Epstein, Kiddies, And Trump. Oh, My

[Jimmy Higgins]

We don't know who or what is on the footage.

Other than that whole part where Democrats who have seen them have discussed what is on the footage.

What statements would those be?

 

[Jarhyn]

We don't know who or what is on the footage.

Other than that whole part where Democrats who have seen them have discussed what is on the footage.

What statements would those be?

Pretty sure there were some links posted earlier in the thread of lawmakers discussing the contents of the footage in ways that this should be apparent.

There were even indexes posted indicating this footage's existence, as well as indexes of transcripts that were discussed as containing these things and absent from the released documents.

You can find all this information online and from fairly reputable sources. I have been exposed to it by pure coincidence and in passing from mere exposure on the forums here and Reddit.

I am slightly incredulous that you have not been so exposed to the fact of the files containing video evidence of child sexual abuse and worse as described by reputable sources who have seen their contents.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

And this is going too far in the other direction.

There are names in there that are clearly incidental. Being mentioned is irrelevant.

There are names in there that are likely simply prospects. Could be a lot of information without there being any wrongdoing on the part of the person.

There are names in there that imply attitudes towards women that aren't appropriate but neither do they show criminal behavior.

There are names in there that clearly imply knowledge of improper behavior.

And there are names in there that clearly imply improper behavior.

And there's reason to think the files have been tampered with, nothing in there is suitable for the courtroom. (Although in recent years we have seen two cases where the reaction of the accused has convinced me of their guilt. When the defense presents reasons that don't stand up to scrutiny I'll consider them guilty--for example, Kavanaugh. The pattern to her memories makes it clear something strongly emotional happened and this is something that would be extremely hard to fake. But that's not the same thing as proving that the emotional event was rape--I would not be willing to convict on her testimony. But his defense leaves no room for an emotional event--he's going against something I consider established beyond a reasonable doubt, and once a witness is perjured about anything everything they say should be treated with considerable skepticism. Thus I will accept the unproven part of her testimony.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We don't know who or what is on the footage.

Other than that whole part where Democrats who have seen them have discussed what is on the footage.

What statements would those be?

Pretty sure there were some links posted earlier in the thread of lawmakers discussing the contents of the footage in ways that this should be apparent.

I haven't seen any (not aware that any of these statements have been made) and I did a quick search online and haven't found any. So please, can you either point me to the texts of the quotes or the posts that have those links regarding Democrats speaking out about the specific content on in the Epstein media?

You can find all this information online and from fairly reputable sources.

"Fairly reputable"? Reddit and Substack don't count.

I am slightly incredulous that you have not been so exposed to the fact of the files containing video evidence of child sexual abuse and worse as described by reputable sources who have seen their contents.

I'm not saying that such material doesn't exist, nor have I said I don't believe they exist. I said I (we at this web board) do not have the legal clearance to know who, what, etc... is on the videos in a legal, convicting people of wrongdoing sort of way.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Statute of limitations.

 

[Toni]

We don't know who or what is on the footage.

We know some of it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We don't know who or what is on the footage.

We know some of it.

You and others might, but apparently I don't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is not even a legal gray area; the law is very clear on this point that not preventing a crime you are aware of and doing nothing about it after the fact is conspiracy to commit a crime, withholding of evidence, and so on.

Huh? If you take any action to conceal it you're an accessory, but you're not required to come forward with what you know.

Yes, Epstein was Child Rape Inc, but any company has investors. In fact, it's hard to have any sort of international business involving wealthy folks (especially a prince of England) without having some of the wealthiest and oldest of "old money" catching a smell of what you're stepping in, which means they are in it, too. And while uncertainty is a cover for most, when there is so much ambiguity, I think that uncertainty becomes more a crime in its careful maintenance despite its removability.

Disagree. Suspicion is not enough to compel action. I would be surprised if the wealthiest of the old money doesn't have a skeleton in a closet somewhere--does that mean I can never have dealings with them? People very rarely rise to the top without some questionable deeds. (Simple statistics: there's a big luck component and questionable deeds increase your chances at the expense of possible trouble if they are exposed.)

 

[Toni]

We don't know who or what is on the footage.

We know some of it.

You and others might, but apparently I don't.

To be fair, I only know what I’ve read reports of being present. I have not delved into more for detail, etc. frankly because I cannot stomach it.

 

[Toni]

This is not even a legal gray area; the law is very clear on this point that not preventing a crime you are aware of and doing nothing about it after the fact is conspiracy to commit a crime, withholding of evidence, and so on.

Huh? If you take any action to conceal it you're an accessory, but you're not required to come forward with what you know.

Yes, Epstein was Child Rape Inc, but any company has investors. In fact, it's hard to have any sort of international business involving wealthy folks (especially a prince of England) without having some of the wealthiest and oldest of "old money" catching a smell of what you're stepping in, which means they are in it, too. And while uncertainty is a cover for most, when there is so much ambiguity, I think that uncertainty becomes more a crime in its careful maintenance despite its removability.

