Epstein, Kiddies, And Trump. Oh, My

[unapologetic]

Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence! And if you disagree, you must secretly be a murderer yourself,

No I'm being selective. I'm saying I wouldn't give Rump and his crew the benifit of doubt. They have earned my hatred. Given the chance to m____ Rump, I might.

Because w're better than Trump. That's why!

Well *I know* I am better than Rump. But it might only be by a smaller margin than I think.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you understand what your defense of Epstein and his cronies looks like? If you don't want to be seen as a creepy perv, stop defending creepy pervs.

I merely said that evidence of specific crimes should be required to condemn somebody. Being a "crony" or even being just very tangentially involved with somebody (by for example exchanging emails or attending an event) who committed crimes is not enough to declare them guilty of similar crimes. What you and your Ilk are doing here is a witch hunt.

Fairly ironic coming from someone who pillories anyone with suspected #BLM ties.

 

[bilby]

I merely said that evidence of specific crimes should be required to condemn somebody.

I see. Al Capone was just a tax evader, who was otherwise entirely blameless, in your book, was he?

What you and your Ilk are doing here is a witch hunt.

Not really: Firstly, people here are just talking, and have no authority to arrest, sanction, nor convict anyone of anything. And Secondly, witchcraft doesn't exist. A witch hunt by definition has blameless victims - none of the accused can possibly be guilty.

Sadly, sexual assault and rape of minors, unlike witchcaft, is something that can and does occur. It is quite possible that the accused are guilty, and speculation about the guilt of those against whom circumstantial evidence exists is entirely reasonable.

 

[Elixir]

speculation about the guilt of those against whom circumstantial evidence exists is entirely reasonable

In light of the volume (quantity and amplitude) of the victims of some of their crimes, it would require imagination to speculate about the innocence of some of the apparent perps. The Andrew formerly known as Prince, is still serving as model proof that Trump dindunuffin b’cuz prince wa’nt even charged with pedophilia.
That’s how bad it is.

 

[Patooka]

Do you understand what your defense of Epstein and his cronies looks like? If you don't want to be seen as a creepy perv, stop defending creepy pervs.

I merely said that evidence of specific crimes should be required to condemn somebody. Being a "crony" or even being just very tangentially involved with somebody (by for example exchanging emails or attending an event) who committed crimes is not enough to declare them guilty of similar crimes. What you and your Ilk are doing here is a witch hunt.

And it's not just Trump who is at the receiving end of the witch hunt by the Ilk. We see the same for example with Rebecca Watson attacking Richard Dawkins.

This used to be a rational community. What the hell happened?

I bet you felt the same way about OJ Simpson as well. Oh wait...
It's common knowledge the Royal family paid millions in hush money to Andrew's alleged victims. And he didn't have his royal privileges stripped because what he is currently charged. Rational people can put 2 and 2 together.

And it goes without saying that if Andrew was part of the Saudi Royal family, you would have condemned him years ago. This is a new low for you.

 

[scombrid]

They stick together don’t they?

 

[crazyfingers]

They stick together don’t they?

SuctionCUPs

 

[southernhybrid]

I think there is more than enough evidence that Trump should be arrested and tried for sexually abusing young women, including possibly minors. He will still be entitled to a trial by jury, just like all of the those who appear to be have been involved in these crimes. Sure, some people who associated with Epstein were either unaware of what was going on or were not directly involved in sexually abusing women or minors, but some of them can be charged with crimes like obstructing justice. Does that make it simple enough for all of you?

The real problem is that Pam Blondi, Trump and others are obstructing justice.

 

[Elixir]

He will still be entitled to a trial by jury

I think he is righteously entitled to be beaten up, and shot if he resists.

 

[ZiprHead]

The real problem is that Pam Blondi, Trump and others are obstructing justice.

30 year federal Prosecutor Glenn Kirchner say they could be charged with accessories after the fact.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Do you understand what your defense of Epstein and his cronies looks like? If you don't want to be seen as a creepy perv, stop defending creepy pervs.

I merely said that evidence of specific crimes should be required to condemn somebody. Being a "crony" or even being just very tangentially involved with somebody (by for example exchanging emails or attending an event) who committed crimes is not enough to declare them guilty of similar crimes. What you and your Ilk are doing here is a witch hunt.
And it's not just Trump who is at the receiving end of the witch hunt by the Ilk.

Okay, can we please stop the bullshit about this being a witch hunt. Trump ran on releasing the documents, then he didn't. And then we found out he was mentioned a lot in them. We had Bondi say she had the list on her desk... oh wait no, that wasn't true.

That isn't convictable, but it sure creates a certain perspective that Trump was hiding something. They still haven't released all the docs, and many of the docs were illegally redacted. And it took Congress to get the docs released or supposed to be released.

So, it isn't a "witch hunt". Trump is creating enough doubt as it is. We already saw one of the emails from Epstein et al. about how Trump was the 'dog that didn't bark'.

There is a great deal of video and photos that are likely unavailable to the public. The FBI needs to act on what can be acted on. Why this was covered up by multiple administrations is... oh wait... money and power... that's why.

 

[Elixir]

So, it isn't a "witch hunt".

Yabut Derec's boy is on the wrong end of the gun here, so...

 

[TSwizzle]

I think there is more than enough evidence that Trump should be arrested and tried for sexually abusing young women, including possibly minors.

I haven’t followed this very much so could you cite this evidence? Or do you merely think there must be evidence ?

 

[Toni]

Do you understand what your defense of Epstein and his cronies looks like? If you don't want to be seen as a creepy perv, stop defending creepy pervs.

I merely said that evidence of specific crimes should be required to condemn somebody. Being a "crony" or even being just very tangentially involved with somebody (by for example exchanging emails or attending an event) who committed crimes is not enough to declare them guilty of similar crimes. What you and your Ilk are doing here is a witch hunt.

