top 96 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 138 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Don't worry, they'll get to it once the Panama Papers are dealt with 😎👍

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 76 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    And they say they can't catch criminals if end to end encryption exists. All this was over email in plaintext with their primary addresses.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 5 months ago
    [–] 174 points 5 months ago* (16 children)

    *in the US. Norway has charged Thorbjørn Jagland and in the UK Peter Mandelson and the Andrew formerly known as Prince were arrested, plus a number of other countries have criminal investigations ongoing. All so far for corruption rather than sex crimes but that's probably a function of what's easier to prove in court.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 64 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Andrew formerly known as Prince

    Iirc, that was for sharing state secrets, not for being a pedophile rapist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    On the one hand, whatever sticks. On the other, WHY can’t we somehow make child sex trafficking charges stick?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago

    Because money and power are more important to people making decisions than doing things for the betterment of society.

    Sadly the best people to lead are usually people who don't want positions of power like that.

    Not that anyone in the "royal" family did literally anything to get where they are...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    Rape cases are notoriously difficult to prove, even if the victim goes to the police immediately and there's physical evidence taken.

    First of all, the supposed rapist can say "There was no rape". At times, the physical evidence can make that seem unlikely. In particular if there's evidence of violence and there's semen, then it's easy to believe that violence + sex = rape. But, if either of those is missing it's hard to prove that a rape even occurred.

    Second, the supposed rapist can say "It wasn't me". Before DNA analysis it was hard to prove who was at the scene. These days, if there's semen at the scene at least you can say that a certain man was present and involved in something sexual.

    Third, the supposed rapist can say "It was consensual". Given that most of the time there are only 2 witnesses, it's difficult to say which witness is lying and which is telling the truth. A jury might have a strong suspicion, but a strong suspicion isn't "reasonable doubt".

    In the Epstein cases, you can at least sometimes eliminate the third objection. If the victims were underage, they couldn't consent. But, that still leaves the other two major issues. Those are the ones that really require physical evidence. And, in these cases, the evidence is long gone. So, you can't prove that a rape occurred using physical evidence, nor can you prove that a certain man was at the scene using physical evidence. What you're left with is two witnesses using their flawed memory to recall details of something that happened a decade ago.

    Maybe using flight logs and emails you can prove that Andrew was on the island at the same time as a victim. Maybe you can put Andrew in a photograph with the victim, showing that he had met her at some point. That's enough to be very suspicious, but it's not enough to get a rape conviction.

    Now, you said "child sex trafficking" not rape. But, if anything, that's even harder to prove. Step 1 of proving sex trafficking is probably proving the "sex" part, and that's going to be extremely difficult a decade later without any physical evidence. As for the trafficking, you'd have to prove that certain people were moved to certain places. But, that would rely on accurate documents like flight logs listing everybody on a flight. But, we've seen that a lot of the flight logs are incomplete, or they don't name the girls on the flights.

    I'm sure there are powerful people trying to slow, stall or stop any attempt to prosecute anybody for what happened. But, at the same time, even if they were putting in a massive effort, it might not be possible to actually get a conviction anymore because too much time has passed and too much of the evidence is gone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago*

    We already knew after Jimmy Saville (a high profile celebrity, pedophile, and sexual predator who victimized hundreds - likely thousands - over a period spanning sixty years, only getting "caught" after his death when victims could speak up without fear of reprisal) that there are a large number of people in British media and government who are not only willing to turn a blind eye, but to actively assist a predator in acquiring fresh victims and crushing any investigations into them, either to avoid scandal or because someone even higher up the chain told them to. It's not surprising that the rot reaches all the way to the top.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Im going to hell for laughing at that Prince joke.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    I'm going to hell because I can't find my wallet I think I left it there

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 71 points 5 months ago (32 children)
  • [–] 91 points 5 months ago* (9 children)

    The released files contain the anonymous tips people sent in, including ones sent after Epstein became public knowledge. This tip was likely fake (or at least the fading embers of my faith in humanity hope it is), but we'll never know for sure due to the DOJ's refusal to investigate any of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    It's good that they don't investigate it now. They'd just bury anything they want and purposefully do a bad job. If a shred of normalcy ever returns to the White House then it can be investigated properly

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    You mean like when Biden was in power?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Silly Biden - back then it was presumed that the president shouldn't interfere with investigations like that. They should be done apolitically, and independently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Communications use shortcuts. You didn't define what "return to normalcy" was and I didn't put restrictions on what that meant. After the first trump presidency, there was already a "return to normalcy" in which the US government was in stable enough hands to do all that, and nothing happened.

