Unsealed Ghislaine Maxwell / Jeffery Epstein transcripts have dropped (1 Viewer)

[BobE]

Docket for Giuffre v. Maxwell, 1:15-cv-07433 - CourtListener.com

Docket for Giuffre v. Maxwell, 1:15-cv-07433 — Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

(likely crashed)

Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Books, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine

archive.org

From what I have seen so far on how people look

Bad: Alan Dershowitz
Maybe bad: Bill Clinton
Meh: Trump

HOLY shirt: FBI and Dubya for letting the DOJ do this.

 

[Ayo]

As far as large media companies or newspapers, Fox News and the WSJ opinion page are biased towards the right. Did I miss any other ones? All of the other ones are biased towards the left.

The fact that people on the left still try to act as if the rest of the media besides Fox News isn't biased towards the left makes it hard to take their media critiques seriously. The left also tries to shut down or silence voices they don't like. It's almost like they are scared for people to hear something besides the liberal media narrative.

you're doing this entirely wrong

I am not saying that there aren't media corporations like MSNBC and CNN are without bias.

You're changing the argument.

You're claiming that the "mainstream media" is an "arm" of the "Democratic party" but FOX News dominates NewsCorp airwaves and their ubiquity and popularity and ratings are widely touted.

So the "mainstream media" cannot, therefore, be an 'arm of the Democratic Party'

and I will further say that I get my news from AP, Reuters, CBC, The Hill, WSJ, NYT, Economist, Politico, Globe and Mail most frequently.

These are all pretty mainstream.

And also not all "arms of the Democratic party"

 

[Ayo]

Post a few examples

from 2 days ago:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/31/us/ghislaine-maxwell-newly-unsealed-documents-epstein/index.html

Discussing her interviews with reporter Sharon Churcher in 2011, Giuffre says she told Churcher that Maxwell had claimed she flew former President Bill Clinton into the island owned by Epstein as well.
"Ghislaine told me that she flew Bill Clinton in. And Ghislaine likes to talk a lot of stuff that sounds fantastical. And whether it's true or not, that is what I do recall telling Sharon Churcher."
Giuffre acknowledges in her deposition that in some ways she felt Churcher got the story wrong but she never tried to correct her.
Giuffre described wondering why former President Clinton was on the island while she was there and discussing it with Epstein.
"I remember asking Jeffrey what's Bill Clinton doing here kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said well he owes me a favor," Giuffre told attorneys in a 2011 recorded conversation about her claims against Epstein.

and ALL of the other sites that I listed also mentioned Clinton.

edit: UTJ beat me to it.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Not surprisingly the media is ignoring the fact that Bill Clinton's name was in recently unsealed documents by a witness saying he was at Epstein Island. The media is clearly an arm of the Democratic party.

In addition to the links Uncle Trav Jim posted above, i first heard about the unsealed Clinton/Maxwell connection a few days ago on Daily Mail... This persecution complex that the Right has is utterly delusional.. Yes, we straight white American males have had it soooo bad for so very long... and also, for Chrissakes- Donald Freaking Trump was elected President.. so i think your ilk is FULLY represented in this country, as well as in most media... So i dont understand the snowflake mentality of the Right.

 

[SaintForLife]

Newly unsealed documents describe Ghislaine Maxwell’s abuse of one of Epstein’s alleged victims | CNN

Virginia Giuffre, an alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein, describes the psychological toll of Epstein’s abuse in portions of a newly released deposition from May 3, 2016.

www.cnn.com

Unsealed documents show Epstein, Maxwell correspondence in 2015

Attorneys for Maxwell have argued that she hadn’t had any contact with the accused sex trafficker for more than a decade.

www.nbcnews.com

Bill Clinton visited Jeffrey Epstein's private island, unsealed court documents reveal

Reaction from Daniel Halper, author of 'A Convenient Death.'

money.yahoo.com

Judge Releases Trove Of Sealed Records Related To Lawsuit Against Ghislaine Maxwell

The judge unseals hundreds of pages of documents related to a now-settled defamation suit brought against Maxwell by one of Jeffrey Epstein's accusers.

www.npr.org

Every single one talks about how the victim mentioned hearing from someone else that Clinton was on the island but never saw him there herself.

Not a single one of those examples have Clinton's name in the headline and not a single one posted it in their Twitter feed as Drew Holden's thread showed.

