Jeffery Epstein indicted on charges of child sex trafficking

[Xzi]

So most people probably saw this story break yesterday. Epstein, for those unaware, is a multimillionaire with connections to several rich and powerful figures in the realms of business and politics. His charges carry with them a sentence of up to 45 years in jail if found guilty. Which is rather lenient for charges of this type, if you ask me.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...trafficking-molesting-underage-girls-n1027356

Perhaps even more interesting than a man of his status finally being brought to justice, is the implications it may have for other individuals closely connected to Epstein. In 2007, Alexander Acosta was a US attorney in Miami who helped win a sweetheart deal for Epstein in a state-level case involving multiple minors as victims. Epstein was sentenced to only 13 months in a county jail, and reportedly had unprecedented freedom while serving that sentence. Acosta is now serving as Labor Secretary in the Trump administration, and is under fire for that unethical and possibly illegal plea deal. Calls to resign may end up being the least of his worries.

Epstein has also been known to have close ties to both Donald Trump and Bill Clinton. The extent of their involvement with Epstein's crimes, if any, is still unknown. I say the more pedophiles in high places this case shines a light on and brings down, the better. Hopefully they've got all the evidence locked up tight, because I can see much of it "mysteriously" disappearing otherwise. Or perhaps we'll see yet another cover-up by Bill Barr. Only time will tell.

 

[Lacius]

There's a minor mistake: Acosta wasn't a defense lawyer. He was the U.S. Attorney in Miami. This would be like the prosecutor offering a sweetheart deal, and the fact that Acosta did this has never been satisfactorily explained.

 

[Xzi]

There's a minor mistake: Acosta wasn't a defense lawyer. He was the U.S. Attorney in Miami. This would be like the prosecutor offering a sweetheart deal, and the fact that Acosta did this has never been satisfactorily explained.

Fixed, thanks for pointing that out.

 

[DBlaze]

Ah, so how long until people claim mr bad man is pedophile by association?
you know it's going to happen

 

[Xzi]

Ah, so how long until people claim mr bad man is pedophile by association?
you know it's going to happen

Well, keeping in mind that nothing has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law yet, quotes like this one and sworn depositions like this certainly don't help lend him any plausible deniability. His association with Epstein is of minimal importance, unless it turns out that he knew about Epstein's degenerate activities all along, or participated in them himself.

 

[drewby]

Keep in mind that Trump's "ties" to Epstein are very small. Apparently, Trump found out that Epstein was a pedo YEARS ago, and dissociated himself from him about 15-20 years ago. Bill Clinton has flight records of going to Epstein's private island from only about 3 or 4 years ago, where all of this apparently took place. I'm just saying that we should probably look into what Bill was doin' over there...

 

[Lacius]

Keep in mind that Trump's "ties" to Epstein are very small.

That's a bit of an understatement.

Trump and Epstein, along with private equity mogul Tom Barrack, were a “set of nightlife musketeers” together during the 1980s and ‘90s.) Trump was also directly accused of raping a 13-year-old at one of Epstein’s parties, but the 2016 lawsuit was later dropped

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/201...nce-as-jeffrey-epstein-friends-begin-to-sweat

To be clear, I'm far more interested in why Epstein got the sweetheart deal from Acosta. His defense of the deal doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[drewby]

That's a bit of an understatement.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/201...nce-as-jeffrey-epstein-friends-begin-to-sweat

To be clear, I'm far more interested in why Epstein got the sweetheart deal from Acosta. His defense of the deal doesn't make a lot of sense.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ar-Lago-sexually-assaulted-underage-girl.html

Trump knew some shady shit was up with Epstein, and cut him off YEARS ago.

Edit: He banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago in 2000.

 

[Lacius]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ar-Lago-sexually-assaulted-underage-girl.html

Trump knew some shady shit was up with Epstein, and cut him off YEARS ago.

Edit: He banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago in 2000.

1. This flies in the face of the narrative that Trump's ties to Epstein were "small."
2. The article outlines how Trump likely flew on Epstein's plane with him. If we should "look into what Bill was doing," then to be consistent, you must now say we should "look into what Trump was doing." I'll be waiting.
3. It sounds like, aside from banning him from Mar-a-Lago, Trump swept Epstein's crimes under the rug. In other words, this gives the impression that Trump didn't contact the legal authorities. The authorities are the ones who want to talk to Trump about this after hearing about it from someone else.
4. As I said earlier, the Trump-Epstein connection doesn't particularly interest me (without more information), since it doesn't seem to be relevant to Acosta sweetheart deal.

 

[Xzi]

Alex Acosta has resigned as Labor Secretary over his handling of the previous Epstein plea deal. He previously held a press conference to defend that plea deal, but his reasoning was not convincing, and he apparently didn't put on the grandstanding show that Trump wanted to see.

 

[Taleweaver]

Perhaps even more interesting than a man of his status finally being brought to justice, is the implications it may have for other individuals closely connected to Epstein.

