The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Epstein, Epstein, Epstein . . . but don't give up

cityboy-stl said:
Boebert? Bondi is too sick to testify to Congress but can go to a meeting in Situation Room to threaten Boebert? There must be something really good and awfully sleazy in those Epstein files.

I hate saying anything to defend Lauren Boebert, but I hope she stands her ground on this one.
Click to expand...
It sounds like it's too late. Once the 218th signature was obtained, the matter went to committees and a House vote has to be scheduled within a certain period of time. Their only hope of stalling it will likely be to try to get Senators to block it.

 
cityboy-stl said:
Boebert? Bondi is too sick to testify to Congress but can go to a meeting in Situation Room to threaten Boebert? There must be something really good and awfully sleazy in those Epstein files.

I hate saying anything to defend Lauren Boebert, but I hope she stands her ground on this one.
Click to expand...
I think many of the Reps know exactly what is in the files. In both parties.

This is like a drawn out costume drama being played out for a lot of cynical reasons by Congress and media.

And because of how many people know so much already, let's see what the GQP'ers now do.

Boebert and Green can always reverse themselves and Johnson whip the caucus into shape to defeat the motion.

But there may now be other Repubs who are satisfied with what they got under the BBB and haven't been bought outright on this vote or who may now be ready to retire and want to be on the
right side of moral history. I doubt it, but who knows?
 
Deflection, deflection, deflection....

im.jpg​
 
Read the first line. Then read it again.


bafkreibb3neffeotrg6sqopabguoxoqukacbifpwmchl6ewfwyovrsqz7q@jpeg
 
Headlines in the Murdoch media: "Bill Clinton mentioned in Epstein emails released yesterday!". 🤦‍♂️
 
More "blue dress" hints from one of the deplorable mouthpieces...

It's not pedophilia if the girls are "young teens"? She redefines "minors" as "young women"?

Sounds like softening the ground for more dirt that's about to come out.

people.com

Megyn Kelly Questions Whether Child Sex Offender Jeffrey Epstein Counts as a Pedophile: 'He Liked the Very Young Teen Type'

Megyn Kelly used a recent episode of her radio show to question whether convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein could be considered a pedophile, saying, 'There's a difference between a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old, you know?'
people.com people.com
Megyn Kelly Questions Whether Child Sex Offender Jeffrey Epstein Counts as a Pedophile: 'He Liked the Very Young Teen Type'

"There's a difference between a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old, you know?" Kelly said on her radio show while trying to categorize Epstein's abuse.
  • Megyn Kelly addressed the newly released Jeffrey Epstein emails, in which he mentioned Donald Trump, on the Nov. 12 episode of her Sirius XM show
  • The host then said she's heard conflicting takes on whether Epstein counts as a pedophile because to her knowledge, he only liked girls in their teens
  • "There's a difference between a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old, you know?" she said
...
Kelly acknowledged Epstein's abuse of underage girls, telling Ungar-Sargon, "[Epstein] did like them young, and there were several young women who he did this to who were minors, who were underage. There's just no question about that."

She then insisted that Trump was not involved, adding, "That is a true fact about Jeffrey Epstein. But that is not a true fact about Donald Trump."

Kelly went on to allege that she knew "somebody very, very close" to the Epstein case "who is in a position to know virtually everything." She claimed the unidentified individual "told me, from the start years and years ago, that Jeffrey Epstein, in this person's view, was not a pedophile."

"He was into the barely legal type. Like, he liked 15-year-old girls. And I realize this is disgusting. I'm definitely not trying to make an excuse for this," she continued. "I'm just giving you facts, that he wasn't into, like, 8-year-olds. But he liked the very young teen types that could pass for even younger than they were, but would look legal to a passerby."
Click to expand...
 
KaraBulut said:
More "blue dress" hints from one of the deplorable mouthpieces...

It's not pedophilia if the girls are "young teens"? She redefines "minors" as "young women"?

Sounds like softening the ground for more dirt that's about to come out.
Click to expand...

The term paedophilia seems to be used a lot in connection with the Epstein case, mostly incorrectly in my view. I always thought a paedophile was defined as a person sexually attracted specifically to pre-pubescent children. Prince Andrew is accused of having sex with Virginia Roberts when she was 17. Whatever the other rights and wrongs of that, it wasn't paedophilia.
 
unloadonme said:
The term paedophilia seems to be used a lot in connection with the Epstein case, mostly incorrectly in my view. I always thought a paedophile was defined as a person sexually attracted specifically to pre-pubescent children. Prince Andrew is accused of having sex with Virginia Roberts when she was 17. Whatever the other rights and wrongs of that, it wasn't paedophilia.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the type of argument that we can expect the defenders of Epstein and his cohorts to use. They will try to say, "dating young girls isn't pedophilia" and they'll bring on an psychologist who tries to delineate between pedophlia and hebephilia. There will be legal experts clouding the argument with discussions of "age of consent" and the "Romeo and Juliet exception", et al.

