Jeffrey Epstein friend Ghislaine Maxwell arrested on sex abuse charges

[Sujo]

19 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

If some 17yo teenage girl lured my teenage daughter into prostitution, I'd want her killed, not rewarded.

Then blame maxwell for rewarding them.

[4reaL]

Fascinating a person with 3 passports chose to return to USA, seems like a deal was and is in the works when sitting elsewhere would have kept her out of lockup.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, 4reaL said:

Fascinating a person with 3 passports chose to return to USA, seems like a deal was and is in the works when sitting elsewhere would have kept her out of lockup.

The deal epstein signed to preclude any co conspirator charges may involve maxwell. That needs to be argued first. 

 

If she has really big fish to fry she may well get off lightly. Just like the girls that brought the victims, they will not be charged because they provided the bigger fish.

[Don Mega]

8 minutes ago, Sujo said:

 

Now as for victim blaming. It is repulsive to blame any underage girl for these offences when they did so at the instruction of the adult. Which is why they are not charged.

 

 

Sounds to me like they did it for financial gain, and should be charged.

[Logosone]

10 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

If some 17yo teenage girl lured my teenage daughter into prostitution, I'd want her killed, not rewarded.

 

Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who was 17 when she started her relationship with Epstein lived with a 65 year old man who was arrested for prostitution. This was before she met Epstein.

 

Shen then agreed to have sex with Epstein for money. She was paid each time, she was also given payments such as paid trips, enrolment in schools and of course paid for each of the 60 or so girls she procured for Epstein. Epstein would have spent more than 100,000 USD on her.

 

Thirteen years after she ended the relationship with Epstein because she met an Australian guy Virginia Roberts then decided to sue Ghislaine Maxwell. She received several million USD in settlement.

 

She is now already worth several millions of Dollars, but actually the entire cadre of Epstein's sex partners is now in line for yet another series of payouts. One a special fund has been set up to compensate the former sex partners of Epstein and secondly, many of the victims are suing Epstein's estate direct for millions of USD in compensation.

 

This is not counting the various media payments Virginia Roberts gets on a regular basis from ABC news, Daily Mail etc.

 

To say Virginia Roberts, who procured 60-70 girls for Epstein, has been rewarded, is the understatement of the year. She will never have to work a day in her life again.

 

 

 

[Logosone]

12 minutes ago, Sujo said:

I will type this slowly.

 

any girls not of age are not to blame. The person telling them to do it are to blame. without epstein and maxwell they would have nowhere to bring them.

 

For contributory negligence the girls have to be charged then assert the negligence to maxwell. The girls have not been charged so there is no contributory negligence to assert for blame.

 

Now as for victim blaming. It is repulsive to blame any underage girl for these offences when they did so at the instruction of the adult. Which is why they are not charged.

 

There are only 2 people to blame, so far, and one is dead.

You are a bit confused. One does not have to be "charged" for contributory negligence. Negligence is a tort, a civil law matter, not a criminal law concept. 

 

I only raised it to show that the law expressly provides for "victim blaming", for eg if your negligent driving caused injury to another driver, but that driver was not wearing a seat belt, his compensation would be reduced because him not wearing a seatbelt was contributory negligence. Just because that driver was the victim of your negligent driving does not mean that his actions are discounted altogether.

 

However, this is the case here, a more serious criminal matter. Here we have girls where some, not at all, were one year, two year or so short of 18 years old, and they all persuaded 60 of their friends to go and meet Epstein for cash.

 

Clearly these girls were guilty, as a matter of fact, in contributing to Epstein's abuse, in providing 60 girls to come to Epstein. Yet their actions are completely discounted. Instead there are millions thrown after them, by the courts, by Epstein's estate, that reward them yet again for providing 60 or so girls to Epstein.

 

Of course the person telling them is to blame. If you tell your daughter to kill your neighbour you are to blame, but if she kills him she is not to blame? Really?

