*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2632
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8420 on: January 17, 2021, 09:25:46 PM »
You can conduct your own research and go through it on your own. Here is Rachel Chandler promoting underage models from the MC2 Epstein Agency used to pass around young girls: https://www.wmagazine.com/gallery/16-models-to-watch-in-2017-as-predicted-by-midland-agencys-rachel-chandler-and-walter-pearce/

I don't know who Rachel Chandler is and don't really care.

You never answered the question. Is there some sort of guestbook log that shows all the people that visited the island regardless of their mode of transpo? Ex., how do we know that Beyonce and Bill Murray visited the island? How was that documented?

And there's still a lot to clear up about the decade or so that DJT and Epstein were each others "wingman". I mean a party for just the 2 of them and 28 calendar girls. Sounds quite saucy.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1459
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8421 on: January 17, 2021, 09:27:23 PM »
You can conduct your own research and go through it on your own. Here is Rachel Chandler promoting underage models from the MC2 Epstein Agency used to pass around young girls: https://www.wmagazine.com/gallery/16-models-to-watch-in-2017-as-predicted-by-midland-agencys-rachel-chandler-and-walter-pearce/

I don't know who Rachel Chandler is and don't really care.

You never answered the question. Is there some sort of guestbook log that shows all the people that visited the island regardless of their mode of transpo? Ex., how do we know that Beyonce and Bill Murray visited the island? How was that documented?

And there's still a lot to clear up about the decade or so that DJT and Epstein were each others "wingman". I mean a party for just the 2 of them and 28 calendar girls. Sounds quite saucy.
'Saucy' is a gross word there given the context of 28 young girls stuck in a room with, at best, two disgusting men.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9271
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8422 on: January 17, 2021, 09:38:47 PM »
You can conduct your own research and go through it on your own. Here is Rachel Chandler promoting underage models from the MC2 Epstein Agency used to pass around young girls: https://www.wmagazine.com/gallery/16-models-to-watch-in-2017-as-predicted-by-midland-agencys-rachel-chandler-and-walter-pearce/

I don't know who Rachel Chandler is and don't really care.

You never answered the question. Is there some sort of guestbook log that shows all the people that visited the island regardless of their mode of transpo? Ex., how do we know that Beyonce and Bill Murray visited the island? How was that documented?

And there's still a lot to clear up about the decade or so that DJT and Epstein were each others "wingman". I mean a party for just the 2 of them and 28 calendar girls. Sounds quite saucy.

If you are interested in things about particular celebrities then you should do your own research on things you are curious about. I'm not going to do everything for you on every side discussion.

Bill Murray may not be the great guy everyone thinks he is.

https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/bill-murray-wife-files-divorce-accuses-actor-sex-addiction-abuse-article-1.326688




« Last Edit: January 17, 2021, 10:00:02 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2632
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8423 on: January 17, 2021, 10:08:54 PM »
You can conduct your own research and go through it on your own. Here is Rachel Chandler promoting underage models from the MC2 Epstein Agency used to pass around young girls: https://www.wmagazine.com/gallery/16-models-to-watch-in-2017-as-predicted-by-midland-agencys-rachel-chandler-and-walter-pearce/

I don't know who Rachel Chandler is and don't really care.

You never answered the question. Is there some sort of guestbook log that shows all the people that visited the island regardless of their mode of transpo? Ex., how do we know that Beyonce and Bill Murray visited the island? How was that documented?

And there's still a lot to clear up about the decade or so that DJT and Epstein were each others "wingman". I mean a party for just the 2 of them and 28 calendar girls. Sounds quite saucy.

If you are interested in things then you should do your own research on things you are curious about. I'm not going to do everything for you on every side discussion.

Ummm, it's not a "side discussion". You cited some guy who had a list of all the folks who flew on Epstein's plane and visited the island via the plane or by other means. Here:

Nope, check closer. If you go back to the original link I presented it gives two lists. A list of people who have been on the plane (and possibly island) and a list of island visitors. There are two lists of people here:

https://steadfastclash.com/the-latest/its-not-a-conspiracy-theory-anymore-hundreds-of-names-revealed-who-visited-epsteins-island/

So where did the list come from? Not the flight log. The other list of just visitors. Quentin Tarantino is on that guy's list. I searched the 2000 page document. "Tarantino" shows up once under this massive list of names under the heading "Termination". But no "Quentin".

"Beyonce" is found once, but no mention of being on a plane or at the island. Just kind of gibberish I can't really decipher.


Bill Murray may not be the great guy everyone thinks he is.

I never said he was. But I don't know what this has to do with Epstein. I guess it's because he's on your list along with Beyonce and you have no evidence as to how that list was even created. The point is you're just randomly citing some bloggers list without even bothering to look to see whether it's legitimate or not. It's your claim, your source and you back out of backing it up by saying I should do my own research. Is that how it works now? You can just claim something without evidence and it's up to everyone else to find the evidence for you. That's a stark change of tactics around here. I guess we should remember that going forward. Claimants need no evidence to back up their claims. Good to know.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9271
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8424 on: January 17, 2021, 10:26:28 PM »
I'm really just not interested in deciphering hand written scrawls in hundreds of pages of low resolution pdfs for Bill Murray's name. If you are interested in that, have at it.

Proving that Bill Murray has no connection to Epstein's pedo island sounds like something you are more interested in than me.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8970
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8425 on: January 17, 2021, 10:28:14 PM »
I'm really just not interested in deciphering hand written scrawls in hundreds of pages of low resolution pdfs for Bill Murray's name. If you are interested in that, have at it.

Proving that Bill Murray has no connection to Epstein's pedo island sounds like something you are more interested in than me.

So you don’t want to back up your claims, got it.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1459
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8426 on: January 17, 2021, 10:31:23 PM »
Claims are evidence /s

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9271
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8427 on: January 17, 2021, 10:37:07 PM »
Bill Murray's wife claimed he beat her. Why wouldn't that be evidence?

Someone claimed to have gone through the paperwork to produce those names. Why wouldn't that be evidence?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8970
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8428 on: January 17, 2021, 10:40:07 PM »
Someone claimed to have gone through the paperwork to produce those names. Why wouldn't that be evidence?

Lol because they could be wrong or lying? This is why you think the election was stolen. “Someone said something” is strong evidence to you. In courts hearsay is some of the weakest evidence, often inadmissible.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9271
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8429 on: January 17, 2021, 10:47:50 PM »
Nope. Claims are evidence. Bill Murray's wife claimed that he beat her and abused her. That's evidence. It's evidence regardless of whether she is really secretly lying about it. It's evidence enough to get a restraining order or other police action. Bill Murray's wife's word is evidence to them.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8970
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8430 on: January 17, 2021, 10:51:24 PM »
Nope. Claims are evidence. Bill Murray's wife claimed that he beat her and abused her. That's evidence. It's evidence regardless of whether she is really secretly lying about it. It's evidence enough to get a restraining order or other police action. Bill Murray's wife's word is evidence to them.

If by “claim” you mean something someone says. Sure, it’s shitty, shitty evidence.  Sometimes inadmissible in criminal trials, mostly ineffective at proving something beyond a reasonable doubt, inadequate at giving any notion of the truth of the matter. But I suppose that doesn’t concern you much.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2632
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8431 on: January 17, 2021, 11:01:55 PM »
Nope. Claims are evidence. Bill Murray's wife claimed that he beat her and abused her. That's evidence. It's evidence regardless of whether she is really secretly lying about it. It's evidence enough to get a restraining order or other police action. Bill Murray's wife's word is evidence to them.

You're conveniently missing the point. I don't care about Bill Murray and his misdeeds or transgressions. I'm talking about the list.

You cited a source that says these people were on a list of visitors to the island. I checked your source. I can't find the names. Therefore your list is garbage. Therefore your claim is garbage. And you refuse to offer any evidence for your claim to begin with. You're literally just saying, "Hey, look at this list of celebrities some random person made..."

