The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
gunneratttt, this Breaking Points debate encapsulates our Epstein arguments
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 20th, 2025 2:54 PM Author: exhilarant fluffy kitty cat dilemma https://youtu.be/ZsJa2QcEHRI
Saager says everything I have been saying. You are Michael Tracy. Hth |
Date: July 21st, 2025 9:35 AM Author: Dashing Chestnut Patrolman Kitty i stopped watching breaking points years ago because their legal takes were so bad (re: factually incorrect) that i couldn't trust anything else they said. i try to avoid gell-mann amnesia.
im not suprised that saagar endorses the joe rogan 100 iq "isth SO OBVIOUS" conspiracy and that you're convinced to the point of certainty. |
 |
Date: July 21st, 2025 11:12 AM Author: exhilarant fluffy kitty cat dilemma You might like Michael Ttacy's arguments then. His main point is that Virginia Giuffre was a serial liar who admitted she never got raeped by Dershowitz after a decade of saying that he did and therefore he's 100% certain that there was never a pedo ring and girls were never pimped to Clinton or any elites. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752683&forum_id=2).#49118627) |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 11:20 AM Author: Dashing Chestnut Patrolman Kitty i definitely think he exploited a lot of young women, some underage, and that some elites partook. not much different than the playboy mansion, rock groupies, porn, etc. that were all common pre-#metoo.
i just don't think that it was a government-sponsored honey pot. |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 11:43 AM Author: exhilarant fluffy kitty cat dilemma Maybe it wasn't. We don't know. Acosta never got his computers and dropped the subpoena with the NPA. The government never possessed his treasure trove from his peak era of activity. So we'll never know.
Do you think Clinton ever got a massage from a teen during his 26 flights on the Lolita Express? |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 11:50 AM Author: Dashing Chestnut Patrolman Kitty considering clintons long documented history of philandering i would be absolute shocked if he didn't. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752683&forum_id=2).#49118725) |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 11:51 AM Author: exhilarant fluffy kitty cat dilemma Do you buy Acosta's line that he felt some justice was better than no justice given that Epstein had fled to Israel and could not be extradited so he gave the guy work release for a year in a case with 40 victims? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752683&forum_id=2).#49118729) |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 12:00 PM Author: Dashing Chestnut Patrolman Kitty you keep repeating that but it never came up when i looked into it at the time and as far as i can tell its just something conspiracy theorists repeat. maybe im wrong, what's your best source for epstein fleeing to israel and acostas NPA being motivated by not being able to get to epstein there? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752683&forum_id=2).#49118758) |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 12:07 PM Author: exhilarant fluffy kitty cat dilemma There are conflicting sources but it says that he moved his assets to Israel and 'spent time there' while he was being prosecuted. I guess there's no hard evidence that he was exactly there while Dersh and Ken Starr was negotiating his sentencing. But he was spending time there around that time. So I don't know. Maybe it was unrelated.
Acosta defended himself on the record many times saying the NPA was motivated by achieving some justice rather than none. His words imo |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 12:13 PM Author: Dashing Chestnut Patrolman Kitty right, so no source and pure speculation that he was hiding because of non-extradition. doesn't the fact he was only there "some of the time" eviscerate that argument?
AGs say this whenever they are accused of giving people a deal people think is too good. sex crimes are hard to prove. if they offered diddy a plea people would have been irate and he got off.
i think acostas NPA was primarily motivated by epstein being a politically connected and powerful guy. but that happens everyday. whyd it take so long to prosecute the coz? or weinstein? |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 12:20 PM Author: exhilarant fluffy kitty cat dilemma Yeah it's possible. I think local laws enforcement though we're devastated, they felt like they had 40 victims willing to testify. Seems like a lot bigger evidence than the diddy trial which had one star witness everyone quickly realized was actually a co-conspirator. The local law enforcement were devastated by the deal. They thought they had a lot more ammunition if it went to trial. I don't get this protecting rich and powerful people thing. It seems goofy. You have 40 victims in sworn affidavits and you just go, well he knows the Clintons so let's not bust his balls?
