• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

You don't get it. The real criminal masterminds are the Palm Beach high school girls, the housecleaner, and various boyfriends. They got fake IDs, forced "sexualized massages" onto Epstein, and then made him pay them for it!
And THEN they went and publicly accused him of pedophilia, all for the mundane act of ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ dozens of underage kids!

It's those meddling kids I tell ya!
 
Werre Epstein and Maxwell guilty of sex trafficking of minors? Yes! Without doubt!

Were they predators? Yes! Without doubt!

Were there people involved with Epstein and Maxwell who should really have known better? Yes! Without doubt!

But the story has metastasized from what is known to become a collection of lurid articles of faith depending on your political leanings.

Under the MAGA-Alex Jones interpretation, it was meant to show that the liberal elites with their snooty educations and sanctimonious lectures were nothing but arrant hypocrisy as they were a huge cabal of pedophiles literally feasting on the blood or adrenochrome of actual children.

For the more far-left types it showed something similar though not quite as extreme about the patriarchy, typically people like Krauss, Pinker and Summers. Accounts vary on whether they consider each of them to be actual pedophiles, but they tend to emphasize a lack of concern about it.

Other far-left conspiratorial types see that as essentially true but they also connect it to some kind of Israel / Mossad-backed kompromat operation (Drop Site News certainly hints at that and their collaborator Glenn Greenwald seems to go all-in on that one - Ehud Barak was a friend so case closed!). I think this is also the interpretation of Whitney Webb who essentially sees all political behaviour and all assassinations as effectively a mass blackmail operation.

Oh, and anti-monarchists were pretty sure and many still are that this all implicated (former Prince) Andrew, and that he must be a pedophile.

And of course, the theory was that Epstein was murdered in his cell by the shadowy liberal elites or someone like that.

These tended to be the main theories and I think it is fair to say that most of the mainstream liberal -left were not particularly interested in the story for many years when MAGA were using it to imply all sorts of things about the Democrats and against scientists or liberals in general.

The weird thing was always that somehow Trump himself was at least as implicated as almost anyone and it was when he was president that Epstein died in his cell, yet somehow he managed to skate by in that world of deep dark conspiracy fashioning.

But what has really changed?

Now the liberal-left seems interested in the story and they tend to use the same methodology as the more conspiracy-minded right-wingers.

Go to a tranche of emails from Epstein, press Control-F and put in your favourite hate figure. Want to see what Dershowitz was up to? You can search his name. Chomsky… Bill Clinton… Bill Gates….

Of course in each case, nothing conclusive will come up, just some stuff that COULD be meaningful so you’ll have to fill in the blanks.

Ultimately though, I think a lot of the emails really just deflate the maximalist interpretations. They show that Epstein was pretty gross and almost certainly up to his neck in common or garden soliticiting of very young women. Where you go from there largely depends on how you see “sex work”. In recent years, there has been something of a fraught debate about whether sex work is inherently exploitative OR a perfectly respectable career option for young women.

The more “PC” or “progressive” approach tends to argue for the latter and some who disagree are derided as “SWERFs”. Yet sex work is very obviously going to favour youth, and very obviously going to bring young women into the orbit of creepy men who will often have a power advantage over them.

So where do we end up? With something like this:

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 Site News show.

Epstein noted in an email to himself titled “priveledged and confidentail” that “as I see it the following is the summary of the situation. Though I required girls over eighteen, the results don’t reflect it. . .. The feds have spoken to , or know of ,girls between the ages of 16-18.IF we extrapolate…. we should assume that there are 20 girls in that age range,” adding “they will all claim topless massage ,plus.,that’s the bad news.”
Scummy behaviour exploiting young women who are above the age of consent in some but not all jurisdictions. Ultimately it is not really the type of story that has been “promised” by much of the reporting, either from the far right to the far left. It almost certainly won’t satisfy anyone who thinks that there must be something that totally implicates their personal political targets.

Of course, it is always possible that something might be there and there may be some surprises, like in that scene in Jaws where they cut open the shark looking to see if it is the one that ate the boy but all they find are some fish (expected) and a car license plate (which no one expected). But I predict that this will be more like when a lot of people imagined that Wikileaks would blow open the 9/11 inside job. We’ll see some embarrassing stuff for some, we’ll see some reporting of stories we already knew about but people had somehow forgotten but no all encompassing conspiracy.