If Trump was the name who came up as a witness identifying him at Epstein island, you can be damn sure that Trump's name would be in every headline and and the first story on every nightly TV news show. Do you think the media would treat the story the same way if it were Trump instead of Clinton?

 

[SaintForLife]

from 2 days ago:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/31/us/ghislaine-maxwell-newly-unsealed-documents-epstein/index.html



and ALL of the other sites that I listed also mentioned Clinton.

edit: UTJ beat me to it.

You clearly didn't read the twitter thread I posted. Clinton's name wasn't in any headlines or even posted on any of their Twitter accounts.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Unsealed documents show Epstein, Maxwell correspondence in 2015

Attorneys for Maxwell have argued that she hadn’t had any contact with the accused sex trafficker for more than a decade.

www.nbcnews.com

Bill Clinton visited Jeffrey Epstein's private island, unsealed court documents reveal

Reaction from Daniel Halper, author of 'A Convenient Death.'

money.yahoo.com

Judge Releases Trove Of Sealed Records Related To Lawsuit Against Ghislaine Maxwell

The judge unseals hundreds of pages of documents related to a now-settled defamation suit brought against Maxwell by one of Jeffrey Epstein's accusers.

www.npr.org

Not a single one of those examples have Clinton's name in the headline and not a single one posted it in their Twitter feed as Drew Holden's thread showed.

If Trump was the name who came up as a witness identifying him at Epstein island, you can be damn sure that Trump's name would be in every headline and and the first story on every nightly TV news show. Do you think the media would treat the story the same way if it were Trump instead of Clinton?

Another snowflake post.. “ OMG! Cant believe they didnt mention Bill Clinton until PARAGRAPH 11!!!!!“



Ya know, ive seen a lot of conservatives remark in re to the Black Lives Matter movement that “It’s never enough for those people.. They keep wanting more attention, more... etc”. Well, the way conservatives are reacting to the Clinton/Maxwell thing reminds me of the BLM movement, it’s never enough.. What if it were Paragraph 2, instead of Paragraph 11? WOuld that appease you people?? Or would you still be just as triggered???

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Unsealed documents show Epstein, Maxwell correspondence in 2015

Attorneys for Maxwell have argued that she hadn’t had any contact with the accused sex trafficker for more than a decade.

www.nbcnews.com

Bill Clinton visited Jeffrey Epstein's private island, unsealed court documents reveal

Reaction from Daniel Halper, author of 'A Convenient Death.'

money.yahoo.com

Judge Releases Trove Of Sealed Records Related To Lawsuit Against Ghislaine Maxwell

The judge unseals hundreds of pages of documents related to a now-settled defamation suit brought against Maxwell by one of Jeffrey Epstein's accusers.

www.npr.org

Not a single one of those examples have Clinton's name in the headline and not a single one posted it in their Twitter feed as Drew Holden's thread showed.

If Trump was the name who came up as a witness identifying him at Epstein island, you can be damn sure that Trump's name would be in every headline and and the first story on every nightly TV news show. Do you think the media would treat the story the same way if it were Trump instead of Clinton?

Why should it be a headline? In the deposition, she said she never saw Clinton on the island, instead she said that she told Churcher that Maxwell told her Clinton was on the island and that Maxwell liked to exaggerate.

In other words, in the previous Churcher article, it was claimed that Giuffre said that Clinton was on the island, but in the deposition which was recently unsealed Giuffre said that Churcher got it wrong - that she did NOT see Clinton on the island but instead was told by Maxwell that Clinton was on the island at the same time as her.

So, the unsealed deposition was less damaging to Clinton than the previous Churcher article. Why should Clinton get a higher billing than Richardson when Giuffre said that girls were told to have sex with Richardson - an allegation she did not make about Clinton.

Basically, you seem to think that Clinton should get a higher billing but the deposition said that the victim did NOT see Clinton on the island, but was instead told he was by someone else.

I mean it isn't great for Clinton, but the previous article was more damaging and this deposition actually makes it slightly less damaging.

 

[Taurus]

Unsealed documents show Epstein, Maxwell correspondence in 2015

Attorneys for Maxwell have argued that she hadn’t had any contact with the accused sex trafficker for more than a decade.

www.nbcnews.com

Bill Clinton visited Jeffrey Epstein's private island, unsealed court documents reveal

Reaction from Daniel Halper, author of 'A Convenient Death.'

money.yahoo.com

Judge Releases Trove Of Sealed Records Related To Lawsuit Against Ghislaine Maxwell

The judge unseals hundreds of pages of documents related to a now-settled defamation suit brought against Maxwell by one of Jeffrey Epstein's accusers.

www.npr.org

Not a single one of those examples have Clinton's name in the headline and not a single one posted it in their Twitter feed as Drew Holden's thread showed.

