4 ms·

> There are basically two mysteries regarding Jeffrey Epstein - the first is how he died, and the second is how he managed to get the plea bargain wherein he se

> There are basically two mysteries regarding Jeffrey Epstein - the first is how he died, and the second is how he managed to get the plea bargain wherein he served twelve months in para-prison for creating a network of dozens of underage prostitutes. Weird, I would have thought the third mystery was "How have all these billionaires, who are listed on the Lolita Express' flight logs, escape arrest and prosecution thus far?" or maybe "Why did the judge seal all information away?" OR MAYBE "Why did 'conspiracy theorists' know about these flight logs since the early 2000s and just now something happened?" I'm sure there are plenty of rational conclusions that don't involve a global shadow cabal of kid fuckers throwing 2 of their idiots under the bus. Remember how #metoo stopped after harvey weinstein? lol me too, I'm sure hollywood is fixed now. THE WORLD IS A STAGE, THIS IS ALL THEATER

PaulHoule 4y ago
Being on the flight log doesn't prove a crime. Situations like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Giuffre_v._Prince_Andrew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Giuffre_v._Prince_And... which are one person's word against another are the most frustrating cases when it comes to getting justice.
- albatross13 4y ago
  > Being on the flight log doesn't prove a crime. Nah but it sure as shit warrants an investigation, something we won't get. I'm sure billy gates and willy clinton never did anything nefarious though :^))))
  - PaulHoule 4y ago
    There is what's probably true and then there is what can be proved. I don't think we're going to see another Clinton run for public office again.
    - curlftpfs 4y ago
      Think we're going to see another Trump run for public office again?
      - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        Look objectively. He's already running. God help us. (That's a genuine prayer, not gratuitous swearing.) Oddly, though, at the moment he's still running for the election of 2020, even though it's 2022.
    - albatross13 4y ago
      Aye, you and I agree there- "letting the facts get in the way of the truth". Probably not, but not having them run for office means little when they can use the clinton foundation to continue to sway public and private sectors. Alas, I'm going down a rabbit hole here. While you are correct that we likely cannot prove a lot of what is true, the OP article is playing a dangerous game. Anyone who claims to take a complex geopolitical underage sex trafficking cabal and boil it down to "two blase 'mysteries'" is doing nothing more than acting as controlled opposition. It's akin to saying "Don't look under the rug bro, let me just tell you what's under there. It's just two old m&m candies we swept under there. Don't look. let me tell you how boring it is". Turns out that rug has a lot of nasty shit under it.
      - curlftpfs 4y ago
        Do you believe Trump's name being all over Epstein's flight logs and his decades of ties to Epstein means Trump did something nefarious? Do you believe The Trump Foundation "continues to sway public and private sectors?"
        albatross13 4y ago
        Absolutely. Anyone on that list has to be a huge piece of shit, and yes I believe the trump foundation continues to do the same shit. Liberalism and its "HAH BUT TRUMP, GOTCHYA" mentality is such poison- you're a cancer unto yourself. All of these people run in the same circles, they use their money for the same or similar agendas (control), and ultimately they want all of us poor and enslaved (debt) for eternity. They're all mostly kid fuckers, too- look at trump's slew of weird comments about his daughter. I am not your ally, but both of these groups are definitely our enemy. I hope you figure it out sooner rather than later :)
- DigiDigiorno 4y ago
  What if the crime was violating house arrest? What if you say, while under oath, you weren't at some of the manifests destinations, and the crime was perjury? Being on a flight log is evidence you were on a flight. Jury's (or Judges if you don't want a Jury) decide guilt. With everything known surrounding the destination of some of these flights, It is surprising the logs didn't lead to investigations into some of the serial passengers.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    >> Being on the flight log doesn't prove a crime. > What if the crime was violating house arrest? What if you say, while under oath, you weren't at some of the manifests destinations, and the crime was perjury? OK then: being on the flight log doesn't prove the type of crimes alleged here. It can prove other types of crimes that aren't relevant to this discussion.
    - DigiDigiorno 4y ago
      Perhaps the types of crimes the that deal with underaged trafficked girls on planes and/or islands? This wasn't the manifests of a grand canyon sight seeing plane.
      - Nevermark 4y ago
        > "Perhaps [...]" Suspicion of crime isn't crime. Actual crimes without enough evidence are not prosecutable. Lots of people come into association with crimes, criminals, or simply suspicious circumstances, who have not actually committed a crime.
        DigiDigiorno 4y ago
        Your quote used the one unnecessary word and converted the rest to an ellipsis. (I do find it funny that you did "Perhaps [...]" rather than "Perhaps . . . ." or "Perhaps [anything]", it's like, the point I was making can be reduced to the abstract notion of trailing-off dialogue lol) "Perhaps" is a cheeky way to introduce my response to the "being on the flight log doesn't prove the type of crimes alleged here" part by providing the obvious types of crimes it would provide evidence for. (Like, if someone asks "Why isn't the elevator moving" and someone responds "perhaps it is because you didn't press the floor button"). I wasn't using it as some sort of way to convey support of action based on mere suspicion. Perhaps you missed that?

PaulHoule 4y ago

Being on the flight log doesn't prove a crime. Situations like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Giuffre_v._Prince_Andrew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Giuffre_v._Prince_And... which are one person's word against another are the most frustrating cases when it comes to getting justice.

albatross13 4y ago
> Being on the flight log doesn't prove a crime. Nah but it sure as shit warrants an investigation, something we won't get. I'm sure billy gates and willy clinton never did anything nefarious though :^))))
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  There is what's probably true and then there is what can be proved. I don't think we're going to see another Clinton run for public office again.
  - curlftpfs 4y ago
    Think we're going to see another Trump run for public office again?
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      Look objectively. He's already running. God help us. (That's a genuine prayer, not gratuitous swearing.) Oddly, though, at the moment he's still running for the election of 2020, even though it's 2022.
  - albatross13 4y ago
    Aye, you and I agree there- "letting the facts get in the way of the truth". Probably not, but not having them run for office means little when they can use the clinton foundation to continue to sway public and private sectors. Alas, I'm going down a rabbit hole here. While you are correct that we likely cannot prove a lot of what is true, the OP article is playing a dangerous game. Anyone who claims to take a complex geopolitical underage sex trafficking cabal and boil it down to "two blase 'mysteries'" is doing nothing more than acting as controlled opposition. It's akin to saying "Don't look under the rug bro, let me just tell you what's under there. It's just two old m&m candies we swept under there. Don't look. let me tell you how boring it is". Turns out that rug has a lot of nasty shit under it.
    - curlftpfs 4y ago
      Do you believe Trump's name being all over Epstein's flight logs and his decades of ties to Epstein means Trump did something nefarious? Do you believe The Trump Foundation "continues to sway public and private sectors?"
      - albatross13 4y ago
        Absolutely. Anyone on that list has to be a huge piece of shit, and yes I believe the trump foundation continues to do the same shit. Liberalism and its "HAH BUT TRUMP, GOTCHYA" mentality is such poison- you're a cancer unto yourself. All of these people run in the same circles, they use their money for the same or similar agendas (control), and ultimately they want all of us poor and enslaved (debt) for eternity. They're all mostly kid fuckers, too- look at trump's slew of weird comments about his daughter. I am not your ally, but both of these groups are definitely our enemy. I hope you figure it out sooner rather than later :)
DigiDigiorno 4y ago
What if the crime was violating house arrest? What if you say, while under oath, you weren't at some of the manifests destinations, and the crime was perjury? Being on a flight log is evidence you were on a flight. Jury's (or Judges if you don't want a Jury) decide guilt. With everything known surrounding the destination of some of these flights, It is surprising the logs didn't lead to investigations into some of the serial passengers.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  >> Being on the flight log doesn't prove a crime. > What if the crime was violating house arrest? What if you say, while under oath, you weren't at some of the manifests destinations, and the crime was perjury? OK then: being on the flight log doesn't prove the type of crimes alleged here. It can prove other types of crimes that aren't relevant to this discussion.
  - DigiDigiorno 4y ago
    Perhaps the types of crimes the that deal with underaged trafficked girls on planes and/or islands? This wasn't the manifests of a grand canyon sight seeing plane.
    - Nevermark 4y ago
      > "Perhaps [...]" Suspicion of crime isn't crime. Actual crimes without enough evidence are not prosecutable. Lots of people come into association with crimes, criminals, or simply suspicious circumstances, who have not actually committed a crime.
      - DigiDigiorno 4y ago
        Your quote used the one unnecessary word and converted the rest to an ellipsis. (I do find it funny that you did "Perhaps [...]" rather than "Perhaps . . . ." or "Perhaps [anything]", it's like, the point I was making can be reduced to the abstract notion of trailing-off dialogue lol) "Perhaps" is a cheeky way to introduce my response to the "being on the flight log doesn't prove the type of crimes alleged here" part by providing the obvious types of crimes it would provide evidence for. (Like, if someone asks "Why isn't the elevator moving" and someone responds "perhaps it is because you didn't press the floor button"). I wasn't using it as some sort of way to convey support of action based on mere suspicion. Perhaps you missed that?