Accused Jeffrey Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell moved to New York jail

[Deli]

Hillary is on her way delivering a suitable rope hidden in a cake.

All this after at least 23 years is just rediculous. IF someone has been mistreated so badly by the defendant, why did they wait more than 2 decades to come forward ?

[candide]

24 minutes ago, Deli said:

Hillary is on her way delivering a suitable rope hidden in a cake.

All this after at least 23 years is just rediculous. IF someone has been mistreated so badly by the defendant, why did they wait more than 2 decades to come forward ?

In 2007–2008, a GOP U.S. attorney, in a GOP state and under a GOP presidency, Acosta approved a plea deal that allowed human-trafficking ring-leader Jeffrey Epstein to plead guilty to a single state charge of solicitation, in exchange for a federal non-prosecution agreement.

[DPKANKAN]

13 hours ago, flexomike said:

flight risk to the stairway to heaven or the highway to hell

I feel a suicide coming on!!????????????????????????

[DefaultName]

No suicide this time, too obvious, a tragic accident or possibly illness - Covid would do nicely.

[Elkski]

it seems like surely there are a people who helped hide MAXWELL  why no mention  of their arrests?

look at how  many of you guys doubt the womans story in the year  2020.  just imagine  how it was 15-20 years  ago.  Epstein was involved in Israeli sig ops.  He was protected by some big names.  he had videos of all I would imagine and blackmail was the game. As far as I'm concerned if you're on Epstein's black book list you're guilty as f.  

those  that think HC cares are crazy.  she is  out of the picture.  

This activity was known about and a. accepted in the elite party circles.   Underage models drinking at parties  was common practice.   We can look closer to Thailand for a modern high ranking example of this lifestyle.  

Edited July 7, 2020 by Elkski

[VillageIdiot]

21 minutes ago, DefaultName said:

No suicide this time, too obvious, a tragic accident or possibly illness - Covid would do nicely.

Ah, the Jack Ruby solution.

[herfiehandbag]

3 hours ago, Yinn said:

In 2005, police in Palm Beach, Florida, began investigating Epstein after a parent complained that he had sexually abused her 14-year-old daughter.^[6] Epstein pleaded guilty and was convicted in 2008 by a Florida state court of procuring an underage girl for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute.

 

 

What do you think?

Gosh Yinn, your syntax has improved remarkably now you have joined a debate which has you fired up, rather than trying to fire one up!

 

I really must congratulate you - that post really had the authentic feel of a "native speaker"!

Edited July 7, 2020 by herfiehandbag
We don't need no dark sarcasm, Teacher, leave those kids alone!

[Mac98]

15 hours ago, Yinn said:

Maxwell provided her with tickets to travel to Thailand, and instructed to meet with a specific Thai girl to bring her back to the United States for Epstein. 

 

Scary

 

Link 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Roberts_Giuffre

 

 

Link

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2900632/Pictured-Prince-Andrew-surrounded-topless-women-Thai-holiday-paedophile-billionaire-Epstein-friend-says-Duke-tits-bums-man.html

 

Link 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10262392/prince-andrew-epstein-bangkok/

 

 

 

Once more: paedophile is attraction to PRE-PUBESCENT children. As feminists point out at other times, these were "young women". Big difference.

[Mac98]

14 hours ago, worgeordie said:

Let's hope the CCTV cameras don't go down, and the guards

don't fall asleep this time,as it will be interesting to hear what

she has to say about a Prince and ex President.

regards worgeordie

And another soon-to-be ex-president.

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, Elkski said:

look at how  many of you guys doubt the womans story in the year  2020. 

And with good reason. Some of the girls were shameless liars. Sarah Ransome claimed she had sex tapes with Hilary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore. Then admitted it was lies. Virginia Roberts claimed she had sex with Dershowitz, then her lawyers admitted it was not possible after viewing Dershowitz's credit card and phone records.

 

Some of the girls' stories are fantastically exaggerated and in some cases outright lies.

[Why Me]

I've trouble understanding these billionaire scandals. They obviously can order a busload of legal-aged women from an escort service or fly in a pornstar or ten (like Charlie Sheen does). But they won't.

 

I guess if it's easy to do it loses its charm. They want to be on the edge. Remember Robert Kraft, the NE Patriots owner, was caught in a $150 rub and tug place in FL. Could not have been for anything other than the thrill of doing it like the plebes. Or Hugh Grant getting a $75  bj from a hooker in a car on a public street in LA when he had a movie star gf waiting for him at home. Weird.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Why Me

[GroveHillWanderer]

3 hours ago, Deli said:

Hillary is on her way delivering a suitable rope hidden in a cake.

All this after at least 23 years is just rediculous. IF someone has been mistreated so badly by the defendant, why did they wait more than 2 decades to come forward ?

They didn't - people had been coming forward and accusing Epstein of sex crimes ever since 1996. In 2008, when he plead guilty to sex crimes with minors, police had sworn statements from over 3 dozen women (all of whom Epstein was required to pay settlements to, as compensation for his crimes against them). The Miami Herald investigative journalists compiled a list of around 80 women at that time who also came forward and told their stories of sexual abuse by Epstein and Maxwell.

 

The main accusers have been giving their accounts for decades now, they didn't just suddenly appear yesterday. At the time of his death, by some estimates, the number of his accusers was around 100.

[OneMoreFarang]

12 hours ago, Yinn said:

In 2005, police in Palm Beach, Florida, began investigating Epstein after a parent complained that he had sexually abused her 14-year-old daughter.^[6] Epstein pleaded guilty and was convicted in 2008 by a Florida state court of procuring an underage girl for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute.

 

 

What do you think?

From Wikipedia: In March 2005, a woman contacted Florida's Palm Beach Police Department and alleged that her 14-year-old stepdaughter had been taken to Epstein's mansion by an older girl. There she was allegedly paid $300 (equivalent to $390 in 2019) to strip and massage Epstein.^[88] She had allegedly undressed, but left the encounter wearing her underwear.^[89]

^[...]

On June 30, 2008, after Epstein pleaded guilty to a state charge (one of two) of procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18,^[109] he was sentenced to 18 months in prison.

 

I think it does not mention that he raped or even assaulted anyone. It seems lots of girls were willing to sell their services - like a massage for 300USD.

[Will27]

46 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

From Wikipedia: In March 2005, a woman contacted Florida's Palm Beach Police Department and alleged that her 14-year-old stepdaughter had been taken to Epstein's mansion by an older girl. There she was allegedly paid $300 (equivalent to $390 in 2019) to strip and massage Epstein.^[88] She had allegedly undressed, but left the encounter wearing her underwear.^[89]

^[...]

On June 30, 2008, after Epstein pleaded guilty to a state charge (one of two) of procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18,^[109] he was sentenced to 18 months in prison.

 

I think it does not mention that he raped or even assaulted anyone. It seems lots of girls were willing to sell their services - like a massage for 300USD.

A lot of the girls were minors so consent and price is irrelevant I would've thought.

[Logosone]

46 minutes ago, Will27 said:

A lot of the girls were minors so consent and price is irrelevant I would've thought.

It's irrelevant in law in the sense that the law creates the fiction that a 16 or 17 year old can not consent in law.

 

However, in fact, in reality, of course those girls consented to have sex for money.  So men are criminalised even though the girl consented and even though the man paid 200 dollars. 

 

Due to the fact that the law creates this legal construct, this fiction, which claims a 17 year old girl can not consent, whether they in fact consented is not considered in law. This is purely because of a policy that politicians who make the law do not want 17 year olds having sex with men over 24. For various reasons.

 

Even if it is irrelevant in law it is very relevant in evaluating what actually happened in reality. Those girls consented to sex for money. They then persuaded 70 of their friends to come to Epstein to have sex for money. They received other benefits like free holidays, school fees paid, pilot licences were obtained, the list of benefits was endless. 

 

Furthermore the tales of "sex slavery" are totally made up tales, all of the girls could leave at a time of their choosing, and they all did so. None were kept prisoners chained up in a dungeon. In fact all of their living conditions improved thanks to their association with Epstein. Ludicrously so in the case of many now, like Virginia Roberts who is a multi-millionairess decked out in gold chains who never has to work again , because she sued Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein, Epstein's estate as well so she will make even more money. 

 

All of the "survivors" are suing the Epstein estate or claiming from a fund set up specifically for them by the Epstein estate. Tens of millions of dollars have been paid out already and many more millions will be paid out. The flood of litigation initiated by the "survivors" is a tsunami, because the monetary gain is life changing.

 

So whilst in law consent is immaterial, in evaluating in reality what happened, if these women deserve millions for having sex for money while 16 or 17 the question of whether they consented to sex for money is relevant.

[Will27]

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

It's irrelevant in law in the sense that the law creates the fiction that a 16 or 17 year old can not consent in law.

 

However, in fact, in reality, of course those girls consented to have sex for money.  So men are criminalised even though the girl consented and even though the man paid 200 dollars. 

 

Due to the fact that the law creates this legal construct, this fiction, which claims a 17 year old girl can not consent, whether they in fact consented is not considered in law. This is purely because of a policy that politicians who make the law do not want 17 year olds having sex with men over 24. For various reasons.

 

Even if it is irrelevant in law it is very relevant in evaluating what actually happened in reality. Those girls consented to sex for money. They then persuaded 70 of their friends to come to Epstein to have sex for money. They received other benefits like free holidays, school fees paid, pilot licences were obtained, the list of benefits was endless. 

 

Furthermore the tales of "sex slavery" are totally made up tales, all of the girls could leave at a time of their choosing, and they all did so. None were kept prisoners chained up in a dungeon. In fact all of their living conditions improved thanks to their association with Epstein. Ludicrously so in the case of many now, like Virginia Roberts who is a multi-millionairess decked out in gold chains who never has to work again , because she sued Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein, Epstein's estate as well so she will make even more money. 

 

All of the "survivors" are suing the Epstein estate or claiming from a fund set up specifically for them by the Epstein estate. Tens of millions of dollars have been paid out already and many more millions will be paid out. The flood of litigation initiated by the "survivors" is a tsunami, because the monetary gain is life changing.

 

So whilst in law consent is immaterial, in evaluating in reality what happened, if these women deserve millions for having sex for money while 16 or 17 the question of whether they consented to sex for money is relevant.

I'm talking about the 14 and 15 year olds, though I can see your point.

[Logosone]

15 minutes ago, Will27 said:

I'm talking about the 14 and 15 year olds, though I can see your point.

I see your point as well. Of course we have to protect our children from the sexual advances of men, who will use deception and monetary incentives to obtain sex with the extremely young.

 

So clearly we have to draw a line in the sand at some point, some age, beyond which girls are untouchable. 

 

 The problem arises where to draw that line. Who can point the moment a child becomes a woman. This issue has provided endless problems for lawmakers. We can see that the age of consent today globally varies from 12 to 21. 

 

In reality of course every girl is different. I've met girls who at 16 were more street smart than some 40 year old women and fully developed, but then there are girls who at that age are like 12 year olds.

 

But of course we need to draw the line and err on the side of the vulnerable. It is right to do so. 

 

However we need to recognise that people like Epstein are not paedophiles, they do not have a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to pre-pubescent girls. They are the victim of a legal fiction which we have to put in place to protect some immature girls and of course of their own overwhelming sexual urges. 

 

It is unavoidable people like him have to be punished. However, life imprisonment for sex with a girl that consented to sex for money is an exaggeration. To pump the girls full of millions of USD in compensation is an exaggeration. Tales of slavery are an exaggeration. Tales of videos of famous people are an exaggeration, none were ever found. 

 

The media has fantastically exaggerated this case.

[Baerboxer]

22 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not sure what media you are getting this from, but it hardly matters.

 

Maxwell is an adult and answerable for her own crimes, and these relate to something far more obscene than ‘liking teenage girls’.

 

I hope she does name names and produce evidence (if the FEDs don’t already have enough), throw the book at all involved regardless of who they are.

 

 

Again, as always, you seem to insist certain charges, made against certain types of people, should be accepted as the truth; without proof, evidence, trial and verdict.

 

It seems you support trial by media fueled by political correctness and verdict by the court of public opinion - an opinion easily swayed by the mass media.

 

Perhaps you'd like to go back to the Witch trial mentality where as long as an accuser was perceived to be "on the right side" evidence wasn't really necessary? Or maybe press them to confess. If they're pressed to death we know they're innocent!

 

Unfortunately, this is also hampered by an FBI shown in recent years to be corrupt, biased, politically motivated and not particularly efficient; and a US justice system broken way beyond repair.

 

Look forward to a clown show.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

I see your point as well. Of course we have to protect our children from the sexual advances of men, who will use deception and monetary incentives to obtain sex with the extremely young.

 

So clearly we have to draw a line in the sand at some point, some age, beyond which girls are untouchable. 

 

 The problem arises where to draw that line. Who can point the moment a child becomes a woman. This issue has provided endless problems for lawmakers. We can see that the age of consent today globally varies from 12 to 21. 

 

In reality of course every girl is different. I've met girls who at 16 were more street smart than some 40 year old women and fully developed, but then there are girls who at that age are like 12 year olds.

 

But of course we need to draw the line and err on the side of the vulnerable. It is right to do so. 

 

However we need to recognise that people like Epstein are not paedophiles, they do not have a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to pre-pubescent girls. They are the victim of a legal fiction which we have to put in place to protect some immature girls and of course of their own overwhelming sexual urges. 

 

It is unavoidable people like him have to be punished. However, life imprisonment for sex with a girl that consented to sex for money is an exaggeration. To pump the girls full of millions of USD in compensation is an exaggeration. Tales of slavery are an exaggeration. Tales of videos of famous people are an exaggeration, none were ever found. 

 

The media has fantastically exaggerated this case.

It doesnt matter how mature any girl is under the age of consent. That age is for the adult to know that no matter her mental age, she is not to be touched.

 

That you are now portraying epstein as the hunted and the underaged girls as the hunters is unconscionable.

 

For that, you are no longer worth reading. Bye

[pegman]

There is credible speculation that Epstein and father and daughter Maxwell were MASSOD. If that is true she doesn't make it to trial. 

[nausea]

44 minutes ago, pegman said:

There is credible speculation that Epstein and father and daughter Maxwell were MASSOD. If that is true she doesn't make it to trial. 

You mean Mossad, I assume; anyone who, in their ignorance, googles Massod is going to be extremely confused.

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 7/8/2020 at 9:23 AM, Logosone said:

However, in fact, in reality, of course those girls consented to have sex for money.  So men are criminalised even though the girl consented and even though the man paid 200 dollars. 

Not according to anything I've ever heard or read about this. Every one of the girls that I've ever seen interviewed (including in their original police interviews back in the 1990's & 2000's) says they were initially promised they would only have to massage some old guy. After they were sexually assaulted, Epstein then paid them money.

 

You're also ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the girls were minors and therefore not even able to give informed consent.

 

Epstein, by his agreement to pay compensation under 18 USC § 2255 (which covers victims of child sexual abuse) as part of the 2008 non-prosecution agreement, acknowledged having sexually abused nearly 3 dozen minors (i.e. children). 

 

 

Edited July 11, 2020 by GroveHillWanderer