Epstein, Kiddies, And Trump. Oh, My

[Elixir]

very few have a lower age

I wonder if someone here was fishing for that list.

 

[ZiprHead]

Utah’s Senate president prompted law change that helped a teen charged with child rape

An 18-year-old high schooler was facing potential prison time and having to register as a sex offender until help came from a powerful ally — Senate President J. Stuart Adams.

www.sltrib.com

Last year, an 18-year-old Utahn was staring at the potential of years in prison, accused of having sex with a 13-year-old.

Plea bargain negotiations were at an impasse. Then the Utah Legislature — based on an initial suggestion from Senate President J. Stuart Adams — changed the law.

Two months later, prosecutors offered the 18-year-old, who is related to Adams, a plea deal. The teen would plead guilty to reduced charges, face no additional jail time beyond a week already served, and would not have to register as a sex offender.

Not sure what to think of this. My first thought is it's pretty skeevy. My second thought is some 18 year olds can still be pretty immature.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I’ve raised children. Anyone who has knows there are stages of childhood development until adulthood.

Then why do you insist on a dichotomous definition that leads to absurdities, like having 18 and 17 having sex be "adult having sex with a child"?

Until one is an adult, one is a child.

Your dichotomous development is s straw man. Your obsession over when it is okay to fuck children rape apologia is psychologically abnormal,

No, it is Jarhyn et al who erect straw men. And if you cannot sustain an argument without insulting your opponents ("rape apologia", "psychologically abnormal") then there is not much to your argument.

If you cannot stand accurate representations of your views, then there is not much to your views.

You are treating child and adult as binary categories. One does not undergo a great transformation at midnight.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And, yet another screed of red herrings (hint: nobody is really calling for penalties of children exploring with children).

The subject is kids with adults.

There are pictures, evidence, testimony...

It's almost like the reason he isn't being prosecuted on the evidence we already have is because he has corrupted the DOJ and Congress has voted to block even hearing the evidence.

It's shocking that someone can call Joe Biden creepy, or whatever, and then say "oh, where's the evidence" when Trump literally talked about doing it openly on camera.

The reason it comes up is some of the apparent victims were legally able to consent to sex.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

IDF has plugged plenty of toddlers in the head and center of mass at this point.

[Citation needed]

 

[Derec]

Has anyone in this thread clarified the law when two teenagers have sex. Yes, they can be charged if they are under the age of consent, but they rarely are.

It depends on the jurisdiction. Afaik, California has aoc=18 and no close-age exceptions, so 18 year old having consensual sex with a 17 year old is technically a crime, which is insane to me.

An adult who has sex with a teenager should be charged with a crime, imo, unless the adult is very close to the age of the teenager.

Some teenagers are adults.

I'd make the age of consent 21, if I had the power.

That is insane to me, and quite illiberal. Only places like Tunisia or Indonesia have aoc >18.
Also, that would mean that people would be called "pedos" for being attracted to 20 year old grown-ass women.

We know that our brains aren't fully developed until around age 25, but 21 is the age when a lot of adult things become legal, like drinking ETOH.

That is way too high as well, due to lobbying by the aptly named MADD. What a bunch of busybody Helen Lovejoys!

Statutory rape does not require any evidence of force or coercion; a person is guilty simply by performing a sexual act with a minor below the age of consent. Depending on the state, the age of consent can be as low as 16 years of age, while others set the limit at 17 (e.g., Texas) or 18 (e.g., California).

Adults past 20 should definitely not be encouraged to sleep with 16-17 year olds, but when we are talking about charging people with felonies and putting them on sex offender registry for consensual sex, we should err on the side of caution rather than on the draconian side. I agree with Georgia and most of the developed (-ed, Jarhyn, not -ing!) world.
Especially since 16 and 17 year olds may misrepresent their age and are often able to pass for adults.

In general, when two minors under the age of consent engage in "consensual" sex with one another, they are both open to statutory rape charges.

Should not happen.

Since it would be a strange or unjust result to throw love-struck teens into jail for having consensual sex, many states have passed so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws. These laws allow minors to escape being punished as a sex offender or to receive only minor criminal punishment when both minors are within a few years of each others' ages.
Because of these defenses in many states, prosecutors will not file charges if two consenting minors are within the "Romeo and Juliet" law of their home state. However, some states, notably California, lack any sort of "Romeo and Juliet" law, and minors may be prosecuted for otherwise loving conduct.

Ah, a confirmation of what I wrote at the beginning. It is ironic that supposedly "liberal" California has such illiberal laws when it comes to sex.

I remember what it was like being a 16 and 17 year old girl. Girls that age aren't adults!

Neither are they children. Both boys and girls of that age are often sexually active with people of similar ages. While there are good reasons to discourage them from having sex with people much older than them, or in positions of authority over them, but that is not because they are children incapable of consenting.
'
And btw, age of consent may be 16 in most places, but teachers can still be prosecuted based on their position of authority.

 

[Derec]

Seeing that life expectancy is only about 25 for Aussies due to the common onslaught of things trying to kill Aussies, that'd probably be why. I mean the legal drinking age is 12 in Australia! People start collecting their pensions at 18.

I know you jest, but

Aussies must have gotten good at dodging those dropbears!

 

[Derec]

Consenting adults is one thing. But for certain, there is porn available where there was non-consent and under aged persons involved.

Right.

Yes, it’s very much true that some people look years younger than their actual age—and some who look older than their age. There is NO EXCUSE for using persons who are under age or who do NOT consent. Full stop.

Nobody is saying otherwise. But steve_bank is going further than that. For example, he is against BDSM porn, even if all the actors are consenting adults.

 

[Derec]

In the US, sex for pay is illegal for anyone under 18.
Actually, in most of the world, the age of consent for prostitution is 18. A very few have a lower age and one or two have an older age.

I think 18 is the right age for sex work, so we agree there. I was talking about general age of consent in the post you were replying to. Those are different things.

Where we disagree is that you advocate keeping sex work illegal, regardless of age.

 

[Derec]

The reason the hush money was illegal is that he did not use his own money but campaign funds. He violated laws regulating what campaign funds could pay for.

That law is a misdemeanor, and the statute of limitations had expired. Note that Bragg's predecessor in the Manhattan DA's office, Cyrus Vance, passed on prosecuting Trump over this.
Bragg invented "novel legal theories" to upgrade the charges to felonies (by piggypacking the state charge onto a federal law that Trump had not been charged, much less convicted, under) in order to get past the statute of limitations.
Such legal maneuvering made the whole thing less a straightforward prosecution and more a political witch hunt, especially from a DA known for being soft on crime when it does not involve political enemies.
In the end, the whole thing helped Trump politically and aided his reelection efforts. Nice job Alvin, you bellend!

I don’t care about who Trump has sex with as long as it is mutually consensual and the person(s) he has sex with are old enough to give consent—and where money is exchanged, ( ie prostitution), that age is 18 in the US. Where there is no consent—which includes persons under the age of consent, that is rape.

No disagreement there. If there was evidence for claims by "Katie Johnson" (I think that's a pseudonym), that would have been a straightforward felony. What she alleges happened in Manhattan, so Bragg had jurisdiction.
Other than that, the federal documents case from Mar-a-Lago and the Georgia elector case were both much better than the hush money case.

If accounts related by victims are accurate, Trump and Epstein raped children too young to be able to give consent or to act willingly as prostitutes. Those kids were raped repeatedly and otherwise physically abused.

We are in agreement on this. "Katie Johnson" was 13 for example. Way too young for any of this. The problem would have been proving it after so much time had elapsed. She really should have gone to the police back in 1994. Same goes for EJC.

 

[Derec]

That's less than half.

More than enough to cost him reelection.

That's what I am saying. This Epstein files thing should have been hammered before the election. Not the Stormy Daniels hush money thing.

 

[Derec]

Not sure what to think of this. My first thought is it's pretty skeevy. My second thought is some 18 year olds can still be pretty immature.

13 is quite young. I think the 18 year old should have faced some consequences, but there is no need to ruin his life over it by giving him prison time and putting him on a sex offender registry.

 

[Derec]

So you think the charges were for political reasons and you think the charges should not have been brought, wait for it, for political reasons. ???

The charges should not have been brought because the statute of limitations had expired.
To invent "novel legal theories" in order to get a political enemy is a politically motivated prosecution.

That’s how very clever he is.
The inference being that if it had been anyone else falsifying records, assaulting women, defrauding people etc., they never would have been prosecuted.

