Two People Have Been Convicted Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Based On the Epstein Files

W

Walt

Back To Reality
Two people have been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt based on the Epstein files: Epstein himself, and Maxwell. If the Epstein files are hoaxes, those convictions need o be overturned. It would be very important that Bondi present the evidence as quickly as possible to get Maxwell out of prison.

Once someone has been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, they are no longer "presumed innocent." In fact, quite the opposite. There needs to be evidence that the previous evidence was a hoax. Luckily, that should be simple to get... It it really were a hoax.

End of he day, we all know the evidence is real. Epstein and Maxwell are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. trump is probably guilty, but that is not enough to convict him.

@IBDaMann
 
Walt said:
Two people have been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt based on the Epstein files: Epstein himself, and Maxwell. If the Epstein files are hoaxes, those convictions need o be overturned. It would be very important that Bondi present the evidence as quickly as possible to get Maxwell out of prison.

Once someone has been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, they are no longer "presumed innocent." In fact, quite the opposite. There needs to be evidence that the previous evidence was a hoax. Luckily, that should be simple to get... It it really were a hoax.

End of he day, we all know the evidence is real. Epstein and Maxwell are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. trump is probably guilty, but that is not enough to convict him.

@IBDaMann
Click to expand...
And Bill Clinton went on a world tour with Epstein, in the Lolita Express, AFTER his first conviction.

The "Big Client list" is a hoax.; try to keep up.
 
Grokmaster said:
And Bill Clinton went on a world tour with Epstein, in the Lolita Express, AFTER his first conviction.
Click to expand...
That is untrue.

Clinton(and his foundation) used Epstein's plane in 2002 and 2003. Epstein's first conviction was in 2008. 2003 is not after 2008, it is before.

Both Clinton's Foundation, and trump were taking the Lolita Express. Sometimes one of the passengers with the Clinton Foundation was Clinton himself. Other times it was experts. Always Epstein deducted it as a charity donation. Meanwhile trump was double dating on the Lolita Express. Were the girls trump was "dating" 18 or 16... I do not know, nor does trump.

Grokmaster said:
The "Big Client list" is a hoax.; try to keep up.
Click to expand...
The trump supporter's claim that there is a client list is a hoax. I said that back before you did. It would make no sense for Epstein to write a client list. Even if such a list were found, it would not be usable as anything. It is not actual evidence.

I can make a list of any names I want. It is not evidence.
 
Walt said:
That is untrue.

Clinton(and his foundation) used Epstein's plane in 2002 and 2003. Epstein's first conviction was in 2008. 2003 is not after 2008, it is before.

Both Clinton's Foundation, and trump were taking the Lolita Express. Sometimes one of the passengers with the Clinton Foundation was Clinton himself. Other times it was experts. Always Epstein deducted it as a charity donation. Meanwhile trump was double dating on the Lolita Express. Were the girls trump was "dating" 18 or 16... I do not know, nor does trump.


The trump supporter's claim that there is a client list is a hoax. I said that back before you did. It would make no sense for Epstein to write a client list. Even if such a list were found, it would not be usable as anything. It is not actual evidence.

I can make a list of any names I want. It is not evidence.
Click to expand...
Walter exactly how do you know what Trump does or does not know.
 
In fact, many trips made by celebrities and politicians were just vacations. A private island was a good thing to do with the family. Some of those logged in were with their whole family. The differences would have to be ferreted out, but Trump will not seek the truth. A private island owned by a child molester is also a good place to sexually abuse beyond the authorities. Trump will, of course, cover those trips up.
Going to Epsteins island is not a world tour, nor is it proof of wrongdoing.
The girls should be heard.
 
Walt said:
Two people have been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt based on the Epstein files:
Click to expand...
Nope. Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were convicted of sex trafficking and other crimes based on testimony and seized porn videos. The "Epstein File" hoax was fabricated separately.

Yes, the evidence used in court to convict them was real evidence and testimony. None of that, however, was the "Epstein File" hoax that is currently being perpetrated.
 