Ugh... Again? I'm frankly getting tired of this "let's find out if we can find a connection here" kind of reasoning. What's next? "<person> has been spotted watching a weinstein produced movie once. Therefore, he must be guilty by association"?

During the Kavanaugh days, it was as if the guy was assumed guilty (and Trump a monster for nominating him), whereas in reality he had not even been accused before.

Likewise : this is a case about Epstein. Get him trialed properly, then sentenced properly. Can we please hold off the mud slinging at others at the very least until after that? Pretty please?
(this goes mostly to reporters, really. These should be reporting on e.g. Muellers testimony, rather than vague suggestions)

 

[Xzi]

During the Kavanaugh days, it was as if the guy was assumed guilty (and Trump a monster for nominating him), whereas in reality he had not even been accused before.

For me, the bigger issue with Kavanaugh was his disqualifying temperament and the sense of entitlement that he emanated. And that's despite the fact that Ford's testimony was compelling and believable. Under any other president, his nomination would've been withdrawn.

Likewise : this is a case about Epstein. Get him trialed properly, then sentenced properly. Can we please hold off the mud slinging at others at the very least until after that? Pretty please?

Sure, but we all know Epstein wasn't the only one involved, and the evidence in this case is likely to further solidify that point as it's presented. It takes a circle of enablers to allow something like this to continue on for decades.

 

[Hanafuda]

And that's despite the fact that Ford's testimony was compelling and believable.

No it wasn't.

 

[SG854]

No it wasn't.

Apparently not being able to remember what, when, where, how she got to the party, where it was at, how she got home and having no single witness to corroborate the story including her close friend who said she never even met Kavanaugh is compelling evidence and believable.

 

[Glyptofane]

It is my hope that anyone involved with this goes down, but I suspect most of the highest profile scumbags' involvement will never come to light.

 

[Xzi]

Apparently not being able to remember what, when, where, how she got to the party, where it was at, how she got home and having no single witness to corroborate the story including her close friend who said she never even met Kavanaugh is compelling evidence and believable.

Kavanaugh had drunken blackouts for such long periods of time that he had to pull out a fucking calendar. Her testimony clearly got to him, or he wouldn't have been crying and screaming about how much he liked beer. Like I said, under any sane president, his nomination would've been withdrawn. Both the alcoholism and his temperament should've been individually disqualifying for the highest court in the nation. It shouldn't be that hard to find a non-controversial nominee, the Trump administration had already done it once with Gorsuch.

 

[SG854]

Kavanaugh had drunken blackouts for such long periods of time that he had to pull out a fucking calendar. Her testimony clearly got to him, or he wouldn't have been crying and screaming about how much he liked beer. Like I said, under any sane president, his nomination would've been withdrawn. Both the alcoholism and his temperament should've been individually disqualifying for the highest court in the nation. It shouldn't be that hard to find a non-controversial nominee, the Trump administration had already done it once with Gorsuch.

That’s your evidence for why he’s guilty? U Mad Bro



WTF! That’s the most fucked up logic ever and you’re really biased as shit.

That was you take away. Not because he was falsely accused which can ruin his life is why he got mad, no it’s U Mad Bro cuz you know you guilty. That’s not how evidence works. You need to corroborate evidence, you need to at least remember shit.



I wouldn’t put you near anywhere to judge someone’s life.

 

[Xzi]

That’s your evidence for why he’s guilty? U Mad Bro

I didn't make a determination on whether he's guilty or not, I only stated that he is blatantly unfit to serve on the supreme court. And that's even if he had been proven innocent beyond all shadow of a doubt, which he wasn't.

That was you take away. Not because he was falsely accused which can ruin his life

I wouldn’t put you near anywhere to judge someone’s life.

This wasn't a life or death situation. Nobody is owed the honor of becoming a supreme court justice. All you're doing is demonstrating the exact same type of entitlement that should've been disqualifying for Kavanaugh in the first place.

 

[SG854]

I didn't make a determination on whether he's guilty or not, I only stated that he is blatantly unfit to serve on the supreme court. And that's even if he had been proven innocent beyond all shadow of a doubt, which he wasn't.


This wasn't a life or death situation. Nobody is owed the honor of becoming a supreme court justice. All you're doing is demonstrating the exact same type of entitlement that should've been disqualifying for Kavanaugh in the first place.

You said her testimony clearly got to him. Either implying that he is guilty or that he is innocent but her false accusation got to him, so fuck him for not maintaining his cool on a situation that can ruin his life because of some lying bitch.



He was being falsely accused, it’s understandable he lashed out. You’re just biased as shit and want any excuse just to use against him. Do you not understand the situation of being accused of sexual assault and the effects it has to ruin a persons life. It was a life ruining situation. Do you not understand that.



Your last paragraph threw me off. I was taking about sexual accusations. It had nothing to do with him being guaranteed a position. What a great way to manipulate the argument just to paint me as entitled. And that last paragraph clearly showed I was talking about sexual accusation. Stop manipulating the argument and pay attention to what I say.

 

[chrisrlink]

question is, is trump stupid enough to pardon him and give democrats even more ammo for impeachment?