Petraeus Condemns Church's Plan to Burn Quarans

[Brian Peacock]

Meh. Trump was a long time friend of Epstein until they fell out. Now tell me why you're so keen to make excuses for him but not others? If you want to use Epstein's reputation as a weapon to delegitimise people, why do you slip the safety on when Trump's in the firing line?

I didn't, just pointed out that he (unlike everyone else implicated) stopped supporting him, and even worked against him. I think it was his greed/competition with him over real estate, but boy is everyone else pretty happy with it.

Just think - banks refuse to do business with people who say contraversial or offensive things, but aren't slightly bothered by decades of Epstein and Maxwell, or currently with Belanciaga.

They really missed a chance to signal their virtue about child sex trafficking. Don't remember who (besides Trump) ever dared to. Eric Weinstein almost did (related his experiences with Epstein in a podcast) but I don't remember too many others.

Must be that offensive words are more significant than international rape rings.

Meh. So Trump stopped supporting Epstein at some point - but we know what Epstein was all about now, don't we? We know what it meant to be 'a friend of Epstein' through the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, and we know what he did for his 'friends'. We all know the stories about the jet and the island and the Manhattan parties, and we know Trump was part of that scene for quite a while. It doesn't really matter if and when Trump fell out with Epstein does it? So I'm asking you why use Epstein's reputation to delegitimise others, to imply guilt or moral culpability by association, while being somewhat eager to give Trump a free pass? Surely everyone closely associated with Epstein during whatever period, for however long, is suspect, given what we now know about the nature of his associations with his rich, powerful and famous 'friends'? Eh?

I'm not giving Trump a pass, though he did more to acknowledge what happened than others.

What did he acknowledge and how was it more than what other's acknowledged?

It's funny Trump is the only celebrity you will condemn for his Epstein connection. It's easy to do if you already didn't like or trust him.

What's funny is your presumption. I posted two pics of Trump at a party hosted by Epstein. One of them piccies had Prince Andrew in the frame. I posted that because if you are going to imply &/or apply guilt by association then Trump must fall within that set of guilty parties, no?

What do you think of Gates staying friends with him beyond the convictions? Allowing his marriage to crumble over it?

Is he now a trustworthy philanthropist? Or a sketchy guy who was into child sex trafficking circles?

You're changing the subject, but as you've brought this to conversation - what do you think of Gates? You can probably guess what I think of Gates from the kind of stuff I posted for many, many years here. Again, if Gates is guilty by association why are you working so hard to discount Trump from your moral ledger?

[Cunt]

I'm not discounting Trump, as I said previously. Telling me what I think sounds like you are misunderstanding me. I expect it though.

What did he acknowledge? Well, when he kicked Epstein out of Mar-A-Lago...
https://nypost.com/2019/07/09/trump-bar ... ourt-docs/

Jeffrey Epstein turned Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago into another of his hunting grounds for young girls, leading Trump to bar him from the Florida resort, court papers claim.

“Trump allegedly banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein sexually assaulted a girl at the club,” according to the papers, filed in the Sunshine State as part of an ongoing legal battle between Epstein and Bradley Edwards, who represented many of Epstein’s underage accusers in civil suits against him.

Still don't discount Trump, and would be happy if they published the list of all the customers of Maxwell and Epstein. Except maybe they only trafficked kids to each other...

Are you claiming that any specific person is or was a customer for sexual services provided by Epstein?

No, the convictions do.

What are their names and what evidence do you have that they were customers?

The conviction for sex trafficking, this last one with a VERY limited number of victims, implies customers.

Epstein plead guilty to one count each of violating Florida State Statutes 796.03 and 796.07, neither of which implies anyone besides Epstein paid any minors for sex. So, no, you have your facts wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html
His partner in crime...

The jury found Maxwell guilty on five of six counts, including conspiracy to commit sex trafficking and sex trafficking of an individual under 18.

So who were they trafficking kids to? Just each other?

Nice theory.

I'm not the one with the theory here. None of the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell directly implicate anyone but Epstein and herself unless you can demonstrate otherwise. Got any evidence for your theory?

Bill Gates' skills and knowledge of the subject are not of the relevant kind. Whataboutism much?

I meant that his wife was skilled and knowledgable. About her marriage, and how she felt about her husband and Epsteins friendship.

Since criminal justice is the relevant domain, Gates' wife's skills as his wife aren't any more relevant.

Why is it not relevant that she said she left him because of his friendship with Epstein?

And what IS that rascal up to now? Hopefully not working with kids or anything. At least I wouldn't hire him for that.

It's not relevant because your claim was that the FBI ignored evidence implicating other customers.

