politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That is a stretch, and probably a longer stretch than you might think.
Most, if not all, of her "evidence" was secondary to legal actions both by her and against her, and in that context would necessarily have been limited to the subjects of the lawsuits.
I do not for two seconds think she ever publicly, or in court-related documents or records, named ALL the names. Not every bigwig she saw on Epstein Island or in Epstein's parties directly interacted with her, much less specifically participated in her own abuse, but that doesn't mean she didn't see them there as well.
Also, for someone who was in Epstein's inner circle, day in and day out, she very obviously saw people who have now denied ever being there, or even denied being a friend of his since then, but which emails written by Epstein now demonstrate were there and friendly all along. Consider also that Epstein and Maxwell both were very big on threats throughout, to the point that at least one of the victims (Maria Farmer) informally changed her name and moved house frequently for the next twenty years after having gone through all that, and still got threatening calls to remind her they knew how to find her.
Thus it's not impossible that, in an abundance of concern for her own and her family's personal safety, Virginia Giuffre minimized or even denied the presence and participation of certain individuals who really were there, a silence she could revoke at any time. Unless she were dead, of course, and now she is: the silence is permanent.
The Biden admin actually launched a full investigation along with victim interviews. Trump killed it.
Also, lying about people who were there makes you a shitty witness for the prosecution. So even less reason to kill someone.
And you've not even touched on the domestic abuse from the last few years.
Why would I? My comment is limited to the unlikelihood that Virginia Giuffre "submitted all the evidence she had," and nothing else you've said changes that. I do not believe she told all she knows.
Nor do I believe that we, the public, have any right to expect anything from victims of trafficking, even the "full truth" at their own expense and with no personal guarantees of safety from those who use them, because if we were doing our collective job as a society, it would never be needed.
If Ms. Giuffre withheld names and/or information for her own safety, good on her. It's not like anyone else was looking out for her.
Ms Giuffre gave Sworn Deposition. Changing her story later to add names that she "held back" is called purjury, and renders all of her testimony null and void.
She would have been told this multiple times. No lawyer will let a witness into a courtroom without first getting their testimony as a sworn statement before hand. it's part of the process of a court case.
So legally, we must treat her testimony as full and complete to her knowledge. Hell, Trump and company would have loved for her to purjur herself. That would have made their day.
Purjury from a key witness can completely sink a case.
Beyond ignoring the fact that legal testimony is tightly limited in scope by both sides, you have your sworn evidence and non-sworn evidence entirely confused.
But she did give interviews, talk to friends, and even write a book. This is not sworn testimony. But it is still evidence.
There are zero indications Virginia Giuffre ever lied under oath, or committed perjury. Rather, those who spoke with her tended to find her genuine, and her attorneys were willing to go to bat for her all the way, which they would not have done had she been unbelievable.
Counting both sworn and non-sworn statements made over the course of the last thirty years or so, can YOU prove she did, or did not, reveal all she knew?
No. You cannot. And jumping from that to "She committed PERJURY!" is frankly just insulting to what she stood for. It's becoming apparent that you are not writing in good faith, twisting a definition of perjury to cover all statements made everywhere at any time, so peace out.