Not surprised
- Thread starter PJay
- Start date
PJay
Well-Known Member
The most convincing for people that might prove to them what these evil, twisted people do are not allowed to be shared on this forum. I understand that. Vrai explained to me why. I've seen them. Believe me, don't believe me. When you go on the search for truth, it's not easy.
I have no doubt the mindless Democrats on Twitter are ripping her to shreds. "Believe all women....unless they accuse a Democrat. Then they're lying."
PJay
Well-Known Member
I remember reading a part of it all thanking people for their support. You are right, tho there might have been some of that too.
People are waking up to the evil taking place in Hollywood, Government, etc.
That's a good thing. Only We The People can change things for the better.
People are waking up to the evil taking place in Hollywood, Government, etc.
That's a good thing. Only We The People can change things for the better.
Have you ever heard of these guys before? Have they had four decades of public scrutiny? It's looking more like you've some personal animosity towards her and are prepared to think the worst of her with no proof. I can understand that I've said that I think she's a eccentric in more ways than one, but I'm not prepared to condemn someone on specious proof.
@PJay I realize you won't read this, but this is not attacking her, just questioning the veracity of her claim. What she is claiming is a Federal crime (and one without a statute of limitation), as such, why hasn't she pursued charges against those that partook in her trafficking?
Neither do I, but you said I glommed on to her from your first post.Um...no.I don't even know her.
Which movie?
Probably because she knows it's futile. Ask anyone who's tried to get justice after being victimized by a powerful person.
She makes a good point - if what she's saying isn't true, why haven't any of them sued her for defamation? That's a pretty serious charge.
PJay
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
And as public figures it must be proven that the defendant acted with actual and deliberate malice. As this person has claimed that she was brainwashed by her father using CIA methods she might believe it to be true even if it isn't, thus no malice. I am pretty sure, given the deep pockets those accused have, that their well paid lawyers have advised them to not give her assertions any attention at all.
Do you not think that if there was a shred of credibility to her claims that there wouldn't be a gung-ho Federal prosecutor to take them on?
PJay
Well-Known Member
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
That's exactly what I think. Federal prosecutors are not going to touch it with a ten foot pole because powerful people are involved. Perhaps Hanks isn't that powerful, but if they start investigating they will run across powerful people. People who visited Epstein on the island and no federal prosecutor has named one name. And I don't expect we will ever see the list of visitors or see them prosecuted.
So you haven't seen all those cases that not only had credibility but actual evidence dismissed by an obviously paid off judge because the defendant was a powerful rich famous person?
Do you really need me to dig them up? Shall we start with Bill Clinton - that was the one that ripped off my rose colored glasses and stomped on them. Or maybe we could talk about OJ Simpson? Oh! I know! Ted Kennedy! And his nephew William Kennedy Smith.
Look up Robert Richards IV. Vince Neil. R. Kelly. The list goes on and on.
You're thinking about how the justice system should work, not how it does work. There isn't one single lawyer in the United States of America who is going to go after Tom Hanks. The PR would be a nightmare because he plays such likeable guys in movies that people think he's like that in real life.
TPD
the poor dad
GregV814
Well-Known Member
very good....jokes on me.I did it on purpose to watch you rattle on some more and
Men..omg