Disagree. Suspicion is not enough to compel action. I would be surprised if the wealthiest of the old money doesn't have a skeleton in a closet somewhere--does that mean I can never have dealings with them? People very rarely rise to the top without some questionable deeds. (Simple statistics: there's a big luck component and questionable deeds increase your chances at the expense of possible trouble if they are exposed.)

Legally? Probably not unless you are a mandated reporter. Otherwise, If you suspect child abuse or sexual abuse, you have a moral duty to report to the authorities.

Unfortunately, there have been reports to FBI and/or police as far back as 1996, which reports were ignored.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

FFS, we take children away from their parents for accusations of child sexual assault.

Here in California we give serial child rapists parole.

A California child molester once described by a judge as "the monster parents fear the most" has been cleared for release under the state’s elderly parole program, a decision local law enforcement says puts communities at risk and prosecutors are now scrambling to stop.

News

Funny old world, innit.

Faux Noise fanning the flames again.

You're skipping over the very important word: "elderly". History shows such people are very unlikely to reoffend.

 

[Toni]

This is not even a legal gray area; the law is very clear on this point that not preventing a crime you are aware of and doing nothing about it after the fact is conspiracy to commit a crime, withholding of evidence, and so on.

Huh? If you take any action to conceal it you're an accessory, but you're not required to come forward with what you know.

Yes, Epstein was Child Rape Inc, but any company has investors. In fact, it's hard to have any sort of international business involving wealthy folks (especially a prince of England) without having some of the wealthiest and oldest of "old money" catching a smell of what you're stepping in, which means they are in it, too. And while uncertainty is a cover for most, when there is so much ambiguity, I think that uncertainty becomes more a crime in its careful maintenance despite its removability.

Disagree. Suspicion is not enough to compel action. I would be surprised if the wealthiest of the old money doesn't have a skeleton in a closet somewhere--does that mean I can never have dealings with them? People very rarely rise to the top without some questionable deeds. (Simple statistics: there's a big luck component and questionable deeds increase your chances at the expense of possible trouble if they are exposed.)

Legally? Probably not unless you are a mandated reporter. Otherwise, If you suspect child abuse or sexual abuse, you have a moral duty to report to the authorities.

Unfortunately, there have been reports to FBI and/or police as far back as 1996, which reports were ignored.

If you are on Facebook, look up Mary Doria Russell’s profile. She’s publishing some screenshots of what DOJ has now made public. Don’t do it at work. Or if you want to sleep at night.

 

[Toni]

This is not even a legal gray area; the law is very clear on this point that not preventing a crime you are aware of and doing nothing about it after the fact is conspiracy to commit a crime, withholding of evidence, and so on.

Huh? If you take any action to conceal it you're an accessory, but you're not required to come forward with what you know.

Yes, Epstein was Child Rape Inc, but any company has investors. In fact, it's hard to have any sort of international business involving wealthy folks (especially a prince of England) without having some of the wealthiest and oldest of "old money" catching a smell of what you're stepping in, which means they are in it, too. And while uncertainty is a cover for most, when there is so much ambiguity, I think that uncertainty becomes more a crime in its careful maintenance despite its removability.

Disagree. Suspicion is not enough to compel action. I would be surprised if the wealthiest of the old money doesn't have a skeleton in a closet somewhere--does that mean I can never have dealings with them? People very rarely rise to the top without some questionable deeds. (Simple statistics: there's a big luck component and questionable deeds increase your chances at the expense of possible trouble if they are exposed.)

Suspicion? How about reports from victims? There were often the necessary 4 adult males present as required under Islamic law.

 

[Toni]

The thing is, as disgusting a pedophile as Epstein was, his motivation was not —or not primarily to have friends with whom he could share his proclivities. No. It was to gather material to blackmail some of the richest and most powerful people in the world, for his own enrichment.

That, I believe is what the firmer Prince is being charged with: corruption. I think that is what most of those who go down will be charged with—corruption. Trading secrets and cash for silence.

No body cares that much about 13 year old girls.

 

[Jarhyn]

The thing is, as disgusting a pedophile as Epstein was, his motivation was not —or not primarily to have friends with whom he could share his proclivities. No. It was to gather material to blackmail some of the richest and most powerful people in the world, for his own enrichment.

That, I believe is what the firmer Prince is being charged with: corruption. I think that is what most of those who go down will be charged with—corruption. Trading secrets and cash for silence.

No body cares that much about 13 year old girls.

Spoken directly to me in a room this weekend by a lawyer, in a tone which means this is popular knowledge in legal professional circles: "there is nothing so unprofitable as a lawsuit over the death of an old person or a child."

 

[Jarhyn]

If you take any action to conceal it you're an accessory, but you're not required to come forward with what you know.

