|
The Maroon Hawk posted:You will never convince me that there’s nothing shady about Epstein’s death and it could even just have been a guard who doesn't like mass rapists of children i'm agnostic on who had him murdered / functionally murdered, but the absolute floor here is "guards knowingly allowed him to kill himself for guard reasons" Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Aug 11, 2019 |
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
There's other aspects that could be playing into this as well that would potentially come to light in the future. For instance, Aaron Hernandez killed himself in prison because it looked likely to hurt civil litigation targeting his estate for wrongful deaths. Didn't play out that way, but sometimes offing yourself is the more painless route than staying alive when it comes to the legal system. We'll see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Narcissists kill themselves all the time, especially after dramatic losses. For instance, Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:Man accostumed to billionaire lifestyle imprisoned on charges of pedophilia, rape and sex trafficking reported to be in good spirits. It's not like it was his first time going to jail for trafficking underage girls. And prison wasn't exactly hell for him the last time around, with the authorities bending over backward to give him every kind of special treatment they could think of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's not like it was his first time going to jail for trafficking underage girls. And prison wasn't exactly hell for him the last time around, with the authorities bending over backward to give him every kind of special treatment they could think of. Conditions weren't nearly as nice this time and the feds were clearly annoyed by the previous deal. The NYT article is paywalled but I think this might actually have been his first time in Proper Jail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
I mean, we'll probably never know with certainty whether he was killed or killed himself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
if he killed himself, well, the state let him do it. so why'd they let him do it
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Conditions weren't nearly as nice this time and the feds were clearly annoyed by the previous deal. The only direct thing we've heard is someone reporting on someone else having heard that Epstein himself said he was attacked the first time. It's entirely possible that that account isn't true. But everything combined in this situation makes assuming that this was not a genuine suicide a far more reasonable default presumption. Basically the main argument here is on what the default assumption should be. People like you are choosing "what would feel the most normal" as your default "null hypothesis." But in this situation I see no logical reason to conclude that suicide is any more likely than him being killed. There's circumstantial evidence that could point towards either possibility, but, in my opinion, the first "failed attempt" definitely pushes "he was killed" into being the more plausible default. The issue with the sort of logic you and others are using is that it's a logic that would allow powerful people and institutions to get away with literally anything as long as they aren't stupid about it. Because you're setting "evidence provided by said institutions" as your basis for believing institutions and powerful people have done things like this. It's a sort of "might = right" ideology, when you boil it down. To put it another way, the downsides to Epstein having been killed and the circumstances of that not being exposed are greater than the downsides of him not having been killed and people assuming he was, particularly since it should not be difficult to provide proof that he killed himself in this situation (and the absence of video proof, if that is the case, is basically the sort of thing that is so conspicuous that it should serve as evidence that he was killed).
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
NYTs posted:And it was right around that time, according to Mr. Castillo and four other witnesses, that Russian television crews showed up, offering to pay immigrant youths “to make trouble” in front of the cameras. The Global Machine Behind the Rise of Far-Right Nationalism https://nyti.ms/2ZOLsXO
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 04:54
|
|
|
Here's a conspiracy theory: "Russia" didn't try to fuel anti-immigrant sentiment in Sweden. Nazis, domestic and abroad, did. The NYT is just trying to stoke anti-russian sentiment at the behest of the CIA to make us join NATO.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 05:15
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Here's a conspiracy theory: "Russia" didn't try to fuel anti-immigrant sentiment in Sweden. Nazis, domestic and abroad, did. The NYT is just trying to stoke anti-russian sentiment at the behest of the CIA to make us join NATO. Russia is run by hard right ultra capitalist Nazis and has been for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 05:37
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Obviously 34 wasn't enough so how many arrests/guilty pleas does it take for an investigation to not "fall through?" 50? 