This is despicable and should constitute another crime.

So, you see judge, he just had the children get naked and give him a handy.

No rape there, why are even here?

Jebus.

Please follow me on Twitter @durrati

 

Liked it? Take a second to support Dino Durrati and PolitiZoom on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

7 Comments on "Epstein’s Lawyers are Calling it “Prostitution” and “a lot of it.”"

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Bareshark
Guest

What other defense do they realistically have?

Concinnity
Guest

Trumpists, defending the indefensible in the only way they know.
By lying.

P J Evans
Guest

I suspect a lot of them would like to limit the rights of females, because they should be the property of their fathers, their husbands, or their oldest sons. And children shouldn’t have any rights: they should belong to their father.

Bareshark
Guest

I lived that last sentence, P J. It’s amazing that all parties involved came out of the experience alive. “You do things to us, we grow up and do things to you.” –Andrew Vachss, Hard Candy

P J Evans
Guest

If they’re underage, they can’t legally give consent, so it’s statutory rape, not prostitution. (And the pics support statutory rape charges as well as child pr0n charges.)

rory darjiit
Member
New York law, FYI. Statutory rape is defined as consensual sexual activity with anyone under 17. If the minor is under 17 it’s a class e felony with a 3-4 year sentence. If the minor is under 15, class d with a 7 year sentence. Under 13, class b with a 10-25 year sentence. New York law defines this crime as strict liability, so mistake of age isn’t a defense. For the class e and d felonies, the statute of limitations is 5 years after the victim turns 18. For class b, there is no limitation. Given the timeframe of… Read more »
underwriter505
Guest
Regardless who (or what) their preferred sex objects are, they have absolutely no notion of consent. They may be able to say the word, but in order to grasp what it means, you need to have empathy and imagination, and they have neither. And, if the entire concept of consent is removed, all of this is perfectly OK. ALso, they may think children do or should belong to their fathers, but I am not seeing any suggestion here that they might have compensated those fathers for damage to their “property.” So I think that is just a cop-out. They don’t… Read more »