Trump distancing himself from his old pedophile buddy, Epstein

I mean, who wouldn't? This is what he had to say today:

"I had a falling out with him a long time ago... I don't think I've spoken to him for 15 years. I was not a fan of his. That I can tell you."

But in 2002, it was a different story:

"I've known Jeff for fifteen 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. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

Tre creepy, non?

https://www.newsweek.com/will-acosta-resign-democrats-epstein-investigation-1448267

Epstein, of course, is newly re-arrested for pedophilia related charges, and hundreds, if not thousands, of nude or semi-nude photos of females, many of them underage, were ALLEGEDLY found in his safe recently.

Allegedly? Then your thread title is wrong. I know how you like thread titles to be accurate.

He hasn’t been his mate for fifteen years? How is he now “just distancing himself”?

Am I missing something?

Raggamuffin wrote:Allegedly? Then your thread title is wrong. I know how you like thread titles to be accurate.

No, the thread title's accurate because Epstein was done for raping little girls over a decade ago, and found guilty. He jokes about it now -- or at least before the Feds found his kiddie porn stash.

eddie wrote:He hasn’t been his mate for fifteen years? How is he now “just distancing himself”?

Am I missing something?

Well, he *says* he hasn't been his friend for about 15 years, but who knows? He tells so many provable lies. At any rate, he's most definitely changed his story regarding Epstein -- seems he admired Epstein quite a bit back in the day, but now was supposedly "never" a fan of his.

Epstein was a wealth manager who literally would not talk to you if you were worth $999 million -- you had to be a billionaire. Sounds to me like the type of person Trump would really admire.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:He hasn’t been his mate for fifteen years? How is he now “just distancing himself”?

Am I missing something?

Well, he *says* he hasn't been his friend for about 15 years, but who knows? He tells so many provable lies. At any rate, he's most definitely changed his story regarding Epstein -- seems he admired Epstein quite a bit back in the day, but now was supposedly "never" a fan of his.

Epstein was a wealth manager who literally would not talk to you if you were worth $999 million -- you had to be a billionaire. Sounds to me like the type of person Trump would really admire.

Well at least he’s distance himself. I guess that’s something. I’ve always thought of Trump as non-sexual for some reason...like he has no sex drive and it’s all big-boy bravado.

I do think that Trump's sex drive (and I just puked in my brain a little, writing that phrase) serves his ego, like most things he's allowed to be part of his life.

There are still dozens of women who have accused him of sexual misconduct -- pity that the authors of the U.S. constitution didn't imagine a scenario in which the chief law enforcement officer in the country, the president, was himself accused of multiple crimes.

And there are many more women who say that when they were as young as 15, Trump used to walk unannounced into their changing room at the Miss Teen pageant and see them naked.

Ben wrote:Well, he *says* he hasn't been his friend for about 15 years, but who knows? He tells so many provable lies. At any rate, he's most definitely changed his story regarding Epstein -- seems he admired Epstein quite a bit back in the day, but now was supposedly "never" a fan of his.

Well, just yesterday Trump was saying Epstein was a good guy, and Acosta was a good Secretary of Labor.

Now, he's saying I didn't know Epstein that well, and Acosta shouldn't be held responsible for things he did 10-15 years ago.

Whhaat?  Acosta is being accused of prosecutorial misconduct.  There's no statute of limitations for that.  That's government wrongdoing, made right only by correcting the injury.

Ben Reilly wrote:I do think that Trump's sex drive (and I just puked in my brain a little, writing that phrase) serves his ego, like most things he's allowed to be part of his life.

There are still dozens of women who have accused him of sexual misconduct -- pity that the authors of the U.S. constitution didn't imagine a scenario in which the chief law enforcement officer in the country, the president, was himself accused of multiple crimes.

And there are many more women who say that when they were as young as 15, Trump used to walk unannounced into their changing room at the Miss Teen pageant and see them naked.

Well here’s my thing:

If he did all of that and has gotten away with it then someone(s) powerful is protecting him, right?
Which means your country is run by people who want him there.

If he did all of that then WHY hasn’t he been arrested?

If he didn’t do any of it then someone(s) making up lies about him and getting away with it.

Either way, the US is one corrupt-ass piece of land...and THAT, is what I’d be looking into. THAT is where the evil lurks.

no different to obama distancing himself from weinstein is it??

eds wrote:If he did all of that then WHY hasn’t he been arrested?

Ahem...because he is president.

Before, he would buy himself out of trouble with Non-Disclosure Agreements. Remember? He's the un-indicted co-conspirator in the Stormy Daniels case.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I do think that Trump's sex drive (and I just puked in my brain a little, writing that phrase) serves his ego, like most things he's allowed to be part of his life.

There are still dozens of women who have accused him of sexual misconduct -- pity that the authors of the U.S. constitution didn't imagine a scenario in which the chief law enforcement officer in the country, the president, was himself accused of multiple crimes.

And there are many more women who say that when they were as young as 15, Trump used to walk unannounced into their changing room at the Miss Teen pageant and see them naked.

Well here’s my thing:

If he did all of that and has gotten away with it then someone(s) powerful is protecting him, right?
Which means your country is run by people who want him there.

If he did all of that then WHY hasn’t he been arrested?

If he didn’t do any of it then someone(s) making up lies about him and getting away with it.

Either way, the US is one corrupt-ass piece of land...and THAT, is what I’d be looking into. THAT is where the evil lurks.

For one thing, Trump got in because of an archaic institution that makes some people's vote count more than others' do ... and because Hillary took working-class Democratic states for granted, which was a big mistake on her part.

Believe it or not, there is a legal debate as to whether the president, as the chief law enforcement officer of the land, is above the law or not. So that makes investigating him problematic from the start. Then there's the fact that complex investigations always take a long time to conduct, even when the subject of the investigation has no power to interfere with investigators, like the president has.

It is always possible that dozens of women were fed a script and paid to tell lies about Trump, but I don't think that's very likely. In any case, someone who says she was sexually assaulted deserves to have her story looked into seriously -- and if they're making it up, they should face charges of defamation and false report.

But yeah, the underlying system needs to be reformed, as you say -- I think Quill said something similar recently. The authors of the constitution took it for granted that the system they put in place for electing the president would weed out con men.

Original Quill wrote:

eds wrote:If he did all of that then WHY hasn’t he been arrested?

Ahem...because he is president.

Before, he would buy himself out of trouble with Non-Disclosure Agreements.  Remember?  He's the un-indicted co-conspirator in the Stormy Daniels case.

So the people in power aka above him, allowed him to get away with it then?
Perhaps the American citizens, instead of ranting about Trump, should actually start protesting about the people who are really in charge.

Ever considered that?

smelly-bandit wrote:no different to obama distancing himself from weinstein is it??

Bit different. Obama and Weinstein don't seem to have been as close as Trump and Epstein were -- I don't see any reports of Obama partying every week at Weinstein's home, the way Trump did with Epstein.

Also, as far as I can see, Weinstein hasn't been accused of grooming and fucking dozens of children, which is what Epstein was doing.

Ben Reilly wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:no different to obama distancing himself from weinstein is it??

Bit different. Obama and Weinstein don't seem to have been as close as Trump and Epstein were -- I don't see any reports of Obama partying every week at Weinstein's home, the way Trump did with Epstein.

Also, as far as I can see, Weinstein hasn't been accused of grooming and fucking dozens of children, which is what Epstein was doing.

Of course its "different"

It always is when your guys are doing it.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

eds wrote:If he did all of that then WHY hasn’t he been arrested?

Ahem...because he is president.

Before, he would buy himself out of trouble with Non-Disclosure Agreements.  Remember?  He's the un-indicted co-conspirator in the Stormy Daniels case.

So the people in power aka above him, allowed him to get away with it then?
Perhaps the American citizens, instead of ranting about Trump, should actually start protesting about the people who are really in charge.  

Ever considered that?

It's not people above Trump, it's the system that protects him. He's in charge of the agencies responsible for investigating criminal behavior, including his own, a clear conflict of interest that the constitution doesn't have a clear-cut solution to.

At this point, the best hope of convicting Trump on any crime would come from a state government's law enforcement, which the president has far less influence over. Of course, he could be prosecuted once he's left the office as well, by a Justice Department that he's not in charge of.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:no different to obama distancing himself from weinstein is it??

Bit different. Obama and Weinstein don't seem to have been as close as Trump and Epstein were -- I don't see any reports of Obama partying every week at Weinstein's home, the way Trump did with Epstein.

Also, as far as I can see, Weinstein hasn't been accused of grooming and fucking dozens of children, which is what Epstein was doing.

Of course its "different"

It always is when your guys are doing it.

Aren't violent crimes worse when they happen to children than to adults?

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

So the people in power aka above him, allowed him to get away with it then?
Perhaps the American citizens, instead of ranting about Trump, should actually start protesting about the people who are really in charge.  

Ever considered that?

It's not people above Trump, it's the system that protects him. He's in charge of the agencies responsible for investigating criminal behavior, including his own, a clear conflict of interest that the constitution doesn't have a clear-cut solution to.

At this point, the best hope of convicting Trump on any crime would come from a state government's law enforcement, which the president has far less influence over. Of course, he could be prosecuted once he's left the office as well, by a Justice Department that he's not in charge of.

Any crime will do eh???

Maybe you can get him on unpaid parking tickets

smelly-bandit wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

So the people in power aka above him, allowed him to get away with it then?
Perhaps the American citizens, instead of ranting about Trump, should actually start protesting about the people who are really in charge.  

Ever considered that?

It's not people above Trump, it's the system that protects him. He's in charge of the agencies responsible for investigating criminal behavior, including his own, a clear conflict of interest that the constitution doesn't have a clear-cut solution to.

At this point, the best hope of convicting Trump on any crime would come from a state government's law enforcement, which the president has far less influence over. Of course, he could be prosecuted once he's left the office as well, by a Justice Department that he's not in charge of.

Any crime will do eh???

Maybe you can get him on unpaid parking tickets

I don't claim Trump has or has not committed crimes -- I don't have the expertise. I was speaking hypothetically.

So is a violent crime worse when a child is the victim, or not?

Ben Reilly wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Any crime will do eh???

Maybe you can get him on unpaid parking tickets

I don't claim Trump has or has not committed crimes -- I don't have the expertise. I was speaking hypothetically.

So is a violent crime worse when a child is the victim, or not?

No and yes, it depends on the crime

It's a false psychological and emotional response rooted in our genetic makeup to protect our children that makes it feel like it is.

Children are rightly viewed as vulnerable and defenceless therefore crimes against them trigger that emotional outrage, the same response albeit to a lesser degree is experienced when we see crimes against very old people.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Any crime will do eh???

Maybe you can get him on unpaid parking tickets

I don't claim Trump has or has not committed crimes -- I don't have the expertise. I was speaking hypothetically.

So is a violent crime worse when a child is the victim, or not?

No and yes, it depends on the crime

It's a false psychological and emotional response rooted in our genetic makeup to protect our children that makes it feel like it is.

Children are rightly viewed as vulnerable and defenceless therefore crimes against them trigger that emotional outrage, the same response albeit to a lesser degree is experienced when we see crimes against very old people.

Exactly -- our instinct is to feel that picking on the defenseless is worse than on those who are, for lack of a better phrase, "fighting age." That's a big reason I'm a lefty, actually -- political power to the people who don't have money power, military power or celebrity power.

I see nothing wrong with a society that punishes crimes against children more harshly than crimes against adults.

Hell, if I was king, you'd get less of a punishment for shoplifting from Tesco's than you would for stealing from someone's front yard. Let the punishment be commensurate to the damage you did to the victim.

Ben Reilly wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

No and yes, it depends on the crime

It's a false psychological and emotional response rooted in our genetic makeup to protect our children that makes it feel like it is.

Children are rightly viewed as vulnerable and defenceless therefore crimes against them trigger that emotional outrage, the same response albeit to a lesser degree is experienced when we see crimes against very old people.

Exactly -- our instinct is to feel that picking on the defenseless is worse than on those who are, for lack of a better phrase, "fighting age." That's a big reason I'm a lefty, actually -- political power to the people who don't have money power, military power or celebrity power.

I see nothing wrong with a society that punishes crimes against children more harshly than crimes against adults.

Hell, if I was king, you'd get less of a punishment for shoplifting from Tesco's than you would for stealing from someone's front yard. Let the punishment be commensurate to the damage you did to the victim.

How humane of you

Do your views on children extend to the feral savages running around stabbing people in London??? Or does their does their "vulnerable child" status mean you give them a lesser punishment as well??

Afterall it's a well known fact that if a child kills you are aren't nearly quite as dead as when a fighting age male kills you

That's a typical Lefty approach

smelly-bandit wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

No and yes, it depends on the crime

It's a false psychological and emotional response rooted in our genetic makeup to protect our children that makes it feel like it is.

Children are rightly viewed as vulnerable and defenceless therefore crimes against them trigger that emotional outrage, the same response albeit to a lesser degree is experienced when we see crimes against very old people.

Exactly -- our instinct is to feel that picking on the defenseless is worse than on those who are, for lack of a better phrase, "fighting age." That's a big reason I'm a lefty, actually -- political power to the people who don't have money power, military power or celebrity power.

I see nothing wrong with a society that punishes crimes against children more harshly than crimes against adults.

Hell, if I was king, you'd get less of a punishment for shoplifting from Tesco's than you would for stealing from someone's front yard. Let the punishment be commensurate to the damage you did to the victim.

How humane of you

Do your views on children extend to the feral savages running around stabbing people in London??? Or does their does their "vulnerable child" status mean you give them a lesser punishment as well??

Afterall it's a well known fact that if a child kills you are aren't nearly quite as dead as when a fighting age male kills you

That's a typical Lefty approach

That's quite an illogical leap you just made, smelly, and I don't know why you would think I think that child criminals shouldn't receive appropriate punishment.

Of course I'd hate to see a young person locked up for life, and I do believe that the justice system should be more rehabilitative than punitive (for inmates of all ages), but the point is to keep law-abiding society safe as can be at the end of the day.

Ben Reilly wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

How humane of you

Do your views on children extend to the feral savages running around stabbing people in London??? Or does their does their "vulnerable child" status mean you give them a lesser punishment as well??

Afterall it's a well known fact that if a child kills you are aren't nearly quite as dead as when a fighting age male kills you

That's a typical Lefty approach

That's quite an illogical leap you just made, smelly, and I don't know why you would think I think that child criminals shouldn't receive appropriate punishment.

Of course I'd hate to see a young person locked up for life, and I do believe that the justice system should be more rehabilitative than punitive (for inmates of all ages), but the point is to keep law-abiding society safe as can be at the end of the day.

It's not illogical, you think crimes against children should receive harsher sentences so it's logical to think that you would believe that crimes by children should receive more lenient sentences, the ying to the yang.

Would a gang of feral children killing a wheelchair bound adult male be worse than a group of men killing a child??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

How humane of you

Do your views on children extend to the feral savages running around stabbing people in London??? Or does their does their "vulnerable child" status mean you give them a lesser punishment as well??

Afterall it's a well known fact that if a child kills you are aren't nearly quite as dead as when a fighting age male kills you

That's a typical Lefty approach

That's quite an illogical leap you just made, smelly, and I don't know why you would think I think that child criminals shouldn't receive appropriate punishment.

Of course I'd hate to see a young person locked up for life, and I do believe that the justice system should be more rehabilitative than punitive (for inmates of all ages), but the point is to keep law-abiding society safe as can be at the end of the day.

It's not illogical, you think crimes against children should receive harsher sentences so it's logical to think that you would believe that crimes by children should receive more lenient sentences, the ying to the yang.

Would a gang of feral children killing a wheelchair bound adult male be worse than a group of men killing a child??

That's a tough one! I'd say, just for myself, I'd treat the kids with a bit more understanding out of the hope that they could turn the rest of their lives around. Let's face it, kids who do that sort of thing probably have really shit parents.

Then again, the men who killed a child probably had shit parents as well. That makes it a tougher call, but I still maintain that adults bear more responsibility for behaving as peaceful, productive members of society. Children can be misled far more easily than adults, as also seen in cases like the Rochdale abuses.

I would still feel worse for the child. The man in the wheelchair is presumably more emotionally mature and capable of handling adversity, such as being disabled. Also, unless there's something else to his disability, he's presumably a fully independent adult.

Eddie always points out that children who are killed probably died in utter terror, calling desperately for their parents. That is so true, and so saddening, and it's mostly only true for children.

“Eddie always points out that children who are killed probably died in utter terror, calling desperately for their parents. That is so true, and so saddening, and it's mostly only true for children.”

Sorry had to point out that part...that is what separates the child being killed and tortured compared to an adult.

Ben Reilly wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

It's not illogical, you think crimes against children should receive harsher sentences so it's logical to think that you would believe that crimes by children should receive more lenient sentences, the ying to the yang.

Would a gang of feral children killing a wheelchair bound adult male be worse than a group of men killing a child??

That's a tough one! I'd say, just for myself, I'd treat the kids with a bit more understanding out of the hope that they could turn the rest of their lives around. Let's face it, kids who do that sort of thing probably have really shit parents.

Then again, the men who killed a child probably had shit parents as well. That makes it a tougher call, but I still maintain that adults bear more responsibility for behaving as peaceful, productive members of society. Children can be misled far more easily than adults, as also seen in cases like the Rochdale abuses.

I would still feel worse for the child. The man in the wheelchair is presumably more emotionally mature and capable of handling adversity, such as being disabled. Also, unless there's something else to his disability, he's presumably a fully independent adult.

Eddie always points out that children who are killed probably died in utter terror, calling desperately for their parents. That is so true, and so saddening, and it's mostly only true for children.

so not an illogcal assumption for me to make then at all???

eddie wrote:“Eddie always points out that children who are killed probably died in utter terror, calling desperately for their parents. That is so true, and so saddening, and it's mostly only true for children.”

Sorry had to point out that part...that is what separates the child being killed and tortured compared to an adult.

eh??

what??

an adult feels less fear than a child?? thats utter nonsense and impossible to measure since fear is subjective, so is pain.

you cant be seriously saying an adult would be happier to die than a child because the adult would be less afraid, what planet are you on??

if anything the child has less control and understanding of their emotions so would probably be rendered senseless or unconscious with shock of terror long before the adult would be, a child is also less robust than an adult so their death would be quicker.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Ahem...because he is president.

Before, he would buy himself out of trouble with Non-Disclosure Agreements.  Remember?  He's the un-indicted co-conspirator in the Stormy Daniels case.

So the people in power aka above him, allowed him to get away with it then?
Perhaps the American citizens, instead of ranting about Trump, should actually start protesting about the people who are really in charge.  

Ever considered that?

Considered it many times.  Those who voted in Trump, should rot in hell (with their children).

But, the fact is that Trump did not win the plurality of voters.  He lost by over 3-million votes.  The Russians manipulated the votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to engineer a victory in the electoral college.

As soon as we realize that, we have a huge task of undoing his unlawful acts (as he was never president)...including removing two Supreme Court justices, nullifying all trade barriers, opening our borders, rejoining the Paris accord, apologizing to Iran, terminating diplomatic relations with Russia and Putin, and arranging reparations to the Central Americans who have been hurt by Trump.

That's the least we can do.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

So the people in power aka above him, allowed him to get away with it then?
Perhaps the American citizens, instead of ranting about Trump, should actually start protesting about the people who are really in charge.  

Ever considered that?

Considered it many times.  Those who voted in Trump, should rot in hell (with their children).

But, the fact is that Trump did not win the plurality of voters.  He lost by over 3-million votes.  The Russians manipulated the votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to engineer a victory in the electoral college..

You should have a vodka comrade, relax you are too uptight.

These things happen, no points in worrying yourself about it, you can't stop it so why stress about it??

к вашему здоровью

smelly-bandit wrote:
no different to obama distancing himself from weinstein is it??

One major difference...

Donnie Dumpster himself has a predilection for exploiting underage girls..


Why do you keep on deflecting away from wealthy, 'establishment' and right-wing paedo's and rapists, smelly', attempting to misdirect onto your "fake news" items  --  one could almost think that you feel some kind of empathy for them  ?