General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Yes or no.
stonecutter357
(12,695 posts)
stopdiggin
(11,295 posts)yes or no?
stonecutter357
(12,695 posts)
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)His only family is a brother with whom he had no close relationship whatsoever.
stopdiggin
(11,295 posts)I get confused when I don't have my tinfoil hat on.
stonecutter357
(12,695 posts)
pbmus
(12,422 posts)Provide a reasonable basis for suicide...
When literally hundreds of very wealthy powerful persons all over the world are still cleaning up any record of their involvement with Epstein....your question should be, ‘Where the fuck is Maxwell’
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Could you explain why none of the 23 victims who testified said nothing about sex with anyone other than Epstein, and why none of the ones going after his estate are going after any other person?
Are the victims and their legal counsel also cowering under pressure?
Cartoonist
(7,315 posts)You sue the millionaire, not Gilligan. The girls may not have known their rapists.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)That's hogshit.
It's a shame that some people never bothered to listen to the victims' testimony.
None of them testified to having sex with people they didn't know.
pbmus
(12,422 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 22, 2019, 06:29 PM - Edit history (3)
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I'm not surprised.
The Giuffre allegations are completely different from those of any of the other victims, who do not claim to have been coerced into having sex with anyone other than Epstein.
Absolutely, ABC looked into the Giuffre allegations, couldn't substantiate anything, and did not run the story because it had no confirmation. That's called journalism.
What O'Keefe has done with that, and O'Keefe's stuff which you are pushing here, is something other than journalism.
pbmus
(12,422 posts)FIGHTING BACK
Epstein Accuser Says He Tried to Traffic Her to Famous Hollywood Producer
https://www.thedailybeast.com/another-epstein-accuser-sues-financiers-estate-for-sexual-abuse
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Here's the actual lawsuit the article is about:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.527018/gov.uscourts.nysd.527018.1.0.pdf
I guess the key phrase in the article is "tried to".
pbmus
(12,422 posts)That is your belief/opinion...
I prefer to believe the victims....
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)That civil lawsuit refers to not having sex with an unidentified person.
Other than the Giuffre allegations, you believe NONE of the victims.
Farmer-Rick
(10,154 posts)They didn't file suit against a lot of people. "Not filing" is not evidence. They didn't file against Barr or the tooth fairy. It doesn't mean anything.
They didn't file against unidentified people? How exactly do you file a suit against people you can't identify? You don't mention people you don't recognize. Sometimes in traumatic events, you don't even remember unidentified people.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)My question was about their testimony in the Epstein proceeding itself. They don't have to "sue unknown people" but it is surprising they don't mention having sex with anyone other than Epstein - including the victim who filed this suit.
https://jezebel.com/the-real-jeffrey-epstein-scandal-has-unfolded-in-front-1837171412
Epstein’s apparent suicide this week—and the conspiracy theories and bad media coverage around it—obscures the real scandal as it was just beginning to emerge. At some point, perhaps, if we’re very lucky, the overheated speculation around Epstein’s death may turn to introspection. It might be worth asking ourselves, for instance, why the public is so much more engaged by Epstein’s bizarre jailhouse death than in listening to his living victims, or questioning the many shameless hucksters who have tried to use their pain for their own political and financial ends. In part, that’s because Epstein’s case has been inextricably linked with conspiracy for such a long time, making it near impossible for the lived experience of his victims to ever be fully heard over the din.
Farmer-Rick
(10,154 posts)The victims never claimed they believed in a God therefore they don't believe in any gods. That is your logic
.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)What happened to them in the course of their involvement with Epstein is a tad more relevant to their testimony in that case than their religious beliefs.
Farmer-Rick
(10,154 posts)Your argument style is to use an appeal to ignorance. It is a logical fallacy. You use it to shift the burden of proof.
Doremus
(7,261 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)stopdiggin
(11,295 posts)Farmer-Rick
(10,154 posts)It's not like the johns were making middle class salaries.
The johns are mostly the filthy rich and their families.
They have endless money to pay off endless people. Everyone has their price, especially when the major witness is dead.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)She was obviously just waiting for the right price to sell out:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212385118
Farmer-Rick
(10,154 posts)It may have been direct. It may have been indirect. It may have been threats or bruisers threatening her or loved ones.
Assuming the use of endless supply of wealth is a smear is assuming more than there is.
You like to make a lot of assumptions in your arguments. And your statements on the Epstein case don't stand up to scrutiny.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And that you aren't qualified to wash her car.
I also know that "Epstein didn't kill himself" stuff is very popular in RW social media amplification - e.g. as demonstrated with the O'Keefe stuff now indirectly posted to DU.
Farmer-Rick
(10,154 posts)Keep shifting the burden of proof, keep making appeals to ignorance, so you can avoid proving anything and spread more ignorance than facts.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Because, yeah, that's what she's been working her entire life to do. So, instead, it is "logical" to agree with the guy who thinks OJ didn't do it and neither did Phil Spector....
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/ocme/about/chief-medical-examiner.page
Prior to her appointment as Chief, she served as the Acting Chief Medical Examiner following the retirement of long-time Chief Dr. Charles Hirsch in 2013. She has also served as First Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, Senior Medical Examiner, and Cardiovascular Pathology Consultant, among other positions since 1998, when she joined the agency as a Fellow in Forensic Pathology.
A well-known expert in the field of forensic pathology, Dr. Sampson has published widely on forensic pathology and microbiology, including 29 articles and 4 book chapters, and serves as an Associate Editor of the journal Cardiovascular Pathology. She holds Board Certification in Anatomic and Clinical Pathology as well as Forensic Pathology, and is particularly committed to the advancement of graduate medical education at a national level.
Dr. Sampson has extensive experience in research, and she is the recipient of several prestigious awards including the Young Investigator Award from the Society of Cardiovascular Pathology and the E.R. Squibb and Sons Senior Thesis Prize for Contribution to Scientific Research, among others. She serves as President of the Society of Cardiovascular Pathology, and as a member of the National Association of Medical Examiners, the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
A native of New York City, Dr. Sampson earned her Bachelor's degree at Princeton and obtained a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology at Rockefeller University. She earned her degree in medicine at Cornell University Medical College, followed by a residency at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston
But, sure, slip her a few bills or threaten her (in a way that she would never be able to prove to anybody, apparently), and she'll say whatever you want, professionalism be damned.
May I safely assume that you are not a professional with any sort of public duty, yes?
pbmus
(12,422 posts)I said she had enormous pressure from many sources to come to a conclusion of plausible suicide...
You are the only one on this thread that said she was bought off.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...began with Farmer Rick’s assertion that Sampson’s report was the consequence of unidentified persons having “an endless supply of money”.
Yes, I understand that your position is that she is willing to trade her integrity in response to unidentified “pressure”.
Because, of course, she is just the sort of person who will merrily go about her life knowing that she has caved to a shadowy conspiracy of child molesters.
pbmus
(12,422 posts)That a forensic doctor has said he was murdered , a doctor that is famous for literally doing thousands of investigative autopsies..
Your entire argument is based on the credibility of one overworked underpaid civil servant...!
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)A doctor whose job it is to render the opinion he is paid to give.
A doctor who testified that OJ didn’t do it, and that Phil Spector didn’t do it.
A doctor who is paid by the lawyers working for Epstein.
He is a crank for hire.
You are obviously ignorant of Baden’s background.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/why-to-be-skeptical-of-michael-baden-on-epsteins-death.html
He’s been so frequent a guest on Fox News shows — including Fox and Friends, where he gave his Epstein opinion — that he was identified as “Death Correspondent” on the long-running late-night show RedEye.
....
Ultimately, memos from district attorney Robert Morgenthau and city health commissioner Reinaldo Ferrer, documenting their criticism of Baden for “sloppy record keeping, poor judgment, and a lack of cooperation,” were the final straw.
pbmus
(12,422 posts)Of a person with an agenda...
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Baden is a well known charlatan. One need not know “everything” to know that fact.
If you are unaware of Baden’s background, then it is probably helpful to understand why relying on his bullshit is unwise.
pbmus
(12,422 posts)Your assumption that Fox News has nothing of value is so Shep..
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And you choose his word over the well qualified person chosen to lead a department of a public scientific agency in a Democratic administration.
pbmus
(12,422 posts)I merely pointed out that an INDEPENDENT investigation was conducted by a famous forensic pathologist....
You on the other hand have taken an article written by Sarah Weinman and turned it into gospel...
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/why-to-be-skeptical-of-michael-baden-on-epsteins-death.html
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)That is a lie.
He was permitted to observe the autopsy. Period.
The facts is his career are well established, and not simply the product of one writer.
He was fired from successive ME jobs for doing shoddy work, and he has provided absurd defense testimony for OJ and Spector.