So here's another list of visitors to the Epstein island:

Donald J Trump
Tom Bishop

https://steadfastclash.com/the-latest/its-not-a-conspiracy-theory-anymore-hundreds-of-names-revealed-who-visited-epsteins-island/
Then click the document link cited as the source in the above article: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6250471-Epstein-Docs.html?s=09

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9271
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8432 on: January 17, 2021, 11:23:45 PM »
Nope. Claims are evidence. Bill Murray's wife claimed that he beat her and abused her. That's evidence. It's evidence regardless of whether she is really secretly lying about it. It's evidence enough to get a restraining order or other police action. Bill Murray's wife's word is evidence to them.

If by “claim” you mean something someone says. Sure, it’s shitty, shitty evidence.  Sometimes inadmissible in criminal trials, mostly ineffective at proving something beyond a reasonable doubt, inadequate at giving any notion of the truth of the matter. But I suppose that doesn’t concern you much.

That's incorrect that it's low value though. You can get someone convicted for the capital crime of treason with only two witnesses.

Northwestern.edu - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D7084%26context%3Djclc&ved=2ahUKEwj1mNjLjKTuAhUNiqwKHWH-BKAQFjALegQIRxAB&usg=AOvVaw1syeDjTFkTGRiKIKd1Yqre

"The requirement is more commonly known as the two-witness rule and its main purpose is to protect those who are innocent of treason and to promote reliability. The rule mandates that a person may not be convicted of treason unless at least two witnesses testify to the same overt act."

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2632
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8433 on: January 18, 2021, 12:14:35 AM »
Nope. Claims are evidence. Bill Murray's wife claimed that he beat her and abused her. That's evidence. It's evidence regardless of whether she is really secretly lying about it. It's evidence enough to get a restraining order or other police action. Bill Murray's wife's word is evidence to them.

If by “claim” you mean something someone says. Sure, it’s shitty, shitty evidence.  Sometimes inadmissible in criminal trials, mostly ineffective at proving something beyond a reasonable doubt, inadequate at giving any notion of the truth of the matter. But I suppose that doesn’t concern you much.

That's incorrect that it's low value though. You can get someone convicted for the capital crime of treason with only two witnesses.

Northwestern.edu - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D7084%26context%3Djclc&ved=2ahUKEwj1mNjLjKTuAhUNiqwKHWH-BKAQFjALegQIRxAB&usg=AOvVaw1syeDjTFkTGRiKIKd1Yqre

"The requirement is more commonly known as the two-witness rule and its main purpose is to protect those who are innocent of treason and to promote reliability. The rule mandates that a person may not be convicted of treason unless at least two witnesses testify to the same overt act."

Sure, Bill Murray's wife would be first hand testimony - Presumably she would need to have some corroborating evidence otherwise it's just he said/she said. So far your "evidence" (third hand, at best) for your claim consists of some guy made a list of celebrities that he said visited the Epstein island and he said he got that list from a document. Yet the document he cited doesn't have the names that he typed on his list. So your claim is garbage with zero evidence. And if that's the level of "evidence" you are willing to accept, as in none, then I guess no one has to provide any evidence to back up their claims. Much like the other list:

Visitors to the Epstein island:

Donald J Trump
Tom Bishop

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8970
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8434 on: January 18, 2021, 01:10:07 AM »
Nope. Claims are evidence. Bill Murray's wife claimed that he beat her and abused her. That's evidence. It's evidence regardless of whether she is really secretly lying about it. It's evidence enough to get a restraining order or other police action. Bill Murray's wife's word is evidence to them.

If by “claim” you mean something someone says. Sure, it’s shitty, shitty evidence.  Sometimes inadmissible in criminal trials, mostly ineffective at proving something beyond a reasonable doubt, inadequate at giving any notion of the truth of the matter. But I suppose that doesn’t concern you much.

