2025 Jeffrey Epstein Files

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Hollywood Hulk Hogan said:
Then why are you posting? We all know you're an old boomer who gets his talking points from Fox News. That's why you even said that Trump being in the Epstein files and Trump protecting pedophiles is not a big deal
Click to expand...
do you think people read your posts and assume that you aren't a geriatric retard hooked up to an IV drip of MSNBC or do you legitimately think that you have novel insight while you're blindly repeating a bunch of facebook posts
 
Factual OST Aficionado said:
This is a centuries long Late sticker, but its harrowing that a person/group can get so rich and powerful that they can sneak a hint or two around of being into railing children and know that they wont be pushed into a slow running harvester...
Click to expand...
There's are threads on the forum (such as MAPs) dedicated to fat loser nobodies who openly express being into the idea of diddling children. You don't need to be rich and powerful, you just need to not get caught doing it.
some dumb cunt said:
i get the feeling he got thrown under the bus because of just how worthless he is. "here is your sex pest, have at him guys"
Click to expand...
Written after writing Reading this back in hindsight it makes me look I'm defending Epstein's associates but I'm moreso highlighting how difficult it was for the authorities actually do anything considering what little they actually had to go on, even with the files and associations with Epstein. The two men associated with Epstein that were pursued by the law and public as a consequence of being tied to him have an almost outsized reputation relative to what they actually did.

I think this is true. I hated looking into the Andrew case because it makes you realise how relatively "soft" a target he was compared to the reputation he gained.

Andrew hadn't actually been charged for anything new relating to Epstein. He evoked the Streisand effect trying to defend himself in am embarrassing interview but otherwise whether he would've been pursued for his ties is anyone's guess. The allegations made against him from Giuffre went as far back as 2014 for a crime committed in 2001. The "soft" part here is that Andrew's only a criminal because he may or may not have been aware that his sex with Giuffre was non-consensual.

The points of contention are that he lied about the length and association of his relationship with Epstein. He claimed he met him in 2010, a flagrant lie, and had maintained some sort of friendship with him after the more serious sexual assault allegations were made public against Epstein in 2011, The other is that the sex he had with Virginia Giuffre was possibly non-consensual ("possibly" is there because there's actually conflicting testimony on this; she was either threatened to do the deed or paid 15k for it by Epstein and found it "pretty cool" - both can be true but it muddies things, especially with conflicting character reports and the whole convo around being able to take consent long after it has already been given).

He also claimed to have never seen anything that could've put Epstein in prison in 2019, which is either an intentional (obstruction) or unintentional lie (criminal negligence?) because every girl he came across and who gave him his "massages" (including Giuffre herself) would qualify. He had also been to Epstein's Island during the time of a purported orgy so it's a coin toss on whether he was witness to exceptional degeneracy (illegal shit) or run of the mill degeneracy (legal shit).

The only repercussions Andrew got hit with was from Giuffre herself, who was able to sue him because New York extended the statute of limitations on sexual abuse – a law passed in reaction to Epstein – and he settled out out of court before it ever went to trial. (She got 12 mil to give to charity). He'd need to prove he didn't rape Giuffre, but all he'd be able to do is prove he didn't know it was rape whilst she can prove/just say it was rape from her end and that'd be accepted, especially in the context; Andrew had already lost massively in the court of public opinion so good luck on getting the judge/jury to side with him. Furthermore, she'll be able to tell even more stories of Andrews sucking her toes and other embarrassing shit.

So yeah, Andrews wasn't actually punished for anything outside of being made a social pariah in the UK and beyond alongside losing his status in the royal family. A part of the reason he was able to avoid consequences might have less to do with his status (though it'd be hard to argue it played no part) and more to do with the fact he hadn't actually done anything provably illegal, grossness and morality of a 40-year old man having sex with a 17 year old aside. He had sex with a 17-year old Giuffre in the UK where the AOC is 16 and possibly New York where 17 is the AOC. The Virgin Islands might provide an instance of statutory rape but Giuffre, for whatever reason, never specified where she had sex with Andrews just more or less confirming once in London. Giuffre's lawsuit also wasn't just for sexual assault but also emotional distress so either way if she wasn't able to prove the latter, she'd probably be able to argue the latter based on Andrews trying to dig up dirt on her after the Mail on Sunday had put out a photograph (of debatable legitimacy) back in 2011 and the belief Andrews had paid internet trolls to harass her.

