Merged why the release of names associated with Epstein mean little to absolutely nothing.

[The Great Zaganza]

For starters, banks broke a shitton of laws letting Epstein receive, transfer and withdraw money in violation of money laundering regulations.
Some paid a fine for some of those violations, but not all, and the people responsible were never investigated for why they would jeopardize their career and company this way to for years.

 

[Venom]

It is a special kind of motivated wilful ignorance to pretend that Epstein and Maxwell are the only people who possibly did something criminally wrong, so all investigation and prosecution should stop with their conviction/demise

If this was the main story, then I'd be more forgiving. But even here the idea of "facilitating trafficking" can be stretched to questionable lengths to include anybody for being negligent or that they should have known the women he presumably paid money to fly on his jet were victims or at least would later be portrayed as such. That's been the strategy of Boies and Edwards; here's their latest lawsuit against the banks. I'm open to the possibility of misconduct of whatever sort in this area, but we have to be careful about the conclusion we draw from retrospective constructions about these institutions' role in Epstein's crimes.

 

[dirtywick]

As Summers Sought Clandestine Relationship With Woman He Called a Mentee, Epstein Was His ‘Wing Man’ | News | The Harvard Crimson

When former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers was pursuing a romantic relationship with a woman he described as a mentee, he turned to a longtime associate for guidance: convicted sex offender Jeffrey E. Epstein.

www.thecrimson.com

former harvard president larry summers consulted with epstein on how to ◊◊◊◊ one of his younger subordinates

 

[wareyin]

Again, YOU are the one looking to further prosecute people wareyin, not me. My position is the case is closed, there's no evidence we need to go after anyone else. But if you do believe we need further prosecutions, the logical thing to do would be go after those people. I say logical, not reasonable. It's understandable why prosecutors don't bring charges.

No, I am not. I am correcting the narrative you keep trying to put forward in which Epstein, Maxwell, and associates weren't guilty because all those nasty teenagers were the real predators and also were lying anyway.

I'm making an ANALOGY. Is this so difficult for you to comprehend? The issue isn't about whether Epstein knew their ages, it's the widespread conspiracy theories about his island and him being a pimp for the elite.

It was a ◊◊◊◊ analogy because it has no bearing on what we are discussing.

I'm referring to what you said Trump said about Epstein.

And so am I. Trump openly said Epstein and he liked them young. Epstein did not hide the fact that he liked young girls. So far only you have been incorrectly trying to claim that nobody really knew Epstein was ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ underage kids and the fact that people openly talked about it and wrote it down is all down to jokes or something.

I'm not assigning blame to Palm Beach victims. Like I said they largely aren't even known and don't do interviews. I'm highly skeptical of these women who've come out of the woodwork post-2020, many of whom were in their 20s when they met Epstein, said previously that they loved him, begged his receptionists to go back to Epstein's, got huge cuts of the big-money settlements after his death, and are collected like trading cards by shifty plaintiffs lawyers. Some of these women have given "testimony" against Ghislaine Maxwell when they were never even adjudicated as victims and weren't called as witnesses at her trial.

Abuse victims have a confusing mix of feelings. This is not news, nor is it a reason to not believe they were victims.

Yes.....this is known information. Are you even following anything I'm saying? I said a page ago that Epstein wasn't duped into getting massages from underage girls, my only point with the fake IDs and lying was that he created a financial incentive for local women to visit him, some of who were underage, recruited by Roberts, Robson, Andriano, Hall, etc. and processed by the front desk; Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, etc. If you read the records at the State Attorney at Palm Beach you can find much more, plus the 2020 OPR report on the case. None of this is new.

You keep contradicting yourself, so it is admittedly difficult to follow what you are saying. Epstein creating a financial incentive for naive kids to get roped into a sexual situation does not make the kids the perpetrators, nor does it disprove that Epstein and Maxwell ran a sex trafficking ring. In fact it further substantiates it, which calls into question how you claim to know this and yet still think Epstein and Maxwell were somehow railroaded by false claims.

