OT: Epstein: 'Conspiracy theorists' proved right again

[Cursitor Doom]

He had too much dirt on too many top people.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-10/jeffrey-epstein-dead-apparent-
suicide



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Chris]

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 14:05:14 +0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

He had too much dirt on too many top people.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-10/jeffrey-epstein-dead-apparent-
suicide

Not dead! Spirited away to Israel to enjoy his ill-gotten gains in
secluded anonymnity, informed sources say.....

https://www.infowars.com/dead-men-tell-no-tales/

 

[Nomen Nescio]

Chris <cbx@noreply.com> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 14:05:14 +0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:

He had too much dirt on too many top people.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-10/jeffrey-epstein-dead-apparent-
suicide

Not dead! Spirited away to Israel to enjoy his ill-gotten gains in
secluded anonymnity, informed sources say.....

https://www.infowars.com/dead-men-tell-no-tales/

thats not what it says at the link chief...

Dead Men Tell No Tales
https://www.infowars.com/dead-men-tell-no-tales/

What a coincidence!

Epstein is "suicided," meaning the "powerful men" complicit in his sex
trafficking crimes will never be prosecuted.

Move along, nothing to see here!

Related Articles

Add One To Clinton Body Count, Jeffrey Epstein Killed During Suicide Watch
https://www.infowars.com/add-one-to-clinton-body-count-jeffrey-epstein-killed-during-suicide-watch/

Gowdy: Case Against Epstein Over, But Associates 'Can Still Be Charged'
https://www.infowars.com/gowdy-case-against-epstein-over-but-associates-can-still-be-charged/

#ClintonBodyCount Trending After Jeffrey Epstein's Mysterious 'Suicide'
https://www.infowars.com/clintonbodycount-trending-after-jeffrey-epsteins-mysterious-suicide/

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 22:03:57 +0000, Nomen Nescio wrote:

What a coincidence!

Epstein is "suicided," meaning the "powerful men" complicit in his
sex trafficking crimes will never be prosecuted.

Move along, nothing to see here!

Well, it's not all over yet. Let's see if the authorities proceed against
Ghislain Maxwell (her father Robert, a newspaper magnate, also died in
suspicious circumstances after fleecing a pension fund) who was Epstein's
fixer; procured the underage girls for him. Then we'll know if they're
serious about getting to the root of this or not.




--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 5:17:18 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 22:03:57 +0000, Nomen Nescio wrote:

What a coincidence!

Epstein is "suicided," meaning the "powerful men" complicit in his
sex trafficking crimes will never be prosecuted.

Move along, nothing to see here!

Well, it's not all over yet. Let's see if the authorities proceed against
Ghislain Maxwell (her father Robert, a newspaper magnate, also died in
suspicious circumstances after fleecing a pension fund) who was Epstein's
fixer; procured the underage girls for him. Then we'll know if they're
serious about getting to the root of this or not.

That remains an interesting question, why she has not been charged.
You'd think that even if they did not have a strong case against her,
that she would have been arrested and charged at the same time.
Put pressure on her, get her to flip, that's what they usually would
do. On the other hand, if prosecutors were trying to cover this all
up, why bring the new charges against Epstein at all?

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 08:44:06 -0700, Whoey Louie wrote:

That remains an interesting question, why she has not been charged.
You'd think that even if they did not have a strong case against her,
that she would have been arrested and charged at the same time.
Put pressure on her, get her to flip, that's what they usually would do.
On the other hand, if prosecutors were trying to cover this all up, why
bring the new charges against Epstein at all?

The prosecutors, the FBI, the NYC police are NOT monolithic
organisations, though. They're made up from *mostly* decent people who
want to see justice served. Unfortunately, however, there are elements
within each which have been subverted and these elements often
unaccountably end up ultimately calling all the shots to intervene in any
cases involving high profile individuals. I've seen it happen over and
over again, not just in N. America, but all over the world.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 08:44:06 -0700, Whoey Louie wrote:

That remains an interesting question, why she has not been charged.
You'd think that even if they did not have a strong case against her,
that she would have been arrested and charged at the same time.
Put pressure on her, get her to flip, that's what they usually would do.
On the other hand, if prosecutors were trying to cover this all up, why
bring the new charges against Epstein at all?

The prosecutors, the FBI, the NYC police are NOT monolithic
organisations, though. They're made up from *mostly* decent people who
want to see justice served. Unfortunately, however, there are elements
within each which have been subverted and these elements often
unaccountably end up ultimately calling all the shots to intervene in any
cases involving high profile individuals. I've seen it happen over and
over again, not just in N. America, but all over the world.

Damn right! Just ask Patric Jane!!! It took him eight seasons... I mean -years- to get Red John because of the corruption.

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in
news:qipeke$uoe$3@dont-email.me:

On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 08:44:06 -0700, Whoey Louie wrote:

That remains an interesting question, why she has not been
charged. You'd think that even if they did not have a strong case
against her, that she would have been arrested and charged at the
same time. Put pressure on her, get her to flip, that's what they
usually would do.
On the other hand, if prosecutors were trying to cover this all
up, why
bring the new charges against Epstein at all?

The prosecutors, the FBI, the NYC police are NOT monolithic
organisations, though. They're made up from *mostly* decent people
who want to see justice served. Unfortunately, however, there are
elements within each which have been subverted and these elements
often unaccountably end up ultimately calling all the shots to
intervene in any cases involving high profile individuals. I've
seen it happen over and over again, not just in N. America, but
all over the world.

Like Trump not being charged with contempt of court back in the
'80s when he was told to deliver records relating to his rental
practices in a racial discrimination suit? Or the time the EPA and
others all looked the other way when he spewed asbestos clouds all
over NYC for weeks on end?

Subverted? That term hardly covers the criminal bevahior of the
dopes at the top claiming to be "running the show".

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 2:09:59 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 08:44:06 -0700, Whoey Louie wrote:

That remains an interesting question, why she has not been charged.
You'd think that even if they did not have a strong case against her,
that she would have been arrested and charged at the same time.
Put pressure on her, get her to flip, that's what they usually would do.
On the other hand, if prosecutors were trying to cover this all up, why
bring the new charges against Epstein at all?

The prosecutors, the FBI, the NYC police are NOT monolithic
organisations, though. They're made up from *mostly* decent people who
want to see justice served. Unfortunately, however, there are elements
within each which have been subverted and these elements often
unaccountably end up ultimately calling all the shots to intervene in any
cases involving high profile individuals. I've seen it happen over and
over again, not just in N. America, but all over the world.

What Cursiotr Doom "sees" is what the specialised media that feeds his tastes serves up to him. He wants to see the justice system as partially subverted, and gets offered fantasies that satisfies that wish.

Naturally, he "sees" it happen, because he wants to see it happen. Saner individuals go to the movies and watch enedless cowboy dramas and know that they are fantasies.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 17:04:25 -0700, Whoey Louie wrote:

But Comey gave her a pass, he said she was extremely careless, but no
worries, she gets a pass. So, yes, apparently different standards apply
for peons versus at least some of those that are juiced up.

In a departure from the norm for me, I've been watching the UK TV news
over the net today. It's interesting that when the BBC (spit!) has
reported on the Epstein 'suicide' story, they've shown file footage of
him with Trump at some party whilst they re-spew the allegations of
underage sex. Funny they never showed any clip of Epstein and 'Slick
Willy' Clinton having fun together, though. No doubt an entirely innocent
omission I would imagine, just like failing to check regularly on a high-
risk inmate in jail on suicide watch.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 9:33:41 AM UTC+10, DecadentLinux...@decadence..org wrote:

Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in
news:qipeke$uoe$3@dont-email.me:

On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 08:44:06 -0700, Whoey Louie wrote:

That remains an interesting question, why she has not been
charged. You'd think that even if they did not have a strong case
against her, that she would have been arrested and charged at the
same time. Put pressure on her, get her to flip, that's what they
usually would do.
On the other hand, if prosecutors were trying to cover this all
up, why
bring the new charges against Epstein at all?

The prosecutors, the FBI, the NYC police are NOT monolithic
organisations, though. They're made up from *mostly* decent people
who want to see justice served. Unfortunately, however, there are
elements within each which have been subverted and these elements
often unaccountably end up ultimately calling all the shots to
intervene in any cases involving high profile individuals. I've
seen it happen over and over again, not just in N. America, but
all over the world.

Like Trump not being charged with contempt of court back in the
'80s when he was told to deliver records relating to his rental
practices in a racial discrimination suit? Or the time the EPA and
others all looked the other way when he spewed asbestos clouds all
over NYC for weeks on end?

Subverted? That term hardly covers the criminal bevahior of the
dopes at the top claiming to be "running the show".

Money talks louder in the USA than in most advanced industrial countries. In the beginning you had to own property before you could vote, and while universal suffrage was eventually adopted - for males by 1856 - the system still works in a way that give people with money a disproportionate amount of power.

Trump had his father's money from the start, and his father's network of influence.

The system wasn't "subverted". It always ran like that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 7:33:41 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in
news:qipeke$uoe$3@dont-email.me:

On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 08:44:06 -0700, Whoey Louie wrote:

That remains an interesting question, why she has not been
charged. You'd think that even if they did not have a strong case
against her, that she would have been arrested and charged at the
same time. Put pressure on her, get her to flip, that's what they
usually would do.
On the other hand, if prosecutors were trying to cover this all
up, why
bring the new charges against Epstein at all?

The prosecutors, the FBI, the NYC police are NOT monolithic
organisations, though. They're made up from *mostly* decent people
who want to see justice served. Unfortunately, however, there are
elements within each which have been subverted and these elements
often unaccountably end up ultimately calling all the shots to
intervene in any cases involving high profile individuals. I've
seen it happen over and over again, not just in N. America, but
all over the world.




Like Trump not being charged with contempt of court back in the
'80s when he was told to deliver records relating to his rental
practices in a racial discrimination suit? Or the time the EPA and
others all looked the other way when he spewed asbestos clouds all
over NYC for weeks on end?

Subverted? That term hardly covers the criminal bevahior of the
dopes at the top claiming to be "running the show".

I'd say Hillary being given a pass for having an emial server in her house
that she passed classified information through should be on the list.
Especially when a Navy submariner went to prison for taking a selfie
that captured part of the classified section of a sub he was on.
The selfie never left his phone. Hillary, why she swore under oath
that she couldn't recall her training on classified document handling
and that she thought the "C" in the margins of classified documents
meant that was the "C" paragraph, even though there was no A, B, or
D paragraph markings, only "C"'s. They even had her telling an aid who
was having trouble faxing her a classified document through the secure
system to take off the identifying information and email it to her.
But Comey gave her a pass, he said she was extremely careless, but no
worries, she gets a pass. So, yes, apparently different standards
apply for peons versus at least some of those that are juiced up.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:cdf88e02-4c07-4145-
aa53-c7ba60953a08@googlegroups.com:

negligent with
the handling of classified material.

Negligence is far different than intentionally criminal.

The fact is her acts were mild by any measure. Comey even said so.
You think they don't have a handle on things? Oh that's right... you
are an abject idiot.

Cry us a river, stupid, brain warped twerp.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:cdf88e02-4c07-4145-
aa53-c7ba60953a08@googlegroups.com:

Yet she told the FBI under oath that she didn't remember her
training
on handling classified info,

With the level of information overload such a person undergoes,
retaining priority memories likely take precedence over retaining
trivial procedurals.

If we were never hacked it might be different, but since some lame
twit decided to spill info despite the oath he took, and due to
actual hacking, I'd say her home set-up was likely pretty good, but
it no longer matters as idots like China hacked our F-35 plans and
actually think they can spin a better version. Far more deeply
classified than her stuff ever was.

Get off your little hobby horse, you crybaby Trumpesque bitch.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 8:59:14 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:b2137362-dd3d-42ea-af3e-789626aeee69@googlegroups.com:

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 9:33:41 AM UTC+10,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in
news:qipeke$uoe$3@dont-email.me:

On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 08:44:06 -0700, Whoey Louie wrote:

That remains an interesting question, why she has not been
charged. You'd think that even if they did not have a strong
case against her, that she would have been arrested and
charged at the same time. Put pressure on her, get her to
flip, that's what they usually would do.
On the other hand, if prosecutors were trying to cover this
all up, why
bring the new charges against Epstein at all?

The prosecutors, the FBI, the NYC police are NOT monolithic
organisations, though. They're made up from *mostly* decent
people who want to see justice served. Unfortunately, however,
there are elements within each which have been subverted and
these elements often unaccountably end up ultimately calling
all the shots to intervene in any cases involving high profile
individuals. I've seen it happen over and over again, not just
in N. America, but all over the world.

Like Trump not being charged with contempt of court back in the
'80s when he was told to deliver records relating to his rental
practices in a racial discrimination suit? Or the time the EPA
and others all looked the other way when he spewed asbestos
clouds all over NYC for weeks on end?

Subverted? That term hardly covers the criminal bevahior of
the
dopes at the top claiming to be "running the show".

Money talks louder in the USA than in most advanced industrial
countries. In the beginning you had to own property before you
could vote, and while universal suffrage was eventually adopted -
for males by 1856 - the system still works in a way that give
people with money a disproportionate amount of power.

Trump had his father's money from the start, and his father's
network of influence.

The system wasn't "subverted". It always ran like that.


Well the idiots better wake the fuck up then, because as the
American standard of living declines severely as it has in the last
three decades, the people feel more and more like the idiots at the
top eating steak every day need to be adjusted.

We said no when they voted themselves a raise, and the bastards have
been giving themselves one every year since! And most of the fucks
make (huge amounts of) money back at home.

ROFL

The American standard of living declined severely in the last several decades?
Several decades ago I didn't see McMAnsions all over the place, I didn't
see three or four SUVS or vehicles in driveways, the high school parking
lot wasn't a traffic jam exiting, many homes didn't have AC, they didn't
have 3 or 4 TVs with 150 cable channels, people didn't have several computers, cell phones..... Yes, the country sure has gone down hill in standard of living.

Wrong, always wrong.

 

Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in news:qiqbam$gv9$3@dont-
email.me:

they've shown file footage of
him with Trump at some party whilst they re-spew the allegations of
underage sex. Funny they never showed any clip of Epstein and 'Slick
Willy' Clinton having fun together, though.

What about him with the Prince? Funny how you seem to have a biased
vocalization all the time.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:b2137362-dd3d-42ea-af3e-789626aeee69@googlegroups.com:

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 9:33:41 AM UTC+10,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in
news:qipeke$uoe$3@dont-email.me:

On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 08:44:06 -0700, Whoey Louie wrote:

That remains an interesting question, why she has not been
charged. You'd think that even if they did not have a strong
case against her, that she would have been arrested and
charged at the same time. Put pressure on her, get her to
flip, that's what they usually would do.
On the other hand, if prosecutors were trying to cover this
all up, why
bring the new charges against Epstein at all?

The prosecutors, the FBI, the NYC police are NOT monolithic
organisations, though. They're made up from *mostly* decent
people who want to see justice served. Unfortunately, however,
there are elements within each which have been subverted and
these elements often unaccountably end up ultimately calling
all the shots to intervene in any cases involving high profile
individuals. I've seen it happen over and over again, not just
in N. America, but all over the world.

Like Trump not being charged with contempt of court back in the
'80s when he was told to deliver records relating to his rental
practices in a racial discrimination suit? Or the time the EPA
and others all looked the other way when he spewed asbestos
clouds all over NYC for weeks on end?

Subverted? That term hardly covers the criminal bevahior of
the
dopes at the top claiming to be "running the show".

Money talks louder in the USA than in most advanced industrial
countries. In the beginning you had to own property before you
could vote, and while universal suffrage was eventually adopted -
for males by 1856 - the system still works in a way that give
people with money a disproportionate amount of power.

Trump had his father's money from the start, and his father's
network of influence.

The system wasn't "subverted". It always ran like that.

Well the idiots better wake the fuck up then, because as the
American standard of living declines severely as it has in the last
three decades, the people feel more and more like the idiots at the
top eating steak every day need to be adjusted.

We said no when they voted themselves a raise, and the bastards have
been giving themselves one every year since! And most of the fucks
make (huge amounts of) money back at home.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:cdf88e02-4c07-4145-aa53-c7ba60953a08@googlegroups.com:

Wrong again, always wrong. Pictures that you take don't leave
your phone, unless you've specifically enabled some software to
upload them to the cloud or you email them, tweet them, etc.

You keep thinking that, stupid child.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 9:49:32 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:cdf88e02-4c07-4145-
aa53-c7ba60953a08@googlegroups.com:

That is a hell of a lot different than a sex
trafficker of a person in office colluding with a foreign (enemy)
entity to affect ANYTHING in our nation.

Hillary colluded with the Russians? Wow!



Nice try, putz boy. I made no reference to her. I referred to
Epstein and Trump, as if your wee wittle bwain is having processing
issues.

Epstein colluded with the Russians? Tell us more? Trump colluded?
After $35 mil and two years, Mueller concluded that there was no evidence
that Trump, anyone in the Trump campaign or any American colluded with
Russia.


Wrong, always wrong.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 9:43:38 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:cdf88e02-4c07-4145-
aa53-c7ba60953a08@googlegroups.com:

negligent with
the handling of classified material.

Negligence is far different than intentionally criminal.

Sure is. But the statute covering handling of classified material
does not say that there needs to be any intent. Just being negligent
is all that's required. Just like the Navy submariner was not intending
to expose any secrets. Funny how he gets charges, Hillary gets a pass, eh?

The fact is her acts were mild by any measure. Comey even said so.

That's wrong too. Comey actually said that what Hillary did was
"extremely careless". All the law requires for a felony conviction is
that one be negligent. Negligent = extremely careless.

You think they don't have a handle on things? Oh that's right... you
are an abject idiot.

Oh no, I know the Clintons had a handle on it. That's why she didn't get
charged, while the poor schmuck submariner who took a selfie did.

Cry us a river, stupid, brain warped twerp.