you brought up an author who lacks critical thinking so badly that he compares the actual conviction of a sex traffic ring to Pizza-gate? Well that's not a good plan.
Click to expand...
The point is the story has gotten QAnonized. It has so far strayed from the original sex scandal he was arrested and re-prosecuted for it more resembles QAnon now and it animates the public in the way QAnon did. Thanks in part to false accusers and scummy lawyers.

wareyin said:
As dirtywick has already pointed out, Trump is the one who campaigned on promising the release the Epstein files, which had the effect of making the public think there was something in them. And then when he was elected, Trump suddenly said they were a hoax. His AG said they were on her desk one day, then that they didn't exist the next day, and now has announced that she can't release them because they are being used to investigate Democrats.

There's the source of the 2025 interest.
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean we throw away our critical thinking skills and play political football with it.

Stupid people in MAGA wanted names of mostly Democrat "pedophiles" they would find in the Epstein client list Epstein files. Patel and Bongino in particular were rallying the lynch mob for that during the inter-Trump years. They get into office and it turns out the conspiracy theories are mistaken, Epstein had no clients he was selling girls to, etc. which was totally predictable based on the publicly available information on this case. Why did everyone think Epstein was a pimp who kept little girls in cages and sold them to Bill Clinton and Bill Gates though? Because the story got changed over the years and I don't think it's a coincidence that QAnon was hot around that time.
 
dirtywick said:
what’s your take on what trump is so worried about

edit

the trump admin is trying to cover up the contents of the investigation, whatever your interpretation of any given email or piece of evidence, which a coverup is ctish by nature. so imo this will appear to have some things in common with a ct, since they are conspiring.
Click to expand...
I don't know what Trump is worried about. History tells us he doesn't think much before he acts. But if he was worried about anything more than just being mentioned in "the files" I don't see why he'd allow Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, and Pam Bondi on the case in the first place. The standard response is well they'll just fall in line like the rest of MAGA. But it was a gigantic risk if he really was worried about his own illegal activity.

dirtywick said:
in any case, you still owe thermal a citation from the evidence you presented to make your case.
Click to expand...
Dude I cited it. You only have to scroll through 2 or 3 pages after the introduction to the second witness to find it. There is a police interview about that I'll have to dig up again, but I only mentioned that girl to contrast people's reaction to the incident today to how it was back then.
 
Venom said:
I don't know what Trump is worried about. History tells us he doesn't think much before he acts. But if he was worried about anything more than just being mentioned in "the files" I don't see why he'd allow Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, and Pam Bondi on the case in the first place. The standard response is well they'll just fall in line like the rest of MAGA. But it was a gigantic risk if he really was worried about his own illegal activity.
Click to expand...

ok

Dude I cited it. You only have to scroll through 2 or 3 pages after the introduction to the second witness to find it. There is a police interview about that I'll have to dig up again, but I only mentioned that girl to contrast people's reaction to the incident today to how it was back then.
Click to expand...

i did scroll up, last i saw he asked for a page number and you never answered
 
Venom said:
The point is the story has gotten QAnonized. It has so far strayed from the original sex scandal he was arrested and re-prosecuted for it more resembles QAnon now and it animates the public in the way QAnon did. Thanks in part to false accusers and scummy lawyers.
Click to expand...
Q-Anon was/is a bunch of idiots thinking Democrats were harvesting adrenochrome in a basement that didn't even exist. This is an actual real case of a convicted sex offender running a sex trafficking ring with known victims and clients. Comparing the 2 as you and the author keep doing requires throwing away your critical thinking skills. Hell, you have been trying to blame the high school girls that Epstein and others victimized rather than assigning blame to the rich and powerful men who were actually at fault. You are so worried about "false accusers" that you ignore an actual conviction in a court of law.
Venom said:
That doesn't mean we throw away our critical thinking skills and play political football with it.
Click to expand...
Let me know when you would like to use those critical thinking skills, then. Because you're still awfully confused about why the Epstein files are headlines right now, despite the President putting them there daily.
Venom said:
Stupid people in MAGA wanted names of mostly Democrat "pedophiles" they would find in the Epstein client list Epstein files. Patel and Bongino in particular were rallying the lynch mob for that during the inter-Trump years. They get into office and it turns out the conspiracy theories are mistaken, Epstein had no clients he was selling girls to, etc. which was totally predictable based on the publicly available information on this case. Why did everyone think Epstein was a pimp who kept little girls in cages and sold them to Bill Clinton and Bill Gates though? Because the story got changed over the years and I don't think it's a coincidence that QAnon was hot around that time.
Click to expand...
Everyone did not think that "Epstein was a pimp who kept little girls in cages and sold them to Bill Clinton and Bill Gates." Q-Anon did, sure, but they believe some really wacky things. Not even Q-Anon walked around saying those kids forced the sex on the rich guys, though.
 
Venom said:
I don't know what Trump is worried about. History tells us he doesn't think much before he acts. But if he was worried about anything more than just being mentioned in "the files" I don't see why he'd allow Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, and Pam Bondi on the case in the first place. The standard response is well they'll just fall in line like the rest of MAGA. But it was a gigantic risk if he really was worried about his own illegal activity.
Click to expand...
You don't see why he would allow his handpicked lackeys on the case if he was worried about being more than mentioned? What, you think he'd appoint someone who is either competent or has integrity and doesn't owe his or her career and political future to Trump's whims if he was worried about being in the files?
Venom said:
Dude I cited it. You only have to scroll through 2 or 3 pages after the introduction to the second witness to find it. There is a police interview about that I'll have to dig up again, but I only mentioned that girl to contrast people's reaction to the incident today to how it was back then.
Click to expand...
No, you initially gave a bad number (80). Thermal questioned that one, and you came back with a different page number (128). Thermal then pointed out that that page didn't have it either. You never responded after that.
 
Last edited:
i’m cognizant that a bunch of people saw this is a money making opportunity, and others as a way to hurt trump politically. i also am aware that some of the accusers aren’t exactly the most reliable people as well.

but there’s also what appears to be a government cover up of the whole affair and a something in there trump is desperate to keep secret, and way more to the story than epstein worked alone, the end.

i want to know what that is all about. if that appears ct adjacent that’s because they really actually are conspiring to keep it secret. i have some thoughts about what it could be, and it isn’t necessarily trump is a pedo, but idk anything for certain. i am, after all, just some guy with limited amounts of time and energy to dedicate to figuring it out.

imo of course.
 
ahhell said:
Just going to point out that is an unverifiable claim. Which isn't to say Gore had ever met epstein, just that you can't prove a negative.

That being said, there's tons irony, schadenfreude, fun to be had in all this.
A. Really this mostly being pushed by the craziest folks in the MAGA coalition, the Qanon crowd that thinks there's a ring of pedophile endrocrine vampires among the worlds elites, especially the Dems.
B. What there likely is, is a lot of rich, powerful, and famous folks that hung out with Epstein even after he was a known predator and perv.
C. What there probably isn't is clear evidence that any of those folks actually partook of Epstein's predations. I seriously doubt will find emails where epstein or maxwell say, so and so ◊◊◊◊◊◊ this underage girl.
D. What B and C mean is that folks of every political bent will go fishing for names they don't like and probably find some.
Click to expand...
Yes, definitely some irony that the MAGAs have been pushing a mostly imaginary narrative in order to go after the Democrats (Clinton, Gore, Soros) and those liberal “elites”. Those Harvard types with their godless “science”, etc…

On the far left of the spectrum, the same allegations seem to be popular because they lend themselves to the theory that Epstein was a Mossad agent. I mean, why else, why else indeed was Ehud Barak going to his house? There can be no other possible explanation! And please note just how many….errmmm… Zionists (!) were hanging out in his orbit. The fact that Saudis and Israel critics were also there can be disregarded as irrelevant or even evidence that he was trying not to make it too obvious! Yes, that makes sense! Or maybe they were the ones being kompromatted! Yes, even better! Think about it, why did Trump move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (you might think I am just taking the piss, but these are literally the kinds of things you will find in the comments sections under Ryan Grim articles).

Trump doesn’t necessarily have to be a literal PDF file for not wanting too much scrutiny into his relationship with Epstein. The association is probably not particularly good given the long campaign of trying to insinuate that the Democrats were involved in some kind of sordid adrerenochrome ring.

For what it’s worth, I think it is worth paying attention to some of Michael Tracey’s reporting. He is surely correct that the sudden interest and uncritical reporting by much of the media who nearly always refer to their subject as “the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein” needs some pushback and I agree with Venom that as skeptics we cannot just assume the truth of our own impressionistic narratives that have details that don’t add up.

