The Epstein File

[taiwan_girl]

[jon-nyc]

I just checked, it is.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Horace said in The Epstein File:

I have no doubt that there were such things as innocent trips to Epstein Island. It's established that visitors sometimes brought their families, including kids.

Not after examining his "massage table" they didn't.

[Horace]

I think Epstein had plenty of contacts who took no part in his sexual debauchery. Plenty who did and plenty who didn't. We've already had a documented case where a picture of some rich guy was in the files, and there were young kids next to him. Scandalous until it turned out that they were his kids. Whether Lutnick participated in the debauchery is taken as a given by the usual suspects, none of whom actually know.

[Renauda]

@Horace

The issue with Lutnick is not whether he engaged in the debauchery. Rather it is that his own stories about his contact with Epstein are inconsistent and give rise to question Lutnick’s personal credibility regarding his now apparent ongoing relationship with the deceased felon.

[jon-nyc]

We also know that his original story was they best he could concoct given the public facts at the time. It was almost heroic. And a bold faced lie.

But I’m sure the second story, also the best one could come up with given the known facts today, is actually the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[Horace]

Meanwhile, it's still rational to concoct stories to distance yourself from the politically toxic guy, regardless of where on the spectrum the truth lies. We don't have to imagine that he participated in the sex stuff to rationalize why he would like to create more distance than there actually was.

But again, I'm not silly enough to try to convince any of the usual suspects that there's a chance their giddy imaginations are not correct.

[Doctor Phibes]

Truth has become a spectrum now? I thought conservatives didn't believe in moral relativism.

How long before one of them says 'Of course, those were different times....'?

[Horace]

I'm talking about the spectrum of possible facts.

[Mik]

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?

[AndyD]

The evidence you ask for appears to have been redacted. The young women & minors abused and raped by rich & poweful men are named.
Ironic that the only person in jail for all this abuse is... a woman.

[jon-nyc]

“I loved the torture video”

[AndyD]

The intimidation tactics against the abused women are not going to work.
Eventually the full involvment of these powerful men, like Andrew Windsor and Donald Trump will be known.

[Horace]

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.

[Renauda]

@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.

[jon-nyc]

@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]

@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.