Epstein, Kiddies, And Trump. Oh, My

[laughing dog]

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.

Since when? Opps, my bad. I forgot this is about white male rapists.

 

[ZiprHead]

The DOJ finally released the highly damning FBI forms

Thursday evening, DOJ watchers noted that it had released three FBI 302 interview reports, with redactions, that had recently become the subject of intense public scrutiny. These forms summarize FBI interviews with witnesses and victims and are routinely used by investigators to document potentially criminal allegations.

The missing forms were first reported by Roger Sollenberger. These were not anonymous tip reports but detailed FBI interview summaries. As I noted in an earlier piece, these previously missing documents were of a very different and, to the White House, far more dangerous nature than mere anonymous tip reports. They were explosive and credible enough for the FBI to include on a PowerPoint slide under the header “Trump” and to conduct follow-up witness interviews, including apparently with Epstein’s “Cellmate.”

But the record, as produced, was woefully incomplete. As I noted at the time:

A critical missing piece is the FBI interview and 302 form containing the victim’s statements about Trump. That’s what presumably would have led to the bombshell allegation being included in the slideshow and subsequent emails about a “Cellmate interview,” as well as a follow-up and corroboration with the friend of the victim.

Now three of those missing 302 forms are out, and they contain highly graphic details about Trump’s presence, communications, actions and sex crimes against a minor. The victim also credibly describes threats upon her life and well-being, as well as extortion against her family, and said was reluctant to provide details against Trump because she believed nothing could be done to hold Trump accountable due to the amount of time that had lapsed.

Screenshots about 2/3 of the way down the page.

The Shit Hits the Fan

Three big stories, all from yesterday, are walloping Trumpworld.

statuskuo.substack.com

 

[ZiprHead]

Prison Guard Made Mysterious Big Deposits and Google Searches Before Epstein’s Death: DOJ

One of the guards responsible for checking on Jeffrey Epstein's well-being while he sat in a Manhattan jail cell googled him minutes before he was found dead.

www.yahoo.com

New York State Sex Offender Registry via AP, File

One of the guards responsible for monitoring Jeffrey Epstein while he sat in a Manhattan jail cell Googled him just minutes before he was found dead and made mysterious cash deposits in the days leading up to his death, according to new documents released by the Department of Justice.

The DOJ released additional files pertaining to Epstein on Thursday night that included information about Tova Noel, one of two Metropolitan Correctional Center workers charged with keeping an eye on Epstein before he stood trial on federal sex trafficking charges.


The New York Post reported Saturday that an FBI record of Noel’s internet search history from Aug. 10, 2019, showed she googled “latest on Epstein in jail” at 5:42 a.m. and then again at 5:52 a.m. Noel’s colleague, Michael Thomas, found the disgraced billionaire dead by hanging at 6:30 that morning.

Noel denied googling Epstein in her sworn statement to the DOJ in 2021.

Journalist Michael Tracey appeared to suggest that the Google searches weren’t particularly unusual, writing, “Right before the supposedly suspicious search for the latest info on Epstein, the guard was searching for info on another federal inmate held at the same Manhattan jail facility — ‘KENYATTA TAISTE’ — and then right after, searched for info on another inmate at the facility — ‘omar amanat.’ Then she searched for ‘law enforcement discounts.'”

Both Noel and Thomas were fired after being accused of falsifying records to show they checked on Epstein throughout the night before his death. Criminal charges against the two were later dropped.

The files also showed that Tova made a mysterious $5,000 cash deposit 10 days before Epstein’s death, which has since been ruled a suicide.

In addition, the Miami Herald reporter who originally broke the Epstein story that led to his 2008 guilty plea to state-level prostitution, wrote on X, “Adding: there are also a lot of monthly ‘Quick Zelle’ cash payments to this woman’s bank account during this time span.”

 

[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.

ETA Toni has provided it.

 

[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.

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.

ETA Toni has provided it.

Appreciate the effort there. Real hero level of trying to help.

And just the reminder, the statement from Jarhyn was "Other than that whole part where Democrats who have seen them have discussed what is on the footage."

I asked for evidence that Democrats had seen the media related evidence and spoke about it, specifically and in regards to who did what.

 

[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.

ETA Toni has provided it.

Appreciate the effort there. Real hero level of trying to help.

And just the reminder, the statement from Jarhyn was "Other than that whole part where Democrats who have seen them have discussed what is on the footage."

I asked for evidence that Democrats had seen the media related evidence and spoke about it, specifically and in regards to who did what.

Yes, and Toni provided that, indicating that you are being excessively suspicious of good-faith claims.

I wonder if at this point you will accept, however, that CNN and other media outlets are conservatively biased, owing to the fact that they happily jumped into Paramount's pocket.

Personally, I think that anyone claiming to be a "moderate" seems mighty comfy with the Nazis at their table.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

ETA Toni has provided it.

Appreciate the effort there. Real hero level of trying to help.

And just the reminder, the statement from Jarhyn was "Other than that whole part where Democrats who have seen them have discussed what is on the footage."

I asked for evidence that Democrats had seen the media related evidence and spoke about it, specifically and in regards to who did what.

Yes, and Toni provided that, indicating that you are being excessively suspicious of good-faith claims.

I'm asking for a LINK with the Democrats stating about what they saw in the footage and whom they saw in the footage!

I try to link everything I claim. Every quote, stat, etc... I try to link it to a source of authority, every time. I asked for help, for a link and all you are doing is being unhelpful, but still posting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The article I'm going to share is worse than almost anything I've read about male doctors, although it is similar to what I read a few. years ago about male doctors trading Rx. for narcotics in exchange for sex. ( and no, not all male doctors are assholes. but a lot of them are and I base that on my 42 years working as a nurse and having to deal with them ) I'll paste a little but, but read the entire article if you dare.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/28/...e_code=1.PlA.bOg1.d7FMLf7Keti3&smid=url-share

Elite Doctors Served Jeffrey Epstein While Treating His ‘Girls’​

A small stable of doctors gave V.I.P. medical services to the sex offender and the women around him. Some doctors bent or broke the ethical rules of their profession.

These providers were part of a small stable of loyal medical specialists cultivated and rewarded by Mr. Epstein, the convicted sex offender and financier who died in a jail cell in 2019. He often tapped their expertise for his own ailments, firing off questions about his bad back, high cholesterol and erectile dysfunction drugs. Sometimes, he connected them with his powerful friends in business and politics, even arranging one lawyer’s mammogram.

I think most doctors who cater to the elite are problematic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And why is t the testimony of many women sufficient?

Because it isn't enough to convict, at least the accusation. If additional information can be provided that helps demonstrate the case, that helps, but a lot of this is simply accusatory and the guys who are being accused will deny it. So much time has passed in these cases. There are no rape kits, no physical evidence. So you need to place this person with the accused, which could be possible. But then the defense is, it wasn't me who did it.

Think of it like getting a mob boss. There are crimes clearly being committed, but convicting on those crimes, particularly the up aboves, is ridiculously hard. You need someone to talk. With any luck, Prince Andrew will talk.

Yup. You need credible witnesses. Unfortunately, his victims tend not to be very credible--abusers select for whether they think someone would make a good witness against them. The reality is that there will always be people after a buck who will make false allegations against the rich, you need witnesses that do not look like them. You need witnesses that give testimony they couldn't get from the newspaper.

And, unfortunately, you have the same problem you have with the mob bosses--when you get the underling to testify against the boss there's always the suspicion that they're making things up to reduce their own punishment, either because they don't actually have useful evidence or they are too afraid to actually testify against their boss. Happens all too often with drug cases--the cops flip an underling, he flips his boss, boss has nobody they can flip so they make things up.

People have been contacting authorities about violence towards minors for 30 years!

I'd say one of the biggest unaddressed crimes was the sweet deal in Florida that Epstein received. And if it weren't for the press, Miami Herald, we wouldn't even have this thread.

I'm thinking it was a deal done because they had a witness that either didn't want to testify or who would look bad on the stand. Pleas way below what the crime warrants may be corruption, or they may be a case that would likely be lost at trial.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

If you're asked for it. You don't have to go tell them you saw a crime.

 

[Toni]

And why is t the testimony of many women sufficient?

Because it isn't enough to convict, at least the accusation. If additional information can be provided that helps demonstrate the case, that helps, but a lot of this is simply accusatory and the guys who are being accused will deny it. So much time has passed in these cases. There are no rape kits, no physical evidence. So you need to place this person with the accused, which could be possible. But then the defense is, it wasn't me who did it.

