HawkShack.com

So the President was meeting with the President of Qatar and of course the press pool asked about Epstein instead of asking anything about the meeting between these two heads of state. That said, here's a few new developments.

1. Trump said he knew of Epstein the same way everyone in West Palm Beach knew him. He was a fixture there. Trump then elaborated that he "had a falling out a long time ago and that he hasn't spoken to him in over 15 years." Seems like that lines up with the reports of Trump banning Epstein from his Florida resort because of Epstein assaulting an under age girl.

2. Acosta was the DA for Miami that cut the deal with Epstein. Acosta has stated that Epstein was about to get off from the federal charges and the decision to offer the plea deal in State charges was the best they could hope for to have charges stick to Epstein. Additionally, the settlement was negotiated under the Obama administration as best we can tell and that there were many people involved with that decision. In other words, this could blow up in the dems face and probably some other high profile actors, politicians, etc. (Not that I have any remorse whatsoever for any of them involved on either side of the aisle). here's what is interesting about the charges that were pressed and Epstein pled guilty to.
a. They were state charges so a future federal charge could be preserved and pressed at a future date if more evidence was discovered without invoking double jeopardy.
b. It forced Epstein to register as a sex offender on the federal registry which will carry more weight for the new charges and a bigger/longer sentence for him if convicted of these new charges.
c. It at least made him go to jail for 13 months (negotiated down from 18) even though he was granted work release where he would be free to go out from prison everyday to "work".

I feel it is important to point out again, that these charges were after the article that Trump mentioned him in back in 2002 and after the falling out in 2004-2005 time frame that Trump described. It also makes Pelosi and Shumer look foolish since they didn't wait to pass judgement on Acosta and the other shoe is most certainly yet to fall.

It does sound like Epstein is one of those well-connected monsters that uses his money and power to engage in child rape while having politicians and other wealthy folk overlook his crimes for the cash. Much like when Hollyweird was trying to get Roman Polanski back in the United States with some petition after he raped a 13 year old girl because the girl forgave him. Some hammers need to fall on this case. This is straight darkest movie type of material.

Aseahawkfan wrote:It does sound like Epstein is one of those well-connected monsters that uses his money and power to engage in child rape while having politicians and other wealthy folk overlook his crimes for the cash. Much like when Hollyweird was trying to get Roman Polanski back in the United States with some petition after he raped a 13 year old girl because the girl forgave him. Some hammers need to fall on this case. This is straight darkest movie type of material.

I think that would be the best reason (for his money) but I'm thinking it might be that even foreign dignitaries will be highly embarrassed by the revelations that will come out if he is facing real jail time. I wouldn't put it past our govt. (repub and Dem) to put pressure on the DA not to charge for those reasons. This could be very explosive...

Totally agree with you though about some hammers really need to fall on this. Who the heck are we if we turn a blind eye?

idhawkman wrote:I think that would be the best reason (for his money) but I'm thinking it might be that even foreign dignitaries will be highly embarrassed by the revelations that will come out if he is facing real jail time. I wouldn't put it past our govt. (repub and Dem) to put pressure on the DA not to charge for those reasons. This could be very explosive...

Totally agree with you though about some hammers really need to fall on this. Who the heck are we if we turn a blind eye?

If this case turns into a rich guy getting away with raping children from middle class to poor backgrounds, some real anger from the population needs to be exercised. Metoo# movement needs to look like child's play next to take this scumbag Epstein out.

idhawkman wrote:So the President was meeting with the President of Qatar and of course the press pool asked about Epstein instead of asking anything about the meeting between these two heads of state. That said, here's a few new developments.

1. Trump said he knew of Epstein the same way everyone in West Palm Beach knew him. He was a fixture there. Trump then elaborated that he "had a falling out a long time ago and that he hasn't spoken to him in over 15 years." Seems like that lines up with the reports of Trump banning Epstein from his Florida resort because of Epstein assaulting an under age girl.

2. Acosta was the DA for Miami that cut the deal with Epstein. Acosta has stated that Epstein was about to get off from the federal charges and the decision to offer the plea deal in State charges was the best they could hope for to have charges stick to Epstein. Additionally, the settlement was negotiated under the Obama administration as best we can tell and that there were many people involved with that decision. In other words, this could blow up in the dems face and probably some other high profile actors, politicians, etc. (Not that I have any remorse whatsoever for any of them involved on either side of the aisle). here's what is interesting about the charges that were pressed and Epstein pled guilty to.
a. They were state charges so a future federal charge could be preserved and pressed at a future date if more evidence was discovered without invoking double jeopardy.
b. It forced Epstein to register as a sex offender on the federal registry which will carry more weight for the new charges and a bigger/longer sentence for him if convicted of these new charges.
c. It at least made him go to jail for 13 months (negotiated down from 18) even though he was granted work release where he would be free to go out from prison everyday to "work".

I feel it is important to point out again, that these charges were after the article that Trump mentioned him in back in 2002 and after the falling out in 2004-2005 time frame that Trump described. It also makes Pelosi and Shumer look foolish since they didn't wait to pass judgement on Acosta and the other shoe is most certainly yet to fall.

First off, NO ONE except hard core Trump believers will accept at face value Trump's denials. Given his willingness to misstate facts on any and all subjects and blatantly lie about his past, there's going to have to be some pretty solid corroboration of anything he says on the matter.

I'm not sure why you're so giddy over this scandal. The best result from Trump's POV is that there is nothing but a "birds of a feather flock together" association which has already added to his sleaze factor aura and that he can contain the scandal his Labor Secretary has become ensnared in. Trump has bragged about his ability to judge human character, and his "terrific guy" appraisal (which sounds eerily similar to his "quite a guy" assessment of Kim Jong Un) and comments about characteristics he and Epstein share does not reflect well on him or his judgment.