100? Sounds like this investigation is going to have to reap some serious fruit to meet up to your high standards of legitimacy. I don't really care about indictment quantum, I care about what any of it means going forward. It means nothing, so it was nothing. Volkerball posted:A number of people broke laws through this process, and while a lot of them are Russians in Russia and likely won't end up serving any time, a number were in America and are facing charges for not registering as foreign lobbyists. And a bunch of dipshit advisers with 0 ethics getting pegged for loving up along the way while trying to cover their asses is a nice cherry on top. I'm satisfied in the investigation, but I'm pretty bummed about how broke brain Americans handled it. It was a perfect opportunity to discuss the effects of foreign money and influence in subverting American democracy these days, from Russia to Israel to the UAE, and how to start countering such things and combat the effects of lobbying in general post-citizens united. But as with everything in this shithole, it just became another outlet for tribal warfare between a bunch of partisan morons who are just smart enough to argue past one another, but not nearly smart enough to think for themselves, who turned the whole thing into a useless, detached slapfight. And it's looking quite likely the epstein investigation is heading for the same fate. Reading absolutely zero subtext into this whatsoever, I agree with this generally. poo poo happened, there was an investigation, a few fall guys fell. I've been saying as much would happen as far back as December 2016. Unfortunately, the reporting (and to a far lesser but SA-specific extent, the posting) was what it was, and: quote:Anyone saying that the Trump administration for sure collaborated with the Russian government was going out on a limb to say the least given there was no direct proof from the get go, but every other aspect of the investigation was proven true. I mean, yeah. Except for the minor detail of the key pillar of the case, and all those glowing fishes and pillows pants who look dumb as hell now, the case mostly panned out as it should've. A pity nobody will learn anything from it but: oh well. Anyway, a slave trader and bipartisan bundler who built a temple to Poseidon was taken off suicide watch and then killed himself during a camera malfunction. It's all probably just a coincidence though. He just wanted the easy way out, bing bong so simple
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 05:55
|
|
|
i was in the process of getting annoyed about this but then clicked the little question mark under my name and realized i've only made some passing comments about Epstein in this thread I'm agnostic on [committed suicide / was pushed to commit suicide / was killed] [by the guards because they didn't like him / on the orders of [god loving knows who]], and am disinclined to accept anything short of a really thorough investigation as 100% true for sure. On the plus side, the FBI going after him a second time is a good sign and they generally get annoyed about people killing their witnesses, so maybe the Pedophile Conspiracy isn't out of the woods yet even in terms of the normal functioning of federal law enforcement. For eg tomorrow as far as us peasants go, I wonder if this is a call-your-congressman sort of thing, or just a public-sentiment-torches-and-pitchforks sort of thing. Willie Tomg posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 06:13
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if he killed himself or was killed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 06:17
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:
Nah man, we've got America's best and brightest on it, we've got *briefly wikis US DoJ* Oh no. Oh god no... OH GOD NO! BrandorKP posted:It doesn't matter if he killed himself or was killed. That it really kind of doesn't is why it's so perfect for this particular thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 06:18
|
|
|
I anticipate the guy whose dad got Epstein his start in child sex slavery is going to look real loving close at how things went
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 06:22
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It doesn't matter if he killed himself or was killed. Yep! Willie Tomg posted:Nah man, we've got America's best and brightest on it, we've got *briefly wikis US DoJ* well then i guess that leads to an obvious conclusion of where i'm going to arrive at, doesn't it
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 06:23
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:well then i guess that leads to an obvious conclusion of where i'm going to arrive at, doesn't it Quite! Cowardly noncommittal whinging at nothing in particular.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 06:30
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This is true but not in the way the Russiagaters thought it would be. The 'extent' of the Internet Research Agency's activities were completely incommensurate with the feverish claims that were relentlessly broadcast in the media. The alleged hack of the DNC would have been at least theoretically consequential to the election but since federal authorities were never even given access to the hacked server all we have to go on as far as attributions go are the statements of a private firm with a financial interest in appeasing the DNC and a noted track record of screwing up previous cyber attributions. We're left with at best a circumstantially coherent account that people now treat as proven fact. First of all, it's servers It does not seem like you know what you are talking about. https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-missing-dnc-server-is-neither-missing-nor-a-server It's fairly standard in IT-forensics to take images of the affected servers as it's very common for intruders to hide their traces after they're done. IIRC the Mueller indictments had actual searches/keystrokes from the GRU officers who hacked the DNC network, I believe that Crowdstrike would not have the ability to get that information, so Mueller did his own research into the matter, it's not just about what Crowdstrike provided. For example, from the indictments: quote:On or about June 15, 2016, the Conspirators logged into a Moscow—based server used and managed by Unit74455 and, between 4:19PM and 4:56PM Moscow Standard Time, searched for certain words and phrases, including: There is no way Crowdstrike could provide this kind of information. but ofc the indictments aren't reliable and muellermanbad! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 09:42
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:
The Justice Department repeatedly asked for and was denied access to the physical servers themselves. Their analysis of the DNC hack was based on the assessment given to them by Crowd Strike. The "internet forensics" here mostly entails arguing that if two hacks involved the same piece of malware then they may have been performed by the same hacker/s. It's an inherently sketchy process at the best of times and not comparable to the kind of forensic analysis people associate with finger printing or identifying which gun fired a bullet. Multiple groups might use the same software, or software previously used by one group might escape 'into the wild' and be used by other groups. You say here that I am claiming that "nobody knows the extent of Russian efforts". That is not what I said. There's plenty we don't know still, or haveo nly vague intimations of, but we know enough to start drawing some conclusions. Everything we have learned so far tells us that the activities of the Internet Research Agency and related stories about fake rallies and twitter bots were completely our of proportion to the media frenzy that they created. We do in fact know something about the IRA or at least what the government's case against the IRA is based on court documents and media releases and what we do know ought to deflate most of the alarmism people felt about the IRA. As for the documents you linked: they are indictments. Even worse, they are indictments prepared in a highly politicized case by people who know full well that these claims will never be tested in court. Prepared under the oversight of a man whose past testimony directly helped to establish the false WMD narrative that justified the invasion of Iraq. Regarding Cambridge Analytica: you are doing exactly what I predicted, making vague alarmist statements that aren't concrete enough to commit you to any specific belief. Instead of vaguely insinuating that we know that something sinister happened why don't you just, you know, make an argument for what you think happened, based on the best evidence available? Jyppe posted:First of all, it's servers I mean, Comey himself acknowledged that the FBI made repeated requests for access to the physical servers that were denied. CBS News posted:The FBI requested access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) servers and servers for other Democratic entities that were hacked during the 2016 election, FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday, but its request was not met. quote:Asked by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) whether direct access to the servers and devices would have helped the FBI in their investigation, Comey said it would. In addition to this, a statement of fact from court documents relating to the Roger Stone trial tells us that the CrowdStrike report given to the FBI appears to have been incomplete and was stilled marked as a "draft" when it was turned over: GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL UNREDACTED CROWDSTRIKE REPORTS; US v. Stone posted:By May 2016, the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (“DCCC”) became aware that their computer systems had been compromised by intrusions, and they hired the cybersecurity company CrowdStrike to identify the extent of the intrusions and mitigate the threat. On June 14, 2016, the DNC, via CrowdStrike, publicly announced that it had been hacked by Russian government actors. See, Washington Post, D.N.C. Says Russian Hackers Penetrated Its Files, Including Dossier on Donald Trump, June 14, 2016, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/russian-hackers-dnc-trump.html. At the direction of the DNC and DCCC’s legal counsel, CrowdStrike prepared three draft reports.(1) Copies of these reports were subsequently produced voluntarily to the government by counsel for the DNC and DCCC. (2) At the time of the voluntary production, counsel for the DNC told the government that the redacted material concerned steps taken to remediate the attack and to harden the DNC and DCCC systems against future attack. According to counsel, no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors. The government has also provided defense counsel the opportunity to review additional reports obtained from CrowdStrike related to the hack. quote:IIRC the Mueller indictments had actual searches/keystrokes from the GRU officers who hacked the DNC network, I believe that Crowdstrike would not have the ability to get that information, so Mueller did his own research into the matter, it's not just about what Crowdstrike provided. So basically this all comes down to whether you consider Mueller trustworthy and reliable. That's literally all you're going on. That Mueller included information that presumably must have come from somewhere and that since he included it we should treat it as proven. quote:
This is just pathetic. You know perfectly well that an indictment isn't a conviction - especially not an indictment prepared under highly politicized circumstances for a trial that will never happen because the defendant lives on another continent. Mueller is extremely untrustworthy and has a specific history of lying about national security issues. He was directly involved in making the case for WMDs in Iraq. Are you even going to try and justify this or are you thinking that if you are snarky enough somehow that will disguise the inherent ridiculousness of your position?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Here's a conspiracy theory: "Russia" didn't try to fuel anti-immigrant sentiment in Sweden. Nazis, domestic and abroad, did. The NYT is just trying to stoke anti-russian sentiment at the behest of the CIA to make us join NATO. The correct assertion that white supremacy is even more American than Russian isn’t profitable for defense contractors, though. And Epstein was one connected motherfucker: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/15/jeffrey-epstein-and-the-collapse-of-europe/
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
tylersayten posted:The correct assertion that white supremacy is even more American than Russian isn’t profitable for defense contractors, though. Confusing correlation with causation is what makes most conspiracy theories stupid. Defense contractors have nothing to do with this other than the fact that they naturally profit from nationalism and xenophobia and attract nationalists and xenophobes. They don't need to tell the nationalists and xenophobes in the press what to do because they already think alike. Also that article is dumb as hell. Completely meaningless drivel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Confusing correlation with causation is what makes most conspiracy theories stupid. Defense contractors have nothing to do with this other than the fact that they naturally profit from nationalism and xenophobia and attract nationalists and xenophobes. They don't need to tell the nationalists and xenophobes in the press what to do because they already think alike. The right-wing media machine in this country has been pushing white nationalism into the Republican Party since the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s. They dominate the radio and TV with Fox, not to mention the explicit fascism produced by BreitBart News since 2007. Now they’re all over loving social media and YouTube. Blaming all this on Russia instead of what is really is: good ol’ homegrown American fascism enabled on a bipartisan basis, is much more convenient to literally only the media, military, and political establishments, primarily for embarrassment and survival reasons. It’s almost like Democrats lose when they can’t even look the Republican Party in the eye and call them what they are. In this case, fascists running on explicit white nationalism. But it’s originating from Russia -liberals
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
tylersayten posted:The right-wing media machine in this country has been pushing white nationalism into the Republican Party since the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s. They dominate the radio and TV with Fox, not to mention the explicit fascism produced by BreitBart News since 2007. Now they’re all over loving social media and YouTube. Blaming all this on Russia instead of what is really is: good ol’ homegrown American fascism enabled on a bipartisan basis, is much more convenient to literally only the media, military, and political establishments, primarily for embarrassment and survival reasons. It’s almost like Democrats lose when they can’t even look the Republican Party in the eye and call them what they are. In this case, fascists running on explicit white nationalism. why not both.gif tankies
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
tylersayten posted:The right-wing media machine in this country has been pushing white nationalism into the Republican Party since the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s. They dominate the radio and TV with Fox, not to mention the explicit fascism produced by BreitBart News since 2007. Now they’re all over loving social media and YouTube. Blaming all this on Russia instead of what is really is: good ol’ homegrown American fascism enabled on a bipartisan basis, is much more convenient to literally only the media, military, and political establishments, primarily for embarrassment and survival reasons. It’s almost like Democrats lose when they can’t even look the Republican Party in the eye and call them what they are. In this case, fascists running on explicit white nationalism. Russiagate only works because the US is a two-party state, and already a bit fascist on both sides of the aisle. The Sweden Democrats actually rose pretty suddenly, yet the rest of the parties and the media has no problems vilifying them without making up their own xenophobic narratives. The immense irony is that the only way for Russia to actually stoke racist and fascist rhetoric in America is by making themselves the target.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 12:00
|
|
|
predicto posted:why not both.gif I don’t know about you, but I’d much prefer confronting a bipartisan status quo full of fascists and fascist enablers on the home front for the historic problems facing this country than going down the unaccountable, far-right ethos route of achieving national rejuvenation by blaming another country for our own internal problems and contradictions in the body politic. It’s also a much more winnable strategy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
predicto posted:why not both.gif You are using the logic of "if X made a non-zero contribution to something, you must assume that the contribution was meaningful and had some non-negligible effect." This is not even remotely logical (especially when there's a very clear and obvious explanation for the existence of right-wing politics in the US that doesn't require Russian involvement). The burden of proof is on you and others to prove the significance of Russia's efforts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:You are using the logic of "if X made a non-zero contribution to something, you must assume that the contribution was meaningful and had some non-negligible effect." This is not even remotely logical (especially when there's a very clear and obvious explanation for the existence of right-wing politics in the US that doesn't require Russian involvement). The burden of proof is on you and others to prove the significance of Russia's efforts. I have read the entire thread. There is no possible evidence that would convince some of the posters in this thread of anything, because it has become an article of faith that acknowledging anything about Russian involvement is a tacit defense of Hillary Clinton's campaign, the mainstream media, and anything else that these posters hate even more than they hate Trump. And I've seen at least one person catch a temp ban for trying to do it. So no thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