IBDaMann said:
Nope. Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were convicted of sex trafficking and other crimes based on testimony and seized porn videos. The "Epstein File" hoax was fabricated separately.
Click to expand...
They were not convicted of having child porn, so not the seized porn videos. Testimony would be in the Epstein files, along with the documents backing up that testimony. Without corroborated, testimony has very little value.

Starr had plenty of testimony against Clinton. The problem was that most of it was worse than uncorroborated, and was openly proven false.

IBDaMann said:
Yes, the evidence used in court to convict them was real evidence and testimony. None of that, however, was the "Epstein File" hoax that is currently being perpetrated.
Click to expand...
So let's release the real evidence which was used in court, or would have been if it went to court. And we can also release the so called hoaxes and the investigations of who committed the hoaxes.
 
Walt said:
Two people have been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt based on the Epstein files: Epstein himself, and Maxwell. If the Epstein files are hoaxes, those convictions need o be overturned. It would be very important that Bondi present the evidence as quickly as possible to get Maxwell out of prison.

Once someone has been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, they are no longer "presumed innocent." In fact, quite the opposite. There needs to be evidence that the previous evidence was a hoax. Luckily, that should be simple to get... It it really were a hoax.

End of he day, we all know the evidence is real. Epstein and Maxwell are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. trump is probably guilty, but that is not enough to convict him.

@IBDaMann
Click to expand...
Yep, and some influential bastard had Epstein murdered and trump is wishing Maxwell well and moving her to cushy club feds.
 
Walt said:
They were not convicted of having child porn, so not the seized porn videos.
Click to expand...
Sorry, nobody knows to what extent the videos were involved in any plea bargaining or development of the prosecution's strategy. The porn was seized and was never thrown out as evidence.

Walt said:
Testimony would be in the Epstein files,
Click to expand...
Subjunctive error. The testimony is in the grand jury testimony and is not in the "Epstein File" hoax. You clearly have no intention of being honest. You are clearly more interested in protecting Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and in crucifying an innocent man than in seeking justice.

Walt said:
So let's release the real evidence
Click to expand...
... which would be the grand jury testimony that nails Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to the wall. This is your cue to scramble to divert everyone's attention back to the hoax.

Walt said:
which was used in court, or would have been if it went to court.
Click to expand...
Subjunctive fallacy.

Walt said:
And we can also release the so called hoaxes and the investigations of who committed the hoaxes.
Click to expand...
Let's start with the chupacabra hoax, and then work our way over to the Chinese Water Monkey (水猴子).
 
IBDaMann said:
The testimony is in the grand jury testimony and is not in the "Epstein File" hoax.
Click to expand...
Prosecutors like to get their testimony tested up front. They will question prosecution witnesses before the grand jury, and that questioning becomes part of the file. They are free to release it. The only known witnesses in for these grand juries were the prosecution witnesses, so they would almost certainly have their statements in the file.

IBDaMann said:
which would be the grand jury testimony that nails Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to the wall.
Click to expand...
Obama has not had a grand jury about him, and grand juries about other people would not muddy the water by concentrating on Obama(or trump). Clinton did have a grand jury about him. All the information from that grand jury was released. It did not nail Clinton to the wall.

IBDaMann said:
This is your cue to scramble to divert everyone's attention back to the hoax.
Click to expand...
If the statements in the file are hoaxes, I would want them exposed. Why would you want them covered up?
 
Walt said:
Prosecutors like to get their testimony tested up front. They will question prosecution witnesses before the grand jury, and that questioning becomes part of the file.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The grand jury testimony becomes part of the case history, not part of the hoax that was fabricated years the grand jury testimony was sealed by Democrat-appointed activist judges protecting Bill Clinton and Barack Obama from that testimony.
 
IBDaMann said:
Incorrect. The grand jury testimony becomes part of the case history, not part of the hoax that was fabricated years the grand jury testimony was sealed by Democrat-appointed activist judges protecting Bill Clinton and Barack Obama from that testimony.
Click to expand...
Do you have evidence that it was fabricated?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top