This all sounds like a defence of Andrew but describing what happened plainly helps point out how out of everyone associated with Epstein, Andrews was just about the biggest yet simultaneously soft and contrived target they could've picked. He's guilty for not coming out earlier about Epstein (obstruction or negligence), lying on his behalf (intentionally or unintentionally), lying about the length of his relationship with Epstein (definite lie), and for raping Giuffre (which may or may not depend on whether you think consent can be retroactively retracted, whether someone can be a rapist if they weren't aware of their prostitute's lack of consent, and whether sex with someone younger than 18 regardless of local AOC laws both domestic and abroad constitutes statutory rape).

Outside of Andrew, you have Jean-Luc Brunei, who is actually the only person to have been arrested as a consequence of ties to Epstein. Didn't help that he tried to go into hiding after Epstein died, but it could've been in reaction to Giuffre turning her sights on him. He has odd parallels to Andrew: divorced in the 90s, then having sex with under-18s thereafter in what I can only surmise is partly based in some sort of mid-life crisis, and having the same accuser as Andrew: Giuffre, who also was a year above the domestic age of consent when she had sex with him (16 years old, AOC is 15 in France*) and whose allegations had emerged way before actual action was taken (2014). It was like they wanted young but legal girls to cope with the act they were 40+ and alone but I digress. It was 7 months after he was detained for questioning that the allegation he'd actually be prosecuted for was made (drugging and raping a 17 year old in the 90s – we do not know anything else about the victim other than she's now living in America) and another 7 months later he killed himself.

Outside of prestige for associating with royalty, Brunei offered Epstein the means of acquiring new girls via his various modelling agencies, and Epstein claims to have had sex with 1000+ of Brunei's models. That could've been the opus mundi of Epstein's relationships, where big names were clout but less famous names were a means for him to enrich himself financially or sexually?

There's a similar turn with all of Epstein's associates where they were with him initially in 2011 during the new wave of allegations but at some unspecified point they left him. There's emails from 2011 where Andrews goes from, "We'll get through this together!" to "Make sure you mention I had nothing to do with you," and Brunei went from visiting Epstein 80 times during his house arrest but then suing Epstein in 2015 for loss of business as a result of Epstein's illegal activity**.

Sorry for that aside, but's all to say nobody has actually been newly prosecuted/newly revealed to be a definitive sex pest as a result of Epstein and Maxwell's arrest in 2019, rather, authorities instead moved against already known suspects who had prior allegations made against them that they hadn't acted upon until the sex trafficking stuff came to light and Giuffre was made a more reliable source. A lot of people have been tied to Epstein in some manner or another but it hasn't amounted to anything outside of Epstein and Maxwell themselves and potential PR hits, regardless of wrongdoing.

TLDR: Nothing that wasn't already known before has come of Epstein and Maxwell's arrest. All it really did was give strength Victoria Giuffre's claims and testimony giving the bare minimum of repercussions to any of Epstein's clients.


*Looking this up to confirm (because Giuffre has sex with him at 16), also discovered something horrifying: Incest is completely legal in France, as is having incestuous children. It was a genuine flashbang. French politicians want to change the law to raise the age of consent to 18 (from 15). They also want to do the same with incest, which is legal so long as the parties are over the age of consent - regardless of disparity.
**Trump sort of stands out from doing this earlier but he also follows the pattern here of providing something for Epstein (a source of girls - Giuffre worked at Mar-a-lago) which means he also possibly had sex with a girl provided by Epstein. But if we follow that pattern still then she would've been 18/19 in Florida or 17/18*** in New York. If that ends up being the case then there's no catharsis for anybody because he did something generally accepted as creepy and morally wrong to some but nothing actionable under the law besides maybe a civil suit, which only gets you money is what many of Epstein's victims have seemingly opted for.
***Did you know Jerry Seinfeld dated a 17 year old girl?
1766323922832.png

(The moral of the story: do not look up age of consent laws unless you want to learn things you'd rather wish you hadn't.)
 
SBG said:
Trump looks so fucking guilty thanks to doing this shit.