 

 

[Morch]

 

Fox News Edits Trump Out Of Jeffrey Epstein Photo — Leaves In Melania

Quote

Fox News on Sunday repeatedly featured a well-known photo of convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein posing with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago — but each time Trump was edited out of the image. 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jeffrey-epstein-ghislaine-maxwell-trump-fox-news_n_5f024d4bc5b6acab28523768

[Sujo]

22 minutes ago, Logosone said:

You are a bit confused. One does not have to be "charged" for contributory negligence. Negligence is a tort, a civil law matter, not a criminal law concept. 

 

I only raised it to show that the law expressly provides for "victim blaming", for eg if your negligent driving caused injury to another driver, but that driver was not wearing a seat belt, his compensation would be reduced because him not wearing a seatbelt was contributory negligence. Just because that driver was the victim of your negligent driving does not mean that his actions are discounted altogether.

 

However, this is the case here, a more serious criminal matter. Here we have girls where some, not at all, were one year, two year or so short of 18 years old, and they all persuaded 60 of their friends to go and meet Epstein for cash.

 

Clearly these girls were guilty, as a matter of fact, in contributing to Epstein's abuse, in providing 60 girls to come to Epstein. Yet their actions are completely discounted. Instead there are millions thrown after them, by the courts, by Epstein's estate, that reward them yet again for providing 60 or so girls to Epstein.

 

Of course the person telling them is to blame. If you tell your daughter to kill your neighbour you are to blame, but if she kills him she is not to blame? Really?

 

 

 

 

The girls were underage. They did was they were asked to do. They provided evidence to police. They will not be charged. To charge them will mean no underage person will give evidence against maxwell for fear of incrimination. 

 

So if you are happy for them to be charged and the bigger fish to get away with it then thats an issue for you.

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Answer this question:

 

Why are the people who procured 60 girls at a time for Epstein not guilty of "procuring prostitutes under the age of 18"?

 

 

Answered above.

[Sujo]

The issue first is the deal epstein got in florida, it is astounding that he and others were not to be charged for any other offences, from then or the future.

 

i imagine that is why maxwell has been charged for offences from the 1990s which pre date that agreement.

[BritManToo]

55 minutes ago, Sujo said:

The girls were underage. They did was they were asked to do. They provided evidence to police. They will not be charged. To charge them will mean no underage person will give evidence against maxwell for fear of incrimination. 

I can't even get my teen daughter to do the washing up.

Are you suggesting all underage girls obey/follow every instruction given by an adult or peer?

Edited July 6, 2020 by BritManToo

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

The issue first is the deal epstein got in florida, it is astounding that he and others were not to be charged for any other offences, from then or the future.

 

i imagine that is why maxwell has been charged for offences from the 1990s which pre date that agreement.

Nonsense, that plea-deal agreement was long ago found to have contravened the US Crime Victim's Right Act.

 

Epstein's plea deal agreement is null and void.

 

It has been null and void for ages.

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Logosone

[candide]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

The issue first is the deal epstein got in florida, it is astounding that he and others were not to be charged for any other offences, from then or the future.

 

i imagine that is why maxwell has been charged for offences from the 1990s which pre date that agreement.

Made by a GOP prosecutor,  in a GOP State under a GOP President. The guy was more recently chosen by Trump as Labor Secretary before he had to resign.

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

 

 

The girls were underage. They did was they were asked to do. They provided evidence to police. They will not be charged. To charge them will mean no underage person will give evidence against maxwell for fear of incrimination. 

 

So if you are happy for them to be charged and the bigger fish to get away with it then thats an issue for you.

At age 17, 16 a girl is under age and unable to give consent in statutory rape cases, she is not unable to be prosecuted for crimes. Many, many, many boys of age 17 and 16 are prosecuted in the USA for crimes committed.

 

Yet these girls, who all admit that they procured 60 girls for Epstein each do not get prosecuted.

 

Surely it is these girls who provided 60 or 70 girls each, taken as a whole, who are the most guilty of "procuring prostitution with a minor"? Far more than Ghislaine Maxwell, who provided a fraction of the girls compared to what the girls themselves procured?

