Tragedy at University of Idaho

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Zach

What does all this have to do with Epstein?

I’ll simplify it for you. When the man wagging his finger at a convicted murderer is the same one who’s been accused of rape, found liable for sexual abuse, and known for attending parties hosted by a convicted sex trafficker, you don’t need conspiracy. You need pattern recognition. We’re not unraveling a Cold War conspiracy here. It’s a straight line from “grab ‘em by the pussy” to “I want to date my daughter” to Epstein’s guest list. If that’s not worth side-eyeing, I don’t know what is. So…… basically, when someone covered in filth lectures someone else about being dirty, the irony becomes part of the case.

And no, this isn’t about legal thresholds. It’s about the obvious that people keep pretending not to see. Rot tends to hang around rot.

And this isn’t directed to you, Zach. But as for the sideline commentary, silence doesn’t make you classy. It just means you recognized the IQ gap and stayed in your lane. Smart.

Originally Posted by Zach

A lot of people are in prison now tho because of lack of evidence. You can’t just say “I saw him in pictures with Epstein. Guilty.”

No, Zach. You’re wrong. A lot of people are in prison because they didn’t have the money or political reach to bury evidence, pay off silence, or stall the system until the public moved on. That’s the difference.

You think a mugshot and orange jumpsuit are what define guilt? lol. Nope. They don’t. The real predators wear suits, shake hands on golf courses, and have legal teams whose only job is to muzzle the truth. And when that doesn’t work, they cut settlement checks big enough to shut down entire newsrooms.

And let’s not pretend the man who’s dodged rape allegations, defamation rulings, and multiple fraud charges is just the victim of “circumstantial suspicion.” He didn’t just appear in Epstein’s world, he was a recurring character in the credits. Private jet flights. Dinner parties. Public defenses. It wasn’t a photo op, it was a pattern.

So no, this isn’t about whether there’s a verdict. It’s about whether people can still recognize guilt when it hides behind money, lawyers, and delays.

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I’ll simplify it for you. When the man wagging his finger at a convicted murderer is the same one who’s been accused of rape, found liable for sexual abuse, and known for attending parties hosted by a convicted sex trafficker, you don’t need conspiracy. You need pattern recognition. We’re not unraveling a Cold War conspiracy here. It’s a straight line from “grab ‘em by the pussy” to “I want to date my daughter” to Epstein’s guest list. If that’s not worth side-eyeing, I don’t know what is. So…… basically, when someone covered in filth lectures someone else about being dirty, the irony becomes part of the case.

And no, this isn’t about legal thresholds. It’s about the obvious that people keep pretending not to see. Rot tends to hang around rot.

LMAO!

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

And this isn’t directed to you, Zach. But as for the sideline commentary, silence doesn’t make you classy. It just means you recognized the IQ gap and stayed in your lane. Smart.

Who’s it directed to? Jolene? LOL!!

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

No, Zach. You’re wrong. A lot of people are in prison because they didn’t have the money or political reach to bury evidence, pay off silence, or stall the system until the public moved on. That’s the difference.

You think a mugshot and orange jumpsuit are what define guilt? lol. Nope. They don’t. The real predators wear suits, shake hands on golf courses, and have legal teams whose only job is to muzzle the truth. And when that doesn’t work, they cut settlement checks big enough to shut down entire newsrooms.

And let’s not pretend the man who’s dodged rape allegations, defamation rulings, and multiple fraud charges is just the victim of “circumstantial suspicion.” He didn’t just appear in Epstein’s world, he was a recurring character in the credits. Private jet flights. Dinner parties. Public defenses. It wasn’t a photo op, it was a pattern.

So no, this isn’t about whether there’s a verdict. It’s about whether people can still recognize guilt when it hides behind money, lawyers, and delays.

FACTS! Preach! All facts.

[Zach]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

Who’s it directed to? Jolene? LOL!!

