3 ms·

That's not true, like I said you're erasing the entire context of the quote.

vidarh 6y ago
As you point out the questioning was about trafficking, not about whether or not she went through with sex in that specific case. You're inventing an interpretation that is possible but that there is no supporting evidence for. You're free to believe he had sex with her, of course. It is possible he did. But when you're claiming there is 'credibly accused' when no clear allegation has even been made, you're being dishonest.
- solosoyokaze 6y ago
  Again, that's not true. In that same deposition a third party testifies that Guiffre did fly with Minsky. Choose to argue semantics all you want, but it's a credible accusation.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    Nobody is alleging Minsky was never approached by Guiffre as directed. But there are also no claim in evidence that Guiffre actually had sex with him. You keep claiming an accusation that you have no evidence of.
    - solosoyokaze 6y ago
      The deposition is the claim. They were discussing men Guiffre had been trafficked to. You're deliberately ignoring that.
      - vidarh 6y ago
        No, I'm not ignoring that. I'm pointing it out does not say what you claim it says. It could imply it, but it does not say it. It makes the claim she was trafficked. That is supported by the deposition. That is supported by the witness you mention. There is no reason to doubt that. But trafficking does not contain an automatic implication sex happened in every instance. What matters to establish trafficking is Maxwell's purpose in sending her, not whether or not the purpose was fulfilled. What you choose to believe is one thing, but your claim there is an accusation sex occurred in this specific case is not supported by that statement no matter how much you choose to read into it. You're deliberately ignoring the plain wording of the questions and Guiffres own answers, and instead read into them what you want them to say. Maybe Guiffre meant to make a direct accusation [against nst Minsky, anyway], but she did not in that deposition. EDIT: You'll note I'm not at all claiming Minsky didn't have sex with her. I don't know if he did. It's possible he did. Still associating with Epstein at that point in time already stinks and it is reasonable to wonder why. It's possible Guiffres intent was to accuse him. A whole lot of things are possible. But what is possible and what accusations there are evidence for are different things.
        solosoyokaze 6y ago
        I disagree, I think you have to really contort your thinking and selectively quote the deposition to say this isn't an accusation.
        vidarh 6y ago
        You've been unable to point to an accusation against Minsky in it. You're the contortionist here.

As you point out the questioning was about trafficking, not about whether or not she went through with sex in that specific case. You're inventing an interpretation that is possible but that there is no supporting evidence for. You're free to believe he had sex with her, of course. It is possible he did. But when you're claiming there is 'credibly accused' when no clear allegation has even been made, you're being dishonest.

solosoyokaze 6y ago
Again, that's not true. In that same deposition a third party testifies that Guiffre did fly with Minsky. Choose to argue semantics all you want, but it's a credible accusation.
- vidarh 6y ago
  Nobody is alleging Minsky was never approached by Guiffre as directed. But there are also no claim in evidence that Guiffre actually had sex with him. You keep claiming an accusation that you have no evidence of.
  - solosoyokaze 6y ago
    The deposition is the claim. They were discussing men Guiffre had been trafficked to. You're deliberately ignoring that.
    - vidarh 6y ago
      No, I'm not ignoring that. I'm pointing it out does not say what you claim it says. It could imply it, but it does not say it. It makes the claim she was trafficked. That is supported by the deposition. That is supported by the witness you mention. There is no reason to doubt that. But trafficking does not contain an automatic implication sex happened in every instance. What matters to establish trafficking is Maxwell's purpose in sending her, not whether or not the purpose was fulfilled. What you choose to believe is one thing, but your claim there is an accusation sex occurred in this specific case is not supported by that statement no matter how much you choose to read into it. You're deliberately ignoring the plain wording of the questions and Guiffres own answers, and instead read into them what you want them to say. Maybe Guiffre meant to make a direct accusation [against nst Minsky, anyway], but she did not in that deposition. EDIT: You'll note I'm not at all claiming Minsky didn't have sex with her. I don't know if he did. It's possible he did. Still associating with Epstein at that point in time already stinks and it is reasonable to wonder why. It's possible Guiffres intent was to accuse him. A whole lot of things are possible. But what is possible and what accusations there are evidence for are different things.
      - solosoyokaze 6y ago
        I disagree, I think you have to really contort your thinking and selectively quote the deposition to say this isn't an accusation.
        vidarh 6y ago
        You've been unable to point to an accusation against Minsky in it. You're the contortionist here.