Withholding evidence is a crime.

 

[Jarhyn]

This is not even a legal gray area; the law is very clear on this point that not preventing a crime you are aware of and doing nothing about it after the fact is conspiracy to commit a crime, withholding of evidence, and so on.

Huh? If you take any action to conceal it you're an accessory, but you're not required to come forward with what you know.

Yes, Epstein was Child Rape Inc, but any company has investors. In fact, it's hard to have any sort of international business involving wealthy folks (especially a prince of England) without having some of the wealthiest and oldest of "old money" catching a smell of what you're stepping in, which means they are in it, too. And while uncertainty is a cover for most, when there is so much ambiguity, I think that uncertainty becomes more a crime in its careful maintenance despite its removability.

Disagree. Suspicion is not enough to compel action. I would be surprised if the wealthiest of the old money doesn't have a skeleton in a closet somewhere--does that mean I can never have dealings with them? People very rarely rise to the top without some questionable deeds. (Simple statistics: there's a big luck component and questionable deeds increase your chances at the expense of possible trouble if they are exposed.)

Legally? Probably not unless you are a mandated reporter. Otherwise, If you suspect child abuse or sexual abuse, you have a moral duty to report to the authorities.

Unfortunately, there have been reports to FBI and/or police as far back as 1996, which reports were ignored.

If you are on Facebook, look up Mary Doria Russell’s profile. She’s publishing some screenshots of what DOJ has now made public. Don’t do it at work. Or if you want to sleep at night.

To be fair, this is the primary reason I don't post links or references: I don't really want to have the full horror of that burned into my mind to keep me up at night. It's easier for me when it's abstract. It is easier when it's names and dates and testimony and document reference numbers. I already have enough anger and angst in me over the very existence of those documents and digging further will do me not the victims favors.

As I have said, I have genuine info-hazards lurking in my memory, of events which even to talk about them could result in enabling or triggering their repetition that already come to mind every time this subject comes up, to remind me yet again how much of a fucked up mess life can be.

I don't want more, and so I don't do the things that would arm me with those facts.

I will accept that these things exist, at the word of such people, and hope that others with more room to take those burdens on themselves exist and are honest about what they see.

There is no shortage of proof of evil acts, I just do not see the use in polluting myself with quite that much rage as would awaken in the sight of it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Derec, I’m sincerely struggling to see how finally openly discussing the sexual abuse of minors and the likely trading of business and national secrets is a ‘witch hunt.’

Many young girls and quite possibly young boys were sexually assaulted and perhaps murdered by some of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful people, over decades. Individuals were threatened with death to themselves and their families if they came forward.

It’s not a witch hunt so much as a continuing coverup and minimization of the criminality of raping children. This is not the divine right of men.

What I think he's objecting to is the rush to judgment.

 

[Toni]

Derec, I’m sincerely struggling to see how finally openly discussing the sexual abuse of minors and the likely trading of business and national secrets is a ‘witch hunt.’

Many young girls and quite possibly young boys were sexually assaulted and perhaps murdered by some of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful people, over decades. Individuals were threatened with death to themselves and their families if they came forward.

It’s not a witch hunt so much as a continuing coverup and minimization of the criminality of raping children. This is not the divine right of men.

What I think he's objecting to is the rush to judgment.

Like there’s an upside to this?

 

[ZiprHead]

This is not even a legal gray area; the law is very clear on this point that not preventing a crime you are aware of and doing nothing about it after the fact is conspiracy to commit a crime, withholding of evidence, and so on.

Huh? If you take any action to conceal it you're an accessory, but you're not required to come forward with what you know.

Yes, Epstein was Child Rape Inc, but any company has investors. In fact, it's hard to have any sort of international business involving wealthy folks (especially a prince of England) without having some of the wealthiest and oldest of "old money" catching a smell of what you're stepping in, which means they are in it, too. And while uncertainty is a cover for most, when there is so much ambiguity, I think that uncertainty becomes more a crime in its careful maintenance despite its removability.

Disagree. Suspicion is not enough to compel action. I would be surprised if the wealthiest of the old money doesn't have a skeleton in a closet somewhere--does that mean I can never have dealings with them? People very rarely rise to the top without some questionable deeds. (Simple statistics: there's a big luck component and questionable deeds increase your chances at the expense of possible trouble if they are exposed.)

Legally? Probably not unless you are a mandated reporter. Otherwise, If you suspect child abuse or sexual abuse, you have a moral duty to report to the authorities.

Unfortunately, there have been reports to FBI and/or police as far back as 1996, which reports were ignored.

If you are on Facebook, look up Mary Doria Russell’s profile. She’s publishing some screenshots of what DOJ has now made public. Don’t do it at work. Or if you want to sleep at night.

Post at the top of the page has about a dozen pages of a document. I didn't take the time to read it.


https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=mary doria russell facebook