Just because it’s always been, doesn’t mean it always has to be that way.

Unfortunately, yes it does. There are human beans, greed and disproportionate power involved.

It's seldom fair but it will always exist.

Unfortunately, comments of skepticism about accountability ring true. For criminals to have been so vehemently protected for decades says much about the influence of those who are guilty of committing crimes and then silencing victims.

Not everyone who knew Epstein are criminals. That’s where it gets tricky. Just like not everyone who knew Charles Manson. It’s my hope that the names to be released by victims are those of their assailants. It’s also my hope that reporting is honest and that full accountability is achieved accurately. I remain skeptical that that is possible in our current political ecosystem.

I agree with all of this, but I don’t think we will ever see justice served here, unfortunately. For him to get that sweetheart deal in ‘08 was a disgrace - that should have been the launch of a massive investigation at that point, and not swept under the rug. I think all the public wants, and deserves, is information related to other abusers and/or conspirators and I would be shocked if documents and videos in the possession of the gov’t does not identify other folks involved and could be released, in context, while at the same time protecting the victims of abuse. Even the victims want the info out. Why there is pushback against that you can decide for yourself…

And yes, context is of utmost importance - this dude hung out with all sorts of people. A friendship/photo does not in any way implicate guilt. But video/pics or $$ transfers might - that’s the data we need to be made aware of. I’m incredibly pessimistic anything of substance will ever come out till everyone involved is long dead.

I've started to google and read up on Epstein and have to agree with the above. Things like Alex Acosta, the prosecutor who created the sweetheart deal, was not on the House oversight committee subpoena list, is a problem. Wouldn't he be the first person Congress would want to question? He would have to be an expert on Epstein.

I don’t want to derail this to PARF, but I think they did subpoena him?

I found an August 5 axios article.

And yeah I should know better. Just getting into it and shocked at the presser yesterday and a little googling.

you are right, they did leave him off the subpoena list, but he’s agreed to come in for a voluntary interview on 9/18

This issue has me rooting for folks I once thought were absolutely nuts.
I'm amazed to admit it.
The passion for seeing injustice be exposed for what it is transcends politics every time.
If Marjorie Taylor Greene reads the list on the floor of Congress, I say give her the Presidential medal of freedom.
The optics of that presser was some potent stuff, took me a while and some wine to get the wife calmed down.

Yes, but I'll also say it will be disappointing if she just reads off a list of names and that's it. That's just going to cause more chaos, and likely a ton of lawsuits. They have to be specific and state for the record that there is undeniable proof that the names they announce are either perpetrators or conspirators, and that they welcome all legal action to follow - in other words, there has been a deliberate coverup. If you are just stating names that the victims came up with, it's a nothing burger and will be dismissed as political theater. Now, I don't know how they'd be able to get "proof" absent some attorneys breaking privilege, so again, I remain very very pessimistic for true justice, which sucks because you know there are perpetrators that are walking free today.

I hope they can get to the bottom of it, award some "sweetheart deals" for those with inside knowledge who will sing like Canaries.

They should also make an attempt to tie it into Hollywood and clean up the pedo/sex trade once and for all.

Paul is correct. In the reporting I've seen, they mention that a list is being prepared by the victims, but NOT what the list contains. If MTG reads a list of names, this whole thing falls apart. That was my point above. Acquaintances are not criminals. Epstein moved among movers and shakers daily. Not all were pedophiles (presumably).

A litany of lawsuits will be filed regardless. But limiting any "outing" to those who actually committed crimes will be imperitive.

There is the old documentary on NETFLIX that is mostly about Epstein and touches on the victims. There is a newer one on Amazon that is more about the victim's experiences, the long-term trauma and frustration of the government that kept letting him slip away. The other thing the Amazon offering delves into is Epstein's internal network of assistance that did much of the recruiting.

Very powerful.

Isn’t the sad reality that the statute of limitations has ran out for most of these dirtbags? Is there any realistic scenario that could see anyone actually face charges? If there is, I haven’t seen it.

I thought there was no statute of limitations for sex crimes against minors? I could be wrong though….

I suppose billion dollar civil suits are still possible.

Makes you wonder why over 1000 FBI agents were assigned to making redactions of the files; protecting the innocent or the guilty? Then there was the conveniently timed flyover that drowned out much of what was being said by the victims.

Federal Crimes With No Statute of Limitations
Most federal crimes have a statute of limitations, but certain ones do not. These are known as capital crimes or offenses. In order for a federal crime to not have a statute of limitations, it must be clearly outlined by the United States Code. Some examples of federal crimes that have no statute of limitations include:

Capital murder. This includes any murder that is punishable by death.
Terrorism that results in the death or serious bodily injury of those who were targeted.
Sexual crimes and offenses against children. This could include kidnapping.
Each of these crimes are considered serious enough to hold no statute of limitations. This means that at any point in time after the crime has been committed, it may be brought to court and tried.

Isn't that what an exhibited perp-walk does? Isn't that what news media do everyday? Both cast the subject within the lense of guilt long before any due process is taken.

Perfectly acceptable thing to do, to make a complaint for a wrong. That's the nub of the judicial process. People, unfortunately, get wrapped up in poor accusations all the time, so the plaintiff will want to be clear when doing so.

Probably because the authorities were either taking part, benefitting financially from it (bribes, etc.), or both, Aussie Orange.

To channel Berretta from the PARF Epstein thread (no homo! :eek:), a society that stands back and allows such a thing to take place does not deserve to go on (aka - que the seven trumpets).