Poll: Epstein case accmplices

[Bullseye]

There is no evidence what you say is true

There is no evidence you'd believe it if it were presented. I'll leave you to your derangement now.

 

[vegas giants]

There is no evidence you'd believe it if it were presented. I'll leave you to your derangement now.

I'm glad you agree there is no evidence.

Thanks.

Dismissed

 

[Cardinal]

So there are rumors and reports left and right and old pictures going back decades of powerful people smiling and shaking hands with Epstein. The right are gleefully predicting Clinton will finally get his comeuppance and the Left's media are are pointing fingers at Trump.

So a simple poll to gauge the DP community's opinion...

Both have had uncomfortably close relationships with Epstein, and that's while he was operating what everybody was calling "Pedophile Island."

They already look pretty dirty, and if Epstein starts naming accomplices, then I don't think either of them are going to come out smelling very good. The only difference between Clinton and Trump is that Clinton would be absolutely destroyed publicly if this blew up on him, whereas nothing would change with Trump one iota.

 

[Amelia]

Google it. I've wasted enough time in this lunacy.

I googled for it. I didn't find it.

Color me surprised that you can't find a link either.

 

[Cardinal]

I don't know if we can say that either Clinton or Trump actually partook in the same actions as Epstein. I believe that both knew what he was doing, however.

And neither Trump nor Clinton will see any repercussions from this.

I disagree at least in one respect. Clinton can kiss book deals and speeches goodbye. But yes, there will be no repercussions for Trump.

 

[Bullseye]

I googled for it. I didn't find it.

Color me surprised that you can't find a link either.

Learn to google better.

 

[uptower]

Both have had uncomfortably close relationships with Epstein, and that's while he was operating what everybody was calling "Pedophile Island."

They already look pretty dirty, and if Epstein starts naming accomplices, then I don't think either of them are going to come out smelling very good. The only difference between Clinton and Trump is that Clinton would be absolutely destroyed publicly if this blew up on him, whereas nothing would change with Trump one iota.

True dat: his base are locked in and won't budge - in other words, along with Roy Moore he can count on the pedo-vote.

 

[Bullseye]

I'm glad you agree there is no evidence.

Thanks.

Dismissed

Sorry for writing about your comprehension level.

 

[vegas giants]

Sorry for writing about your comprehension level.

You have been dismissed for lack of evidence

 

[Amelia]

Learn to google better.

Yep. You got nuthin'.

Buh bye.

 

[Bullseye]

Yep. You got nuthin'.

Buh bye.

Promise? :clap:

 

[vegas giants]

Promise? :clap:

Dismissed

 

[Cardinal]

I googled for it. I didn't find it.

Color me surprised that you can't find a link either.

Alan Garten, an attorney for the Trump Organization, has said Trump had “no relationship” with Epstein.
....

The relationship, whatever it was, appears to have cooled by 2007. Garten said in an interview Monday that although Epstein was never a member of Mar-a-Lago, Trump prohibited him from visiting the club around that time, as a reaction to criminal charges that had been filed against Epstein.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4e9a5ed7c680

I'm keeping this one solidly in the unconfirmed rumor drawer for now because, for all I know, the rumor that Trump banned Epstein from Mara Lago may have been started by Trump himself. If only just in the WaPo story, the claim is made by an attorney for Trump Org. I'm giving this a 75% chance of being false.

If the banning turns out to be true, however, then according to the Washington Post, it was in reaction to Epstein's sex abuse legal troubles. But that doesn't mean Trump is innocent; it only tells us that he believed Epstein had become too radioactive to continue associating with.

 

[Bullseye]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4e9a5ed7c680

I'm keeping this one solidly in the unconfirmed rumor drawer for now because, for all I know, the rumor that Trump banned Epstein from Mara Lago may have been started by Trump himself. If only just in the WaPo story, the claim is made by an attorney for Trump Org. I'm giving this a 75% chance of being false.

If the banning turns out to be true, however, then according to the Washington Post, it was in reaction to Epstein's sex abuse legal troubles. But that doesn't mean Trump is innocent; it only tells us that he believed Epstein had become too radioactive to continue associating with.

Fair enough, Same story is repeated in many other media outlets - could come from same root source. WaPo is pretty solidity rooted in the LW dugout.

 

[Amelia]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4e9a5ed7c680

I'm keeping this one solidly in the unconfirmed rumor drawer for now because, for all I know, the rumor that Trump banned Epstein from Mara Lago may have been started by Trump himself. If only just in the WaPo story, the claim is made by an attorney for Trump Org. I'm giving this a 75% chance of being false.

If the banning turns out to be true, however, then according to the Washington Post, it was in reaction to Epstein's sex abuse legal troubles. But that doesn't mean Trump is innocent; it only tells us that he believed Epstein had become too radioactive to continue associating with.

That's a different flavor from what Bullseye said ... but it actually would put Trump in a better light than what Bullseye said. Banning him in response to actual criminal charges is better than "kicking him out of a party for molesting a young girl" and then banning him, with no indication that he reported Epstein to the proper authorities. So that's why I wanted the link. Well, that's one of the reasons I wanted the link.

 

[hanger4]

Just a point of context to the “young girls” comment. Trump was in his 50s when he said that. Isn’t it at all plausible he was referring to women in their 20s or 30s? I’m in my 50s now and I certainly consider 20 year old women to be very young.

Agreed, "young girls" is a relative term, underage girls is the proper term to use anything else is hyperbole. Also the term pedophile is being used, pedophilia is concerning prepubescent children, also the incorrect term. I've read no reports claiming prepubescent children.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

... no court in the country will cut him any slack this time.

Ummmm...

He recused himself? Yeah, I heard that he recused himself, don't believe it for a second.
I don't believe Barr worries about having said that in the least.

He might SAY he recused himself but I'd bet money he's got tentacles reaching out to every single plaintiff in the case.

 

[Cardinal]

Fair enough, Same story is repeated in many other media outlets - could come from same root source. WaPo is pretty solidity rooted in the LW dugout.

Left leaning or not, WaPo is not out of line for simply quoting a Trump Org. lawyer. At least the reader is aware that the claim is made by somebody who is clearly biased.

 

[Dragonlady]

I'm kicking off with number five: either or both knew. Trump has said as much ("some of the girls were on the younger side") and Clinton can't not have heard the same rumors. I guess there's a sort of don't ask, don't tell policy among the rich and powerful.

We're going to know in the trial anyway. This is more of a panic-o-meter.

There have been three lawsuits against Trump started by one of Epstein's purported victims, who claims that Trump tied her up at Epstein's apartment and the two of them took turns raping her, when she was 13. The first two suits were dismissed because they weren't properly filed or served, but the third suit was withdrawn by the girl after death threats against her family. The filings included an Affidavit by one of Epstein's employees confirming the girl's account.

Trumpbots and Russian posters have been going bat**** crazy since the Epstein indictment dropped trying to deflect to the Clintons, but I think Trump faces the greater exposure.

The Clintons have always stayed on the right side of the law, and they know that if they sneeze the wrong way, there will be an investigation. But Trump has always thought himself above the law, and has never been careful in his private life.

I'm Canadian, within the past five years ago we had a case in Toronto, where a prominent Toronto television host was accused of beating and raping a woman. He got off on the charges, but numerous women came forward with similar stories, all involving beatings and rapes. It seems he gets off on really rough sex, and he claimed he thought these were "consenual" affairs. The CBC where he worked, claimed to know nothing of his behaviours and were shocked, shocked, I tell you, by the charges. Except that CBC management had ignored numerous complaints of sexual harassment by women who worked with him, and had to bring in an employment mediator to deal with the "toxic work environment" on his show.

My oldest daughter moved to Toronto in the mid 1990's, and worked in and around the movie/entertainment business in Toronto. When news of this man's arrest hit the news, and the CBC denied knowing about his sexual predilications or his abuse of women, she laughed, and said the first thing she heard when she moved to Toronto was to never be in a situation where she was alone with this man. That he was a PIG and she would end up seriously hurt or injured. Now if a 25 year old girl new in town knew who and what this guy was, how did people who had known and worked with him for 20 years, not have heard any of it.

This is why there is a #MeToo and #time'sup movement. Because people knew. They've always known about these kinds of men. And they let it happen because they were making an awful lot of money off them.

 

[uptower]

If the banning turns out to be true, however, then according to the Washington Post, it was in reaction to Epstein's sex abuse legal troubles. But that doesn't mean Trump is innocent; it only tells us that he believed Epstein had become too radioactive to continue associating with.

Indeed the idea occurred to me that if one chooses to interpret it that way, it makes Trump look more guilty, especially if the timing was suspicious.

 

[Cardinal]

That's a different flavor from what Bullseye said ... but it actually would put Trump in a better light than what Bullseye said. Banning him in response to actual criminal charges is better than "kicking him out of a party for molesting a young girl" and then banning him, with no indication that he reported Epstein to the proper authorities. So that's why I wanted the link. Well, that's one of the reasons I wanted the link.

I think it's the best possible story that Trump's lawyer could have created for him. Of course, I trust the source to the degree that is appropriate, which is basically none at all.

 

[uptower]

The Clintons have always stayed on the right side of the law, and they know that if they sneeze the wrong way, there will be an investigation. But Trump has always thought himself above the law, and has never been careful in his private life.

No and yes: I categorize the Clintons as 'somewhat dodgy', whereas Trump is 'considerably shady'.

 

[Cardinal]

Ummmm...

He recused himself? Yeah, I heard that he recused himself, don't believe it for a second.
I don't believe Barr worries about having said that in the least.

He might SAY he recused himself but I'd bet money he's got tentacles reaching out to every single plaintiff in the case.

He recused himself from the Florida district, but not from the New York district. At least that's the latest info I have.

 

[hanger4]

Re: Poll: Epstein case accmplic[QUOTE="Amelia, post: 1070313968, member: 24499"]You have a link for that?[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Ames

There is no evidence what you say is true

You have a link for that?

Yes there is evidence, whether or not it's solid evidence I don't know, but it is in court documents.

Trump barred Jeffrey Epstein from Mar-a-Lago over sex assault: court docs

 

[Bullseye]

Left leaning or not, WaPo is not out of line for simply quoting a Trump Org. lawyer. At least the reader is aware that the claim is made by somebody who is clearly biased.

Some people value honesty above bias. Making wild "he works for Trump therefore he's lying" is intellectual dishonesty.