That's incorrect that it's low value though. You can get someone convicted for the capital crime of treason with only two witnesses.

Northwestern.edu - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D7084%26context%3Djclc&ved=2ahUKEwj1mNjLjKTuAhUNiqwKHWH-BKAQFjALegQIRxAB&usg=AOvVaw1syeDjTFkTGRiKIKd1Yqre

"The requirement is more commonly known as the two-witness rule and its main purpose is to protect those who are innocent of treason and to promote reliability. The rule mandates that a person may not be convicted of treason unless at least two witnesses testify to the same overt act."

A legal standard of a minimum number of witnesses does not necessarily imply that such testimony is high quality.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Particle Person

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2976
  • born 2 b b&
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8435 on: January 18, 2021, 01:17:16 AM »
Can we get back to talking about how Trump is going to #stopthesteal? Tom, just checking in, are you still confident that Trump will be sworn in on the 20th?
Your mom is when your mom and you arent your mom.

*

Offline Снупс

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • WhisperI'lllistentohearit
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8436 on: January 18, 2021, 02:07:56 AM »
Trump is always definitely going to be sworn in in about a few weeks' time from whenever "now" is at any given moment.
There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9271
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8437 on: January 18, 2021, 02:09:52 AM »
Sure, Bill Murray's wife would be first hand testimony - Presumably she would need to have some corroborating evidence otherwise it's just he said/she said.

Incorrect. Learn moar law.

https://www.slgattorneysflorida.com/the-state-only-has-one-witness-isn-t-that-hearsay.html

"We often get questions about whether the State can convict you of a crime when they only have one single witness in a "he said/she said" type of case. We usually get the question, "Isn't that hearsay?" Is "he said/she said" testimony hearsay and inadmissible?

No. Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay. Hearsay relates to when a witness testifies about an out of court statement. For example, if Jill testifies, "John told me that Phil punched him," this statement is hearsay because Jill is testifying about John's out of court statement. Now if John testifies that Phil punched him, that is not hearsay, because John is testifying to what happened, not what somebody told him.

Also, hearsay is not always inadmissible. There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule where an out of court statement would be admissible."

https://splinternews.com/people-are-convicted-based-on-one-witness-all-the-time-1829367479

People Are Convicted Based on One Witness All The Time

"I rob you on a dark, deserted street at night. You call the police. You describe me. The police find me. You confirm it was me. You testify against me. I go to jail. This sort of thing is completely normal.

Sure, the police and prosecutors would like to have as much evidence as possible. They would like to have another witness, or my DNA, or to find the items that I stole from you in my possession. But if they don’t have any of those additional things—if they only have your own testimony that I robbed you—I have news for you: they will still arrest me. And, if the jury finds your testimony to be credible, they will find me guilty, and I will go to jail."
« Last Edit: January 18, 2021, 02:22:41 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1459
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8438 on: January 18, 2021, 02:16:34 AM »
Nah, he has to use the Military (who are the ones who begged him to run in the first place) to help him declare Martial Law. Then they'll be able to decertify the electoral college votes because they'll be safe to release the Kraken. Once those data become clear, we'll finally see that hes only just begun to drain the swamp for us all! And then we can all thank grand chancellor trump for saving us from the radical left antifa socialist future communists that tried to steal the country from people!

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9271
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8439 on: January 18, 2021, 03:10:31 AM »
Sounds like the claim of a single person is considered to be evidence to me.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/-so-if-there-is-no-physical-evidence-other-than-wi-1717488.html

“So If there is no physical evidence other than withness testimony, can one still be convicted? Would it be hard for the prosecution to get a conviction?”

Benjamin David Goldberg
Criminal Defense Attorney in Marietta, GA

"The answer to your first question is yes. In fact, judges often instruct juries that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to establish a fact. That means that, for most offenses, a person can be convicted based solely on another person's testimony (unless that other person is an accomplice). The second question is impossible to answer without knowing all the facts and circumstances of the particular case."