Jeffrey Epstein Arrest

[jj22]

The coverup is on.

https://www.newsandguts.com/attorney-general-william-barr-refuses-to-recuse-himself-in-jeffrey-epstein-case/

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-10-2019, 04:24 PM)jj22 Wrote: The coverup is on.

https://www.newsandguts.com/attorney-general-william-barr-refuses-to-recuse-himself-in-jeffrey-epstein-case/

Why would Barr recuse himself?

[Vas Deferens]

(07-10-2019, 05:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why would Barr recuse himself?

b/c it was an afront to justice and he has ties to a firm that played a role in all of it.

i thought you were concerned that it wasn't just acosta?  never got an answer about who exactly you think directed the cover up, but wouldn't you at least want to have any investigation not tarnished yet again?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-10-2019, 05:52 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: b/c it was an afront to justice and he has ties to a firm that played a role in all of it.

The first point, while true, is not germane to my question.  To the second, he was an attorney in a firm that defended Epstein or he personally defended Epstein or what?

Quote:i thought you were concerned that it wasn't just acosta? 

Concerned?  I pointed out it could not have just been Acosta, that's not concern, that's a statement of fact.

Quote:never got an answer about who exactly you think directed the cover up,

If you had read my responses you would have.  I flat out stated it likely went all the way to the AG at the time.

Quote:but wouldn't you at least want to have any investigation not tarnished yet again?

Absolutely.  Given the heightened level of interest I don't think that's very likely, if possible at all.  In any event, it is also demonstrable fact that Barr wasn't the AG at that time nor was he working in the DOJ.  Still, I'll wait for more information as to why Barr should recuse himself before forming an opinion.

[Vas Deferens]

(07-10-2019, 05:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The first point, while true, is not germane to my question.    To the second, he was an attorney in a firm that defended Epstein or he personally defended Epstein or what?

He subsequently worked for / with the firm that defended Epstein.  Certainly seems like a financial link to that firm alone would be cause for concern to the AG's objectiveness.  He even said so himself in his confirmation hearing, claiming he would need to recuse himself from this specific case.  But, whatever.  Just words.  Its whats in his heart that counts or something.

Now, were learning that billy 'redactasaurus' barr's father once hired epstein to teach at a HIGH SCHOOL he ran... 

Quote:Concerned?  I pointed out it could not have just been Acosta, that's not concern, that's a statement of fact.

Ok.  Chalk that one up to misinterpretation on my part.  Sincerest apologies.  In the absence of concern then, what is your stance on 'higher forces' (the AG as I believe you're stating) directing acosta towards a wrist slap instead of full justice?

Quote:If you had read my responses you would have.  I flat out stated it likely went all the way to the AG at the time.

Maybe thats the problem.  I'm just not reading.  This must be one of those 'put a million monkeys in front of typewriters and they'll eventually write shakespeare' situations.

So, to be clear then, you are saying that gonzalez played a role in shaping this plea deal.  I just fail to see what gonzo's motivations were regarding clinton and why acosta would have presented his baboon ass rather than pursuing justice was his directive by the american people.  Your honest opinion here may clear this up for me.  Its really all conjecture b/c we don't know, but im completely failing to see the link.

Quote:Absolutely.  Given the heightened level of interest I don't think that's very likely, if possible at all.  In any event, it is also demonstrable fact that Barr wasn't the AG at that time nor was he working in the DOJ.  Still, I'll wait for more information as to why Barr should recuse himself before forming an opinion.

Looks like this just comes down to you not thinking a direct link between multiple parties is sufficient rationale for recusal.  I believe it is.  

Add to that the tarnished perception of barr in the american public and we have a nice broth for stewed mistrust.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-11-2019, 10:37 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: He subsequently worked for / with the firm that defended Epstein.  Certainly seems like a financial link to that firm alone would be cause for concern to the AG's objectiveness.  He even said so himself in his confirmation hearing, claiming he would need to recuse himself from this specific case.  But, whatever.  Just words.  Its whats in his heart that counts or something.

Now, were learning that billy 'redactasaurus' barr's father once hired epstein to teach at a HIGH SCHOOL he ran...

If he said he should recuse himself then he should. 

Quote:Ok.  Chalk that one up to misinterpretation on my part.  Sincerest apologies.  In the absence of concern then, what is your stance on 'higher forces' (the AG as I believe you're stating) directing acosta towards a wrist slap instead of full justice?

Exactly what everyone else thinks, that this case will enmesh some very high up people in this country, possibly a former POTUS.  As for the "concern"  Of course I'd be concerned about this case, I was simply responding to the direct instance of the word's use.

Quote:Maybe thats the problem.  I'm just not reading.  This must be one of those 'put a million monkeys in front of typewriters and they'll eventually write shakespeare' situations.

So, to be clear then, you are saying that gonzalez played a role in shaping this plea deal.  I just fail to see what gonzo's motivations were regarding clinton and why acosta would have presented his baboon ass rather than pursuing justice was his directive by the american people.  Your honest opinion here may clear this up for me.  Its really all conjecture b/c we don't know, but im completely failing to see the link.

Because it's almost assuredly not just Bill that's going to get kneecapped here.  Plus, these people are all enmeshed at those high levels of power.

Quote:Looks like this just comes down to you not thinking a direct link between multiple parties is sufficient rationale for recusal.  I believe it is.  

Add to that the tarnished perception of barr in the american public and we have a nice broth for stewed mistrust.  

As I said above, given this new information (new to me anyways) I would agree that Barr needs to recuse himself.

[GMDino]

is the NYPD fine with all those convicted of crimes never checking in with them or is it just the white billionaire pedophiles who get a pass https://t.co/Xti9xR6RsE

— darth (@darth) July 11, 2019

 


Money and power buying privilege for the precious few that can afford it is no surprise.  Maybe *this* time we can start to see that change?


Probably not but one can hope.

[jj22]

Nothing seems to upset Trump supporters unless you replace his and his administrations name with Obama or Hillary, and then you'll see the outrage.

Until then, you'll see them find excuses for the coverups and corruption.

We've seen them turn on their country which should have been shocking enough, but now they can't even seem to speak ill of child molesters/trafficking and rapist.

We really got set back as a society under Trump.

[BakertheBeast]

"Exactly what everyone else thinks, that this case will enmesh some very high up people in this country, possibly a former POTUS.  As for the "concern"  Of course I'd be concerned about this case, I was simply responding to the direct instance of the word's use".

This is possible. What is even more possible is the current POTUS. Who would you think was more in bed with Epstein and did some of things that he did; The POTUS who is on record saying that Epstein "likes them young" and has been photograph with him numerous times or the POTUS tat had no contact (supposdlly) with Epstein and no photographs of the two together exit?


Origin

In July 2019, registered sex offender and hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on charges relating to the sex trafficking of minors. In addition to the severity of the alleged crimes, Epstein’s arrest made headlines due to his connections to well-known public figures and politicians, including President Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton.
The news of Epstein’s arrest sent political partisans into overdrive as they attempted to show that politicians on their side were less involved with Epstein than politicians on the other side. So when images of President Trump with Epstein were published by news outlets and circulated on social media, his defenders were upset not to see similar images of Bill Clinton with Epstein being given equal prominence. This led to a rumor that Google was “scrubbing,” “removing,” or “deindexing” images of Clinton and Epstein together from search results as part of a cover-up to protect the Clintons.
Twitter users Paul Sperry, Jack Murphy, and BNL News all claimed, without evidence, that images of Epstein and Clinton together had been removed from Google’s search results, and their tweets were collectively shared thousands of times over:

These claims are without merit. These tweets provided no evidence that images of Clinton with Epstein could be found on Google prior to the latter’s arrest in July 2019, nor any proof that Google had removed these alleged images from their search results in the aftermath of Epstein’s incarceration. In fact, they provided no evidence that photographs of Clinton with Epstein even existed at all.

Twitter user Robert Barnes inflated this rumor by claiming that while Google wouldn’t show photographs of Epstein and Clinton together, such images were findable using other search engines, such as DuckDuckGo:

This simply wasn’t the case.