Haha yeah, I wasn’t sure why she posted her comments to me instead of cheerfulgreek. It was kind of irrelevant.

[Zach]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

No, Zach. You’re wrong. A lot of people are in prison because they didn’t have the money or political reach to bury evidence, pay off silence, or stall the system until the public moved on. That’s the difference.

You think a mugshot and orange jumpsuit are what define guilt? lol. Nope. They don’t. The real predators wear suits, shake hands on golf courses, and have legal teams whose only job is to muzzle the truth. And when that doesn’t work, they cut settlement checks big enough to shut down entire newsrooms.

And let’s not pretend the man who’s dodged rape allegations, defamation rulings, and multiple fraud charges is just the victim of “circumstantial suspicion.” He didn’t just appear in Epstein’s world, he was a recurring character in the credits. Private jet flights. Dinner parties. Public defenses. It wasn’t a photo op, it was a pattern.

So no, this isn’t about whether there’s a verdict. It’s about whether people can still recognize guilt when it hides behind money, lawyers, and delays.

I’m not disagreeing with you. In fact, you’re right. I’m just saying everybody deserves a fair shot in court, regardless of who it is (whether you like the person or not). Does everybody get that fair shot? No. But me personally, I don’t take sides when it comes to having rights in this country. Everybody deserves the same rights and fair treatment. It’s sad that some people get overlooked. Yeah, Trump has done some dirt, but I wouldn’t make an automatic connection to somebody else’s dirt just because he was hanging around them.

For example. I’m sure you have a circle of close friends you hang with on a regular. If one of them did something foul or corrupt, do you think because you hang around them that you’re foul or corrupt too? Do you think that’d be a fair assessment of you, knowing you’re not like that person?

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Zach

I’m not disagreeing with you. In fact, you’re right. I’m just saying everybody deserves a fair shot in court, regardless of who it is (whether you like the person or not). Does everybody get that fair shot? No. But me personally, I don’t take sides when it comes to having rights in this country. Everybody deserves the same rights and fair treatment. It’s sad that some people get overlooked. Yeah, Trump has done some dirt, but I wouldn’t make an automatic connection to somebody else’s dirt just because he was hanging around them.

For example. I’m sure you have a circle of close friends you hang with on a regular. If one of them did something foul or corrupt, do you think because you hang around them that you’re foul or corrupt too? Do you think that’d be a fair assessment of you, knowing you’re not like that person?

That’s fair, Zach, and I appreciate how you said it.

And you’re absolutely right that everyone should have the same rights and a fair shot in court. That’s foundational. I don’t believe in guilt by association as a default. Where I draw the line is when patterns emerge. Not just one questionable friend, but repeated proximity to corruption, criminality, and abuse, with no distancing, no accountability, and in some cases, open defense of it.

If one of my friends did something corrupt, I’d feel responsible to speak up, create distance, and make it clear where I stand. And if I didn’t, if I kept showing up at coffee shops, or just going to the mall or hanging out with them where we generally go, brushing off their behavior, or defending them publicly, then yeah, people would have reason to question my integrity. Not because of guilt by association, but because silence and consistency eventually become complicity. Know what I mean?

So while due process should be respected, it’s hard to honor it blindly when wealth, status, or connections can seriously tilt the scale. At some point, it’s less about legal outcomes and more about whether we can still call right and wrong by name. If that makes sense.

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

That’s fair, Zach, and I appreciate how you said it.

And you’re absolutely right that everyone should have the same rights and a fair shot in court. That’s foundational. I don’t believe in guilt by association as a default. Where I draw the line is when patterns emerge. Not just one questionable friend, but repeated proximity to corruption, criminality, and abuse, with no distancing, no accountability, and in some cases, open defense of it.

If one of my friends did something corrupt, I’d feel responsible to speak up, create distance, and make it clear where I stand. And if I didn’t, if I kept showing up at coffee shops, or just going to the mall or hanging out with them where we generally go, brushing off their behavior, or defending them publicly, then yeah, people would have reason to question my integrity. Not because of guilt by association, but because silence and consistency eventually become complicity. Know what I mean?

