544
How would this be a surprise to anybody? He's already been proven to have numerous ties to Epstein. His base simply doesn't care.
His base simply doesn’t care
Lets face it, we could have a video of trump raping those kids himself and they still would vote for him. Facts are irrelevant to cults, they are immunized against reality
"If Trump is raping kids live on camera, just imagine what the Demonrats are doing they're too scared to film!"
Anyone who watches the video is a pedophile and can't be trusted!
Edit: Not even a joke. The GOP rolls out faultier logic on the daily.
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" -Trump
We all thought he was talking about a gun.
☝🏻
It's because they want to be him. Just like how they all don't want to punish millionaires because they all think they're going to wind up as one someday, they don't want to punish their guys for breaking the law because they want to be able to break the law with impunity someday too.
It's all too easy to imagine the mental gymnastics.
"She was 17/16/whatever, not a real child anyway" "There is no sign in the video that she is not consenting, this is a private matter" "The democrats are sick for obsessing over this"
he's their fantasy vaccine, and they're not giving him up for real ones that actually sting a little
His numbers would actually go up.
His base will worship him more for it. He's essentially a black hole (orange hole?) at this point, his people have passed the event horizon and can't turn back.
his 'base' is jealous af. all they get is 'leftovers' at the family reunion.
It's not a "surprise" not did anyone say it was. It justnt clear before WHICH person in the docs Trump was. Now it is.
John Doe 174 also repeatedly claimed that he was immune from consent requirements and numerous other unrelated matters..
Lmao typical narcissist behaviors.
Am I the only one that feels horrified that there were at least 173 more Does disguised in those documents?
Keep on mind that there were a wide variety of reasons people are on this list. There's no evidence of wrongdoing for the vast majority of them. Some of the people on the list were even victims.
That is a good point! It is still horrifying though.
Of course the victims are different, but as for the people like Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, I am going to judge people by the company they keep. I doubt anyone in his circles were unaware that Epstein was a complete creep, though some of them might have been unaware just how much of a piece of shit he really was.
Not saying Clinton raped children, just saying that I'd be reluctant to shake his hand.
Last time I checked there was no statute of limitation for child sexual assault.
Depends on the jurisdiction and how much the Catholic Church got to the laws. In most states it sadly does have a statute of limitations, with the clock starting either after it happens or after you turn 18.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Actually it's pretty common to have limits. It's why NY passed a law to let anyone make a claim regardless of when it happened by a certain date. It was a catchup law, pretty much, and now the limit is back in place.
I'm surprised that actually worked. Normally the statute of limitations in place when the crime occurs is the one that applies, and extending it later does not let you retroactively prosecute cases barred by the previous statute of limitations. Stogner v California went that way, for example.
So how many kids did he fuck?
How many looked like his daughter?
Seeing a lot of comments here about how there's no way he'll face consequences, and it fucking sucks.
People should be held personally responsible for reprehensible crimes. Anytime someone at any level pleads for people to commit to business as usual, it crashes face first into the fact that business as usual fucking sucks, lawless rich assholes fucking suck, and it fucking sucks that government can't decide where it wants to land in the triangle graph of Corrupt, Inept, and Downright Fucking Evil.
If some sleazy fuck can dodge taxes, ruin lives, destroy businesses, possibly allegedly rape children, and yet still BECOME PRESIDENT, and continue to defy all consequence, then it's pretty easy to see why people wind up accelerationists.
We've got to enforce some kind of legal, ethical, moral, logical code on people, including and especially politicians, or else people are going to conclude that our high minded ideas about democracy and mutual respect and dignity are just a bunch of pissing into the wind, and they will be right.
I appreciate the gusto, but I find rally posts like this to be extremely irritating.
Do you really think the people who are saying he'll just get away with it all don't think all of these things? Do you think people dropped their morals on the issue and now think "this is fine" because it's the status quo?
Pray tell -- what can I do, today, as a drop in the fucking ocean, to ensure this specific white collar criminal gets summarily apprehended, convicted, and meaningfully punished for his crimes on a reasonable timescale? What reasonable, concrete action am I supposed to take that will do a damn thing about it that I'm not already doing by dutifully casting my ballots and boycotting support for people and causes I don't believe in at every opportunity?
I am convinced there is no such action. The dominos that matter in this specific case were already set long ago. All we can do at this point is make logical predictions about how they will fall. And from my point of view, "Donald Trump will not be meaningfully punished" is looking inevitable. I have no faith in the current stacking of the judicial system to declare an outcome I'd be content with. I and others like me are not happy about it. But we aren't deluding ourselves either. The train for proles like us doing anything about this now is long gone.
Now, I don't think it's hopeless on the grand scale. We can and should work to claw progress on the general form of this issue over time. There's lots we can still do about that. Activism, protesting, dragging people to polls, etc. But that will likely be a "plant a tree whose shade you will never sit in" kind of thing.
Regarding this specific man today, I think we are powerless to meaningfully affect the trajectories of these cases. Anything short of rioting in the streets, casting aside legal process, and marching on the courthouse demanding his head on a pike (in other words, stooping to the level of Jan 6th insurrectionists) is too slow and/or only theoretical. And I am very tired of cheerleaders trying to tell me otherwise when they offer no substantive plan of action.
load more comments
(1 replies)
In the end it wont matter because none of them will ever face charges. Just like the bankers that crashed our economy in 2008, all that money hidden away in Panama, etc. The laws that apply to the working class do not apply to the wealthy
I'm actually surprised he isn't listed as John Barron
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The documents identify about 170 people whose names have come up in a legal battle between Virginia Giuffre, one of his accusers, and Ghislaine Maxwell, his former girlfriend who in 2021 was convicted of trafficking girls to him for sex.
"This individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet his or her burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity," Preska wrote of Doe 36.
Two of the unsealed documents the judge said named Doe 174 are from a deposition of Johanna Sjoberg, who has accused Epstein of rape and Prince Andrew of groping her (the British royal has denied the claims).
"Mr. Epstein's name has been widely linked in the press with prominent individuals such as Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew," his attorneys wrote in a motion arguing that he should not be forced to testify in front of a jury, later adding: "His personal appearance at the trial of this case would predictably be the focus of massive media attention, of both the mainstream and gutter variety."
One unsealed document from a lawyer representing Dershowitz seeks to discredit one of his accusers, Sarah Ransome, by saying she has made unproven claims about possessing video footage of powerful people having sex with girls in Epstein's homes.
In her book "Silenced No More: Surviving My Journey to Hell and Back," she said she told the false story as a sort of insurance policy, though she maintained that "Jeffrey kept a trove of surveillance on every person who had ever visited his properties."
The original article contains 1,119 words, the summary contains 262 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Pretty sure publishing the actual names of everyone will have amazing to watch consequences.
I can't see a good reason or even a good argument why any person should have their name hidden for any reason at all. Let them all face public scrutiny. Let's see what kind of stories they come up with as excuses.
Publish the names, cowards. There is no good reason not to, change my mind.
What I wanna know is... Why the fuck was Stephen Hawking there? Even if you wanna tell me he was a massive perv the whole time, dude was the poster-child for mind over matter, what the fuck was he gonna use? The joystick on his wheelchair?
Oh no, oh no, oh no no no no no
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
544 points (96.9% liked)
politics
19148 readers
2201 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS