Wanna know the Epstein story WITHOUT any conspiracy stuff??

a reply to: JustJohnny
Yawn...we get it, you hate Trump, get in line with the rest of the haters.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: thedigirati

Trump doesn't want to be associated with Epstein at all, but it is really troubling that he praised Acosta and didn't want him to resign.

Acosta helped give Epstein a VERY light prison sentence and extremely cushy jail experience. If any average Joe did what Epstein did they would have a large prison sentence and some #y prison with other felons.

The fact that Trump is praising Acosta is something that everybody should be criticizing Trump for in my opinion.

yeah except we now know that Acosta did what he did because he was ordered to.

Dont let a little thing like that disrupt your narrative though.

a reply to: DJMSN

For me its not simply saying he is guilty by association, its more that when I look at his history it kind of adds up also again I am just stating a opinion.

The issue of the germophobe is interesting I read that apparently Katie Johnson said that she had to use a glove when tossing Trump off. Its details like that which kind of get me thinking that it could be true.

Yes his wife did claim that she raped him and then she altered her statement but reading around it it seems pretty fair to draw a conclusion that he did rape his wife.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

did you know or were you aware that Rape of the wife is not a legal term unless seperation papers havebeen filed?

My wife accuses me of raping her when she is not sober even when we don't have sex.

I take that specific claim with a grain of salt.

(no, my wife is not serious)

has anyone found out if Kate Johnson is even real?? the return address she gave the court, was to a triple XXX drive in, in 29 palms, ( I will admit right now publicly, I was stationed in 29 palms,and passed this drive in myself in 1980 )

a reply to: thedigirati

yeah the idea that "you can't rape your wife" is #ed up.

its a example of the lengths trump supporters will go to to to defend him, his wife says that she raped him and the response is pretty much you can't rape your wife. Rape is rape, doesn't matter what legal gymnastics you want to play its still rape and it's wrong.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

it's a legal defense, just like your wife cannot testify agaist you in court if she does not want too.

It's a defense period, anyone can use it, not just President Trump, guess what, other people besides President Trump have used it.

Other people have also been accused of rape in divorce court as well, it's not new.

Just like false rape accusations are not new.

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

it's a legal defense, just like your wife cannot testify agaist you in court if she does not want too.

It's a defense period, anyone can use it, not just President Trump, guess what, other people besides President Trump have used it.

Other people have also been accused of rape in divorce court as well, it's not new.
.

Yeah but that doesn’t make excuse rapping your wife.

Just because it’s legally sound does not make morally right.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

morals have no bearing in the law,

do you know why?

it's the reason lady Justice wears a blindfold.

what is moral today will not be moral tomorrow.

so walking into the bathroom while your wife is in the shower is immoral right? ( cause that is considered rape on college campuses, nowadays)

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

not that you or the OP would show any integrity, or smarts, but a number of us who support Trump have stated multiple times that if He hurt a kid, he needs to fry. Your and his absence of stating the same for Clinton, speaks volumes.

but then asking a leftover to show integrity isn't something that happens in real life.

a reply to: network dude

Your and his absence of stating the same for Clinton, speaks volumes.

I have said that I pretty much suspect that Clinton is just as guilty as Trump several times.

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

Yes, but not because of the labor secretary..

No one knows what their co-workers do off the clock..


Because Trump has a long standing relationship with Epstein, frequenting his parties and such..


Then there is the now infamous “I love Epstein!! Likes women as much as me.. especially young ones!”

Surprising
One that uses 99% imagination .
"Highly illogical"

a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

And that they don't really report on the fact that Epstein was banned from Trump's properties for hitting on under age girl.
I'm sure Trump probably never said anything good about Epstein after he knew what he really was .

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

We all have opinions which is fine. However, a couple opinions made are without any basis in fact. I have searched for details regarding those opinions and have yet to find any corroborating facts, actually the opposite in regards to the opinion of rape relating to Trumps ex-wife. The word "rape" was never in the tell all book and the claim was never made in a court room. The actual allegation in which she used the word rape was in a sworn deposition after describing the incident in the book as a "violent episode". The deposition was related to the actual divorce proceedings which involved a prenuptial agreement. The divorce was eventually settled according to the prenuptial agreement and on "friendly" terms. She has since completely recanted the entire passage in the 1993 book describing her comments as "totally without merit".

(Currently on my mobile and unable to provide link to ABC interview)

I searched for any story about the opinion that Katie Johnson claiming to have worn a glove during the alleged sexual assault she described with Trump. Found a good article from an accommodating source Daily Beast which covered all 16 accusers stories. The actual initial and only to date court complaint filed by Katie Johnsons now former attorney. That document was difficult to read on mobile so perhaps somewhere in that filing the allegation is made but nothing in any story about the Katy Johnson allegations ever mentioned a hand job involving the use of gloves. Thinking perhaps that allegation was made by one of the other women and you mixed it up, I read numerous articles and again not one reference to your opinion, instead the exact opposite. All the allegations could be described as "opportunistic" or spur of the moment assaults.

The opinion of the Katy Johnson allegation is in fact contrary to what she described. A forced sexual roleplay and violent assault where she was held down by multiple men while forcibly raping her. It was not a casual hand job with glove affair, she described a very violent rape and then suddenly and completely drops her case. Speculation was rampant and without sources of a settlement payout, however Katy Johnson claimed threat deterred her from going forward. Several outlets, none I will claim credible since no sources were provided allege new evidence provided completely dispelled her claims. We do know factually, that she has led a troubled life involving substance abuse as well as monetary strife.

In her own words in her complaint she states that she never recognized Trump during the alleged encounter, but only many years later she saw an episode of the Apprentice and then decided to file the legal complaint naming Trump all the while remaining anonymous until the press conference called by her attorneys which she failed to show up and instead withdrew the complaint. Until that point, no one other than her own attorneys knew who filed the complaint so how could threats be made against her ? Her personal problems could very well have resulted from the type of encounter alleged but nothing to show evidence of that event has ever been supplied and its improbable that her attackers would have known her name at the time much less been able to piece together who it was so many years later.

We know factually that Trump is germaphobic and very organized as to his schedule and has been during his lengthy career with a long time personal secretary who would have a detailed calendar, travel schedule as well as list of individuals present and during the alleged time frame of the event that it was discredited before the actual lawsuit more formally initiated. The other 15 alleged encounters all describe very different behaviors and are much more credible than the story described by Katy Johnson. A rapist/abuser is not an individual who is mentally prone to change their mode of assault, the fantasy aspect of the actual encounter is a part of who they are often the actual desire behind the attack and not sexual in nature.

It seems a very opportunistic claim with zero supporting evidence, no other individuals other than Epstein identified and no criminal report ever filed, only the potential civil suit. The other accusers, mostly credible have never filed criminal complaints nor initiated civil complaints and many years passed before the allegations went public. It could be that each accuser have political or business to now come forward with what they themselves have described as unverifiable. One accuser described an encounter almost as an enjoyable experience, and since her initial statements has completely discredited herself through multiple dubious interviews.

It seemed very convenient for the glove story, undocumented anywhere, to come out to counter my common sense observations on Trumps well documented germ phobia. I would never dismiss a claim of assault but would ardently investigate any event. As we saw during the disgusting Kavanaugh circus, investigations often uncover facts which can counter some claims, or solidly support them. At this time, Trump has to be the most investigated individual for some time, and while disturbing allegations have surfaced, nothing has surfaced to pass the reasonable doubt bar which our entire Justice system is based around. It is high for a reason and if some cannot begin opinions with that high bar first and foremost in mind, then I can only hope they WILL NEVER serve on a jury, especially when they are comfortable manufacturing facts just to support their own opinions.

I often notice two big groups on these conspiracy forums, the epstein posters who dont want Clinton mentioned and the ones who dont want Trump mentioned. It's ridiculous and shilly every time. The thing is tho, we have more evidence of Bill Clinton and Hillary riding the plane, going to the island, etc. Trump said he knew them and they went to the same parties. He never visited the island that we know of. He could have went there, we might learn more but it seems weird to 100% focus on Trump and not on Clinton at all. When this story was originally coming out there were people pointing out all the Clinton connections. Now that mom and pop are finally hearing the story I only see people saying Trump knew him. If your average normie knows Trump hung out with him, shouldnt people also know about Clinton hanging out with him on his private island where people are enslaved? They dont hear about the prime minister involved or anything else. It's just Trump Trump Trump. This story is bigger than Trump but it may involve him too, we dont know to what extent so why only focus on this? I guess its dumb of me to try to think rationally about a media trying to enslave humanity. I just wish people would think for 5 minutes and realize that nothing adds up. Obfuscation is the name of the game.

This is why this information of spying becomes so abusive.....They can now go back and check what you did 50 years ago......ruining your life over the dumbest stuff..Not to say Epstein is creepy...and should face the rest of His life in prison..

a reply to: thedigirati

are you saying that he is not currupt? I agree with you.

LOL...you can be blissfully ignorant when it suits you. Twice I've pointed out the point...carry on.

a reply to: JustJohnny

So... in your opinion... Trump was calling underage girls, "women"? I guess that must have been back when Trump was a feminist!

Any reason why you didn't mention Trump banning Epstein from Mar-a-Lago for life around 15 years ago, for inappropriate behavior with an underage girl?

I'm also curious... is there any reason you didn't mention that Acosta had said, when asked about the hinky Epstein deal, that he was told to lay off, because Epstein "belonged to intelligence."

Look... I get it... people hate Trump... and he's certainly pretty hard to take sometimes. But the full court 24/7/365 full on TDS Trump bashing is really getting old.

When Elijah Cummings' wife gets indicted for racketeering and fraud, will that also be racism?

Trump has a habit of tossing flaming bags of s**t at media and political dirtbags, and no matter how many times he does it, they ALWAYS jump on and start stomping them out, and end up with s**t splashed all over themselves.

I'm not a huge fan of a lot of the POTUS tweeting, personally... but every time he does it, and everyone jumps on the latest flaming bag of s**t, we end up learning there's a whole lot more to the story than we thought there was.

Man o man, are people suckers for the Trump troll bait! They deserve every bit of it he dishes out.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: thedigirati

Trump doesn't want to be associated with Epstein at all, but it is really troubling that he praised Acosta and didn't want him to resign.

Acosta helped give Epstein a VERY light prison sentence and extremely cushy jail experience. If any average Joe did what Epstein did they would have a large prison sentence and some #y prison with other felons.

The fact that Trump is praising Acosta is something that everybody should be criticizing Trump for in my opinion.

Again... I might point out... Acosta's comments earlier about the case. From the Washington Examiner article "Acosta dodges when asked if Epstein was an 'intelligence asset'"

...quoted from the article:

"The question about Epstein's possible status as a potential intelligence asset was prompted by a report this week of comments from a few years ago by a former senior White House official who told the Daily Beast that Acosta said during interviews for the administration position he had been told during the 2008 case that Epstein "belonged to intelligence."

(end of quote)

When Acosta was asked about that specifically... he evaded it. I think there are quite a lot of folks who are scrambling to avoid anything associated with this.

I think it is likely Epstein will become a deceased person before he ever gets to trial. Remember Pelosi's daughter's Tweet when Epstein was arrested?

"This Epstein case is horrific and the young women deserve justice. It is quite likely that some of our faves are implicated but we must follow the facts and let the chips fall where they may - whether on Republicans or Democrats."

She threw a "save" in there at the end, to diffuse how odd a remark it was "...whether on Republicans or Democrats."

The Epstein case is potentially HUGE. Think of this... there are probably DOZENS of people or entities brainstorming on how to kill Epstein, and who have the means to order the job done, including The House of Windsor!

If he makes it through a trial it will be a fricking miracle.

I think Trump has certainly stretched boundaries with his sexual appetite... but I don't think the Epstein "portfolio" touches him.

a reply to: dasman888

Hmm interesting.. i guess we'll find out later of Epstein was an "intelligence asset". I have no doubt he'll be suicided in some way if he's connected to serious big shots with a paper trail.