Don Quixote

Kinda lame having a sparse photo with Epstein and a cohort.
Make a stronger connection or stay on the porch.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut

Umm, way to deflect. You just post your pictures and I'll post mine:

The difference is Trump knew him decades ago as they ran in the same billionaire circle and then removed all ties with him a long time ago, hence only pictures of them together are when they were much younger. As for Harvey, the Liberal elites were most likely still hanging with him a week before he was up on charges...lol

The events for which Epstein was convicted, were from decades ago, dating from 2005, 2008, 2009, 2014 and 2015. And this video is from 1990. However, there are also photographs and videos that date from much more recently showing Trump's association to Epstein.

From February 2000 at Mar a Lago. Trump, Melania, Epstien, Ghislane, and Prince Andrew:

From 2016:

It is clear that Trump maintained a friendly association with Epstein and his 'crowd' during the times when Epstein was committing his crimes.

A couple of billionaires posing at a shing ding.. what is your point.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut

Umm, way to deflect. You just post your pictures and I'll post mine:

The difference is Trump knew him decades ago as they ran in the same billionaire circle and then removed all ties with him a long time ago, hence only pictures of them together are when they were much younger. As for Harvey, the Liberal elites were most likely still hanging with him a week before he was up on charges...lol

The events for which Epstein was convicted, were from decades ago, dating from 2005, 2008, 2009, 2014 and 2015. And this video is from 1990. However, there are also photographs and videos that date from much more recently showing Trump's association to Epstein.

From February 2000 at Mar a Lago. Trump, Melania, Epstien, Ghislane, and Prince Andrew:

From 2016:

It is clear that Trump maintained a friendly association with Epstein and his 'crowd' during the times when Epstein was committing his crimes.

originally posted by: chr0naut
The events for which Epstein was convicted, were from decades ago, dating from 2005, 2008, 2009, 2014 and 2015. And this video is from 1990. However, there are also photographs and videos that date from much more recently showing Trump's association to Epstein.

I'm not sure why you even want to debate this, you must love to ...I don't know .. Wait I remember, your whole side rant here is from one line in one of my posts..Not sure your point here, so I'll stand by my original statement that Trump was the daring of the left for many decades. I think that is where all this dribble of words originated from.

BTW
Around 2001 Trump removed all ties with Epstein and I believe he supported the prosecutors in 2008 against him. If you want to do whataboutism at least pick something close.


From 2016:



Wow, Trump looks mighty young there for 3 years ago lol

a reply to: Xtrozero

That photo was from 1997
www.forbes.com...
www.insider.com...

a reply to: chr0naut

The photo was from 1997
www.insider.com...

The media has utterly failed to produce any direct association between the two men since 2002, when Trump barred Epstein from Mar-A-Lago because Epstein was accused of sexually assaulting an underage masseuse at Trump's Florida resort. The simple fact is, none of Epstein's accusers have accused Trump of anything and, aside from blatant lies like claiming a photo from 1997 was taken in 2016, nobody has produced any connection to the two since Trump distanced himself from Epstein over Epstein's predatory behavior. The fact that they were associated with each other in the 90s isn't news worthy, as all NYC billionaires seem to "party" together at the "must be seen at" events in that marketplace. Hell, there are photos of Trump with Michael Bloomberg at parties, too and photos of Bloomberg with Maxwell at parties. The 0.01% is a small club, they all know each other and do cross paths at events where photos are taken.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: chr0naut

The photo was from 1997
www.insider.com...

The media has utterly failed to produce any direct association between the two men since 2002, when Trump barred Epstein from Mar-A-Lago because Epstein was accused of sexually assaulting an underage masseuse at Trump's Florida resort. The simple fact is, none of Epstein's accusers have accused Trump of anything and, aside from blatant lies like claiming a photo from 1997 was taken in 2016, nobody has produced any connection to the two since Trump distanced himself from Epstein over Epstein's predatory behavior. The fact that they were associated with each other in the 90s isn't news worthy, as all NYC billionaires seem to "party" together at the "must be seen at" events in that marketplace. Hell, there are photos of Trump with Michael Bloomberg at parties, too and photos of Bloomberg with Maxwell at parties. The 0.01% is a small club, they all know each other and do cross paths at events where photos are taken.

