Jace, Extat Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 33 minutes ago, aceluby said: Let's not pretend powerful men haven't gotten away with sexual assault for years, with multiple people, before anything is ever brought up. You simply cannot ignore the sheer number of people coming forward and the multiple witnesses who have sworn on it by saying 'but it was a long time ago.' Seriously. Shame on you. The Donald Defense going around on the topic of sexual fucking assault is absolutely disgusting. They weren't raped silly, they just didn't know how bad they wanted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 7 minutes ago, Swordfish said: That would be a scorched earth approach, but to do that wouldn't he have to admit that he was involved? Seems like a no win for him. He pretty much has no choice but to deny, whether he did it or not. It's slightly problematic to worry about Clinton being exposed as well, from where I'm sitting. If he was involved, then I hope that info comes to light. I don't think it'd would hurt Hillary though (electorally at least; I'm sure personally it'd really suck, even if the allegation is baseless). For one its not about her, and two I don't think the media would focus only on Bill. Not on this; especially since that story takes too long develop. If this gets picked up, it'll be that there was this press conference accusing Trump. No time for anything else. Trump campaign is taking it seriously though. They've got a "secret" all-hands-on-deck meeting at 6pm for top staff that they begged no one to leak (which of course it was). And note that there's no evidence right now that the Clinton campaign had anything to do with this. Its not an oppo dump, its this woman and her attorney deciding to try to get everyone's attention and get this story into the mainstream media. No idea if that'll work; guess it depends on what the conference looks like and how believable the story seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Another possibility is that Epstein turns witness for the prosecution here, which would be...really interesting, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Oh yea, a black church Mississippi burned and had the words Vote Trump spray painted on it.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/a-black-church-burned-in-the-name-of-trump/506246/?utm_source=fbia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ariadne23 Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Altherion said: And they sat on this information more than 20 years and only came out with it when it was important to a presidential election? Stranger things have happened, but it's just not plausible. With the amount of money floating around such elections, one can pay a dozen people to make any completely unverifiable claims one wants for less than a rounding error on the total budget. If this looks weird, it's because of the Epstein angle. Epstein settled an FBI case involving 17 underage victims for a charge and jail time for one and millions of dollars in settlement payments to the others. There are, evidently, a lot of people who would go down if you blow the thing wide open. So, given Epstein's history, this person was almost certainly repeatedly sexually assaulted while underage. Sitting on that kind of information is, from a purely scientific standpoint, the most likely thing that a victim of that type will do. Whether Trump was really involved is hard to say. None of the other cases mentioned him participating in that. It looks a lot worse for Bill on that score. But if a federal judge determined there's enough to let the case proceed and to set hearing dates, which did happen, then there's there's more to this story right now than there is in Huma's emails. Not that I know why everyone's calling you out in particular; the consensus when I brought the story up before was that there was something fishy about this story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Kalbear said: The existence of them was determined. They were not accessed until they got the warrant. As far as I can tell it's perfectly fine. Yeah I know how it went down. My question is why were they looking at Abedin's emails when their warrant was specifically to look at Wiener's communications? That seems like it would be outside of the warrant's scope and it wouldn't trigger the plain view doctrine. Plus, Comey said they were reviewing the emails before the new warrant was obtained. I'm not a lawyer, but something doesn't seem right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Somewhat exaggerated I'm sure, but scary nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Yeah I know how it went down. My question is why were they looking at Abedin's emails when their warrant was specifically to look at Wiener's communications? That seems like it would be outside of the warrant's scope and it wouldn't trigger the plain view doctrine. Plus, Comey said they were reviewing the emails before the new warrant was obtained. I'm not a lawyer, but something doesn't seem right here. If I had to guess, they were looking at the metadata on the computer and discovered metadata suggesting that such emails existed so that the discovery was in "plain view" so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Yeah I know how it went down. My question is why were they looking at Abedin's emails when their warrant was specifically to look at Wiener's communications? That seems like it would be outside of the warrant's scope and it wouldn't trigger the plain view doctrine. Plus, Comey said they were reviewing the emails before the new warrant was obtained. I'm not a lawyer, but something doesn't seem right here. Their warrant was to look at anything on Weiner's laptop, period, including any communications. This is why they needed a separate warrant. Heck, the FBI didn't even request that Clinton's aides hand over all their devices for examination before because they're dumb like that. I don't think they were reviewing anything, and i've not seen a statement from Comey indicating that. if they were reviewing anything that would clearly be a breach of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ariadne23 Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said: Yeah I know how it went down. My question is why were they looking at Abedin's emails when their warrant was specifically to look at Wiener's communications? That seems like it would be outside of the warrant's scope and it wouldn't trigger the plain view doctrine. Plus, Comey said they were reviewing the emails before the new warrant was obtained. I'm not a lawyer, but something doesn't seem right here. Cyberlaw expert Prof. Orrin Kerr agrees with you. I've been thinking not in plain view / fruit of the poisonous tree for awhile, but figured I was missing something since, you know, they're the FBI and I racked up Cs in both Criminal Law and Evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 22 minutes ago, Fez said: I don't think it'd would hurt Hillary though (electorally at least; I'm sure personally it'd really suck, even if the allegation is baseless). For one its not about her, and two I don't think the media would focus only on Bill. Not on this; especially since that story takes too long develop. If this gets picked up, it'll be that there was this press conference accusing Trump. No time for anything else. I certainly hope you are wrong about that. If it turned out that Bill was involved, I'd certainly hope that people would take issue with having a known pedophile in the white house, even as first husband. Quote And note that there's no evidence right now that the Clinton campaign had anything to do with this. Its not an oppo dump, its this woman and her attorney deciding to try to get everyone's attention and get this story into the mainstream media. No idea if that'll work; guess it depends on what the conference looks like and how believable the story seems. May well be. Really hard to say. 20 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Another possibility is that Epstein turns witness for the prosecution here, which would be...really interesting, actually. Sadly, I think this would be the best outcome. If epstein knows about a bunch of people involved with this shit, then that needs to be exposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Swordfish said: I certainly hope you are wrong about that. If it turned out that Bill was involved, I'd certainly hope that people would take issue with having a known pedophile in the white house, even as first husband. Are you saying First Husband is worse than President? Also, if it turned out to be true, I suspect there'd be a divorce in the Clinton's future. Affairs are one thing, rapes are another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Fez said: Are you saying First Husband is worse than President? I'm not sure what you mean. Quote Also, if it turned out to be true, I suspect there'd be a divorce in the Clinton's future. Affairs are one thing, rapes are another. Quite likely. Either way, I just don't think your contention that this wouldn't hurt HRC politically is realistic. Like, at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Just now, Swordfish said: I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying if both Donald Trump and Bill Clinton are accused of child rape; people are going to care more about Donald Trump since he's the one actually running for President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Can someone fill me in on exactly how an early voter can go in and change their vote? I thought secret ballot meant once your vote drops in the box there is no way to identify the vote back to any person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 4 minutes ago, Fez said: I'm saying if both Donald Trump and Bill Clinton are accused of child rape; people are going to care more about Donald Trump since he's the one actually running for President. Certainly. That's why I referred to the approach of Trump outing Bill as 'scorched earth'. It would have to be a total 'well, I'm going down, so I'm taking you down with me.' I just don't see that happening. As I said, i don't think Trump can really do anything but deny, whether he's guilty or not, for the exact reason you are bringing up here. But if Bill is implicated, that's absolutely disastrous for Hilary as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Fez said: I'm saying if both Donald Trump and Bill Clinton are accused of child rape; people are going to care more about Donald Trump since he's the one actually running for President. Is Bill now accused of child rape? I thought all his rape accusers were all of legal age at the time the alleged rapes took place. in comparing evils, at least Bill would be just plain evil, where as child rape would make Drumpf depraved evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: Is Bill now accused of child rape? I thought all his rape accusers were all of legal age at the time the alleged rapes took place. in comparing evils, at least Bill would be just plain evil, where as child rape would make Drumpf depraved evil. I've no idea. I've no idea what Trump would claim if he's going down and I have no idea what's actually true. Nor do I have any idea of whether the allegation against Trump is legit or any idea if this will get any play in the idea. No idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Pfft like Trump has ever gone down on anyone in his life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ariadne23 Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 12 minutes ago, Fez said: Also, if it turned out to be true, I suspect there'd be a divorce in the Clinton's future. Affairs are one thing, rapes are another. Given Epstein's history and the number of verified flights Bill took on the Lolita Express to Epstein's private island, she'd have to be pretty dense to not have a clue. I'm.truly astonished that there's no Podesta email about Bill, Epstein, and underage girls, so I'm waiting for Wikileaks to drop it any time now. But yeah, I think it's worse for Trump, and I really do hope Hillary divorces Bill this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.