And when we don’t the “investigation” will be denounced by many as a cover-up, and the claims that there is more, far more that the deep state/Israel/the Jews etc… are concealing and this story will find a new and even more deranged form.
 
i agree that i don’t think he was pimping actual small children to the rich and elite like it was some kind of pedo brothel
 
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?
That was a discussion with his lawyers after being indicted. You discuss stuff like that with your lawyer, what should be confidential, hypotheticals and all. That isn't all that remarkable, really. But more to the point, I'm not super fixated on his charges. I know what he probably did in Florida, and I don't think that alone warrants the current fixation on Epstein, and the reason is that alone isn't the reason. It's been six whole years since he died. His case was almost two decades ago. It's the conspiracy theories about others being involved that's keeping this story alive.

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.
You have comprehension problems. You and others seem to want others involved in Epstein's sex trafficking prosecuted. I've told you like four times now the logical suspects would be his assistants, other employees, and local recruits, if that is what you want, because if anyone directly assisted Epstein, it was them. There is no debate about that from the Palm Beach police, the FBI, and state and federal attorneys. But you (and me) consider these suspects off limits as far as prosecution, since you believe Epstein manipulated them into helping him. Where do you go from there?

My position is I'm concerned since the Feds keep stretching "sex trafficking" to its broadest possible meaning, this incentivizes people to sue or even criminally prosecute people with only the most peripheral connections to Epstein's wrongdoing, which is nowhere near as scandalous as the allegations in the 2020 Netflix doc.

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?
*Yawn* See first paragraph.

So Trump and everyone else in the birthday book are just teenaged edgelords now? Your explanation is not plausible, it is ridiculous.
Trump calls people retarded, he teases the N-word, he makes fun of disabled people, he calls reporters names to their faces, he calls for his political opponents to be jailed or executed, pushes insane conspiracy theories on social media, makes Nazi references, and he does it openly as POTUS. Have you suddenly forgotten? And it wasn't everyone it was a couple of his close friends who made edgy jokes. How is it ridiculous to suggest people who lived hedonistic lifestyles engaged in this kind of humor?

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.

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!"
Holy ◊◊◊◊ dude I was highlighting particular women in the story. You and I are not working from the same knowledge about the case, so you don't seem to have a clue about my references. You're applying my attacks on particular high profile accusers to every accuser, which is not what I've ever done in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Trump calls people retarded, he teases the N-word, he makes fun of disabled people, he calls reporters names to their faces, he calls for his political opponents to be jailed or executed, pushes insane conspiracy theories on social media, makes Nazi references, and he does it openly as POTUS. Have you suddenly forgotten? And it wasn't everyone it was a couple of his close friends who made edgy jokes. How is it ridiculous to suggest people who lived hedonistic lifestyles engaged in this kind of humor?

none of any of that is a joke. and neither was what they were saying about epstein. i mean, it was ribbing from friends about things he was actually doing. so, they weren’t upset about it, they thought it was a quirky personality thing.
 
none of any of that is a joke. and neither was what they were saying about epstein. i mean, it was ribbing from friends about
things he was actually doing. so, they weren’t upset about it, they thought it was a quirky personality thing.
Things like getting massages from younger women. He was a massage addict and preferred much younger women as a 45-50 year old. Facetious, hyperbolic humor is a thing man, I don't see how it's an absurd explanation.
 
Things like getting massages from younger women. He was a massage addict and preferred much younger women as a 45-50 year old. Facetious, hyperbolic humor is a thing man, I don't see how it's an absurd explanation.

he wasn’t getting professional massages, he was hiring high schoolers. “massage” addict indeed.

anyway they were making fun of him for that, as friends. but it wasn’t facetious or hyperbolic. it’s more like making fun of an alcoholic for drinking a lot, and then being like “we didn’t know he was drinking that much”
 
he wasn’t getting professional massages, he was hiring high schoolers. “massage” addict indeed.

anyway they were making fun of him for that, as friends. but it wasn’t facetious or hyperbolic. it’s more like making fun of an alcoholic for drinking a lot, and then being like “we didn’t know he was drinking that much”
No, again, those high schoolers were part of a large network of women he cultivated over a longer period of time. I could be off by a year or two but the Palm Beach teens were recruited between 2001 and 2005. But he always had masseuses and side chicks on hand apart from this phase of his life as well as after his release from jail and sex offender registration.
 
yes, he was around a lot of really young women who he paid for sex. he also had sex with a bunch of underage girls as a matter of legal record. apparently a large network of them he cultivated. many of his friends teased him about it. it got him into a bunch of trouble. now they're in trouble for teasing him about it and taking his money and hanging out with him
 
That would depend on what you mean by "it".