If Trump was the name who came up as a witness identifying him at Epstein island, you can be damn sure that Trump's name would be in every headline and and the first story on every nightly TV news show. Do you think the media would treat the story the same way if it were Trump instead of Clinton?

Bill hasn't been President for 20 years. Trump is the current President.
I shouldn't have to point this out.

 

[Ayo]

In addition to the links Uncle Trav Jim posted above, i first heard about the unsealed Clinton/Maxwell connection a few days ago on Daily Mail... This persecution complex that the Right has is utterly delusional..

this stuff goes back like a decade, at least. And it's widely found - this connection is no secret.

Another scary dimension is how much traction that tweet got when it could easily be de-bunked - several times over, in the matter of a couple of minutes.

But people will read that tweet and rush to spread it without even taking a second to validate or corroborate the claims.

Anyone with a modicum of objectivity and/or concern for honest in 'journalism' would or should apply some of the following safeguards.

1. the claim is a superlative one - alleging that no media outlet is mentioning a link between a US President and a scandal as big as the Epstein/Maxwell one is stretches credulity. The automatic assumption should be: this sounds fishy. Skepticism should be pretty automatic by this point.

2. Check some of the mainstream sites yourself. It's very easy to do. He includes a bunch of links to tweets and articles to make it seem like these news sites didn't mention Clinton. Except, what he links isn't by an means exhaustive. Not even close. Do a basic search yourself, and you see how invalid his claim is - and easily, at that.

3. Consider the source. You're talking about Drew Holden, Erick Ericson and The Resurgent. Which is a super-right, fundamentalist blog - not a news site. Now, they are obviously free to write about and report on whatever they like. But when considering their 'reporting' of anything, their bias should come into play.

Of course, the irony here is that SFL chides the Left for using biased sources, and yet makes his point from this site:

These are very rudimentary tools and first steps I would advise anyone to use when making a decision about the validity and reliability of any source they are going to pass along.

It's good practice, generally, but there are times when everyone will get duped or misled by something. So long as we figure out what got us, it makes us more aware next time.

So use it as a learning opportunity.

 

[Ayo]

You clearly didn't read the twitter thread I posted. Clinton's name wasn't in any headlines or even posted on any of their Twitter accounts.

I did.

And I ended up doing more work than you did... for a point that *you* were making. Your point was - and I quote:

Not surprisingly the media is ignoring the fact that Bill Clinton's name was in recently unsealed documents by a witness saying he was at Epstein Island

That is 100% wrong.

But instead of admitting your error, you decide to double down by changing your point. Again.

How do you expect to have any credibility when you conduct yourself like this? The criticism is inevitable, but it's not someone else's fault for pointing out how wrong you are. How about re-evaluating your argument?

The words are right above.

 

[Ayo]

In other words, in the previous Churcher article, it was claimed that Giuffre said that Clinton was on the island, but in the deposition which was recently unsealed Giuffre said that Churcher got it wrong - that she did NOT see Clinton on the island but instead was told by Maxwell that Clinton was on the island at the same time as her.

So, the unsealed deposition was less damaging to Clinton than the previous Churcher article.

exactly

but it's obvious that the articles weren't read. It's a bad look for Clinton and if he is found to be a part of this, the rest of his life in prison is getting off light for being involved in this. I don't see much sympathy for his being excused or exonerated if guilty (except maybe Bill Barr who thinks that anyone mid-60s or older shouldn't serve much time in prison).

But the twitter thread ignores so much and this latest chapter in this particular thread needs to also include the context of the actual reporting and the manner in which Clinton is placed, and by whom, on the island.

It's not about the reporting or the facts, though. It's just about sides.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

exactly

but it's obvious that the articles weren't read. It's a bad look for Clinton and if he is found to be a part of this, the rest of his life in prison is getting off light for being involved in this. I don't see much sympathy for his being excused or exonerated if guilty (except maybe Bill Barr who thinks that anyone mid-60s or older shouldn't serve much time in prison).

But the twitter thread ignores so much and this latest chapter in this particular thread needs to also include the context of the actual reporting and the manner in which Clinton is placed, and by whom, on the island.

