Trump 2.0

[James R]

Nope. Statutes of limitations and threats and intimidation by Trump and his cronies have made sure of that.

Was Trump and/or his cronies charged with making threats and intimidating witnesses? Convicted?

Seriously? Corroborated allegations dates back decadesin one instance; others are documented within the Trump/Epstein files. No convictions, of course, because the FBI and justice department have long made a habit of not following up on these matters.

Even before Trump was President? Why?

Again, seriously? Within the United States--you know, ICE, CBP, concentration camps and deportations.

Which groups are being ethnically cleansed?

Again, seriously? Gaza.

Trump is complicit in the genocide in Gaza? Is there an ICC warrant out for his arrest?

Again... You know, like murdering fisherman off the coast of Venezuela as but one example of such.

The US isn't at war with Venezuela, is it?

I generally assume my readers are educated.

Educated readers usually want evidence of allegations before they convict somebody of a crime. In a court, the usual standard required for criminal conviction is "beyond reasonable doubt".

Moreover, in the case of WoW--do you seriously think he would even bother to check any citations we offer?

No, but WoW's incompetence doesn't excuse your laziness.

 

[billvon]

Was an interview set up with the accuser?

Yes. The interview was apparently present in the Epstein Files, but has been deleted by Bondi. We have only the references to it I mention above.

and we have no idea who "Tiffany Doe" is. That's a pseudonym, is it not?

Yes. Underage girls typically use pseudonyms to avoid revealing their names. This protects the identity of minors who have been sexually assaulted. This is especially important in this case, since Trump has a history of threatening witnesses, and those witnesses often end up dead.

What significance do you place on all these allegations, billvon, and why?

Well, let's see.

We know he raped E. Jean Carroll. (The actual charge was "forcible penetration against her will" which, as the judge explained, is the common definition of rape.) We know that he is a convicted felon. We know he was Epstein's best friend, and shared "many wonderful secrets" with him - and that Trump said he liked girls on the younger side, like Epstein. We know of 26 other women who have credibly accused him of sexual assault and sexual impropriety with underage girls.

Thus we know he is the kind of person who ignores the law, sexually assaults women, and is attracted to underage women.

This means that the dozens of allegations of statutory rape as presented in the Epstein Files should - at the very least - be investigated.

 

[James R]

I'm growing increasingly disgusted by the practices of so many media outlets describing certain episodes--especially with respect to Trump--as "unsubstantiated", when in fact many such episodes are corroborated by a person or persons to whom the victim(s) related their accounts at the time, or shortly after.

There are courts of public opinion and there are courts of law. Courts of law usually require more "substantiation" than courts of public opinion. The usual standard of proof that the prosecution has to meet in criminal matters, in courts of law, is proof "beyond reasonable doubt".

It's a high bar. There are good reasons for that.

Accusations are easy to make and can be difficult to refute if it's mostly "he said she said".

Like it or not, defendants have rights.

That is "substantiation"!

It's evidence, certainly. It can add to the plausibility of the original account. It can also, in some cases, detract from the plausibility. It depends on the overall reliability of the witnesses involved. Care must be taken regarding possible witness collusion, too.

The repeated failures of the DOJ, FBI, and other law enforcement entities to follow up on these accusations does in no sense lessen the veracity of these accounts.

Who verified the accounts?

And, I should add, these failures to follow up took place under multiple administrations.

You are asserting, then, that the DOJ, the FBI and other unnamed law enforcement entities have all systematically, over many years, source to shield certain perpetrators of crimes? And or, those same agencies have systemically failed to take credible witness statements seriously?

I mean, okay. But those are big claims, and you really need to make a better case than "This is what I reckon the DOJ and the FBI did, generally speaking."

You'll need to provide lots of specifics to make your case. Otherwise, you're mostly just jumping on a bandwagon of accusations based on "vibes".

Moreover, in the absence of "hard evidence", preponderance of circumstantial evidence, established patterns of behavior, partial admissions in a general sense by the perpetrators themselves--either knowingly, i.e., on Howard Stern, The View, Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, etc., or unknowingly (hot mics on Access Hollywood, for instance)--and allegations by the victims along with corroboration from their associates are what we have to work with and such absolutely constitutes "evidence" both in the legal sense and in a more common-sensical sense.

Well, no. Not usually, in criminal cases. In a criminal prosecution, "patterns of behaviour" and such can, in some cases, be admissible. I admit that I'm not across all details of US legal procedure. But, generally speaking, evidence relating to crimes other that the specific ones the defendant is charged with in the particular instance, is not admissible evidence in a trial.

