Jump to content

Jeffrey Epstein: US court releases list of people connected to financier


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Royal nonces - not surprisingly the elites seem to have prodigious perversions and/or have a predilection to hang out with perverts like Sir Jimmy Saville and nonce Bishops. Vanilla doesn't seem to cut it for them.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/14/friendship-with-prince-charles-made-paedophile-bishop-peter-ball-impregnable

 

Why don't you read it, all. 

Posted
1 hour ago, stoner said:

 

i would like to read about that. link please. thanks. 

Feel free to google it I don’t know how to cut and paste on this device I really do need to take a few classes to learn how to use this marvelous tool!

Posted
1 hour ago, illisdean said:

Go read the witness transcript released today about Bill Clinton and compare it the witness transcript about Trump, but you might have trouble finding a witness testifying Trump diddled them BECAUSE HE DIDN'T and was never at Epsteins island unlike Clintion. Clinton visited pedo island, how many times...20, 30 more! Clinton was a frequent flyer to pedo island and other locations including Thaland and African countries, Trump NEVER visited the island. All in the context and details if you bother to look.

 

1 hour ago, illisdean said:

I think pedo-Bill may have ditched his secret service detail on several (5) of his pedo runs, follow the link and u can see for yourself.

 

Bill Clinton ditches USSS

You are lying. 

 

- According to the OP and other articles, "Former US President Clinton is also named in the court documents, although there is no implication of any illegality."

- There is nothing like "Clinton visited pedo island, how many times...20, 30 more! Clinton was a frequent flyer to pedo island" (your words)

- In the only link you provided, if accurate, the only time Clinton flew without his secret service detail is (quote from the Fox News article)

"However, on a five-leg Asia trip between May 22 and May 25, 2002, not a single Secret Service agent is listed." 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 hour ago, beautifulthailand99 said:
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men
gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

 

I didn't mean the bible. 

  • Confused 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
53 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Very silly post.

 

In case you missed it, 91 felony charges have been leveled against The Bloated Self-Proclaimed Small Kitten Grabber. The indictments resulted from under oath testimony to a grand jury by people who worked for trump in his Administration. There are also tapes of phone calls where trump is implicated in the fake elector scheme, as well as trying to pressure the GA SecState to break the law and 'just find me 11,780 votes'. That seems to violate GA State RICO laws, and with the help of former Administration officials who will testify in GA, trump faces a mandatory 5 years in jail in GA for what he tried to do with Raffensperger.

 

As for Epstein, in yesterday's Epstein article many people noted to this effect:  "one flight on the Lolita Express is not proof of guilt, but many flights suggest guilt, as after the first time folks would know the Epstein game"

 

trump had at least 7 flights on the Lolita Express. SEVEN. So either trump is dumb as a brick and clueless (he is) or he knew full well the heinousness of Epstein and still went along with him.  Maybe both.

 

 

Not to mention that:

- Trump and Epstein were co-defendents in a lawsuit for rape of an underage girl (ultimately withdrawn under threat)

https://scribd.com/document/326057168/Jane-Doe-Declaration-as-Filed

 

- Guiffre was working at MAL when she was recruited by Maxwell

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/09/epstein-mar-a-lago-trump-1456221

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Tug said:

Feel free to google it I don’t know how to cut and paste on this device I really do need to take a few classes to learn how to use this marvelous tool!

 

no no that's not how this works my friend. your excuses are quite weak. i don't know how to cut and paste on this device. hahahah. you sound awfully silly. 

  • Confused 2
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The stink around Trump is widely reported and real.

 

That's pretty self-evident, who in his circle doesn't reek?  We can all be fooled into letting a rat into our midst, but with this guy it is consistent.

And just because some in his circle have turned on him and are portrayed as standing for truth and justice, well don't be fooled by them.  E.g., I wouldn't trust Michael Cohen as far as I could throw him.
When this NFT con came along him and his wife naturally drawn to it.

 

Posted
3 hours ago, Walker88 said:

putin's effort to aid trump was multi-faceted. It also included funneling camapign contributions to trump's camapign through the National Rifle Association. It also included funding the camapign of tree-hugger Jill Stein, as putin had learned lessons from 1992 (Perot) and 2000 (Nader). Stein received more votes in WI and MI than trump's margin over HRC, and it was close in PA.

 

This is a conundrum DT is trying to get around in his rants:  with all the effort his friends and sponsors put into getting him re-elected he still lost, and right there he sees a justification in his accusations against the Dems, that for them to win they had to do some rigging themselves.  Stay tuned to the campaign screeds, at some point he is going to spill out.  It's like the story of the guy who picks up a street walker, pays in advance, and when she runs off he goes to the cops and tells them she took his $$$ but didn't deliver.

 

  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Walker88 said:

trump inherited 4.8% unemployment and a growing economy from Obama, but left Biden 6.8% unemployment and a Recession.

 

lets pretend covid had no influence on this. i wonder what bidens numbers would be like if it was him in charge during the worst economic hit this world has ever seen. 

  • Confused 2
  • Agree 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Walker88 said:

In case you missed it, there are 3 eligibility requirements for someone to stand as a candidate for the Presidency.

 

None requires that a individual prohibited from running first have his ineligibility addressed in court.

 

1) Must be 35 years old or older

2) Must be a natural born US citizen

3) Must not have engaged in insurrection against the USA

 

#3 is trump.

 

US States have the authority to make determinations re elections. CO and ME have already made that determination.

 

So ironic/hypocritical trump is whining about 'democracy', when he tried to get his goobers to stop the certification process plus he was intimately involved---according to his own Administration officials---in a fake elector scheme.  Obviously trump hates democracy.

 

Could you provide a link to where Trump has been convicted of insurrection in a court of law?

 

Thanks in advance...

  • Confused 3
Posted

Before the thread gets too long, it may be good to verify facts so here are the full document releases in easily searchable pdf format. There was a second release today so there are two .pdf files.

 

I searched both rabus and my real name, whew! It only took 2 seconds.

 

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24253540/epstein-documents-943-https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24254004/epstein-2nd-batch.pdf

 

In addition to names, you can also see what was said.

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Posted
7 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

I didn't mean the bible. 

Prince Andrew brother to the King paid 12 million dollars to shut a witness up (temporarily - the gagging order lasted for one year) and has said he would cooperate with the FBI in their enquiries. The Palace have taken away all his duties which is pretty much an admission of guilt. If he continues to evade justice then it is a case of one rule for them and another for the plebs and therefore taint the reputation of your precious King. It's quite simple nonces should face justice or maybe you don't think so or let them play the get out of jail free card?

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12928105/prince-andrew-royal-jeffrey-epstein-documents-king-charles.html

 

In the case of the nonce bishop, Peter Ball Charles continued to keep in touch with him after a caution. It beggars beleif that he wouldn't be briefed about the potential repuational damage of continuing to support him given his crimes. Indeed he probably only got a caution because of his privilged contacts.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/20/prince-charles-kept-in-touch-with-ex-bishop-jailed-for-abuse-peter-ball

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Can you please provide a link to where the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states ‘a conviction in a court of laws’ law a necessary requirement for the Amendment clauses to be enacted?

 

So an accusation is enough? :laugh:

  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

So an accusation is enough? :laugh:


What is enough of an accusation is a matter for debate, but their is no requirement in the Fourtheenth Amendment for a guilty verdict in a court of law.

 

If you had ever read the Fourteenth Amendment you would have at least had the opportunity to be less ill informed on the matter.

 

To better inform yourself, I recommend you look up the ruling of Justice Neil Gorsuch on the matter of the rights of the States to choose who gets on the ballot.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:


What is enough of an accusation is a matter for debate, but their is no requirement in the Fourtheenth Amendment for a guilty verdict in a court of law.

 

If you had ever read the Fourteenth Amendment you would have at least had the opportunity to be less ill informed on the matter.

 

To better inform yourself, I recommend you look up the ruling of Justice Neil Gorsuch on the matter of the rights of the States to choose who gets on the ballot.

 

 

 

 

OK allow me to answer the question directly.

 

An accusation by a political opponent is not enough to stop Trump running. Much as you wish it was. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

OK allow me to answer the question directly.

 

An accusation by a political opponent is not enough to stop Trump running. Much as you wish it was. 


It’s not an ‘accusation’ that has been used to remove Trump from the ballot.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Walker88 said:

trump had at least 7 flights on the Lolita Express.

You as well, confused are you, comprehension and basic reading ability not your strong suit. 

 

Do you even know what the "Lolita Express" actually is. what are its features, when it came into existence? I didn't think so, because, if you did you making things up embarrasing yourself and showing your deep ignorance for fact and substance. If you wish to offer your further uninformed grade 3 story telling response to the above, I will offer up some fact that you are unaware of and merely shows you KNOW NOT wtf you are taking about. 

 

  • Confused 3
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

OK allow me to answer the question directly.

 

An accusation by a political opponent is not enough to stop Trump running. Much as you wish it was. 

It is a rambling writings and fanatical musing from an tree hugging environmental nut-bag who has ZERO legal knowledge and is just a democratic appointed deep state Biden puppet. She is a SoS and somehow thinks w/o evidence, Trump committed insurrection since the CO court says it so, the evidence being JAN 6 "hearsay evidence" and NOW , guess what.... the Jan 6 video depositions that allegedly contain all the damning evidence of insurrection are now officially missing and/or unavailable. Another hoax and desperate coverup orchestrated by the corrupt Biden regime. If there was the slightest evidence predicating "insurrection" by anything to do with Trump, there would be indictments up the wazoo, but instead the feckless corrupt DOJ go aftr Trump for violating the KKK act....lol. 

I suspect the Supremes may rule that the State level SoS's in blue states, or any state lack standing to remove Trump or anyone off the ballot for obvious and egregious abuses of law, bogus misapplication / interpretation and misuse of laws so old they are covered in dinosaur dung and not provide a ruling on the applicability of 14th /Section3 based on their mandates to not intervene in politics, believe its predicated in the 5th canon. The "accusation"  of SoS Bellows is all for show in hopes, despite lame and stench of dem deep desperate of thwarting Trumps increasing rise in the pools amidst vegetable Joes slumping polls & job approvals and imminent removal from the ballot on or before DNC in AUG 2024. The liberal marxist banana republic establishment is in panic mode over the candidate they tried but failed to eliminate and destroy since 2016. Trump is taking on the "bullet proof" characteristic.

Edited by illisdean
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The stink around Trump is widely reported and real

The stink, stench has encapsulated around Biden & his polls, job approvals, border insurrection, wars breaking out all over, failure after failure, Biden is stinking the joint out. Trump OTOH is making all you bidenites look more foolish than ever now. See the latest I&I/TIPP poll results showing majority of Americans (likely voters) were better off 4 year ago. That is a HUGE stink for Biden and his failed administration when compared to Trumps!

 

It should be obvious to all that the stench around Biden is far worse than that of Trump or ANY other president in US history in terms of failure, corruption, job approval, voter polls, humanitarian and national security crisis (border & immigration disaster), global weakness, etc. 

 

I&I / TIPP Poll JAN 2024

Edited by illisdean
  • Confused 4
  • Sad 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:


It’s not an ‘accusation’ that has been used to remove Trump from the ballot.

 

An opinion - same effect.

  • Confused 2
  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, illisdean said:

Trump committed insurrection since the CO court says it so, the evidence being JAN 6 "hearsay evidence" and NOW , guess what.... the Jan 6 video depositions that allegedly contain all the damning evidence of insurrection are now officially missing and/or unavailable.

Fox has mischaracterised the issue, by the House rules video records are not required when 'written transcripts of them were provided'.

 

Fox said in defence of one of their many court cases for lying, that a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence would not conclude Fox News as fact.

What does that say about you?

Fact check (usatoday.com)

Edited by LosLobo

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...