This Epstein character is just one more reminder of how the rich and famous benefit from a double standard of justice. It's a sordid, disgusting scandal, IMO worse than the Cosby or Weinstein scandals if the accusations are true as it involves minors. It also doesn't surprise me that the 2nd most morally bankrupt POTUS in our history is bobbing around in this cess pool.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
If this case turns into a rich guy getting away with raping children from middle class to poor backgrounds, some real anger from the population needs to be exercised. Metoo# movement needs to look like child's play next to take this scumbag Epstein out.

There was a report yesterday that said Acosta was ordered to make the deal from higher ups. "IF" that is true, this will get brushed under the rug or be very bad for whoever that "Higher up" was.

RiverDog wrote:First off, NO ONE except hard core Trump believers will accept at face value Trump's denials. Given his willingness to misstate facts on any and all subjects and blatantly lie about his past, there's going to have to be some pretty solid corroboration of anything he says on the matter.

I'm not sure why you're so giddy over this scandal. The best result from Trump's POV is that there is nothing but a "birds of a feather flock together" association which has already added to his sleaze factor aura and that he can contain the scandal his Labor Secretary has become ensnared in. Trump has bragged about his ability to judge human character, and his "terrific guy" appraisal (which sounds eerily similar to his "quite a guy" assessment of Kim Jong Un) and comments about characteristics he and Epstein share does not reflect well on him or his judgment.

This Epstein character is just one more reminder of how the rich and famous benefit from a double standard of justice. It's a sordid, disgusting scandal, IMO worse than the Cosby or Weinstein scandals if the accusations are true as it involves minors. It also doesn't surprise me that the 2nd most morally bankrupt POTUS in our history is bobbing around in this cess pool.

No, you won't accept at face value Trump's denials no matter what evidence is present.

I'm not the one giddy, you are since you're trying to say he's a "Bird of a Feather" or worse. Let me ask you, what was Epstein charged with in 2002 when Trump mentioned him in the article? Do you know what philanthropic activities Epstein was involved with at that time when he was a prominent figure in the same town that Trump had as his second home? Have you ever said someone is a good person (Like a governor, congressman, local businessman) without actually knowing them and their dark secrets?

I hope at some point in your life you have an antagonist looking at every word and every step you take as critically as you do Trump.

RiverDog wrote:First off, NO ONE except hard core Trump believers will accept at face value Trump's denials. Given his willingness to misstate facts on any and all subjects and blatantly lie about his past, there's going to have to be some pretty solid corroboration of anything he says on the matter.

I'm not sure why you're so giddy over this scandal. The best result from Trump's POV is that there is nothing but a "birds of a feather flock together" association which has already added to his sleaze factor aura and that he can contain the scandal his Labor Secretary has become ensnared in. Trump has bragged about his ability to judge human character, and his "terrific guy" appraisal (which sounds eerily similar to his "quite a guy" assessment of Kim Jong Un) and comments about characteristics he and Epstein share does not reflect well on him or his judgment.

This Epstein character is just one more reminder of how the rich and famous benefit from a double standard of justice. It's a sordid, disgusting scandal, IMO worse than the Cosby or Weinstein scandals if the accusations are true as it involves minors. It also doesn't surprise me that the 2nd most morally bankrupt POTUS in our history is bobbing around in this cess pool.

idhawkman wrote:No, you won't accept at face value Trump's denials no matter what evidence is present.

Not true at all, and that's not what I said. What I said was that I could not accept Trump's word at face value unless there was other "evidence" to corroborate it. You cannot deny that Trump has either misstated critical facts or blatantly lied about a range of subjects, not the least of which has been his personal dealings. His word means nothing.

At this point, I don't see anything more than a dotted line connection between Trump and Epstein. Trump is obviously trying to distance himself from him as he's done with other former friends and associates that have had legal troubles. But like I said, at a minimum, it contributes to the sleaze factor that's so much a part of DJT's character.

idhawkman wrote:No, you won't accept at face value Trump's denials no matter what evidence is present.

RiverDog wrote:Not true at all, and that's not what I said. What I said was that I could not accept Trump's word at face value unless there was other "evidence" to corroborate it. You cannot deny that Trump has either misstated critical facts or blatantly lied about a range of subjects, not the least of which has been his personal dealings. His word means nothing.

If you need other evidence to corroborate it, then it isn't face value. Geez!

At this point, I don't see anything more than a dotted line connection between Trump and Epstein. Trump is obviously trying to distance himself from him as he's done with other former friends and associates that have had legal troubles. But like I said, at a minimum, it contributes to the sleaze factor that's so much a part of DJT's character.

Yeah, pretty much anything would to you at this point.

idhawkman wrote:No, you won't accept at face value Trump's denials no matter what evidence is present.

RiverDog wrote:Not true at all, and that's not what I said. What I said was that I could not accept Trump's word at face value unless there was other "evidence" to corroborate it. You cannot deny that Trump has either misstated critical facts or blatantly lied about a range of subjects, not the least of which has been his personal dealings. His word means nothing.

idhawkman wrote:If you need other evidence to corroborate it, then it isn't face value. Geez!

Geez yourself! Read what you said: You claimed that I wouldn't accept Trump's denials NO MATTER WHAT EVIDENCE IS PRESENT. That is not true at all. What I said is that I would not take at face value anything Trump says unless it is corroborated (evidence).

At this point, I don't see anything more than a dotted line connection between Trump and Epstein. Trump is obviously trying to distance himself from him as he's done with other former friends and associates that have had legal troubles. But like I said, at a minimum, it contributes to the sleaze factor that's so much a part of DJT's character.

idhawkman wrote:Yeah, pretty much anything would to you at this point.

Trump was friends with Epstein for over a decade, even equated his interests with that of his own. I think that qualifies as a "dotted line connection", in other words, not directly connected but a connection nevertheless. You can't say that there wasn't a relationship there. And to be fair, Bill Clinton, another morally bankrupt POTUS, is in the same boat. Epstein probably had stewardesses wearing G-strings and giving lap dances on those flights.

RiverDog wrote:Geez yourself! Read what you said: You claimed that I wouldn't accept Trump's denials NO MATTER WHAT EVIDENCE IS PRESENT. That is not true at all. What I said is that I would not take at face value anything Trump says unless it is corroborated (evidence).

And I said, if you need further evidence, then it isn't face value.

Trump was friends with Epstein for over a decade, even equated his interests with that of his own. I think that qualifies as a "dotted line connection", in other words, not directly connected but a connection nevertheless. You can't say that there wasn't a relationship there. And to be fair, Bill Clinton, another morally bankrupt POTUS, is in the same boat. Epstein probably had stewardesses wearing G-strings and giving lap dances on those flights.

This is just a false statement. Trump was not friends for over a decade with the man. He knew him, knew of him, maybe even dealt with him on occassion or attended the same function he did but Trump was not "Friends" with him. Just because two people have the same interests doesn't make them friends or even same minded. Take for instance, we both share an interest in the Seahawks but I don't think you'll find anyone here or any other place that equates you and me as the same or even having a "dotted line connection" between us.

RiverDog wrote:Trump was friends with Epstein for over a decade, even equated his interests with that of his own. I think that qualifies as a "dotted line connection", in other words, not directly connected but a connection nevertheless. You can't say that there wasn't a relationship there. And to be fair, Bill Clinton, another morally bankrupt POTUS, is in the same boat. Epstein probably had stewardesses wearing G-strings and giving lap dances on those flights.

idhawkman wrote:This is just a false statement. Trump was not friends for over a decade with the man. He knew him, knew of him, maybe even dealt with him on occassion or attended the same function he did but Trump was not "Friends" with him. Just because two people have the same interests doesn't make them friends or even same minded. Take for instance, we both share an interest in the Seahawks but I don't think you'll find anyone here or any other place that equates you and me as the same or even having a "dotted line connection" between us.

Oh, come off it, Idahawk. Spare me your spin.

Trump and Epstein knew each other for decades. They not only attended the same social functions, they attended them at each other's private residence. Trump flew at least once on Epstein's plane (Trump had his own plane so there wasn't a need to hop a ride with Epstein). Prior to Trump's election in 2016, Epstein's defense team had Trump on their witness list. Trump once said of Epstein that he's "a lot of fun to be with" and called him "a terrific guy". When the FBI looked at Epstein's personal phone book, they found 14 phone numbers for Trump, including his security guard and houseman, and he had phone numbers for both Ivanka and Trump's then-wife Ivana. To be fair, most of their elbow rubbing occurred quite some time ago, but to say that they weren't at least friends, if not close friends, is just plain head-in-the-sand ignorant.

Although it's certainly possible that Trump had knowledge of Epstein's criminal activity, there's no evidence that he did, and I am not making such an accusation. But it's pretty clear that their relationship was just a little more than some random casual acquaintance as you are trying to spin it. And it does add to the sleaze factor that is so much a part of Donald Trump's persona.

Here's an article for you to read up on, and it includes a nice pic of Trump with his arm around his "non friend."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/p ... stein.html

I think it's clear to everyone what Riv means....the figurative term 'face value' literally means 'superficial appearance', which is why no one should believe it until proven by evidence. That's like Trump saying 'Putin says he didn't do it'.

I-5 wrote:I think it's clear to everyone what Riv means....the figurative term 'face value' literally means 'superficial appearance', which is why no one should believe it until proven by evidence. That's like Trump saying 'Putin says he didn't do it'.

It's apparently not clear to "everyone", but that's exactly what I meant.

Who here believes Labor Secretary Acosta resigned today voluntarily vs being pushed out by Trump? At 'face value', Trump says 'I'm with him' referring to Acosta. But does anyone believe Acosta would leave on his own if Trump wanted him to stay, now that he's radioactive?

Also, who wants to wager than when more comes out, it will bring down other big names, specifically Alan Dershowitz and Bill Clinton? The former admitted that he had massages at Epsteins's mansion, but 'kept his underwear on'. He also said, he'll wait to see more evidence. We'll see how his story changes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GlK8dr6MP0

I-5 wrote:Who here believes Labor Secretary Acosta resigned today voluntarily vs being pushed out by Trump? At 'face value', Trump says 'I'm with him' referring to Acosta. But does anyone believe Acosta would leave on his own if Trump wanted him to stay, now that he's radioactive?

Well, I don't believe what Trump says, but I have no reason to doubt Acosta's explanation. Either way, it doesn't make a great deal of difference to me. I wasn't calling on Acosta to resign to begin with.

I-5 wrote:Also, who wants to wager than when more comes out, it will bring down other big names, specifically Alan Dershowitz and Bill Clinton? The former admitted that he had massages at Epsteins's mansion, but 'kept his underwear on'. He also said, he'll wait to see more evidence. We'll see how his story changes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GlK8dr6MP0

It will be interesting how Clinton was involved in this scandal. There's a blatant hypocrisy in that the same women's groups/Democrats that were able to rationalize Clinton's escapades when he was in office yet had a cow when accusations of harassment from 37 years ago were levied against a Republican nominee to SCOTUS.

RiverDog wrote:It will be interesting how Clinton was involved in this scandal. There's a blatant hypocrisy in that the same women's groups/Democrats that were able to rationalize Clinton's escapades when he was in office yet had a cow when accusations of harassment from 37 years ago were levied against a Republican nominee to SCOTUS.

Far weaker allegations as well. The whole SCOTUS thing was rotten to the core.

I wonder if Epstein will sell a lot of folks out or if he has been clearly told that if he talks, he dies. Sometimes you know too many bad things about too many bad people and not even money will protect you from getting hit. Epstein may know to keep his mouth shut.

You may be right ASF. Either way, though, I don’t see Epstein getting away this time. I didn’t mention Trump, but he obviously knows what kind of person Epstein was and is. Dershowitz already said he got a massage at the mansion. Is there even a chance that Clinton or Trump wouldn’t have as well? Both are well-known skirt chasers. If they did, someone knows.

I-5 wrote:You may be right ASF. Either way, though, I don’t see Epstein getting away this time. I didn’t mention Trump, but he obviously knows what kind of person Epstein was and is. Dershowitz already said he got a massage at the mansion. Is there even a chance that Clinton or Trump wouldn’t have as well? Both are well-known skirt chasers. If they did, someone knows.

"Skirt chasers" is about as G rated of a handle as can be conceived regarding the characterization of those two dirty old men.

Longtime residents claim that Epstein's activities were an open secret, referring to his mansion as "Pedophile Island", so I'm not believing for a minute that both Clinton and Trump don't know more than what they're admitting to.

RiverDog wrote:
Oh, come off it, Idahawk. Spare me your spin.

Trump and Epstein knew each other for decades. They not only attended the same social functions, they attended them at each other's private residence. Trump flew at least once on Epstein's plane (Trump had his own plane so there wasn't a need to hop a ride with Epstein).

Rubbish. You are spinning this as Trump was not on his plane.

Prior to Trump's election in 2016, Epstein's defense team had Trump on their witness list. Trump once said of Epstein that he's "a lot of fun to be with" and called him "a terrific guy". When the FBI looked at Epstein's personal phone book, they found 14 phone numbers for Trump, including his security guard and houseman, and he had phone numbers for both Ivanka and Trump's then-wife Ivana. To be fair, most of their elbow rubbing occurred quite some time ago, but to say that they weren't at least friends, if not close friends, is just plain head-in-the-sand ignorant.

More rubbish. No way was Trump on his witness list after Trump kicked him out of his club for sexual harassment of an underage teen in his spa. I can't believe you are spewing this trope trash.

Although it's certainly possible that Trump had knowledge of Epstein's criminal activity, there's no evidence that he did, and I am not making such an accusation. But it's pretty clear that their relationship was just a little more than some random casual acquaintance as you are trying to spin it. And it does add to the sleaze factor that is so much a part of Donald Trump's persona.

Here's an article for you to read up on, and it includes a nice pic of Trump with his arm around his "non friend."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/p ... stein.html

1997 was when that picture was taken. Do you know how many fundraisers and functions both of them did? Do you even understand what a photo op is or do you think every picture with a famous person is a personal long time friendship indicator? Get real. You're so triggered by anything Trump that it is ridiculous.

I-5 wrote:I think it's clear to everyone what Riv means....the figurative term 'face value' literally means 'superficial appearance', which is why no one should believe it until proven by evidence. That's like Trump saying 'Putin says he didn't do it'.

RiverDog wrote:
It's apparently not clear to "everyone", but that's exactly what I meant.

Even with wordsmithing, if it needs more evidence then it isn't "superficial appearance". So spare me the spin.

RiverDog wrote:
Oh, come off it, Idahawk. Spare me your spin.

Trump and Epstein knew each other for decades. They not only attended the same social functions, they attended them at each other's private residence. Trump flew at least once on Epstein's plane (Trump had his own plane so there wasn't a need to hop a ride with Epstein).

idhawkman wrote:Rubbish. You are spinning this as Trump was not on his plane.

Get out your popcorn!

Trump rode on Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane at least once, according to the deposition of Mark Epstein, Jeffrey’s brother.

https://dailycaller.com/2016/10/09/the- ... alk-about/

Prior to Trump's election in 2016, Epstein's defense team had Trump on their witness list. Trump once said of Epstein that he's "a lot of fun to be with" and called him "a terrific guy". When the FBI looked at Epstein's personal phone book, they found 14 phone numbers for Trump, including his security guard and houseman, and he had phone numbers for both Ivanka and Trump's then-wife Ivana. To be fair, most of their elbow rubbing occurred quite some time ago, but to say that they weren't at least friends, if not close friends, is just plain head-in-the-sand ignorant.

idhawkman wrote:More rubbish. No way was Trump on his witness list after Trump kicked him out of his club for sexual harassment of an underage teen in his spa. I can't believe you are spewing this trope trash.

Read it and weep: Donald Trump on witness list for civil case involving billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 31891.html

And by the way, neither the Mar a Largo resort or Trump himself would confirm that Trump "kicked him out." Not saying it didn't happen, but it's not an established fact as you are trying to portray it.

Although it's certainly possible that Trump had knowledge of Epstein's criminal activity, there's no evidence that he did, and I am not making such an accusation. But it's pretty clear that their relationship was just a little more than some random casual acquaintance as you are trying to spin it. And it does add to the sleaze factor that is so much a part of Donald Trump's persona.

Here's an article for you to read up on, and it includes a nice pic of Trump with his arm around his "non friend."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/p ... stein.html

idhawkman wrote:1997 was when that picture was taken. Do you know how many fundraisers and functions both of them did? Do you even understand what a photo op is or do you think every picture with a famous person is a personal long time friendship indicator? Get real. You're so triggered by anything Trump that it is ridiculous.

I see that you're back to your "kill the messenger" tactic.

I don't know exactly how many functions Trump and Epstein attended together (nor do you), but considering it was over the course of a decade or longer, it's fair to say that there was probably scores of events where they hobnobbed together. A person has to be pretty naïve to think that the two weren't pretty good friends, at least at one time.

I don't think Trump and Epstein were pretty good friends. In the circles those two travel in, spending time at parties at each other's houses is business as usual. I doubt he even liked or considered much more than a casual partying buddy hobknobbing in the same circles. One time on a private plane or a name on a witness list means not much.

People at that wealth level lead a different kind of life that it's hard for regular folk to even conceive of. He may have seen Epstein once or twice a year at parties or what not, maybe more if Epstein stayed at a Trump property while Trump was there.

Just like I wouldn't look at Bill Clinton being much of an Epstein friend. Just a standard rich guy-political elite affiliation for mutual gain. I imagine Epstein mostly kept his underage girl affairs to himself, much like R. Kelly.

I'm glad to see both of these scumbags get their due.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't think Trump and Epstein were pretty good friends. In the circles those two travel in, spending time at parties at each other's houses is business as usual. I doubt he even liked or considered much more than a casual partying buddy hobknobbing in the same circles. One time on a private plane or a name on a witness list means not much.

People at that wealth level lead a different kind of life that it's hard for regular folk to even conceive of. He may have seen Epstein once or twice a year at parties or what not, maybe more if Epstein stayed at a Trump property while Trump was there.

Just like I wouldn't look at Bill Clinton being much of an Epstein friend. Just a standard rich guy-political elite affiliation for mutual gain. I imagine Epstein mostly kept his underage girl affairs to himself, much like R. Kelly.

I'm glad to see both of these scumbags get their due.

I'd be willing to believe that if not for the quote that we've all heard repeated about a thousand times:

I've known Jeff for fifteen years," Trump said. "Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side."

Do you make comments like "known him for 15 years", "a lot of fun to be with" and "terrific guy" about people that at one time were not at least reasonably good friends or associates? I don't. It's also pretty hard to explain why Epstein had so many of Trump's personal contacts if they weren't pretty good friends.

Whether or not Epstein lived essentially a dual life keeping his underage affairs to himself is an open question. Keep in mind that it wasn't just one or two young, hot women that he brought to his mansion, rather he brought them in by the dozen, and judging by what some of the locals are quoted as having said about him and his mansion, ie "Orgy Island" and "Pedophile Island" it would seem that at least some people were aware of what was going on. Did Trump and/or Clinton know or at least suspect that something shady was going on? Are we to believe that both these middle aged men were as naïve as the piano player in the whorehouse?

I guess we'll find out when Epstein goes to trial.

RiverDog wrote:
Get out your popcorn!

Trump rode on Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane at least once, according to the deposition of Mark Epstein, Jeffrey’s brother.

https://dailycaller.com/2016/10/09/the- ... alk-about/

Wow, a statement by a brother of the perpetrator is not proof that he did it. Especially when there are no details about it if it did happen. That's usually an indicator that it is false.

Read it and weep: Donald Trump on witness list for civil case involving billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 31891.html

And by the way, neither the Mar a Largo resort or Trump himself would confirm that Trump "kicked him out." Not saying it didn't happen, but it's not an established fact as you are trying to portray it.

So if I put your name on my witness list in a case against me that establishes a connection between us? Also, that article doesn't really point out if he is a defense witness or the other way around.

There is a book that was written about a year ago which kept Epstein in the spotlight where the author interviewed the manager of Mar-a-Largo's spa and she said plain and simple that Epstein was banned because he was inappropriate with an under age Teen. Look it up if you don't believe me.

I see that you're back to your "kill the messenger" tactic.

I don't know exactly how many functions Trump and Epstein attended together (nor do you), but considering it was over the course of a decade or longer, it's fair to say that there was probably scores of events where they hobnobbed together. A person has to be pretty naïve to think that the two weren't pretty good friends, at least at one time.

Well if the messenger keeps skewing the message then he deserves the scrutiny. You might be able to get others to back off by an allegation like this but when you keep throwing out this kind of crap it is deserved.

RiverDog wrote:
Get out your popcorn!

Trump rode on Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane at least once, according to the deposition of Mark Epstein, Jeffrey’s brother.

https://dailycaller.com/2016/10/09/the- ... alk-about/

idhawkman wrote:Wow, a statement by a brother of the perpetrator is not proof that he did it. Especially when there are no details about it if it did happen. That's usually an indicator that it is false.

It wasn't just a statement. It was sworn testimony given under oath and with penalty of perjury.

Read it and weep: Donald Trump on witness list for civil case involving billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 31891.html

And by the way, neither the Mar a Largo resort or Trump himself would confirm that Trump "kicked him out." Not saying it didn't happen, but it's not an established fact as you are trying to portray it.

idhawkman wrote:So if I put your name on my witness list in a case against me that establishes a connection between us? Also, that article doesn't really point out if he is a defense witness or the other way around.

Unless there was some business relationship, then yes, it's a pretty good indication. And BTW, not sure if it said it in that article, but Trump's name was on the defense team's witness list.

idhawkman wrote:There is a book that was written about a year ago which kept Epstein in the spotlight where the author interviewed the manager of Mar-a-Largo's spa and she said plain and simple that Epstein was banned because he was inappropriate with an under age Teen. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Books aren't much proof and wouldn't take you very far if you ever went on trial. You've criticized Hawktalk for referencing various books that show Trump in a bad light and now you're citing one that casts him favorably?

If Trump did, indeed, ban Epstein for his behavior, you can bet that the prosecution will bring it out, so we'll see.

RiverDog wrote:I'd be willing to believe that if not for the quote that we've all heard repeated about a thousand times:

I've known Jeff for fifteen years," Trump said. "Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side."

Do you make comments like "known him for 15 years", "a lot of fun to be with" and "terrific guy" about people that at one time were not at least reasonably good friends or associates? I don't. It's also pretty hard to explain why Epstein had so many of Trump's personal contacts if they weren't pretty good friends.

Whether or not Epstein lived essentially a dual life keeping his underage affairs to himself is an open question. Keep in mind that it wasn't just one or two young, hot women that he brought to his mansion, rather he brought them in by the dozen, and judging by what some of the locals are quoted as having said about him and his mansion, ie "Orgy Island" and "Pedophile Island" it would seem that at least some people were aware of what was going on. Did Trump and/or Clinton know or at least suspect that something shady was going on? Are we to believe that both these middle aged men were as naïve as the piano player in the whorehouse?

I guess we'll find out when Epstein goes to trial.

I don't, but Trump does. Says people are great all the time. Says they are rotten all the time just as much. Says all kinds of things that are worth about as much as the rags they are written on. I don't consider one quote as some definite proof they were close friends at all given Trump says people are great guys all the time and makes little comments about them. If you ever listened to the celebrity apprentice (and I know you haven't), he used to say great things about Dennis Rodman and how he new Dennis for years and he's a great guy. He probably saw Dennis Rodman once in a blue moon. If you meet Trump a few times, you have a name that he feels he should remember for whatever reason, and you make casual friends with him, then he's known you a long time and you're a great guy with maybe some other comment tacked on.

You probably think this because you've never much listened to Trump on his show or in casual interviews. This is just how he talks.

If that's 'how he talks', how would you know when to believe him, then?

I-5 wrote:If that's 'how he talks', how would you know when to believe him, then?

You never believe him unless you know him in private and maybe not even then. He's a salesman who follows the adage "Always be closing." Like I told everyone, watch Glengarry Glen Ross to see the salesman mentality. That's how Trump thinks. He's not an accountant. He's not a nuts and bolts billionaire. He's not a tech billionaire. He's a billionaire salesman whose strongest asset is his ability to talk and work people and crowds. That's why he has such a high media profile and worries about ratings and the like.

Don't confuse me with IDhawkman. I never said Trump was honest. Never said you should believe him. I told everyone on here exactly what he is: a narcissistic billionaire salesman. He never seemed like a racist before he started going after Obama, so that is new.

I read this guy's book The Art of the Deal way back when I was 17 years old and watched The Celebrity Apprentice. Trump is what he is. I was surprised he ran for president. Never heard him talk about God or church in his life, so laughed when he was going to church to make it seem like he gave a crap about religion for the religious conservatives. I already knew he banged a lot of women and kept a smart, educated trophy wife. Most of you, especially Idhawkman apparently, weren't following Trump when he was cheating on Ivana with Marla Maples, but i was. The guy talked about banging around for years. He's part of that old school man's man group where you have your trophy wife that runs your home, your mistresses you bang around with, and are constantly moving around hobknobbing and making deals while socializing.

I'm the only one on here that apparently followed Trump and knew what he was before he took office. It's why I didn't vote for him. It's why I have to chuckle most of the time watching him work crowds and win elections. He's the only guy I saw get the vote of the working man while giving an interview sitting on a gold throne.

So believe him? Don't confuse me with IDhawkman. He's working crowds, not telling the truth unless he says something stupid like he did when he was open about not being able to do anything to Saudi Arabia or telling you warhawks in the government want to take out Iran. That stuff is likely true because that has been that way for years. As far as his speeches and other such talk, he's selling.

BTW Glengarry Glen Ross is a great movie. Dialogue, characterization, cast, and general look at the culture of male salesman is very well done. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend the watch. It's written by David Mamet the academy award winning screenwriter and playwright.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't, but Trump does. Says people are great all the time. Says they are rotten all the time just as much. Says all kinds of things that are worth about as much as the rags they are written on. I don't consider one quote as some definite proof they were close friends at all given Trump says people are great guys all the time and makes little comments about them. If you ever listened to the celebrity apprentice (and I know you haven't), he used to say great things about Dennis Rodman and how he new Dennis for years and he's a great guy. He probably saw Dennis Rodman once in a blue moon. If you meet Trump a few times, you have a name that he feels he should remember for whatever reason, and you make casual friends with him, then he's known you a long time and you're a great guy with maybe some other comment tacked on.

You probably think this because you've never much listened to Trump on his show or in casual interviews. This is just how he talks.

If all that existed was that quote, then I might believe your scenario. But there's a lot of other evidence that the two men were relatively close friends: Epstein's large number of contact phone numbers for DJT, Trump's appearance on Epstein's defense team's witness list, multiple dinners as each other's guests.

One thing that I don't believe is Trump's denials, or Clinton's for that matter. I wouldn't trust either one of those SOB's any further than I could throw them.

RiverDog wrote:If all that existed was that quote, then I might believe your scenario. But there's a lot of other evidence that the two men were relatively close friends: Epstein's large number of contact phone numbers for DJT, Trump's appearance on Epstein's defense team's witness list, multiple dinners as each other's guests.

One thing that I don't believe is Trump's denials, or Clinton's for that matter. I wouldn't trust either one of those SOB's any further than I could throw them.

Time will tell. I'm sure the media will dig for every association between Epstein and Trump or Clinton or whoever else they can bring down. And if any of them are caught with underage girls, then they deserve it. Epstein knew a lot of people and likely better than he knew Trump. Just like the music business knew R. Kelly was doing what he was doing or Kevin Spacey was doing what he was doing or Harvey Weinstein was doing what he was doing. Cosby may be the only one that surprised people because I heard next to nothing about that until it happened. The rest of them were probably known secrets even from Trump's comments that none of them did anything about.

RiverDog wrote:If all that existed was that quote, then I might believe your scenario. But there's a lot of other evidence that the two men were relatively close friends: Epstein's large number of contact phone numbers for DJT, Trump's appearance on Epstein's defense team's witness list, multiple dinners as each other's guests.

One thing that I don't believe is Trump's denials, or Clinton's for that matter. I wouldn't trust either one of those SOB's any further than I could throw them.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Time will tell. I'm sure the media will dig for every association between Epstein and Trump or Clinton or whoever else they can bring down. And if any of them are caught with underage girls, then they deserve it. Epstein knew a lot of people and likely better than he knew Trump. Just like the music business knew R. Kelly was doing what he was doing or Kevin Spacey was doing what he was doing or Harvey Weinstein was doing what he was doing. Cosby may be the only one that surprised people because I heard next to nothing about that until it happened. The rest of them were probably known secrets even from Trump's comments that none of them did anything about.

That's the one constant about the media, and it doesn't matter if it involves a liberal or a conservative. They love scandals, especially scandals involving sex. Not everyone understands election tampering, obstruction of justice or tax evasion, but there's not a single person that doesn't understand sex. The media will hunt down a sex scandal like jackals. They took down Gary Hart, Bill Clinton (sort of), and John Edwards, all liberal Dems.

My gut tells me that Trump knows more about Epstein's activities than he's letting on. He's sure acting like the cat that ate the canary.

The more I watch Dershowitz squirm in interviews about what’s happening with his former client, oddly trying to defend Clinton by claiming on Laura Ingraham’s show that the latter never visited Epstein’s private island, admitting he got a massage at Epstein’s mansion but couldn’t have had sex because he ‘kept his underwear on’ even though he said he ‘doesn’t enjoy massages’...this man is lying. Even Laura Ingraham doesn’t believe him.

Kudos to the Miami Herald for doing all the investigative reporting. Epstein is already behind bars, and Acosta is out, and it’s just getting started. There are a lot of nervous rich and powerful people I have a feeling.

I will say, Epstein is pretty smart if he ensnared Dershowitz, Clinton, Acosta, and who knows, many more up to and including the POTUS. I have no doubt he would have gotten JFK too if he had been around. It would help explain the sweetheart deal Acosta brokered for him, Dershowitz defending him, and powerful men like Clinton (and maybe Trump and who knows many more famous people) to help keep the silence. The girls are now talking now, and it can’t be stopped. I don’t see the SDNY offering any deals this time. Who knows, maybe Trump is just gaslighting us with his racist twitterstorm...why else would he say something so stupid?

I-5 wrote:The more I watch Dershowitz squirm in interviews about what’s happening with his former client, oddly trying to defend Clinton by claiming on Laura Ingraham’s show that the latter never visited Epstein’s private island, admitting he got a massage at Epstein’s mansion but couldn’t have had sex because he ‘kept his underwear on’ even though he said he ‘doesn’t enjoy massages’...this man is lying. Even Laura Ingraham doesn’t believe him.

Kudos to the Miami Herald for doing all the investigative reporting. Epstein is already behind bars, and Acosta is out, and it’s just getting started. There are a lot of nervous rich and powerful people I have a feeling.

I will say, Epstein is pretty smart if he ensnared Dershowitz, Clinton, Acosta, and who knows, many more up to and including the POTUS. I have no doubt he would have gotten JFK too if he had been around. It would help explain the sweetheart deal Acosta brokered for him, Dershowitz defending him, and powerful men like Clinton (and maybe Trump and who knows many more famous people) to help keep the silence. The girls are now talking now, and it can’t be stopped. I don’t see the SDNY offering any deals this time. Who knows, maybe Trump is just gaslighting us with his racist twitterstorm...why else would he say something so stupid?

Who knows with Trump. Maybe he's that smart to throw people off his scent by tweeting something that dumb to distract from Epstein. I doubt it, but maybe. For all we know he's some kind of social media savant able to know the perfect way to rouse his base and distract from a worse scandal, but I doubt that as well. If he somehow wins re-election and avoids impeachment, I guess he wins. That's all that matters to him. Not how or what, just that he won. That's where we're at with him.

18 months to 6 more years. Pray for 18 months or you might as well prepare to shut down for 4 years. Trump wanting to get re-elected is bad, Trump not having to worry about getting re-elected and not giving a flying crap will likely be worse.

I-5 wrote:The more I watch Dershowitz squirm in interviews about what’s happening with his former client, oddly trying to defend Clinton by claiming on Laura Ingraham’s show that the latter never visited Epstein’s private island, admitting he got a massage at Epstein’s mansion but couldn’t have had sex because he ‘kept his underwear on’ even though he said he ‘doesn’t enjoy massages’...this man is lying. Even Laura Ingraham doesn’t believe him.

Kudos to the Miami Herald for doing all the investigative reporting. Epstein is already behind bars, and Acosta is out, and it’s just getting started. There are a lot of nervous rich and powerful people I have a feeling.

I will say, Epstein is pretty smart if he ensnared Dershowitz, Clinton, Acosta, and who knows, many more up to and including the POTUS. I have no doubt he would have gotten JFK too if he had been around. It would help explain the sweetheart deal Acosta brokered for him, Dershowitz defending him, and powerful men like Clinton (and maybe Trump and who knows many more famous people) to help keep the silence. The girls are now talking now, and it can’t be stopped. I don’t see the SDNY offering any deals this time. Who knows, maybe Trump is just gaslighting us with his racist twitterstorm...why else would he say something so stupid?

The press would have never in a million years reported that kind of a story on JFK, at least not during his day. There was a completely different standard and completely different environment in the pre-Vietnam, pre-Watergate era. There wasn't 24/7 news, no social media, no internet. The press had plenty of opportunities to exploit Kennedy's multiple and long running sex orgies.

As far as Epstein being "smart", I guess it depends on how you define the term. He has to have known, or been smart enough, to understand that was he was doing was illegal. He's seen first hand people much more powerful and well known than him get taken down by a sex scandal. It was pure arrogance on his part to think that his money could buy him anything.

As far as an explanation for Trump's most recent racist remarks, one does not need an explanation. The apparent results of the Mueller Investigation has embolden him. He thinks he's untouchable, and to a certain degree, he's right. There is no reason for him to filter his comments and opinions. The man is drunk with power, a megalomaniac.

RiverDog wrote:It wasn't just a statement. It was sworn testimony given under oath and with penalty of perjury.

And that proves what?

Unless there was some business relationship, then yes, it's a pretty good indication. And BTW, not sure if it said it in that article, but Trump's name was on the defense team's witness list.

Again, being on a witness list means squat until you know why he's there and then what he is suppose to say and what he actually says. You are grasping for straws.

Books aren't much proof and wouldn't take you very far if you ever went on trial. You've criticized Hawktalk for referencing various books that show Trump in a bad light and now you're citing one that casts him favorably?

If Trump did, indeed, ban Epstein for his behavior, you can bet that the prosecution will bring it out, so we'll see.

If you went on trial it would be very easy to call that same person to the stand and if I use your standard of being on the witness list, that is all the proof I need.

Show me one time where I criticized HawkTalk on referencing a book and criticized HawkTalk.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
You never believe him unless you know him in private and maybe not even then. He's a salesman who follows the adage "Always be closing." Like I told everyone, watch Glengarry Glen Ross to see the salesman mentality. That's how Trump thinks. He's not an accountant. He's not a nuts and bolts billionaire. He's not a tech billionaire. He's a billionaire salesman whose strongest asset is his ability to talk and work people and crowds. That's why he has such a high media profile and worries about ratings and the like.

Don't confuse me with IDhawkman. I never said Trump was honest. Never said you should believe him. I told everyone on here exactly what he is: a narcissistic billionaire salesman. He never seemed like a racist before he started going after Obama, so that is new.

I read this guy's book The Art of the Deal way back when I was 17 years old and watched The Celebrity Apprentice. Trump is what he is. I was surprised he ran for president. Never heard him talk about God or church in his life, so laughed when he was going to church to make it seem like he gave a crap about religion for the religious conservatives. I already knew he banged a lot of women and kept a smart, educated trophy wife. Most of you, especially Idhawkman apparently, weren't following Trump when he was cheating on Ivana with Marla Maples, but i was. The guy talked about banging around for years. He's part of that old school man's man group where you have your trophy wife that runs your home, your mistresses you bang around with, and are constantly moving around hobknobbing and making deals while socializing.

I'm the only one on here that apparently followed Trump and knew what he was before he took office. It's why I didn't vote for him. It's why I have to chuckle most of the time watching him work crowds and win elections. He's the only guy I saw get the vote of the working man while giving an interview sitting on a gold throne.

So believe him? Don't confuse me with IDhawkman. He's working crowds, not telling the truth unless he says something stupid like he did when he was open about not being able to do anything to Saudi Arabia or telling you warhawks in the government want to take out Iran. That stuff is likely true because that has been that way for years. As far as his speeches and other such talk, he's selling.

BTW Glengarry Glen Ross is a great movie. Dialogue, characterization, cast, and general look at the culture of male salesman is very well done. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend the watch. It's written by David Mamet the academy award winning screenwriter and playwright.

Your assumptions of me not following him are off base. I know who he is and what he is and have for years.

RiverDog wrote:
That's the one constant about the media, and it doesn't matter if it involves a liberal or a conservative. They love scandals, especially scandals involving sex.

That's bull crap and you know it. The press is covering so much up right now and carrying the dems water.

Not everyone understands election tampering, obstruction of justice or tax evasion, but there's not a single person that doesn't understand sex. The media will hunt down a sex scandal like jackals. They took down Gary Hart, Bill Clinton (sort of), and John Edwards, all liberal Dems.

My gut tells me that Trump knows more about Epstein's activities than he's letting on. He's sure acting like the cat that ate the canary.

You are laughable.

Disgusting look into the sleazy underbelly of the rich powerful abusers and bipartisan to boot. Why Epstein got a sweetheart beyond comprehension deal, why accosta got a cabinet position is all becoming clearer. As for DJTs relationship with Epstein footage has surfaced of trump and Epstein at a maralogo party with dozens of very young girls. Trump is grabbing some of them in questionable locations. Grinding with them. At one point he is filmed standing to the side with just he and Epstein commenting on how hot one is and then says something that causes Epstein to double over in laughter. He rode on the plane 4 times, Epstein and his female pimp rode on trumps plane, Clinton rode on Epstein’s plane 6 times and reportedly visited orgy island. This is huge but hey when you can grab pussy and admit it or sexually abuse a 22 year intern , be credibly accused of rape as both men are it probably won’t amount to much more than Epstein paying for his crimes. Also reported this morning he had sexual relations with young women while on work release. Sordid beyond comprehension .

RiverDog wrote:It wasn't just a statement. It was sworn testimony given under oath and with penalty of perjury.

idhawkman wrote:And that proves what?

No statement, even an admission of guilt, "proves" anything. However, the fact that the statement was given under oath lends a lot more credibility to it than some random statement with no penalties associated with it.

Unless there was some business relationship, then yes, it's a pretty good indication. And BTW, not sure if it said it in that article, but Trump's name was on the defense team's witness list.

idhawkman wrote:Again, being on a witness list means squat until you know why he's there and then what he is suppose to say and what he actually says. You are grasping for straws.

It's an indication that Trump and Epstein weren't just two ships passing in the night as you're trying to spin it as.

Books aren't much proof and wouldn't take you very far if you ever went on trial. You've criticized Hawktalk for referencing various books that show Trump in a bad light and now you're citing one that casts him favorably?

If Trump did, indeed, ban Epstein for his behavior, you can bet that the prosecution will bring it out, so we'll see.

idhawkman wrote:Show me one time where I criticized HawkTalk on referencing a book and criticized HawkTalk.

Not going down that rabbit hole with you. I stand by what I said.