 

The bigger "fish" in terms of procuring girls for Epstein were Courtney Wild, Virginia Roberts, Haley Robson...not Ghislaine Maxwell. Ghislaine Maxwell was only charged in relation to 3 minors, whereas Courtney Wild for instance admitted to procuring 70 girls for Epstein.

 

The girls are the "big fish" in terms of procuring girls, not Ghislaine Maxwell who recruited a fairly small number.

[Don Mega]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

At age 17, 16 a girl is under age and unable to give consent in statutory rape cases, she is not unable to be prosecuted for crimes. Many, many, many boys of age 17 and 16 are prosecuted in the USA for crimes committed.

 

Yet these girls, who all admit that they procured 60 girls for Epstein each do not get prosecuted.

 

Surely it is these girls who provided 60 or 70 girls each, taken as a whole, who are the most guilty of "procuring prostitution with a minor"? Far more than Ghislaine Maxwell, who provided a fraction of the girls compared to what the girls themselves procured?

 

The bigger "fish" in terms of procuring girls for Epstein were Courtney Wild, Virginia Roberts, Haley Robson...not Ghislaine Maxwell. Ghislaine Maxwell was only charged in relation to 3 minors, whereas Courtney Wild for instance admitted to procuring 70 girls for Epstein.

 

The girls are the "big fish" in terms of procuring girls, not Ghislaine Maxwell who recruited a fairly small number.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/pandering/

[Logosone]

7 minutes ago, candide said:

Made by a GOP prosecutor,  in a GOP State under a GOP President. The guy was more recently chosen by Trump as Labor Secretary before he had to resign.

Again, the plea agreement that was made was ruled to be in contravention of US law.

 

“As a legal matter, the non-prosecution agreement entered into by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida does not bind other U.S. Attorneys in other districts. They are free, if they conclude it is appropriate to do so, to bring criminal actions against Mr. Epstein and his co-conspirators,’’ said lawyer David Boies, representing two of Epstein’s victims who claim they were trafficked by Epstein in New York and other areas of the country.

 

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article226577419.html

[candide]

14 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Nonsense, that plea-deal agreement was long ago found to have contravened the US Crime Victim's Right Act.

 

Epstein's plea deal agreement is null and void.

 

It has been null and void for ages.

 

You sure? I don't think so.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/us/epstein-ruling-florida.html

[candide]

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Again, the plea agreement that was made was ruled to be in contravention of US law.

 

“As a legal matter, the non-prosecution agreement entered into by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida does not bind other U.S. Attorneys in other districts. They are free, if they conclude it is appropriate to do so, to bring criminal actions against Mr. Epstein and his co-conspirators,’’ said lawyer David Boies, representing two of Epstein’s victims who claim they were trafficked by Epstein in New York and other areas of the country.

 

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article226577419.html

As far as I know it has not been "nullified" unless there is more recent information than the one I found (your reference is behind a paywall).

 

Anyway the point that was made was not whether it has been nullified or not. The point was: how is it possible that such a lenient deal was made? What were the reasons for that? Was there any external influence? Etc....

[Logosone]

7 minutes ago, candide said:

You sure? I don't think so.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/us/epstein-ruling-florida.html

From your own link:

 

“The non-prosecution agreement does not bar the United States from bringing federal criminal charges against Epstein for the offenses set forth in the non-prosecution agreement in any other district in the nation,” the office wrote.

 

Mr. Scarola said it was unlikely the victims would appeal the latest decision. He said he expected that any co-conspirators subject to prosecution would try using the non-prosecution agreement to their advantage, but that he did not think they would have success in doing so."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/us/epstein-ruling-florida.html

 

This plea agreement was ruled to be in contravention of the US Crime Victims Act, it only ever applied to the state of Florida to start with, and in no way is any court outside Florida going to stop any prosecution of anyone based on that agreement.

 

Okay, so the victims, on a legal technicality, failed to get the judge to declare the agreement officially null and void, but it is null and void to all intents and purposes in that no judge in his right mind would adhere to this agreement outside Florida. There is no way it provides immunity for anyone anymore. Even in Florida prosecutors would not touch it with a barge pole now.