The one element of this case everyone seems to agree on even if they are 0% tinfoil hat is that Acosta offered this guy the moon. Doesn't make any sense. |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 12:40 PM Author: Dashing Chestnut Patrolman Kitty its bizarre how you're repeated proven factually wrong or ignorant of various aspects of this but never falter on your conclusion. this is a conspiratorial mindset.
no, acostas offer doesn't seem unusual and "makes sense" perfectly in the context. young women are frequently sexually exploited, but proving the exploiter acted criminally can be very difficult. that's why serial exploiters get away with it. the whole fucking point of #metoo was bringing attention to this. in the vast majority of these cases the women have some level of "unclean hands" that makes the case hard to prosecute. especially in the 2000s where people were less receptive to it. these women did get on the plane and get paid.
it "doesn't make any sense" because you've already come to a conclusion and doing post hoc rationalization to prove it. nevermind the fact you have no personal experience when it comes to prosecution offers. never mind the fact there aren't leagues of prosecutors stepping up saying it doesn't make sense. nevermind no one in the DOJ blew a whistle, even after acosta resigned and it would be advantageous for someone to.
it "doesn't make sense" only because you've reached a conclusion and no matter how many "fell for it again" awards you rack up you won't reconsider it. |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 1:03 PM Author: exhilarant fluffy kitty cat dilemma https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-attorney-alex-acosta-showed-poor-judgment-giving/story?id=74178029
Yeah there isn't a shred of evidence here. And no one is on my side but total kooks...Vietnam |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 1:17 PM Author: Dashing Chestnut Patrolman Kitty do you recall that im the one that sent you the OPR report?
wow, holy shit, once epstein's crimes became apparent people criticized acostas decision not to prosecute him as "bad judgment". holy shit!
note that the private attorneys who represented the victims and have every motivation to support a conspiracy to aren't doing so. of course the fact that attorneys who have been involved in this over a decade before you heard of epstein not subscribing to conspiracies won't move the needle on your thinking.
as i said before, you can't prove a negative, and im not saying there definitely isn't some conspiracy. in fact im sure theres some degree of fuckery here. including that the NPA was at least partially motivated by epstein being rich and well-connected. |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 1:23 PM Author: exhilarant fluffy kitty cat dilemma The only remedy I have ever sought here was more information. I've never introduced wild conspiracies. I have only said that based on what we do know, there are still more questions than answers. That's not some wild hot take. Just because Saager and Tucker Carlson have pushed it further than I have doesn't mean that any of us are inherently wrong. We the People deserve more information than what the government has given us. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752683&forum_id=2).#49119038) |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 1:32 PM Author: Dashing Chestnut Patrolman Kitty just the other day you poasted it was "insane" to believe he wasn't working for mossad and that the evidence for the conspiracy was bordering "beyond a reasonable doubt".
you've only softened on that because ive shown how many of the things you believed were either factually wrong or incredibly kisleading. you should consider how frequently you fell for it and take further arguments from the conspiracy theorists with a big grain of salt.
as i said, there's some fuckery in here even if its just standard powerful people getting favorable treatment. i think a better way to get information is to be reasonable instead of coming off as kooks who think it's certain he was operating a mossad honeypot because he was a (brace yourself) amoral degenerate jewish financer. |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 1:38 PM Author: exhilarant fluffy kitty cat dilemma I haven't softened at all. I believe he was a Mossad asset. I never said he was working for Mossad. He probably wasn't. He was in contact with a dizzying array of intelligence officers from all over the world. That doesn't mean he was working for Mossad. He was in contact with Mossad. I have said that from the beginning. I do believe my claims are indisputable. The only reason we cannot assert he worked for Mossad is we don't have the evidence. But like you said, can't disprove a negative. He was up to his fucking eyeballs in spooks. We need to know more about his time in Israel and what was going on there at the time. We simply don't know right now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752683&forum_id=2).#49119077) |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 2:08 PM Author: Dashing Chestnut Patrolman Kitty so no evidence of any ties to mossad means theres no evidence he was an employee but not that he wasnt an asset? how does that make any sense. you have NO EVIDENCE of any strong ties beyond the fact that he knew people in the intelligence community which every fucking politically connected person has including me. wow, no shit, the guy flying clinton out to pedo island has connections in the government. INDISPUTABLE PROOF OF MOSSAD ASSET!