Well I suppose they're in trouble either way.
 
Last edited:
That was a discussion with his lawyers after being indicted. You discuss stuff like that with your lawyer, what should be confidential, hypotheticals and all. That isn't all that remarkable, really.
That wasn't a hypothetical. Jesus, why are you working so hard to minimize what the guy actually, provably did?
But more to the point, I'm not super fixated on his charges. I know what he probably did in Florida, and I don't think that alone warrants the current fixation on Epstein, and the reason is that alone isn't the reason. It's been six whole years since he died. His case was almost two decades ago. It's the conspiracy theories about others being involved that's keeping this story alive.


You have comprehension problems. You and others seem to want others involved in Epstein's sex trafficking prosecuted. I've told you like four times now the logical suspects would be his assistants, other employees, and local recruits, if that is what you want, because if anyone directly assisted Epstein, it was them. There is no debate about that from the Palm Beach police, the FBI, and state and federal attorneys. But you (and me) consider these suspects off limits as far as prosecution, since you believe Epstein manipulated them into helping him. Where do you go from there?
Your attempt to shift focus from Epstein's documented crimes to a purely hypothetical prosecution of his staff is a distraction. The core issue of public concern is not his low-level employees, but the conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors and the extensive network that protected him, which involved illegal acts far exceeding his initial Florida plea deal. Furthermore, your claim that the current fixation on the story is driven purely by conspiracy theories is contradicted by the fact that the release of court documents and the ongoing legal actions against individuals like Ghislaine Maxwell have repeatedly re-energized public interest based on proven facts, not just speculation.
My position is I'm concerned since the Feds keep stretching "sex trafficking" to its broadest possible meaning, this incentivizes people to sue or even criminally prosecute people with only the most peripheral connections to Epstein's wrongdoing, which is nowhere near as scandalous as the allegations in the 2020 Netflix doc.
Venom, you claim concern that the definition of sex trafficking is being "stretched" to prosecute people with "peripheral connections." Yet, your repeated description of Epstein's crimes as merely "young women going in and out of his house for money and then going to the mall to get their nails done" directly contradicts your claimed knowledge of what he "probably did in Florida." This minimization of abuse reveals a profound ethical imbalance. Your focus is not on the proven crimes, but on shielding potential adult facilitators, which undermines the credibility of your stated understanding of the case.
Trump calls people retarded, he teases the N-word, he makes fun of disabled people, he calls reporters names to their faces, he calls for his political opponents to be jailed or executed, pushes insane conspiracy theories on social media, makes Nazi references, and he does it openly as POTUS. Have you suddenly forgotten? And it wasn't everyone it was a couple of his close friends who made edgy jokes. How is it ridiculous to suggest people who lived hedonistic lifestyles engaged in this kind of humor?
You are employing a false equivalence. The public conduct of Trump does not make it plausible that private jokes made by high profile associates of a convicted sex offender about victims found in his home are simply "dark humor." Suggesting that public juvenile insults equate to private, documented jokes referencing illegal sexual conduct with minors found in an alleged co-conspirator's documents is not a reasonable explanation, it is an appeal to whataboutism intended to dismiss incriminating evidence. Again, friends just don't accuse each other of pedophilia as inside jokes, and again if your friend groups really did this then you wouldn't be struggling to downplay this so much.
Holy ◊◊◊◊ dude I was highlighting particular women in the story. You and I are not working from the same knowledge about the case, so you don't seem to have a clue about my references. You're applying my attacks on particular high profile accusers to every accuser, which is not what I've ever done in this thread.

Your defense that you only attacked particular high-profile accusers is a technicality. You specifically chose to cast doubt on every named accuser in this conversation, and you also made the sweeping claim that accusers, as a whole, have motives to lie, implying a financial incentive. The effect of your rhetoric is not merely to scrutinize a few witnesses, but to discredit the entire body of victim testimony. If you are not attempting to discredit all accusers, please state clearly which accusers you consider credible, as you have not mentioned any. You cannot assert that you only spoke about a specific few while simultaneously painting all accusers with the same financially motivated brush.
 
i’d add as well that many of these people he was friends with had various degrees of financial stakes with the guy. anyone in that position almost certainly they knew about his sex crimes. part of the scandal is how many people knew things and didn’t care because money.
 
Your attempt to shift focus from Epstein's documented crimes to a purely hypothetical prosecution of his staff is a distraction. The core issue of public concern is not his low-level employees, but the conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors and the extensive network that protected him, which involved illegal acts far exceeding his initial Florida plea deal. Furthermore, your claim that the current fixation on the story is driven purely by conspiracy theories is contradicted by the fact that the release of court documents and the ongoing legal actions against individuals like Ghislaine Maxwell have repeatedly re-energized public interest based on proven facts, not just speculation.
The sex trafficking of minors was committed by Epstein and his employees. How many times do I have to remind you. They were the ones who were directly involved as all the evidence shows. Prosecutorial discretion was invoked to not charge his co-conspirators.

The problem with claiming real material is driving the public interest in the case is it's always framed in terms of the conspiracy theories now. Few observers bother looking for an alternative, more mundane, more probable explanation based on totally publicly available documentation. Any hint of downplaying what the MSM and podcast tards think is explosive damning evidence is taken as doing damage control for Epstein or protecting perverts.

We saw how quick people primed by conspiracy theories were to jump on the Jan 2024 file dump, the 2006 Florida grand jury transcripts, the birthday book, the emails, to name the most recent Epstein files. I once read an article after the Jan 2024 releases saying frequent Epstein island visitor Joanna Sjoberg "corroborated much of what Virginia Giuffre said". SHE DIDN'T. In one birthday card, Bill Clinton made a remark about Epstein's "childlike curiosity". OMG A PEDO REFERENCE!? Democrats blacked out the name of Virginia Roberts and labeled over it "victim" in one email. Roberts was a former employee and a supporter of Trump until her death. Also, the email was dated April of 2011, just a month after everyone started panicking about Virginia Roberts' allegations about meeting prominent people from the UK and US. So that was the possible context, though they should just release entire exchanges if available and organize them a bit better if they are actually serious about this.

In fact a lot of Epstein obsessives are completely unaware of his Florida crimes. That's how much the CTs have dominated the discussion. There was massive publicity after the December 2014 filing from Roberts, the claims were mentioned multiple times during the 2016 presidential campaign season, which was when I had first heard of Epstein. Trump was saying Clinton went to "the island" and how he'd be in trouble, which of course was pulled directly from Sharon Churcher's articles. This was during the very publicized defamation suit between Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell.

After Epstein's death everyone, CTists and skeptics alike were suggesting he was murdered by unnamed "powerful people" who, of course, participated in Epstein's sex crimes. Even here in this forum I was told "I'm not a conspiracy theorist, BUT...". Some speculated he was the latest victim on the Clinton death list. We can go on and on.

Venom, you claim concern that the definition of sex trafficking is being "stretched" to prosecute people with "peripheral connections." Yet, your repeated description of Epstein's crimes as merely "young women going in and out of his house for money and then going to the mall to get their nails done" directly contradicts your claimed knowledge of what he "probably did in Florida." This minimization of abuse reveals a profound ethical imbalance. Your focus is not on the proven crimes, but on shielding potential adult facilitators, which undermines the credibility of your stated understanding of the case.
No you still do not get it. My point of describing his crimes that way, and they were crimes no doubt, whether they participated willingly or not, is "sex trafficking" seems to cover that behavior as well as something like snatching women off of the street, forcing them into the back of a van, and transporting them somewhere for sexual slavery. I'm pretty sure the latter would be punished harsher almost everywhere, but the charge of sex trafficking applies to both. Prosecutors, the press, and activists love these magic words. That's why I don't. I want a clear description of the crime and relationship of victim to perpetrator to decide how mad I want to be about it. And what Epstein did was bad and at worst he probably should be serving Maxwell's sentence, but there are definitely far worse people than him.

It's a bit like being charged with DUI not in a moving vehicle, or even while asleep in the vehicle as I've heard some people allege, versus DUI while going 40 mph on the road.

You are employing a false equivalence. The public conduct of Trump does not make it plausible that private jokes made by high profile associates of a convicted sex offender about victims found in his home are simply "dark humor." Suggesting that public juvenile insults equate to private, documented jokes referencing illegal sexual conduct with minors found in an alleged co-conspirator's documents is not a reasonable explanation, it is an appeal to whataboutism intended to dismiss incriminating evidence. Again, friends just don't accuse each other of pedophilia as inside jokes, and again if your friend groups really did this then you wouldn't be struggling to downplay this so much.
I won't address this any further. If you can't accept that vulgar hyperbolic people can just be vulgar and hyperbolic, and think the suggestion that it could explain the jokes between them is absurd, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not stating this as fact, but again I think your interpretation is influenced by the presumed narrative that everyone knew about the illegal acts.

By the way, who were the "high profile associates" who made those particular jokes in the birthday book anyway??

Your defense that you only attacked particular high-profile accusers is a technicality. You specifically chose to cast doubt on every named accuser in this conversation, and you also made the sweeping claim that accusers, as a whole, have motives to lie, implying a financial incentive. The effect of your rhetoric is not merely to scrutinize a few witnesses, but to discredit the entire body of victim testimony. If you are not attempting to discredit all accusers, please state clearly which accusers you consider credible, as you have not mentioned any. You cannot assert that you only spoke about a specific few while simultaneously painting all accusers with the same financially motivated brush.
See previous post

The reason I scrutinize the most prominent named accusers is because they're delusional, grifting, or just plain nuts. Having seen their emails, their social media, their sworn statements in court docs, I won't apologize for saying that. And I don't think debunkers on other topics feel guilty about focusing on the conspiracy theories over the real stuff if the conspiracy theories are so pervasive they dominate every discussion on the topic. I can get into the main women later.

For now here are accusers I consider credible: EX 104, EX 101 and I don't limit it to them necessarily.
 
Last edited:
<snip long winded reply>

For now here are accusers I consider credible: EX 104, EX 101 and I don't limit it to them necessarily.
EX 101 is "32 identified victims" without a single name. EX 104 is Courtney Wild. It took you longer to find those pdfs and post them in the most vague manner possible than it would have to simply type their names.

Your argument is a study in calculated evasion and contradiction. You dismiss the birthday book as vulgar humor and then immediately state you will not address the rebuttal to that claim, yet you continue to use the book's contents to buttress your argument that the public discussion is driven by conspiracy theories. You repeatedly minimize the criminal acts by claiming Epstein only received "sexualized massages" and that the victims were merely "going in and out of his house for money and then going to the mall." This minimization, combined with your use of technical evasion (i.e. EX 104 instead of typing her name), demonstrates that your primary objective is to deflect from the fact that Epstein committed statutory rape against minors and to shield the adult facilitators who enabled him.
 
their jokes were more accurate than hyperbolic, and not particularly vulgar imo
That's what's so bizarre about Venom's "defense" here. According to the people who knew him, Epstein bragged about these massages to people he had just met, and flaunted how young his girls were. Yet Venom wants to portray those who knew him accurately describing him as a pedo as just some kind of vulgar joke?
 
EX 101 is "32 identified victims" without a single name. EX 104 is Courtney Wild. It took you longer to find those pdfs and post them in the most vague manner possible than it would have to simply type their names.

Your argument is a study in calculated evasion and contradiction. You dismiss the birthday book as vulgar humor and then immediately state you will not address the rebuttal to that claim, yet you continue to use the book's contents to buttress your argument that the public discussion is driven by conspiracy theories. You repeatedly minimize the criminal acts by claiming Epstein only received "sexualized massages" and that the victims were merely "going in and out of his house for money and then going to the mall." This minimization, combined with your use of technical evasion (i.e. EX 104 instead of typing her name), demonstrates that your primary objective is to deflect from the fact that Epstein committed statutory rape against minors and to shield the adult facilitators who enabled him.
Exactly. Most of them have not been revealed due to standards for victims of sex-related crimes. Most of them have not voluntarily come forward. Most of them are definitely not the ones that appear on Netflix and MSM and allege rape, sexual slavery, and nonspecific psychological abuse, and who stand next to scummy opportunistic lawyers on television.

I find the "rebuttal" to my claim the birthday book is vulgar humor based on conjecture and confirmation bias, so I'm not that interested in it as positive evidence for any kind of child sex trafficking scheme "the elites" were aware of but didn't speak out about.

Epstein's girls going in and out of his house for money and then going to the mall is pulled directly from the testimony of Philip Guderyon, a former lover and friend of Virginia Roberts, who is presumably protected by the non-prosecution agreement against Epstein's "co-conspirators". The adult facilitators who enabled them were his assistants Lesley Groff, Adriana Ross, Sarah Kellen, Nada Marcinkova, and local recruits such as Virginia Roberts, Haley Robson, and Alexandra Hall.

Jes Staley, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, etc were not involved in trafficking minors no matter how much you want to believe that dude.
 

Back
Top Bottom