[candide]

14 minutes ago, Logosone said:

From your own link:

 

“The non-prosecution agreement does not bar the United States from bringing federal criminal charges against Epstein for the offenses set forth in the non-prosecution agreement in any other district in the nation,” the office wrote.

 

Mr. Scarola said it was unlikely the victims would appeal the latest decision. He said he expected that any co-conspirators subject to prosecution would try using the non-prosecution agreement to their advantage, but that he did not think they would have success in doing so."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/us/epstein-ruling-florida.html

 

This plea agreement was ruled to be in contravention of the US Crime Victims Act, it only ever applied to the state of Florida to start with, and in no way is any court outside Florida going to stop any prosecution of anyone based on that agreement.

 

Okay, so the victims, on a legal technicality, failed to get the judge to declare the agreement officially null and void, but it is null and void to all intents and purposes in that no judge in his right mind would adhere to this agreement outside Florida. There is no way it provides immunity for anyone anymore. Even in Florida prosecutors would not touch it with a barge pole now.

Ok, I get it. Thanks!

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, candide said:

Anyway the point that was made was not whether it has been nullified or not. The point was: how is it possible that such a lenient deal was made? What were the reasons for that? Was there any external influence? Etc....

There were several reasons I think.

 

Firstly the prosecutors at that time genuinely felt the girls Epstein had sex with were prostitutes because they accepted money for sex and it would be hard to convict Epstein. So they felt him admitting to procuring and soliciting would get him into jail at least, in fact would guarantee that.

 

In fact many of the girls did not want to testify.

 

Secondly Alexander Acosta had claimed that he was told Epstein was a person of interest to the US government. The reason was that Epstein had agreed to assist in providing information that ensured two Bear Sterns executives were convicted.

 

That was part of the sweetheart deal Epstein got, he effectively became a government informer. He provided prosecutors with important information.

 

"There’s no direct evidence of what that information was, but records show that at around the same time, Epstein was considered to be a crucial witness during the trial of two Bear Stearns executives who faced allegations of corporate securities fraud during the 2008 financial crisis."

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-became-a-government-informant-as-part-of-sweetheart-plea-deal

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Logosone

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Again, the plea agreement that was made was ruled to be in contravention of US law.

 

“As a legal matter, the non-prosecution agreement entered into by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida does not bind other U.S. Attorneys in other districts. They are free, if they conclude it is appropriate to do so, to bring criminal actions against Mr. Epstein and his co-conspirators,’’ said lawyer David Boies, representing two of Epstein’s victims who claim they were trafficked by Epstein in New York and other areas of the country.

 

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article226577419.html

The plea agreement was ruled lawful on appeal in April this year.

When Acosta negotatiated the deal he was acting as a federal agent.

[Logosone]

31 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The plea agreement was ruled lawful on appeal in April this year.

When Acosta negotatiated the deal he was acting as a federal agent.

Yes, I am just reading it now. It's a US Court of Appeals decision. However, I understand it's not over and 

 

"Paul Cassell, said he planned to ask the entire 11th Circuit to rehear the case."

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/prosecutors-did-not-break-law-in-secretly-reaching-lenient-epstein-plea-deal-appeals-court-rules/

 

It's still extremely unlikely any court in the US will humour Maxwell's defence lawyers and allow her to escape liability on the basis of that agreement.

 

It will obviously be argued that the agreement only relates to Florida, but not other states, even if the Assistant US Attorney General and the US Attorney General approved it, even if Acosta acted as federal agent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Logosone

[cleopatra2]

35 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Yes, I am just reading it now. It's a US Court of Appeals decision. However, I understand it's not over and 

 

"Paul Cassell, said he planned to ask the entire 11th Circuit to rehear the case."

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/prosecutors-did-not-break-law-in-secretly-reaching-lenient-epstein-plea-deal-appeals-court-rules/

 

It's still extremely unlikely any court in the US will humour Maxwell's defence lawyers and allow her to escape liability on the basis of that agreement.

