Epstein Case

Jefforey Smith
Graduate
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Lexington, Kentucky

Re: Epstein Case

Post by Jefforey Smith »

Poor JeffERy Epstein....

Some media can't even spell his first name. Jeffery is common enough to be an accepted variation but not common enough to be the one you should choose. Nonetheless, this spelling has charted since the early-twentieth century, much like its brother name: Jeffrey (as in Jeffrey Epstein).
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Epstein Case

Post by Okri »

Stolen from Twitter: Anthony Wiener still being alive proves that the Clintons' didn't have Epstein killed.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Epstein Case

Post by Big Magilla »

Footnote to my previous comment:

I am far more concerned about what the country's current chief executive and his cronies get away with on a daily basis than I am about a hoary quarter-century old story about what a former president may or may not have gotten away with.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Epstein Case

Post by Big Magilla »

Sabin wrote

Happy to explain. Quick note, it's just been announced that the next American Crime Story is about the Clinton Impeachment and it will be told through Monica Lewinsky's POV. It will be released next year.

When I say "there is a wide-scale reappraisal of Clinton's legacy and conduct," yes, it is happening outside of Fox News and its ilk. It has happening among young progressives, supporters of the MeToo movement or just people discovering his Presidency for the first time and asking questions about why the party courted the center, what the crime bill was all about, or wondering why were the women not believed. This isn't all young people but young lefties entering the conversation for the first time.

W/r/t Bill Clinton's sexual assault accusations:
In light of the MeToo movement and a conversation being had about believing women accusers, many are reevaluating whether or not Juanita Broaddrick was given her fair day in court or if she was unethically discredited. That's the best I can boil it down to one sentence.

I repeat: young progressives are not Fox News and its ilk. If you want to lump them in with them, I think that's a big mistake.
On the whole, I identify more with "young progressives" than their Fox watching grandparents and great-grandparents, but some of them are just as ignorant as their elders, albeit from a different perspective.

I have no interest in seeing "Impeachment" from Monica Lewinksy's perspective. The main character in the Crime Story presentation is apparently going to be the odious Linda Tripp played by the thus far biggest name in the cast, Sarah Paulson.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Epstein Case

Post by Sabin »

Big Magilla wrote
Sabin wrote
The word predator doesn’t just mean underage girls. In the wake of MeToo, there have been larger conversations about believing women and many don’t feel as though some of Clinton’s accusers were listened to at the time. Currently, Clinton’s legacy and conduct is undergoing reappraisal. Again: this is something that is happening on a wide-scale, if you are not aware of it.
Perhaps I should have placed a big AND between my two sentences.

Clinton was not a predator as far as anything I'm aware of. He had affairs and dalliances, yes, but did he go after them or were they willing participants in their relationships? The Clinton scandal was over his "having sex" with women outside of his marriage, not forcing himself on anyone except for two women who were very much listened to at the time but whose stories were ultimately discredited.

Not sure what you mean by that last comment. Am I not supposed to be aware of a wide-scale reappraisal of Clinton's legacy and conduct? It's not widescale outside of Fox News and its ilk. If you are inferring that I may not be aware of the wide-scale reappraisal of just about anyone who has ever walked the earth, rest assured I am.
Happy to explain. Quick note, it's just been announced that the next American Crime Story is about the Clinton Impeachment and it will be told through Monica Lewinsky's POV. It will be released next year.

When I say "there is a wide-scale reappraisal of Clinton's legacy and conduct," yes, it is happening outside of Fox News and its ilk. It has happening among young progressives, supporters of the MeToo movement or just people discovering his Presidency for the first time and asking questions about why the party courted the center, what the crime bill was all about, or wondering why were the women not believed. This isn't all young people but young lefties entering the conversation for the first time.

W/r/t Bill Clinton's sexual assault accusations:
In light of the MeToo movement and a conversation being had about believing women accusers, many are reevaluating whether or not Juanita Broaddrick was given her fair day in court or if she was unethically discredited. That's the best I can boil it down to one sentence.

I repeat: young progressives are not Fox News and its ilk. If you want to lump them in with them, I think that's a big mistake.
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Epstein Case

Post by Big Magilla »

Sabin wrote:
Big Magilla wrote
Clinton was a cheater but not a predator. He was never linked to underaged women and girls.
The word predator doesn’t just mean underage girls. In the wake of MeToo, there have been larger conversations about believing women and many don’t feel as though some of Clinton’s accusers were listened to at the time. Currently, Clinton’s legacy and conduct is undergoing reappraisal. Again: this is something that is happening on a wide-scale, if you are not aware of it.
Perhaps I should have placed a big AND between my two sentences.

Clinton was not a predator as far as anything I'm aware of. He had affairs and dalliances, yes, but did he go after them or were they willing participants in their relationships? The Clinton scandal was over his "having sex" with women outside of his marriage, not forcing himself on anyone except for two women who were very much listened to at the time but whose stories were ultimately discredited.

Not sure what you mean by that last comment. Am I not supposed to be aware of a wide-scale reappraisal of Clinton's legacy and conduct? It's not widescale outside of Fox News and its ilk. If you are inferring that I may not be aware of the wide-scale reappraisal of just about anyone who has ever walked the earth, rest assured I am.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Epstein Case

Post by Sabin »

OscarGuy wrote
I'm sorry, Sabin, but NO. Young people didn't "look Clinton up" and you and I have both discussed the Bernie situation and his supporters' willful ignorance and parroting of Republican talking points. Most of the misinformation I saw was based on ineffectual and dishonest talking points regarding Hillary Clinton specifically and sometimes Bill. They might see him now as a sexual predator, but that isn't even ONE of the reasons I saw them use for hating Hillary. They were based on lies about Clinton, some parroting Republicans, some parroting misinformation presented by Bernie and his staff. It was definitely not because of the sex predator thing.
Yes, we have talked about it. I still don’t agree with you. I still think it’s more a product of 2016 being the first election where Twitter and Reddit were a thing and where everybody was a partisan expert rather than the Bernie campaign sitting up at night disseminating whatever talking points you’re referring to. Forgive me, I missed the debate where Bernie brought up Vince Foster and Ron Brown.
Big Magilla wrote
Everyone has a theory. Mine is that Epstein committed suicide because he knew he wasn't going to get out of it and couldn't stand the thought of being cooped up forever the way he was. If others were complicit in his death it was that they deliberately turned a blind eye to it, not that they had a hand in it. It could be simply that the guy put up a happy just to be alive front so that they relaxed their watch thinking he wasn't going to try it again. It could be that he paid them to look the other way. It could be anything.
Yes. It could. The phrase “it could be anything lends itself to this event.”
I like your interpretation. It’s probably the correct one. I remain undecided for reasons of I can’t believe it happened and I’m still pissed.

Big Magilla wrote
Clinton was a cheater but not a predator. He was never linked to underaged women and girls.
The word predator doesn’t just mean underage girls. In the wake of MeToo, there have been larger conversations about believing women and many don’t feel as though some of Clinton’s accusers were listened to at the time. Currently, Clinton’s legacy and conduct is undergoing reappraisal. Again: this is something that is happening on a wide-scale, if you are not aware of it.
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Epstein Case

Post by OscarGuy »

I'm sorry, Sabin, but NO. Young people didn't "look Clinton up" and you and I have both discussed the Bernie situation and his supporters' willful ignorance and parroting of Republican talking points. Most of the misinformation I saw was based on ineffectual and dishonest talking points regarding Hillary Clinton specifically and sometimes Bill. They might see him now as a sexual predator, but that isn't even ONE of the reasons I saw them use for hating Hillary. They were based on lies about Clinton, some parroting Republicans, some parroting misinformation presented by Bernie and his staff. It was definitely not because of the sex predator thing.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Epstein Case

Post by Big Magilla »

Precious Doll wrote:
Big Magilla wrote:Skepticism about the moon landing was something I never heard until many years later when conspiracy theorists began to conflate the actual 1969 landing with the 1977 film Capricorn One in which the moon landing was faked. No one I know took them seriously.
Capricorn One was about a failed Mars landing covering up, not the moon but it fairness it is a pretty forgettable film.
Of course it was! :oops:

