[MAIL] Federal prosecutors are once again making sure that Jeffrey Epstein avoids jail time for allegedly sexually abusing dozens of underage girls in southern Florida.
The Department of Justice is siding with the convicted pedophile, now 66, in response to a motion filed by two of his alleged victims to toss out the sweetheart plea deal that saw him serve just 13 months in custody rather than life in prison.
The women, named as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 in court documents, said in their initial filing that the non-prosecution agreement in the case should be voided because they were not consulted about or even informed of the details of the deal Epstein worked out with prosecutors.
The women who filed the motion were 13 and 14 at the time of the abuse, while the prosecutor was Alex Acosta, who is now President Trump's Secretary of Labor.
That violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act is not enough to void Epstein's deal though, argued Byung J. Pak, the US Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia.
He wrote later in his filing that the underprivileged victims, who were recruited from middle and high schools, are not even owed an apology from the Department of Justice.
#2
It seems like too many people want to close this door and forget about it. Does that mean there is a there there? Where are those flight logs again?
[The Hill] With most of the heavy hitters taking the stage tonight, Wednesday was a big opportunity for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the lone front-runner on stage, and she made the most of her chances throughout the two hour affair.
As Jonathan Easley writes from Miami, Warren delivered a strong performance. While she did not lead the pack in speaking time ‐ Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) paced the group -- Warren stayed above the fray as she delivered lines from her stump speech throughout and did not find herself caught up in back-and-forths with any of her fellow Democrats.
Even when other Democrats appeared to disagree with her, they declined to ding her by name, namely Booker and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). Additionally, Warren was treated as the true front-runner on stage and was given the first question at the top of the first and second hours. By virtue of her center stage position, she also closed out the debate with her closing statement.
The debate was a culmination of a dream month for the Massachusetts Democrat, who has seen polls propel her to second place, neck-and-neck with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who will debate tonight.
Wednesday’s question-and-answer format, which produced only a handful of authentic debate exchanges, set the table for tonight’s marquee matchup featuring front-runner Joe Biden, who is campaigning as a civility Democrat, and Sanders, who says he needs to do a better job of explaining his definition of socialism to voters.
#3
All the 'Panelists' seemed to be running for Prez, too.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
06/27/2019 10:14 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'd like to hear some really tough questions, like "How many genders are there?" and "Do you accept that there is no god but Allah?"
Posted by: Matt ||
06/27/2019 10:16 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Gabbard is the smart, sensible one. She also looks and sounds genuine. No wonder the viewers like her, and why the corrupt DNC shall lean toward fake women. Genuineness just ain't their game. They only feel in control with completely made-up personas, puppets with a simulated voice and programmed ideas.
[Mail - where America gets its news] First poll has Tulsi Gabbard as the shock winner of the first Democratic debate and Beto "The Micksican" O'Rourke as the clear loser.
Drudge Report poll shows Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii winning the debate. Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, is a Hindu woman born in American Samoa. Gabbard got nearly 40 per cent of people saying that she won the debate. Maybe more rational than all the others? Speaking of which ...
Elizabeth Warren came in second place while John Delaney came in third.
As of early Thursday morning, more than 70,000 people voted in the poll.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/27/2019 08:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11137 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The theme song for the debaters and the people who voted in the poll...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/27/2019 8:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
LOL the media will never let an anti-war candidate like Gabbard anywhere near the nomination.
Hell, Rantburg hates her too. She wants an end to the war in Syria and wonders why we have to start a war with Iran. Doubleplusungood, she is.
Posted by: Herb McCoy ||
06/27/2019 12:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
She loves her some Assad
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2019 12:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Ah si, Herby "Abu Bakr" McCoy farrrts again. This time almost a stinker. 22 September 2014, Baraq Hussein O'Bama and the Dimicrat parte' over see the beginning of US crusades in ancient Syria against ISIL and the al Nursra Front as well as providing arms and training to anti Syrian rebel militias and half-azz support to valliant Kurd YPG forces.
[The Federalist] In the 1800s, when the American West was being settled, many enterprising souls sold such remedies as Dr. Brown’s Magic Energy Elixir. Of course, the vast majority were worthless. Many were even dangerous.
America is now experiencing a renaissance of shoddy goods‐this time in the marketplace of ideas. Virtually all the 26 candidates vying for the Democratic Party nomination for president are espousing positions no more credible than the snake-oil salesmen of old.
To get a clear sense of the absurdity of some of the claims, several examples are worth highlighting. Abbreviated
Snake Oil #1: The ’Green New Deal’
Snake Oil #2: ’Medicare for All’
Snake Oil #3: Income Redistribution
Snake Oil #4: Raising the Minimum Wage
Snake Oil #5: The ’Wage Gap’ Fallacy
Snake Oil #6: Reparations
Snake Oil #7: Open-Borders and Amnesty
Finally, there is the subject of illegal immigration. Many of the 26 hopefuls often say that opposing it is "not who we are." Wrong. It is completely legitimate‐actually, responsible and civic-minded‐to demand that immigration be legal. We should be discussing how much legal immigration is good for America, and what preferences and restrictions should be attached. The presentation of widely differing opinions expressed with passion, but civility, is exactly "who we are."
Conversely, defending illegal immigration is irresponsible. Just as it would not make sense to say that the poor should be excused from other laws and requirements, such as having a driver’s license and car insurance, it is not justifiable to overlook the fact that by definition illegal immigrants have broken U.S. law.
Consider this logic from the presidential aspirants: If your parents break the law to get you into college, you should be expelled from school, and they should be indicted, charged, and convicted of a felony and perhaps serve some time in jail. But if your parents break the law to get you into this country, you should be given free education, health care on the taxpayers’ dime, and then you should be given amnesty to stay. How on earth does that logic hold up?
BUYER BEWARE
Each candidate, in the quest for attention, has attempted to put on the biggest show, not unlike the barkers in towns along the old Oregon Trail. "My elixir is better than your potion!" or "Take my elixir along with his potion for even better results!" With the advent of social media and the left-leaning mainstream media, repetition seems to (almost) make any absurdity more credible.
Recall the old inside-the-Beltway adage that something said three times becomes a fact. Well, with social media, the hunger for confirmation bias can get 300,000 iterations of "fake facts" in no time. There is no longer any penalty for deception and hyper-exaggeration.
It may be traditional that in the scrum of politics, candidates make overly optimistic promises that the electorate somewhat discounts. Even so, we would wager that never in the history of this country have so many absurd statements been made, and unrealistic policy prescriptions been advanced.
It remains to be seen whether any semblance of rationality will eventually end the worst lunacy. In the meantime, listening to all the political rhetoric has become more and more like a bitter dose of Dr. Brown’s elixir.
Democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro said Wednesday his health care plan would protect abortions for transgender women (sometimes referred to as men), who are not able to get pregnant.
Keean Bexte of TheRebel.media reports: Today, Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar refused to answer one simple question: did she marry her brother Ahmed Nur Said Elmi?
Best line, Ilhan: "I'm trying to find my phone at the moment".
Keean: "So that you can go on Instagram and talk to your brother??"
Rebel Media reports that documents pulled from the Minneapolis Courthouse indicate that while Omar was allegedly married to her brother, she was also living with another husband in Minneapolis.
Normally the islamic fundamentalist overtly openly racist Jew hater won't shut up when you put a camera in front of her.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
