Invite ye felawes and frendes desirous in gold to enter the gates of Shrewd'm, for they will thanke ye later.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 7
The heck with the files. Why is everyone- the media and both political parties, ignoring the women who were victims?
The answers they all seek are in the women’s testimony and many of them want to testify.
Why don’t they call them to testify in an open hearing?
The answers are there.
Why don’t they want the answers?
And with the answers- accountability?
No. of Recommendations: 1
Why don’t they call them to testify in an open hearing?
Just a guess, but confidentiality. They can't just call them to testify. They can encourage them to do so. They were minors at the time, so I believe different rules exist.
But I agree with the concept. Get as many of the women to speak out as you can, and give them a microphone to do so. It would be dynamite if one or more named the Felon specifically. You would then get into he said / she said, without further proof.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The heck with the files. Why is everyone- the media and both political parties, ignoring the women who were victims?
Remember what the goldfish said? "There must be a God. Who changes the water?"
Those women could have been treated the way a lot of "JCs" treat Proles: as expendable meat. They may not know anything.
Consider some other possibilities:
-Virginia Giuffre spilled the beans, to make millions off her book deal (the exact amount has not been publicly disclosed other than being "in the millions"). She wound up dead. The other women may want to keep their mouths shut, so they don't end up like Giuffre.
-there may be criminal investigations ongoing, and the women spilling the beans, and the media yapping about what they said, ad nauseam, may bias potential jurors.
-Epstein could, indeed, have been running a honey pot, for the mob, or a foreign intelligence operation, like Mossad or the FSB. Their spilling the beans may have severe national security implications.
-The narrative about the women being "victims" may be a media creation, because "victim women" narratives make money. They could have been willing participants, for the money and luxury lifestyle. If they spill the beans now, that they could have walked away at any time, but stayed as long as they did, for the MONEY, would ruin the media's gravy train.
We will probably never, *really* know what happened.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
Steve, I'll tell you exactly what is going on:
1. The attorney(s) for these women want the files disclosed to identify potential lawsuit targets. Even if what's in there is total innuendo and hearsay, that doesn't matter. It might be enough to conjure up a civil conspiracy lawsuit against a bunch of wealthy people. Maybe even a civil RICO type lawsuit. They don't need to actually win a trial, they just need to be able to file a lawsuit that survives an initial motion to dismiss and get into the discovery phase. Then even if the targets didn't do anything really actionable the case may have a lot of settlement value just due to the further bad publicity exposure. Look what just happened to Larry Summers and he wasn't even sued. He just asked Epstein for dating advice and he's totally cancelled now.
2. The politicians who are in favor of this want the same as they think they can make political hay out of it in some way. They all had to vote in favor except the one principled lone dissenter Clay Harris, because they're politicians and they don't want to stand up to a tidal wave. It's easier than doing the right thing which would have been to vote against this ridiculous travesty of justice.
3. The key to understanding this strategy is recognizing that Congress can't be sued for defamation nor can the DOJ if acting pursuant to statute in releasing the records. They have absolute immunity in this situation.
4. The second key is to also understand that when you file a lawsuit you have judicial privilege or immunity for anything in your lawsuit which might be defamatory. So that closes the circle.
5. As long as the victims or their attorneys or the politicians don't make any defamatory public statements they have not committed defamation, yet they can use anything in the files to prop up their lawsuit.
6. Please note how none of the victims who have spoken at these recent press conferences have named any names or given any details about their abuse. They have all been well coached by their attorneys not to do so, as it might expose them to defamation lawsuits.
Now that I have explained it to you, you can put your various conspiracy theories to rest. The real conspiracy is the one I've just outlined for you.
No. of Recommendations: 1
5. As long as the victims or their attorneys or the politicians don't make any defamatory public statements they have not committed defamation, yet they can use anything in the files to prop up their lawsuit.
6. Please note how none of the victims who have spoken at these recent press conferences have named any names or given any details about their abuse. They have all been well coached by their attorneys not to do so, as it might expose them to defamation lawsuits.
Seems it would only be defamation if what is said is not true. And the bar for defamation of a public figure is, iirc, significantly higher than for we Proles.
We old phartz remember when Carol Burnett sued one of the grocery store tabloids for defamation, and won.
Or, as you say, it could be a money grab by the lawyers, as opposed to a money grab by the media, or by the women, waiting for a fatter book deal.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yes a claim a defamation can be defended by proving the truth of the accusation. However, that still requires going through a lawsuit defending yourself against the claim. Defamation defense lawyers don't work contingency and the good ones are very pricey. No plaintiff's attorney working on a contingency is going to want to chance exposing his or her clients to such a lawsuit. Easily millions of dollars in such a high profile scenario.
No. of Recommendations: 2
6. Please note how none of the victims who have spoken at these recent press conferences have named any names or given any details about their abuse. They have all been well coached by their attorneys not to do so, as it might expose them to defamation lawsuits.
Steve, note that it would work the exact same way if the girls were abused and it's difficult to prove. marco is reading too much into it and likely putting a political slant on it.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Steve, note that it would work the exact same way if the girls were abused and it's difficult to prove.
Virginia Giuffre sued "Randy Andy". Settled out of court in 2022. Only pic the public has seen of her and Andrew showed them fully clothed. No rumpy pumpy going on. Of course Giuffre is now dead. Was she trying to sue others? Threatening to shoot off her mouth? Barking about the editing the publisher did in her book?
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 4
Virginia Giuffre sued "Randy Andy". Settled out of court in 2022.Yep, and the net sifter says there have been others.
SNIP Sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein ran a ring of women traffickers, who were tasked with recruiting underage females into his orbit for his sexual gratification. His close friend and associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, was the chief recruiter and some-time participant in his crimes.[1][2][3]
The New York Times in 2019 reported that Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, Adriana Ross and Nadia Marcinkova were part of the Epstein system, as well as Haley Robson, and published that "Recruiters were allegedly told to target young, financially desperate women, and to promise them help furthering their education and careers."[1] Rina Oh is another Epstein recruiter who spoke to the press in 2021.[2] Kellen, Groff, Ross and Marcinkova were listed as "unindicted co-conspirators" in the Acosta 2007 plea deal,[2] and Judge Nathan in her 2022 judgment of Maxwell fingered Kellen as "a knowing participant in the criminal conspiracy" and said she was "a criminally responsible participant."[3][4] Journalist Nick Bryant maintained in an October 2024 interview with Shawn Bryant that Epstein trafficked girls below the age of 10 in part from places like Yugoslavia, which in the 1990s was undergoing a particularly brutal civil war.[5] It is written in Politico magazine that:[2]
Epstein essentially was running an enterprise at Royal Palm Beach High School. According to victim testimony given to the Palm Beach police, each teen would earn around $200 if she brought a new friend to Epstein. This spread throughout the school. Although Palm Beach is known for its wealth, surrounding towns are less affluent. For girls from underprivileged families, $200 was a big deal... According to a Palm Beach police report, Epstein once told a victim that he had purchased Marcinkova at age 15 from her family in Yugoslavia to be his sex slave. SNIPPEROOO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litigation_involving...
