Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Epstein's sex trafficking was aided by JPMorgan, US Virgin Islands lawsuit says

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 143 posts

Re: Epstein's sex trafficking was aided by JPMorgan, US Virgin Islands lawsuit says

#71

Post by headsoup »

atdrummond wrote: post #66
headsoup wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to remember that Federal investigations don't work like that. They don't arrest (even if it appears obvious) and then build evidence; they build a strong case quietly then arrest (look up Prenda Law for a good story on this). Interestingly though, most of the time public or powerful figures go to jail it's not (or not mainly) for the crime assumed, it's for 'Lying to the Feds' (see Martha Stewart for example…

Having dealt with “shoot first, ask questions later” asset forfeiture cases, in my own life and some of my friends’, I have to say this is more of an idealistic view post Wars on Drugs and Terror.

To be clear I'm talking about larger scale (or involving the 'elite' class) crimes, not the things everyday folk get caught up in, which generally proceed quite a bit quicker.

Re: Epstein's sex trafficking was aided by JPMorgan, US Virgin Islands lawsuit says

#72

Post by thefounder »

voltaireodactyl wrote: post #61
thefounder wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok but how does that make his doughter a super spy?

Espionage, like all significant industries, relies heavily on one’s personal contacts. In the spy game, reputation and trust are much harder to build, given the necessary lack of transparency on all sides. For this reason, espionage has often been something of a family business — the children meet the contacts of the parent, and thereby essentially inherit the store.

But can the doughter be a good spy if it's well known her father was a spy and most likely she is a spy as well? I mean her cover is blown.

Re: Epstein's sex trafficking was aided by JPMorgan, US Virgin Islands lawsuit says

#73

Post by lfodofod »

nickphx wrote: post #55
headsoup wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to remember that Federal investigations don't work like that. They don't arrest (even if it appears obvious) and then build evidence; they build a strong case quietly then arrest (look up Prenda Law for a good story on this). Interestingly though, most of the time public or powerful figures go to jail it's not (or not mainly) for the crime assumed, it's for 'Lying to the Feds' (see Martha Stewart for example…

They do work like that. My house was raided as part of an investigation. It was about two years after the search that the DOJ indicted me for conspiracy to commit copyright infringement..

Were you arrested? No? How is this supposed to refute the GP comment if not?

Re: Epstein's sex trafficking was aided by JPMorgan, US Virgin Islands lawsuit says

#74

Post by lfodofod »

ksniwmidjd wrote: post #23

I don’t understand how Ghauline got charged with underage child prostitution but none of her clients did. Who did she traffick them to? Makes me think politicians at the very highest level like Prince Andrew in the UK and a bunch in the US. It’s funny that the sketches for the Madeline McCann kidnappers look an awful lot like the Podesta brothers - the same ones with the creepy nude art of children in their homes. Al…

Ghislaine Maxwell was specifically charged with trafficking children to Epstein.

Re: Epstein's sex trafficking was aided by JPMorgan, US Virgin Islands lawsuit says

#75

Post by lfodofod »

iinnPP wrote: post #3

Is there a legitimate reason so few people have been charged in the case of Epstein?

Perhaps there were no more people to charge? This was probably mostly Epstein’s and Maxwells private hobby, they presumably did not go around advertising the fact that the girls were underage.

Re: Epstein's sex trafficking was aided by JPMorgan, US Virgin Islands lawsuit says

#76

Post by danaris »

nickphx wrote: post #55
headsoup wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to remember that Federal investigations don't work like that. They don't arrest (even if it appears obvious) and then build evidence; they build a strong case quietly then arrest (look up Prenda Law for a good story on this). Interestingly though, most of the time public or powerful figures go to jail it's not (or not mainly) for the crime assumed, it's for 'Lying to the Feds' (see Martha Stewart for example…

They do work like that. My house was raided as part of an investigation. It was about two years after the search that the DOJ indicted me for conspiracy to commit copyright infringement..

And how many A-list law firms can you call on at a moment's notice? How many banks can you order around?

"Privilege" derives from the words for "private law". The privileged operate under different rules from the rest of us.

That doesn't mean they can't ever be taken down, but it does mean that when they are, it looks different than when law enforcement sets its sights on one of us.

Re: Epstein's sex trafficking was aided by JPMorgan, US Virgin Islands lawsuit says

#77

Post by pclmulqdq »

dragonwriter wrote: post #41
pclmulqdq wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's literally a black book with names in it, as well as flight records. There is plenty of evidence here to get started on a charge without the banks or victims cooperating.

> There’s literally a black book with names in it, as well as flight records. That’s…not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Heck, its probably not even probable cause of any crime. > There is plenty of evidence here to get started on a charge There is evidence enough to open investigations, sure. Law enforcement agencies don’t generally announce that. Whether there is evidence to do more than that is…speculation.

There's enough evidence to start writing subpoenas, which is really how this process works. They don't generally start with enough evidence to convict, they start with enough to compel people to give them more.

Re: Epstein's sex trafficking was aided by JPMorgan, US Virgin Islands lawsuit says

#78

Post by LinuxBender »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #27
dragonwriter wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there a legitimate reason so few people have been charged in the case of Epstein? Given the probably reluctance of most victims to come forward, active concealment by (apparently) multiple large banks (Deutsche Bank was sued and settled with New York, and now JP Morgan by USVI), investigators getting proof beyond a reasonable doubt even if there aren’t powerful people with law enforcement connections with an int…

There's literally a black book with names in it, as well as flight records. There is plenty of evidence here to get started on a charge without the banks or victims cooperating.

Not just a book but rooms full of DVD's recording the activities for blackmail and extortion. AFAIK the feds seized all the DVD's from the CCTV rooms at each of his properties. IIRC the room was cleared at one of the properties because they were tipped off. Curious if this ends up in a documentary. The raids, not the actual DVD footage

I believe there was also large amounts of unusual concrete formations outside of one of the properties that suggested something may have been hidden. That would probably take some time to pick apart.

Re: Epstein's sex trafficking was aided by JPMorgan, US Virgin Islands lawsuit says

#79

Post by tzs »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #27
dragonwriter wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there a legitimate reason so few people have been charged in the case of Epstein? Given the probably reluctance of most victims to come forward, active concealment by (apparently) multiple large banks (Deutsche Bank was sued and settled with New York, and now JP Morgan by USVI), investigators getting proof beyond a reasonable doubt even if there aren’t powerful people with law enforcement connections with an int…

There's literally a black book with names in it, as well as flight records. There is plenty of evidence here to get started on a charge without the banks or victims cooperating.

Epstein was not some cartoon super-villain whose every endeavor was directly in furtherance of his sex trafficking operation. Real world major bad guys almost never actually work like that. They almost almost always have major legitimate (or legitimate appearing) businesses and activities they spend considerable effort on too.

Epstein had a bunch of stuff going on in the finance world and was a philanthropist. His black book was full of contacts related to those activities.

Same with the flight records. His island was a hub for his legitimate (or legitimate appearing) activities. There were plenty of people who had reason to visit his island to arrange business deals, or to try to convince him to fund their cause, or to attend conferences that were hosted there without knowing that he also ran a sex trafficking operation there.

That makes merely being in the black book or flight records a pretty weak signal on its own that someone was involved in the sex trafficking.

Re: Epstein's sex trafficking was aided by JPMorgan, US Virgin Islands lawsuit says

#80

Post by eternalban »

dragonwriter wrote: post #19
eternalban wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are we pussy footing around this? This affair has all the hallmarks of a state level blackmail operation run by CIA and Mossad. ("law enforcement" is a rather amusing label for spook agencies.)

> This affair has all the hallmarks of a state level blackmail operation run by CIA and Mossad. (“law enforcement” is a rather amusing label for spook agencies.) “spook agencies” don’t make prosecutorial or law enforcement investigation decisions (outside of those within their own investigative jurisdiction where they are also law enforcement agencies, which US ones, other than FBI to the extent you consider that a “…

This line of reasoning is measured and sensible (and rest assured, this is appreciated). But there is an implicit assumption in your world view that intelligence agencies themselves are -not- subject to directions of powerful actors in the establishment. “Yale” and all that, but then we’re back to conspiracies, alas.

I am genuinely interested in your views on ‘how’ would we ever obtain “clear evidence” regarding matters that involve intelligence agencies acting well outside of the law. “14,342 JFK assassination records still contain redactions in 2022” according to a cursory search.

Post reply on HN