We searched for images of Clinton together with Epstein on Google, Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo, and Yandex. The results for all five of these search engines were similar, with none of them turning up a genuine photograph of Epstein together with Clinton:
Google: 

Photographs of Epstein with Clinton were not scrubbed from Google’s search results, because images of Clinton with Epstein don’t seem to exist. Or if they do, they haven’t ever been widely disseminated online.

We also checked right-leaning websites such as Breitbart, the National Review, and the Daily Caller to see if they had published any pictures of this pair together, but yet again we came up empty-handed. In fact, the only image of Clinton with Epstein we managed to find was a manipulated image based on a photograph that originally showed Donald Trump with Epstein:

[Vas Deferens]

(07-11-2019, 10:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I said above, given this new information (new to me anyways) I would agree that Barr needs to recuse himself.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4774004/sen-sasse-questions-william-barr-epstein-case

[Goalpost]

Acosta will step down.

[GMDino]

(07-12-2019, 10:54 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Acosta will step down.

Never should have been in that position in the first place...but Trump only hires "the best people" I guess. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-12-2019, 11:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: Never should have been in that position in the first place.

Why?

[*bfine32*]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/alex-acosta-resigns-as-labor-secretary-amid-intense-scrutiny-of-his-handling-of-jeffrey-epstein-case/ar-AAEeu4Y

[GMDino]

(07-12-2019, 11:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why?

For the same reason he stepped down.

Either he's dirty or he's spineless when it comes to letting Epstein off with essentially no punishment.

Flip a coin.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-12-2019, 11:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: For the same reason he stepped down.

Trump asked him to?

Quote:Either he's dirty or he's spineless when it comes to letting Epstein off with essentially no punishment.

Flip a coin.

He can't be dirty unless everyone above him who signed off on the deal is dirty as well and Acosta knew that.  As for spineless, this is more likely, but as I said in another thread, it's hard to judge someone for not making a career ending stand when you've never been in that situation yourself.  I'm sure everyone would like to think they'd end their career to take a morally just stand, I highly doubt everyone would actually do it.

[GMDino]

(07-12-2019, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Trump asked him to?


He can't be dirty unless everyone above him who signed off on the deal is dirty as well and Acosta knew that.  As for spineless, this is more likely, but as I said in another thread, it's hard to judge someone for not making a career ending stand when you've never been in that situation yourself.  I'm sure everyone would like to think they'd end their career to take a morally just stand, I highly doubt everyone would actually do it.

Oh, it's easy to "judge" him as spineless if one isn't afraid of their own morals.

Is his career over anyway now?

Will he start telling us who the "higher ups" are that forced him to take a bad deal?  Maybe he'll grow a set or develop some ethics and morals not that he's out of a job?



I want more people to do the right thing and get called out if they don't.  Sorry.

[GMDino]

TRUMP on ALEX ACOSTA: "He made a deal [w/Epstein] that people are happy with, and then 12 years later, they are not happy with it. You'll have to figure all of that out. But the fact is he has been a fantastic secretary of labor ... this is him not me, because I am with him." pic.twitter.com/CIJvuFMLp0

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 12, 2019

 

[CJD]

Cabinet positions and who occupies them was a relatively pedestrian affair that many people did not pay much attention to in the past. For that reason, I'm not sure how common it is for people who hold these cabinet positions to resign or be replaced within 1 Presidential term.

Obviously, with the amount of scandal in this administration, it has now become almost nightly news.

Is the amount of turnover in Trump's cabinet a relatively normal amount, historically? If not, is it anywhere close to normal? Or is it unprecedented?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-12-2019, 02:19 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Is the amount of turnover in Trump's cabinet a relatively normal amount, historically? If not, is it anywhere close to normal? Or is it unprecedented?

It's highly unusual and definitely without recent historical precedent.  It's also definitely an indicator of Trump's chaotic and mercurial style of leadership.  I could potentially assume you already knew this and are fishing here, but I'm not quite that cynical.