 

[TragicMonkey]

For starters, banks broke a shitton of laws letting Epstein receive, transfer and withdraw money in violation of money laundering regulations.
Some paid a fine for some of those violations, but not all, and the people responsible were never investigated for why they would jeopardize their career and company this way to for years.

Remember the Panama Papers? The ruling class is allowed to do whatever it wants and the banks are their loyal servants. The function of law is to stop us from stopping them.

 

[Venom]

No, I am not. I am correcting the narrative you keep trying to put forward in which Epstein, Maxwell, and associates weren't guilty because all those nasty teenagers were the real predators and also were lying anyway.

Okay, you're just ignoring every single time I've addressed this now. You're so emotionally invested in the story and yet know nothing about it.

It was a ◊◊◊◊ analogy because it has no bearing on what we are discussing.

It is an apt analogy. I'm not clearing Jeffrey Epstein of crimes generally. I'm clearing him, if you like, of the more elaborate conspiracy theories alleging his selling young women to prominent people.

And so am I. Trump openly said Epstein and he liked them young. Epstein did not hide the fact that he liked young girls. So far only you have been incorrectly trying to claim that nobody really knew Epstein was ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ underage kids and the fact that people openly talked about it and wrote it down is all down to jokes or something.

I think you are still unaware Epstein had far more regular masseuses than underage amateurs. There is no direct evidence of his birthday book friends knowing about underage masseuses, but his Hugh Hefner lifestyle was well known to everyone. Vulgar jokes about him being a pedo from vulgar friends is not that surprising.

Abuse victims have a confusing mix of feelings. This is not news, nor is it a reason to not believe they were victims.

The fact that multiple gigantic lawsuits opened up after Epstein's death and so many women who before never considered themselves harmed by Epstein have come forward, many seemingly at the urging of the same lawyers who've been pushing to get Epstein for years is a pretty good reason to at least look into the claims more critically. Especially if they are going to lead with the concept of a "child sex trafficking ring", rather than a pretty standard #MeToo case. There is almost no way to approach this case skeptically turning over every rock without questioning at least some of the accusers and their lawyers.

You keep contradicting yourself, so it is admittedly difficult to follow what you are saying. Epstein creating a financial incentive for naive kids to get roped into a sexual situation does not make the kids the perpetrators, nor does it disprove that Epstein and Maxwell ran a sex trafficking ring. In fact it further substantiates it, which calls into question how you claim to know this and yet still think Epstein and Maxwell were somehow railroaded by false claims.

Young men their age get charged all the time for gang-related offenses, robbery, assault, etc along with their handlers in this country though they are often given good immunity deals and such. And indeed there was a warrant out for Haley Robson, who was rather proud about her role in the scheme. If Virginia Roberts were around she would have faced the same. But the point is if you invoke prosecutorial discretion, you have to acknowledge these young women were essential components of the trafficking. If you're not going to charge them, you're left to go after more peripheral players who when you stretch the concept of trafficking can include very tenuous connections like banks who let Epstein pay for immigration services for grown women.

Your argument that there shouldn't have even been any question at all about charging any of the young women or cross examining them for their role in the scheme is a very modern, very politically correct idea. At the time the police, the prosecutors all raised those questions. They were asked whether they had penetrative sex with Epstein or just touching/massage. They were asked whether they consented or they told him no. They were not treated like five year olds. This was all considered, and they decided it wasn't worthwhile to pursue them, hence the non-prosecution agreement (see p. 166, part G.).

 

[wareyin]

Okay, you're just ignoring every single time I've addressed this now. You're so emotionally invested in the story and yet know nothing about it.

What exactly do you think you've said there that I am ignoring? And do you realize that it contradicts other things you said?

It is an apt analogy. I'm not clearing Jeffrey Epstein of crimes generally. I'm clearing him, if you like, of the more elaborate conspiracy theories alleging his selling young women to prominent people.