The proper term is "sexual abuse of minors" (SAM) or "child sexual abuse" (CSA). That terms lacks the punch of term like pedophilia.

I also expect to hear things like, "Prince Andrew [or any of the weathly powerful men involved] slept with someone who was above the age of consent, so it wasn't illegal". The important thing to know about the Prince Andrew situation is not that Virginia Guiffre was 17 years old. The important thing to know is that Prince Andrew was a man in his early forties who had children who were not much younger than Guiffre. If Guiffre's story is true, then Andrew Mountbatten was party to the trafficking of young women who were being used by Epstein as a party favor. If that's not sexual abuse of a minor, I don't know what is.

I've become fond of the term "predophile" which more accurately describes both the predatory nature of recruiting teenage girls under false pretenses and their exploitation to gain favor and gain leverage on the rich, powerful men who exploited the young women for their own pleasure.
 
Last edited:
The problem is not only with the 17 year old girls.

There were lots of girls (and some boys?) who were around 14 years old.

And yeah. A lot of MEN are out there trying to reduce age of consent and to paint their predation on trafficked kids as normal.
 
rareboy said:
The problem is not only with the 17 year old girls.

There were lots of girls (and some boys?) who were around 14 years old.

And yeah. A lot of MEN are out there trying to reduce age of consent and to paint their predation on trafficked kids as normal.
Click to expand...
Doesn't it seem like an epidemic? The number of evangelicals that are in the deplorables thread, many of them ministers, who are getting arrested for sexual exploitation of minors (usually minor girls) is shocking. About every two weeks, I look for new examples and there is never an instance where I don't find 3 or more new arrests.

That video of Trump and Epstein standing on the edge of a dance floor, pointing and leering at young women is demonstrative of an attitude that young women are there for the enjoyment of older, wealthy men really says it all.

It also adds evidence that the games that the wealthy and powerful men are playing with trying to divert our attention with drag queens and books about LGBT characters does seem to be part of a campaign to distract us. The problem is men in power (whether they are pastors or because they are wealthy) and how they don't seem to think that the rules apply to them. They also seem to be devaluing the women they exploit in a very sociopathic way.
 
So can we not please try to pretend that Epstein's clients (including Andrew) were only fucking 17 year old girls?

And the fact that EVERYONE in the US knew about the Katie Johnson story and STILL elected a rapist president is probably always going to be one of the moments
that historians (probably just AI) will note in the decleine and fall of the American Republic.

bafkreibtcre3v7fzcsl2fio5ykevwmfrtbbbxneyzehamo7cbugadohhjq@jpeg
 
There's an older thread in CE&P that talked about Epstein during the last Trump Administration. Katie Johnson was mentioned.

KaraBulut

Post in thread 'Jeffrey Epstein Eludes Justice'

mikey3000 said:
Hmm. I wonder what ever happened to this law suit.
Click to expand...

The speculation was that either "Katie Johnson" was paid off (like some of the others) or she had been threatened enough that she dropped her suit (like some of the others).

The lawsuit accusing Trump of raping a 13-year-old girl, explained [Vox]


Something else that is really bugging me about some of this stuff that is coming out...

One of Trump's "tells" is that he accuses his opposition of doing the same thing that he is doing. For example, he accused the "Biden Crime Family" of taking money for political favors and foreign countries. Now that Trump and his companies are taking money for political favors and from foreign countries, it has become apparent that the accusation was to distract everyone and make them numb to the things that Trump was doing.

Before the 2016 election, the whole "lizard people child sex trafficking ring" thing was running through social media. Hillary Clinton was accused of owning pizza restaurants that were fronts for her child trafficking ring. In retrospect, it just seems too much of a coincidence that "child sex trafficking" was the accusation against Clinton when it's becoming apparent that Trump- at the very least- was peripherally involved with a man who was running a sex trafficking ring involving many young women who were minors. And the great lengths that the White House, Pam Bondi and Ka$h Patel are going to in order to prevent us from finding out the truth just makes it look like a cover-up.

And there was another rumor flying around back in 2019 - that Hillary had Epstein killed. It was so outlandish that everyone dismissed it as just crazy (well, everyone except the far right and the QAnon crowd). If this is a pattern- to blame your enemy for the things you've done...

Even worse, in the current climate, is there anyone that can be trusted to get to the bottom of all of this?
 
Last edited:
rareboy said:
Click to expand...
www.politifact.com

No proof of settlements by Donald Trump for child sex crimes

A list circulating on social media claims to reveal a set of settlements made by former President Donald Trump for sex c
www.politifact.com www.politifact.com
www.snopes.com

Did Trump Pay $35M to Settle Child Rape Claims Against Him?

An "utterly deranged nutter with a mind unclouded by facts, evidence, or reason" may not be the best of sources.
www.snopes.com www.snopes.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top