I don’t get why she would announce that she has it if she wasn’t going to do something with it. Let all the chips fall where they may.
I'm telling myself they are waiting until they have the people listed basically already caught before announcement.I don’t get why she would announce that she has it if she wasn’t going to do something with it. Let all the chips fall where they may.
If she takes too long even the MAGA folks might wonder which GOP leaders are featured in the report. You know if it was just Clinton we would have it already.
It has to do with his relationships and associations.why do people think that a super rich guy couldn't get away with sex crimes unless he's involved in the intelligence community?
was bill cosby a secret spy too?
I hope you are right and they are just lining up prosecutions. But common sense tells me something else is afoot. I’m guessing the obstacle is orange, quite a bit overweight and currently resides in the White House.I'm telling myself they are waiting until they have the people listed basically already caught before announcement.
Real talk, who knows who is promising what to not let that thing out right now.
Putin & Russian oligarchsI don't recall if this question has been asked.
I think so and would wager Epstein and his island were a place the (insert nefarious actor) could take a politician or influencer and get them drunk/high and photograph with minors to start blackmail and coercion.I don't recall if this question has been asked.
Not exactly.Putin & Russian oligarchs
Where do you think most of the human trafficking gets done? Eastern Europe and Russia.
FBI only gave her his address book used in the trial.
Why?I hope you are right and they are just lining up prosecutions. But common sense tells me something else is afoot. I’m guessing the obstacle is orange, quite a bit overweight and currently resides in the White House.
Or a great excuse for not digging into something that would be embarrassing to a lot of people.It has to do with his relationships and associations.
But the biggie is what Acosta said:
.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblo...elonged-to-intelligence-and-to-leave-it-alone
In my earlier post I mentioned the reporting of Vicky Ward who did a lengthy piece on Epstein for Vanity Fair in 2003 and is now revisiting the story in The Daily Beast. (Ward had a detailed version of the underaged girls part of the story but Vanity Fair cut that from the 2003 story.) I wanted to flag your attention to a passage in her latest piece at The Daily Beast which reports that Acosta told Trump transition officials that he’d been told to back off the Epstein case at the time and that that was why he gave Epstein such a generous deal.
Here’s the passage …
Epstein’s name, I was told, had been raised by the Trump transition team when Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. attorney in Miami who’d infamously cut Epstein a non-prosecution plea deal back in 2007, was being interviewed for the job of labor secretary. The plea deal put a hard stop to a separate federal investigation of alleged sex crimes with minors and trafficking.
“Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?” Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he’d had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)
He wouldn't have set himself up to have the domino's fall against him. If that's the case we end up with "who was the one redaction" type stuff.I hope you are right and they are just lining up prosecutions. But common sense tells me something else is afoot. I’m guessing the obstacle is orange, quite a bit overweight and currently resides in the White House.
The deal was cut after about a dozen of the top defense attorneys in the country showed up at a preliminary meeting vs the gov’t. Gov’t had all kinds of drug and other shit going on in south fla.It has to do with his relationships and associations.
But the biggie is what Acosta said:
.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblo...elonged-to-intelligence-and-to-leave-it-alone
In my earlier post I mentioned the reporting of Vicky Ward who did a lengthy piece on Epstein for Vanity Fair in 2003 and is now revisiting the story in The Daily Beast. (Ward had a detailed version of the underaged girls part of the story but Vanity Fair cut that from the 2003 story.) I wanted to flag your attention to a passage in her latest piece at The Daily Beast which reports that Acosta told Trump transition officials that he’d been told to back off the Epstein case at the time and that that was why he gave Epstein such a generous deal.
Here’s the passage …
Epstein’s name, I was told, had been raised by the Trump transition team when Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. attorney in Miami who’d infamously cut Epstein a non-prosecution plea deal back in 2007, was being interviewed for the job of labor secretary. The plea deal put a hard stop to a separate federal investigation of alleged sex crimes with minors and trafficking.
“Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?” Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he’d had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)
The "no data" part is really the "tell" here, Cletus
Might want to look at the rankings in the link, from a different source. Not to mention, where they are being trafficked to, is just as important as where they are being trafficked from.The "no data" part is really the "tell" here, Cletus
You're including Trump in this?I'm telling myself they are waiting until they have the people listed basically already caught before announcement.
Real talk, who knows who is promising what to not let that thing out right now.
Yes.You're including Trump in this?
You are such bizarre weird people. Everything is freaking projection.
Everyone is surprised at your continued substance.I clicked on Trump
I know social media is not the greatest barometer, but there are some pissed off conservatives about this. I don’t blame anyone, regardless of political leanings, for being frustrated.I don’t get why she would announce that she has it if she wasn’t going to do something with it. Let all the chips fall where they may.
If she takes too long even the MAGA folks might wonder which GOP leaders are featured in the report. You know if it was just Clinton we would have it already.
Might want to look at the rankings in the link
Yes, just ignore the other link that shows your statement to be wrong. No doubt there is a big problem in Eastern Europe, but it is not "the most". Muslim countries and Asia are the worst.What part of "no data" is confusing for you here?
Also there was a supposed whistle lower saying the FBI had already destroyed a LOT of Epstein evidence...I'm telling myself they are waiting until they have the people listed basically already caught before announcement.
Real talk, who knows who is promising what to not let that thing out right now.
Yes, just ignore the other link that shows your statement to be wrong.
Then you have no proof for your statement. You lose.No data, means there's no data.
Russia doesn't "track" those statistics, because it's the Russian government and oligarchs deeply involved in it.
And how did he amass that wealth?why do people think that a super rich guy couldn't get away with sex crimes unless he's involved in the intelligence community?
was bill cosby a secret spy too?