Posted on 02/20/2016 4:13:08 PM PST by Libloather
Considering Hillary Clinton's current run for the White House, she and her husband, Bill Clinton, continue to keep some questionable company. The time to distance yourself from criminals and creeps is before you announce your candidacy, if not from the time you figure out they are criminals and creeps. This calls into question Bill Clinton's friend and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who is freshly out of jail for deviant crimes he copped to. Now, the registered sex offender has allegedly filed paperwork to get his porn collection back from the Feds.
**SNIP**
Breitbart says that Bill Clinton's FBI head is working overtime to prove that Clinton was in no way involved in Epstein's underage orgies. The conversation is now back in the news because two of Epstein's victims are suing Epstein's criminal lawyer for defamation. In the investigation, it has become clear that Bill Clinton spent time on Epstein's private island, but Clinton representatives are working overtime to prove that Clinton was never there during the orgies with underage girls.
"Well, we have made a Freedom of Information request," Dershowitz testified. "My - my attorney in New York, Louis Freeh, the former head of the FBI, has made a FOIA request for all information that would conclusively prove that Bill Clinton was never on Jeffrey Epstein's island, yes."
(Excerpt) Read more at inquisitr.com ...
Has Hillary been asked about all this yet?
No. Only Republicans are subject to guilt by association.
Epstein likes to tell people that he’s a loner, a man who’s never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,’’ Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/#
I’ve yet to hear anyone in the MSM talk about this Epstein and Bill Clinton and the island with teenage girls.
The only place I’ve heard anything about this is sites like this one.
This is a potentially huge scandal, yet, the MSM has said not one word about it.
Goes to show yet again, the media has bias.
Media bias is not only the issue of how we see many stories have a liberal spin on them, but also, the media deciding which stories to push, and which ones to ignore.
Hooboy.
“Goes to show yet again, the media has bias.”
Bias? They have sold their souls. They are the blood enemies of all that is good and decent.
As long as he provides money to the ‘Foundation’, campaign and keeps up with the free trips with entertainment he’ll always be welcome at their abodes.
No. Also, Hillary has not been asked at the debates any tough questions on Benghazi, her e-mails, foreign contributions, and about other relevant issues.
Writing about what is good and decent doesn't sell newspapers.
Hooboy is right.
“The registered sex offender has allegedly filed paperwork to get his porn collection back from the Feds.”
LOL it’s long gone.
Just check thus out, from Wikipedia
—
In December 2010, the prince was a guest in Epstein’s New York residence for several days, shortly after Epstein completed his Florida sentence for soliciting an underage girl. His dinner with Andrew at the mansion was also attended by (among others) Katie Couric, George Stephanopoulos, Charlie Rose, and Woody Allen.[8] The 50,000-square-foot (4,600 m2) 9-story mansion is just off Fifth Avenue and overlooks the Frick Collection. It is reported to be the largest private residence in Manhattan, having originally been built as the Birch Wathen School.
—
This is after he was busted and convicted.
“Writing about what is good and decent doesn’t sell newspapers.”
Sorry, that dog won’t hunt. Not since the eighties.
All they have to do to sell more newspapers is stop lying, but that’s the one thing they won’t do.
And they don’t lie randomly. Always and only, they lie in the service of the left.
They lie to make the left look good, and to make everyone else look bad.
If they can’t find anything that fits the bill, they make things up out of whole cloth.
If it were rumored that Dan Quayle, Ted Cruz, Dubya, and Newt were sharing giggles with teeny girls on that island, Bob Schieffer and Martha Raddatz would be parachuting in with full media apparat to give us the breathless lowdown and claim the scoop, and the Pulitzer for Investigative Republican-Castration.
Trump: “It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
Trump: If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, I’d be dating her..
Behar: “Who are you, Woody Allen?”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=17&v=diMp241gAcw
Just like Pee-Wee’s stuff.
Like dems care about the actions of Clinton’s pedophile friend. lol
“Like dems care about the actions of Clinton’s pedophile friend. lol”
Or that he is a friend of Trump’s and Trump knew about his pedophiliia back in 2002.
“Or that he is a friend of Trump’s and Trump knew about his pedophilia back in 2002.”
All right, it is time that conservatives stop being led astray by this particular distortion.
Let me start by saying that I’m old. None of this applies to me personally. As a Catholic I accept God’s judgment that extramarital sex of all description is a sin to be eschewed at all costs, and that harming a child is evil beyond words. I support the death penalty for raping a child.
