FriendlyAg said:snowdog90 said:HTownAg98 said:
He deserves to be drawn and quartered, with the parts taken to the four corners of the US, burned, and the ground salted. But until he's found guilty, he gets a fair trial. If not, then the system that is already corrupted by some standards becomes even more so.
Yes the system is corrupted. Take, for instance, the fact that our great legal system took a confessed pedophile and human trafficker and gave him 13 months in prison. Except it wasn't really 13 months in prison. Every day of those 13 months, he got to spend 12 hours AT HOME, free to continue his torture and rape of young girls.
That is a legal system that is ****ed beyond all repair. Bringing this piece of **** to justice vigilante style would not harm our God-awful legal system in any way. And it would probably be good for the victims to see that someone actually cares that they were victimized.
Although I agree with your sentiments, that's not how things have been in the last 150 years. I'd rather have an imperfect legal system win the day over emotionally fueled vigilante mob rule.
Let me ask you: is the Plea deal worth it to bring others to justice?
If you want to not see a weed you, could pull out clippers and instantly remove it from your view. Simple and clean. If you want remove the weed without the ability for it to ever grow back, you have to dig out the root. Your hand will get dirty though.
Epstein is a big fish but it sounds like there is a lot of big fish that are complicit in his crimes. If that turns out to be true and others are brought to justice, it will have been a win in my book. Not as satisfying but there would hopefully be less victims in the future.
Didn't inhalebackintexas2013 said:
One of Dershowitz accusers has named names and says Bill was on the island but says she never saw him have sex with anyone. So how does Bill play this? Say he wasn't on the island and ruin this accusers credibility or say he was but didn't have sex?
Plea deal. Make it part of the deal. he won't agree, of course.Quote:
You're the lawyer. How do we make it happen?
snowdog90 said:FriendlyAg said:snowdog90 said:HTownAg98 said:
He deserves to be drawn and quartered, with the parts taken to the four corners of the US, burned, and the ground salted. But until he's found guilty, he gets a fair trial. If not, then the system that is already corrupted by some standards becomes even more so.
Yes the system is corrupted. Take, for instance, the fact that our great legal system took a confessed pedophile and human trafficker and gave him 13 months in prison. Except it wasn't really 13 months in prison. Every day of those 13 months, he got to spend 12 hours AT HOME, free to continue his torture and rape of young girls.
That is a legal system that is ****ed beyond all repair. Bringing this piece of **** to justice vigilante style would not harm our God-awful legal system in any way. And it would probably be good for the victims to see that someone actually cares that they were victimized.
Although I agree with your sentiments, that's not how things have been in the last 150 years. I'd rather have an imperfect legal system win the day over emotionally fueled vigilante mob rule.
Let me ask you: is the Plea deal worth it to bring others to justice?
If you want to not see a weed you, could pull out clippers and instantly remove it from your view. Simple and clean. If you want remove the weed without the ability for it to ever grow back, you have to dig out the root. Your hand will get dirty though.
Epstein is a big fish but it sounds like there is a lot of big fish that are complicit in his crimes. If that turns out to be true and others are brought to justice, it will have been a win in my book. Not as satisfying but there would hopefully be less victims in the future.
Wasn't it Jefferson that had the quote about blood needing to be spilled time to time to avoid tyranny?
The plea deal Epstein got 12 years ago accomplished nothing but his freedom way too soon. Whatever new plea deal is struck must have teeth. I realize my emotion is not a good foundation for a legal system. But the system is so corrupt, so weighted in favor of the rich and powerful that I don't see a way back from it.
That's why I'm praying that Trump is going to see this through, bring evil people to justice- real justice. If he doesn't, and things keep rolling on the way they have with people like the Clintons so far above the law they are basically royalty, what is left for the people to do?
The system is corrupt. The evil people control the system - to unspeakable, unimaginable ends. At what point do the people say "enough"? And how do the people say "enough" so that the elites don't just laugh and ignore them?
I have no answers, but the system has failed for decades and the system is run by the people committing the most evil crimes imaginable....
And yet you want me to trust the system...
Then what is he saying exactly? Big money doesn't just show up in your checking account. You're born with it, have some sort of business presence, win a big lawsuit, or have some visible means of legally accumulating great wealth that the other big richies could at least have seen coming.Quote:
He said that Epstein burst upon the Manhattan social scene with a ton of money of questionable origins. He went on to say he's wasn't implying that his wealth came from illegal activities but was of a murky appearance.
That's why it caught my attention. I had always heard he was a hedge fund manager, not exactly a low profile kind of occupation even if based out of the US. They all know each other, at least by name.agent-maroon said:Then what is he saying exactly? Big money doesn't just show up in your checking account. You're born with it, have some sort of business presence, win a big lawsuit, or have some visible means of legally accumulating great wealth that the other big richies could at least have seen coming.Quote:
He said that Epstein burst upon the Manhattan social scene with a ton of money of questionable origins. He went on to say he's wasn't implying that his wealth came from illegal activities but was of a murky appearance.
I bet the girl that he was with did.FTAggies said:
Bill was there he just didn't inhale
The suggestion that these people were caught up in a honeypot scheme is most definitely an attempt at misdirection. They want the public to blame foreigners for it, and preferably those wascally Wussians.aggiehawg said:That's why it caught my attention. I had always heard he was a hedge fund manager, not exactly a low profile kind of occupation even if based out of the US. They all know each other, at least by name.agent-maroon said:Then what is he saying exactly? Big money doesn't just show up in your checking account. You're born with it, have some sort of business presence, win a big lawsuit, or have some visible means of legally accumulating great wealth that the other big richies could at least have seen coming.Quote:
He said that Epstein burst upon the Manhattan social scene with a ton of money of questionable origins. He went on to say he's wasn't implying that his wealth came from illegal activities but was of a murky appearance.
Then again, this was coming from a regular guest on Morning Blow so it just may have been a deflection, distancing type of statement in an attempt to paint those who were brought into Epstein's circle as somehow being duped or snookered by him. (of course, that type of argument could also be applied to Trump but Dems aren't too smart when they are in defense mode.)
Holy crap, could you imagine the MSM meltdown if this was the case? All of this crowing about collusion and yet all along it was people like the beloved GCF involved in it, and people like Mueller keeping him out from behind bars.aggiehawg said:Plea deal. Make it part of the deal. he won't agree, of course.Quote:
You're the lawyer. How do we make it happen?
On another note, watching Morning Blow for their take this morning. Mika is accusing Acosta of being a pedo along with Epstein and that's why he gave him the NPA, of course but another guest said something interesting.
He said that Epstein burst upon the Manhattan social scene with a ton of money of questionable origins. He went on to say he's wasn't implying that his wealth came from illegal activities but was of a murky appearance. Epstein used his money, his parties, his ranch, island, home in Paris and a couple of jets to ingratiate himself to the elite of the elite.
Had to chuckle at the thought that maybe Epstein was the Russian mole, hiding in plain sight, running a trafficking in minors honeypot operation and gathering kompromat on leading governmental and business figures, playing the long game. Would make a great movie script, wouldn't it?
Limited partner at Bear Stearns by 1980 is sudden money by the time this stuff happened? He wasn't just a perv, he was a math whiz and per wikipedia was hired at Bear Stearns to do options to work in special products and give tax advice to rich clients. That was before he started his own firm in 1982.aggiehawg said:That's why it caught my attention. I had always heard he was a hedge fund manager, not exactly a low profile kind of occupation even if based out of the US. They all know each other, at least by name.agent-maroon said:Then what is he saying exactly? Big money doesn't just show up in your checking account. You're born with it, have some sort of business presence, win a big lawsuit, or have some visible means of legally accumulating great wealth that the other big richies could at least have seen coming.Quote:
He said that Epstein burst upon the Manhattan social scene with a ton of money of questionable origins. He went on to say he's wasn't implying that his wealth came from illegal activities but was of a murky appearance.
Then again, this was coming from a regular guest on Morning Blow so it just may have been a deflection, distancing type of statement in an attempt to paint those who were brought into Epstein's circle as somehow being duped or snookered by him. (of course, that type of argument could also be applied to Trump but Dems aren't too smart when they are in defense mode.)
Like McCainBenFiasco14 said:
I'm calling my shot - we find out within the next year or so slick Willie has terminal cancer and he will pass before any of this gets formally resolved.
From limited partner to having his own firm in two years? Who staked him? Les Wexner? And who else?Quote:
Limited partner at Bear Stearns by 1980 is sudden money by the time this stuff happened? He wasn't just a perv, he was a math whiz and per wikipedia was hired at Bear Stearns to do options to work in special products and give tax advice to rich clients. That was before he started his own firm in 1982.
Bloomberg doesn't seem to have a handle on how he made his fortune or even what his fortune really amounts to.Quote:
For all his infamy, there are scant details of how he made his money. While he's frequently been called a billionaire, his net worth is hard to ascertain. He ran a money management firm catering to the ultra-rich, primarily for Victoria's Secret mogul Les Wexner, but its assets were never made public and few on Wall Street have dealt with him as a financier or money manager.
