this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2024
739 points (98.7% liked)

News

23669 readers
4614 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

List could be released as soon as Tuesday after deadline for objections to unsealing of names passes midnight Monday

Nearly 200 names connected to the Jeffrey Epstein-Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficking conspiracy could be released by a New York judge as soon as Tuesday, exposing or confirming the identities of dozens of associates of the disgraced financier that until now have only been known as John and Jane Does in court papers.

A deadline for objections to the unsealing of the names passes at midnight on Monday, nearly nine years after victim Virginia Giuffre filed a single defamation claim against Maxwell, daughter of the late British press baron Robert Maxwell, in 2015, that in turn produced the names in legal depositions.

A year later, in 2016, US district court judge Robert Sweet rejected Maxwell’s motion to dismiss the case, finding that “the veracity of a contextual world of facts more broad than the allegedly defamatory statements” and that Guiffre “was a victim of sustained underage sexual abuse between 1999 and 2002”. The parties settled out of court in 2017.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Out of curiosity, what exactly does being on this list mean?

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It will look bad on people who try to look ethical, but it will have no effect on those who don't. So the Clinton's would take a hit if Bill was on there, but Trump wouldn't be affected.

The right wing easily draws in one-issue voters since their primary issues are usually about taking away something from someone else, and so they don't require many resources and generally are accomplished more easily using unethical means than ethical ones. "It's just business," and all that.

Leftists tend to be more about building something rather than tearing it down. That's both more work and requires a lot of shared resources. So ethical practices are required to keep those resources from getting misused.

[–] DragonAce@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It will look bad on people who try to look ethical, but it will have no effect on those who don't. So the Clinton's would take a hit if Bill was on there.....

You mean Mr. Blowjob-in-the-Oval-Office?

[–] Goblin_Mode@ttrpg.network 7 points 1 year ago

Is getting a blowjob in the oval office unethical?

Like I know he cheated on his wife, which is unethical. But you chose to bring up the act of receiving the sloppiest top in that specific room as the damning factor and not the actual adultery which is a weird take.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

You mean Mr. Cheat-on-my-Pregnant-Wife-With-an-Immigrant?

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

In reality? Nothing, if there’s no further evidence of the individual’s participation in Epstein’s activities. Because of the shitload of people who encountered Epstein in various social settings without participating in his illegal activities (not saying they didn’t have knowledge of his activities which I assume was an open secret among the wealthy) it will be likely be impossible to pin individuals to crimes sufficient to result in a conviction in court. Plus, being rich and powerful is a disincentive for prosecutors to pursue crimes because of all the usual reasons.

So yeah. Nothing will happen to these people.

[–] bejergalbam@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I can't rule out "nothing" completely, with the knowledge I have. It's absolutely something we should see, though. It will sketch out the whole picture in a way that allows people to exonerate themselves or be further implicated. If it's specific enough for people to have alibis, then that's interesting, and if it's full of plausible allegations, then they could become more damning. Consider that the details of what people are "accused" is likely to vary - are they accused of being on a plane with other witnesses? Who is accused of having extensive opportunities to have committed abuses during their stay on the island? What was the pretense for their involvement with Epstein and Maxwell? It puts people in a position to explain what they did or did not know about Jeffrey Epstein at the time, and for those claims to be cross-checked, where possible. Close contacts of the accused may be prompted to add additional information from their recollections or records, if they learn that they had been lied to. Another possibility is that the allegations are frustratingly vague and don't actually create a clear picture of any criminal behavior.

[–] mako@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago

What knowledge do you have?

[–] psmgx@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That they were requested to testify or give testimony about their experiences related to Gislanes activity on Epsteins island.

They're asked to testify because of other people's testimony, flight logs, pictures, etc. that place them on the island at some point.

What they were doing there is debatable, but there are implications; at best they were hanging with a shady dude.