If Bob is charged with theft from Tiffany's jewelry shop, he won't be convicted solely on the basis of an argument that says that Bob was previously convicted of robbing Armani's jewelry shop. He won't be convicted on the basis that Jane Doe, a witness, says that a friend of a former roommate of hers called her and said that Bob was trying to sell stolen jewelry to the uncle of the bloke who owns the record store down the road. Bob also won't be convicted of the theft on the basis that Bob once said some really nasty things to Priscilla, got her pregnant and then reportedly had his uncle murder the baby.

 

[parmalee]

Was Trump and/or his cronies charged with making threats and intimidating witnesses? Convicted?

Nope. Because threats and intimidation by very powerful men with known criminal ties are often very effective.

Even before Trump was President? Why?

Perhaps because the US is a deeply misogynistic culture?

Which groups are being ethnically cleansed?

I'm not doing your homework, and I've already detailed this elsewhere--plenty of times.

Trump is complicit in the genocide in Gaza? Is there an ICC warrant out for his arrest?

Does there have to be an ICC warrant for one to be complicit in such?

The US isn't at war with Venezuela, is it?

Honestly, noone really knows for sure--so, either war crimes or state sponsored terrorism/murder.

Educated readers usually want evidence of allegations before they convict somebody of a crime. In a court, the usual standard required for criminal conviction is "beyond reasonable doubt".

No, but WoW's incompetence doesn't excuse your laziness.

Also, if you review my posts, you'll find that I have provided an abundance of citations and evidence for all of these claims in the past. I'm just not in the habit (or mood, at the moment maybe) to do so yet again (and again and again)--especially for someone like WoW, who is dishonest to the core.

Again, it's not my job to do your homework for you. I've provided plenty of citations and evidence in the past, and doing so again, here, would only be... well, feeding the troll.

 

[parmalee]

There are courts of public opinion and there are courts of law. Courts of law usually require more "substantiation" than courts of public opinion. The usual standard of proof that the prosecution has to meet in criminal matters, in courts of law, is proof "beyond reasonable doubt".

It's a high bar. There are good reasons for that.

Accusations are easy to make and can be difficult to refute if it's mostly "he said she said".

Like it or not, defendants have rights.

Yep. And there are over two hundred thousand unprocessed rape kits in the US at present--and that's a conservative estimate. Moreover, women who report rape are routinely harassed and harangued by law enforcement in the US--there's even a term for that: it's called "second rape". So why don't you share your concerns about all this with the victims? (Or alleged victims as you might have it.)

You are asserting, then, that the DOJ, the FBI and other unnamed law enforcement entities have all systematically, over many years, source to shield certain perpetrators of crimes? And or, those same agencies have systemically failed to take credible witness statements seriously?

With respect to rape and sex crimes? Is that a serious question? You're really not all that familiar with the US, are you?

 

[James R]

Yes. The interview was apparently present in the Epstein Files, but has been deleted by Bondi.

What is the evidence that the interview was deleted by Bondi?

Yes. Underage girls typically use pseudonyms to avoid revealing their names. This protects the identity of minors who have been sexually assaulted. This is especially important in this case, since Trump has a history of threatening witnesses, and those witnesses often end up dead.

Which witnesses who have made accusation against Trump have ended up dead?

Well, let's see.

We know he raped E. Jean Carroll. (The actual charge was "forcible penetration against her will" which, as the judge explained, is the common definition of rape.)

Yes.

We know that he is a convicted felon.

Yes.

We know he was Epstein's best friend, and shared "many wonderful secrets" with him - and that Trump said he liked girls on the younger side, like Epstein.

Do we know that he was Epstein's best friend? How do we know that?

Did Trump say that Trump likes girls on the younger side? Or did he say that Epstein liked girls on the younger side?

It may seem like a minor distinction to you, billvon, but it's important to pay attention to details.

We know of 26 other women who have credibly accused him of sexual assault and sexual impropriety with underage girls.

Do we? Got a list? And how many charges have been laid against Trump, relating to those credible accusations?

Thus we know he is the kind of person who ignores the law, sexually assaults women, and is attracted to underage women.

Does that mean he must be guilty of every allegation made against him of sexual assault? Wouldn't it be appropriate for the prosecution to have to prove each individual allegation beyond reasonable doubt, in any criminal trial?

This means that the dozens of allegations of statutory rape as presented in the Epstein Files should - at the very least - be investigated.

I completely agree that they should be investigated.

I merely make the point that allegations are not proof of guilt. Do you agree?

 

[parmalee]

What is the evidence that the interview was deleted by Bondi?