Yes. Alvin Bragg would not have prosecuted somebody who was not a political enemy for the hush money case. After all, he is the kind of DA who downgrades robberies to misdemeanor theft.
He did not bring any criminal charges for assault or fraud, so that's moot. There was a civil fraud case brought by NY state which was questionable with many legal commentator saying that cases are not usually pursued under these circumstances (i.e. there was no harm done to the victim Deutsche Bank). So that would be another instance where he was treated differently because of who he was.
Trump Fraud Verdict Shows Political Overreach

Which is par for the course, and utter bullshit. But if you’re an “imnotatrumpsucker” you have to peddle it.
Disgusting. But that’s just me …

I am also disgusted by Trump winning reelection. But that does not mean I have to like what Bragg did here.
There were some good cases against Trump in the pipeline, and the hush money case was not one of them.

Why are some of you so emotionally tied to that particular case?

 

[Toni]

The reason the hush money was illegal is that he did not use his own money but campaign funds. He violated laws regulating what campaign funds could pay for.

That law is a misdemeanor, and the statute of limitations had expired. Note that Bragg's predecessor in the Manhattan DA's office, Cyrus Vance, passed on prosecuting Trump over this.
Bragg invented "novel legal theories" to upgrade the charges to felonies (by piggypacking the state charge onto a federal law that Trump had not been charged, much less convicted, under) in order to get past the statute of limitations.
Such legal maneuvering made the whole thing less a straightforward prosecution and more a political witch hunt, especially from a DA known for being soft on crime when it does not involve political enemies.
In the end, the whole thing helped Trump politically and aided his reelection efforts. Nice job Alvin, you bellend!

I don’t care about who Trump has sex with as long as it is mutually consensual and the person(s) he has sex with are old enough to give consent—and where money is exchanged, ( ie prostitution), that age is 18 in the US. Where there is no consent—which includes persons under the age of consent, that is rape.

No disagreement there. If there was evidence for claims by "Katie Johnson" (I think that's a pseudonym), that would have been a straightforward felony. What she alleges happened in Manhattan, so Bragg had jurisdiction.
Other than that, the federal documents case from Mar-a-Lago and the Georgia elector case were both much better than the hush money case.

If accounts related by victims are accurate, Trump and Epstein raped children too young to be able to give consent or to act willingly as prostitutes. Those kids were raped repeatedly and otherwise physically abused.

We are in agreement on this. "Katie Johnson" was 13 for example. Way too young for any of this. The problem would have been proving it after so much time had elapsed. She really should have gone to the police back in 1994. Same goes for EJC.

Violations of campaign finance laws can be misdemeanors or felonies. Penalties for such violations carry prison terms.

The thing is, expecting such young kids to go to the police to report the abuse those kids endured is not reasonable, particularly when one takes into account the fact that they had been groomed and were coerced and in fact physically abused as well as raped by Trump and Epstein and threatened with not only their death but the death of their family members. Statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse do not necessarily apply. It is a further obscenity to lay blame at the feet of abuse victims. Honestly, Derec, you should be ashamed here.

 

[Toni]

In the US, sex for pay is illegal for anyone under 18.
Actually, in most of the world, the age of consent for prostitution is 18. A very few have a lower age and one or two have an older age.

I think 18 is the right age for sex work, so we agree there. I was talking about general age of consent in the post you were replying to. Those are different things.

Where we disagree is that you advocate keeping sex work illegal, regardless of age.

I don’t actually agree that 18 should be the minimum age for sex work. I’ve raised kids and spent enough time with adolescents to believe that they are not old enough to make such a willing choice, just as I don’t think 18 year olds should be allowed to consume alcohol. FFS, at 18, you cannot rent cars or hotel rooms—for good reason. Frankly I care much more about the potential damage to 18 year old sex workers than I do about a trashed hotel room.

As I’ve said before, the part about sex work that concerns me is the potential for coercion. Most of the stats I’ve read have stated that most sex workers begin this line of work when they are 14 or 15—way too young to be able to advocate for themselves. And vulnerable enough to believe that is all that they are good for.

 

[Toni]

The reason the hush money was illegal is that he did not use his own money but campaign funds. He violated laws regulating what campaign funds could pay for.