your "indisputable" position backed by zero direct evidence is largely based on israels press release saying he an employee. but if you thought about it for two seconds you'd realize that's retarded because they could, you know, LIE! like governments routinely do when it comes to national intelligence. like, if israel said he wasn't an "employee or asset" what do imagine would be the consequences if he turned out he was? |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 2:27 PM Author: exhilarant fluffy kitty cat dilemma what we do know is far more disturbing than anything we might hypothesize. it's like Michael Jackson, yeah it's entirely possible that he didn't rape those kids. And, maybe he didn't. But what we do know about him is that he had slumber parties alone with a bunch of elementary school kids. That's almost worse/just as bad/etc. We'll never really know if he "did anything" beyond that, but it's enough in the public consciousness to convict him for wrongdoing. You're making some incredibly spergy argument about how there's "no direct proof". Yeah, we never caught MJ in the act. But what we DO know he did should shock every normal human being to their core.
It's the same with Epstein. He was a Mossad asset. He wasn't a Mossad asset. He was working for Isreal. He wasn't working for Isreal. He said this, they said that. Israel said this. Acosta said that. But what we DO know about Epstein is that he was CHEST DEEP IN ISRAELI SPOOKS and his father-in-law's funeral was attended by 5 former Israel PM's who said he did more for the country than anyone could imagine and no one will ever say.
Your entire argument in gunnerworld is that it's "normal" for Joe Blow high profile DC/NY/PB schmoozers to "know a lot of Mossad folks" because they went to an IDF fundraiser a bunch of times. Ok, maybe so. I've never claimed that I know for 100% that he was on the Mossad payroll and successfully spied on the United States on behalf of Israel. But he was so intertwined with these people it can't be explained away as easily as they all ran into each other at a benefit and golfed on the same tees. Any reasonable person would say hey, there's a connection here, and it wasn't just shaking hands in front of a camera and writing a check or two. |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 2:44 PM Author: Dashing Chestnut Patrolman Kitty you *just* said its indisputable he's a mossad asset, which is what i was responding to. i dont see anywhere in that screed that's responsive to that.
yeah no shit epstein was a bad hombre who ran a fucking sex island. that's beyond dispute. that doesnt make him affiliated with mossad any more than weinstein, who ran in the same circles as epstein. BREAKING NEWS: RICH POWERFUL JEWS TURN OUT TO BE DEGENERATE SEXUAL DEVIANTS! |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 2:46 PM Author: exhilarant fluffy kitty cat dilemma Ok ur right the guy pretty much had no contact with the state of israel. Prob didn't even know each other. Prob barely knew any mossad. Might've met a 'ssad at a tennis club once or twice but that's it. Nossad for Jeffery. Case closed! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752683&forum_id=2).#49119259) |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 2:55 PM Author: Dashing Chestnut Patrolman Kitty you always strawman when argued into a corner. i never said any of that. maybe he was a mossad asset. what im taking issue is you saying it *indisputable* he was with no evidence. and your bizarre distinction between employee and asset based on the faultless logic that Israel wouldn't lie. despite this all being in the context of a conspiracy theory involving governments lying.
idk what that solipistic screed was supposed to argue but you repeatedly emphasized "we dont know!" so ill take that as an implicat concession theres not indisputable evidence he was a mossad agent. thank. |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 3:06 PM Author: exhilarant fluffy kitty cat dilemma there's no indisputable evidence he was a Mossad agent formally employed by Israel. He just everyone in his life was a Mossad agent and connected to Israel and turbo zionists and he may or may not have fled there to avoid justice and 62 former heads of state of Israel had him on speed dial. Besides that we have NO EVIDENCE and we'll never know.
btw Michael Jackson probably maybe definitely, but also possibly, didn't rape those kids but since there's no hard evidence we may as well just say with 100% certainty we didn't because that's gunnerlogic |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 3:15 PM Author: Dashing Chestnut Patrolman Kitty do you truly not understand the difference between saying there's no evidence of something and denying the possibility entirely? ive explictly said i wouldnt be surprised if he was an intelligence asset to avoid you confusing the two, but here we are. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752683&forum_id=2).#49119328) |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 3:21 PM Author: exhilarant fluffy kitty cat dilemma And I've explicitly said there's no evidence he was a Mossad employee or on the payroll or that he spied on the United States on behalf of Israel. We more or less agree. It's just semantics.