But Trump is accused child rape in a case for which there is an eyewitness and credible information to support the claim:

The woman filing suit in April 2016 claims that as a 13-year-old in 1994, she was enticed to attend parties with the promise of money and modeling jobs at the home of Jeffrey Epstein. The woman alleges Trump initiated sexual contact with her on four separate occasions, with the fourth being a “savage sexual attack” in which he tied her to a bed and forcibly raped her while she pleaded with him to stop. He threatened that she and her family would be “physically harmed if not killed” if she ever revealed what was done.

The eyewitness, Epstein’s party planner wrote, “I am coming forward to swear to the truthfulness of the physical and sexual abuse that I personally witnessed of minor females at the hands of Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein . . . I swear to these facts under the penalty for perjury even though I fully understand that the life of myself and my family is now in grave danger.”

Trump told a reporter a few years ago: “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side . . .”

Trump has not been not acquitted of this charge, although the status of the case has been dropped. No wonder when the most powerful person in the world threatens your life and that of your family.

He was also accused of another case groping a minor and saying he wanted her for his sex slave:

Woman who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault in 1997 lawsuit speaks out for first time - International Business Times

He was also divorced on the grounds of Donald Trump's "cruel and inhuman treatment" of Ivana Trump. Ivana later published that this 'cruel and inhuman treatment' included rape; "pulling out fistfuls of her hair in a fit of rage, stripping off her clothes, then penetrating her forcefully without her consent, after which she hid in a locked room and cried all night".

Then again there's that creepy stuff he said about his own daughter (Google it if you want, he said it on camera).

You could convince yourself that they are all rather far fetched and circumstantial, unless you factor in his association with Epstein at the times of the allegations and remember why the divorce was granted. These disparate things present a consistent account.

originally posted by: chr0naut
From 2016:

It is clear that Trump maintained a friendly association with Epstein and his 'crowd' during the times when Epstein was committing his crimes.

Accusation is null and void. Trump isn't even orange in this photo. Orange Man Bad. White Man Good!

a reply to: chr0naut

Trump has not been acquitted on this charge.

Is "Innocent until proven guilty" observed in New Zealand?
en.wikipedia.org...

In New Zealand, the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 provides inter alia at section 25 (c) "Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights: (c) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law"[36]

Yes, yes it is. I find it hilarious that you use the argument of "New Zealander's Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee citizens the right to possess firearms" when defending gun seizures in your country, then piss all over something that is an enumerated Right in both the US and NZ when your bladder is full and it is convenient to commence the pissening. You never fail to amuse me and for that I thank you.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: chr0naut

Trump has not been acquitted on this charge.

Is "Innocent until proven guilty" observed in New Zealand?
en.wikipedia.org...

In New Zealand, the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 provides inter alia at section 25 (c) "Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights: (c) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law"[36]

Yes, yes it is. I find it hilarious that you use the argument of "New Zealander's Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee citizens the right to possess firearms" when defending gun seizures in your country, then piss all over something that is an enumerated Right in both the US and NZ when your bladder is full and it is convenient to commence the pissening.

You never fail to amuse me and for that I thank you.

I did not say that Trump was guilty, or innocent. I avoided stating things that are still sub judice. But I can state the facts.

I said he has been accused, which is a fact. I said he has not been acquitted, which is a fact.

Consider this scenario: Someone shoots you. Point blank. They stand before you with smoking gun as you bleed out. Do you presume their innocence? That seems to me to be the way you are interpreting presumption of innocence.

Presumption of innocence does not require that we ignore fact.

If you think that it does, then how could a Judge determine guilt in any court if he must discard fact and evidence that is contrary to the presumption of innocence?

Clearly, your idea of what presumption of innocence entails, cannot be the case.

Burden of proof, as upheld by the prosecution in a court of law, the actual and true facts of the case, entirely overrides presumption of innocence.

Also, as I have previously requested, please quote the specific US statute, state or federal or US Constitutional clause that states clearly that there must be presumption of innocence in legal proceedings.

The previous precedent of Coffin vs. United States is now overturned by 'Stop and frisk' rulings: Terry v. Ohio, Sibron v. New York, and Peters v. New York and the appeal against those precedents Floyd v. City of New York on the basis of the other cases unconstitutionality, was further overturned by the United States Court of Appeals on November 9 2013. Then began a legal free-for-all of counter-appeal after counter-counter-appeal, etc. leaving the US with no clear overriding presumption of innocence precedent.

Please correct me if you know of a definitive case which restores presumption of innocence, in the US, in law.

originally posted by: chr0naut

But Trump is accused child rape in a case for which there is an eyewitness and credible information to support the claim:

The woman filing suit in April 2016 claims that as a 13-year-old in 1994, she was enticed to attend parties with the promise of money and modeling jobs at the home of Jeffrey Epstein. The woman alleges Trump initiated sexual contact with her on four separate occasions, with the fourth being a “savage sexual attack” in which he tied her to a bed and forcibly raped her while she pleaded with him to stop. He threatened that she and her family would be “physically harmed if not killed” if she ever revealed what was done.

I get kind of tired of this crap...

The left when they can not find anything on Trump with everyone and the brother looking end of saying things like he must be guilty, look at all the people around him that went to jail, and other statements like this above from you. It doesn't matter that every alphabet agency has investigated everyone within 3 degrees of Kevin Bacon around Trump, and WOW, got a few on things like OLD tax crimes, lying (as it seems some of these might be over turned in the near future), and maybe some other crap not even remotely related to Trump in any way, but they went to jail...So he is guilty too...lol

The first thing I would like to ask you is do you really believe what you wrote? A Jane Doe says that Trump and Epstein raped her over and over 25 years ago , and about the time for her to push this case forward her attorneys drop it like a hot potato with a one page voluntary dismissal.

“savage sexual attack” in which he tied her to a bed and forcibly raped her while she pleaded with him to stop.

Really?

In the end it doesn't matter how false this is, the point is made and people like you use it as your only ammo left in the bag. I could take her full statement and replace Trump with chr0naut and carry as much validity or truth. Like Kavanaugh where just the statement that "he laid on top of me laughing and I thought I was going to die" was all that anyone on the left cared about. The facts didn't matter, things like she could not place the house, people time etc means nothing. I would bet that in this case with Trump it was rather easy to place him not even remotely any where near Epstein at anytime she said this happened.

Quick check and her lawyers were like.. "I'm out of here" never to be seen again, but you seem like facts are not important as long as the narrative fits your beliefs.

a reply to: chr0naut
You posted;
Consider this scenario: Someone shoots you. Point blank. They stand before you with smoking gun as you bleed out. Do you presume their innocence? That seems to me to be the way you are interpreting presumption of innocence.

This is exactly why the presumption of innocence is essential in our, the USA's, judicial system.
I wouldn't bother posting the endless examples of mitigating circumstances that would justify such an act as you described.
From a legitimate fear for ones life to temporary insanity...so many.
I am sure we all hear news reports from time to time and think "how can you presume innocence?" but the defendant, the accused gets to make the case as to why they shot someone, point blank or from a distance or any other charges levied against them.
Then you posted;
If you think that it does, then how could a Judge determine guilt in any court if he must discard fact and evidence that is contrary to the presumption of innocence?

Either a Judge or a jury will hear the legal arguments and render a verdict, that's how it works...it's not perfect but that's how we do it in the U.S.A..

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut

I get kind of tired of this crap...

The left

Oh yeah, that boogeyman.

Tell me, exactly who are these "the left"? Some giant conspiracy of hundreds of millions of American traitors (you know, the ones who didn't vote for Trump), embedded into society invisibly? "Reds under the beds"!

At some point the paranoid delusion of the propaganda goes into over the top insanity. That's when you can be sure it has no substance.

when they can not find anything on Trump.

There's lots of stuff on Trump. That's the point of the post. The volume of what they are finding directly on Trump himself is incredible.

He set up a charity and used the funds for his election campaign and also gave some of the money to some very dodgy characters.
He kept double books, one for the tax department, the other for potential investors.
He bankrupted businesses to game the tax department and avoid tax.
He has all these sexual allegation against him.
Other real-estate developers in direct competition to Trump have died in suspicious circumstances.
He lies obviously, and on the public record, again and again.
He accuses everyone else of the most ridiculous stuff and if that fails, he re-accuses them of the same thing.
He is massively bankrolled from his businesses in Russia and the former Soviet Union and totally denies any business involvement there (remember the Beauty Pageant he ran in Moscow in the hope of getting some government buy in from Putin himself).
He has requested foreign governments (Ukraine, China and Australia) to interfere in 2020 election by investigating his opponents.
He has told American women (Congresswomen) of various ethnic backgrounds to "go back to their countries (they were all American citizens) and then he denies being racist.
He called Hondurans and Guatemalans, Mexicans and suggested that they, and Mexicans by inference, were mostly criminals, yet he denies that he is a racist.
He was convicted of racist bias in regard to whom he allowed to rent his apartments.
He already has 36 tax liens against his properties for non-payment of taxes.
He has been convicted of fraud three times just for his Trump University stuff.

I don't have the time or edit space to document the vast amounts of stuff. Check Wikipedia.

with everyone and the brother looking end of saying things like he must be guilty, look at all the people around him that went to jail, and other statements like this above from you.

Yes. Are you denying that it happened?

It doesn't matter that every alphabet agency has investigated everyone within 3 degrees of Kevin Bacon around Trump, and WOW, got a few on things like OLD tax crimes, lying (as it seems some of these might be over turned in the near future)

In your dreams. Trump hasn't protected his henchmen. That's why they turned over so readily.

, and maybe some other crap not even remotely related to Trump in any way, but they went to jail...So he is guilty too...lol

Trump and his companies have been involved in 3,500 legal suits. He has lost more than he has won and even more have not yet been resolved in court. His Presidency makes him immune from those prosecutions, while he is still President.

3,500, that must be some sort of record for someone who ins't an officer of the court!

But Trump has been in charge of those three letter agencies for three years and, as previously explained, he is immune from prosecution by normal means. They cannot indict him.

There is, however, a way to deal with a rogue President. It a process called 'impeachment' where the Pres is investigated and indited by Congress, then they have a big combined court case/Senate session where Congress prosecutes, the Senators are the Jury and the top Judge in the land presides.

Oh look..

He must be sweating bullets, too, because if they vote him out, all those court cases are still waiting to consume the rest of his natural life. I'm pretty sure that the severance pay is nothing to write home about, either.

The first thing I would like to ask you is do you really believe what you wrote? A Jane Doe says that Trump and Epstein raped her over and over 25 years ago , and about the time for her to push this case forward her attorneys drop it like a hot potato with a one page voluntary dismissal.

Really?

Yes really.

Epstein was tried and found guilty of historic crimes exactly like this.

In fact, Jane Doe alleges that Trump was in on it with Epstein, and this is verified by Epstein's own party planner, who witnessed it, and identified both Trump and Epstein breaking the law together on several occasions. At the time of their witness statement in court, Epstein had not even been arrested or charged with any crimes. Was the party planner also a psychic?

In the end it doesn't matter how false this is, the point is made and people like you use it as your only ammo left in the bag. I could take her full statement and replace Trump with chr0naut and carry as much validity or truth.

No, I am not an American. I have never to my knowledge even seen Epstein in person, nor do I have a recorded decades long friendship with Epstein. Trump does.

I do not own any resorts which means that I could not have possibly accommodated Epstein, his parties, nor his associates in them. Trump does and the details are documented.

There are no witnesses that associate me with Epstein because I have never been in his vicinity. For this same reason, there are no photographs of myself and Epstein. There are photographs and movies and Trump's own public comments that document Trump's friendship and association with Epstein.

One of Trump's comments on video, records Trump's long time knowledge that Epstein was a pedophile, and yet Trump never reported him to the police. That is complicity in the cover-up of a crime, making him at the very least accessory after the fact.

Like Kavanaugh where just the statement that "he laid on top of me laughing and I thought I was going to die" was all that anyone on the left cared about. The facts didn't matter, things like she could not place the house, people time etc means nothing. I would bet that in this case with Trump it was rather easy to place him not even remotely any where near Epstein at anytime she said this happened.

There was a witness. There are photographs, self-incriminating comments and other allegations, from other victims. Not to mention Trump's outright denial of things that have been on the public record for decades (he denies, blames someone else, and lies. It his established modus operandi).

And also, Epstein died in suspicious circumstances. Yet some nitwits blame the opposition, when Trump actually had the most to loose if Epstein talked and Trump also clearly has the motive, wealth and power to get a hit-man into and out of the prison.

Quick check and her lawyers were like.. "I'm out of here" never to be seen again, but you seem like facts are not important as long as the narrative fits your beliefs.

I think she went into hiding (or has been murdered, as Trump dad promised to do to her and her family).

The lawyers cannot defend her if she simply disappears.

Lock him up.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
a reply to: chr0naut
You posted;
Consider this scenario: Someone shoots you. Point blank. They stand before you with smoking gun as you bleed out. Do you presume their innocence? That seems to me to be the way you are interpreting presumption of innocence.

This is exactly why the presumption of innocence is essential in our, the USA's, judicial system.
I wouldn't bother posting the endless examples of mitigating circumstances that would justify such an act as you described.

If they shot you due to temporary insanity, they are still guilty of the act, if not the intent.

The only mitigating circumstances are if the shooter were defending themselves against you, the aggressor.

So that would be saying that you are the criminal, in this situation. That probably explains some things.

From a legitimate fear for ones life to temporary insanity...so many.
I am sure we all hear news reports from time to time and think "how can you presume innocence?" but the defendant, the accused gets to make the case as to why they shot someone, point blank or from a distance or any other charges levied against them.
Then you posted;
If you think that it does, then how could a Judge determine guilt in any court if he must discard fact and evidence that is contrary to the presumption of innocence?

Either a Judge or a jury will hear the legal arguments and render a verdict, that's how it works...it's not perfect but that's how we do it in the U.S.A..

Except not to Presidents, apparently.

a reply to: chr0naut

OK Judge Judy.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: chr0naut

OK Judge Judy.

Isn't that some sort of US reality TV show?

Right on topic with the game show host President (impeached).

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: chr0naut

OK Judge Judy.

Isn't that some sort of US reality TV show?

Right on topic with the game show host President (impeached).

She's someone who would like people to believe she is well versed on US law when, in reality, all she knows is how to manufacture drama and spew uneducated BS. It is on topic, but the POTUS has nothing to do with the reference,


Happiest of New Years to you and yours. May the coming year bless you and find your home filled with joy.

originally posted by: chr0naut


Right on topic with the game show host President (impeached).

And then reelected

a reply to: chr0naut


You keep proving my point in every long winded rant of yours... Let me sum it up...Two scoops of ice cream!!

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: chr0naut


You keep proving my point in every long winded rant of yours... Let me sum it up...Two scoops of ice cream!!

Ich Will Drei Schaufeln Meinherr, Nicht Zwei! Ich VERDIENE Es! .....................)

a reply to: Xtrozero




Warum Sie SOGAR Sorge mit diesem Offensichtlichen Dumbcoff tun? Eine Besondere Meinung in seinem Fall wird Anscheinend VERGEUDET............