[Schmerika]

Seems you spent a lot of time going through the example I used for conflating proof with evidence, and none referring to the evidence I referred to. Maybe try reading the comment again lol.

Or, don't bother, because it's pretty clear that you're not very familiar with the facts here.

Epstein: "As you probably know I represent the Rothschilds". Thousands of emails with Ariane discussing such.

You: "This is just false" - no counter evidence whatsoever.

> By the same logic, Epstein was surely a spy for the CIA or other US intelligence.

That's what all the evidence points to, yes. That he worked for both the US and Israel. Why else would Kash Patel and others have so blatantly lied all this time?

Either country had more than enough resources and info to have shut down such an operation - if they had wanted to. Instead, it looks a lot like they protected/are protecting him at every turn; sometimes by extreme means.

We know for a near-certain fact that there were compromising tapes on hundreds or thousands of powerful people. Where did they all go, in your beskepticled view?

[dlubarov]

None of this resembles what we normally call "evidence" at all. It's like accusing someone of being a Mossad spy because they're holding an iPhone, which relies on a bunch of Israeli IP.

> "As you probably know I represent the Rothschilds".

What would this have to do with Mossad anyway? It's not surprising that a Jew had some Jewish acquaintances. You probably have Jewish acquaintances too, does that make you a Mossad spy?

[Schmerika]

> None of this resembles what we normally call "evidence" at all.

Who's 'we'? What's your definition of evidence?

> evidence /ĕv′ĭ-dəns/

> noun

> A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.

> "The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weighed the evidence for and against the hypothesis."

> Something indicative; an indication or set of indications.

> "saw no evidence of grief on the mourner's face."

> The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.

...

I'd still like you to see you try and answer my questions:

> he [probably] worked for both the US and Israel. Why else would Kash Patel and others have so blatantly lied all this time?

> We know for a near-certain fact that there were compromising tapes on hundreds or thousands of powerful people. Where did they all go?

If you keep ignoring them, it will be hard to imagine that you're arguing in good faith.

[dlubarov]

You didn't answer my questions either. Again how is a business relationship with a wealthy Jewish family evidence of being a Mossad spy?

But okay, I'll respond to yours -

> he [probably] worked for both the US and Israel. Why else would Kash Patel and others have so blatantly lied all this time?

No idea. That might be evidence of some relationship with the US, not of being a Mossad spy.

> We know for a near-certain fact that there were compromising tapes on hundreds or thousands of powerful people. Where did they all go?

No idea, but even if we assume there was a blackmail scheme (which isn't the only explanation of inappropriate recordings), there's still zero evidence of Mossad involvement.

[Schmerika]

> there's still zero evidence of Mossad involvement.

Please, please learn the difference between evidence and proof. There's a lot of evidence, from circumstantial to testimonial to an abundance of hearsay.

Not proof, no. Proof is what follows from investigation - which hasn't happened. Are you familiar with the concept of "the dog that didn't bark"?

> how is a business relationship with a wealthy Jewish family evidence of being a Mossad spy?

Never said it was.

You claimed "This is just false" when my source [2] claimed that he worked for the Rothschilds, and now have moved the goalposts because he said so himself and there's thousands of emails backing that up.

[dlubarov]

Okay, if you like, we can stretch the definition of "evidence of X" to "anything that has any bearing, however slight, on the likelihood of X".

By this absurd definition,

- Sure, Epstein having a Jewish client is evidence of him being a Mossad spy.

- Similarly if you have any Jewish acquaintances, that's evidence of you being a Mossad spy.

- If you've eaten at McDonalds, that means you're not an extreme BDSer, which is evidence of you being a Mossad spy.

- If you know even a couple words of Hebrew, that’s evidence of you being a Mossad spy.

- If you have any encrypted messaging software installed, that’s evidence of you being a Mossad spy.

etc.