This didn't prove false. The article we're commenting on is literally RMS defending Minsky who was credibly accused of raping a minor provided by Epstein. RMS is still connecting himself to Epstein.
As far as I know there is no allegation from Guiffre or others that it actually happened, only that she was 'directed' to do so.
If I have missed sources that makes a clear allegation, I would appreciate hearing more.
Do you have actual sources saying otherwise, or are you inferring an allegation it actually happened from Guiffre's statement about the instructions she were given?
It is possible Minsky did have sex with her.
But to describe it as a 'credible allegation' is dishonest when it is not clear there is an allegation at all.
You're inventing an interpretation that is possible but that there is no supporting evidence for.
You're free to believe he had sex with her, of course. It is possible he did.
But when you're claiming there is 'credibly accused' when no clear allegation has even been made, you're being dishonest.
But there are also no claim in evidence that Guiffre actually had sex with him.
You keep claiming an accusation that you have no evidence of.
It could imply it, but it does not say it.
It makes the claim she was trafficked. That is supported by the deposition. That is supported by the witness you mention. There is no reason to doubt that.
But trafficking does not contain an automatic implication sex happened in every instance. What matters to establish trafficking is Maxwell's purpose in sending her, not whether or not the purpose was fulfilled.
What you choose to believe is one thing, but your claim there is an accusation sex occurred in this specific case is not supported by that statement no matter how much you choose to read into it.
You're deliberately ignoring the plain wording of the questions and Guiffres own answers, and instead read into them what you want them to say.
Maybe Guiffre meant to make a direct accusation [against nst Minsky, anyway], but she did not in that deposition.
EDIT: You'll note I'm not at all claiming Minsky didn't have sex with her. I don't know if he did. It's possible he did. Still associating with Epstein at that point in time already stinks and it is reasonable to wonder why. It's possible Guiffres intent was to accuse him. A whole lot of things are possible. But what is possible and what accusations there are evidence for are different things.
You're the contortionist here.
Accusation by a single terrified and led witness does not give license to treat someone like a convict.
Is Giuffre some kind of higher being whose words are to be taken as divine thruths, just because she's a victim of something completely unrelated?
Has Stallman ever did anything remotely similar to a crime?
BTW in my country sex at the age of consent would be considered statutory rape in USA (it's 14 years old here).
Does that make all of us rapers of children?
That was what Stallman was arguing about.
For example Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has now sued the woman in federal court in New York, claiming that her allegations are “lies, disparagement, defamation, harassment” that are “beyond the bounds of decency and not tolerated in civilized society.” [...] Dershowitz repeated his previous claims that Virginia Roberts Giuffre was “pressured to falsely accuse Dershowitz” by her lawyers, namely the law firm headed by renowned attorney David Boies.
I can't honestly say who's right and who's lying.
I believe Epstein did it, Stallam believes Epstein did it too (he wrote it in the thread), there's no doubt about it.
Another thing entirely is the other accusations, we can't assume that every accusation is true until proven otherwise by a court of the law (except for Minsky who's dead).
That's why I support Stallman reasoning, a chain of criminal events can't be assumed on someone's saying, it must be proven or we go back to inquisition, especially if one of the accused is dead, can't defend himslef and it's the smallest fish in the pond.
I get these are all powerful men and have the means to protect themselves, but they have the right to be presumed innocent nonetheless.
Having followed the case myself, I wonder why nobody is talking about Wexner, former CEO of the Victoria's secret empire that was built thanks to the close friendhsip with Epstein and who's still on an honorary president's chair.
> L Brands executives were reportedly made aware, in the mid-1990s, that Epstein was posing as a modeling recruiter for the company. Although they alerted Wexner, he seems to have taken no action
An why Boies talked to Wexner (they now say it was his lawyer) and forced the judge to remove him and after the court removed Boies and his team Giuffre hired his opponent in the gay marriage trial that made Boies popular?
> Boies and his entire team from Boies Schiller Flexner were removed from the New York case in October after judge Loretta Preska determined that he had become a witness in the suit and, as such, could no longer advocate on Giuffre’s behalf.
> Charles J. Cooper replaced David Boies, his opponent in a California gay marriage case argued before the Supreme Court, as a lawyer for Virginia Roberts Giuffre in her federal defamation lawsuit against Dershowitz.
The case is now an O.J. Simpson scale event, I think we will know more only after the next hearings.
I am simply being cautious, I am not dismissing Giuffre, in my opinion things are too complicated to throw judgements around, one way or the other (except, as we have established, for Epstein).
I also don't believe Wexner can be the only Epstein's client.
If we look at the case in its entirety, what Stallman did or didn't do it's meaningless.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article245017...
(sorry for the late answer, I was rate limited)