Okay, now this is getting entirely too weird. Granted he's a former President and has a B-Team of Secret Service agents assigned to him but they didn't do a background check on Epstein?agent-maroon said:Bloomberg doesn't seem to have a handle on how he made his fortune or even what his fortune really amounts to.Quote:
For all his infamy, there are scant details of how he made his money. While he's frequently been called a billionaire, his net worth is hard to ascertain. He ran a money management firm catering to the ultra-rich, primarily for Victoria's Secret mogul Les Wexner, but its assets were never made public and few on Wall Street have dealt with him as a financier or money manager.
My bet is on blackmail coupled with some unusually high fees for his exclusive "services".
Being a limited partner is of no bearing really. The firm was likely set up with 99% (or some fraction more) limited partners and a 1% (or some fraction less) general partner with the general likely being an LLC. Although he was admitted to the partnership in 1980, he had worked for the company for 4 or 5 years before that as I recall.aggiehawg said:From limited partner to having his own firm in two years? Who staked him? Les Wexner? And who else?Quote:
Limited partner at Bear Stearns by 1980 is sudden money by the time this stuff happened? He wasn't just a perv, he was a math whiz and per wikipedia was hired at Bear Stearns to do options to work in special products and give tax advice to rich clients. That was before he started his own firm in 1982.
But that does explain how he was able to trade dirt on Bear, Stearns in 2005-2007 to get a NPA from the feds. Even if they ultimately didn't do much with the info.
LOL-- all this just makes me think that majority of people in America are dumber than hellaggiehawg said:Plea deal. Make it part of the deal. he won't agree, of course.Quote:
You're the lawyer. How do we make it happen?
On another note, watching Morning Blow for their take this morning. Mika is accusing Acosta of being a pedo along with Epstein and that's why he gave him the NPA, of course but another guest said something interesting.
He said that Epstein burst upon the Manhattan social scene with a ton of money of questionable origins. He went on to say he's wasn't implying that his wealth came from illegal activities but was of a murky appearance. Epstein used his money, his parties, his ranch, island, home in Paris and a couple of jets to ingratiate himself to the elite of the elite.
Had to chuckle at the thought that maybe Epstein was the Russian mole, hiding in plain sight, running a trafficking in minors honeypot operation and gathering kompromat on leading governmental and business figures, playing the long game. Would make a great movie script, wouldn't it?
There's only one problem here. Other than Les Wexner (Victoria's Secrets guy) no one else has ever admitted to being his clients. Wouldn't his investment accounts have suffered a sudden loss of a ton of money during the first case?Quote:
He likely dealt with some very, very high dollar folks and took them with him when he went out on his own.
That is not to say he didn't arrange things (parties and such) and gathered incriminating information on people who felt compelled to remain his client. I know of one contractor (client of a guy I worked for) who in the 60's and 70's did just that. He had a large ranch in South Texas and regularly took elected officials (county commissioners, etc.) to the ranch where (I heard) quite a few wild parties occurred and he provided the females. He, of course, got a lot of county work.
It only took him 4 years to go from ex HS teacher to limited partner. To me this suggests he on the leading edge of the math geek takeover of Wall Street. Remember this was at during the Carter admin... if he could help his clients get rich and build his personal wealth during the days of malaise, he was well set up to take advantage of the Reagan revival of the economy and the 1980s Wall Street craziness.aggiehawg said:From limited partner to having his own firm in two years? Who staked him? Les Wexner? And who else?Quote:
Limited partner at Bear Stearns by 1980 is sudden money by the time this stuff happened? He wasn't just a perv, he was a math whiz and per wikipedia was hired at Bear Stearns to do options to work in special products and give tax advice to rich clients. That was before he started his own firm in 1982.
But that does explain how he was able to trade dirt on Bear, Stearns in 2005-2007 to get a NPA from the feds. Even if they ultimately didn't do much with the info.
Wexner is the known client but if he was assigned Bear's richest clients he was connected. The article implies that there might have been connections to the families of the rich kids from the private school where he taught (ironically hired by Barr's father).Quote:
So in 1976, he dropped everything and reported to work at Bear Stearns, where he started off as a junior assistant to a floor trader at the American Stock Exchange. His ascent was rapid.
At the time, options trading was an arcane and dimly understood field, just beginning to take off. To trade options, one had to value them, and to value them, one needed to be able to master such abstruse mathematical confections as the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. For Epstein, breaking down such models was pure sport, and within just a few years he had his own stable of clients. "He was not your conventional broker saying 'Buy IBM' or 'Sell Xerox,' " says Bear Stearns CEO Jimmy Cayne. "Given his mathematical background, we put him in our special-products division, where he would advise our wealthier clients on the tax implications of their portfolios. He would recommend certain tax-advantageous transactions. He is a very smart guy and has become a very important client for the firm as well."
part of his appeal to the ultra-wealthy was that $999M wasn't enough to make his client list. The mega-rich are just as insecure as the rest of us, if not more so, about being in the in crowd. I think he was genuinely interested in the scientists he liked to hang out with, but it was also a way to make his club of insiders even more exclusive.Quote:
Given the secrecy that envelops Epstein's client list, some have speculated that Wexner is the primary source of Epstein's lavish life - but friends leap to his defense. "Let me tell you: Jeffrey Epstein has other clients besides Wexner. I know because some of them are my clients," says noted m&a lawyer Dennis Block of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. "I sent him a $500 million client a few years ago and he wouldn't take him. Said the account was too small. Both the client and I were amazed. But that's Jeffrey."
There are two famous examples of people on the left who got very rich very fast on currency trading: Keynes and Soros.Quote:
Given the huge sums he has to invest, he focuses on assets with extremely high liquidity, like currencies - though he dabbles in commodities and real estate as well. Those who know him say he is an impulsive, quick-to-change-his-mind trader, still governed by Ace Greenberg's trader's maxim: If the stock is down 10 percent, sell it. He has been on the short side of the Brazilian real, and those close to him say bets there have paid off in spades. He recently took a long position on the euro before its rebound on the basis that Europeans were too proud to see their currency sink any lower against the dollar. His next targets: an across-the-board short of the German stock exchange and a possible attack on the Hong Kong dollar peg in light of the recent disclosure of North Korea's nuclear-weapons program.
Seems like an overabundance of caution. Libs never recuseRapier108 said:
For anyone wondering why AG Barr recused himself in anything related to Epstein, it is because a law firm he worked for had once represented Epstein. Barr joined the firm afterwards so he was not involved with Epstein in anyway.
They rarely do unless it is some irrelevant case, but Barr is old school and going to do what he thinks is appropriate in this case. I'm sure he told his deputy to handle it and make sure Epstein and any other guilty parties don't get off easy.captkirk said:Seems like an overabundance of caution. Libs never recuseRapier108 said:
For anyone wondering why AG Barr recused himself in anything related to Epstein, it is because a law firm he worked for had once represented Epstein. Barr joined the firm afterwards so he was not involved with Epstein in anyway.
aggiehawg said:Okay, now this is getting entirely too weird. Granted he's a former President and has a B-Team of Secret Service agents assigned to him but they didn't do a background check on Epstein?agent-maroon said:Bloomberg doesn't seem to have a handle on how he made his fortune or even what his fortune really amounts to.Quote:
For all his infamy, there are scant details of how he made his money. While he's frequently been called a billionaire, his net worth is hard to ascertain. He ran a money management firm catering to the ultra-rich, primarily for Victoria's Secret mogul Les Wexner, but its assets were never made public and few on Wall Street have dealt with him as a financier or money manager.
My bet is on blackmail coupled with some unusually high fees for his exclusive "services".
I do not know exactly what he did work-wise, but if he invested client funds, his legal troubles wouldn't have any effect on the client holdings (Exxon and Apple shares, etc.). But then maybe his work in financial management was different than that.aggiehawg said:There's only one problem here. Other than Les Wexner (Victoria's Secrets guy) no one else has ever admitted to being his clients. Wouldn't his investment accounts have suffered a sudden loss of a ton of money during the first case?Quote:
He likely dealt with some very, very high dollar folks and took them with him when he went out on his own.
That is not to say he didn't arrange things (parties and such) and gathered incriminating information on people who felt compelled to remain his client. I know of one contractor (client of a guy I worked for) who in the 60's and 70's did just that. He had a large ranch in South Texas and regularly took elected officials (county commissioners, etc.) to the ranch where (I heard) quite a few wild parties occurred and he provided the females. He, of course, got a lot of county work.
And while I'm on this subject, I too have known some very wealthy people who have wined and dined a lot of people. Normally such largesse leads up to an eventual pitch to invest with them or something. After the 4th or sixth jet ride, wouldn't Bill wonder what was in it for Epstein?
Truly is an overabundance of caution on Barr's part and should signal Maurene Comey to think long and hard about her own involvement with the Epstein case.captkirk said:Seems like an overabundance of caution. Libs never recuseRapier108 said:
For anyone wondering why AG Barr recused himself in anything related to Epstein, it is because a law firm he worked for had once represented Epstein. Barr joined the firm afterwards so he was not involved with Epstein in anyway.
aggiehawg said:Truly is an overabundance of caution on Barr's part and should signal Maurene Comey to think long and hard about her own involvement with the Epstein case.captkirk said:Seems like an overabundance of caution. Libs never recuseRapier108 said:
For anyone wondering why AG Barr recused himself in anything related to Epstein, it is because a law firm he worked for had once represented Epstein. Barr joined the firm afterwards so he was not involved with Epstein in anyway.
Among other "itches" being "scratched."Quote:
I am sure there was a ton of back scratching that went on amongst that crowd.