If you're only arguing against 'elaborate conspiracy theories,' then stick to that and stop claiming the underage victims were 'essential components' who deserved prosecution. That is where your pushback comes from, not disagreement over fringe theories. And your analogy is still terrible. Dick Cheney not knowing about 9/11 ahead of time doesn't remotely compare to the systemic sexual abuse and trafficking of minors.

I think you are still unaware Epstein had far more regular masseuses than underage amateurs. There is no direct evidence of his birthday book friends knowing about underage masseuses, but his Hugh Hefner lifestyle was well known to everyone. Vulgar jokes about him being a pedo from vulgar friends is not that surprising.

The claim that 'nobody knew' about the abuse, despite the documented 'pedo statements' and Trump’s 'likes them young' comment, is a logical absurdity. You are insisting his powerful friends were all willfully blind. People do not make those specific 'vulgar jokes' unless there is an open, understood truth about the underlying crime. Insisting that only Epstein and Maxwell knew about the scale of the abuse defies logic and is a self-serving attempt to absolve every associate of responsibility.

The fact that multiple gigantic lawsuits opened up after Epstein's death and so many women who before never considered themselves harmed by Epstein have come forward, many seemingly at the urging of the same lawyers who've been pushing to get Epstein for years is a pretty good reason to at least look into the claims more critically. Especially if they are going to lead with the concept of a "child sex trafficking ring", rather than a pretty standard #MeToo case. There is almost no way to approach this case skeptically turning over every rock without questioning at least some of the accusers and their lawyers.

You are not approaching this case with neutrality or skepticism. You are very clearly biased in favor of Epstein, Maxwell, and their associates. True skepticism would involve questioning why so many institutions, banks, police, and powerful individuals failed to stop a convicted sex offender. Instead, you focus all your critical effort on the victims and their lawyers, demanding scrutiny of their financial motivations while completely ignoring the documented criminal actions of the primary abusers. If you put forth even half as much effort to question Epstein and Maxwell's known crimes as you do to questioning the credibility of the survivors, you would not be here trying to claim that high school kids were the real predators who went through great lengths to have sex with Epstein all on their own.

Young men their age get charged all the time for gang-related offenses, robbery, assault, etc along with their handlers in this country though they are often given good immunity deals and such. And indeed there was a warrant out for Haley Robson, who was rather proud about her role in the scheme. If Virginia Roberts were around she would have faced the same. But the point is if you invoke prosecutorial discretion, you have to acknowledge these young women were essential components of the trafficking. If you're not going to charge them, you're left to go after more peripheral players who when you stretch the concept of trafficking can include very tenuous connections like banks who let Epstein pay for immigration services for grown women.

Your argument that there shouldn't have even been any question at all about charging any of the young women or cross examining them for their role in the scheme is a very modern, very politically correct idea. At the time the police, the prosecutors all raised those questions. They were asked whether they had penetrative sex with Epstein or just touching/massage. They were asked whether they consented or they told him no. They were not treated like five year olds. This was all considered, and they decided it wasn't worthwhile to pursue them, hence the non-prosecution agreement (see p. 166, part G.).

The fundamental difference lies in the legal status of the young women versus an accomplice in a typical crime like robbery. Under federal law, specifically the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), any person under 18 involved in commercial sex acts is legally classified as a victim of sex trafficking, regardless of perceived consent or their role in recruiting others. Their actions, such as bringing friends to Epstein's house, are viewed not as independent criminal agency, but as a result of the coercion and manipulation inherent in their own exploitation. Prosecutors use discretion in this context to prioritize dismantling the network of abusers (Epstein, Maxwell, etc.) and supporting victims. This is a public policy consensus recognizing the massive power imbalance that distinguishes sexual exploitation from other offenses like gang activity. Treating a victim's coerced compliance as a chargeable offense would undermine the very purpose of trafficking laws and create significant barriers to seeking justice.

 

[Venom]

If you're only arguing against 'elaborate conspiracy theories,' then stick to that and stop claiming the underage victims were 'essential components' who deserved prosecution. That is where your pushback comes from, not disagreement over fringe theories. And your analogy is still terrible. Dick Cheney not knowing about 9/11 ahead of time doesn't remotely compare to the systemic sexual abuse and trafficking of minors.

