The Epstein File
-
There's the rub. Epstein canoodled with just about everyone in those social circles. He had access. None of these things stand as evidence of wrongdoing. If you have evidence against individuals, bring it on. Otherwise, we risk smearing people who did nothing wrong. this thing has always been a tempest in a teapot. Rich people misbehaving. Who knew they do that?
@Mik said in The Epstein File:
There's the rub. Epstein canoodled with just about everyone in those social circles. He had access. None of these things stand as evidence of wrongdoing. If you have evidence against individuals, bring it on. Otherwise, we risk smearing people who did nothing wrong. this thing has always been a tempest in a teapot. Rich people misbehaving. Who knew they do that?
True but as the cliched platitude goes;
Birds of a feather, flock together.
-
I doubt anybody is intimidating the women to not name names. The two most plausible theories are that they have no new names to name, or they have been incentivized positively to stay quiet.
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
I doubt anybody is intimidating the women to not name names. The two most plausible theories are that they have no new names to name, or they have been incentivized positively to stay quiet.
More plausible in all but a handful of cases is they don’t know who the men were. How many young girls would recognize a random sultan or Howard Lutnick in 2013? Probably get introduced by their first names only and possibly fake ones. Also no doubt they ‘massaged’ a lot of men.
-
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
I doubt anybody is intimidating the women to not name names. The two most plausible theories are that they have no new names to name, or they have been incentivized positively to stay quiet.
More plausible in all but a handful of cases is they don’t know who the men were. How many young girls would recognize a random sultan or Howard Lutnick in 2013? Probably get introduced by their first names only and possibly fake ones. Also no doubt they ‘massaged’ a lot of men.
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
I doubt anybody is intimidating the women to not name names. The two most plausible theories are that they have no new names to name, or they have been incentivized positively to stay quiet.
More plausible in all but a handful of cases is they don’t know who the men were. How many young girls would recognize a random sultan or Howard Lutnick in 2013? Probably get introduced by their first names only and possibly fake ones. Also no doubt they ‘massaged’ a lot of men.
That would fit under the umbrella of no new names to name. They could certainly be clear about that - that they were trafficked to so many guys but have no idea who they were. Maybe they have been clear about that. I haven't listened to their interviews as they're doing the circuit. All I've heard is that they're not naming names, and then the fancy theories that they're being hushed by shadowy figures. Which seems unlikely.
-
And the fact the victims are named in the documents whilst the likely law breakers are not means what to American justice? Not the way British law is conducted.
It's pressure to back off.Anyone that visited E more than once is likely to have known about the girls, according to what the girls themselves say, as young as 14 from what I've heard.
Epstein was not two faced, he was pretty open... from what I've heard, saying that the ex prince liked girls younger than himself. -
Bondi is bit of a shite, no?
But then, what to expect from Teflon Trump(CF).
Nothing sticks, he evades the draft, he evades tax (paid more to a porn star than the tax man over a decade), and now there's his friendship with Epstein.
Trump knew, how could he not, of 50 year old Epstein's activities with teenage girls. Given all we know as fact, given Trump"s recorded attitude towards women, his criminal fraud conviction, do you think Trump was likely to partake?I do feel for you folk having such an awful man as leader; especially when he's caused the cost of a bottle of wine in the US to increase by nearly a quarter!
You pay tax to King Trump -
I have no issue with criticizing Trump. I do lots of it myself. But repeating nonsense like he paid Stormy Daniels more than taxes is provably untrue. He banned Epstein from his club prior to his arrest and Epstein socialized with pretty much everyone in higher society. The criminal fraud conviction was a fraud in itself.
Don't let your hatred of the man distort your viewpoint. It cheapens your argument.
-
Oh come on Mik, it's recorded he paid Stormy$130k.
The NYTimes recorded how much tax he paid over years.It's laughable what he gets away with. The couple claimed $70k and $100k in a year for their hairdressing as business expenses. Tip of iceberg when you read about his business dealings
Ultimately you pay towards his fraud. -
The Times cherry picked the years they wanted to. In 2005 he paid $38 million in income taxes. In some years he paid no income tax, but he paid lots in property and other taxes. your assertion is cherry-picked and ludicrous. You are blinded by hate. But then you're not alone in that.
"You cannot subsidize irresponsibility and expect people to become more responsible." — Thomas Sowell
-
-
The Times cherry picked the years they wanted to. In 2005 he paid $38 million in income taxes. In some years he paid no income tax, but he paid lots in property and other taxes. your assertion is cherry-picked and ludicrous. You are blinded by hate. But then you're not alone in that.
You are blinded by hate. But then you're not alone in that.
Indeed Andy is not alone in that.
While Americans can love, like, dislike or hate Trump in various degrees their view is tempered one way or another by the US Constitution and his role in elected office as President. On the other hand those of us, like Andy and I, on the outside of the US who have been collectively and adversely affected by his policies, whose country has been maligned by his bald face lies and threats we all hate or loathe him untempered and in ways peculiar to our individual national identities. We believe him to be a disgrace in every manner. Quite unfit for the responsibility and authority the Constitution gives him to perform his duties of office.
-
The Times cherry picked the years they wanted to. In 2005 he paid $38 million in income taxes. In some years he paid no income tax, but he paid lots in property and other taxes. your assertion is cherry-picked and ludicrous. You are blinded by hate. But then you're not alone in that.
@Mik said in The Epstein File:
You are blinded by hate. But then you're not alone in that.
Maybe we're not the actual problem here.
I'm sure I'm not the only one getting a little tired of being told that I'm the one who's deranged, when it's quite clear where most of the derangement lies.
