What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Jeffrey Epstein: there is definitely nothing to see here folks, I am feeling very sleepy, I think I'll take a nice nap. (2 Viewers)

Was it widely known that Epstein was a molester?  Isn't it possible he was known as just a ladies man who had a "type"?

I'm not sure it's OK to pass judgement on acquaintances on nothing more than that.  Trump & Clinton are in the cross hairs, and for what?  All we know is they were in the same social circles (i.e. rich guy circles) with Epstein, and they have histories of philandering.

I mean, I really hope that if any of my friends get busted for something, no one points fingers at me.

 
moleculo said:
Was it widely known that Epstein was a molester?  Isn't it possible he was known as just a ladies man who had a "type"?

I'm not sure it's OK to pass judgement on acquaintances on nothing more than that.  Trump & Clinton are in the cross hairs, and for what?  All we know is they were in the same social circles (i.e. rich guy circles) with Epstein, and they have histories of philandering.

I mean, I really hope that if any of my friends get busted for something, no one points fingers at me.
Click to expand...
Did you see the lawsuit that was filed naming Trump and Epstein as co-defendants? Where testimony was included from multiple folks corroborating the assaults/rapes?

http://thememoryhole2.org/blog/doe-v-trump

Another source:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/310835987/Donald-Trump-Lawsuit

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It’s pizzagatish to imagine pedophiliac cabalists trading cabinet posts for (ugh), But it’s something else to realize this is how power works, or at least in this administration.
Click to expand...
It's weird that this suggestion is made.

It's pretty reasonable to expect that IF there was shady business going on here, and certainly there seems to be, that a simple "We're going to look out for you" would suffice for someone who helped this mess go away.

What does it mean for folks you helped protect to look out for you?  It could be a ton of different things.  

I have no clue if this is how it went down, but it's not pizzagatish to suggest that if Acosta did this for powerful people, that said powerful people would look to return a favor when they had the chance.

Is it not odd that Acosta is even in this administration at all?

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
You'd think all these guys that lost their mind over Pizza Gate would wait for some facts to come out before claiming who is or isn't involved.  
Click to expand...
:mellow:

Who exactly lost their mind over Pizza Gate? I thought the Hillary and Podesta defenders were the ones calling for the facts to come out before accepting that there was a kiddie sex trafficking ring supposedly operating out of Comet Ping Pong basement to be accepted as gospel. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As an exercise in rampant speculation suppose the photos recovered were probably covered by a sufficient warrant.  Suppose this as the feds are pretty good at their jobs.  Now suppose they were taken by hidden cameras.  Suppose they were taken surreptitiously by Epstein hoping to obtain blackmail material.  Suppose they show a rich, famous, powerful person engaged in illegal activities.  Would that persons lawyer be able to suppress those photos, and any investigation springing therefrom, citing that person's privacy expectations?  Does one have a privacy expectation in a private home, apparently alone, when engaged in illegal activity?  What about if there is a palpable claim that they were unaware they were engaged in illegal activity as opposed to simply morally questionable activity?

 
timschochet said:
Thanks.
Click to expand...
I apologize for my use of the expression which got this tangent going.  I see nothing to be gained from reopening your prior position, since changed.  That was not my intent.  My intent was to broach the well healed being able to flee justice in matters such as this and nothing more.  The rest of that former discussion was long since, I believe, put to rest.

 
Mr. Ham said:
Thank you for pointing this out, it’s an important fact, and both establishes that this isn’t a he said/she said, and it was part of organized sex parties.

I’ll also note a detail in the video testimony, which is a claim the girl made that her handler said, “No one touches Mr. Trump’s penis without a glove.” That’s obviously disturbing in its implication that he’s a regular at these affairs.
Click to expand...
https://vimeo.com/176181706 - FYI.

This isn't just baseless speculation.  Actual testimony by multiple folks attesting to Trump and Epstein raping an underage female.

It's possible they are fabricating this.  But to call links between Trump and Epstein and this kind of behavior baseless, or just pure speculation, seems to avoid a significant quantity of publicly available evidence.

The Clinton piece, however, at this point at least, is pure speculation.  

 
adonis said:
It's weird that this suggestion is made.

It's pretty reasonable to expect that IF there was shady business going on here, and certainly there seems to be, that a simple "We're going to look out for you" would suffice for someone who helped this mess go away.

What does it mean for folks you helped protect to look out for you?  It could be a ton of different things.  

I have no clue if this is how it went down, but it's not pizzagatish to suggest that if Acosta did this for powerful people, that said powerful people would look to return a favor when they had the chance.