These are facts, not opinions.
I understand that, to you, sources like James O’Keefe and a paid Fox contributor are credible.
Michael Baden is a well established charlatan, as is O”Keefe and the other alt-right characters pushing this meme.
You have an interesting definition of “independent”. Independent of what? The Chief Medical Examiner of New York City has a duty to the public to objectively apply scientific principles to reach a conclusion supported by science to the best of her professional capability.
Baden is paid to deliver a result demanded by his client - in this instance Epstein’s lawyers as representatives of his estate. That is not by any stretch of the imagination “independent”. Unlike Sampson, he is employed by an interested party.
Farmer-Rick
(10,154 posts)I never wrote that she accepted a bribe. You jumped to that conclusion, then assumed it as my position, then ridiculed and argued against your own straw man.
I stated that the johns are filthy rich and have huge amounts of stolen loot to pay off anyone they want.
No, I didn't say she took a bribe you did, and then you proceeded to attack the straw man you misrepresented.
Seems I am superfluous in this discussion because you merely argueing your own ideas.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And in what way is that assertion relevant to your contention that Dr. Sampson falsified the report?
It is cheap rhetorical childishness to throw out ambiguous suggestions and insinuations like that and then claim "straw man" when someone is simply trying to understand just what your position is.
If you are going to say that Sampson falsified her report as a consequence of people having enough money to pay off anyone, then it is fair to understand that you are saying she was among those paid off.
One of the themes that always underpins these sorts of things, aside from the widening net of culpable parties, is the assumption that "anyone" can be bought off. It is a remarkable belief which says quite a bit about the person expressing it.
There are, frequently and often, people who do the right thing at great personal peril and cost, and I would wager MORE numerous than people who can be bought.
Farmer-Rick
(10,154 posts)"Loot to pay off anyone," can mean many things. It could mean she was conned, manipulated, threatened or abused. It could mean someone else was paid to misrepresent facts to her. It could mean her family was threatened. It could mean a lot of things.
With endless money at the disposal of the johns, there are endless possibilities. I don't know what happened, but the government of New York (and probobly with the help of Barr) have not made their case that he committed suicide. They have not addressed all the contrary evidence. They can't rule out murder, there is insufficient evidence. They came to a hasty generalization because they wanted to give the public an answer that would NOT implicate the filthy rich. They wanted us to stop examining the cause of his death.
Your appeal to authority, quoting Dr Sampson continuously, is just another logical fallacy. Just because one expert says so does not make it true because all the other contrary evidence has NOT been addressed.
I don't know what happened in Epstein's death. You don't know what happened. The government, may know, but they are not giving us enough facts to base a decision on.
I'm sorry the wacko right-wing has taken up this cause as their newest conspiracy theory. But just because they have, doesn't mean it was suicide. I suspect they have taken it up to label anyone, who dare question the hasty generalization that Epstein committed suicide, as a wacko right-wing conspiracy theorist. Because the right-wing has clear ties to those implicated in Epstein's sex trafficking of children.
But he was murdered in such a way even a professional pathologist could think it was suicide.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Because Dr. Sampson has never dealt with staged murders before.
Polybius
(15,381 posts)Pathologists are similar to meteorologists somewhat. They are often times very wrong, as current technology makes it impossible to be right at or near 100% of the time.
brooklynite
(94,501 posts)They'll flip on the higher-ups to avoid being the fall guys.
If they weren't in the "plot", they'll testify that they were told to ignore what was happening.
Of course, maybe there wasn't a "plot"...
Patterson
(1,529 posts)if they know what's good for them.
pbmus
(12,422 posts) Kid Berwyn
(14,876 posts)Don’t forget Barr’s dad hired Epstein for his first post-college dropout job to teach at The Dalton School.
https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/donald-barr/
For some reason, the major news outlets fail to mention that uh coincidence.
stopdiggin
(11,295 posts)because it is Barr?
Kid Berwyn
(14,876 posts)...He’s jetting around the world to bury Russian interference in 2016.
Here’s what he did before service to Drumpfco:
Bill Barr: The “Cover-Up General”
"At the center of the criticism is the chief articulator of Bush's imperial presidency," we reported in 1992, "the man who wrote the legal rationale for the Gulf War, the Panama invasion, and the officially sanctioned kidnapping of foreign nationals abroad"
by FRANK SNEPP
The Village Voice, APRIL 18, 2019
Snip...
