Yikes. So now you guys get to choose between a guy who eats babies and another who merely fucks them ? And I thought *my *political landscape was screwy…
Nah, there’s no evidence he met with Barrack either. 
Do you have any evidence of any of these claims, especially about Trump? In any case, let’s assume the Secret Service does indeed do all these things, and it completely refutes my original statement about the Secret Service. Fine. Do you have any actual evidence that Trump met with Epstein during the conference, or any other time since he became president? Otherwise, this is just conspiracy, if you will excuse me, nonsense.
So? Who cares about George Nader and what does he have to do with Epstein?
My objection is indeed a real one, and will be until you supply evidence of any of your conspiracy claims.
Oh believe me, I am quite sure that Trump isn’t actually doing anything during those all those seconds, but somebody knows where he is every second of the day.
There isn’t. But the odds are good that he met with someone and whoever it was, was secret, and wasn’t part of the French government.
The only other real alternative is that he wanted to sit in and take a nap rather than go out in the bad weather.
Either he was lazy or a crook. Neither is inconceivable. Even if on November 10th he didn’t do something criminal or nefarious and it’s just happenstance that he was well placed to do so, there’s still the other 364 days of the year. He’s certainly met with Barrack and done compromising things for him.
With Epstein, it’s harder to say.
This is strange.
I’ve read several mainstream media articles about Epstein’s little black book. Most of them, including this one, mention an extensive Bill Clinton entry with 21 numbers.
But I’ve thumbed through the entire 92 page book several times, including twice just now, and I do not see any entry for Bill or Hillary Clinton. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Am I blind or is the entire news media just echoing instead of fact checking?
One might fill a book – in fact, several people have – with Trumpy behavior that anyone in the BeforeTime (i.e. three years ago) would have dismissed as “utterly preposterous” but which nevertheless have in fact occurred.
Everything is evidence of everything. You exist on Earth and John F. Kennedy existed on Earth before he was assassinated, ergo, I have evidence that you assassinated JFK. If I only had two suspects and the other person had never been on Earth, I would choose you as the culprit.
There is no such thing as proof, only the multiplication of probabilities, when you’re trying to establish the facts of some event. What is the probability that this, that, and the other thing would all happen in conjunction under normal circumstances vs. under the hypothesized circumstances that we’re inquiring about?
The definition of evidence is not “I have video tape footage of this guy doing this thing”. It’s, “there was a speck of dirt over here, even though the maid came yesterday and the rest of the floor is spotless.” TV has convinced people that “evidence” means “smoking gun”. That’s not what evidence is.
That Epstein was in Paris at the same time as Trump is evidence that Trump met with him. That Trump’s discrete location can’t be established at that time is evidence that he met with him. But both of those are different statements from saying, “Trump met with Epstein”. Neither I nor anyone else said that Trump met with Epstein.
A conspiracy theory is when you ignore evidence and are dishonest with your evidence, trying to support some hypothesis that you have decided is true, all reality be damned.
Neither I nor anyone else has decided that it is true that Trump met with Epstein, nor have we been dishonest with the evidence.
But, you build a case by forming hypotheses and accumulating evidence that will go towards or against that hypothesis. There’s exactly zilch wrong with saying that it hypothetically possible that Trump met with Epstein, nor is it to work to collect and categorize any evidence that you see along the line.
Being dishonest with the evidence, yes, that’s bad. Ignoring evidence, that’s also bad. But stating hypotheses and aggregating information is good. It’s what you do. You don’t say, “Well this evidence that I have today, July 17th of 2019 is insufficient to make any real case. As such, clearly this all didn’t happen and I’m just a crazy person.” If that’s how the police worked, they would never catch anyone because they would give up after an hour of taking the case, having decided that even though that drug addict who was pounding on the victim’s door at 2am last night sure smells fishy, it’s just a theory that he’s the guilty party, and the one report that the guy was knocking on the door isn’t conclusive.
There’s no time limit. You can just keep digging eternally and, so long as the evidence still reasonably allows for the case to be made, there’s always the chance that you might find more evidence of sufficient quality that you can start to lock things down. Setting up some arbitrary deadline by which you have to have a smoking gun is stupid and that’s not how things work. Trying to shout people down for doing the work of assembling evidence and candidly discussing its provenance and quality because the current state of the evidence is not sufficient to make the case isn’t conspiracy theory. That’s just you not liking the subject.
But why are those the “odds”? Why isn’t the second thing, the nap, or even some other simple explanation, more likely?
Okay, but this sounds to me like an argument leading to the conclusion that nothing is preposterous when it comes to Trump. Surely there is something.
What odds do you want to give? I’m ambivalent.
Continuing my previous post, majority odds are not necessary for proof.
Take for example the possibility that there’s a 5% chance that Trump sexually assaulted Stormy Daniels or any other person. But, at the same time, there are 20+ people who have that 5% possibility. If that’s the case, because of the 20 in the math, the odds that he has sexually assaulted no one is 36%. Which is to say, there’s a 64% chance that he assaulted at least one of them.
(For the record, the FBI has found that the false reporting rate of sexual assault is about 8%. 92% of cases that they have investigated, they established as factual. Trump’s actual innocence, at 92% likelihood of guilt, across 20 separate cases, is 0.00<sixteen zeroes>0015%)
Let’s assume this is true. I was 82 days and 3 hours old when JFK was killed. How is your evidence now that I killed him? You have the equivalent amount of evidence re Trump and Epstein. Get back to me when you have something plausible.
Read the entire post.
I did. My request stands.
Well then I’ll note that no one was talking to you. You interjected into someone else’s conversation, trying to shout it down. I’m happy to get back to you should there ever be sufficient evidence. In return, don’t be a nuisance and read what people say, not what you think they’re saying.
As said, ain’t no one here who said that Trump met with Epstein. You’re the only one who read anything that anyone wrote to say that.
If you’re hearing people saying things they ain’t saying, that’s more problematic than the question of what topic people are investigating.
Oh, come on. First, I didn’t inject myself anywhere. I joined a thread conversation. Isn’t that the idea of this place? And I’m not trying to shout down anything, I’ve simply raised objections to certain things that I find implausible. Don’t be so sensitive.
But fine. If you only want to talk with people who agree with you, or at least don’t try to dispute what you are saying, okay. I’ll bow out.
Get a room.
I’m both amazed and amused at the partisanship around the Epstein scandal, which seems to be the rare situation where one can honestly claim he had friends all over “both sides”.
But this does have a silver lining in that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE, except his current and presumably highly paid current lawyers, is defending him.
Because if Trump and other Republicans were clearly implicated and Clinton and other Democrats weren’t, you’d be hearing lots of excuses. They were teens, not children. He has a nice place and he paid them well, it’s not like he was dragging them to a scuzzy rape dungeon. He was sentenced fair and square and has paid his debt to society.
But thankfully, no one is singing that tune, and I think that’s largely because of the politics.
But it is about Epstein, not Clinton, not Trump.
Until it isn’t. I hope he doesn’t get a dramatically reduced sentence for ratting out people in power.
Certainly, I understand the sentiment but I would say that we live in the real world and this is the sort of situation where is likely that a prosecutor could end up in a situation where they’re weighing the difference of giant horrors and his ability to remove the greatest amount as possible from the world.
Epstein is 70 years old - getting into “things don’t work anymore” territory - and will likely be under a magnifying lense for the rest of his life. Fundamentally, you can’t undo the damage that he has done before now and the amount of damage that he can still do is fairly small.
I don’t want him to go free but, for the right price, it may well be worth letting him go.
I think that would be great - he rats out a bunch of big names, then someone has him whacked for it, everyone wins.