Daily Beast: Jeffrey Epstein Arrested For Sex Trafficking of Minors. Ghislaine Maxwell guilty of sex trafficking a minor for Jeffrey Epstein and four other charges

[skinsmarydu]

Ronan with the scoop again! ❤🤓

[Spaceman Spiff]

10 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

Elite New England school still accepts donations from someone they've publically tried to disassociate themselves from.  Not only do they accept his donations, but they consult with him on how the money should be used.  It's so widespread through the department that they called him Voldemort instead of using his real name.

 

Is anyone surprised?  Is anyone surprised that higher education institutions can be pieces of ****, too?

[LadySkinsFan]

Whitney Webb, a reporter for Mint Press wrote a four part series,  “The Jeffrey Epstein Scandal: Too Big to Fail, on the history of Epstein and others that's eye opening. I will post the links in order because each article is long.

Part I

https://www.mintpressnews.com/shocking-origins-jeffrey-epstein-blackmail-roy-cohn/260621/

Part II

https://www.mintpressnews.com/blackmail-jeffrey-epstein-trump-mentor-reagan-era/260760/

Part III

https://www.mintpressnews.com/mega-group-maxwells-mossad-spy-story-jeffrey-epstein-scandal/261172/

Part IV

https://www.mintpressnews.com/genesis-jeffrey-epstein-bill-clinton-relationship/261455/

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[Cooked Crack]

From his blog

Quote

14 September 2019 (Sex between an adult and a child is wrong)

Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.

Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.

Yikes. Took him 60+years to learn this?

[PokerPacker]

10 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

From his blog

Yikes. Took him 60+years to learn this?

Don't ruin Stallman for me!

[Renegade7]

16 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

Don't ruin Stallman for me!

The purge this whole thing should've caused was going to cost a lot of people we respect and look up to.  The only thing that shocks me is I'm not shocked, and it hurts.

[LadySkinsFan]

And think of the numbers of his child victims that might exist in the world.  Because if he didn't think it was bad, and he associated with Epstein, he was probably satisfying his urges. 

 

The reality is that in patriarchy if you aren't a man, and particularly a white man or the man in power regardless, women and children are viewed as objects to be consumed, for labor, childbearing and rearing, and sex. And it still prevails to this day, with the attendant power structures in place like law enforcement and the courts. All you have to do to realize this is look at all the articles where men and boys get out of punishment for rape. Like saying that he's a very fine boy and we don't want to ruin his future. No thought given to this very fine boy's victim who live with the violation for the rest of her life.

 

I know that some of you think that I'm nuts to keep writing about this. You have only to really look at some of the posts on this forum for examples of what I write about, written by your own selves. 

 

If we don't acknowledge and change this behavior, it will continue to exist.

[Renegade7]

@LadySkinsFan I'll say I'm not tired of your perspective, I jus think it's too one-sided. 

 

Its disturbing how many women are helping men do this sex trafficking thing, or leading it themselves.  This is not jus a man problem, plenty of brothels and message parlors owned by women getting caught in all this.

 

You are mixing leniency on the caught with the reality of those involved.   They all need to face the music and that starts with acknowledging all involved.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Renegade7

[LadySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

@LadySkinsFan I'll say I'm not tired of your perspective, I jus think it's too one-sided. 

 

Its disturbing how many women are helping men do this sex trafficking thing, or leading it themselves.  This is not jus a man problem, plenty of brothels and message parlors owned by women getting caught in all this.

 

You are mixing leniency on the caught with the reality of those involved.   They all need to face the music and that starts with acknowledging all involved.

 

I agree with post. Since the majority of the problem is perpetrated by men, that's my focus.

 

I read on my FB page today a post written by a Frenchwoman friend who said she had a nightmare last night brought on by memories of her rape experience over 20 years ago. So it never goes away, the fear, the constant monitoring of surroundings, the people approaching on the street or car. How wonderful life would be if we didn't have to spend this enormous time and energy on staying safe. Men just don't get this because it's not something they have to think about. We're not safe even in our homes. 

[Renegade7]

6 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

How wonderful life would be if we didn't have to spend this enormous time and energy on staying safe. Men just don't get this because it's not something they have to think about. We're not safe even in our homes. 

 

Now you've gone too far, are you suggesting men dont get raped or go through psychological terror from that?  Like boys dont get raped by their own family members that are men or even women?  Catholic Priests? Prison Rape?  You and I both know theres gay child porn out there, read an article about how they found it on DoD computers

[LadySkinsFan]

And here's the point: it's the ****ing system whereby it's mostly men who offend. Their prey is anyone who these predators consider prey, men, women, and children. 

 

It's the offenders who need punished like this offensive behavior is outside the boundaries of civilized society. Instead, the system doesn't punish the offenders significantly to show that predation won't be tolerated. The offenders get a pass, they don't get shamed, they get off with probation, not having to register as sex offenders. And the predators getting off lightly are those who <edit out this word don't> have economic power. Look at your local sex offender registeries, most are a few women, and men of color and white men of the lower economic levels. 

