Epstein, Kiddies, And Trump. Oh, My

[Toni]

View attachment 53074

You have to wonder why they'd go through this trouble to fake an image of Clinton, as well as go through the trouble of blacking out other files.

Something is not right here. Those are two different photos (taken a few seconds apart), either by the same photographer (Jonathan Exley) or by another photographer co-located with him. Given the drastic lighting and zoom level differences between the two photos I would lean towards it being two different photographers at the 12/19/03 photo op. The right hand photo is indeed a Getty Images photo per the watermark, as you can see here. I checked to see if Getty had the left side photo in its collection, but came up empty handed. You're welcome to search Getty yourself, but it lacks the Getty Images watermark, so I don't think you'll find it. Or perhaps it was also taken by Jonathan Exley, but he rejected it for inclusion in the Getty collection and published it elsewhere online (which I have been unable to find). I did a reverse image search on the left picture, but only was able to, unsurprisingly, find the redacted photo just released, not the original unredacted one. Perhaps you can find it and publish it here on IIDB. So, I'm thinking the left picture was taken by Epstein himself, or one of his associates, and that's how it ended up in the "Epstein files". Epstein had met and befriended both Bill Clinton and Michael Jackson by this time, so it could be that Epstein was personally invited by either Bill and/or Michael to hang out with them on that day. Epstein was known to be a celebrity worshipper, so it would be unsurprising that he would be there.

It should also be noted that MeidasTouch is not a reliable source.

Neither are kneejerk white knights of the right.

Or anyone who unironically believes "TDS" is a thing.

Well, it is a ‘thing’ but like most of what is ‘defined’ in MAGA world, it’s all backwards: TDS accurately describes the worship of Trump seem by most of his supporters.

They seem to believe that we hate Trump because he ‘tells it like it is’ and ‘isn’t a hypocrite’ while ignoring the hypocrisy of his fawning over the religious right while being wholly unfamiliar with the teachings of the New Testament or any religion whatsoever. They confuse their own bigotries with how everyone really feels but is too afraid of saying it out loud.

They are deranged.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

View attachment 53074

You have to wonder why they'd go through this trouble to fake an image of Clinton, as well as go through the trouble of blacking out other files.

Something is not right here. Those are two different photos (taken a few seconds apart), either by the same photographer (Jonathan Exley) or by another photographer co-located with him. Given the drastic lighting and zoom level differences between the two photos I would lean towards it being two different photographers at the 12/19/03 photo op. The right hand photo is indeed a Getty Images photo per the watermark, as you can see here. I checked to see if Getty had the left side photo in its collection, but came up empty handed. You're welcome to search Getty yourself, but it lacks the Getty Images watermark, so I don't think you'll find it. Or perhaps it was also taken by Jonathan Exley, but he rejected it for inclusion in the Getty collection and published it elsewhere online (which I have been unable to find). I did a reverse image search on the left picture, but only was able to, unsurprisingly, find the redacted photo just released, not the original unredacted one. Perhaps you can find it and publish it here on IIDB. So, I'm thinking the left picture was taken by Epstein himself, or one of his associates, and that's how it ended up in the "Epstein files". Epstein had met and befriended both Bill Clinton and Michael Jackson by this time, so it could be that Epstein was personally invited by either Bill and/or Michael to hang out with them on that day. Epstein was known to be a celebrity worshipper, so it would be unsurprising that he would be there.

It should also be noted that MeidasTouch is not a reliable source.

The photos are of the same event seconds apart as you have concluded. There's no reason this jump though:

So, I'm thinking the left picture was taken by Epstein himself, or one of his associates, and that's how it ended up in the "Epstein files".

They would only need Epstein or one of Epstein's lieutenants to have been present for this to be included in the Epstein files. Not all of the files they have were Epstein's property. He also could have had pictures shared with him for an event he attended, if it were his property. The reason Epstein was associated with this is because it was a fundraiser. This is also why the singers were involved.

So far as the date: 12/19/03, I am skeptical. Could be but how can you be certain? The photographer says so, but a default date created of Jan 1, 2000 is on the Getty image and it was not uploaded until 2010. So the photographer could be mistaken about the date. Meanwhile, Jackson was arrested on Nov or Dec 2003. I cannot find newspaper articles about a fundraiser he attended in Dec 2003 and in fact in late 2003 he was having trouble getting fundraiser gigs due to the allegations. I have access to a newspaper service, too, which I queried for such events and could not find any. Meanwhile, there __is__ a fundraiser from April 2002 that Clinton ran and Jackson performed at. I will add--Jonathan Exley died in April 2011 of liver failure. He was a celebrity photographer who did a lot of photography of Michael Jackson. 2010 is very close to his death which seems to increase the chance he was making a mistake during illness or was even being helped with uploads in anticipation of his death so that his relatives could capitalize on his work via his estate or just to have a legacy somewhere of his work. I will just throw this out there: I am slightly suspicious that a Republican relative of Exley with an axe to grind uploaded the image in 2010 and gave it a date of Dec 19, 2003 intentionally to make Clinton look bad. This is because there is some evidence Jackson was served with an arrest warrant on Dec 18, 2003 in California for molestation. I am more inclined to believe it's a mistake or even a coincidence because perhaps the photo was transferred to a different device prior to upload and it took on a new date of creation when that happened. Who knows...

Okay, BUT, since the date says Dec 19, 2003 this is prime time attack material against Clinton and the Democratic Party. That's the whole reason this photo is included in the "Epstein" Files. It is NOT an Epstein file, but a Clinton file. They've added it and they've begun investigating Democrats in the files and so it is added material since Trump took office. At some point he even publicly stated he would investigate the Democrats in the files. So that's what's being done and now this is being used as a tool to keep the files from coming out. They will continue to do partial releases while at the same time threatening criminal trials of Democrats who knew Epstein to try to get everyone to shut up about Trump.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

 

[bilby]

Lying under oath isn't treason though, it's perjury. I would like it considered about as serious, but it's not treason.

Indeed:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Perjury by the head of the FBI is an extremely serious offence that undermines the rule of law he is sworn to uphold; But it ain't treason, and saying it is just highlights the writer's lack of knowledge of what he is on about.

 

[crazyfingers]

Lying under oath isn't treason though, it's perjury. I would like it considered about as serious, but it's not treason.

Indeed:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Perjury by the head of the FBI is an extremely serious offence that undermines the rule of law he is sworn to uphold; But it ain't treason, and saying it is just highlights the writer's lack of knowledge of what he is on about.

Perjury is certainly impeachable.

Of course this administration has been doing impeachable stuff all year and no one has been impeached yet.

 

[ZiprHead]

View attachment 53074

You have to wonder why they'd go through this trouble to fake an image of Clinton, as well as go through the trouble of blacking out other files.

Something is not right here. Those are two different photos (taken a few seconds apart), either by the same photographer (Jonathan Exley) or by another photographer co-located with him. Given the drastic lighting and zoom level differences between the two photos I would lean towards it being two different photographers at the 12/19/03 photo op. The right hand photo is indeed a Getty Images photo per the watermark, as you can see here. I checked to see if Getty had the left side photo in its collection, but came up empty handed. You're welcome to search Getty yourself, but it lacks the Getty Images watermark, so I don't think you'll find it. Or perhaps it was also taken by Jonathan Exley, but he rejected it for inclusion in the Getty collection and published it elsewhere online (which I have been unable to find). I did a reverse image search on the left picture, but only was able to, unsurprisingly, find the redacted photo just released, not the original unredacted one. Perhaps you can find it and publish it here on IIDB. So, I'm thinking the left picture was taken by Epstein himself, or one of his associates, and that's how it ended up in the "Epstein files". Epstein had met and befriended both Bill Clinton and Michael Jackson by this time, so it could be that Epstein was personally invited by either Bill and/or Michael to hang out with them on that day. Epstein was known to be a celebrity worshipper, so it would be unsurprising that he would be there.

It should also be noted that MeidasTouch is not a reliable source.

You believe that was actually in the Epstein files and not just inserted there by DOJ henchmen to smear Clinton?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

View attachment 53074

You have to wonder why they'd go through this trouble to fake an image of Clinton, as well as go through the trouble of blacking out other files.

Something is not right here. Those are two different photos (taken a few seconds apart), either by the same photographer (Jonathan Exley) or by another photographer co-located with him. Given the drastic lighting and zoom level differences between the two photos I would lean towards it being two different photographers at the 12/19/03 photo op. The right hand photo is indeed a Getty Images photo per the watermark, as you can see here. I checked to see if Getty had the left side photo in its collection, but came up empty handed. You're welcome to search Getty yourself, but it lacks the Getty Images watermark, so I don't think you'll find it. Or perhaps it was also taken by Jonathan Exley, but he rejected it for inclusion in the Getty collection and published it elsewhere online (which I have been unable to find). I did a reverse image search on the left picture, but only was able to, unsurprisingly, find the redacted photo just released, not the original unredacted one. Perhaps you can find it and publish it here on IIDB. So, I'm thinking the left picture was taken by Epstein himself, or one of his associates, and that's how it ended up in the "Epstein files". Epstein had met and befriended both Bill Clinton and Michael Jackson by this time, so it could be that Epstein was personally invited by either Bill and/or Michael to hang out with them on that day. Epstein was known to be a celebrity worshipper, so it would be unsurprising that he would be there.

It should also be noted that MeidasTouch is not a reliable source.

You believe that was actually in the Epstein files and not just inserted there by DOJ henchmen to smear Clinton?

Whoa whoa whoa, we have no reason to believe the Trump DOJ would lie about anything. Absolutely none.

(I threw up in my mouth a little pretending to say that).

 

[thebeave]

nm

 

[thebeave]

View attachment 53074

You have to wonder why they'd go through this trouble to fake an image of Clinton, as well as go through the trouble of blacking out other files.

Something is not right here. Those are two different photos (taken a few seconds apart), either by the same photographer (Jonathan Exley) or by another photographer co-located with him. Given the drastic lighting and zoom level differences between the two photos I would lean towards it being two different photographers at the 12/19/03 photo op. The right hand photo is indeed a Getty Images photo per the watermark, as you can see here. I checked to see if Getty had the left side photo in its collection, but came up empty handed. You're welcome to search Getty yourself, but it lacks the Getty Images watermark, so I don't think you'll find it. Or perhaps it was also taken by Jonathan Exley, but he rejected it for inclusion in the Getty collection and published it elsewhere online (which I have been unable to find). I did a reverse image search on the left picture, but only was able to, unsurprisingly, find the redacted photo just released, not the original unredacted one. Perhaps you can find it and publish it here on IIDB. So, I'm thinking the left picture was taken by Epstein himself, or one of his associates, and that's how it ended up in the "Epstein files". Epstein had met and befriended both Bill Clinton and Michael Jackson by this time, so it could be that Epstein was personally invited by either Bill and/or Michael to hang out with them on that day. Epstein was known to be a celebrity worshipper, so it would be unsurprising that he would be there.

It should also be noted that MeidasTouch is not a reliable source.

You believe that was actually in the Epstein files and not just inserted there by DOJ henchmen to smear Clinton?

No, I don't believe it was put there by DOJ henchmen to smear Clinton. Why would they bother fucking around with a benign photo like that...its a pretty weak "smear", if at all. There are other much more "interesting" photos of Bill Clinton in the latest release. Like these:



Even Tim Kaine (Hillary's VP pick) said that Bill has some esplainin' to do

 

[ZiprHead]

Even Tim Kaine (Hillary's VP pick) said that Bill has some esplainin' to do

Well, if Tim Kaine said it... I mean, how much bigger of an expert on the subject than Tim Kaine can you get?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

View attachment 53074

You have to wonder why they'd go through this trouble to fake an image of Clinton, as well as go through the trouble of blacking out other files.

Something is not right here. Those are two different photos (taken a few seconds apart), either by the same photographer (Jonathan Exley) or by another photographer co-located with him. Given the drastic lighting and zoom level differences between the two photos I would lean towards it being two different photographers at the 12/19/03 photo op. The right hand photo is indeed a Getty Images photo per the watermark, as you can see here. I checked to see if Getty had the left side photo in its collection, but came up empty handed. You're welcome to search Getty yourself, but it lacks the Getty Images watermark, so I don't think you'll find it. Or perhaps it was also taken by Jonathan Exley, but he rejected it for inclusion in the Getty collection and published it elsewhere online (which I have been unable to find). I did a reverse image search on the left picture, but only was able to, unsurprisingly, find the redacted photo just released, not the original unredacted one. Perhaps you can find it and publish it here on IIDB. So, I'm thinking the left picture was taken by Epstein himself, or one of his associates, and that's how it ended up in the "Epstein files". Epstein had met and befriended both Bill Clinton and Michael Jackson by this time, so it could be that Epstein was personally invited by either Bill and/or Michael to hang out with them on that day. Epstein was known to be a celebrity worshipper, so it would be unsurprising that he would be there.

It should also be noted that MeidasTouch is not a reliable source.

You believe that was actually in the Epstein files and not just inserted there by DOJ henchmen to smear Clinton?

No, I don't believe it was put there by DOJ henchmen to smear Clinton. Why would they bother fucking around with a benign photo like that...its a pretty weak "smear", if at all. There are other much more "interesting" photos of Bill Clinton in the latest release. Like these:

View attachment 53103View attachment 53104View attachment 53105

Even Tim Kaine (Hillary's VP pick) said that Bill has some esplainin' to do

(1) Why haven't any of the victims named Clinton? Contrast this with Trump: models who were associated with both Epstein and Trump accused Trump of sex assault, for example, Lauren Petrella.* (2) Over a month ago, Trump ordered the DoJ to investigate Democrats with ties to Epstein.** This means they've had weeks to add files about Clinton (and others) to the Epstein files. It also means per order each file does not necessarily have to be related directly to Epstein.

* https://iidb.org/threads/epstein-kiddies-and-trump-oh-my.29563/page-31#post-1317066
**

 

[ZiprHead]

Former DOJ official whose remarks about Epstein files were recorded sues over firing

A veteran Justice Department official fired after being caught in a video sting criticizing the agency’s handling of the Epstein files sued Monday to demand reinstatement to his post.

Joseph Schnitt, who helped oversee DOJ’s witness protection program, claims his First Amendment rights were violated when Attorney General Pam Bondi abruptly fired him in September after a conservative group published surreptitiously recorded video of him predicting that the department would take a partisan approach to disclosures about the well-connected convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

“They’ll redact every Republican or conservative person in those files, leave all the liberal Democratic people in those files,” Schnitt said in a video published in September by conservative provocateur James O’Keefe. The video also depicts Schnitt declaring that the recent transfer of convicted Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell to a minimum-security prison violated DOJ policy for sex offenders and amounted to “offering her something to keep her mouth shut.”

How right he was.

Even down to making photos of Clinton look bad. For example the one of him, Michael Jackson, and Diana Ross, with a couple of kids whose faces have been redacted. Except we have the original photo, and it isn't sinister, as they are Diana Ross's son, Evan Ross and Michael Jackson's kids

 

[laughing dog]

I have two observations.

While I am sure Mr Clinton has dome explaining to do, he is not the sitting POTUS!!!

Give the demonstrated partisan behavior of this administration, especially the DOJ, how either desperately partisan or stupid does one have to be in order to believe the DOJ ?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Even Tim Kaine (Hillary's VP pick) said that Bill has some esplainin' to do

Bill's 79 and a private citizen. I think his explanation might be, I don't give a fuck.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Lying under oath isn't treason though, it's perjury. I would like it considered about as serious, but it's not treason.

Indeed:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Perjury by the head of the FBI is an extremely serious offence that undermines the rule of law he is sworn to uphold; But it ain't treason, and saying it is just highlights the writer's lack of knowledge of what he is on about.

Can we at least squeeze it in under capital offense? Historically, I think beheading was the preferred punishment.

 

[bilby]

Lying under oath isn't treason though, it's perjury. I would like it considered about as serious, but it's not treason.

Indeed:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Perjury by the head of the FBI is an extremely serious offence that undermines the rule of law he is sworn to uphold; But it ain't treason, and saying it is just highlights the writer's lack of knowledge of what he is on about.

Can we at least squeeze it in under capital offense? Historically, I think beheading was the preferred punishment.

Well if he lies while testifying to a Congressional Committee, it's undoubtedly a Capitol offence.