And yours seems to be that there is no customer other than those two. I get it.

We probably disagree on that, and if you want to insist on evidence, I'll have to suggest you inquire with Prince Andrew. He wouldn't answer the FBI though, so he might also decline your interview.

If Bill was a customer and Melinda witnessed it, she hasn't said so. Her leaving Bill over his friendship with Epstein is thus not probative of the claims you have made about the existence of other perpetrators of sex crimes or any law enforcement negligence.

She said she left him, and that was one of the reasons.

I gather you don't think there is any further evidence that the FBI were sleazy about this. I do. You can demand evidence that I think so, but you wouldn't be satisfied with anything I would say. If you were interested in the cases, there is lots out there. One lesser-known piece is a personal account of someone who briefly worked with Epstein. Guy named Eric Weinstein, put it on a podcast. (I think it was called the portal)

Go enjoy your theory. I'm going to get back to that Ayaan Hirsi Ali piece. It seems more interesting than the FBI's solid success investigating this billionaire sex trafficking ring. All two of them busted! Great job, FBI!

[pErvinalia]

...

[Cunt]

He is said to have kicked him out of Mar-A-Lago for creeping on young chicks.

That doesn't excuse much though, since he could have done a wee bit more from his later role as president.

[rasetsu]

I'm not discounting Trump, as I said previously. Telling me what I think sounds like you are misunderstanding me. I expect it though.

What did he acknowledge? Well, when he kicked Epstein out of Mar-A-Lago...
https://nypost.com/2019/07/09/trump-bar ... ourt-docs/

Jeffrey Epstein turned Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago into another of his hunting grounds for young girls, leading Trump to bar him from the Florida resort, court papers claim.

“Trump allegedly banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein sexually assaulted a girl at the club,” according to the papers, filed in the Sunshine State as part of an ongoing legal battle between Epstein and Bradley Edwards, who represented many of Epstein’s underage accusers in civil suits against him.

Still don't discount Trump, and would be happy if they published the list of all the customers of Maxwell and Epstein. Except maybe they only trafficked kids to each other...

No, the convictions do.

The conviction for sex trafficking, this last one with a VERY limited number of victims, implies customers.

Epstein plead guilty to one count each of violating Florida State Statutes 796.03 and 796.07, neither of which implies anyone besides Epstein paid any minors for sex. So, no, you have your facts wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html
His partner in crime...

The jury found Maxwell guilty on five of six counts, including conspiracy to commit sex trafficking and sex trafficking of an individual under 18.

So who were they trafficking kids to? Just each other?

Nice theory.

I'm not the one with the theory here. None of the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell directly implicate anyone but Epstein and herself unless you can demonstrate otherwise. Got any evidence for your theory?

I meant that his wife was skilled and knowledgable. About her marriage, and how she felt about her husband and Epsteins friendship.

Since criminal justice is the relevant domain, Gates' wife's skills as his wife aren't any more relevant.

Why is it not relevant that she said she left him because of his friendship with Epstein?

And what IS that rascal up to now? Hopefully not working with kids or anything. At least I wouldn't hire him for that.

It's not relevant because your claim was that the FBI ignored evidence implicating other customers.

And yours seems to be that there is no customer other than those two. I get it.

We probably disagree on that, and if you want to insist on evidence, I'll have to suggest you inquire with Prince Andrew. He wouldn't answer the FBI though, so he might also decline your interview.

Nowhere have I implied any such thing. Stop making up shit and provide evidence for your theory. Or don't.

If Bill was a customer and Melinda witnessed it, she hasn't said so. Her leaving Bill over his friendship with Epstein is thus not probative of the claims you have made about the existence of other perpetrators of sex crimes or any law enforcement negligence.

She said she left him, and that was one of the reasons.

I gather you don't think there is any further evidence that the FBI were sleazy about this. I do. You can demand evidence that I think so, but you wouldn't be satisfied with anything I would say. If you were interested in the cases, there is lots out there. One lesser-known piece is a personal account of someone who briefly worked with Epstein. Guy named Eric Weinstein, put it on a podcast. (I think it was called the portal)

I never implied this either. Do you do anything but JAQ off and attack straw men? Regardless, claims without evidence can be dismissed for any reason. The choice of supporting your claims or not is yours.

[Cunt]

I'm not discounting Trump, as I said previously. Telling me what I think sounds like you are misunderstanding me. I expect it though.

What did he acknowledge? Well, when he kicked Epstein out of Mar-A-Lago...
https://nypost.com/2019/07/09/trump-bar ... ourt-docs/

Jeffrey Epstein turned Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago into another of his hunting grounds for young girls, leading Trump to bar him from the Florida resort, court papers claim.

“Trump allegedly banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein sexually assaulted a girl at the club,” according to the papers, filed in the Sunshine State as part of an ongoing legal battle between Epstein and Bradley Edwards, who represented many of Epstein’s underage accusers in civil suits against him.

Still don't discount Trump, and would be happy if they published the list of all the customers of Maxwell and Epstein. Except maybe they only trafficked kids to each other...

Epstein plead guilty to one count each of violating Florida State Statutes 796.03 and 796.07, neither of which implies anyone besides Epstein paid any minors for sex. So, no, you have your facts wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html
His partner in crime...

The jury found Maxwell guilty on five of six counts, including conspiracy to commit sex trafficking and sex trafficking of an individual under 18.

So who were they trafficking kids to? Just each other?

Nice theory.

I'm not the one with the theory here. None of the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell directly implicate anyone but Epstein and herself unless you can demonstrate otherwise. Got any evidence for your theory?

Since criminal justice is the relevant domain, Gates' wife's skills as his wife aren't any more relevant.

Why is it not relevant that she said she left him because of his friendship with Epstein?

And what IS that rascal up to now? Hopefully not working with kids or anything. At least I wouldn't hire him for that.

It's not relevant because your claim was that the FBI ignored evidence implicating other customers.

And yours seems to be that there is no customer other than those two. I get it.

We probably disagree on that, and if you want to insist on evidence, I'll have to suggest you inquire with Prince Andrew. He wouldn't answer the FBI though, so he might also decline your interview.

Nowhere have I implied any such thing. Stop making up shit and provide evidence for your theory. Or don't.

I said 'yours seems to be'.

I don't even know what your opinion is, or why you think it's worth interrogating mine.

If Bill was a customer and Melinda witnessed it, she hasn't said so. Her leaving Bill over his friendship with Epstein is thus not probative of the claims you have made about the existence of other perpetrators of sex crimes or any law enforcement negligence.

She said she left him, and that was one of the reasons.

I gather you don't think there is any further evidence that the FBI were sleazy about this. I do. You can demand evidence that I think so, but you wouldn't be satisfied with anything I would say. If you were interested in the cases, there is lots out there. One lesser-known piece is a personal account of someone who briefly worked with Epstein. Guy named Eric Weinstein, put it on a podcast. (I think it was called the portal)

I never implied this either. Do you do anything but JAQ off and attack straw men? Regardless, claims without evidence can be dismissed for any reason. The choice of supporting your claims or not is yours.

Again, I have no idea what you think, but am less and less interested in your notes. Feel free to start again, but I don't even know what you think I need to provide evidence for...

My opinion? It's built out of following the story for a few years. If your opinion differs, fine. I honestly don't even know what it is you think of this. Maybe start there. Or go back to the thread topic (whatever THAT was)

[rasetsu]

Again, I have no idea what you think, but am less and less interested in your notes. Feel free to start again, but I don't even know what you think I need to provide evidence for...

It's not my fault that you can't follow a conversation. You were asked if you had evidence of the involvement of specific persons who were customers of Epstein's conspiracy of sex trafficking. You claimed the convictions were. I pointed out that the convictions only implicate Epstein and Maxwell. So, you need to provide evidence that other persons besides them were involved with Epstein and Maxwell in sex trafficking, because Epstein and Maxwell's involvement isn't in question and doesn't substantiate your talk about the involvement of persons such as Prince Andrew.

And if you have no idea what I think, maybe next time instead of attempting to read my mind and impute to me views that I don't hold, just ask. You can do that, right?

[Cunt]

Again, I have no idea what you think, but am less and less interested in your notes. Feel free to start again, but I don't even know what you think I need to provide evidence for...

It's not my fault that you can't follow a conversation. You were asked if you had evidence of the involvement of specific persons who were customers of Epstein's conspiracy of sex trafficking. You claimed the convictions were. I pointed out that the convictions only implicate Epstein and Maxwell. So, you need to provide evidence that other persons besides them were involved with Epstein and Maxwell in sex trafficking, because Epstein and Maxwell's involvement isn't in question and doesn't substantiate your talk about the involvement of persons such as Prince Andrew.

And if you have no idea what I think, maybe next time instead of attempting to read my mind and impute to me views that I don't hold, just ask. You can do that, right?

I will as soon as I am interested, rest assured.

For now, I'm going to go on thinking that since Prince Andrew is involved. For normal citizens, I would probably use the old 'innocent until proven guilty', but with those who are clearly above the law - fuck em.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 58934.html

A lawyer representing Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged victims has called it “outrageous” that Prince Andrew has still not cooperated with US authorities, one year after he promised to do so, calling on him to “do the right thing".

On the first anniversary of the Queen’s second son withdrawing from public duties,

His own mother condemned him by removing his royal duties. Now that she's dead, she can't be asked if she condemned him for being part of a child-trafficking ring, or some other coincidence.

I know it's a bit of a leap, but I'm not going to assume he's innocent. He might also be a victim, but I can't bring myself to care as much about that aspect.

[rasetsu]

Again, I have no idea what you think, but am less and less interested in your notes. Feel free to start again, but I don't even know what you think I need to provide evidence for...

It's not my fault that you can't follow a conversation. You were asked if you had evidence of the involvement of specific persons who were customers of Epstein's conspiracy of sex trafficking. You claimed the convictions were. I pointed out that the convictions only implicate Epstein and Maxwell. So, you need to provide evidence that other persons besides them were involved with Epstein and Maxwell in sex trafficking, because Epstein and Maxwell's involvement isn't in question and doesn't substantiate your talk about the involvement of persons such as Prince Andrew.

And if you have no idea what I think, maybe next time instead of attempting to read my mind and impute to me views that I don't hold, just ask. You can do that, right?

I will as soon as I am interested, rest assured.

For now, I'm going to go on thinking that since Prince Andrew is involved. For normal citizens, I would probably use the old 'innocent until proven guilty', but with those who are clearly above the law - fuck em.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 58934.html

A lawyer representing Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged victims has called it “outrageous” that Prince Andrew has still not cooperated with US authorities, one year after he promised to do so, calling on him to “do the right thing".

On the first anniversary of the Queen’s second son withdrawing from public duties,

His own mother condemned him by removing his royal duties. Now that she's dead, she can't be asked if she condemned him for being part of a child-trafficking ring, or some other coincidence.

I know it's a bit of a leap, but I'm not going to assume he's innocent. He might also be a victim, but I can't bring myself to care as much about that aspect.

And you wonder why I respond to your posts with jerkoff emojis. It's because that's what you're doing.

For what it's worth, nobody gives a shit what you believe about Andrew or others without evidence.

[Cunt]

And you wonder why I respond to your posts with jerkoff emojis. It's because that's what you're doing.

For what it's worth, nobody gives a shit what you believe about Andrew or others without evidence.

I believe he is an evasive, lying scumbag who is dodging questions from authorities about his activities with convicted child traffickers.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... stein.html

in 2010 when photos emerged of them together in New York.

By that time, Epstein was a registered sex offender but the duke spent a weekend at his £57 million ($72 million) mansion.

...


Andrew has categorically denied having any knowledge that Epstein was sexually abusing teenage girls.

Maybe I just don't understand what 'categorically' means, but hanging with a registered sex offender, then deny knowledge that he was abusing teenage girls...well, it doesn't sound exactly complicated. Of course, without any justice system being able to reveal the facts, he remains as 'innocent' as ever. As innocent as he was when he claimed he didn't know Epstein was abusing kids. (he must have forgotten to check the sex offender registry)

What's your theory again? Actually, nevermind. I think I understand your only theory about this is Only related to how I must be wrong.

I'll continue to think those customer-victims are being protected by the justice system. You continue to demand evidence, or call me names because you disagree about...the available evidence.

I think the coverup by Disney/ABC uncovered by Project Veritas, would show you just how coordinated the support for secrecy is, but it could be that you haven't bothered to look over that particular bit of evidence. Understandable, since those same media teams do everything they can to discredit PV, and that story. No matter how obvious it looks.

[rasetsu]

What's your theory again? Actually, nevermind. I think I understand your only theory about this is Only related to how I must be wrong.

No, wrong again. It has nothing to do with whether you are wrong or right, but whether you are justified in your conclusions. You haven't shown that you are, and when asked to justify your conclusions, you say you aren't interested in doing so. What response do you expect from a rational person other than for them to tell you to take your conclusions which you won't justify and shove them up your bunghole?

[Brian Peacock]

... I will as soon as I am interested, rest assured.

Hmmm.

[rasetsu]

... I will as soon as I am interested, rest assured.

Hmmm.

Apparently, his interest wanes immediately following his initial utterance.

[pErvinalia]

This is his track record.

[Cunt]

I know there isn't sufficient evidence to convince some random person on the internet, but there is plenty for me to decide there were customers who are still under the protection of whoever chose to seal the documents/redact the files.

If you don't have enough evidence, that's fine, I can share some of what I have found. Trouble is, I can't know what you don't know.

Do you think Epstein really McAfee'd himself? Or did he get Clintoned?