And it's not just Trump who is at the receiving end of the witch hunt by the Ilk. We see the same for example with Rebecca Watson attacking Richard Dawkins.

This used to be a rational community. What the hell happened?

Well, it is true that there is no group of four men who were present and willing to testify publicly that Trump raped anyone.

However, it does appear that there is ample evidence, including witness testimony and even images of Trump raping minors.

 

[Jarhyn]

Do you understand what your defense of Epstein and his cronies looks like? If you don't want to be seen as a creepy perv, stop defending creepy pervs.

I merely said that evidence of specific crimes should be required to condemn somebody. Being a "crony" or even being just very tangentially involved with somebody (by for example exchanging emails or attending an event) who committed crimes is not enough to declare them guilty of similar crimes. What you and your Ilk are doing here is a witch hunt.

And it's not just Trump who is at the receiving end of the witch hunt by the Ilk. We see the same for example with Rebecca Watson attacking Richard Dawkins.

This used to be a rational community. What the hell happened?

Well, it is true that there is no group of four men who were present and willing to testify publicly that Trump raped anyone.

However, it does appear that there is ample evidence, including witness testimony and even images of Trump raping minors.

He very clearly condemned someone acting even on evidence, and not merely just evidence, he condemned direct action as an immediate witness/party to immediately occurring criminal activity.

He as much said someone there in the room watching someone start to rape a minor would somehow amount to me acting as judge/jury/executioner.

 

[blastula]

Justice Department withheld and removed some Epstein files related to Trump

An NPR investigation finds the public database of Epstein files is missing dozens of pages related to sexual abuse accusations against President Trump.

www.wesa.fm

 

[blastula]

Former Norwegian PM Thorbjorn Jagland hospitalised after ‘suicide attempt’ amid Epstein-linked corruption probe

Days after Norwegian police launched a corruption probe linked to Epstein files and searched his properties, former Prime Minister of Norway, Thorbjorn Jagland, was admitted to hospital following an alleged suicide attempt, APA reports, citing Faytuks Network

en.apa.az

 

[Shadowy Man]

Justice Department withheld and removed some Epstein files related to Trump

An NPR investigation finds the public database of Epstein files is missing dozens of pages related to sexual abuse accusations against President Trump.

www.wesa.fm

According to this article there is “evidence of specific crimes” (note I am not saying “proof”). According to Derec’s standard can we now condemn Trump?

 

[Derec]

Okay, can we please stop the bullshit about this being a witch hunt.

By all means, everybody that evidence shows is guilty of specific crimes should be prosecuted.

However, this over-the-top response to the Epstein Files certainly has elements of a witch hunt. People keep assuming that everybody in any way connected to Epstein is guilty. Epstein was in contact with a lot of people, and he threw a lot of social events. So, of course, a lot of people will be in the files. Only a small fraction was involved with anything nefarious. And we still need actual evidence to prosecute those that have been. Merely disliking somebody is not evidence of anything.

Another aspect that makes it a witch hunt are these tired insinuations by the usual suspects (like Elixir one post below yours) that anyone opposed to a witch hunt must be a witch themselves. Because, after all, who except a witch would oppose a good witch burning?

Trump ran on releasing the documents, then he didn't. And then we found out he was mentioned a lot in them. We had Bondi say she had the list on her desk... oh wait no, that wasn't true.

I do not think documents should have been released to the public - after all, a lot of people in them are innocent of any crimes.
But there should have been a professional investigation and, when appropriate, prosecutions.
That is different than insisting that anyone mentioned in the files must be guilty of something.

That isn't convictable, but it sure creates a certain perspective that Trump was hiding something. They still haven't released all the docs, and many of the docs were illegally redacted. And it took Congress to get the docs released or supposed to be released.

Again, I do not think it is helpful to dump all the documents to the public. Too much noise to signal, given how many people had been in Epstein's orbit, most of them innocent of any wrongdoing.

So, it isn't a "witch hunt".

It certainly has elements of one, on this thread. Evidence of specific crimes should be required, and that mere connection with somebody guilty is not enough to cast suspicions. That is a basic principle, and it's ridiculous how quickly some people throw it overboard, and even insinuate that those who want to uphold it must be guilty of something themselves.

Trump is creating enough doubt as it is. We already saw one of the emails from Epstein et al. about how Trump was the 'dog that didn't bark'.

Is that supposed to be some sort of reference to Sherlock Holmes?

There is a great deal of video and photos that are likely unavailable to the public. The FBI needs to act on what can be acted on. Why this was covered up by multiple administrations is... oh wait... money and power... that's why.

Exactly. FBI as well as state law enforcement (if in their jurisdiction) needs to act on it. And where appropriate, charges need to be filed. But haphazardly casting aspersions (like for example Rebecca Watson did) or saying that people should commit murder just because somebody they don't like is mentioned in the files is going way overboard, don't you think?

 

[Derec]

Justice Department withheld and removed some Epstein files related to Trump

An NPR investigation finds the public database of Epstein files is missing dozens of pages related to sexual abuse accusations against President Trump.

www.wesa.fm

According to this article there is “evidence of specific crimes” (note I am not saying “proof”). According to Derec’s standard can we now condemn Trump?

That would depend on what's in those files. I think Congress critters can see all the unredacted files in the SCIF. Maybe one of them can take a look see.
If it's like the over-the-top calls to the FBI tip line we have already seen, then they do not hold much credence. But it may be different. In any case, it needs to be investigated by professionals, not Reddit.

Again, what WESA wrote there is not very specific. No places, times, what allegedly happened of to whom, or the nature of the alleged evidence. It's not enough to conclude that it amounts to evidence of specific crimes.