That law is a misdemeanor, and the statute of limitations had expired. Note that Bragg's predecessor in the Manhattan DA's office, Cyrus Vance, passed on prosecuting Trump over this.
Bragg invented "novel legal theories" to upgrade the charges to felonies (by piggypacking the state charge onto a federal law that Trump had not been charged, much less convicted, under) in order to get past the statute of limitations.
Such legal maneuvering made the whole thing less a straightforward prosecution and more a political witch hunt, especially from a DA known for being soft on crime when it does not involve political enemies.
In the end, the whole thing helped Trump politically and aided his reelection efforts. Nice job Alvin, you bellend!

I don’t care about who Trump has sex with as long as it is mutually consensual and the person(s) he has sex with are old enough to give consent—and where money is exchanged, ( ie prostitution), that age is 18 in the US. Where there is no consent—which includes persons under the age of consent, that is rape.

No disagreement there. If there was evidence for claims by "Katie Johnson" (I think that's a pseudonym), that would have been a straightforward felony. What she alleges happened in Manhattan, so Bragg had jurisdiction.
Other than that, the federal documents case from Mar-a-Lago and the Georgia elector case were both much better than the hush money case.

If accounts related by victims are accurate, Trump and Epstein raped children too young to be able to give consent or to act willingly as prostitutes. Those kids were raped repeatedly and otherwise physically abused.

We are in agreement on this. "Katie Johnson" was 13 for example. Way too young for any of this. The problem would have been proving it after so much time had elapsed. She really should have gone to the police back in 1994. Same goes for EJC.

What Katie Johnson—yes, a pseudonym, alleges and is corroborated by another victim did not happen in Manhattan. Yes, those acts were each felonies. The accusers, assuming they would have been free to report to the police, were unlikely to have been believed in their accusations against wealthy, powerful men.

It takes a great deal to go to the police with allegations of rape for anyone. In this case, you have young girls, removed from their families, who had been groomed and abused for some time, by wealthy, powerful people who manipulated and controlled them.

 

[bilby]

Aussies must have gotten good at dodging those dropbears

Nah, but the government is really good at covering up the attacks. We would be rooted without the tourist dollars.

Have you ever heard of a confirmed case of somebody being killed by a dropbear?

See, I told you they were really good.

Try asking the Prime Minister for the stats. His office won't even take you seriously. No journalist will cover the story. Anyone who does take an interest in finding out the numbers will be dismissed as a crank.

Really, really, really good.

 

[southernhybrid]

Not sure what to think of this. My first thought is it's pretty skeevy. My second thought is some 18 year olds can still be pretty immature.

13 is quite young. I think the 18 year old should have faced some consequences, but there is no need to ruin his life over it by giving him prison time and putting him on a sex offender registry.

I have a 14 year old grandauther. She is very much a child in many ways and if an 18 year old boy was able to seduce her into having sex with him, I'd want him charged as a sexual predator. He would have ruined his own life by seducing a child like her into having sex with him. I don't know what the proper sentence would be, but it would need to be enough to help him understand that what he did was criminal.

And, if a young man isn't sure of the age of the girl he wants to have sex with, he can at the very least ask to see her driver's license. If she doesn't have one, that should be enough to back him off. Men know the age of consent. If they are romantically attracted to someone a little bit under the age of consent, they can get to know her better and wait until she is over the age of consent before asking her to have sex with him. In the meantime, they can fantasize and masturbate. They don't need to fuck up the life of a young girl.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Utah’s Senate president prompted law change that helped a teen charged with child rape

An 18-year-old high schooler was facing potential prison time and having to register as a sex offender until help came from a powerful ally — Senate President J. Stuart Adams.

www.sltrib.com

Last year, an 18-year-old Utahn was staring at the potential of years in prison, accused of having sex with a 13-year-old.

Plea bargain negotiations were at an impasse. Then the Utah Legislature — based on an initial suggestion from Senate President J. Stuart Adams — changed the law.

Two months later, prosecutors offered the 18-year-old, who is related to Adams, a plea deal. The teen would plead guilty to reduced charges, face no additional jail time beyond a week already served, and would not have to register as a sex offender.

Not sure what to think of this. My first thought is it's pretty skeevy. My second thought is some 18 year olds can still be pretty immature.

18 year olds can be immature. Also, a 13 year old is 5 years younger, possibly a freshman in college sleeping with an 8th grader.

I think guys have a bipolar way at looking at this.

• What if they were the 18 year old.
  • guys will be guys and as long as it was consensual...
• What if the 13 year old was their daughter.
  • Where's my gun?

The internal response will be diametrically opposed.