1194
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SacredHeartAttack@lemmy.world 142 points 1 year ago

Why this list was ever sealed to begin with is beyond me.

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 94 points 1 year ago

Because powerful people were his associates. I'm surprised it is being unsealed.

[-] PlasmaDistortion@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

Well they needed to clean it first before they unsealed it.

[-] ThePantser@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Gotta blur some names so they won't be prosecuted.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I bet there is some catch. The only thing unsealed will be boring stuff. Oh it turns out a company Bill Clinton owned stock in, back in 1991, did some construction work for a property Epstein owned. It isn't going to be stuff like "here is a video of Justice Thomas raping a kid".

[-] mhague@lemmy.world 80 points 1 year ago

Most of the names will be innocent people and victims. All of them will be sent death threats and harassed because people will consider them pedophiles. People can't understand two things at once (Epstein was a socialite and a child trafficker) and they don't know what being an associate of Epstein implies. There's good reasons to keep the list private from the masses.

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

It's funny that those people will be threatened, but people we know have been involved in bribery at the highest levels of our government are not.

[-] calabast@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

It must be funny, otherwise where'd all these tears on my cheeks come from!? 😂

[-] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 10 points 1 year ago

Not sure how true this is given:

Anyone who did not successfully fight to keep their name out of the civil case could see their name become public -- including Epstein's victims, co-conspirators and innocent associates.

I imagine anyone who was innocent and an associate had the money to hire the right lawyers to remove themselves.

I also imagine those who should be on it, also won't be.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I imagine anyone who was innocent and an associate had the money to hire the right lawyers to remove themselves.

Epstein was incredibly well connected, so this statement is dubious at best.

I also imagine those who should be on it, also won’t be.

This is correct. 0% of people "associated" with Epstein have any evidence against them of his crimes, or they'd have been charged as co-conspirators.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

And everyone is mystified how groups like the Roman Catholic Church were able to suppress stories of child raise and trafficking for quite literally over a thousand years. Seriously a document was found from before the first crusades talking about it.

The crime doesn't go to criminal trial because the family is bribed and threatened. Then it is in civil matter and the records get sealed. Priest goes and rapes another kid. Rinse lather repeat.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

6th amendment of the US Constitution cuts both ways. People have the right to observe what the government is doing in criminal cases. If the US government is refusing to let the public know what is going on during these procedures the possibility of corruption goes from low to almost certain.

[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The judge stated some names will be redacted as they were victims. I also doubt someone would interact with Epstein several times and not know. He wasn't even trying to hide it.

[-] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 31 points 1 year ago

To protect the privacy of the rich?

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 27 points 1 year ago

Probably more because it'll tip the ones who actually have cases open on them off.

That's like 90% of what's in still classified docs from controversial moments in domestic investigations, information which could show the hand to people currently under investigation, and also techniques the FBI uses in evidence gathering which aren't known to the wider public and who's exposure could lead to suspects catching wise and closing the avenue.

If you've ever seen one of those get smart posts about how to avoid being identified at a demonstration, Domestic Intelligence is openly trying to avoid more shit being added to those lists of ways to avoid detection. Yes it's absolutely adversarial to the privacy of the public but it's a lot less conspiratorial than a blood libel agenda to cover up the child trafficking of the rich.

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Epstein died in 2019. If there's any open cases it's because they're not making any effort to close them.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

That's not how major investigations of entire criminal networks work and if you weren't trying to make blood libel cool because class consciousness or whatever you'd know better.

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Their initial investigation into him lasted 13 months.

[-] littlebluespark@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

So, you mean like Ice T. breaking it down ELI5 for the viewers every week?

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

You mean like when someone smokes crack cocaine?

Or when they bet too much on the ponies?

Or...

[-] littlebluespark@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Oh, Johnny. I hope you get better, and soon. Don't start hanging out with that ratfuck Chappelle, either.

[-] Hubi@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Probably because being on a list of names is not proof of any wrongdoing or crime but will most definitely be interpreted as such by people on the internet.

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

deleted by creator

this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
1194 points (100.0% liked)

News

25269 readers
3827 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS