printProsecutions now rest on he-said, she-said hearsay evidence, on facts that can’t possibly meet the rules of evidence (the ones the United States once abided), or be corroborated for the purposes of a just prosecution ~ilana
The reviled and revolting progressives of MSNBC and the hollow performers on Fox News are all agreed:
Ghislaine Maxwell was [rightly] convicted on Wednesday evening of grooming underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein to abuse… [and should face] decades behind bars for sex-trafficking.
The “incontrovertible” evidence upon which there ought to have been a sunset clause: The massage table. The gowns in the closet, too. Well, pretty much. My position with respect to prosecutions driven by sexual moral panic and revenge was expressed in “Mad, #MeToo Matriarchy Ensnared Bill Cosby.”
Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine were and are degenerates, scum of the earth. But the evidence against Maxwell is hearsay evidence.
Moreover, when one hears phrases like “years of sexual abuse,” one envisages dark, dank quarters, chains, an inability to leave the scene of the abuse, and drugs to addle the victim’s awareness.
In reality—not that it matters any longer to US prosecutors—the case of Ghislaine Maxwell is one of, admittedly, under-age girls. But these women were coming and going as they pleased, eager and greedy for more of whatever Epstein was using to lure them. The sainted MeToo victims were greedy for this ghastly man’s gifts. If charges are to be leveled—the adults in the room bear responsibility, but the charges should never yield the kind of sentence Maxwell is facing.
“Sex-trafficking,” as a charge in the Maxwell case, looks to me much like getting Al Capone on charges of tax evasion: You can’t prove anything substantive, so you conjure any category of charges that will stick. Also known as corruption of the law and its purpose.
Yes, the loathsome two, Jeffrey and Ghislaine, traveled with their greedy “victims.” So, voila, “sex-trafficking,” a legal charge that sticks.
Corruption, degeneracy and more: Absolutely.
But law is about evidence. Contrary to what the legal “experts,” left and right, assert, a just system of law is not about, “turning the tables on the powerful, to give the vulnerable a voice,” a whine that could be heard on the cable universe, left and right.
RELATED: “Mad, #MeToo Matriarchy Ensnared Bill Cosby“:
Prosecutions now rest on he-said, she-said hearsay evidence, on facts that can’t possibly meet the rules of evidence (the ones the United States once abided), or be corroborated for the purposes of a just prosecution, in accordance with the legal standards of Western law (of blessed memory). Evidence is tainted, solicited decades too late, with utter disregard for the statute of limitations.
* Image is of the “evidence,” via New York Post
Ms. Ilana, great column. These are probably the same people who are devoted to sexual liberation, promote the LGBTQ agenda and celebrate porn.
The jury was ready to convict on anything including no or bad evidence.
If we had standards left then maybe a prosecutor would have to actually bring out better evidence if such a thing exists. And that might some people uncomfortable.
I agree that this so called sex trafficking doesn’t fit.
The salient flaw of the #MeToo narrative consists in this: that an exclusive emphasis on ‘consent’ necessarily leads to a much-reduced view of inherent human dignity—after all, one can freely ‘choose’ any manner of degrading experiences, but considered from the perspective of classical philosophy, these choices all amount to slavery. What is obscured in this process is the recognition that only certain acts (whether in the realm of sexuality or elsewise) correspond to the telos of human nature.
As to the particulars of the Maxwell case, what is obvious is that the prosecuting authorities decided from the outset to focus narrowly on the charges of sex trafficking—while at the same time conveniently ignoring the outstanding fact of Epstein and Maxwell as intelligence assets. The trial, in my estimation, was conducted in such a way as to preclude any alternative story from developing that might prove rather more embarrassing to powerful interests.
HEAR HEAR!! I Couldn’t agree more with you Ilana. I couldn’t. I have been saying things / words like you see below, now for sometime.
“These girls loved loved ? loved! the high life. Private Gulf Stream Jets. The best foods, clothes, riding in Rolls Royce, Bentley’s Maybach S650 you name it. (Look up the line-up of all the cars that Epstein owned. 1 of each of these and more. Much more.) And, they could come and go.
And you can bet if and when they flew commercial airline, they did so safely cocooned up in 1st class. And I know all about the safe, secure upscale feeling that flying 1st class brings all this, and more. Much much more.”Preferential is one’s middle name.”
No way in hell should she have been charged with what they charged her with. Needless to say, Epstein and Maxwell took swinging to an entirely new platinum level folks. And that is what this really really boils down too.
2 older adults, enjoying the fruits of young girls. And you can bet that both of them gave each young girl, a romping orgasmic great time. And more than one time it’s come out because more than one girl has said this.
“ once they reached a certain age that was it. It was over. Epstein didn’t want to have sex with them once they hit 18 / 19 / 20 maximum, 21.” I have read statement after statement from different young girls, that stated this. So yes, both adults was degenerates in ways.
My question is this, And I would like to see each young girl answer truthfully.
“What did they tell their parents were they was Jetting off, for the weekends ? Who, was they flying off to see, and how did you, explain flying into such obscenely expensive locales?” none of these young girls came from parents that ran around inside the circles of Jeffrey Epstein.
From all of my research, it shows me that the vast majority of them if not all of them come from parents that are just middle class, to upper middle income. And I’ve spent hours and hours and hours, researching all this. And logging questions posed to the girls.
In closing,
last year Tucker Carlson had one of these young ladies on shortly after, Ghislaine got locked up, and he posed questions like this to the girl and she got pissed ? off with Tucker. She wanted him to fawn all over her crocodile ? tear jerker of joker story lol ? lol ?
The most obvious fraud is the notion that young women, possessing free will, fully capable of sexual relations and of bearing children are, somehow, ‘children’ being raped when, in reality, they are adults innocently enjoying their nature.
The real issue here is who owns us? Do we own ourselves or are we owned by the parasitic busy-bodies who inhabit the twin frauds of religion and government?
I was also wondering about the girls coming and going and smiling in the pictures. Or even going there in the first place. And what about the parents? Not that that lessens the crime, but it seemed relevant. This is the only place I have found a mention of this. Also, her point about verdicts based on hearsay is right on. Very scary.