I have three daughters, so I understand our desire to protect them. We have defined the legal concept of statutory rape; we have passed laws against it; I am totally on board with that and want to see those laws enforced.
However—and this is a big however—a grown man who preys on teenage girls for sex is not a pedophile. He is despicable, surely, but he is not a pedophile.
Some people will, I think, want to ask why that is important. Isn’t it a distinction without a difference? Well, if I thought so, I wouldn’t have any reason to write this.
Here’s a quick and easy definition from the Internet: “Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13. A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years of age, but adolescents must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia.”
Is this just an arbitrary definition created by shrinky-dinks? I would say not. Speaking as a human male, I find something extraordinarily repugnant, horrifying, and revenge-worthy in the harming of a prepubescent child, even more so than in the harming of women in general.
History tells us that the passing of puberty has always—always, always, always—been the cutoff line for marital eligibility. Men married young, too, for the most part. (This is the point at which someone always interjects, “But that’s because people died so young back then.” For reasons I will explain if forced to, that is irrelevant.)
History tells us that men and women usually married between 13 and 18 at all times and in all places, right up to the second half of the twentieth century. No matter how you slice it, that’s thousands of years.
Some people, it seems, would insist that thus is it proved that all men have always been pedophiles. I would disagree. I would posit, rather, that it shows that it is biologically reasonable to look on a female who is biologically capable of bearing children as an appropriate spouse.
That’s biologically. It has become much less acceptable in America to look upon teenage girls as ready for marriage. But that’s cultural. Our repugnance for actual pedophilia, on the other hand, is as much biological as it is cultural. After all, Juliet’s father had agreed to give his thirteen-year-old daughter to a man in his thirties, and nobody in the audience batted an eye. Romeo, who must have been in his late teens at least, took her virginity and again, nobody batted an eye.
Some people seem to think that if something outrages them they are justified in saying anything they please about that subject. If somebody steals another person’s wallet, it’s petty theft. If they steal mine, it’s the crime of the century.
IMO, it is *not* permissible to exaggerate the evil of even very great evils. A thing is just exactly as bad as it is, and no worse. It might be thought that combating a great evil by exaggerating it is a righteous mission, but that is philosophically and spiritually incoherent. As with all other lies, there are unintended and harmful consequences.
Take, for instance, the subject of marijuana. Most of us here agree that marijuana can mess you up and should be kept out of the hands of young people, at least. Presumably the makers of “Reefer Madness” thought so, too, but their ludicrous exaggerations served actually to help persuade generations of young Americans that marijuana is harmless. You may scare young children with the boogy man, but with people who have reached the age of reason, you need to use the truth.
Lying, even for a good reason, lets the nose of the camel into the tent. As Thomas Jefferson said, “It is a great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual, he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.”
We should refrain from exaggerating evils not for the sake of the evils, but for our own sake.
Donald Trump had a friend who was a pedophile.
Donald Trump had a friend who preyed on teen-aged girls for sex.
I really expect that some people will say that those two statements are identical on all levels. I do not believe that.
Even if we agree that the offender should be executed in both cases, I still do not believe it.
By accepting over the past few decades the extension of pedophilia to cover physically mature young women, we have actually undermined the rationale for protecting them. Anyone can see that they are physically mature, and protecting them for the same reasons that we protect a seven-year-old is not logically coherent.
We protect children quite simply because they are children. We protect teen-agers because, while they are children no longer, they are still not sufficiently mature to make such decisions. In most cases they lack the ability to spot a smooth-talking predator and protect themselves.
If we mistakenly think that we protect children and teen-agers for the same reason, and it’s all pedophilia, we leave the door open for scoundrels to come along and say, “Wait a minute. Teen-agers aren’t children, and liking them isn’t pedophilia. Therefore, we should lower the age of consent to 13.”
This is already happening.
We must preserve the counter-argument that no, we don’t protect them because liking teenagers is pedophilia, we protect them because they are not mature enough to see you (the predator) for what you are.
When we call something “pedophilia” which is not, we undermine our own credibility and that of the legal system. We undermine our standing to protect teenagers with statutory rape laws. We open the way for the dishonest to accuse someone of something worse than he has actually done. Finally, we utter an untruth that is certain to have unintended consequences.
To anyone who might see or try to misrepresent these arguments as a justification for pedophilia or any other form of chronophilia: honk off, bozo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.