Crime Jeffrey Epstein Dead

[Fawlty]

Aren't the victims of the abuse still willing to testify? Does his death change everything and end the investigation?

Ends the criminal case but not the civil case.

 

[all caps]

Aren't the victims of the abuse still willing to testify? Does his death change everything and end the investigation?

Yes. The story will die with us being drug into the muck caught up in worthless arguments with each other. As always.

Anyone who tries to bring forth facts or research will be mocked and smeared here and everywhere.

The topic will probably end up being blacklisted.

 

[andnowweknow]

Ah, I just assumed you're the same person because otherwise you'd have no reason to respond to my post. So you're even dumber than I thought. Excellent!

 

[KnightTemplar]

Or he got the Choice Rommel was offered, without the die a hero bit,

I mentioned this way back near the start of the thread.

 

[Cirris]

Clinton couldn't even make Lewsinky (or whatever her name was) go away.

Hillary didn't know until AFTER Linda Tripp dropped the tapes and dress to the feds.

Killing Lewinsky after that would have been more damaging than anything gained.

 

[Fawlty]

I'm sorry it is beyond my ability to make the thought any simpler. I've reduced it down to the limit of my ability.

never said father employed i said "if they knew him" let's debate what i said not what you think i said, it's written down after all and won;t be hard to find.

Here's what i said

"In my country if you know someone you're not allowed to be in a jury and judge them. Barr might know Epstein. I can't make it any simpler. If you don't know why knowing someone is a conflict of interest then that's your wilful ignorance on display."

you then said

"But what is the conflict of the interests?"

Well, it's not my fault that you can't explain how the interest is conflicting. We can easily explain it for a jury trial. But not for ordering an investigation into a death in federal custody. Hell, they could have been best friends and it's still not a conflict of interest to order the investigation to occur, as AG. I'd love to be able to throw shade at Barr as I despise him, but it just ain't so.

 

[Happy Man]

His death also buried the lead. Instead of the lead being that Bill Richardson and George Mitchell were directly implicated by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, a known victim of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, the lead is now that Epstein is dead, ostensibly by suicide. Impeccable timing.

You forgot the other jewish billionaires on the list.

These girls are in terrible danger right now.

 

[Peteyandjia]

 

[KnightTemplar]

Ends the criminal case but not the civil case.

True, but a civil case is potentially less embarrassing, as they can be settled out of court and the settlements can include NDA's.

 

[all caps]

 

[The Merchant]

I mentioned this way back near the start of the thread.

So you did RIGHT at the start, i went back to find one of my first posts and saw yours after.

Here's my post.

"There are no facts, this is everyone just measuring their credulity.

You either buy it or not. No one can make a evidence based claim on either side.

We can fact check claims though, like if presidents do randomly kill people or have done. Or what previous methods and motivations have caused powerful people to act etc"

Yet my speculation is still being fact checked, although i don't mind as it's a good way to test theories using peer-reviews and see what sticks and what not, it's just annoying that folk don't faithfully recount what i actually wrote and instead change it slightly then argue that straw-man.

But

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I'm not surprised gif/

 

[Starman]

No one was more shocked by Epstein’s suicide than Epstein.

 

[KnightTemplar]

 

[Happy Man]

 

[The Merchant]

Well, it's not my fault that you can't explain how the interest is conflicting. We can easily explain it for a jury trial. But not for ordering an investigation into a death in federal custody. Hell, they could have been best friends and it's still not a conflict of interest to order the investigation to occur, as AG. I'd love to be able to throw shade at Barr as I despise him, but it just ain't so.

Yeah cause "Cover-up Barr" (literally what journalist from NYtimes was calling him) hasn't helped cover anything up when he was AG before? Apart from Iran-contra. So what could he possibly do as AG to cover up anything else especially if he was pre-disposed to do so by knowing Epstein and feeling one way or another.

You asked what folk would say so i'm just providing it.

 

[kahiljabroni]

Ends the criminal case but not the civil case.

Why? If there are countless victims and presumably some willing to testify why isn't there a criminal case?

If anything the civil case should be dead because they are suing a Deadman...which was rumored to be why that New England Patriots player hung himself.

 

[Peteyandjia]

 

[The Merchant]

“People in the Iran-Contra affair have been treated very unfairly,” Barr told USA Today in December 1992, blasting the charges as illegitimate. “People in this Iran-Contra matter have been prosecuted for the kind of conduct that would not have been considered criminal or prosecutable by the Justice Department.”

Barr’s broadside alarmed the lead prosecutor handling the case against Weinberger, James J. Brosnahan, who warned the judge that Barr may have just unduly biased his jury pool. Later that month, when the White House pardoned six top Iran-Contra defendants on Christmas Eve 1992 at Barr’s urging, Brosnahan believed he’d just witnessed the completion of a successful cover-up.

Three decades on, Brosnahan fears Barr has returned to his old job to run the same scheme again.

“If you want a presidential cover-up, Barr is your guy,” Brosnahan, now 85, told VICE News. “And I think we’ve already seen that.”

 

[Bob Sapp]

an interesting video of everyone involved with Epstein