International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Jeffrey Epstein arrested for child sex trafficking (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=337375)

applecorped 7th July 2019 05:16 AM

Jeffrey Epstein arrested for child sex trafficking
 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...ged/ar-AADX7RQ


Billionaire financier and registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was arrested Saturday in New York on new sex-trafficking charges involving allegations that date to the early 2000s, according to law enforcement officials.
An official said Epstein is accused of paying underage girls for massages and molesting them at his homes in Florida and New York.
The arrest comes amid renewed scrutiny of a once-secret plea deal that ended a federal investigation against him.

Darat 7th July 2019 08:25 AM

Even what he has admitted to makes him scum. I'll not be at all surprised if these new charges end in a successful prosecution. He's a prime example of how wealth and the influence it can bring can distort a justice system.

Trebuchet 7th July 2019 09:09 AM

Is this new activity since the previous charges, or just stuff he didn't get charged with before?

crescent 7th July 2019 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 12747649)
Is this new activity since the previous charges, or just stuff he didn't get charged with before?

The indictment is sealed. But this may be related to a recent court decision that was critical of the plea deal he got a decade ago.

Wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein arrested for sex trafficking, sources say

Quote:

Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled that the deal did, in fact, violate the rights of Epstein’s victims. The court is now considering the possible remedies for the violation of the law.

"If today’s report is true, it only proves that the Epstein should have been charged by federal prosecutors twelve years ago in Florida," Paul Cassell, co-counsel along with Edwards for victims Jane Doe 1 and 2 in the case challenging the DOJ over the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, said in a statement. "With his money, Epstein was able to buy more than a decade of delay in facing justice – but fortunately he wasn’t able to postpone justice forever."
I'm not sure how a not-quite-kosher plea deal applies to double jeopardy. Or how any of that works. If the plea deal was not done right, can the original guilty plea be considered void and the whole prosecution started over?

shemp 7th July 2019 09:36 AM

These must be cases that were not involved in the previous plea deal. Perhaps they were not even known at the time. A plea deal is not blanket coverage for all past transgressions.

Trebuchet 7th July 2019 10:32 AM

I find myself hoping Trump will pardon him, but he's not quite THAT dumb. Unless Epstein has something on Trump, which is possible.

Ranb 7th July 2019 11:08 AM

Well, Epstein is or was a Trump buddy.
Quote:

“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.” - Donald Trump, 2002 https://t.co/3pbKrcFdn6

Or maybe Epstein will get another good deal from someone like Alexander Acosta.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019...tein-plea-deal
Quote:

Alexander Acosta who, following a three-part investigation by the *Miami Herald, was found on Thursday to have broken the law when he and other prosecutors let Jeffrey Epstein, who was literally running an international sex operation that included underaged girls, sign a plea agreement and conceal it from more than 30 victims. Rather than prosecuting the billionaire under federal sex trafficking laws, Acosta, then the U.S. attorney in Miami, negotiated “a non-prosecution agreement that gave Epstein and his co-conspirators immunity” and allowed him to quietly plead guilty to just two prostitution charges in state court, and serve less than 18 months in a county jail.
Ranb

crescent 7th July 2019 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranb (Post 12747722)
Well, Epstein is or was a Trump buddy.

He's also a Bill Clinton buddy. He's one of those people with ties to all sorts of powerful people on both sides of a the aisle. Or, at least, he HAD all sorts of ties.

I guess the one catch is that most of his Democratic friends are pretty much out of the picture. Whereas the problematic plea deal was done by a Republican who is in the current administration and the current president was also friend.

I don't expect to see any functional political effect from this. Any ties to Trump will be deflected by bringing up ties to Bill Clinton. Never mind that one is still President and is looking to run for re-election while the other is less politically influential than ever.

cow_cat 7th July 2019 12:12 PM

So, it's like pizzagate, but real?

BobTheCoward 7th July 2019 12:30 PM

What Constitutional rights do victims have that are applicable in this case?

CaptainHowdy 7th July 2019 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crescent (Post 12747724)
He's also a Bill Clinton buddy. He's one of those people with ties to all sorts of powerful people on both sides of a the aisle. Or, at least, he HAD all sorts of ties.

I guess the one catch is that most of his Democratic friends are pretty much out of the picture. Whereas the problematic plea deal was done by a Republican who is in the current administration and the current president was also friend.

I don't expect to see any functional political effect from this. Any ties to Trump will be deflected by bringing up ties to Bill Clinton. Never mind that one is still President and is looking to run for re-election while the other is less politically influential than ever.

Epstein's connection to Donald Trump and Bill Clinton kept his (Epstein) name off the agenda in 2016. Neither candidate could really use it against the other. It's now 2020 election time and none of the Democratic candidates have the connection to Epstein. This could create some difficulties for Trump but I don't think it's fatal.