 

It will obviously be argued that the agreement only relates to Florida, but not other states, even if the Assistant US Attorney General and the US Attorney General approved it, even if Acosta acted as federal agent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The agreement was immunity for himself and 4 named others along with any potential co conspirators from federal charges.

This at present is  a legal agreement.

The only issue if the immunity applies given the fact Maxwell was not one of the 4 named.

[Logosone]

Okay, but what about the lies told by Virginia Roberts? She sued Alan Dershowitz and a judge struck her complaint as it was obviously unfounded and made up.

 

Dershowitz wrote a whole book documenting Virginia Roberts' lies:

 

"Her employment records, he indicates, prove that she did not meet Epstein until she was 17, giving the lie to her assertion that she had a "Sweet 16 celebration" with the sex trafficker.

 

Dershowitz cites Secret Service files to demonstrate that Giuffre made up her vivid account of a dinner with former US president Bill Clinton on Epstein's Little Saint James island.

 

He provides travel documents (and credit card receipts) that support his claim that he could not have been present on the dates Giuffre specified for their assignations."

 

https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/263397988/dershowitz-hits-back-at-virginia-roberts-giuffre-accusations

 

Virginia Roberts basically claimed she had sex with Alan Dershowitz when she never ever met Dershowitz. Her complaint was impossible.

 

What about the lies told by Sarah Ransome?

 

"Dershowitz reveals she told a reporter for the New York Post that she possessed "sex tapes" of Hillary and Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Richard Branson, had been targeted for assassination by the CIA, and had worked for the KGB. Ransome subsequently admitted she had "invented" the story to exact revenge on Epstein."

 

https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/263397988/dershowitz-hits-back-at-virginia-roberts-giuffre-accusations

 

 

 

 

[4reaL]

13 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I can't even get my teen daughter to do the washing up.

Are you suggesting all underage girls obey/follow every instruction given by an adult or peer?

 

Maybe spend less time on ThaiVisa and learn how to be a parent.

 

#facts

[torturedsole]

4 minutes ago, 4reaL said:

Maybe spend less time on ThaiVisa and learn how to be a parent.

 

#facts

... and being a good parent starts from day 1.  It's conditioning with love and support.  

 

If a prospective parent can't fulfil then don't bother.  

[johnpetersen]

And once again the evil MSM tries to pull a cover-up:

 

Fox News says it 'mistakenly' cropped Trump out of photo featuring Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell

 

"Fox News said on Monday that it "mistakenly" cropped President Trump out of a photograph that featured the accused sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and his alleged accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

"On Sunday, July 5, a report on Ghislaine Maxwell during Fox News Channel's 'America's News HQ' mistakenly eliminated President Donald Trump from a photo alongside then Melania Knauss, Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell," a spokesperson for the network said. 

The Fox News spokesperson added, "We regret the error."

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/06/media/fox-news-trump-crop-epstein-maxwell/index.html

[metisdead]

Some troll posts and replies have been removed.

[Logosone]

3 hours ago, johnpetersen said:

And once again the evil MSM tries to pull a cover-up:

 

Fox News says it 'mistakenly' cropped Trump out of photo featuring Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell

 

"Fox News said on Monday that it "mistakenly" cropped President Trump out of a photograph that featured the accused sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and his alleged accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

"On Sunday, July 5, a report on Ghislaine Maxwell during Fox News Channel's 'America's News HQ' mistakenly eliminated President Donald Trump from a photo alongside then Melania Knauss, Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell," a spokesperson for the network said. 

The Fox News spokesperson added, "We regret the error."

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/06/media/fox-news-trump-crop-epstein-maxwell/index.html

Yah, I think your Trump angle is not going very far, even Virginia Roberts said she never saw Trump engage with any of the girls. Same for Clinton.

 

Epstein kept all the sexual goings on hidden from his famous guests. All the supposed talk of Epstein keeping videos of famous people having sex, like Sarah Ransome claimed at one point having tapes of Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton, all pure lies. Not a single video has ever surfaced. Not one.