This will only inflame conspiracy theory minded people to believe there is a vast conspiracy by the powerful to protect themselves.
This is depressing. I’m yet hopeful evidence will be used to bring guilty parties to justice. This wasn’t just mr Epstein.
"Background: An important note after Epstein's death: no one else will have standing to challenge the search warrant on his house. Everything will be admissible against any other defendant without possibility of a motion to suppress."
So maybe this will be a net good for justice?
Even the public prosecutor was suddenly overwhelmed by sadness and took his life during the investigation. Hats off to anyone who dares to touch high-profile pedophilia cases.
It would have been admissible against anyone but Epstein even if Epstein hadn't died, and further warrants derived from information discovered through it (including reseizure of the same evidence under a new warrant) wouldn't, as I understand it, be precluded unless it was to be used against Epstein, all for the same reason that the right to object dies with Epstein, so it does nothing for justice except preventing any Constitutional violation from even being recognized, which is a net loss, not a win.
That Epstein had politically powerful clients and friends is not in serious dispute (which were clients and which were merely friends unconnected to his child rape business is somewhat less clear), and explains the sweetheart plea deal without resort to some behind-Epstein mastermind.
It's not impossible, but there is nothing that is explained more easily by such a mastermind than by the Epstein being the master of his own sex trade operation which garnered him influence (simply heading that operation means he has powerful blackmail material on powerful people.)
Your understanding of the situation is incorrect, and is leading you to incorrect conclusions.
They use incompetent people who can be manipulated into believing they have common interests and competent people who believe in their own that they have common interests, but, yes, they often use incompetent people. The relevance of this observation is unclear, as it still presents no existing phenomenon that requires a shady superior to Epstein to explain.
> Your understanding of the situation is incorrect.
You have as yet provided no way in which my understanding is incorrect.
It is so incredible it is beyond my understanding.
But you claim to understand it, which is also very much beyond me.
But you are right, more so than you think, I cannot provide a way for you to understand something I don’t understand.
If there were related parallel investigations, they could either still be before a grand jury, not yet have been submitted to a grand jury, or already had indictments issued but under seal. The fact that no one else was charged in the Epstein indictment does not mean there is no one else in a related matter against whom an investigation and/or (sealed) charges exist, which, if from no other source, the public coverage of all the investigations around Trump should have made everyone familiar with recently.
The story hit upon a number of other discredited conspiracy tropes and archetypes. A network of child sex traffickers resembles too much 'orderly world' conspiracy theorist family. Where there is some vast conspiracy to blame for everything wrong with the world but there is at least someone behind it and some concrete goal to 'fix it'. As opposed to a chaotic real world where there is nothing that can be done about it - sometimes some nut-job decides to do something really scary like kill the president or shoot up schools.
Not to mention the anti-semetic tropes hit upon by it when there was a simpler explanation for his contact with high level people - he was rich. Being a donor would have explained it far easier than a sex trafficking conspiracy before concrete evidence.
Frankly the 'believers' of the story did more to make less believable than any amount of spin-doctors with things like drawing tenuous connections to anyone who ever met the guy being a pedophile.
The story in the Deus Ex video game series is starting to seem less ridiculous and impromptu, and more like a piece of prophetic media.
Definition of the word:
“an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.”
I just can't imagine someone being able to order such a murder. There would be too many people involved and risks of getting caught.
Dunno man it really doesn't add up to a suicide.
He probably paid those guards a lot for the right to die.
If it exists, it makes sense they would protect themselves.
edit: This is why Bernie Madoff went to prison and why basically no one went to jail over the 2008 GFC. Madoff stole from his own social class, which is a big no-no.
Despite the fact that white collar crime does more economic damage and even kills more people every year than street crime, it is punished very rarely and then typically only lightly. That's a social issue, and the majority of society are complicit in it, fighting for tougher laws to control the middle and lower class while fighting against substantial penalties for crime committed by the upper class. The Protestant Work Ethic says that hard work, endurance of suffering, and virtuous character is the only way to wealth, so the public presumes that is how the wealthy got wealthy. It is almost never true, however.
I don’t think that analysis tells the whole story. Elizabeth Holmes got away with a slapped wrist despite defrauding some very, very powerful people.
Whereas Shkreli got jail despite returning every penny to his investors.
Holmes hasn't gotten away with anything yet. She's been indicted on federal charges, and the trial is expected to begin in 2020. She could end up in prison.
For example, if you invest money in a profitable business and the CEO skims a little bit off the top, you might end up making money despite that you were defrauded off some of your gains.
I'll do you one better. Is he really even dead, or did he pull a Ken Lay?
How is that a conspiracy?
> A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable.
But who gets to define what is more probable? Why not just "when there is no proof (yet)"? But I guess that battle and term are lost.
Edit: And the story has been removed from the HN front page, despite being one of the most popular...
“a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.”
There’s so much to work with here that it’s going to go on for years.