cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/35673505
Archive link
Page 156 in the officially released birthday book
It’s kinda funny that the Clintons decided to boost Trump in 2016 and they were both so close with Epstein. Really gives another dimension to the whole uniparty. And one figure connecting it all together.
Clinton’s boosted Trump because they though he had no chance and would be an easy opponent.
Him getting the nomination caused them to forget the first rule. Run unopposed or run scared. They thought it was going to be an easy win.
While this is obviously a grim subject, its funny to me that the silly Hollywood trope of the villain leaving foolish clues to his crimes and there being suggestive journal entries in plain sight is actually a real thing.
If I was committing unforgivable crimes I would think I would be smart enough that I wouldn’t be sending birthday cards with “nudge nudge, wink wink” air quotes in them.
The real issue is these guys don’t even feel the need to really hide these things. It’s not so much little clues, as no one bothered to try to hold the horrible crimes they committed in the open accountable for years and years. Like the Weinstein stuff was an open secret for like a decade before anyone bothered to arrest him for it. Epstein was arrested for this previously and was basically let go without punishment (the guy who offered that get out of jail free plea deal became a cabinet member under Trump)
They knew they would never face consequences for this. And trump still hasn’t yet, really.
If I was committing unforgivable crimes I would think I would be smart enough that I wouldn’t be sending birthday cards with “nudge nudge, wink wink” air quotes in them.
Your mistake is assuming these bastards are smart people.
Like so many criminals, they only think they are smart. Much smarter than those who might try to stop them. The reality is often far different.
Have you seen the police? They are smarter than those who might try to stop them.
Have you seen the police? I’ve met cops who failed 11th grade three times in a row and joined the force because they flunked the ASVAB.
A detective, I think, is who you’re referring to.
I can see why trump didn’t want this released. If he was page 156, then surely he read the rest of it.
Page 57,
We picked up girls on the beach-went out on boat. I tell them with knife in my hand to take suits off. But Warren tells don’t worry his name is J.N. He’s just joking he live at so & so, I tell Mark to throw him in water. He did.
It gets worse. Who tf is Warren.
Edit: Page 112-13 is vomit worthy. It’s an 8 ish y.o. posing and a toddler.
Literally on a boat using ‘the implication’
And a knife.
I thought this was a joke and they were making an Always Sunny reference. Wtf
Buffett?
If you look at the Brooklyn section, it’s more likely his childhood friend, Warren Eisenstein.
🤢
Why is it censored?
If this is really about sex trafficking, then every human on the picture is corrupt.
From the picture it appears those under the censor may be victims.
They always blackout the victims…
Can someone with experience in this market till me if trump made a good deal here? I’m just trying to establish his business credentials and need to know if he got ripped off?
This looks more like the prize money awarded for a golf tournament. They always take photos like these with the winner.
There’s an accompanying note in the book that makes it clear that’s not the case at all. The redacted info in these documents are almost entirely the names and images of victims. There’s no reason to redact information related to winning money from a tournament, and that definitely doesn’t fit with the note.
Jeffrey showing early talents with money + women! Sells “fully depreciated” REDACTED to Donald Trump for $22,500. Showed early “people skills” too. Even though I handled the deal I didn’t get any of the money or the girl!
The press is shit. The article in the wsj did not have that last line which makes it very clear what’s going on. Mother fuckers.
I mean with the WSJ they’re right wing and billionaire class suck ups. Putting out just enough softball articles to point to and try to say they aren’t. They always leave relevant information out when it’s inconvenient.
What difference does it make? You act like people listen to the press.
They do when it’s convenient to them. A lot of people prefer to be lied to
Because WSJ is owned by Murdoch. Just like Fox and NYPost
Yeah, that extra context definitely changes the nature of the photo. I can’t imagine another way to look at it, after reading that caption.
Out-of-context, this doesn’t seem too bad. People are often “auctioned” or “sold” for charity, and even the sexist jokes, despite being horrible, are the sort of thing you see all the time… That being said, this is a check from Donald Trump to a known sex trafficker for a woman.
And you can imagine what today’s propaganda media would say if there was a Democrat or an actual progressive politician’s name on that novelty check, even if it was just some stupid charity auction and had nothing to do with a sex trafficker.
The “fully depreciated” part really makes me sick to the stomach with the implications
I do wonder if he’s referring to some object they used as a cover for the real sale.
Now I’m more confused. He’s clearly being coy with that “people skills”, but I don’t understand what he’d mean by handling the deal, but not getting the money or the girl.
The note is written by a third person, Joel Pashcow, not Trump or Epstein.
Which makes me think it’s more likely, since the dude was joking about something Epstein and Trump probably wouldn’t have said out loud.
Ooooooh, that’s sorely necessary context.
The Guardian article linked in the OP does have context.
I thought it was an archived version of the picture. ‘Preesh
You redact the name of people so they don’t get harassed.
While this shows that they were pretty chummy about money and women, this doesn’t mean that this photo is proof of trafficking.
No one is saying it’s proof of trafficking. But it does show they joked about it, and casually enough to even scrapbook it.
Well, yeah they wrote notes to each other about selling humans but its not like this proves they were selling humans. If you ignore everything else that has happened in the last decade around these people its really innocent fun.
The note underneath where the guy who set up the deal being shown in the picture, whining about how he didn’t get any money for the sale of the girl, does though.
That wouldn’t hold up in any court on its own.
It’s rare that any single piece of evidence does.
Luckily there are mountains of other proof to back it up. Including multiple eye witnesses.