 

The biggest shock in the last few years was the predator cop who was sentenced to a couple of centuries for preying on citizens, mostly women as I recall. Even he was shocked, his face showed it. He thought he'd get off lightly because he was a cop. He appealed his sentence and it was rejected. 

 

This is the kind of punishment for predation that needs to happen, regardless of economic status.

 

That's my point. My other point is that as a woman, MY focus is women and by extension children.

 

What you focus on is up to you. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by LadySkinsFan

[Renegade7]

9 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

That's my point. My other point is that as a woman, MY focus is women and by extension children.

 

What you focus on is up to you. 

 

The irony is making exceptions is the very thing you are ranting about.

[Spaceman Spiff]

2 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

I agree with post. Since the majority of the problem is perpetrated by men, that's my focus.

 

I read on my FB page today a post written by a Frenchwoman friend who said she had a nightmare last night brought on by memories of her rape experience over 20 years ago. So it never goes away, the fear, the constant monitoring of surroundings, the people approaching on the street or car. How wonderful life would be if we didn't have to spend this enormous time and energy on staying safe. Men just don't get this because it's not something they have to think about. We're not safe even in our homes. 

 

I think if you were really sincere about what you're going after, you'd be sparing no expense no matter who the perps are.  I don't deny that men are a bigger part of the problem but that doesn't mean that all perpetrators shouldn't be viewed the same, men or women.  I'm not sure why you'd discern about who "focus" on if you were being 100% honest about how you feel about this.  I'd venture to guess it's because it's harder for you to look at women who are perpetrators in these cases and don't want to admit that women can do such things, or you're willing to give them a pass of sorts because they were harmed by the patriarchy and are victims themselves....or both.  Regardless, if you're a part of the problem, you're a part of the problem...man or woman.

[LadySkinsFan]

I have posted in the past that perps of either sex should be punished the same. 

 

My focus is the patriarchy which mostly benefits men.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2019 by LadySkinsFan

[skinsmarydu]

4 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

We're not safe even in our homes. 

I know. The OCD that comes after is awful. 

[PokerPacker]

Turns out Richard Stallman did not, in fact, defend Epstein.  He actually called Epstein a serial-rapist.  It was a libelous hit-piece taking what he actually said out of context and misrepresenting his position.  Order has been restored to my world.

Edited September 17, 2019 by PokerPacker

[Renegade7]

24 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

Turns out Richard Stallman did not, in fact, defend Epstein.  He actually called Epstein a serial-rapist.  It was a libelous hit-piece taking what he actually said out of context and misrepresenting his position.  Order has been restored to my world.

 

Didnt he come out and day he was jus now against adults having sex with kids?  I've seen that in a couple different places now.  This is separate from the Epstien thing.

[PokerPacker]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Didnt he come out and day he was jus now against adults having sex with kids?  I've seen that in a couple different places now.  This is separate from the Epstien thing.

I think he said that his view had changed on that some years ago when conversing with people who'd explained the psychological impact of it.  He's kind of a philosophical guy (considering he most known for his philosophy of free software) and a bit disconnected with people, so it doesn't surprise me that he'd be someone to ask the kind of questions that others find completely taboo and not even open to discussion.

[Cooked Crack]

30 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

Turns out Richard Stallman did not, in fact, defend Epstein.  He actually called Epstein a serial-rapist.  It was a libelous hit-piece taking what he actually said out of context and misrepresenting his position.  Order has been restored to my world.

Citation. The initial coverage was about his comments on an email chain. Plus the added coverage was about his own beliefs which he now admits was wrong.

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, PokerPacker said:

I think he said that his view had changed on that some years ago when conversing with people who'd explained the psychological impact of it.  He's kind of a philosophical guy (considering he most known for his philosophy of free software) and a bit disconnected with people, so it doesn't surprise me that he'd be someone to ask the kind of questions that others find completely taboo and not even open to discussion.

 

Penguin to penguin, in can understand wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt, all things considered, but I cant.  Age of consent is a grey area for some, but theres a reason we have one.

[PokerPacker]

1 minute ago, Cooked Crack said:

Citation. The initial coverage was about his comments on an email chain. Plus the added coverage was about his own beliefs which he now admits was wrong.

Well starting with just the tweet, "who defended Jeffrey Epstein" is false.  He did no such thing.

 

The entire thing was about his late colleague Marvin Minsky, who's name showed up in a deposition by one of the Epstein accusers saying that Epstein directed her to have sex with Minsky (which, by the way, the deposition never says they did, and a witness has stated that Minsky turned her down).  What Stallman had said was in defense of Minsky, saying that the most likely scenario was that she probably appeared to Minsky as entirely willing, as Epstein, the coercer, would most likely have directed her to act in such a manner.

The actual quote with some context, bolded is the part they decided to use in the Tech Crunch article.

"We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates."

 

The original article by Vice was even worse:
Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked. Stallman goes on to argue about the definition of “sexual assault,” “rape,” and whether they apply to Minsky and Giuffre’s deposition statement that she was forced to have sex with him.

 

They portray Stallman as defending Epstein and that the victims were willing, but he is in fact stating that Epstein probably directed the victims to appear willing.