predicto posted:I have read the entire thread. There is no possible evidence that would convince some of the posters in this thread of anything, because it has become an article of faith that acknowledging anything about Russian involvement is a tacit defense of Hillary Clinton's campaign, the mainstream media, and anything else that these posters hate even more than they hate Trump. The only evidence in support of the hacking narrative are completely opaque assessments by intelligence agencies, anonymous leaks in newspapers and a set of indictments prepared for a trial that was never going to happen. In addition to this we've got the actions of the Internet Research Agency which may have been working on behalf of the Russian government. We do have some pretty good knowledge of what the IRA did and it appears to have been an uninspired marketing campaign using extremely mundane and well understood techniques to test the reach and impact of different messages or images. Also, virtually everything we know has been filtered directly through the hands of men who had a direct and prominent role in lying about national security issues in the build up to the Iraq war and the revelations about the NSA spying scandal. The funny thing is the hacking may very well have happened exactly as described. I'm a lot more agnostic on core elements of the Russia narrative than people would probably expect from my posts, because I actually try to take a principed approach to questions like this one. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the major claims about the DNC hack and the IRA are true as stated: it would still be incredibly important to have these discussions about how we know about it and how confident we can be in that knowledge. The process is extremely important. There's a reason that we don't just leave it to the government to determine guilt or innocence in a free society. Even when we know someone is guilty they have to be found guilty in the correct and transparent way. That's what the rule of law means, that's what transparent government requires. The citizens of a free country need to be vigilant and this is what vigilance looks like. Not accepting convenient or plausible sounding explanations when a full explanation is required. Especially since in the case of Russiagate there have been so many exaggerations, so many misleading headlines, so many overhyped stories that went nowhere. Anyone with basic media literacy should look at how the press handled this and be extremely suspicious and uncomfortable with how little scrutiny was applied to some of these claims. The worst part is that these are supposed to be quintessentially liberal values. But I guess these fusty old notions that citizens shouldn't rely on opaque secret courts and classified investigations are things that only a tankie believe in now. quote:And I've seen at least one person catch a temp ban for trying to do it. So no thanks. Uhm, no? Who are you even thinking of?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 03:56
|
|
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-jail-officers.html This is just incompetent enough to be plausible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 14:02
|
|
|
Funny how the prison was too underfunded to have enough guards but somehow had enough cells available to transfer away Epstein's cellmate and not replace them for the three days leading up to his death.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 14:41
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Funny how the prison was too underfunded to have enough guards but somehow had enough cells available to transfer away Epstein's cellmate and not replace them for the three days leading up to his death. What conspiracy does that even link to? Why would they need to clear out the cell for multiple days to secretly murder him? Why not just clear the cell for an hour during the murder? or like, put him in a cell with a scary dude then crack him on the head with a police baton at night and put him back in his bed then say "this prisoner killed him!" or just have the guy actually murder him, either paid off or just a violent guy that kills pedophiles or whatever. Why the ultra complex plan of staging days and days of prep on a thing there is a million ways to do without suspicious prepwork?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 14:48
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What conspiracy does that even link to? Why would they need to clear out the cell for multiple days to secretly murder him? Why not just clear the cell for an hour during the murder? or like, put him in a cell with a scary dude then crack him on the head with a police baton at night and put him back in his bed then say "this prisoner killed him!" or just have the guy actually murder him, either paid off or just a violent guy that kills pedophiles or whatever. Why the ultra complex plan of staging days and days of prep on a thing there is a million ways to do without suspicious prepwork? The ultra complex plan and onerous prep of moving a guy to another cell. Also I like how this is the time where we should be so intensely suspicious that even the concept of not wanting to have witnesses around when you commit a murder is an impossibility.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
Well thank God the prison was slightly cost-inefficient when arranging Epstein to be alone, no need to investigate this convenient suicide of a witness that is obviously in the interests of rich and powerful criminals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What conspiracy does that even link to? Why would they need to clear out the cell for multiple days to secretly murder him? Why not just clear the cell for an hour during the murder? or like, put him in a cell with a scary dude then crack him on the head with a police baton at night and put him back in his bed then say "this prisoner killed him!" or just have the guy actually murder him, either paid off or just a violent guy that kills pedophiles or whatever. Why the ultra complex plan of staging days and days of prep on a thing there is a million ways to do without suspicious prepwork? It's not definitive proof of anything but it is a suspicious irregularity and should be treated as such. There is a protocol that says any prisoner