Yeah, Tom is the one guy who groans more than Epstein...

R. Kelly may be rich, but he's not white.

Tom

he's not rich anymore either, last I heard about him he was flat broke.

Are you suggesting you are cool with his behaviour?

There's alway exceptions

If we have to derail this thread would I suggest the Nxium story instead - it got Hollywood actresses as sex slaves for a cult leader… why is it that things in the US tend to get so extreme?

I love SEX !

But he didn't know him!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...C-mansion.html

Check out the painting of Bill Clinton here:

EXCLUSIVE: Jeffrey Epstein had a painting of Bill Clinton wearing a blue DRESS and red heels and lounging in the Oval Office inside his Manhattan mansion - visitor reveals bizarre image inside pedophile's $56m lair

"The original painting is called 'Parsing Bill' and is by Australian-American artist Petrina Ryan-Kleid, although it is unclear if Epstein had bought the canvas or had a print mounted. Ryan-Kleid exhibited for her degree show when she graduated with an MFA in 2012 from the New York Academy of Art."

Then compare it with the description by the anonymous source who said she saw it when visiting Epstein's home to make a business proposal:

"She told DailyMailTV: 'It was absolutely Bill Clinton. It was shocking - it was definitely a painting of him. It was a very provocative, sexual picture. He was wearing heels, a blue dress and his hand was in a weird position."

I can't see anything provocative or sexual about the painting, unless one thinks a bloke in a dress showing a bit of thigh is sexy, nor that either of his hands are in a "weird position".

So this story seems to me to involve exaggeration, indeed be "sexed up". It makes me wonder to what extent exaggeration might be a factor in the anonymous source's other claim that she spotted a "a girl who seemed to be 14 waiting to see the financier" and the much more serious claims by alleged victims against Epstein's estate and Ghislaine Maxwell and others, especially with the prospect of gaining thousands if not millions of dollars in exchange.

Considering Mr. Clinton ditched secret service to take 26 flights on the "Lolita Express".........I'm sure nothing happened on private jet that specialized in trafficking under age girls.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...n-multiple-lo/

Also, that prison has not had a suicide in over 20 years.


No conspiracy here.

Sexy no, but who has something so bizarre in the house?

You think a picture of a (male) American (ex-)president in a wierd pose, wearing a dress and red high heels should be politely ignored by the tabloid press ?
I don't see any need for exaggeration and "sexed up" reporting. The plain facts are more than ample in this case. Also, the decription given by the "anonymous" woman seems completely in line with expectations and thus, contrary to your assertion, gives credence to her report about the "14 year old girl"

It's not a picture, it's a painting which means it's an artist taking some liberties. It looks like a bad photoshop job. I wonder how much Epstein paid for it.

I have a painting of Mona Lisa (not the original) but I never met her!

I met lin Moser

I'm not talking about the reporting but about the quote from the anonymous source describing the painting (assuming the quote has been reported correctly). Of course, you're free to agree with her that the painting is very provocative and sexual and his hand is in a weird position, but I don't.

It's a weird painting in creepy Epstein's house. Nothing more or less.

The whole thing is so fundamentally bizarre and aberrant, especially considering the Epstein context, that a someone's struggle to attempt to summarize with a few words would hardly be expected to capture the full weirdness of it all. You are quibbling about the definitions of "sexual" and "provocative". Maybe for some, cross dressing would have sexual connotations.

Epstein had bizarre painting of Bill Clinton in dress, heels in townhouse

This suggests to me that people interpreted it primarily as a bit of fun, not as something sinister. The source who described it as sexually provocative was seeing it through the prism of the allegations, IMO. The painting (by a woman) is certainly strange but doesn't seem to me to be suggestive of criminal tendencies on the part of Epstein let alone Clinton; at most proof of poor taste in interior decor. If the source had seen a copy of the Mona Lisa on his wall, perhaps she'd have said that it looked like a girl of 14 with a sultry expression on her face.