Going to trial could prove to be embarrassing for some of the people who are connected to Epstein, Dershowitz and Prince Andrew among others

CaptainHowdy 7th July 2019 01:07 PM

Miami Herald ran an expose of Epstein last year that was pretty exhaustive

Tero 7th July 2019 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 12747707)
I find myself hoping Trump will pardon him, but he's not quite THAT dumb. Unless Epstein has something on Trump, which is possible.

Trump pardons E. Pence pardons Trump.

smartcooky 7th July 2019 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crescent (Post 12747661)
The indictment is sealed. But this may be related to a recent court decision that was critical of the plea deal he got a decade ago.

Wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein arrested for sex trafficking, sources say



I'm not sure how a not-quite-kosher plea deal applies to double jeopardy. Or how any of that works. If the plea deal was not done right, can the original guilty plea be considered void and the whole prosecution started over?

Double Jeopardy only applies if jeopardy has attached. I don't think that routinely happens with a plea deal.

Remember also, that a judge has ruled that Acosta broke the law in negotiating that plea deal, so the deal might well be void.

smartcooky 7th July 2019 02:08 PM

Also, the fact that it is a sealed indictment is very interesting. It could mean that there is someone else named in the indictment that the prosecutors don't want mentioned in public.

theprestige 7th July 2019 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 12747707)
I find myself hoping Trump will pardon him, but he's not quite THAT dumb. Unless Epstein has something on Trump, which is possible.

Possible, but unlikely. If Epstein had something on him, Trump would have said so by now.

Childlike Empress 7th July 2019 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12747856)
Also, the fact that it is a sealed indictment is very interesting. It could mean that there is someone else named in the indictment that the prosecutors don't want mentioned in public.


The Daily Beast has an "exclusive" on this and claims that the indictment will be unsealed tomorrow and that the FBI will ask for more victims to come forward.

Skeptic Ginger 7th July 2019 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12747904)
Possible, but unlikely. If Epstein had something on him, Trump would have said so by now.

WTF nonsense is this? :confused:

theprestige 7th July 2019 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12747947)
WTF nonsense is this? :confused:

???

You don't think Trump would tweet incontinently about whatever scandal he was embroiled in?

In which he was embroiled?

Faydra 7th July 2019 04:39 PM

This will be interesting. The cesspool of Twitter is beside itself about who Epstein will bring down with him.

I don't care what political side they are on, if they are involved in this they should go to jail.

Ziggurat 7th July 2019 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12747621)
Even what he has admitted to makes him scum. I'll not be at all surprised if these new charges end in a successful prosecution. He's a prime example of how wealth and the influence it can bring can distort a justice system.

Influence protects you, until it doesn't. There's a tipping point at which the people you rely on for protection decide that they're better off not protecting you. And since those calculations are coupled (you don't want to be the last person protecting someone who's going down anyways), the collapse of influence can be sudden and complete.

Trebuchet 7th July 2019 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faydra (Post 12748020)
This will be interesting. The cesspool of Twitter is beside itself about who Epstein will bring down with him.

I don't care what political side they are on, if they are involved in this they should go to jail.

I'm voting for Dershowitz.

Skeptic Ginger 7th July 2019 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12747952)
???

You don't think Trump would tweet incontinently about whatever scandal he was embroiled in?

In which he was embroiled?

"Trump would have said so by now"

He's admitted being on Epstein's plane, but you are suggesting Trump would have said he poked 13 yr olds? He denied that multiple times.

Ziggurat 7th July 2019 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12748087)
"Trump would have said so by now"

He's admitted being on Epstein's plane, but you are suggesting Trump would have said he poked 13 yr olds? He denied that multiple times.

I think he's saying Trump would have tweeted something about the charges if he felt Epstein might turn on him with actually damaging info. Maybe complained that Epstein is being railroaded, or that it's just an attempt to get to Trump, or something. The point is that silence isn't Trump's style for anything he cares about. So either he doesn't care, or he's taking a different approach than his usual one.

Puppycow 7th July 2019 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12747856)
Also, the fact that it is a sealed indictment is very interesting. It could mean that there is someone else named in the indictment that the prosecutors don't want mentioned in public.

Is the indictment supposed to be unsealed on Monday? I think I read that somewhere. That would mean soon. Within the next 24 hours.

Some rich and powerful men are 'sweating it out’ ahead of indictment against registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein: journalist (New York Daily News)

OK, not the most sober and reliable of sources, but worth a read here.

Quote:

Last week an appeals court ordered the release of a 2,000-page document linked to the Epstein case be unsealed, ruling that the public’s right of access to court papers overrides the privacy concerns of certain individuals. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals decision references allegations of sexual abuse involving "numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders."
Key word here is "allegations" though.

smartcooky 7th July 2019 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12747952)
???

You don't think Trump would tweet incontinently about whatever scandal he was embroiled in?

In which he was embroiled?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12748103)
I think he's saying Trump would have tweeted something about the charges if he felt Epstein might turn on him with actually damaging info. Maybe complained that Epstein is being railroaded, or that it's just an attempt to get to Trump, or something. The point is that silence isn't Trump's style for anything he cares about. So either he doesn't care, or he's taking a different approach than his usual one.


If I understand what you are saying here, then I agree with both of you (and ain't that a thing).

Firstly, much as I despise Trump for his womanizing and his misogynistic attitude, I seriously doubt that he would be a kiddie fiddler. I know he likes them young, but I doubt he likes them that young.

Second, if I'm wrong about that, and he really is involved, he would already have undertaken a twitter rage campaign accusing "them Ebil Dems" of concocting a hoax and a witch hunt, reciting "no involvement".

He is so predictable... we all know what he does and how he acts when he is guilty of something, we can read him like a book!

Skeptic Ginger 7th July 2019 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12748103)
I think he's saying Trump would have tweeted something about the charges if he felt Epstein might turn on him with actually damaging info. Maybe complained that Epstein is being railroaded, or that it's just an attempt to get to Trump, or something. The point is that silence isn't Trump's style for anything he cares about. So either he doesn't care, or he's taking a different approach than his usual one.

Too much imaginary tea leaf reading for my book.

The Great Zaganza 7th July 2019 09:42 PM

I doubt the FBI would have gone forward if there was an unmistakable criminal connection between Epstein and Trump.

But there are plenty of connections between Epstein and people working, directly or indirectly, for Trump, like Dershowitz and Acosta.

Trump just doesn't who to throw under the bus yet to keep himself looking unconnected.

Puppycow 7th July 2019 09:53 PM

I'm gonna agree with Skeptic Ginger on this one. Not much point in speculating until the documents are unsealed. Trump would be foolish to deny something he hasn't even been publicly accused of yet, and I don't think he's that foolish.

The Great Zaganza 7th July 2019 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 12748181)
I'm gonna agree with Skeptic Ginger on this one. Not much point in speculating until the documents are unsealed. Trump would be foolish to deny something he hasn't even been publicly accused of yet, and I don't think he's that foolish.

... never stopped him before ...

dann 7th July 2019 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12748087)
"Trump would have said so by now"

He's admitted being on Epstein's plane, but you are suggesting Trump would have said he poked 13 yr olds? He denied that multiple times.


All you need is a headline saying that Trump is much too ugly and unattractive for an underage girl to want to have anything to do with him, and he'll post the photos to prove you wrong!

BobTheCoward 8th July 2019 09:25 AM

The most important discussion is going to be pointing out that Epstein is not a pedophile.

The Great Zaganza 8th July 2019 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12748659)
The most important discussion is going to be pointing out that Epstein is not a pedophile.

given that Pedophilia is not a legal term, it isn't important at all.

Skeptic Ginger 8th July 2019 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12748193)
... never stopped him before ...

He's selective what he is foolish about. He has issues when he's accused of anything with women that suggests he had to force them to get it. I think that includes sex with teenyboppers.

carlitos 8th July 2019 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cow_cat (Post 12747757)
So, it's like pizzagate, but real?

I'm going to avoid the pedantic discussion, but the Pizzagate people, like most satanic panic conspiracy theorists, believed that young children of both genders were being victimized. Not high school girls.

JoeMorgue 8th July 2019 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12748659)
The most important discussion is going to be pointing out that Epstein is not a pedophile.

You're literally the first person in this thread to use the term "pedophile."

BobTheCoward 8th July 2019 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12748687)
You're literally the first person in this thread to use the term "pedophile."

I didn't claim it was related to discussion here Bloomberg, the NY post , daily mail, and others have all used the term. Calling it important was tongue and cheek, but I think the pedantic discussion is on its way.

JoeMorgue 8th July 2019 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12748692)
I didn't claim it was related to discussion here Bloomberg, the NY post , daily mail, and others have all used the term. Calling it important was tongue and cheek, but I think the pedantic discussion is on its way.

Yeah because you intend to start it.

"Pedantic Discussions" aren't naturally occurring phenomenon. They are started by pedants. Pedants like you.

autumn1971 8th July 2019 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12748216)
All you need is a headline saying that Trump is much too ugly and unattractive for an underage girl to want to have anything to do with him, and he'll post the photos to prove you wrong!

Oh, one can only wish!

“I don’t like thirteen-year-olds, they had to be fourteen to compete in my pageant!”

Ziggurat 8th July 2019 10:08 AM

I read through the indictment. What I can't tell from it is how it relates to his previous charges. In particular, is this a completely separate group of victims from the ones he was charge with abusing before? That would make sense, in terms of not having to deal with the previous plea or with double jeopardy, but the indictment itself makes no mention of the previous deal so there's still some ambiguity, at least for those who haven't closely followed this horror show.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.