People like Michael Tracy in the OP are asserting far more certainty though that Epstein had no connection to Mossad which I think is crazy. |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 3:27 PM Author: Dashing Chestnut Patrolman Kitty no it's not, you're the one making a bizarre distinction between asset and employee re: sufficiency of evidence to be certain. im saying there's no evidence of either, and whether not he received a (JE)W-2 from mossad is semantics.
the issue is whether its certain he provided mossad with info. you haven't even attempted to explain why it matters whether he was an asset or employee, or explained why you are certain about one but not the other. your only evidence is intelligence community connections which both would have. |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 3:41 PM Author: exhilarant fluffy kitty cat dilemma This is a debate so esoteric it's fit for the 9th circuit court of appeals (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752683&forum_id=2).#49119385) |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 11:23 AM Author: sticky drunken private investor I always liked Saager (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752683&forum_id=2).#49118650) |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 11:41 AM Author: exhilarant fluffy kitty cat dilemma Me too. He is the embodiment of Millennial conservatism. Like Trump shit but without the Boomer nonsense. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752683&forum_id=2).#49118700) |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 11:47 AM Author: Dashing Chestnut Patrolman Kitty he's great and so is krystal ball (although sadly she's experiencing rapid white woman aging these days). i love the bipartisan approach. but the content is often very poor and they often shoehorn "it's the rich elites" angle when one isn't there.
i probably agree with 95%+ of saagars political positions. |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 11:49 AM Author: exhilarant fluffy kitty cat dilemma Krystal is insane and a prototypical bird brain filling the world with emotional nonsense. She would lead society off a cliff. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752683&forum_id=2).#49118722) |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 11:54 AM Author: Dashing Chestnut Patrolman Kitty i found her very reasonable and even-keeled. haven't watched her in years now though. i bought whatever top-tier subscription they had when they launched. i really love the concept but they are not very well researched. ive got no problems with krystals disposition. she rarely seemed overly emotional (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752683&forum_id=2).#49118737) |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 12:02 PM Author: exhilarant fluffy kitty cat dilemma Well, agree to disagree. It's not the best political show of all time but they at least do some left-right debate stuff from the Millennial perspective. They are a ratings juggernaut so maybe worth tuning in. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752683&forum_id=2).#49118769) |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 12:05 PM Author: Dashing Chestnut Patrolman Kitty which is exactly why i was a founding member.
the ratings aren't any indicate of their trustworthiness, in fact these days that often indicates the opposite. |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 1:57 PM Author: sticky drunken private investor in the past I used to like Krystal even when I disagreed with her. Loved all of the Saagar/Krystal debates etc.
Seems like lately she has gone off the deepend a bit to shitlibbery (more than before) and is a bit more hysterical. Mostly due to Israel and Trump I think. When Saagar was gone (he had a baby, was off the show for a few months recently) all of a sudden there were 3-4 completely one sided Israel/Gaza segments every show. It got so annoying that I didn't even watch the israel shit - like, sure, its newsworthy, but put it in one segment per day don't devote half of the daily 15 minute segments to this stuff |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 2:09 PM Author: exhilarant fluffy kitty cat dilemma This is a good assessment. Mostly agree.
To be fair nearly every alternative news podcaster/influencer space right now is anti Israel. Pretty much everyone is running it one sided now unless you go to MSM and it's all the other way. |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 2:20 PM Author: Dashing Chestnut Patrolman Kitty yeah, i havent watched in years and stopped because the quality was taking a nosedive so im not suprised it has continued. shame.
i was sad she dumped her fat jeet husband for kyle. kyle is a really grating midwit shitlib and im not suprised shes trended that way too. |
|
Date: July 21st, 2025 2:28 PM Author: exhilarant fluffy kitty cat dilemma Kyle's show is really pathetic and sad and you'd have to be some kind of turbo loser to watch it. Also ljl at a grown man dying his hair blonde to look cool. LOL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752683&forum_id=2).#49119230) |