Because people are imagining Epstein kept little kids in cages on Little St. James and sold them to fellow elites for money, which is still the level you and many people are imagining this at. How ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ difficult is it to see the difference? It's an analogy ffs.

The fundamental difference lies in the legal status of the young women versus an accomplice in a typical crime like robbery. Under federal law, specifically the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), any person under 18 involved in commercial sex acts is legally classified as a victim of sex trafficking, regardless of perceived consent or their role in recruiting others. Their actions, such as bringing friends to Epstein's house, are viewed not as independent criminal agency, but as a result of the coercion and manipulation inherent in their own exploitation. Prosecutors use discretion in this context to prioritize dismantling the network of abusers (Epstein, Maxwell, etc.) and supporting victims. This is a public policy consensus recognizing the massive power imbalance that distinguishes sexual exploitation from other offenses like gang activity. Treating a victim's coerced compliance as a chargeable offense would undermine the very purpose of trafficking laws and create significant barriers to seeking justice.

Well I don't agree with fundamental assumptions used to justify trafficking laws. Not that I think there shouldn't be safeguards to control this widespread behavior, but I reject the idea that we can't examine possible mitigating circumstances "because the law says so" or that it's interpreted in a particular way for a case. Tougher laws against sex related offenses were pushed by radical feminist and religious right activists in the late 20th century and I wonder what exactly it was meant to protect people from that couldn't be addressed by ordinary laws against sex with minors, prostitution, fraud, kidnapping, rape, etc. It unnecessarily raises the stakes and muddies the waters by putting them under "trafficking".

Many situations that in common parlance would be called prostitution or "going somewhere for sex" are hit with "trafficking" charges nowadays, not always successfully, but it's such powerful propaganda tool for prosecutors and the media. I'd rather examine what the situation is in plain terms.

The claim that 'nobody knew' about the abuse, despite the documented 'pedo statements' and Trump’s 'likes them young' comment, is a logical absurdity. You are insisting his powerful friends were all willfully blind. People do not make those specific 'vulgar jokes' unless there is an open, understood truth about the underlying crime. Insisting that only Epstein and Maxwell knew about the scale of the abuse defies logic and is a self-serving attempt to absolve every associate of responsibility.

It's not absurd at all. Ever consider you might be reading in what you've heard today to what was known about him back then? People don't just make vulgar jokes? Did you grow up around Puritans and prudes? When I was in high school people were making similar jokes. Go on social media sometime and you'll lose your mind.

You are not approaching this case with neutrality or skepticism. You are very clearly biased in favor of Epstein, Maxwell, and their associates. True skepticism would involve questioning why so many institutions, banks, police, and powerful individuals failed to stop a convicted sex offender. Instead, you focus all your critical effort on the victims and their lawyers, demanding scrutiny of their financial motivations while completely ignoring the documented criminal actions of the primary abusers. If you put forth even half as much effort to question Epstein and Maxwell's known crimes as you do to questioning the credibility of the survivors, you would not be here trying to claim that high school kids were the real predators who went through great lengths to have sex with Epstein all on their own.

You're not being neutral, you're not being skeptical, you've not read the files, and you're not being honest about my position.

Let me make this easy for you to comprehend.

I'm focusing on the conspiracy theories because very few people are interested in the actual conspiracy that started the whole Epstein scandal. The conspiracy being Epstein "conspired" with his four named co-conspirators, local recruits, and possibly other employees to procure local young women for sexualized massages, some of them underaged. You, me, Epstein, federal prosecutors, state prosecutors, Palm Beach police for the most part agree none of these people were as guilty as Epstein. That's why they were given immunity from federal prosecution and apart from the NPA it's unlikely and many would say unreasonable if they did decide to prosecute them. Epstein's co-conspirators who directly helped him acquire underage girls were allowed to walk free.

