The Epstein File

jon-nyc

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

@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.

AndyD

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.

jon-nyc

In general the victims names are redacted though I understand there are a couple of major fuckups in that regard. And it only takes one.

They were far more meticulous in keeping out certain powerful names, apparently.

jon-nyc

‘Inside the house’ - Lol

Renauda

I think Lutnick should resign simply because he tells bald face lies about close allies of the USA.

His connections to this Epstein affair are a secondary footnote to his demonstrated incompetence as Commerce Sec’ty.

Tom-K

Who is paying Howard Lutnick and how much? (Must be lots.) Why would a middle manager care?

jon-nyc

Middle manager? He ran Cantor Fitzgerald (when I was in the business the largest treasury dealer) for years.

Tom-K

Yea but that was then. Secretary of Commerce is what? So who does he work for? Cantor Fitzgerald--fine, the US government well then fine too. But you can't work for both at the same time.

AndyD

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

Mik

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.

The New Coffee Room

The Epstein File