Interestingly, Peter Hyams wrote his script about the fake Mars landing around the time of the moon landing but couldn't get anyone interested in producing a film from it at the time. It was this film that got the conspiracy theory nuts going about the moon landing in the mid-1970s. It picked up steam around the time of the O.J. Simpson murders in the mid-1990s when the film received renewed interest on TV due to Simpson's portrayal of one of the astronauts.
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Epstein Case

Post by Precious Doll »

Big Magilla wrote:Skepticism about the moon landing was something I never heard until many years later when conspiracy theorists began to conflate the actual 1969 landing with the 1977 film Capricorn One in which the moon landing was faked. No one I know took them seriously.
Capricorn One was about a failed Mars landing covering up, not the moon but it fairness it is a pretty forgettable film.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Epstein Case

Post by Big Magilla »

That's more like it!

Everyone has a theory. Mine is that Epstein committed suicide because he knew he wasn't going to get out of it and couldn't stand the thought of being cooped up forever the way he was. If others were complicit in his death it was that they deliberately turned a blind eye to it, not that they had a hand in it. It could be simply that the guy put up a happy just to be alive front so that they relaxed their watch thinking he wasn't going to try it again. It could be that he paid them to look the other way. It could be anything. Blame Trump and Barr for not trusting anyone anymore.

Who knows if we will ever know everything about Epstein and the visitors to his private island. Clinton has said over and over that he never went there, as have others whose names have come up. Some may be liars, but all of them? Clinton was a cheater but not a predator. He was never linked to underaged women and girls. Trump has. I'd be more inclined to believe that he, not Clinton, was a participant in Epsten's orgies although I'd still be skeptical about his being involved in his death. If he was, it will be covered up at least until he leaves office.

This was a great distraction for Trump. It pushes discussions about his complicity in separating kids from their parents and his wavering on gun control off the front page and away from the lead story covered by TV news.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Epstein Case

Post by Sabin »

Sabin wrote
Magilla, I hate to tell you. This isn't one of the wilder conspiracies. This is the one that everybody in my life currently believes. I would like to say "Republican or Democrat alike," but I don't have any Republicans in my life right now.
Time for my bi-monthly apology for an unclear post!

What I was trying to say in this post was that everybody in my life seems to have some kind of take on Jeffrey Epstein's suicide. There are people in my life that are convinced this is Trump's doing. There are a few that are convinced this is the Clinton's doing. There are some in my life that are convinced that Jeffrey Epstein is on an island somewhere. And y'know what? I don't blame them for suspecting any of those things.

There. I said it.

This is the fishiest thing I've seen in my adult life. I don't blame anybody for becoming an amateur detective especially when it pertains to a people (a friend of Trump... a Democratic donor) of incredible power avoiding blame for an international pedophile ring. This whole story feels pulled from the National Enquirer and enough of it is true to make all of it seem true. I don't care what Paul Krugman says.

So, no. Not everybody I know thinks the Clintons were involved. To be honest, right now everybody I know is in such a hot rage about it, it's a revolving door of all of them. One of the horrible through-lines of the past ten years has been the very public evasion of consequences.

Mister Tee wrote
If you, indeed, didn't mean to say that everyone you knew thought Bill and Hillary were responsible, then of course I retract this. I'm still on a bit of hair-trigger from all the Bernie voters who are still running around claiming that Hillary thinks all blacks are super-predators (and are still deeply proud of voting for Jill Stein in Michigan). I will always resent that the Bernie folk who knew better (his campaign) willfully fed younger voters GOP-generated propaganda that very likely led us to our current ghastly position. And this seemed to indicate they were still being successful.
I want to thank you for this quote. I finally think I understand where this disconnect is coming from.

You think that some young progressives are just parroting or have been fed right-wing talking points from the GOP in the 90's and that's why they think the Clintons are involved in the suicide.

No. That's not why at all.

The reason why some young progressives are suspicious of Bill Clinton is because he's gone through recent public reevaluation as a sex predator. During the MeToo movement, many conversations were had about how a proper dialogue wan't had about Bill Clinton's indiscretions (a light word) in the 1990's because Democrats were so desperate to hang onto power after three lost elections. Bill Clinton is now seen by many of my generation as a sex predator. Plain and simple. And when the two most commonly bandied names in association with Jeffrey Epstein are Donald Trump (bc he must be associated with everything horrible in the world) and Bill Clinton, it doesn't seem out of the question that Bill Clinton was involved. Terrible timing, really, this arrest of Jeffrey Epstein and his successful suicide following his unsuccessful attempt.

To sum up: don't blame Limbaugh, don't blame Bernie, blame MeToo.

As to your other points, I don't know what GOP propaganda you're accusing the Bernie campaign of circulating but it seems likelier to me that young people just, y’know, used the internet and looked her up.
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Epstein Case

Post by OscarGuy »

In reading this, I think he's not meaning that his friends believe the Clinton conspiracy theory about Epstein's death rather that they believe the Trump conspiracy theory. I could be wrong in my misunderstanding and that could be leading to a lot of the confusion here.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Epstein Case

Post by Mister Tee »

Sabin wrote: 2) I misspoke when I said it wasn't one of the "wilder conspiracy theories." I simply meant to comment on how nobody thinks that connecting Epstein's suicide to the people he might rat out is an out-of-this-world leap in logic.
What you actually seemed to say -- certainly what I took from it -- was that the looney-tunes Clinton theory was the one everyone you knew believed. Which I found astonishing and disheartening. Of course, everyone' s suspicious, and thinks it's way too damn convenient for a lot of powerful people. That's what I thought I was saying in my first post on the matter. (And that's before we get to the inevitable "the surveillance camera malfunctioned" point in our story.) But if you're going to, rightly, suspect people in high places, seems to me you'd start with people who actually have power in the federal prison system -- not two retired pols in Chappaqua.

Which I guess leads in to this:
Sabin wrote: 3) ...But my larger point is that everybody in my life (friends and family) instantly did not believe their eyes and ears. It's astonishing. The culprit depended on which side of the fence one is on. That is the phenomenon I was talking about. This is not usual.
In response, I give you Paul Krugman:

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/ ... 2407961602
Sabin wrote: 4) Oh come on! What does Bernie have to do with this? Calm the hysterics about Millennials and Gen Z. If the Republican Party goes under, it will be because disproportionately we left it to die. You're welcome.
If you, indeed, didn't mean to say that everyone you knew thought Bill and Hillary were responsible, then of course I retract this. I'm still on a bit of hair-trigger from all the Bernie voters who are still running around claiming that Hillary thinks all blacks are super-predators (and are still deeply proud of voting for Jill Stein in Michigan). I will always resent that the Bernie folk who knew better (his campaign) willfully fed younger voters GOP-generated propaganda that very likely led us to our current ghastly position. And this seemed to indicate they were still being successful.

Two last things:

I've been very much RELYING on people under 40 to lead us out of this colossal mess; that's why I was so appalled by what you appeared to be reporting about them.

I seriously questioned the Warren Report (after the fact; I was only 12 when it first came out), but I never had a moment's doubt about the moon landing.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Epstein Case

Post by Big Magilla »

Sabin wrote:
Mister Tee wrote
If this is true, I'm considerably less sanguine that the younger generation is going to save America.

I mean, WTF? Did your friends buy so deeply into Bernie Kool-Aid that they retroactively believe a quarter-century's worth of bullshit about the Clintons? Only imbeciles believe the Clinton body-count nonsense; it's right up there with Obama was born in Kenya, and I'd be embarrassed to know anyone who subscribed to it.
Before you throw my entire generation under the bus and write us all off as incompetents, let me just say a few of things:

1) I take it that your generation believed every word of the Warren Report and that nobody doubted the moon landing for a second. If any of us are conspiracy theorists, we learned it from you.
Skepticism over the single shooter in JFK's assassination began the minute Ruby shot Oswald the following day. Skepticism about the moon landing was something I never heard until many years later when conspiracy theorists began to conflate the actual 1969 landing with the 1977 film Capricorn One in which the moon landing was faked. No one I know took them seriously. This Clintons as mass murderers nonsense has been a Republican talking point for decades. No one who falls for it has any business calling themselves a Democrat.
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events”