Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offender's jet much more than previously known

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Lumenari

Nearly 3 years since Trump made it into office and Hillary is still free. Weren't you guys claiming "fake news" over the Mueller Report after a a year or two of Trump not being charged? What does that say about the years long investigations into Clinton that have come up with nothing so far? Waste of our taxes like with the Russia thing or is it somehow different and worth the money in this particular case?

Wait, don't answer that, I already know what you will say.

I am pretty sure if many judges and others are compromised, including FBI and people in all areas of gov and law, add the protection of some of the most powerful Families on earth, who probably got most of their money buying and selling kids and other people, and it would be a slow slow process to be able to make a move.
I continue to be hopeful.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I would bet on a "stroke".
but thats just my opinion.....

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

That does not say that he is cooperating. They have evidence that his paid employees recruited girls and that the girls themselves recruited others for pay.
More than eighty girls ( now women) have already come forward. They do not need a single syllable from Epstein.
These girls will say who recruited them and who they were recruited for.

You always ask everyone for links and yet you never provide any.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
Bill Clinton ditching his Secret Service detail is telling. For an ex-president as used to their presence as he must be, this suggests he knew he was going to be doing something seriously wrong.

Why not just get the right guys?

Washington (CNN)CNN has learned from multiple law enforcement sources that a Secret Service agent on Vice President Mike Pence's detail has been suspended from official duties after meeting a prostitute at a Maryland hotel.

www.cnn.com...

The story here begins in April 2012, when President Obama traveled to Cartagena, Colombia, for the Summit of the Americas. While there, a number of Secret Service agents, DEA agents, and members of the armed forces assigned to the president's security detail brought prostitutes back to their hotel rooms. The respective agencies ran their own investigations and agreed upon punishments.

The three DEA agents who hired prostitutes were reprimanded but kept their jobs; ten Secret Service agents lost their jobs, either through dismissal, early retirement, or forced resignation; and twelve service members were either nonjudicially punished, reprimanded, or asked for courts-martial.

www.vox.com...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

He is sixty six years old. He will die in prison no matter what.

There are prisons and there are rich peoples prisons.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I would bet on a "stroke".
but thats just my opinion.....

If the reports of blackmail tapes are accurate, then I wouldn't take anything -- up to & including tactical air strikes -- off the table.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Lumenari

You do realize that he was actually impeached once and can be impeached again after leaving office?

He can be impeached again???? Yeah ok, once again where is your information coming from?

No he cannot. Impeachment is for civil officers of the United States. Not ex civil officers.
The punishment if found guilty is removal from office for crying out loud. What would they do? Reinstate him as president so that they could remove him from office?

Not to mention.... what would they impeach him for now?

At least when I say there is a possibility of trump being impeached I am dealing with reality. This nonsense....is emotional only.

Not true.
slate.com...

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has suggested that Bill Clinton, though now out of office, could be impeached for his pardon of fugitive Marc Rich (although probably not for grabbing a couple of coffee tables). Can a former president be impeached?

Apparently, yes. Obviously a former president would not be subject to removal from office, but scholars say that Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, which says that impeachment may result in “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States,” could apply. In practical terms, an impeachment would mean Clinton could not serve in any other federal elective or appointive office. Clinton would not have automatic protection against such a proceeding because he was exercising his constitutionally given pardon power. Scholars say abuse of such power can be grounds for congressional action. It is less clear whether a conviction could mean the removal of his pension, government-funded office, and other perks.

Although impeaching a former president would be a first, there is some scant precedent for impeaching someone already removed from office. In 1797, Sen. William Blount of Tennessee was charged with treason for a scheme to help the British take land from Florida controlled by the Spanish. (Fortunately, Florida land speculation is no longer considered a treasonable offense.) Blount was unanimously impeached by the House, then expelled by the Senate (a process separate from impeachment). The Senate decided to go ahead with its impeachment trial although in the end it acquitted Blount because he was no longer in office. William Belknap, secretary of war under Ulysses Grant, was impeached by the House on bribery charges and resigned from office. Though the Senate went ahead with his trial, he, too, was acquitted because he was no longer in office.

Next question?

Explainer thanks Michael Gerhardt of the William and Mary School of Law, Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School, and Don Ritchie of the Senate Historical Office.

Any former civil officer can be impeached after the fact.

Uh-oh, nobody is coming to Bill Clinton's defense. Democrats are too busy fighting each other.

mobile.twitter.com...

Added this point of interest to another Epstein ATS thread but here it is again. I find it interesting.

1992 lawsuit US vs. Epstein

In this case, the United States (the "Government") seeks to evict defendants from a building formerly used as a residence by the Deputy Consul General of the Islamic Republic of Iran ("Iran"). After diplomatic and consular relations with Iran were severed in 1980, the Office of Foreign Missions ("OFM") of the United States Department of State took possession of the building pursuant to the Foreign Missions Act, 22 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. OFM leased the building to defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fisher in 1996, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the building to several subtenants. In 1996, the Government purported to terminate Epstein's lease and brought this action to eject Epstein and Fisher from the building. The Government later amended its complaint to assert a claim for ejectment against the subtenants as well.[1] The Government also sought to recover back rent from Epstein and Fisher.

Source


What's further odd about this which took place over two decades ago is Ivan S. Fisher who subletted the apartment from Epstein without the government's permission is this Ivan S. Fisher who was considered one of the top NY criminal defense attorneys.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

If the reports of blackmail tapes are accurate, then I wouldn't take anything -- up to & including tactical air strikes -- off the table.

Tapes would be hideous.
JE seems like the hideous type tho.
Guess we are going to find out if the stories are true?

originally posted by: carewemust
Uh-oh, nobody is coming to Bill Clinton's defense. Democrats are too busy fighting each other.

mobile.twitter.com...

The new Left is going to soon realize that it is very difficult to pay for campaigns when you've alienated your top fundraisers like Pelosi and the Clintons and imprisoned your top donors and ralliers like Weinstein, Epstein, and Ed Buck. They probably should have found replacement millions first, then attacked... but strong planning isn't in their genetics.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: carewemust
Uh-oh, nobody is coming to Bill Clinton's defense. Democrats are too busy fighting each other.

mobile.twitter.com...

The new Left is going to soon realize that it is very difficult to pay for campaigns when you've alienated your top fundraisers like Pelosi and the Clintons and imprisoned your top donors and ralliers like Weinstein, Epstein, and Ed Buck. They probably should have found replacement millions first, then attacked... but strong planning isn't in their genetics.

Ahh, but you see, they weren't smart enough to realize they were completely blinded by their own zeal to "get orange man!", "get the outsider, he must go!"..."he's, he's, he's not allowed!"

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: carewemust
Uh-oh, nobody is coming to Bill Clinton's defense. Democrats are too busy fighting each other.

mobile.twitter.com...

The new Left is going to soon realize that it is very difficult to pay for campaigns when you've alienated your top fundraisers like Pelosi and the Clintons and imprisoned your top donors and ralliers like Weinstein, Epstein, and Ed Buck. They probably should have found replacement millions first, then attacked... but strong planning isn't in their genetics.

Ahh, but you see, they weren't smart enough to realize they were completely blinded by their own zeal to "get orange man!", "get the outsider, he must go!"..."he's, he's, he's not allowed!"

Expect the new Left to be on the warpath about campaign finance reform and jump right onto this ridiculous nonsense Bernie has been calling for when they realize they've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. I don't even mean to slam partisan with this, it's just a simple fact, historically speaking, when the Left realizes they're totally outmatched within the confines of existing laws, they have always tried to change the law instead of retrenching and figuring out a fair way for them to directly compete. This will prove no different.

"Left" owned publications are removing all references to Bill Clinton being a friend of Jeffrey Epstein.

twitter.com...

Reminds me of an Ostrich hiding its head in the ground to keep the hunter from seeing it.

Pitiful.

BTW... Google Photos is removing pics of Clinton with Epstein, too.

a reply to: carewemust

They're scrubbing any and all connections.

Can't imagine why 😃

a reply to: carewemust

Efforts to scrub Bill Clinton out of a sex scandal is about as worthless as tits on a boar.

The Left is so hell bent on burning Trump, they made the age old mistake of taking their eyes off their own castle. That bad boy is aflame.

I’m telling you, the risks they took in the multiple coup attempts and the illegal spying, they were protecting more than just retaining the WH. There’s clearly more at stake for them to risk treason at THAT high of government level. Wasn’t for $$. They get plenty win or lose. It had to be about controlling DOJ and Intel. Maybe it’s this trafficking network or maybe it’s something else. Regardless, they are feeling immense pressure.... they are lethally dangerous when nothing is at stake. Imagine what’s on the table when EVERYTHING is at stake.

originally posted by: carewemust
BTW... Google Photos is removing pics of Clinton with Epstein, too.

Right now, if you google "bill clinton jeffrey epstein", two of the top 3 results are articles about Epstein and Trump.

Yeah, there's no bias there...

a reply to: ucanthandlethetruth

Thanks for showing this evidence. It seems Epstein has a lot of powerful friend behind him and they are the reason why so far Epstein has come out with barely a slap in his hands.

a reply to: face23785

Except for the fact that there is evidence that Bill Clinton is complicit with Epstein since there are flight logs showing Bill Clinton going and returning from Epstein's orgy island. On at least 2 occasions Bill Clinton also ditched his Secret Service detail when he flew on Epstein's "Lolita Express." The plane Epstein used to take underage girls to his island and which was fitted to have orgies in the plane as well. There is exactly ZERO evidence showing Trump was complicit. There are no records of Trump being in the "Lolita Express" or on Epstein's orgy island.

Sorry to rain in your parade by Clinton is an obvious accomplice of Epstein in the rape of underage girls...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What exactly about my post made you think I was defending Clinton? I wasn't. I was pointing out the bias of Google to scrub the search results to not show Clinton.