Acts as confirmation they’re removing Trump from everything they can to protect him which makes him look like a kiddy fucker.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they probably should have just left him there. Everyone knew he was friends with Epstein, just not forever. Removing it seems strange at this point. There wouldn't have been anything weird about the photo being there. NOW, it's weird.

That said, the redacting team is a bunch of fuckups and I wouldn't be surprised if this was all them just not understanding what they're doing, either. They've redacted stuff that didn't need redaction, and stuff that's already publically unredacted. They've been rushing this shitshow and have no idea what they should or shouldn't be doing.
 
Maradontia said:
View attachment 8314011
It turns out they redacted a photo from a fundraiser for some reason.
Click to expand...
When Democrats selectively release a single photo of Trump with censored faces on female bodies that turns out to be a bunch of adult women in a pageant, that's clearly intended to imply that Trump was with a group of little girls that he subsequently raped at Epstein's island.

On the other hand, when you have 30,000 documents and they censored the faces of all actual children they came across, I don't think that's part of a Trump conspiracy to frame Bill Clinton, especially when, you know, there's an actual photo of him with in a hot tub with a minor.
 
Taser Confetti said:
Has anyone ever claimed boys were on the island?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't put it past Jeffrey to supply young boys, but he has neither been suspected nor accused of doing do and it is strange that both Kevin Spacey and Michael Jackson have connections here. One thing that can be stated about Ol' Jeff Epstein: He was a poonhound, through and through. It's weird that celebrities that got busted for practicing the Greek Tradition got looped in here.
 
Reading through the emails it looks like there was a lot of chatter between Jeffrey and that Maxwell bitch. He was apparently going to make a statement after the first arrest but was stupid and never did.
Maxwell was concerned about libel/defamation laws because she was a british faggot.
1766335895323.png
1766335925935.png
1766335957960.png

1766335867980.png

I can't see that Epstein or a representative of him ever put out a firm statement after the first arrest.

Reading between the lines this leads more credibility (in my eyes) to the idea that when he got turbo arrested the second time and had much more media attention on him he did commit suicide.


If you read through the emails (which no one here is doing) the way things are written and laid out makes it clear Epstein was very wealthy and had quite an organized system and team of people surrounding him. He ordered lots of books, traveled a lot and was interested in political power.

The way things are written does not make it appear as if this was some secret Mossad operation or that the scale of things was quite at the level that people expect. There was a document that listed staff for just the island or yacht and it was something like 30 people.

Although many of the emails resulted in calls that no one knows the true nature of it is quite clear this whole thing didn't involved thousands of underage women and the way people keep saying this whole thing involves "the elites" is in some ways accurate but also a very retarded and limited framing of the situation.

Some of the people around Epstein could be considered "elites" but there definitely wasn't some secret cabal around him of 100s of "elites" and underage women.
 
Flaggy but One said:
I'm gonna continue on this cos I find MJ endlessly fascinating but I'll keep it on topic. I always thought that MJ would, funnily enough, be excluded from Epstein's ring. Not necessarily because he was innocent but because, even though he was once on top of the world, he was still an outsider by virtue of having come from nothing and being too psychologically complicated to be managed. Someone amenable to Epstein wouldn't repeatedly go on television defending sharing his bedroom with children even though it ruined his life. Someone amenable to Epstein would have successfully got away with everything MJ was accused of and never got into the kind of tangles he did. All kinds of grubs, including the biggest and most powerful tried to wrangle him with some pretty funny results like with Sony.

Also I think MJ looked intensely uncomfortable in most staged photos, including the Thriller album cover.
Click to expand...

As an American, lemme ask the REAL question: Was Epstein and Maxwell BFFs with ol' Jim'll Fix It??
 
1766336584963.png

Jeffrey Epstein could barely type literate emails. He definitely wasn't "stupid" but the whole idea he was some super secret mossad spy goes out the window pretty quick with shit like this.

These dumbasses didn't understand how to deal with the #metoo shit and it seems possible some of these women went after him just to get some money out of it - the same thing happened with Michael Jackson and plenty of celebrities.

These "super secret mossad" operatives didn't put out any firm statement (that I can find) refuting the women's account of things. They sent dozens of emails about making a statement but never put one out.

That was a really stupid decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom