HawkShack.com

Since this forum has been fairly dead, I'll start a topic that may interest some.

Trump has issued an executive order to prosecute flag burning. I've never been one to think flag burning is great anymore than I consider desecrating Bibles or Qurans is a great idea. I often hear anti-flag burning citizens speaking of their military relatives or ancestors fighting for the Stars and Stripes and taking offense. I've never really seen it that way. I consider flag burning an important test of our freedoms. No symbol of America is as important as the values America represents. The First Amendment doesn't care if the flag exists or not, the right exists and can't be taken away by burning a flag or a Constitution or a president.

Both my grandfathers fought in World War 2. I never thought of them as fighting for flag, but fighting for what the flag represents.

The only nations where you are jailed for flag burning, insulting presidents or other leaders, or other speech is nations with a dictator or a dictator-like Theocracy or Monarchy. In free nations, you can say or do unpopular acts of protest or say low class commentary on your leaders without going to jail or being prosecuted so long as you don't harm anyone or anyone's property.

I don't support this executive order. It's a litmus test for the Supreme Court for a legal battle on free speech that as far as I know has always been in favor of allowing someone to burn a flag.

I also want to see the legal battle for removal of The Fed Governor Cook over what is normally a minor paperwork error. Trump is continuing the push the envelope of his authority as he pushes to lower interest rates to stimulate the economy, make him and his friends more money, and he doesn't care about inflation or anyone else. Inflation has always helped the wealthy as more goes into their pockets from increased prices. Stagflation would be bad for all, but inflation on its own asset owners love.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Since this forum has been fairly dead, I'll start a topic that may interest some.

Trump has issued an executive order to prosecute flag burning. I've never been one to think flag burning is great anymore than I consider desecrating Bibles or Qurans is a great idea. I often hear anti-flag burning citizens speaking of their military relatives or ancestors fighting for the Stars and Stripes and taking offense. I've never really seen it that way. I consider flag burning an important test of our freedoms. No symbol of America is as important as the values America represents. The First Amendment doesn't care if the flag exists or not, the right exists and can't be taken away by burning a flag or a Constitution or a president.

Both my grandfathers fought in World War 2. I never thought of them as fighting for flag, but fighting for what the flag represents.

The only nations where you are jailed for flag burning, insulting presidents or other leaders, or other speech is nations with a dictator or a dictator-like Theocracy or Monarchy. In free nations, you can say or do unpopular acts of protest or say low class commentary on your leaders without going to jail or being prosecuted so long as you don't harm anyone or anyone's property.

I don't support this executive order. It's a litmus test for the Supreme Court for a legal battle on free speech that as far as I know has always been in favor of allowing someone to burn a flag.

I also want to see the legal battle for removal of The Fed Governor cook over what is normally a minor paperwork error. Trump is continuing the push the envelope of his authority as he pushes to lower interest rates to stimulate the economy, make him and his friends more money, and he doesn't care about inflation or anyone else. Inflation has always helped the wealthy as more goes into their pockets from increased prices. Stagflation would be bad for all, but inflation on its own asset owners love.

Yeah, flag burning was a big thing back in the 60's and 70's during the Vietnam War, but I haven't heard about any incidents for decades. IMO Trump is blowing his dog whistle to try to motivate his followers. Ultra conservatives have adapted Old Glory as theirs. I used to fly the flag outside my house because I thought it something my dad, if he were alive, could appreciate. But after Jan. 6th, I quit doing it as I was afraid it was defining me as a Trump supporter.

Agreed about the Fed and Trump's attempts to undermine it. As a retiree, the one thing I fear most is inflation. Social Security does have a COLA on it, but it's not sufficient as it doesn't address the expenses that retired folks spend their money on. Pensions and annuities don't have COLA's. Savings accounts won't make enough in interest to offset inflation. The Fed's job is to keep the inflation genie in the bottle.

Here are my thoughts on flag burning; release the Epstein files. This applies to all of Cheeto's executive orders.

c_hawkbob wrote:Here are my thoughts on flag burning; release the Epstein files. This applies to all of Cheeto's executive orders.

The only problem I have with releasing the Epstein files is protecting the innocent, the young girls that Epstein and Maxwell procured.

c_hawkbob wrote:Here are my thoughts on flag burning; release the Epstein files. This applies to all of Cheeto's executive orders.

What are the chances they release the Epstein Files when Trump is getting calls from both parties and wealthy people around the world telling him not to release them? Pretty slim they'll be released in full.

The list of people that have interacted with Epstein is long and varied. The media keeps bring up Trump with photos. If you listen to people that have information that helped build these files, Trump, Bill Clinton, Gates, Prince Albert, and many, many other rich and powerful people are in those files. They don't want them out.

I'm still surprised Ghislaine Maxwell is still alive. Not sure how long that will last. They are running hard defense to not let those files out.

I'm wondering if we'll see the files released or Ghislaine Maxwell dead first. I'm not sure which side I'd bet on that at the moment. It seems they are letting Ghislaine Maxwell out of jail. I imagine part of her release is shut up and disappear or she will be shut up and disappeared.

You're asking for a pile of dirt so big c-bob on so many wealthy, important people you might as well be asking a Leprechaun to give you his pot of gold...and I mean the Leprechaun in that horror movie.

River Dog wrote:The only problem I have with releasing the Epstein files is protecting the innocent, the young girls that Epstein and Maxwell procured.

What? That is not high on Trump's list. Trump and all the vile wealthy and powerful pedophiles on that list would appreciate you providing them another reason not to release it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Pam Bondi is drinking heavily and looking at herself in the mirror going, "I didn't sign up for this, but I guess I'm stuck" as she downs another tumbler of whiskey. It must be fun to have your job to be covering up for old male pedophiles making you run interference so they can't be prosecuted.

c_hawkbob wrote:Here are my thoughts on flag burning; release the Epstein files. This applies to all of Cheeto's executive orders.

River Dog wrote:The only problem I have with releasing the Epstein files is protecting the innocent, the young girls that Epstein and Maxwell procured.

The names of those girls comprise the entirety of the list of acceptable redactions to those files.

And couldn't possibly care less how many people are involved, how highly placed or their party affiliation.

c_hawkbob wrote:Here are my thoughts on flag burning; release the Epstein files. This applies to all of Cheeto's executive orders.

River Dog wrote:The only problem I have with releasing the Epstein files is protecting the innocent, the young girls that Epstein and Maxwell procured.

c_hawkbob wrote:The names of those girls comprise the entirety of the list of acceptable redactions to those files.

And couldn't possibly care less how many people are involved, how highly placed or their party affiliation.

I agree. But is simply redacting the names good enough to protect their privacy? Or might there be information, i.e. dates, times, places, etc., where a person could put two-and-two together and deduce the name(s)?

If it wasn't for the privacy of the innocent issue, I'd be all for releasing every bit of information. But it's such a sensitive subject that I tend to be overly cautious.

River Dog wrote:I agree. But is simply redacting the names good enough to protect their privacy? Or might there be information, i.e. dates, times, places, etc., where a person could put two-and-two together and deduce the name(s)?

If it wasn't for the privacy of the innocent issue, I'd be all for releasing every bit of information. But it's such a sensitive subject that I tend to be overly cautious.

I sort of understand as the people on this list are all rich and powerful. They know who these girls are. If they think they will testify against them, they might have a bunch of them killed. I think one of the girls that came out committed suicide and I wouldn't put money that it was actual suicide. These people are powerful, connected, and can pay a sick, amoral lunatic like you see in the movies to clean this up for them.

I was watching a podcast with this mob guy Michael Franzese interviewing a reporter that released a bunch of names and information on Epstein and he said The Mafia doesn't allow this type of behavior. If a guy was a pedophile in the mob, they'd kill him. I found the podcast amusing. It's always good to know that The Mafia is more ethical than the United States politicians and the world elite and wealthy. You'd rather have your underage daughter hanging out with a Mafia guy than a United States politician like Matt Gaetz and the people on The Epstein list.

I can imagine the question: Would you rather have your 14 year old daughter escorted to the school dance by Joe Bananas the mob guy or Justin Smith the United States politician? I'll take the mob guy.

What do you think Riverdog? Do the Epstein Files get released or does Ghislaine Maxwell get whacked first?

River Dog wrote:I agree. But is simply redacting the names good enough to protect their privacy? Or might there be information, i.e. dates, times, places, etc., where a person could put two-and-two together and deduce the name(s)?

If it wasn't for the privacy of the innocent issue, I'd be all for releasing every bit of information. But it's such a sensitive subject that I tend to be overly cautious.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I sort of understand as the people on this list are all rich and powerful. They know who these girls are. If they think they will testify against them, they might have a bunch of them killed. I think one of the girls that came out committed suicide and I wouldn't put money that it was actual suicide. These people are powerful, connected, and can pay a sick, amoral lunatic like you see in the movies to clean this up for them.

I'm not sure if there is a risk of anyone being prosecuted over what's in the Epstein files as it's been past the statute of limitations. Also, Epstein's island was in the Virgin Islands, outside the reach of the US laws. But they could damn sure make a lot of trouble for them if they thought there was a chance that any of those girls might go public.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I was watching a podcast with this mob guy Michael Franzese interviewing a reporter that released a bunch of names and information on Epstein and he said The Mafia doesn't allow this type of behavior. If a guy was a pedophile in the mob, they'd kill him. I found the podcast amusing. It's always good to know that The Mafia is more ethical than the United States politicians and the world elite and wealthy. You'd rather have your underage daughter hanging out with a Mafia guy than a United States politician like Matt Gaetz and the people on The Epstein list.

I can imagine the question: Would you rather have your 14 year old daughter escorted to the school dance by Joe Bananas the mob guy or Justin Smith the United States politician? I'll take the mob guy.

What do you think Riverdog? Do the Epstein Files get released or does Ghislaine Maxwell get whacked first?

The same thing is true in prison; there's an informal hierarchy. Pedophiles are looked down upon by the rest of the prison population. Cop killers are at the top. The inmates will apply their version of justice. Jeffery Dahmer found out about prison hierarchy. Bryan Kohberger is starting to find out.

I doubt if anyone can get to Maxwell.

River Dog wrote:I'm not sure if there is a risk of anyone being prosecuted over what's in the Epstein files as it's been past the statute of limitations. Also, Epstein's island was in the Virgin Islands, outside the reach of the US laws. But they could damn sure make a lot of trouble for them if they thought there was a chance that any of those girls might go public.

Didn't they change a law in New York and California allowing the prosecution of sex crimes like this long after the statute of limitations? Isn't that how they got Harvey Weinstein?

There are also civil trials which I don't think have a statute of limitations where the women can sue the molesters for a lot of money. I don't think that has a statute of limitations. It can cause a lot of problems if the information gets out and a huge, costly lawsuit.

The same thing is true in prison; there's an informal hierarchy. Pedophiles are looked down upon by the rest of the prison population. Cop killers are at the top. The inmates will apply their version of justice. Jeffery Dahmer found out about prison hierarchy. Bryan Kohberger is starting to find out.

I doubt if anyone can get to Maxwell.

Yeah. Even criminals don't like pedophiles.

Isn't Maxwell in a low security prison now and likely to get released so she can disappear?

River Dog wrote:I'm not sure if there is a risk of anyone being prosecuted over what's in the Epstein files as it's been past the statute of limitations. Also, Epstein's island was in the Virgin Islands, outside the reach of the US laws. But they could damn sure make a lot of trouble for them if they thought there was a chance that any of those girls might go public.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Didn't they change a law in New York and California allowing the prosecution of sex crimes like this long after the statute of limitations? Isn't that how they got Harvey Weinstein?

There are also civil trials which I don't think have a statute of limitations where the women can sue the molesters for a lot of money. I don't think that has a statute of limitations. It can cause a lot of problems if the information gets out and a huge, costly lawsuit.

Yes, there are some states that have exempted some crimes from the statute of limitations. But of course, the longer a crime goes unprosecuted, the more difficult finding credible evidence/testimony becomes, especially sex crimes as there is very little physical evidence, so they have to rely on personal testimony. Do you remember the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings?

Aseahawkfan wrote:Isn't Maxwell in a low security prison now and likely to get released so she can disappear?

I'm not sure if gaining outside access to an inmate is that much easier in a minimum-security prison vs. other security levels. The biggest difference is in the inmates' lifestyle inside the prison. I think she was in a minimum-security prison prior to being moved, but this one has a lot more of a country club atmosphere. It's caused an uproar with Maxwell's victims and their families.

Personally, I have mixed emotions. I understand the families' outrage about her treatment, but the fact is that she is not a threat to the public should she escape, nor does she pose much of a threat to her fellow inmates.

IMO the only way Maxwell gets released is if Trump pardons her, and I doubt that he has the balls to do it as it would confirm the accusations of Trump's involvement/friendship with Epstein. There are a lot of MAGA zealots, like Tucker Carlson, who are at odds with the Trump Administration over their failure to release the Epstein files, which was a campaign promise that Trump made.

River Dog wrote:Yes, there are some states that have exempted some crimes from the statute of limitations. But of course, the longer a crime goes unprosecuted, the more difficult finding credible evidence/testimony becomes, especially sex crimes as there is very little physical evidence, so they have to rely on personal testimony. Do you remember the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings?

The Kavanaugh hearings was a political hit job. I read the accusations. It amounted to some drunken groping at a High School Party and teabagging a woman at a drunken college party. I can't even imagine the number of men that would end up in jail or ruined if that was the new standard for sexual assault. I wouldn't ben surprised if both of those became crimes, men could bring charges against women for inappropriate drunken behavior at High School and college parties.

Epstein accusations real crimes from young women that were likely groomed and recruited and told to hide the crime or suffer consequences. Statute of limitations should be extended for such scumbaggery in my opinion as the people involved were so young, they may have barely known what their options were for reporting the behavior or seeking help.

I'm not sure if gaining outside access to an inmate is that much easier in a minimum-security prison vs. other security levels. The biggest difference is in the inmates' lifestyle inside the prison. I think she was in a minimum-security prison prior to being moved, but this one has a lot more of a country club atmosphere. It's caused an uproar with Maxwell's victims and their families.

Personally, I have mixed emotions. I understand the families' outrage about her treatment, but the fact is that she is not a threat to the public should she escape, nor does she pose much of a threat to her fellow inmates.

IMO the only way Maxwell gets released is if Trump pardons her, and I doubt that he has the balls to do it as it would confirm the accusations of Trump's involvement/friendship with Epstein. There are a lot of MAGA zealots, like Tucker Carlson, who are at odds with the Trump Administration over their failure to release the Epstein files, which was a campaign promise that Trump made.

So far the Epstein Files seems to have died down again as the media moves to the next thing on the list. All the wealthy and powerful people involved rely on the publics fickle attention deficit disorder to cover up their crimes. You're the non-believer in conspiracy theories and here is one unfolding right in front of you...a conspiracy to hide major crimes by pedophiles we all know happened, but are being covered up by the rich and powerful. That's why people believe in conspiracies. They happen right in their faces. Hard to pick the conspiracies that aren't true and the ones that are when some are obvious like hiding the Epstein Files and prosecuting no one after Epstein conveniently dies in prison and guys like Trump. Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, and Prince Albert all conveniently escape prosecution. I think Prince Albert at least had to pay a civil trial settlement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew_%26_the_Epstein_Scandal

I wonder what it must feel like to be a victim of this and parents of a victim knowing that these powerful folks can just use your kids as sex toys and avoid all prosecution.

I read the accusations. It amounted to some drunken groping at a High School Party and teabagging a woman at a drunken college party. I can't even imagine the number of men that would end up in jail or ruined if that was the new standard for sexual assault.

I guess we're a whole lot different, both of those things seem very much like sexual assault to me.

c_hawkbob wrote:I guess we're a whole lot different, both of those things seem very much like sexual assault to me.

I seriously wonder what you would do if someone tried to ruin your life by bringing up some drunken party you barely remember 30 years ago claiming you assaulted them. I really do. All those branding Kavanaugh guilty deserve something like that to happen to them so they can see what it feels like to have stuff from 20 to 30 years ago while you were drunk at some party that aren't even substantiated and that you don't even remember cost you your livelihood.

No. You're just being deliberately ridiculous. I'd bet money you saw things like this happen so often at High School, college, and various parties where men and women were drinking and mingling that if you tried to prosecute all of this kind of behavior, you'd have the courts backed up with cases with younger people being prosecuted for drunk, stupid behavior.

You were in the Navy as well. I'd be utterly shocked if there weren't tons of drunken sailors or military personnel at bars or parties engaged in this behavior on a weekly basis around the world. I'd literally bet you everything I had that you would have the courts so backed up with cases if what Kavanaugh was reported to have done that it would overload them with a massive number of drunk High School and College age kids in all lines of work including the military as to reach ridiculous levels of absurdity.

Kavanaugh was caught as part of a political hit job that didn't work. I'm glad it didn't. I watched inappropriate behavior by men and women at drunken, drugged up parties all the time. I'd bet money that you did too. All kinds of borderline, stupid behavior by drunk men and women. Now you want it prosecuted because Kavanaugh was a Trump appointee. It was stupid.

I'm glad Kavanaugh had sufficient support from other females that he helped, supported, and positively assisted as he aged out of drunken High School and College parties that showed he had become a mature, hard-working judge that was respectful and positively helped females.

Rubbish attempts by politicians to destroy a person's career for drunken High School and College behavior that amounted about 90 seconds of this life according to the people involved like the what was it? 30 seconds of groping and a 20 second idiotic teabag...and both of these maybes, was a ridiculous pretense for a political attack.

Bill Clinton did far worse and I wouldn't be surprised if you voted for Bill Clinton twice while he was using cigars on interns and sleeping around on his wife with multiple women. Many times worse as did Trump. But somehow the judge who allegedly spent 30 seconds at an old High School Party and a 30 seconds in college should somehow suffer worse condemnation than the group of Epstein buddies.

Kavanaugh was getting jobbed and it was pretty obvious. You keep on believing you're unbiased. You keep on telling me you never saw any behavior of this kind in the Navy or at drunken High School Parties. I don't even consume alcohol or drugs and never have, but I sure as hell saw plenty of women and men acting looney when drunk and doing drugs at parties which is why I didn't go to many. Drunk people act stupid as hell. Some women going to a drunken High School Party then bringing it up 20 to 30 years late to try to stop a judge from obtaining a Supreme Court position based on it is pretty low character. And an example of why Democrats and their supporters have lost their credibility to a reality T.V. star scumbag.

Fact is no one likes a hypocrite. The Democrats and their supporters blindly following Bill Clinton and then allowing the types of political attacks on Kavanaugh are more proof they have no standards and are just interested in whatever contrived political attack they can come up with. If Democrats had any standards, they wouldn't have voted Clinton in twice. Then they pretend their outraged by Kavanaugh. What horsecrap.

We've had this conversation before, and I think you called me a hypocrite then too.

I brought up the Kavanaugh hearings only in relation to the statute of limitations, which is relevant to our discussion about the Epstein files. I did not intent to re-ignite the debate we had over it, so I'll just state my position and leave it at that.

The alleged incident cited in the Kavanaugh hearings occurred 36 years earlier. There was zero physical evidence, and no charges or accusations were levied until Kavanaugh was a nominee for SCOTUS. The accuser was a well-connected college professor with plenty of means to have pursued these allegations prior to the SCOTUS hearing, which cast doubt on her credibility. She was the only witness to testify about the alleged incident or any other similar incident involving Kavanaugh. Since no police report was filed at the time that the alleged incident occurred, no investigation was conducted where witnesses would have been interviewed, physical evidence if any gathered, etc. Bottom line is that no other evidence was produced during the hearing other than one person's 36-year-old memory of a party where lots of alcohol was present.

In our country, the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused until proven otherwise, not only in courts of law but also as a matter of fair play in our daily lives in general. That decision making standard was never even remotely considered by some of those passing judgment on the Kavanaugh hearings, by Senators as well as observers such as us. That accusation should have never seen the light of day, and under any other circumstances besides the political theatre that the SCOTUS hearings have become, it wouldn't have, yet it nearly destroyed the reputation and career of a law-abiding citizen and caused a lot of completely unnecessary pain and suffering for members of Kavanaugh's family.

It's a textbook example of why we have a statute of limitations, and one of the reasons why I am reluctant to endorse releasing the entirety of the Epstein files without the consent of the victims that might be associated with it.

Ironically, after I posed my comments about the statute of limitations and the concern over victims that might be associated with the Epstein files, I saw an article how many of Epstein's victims are speaking out, demanding that the DOJ release the files:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/jef ... 16072.html

I'm not sure how practical it is, but if it can be determined that a significant majority of Epstein victims support the release of the files, then of course, I'm all for it. Ironically, there's a number of Trump supporters, including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, that are advocating the release of the files. It's rare that you see that kind of coalition. Most issues are determined by party affiliation.

c_hawkbob wrote:We've had this conversation before, and I think you called me a hypocrite then too.

And? You are a hypocrite for supporting Clinton and then piling on Kavanaugh with less evidence than there was to prove Bill Clinton's behavior and Hilary's help covering it up. Maybe I'm wrong and you didn't vote for the Clintons three times, but I imagine I'll never know for certain.

None of the allegations against Kavanaugh were proven. It was weaponization of the "Me Too" movement because everyone was expected to believe any accusations without evidence. In a nation of innocent until proven guilty, that should not be happening.

It was nothing more than a low class political attack because he was appointed by Trump. Thirty plus year old accusations at parties likely while they were drunk that harmed Kavanaugh's character and likely caused his family distress as he had to explain to his children and wife why this was happening.

Yet for some reason you think that is ok to do to a person based on their political affiliation while you what? What other word is there to use for people who support people with worse accusations that they "overlook" due to political affiliation, then happily pile on with unsubstantiated 30 year old accusations in a politically driven attempt to ruin a man that seemed to be a good father and husband? Why was that ok in your mind? Or really the minds of anyone that piled on the Kavanaugh political railroad job.

It was pure trash behavior in this era of trash behavior. At least with Trump he invites this trash behavior on to him by behaving like trash. But Kavanaugh? He did not deserve the attack absent far more concrete evidence. It was a smear campaign, pure and simple, a weaponized Me Too# attempt to stop his appointment as a Supreme Court Judge. The Dem followers weren't interested in the truth or any facsimile of it, just another low class nuclear attempt to ruin someone associated with Trump.

Sorry, I don't like trash behavior regardless of who is doing. That's why I don't support or vote for Trump because he loves trash behavior. I also don't support what they did to Kavanaugh or Al Franken. Neither of them deserved their treatment. Kavanaugh luckily was able to survive as the accusations were never proven. Al Franken was sacrificed by his own party to appease the masses that wanted heads. All his quality work and support for Democratic issues and the working man just thrown aside because he did some idiotic behavior, but hardly worthy of the nuclear option in my opinion. At least they had visual proof for Franken, though it was pretty stupid proof. But the Dems and their stances set him up for the fall.

I don't think you believe in any of this crap Clinton did, c-bob. I just think we're stuck in a really low class, crappy America and the only way out is clear eyes and no support for scumbag behavior by either party. Not much can be done about the Republicans at the moment. They are a lost cause that sold their souls to Trump. Dems shouldn't be selling theirs to Trump as well with trash behavior. I have no hope any of these political parrties will restore any kind of integrity or sense to American politics.

I don't like it. I never will. I'll leave it there.

River Dog wrote:Ironically, after I posed my comments about the statute of limitations and the concern over victims that might be associated with the Epstein files, I saw an article how many of Epstein's victims are speaking out, demanding that the DOJ release the files:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/jef ... 16072.html

I'm not sure how practical it is, but if it can be determined that a significant majority of Epstein victims support the release of the files, then of course, I'm all for it. Ironically, there's a number of Trump supporters, including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, that are advocating the release of the files. It's rare that you see that kind of coalition. Most issues are determined by party affiliation.

I'm sorry. Epstein is very different. This was an organized child trafficking ring run by Epstein for a wealthy and powerful clientele. He may even have used his island to sow favor with politicians. This deserves an investigation. When men that powerful and wealthy conspire to use children as prostitutes, they deserve a reckoning. Statute of Limitations should not apply since these men could use their wealthy and power to force these young women to not pursue justice or restitution. American society needs to send a message this behavior is not to be tolerated no matter how rich and powerful you are.

I hope they release the list and punish whoever they can manage to punish from Trump to Bill Gates to Bill Clinton to Prince Albert and as many involved as they can get.

If they do find Trump on the list, I hope he finally gets what he should get if he was a participant. I hope even his followers finally turn on him if they find out he was protecting a child trafficker.

River Dog wrote:Ironically, after I posed my comments about the statute of limitations and the concern over victims that might be associated with the Epstein files, I saw an article how many of Epstein's victims are speaking out, demanding that the DOJ release the files:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/jef ... 16072.html

I'm not sure how practical it is, but if it can be determined that a significant majority of Epstein victims support the release of the files, then of course, I'm all for it. Ironically, there's a number of Trump supporters, including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, that are advocating the release of the files. It's rare that you see that kind of coalition. Most issues are determined by party affiliation.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I'm sorry. Epstein is very different. This was an organized child trafficking ring run by Epstein for a wealthy and powerful clientele. He may even have used his island to sow favor with politicians. This deserves an investigation. When men that powerful and wealthy conspire to use children as prostitutes, they deserve a reckoning. Statute of Limitations should not apply since these men could use their wealthy and power to force these young women to not pursue justice or restitution. American society needs to send a message this behavior is not to be tolerated no matter how rich and powerful you are.

I hope they release the list and punish whoever they can manage to punish from Trump to Bill Gates to Bill Clinton to Prince Albert and as many involved as they can get.

If they do find Trump on the list, I hope he finally gets what he should get if he was a participant. I hope even his followers finally turn on him if they find out he was protecting a child trafficker.

I wasn't equating Kavanaugh with Epstein. I was using Kavanaugh as an example as to why we have a statute of limitations. Human memories vary greatly from person-to-person.

As I said earlier, so long as a solid majority of the victims are good with disclosing what is contained in the Epstein files...and from what I can determine, it would appear that criteria has been met...I'm all for releasing at least some of it. Simply redacting names isn't necessarily good enough. Unless there's solid prosecutable information contained within those files, the wishes of those victims have to take priority.

That's where the statute of limitations comes into play, as well as what jurisdiction the alleged crimes took place. If law enforcement can't use the information contained in those files to prosecute a crime, then I don't see a huge need to release them. If all they have within them is stuff like Bill Gates having dinner with Epstein, there's no sense in releasing that information so that social media can have more material to spread rumors and unsubstantiated claims.

Speaking of Gates, I think that there's a difference in how we treat the information on someone like Trump and Clinton, who were/are public officials and were elected to office based largely on what they told the public about their private lives, vs. a private citizen like Bill Gates who has never even ran for public office let alone elected to one. Unless there's evidence that Gates, or any other private citizen as far as that goes, may have committed a crime, information relating to him should be withheld. It's none of our business.

It would not surprise me at all if Trump had sex with those trafficked young girls and women, that he knew what Epstein was up to, and I think he's lying about his relationship with Jeffery Epstein. He's obviously hiding something, and at least as it applies to him, I believe that the public has a right to know if he has been lying about it.

River Dog wrote:I wasn't equating Kavanaugh with Epstein. I was using Kavanaugh as an example as to why we have a statute of limitations. Human memories vary greatly from person-to-person.

As I said earlier, so long as a solid majority of the victims are good with disclosing what is contained in the Epstein files...and from what I can determine, it would appear that criteria has been met...I'm all for releasing at least some of it. Simply redacting names isn't necessarily good enough. Unless there's solid prosecutable information contained within those files, the wishes of those victims have to take priority.

That's where the statute of limitations comes into play, as well as what jurisdiction the alleged crimes took place. If law enforcement can't use the information contained in those files to prosecute a crime, then I don't see a huge need to release them. If all they have within them is stuff like Bill Gates having dinner with Epstein, there's no sense in releasing that information so that social media can have more material to spread rumors and unsubstantiated claims.

Speaking of Gates, I think that there's a difference in how we treat the information on someone like Trump and Clinton, who were/are public officials and were elected to office based largely on what they told the public about their private lives, vs. a private citizen like Bill Gates who has never even ran for public office let alone elected to one. Unless there's evidence that Gates, or any other private citizen as far as that goes, may have committed a crime, information relating to him should be withheld. It's none of our business.

It would not surprise me at all if Trump had sex with those trafficked young girls and women, that he knew what Epstein was up to, and I think he's lying about his relationship with Jeffery Epstein. He's obviously hiding something, and at least as it applies to him, I believe that the public has a right to know if he has been lying about it.

I can't say as I agree. I don't care how many of the victims want it, even one, they should be prosecuted. When they are prosecuted, it will become part of the public record. So we'll know at some point anyway. The more we come up with excuses to hide this information, the more these wealthy folks can hide their crimes. This is a major reason these things can be covered up as they are for years. The system allows powerful and wealthy people to manipulated it to their benefit even for actions as foul as using people's children as sex toys. Everything bought and paid for.

I would be fairly surprised if Trump were sleeping with underage women. He's never shown he likes underage women. Young women, sure, underage, never heard of him going after them and he's been a public figure for a long, long time and as you've seen these past few elections since he decided to run for president: had everyone and their mother crawl up inside of him to find out every single detail of his life true or not true and try to take him down with it. I doubt there has been a president or public figure more investigated than Trump in the history of the country. To use the cliché: they crawled up his butt with a microscope looking for every piece of fecal matter they could find to stick on him. Not like Trump has been able to hide any of his activities. He's been accused of almost everything.

But someone was using the services offered at Epstein Island. I imagine they are calling Trump and all their friends in D.C. to cover it up. I hope there are enough politicians in Washington D.C. in both parties with some moral compass that says, "This is too far and we're going to have to fry some of our own, but the message this can't be tolerated must be sent."

Trump is waffling. I can only assume he's had some calls from his friends who were also friends of Epstein that are begging him not to let it out. And I do think Trump had some idea of what Epstein was doing as did Clinton and Gates and many others. They aren't stupid like they're playing making it seem like Epstein wasn't doing anything evil. Same as people knew R. Kelly was sleeping with underage girls he was grooming. I don't live anywhere near Hollwyood or the music industry and even I knew back in the 90s that R. Kelly was sleeping with underage women and I was surprised no one was doing anything about it when he was hooking up with a 16 or 17 year old Aaliyah in his late 20s to early 30s.

I don't consider listening to the victims much myself. Roman Polanski's victim has publicly forgiven him and said she was ok with him coming back to America, but the American justice system still wants him arrested. I share that view. Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. He fled when he was faced with a prison sentence and never submitted to justice arguing some crap about "all men love underage girls." He's been allowed to hide in France for some reason that I can only guess is French cultures tolerance for "older men grooming underage women." . I don't get it myself, but I would prefer to be a nation that sends the message if you sexually abuse children in America, we will burn you to the earth.

If it were up to me, I'd be jailing or executing pedophiles with little mercy. These rich scum, Catholic priests engaged in this, and everyone involved. I'd burn them to the earth with little remorse. About the only criteria I would have is very high quality proof as I've seen child molestation charges fabricated and watched the Me Too# movement weaponized to where any man accused was guilty until proven innocent for every stupid accusation and a that one football player who was falsely accused of rape and had his life ruined as he was about to be drafted (that woman admitted she falsified the accusation). So I'd be careful, but if the evidence is clear, fact-based, and you did the crime, burn pedophiles to the ground as publicly as possible. Make sure the consequences are known and the punishment harsh.