Jesus. Why don't you just read the news? And perhaps try and avoid the regime media sources like CBS, Fox, and soon, probably, CNN and pretty much everything else (contingent upon this Netflix or Paramount deal).

 

[James R]

Nope. Because threats and intimidation by very powerful men with known criminal ties are often very effective.

These powerful men with known criminal ties intimidate the police and the FBI, do they? So much that the police and the FBI refuse to prosecute them? Interesting.

US law enforcement sounds rotten to the core, if we are to believe your portrayal.

Perhaps because the US is a deeply misogynistic culture?

I see. So you're saying that all the people who go into law enforcement are deeply misogynistic and therefore refuse to charge perpetrators of serious crimes against women with those crimes?

I'm not doing your homework, and I've already detailed this elsewhere--plenty of times.

If you say so.

Does there have to be an ICC warrant for one to be complicit in such?

No. But the ICC seems pretty keen on arresting and trying people who are complicit in genocide. That is, after all, one of the main purposes for which the ICC was set up.

But for Trump they make a special exception? Why?

Honestly, noone really knows for sure--so, either war crimes or state sponsored terrorism/murder.

Maybe not a war crime, then. Okay.

Again, it's not my job to do your homework for you.

Nor mine to do your homework for you. It seems like you have a lot to do.

I've provided plenty of citations and evidence in the past, and doing so again, here, would only be... well, feeding the troll.

If you say so.

 

[James R]

Yep. And there are over two hundred thousand unprocessed rape kits in the US at present--and that's a conservative estimate.

What does this have to do with Trump?

Moreover, women who report rape are routinely harassed and harangued by law enforcement in the US--there's even a term for that: it's called "second rape". So why don't you share your concerns about all this with the victims? (Or alleged victims as you might have it.)

This thread is about Trump and the crimes you allege he has committed.

We can have a more general discussion about how rape is dealt with by law enforcement in the United States if you really want to. You could start a separate thread on that.

If what you say is true, it seems that your US law enforcement has some systemic problems.

If you want to know whether I have empathy for the victims of sex crimes, why don't you just ask me, parmalee? It sounds like you're trying to imply that I don't have empathy for them. Is that what you think? You're not jumping to conclusions again, are you?

With respect to rape and sex crimes? Is that a serious question? You're really not all that familiar with the US, are you?

I'm moderately familiar with the US. Always keen to learn more, from those who know more and who have useful information to share.

 

[James R]

Jesus. Why don't you just read the news?

You seem exasperated when I ask you for evidence rather than vibes. Why is that?

In answer to your question: I do "just read the news", among other things.

In this particular instance, I assume billvon has the answer I need, seeing as he brought the matter up in the first place. And he's right here.

Can you help? Do you know the answer? Is it difficult to share?

And perhaps try and avoid the regime media sources like CBS, Fox, and soon, probably, CNN and pretty much everything else (contingent upon this Netflix or Paramount deal).

I don't regularly watch any of the US news channels.

Where do you get your information from?

 

[parmalee]

These power men with known criminal ties intimidate the police and the FBI, do they? So much that the police and the FBI refuse to prosecute them? Interesting.

??? I guess you're unfamiliar with various mafias and organized crime syndicates?I see.

So you're saying that all the people who go into law enforcement are deeply misogynistic and therefore refuse to charge perpetrators of serious crimes against women with those crimes?

Care to show me where I said that, or is this just your usual strawman tactic?

No. But the ICC seems pretty keen on arresting and trying people who are complicit in genocide. That is, after all, one of the main purposes for which the ICC was set up.

So because the ICC has doesn't as much, funding and arming Israel in their genocide in Gaza does not constitute complicity?

Maybe not a war crime, then. Okay.

Like I said, noone has clarified whether or not we are at war with Venezuela at present.

Nor mine to do your homework for you. It seems like you have a lot to do.

Alternately, you could just educate yourself and stop trolling.

 

[parmalee]

I don't watch any of the US news channels.

Neither do I, but your rather curious ignorance re: some of these matters suggested that perhaps you might.

Where do you get your information from?

Do you have like an extremely short-term memory or something? (I mean, you could always just review some of my previous posts--or rely upon your memory, if you do not, in fact, have an extremely short-term memory.) It just always amazes me how oftentimes you can't even seem to recall things which a poster posted sometimes literally even just hours prior--and to which you even responded! Just rather curious, is all.

 

[James R]

parmalee:

??? I guess you're unfamiliar with various mafias and organized crime syndicates?I see.

It is your contention, then, that various mafias and organised crime syndicates intimidated US law enforcement agencies and thereby ensured that Trump and/or his cronies were not charged with making threats and intimidating witnesses who made allegations of sexual offenses committed by Trump?

Do I have that right?

And your evidence for this is... what?

Don't tell me. Let me guess. You've posted your evidence of this conspiracy previously?

From my point of view, this is all getting quite bizarre. Are you sure that each step in your presumed chain of events is as well evidenced as you believe it is?

Care to show me where I said that, or is this just your usual strawman tactic?

You told me that "the US is a deeply misogynistic culture" and you claimed that this accounts for "[t]he repeated failures of the DOJ, FBI, and other law enforcement entities to follow up on these accusations" of sexual offenses allegedly committed by Trump.

It follows that you believe that most, if not all, of the prosecutors in the DOJ, FBI and other law enforcement entities are deeply misogynistic, and therefore willing to ignore Trump's alleged sexual crimes.

Am I wrong?

I can't see how this is a straw man. I'm just repeating back to you what you've told me. If anything, I'm steelmanning your arguments here.

I get it that, when you read them back, your arguments can sometimes come across as fevered vibes rather than convincing evidence. But that's hardly my fault, is it?

So because the ICC has doesn't as much, funding and arming Israel in their genocide in Gaza does not constitute complicity?

Who approves the transfer of US funds and arms to Israel? Does Trump have sole authority? Or is this more a whole-of-government thing?

Is the entire US government complicit in the genocide, would you say?

Why single out Trump?

Like I said, noone has clarified whether or not we are at war with Venezuela at present.

Has the US declared war on Venezuela? Has Venezuela declared war on the US? I'm not aware of any declarations of war.

I suppose you might be able to mount some kind of argument for a de facto, undeclared war, perhaps. But it would have to be based on more than hitting a few fishing boats (or drug smuggling boats or whatever they are) with missiles, wouldn't it?

Anyhoo, seems like we're drifting off topic on this one.

Alternately, you could just educate yourself and stop trolling.

Well I could educate myself, certainly. It just that you posted so authoritatively. I assumed that you might know something about the claims you made. Other than vibes, I mean. I guess that's not the case. Or, at least, you don't want to share the benefits of all your hard investigating with other people here.

It interests me that when I ask you for simple things - like providing some support for one of your more "political" claims - you immediately accuse me of trolling. What is the problem? Do you think you're entitled to be in a special zone where vibes are sufficient to make your case?

Is it unreasonable of me to ask for evidence for your claims? Am I a troll for asking?

Neither do I, but your rather curious ignorance re: some of these matters suggested that perhaps you might.

Are you saying that watching the big US news channels makes people curiously ignorant? That's interesting. Sounds like it's a good thing I don't watch them, then.

Do you have like an extremely short-term memory or something? (I mean, you could always just review some of my previous posts--or rely upon your memory, if you do not, in fact, have an extremely short-term memory.)

No need to get your knickers in a knot. I'm not that interested in where you get your news from. If it's a secret, that's okay.

Anyway, seems like you don't have the answer to the question I asked billvon. I'm happy to wait for his answer.

It just always amazes me how oftentimes you can't even seem to recall things which a poster posted sometimes literally even just hours prior--and to which you even responded! Just rather curious, is all.

If you say so.

 

[parmalee]

This post:

Jesus. Why don't you just read the news? And perhaps try and avoid the regime media sources like CBS, Fox, and soon, probably, CNN and pretty much everything else (contingent upon this Netflix or Paramount deal).

was in response to this:

What is the evidence that the interview was deleted by Bondi?

Now just a couple of pages back, Billvon posted this:

So it looks like there were 50+ pages of the Epstein files redacted by Bondi that all covered testimony by witnesses against Trump.

One report that was removed had an excerpt that was accidentally left in a Powerpoint presentation. The exceprt in the Powerpoint presentation said that Trump "subsequently forced her head down to his exposed penis which she subsequently bit. In response, Trump punched her in the head and kicked her out." The victim was 13 years old at the time.

And Sarkus elaborated further:

It's not just redacted but there are claims that they have been withheld. The DoJ has repeated their claim that nothing has been deleted, and that items were withheld only if they were "duplicates, privileged, or part of an ongoing federal investigation". Well, the documents in question were not duplicates, there is no privilege, and so are they admitting that there is an "ongoing federal investigation" into Trump? Of course not. The DoJ unfortunately can claim that they are withheld for reasons that they themselves have control over.

They've also said: "Some of the documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election.
"To be clear, the claims are unfounded and false, and if they have a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already."
So they seem to have made their own determination that they are false, are unfounded, and thus withheld them on those grounds?? But not other claims about other people?? So where's the documentation of the investigation to make such a determination that the claims are untrue? Where is the reasoning for it, beyond him being the President they are protecting?

