Cameroni

Virginia Giuffre was certainly a common whore. She even lived with a pimp before she met Epstein. And she certainly enjoyed the trips to Thailand to learn massage and the many tens of thousands of dollars Epstein paid her for her sexual services. She wasn't just a whore of course, she also helped recruit other girls for Epstein's harem. So she was an accomplice to the crimes, but was never charged.

It's not immaterial whether a girl was forced with physical force to have sex or was persuaded to do so with the payment of money, it has implications for sentencing and of course tells us much about how Maxwell and Epstein operated and also how the teenagers themselves acted. It's highly relevant. Had physical force been used the punishment would have been harsher still. Indeed additional criminal charges would have been brought.

A huge portion of the files have already been released. It would be insanity to release all of them, because it would include interviews with "survivors" that contain statements that were later shown to be total lies. How would the general public distinguish between preliminary investigation interviews where "survivors" lied and true facts? They wouldn't be able to.. Not to mention the data protection, defamation and other nightmare implications. Clearly there is no client list, Epstein didn't have "clients", he only had a book of people he knew, which has already been made public. Not releasing all the files is absolutely the right decision, only those files with TRUE and verified information should be released. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20r07dg6kro

Maxwell never "forced" anyone to have sex with Epstein. All they had to do was to promise money and other material enticements and all the girls consented with almost no exceptions. Physical force was never used. There is no "client" list, because Epstein didn't have "clients", he wasn't running a sex trafficking operation for others, but for himself alone. Much like Diddy's freak-offs were for him alone, and his parties were totally different affairs. There is no evidence Epstein ever used extortion on anyone, which would have been non-sensical to start with as he had millions of dollars amassed already. The rumour that Epstein filmed sexual encounters to blackmail people was started by Sara Ransome, who later admited that she just made it up.

That was very much the conclusiion in the Giuffre vs Dershowitz trial, where it quickly became apparent that Giuffre's case was highly implausible due to evidence Dershowitz could adduce. So Giuffre was forced to abandon her case and claim "bad memory" to save face. If there's all these letters, witnesses and videos, why couldn't Giuffre win her case against Dershowitz? Because she's a liar and it never happened.

Whether Giuffre or anyone else faked the photo, who knows, but of course a "random" woman can claim she slept with a member of the royal family and can initiate a legal claim on that claim. After all that's what Giuffre did with Alan Dershowitz, she sued him even though she knew full well she never slept with him. Difference was Dershowitz was so lucky he could prove it with evidence, that it couldn't have happened. Obviously Prince Andrew was not so lucky, he didn't have evidence he couldn't have slept with Giuffre, so his lawyers advised him and the royal family, that yes, it's possible he could lose the case since he didn't have the evidence proving he didn't sleep with Giuffre. The lawyers would have done a damage assesment and the projected legal fees of BOTH Giuffre and Andrew and monies paid on the basis of a lost claim would have surpassed by far the money paid to Giuffre, which reportedly was much lower, only 3 million pounds. This is routinely done not just by celebrities, but also by corporations, they settle because it's cheaper. Very sensible usually.

Obviously not, they wanted to make the embarassing legal case go away as soon as possible, because their lawyers advised them that since Prince Andrew did not have evidence that he could not have had sex with Giuffre, the way Dershowitz had, there was a real likelihood he could lose the case even if he never slept with Giuffre, simply because he didn't have the evidence that he didn't sleep with her. Faced with an embarassment of that magnitude they rather paid the millions to Giuffre, who promptly bought a nice villa in Australia with the cash.

What we know for sure is that Virginia Giuffre took legal action to sue Alan Dershowitz even though Giuffre knew perfectly well that she never had sex with Dershowitz. Luckily Dershowitz could prove it never happened, with evidence, so Giuffre could not win that case. Given that she sued Dershowitz, knowing full well she never had sex with him, the odds of her having sued Prince Andrew, knowing full well she never had sex with him, are very high. Now, unfortunately Prince Andrew did not have evidence to prove it never happened, which is incredibly difficult to do, and so he chose to settle and paid Giuffre, many many millions of pouinds. Which was her whole reason for suing. In fact all the "survivors" went on a suing rampage, they even sued the FBI. And unsurprisingly the "survivors" were again and again shown to be lying. Sara Ransome for instance was the origin of the rumour that Epstein filmed the sexual encounters for blackmail. However, she later admitted in her autobiography that this claim was untrue. Basically what happened after the Epstein arrest was that his estate was put in a trust fund that was used to pay out those who claimed to be "survivors". As you can imagine the number of surviviors kept growing every year, even in 2019 they came out of the woodworks.. These "survivors" sued and milked what happened to the extreme, and even lies were part of their arsenal. Especially with Giuffre, a documented whore.

So you're going to beat this dead horse that Trump is a pedophile and is not releasing the Epstein files because he'd incriminate himself for infinity. Up to you. But of course now we have eye witness evidence that it never happened. Like most conspiracy theorists you'll have a lot of company, but reason and truth won't be keeping you company.

If you take an objective lense, clearly having sex with children or minors would give anyone cause for concern. So clearly that never happened.

How about "The only surviving witness has just completely exonerated Trump"?

There were no "victims", Virgiina Giuffre admitted she consented to sex for money. Epstein sent her to learn massage in Chiang Mai and provided financially for her. After that she became rich by extorting Prince Andrew for 20 million pounds and anyone else she could sue. She even tried to sue Alan Dershowitz knowing full well she never had sex with him, just for the cash. Giuffre was a common whore and a vile liar.

Anyone who has sex with pre-pubscent children is clearly a pedophile and true "kiddie-fiddler" in the true sense of the word. However, when you get to teenager territory then you quickly come into a gray area, because the age of consent varies widely in many countries around the world and indeed in many states in the US at the time of Epstein's crimes. Indeed in Florida, before the age of consent was revised to 18 the age of consent was 10 years old, I'm not joking, look it up. So, there is a difference to sex with a minor and child sex abuse, which the law clearly differentiates. It's totally disingenous to suggest that Epstein was a pedophile, he had sex with very young teenagers, yes, but he was not a pedophile in the true sense. Obviously, I don't around trafficking or having sex with any of them, I like 25 year olds, but that's hardly the point.

The only "wind-up" show here is by those who claim Donald Trump was a pedophile and that he's refusing to release files becuse he'd be incriminated, all of which is total nonsense. The one surviving witness has now clearly exonerated Trump of any wrong-doing and still you lot persist in this baseless pedophilia hoax. It's pitiful and silly really.

Sorry to disappoint you, there are no "pedophiles" in this case. Not in the true sense of pedophilia, ie sex with prebuscent girls.

No it's not, we must be intellectually honest. Even when the law creates a legal fiction for policy reasons and states a 15 year old is a "child", she's not a pre-pubescent kid, and Epstein was very clearly not into sex with children in the sense of pre-pubescent girls. He liked younger teenagers, like Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis and Chuck Berry. Not kids. I mean let's not distort reality.

Oh please, talk about gullible. That affidavit was part of a fraudulent legal action that was dismissed because it was a tissue of lies. Even the background to the fraud is known, see here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow That affidavit is NOT part of the Epstein files and actual cases involving him where he was convicted. Very appropriate, she had issues with other inmates in the previous prison, and she's collaborating with law enforcement after all. She's the only witness who was there. Her testimony wholly exonerates Trump. So you should just lie down and take a nap, these pedophilia fantasies ain't going nowhere.

No I don't actually, because those files most likely contain untrue, defamatory and wrong information. Only that should be released which is proven beyond a doubt to be true. And of course Epstein was not into "child sex abuse", he had sex with teenagers, he liked younger girls, but not one of them was pre-pubscent. To accuse him of being a kiddie fiddler is just wrong. Clearly it was just Epstein and Maxwell who were involved, and Virginia Giuffre of course who admitted she recruited other girls, as well as some of the other girls. This notion that he "trafficked girls" to others is total nonsense. Just as it was with Diddy who did the freak-offs for himself and his gf. His parties were nothing like the freak offs. All these things get mashed up in the public imagination which appears to have some trouble in separating fact from fantasy.

Oh you think a 64 year old Jewish woman was telling the FBI that she did not see Trump do anything of concern, because for her child sex is normal and not of concern? Yah, sounds likely.

The record of what?

Well, those are two allegations, 1) Trump acted improperly with kids and 2) Ghislaine Maxwell said what she did because of an ulterior motive.. What evidence do you have for either of these two wild and fantastic accusations?

Lol, no, it was dismissed because it was a total tissue of fabricated lies that had precisely zero chance of winning any case in court. See the true story here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow You're making yourself look rather silly.

Wrongo. She said "Trump had never done anything in her presence that would have caused concern" https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-administration-considers-releasing-transcripts-doj-interview-ghislaine/story?id=124383957 "Anything". So this includes improper behaviour with anyone else.

Still peddling the same old lies, I see. As you well know this case was disimissed and her affidavit is just a tissue of lies. The truth can be found here: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-do-papers-allege-trump-epstein-took-part-sexual-assault-1857863 and here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow

Come on, the jig is uuuupp! Time to let go of all those pedophilia fantasies. Donald Trump was found totally innocent. Why are you not rejoicing that no kids were harmed? I don't understand some people. Do you wish your fantasies were true so badly, that you'd rather see little children violated? Surely this is good news. Nothing happened. Celebration time?