It's not about the reporting or the facts, though. It's just about sides.

Yep, this certainly isn't good for Clinton by any stretch of the imagination. He's denied being on the island, and this deposition says that at least one witness believes he was on the island with young girls. That's bad. But it's also been reported before, and the overall context of the depositions make it slightly less obvious that Clinton was there than previous reporting, while this deposition makes it more clear that other famous people were more directly implicated with abuse (which no witness has yet accused Clinton of) -- so I think it seems obvious that more clear bad behavior gets higher billing than slightly less clear statements about another famous person.

Would I be surprised if a witness comes forward later and claims she's had sex with Clinton on Epstein's island? At this point no - it's clear that Clinton was orbiting around Epstein had a more than fleeting connection to him, so it would not be out of the blue.

 

[SaintForLife]

I did.

And I ended up doing more work than you did... for a point that *you* were making. Your point was - and I quote:



That is 100% wrong.

But instead of admitting your error, you decide to double down by changing your point. Again.

How do you expect to have any credibility when you conduct yourself like this? The criticism is inevitable, but it's not someone else's fault for pointing out how wrong you are. How about re-evaluating your argument?

The words are right above.

No you clearly didn't read the thread because he pointed out how none of them had Clinton in the headline and he mentioned the ones who buried Clinton's name in the article. How can you expect to have any credibility if you can't admit that? I posted his twitter thread that talked about that Clinton wasn't mentioned in the headline. Did you think I didn't read the twitter thread like you?

 

[SaintForLife]

Why should it be a headline? In the deposition, she said she never saw Clinton on the island, instead she said that she told Churcher that Maxwell told her Clinton was on the island and that Maxwell liked to exaggerate.

In other words, in the previous Churcher article, it was claimed that Giuffre said that Clinton was on the island, but in the deposition which was recently unsealed Giuffre said that Churcher got it wrong - that she did NOT see Clinton on the island but instead was told by Maxwell that Clinton was on the island at the same time as her.

So, the unsealed deposition was less damaging to Clinton than the previous Churcher article. Why should Clinton get a higher billing than Richardson when Giuffre said that girls were told to have sex with Richardson - an allegation she did not make about Clinton.

Basically, you seem to think that Clinton should get a higher billing but the deposition said that the victim did NOT see Clinton on the island, but was instead told he was by someone else.

I mean it isn't great for Clinton, but the previous article was more damaging and this deposition actually makes it slightly less damaging.

A former US president's name comes up in a deposition about him being on an island with a known pedophile, child trafficker who sexually abused underage girls for years, but you don't think that warrants Clinton's name being in the headline? Wow

 

[JRad]

I’d wager it has more to do the “the left” not being totally obsessed with the Clintons.

 

[SaintForLife]

I’d wager it has more to do the “the left” not being totally obsessed with the Clintons.

It's a former US president. You guys are bending over backwards to try to explain why Clinton's name shouldn't have been in the headline of the articles.

If it were Trump instead of Clinton, don't you think Trump's name would have been in the headline for every article?

 

[JRad]

If it were Trump instead of Clinton, don't you think Trump's name would have been in the headline for every article?

20 years from now? I’d care just as little.

Today? I mean I don’t think anyone has to explain the difference between a sitting President and one that’s been out of office for almost 2 decades.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

A former US president's name comes up in a deposition about him being on an island with a known pedophile, child trafficker who sexually abused underage girls for years, but you don't think that warrants Clinton's name being in the headline? Wow

I'm not sure that's the headline there, since he was already accused by this same person of being on the island to a reporter earlier so that was already out there. And in this deposition she said that she was told that by Maxwell and that Maxwell liked to say things that were "fantastical".

In the same deposition the victim accuses other powerful people of actually having sex with girls, and she said she's never seen Clinton doing anything inappropriate, and she doesn't name Clinton as one of the people who would have first hand knowledge of abuse, like she does with Dershowitz and others.

So, in a deposition where a victim names a bunch of powerful and influential people but not Clinton of having sex with young girls at Epsteins urging, and names a bunch of people not Clinton of having first hand knowledge of sexual abuse, you think the headline should be about a second hand knowledge of Clinton being on the island? I mean it definitely warrants being talked about, but I would think something like "Prince Andrew accused of having sex with Epstein's harem" would be a bigger headline than "Epstein victim testifies that she heard that Clinton was on the island at the same time as her".