The Justice Department on Friday asked a federal judge overseeing the case of deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein to deny a request from NBC News to unseal the names of two associates who received large payments from him in 2018, court documents show. The Justice Department cited privacy concerns expressed by the two individuals as the reason for not making their names public.

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
30 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
[–] 72 points 1 year ago (5 children)

It is because those two names are top people within the DOJ? 🤔

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'm pretty sure one of those names is DJT.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Who are these 2 associates? Is one the current president and the other running Tesla?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago

    No secrets! Release all the names!

  • source
  • [–] 76 points 1 year ago

    Efforts to influence witnesses?

    At what point is a witness no longer a witness, but actually an accomplice? 🤔

    Probably somewhere when they got paid to keep quiet...

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago

    Edward Snowden is a hero.

    The rest of these parasites are scum that need to be purged. They're literally getting paid 6 figure salaries (our tax dollars) to protect child rapists.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That's such a low price for silence

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    that was my thought too. like damn, it only costs $100k-$250k to legally molest children in a country where people openly talk about murdering child touchers and tend to be granted amnesty for killing them.

    perhaps someone should tell Donny, it might save his life

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Why the fuck does anything get to be redacted from these files?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    Trump is King, so there is no place safe in this country for witnesses. Release the files!

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    Of course they say that. They have fought constantly against any and all revelations related to Epstein. Their guilt in it is palpably apparent

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    WE MUST PROTECT THE PAEDOS AT ALL COSTS!!

    Feeling great yet?

  • source
  • They're republicans, eh?

  • source
  • [+] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Justice was just millimeters away, in a field in Pennsylvania

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Gosh, that's not suspicious at all.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    The prosecutors continued: “This individual is also one of the employees identified in the Indictment, which alleges that she and two other identified employees facilitated the defendant’s trafficking of minors by, among other things, contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with the defendant at his residences in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Florida.”

    ...contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with the defendant at his residences in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Florida.”

    Maralago is in Palm Beach. I am understanding this correctly, yes?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Could these be payments to victims/pimps (he recruited his victims to find new victims for money, not that much either, a few hundred each for tricks and new recruits,) to keep quiet so his sweetheart deal with us attorney Acosta went through?

  • source
  • 4 comments in c/politics@beehaw.org view that post
    [–] [S] 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    The Justice Department on Friday asked a federal judge overseeing the case of deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein to deny a request from NBC News to unseal the names of two associates who received large payments from him in 2018, court documents show. The Justice Department cited privacy concerns expressed by the two individuals as the reason for not making their names public.

    The first associate received a payment of $100,000 from Epstein and the second associate received a payment of $250,000, both in 2018, days after the Miami Herald began publishing a series of investigative stories where victims criticized a plea deal he received in Florida in 2008.

    As part of the plea agreement, Epstein secured a statement from federal prosecutors in Florida that the two individuals would not be prosecuted.

    so Epstein takes a ridiculous sweetheart deal of a plea bargain in 2008, and as part of that two of his buddies avoid prosecution.

    10 years later, the Miami Herald reports on it, and coincidentally right at the same time he sends a bunch of money to those buddies.

    those two individuals have "privacy concerns" about having their names revealed? yeah, I bet they do.

    and crucially, they're not raising these privacy concerns on their own - Trump's DOJ is putting their thumb on the scale on their behalf.

    weird. wonder who they might be.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Department of Justice: “Gosh you guys, why are you so obsessed with justice? Like, come on, just because someone is a criminal, they should be punished? What kind of world would that be?”

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    I have heard others say that, here in the USA, there is a legal system but not a justice system.

    This is not a surprise for many informed citizens of the USA and others abroad.

    Personally, I'm not sure what the possible (viable) solutions are.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    See, this is the bit I don't get... If there are two people, like ANY two people, that their crimes and corruptions are enough to subvert the status quo, then what fucking difference does it make if they cover it up so hard. The message is still the same, that there is so much crime and corruption in government that a violent response is in order. Are they so stupid, or so confident?

  • source