Think of it like getting a mob boss. There are crimes clearly being committed, but convicting on those crimes, particularly the up aboves, is ridiculously hard. You need someone to talk. With any luck, Prince Andrew will talk.

Yup. You need credible witnesses. Unfortunately, his victims tend not to be very credible--abusers select for whether they think someone would make a good witness against them. The reality is that there will always be people after a buck who will make false allegations against the rich, you need witnesses that do not look like them. You need witnesses that give testimony they couldn't get from the newspaper.

And, unfortunately, you have the same problem you have with the mob bosses--when you get the underling to testify against the boss there's always the suspicion that they're making things up to reduce their own punishment, either because they don't actually have useful evidence or they are too afraid to actually testify against their boss. Happens all too often with drug cases--the cops flip an underling, he flips his boss, boss has nobody they can flip so they make things up.

People have been contacting authorities about violence towards minors for 30 years!

I'd say one of the biggest unaddressed crimes was the sweet deal in Florida that Epstein received. And if it weren't for the press, Miami Herald, we wouldn't even have this thread.

I'm thinking it was a deal done because they had a witness that either didn't want to testify or who would look bad on the stand. Pleas way below what the crime warrants may be corruption, or they may be a case that would likely be lost at trial.

Why don’t you believe the victims are credible?

Is it because they are female? I’ve read that some of the victims are, in fact, male.

But I suppose any kid dumb enough to allow themselves to be raided can hardly have enough sense to be a good witness.

At least, for certain people

 

[Jarhyn]

ETA Toni has provided it.

Appreciate the effort there. Real hero level of trying to help.

And just the reminder, the statement from Jarhyn was "Other than that whole part where Democrats who have seen them have discussed what is on the footage."

I asked for evidence that Democrats had seen the media related evidence and spoke about it, specifically and in regards to who did what.

Yes, and Toni provided that, indicating that you are being excessively suspicious of good-faith claims.

I'm asking for a LINK with the Democrats stating about what they saw in the footage and whom they saw in the footage!

I try to link everything I claim. Every quote, stat, etc... I try to link it to a source of authority, every time. I asked for help, for a link and all you are doing is being unhelpful, but still posting.

And IDGAF, because most of what I see and claim was seen in passing, not seen with the intent or thought that I'll need to rub it in someone's face later.

I'm not you, and I'm not "helpful". IDGAF about being "helpful", either. What I care about is that it exists, and here you are failing to help yourself.

For some reason, it was excessively easy for other posters to find, and they were already aware of the fact of it. It seems your bigger problem seems to be that you don't know how to help yourself to stay informed outside of whatever biases exist behind your sources.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why don’t you believe the victims are credible?

Is it because they are female? I’ve read that some of the victims are, in fact, male.

But I suppose any kid dumb enough to allow themselves to be raided can hardly have enough sense to be a good witness.

At least, for certain people

Why do you assume they are? Abusers are very good at picking those that won't be believed.

 

[Jarhyn]

Why don’t you believe the victims are credible?

Is it because they are female? I’ve read that some of the victims are, in fact, male.

But I suppose any kid dumb enough to allow themselves to be raided can hardly have enough sense to be a good witness.

At least, for certain people

Why do you assume they are? Abusers are very good at picking those that won't be believed.

You are kind of refuting your own point here. Are they the kinds of people abusers abuse and thus credibly "abused" or aren't they?

Is this Schrodinger's abuse victim here?

At some point you have to acknowledge that most people don't have a parade of accusers against them, even public figures.

When they're otherwise insistinguishable from everyone else except for that train of accusers, there are very few explanations as to "why them in particular," which don't conclude with "because they are abusers".

 

[Toni]

Why don’t you believe the victims are credible?

Is it because they are female? I’ve read that some of the victims are, in fact, male.

But I suppose any kid dumb enough to allow themselves to be raided can hardly have enough sense to be a good witness.

At least, for certain people

Why do you assume they are? Abusers are very good at picking those that won't be believed.

I find the accusers to be extremely believable.

Why don’t you?

There are actual images of children and minors being abused. I have t seen them but I believe those who report having seen them.

 

[Toni]

Ffs, I cannot be the only person with a FB acct or who knows how to use Google:

 

[Toni]

There’s this:

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No proof of settlements by Donald Trump for child sex crimes

List shows settlements Donald Trump made to 10- to 13-year-old victims of child sex crimes.

www.politifact.com

There are actually known cases we already knew like Lauren Petrella, young but adult. Trump Epstein and that French guy Jean Luc Brunel all had the same m.o. Own modeling agencies to take advantage, but Trump's verified victims were slightly older.

