Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
That's so weird! Strange how these really random unconnected things happen like this! Must be nothing
There could be a picture of Donald Trump actively raping a little girl in those files and he would still be protected from consequences.
"Thanks chief justice Roberts!"
Heard one of Trump's last speeches, when he said "the Jewish lobby, the Israeli [zionist] lobby has always been here" and that "there's supposedly a rape video"... in the same sentence.
So we can infer that Netenyahu has blackmail material on Trump that would make his Epstein connection obvious to all.
EDIT: it was this speech - but I remember the "rape video" part from some political video that cut the thing up. Might have misheard the "rape" part x_x but it's a long speech (because he can't be concise) and yeah :/ Maybe I'm just stupid. Even this video is cut. That's what I get for watching political videos before I go to sleep.
Wow, that was said at a speech? More info please?!!
Please elaborate, which speech???
I'm willing to bet that there's video.
It was never "PP tapes." It was CP tapes.
Apparently there are videos
There is 100 percent video of the president raping girls, held by Israel, if not hidden in those files.
Considering we know the files were stolen/hacked from FBI now, it's almost certainly being used as blackmail now
Yeah, this is the South Carolina victim from the early 80s. It is known.
Also, this may come as a surprise for some, but the fact of the Epstein settlement itself is not that important in terms of trying to establish or eliminate the credibility of a given victim in regard to Trump. It's a factor, not a bombshell, lol.
In order to try to preserve some of the Epstein estate, as early as 2019 a probate judge in the USVI and the estate were working on a victim compensation plan to quickly resolve victim claims through a private application and review process, where a victim could receive a payout in exchange for not suing the estate directly.
This is actually a win/win for all sides. The estate isn't drained by never-ending litigation, all the victims have access to the estate as opposed to one or two big suits draining it for the rest, the executors and trustees can free up funds for the ongoing maintenance of assets and properties, the governments get their estate taxes, and so forth.
Thus many such claims specifically against the Epstein estate have been settled without what we would consider ABSOLUTE proof. But some proof, including circumstantial, was always involved.
So what can be known from an Epstein estate settlement through the victim compensation plan(s), or a private lawsuit against Epstein or his estate -- all of which the word "settlement" can be referring to -- is that a victim was at the very least able to prove through various means that as a young woman she was in Epstein's personal orbit, at the time she says her abuse occurred, and usually without any other plausible reason for her presence.
Individually, a victim may have proved far more than that: each claim was weighed independently. But a victim proved at least that much, so they would settle with her to insulate the estate, specifically, against any future lawsuit from her.
It was a business decision made in part because what a victim is unable to prove today, that evidence and much worse may come to light tomorrow and completely drain whatever assets remain. Or to put it another way, the estate and the USVI probate court were trading the much higher courtroom requirements of proof -- which many of these victims can't ever provide anyway -- in exchange for being able to ensure that all the victims, the various governments involved, plus the beneficiaries of the eventual trust, all get their share of the estate.
And even then, a settlement with Epstein or his estate doesn't mean jack in regard to Trump.
It sounds simple enough, but I swear I think some people don't get this. Trump is not Epstein, he is not attached to the Epstein estate or named in it, and no Epstein settlements were awarded on the basis of non-Epstein offenses. If a settlement was made, Epstein was the offender. Maybe not the sole offender, but he was the offender. And so it is with this South Carolina victim: her primary abuser, and the one through whom she became known to the FBI, was Epstein.
But what does give this victim credibility in regard to Trump, IMO, is that in her first interview with the FBI Trump was mentioned in regard to a photo, and then this victim was quickly interviewed three more times in July-August 2019 by the FBI for a total of FOUR direct interviews; the FBI 302 records of these interviews indicate "protect source" in bold across the top (here's an example); and then later the DoJ went out of their way to obscure her existence and remove any evidence of her from the files until a reporter on Substack, Roger Sollenberger, found evidence that they'd been removed from a source the DoJ didn't think to scrub.
As Hillary Clinton said in her House Oversight Committee deposition, "The FBI interviewed that witness four times. You don’t interview a non-credible witness four times. You don’t put into the FBI reporting 'protect this source' if you think there is nothing to it."
Oh wow thank you for the extremely detailed comment! I'm not OP, I just didn't know all of this and it was a really good amalgamation of sources you clearly spent some time gathering.
Thank you. Yeah, I fall into rabbit holes. I actually read a good part of the transcript of the USVI probate court setting this up, lol.
Life in and around ND-A- lago is paved with payoffs.
NDAs can't be used to hide illegal activity or safety risks, according to internet words.
Well they typically use like the threat of violence to enforce them rather than contract court.
And making them sign something sounds legal. Pretty intimidating for a 13 year old.
If this is the one who "bite the shit out of" his dick, we knew this. This doesn't appear to be new.
So essentially the same thing as the Stormy Daniels payoff.
Yeah this isn't a bombshell. He's settled a number of civil suits.
I'm aware that this is Epstein, not Trump.
But when you have a credible victim accusing two men (who were close friends) of the same crime, and one (or at least, the estate of one) promptly settles ... you have to look a bit askance at the other.
Especially these two men.
In case you missed the report.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article314945648.html
This whole scandal would have never happened without the Miami Herald doggedly pursuing Epstein for years and years at the behest of some of the victims.
Their reporting is amazing. I hope they are present when he finally goes to jail.
Khan’s attorney told CNN Khan never witnessed any abuse by Epstein, it was never told of any abuse.
It? What is "it"?
I think CNN is the 'it' in this case.