The Epstein Problem
- Thread starter hamster
- Start date
My barber worked in NYC before the plandemic. He came back here when the commies shut everything down. He told me yesterday that he cut Epstein’s hair twice and that he could just sense that the guy was a real scumbag. Nothing novel about that but I was thinking, damn, the hands you are touching my head with also touched that mfer?
Already did that after watching the video you posted (post #2283.)
Tried to look up EFTA00173272, but it doesn't exist...apparently.
That document revealed on the video talks about the Joe Biden we saw. He was an imposter.
That kind of strikes you when you consider the rumors going around about Biden having handlers and not in charge...and then the auto pen incidents.
Don't know what to believe although if I had to bet Id bet on it being BS.
Dems Score Another Epstein Scalp: Obama's White House Counsel
First, it was Larry Summers. Now it's Kathryn Ruemmler. Who's next from the Obama White House – Hillary Clinton? Maybe, actually, if Barack Obama's former Secretary of State maanges to get a contempt of Congress charge over her refusal to appear after her subpoena from the House Oversight Committee.Democrats took up the Epstein Files cause to start taking political scalps. They keep succeeding, but ... not how they planned:
Ewwwww. The "Uncle Jeffrey" e-mails came shortly after Ruemmler left the White House, but long after he'd been convicted of sex offenses in Florida. It also came in response to Uncle Jeffrey acting more like a sugar daddy than an uncle:
Double ewwwww. If we didn't know what we do about "Uncle Jeffrey" and his sexual predilections, that would look very damning in more than one context. As it stands, it still smells as badly as a former Treasury Secretary calling Epstein his "wingman" in 2019 for helping him seduce a female protegé into getting "horizontal."
Ruemmler also kept corresponding with "Uncle Jeffrey" right up to the end on public relations, once the Miami Herald exposed the scummy deal cut by then-US Attorney Alex Acosta that gave Epstein the softest possible landing:
Up until the "Uncle Jeffrey" e-mails and the evidence of personal gifts came to light, Goldman Sachs had stood by Ruemmler, at least publicly. CEO David Solomon had refused to fire Ruemmler over her connection to Epstein earlier, expressing complete confidence in his general counsel. A GS spokesman even told the WSJ that the gifts were not that exceptional and that many people got gifts from Epstein. Ruemmler's haul was jaw-dropping, however, including a cash transfer of $53,750 to cover a private-jet charter she had taken. Ruemmler claims to have refused to accept that particular gift, but $10,000 in Bergdorf Goodman gift card and an Hermès bag look bad enough already. Solomon accepted her resignation overnight and put out the usual "grateful for her contributions" departing statement.
The WSJ takes a look at the scorecard for Dems so far:
We'll likely see a few more of these delayed consequences for the people who stuck themselves to Epstein, and vice versa. Given what we know about Epstein and his social climbing, this was always far more likely to damage people operating in progressive-elite circles, since Epstein clearly aspired to belong within them. Democrats insisted on picking up the Epstein Light Grenade anyway, and now have little choice but to watch it repeatedly detonate.
You found one Schiff, but this one aint gonna fly either.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 17,070
- Reaction score
- 6,735
- Points
- 113
If she should resign for running interference for Trump, shouldn’t Trump be impeached?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,869
- Reaction score
- 26,044
- Points
- 113
The left loves to throw that word around like it happens every presidentency.
I knownyou are privately MAGA, but I will ask anyway. What has Trump done thatbis impeachable this time
Peach Fortisev!
100%
I will note that Trump's biggest problem in both terms was finding a decent AG who would enforce the law.
I'm thinking that it's impossible to find anyone in D.C. to do that in a fair and impartial manner.
Ditto with the FBI Director. Need to tear down the FBI and start over.
Must've wanted that micro-penis we heard about.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 17,070
- Reaction score
- 6,735
- Points
- 113
You paying attention, bro?
If Bondi is running interference on TrUmp’s behalf then he ostensibly Instructed the DOJ to ignore the EFTA LAW and redact information that was not to be redacted.
is this yet another "Gotcha"?
those havent worked out well for you in 10 years, Smooth Brain
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 17,070
- Reaction score
- 6,735
- Points
- 113
Now you’re trying to defend Epstein as well.
no, Smooth Brain. I've never wanted to nor tried to defend the Democratic funder. I've always said anyone who participated in his sexual abuse of women and children should be publicly executed in the worst ways and most painful ways imaginable. I have zero loyalty to anyone who does anything like that.
maybe re-read and then take a few moments to try to understand the depth of which you've swam into.
let me assist you:
why would an alleged victim offer to send her abuser pics of herself, well after he'd been arrested for the crimes of which she accused him?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,869
- Reaction score
- 26,044
- Points
- 113
You are losing it
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2014
- Messages
- 11,978
- Reaction score
- 7,780
- Points
- 113
Women get beat up by their husbands / bfs or let them beat on their kids, but say how much they love them. As for sexual abuse victims there are many reasons the victims would stay in contact such as trauma bonding and severe grooming / manipulation. Of course there is the possibility that some of the girls were perverted as well but you can't just assume they were not abused because they still wanted to be close to Epstein
And a crisp $50
not what i said.
she said she would send him pictures. that's quite a bit different since he was incarcerated at the time and presented no threat to her.
Interesting read from the WSJ
The Real Epstein ‘Ring’
The disgraced financier’s ex-pals enjoyed his parties and vast network.
The Jeffrey Epstein files were supposed to uncover the financier’s sex-trafficking and blackmail operation. They haven’t, for the excellent reason that there was no such operation.Its nonexistence is, ironically, the main thing to emerge so far from the document dump. In the latest tranche, released late last month, is a memo from FBI investigators declaring that they found no evidence in Epstein’s residences and bank accounts of a trafficking ring or of “sex videos” supposedly used for blackmail. This finding has the force of cogency, contradicting as it does the earlier conspiratorial claims of Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel. Justice Department honchos, in other words, wanted to uncover a trafficking ring. Their investigators had to tell them the bad news.
Another revealing document—this one highlighted by the independent journalist Michael Tracey—is an 86-page memo from December 2019 by prosecutors with the Southern District of New York. The memo, intended to marshal evidence against Epstein’s associates, noted that Virginia Giuffre, the accuser primarily responsible for stories of a sex-slave and blackmail ring, was in fact a fabulist and totally unreliable as a courtroom witness.
That Epstein’s crimes were confined to himself and a few enablers, chiefly Ghislaine Maxwell, was intolerable to influencers and politicos determined to attribute all bad things to the dark workings of cabals. Tucker Carlson conjectured that Epstein worked with the Mossad to blackmail its enemies. A coterie of radicals in the House, including Thomas Massie (R., Ky.), Ro Khanna (D., Calif.) and Jamie Raskin (D., Md.), relentlessly speculate that Epstein serviced the rich and powerful in odious ways. These exhibitionists have yet to receive any criticism from the anti-“misinformation” crowd.
Congress, in an act of cravenness whose consequences will last decades, mandated the release of these documents—and for nakedly political reasons. Democrats were certain President Trump would show up as an Epstein “client,” and Republicans hoped to remind the public of Bill Clinton’s lechery.
Alas for Mr. Trump’s enemies, the latest tranche of documents casts doubt on the idea that he ever cavorted with Epstein and his harem. An FBI document memorializes a 2006 conversation in which Mr. Trump phoned the Palm Beach, Fla., police chief to say he knew about Epstein’s and Ms. Maxwell’s behavior and thought it vile. He was once around Epstein when teenage girls showed up, he recalled to the police chief, and he “got the hell out of there.”
The press purports to think the salient fact here is that Mr. Trump in 2019 claimed he knew nothing about Epstein’s creepy actions. But the salient point is that Mr. Trump in 2006 volunteered his view to the cops that Epstein’s behavior revolted him and is thus unlikely to have participated in it.
Mr. Clinton, though not unscathed by the files, doesn’t seem to have been a “client” whom Epstein could blackmail. He took four overseas trips on Epstein’s jet in 2002 and 2003, each credibly said to be about philanthropic work (the stops were all in Africa—not the Virgin Islands). That’s before Epstein’s 2006 indictment in Palm Beach for soliciting a minor. Among the released files are several undated photos, by appearances from the early 2000s, of Mr. Clinton with Epstein and a variety of celebrities and unidentified women, the latter’s faces redacted.
There was, in the end, no sex-slave ring, no blackmail operation, no cameras recording dalliances for later use, no client list. Just a deeply sick and rich predator with a few enablers.
Yet there was a ring of sorts—a circle of well-connected, wealthy and politically liberal men who looked past Epstein’s taste in girls and remained on friendly terms with this charming, lavishly generous and intellectually conversant epicure. Revilers of Epstein’s pals draw a fine distinction between those who continued to associate with him after the ’08 conviction and those who didn’t. I’m not convinced that’s all-important.
They all knew—just as everybody in Hollywood knew what Harvey Weinstein was up to, claims of ignorance notwithstanding. Some of Epstein’s former pals, now protesting that their dealings with him were “limited”—word of the year—may have accepted carnal favors, though perhaps not criminal ones. Many only enjoyed the parties, business opportunities and social connections.
For America’s liberal VIPs in media, tech and politics, the moment demands self-reflection. The big-timers humiliated by association with Epstein—like the guys disgraced by MeToo allegations—almost all held conventional liberal opinions and gave lavishly to liberal causes and Democratic candidates. Don’t pretend you haven’t noticed.
Today’s liberals spend a lot of energy discoursing on the American right’s pathologies, often justly. But it ought to bother them that 20 years ago the man they loathe most took a look at Jeffrey Epstein’s conduct and got the hell out of there.
No.
Unless your side wants to secure their reputation as being the biggest a-holes.
When you people cried wolf twice the third time will probably be scoffed at should a real wolf appears.
Last edited:
If true, the final blow to the “get Trump” scumbags.
You know who you are Trog.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,800
- Reaction score
- 16,753
- Points
- 113
maybe it's just the weekend, but it seems like this thread is a bit less fuucktarded for past couple days, which is nice.