It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
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.
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.
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.
Trump has not been acquitted on this charge.
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]
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.
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.
“savage sexual attack” in which he tied her to a bed and forcibly raped her while she pleaded with him to stop.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: chr0naut
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.
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.
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.
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: burdman30ott6
a reply to: chr0naut
OK Judge Judy.
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).