Jeffrey Epstein
- Thread starter neocon
- Start date
Soldato
Which bit is the conspiracy? the Clintons or Maxwell might be suicided?
Soldato
That isn't who Barr wanted in charge though is it, Berman forced Barr's hand when he refused to play ball and go quietly and so she was placed in charge as is the actual rule. She is actually a democrat unlike Berman who was a republican. Anyway Barr getting rid of Berman has nothing to do with this and everything to do with SDNY looking at Trump, Rudy and others in Trump's orbit.
I think she has either been paid off or she'll meet a similar fate to Epstein. No way she tells all to SDNY, far too many powerful men she could implicate in sex offences. I hope I'm wrong and everyone of those scum bags get what's coming to them, Prince Andrew, Clinton, Trump and all the rest.
Oh and why have you been absent from the Trump thread @tang0? It's been such fun over the last couple of weeks.
Soldato
lol..you are such a saddo
You can interpret their usage however you wish but to me a statement saying "convicted paedophile" means someone convicted of paedophilia, where as to you it is someone convicted of crimes relating to paedophilia... Usually it is you who argues for the technicalities.
As I said in my initial reply, it's no big deal to the public but for a BBC article (and I wouldn't hesitate to guess BBC TV Journalists) to slip that in, what else could the propagandise?
Ah well, let's just take this opportunity to agree to disagree.
"In 2005, police in Palm Beach, Florida, began investigating Epstein after a parent complained that he had sexually abused her 14-year-old daughter.[6] Epstein pleaded guilty and was convicted in 2008 by a Florida state court of procuring an underage girl for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute."
So he was accused of abusing an underage girl, investigated and then convicted of something else after his plea deal. Is the definition of "procuring an underage girl for prostitution" not what I think it is then?
Ignore that, it's getting too late for my brain to function.
Yes understood, I should have simply said "lie" as that is what it appears to be.
Last edited:
You avoided the question before - but I'll ask again:
AFAIK there isn't an offence of "paedophilia" - there are plenty of offenses that paedophiles get convicted for in relation to both illegal images and acts... Epstein was found guilty of one of these acts.
Think of it this way - if someone was described as a "convicted terrorist", but you argued that they weren't convicted of an offence called "terrorism" but were convicted of conspiracy to cause explosiions (a terror related offence) that would be a bit silly no? That's what you're doing here...
Yes I do argue for the technicalities at times - you're ignoring them here by putting forth some statement that makes no sense. The guy was a paedophile (in the broad sense, i.e. including underage adolescents) and he was convicted of a sex offence in relation to that ergo he was a convicted paedophile.
Your argument against that is that he wasn't convicted of some offence that doesn't exist or that you can't explain? Can you give an example of a convicted paedipohile that would fit your requirements for example? I think you'd find most people described as such have been convicted of some offence similar to that of Epstein's, or perhaps have groomed rather than paid or perhaps have stored illegal images... If you can't actually demonstrate that point or answer the quesiton about awhat you even mean by "convicted of paedophilia" then you're not really in much of a positon to claim someone doesn't fit the standard you're setting.
Last edited:
Soldato
No I've just missed the Trumpsters. There has been so much to talk about.
Nope, not biting. I understand your disagreement of my definition, however I think my posts expand my point enough already. Agreeing to disagree.
I'm not defending Epstein. I'm attacking the standards of our national public service broadcaster.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
He was a wall street guy that's how he got rich. Nothing to do with blackmail.
If you are mega rich and someone is blackmailing you. You simply have them killed. Not pay up. That's for peasants.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
You put them in a private prison run by the military. Where they are kept under guard night and day with multiple cctv cameras on all angles.
You certainly don't want them being looked after by normal prison guards.
Agree to disagree is usually something people do when they disagree with each other's opinions/views, you've not actually put forth a coherent opinion in the first place as your criterai doesn't make any sense and you can't give an example - you're acitvely dodging doing so because there is an obvious flaw you can see now but are not willing to acknowledge - that's pretty dishonest.
You're able to understand my disagreement, the problem is no one is able to understand your argument as it makes no sense (if someone else does then they could always answer on your behalf with an example of someone who fits the criteria or an explanation of what "convicted of paedophilia" means if there is no spefcific offence of paedohilia and Esptein apparently doens't fit the criteria).
You haven't though, your attack on their standards makes no sense and you're unwilling to even answer a basic question or give an example of someone who would fit your vague criteria.
I'd be willing to leave it there but if you're going to carry on then at least put forth an argument or give an example - currently all that has been presented is a meaningless claim.
The point is simply that arguing Epstein is not a convicted paedophile is really silly... he's a "convicted paedophile" because a) he's a paedophile b) he was convicted for an offence in relation to that & that's all you can say about anyone who could be described as a "convicted paedophile".
The argument against it by you is that he wasn't "convicted of paedophilia" - AFAIK that's a meaningless statement/offence that doens't exist... active paedophiles can get convicted for their actions, there isn't an offence committed by simply being one.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
He's a convicted paedophile.
He was convicted of paying underage girls for sex.
That's a convicted paedophile. If that's not a paedo then neither is Gary glitter.
His conviction is for the procurement of an underage girl for prostitution.
Having a conviction for being a paedophile would mean the guilty charge evidenced their paedophile nature. His conviction doesn't identify himself as a paedophile, therefore I think the BBC have it incorrect.
Edit: am I misunderstanding the conviction? Procurement to me i interpreted as obtained for someone else, however looking up the definition perhaps I have that wrong. If i have then I guess I owe @dowie an apology. Must be time for bed!
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
And in layman's terms that is a nonce.
Caporegime
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
Ah, ok that explains the mix up. You don't owe me an apology, no worries, I understand what the argument you were putting forward was now - but yeah it is a misunderstanding of 'procurement' the conviction was a result of him paying for a sex act with an underaged girl (for himself) - details from the article cited by wiki are below:
https://nypost.com/2008/06/30/jeffrey-epstein-pleads-guilty-to-prostitution-charges/
Soldato
For all the smarts he had in making money and setting up the whole operation, re. the island, the Lolita express, getting in with the world's elite etc. etc. he wasn't too bright when it came to doing the dirty himself. If he wanted to boff 14 year olds, then why not just buy a large pad in Estonia or Brazil to host parties in and do it legally? I mean, it's not like he couldn't afford it.