Sure but it's a dumb opinion that flies utterly in the face of all available evidence. You can have an opinion that the moon is made of cheese but we brought rocks back from that mofo so your opinion would be wrong.

I take what Erik Prince says as credible. I believe he has sources in FBI and NYPD and they saw very disturbing things on Weiners laptop. I also think that anyone who opposes orange man would have a reason to lie about him.

Best theory about the epstein situation i've seen

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...857491968.html

To completly ruin their lives and invite death threats? For what gain? Obviously not to move public opinion because your opinion can't be moved by facts. You've basically stated as mucn already.

Yeah, I hear you bro. I understand orange man ran in the famous circles before he went into office. I don't see any evidence that he was actually friends with people like the clintons, epsteins or hollywood weirdos. I am more of the belief that he used those 30 years in TV to gather intel on these people and decide that, wow I need to run for president, these people are sick, child rapists.

How are their lives ruined? Most trump supporters couldnt tell you the names of the people who said he was a rapist. I highly doubt it really negatively impacted them. Maybe the one who is a porn star, because she had a corrupt lawyer. The gain is because they have trump derrangement syndrome and they want to try to take him down or negatively impact him.

Trump is on the record that he thought Epstein's a great guy

It moves public opinion of people who cant actually research into this stuff with all the daily grind. Anyone who just watches cnn on in the background will be influenced by these claims.

Ya, that doesnt mean they are actually friends.. You say a lot of stuff, when you are famous and go to a lot of parties and events. He also had him kicked out of his club. They seem more like acquaintances

Lolol good one. You had me going, well done but no one is this moronic.

Who told Acosta that Epstein was in intelligence and to lay off? Was it Mueller, head of the FBI at the time? Not sure how chain of command works.

Yea. there has only been Weinstein, Epstein, NXIVIM taken down since he won. 2 Major sex trafficking rings(nxivim being a sex cult) with connections to all the previous people in power.... I am sure it is just a "coincidence"

Today’s Epstein news: his safe contained an outdated passport issued by a foreign country with Epstein’s picture on it, apparently claiming that he resided in Saudi Arabia.

I'm using that

Such inferences are the only kind of evidence that's worth a damn.

Agreed with previous, the whole lot of these scumbags should go down. Trump first among them.

Not like the Clintons and Saudi Arabia have ever been mentioned in the same sentence when it comes suspicious activities either, like Bill helping them reestablish credibility after their involvement in 9/11 or taking payments from them while Hilary was sec of state.

“Evidence” does not mean what you think it means.

So called circumstancial inference is far more robust than is "evidence" in isolation. Flight logs are fairly solid. Epstein's public record is documented and not good. Clinton is an admitted sexual harasser. Why was he on Epstein's flights? His love of children, I guess.

Ann Coulter Breaks Down Jeffrey Epstein Scandal

I found out (and discovered) this forum - and this thread - only last night, so the following may be a bit slow pony ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f51h52dqZ14

Most Pertinent Details

(1.) All this was known back in 2006 in Palm Beach after an exhaustive investigation by Palm Beach Police Department.

(2.) Democrat Barry Krishner, the Palm Beach state attorney, is the "real villain" who covered up for Epstein. (Krishner was more interested in trying
to nail Rush Limbaugh for prescription drug abuse than he was in going after Epstein.)

(3.) Coulter alleges that Epstein got his money by blackmailing rich men who he filmed having sex with underage girls. (Epstein allegedly paid young girls to lure rich men into his mansions/homes where hidden cameras filmed everything.)

(4.) This is more of a "Democrat scandal than a Republican scandal" although politicians from both parties are involved.

(5.) Main stream media ignored Epstein for years only becoming interested when a possible "Trump connection" [to Epstein] materialized. Ms. Coulter states that without this [alleged] Trump connection, the MSM would still be ignoring Epstein.

(6.) Believes Epstein will wind up the sacrificial lamb thrown in jail for life after he's convicted. Other perpetrators and enablers involved
with Epstein hope all this will be quickly forgotten once Epstein is locked up for good.

I'm not sure I agree with Ms. Coulter's speculation/suggestion that Epstein will wind up the "sacrificial lamb" and all this will be "quickly forgotten" once Epstein is convicted. I suppose I could be wrong, but Jeffrey Epstein doesn't strike me as the kind of guy willing to go down without a fight. Once he realizes he'll be spending the rest of his life behind bars, there's a good chance Epstein will start singing like Beverly Sills. Trying to bargain a plea deal in exchange for his testimony against other participants may be the only card left for Epstein to play - assuming he's convicted. Any hope he'll have of not dying in prison will depend on his willingness to rat out his [former] friends. (Of course, there's always the possibility that Mr. Epstein suddenly [mysteriously?] assumes room temperature prior to his trial.)

I’m not making any distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence, but rather between evidence and inference. I take it as established fact that Clinton was on Epstein’s plane many times. That’s evidence. So too do I take it as established fact that Clinton is an inveterate sexual harasser with giant appetites. Those two factual propositions do not necessitate a conclusion that Clinton is a child rapist. Is it possible? Sure. Necessary, likely, or provable beyond a reasonable doubt? Not without more evidence.

My hot take: a plea deal with Epstein is radioactive for current prosecutors. I think it is much more likely that prosecutors get Ghislaine Maxwell or one of Epstein’s other cronies to roll over and tell all, as opposed to Epstein himself.

Didn't he settle a sexual misconduct suit so he wouldn't have to testify under oath again, after already being impeached for previous perjury? He's been accused going back to the 70's, and those are only the alleged victims who've been able to come forward.

Someone check me on this, but I don’t think Clinton has ever before been accused of sexual misconduct involving someone underage. Again, I’m not defending the man, but I think it is always unwise to rush to judgment. Evidence matters.

You think it matters to a rapist how they score?

Howard:

After reading this NYT profile of Ghislaine Maxwell

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/u...-epstein.html?

I suspect you'll probably be proven correct.