Besides, how often have we seen examples of people sifting through emails and leaping on particular phrasings that they find and declare that that is the take-away message. We saw it with the Climate Change emails and with the Covid origins emails. People will seize on one or two and ignore the broader context and the fact that many of the emails flatly contradict the new narrative.
 
i agree there's def some misinformation and incorrect information floating around out there regarding epstein. i agree also there's probably not emails out there saying anything about girls, epstein had already been busted once before and wasn't an idiot. i also agree that whatever is in there that trump wants to stay hidden isn't necessarily him being a pedophile.

my best guess, today with what i know, is that i think that epstein made a lot of money wooing the rich and powerful over to these banks for the finders fee, and that the banks knew what he was up to and ignored their own warning systems because he brought them a bunch of money, and that hanging around with a guy with a bunch of young hot chicks and maybe you get to ◊◊◊◊ one of them is part of the epstein friendship experience. he was a fraudster, grifting pimp after all.

i also think it's a little curious that epstein wasn't trump's only friend that had a literal sex slave. and that esptein received a birthday book from a bunch of friends where they all teased him about his sex ring. and that trump had the fbi shut down for two weeks to comb through the files. it's curious that trump had a bunch of ties to russia via money laundering and mike johnson said he was a ci against epstein, and boy wouldn't that be embarassing but not pedophillic? i also see that a lot of rich guys, less rich but still rich, at best, didn't care at all because he was funding this or that for them and now they get to act like they don't got a clue about anything.

so yeah there's some things i want to know too, and none of this has anything to do with qanon. i rejent that implication
 
wareyin said:
Q-Anon was/is a bunch of idiots thinking Democrats were harvesting adrenochrome in a basement that didn't even exist.
This is an actual real case of a convicted sex offender running a sex trafficking ring with known victims and clients.
Comparing the 2 as you and the author keep doing requires throwing away your critical thinking skills. Hell, you have been trying to blame the high school girls that Epstein and others victimized rather than assigning blame to the rich and powerful men who were actually at fault. You are so worried about "false accusers" that you ignore an actual conviction in a court of law

Let me know when you would like to use those critical thinking skills, then. Because you're still awfully confused about why the Epstein files are headlines right now, despite the President putting them there daily.

Everyone did not think that "Epstein was a pimp who kept little girls in cages and sold them to Bill Clinton and Bill Gates." Q-Anon did, sure, but they believe some really wacky things. Not even Q-Anon walked around saying those kids forced the sex on the rich guys, though.
Click to expand...
Again, there is no evidence he had clients (who bought sexual services from him). He was the consumer. To the extent that Epstein was a "sex trafficker", he trafficked those young women to himself utilizing his employees and local recruits. The 44 or so women at Palm Beach interviewed by the police and FBI didn't say anything about clients. Epstein was the client.

Attorney Bradley Edwards has represented more than 200 of Epstein's accusers. He said this to ABC in July.
V

Merged Post in thread 'why the release of names associated with Epstein mean little to absolutely nothing.'

dirtywick said:
i would add that
i think there was a sex ring. was it vast, not so sure, define vast i guess. who cares.
did it involve more than epstein and maxwell? yeah.
were those people famous or powerful? seems like it.
was he recording them and blackmailing them? possibly, explains a lot about what happened. was he murdered? doesn't seem like it to me.

now, the questions i have that spring to mind are,
why do a lot of familiar names keep popping up over and over if they have no involvement? why are they moving heaven and earth to cover this up and...
Click to expand...
Worth noting Edwards has toned down his claims about Epstein considerably over the decade. His standard line now is Epstein "farmed out" a few legal women to his close associates, like he claimed in the September press conference. But even that is suspect considering the cases he's alluding to.

What blame should the "rich and powerful" get, exactly? They spoke to Epstein even after his conviction!? What they would have known about his crimes, if they cared to check, is that he once pled guilty to solicitation of prostitution, the victims being a legal adult and a 17 year old. I don't know all the crimes my closest friends have committed, let alone casual friends and acquaintances. When normal people become acquainted through common interests, they tend to lead their relationship with those interests and don't obsessively research each others' lives, especially when we're talking about an older generation who's not as online. I think drunk driving is a far more serious crime, and I've helped friends who've gone through that. Obviously the charges didn't reflect the totality of Epstein's crimes, but again, who besides his family and lawyers do you expect to have known that?

And I didn't say girls "forced sex" on Epstein. I brought them up because I think it's important to acknowledge what occurred, whatever the circumstances. Epstein and his people provided an incentive for young women to go to his mansion. Now if you have ethical objections to that, okay; I have my misgivings about decriminalizing sex work since this scenario is apparently quite common. I'm not going to get dragged into a debate about the age of consent or what's legally permissible in a particular place. Epstein's case was resolved through legally appropriate means. That never stopped people from trying to get him long after he had served his time and registered as a sex offender.
 
his birthday book indicates all his buddies knew way more about him than you're trying to insinuate here. regardless, it seems to me that epstein and trump's common interest was young women. in fact, i would say they actually both have a pretty long history of abusing and exploiting young women. they have that in common and do tend to lead their relationships with those interests.

but yeah, maybe nobody knew nothing about any of it, and esptein had that one run in that time for that underage thing and pretty much was on the up and up since and really didn't do anything wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom