Epstein, Kiddies, And Trump. Oh, My

[Jarhyn]

That is a big assumption at this point.

I think you’d be surprised. More important, it means that all skullduggery related to the alterations or omissions done to the original, leave a specific record of such action.
Consider what WOULD have been done with the Epstein files if that was not the case. It would have meant that every lie Pam Blondi told would have/could have been “made true”. I suspect that she thought that it could be done, just as you did.

Yeah, enough honest people will data-hoard and defend at least enough of old signed versions of the documents.

It doesn't matter if those documents are found sitting on a laptop in Trump's bathroom for the last decade, or even located in a deleted file reference region on an otherwise broken hard drive. It doesn't matter if every dubious hacker in the world has had access to the laptop. All that matters is that the signatures match and the document itself is "intelligible" (there MAY be a document that produces an identical signature, but due to probabilistics, the only "readable" version is going to be the document of interest).

This is in fact what we need to be doing with regards to camera hardware btw, making the capture chip with an onboard signing enclave and a reliable clock that is also difficult to mess with and which would be tamper-evident.

The problem is that any such schema will be strategically weakened by government or corporate interests to force monitoring capabilities to exist (such as tracking camera purchases and signing keys to track anonymous sources), and so any such technology that doesn't ship with the ability for users to generate and establish their own signing keys, technology that allows the company to retain or control the keys a device automatically signs with, should be fundamentally rejected.

In this way, you could take a picture with a camera and then any reasonably incapable actor can be trusted that whatever went through that lens came through the physical lens as an image of light at that date and no later (so, anyone short of government or a Rosthschild would have a reasonable expectation of honesty when presenting such a signed source image).

This has been and will remain the only viable solution for digital trust going forward: people actually hinging their claims on their established reputation for honesty.

This will lead to the "one good lie" phenomena wherein people capable of figuring out how to lie even once in a situation where lying is difficult will be able to occasionally perpetrate great injustice, but it will overall be less injustice than we experience today with an inability to validate due to a total absence of signing/trust infrastructure for such images.

 

[Toni]

We get it beave. Trump is completely innocent and this is just a witch hunt by radical Marxist leftists like Marjorie Taylor-Greene .

He’s just saying “pictures, or it didn’t happen”.

So the video deposition of one of his victims doesn't count. Cause you know, she's a woman and obviously a liar.

A video deposition doesn't prove she wasn't being paid to lie. Credibility of a witness is of vast importance, although the real smoking gun is if the witness provides information that was not previously known and then it's confirmed. Remember Norma McCorvey? Roe vs Wade, she later became an anti-abortion advocate--but on her deathbed revealed that had been purely for money and didn't represent her actual feelings.

Loren, I genuinely do not understand why you seem to be such a rapist/pedophile apologist.

Is it because you just distrust and hate girls and women that much?

Or are you so secretly attracted to the wealth and prestige ( or ‘wealth’ and ‘prestige ’) of Trump and men like him?

Or don’t believe that it is just impossible for girls and women to be raped?

Or do you believe that women are just willing to lie about anyone for a few dollars? Are we all secretly ( or not so secretly) prostitutes to you?

 

[unapologetic]

Do the signatures you call for in any way prevent the origional document from disapeering?

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Derec]

22 year olds are "kiddies" now?

 

[ZiprHead]

22 year olds are "kiddies" now?

Who said she was a kiddie?

 

[laughing dog]

22 year olds are "kiddies" now?

Who said she was a kiddie?

Dude, the woman was 22 at the time and recall the OP title.

After all,  Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations are just that - allegations and no criminal convictions. Just because there is smoke doesn't mean there is a fire!

So give the creepy old white guy a break, and do not stray from the OP topic. Otherwise, a strict constructionist like Derec will get upset.

 

[Derec]

Who said she was a kiddie?

The thread title.

 

[Derec]

After all,  Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations are just that - allegations and no criminal convictions.

And a paucity of evidence. If she was actually sexually assaulted, why didn't this adult women press charges then, when there was a good chance of having evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and Trump was a mere real estate developer? Why come out with the accusations now, when little to no evidence is available one way or the other?

 

[laughing dog]

After all,  Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations are just that - allegations and no criminal convictions.

And a paucity of evidence. If she was actually sexually assaulted, why didn't this adult women press charges then, when there was a good chance of having evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and Trump was a mere real estate developer? Why come out with the accusations now, when little to no evidence is available one way or the other?

Your hobby horse of rape apologia for white men is beyond the topic of the OP. If you expect others to stick the topic, you should as well.

 

[Derec]

Your hobby horse of rape apologia for white men is beyond the topic of the OP. If you expect others to stick the topic, you should as well.

It's not "rape apologia". It's the principle that evidence matters. Even, or especially if, the accused is somebody you or I dislike. That's when going with one's prejudices instead of with evidence (or lack of it) is most dangerous.

 

[laughing dog]

Your hobby horse of rape apologia for white men is beyond the topic of the OP. If you expect others to stick the topic, you should as well.

It's not "rape apologia". It's the principle that evidence matters. Even, or especially if, the accused is somebody you or I dislike. That's when going with one's prejudices instead of with evidence (or lack of it) is most dangerous.

Stick to the OP topic not your hobby horses.

 

[Derec]

Stick to the OP topic not your hobby horses.

Ziphead is the one who diverged from the OP topic anyway.
And besides, the point of needing evidence and not just jumping to conclusions because of who the accused is is relevant to the OP tipic. That something as fundamental to a liberal democratic society is viewed as a "hobby horse" by you shows how little you think of those values.

 

[laughing dog]

Stick to the OP topic not your hobby horses.

Ziphead is the one who diverged from the OP topic anyway.

Using a whataboutism as a defense!! You are responsible for your posts.

And besides, the point of needing evidence and not just jumping to conclusions because of who the accused is is relevant to the OP tipic. That something as fundamental to a liberal democratic society is viewed as a "hobby horse" by you shows how little you think of those values.

Pretty ironic coming from a master of jumping to conclusions. Pretty disingenuous coming from someone who routinely dismisses testimony as evidence. And rip roaring hilarious coming from a knee jerk apologist for police misconduct.

 

[Patooka]

Wish I could say I'm surprised but I'm not.

I'll also point out what Zipr posted involved Trump and Epstein so despite Derec's derail, it certainly fits within the topic of the thread title. So Derec is wrong about inserting his hobby horse.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wish I could say I'm surprised but I'm not.

I'll also point out what Zipr posted involved Trump and Epstein so despite Derec's derail, it certainly fits within the topic of the thread title. So Derec is wrong about inserting his hobby horse.

I agree with this. This post is about Trump's sexual misconduct with Epstein in the background ready to also assault this young woman. If the allegations are true, it shows them both as predators and covering for each other. That is extremely relevant to the topic at hand. There are names of young adult women in the Epstein files that Trump is alleged to have assaulted. It is known that Trump was accused of sexual assault, using his modeling agencies, and with Epstein present at these kind of parties, BEFORE he ran for office, and some of those names are in the Epstein files. So this allegation by Beatrice Keul is consistent with that modus operandi and just as relevant as all these other observations mentioned in the Epstein files. And if you read post#1 in the thread, you can see that the Epstein Files are relevant to the thread.

So, just like you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, you shouldn't superficially judge the relevance of a post by the title of the thread. What is Derec going to do next? Is he going to start accusing people of derailing because they don't use the phrase "Oh My!" in their posts?

Oh My!

 

[Patooka]

Wish I could say I'm surprised but I'm not.

I'll also point out what Zipr posted involved Trump and Epstein so despite Derec's derail, it certainly fits within the topic of the thread title. So Derec is wrong about inserting his hobby horse.

I agree with this. This post is about Trump's sexual misconduct with Epstein in the background ready to also assault this young woman. If the allegations are true, it shows them both as predators and covering for each other. That is extremely relevant to the topic at hand. There are names of young adult women in the Epstein files that Trump is alleged to have assaulted. It is known that Trump was accused of sexual assault, using his modeling agencies, and with Epstein present at these kind of parties, BEFORE he ran for office, and some of those names are in the Epstein files. So this allegation by Beatrice Keul is consistent with that modus operandi and just as relevant as all these other observations mentioned in the Epstein files. And if you read post#1 in the thread, you can see that the Epstein Files are relevant to the thread.

So, just like you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, you shouldn't superficially judge the relevance of a post by the title of the thread. What is Derec going to do next? Is he going to start accusing people of derailing because they don't use the phrase "Oh My!" in their posts?

Oh My!

You didn't put the word "kiddies" in you fucking post once, you woke left piece of shit!

That's the important piece! I bet Derec's reputation on that.! I'm reporting you to the mod*

*pretty certain we're down to one mod. Time for me to say something about (*removed*)!

 

[Elixir]

 

[Derec]

] Using a whataboutism as a defense!! You are responsible for your posts.

It's not whataboutism. It's just pointing out who brought up this case.

Pretty ironic coming from a master of jumping to conclusions. Pretty disingenuous coming from someone who routinely dismisses testimony as evidence. And rip roaring hilarious coming from a knee jerk apologist for police misconduct.

Unlike you and your Ilk, I do not jump to conclusions.

And testimony by the accuser is not sufficient evidence to make any conclusions, as it is entirely self-serving. Especially when the accuser supposedly waited 33 years to make the accusation. Why not call the police when it happened?