with Epstein's status is supposed to have a cellmate at all times. We've been told that the Justice Department was given a specific assurance that Epstein would have a cellmate and would be checked on every 30 minutes. The fact that so many different overlapping safeguards all conspicuously failed clearly invites a lot of scrutiny, especially since it seems like under staffing would occur in conditions of overcrowding not the opposite. According to this story the prison was designed to hold 449 inmates but currently houses 760. Seems odd that in these conditions they still managed to find a way to break their own protocol with Epstein. As for your other questions, I think your intuition is just off here and that all the scenarios you are suggesting would actually be at least as, if not much more, complicated and difficult to pull off. I'm going to suggest my own thoughts on why your suggestions don't make a lot of sense but I want to preface this by saying everything that follows is extremely speculative and isn't my attempt to lay out a definitive account of what happened, or should it be read as me saying that Epstein was definitely killed rather than having committed suicide. Asking why they didn't just clear Epstein's cell for an hour assumes that any hypothetical conspirators had total 24/7 control over conditions inside the prison and were able to precisely coordinate exactly what guards and prisoners were doing down to the minute. That level of coordination would almost certainly entail more active and knowledgeable co-conspirators than would be required to simply have Epstein isolated. So perhaps it was easier to arrange things so that Epstein was alone for several days. It would still be suspicious, but much less so than clearing his cell for the one specific hour in which he died. That way they could wait for the right guards to be on duty (or off duty if there was maybe a particular guard you didn't want on staff because you don't consider them reliable). Besides which, saying Epstein was murdered would necessitate a deeper level of scrutiny than if he committed suicide. While a suicide will still trigger an investigation, that investigation is likely much easier to control than a full on murder trial in which there's a defense counsel and a very public process of discovery. So it would be very awkward to just randomly frame an inmate who wasn't cooperative with the plan. Indeed, this may be what happened with Nicholas Tartaglione (though there are many other ways of explaining that very weird incident). Maybe Taraglione was the original assassin but for some reason the first attack failed. Perhaps after that failure they didn't have immediate access to a second reliable hit man willing to eat a conviction (since Tartaglione was already busted for multiple homicides he would have, in this hypothetical scenario, been more than happy to eat another murder warp, but perhaps when he failed they didn't have a second guy available within the necessary time frame). Isolating Epstein, clearing his guards for the night and having someone strangle him might have been a panicked plan B following the unexpected failure of the first attempt. Or maybe not. We lack so much basic information right now that this entire discussion is inherently sketchy and we ought to never let that fact far from our minds. This is also probably going to end up being a distraction from the much more serious question of what exactly Epstein was doing up until the time he was arrested for the second time. Even if we get a completely reliable explanation of why he committed suicide those questions will remain and will be incredibly serious. In fact my concern right now is that the media will herd people into fixating on the exact details of the circumstances of his alleged suicide and that this focus will obscure the much more pressing question about who Epstein was working for or on behalf of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
Pretty funny to see people claim no collusion with Trump yet immediately claim murder here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
What's really funny is that the same crew of posters who kept insisting that the Russiagate investigation would totally facilitate a larger discussion about elite corruption and entanglement with foreign intelligence agencies are suddenly extremely eager to downplay one of the most explosive scandals in American history, a scandal that actually does threaten to blow the lid off some of the kinds of actions that the Russiagaters were supposedly hyper concerned and vigilant about. It certainly raises questions about priorities. Even if Epstein was merely allowed to kill himself - either intentionally or out of institutional incompetence - that would be almost incidental to the larger scandal that - big surprise - they have no real interest in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
Helsing posted:What's really funny is that the same crew of posters who kept insisting that the Russiagate investigation would totally facilitate a larger discussion about elite corruption and entanglement with foreign intelligence agencies are suddenly extremely eager to downplay one of the most explosive scandals in American history, a scandal that actually does threaten to blow the lid off some of the kinds of actions that the Russiagaters were supposedly hyper concerned and vigilant about. Sorry bro Mueller didn't say Epstein was murdered so clearly nothing happened. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Helsing posted:What's really funny is that the same crew of posters who kept insisting that the Russiagate investigation would totally facilitate a larger discussion about elite corruption and entanglement with foreign intelligence agencies are suddenly extremely eager to downplay one of the most explosive scandals in American history, a scandal that actually does threaten to blow the lid off some of the kinds of actions that the Russiagaters were supposedly hyper concerned and vigilant about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 19:03
|
|