WaltWhite504

I wish he had made a call back in 2018

The Constitution generally doesn't require private organizations to treat men and women identically. One of the clearest examples is religious institutions, which have broad constitutional protections to choose their own clergy and religious leaders. For example, a woman does not have a legal right to be ordained as a Catholic priest.

Private clubs can also, in some circumstances, limit membership by sex. For example, Butler National Golf Club has historically maintained a male-only membership policy. Augusta restricted membership of women until very recently, but there are many who feel that decision was in error. The principal does cut both ways: there are also private organizations and clubs that are exclusively for women, and men have no legal right to join them simply because they are men.

The discussion becomes more nuanced when you separate legal rights from the ability to exercise those rights. On paper, two groups may have the same legal rights, but differences in wealth, influence, social norms, or fear of retaliation can make those rights much easier for one group to exercise than the other.

A historical example is voting. While the Nineteenth Amendment prohibited denying women the vote on the basis of sex in 1920, many Black women in the South continued to face intimidation, violence, and discriminatory practices that effectively prevented them from voting for decades.

Again, this goes both ways. Many people express opinions anonymously online that they would never voice publicly because they fear social or professional consequences. Whether those consequences are justified is a separate question. That said, many argue that women, on average, face greater social constraints in some contexts because of historical and ongoing differences in power, wealth, and representation.

Example:

quote:

---

We have the right to make rational decisions without our brains being cooked by unstable hormone surges.

---

The fact that so many people think women are biologically incapable of equality proves my point.

They are investing in analytics and hired a new equipment manager.

It's happening

Calling his own cell on the office phone to make a sizable offer for Trey

Later to reporters - "I've been getting some nice calls about Trey"

Get Mitchell Robinson and you would have half of Chalmette at the games every night

I said this the other day.

Charlie Sheen took the hit when everyone wanted the fbi to release the Heidi Fleiss list.

Later that year studios gave him 2 1/2 men and a $2m an episode salary.

The Devil's in the details. "2 minutes and 53 seconds" is not enough time to enter the hallway, access Epstein's cell, strangle him to death, arrange a noose from the bedsheet, and exit the area.

Here is the tape

LINK

3 minutes is a long time.

Enter the hall way - access the cell is like 5 sec.

A couple professionals could get in and out with a pre fashioned noose and take care of this in under 2 minutes flat. Then toss the cell and out.

It could be done.

LINK

Metadata from the “raw” Epstein prison video shows approximately 2 minutes and 53 seconds were removed from one of two stitched-together clips. The cut starts right at the “missing minute.”

WIRED previously reported that the video had been stitched together in Adobe Premiere Pro from two video files, contradicting the Justice Department’s claim that it was “raw” footage. Now, further analysis shows that one of the source clips was approximately 2 minutes and 53 seconds longer than the segment included in the final video, indicating that footage appears to have been trimmed before release. It’s unclear what, if anything, the minutes cut from the first clip showed.

The nearly three-minute discrepancy may be related to the widely reported one-minute gap—between 11:58:58 pm and 12:00:00 am—that attorney general Pam Bondi has attributed to a nightly system reset. The metadata confirms that the first video file, which showed footage from August 9, 2019, continued for several minutes beyond what appears in the final version of the video and was trimmed to the 11:58:58 pm mark, right before the jump to midnight. The cut to the first clip doesn’t necessarily mean that there is additional time unaccounted for—the second clip picks up at midnight, which suggests the two would overlap—nor does it prove that the missing minute was cut from the video.

quote:

---

No, but they would have been the primary for the searches of the home, townhome and island. More to the point, they're about the only possible source for evidence that the administration might have access to.

---

I guess - but after getting out of prison in 2009, the Epstein game was pretty much done. He was already being monitored heavily and most people didn't want to talk to him. The raid in 2019 was no big surprise and I would guess they got rid of anything incriminating.

JE's heyday was from the 90s to the late 2000s - before his first arrest. That is the real list.

quote:

---

I didn't mean to imply that. I mean I don't know what evidence still exists that the administration controls. If the obvious implications of this are true the ultimate repository for the evidence isn't the US. The FBI may have "lost" some, but that doesn't mean it no longer exists.

---

The FBI was never the primary on this operation. It was likely joint NSA - who monitored any communications between Epstein and Israel - and the CIA - who collected evidence on who was compromised and how. This aspect of the investigation is top secret because of its implications to Israel. The files at these organizations are complete. This level of intelligence does not lose information - quite the contrary. If they knew there was a political effort to purge specific intel, it would all stay hidden and secure. Even from political appointees who have authority over them. Its why they are called the deep state.