Virginia Roberts, the central accuser in this story, is not a credible person. No, she is not just one of many. People don't read the files they pretend to want unsealed, the media doesn't properly report what's in them, the narrative is tightly controlled by a handful of prominent accusers and their lawyers. I've read most of the major civil cases and many of the files in them. I have a reasonably good idea of what I'd like to see unsealed to clear up certain questions. But any hint of going against the narrative is seen as attacking victims. What do you want a skeptic to do? I'm not an activist. I am under no obligation to be perpetually deferential to characters in this story I've come to find suspicious after doing my research.

Until you recognize what I'm working from I think you'll always ascribe foul motives based on my posting style. It's like a truther asking a debunker "why do you absolve the CIA of mass murder", "why are you attacking whistleblowers", "why are you being flippant about this serious tragedy" every other post. I'm sick of it.

 

[dirtywick]

Because people are imagining Epstein kept little kids in cages on Little St. James and sold them to fellow elites for money, which is still the level you and many people are imagining this at. How ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ difficult is it to see the difference? It's an analogy ffs.

how do you figure anyone participating in this thread is imagining that?

 

[Venom]

how do you figure anyone participating in this thread is imagining that?

wareyin talking about "victims and clients", plague311 assuming anyone "in the files" is guilty of child rape and should be thrown in jail. Also this is the common narrative in the media and Congress which is insane.

 

[dirtywick]

wareyin talking about "victims and clients", plague311 assuming anyone "in the files" is guilty of child rape and should be thrown in jail. Also this is the common narrative in the media and Congress which is insane.

i don't get that impression, but thanks for answering

 

[dirtywick]

Jeffrey Epstein Was Concerned About Roughly 20 Underage Girls as Feds Closed In: Emails

Jeffery Epstein believed federal agents had knowledge of at least 20 girls between the ages of 16 and 18 that could implicate him in a potential federal sex trafficking investigation, emails obtained by the non-profit whistleblower organization Distributed Denial of Secrets and provided to Drop...

www.dropsitenews.com

emails covering epstein’s awareness of underage girls and legal strategy.

 

[wareyin]

Because people are imagining Epstein kept little kids in cages on Little St. James and sold them to fellow elites for money, which is still the level you and many people are imagining this at. How ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ difficult is it to see the difference? It's an analogy ffs.

As far as I can tell, nobody is imagining that. That Epstein didn't keep kids in cages does not however mean that he did not run a sex trafficking ring. And it's a ◊◊◊◊ analogy, as has been explained.

Well I don't agree with fundamental assumptions used to justify trafficking laws. Not that I think there shouldn't be safeguards to control this widespread behavior, but I reject the idea that we can't examine possible mitigating circumstances "because the law says so" or that it's interpreted in a particular way for a case. Tougher laws against sex related offenses were pushed by radical feminist and religious right activists in the late 20th century and I wonder what exactly it was meant to protect people from that couldn't be addressed by ordinary laws against sex with minors, prostitution, fraud, kidnapping, rape, etc. It unnecessarily raises the stakes and muddies the waters by putting them under "trafficking".

Many situations that in common parlance would be called prostitution or "going somewhere for sex" are hit with "trafficking" charges nowadays, not always successfully, but it's such powerful propaganda tool for prosecutors and the media. I'd rather examine what the situation is in plain terms.

Whether or not you agree with the law means nothing. The law exists, it exists for a good reason, and that is actually exemplified by your repeated insistence that the 15-17 year old girls that Epstein enticed into his sex trafficking should actually be prosecuted for it.

It's not absurd at all. Ever consider you might be reading in what you've heard today to what was known about him back then? People don't just make vulgar jokes? Did you grow up around Puritans and prudes? When I was in high school people were making similar jokes. Go on social media sometime and you'll lose your mind.

It is most certainly absurd. You are making extreme reaches to excuse the actions and statements of the elite, while bitching that we don't prosecute the victim's of Epstein's schemes. You simply do not have friend groups accusing each other of pedophilia on video and in writing as jokes, because pedophilia is not something that it is funny to be accused of. Look at how hard you have been fighting to clear Epstein's name, and he was actually convicted according to evidence. You'd think if your friend group is all "hehehe, no you're the pedo, you kid ◊◊◊◊◊◊" then Epstein being a convicted pedophile who ran a sex trafficking ring would not something you feel such a need to overturn.

You're not being neutral, you're not being skeptical, you've not read the files, and you're not being honest about my position.

Let me make this easy for you to comprehend.

I'm focusing on the conspiracy theories because very few people are interested in the actual conspiracy that started the whole Epstein scandal. The conspiracy being Epstein "conspired" with his four named co-conspirators, local recruits, and possibly other employees to procure local young women for sexualized massages, some of them underaged. You, me, Epstein, federal prosecutors, state prosecutors, Palm Beach police for the most part agree none of these people were as guilty as Epstein. That's why they were given immunity from federal prosecution and apart from the NPA it's unlikely and many would say unreasonable if they did decide to prosecute them. Epstein's co-conspirators who directly helped him acquire underage girls were allowed to walk free.

Virginia Roberts, the central accuser in this story, is not a credible person. No, she is not just one of many. People don't read the files they pretend to want unsealed, the media doesn't properly report what's in them, the narrative is tightly controlled by a handful of prominent accusers and their lawyers. I've read most of the major civil cases and many of the files in them. I have a reasonably good idea of what I'd like to see unsealed to clear up certain questions. But any hint of going against the narrative is seen as attacking victims. What do you want a skeptic to do? I'm not an activist. I am under no obligation to be perpetually deferential to characters in this story I've come to find suspicious after doing my research.

Until you recognize what I'm working from I think you'll always ascribe foul motives based on my posting style. It's like a truther asking a debunker "why do you absolve the CIA of mass murder", "why are you attacking whistleblowers", "why are you being flippant about this serious tragedy" every other post. I'm sick of it.

Bro, you have said that none of Epstein's accusers were trustworthy, they actually all loved him and were only doing it for the money, and that his underage victims, the housecleaner, and the victims' boyfriends should all be prosecuted. If you can't see that as attacking victims, I don't know what to tell you.

And you aren't focusing on conspiracy theories. You just keep banging on about how the trials "had problems" and how none of the witnesses are credible and it was 'only a few' underage girls. You aren't saying jack about kids in cages or whatever, except as a slight aside before you get back to how poor innocent Epstein was railroaded.

 

[wareyin]

Jeffrey Epstein Was Concerned About Roughly 20 Underage Girls as Feds Closed In: Emails

Jeffery Epstein believed federal agents had knowledge of at least 20 girls between the ages of 16 and 18 that could implicate him in a potential federal sex trafficking investigation, emails obtained by the non-profit whistleblower organization Distributed Denial of Secrets and provided to Drop...

www.dropsitenews.com

emails covering epstein’s awareness of underage girls and legal strategy.

We're now up to "only" 20 kids that Epstein was trafficking, huh? But he banged some 19 year olds, too, so that makes it all ok.

/s

 

[dirtywick]

We're now up to "only" 20 kids that Epstein was trafficking, huh? But he banged some 19 year olds, too, so that makes it all ok.

/s

to be fair that’s his estimate. he appears to have no idea what age many of the girls were.

it appears to me that after his first arrest he put some minimal effort to try and ensure that the women he found and hired to have sex with were over 18, knew he wasn’t doing a very good job, and well that didn’t stop him. and then tried to come up with novel legal strategies why it would be legal to hire underage girls as prostitutes.

 

[wareyin]

to be fair that’s his estimate. he appears to have no idea what age many of the girls were.

it appears to me that after his first arrest he put some minimal effort to try and ensure that the women he found and hired to have sex with were over 18, knew he wasn’t doing a very good job, and well that didn’t stop him. and then tried to come up with novel legal strategies why it would be legal to hire underage girls as prostitutes.

The article actually says the FBI found at least 34 minors. And I strongly doubt Epstein's claim that he "required girls over eighteen" when he then almost explicitly admits to seeking out places where the age of consent was under 18 with the express purpose of sex with people under the age of 18:

“I see what you were asking now. The question is: what would happen if one were to transport a minor for sex -- or transport oneself with the intent to have sex with a minor -- into a state in which the age of consent is below eighteen (assuming the minor is above the age of consent in the given state)? And your intuition was right. The answer is that there is no violation of law.”

“let’s also look at sex tourism laws.. going someplace with specific intent ot[sic] have underage sex.”

 

[dirtywick]

The article actually says the FBI found at least 34 minors. And I strongly doubt Epstein's claim that he "required girls over eighteen" when he then almost explicitly admits to seeking out places where the age of consent was under 18 with the express purpose of sex with people under the age of 18:

“I see what you were asking now. The question is: what would happen if one were to transport a minor for sex -- or transport oneself with the intent to have sex with a minor -- into a state in which the age of consent is below eighteen (assuming the minor is above the age of consent in the given state)? And your intuition was right. The answer is that there is no violation of law.”

“let’s also look at sex tourism laws.. going someplace with specific intent ot[sic] have underage sex.”

yeah epstein estimated 20 which was pretty close to half. not bad for a financial wiz numbers guy i guess

 

[Venom]

As far as I can tell, nobody is imagining that. That Epstein didn't keep kids in cages does not however mean that he did not run a sex trafficking ring. And it's a ◊◊◊◊ analogy, as has been explained.

It's not far from what the bulk of the public believes. The "sex trafficking ring" consisted of young women going in and out of his house for money and then going to the mall to get their nails done the point is it wasn't a situation where they were being sold to third parties like the majority of Epstein obsessives believe. Don't tell me they don't 'cause that's been what's driving the public hysteria for a long time. If it's simply that prominent people "had a relationship" with Epstein despite his 2008 conviction, that'd be an even stupider reason to make this a big story today.

Whether or not you agree with the law means nothing. The law exists, it exists for a good reason, and that is actually exemplified by your repeated insistence that the 15-17 year old girls that Epstein enticed into his sex trafficking should actually be prosecuted for it.

You just can't stop lying can you, wareyin. I explicitly said they shouldn't be prosecuted, but I pointed out prosecutors and police said they theoretically could have, and there was a probable cause affidavit from the police for at least three adult female participants.

And yes we're allowed to scrutinize laws. Laws are by design not very nuanced. Ethics and morals don't always perfectly align with the law. And the social justice movements you think I'm not supposed to question didn't settle for the existing laws of their day, did they?

It is most certainly absurd. You are making extreme reaches to excuse the actions and statements of the elite, while bitching that we don't prosecute the victim's of Epstein's schemes. You simply do not have friend groups accusing each other of pedophilia on video and in writing as jokes, because pedophilia is not something that it is funny to be accused of. Look at how hard you have been fighting to clear Epstein's name, and he was actually convicted according to evidence. You'd think if your friend group is all "hehehe, no you're the pedo, you kid ◊◊◊◊◊◊" then Epstein being a convicted pedophile who ran a sex trafficking ring would not something you feel such a need to overturn.

Again, have you never met someone who just tells edgy, hyperbolic jokes? Not necessarily a friend, just you've never encountered people who engage in dark humor in your entire life? That's what I suggest as a plausible explanation for the birthday book jokes. Some of you just dismiss it completely as "absurd" as if this is not a thing. I don't know what to tell you guys; I stand by my explanation.

Bro, you have said that none of Epstein's accusers were trustworthy, they actually all loved him and were only doing it for the money, and that his underage victims, the housecleaner, and the victims' boyfriends should all be prosecuted. If you can't see that as attacking victims, I don't know what to tell you.

Another lie. And repeating the lie that I said they should have all been prosecuted. I didn't say none of Epstein's accusers were trustworthy. Read my ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ posts for once wareyin.

I said the Palm Beach girls mostly corroborated one another, but a handful of accusers who came public later were not trustworthy. They have a disproportionate influence on the public knowledge of this case because their claims were far more sensationalist.