For the next two years, as chief of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, Barr played a key role in shaping Richard Thornburgh’s stormy tenure as attorney general. In a job that was essentially political, he helped maintain the administration’s ideological purity by screening out judicial candidates who weren’t conservative enough. He also drafted two key documents rationalizing the U.S. invasion of Panama and the seizure of General Manuel Noriega.
Snip...
In mid 1990, as Thornburgh’s own problems with Congress deepened, Barr was tapped to run interference, and was named deputy attorney general. The appointment came just in time for him to draft another landmark tract for the administration, the legal pretext for the undeclared war against Iraq. It would have made any Nixonite proud. Explaining it later to Congress, Barr said he believed there was a “gray zone” between a declared offensive war and an emergency defensive action where “there is latitude for the president, if he believes that the vital interests of the United States are threatened by foreign military attack, there is room for him to respond.”
Barr did not make clear how the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait equaled an attack on vital American interests, but to his credit, at the moment of decision itself, he did counsel the president to soften the impact of his unilateral rush to war by seeking a declaration of congressional support. That piece of advice, much akin to Johnson’s leveraging of the Tonkin Gulf resolution, helped to keep the naysayers at bay.
Barr’s service to the administration, however, wasn’t limited simply to such flashes of political savvy. In 1991 he became active in stone-walling the Iraqgate and the BCCI investigations and further gratified conservatives by keeping up the tattoo on their favorite hot-button issues. Embracing immigration policy as his own, he helped craft an exception rule that automatically barred HIV-positive sufferers from entering the country. Civil libertarians charged illegal discrimination and even racism, since many of those excluded were black Haitians. Barr assured Congress that the policy was meant only to keep out people who might be thrown back on public welfare.
Flogging another conservative hobbyhorse, Barr fought hard as deputy AG to keep federal courts from expanding their right to review state criminal convictions on writs of habeas corpus. As a devout Catholic, he also pandered to the antiabortion crowd, even “torquing” the law in August 1991 to advance their crusade. The challenge came when a federal judge in Wichita issued an order barring anti-abortion demonstrators from blocking access to a clinic. The Justice Department intervened to try to force a lifting of the ban. Later asked about this by Congress, Barr gave an exquisitely technical rationale, asserting that though the demonstrators were “lawbreakers . . . treading on other people’s rights,” they “should be dealt with” in state court, not federal court — thus the federal judge’s order was unenforceable.
Continues...
https://www.villagevoice.com/2019/04/18/attorney-general-william-barr-is-the-best-reason-to-vote-for-clinton/
Barr is the rock which covers all manner of the vilest treasons.
stopdiggin
(11,295 posts)is automatically a lie? Black is white, and white is black? Nobody is saying that Barr is incapable of lies or coverup .. but it IS helpful to have some evidence of lies or coverup. (and we're not talking about Mueller, or 1991 here)
Sorry to burden you with details, but ...
The OP states that the Epstein report is a coverup. Can you defend that statement?
Kid Berwyn
(14,876 posts)The Village Voice article provides “details” you asked for.
I’d ask you to share what you find, but your tone indicates you’re not that kind of person.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Barr is trying to cover up what happened by making sure the two guards get a buttload of publicity for being prosecuted.
The entire POINT was to attract attention to Epstein's death.
After all, it was Barr's DoJ which arrested and jailed Epstein in the first place.
Bumping him off by some other means, such as having his plane crash or "random" street violence, would have been too suspicious. Instead, they made sure damn near everyone knew who he was, with a headline-grabbing indictment and dramatic arrest, so that, uh, everyone would be paying attention when they killed him.
Liberalhammer
(576 posts)Epstein had a lot of secrets. I don't think for a second that this pedophile extortionist secrets are dead with him.
Trump corruption is like a clogged toilet, the shit keeps on swirling around the bowl because it can't be flushed.
0rganism
(23,942 posts)what happened to "Epstein didn't kill himself"?
sandensea
(21,624 posts)That says a lot right there.
I was just thinking of nudging you on this thread. Some people just don’t know when to quit.
Demonaut
(8,914 posts)he should have been treated like Bernie Madoff, many layers of protection
applegrove
(118,615 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 23, 2019, 12:57 PM - Edit history (1)
on the left. Probably so they can show them to their base so their base thinks they are not the ones in a cult.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...a nefarious international cabal of pedophiles which features your most disliked politicians?
Now, where has anyone ever heard a thing like that before?
