7 ms·

This is the best rendition I've seen so far. The Bill Clinton entity is interesting. > 2009: Bill Clinton discontinued association with Jeffrey Epstein > 201

This is the best rendition I've seen so far. The Bill Clinton entity is interesting. > 2009: Bill Clinton discontinued association with Jeffrey Epstein > 2010: Jeffrey Epstein provided flights on jets to Bill Clinton > 2010-2011: Jeffrey Epstein traveled via private aircraft with Bill Clinton > 2011: Ghislaine Maxwell piloted helicopter for Bill Clinton > 2014: Bill Clinton alleged presence at sex parties > 2015: Bill Clinton distanced relationship from Jeffrey Epstein Wasn't very good at discontinuing the relationship it seems. Guess there is precedent for him lying about sexual activities though. I think a sentiment analysis between the friendliness and social meetups between Epstein and other individuals would be useful. Who were his friends after 2008 when he was first convicted? Those who were still friends with him after 2008 were in on it or guilty by association, if not legally, socially. Friends like Reid Hoffman and Larry Summers... > From: Reid Hoffman > Sent: 7/6/2015 5:04:31 PM > To: jeffrey E. [jeeyacation@gmail.com] > Subject: RE: ICYMI > slow progress. > planning to see you in August. > Hope you're well. Larry Summers has too many to list. Doesn't look good though digging through them.

tinyplanets 10mo ago
[flagged]
- theultdev 10mo ago
  Of course, deflect discussion to Trump. Does that make any of those other people look better to you? Trump gave information against Epstein in 2009 and unlike Bill and others did cut ties after learning he was poaching girls from Mar-a-Lago. I specifically made the point to look into those who were friends with Epstein even after knowing what he was doing. Nice whataboutism though. Feel free to reference source materials to support your claims. Btw are you a bot or is that just a canned statement you use?
  - sanktanglia 10mo ago
    Trump was with Epstein in 2017, he didn't cut ties at all
    - theultdev 10mo ago
      That's a lie that has already been proven false since Trump's entire trip was documented. Love how we have actual evidence against people but discussions always devolve into some conspiracy related to Trump. ---- Based on the available evidence, there is no confirmed meeting between Trump and Epstein in 2017. While both men were in Palm Beach during Thanksgiving week 2017, there is no direct evidence they met. Here's what we know about their presence in Palm Beach that week: - Trump was at Mar-a-Lago from November 21-26, 2017 - Epstein owned a mansion in Palm Beach and was known to be in the area - Epstein mentioned both Trump and himself being "down there" (Palm Beach) in an email exchange on November 23, 2017 While there were claims circulating online that Trump spent Thanksgiving with Epstein in 2017, these claims have been thoroughly investigated and found to be unsubstantiated Trump's official calendar for that week shows his activities included: - Thanking military members on a virtual call - Visiting Coast Guard members at Lake Worth Inlet Station - Playing golf with Tiger Woods and Dustin Johnson
      - culi 10mo ago
        Even if Trump cut off ties with Epstein in 2017, he should clearly be held accountable for his past actions. Here's 2 pretty damning emails: --- Epstein to Maxwell 2011-04-02 > i want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump... [VICTIM] spent hours at my house with him ,, he has never once been mentioned. police chief. etc. im 75% there --- Epstein to Ruemmler 2018-08-23 > you see, i know how dirty donald is. my guess is that non lawyers ny biz people have no idea. what it means to have your fixer flip
        theultdev 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        pohl 10mo ago
        Could you explain how “no confirmed meeting” implies “they never met”?
  - timeon 10mo ago
    > Trump gave information against Epstein in 2009 Pre-2009 records on Trump there are nasty. One example: > ... It was at these series of parties that I personally witnessed the Plaintiff being forced to perform various sexual acts with Donald J. Trump and Mr. Epstein. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein were advised that she was 13 years old. I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the Plaintiff was forced to have with Mr. Trump during this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr. Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas to stop. Only difference between Clinton and Trump is that Trump is still president.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
  - toyg 10mo ago
    Clinton at least has not been in office for 25 years. Trump is still in office. Surely the priority should be to get the bad people out of institutions asap...?
  - hiccuphippo 10mo ago
    Well for one those other people are not the current president of the most powerful country in the world. But sure, lock all of them up, just don't ignore a few because they are too powerful.
    - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
      It’s been wild to see people subsume not defending child rapists to their partisan identity. I’m still convinced it’s a minority of loud voices online and on social media.
      - rayiner 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        ben_w 10mo ago
        You're proving the point here. You don't need to trust the media or care about his views on immigration to know that the guy got 34 felony convictions (for attempting to cover up mere infidelity with a porn star), that he's lost a lawsuit regarding sexual assault claims, and that sexual assault claims against him go back to the 70s and involving at least 28 women and him walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants. Then there's the non-sexual stuff. If you want to say it's "shady" being twice impeached, or hanging his own arrest photo next to the oval office, or the huge number of business lawsuits, or the way he's now able to sue himself and win, or that he's now pardoning convicted co-conspirators etc., that's on you: as the quote goes, democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. The possibility of pee tapes was funny, but did anyone really care if golden shower was a liquid reference or a "24 carat (plated)" like his redecoration of the oval office?
        rayiner 10mo ago
        [flagged]
  - crystal_revenge 10mo ago
    What I don't understand is the pretense of defending Trump at all. I mean, it's clear that even if you watched Trump assault a 13 year old with your own eyes, it wouldn't impact your support for him. Why pretend that there is some moral divide between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump in this when you can just say "I support Donald Trump no matter what, and despite Bill Clinton no matter what"? Personally I've never been shocked that some of the most powerful people in the world like to go to a private sex-island where they could do as they pleased. That's precisely the incentive to becoming so incredibly powerful in the first place: to be able to pursue personal gain with increasingly less consequences.
    - rayiner 10mo ago
      > What I don't understand is the pretense of defending Trump at all. Because every story eventually collapses into a fraction of the original allegation: https://abcnews.go.com/US/virginia-giuffre-trump-jeffrey-epstein/story?id=127468657 https://abcnews.go.com/US/virginia-giuffre-trump-jeffrey-eps...
  - protocolture 10mo ago
    >Of course, deflect discussion to Trump Interesting attempted deflection away from Trump.
- bamboozled 10mo ago
  Seems to get away with it all, meanwhile, we all pay our taxes, don't break any laws and just be "good people".
beepbooptheory 10mo ago
This obviously the correct lens but note that the 2008 plea deal was so neutered by the time of settlement it made it somewhat easy to stay friends with him. This is of course ontop of the 2006 Florida prostitution charge though.
- theultdev 10mo ago
  Especially when Epstein was paying off journalists at the NYT and intimidating other outlets. But point being those people that were friends with him had to know. Whether it was socially acceptable by the elite because the public wasn't aware isn't very relevant.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
octoberfranklin 10mo ago
> Wasn't very good at discontinuing the relationship it seems. Keep in mind that those summaries are AI-generated. There's gonna be a lot of confabulating in there.
- theultdev 10mo ago
  Yes, but the the summaries generated are referenced with sources. Care to dispute the summaries using the sources?
  - godelski 10mo ago
    I read the gp as saying you should just check the sources, not defending. I mean here's a weird example. Searching Donald Trump there's the headline (1994-06 Wexner Mansion NYC) Donald Trump forced to perform oral sex and physically abused 13-year-old female plaintiff and 12-year-old female. Like that sounds weird... DT forced to rape? That doesn't make sense to me. The longer summary reads A declaration from Tiffany Doe (pseudonym) testifying that she witnessed Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump sexually abuse a 13-year-old girl and other minors during parties from 1990-2000 in New York City. It references House Oversight 025937. The actual document looks much more like that summary. Here's a snippet 7. It was at these series of parties that I personally witnessed the Plaintiff being forced to perform various sexual acts with Donald J. Trump and Mr. Epstein. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein were advised that she was 13 years old. It gets worse so if you want to look further it's Case 1:16-cv-04642 Document 1-2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 2. So far the paragraph summaries seem to be accurate in my poking around but the headlines are mixing ordering and have other weird errors like this. Anyways, always good to check when things are as serious as this... Here's the link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11KzAOYCjxwEhnyrsiBpKM8OGBJpA6HQ1/view?usp=drive_link https://drive.google.com/file/d/11KzAOYCjxwEhnyrsiBpKM8OGBJp...
    - rayiner 10mo ago
      Note that this document is from an anonymous lawsuit that was withdrawn and never substantiated or corroborated.
_zagj 10mo ago
> The Bill Clinton entity is interesting. Not really. After Epstein got convicted in 2008, he set about trying to rehabilitate his image, to be seen as a philanthropist, a patron of science, and (perversely) a supporter of women and girls. He hired reputation management consultants to help carry out the project, with one of the models they used being Mike Milken (of Drexel infamy), who ultimately secured a pardon from Trump. A lot of prominent people, knowingly or not, served as "useful idiots" in this project, often due to financial incentives that were not wholly selfish. For example, the MIT and Harvard scientists whose labs and research he funded, and who visited his island for science-themed retreats. Clinton was probably another of Epstein's useful idiots, being lured in through his Clinton Global Initiative and the promise that Epstein, with his ample wealth, could help greatly expand it.
- _zagj 10mo ago
  > For example, the MIT and Harvard scientists whose labs and research he funded, and who visited his island for science-themed retreats. I should add that at least one of them, Marvin Minsky, was accused by name by the late Virginia Giuffre.

tinyplanets 10mo ago

[flagged]

theultdev 10mo ago
Of course, deflect discussion to Trump. Does that make any of those other people look better to you? Trump gave information against Epstein in 2009 and unlike Bill and others did cut ties after learning he was poaching girls from Mar-a-Lago. I specifically made the point to look into those who were friends with Epstein even after knowing what he was doing. Nice whataboutism though. Feel free to reference source materials to support your claims. Btw are you a bot or is that just a canned statement you use?
- sanktanglia 10mo ago
  Trump was with Epstein in 2017, he didn't cut ties at all
  - theultdev 10mo ago
    That's a lie that has already been proven false since Trump's entire trip was documented. Love how we have actual evidence against people but discussions always devolve into some conspiracy related to Trump. ---- Based on the available evidence, there is no confirmed meeting between Trump and Epstein in 2017. While both men were in Palm Beach during Thanksgiving week 2017, there is no direct evidence they met. Here's what we know about their presence in Palm Beach that week: - Trump was at Mar-a-Lago from November 21-26, 2017 - Epstein owned a mansion in Palm Beach and was known to be in the area - Epstein mentioned both Trump and himself being "down there" (Palm Beach) in an email exchange on November 23, 2017 While there were claims circulating online that Trump spent Thanksgiving with Epstein in 2017, these claims have been thoroughly investigated and found to be unsubstantiated Trump's official calendar for that week shows his activities included: - Thanking military members on a virtual call - Visiting Coast Guard members at Lake Worth Inlet Station - Playing golf with Tiger Woods and Dustin Johnson
    - culi 10mo ago
      Even if Trump cut off ties with Epstein in 2017, he should clearly be held accountable for his past actions. Here's 2 pretty damning emails: --- Epstein to Maxwell 2011-04-02 > i want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump... [VICTIM] spent hours at my house with him ,, he has never once been mentioned. police chief. etc. im 75% there --- Epstein to Ruemmler 2018-08-23 > you see, i know how dirty donald is. my guess is that non lawyers ny biz people have no idea. what it means to have your fixer flip
      - theultdev 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        pohl 10mo ago
        Could you explain how “no confirmed meeting” implies “they never met”?
- timeon 10mo ago
  > Trump gave information against Epstein in 2009 Pre-2009 records on Trump there are nasty. One example: > ... It was at these series of parties that I personally witnessed the Plaintiff being forced to perform various sexual acts with Donald J. Trump and Mr. Epstein. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein were advised that she was 13 years old. I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the Plaintiff was forced to have with Mr. Trump during this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr. Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas to stop. Only difference between Clinton and Trump is that Trump is still president.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- toyg 10mo ago
  Clinton at least has not been in office for 25 years. Trump is still in office. Surely the priority should be to get the bad people out of institutions asap...?
- hiccuphippo 10mo ago
  Well for one those other people are not the current president of the most powerful country in the world. But sure, lock all of them up, just don't ignore a few because they are too powerful.
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    It’s been wild to see people subsume not defending child rapists to their partisan identity. I’m still convinced it’s a minority of loud voices online and on social media.
    - rayiner 10mo ago
      [flagged]
      - ben_w 10mo ago
        You're proving the point here. You don't need to trust the media or care about his views on immigration to know that the guy got 34 felony convictions (for attempting to cover up mere infidelity with a porn star), that he's lost a lawsuit regarding sexual assault claims, and that sexual assault claims against him go back to the 70s and involving at least 28 women and him walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants. Then there's the non-sexual stuff. If you want to say it's "shady" being twice impeached, or hanging his own arrest photo next to the oval office, or the huge number of business lawsuits, or the way he's now able to sue himself and win, or that he's now pardoning convicted co-conspirators etc., that's on you: as the quote goes, democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. The possibility of pee tapes was funny, but did anyone really care if golden shower was a liquid reference or a "24 carat (plated)" like his redecoration of the oval office?
        rayiner 10mo ago
        [flagged]
- crystal_revenge 10mo ago
  What I don't understand is the pretense of defending Trump at all. I mean, it's clear that even if you watched Trump assault a 13 year old with your own eyes, it wouldn't impact your support for him. Why pretend that there is some moral divide between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump in this when you can just say "I support Donald Trump no matter what, and despite Bill Clinton no matter what"? Personally I've never been shocked that some of the most powerful people in the world like to go to a private sex-island where they could do as they pleased. That's precisely the incentive to becoming so incredibly powerful in the first place: to be able to pursue personal gain with increasingly less consequences.
  - rayiner 10mo ago
    > What I don't understand is the pretense of defending Trump at all. Because every story eventually collapses into a fraction of the original allegation: https://abcnews.go.com/US/virginia-giuffre-trump-jeffrey-epstein/story?id=127468657 https://abcnews.go.com/US/virginia-giuffre-trump-jeffrey-eps...
- protocolture 10mo ago
  >Of course, deflect discussion to Trump Interesting attempted deflection away from Trump.
bamboozled 10mo ago
Seems to get away with it all, meanwhile, we all pay our taxes, don't break any laws and just be "good people".

beepbooptheory 10mo ago

This obviously the correct lens but note that the 2008 plea deal was so neutered by the time of settlement it made it somewhat easy to stay friends with him. This is of course ontop of the 2006 Florida prostitution charge though.

theultdev 10mo ago
Especially when Epstein was paying off journalists at the NYT and intimidating other outlets. But point being those people that were friends with him had to know. Whether it was socially acceptable by the elite because the public wasn't aware isn't very relevant.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]

octoberfranklin 10mo ago

> Wasn't very good at discontinuing the relationship it seems. Keep in mind that those summaries are AI-generated. There's gonna be a lot of confabulating in there.

theultdev 10mo ago
Yes, but the the summaries generated are referenced with sources. Care to dispute the summaries using the sources?
- godelski 10mo ago
  I read the gp as saying you should just check the sources, not defending. I mean here's a weird example. Searching Donald Trump there's the headline (1994-06 Wexner Mansion NYC) Donald Trump forced to perform oral sex and physically abused 13-year-old female plaintiff and 12-year-old female. Like that sounds weird... DT forced to rape? That doesn't make sense to me. The longer summary reads A declaration from Tiffany Doe (pseudonym) testifying that she witnessed Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump sexually abuse a 13-year-old girl and other minors during parties from 1990-2000 in New York City. It references House Oversight 025937. The actual document looks much more like that summary. Here's a snippet 7. It was at these series of parties that I personally witnessed the Plaintiff being forced to perform various sexual acts with Donald J. Trump and Mr. Epstein. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein were advised that she was 13 years old. It gets worse so if you want to look further it's Case 1:16-cv-04642 Document 1-2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 2. So far the paragraph summaries seem to be accurate in my poking around but the headlines are mixing ordering and have other weird errors like this. Anyways, always good to check when things are as serious as this... Here's the link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11KzAOYCjxwEhnyrsiBpKM8OGBJpA6HQ1/view?usp=drive_link https://drive.google.com/file/d/11KzAOYCjxwEhnyrsiBpKM8OGBJp...
  - rayiner 10mo ago
    Note that this document is from an anonymous lawsuit that was withdrawn and never substantiated or corroborated.

_zagj 10mo ago

> The Bill Clinton entity is interesting. Not really. After Epstein got convicted in 2008, he set about trying to rehabilitate his image, to be seen as a philanthropist, a patron of science, and (perversely) a supporter of women and girls. He hired reputation management consultants to help carry out the project, with one of the models they used being Mike Milken (of Drexel infamy), who ultimately secured a pardon from Trump. A lot of prominent people, knowingly or not, served as "useful idiots" in this project, often due to financial incentives that were not wholly selfish. For example, the MIT and Harvard scientists whose labs and research he funded, and who visited his island for science-themed retreats. Clinton was probably another of Epstein's useful idiots, being lured in through his Clinton Global Initiative and the promise that Epstein, with his ample wealth, could help greatly expand it.

_zagj 10mo ago
> For example, the MIT and Harvard scientists whose labs and research he funded, and who visited his island for science-themed retreats. I should add that at least one of them, Marvin Minsky, was accused by name by the late Virginia Giuffre.