And you aren't focusing on conspiracy theories. You just keep banging on about how the trials "had problems" and how none of the witnesses are credible and it was 'only a few' underage girls. You aren't saying jack about kids in cages or whatever, except as a slight aside before you get back to how poor innocent Epstein was railroaded.

The conspiracy theories are not separable from Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction and witness credibility. Show me where I said Epstein was innocent. And show me where I said only a few underage girls were involved with Epstein. I've said two things you're probably mixing up because you're working completely off of emotion right now; I said the majority of Epstein's women were legal, and I said only a small handful of accusers ever alleged trafficking to prominent people.

 

[wareyin]

It's not far from what the bulk of the public believes. The "sex trafficking ring" consisted of young women going in and out of his house for money and then going to the mall to get their nails done the point is it wasn't a situation where they were being sold to third parties like the majority of Epstein obsessives believe. Don't tell me they don't 'cause that's been what's driving the public hysteria for a long time. If it's simply that prominent people "had a relationship" with Epstein despite his 2008 conviction, that'd be an even stupider reason to make this a big story today.

As we have Epstein talking about taking minors across state lines to places where they were of the age of consent expressly for the purpose of having sex with them, you seem to be really working hard to minimize Epstein's sex trafficking of minors, conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, procuring a minor for prostitution, soliciting for prostitution and conspiracy to engage in prostitution.

Why is that?

You just can't stop lying can you, wareyin. I explicitly said they shouldn't be prosecuted, but I pointed out prosecutors and police said they theoretically could have, and there was a probable cause affidavit from the police for at least three adult female participants.

You also said that they should, as in "if we're trying to revive the criminal case, there's your suspects." You have a habit of contradicting yourself in your efforts to clear Epstein's name.

And yes we're allowed to scrutinize laws. Laws are by design not very nuanced. Ethics and morals don't always perfectly align with the law. And the social justice movements you think I'm not supposed to question didn't settle for the existing laws of their day, did they?

Have you changed your stance then on not wanting to talk about what is legally permissible? Or is this another case where we only want to complain that those teenage temptresses didn't get charged for forcing themselves on Epstein and not discuss Epstein's many, many illegal actions?

Again, have you never met someone who just tells edgy, hyperbolic jokes? Not necessarily a friend, just you've never encountered people who engage in dark humor in your entire life? That's what I suggest as a plausible explanation for the birthday book jokes. Some of you just dismiss it completely as "absurd" as if this is not a thing. I don't know what to tell you guys; I stand by my explanation.

So Trump and everyone else in the birthday book are just teenaged edgelords now? Your explanation is not plausible, it is ridiculous.

Another lie. And repeating the lie that I said they should have all been prosecuted. I didn't say none of Epstein's accusers were trustworthy. Read my ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ posts for once wareyin.

You did not explicitly say "none", you simply cast doubt on every single one you mention, as well as outright stating that they all have motives to lie.

I said the Palm Beach girls mostly corroborated one another, but a handful of accusers who came public later were not trustworthy. They have a disproportionate influence on the public knowledge of this case because their claims were far more sensationalist.


The conspiracy theories are not separable from Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction and witness credibility. Show me where I said Epstein was innocent. And show me where I said only a few underage girls were involved with Epstein. I've said two things you're probably mixing up because you're working completely off of emotion right now; I said the majority of Epstein's women were legal, and I said only a small handful of accusers ever alleged trafficking to prominent people.

You seem to not understand that "the majority of Epstein's women were legal" is the same thing as "only a few of them were not legal". I rather doubt that you don't understand that, it seems more likely that given the uphill battle to prove Epstein's innocence, you're using weasel words to "say" things (2+2) but give yourself cover to huffily respond "I never said 4, how dare you lie about what I said!"

 

[The Great Zaganza]

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1407001/dl?inline

Consistent with prior disclosures, this review confirmed that Epstein harmed over one thousand victims. Each suffered unique trauma. Sensitive information relating to these victims is intertwined throughout the materials. This includes specific details such as victim names and likenesses, physical descriptions, places of birth, associates, and employment history