    I wasn't saying that "Biden needed to personally handcuff trump and put him behind bars" I was saying "the US already returned to a state of normalcy where the correct investigation could have happened and justice dealt, however this was not done."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I agree. Biden was too worried about looking like he was politically interfering and even put republicans in charge. He get them a chance to clean house and they failed miserably. And so Biden failed clearly also. Hopefully if they get another chance, the gloves come off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Putting William Barr, a Republican and someone with multiple indirect connections to Epstein*, in charge of the investigation ranks among the stupidest decisions Biden made during his presidency. He killed any chance at seeing justice done and opened the doors for a second Trump term out of his outdated belief that reaching a hand across the aisle is still effective in a post-civility politics era.

    This whole clusterfuck could have been avoided if literally anything had been done to prevent it, but Biden's desire to appear impartial had him put someone in charge who had multiple reasons to slow-walk and kill the case. A case where, again, any ethical lawyer in Barr's position would have recused themselves given his historical connections to Epstein.

    * Through the law firm he used to work for as well as his father. AFAIK there no direct link between the two, but it was still enough to make him an unacceptable choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 45 points 5 months ago (18 children)

    As I heard it, literal newborn infant cannibalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    And given how literally everything the right says is projection, it matches up completely with the shit they were accusing Hillary Clinton of

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    Well, Bill isn't an innocent man either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Then lock him the fuck up. What is confusing about this for you?

    The US sure as shit has the jails and prison space. Heck, I bet the US might even have enough judges, cops, and prosecutors to arrest and try 2, or maybe even more, geriatric pedophiles at the same time.

    :blobcat_googly_kin: 1
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Yes we would all love to see that, but the Clintons and Biden made sure that didn't happen.

    Epstein coverup was a democratic-led game for a long time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    There's straight up emails and texts of him questioning chefs about it they can make "shrimp" in all the colors, the potential chefs are disgusted by "shrimp" but think it could be worth the money. Shrimp is their term for fetus.

    Also let's not forget about the jerky and all the people who just absolutely had to have more like it was a crack addiction and how they couldn't get more jerky when Epstein was "trying to get back on normal food".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Even what I said is barely scratching the surface of just how fucked the whole situation was, go read the files for yourself. The only way we improve after this is by having a majority of the global population read these sick fucks own words about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago*

    Watch this:

    https://youtu.be/ghUNyJzLkfE

    Now I'm aware this dude (flesh simulator) has gone of the deep end a bit, but I think that's kinda expected and understandable based on his video history. That was mostly after this video though, and only kinda in some ways, he's not gone complete loony.

    (And, obviously, graphic content warning. No images or extreme audio, just the stuff you picture while he's going through everything. It's not fun, don't watch if you feel even a bit unsure if you can handle it).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago*

    Some people are choosing to interpret a few references to food items like jerky and cream cheese as code for cannibalism. Any case like this is going to attract a certain amount of noise around it - including the belief that nothing is being done to investigate it - which just muddies the real crimes. I've seen people try to involve space aliens in all this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    And we see only the tame half of the Epstein files. The other 3 mil have not been released

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Anyone remember the Panama papers?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    You see why they rather bomb Iran than deal with the Epstein case

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Imagine being P. Diddy, lol. I'd be so salty.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    To be clear before I say this, I hope Diddy rots and he definitely did that shit in my opinion and more folks(Kevin Hart for example) should be punished for their involvement, but it’s really the most darkly hilarious example of systemic racism, that he’s the mass rapist/sex trafficker/abuser getting sent away forever, meanwhile to my knowledge, nobody accused anyone of eating a baby at Diddys parties, but the rich white folks that allegedly raped and ate babies are getting elected president

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (17 children)

    Cannibalism? Hadn't heard that part before.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    My son talks about it all the time. Apparently they had codes and some of them were for eating babies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    There were a few emails from people asking epstein for some of his jerky. Annoyed replies saying that the supply of jerky given them should have lasted longer. Then an email from Maxwell saying something to the effect of "there will be no more jerky for a while, Mr. Epstein has decided to return to normal food."

    I do not know in what other context that could have possibly been other than cannibalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    And more! There's a Rothschild couple emailing about hunting humans something to the tune of "...bagged one and guess what?! They're n*ggers!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Weird for them to censor that word given what they were saying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I mean, it could be coded to refer to anything illegal as far as that goes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Peter thiel drinking babys blood because "longevity" dude is evil incarnate

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Unlike that more civilized rich idiot who transfuses his son's blood in a desperate but futile effort to stay young forever.

    Rich people are a different kind of crazy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago*

    Yet many of us beg them for our lives from 9 to 5 everyday, helping them do their evil deeds. "I'll donate 25% of my salary to charity to cleanse my conscious of working for billionaires no matter how much I dislike it."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    I mean outside of America people have lost their jobs and their titles and potentially jail time due to appearing in the files. You can argue it's not enough but I will stress outside of America there has been some semblance of accountability.

    In America absolutely nothing has happened. Nothing. Speaks volumes of the nation.

    The emperor is without his clothes. We all see it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Not just 'Murica, but unfortunately the civilised world gets dragged into their stupidity and bullshit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›