So while due process should be respected, it’s hard to honor it blindly when wealth, status, or connections can seriously tilt the scale. At some point, it’s less about legal outcomes and more about whether we can still call right and wrong by name. If that makes sense.

This is crazy how this works. Money and politics can buy your way out of anything. Epstein got canned, but look how long it took to do it. Now Trump is talking about pardoning the chick who was in on the sex trafficking with him. At least I know it’s on the table, based on what she wants in exchange for information the government wants from her.

With BK, they’re saying he has no chance at parole. There was some other caveat though that was said during sentencing, but I forgot what it was. I just remember it being something to do with parole.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by carnation

Let us also not insult people in this thread. Or any other thread. No one wants to be banned.

Copy that. Sorry, carnation.

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

This is crazy how this works. Money and politics can buy your way out of anything. Epstein got canned, but look how long it took to do it. Now Trump is talking about pardoning the chick who was in on the sex trafficking with him. At least I know it’s on the table, based on what she wants in exchange for information the government wants from her.

With BK, they’re saying he has no chance at parole. There was some other caveat though that was said during sentencing, but I forgot what it was. I just remember it being something to do with parole.

So I think what you’re talking about is if someone is sentenced to life without parole, there’s like a technical loophole. I mean, it’s unlikely, but I think it’s where a future governor or clemency board could intervene? I’ve seen judges and prosecutors often state this during sentencing to clarify that while parole isn’t an option, there’s still like a theoretical path to release, even if it’s politically or practically impossible.

And honestly, that’s part of the problem. Because when you create legal systems that say “life without parole,” but still leave even a sliver of possibility for political override, it shakes public trust. Victims families are told it’s final, but there’s always some kind of footnote. I just think it blurs the line between justice and negotiation, and in a country where influence and money already bend the system, loopholes like that feel less like fairness and more like a back door that only opens for certain people.

I just think accountability shouldn’t come with an asterisk.

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

So I think what you’re talking about is if someone is sentenced to life without parole, there’s like a technical loophole. I mean, it’s unlikely, but I think it’s where a future governor or clemency board could intervene? I’ve seen judges and prosecutors often state this during sentencing to clarify that while parole isn’t an option, there’s still like a theoretical path to release, even if it’s politically or practically impossible.

And honestly, that’s part of the problem. Because when you create legal systems that say “life without parole,” but still leave even a sliver of possibility for political override, it shakes public trust. Victims families are told it’s final, but there’s always some kind of footnote. I just think it blurs the line between justice and negotiation, and in a country where influence and money already bend the system, loopholes like that feel less like fairness and more like a back door that only opens for certain people.

I just think accountability shouldn’t come with an asterisk.

Then what’s the point of saying life in prison without parole? That’s really stupid and makes no sense. No parole should mean no parole.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

Then what’s the point of saying life in prison without parole? That’s really stupid and makes no sense. No parole should mean no parole.

Right?? I mean, that’s literally what I’ve always thought too. Like, if you say “life without parole”, that should be it. Period. No fine print, no “well technically, if the moon is in retrograde and a governor 30 years from now gets sentimental…” uhh… yeah. No.

But apparently, there’s always this tiny back door left open, like clemency or a pardon, even if it’s super rare. It’s more of a legal technicality than a realistic option, but still. I think they do it to give the justice system flexibility in case something comes to light, like wrongful conviction? Maybe? I don’t really know exactly. But let’s be honest, it also makes it feel like even the most final sounding sentences have a “maybe” clause. Know what I mean? And for victims families? That’s gotta be brutal.

So yeah… I agree with you, Phrozen. No parole should mean no parole. Not “mostly no” with a legal asterisk.

“Justice” in America depends less on what’s right, and more on what can be proven and collected. It makes sense but doesn’t make sense too, depending on the crime.