Is it not odd that Acosta is even in this administration at all?
Click to expand...
Well like I said why is he Sec of Labor? And really both parties failed the confirmation questioning except for Kaine.

This administration is an open door for grifting. 

The NPA is really strange. There’s the immunity for coconspirators but not only that it had ambiguous language that provides an argument for immunity across all crimes and all jurisdictions, and we know that because Epstein’s own lawyers raised this today. However this wasn’t run by DOJ apparently because if it was specific enough it would have had to have been. The only way I see all that happening is basically Acosta taking Epstein’s lawyers’ own language and plugging it in at the time.

And yeah here’s the former US Attorney for Miami now sitting as Secretary of Labor. 

So yes I’ll accede to pay to play or quid pro quo but it didn’t necessarily include Trump. Trump IMO is open for business in general, 3 Kirkland attorneys running DOJ & DOL is enough for me to see that as the simplest explanation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
For those claiming this is being politicized, I think the majority here are being fair minded.

But in light of who is President, it’s a stark reality how blinded Trump supporters have shown themselves time and again to blatant evidence that he’s a truly awful person with no restraint or moral compass.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?

 
adonis said:
https://vimeo.com/176181706 - FYI.

This isn't just baseless speculation.  Actual testimony by multiple folks attesting to Trump and Epstein raping an underage female.

It's possible they are fabricating this.  But to call links between Trump and Epstein and this kind of behavior baseless, or just pure speculation, seems to avoid a significant quantity of publicly available evidence.

The Clinton piece, however, at this point at least, is pure speculation.  
Click to expand...
Iirc her name is Katie Johnson.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
So yes I’ll accede to pay to play or quid pro quo but it didn’t necessarily include Trump. Trump IMO is open for business in general, 3 Kirkland attorneys running DOJ & DOL is enough for me to see that as the simplest explanation.
Click to expand...
Fair point.  For now, it's the simplest explanation.

However, you wouldn't require much more information - for example, hypothetically that DJT was a co-defendant in the sweetheart deal Acosta brokered for Epstein and all non-named co-defendants - to think that this may be "one good turn deserving another".

But to your point, we still lack evidence to make that leap.  Still though, if this situation was happening with Obama or Clinton and they'd appointed a former prosecutor with close links to a good friend, who was also a co-defendant of theirs in a lawsuit alleging similar criminal activities, they'd be going nuts.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I agree when you put it that way it’s ridiculous.

Something about this administration though - Barr, Rosen and Acosta are all Kirkland alum, that’s one thing.

And it’s not a conspiracy but it is incestuous from a partisan POV. Kirkland represents corporate bad guys and here they are repping the USA.

And after Acosta was a USA for SoFL he went to Kirkland. Why is Acosta in the cabinet? Why is he Sec of Labor? Why did only *one Senator - R or D - Tim Kaine - question him on the Epstein deal?

It’s pizzagatish to imagine pedophiliac cabalists trading cabinet posts for (ugh), But it’s something else to realize this is how power works, or at least in this administration.
Click to expand...
I doubt they knew anything about it.  I doubt Democrats went light to cut him a break.

 
adonis said:
https://vimeo.com/176181706 - FYI.

This isn't just baseless speculation.  Actual testimony by multiple folks attesting to Trump and Epstein raping an underage female.

It's possible they are fabricating this.  But to call links between Trump and Epstein and this kind of behavior baseless, or just pure speculation, seems to avoid a significant quantity of publicly available evidence.

The Clinton piece, however, at this point at least, is pure speculation.  
Click to expand...
After 5 minutes of that video, from glove to daughter I could not watch any more without feeling that maybe I was violating that woman.  If I had to view that  as part of my job as a Prosecutor I would, or as part of being a juror, but not out of intellectual curiousity. For me, I saw and heard enough.

 
jonessed said:
I doubt they knew anything about it.  I doubt Democrats went light to cut him a break.
Click to expand...
Of course not, but it was negligent. He should have been grilled. Eta btw Kaine obviously knew about it, it was there for Senate staffs to see in research for sure.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
After 5 minutes of that video, from glove to daughter I could not watch any more without feeling that maybe I was violating that woman.  If I had to view that  as part of my job as a Prosecutor I would, or as part of being a juror, but not out of intellectual curiousity. For me, I saw and heard enough.
Click to expand...
Yep. I couldn't watch even that much.  Read the majority of the substance.  Just terrible.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I also want to know where his money came from.  He’s very Bernie Madoff-esque in that for a supposed hedge fund/investment guy, no one on the street did any real business with him.  

 
adonis said:
https://vimeo.com/176181706 - FYI.

This isn't just baseless speculation.  Actual testimony by multiple folks attesting to Trump and Epstein raping an underage female.

It's possible they are fabricating this.  But to call links between Trump and Epstein and this kind of behavior baseless, or just pure speculation, seems to avoid a significant quantity of publicly available evidence.

The Clinton piece, however, at this point at least, is pure speculation.  
Click to expand...
"Donald Trump specifically asked for me because I reminded him of his daughter and Tiffany said 'well she's 13 as well' "

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I agree when you put it that way it’s ridiculous.

Something about this administration though - Barr, Rosen and Acosta are all Kirkland alum, that’s one thing.

And it’s not a conspiracy but it is incestuous from a partisan POV. Kirkland represents corporate bad guys and here they are repping the USA.

And after Acosta was a USA for SoFL he went to Kirkland. Why is Acosta in the cabinet? Why is he Sec of Labor? Why did only *one Senator - R or D - Tim Kaine - question him on the Epstein deal?

It’s pizzagatish to imagine pedophiliac cabalists trading cabinet posts for (ugh), But it’s something else to realize this is how power works, or at least in this administration.
Click to expand...
I would note Barr quickly refused himself here.  I do think Epstein plied a whole bunch of these guys (across the whole political spectrum) as blackmail for  prosecutorial safety, influence, and money.  I won’t be shocked to find out he’s not on the up and up business-wise as well. 

 
Amused to Death said:
How much vetting would it require to find out this guy approved the NPA for Epstein?
Click to expand...
This was done almost fifteen years earlier and was largely buried until recently.  I doubt they were looking for anything related to it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This is really important, I agree. I hope SDNY tears into this.
Click to expand...
We’ll see...the Bloomberg story today touched in it though.  The Victoria Secret guy signed over that NYC mansion to an Epstein BVI corporation for zero dollars and then was gone from Epstein’s life.  Wonder what that could be about. 

It sure smells like blackmail mixed with more than a smidge of money laundering.

 
Question about Bill Clinton: like a lot of people here I’ve been pretty suspicious of his connection with Epstein because of the report that he took 26 flights on the plane and 4-5 were without secret service. 

Now Clinton’s spokesman is saying that Clinton only took 4 flights on the plane, all of them for the Clinton Foundation, all of them with Secret Service. So what is the truth here? What is the source for that earlier reporting? 

 
Mr. Ham said:
Trump is credibly accused of raping a 13 year old on multiple occasions, and this is corroborated by admitted Epstein co-conspirators. Additional context including Acosta becoming a cabinet member working to loosen sex trafficking laws after giving cover to co-conspirators, and 26 allegations of assault, and given the office he holds, it’s guilty until proven innocent. 
Click to expand...
Maybe for you. I can’t stand Trump but I don’t think that way- ever. 

 
A study of unhealthy appetite.  Maybe like a diabetic, maybe more akin to a cannibal. Are such appetites on a common continuum to those of folks like you or I, or is there a qualitative break so that it is not a continuum at all.  I hope the latter but I do not know.  What is clear to me is that these appetites are destructive, consumptive and they leave scars when they leave behind those upon whom their hungers were sated. 

 
adonis said:
https://vimeo.com/176181706 - FYI.

This isn't just baseless speculation.  Actual testimony by multiple folks attesting to Trump and Epstein raping an underage female.

It's possible they are fabricating this.  But to call links between Trump and Epstein and this kind of behavior baseless, or just pure speculation, seems to avoid a significant quantity of publicly available evidence.

The Clinton piece, however, at this point at least, is pure speculation.  
Click to expand...


adonis said:
Did you see the lawsuit that was filed naming Trump and Epstein as co-defendants? Where testimony was included from multiple folks corroborating the assaults/rapes?

http://thememoryhole2.org/blog/doe-v-trump

Another source:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/310835987/Donald-Trump-Lawsuit
Click to expand...
Same as a bunch of others, my mind also went to this story from 2016. Looking back at some of the old articles again from back then, a couple of things stick out.

As a summary, the alleged victim initially filed the lawsuit in California and the whole thing felt at least a bit sketchy, with some more wild and specific claims that weren't present in a later refiling in New York. Perhaps of note is that the woman claimed to be homeless as a result of the abuse, which could possibly be an explanation for the sloppiness of the suit. A couple of shady dudes (one a former reality TV producer, the other a connected Republican never-Trumper) shopped the story to news outlets for months with no takers (that's where the video originates from), and the woman in question refused all media contact. Around that time, Jezebel quoted the reality TV guy as follows:

“I’ll keep you on the list, whenever she gets an attorney,” he promised. Johnson’s plan, he said, was to find an attorney, file a new civil case in New York, and then “at that point work with the DA, and if they want to do criminal charges she’ll put the civil case off.”
Click to expand...
By June 2016, she'd found a patent lawyer in NY who volunteered to help her file her civil case in New York, Thomas Meagher. On taking the case, Meagher said: 

“I saw a woman who was effectively being denied representation because of who the defendants are and it didn’t bother me.”
Click to expand...
I'm not sure yet on the details, but she eventually ended up being represented by Lisa Bloom, which is when the real media coverage hit. As we all know, shortly thereafter she withdrew her lawsuit and essentially disappeared. Of course, perhaps it is all made up and she just got out before the heat was real, but the conspiracy nut in me has to wonder if her disappearing from public was actually because she started working with the SDNY on a criminal case and dropped the civil case as the shady TV guy speculated.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
Trump is credibly accused of raping a 13 year old on multiple occasions, and this is corroborated by admitted Epstein co-conspirators. Additional context including Acosta becoming a cabinet member working to loosen sex trafficking laws after giving cover to co-conspirators, and 26 allegations of assault, and given the office he holds, it’s guilty until proven innocent. 
Click to expand...
Wow

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
A study of unhealthy appetite.  Maybe like a diabetic, maybe more akin to a cannibal. Are such appetites on a common continuum to those of folks like you or I, or is there a qualitative break so that it is not a continuum at all.  I hope the latter but I do not know.  What is clear to me is that these appetites are destructive, consumptive and they leave scars when they leave behind those upon whom their hungers were sated. 
Click to expand...
You sound deliberative.  << Not a pejorative.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
A study of unhealthy appetite.  Maybe like a diabetic, maybe more akin to a cannibal. Are such appetites on a common continuum to those of folks like you or I, or is there a qualitative break so that it is not a continuum at all.  I hope the latter but I do not know.  What is clear to me is that these appetites are destructive, consumptive and they leave scars when they leave behind those upon whom their hungers were sated. 
Click to expand...
There's a sexual appetite that's on a continuum, with some being voracious, and others able to do without, and yet others horrified by sexuality.

There's another continuum which is a respect for boundaries and other people's well-being.  Some folks are very considerate, some folks don't care how their actions affect others so long as they get what they want.

Quite a few other continuums come into play, and when you get folks pretty extreme on a few of these continuums, you have folks capable of behaving in ways way outside of the social norm.  And if those folks end up being wealthy, and powerful, and are willing to use their power and wealth to further feed their appetites, well that's a dangerous situation - one that society, our justice system, our government, is supposed to help protect us from. 

In this case with Epstein, it clearly failed many people.

 
John Blutarsky said:
Bill spent a lot of time with him on his plane without Secret Service.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/bill-clinton-ditched-secret-service-on-multiple-lo/?utm_source=GOOGLE&utm_medium=cpc&utm_id=chacka&utm_campaign=TWT+-+DSA&gclid=CjwKCAjw04vpBRB3EiwA0IieagCRti3yOVyjVqUFCF8driQPfAx5R-5rp5LOKaKaLwjkyxADGQtqwBoC2j8QAvD_BwE
Click to expand...
OK here was the original post. 

So the sourcing for the 26 flights, with 5 without secret service, comes from Gawker in 2015. Are they a reliable source? I know nothing about them. Today Clinton’s spokesman stated there were only 4 flights and all had secret service. There’s a pretty big difference between 4 and 26. Obviously somebody is not telling the truth here. 

I have no opinion on who is being accurate, but the story linked above bothers me because it says that Clinton chose to decline secret service protection. My understanding has always been that, even as an ex-President, he’s not allowed to do so. Am I wrong about this? 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Biden:“I Don’t Think That A Woman Has The Sole Right To Say What Should Happen To Her Body.” (5/4/22 17:30PST)
Replies
40
Views
1K
jm192
jm192
GordonGekko
How The Activist MSM Is Burying Alleged SCOTUS Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt (5/12/22 6:22 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Boston
Boston
GordonGekko
New York Enacts Ridiculous New Gun Laws: "I’m A NYC Liberal, And I Want A Gun" (7/3/22 20:29 PST)
Replies
28
Views
801
FairWarning
FairWarning

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top