It's a farce.

But, you know, James has read the thread--or, at the very least, the past few pages, right?

Nevertheless, such prompted this query from me:

Do you have like an extremely short-term memory or something? (I mean, you could always just review some of my previous posts--or rely upon your memory, if you do not, in fact, have an extremely short-term memory.) It just always amazes me how oftentimes you can't even seem to recall things which a poster posted sometimes literally even just hours prior--and to which you even responded! Just rather curious, is all.

Now in this instance, it was a couple days' prior and James did not respond to such, but still... What exactly is going on here? Memory issues? Poor reading comprehension? Or just plain trolling?

 

[parmalee]

parmalee:

It is your contention, then, that various mafias and organised crime syndicates intimidated US law enforcement agencies and thereby ensured that Trump and/or his cronies were not charged with making threats and intimidating witnesses who made allegations of sexual offenses committed by Trump?

Do I have that right?

Nope. But I'm not gonna elaborate further as you're plainly just being your usual dishonest, trollish self and I frankly see no point in continuing any attempt at "discussion" with you.

But I just can't help myself here, so I gotta ask: Are you really the gung-ho, pro-American law enforcement--in all it's forms--and copaganda sort you come across as, or is that simply a facet of your trolling?

 

[TheVat]

Does there have to be an ICC warrant for one to be complicit in such?

I will say, with ADR to James trying to get as many citations out there as possible, this one did seem pretty self-evident. Turnip backed the continued provision of bombs to Israel and Israels continued massive destruction of civilian targets and use of starvation as a tactic. All matters of public record, widely reported.

 

[billvon]

What is the evidence that the interview was deleted by Bondi?

Bondi had ownership of the files and was responsible for redactions.

The sections containing the interview was deleted. We know this because reporters were able to uncover sequencing numbers within the metadata of the documents (similar to page numbers) and there are gaps after pages suggesting that the interview text would follow.

Which witnesses who have made accusation against Trump have ended up dead?

Virginia Giuffre, one of the most prominent witnesses in the Trump/Epstein issue, ended up dead by suicide.

In 2011, a man approached Stormy Daniels in a parking lot and told her to "leave Trump alone. That's a beautiful little girl (referring to her daughter who was with them.) It'd be a shame if something happened to her mom."

Do we know that he was Epstein's best friend? How do we know that?

Beatrice Keul testified that she met Epstein and was told "I’m Jeffrey. I’m Don’s best friend."

In 2017 Micheal Wolff interviewed Epstein where Epstein went into great depth on Trump. He called him “charming,” and “always fun,” and said he liked to “f*ck the wives of his best friends.” Wolff asked him “How do you know all this?” Epstein replied, “I was Donald’s closest friend for 10 years.” This is on tape.

Did Trump say that Trump likes girls on the younger side? Or did he say that Epstein liked girls on the younger side?

Trump 2002: "I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. 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 we? Got a list?

We sure do. Not doing all your work for you, but I will start you off with ten of them. Feel free to continue researching if you feel like it.

Ivana Trump - rape, later played down
Jill Harth - pussy grabbing
E Jean Carroll - rape
Summer Zervos - kissed her, grabbed her breasts, dry humped
Alva Johnson - forcible kiss
Jessica Leeds - breast and pussy grabbing
Kristin Anderson - pussy grabbing
Stacey Williams - pussy grabbing while Epstein looked on
Cathy Heller - grabbed and forcibly kissed
Amy Dorris - breast and butt grabbing
Mariah Billado - underage girl who was peeped on by Trump

(Gave you a bonus one there)

Does that mean he must be guilty of every allegation made against him of sexual assault?

Of course not. But proven charges of sexual assault, proven serious criminal behavior, public admissions of other sexual assaults, and a great many accusations of sexual assault, makes it far more likely that that person actually committed other sexual assaults - wouldn't you agree? And such information should be used by a grand jury when deciding what charges to file.

(That's in a functioning justice system, of course.)

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

I'm talking about actual, world war II German Nazis. Do you believe that since you don't know any of them personally, some of them are likely good people?

You say you were, but the way you put it sounded like you were calling them Nazis. And the answer is no.

 

[parmalee]

Why single out Trump?

Maybe this lying troll has the answer:

This thread is about Trump and the crimes you allege he has committed.

Seriously, James, just go fuck yourself.

 

[billvon]

You say you were, but the way you put it sounded like you were calling them Nazis. And the answer is no.

OK. So you are on the side of considering people guilty by association. (And just to be clear, in extreme cases, there's nothing wrong with that.)