The unverified stories are probably pushed by Republicans to Democrats to make the Democrats look bad.

The cases of Lauren Petrella and other adults are in the Epstein files with Trump partying with Epstein looking at young but adult women and assaulting them, then settling.

This verified stuff could have become a story, but the unverified are taking front seat.

 

[Jarhyn]

If we're going by pure statistics and human nature here, people who are prone to accusing others of sexual abuse will almost always pick a target of opportunity close to them, and will have some history of making accusations if they are a false accuser.

On average, this means there will be less than a single accuser per alleged abuser.

I, for instance, have a single person who has accused me of sexual abuse, and that person was a false accuser. Their accusations did not rise past a rumor that didn't go very far and they apologized for it all after the fact, but they did have a history of accusations and several were verifiably false (and this helped my case with my social group). On the whole, this person actually sexually harassed me a number of times when we lived together, and my response to them was always "I will not be involved in that way with you, as I am charging you rent and this creates a power imbalance that would rule out any possibility of consent."

They were also trans-femme and I am not particularly interested in that.

Statistically speaking, I am already a statistical outlier in that most people don't even have a single instance of accusation.

Even were I a publicly known person (and I am fast approaching that status as the spouse of a company owner and the acting chief operating officer of that company), and everyone who I have ever pissed off, left, been emotionally problematic with, or who has been emotionally problematic to me and whom I have had any possibility of a direct personal interaction with them decided to accuse me of sexual abuse, I could count those instances without needing my thumb, and could (and would) discuss every problematic action I took or statement I made in those circumstances.

It would not be hard to idemnify myself in any of them, and in all but one any abuse or injury was mutual or retaliatory. In the remaining incident, I was a confused 19 year old and while that situation was vastly uncomfortable, nothing more than "being in the same bed and spooning uncomfortably with a boner" happened, and I still feel the guilt of how I made someone uncomfortable with those sexual advances. I'm not going to ever say it was OK or that it's time to stop feeling guilty over that.

On the other hand, I feel no guilt at all for when I tried to beat the shit out of my emotionally abusive pedophile ex. All my guilt about that is over not having gone far enough and failing to actually leave him that night.

But this? This is a fucking parade of accusations, many of whom are only accusing those actually associated with Epstein, and all of them manage to tie Trump to Epstein and Ghislane, rather than merely targeting Trump.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And why is t the testimony of many women sufficient?

Because it isn't enough to convict, at least the accusation. If additional information can be provided that helps demonstrate the case, that helps, but a lot of this is simply accusatory and the guys who are being accused will deny it. So much time has passed in these cases. There are no rape kits, no physical evidence. So you need to place this person with the accused, which could be possible. But then the defense is, it wasn't me who did it.

Think of it like getting a mob boss. There are crimes clearly being committed, but convicting on those crimes, particularly the up aboves, is ridiculously hard. You need someone to talk. With any luck, Prince Andrew will talk.

Yup. You need credible witnesses. Unfortunately, his victims tend not to be very credible--abusers select for whether they think someone would make a good witness against them. The reality is that there will always be people after a buck who will make false allegations against the rich, you need witnesses that do not look like them. You need witnesses that give testimony they couldn't get from the newspaper.

And, unfortunately, you have the same problem you have with the mob bosses--when you get the underling to testify against the boss there's always the suspicion that they're making things up to reduce their own punishment, either because they don't actually have useful evidence or they are too afraid to actually testify against their boss. Happens all too often with drug cases--the cops flip an underling, he flips his boss, boss has nobody they can flip so they make things up.

People have been contacting authorities about violence towards minors for 30 years!

I'd say one of the biggest unaddressed crimes was the sweet deal in Florida that Epstein received. And if it weren't for the press, Miami Herald, we wouldn't even have this thread.

I'm thinking it was a deal done because they had a witness that either didn't want to testify or who would look bad on the stand. Pleas way below what the crime warrants may be corruption, or they may be a case that would likely be lost at trial.

Credible? Not what I said. The prosecution would need physical evidence to help defend the accusation.

The Florida deal had shit all to do with 'noncredible' witnesses. It was one of the dirtiest plea deals in our nation's history.