As someone from the other side of the pond, I have to ask: what do people expect from all of this?
It feels like this is a big smoke screen used by the current admin, first to be reelected, and now to distract people from what they are actually doing (like repeating they decreased drugs price by 600%, that they ended dozens of wars while dropping bombs daily all around the World...).
It also looks like it allows everyone to peek in other's people lives, which feels quite disturbing. Sure, some of them were/are terrible people. But there's also the victims here. Furthermore, is it how justice should work? Share everything to the world, and let everyone make their own judgement based on what they see?
Is there going to be some actual outcome? Both for the victims and for their offenders?
Or is it just a show where everyone can see them as detective/judge?
Just to add a bit more context: after years of trials, one of our former President finally went to jail for a few weeks. And now, they're invited by media all over the country so they can complain about how unfair it was, they published a book about it, sold in the tens of thousands, their son is the new TV's favorite...
So I'm wondering: is it actual justice at work, or just a distraction while nothing change and nobody is actually held accountable?
They are being forced to release the files by a new law passed by congress. This is malicious compliance and they’re not actually releasing what they’re supposed to be releasing.
Rich people are hiding their crimes against children with corruption. This law seeks to reveal this corruption. Why is that wrong?
Exactly.
>Share everything to the world, and let everyone make their own judgement based on what they see?
What's the alternative to this? They don't share all the information with the world and we're expected to believe their evaluation of the evidence?
We have to believe their evaluation no matter what, they're only releasing what they decide to release and can redact along the way.
Only certain redactions are allowed under this law, so it’s not so cut and dry. There is an enforcement mechanism, tbd if it actually gets used.
The public in this case is effectively a defense attorney waiting for discovery - we only get what the other side determined to be worth providing and catching them breaking the law is extremely difficult.
Very true - the one caveat being that certain people know of the existence of things that should be published - lots of way to trip yourself up and get caught if you’re trying to conceal things or otherwise improperly redact information.
The law specifies which redactions are legal. The enforcement mechanism, IIRC, comes through obstruction.
I certainly don't believe their evaluation.
There's the police and the criminal justice system for that.
I suggest you post your e-mail login details and here and a dump of the contents of your phone, then all of HN can all check through and see what crimes you're guilty of.
I'm sure you'll say you haven't committed any crimes, but why should we be expected to believe you if you don't share all your information with the world?
> There's the police and the criminal justice system for that.
Well yes, however there was an orchestrated effort to convince people that the system is not working. That effort was successful enough to generate public interest we observe now. Beyond morbid curiosity, there is a belief that the exposure may force the system to do now what it was supposed to do in the first place
This is all supposedly Epstein's property. Dead people have a very short list of rights or things that resemble rights that belong to their estate. Privacy and protection from slander aren't among those rights. You could argue that digging him up and gratuitously posting pictures of a postmortem would violate the right to dignity for corporeal remains. But apart from that, if you emailed Jeffrey, he has no power to keep that correspondence private.
When you sue someone, you can subpoena for evidence. Any evidence from that presented to the court is then public record. The police and criminal justice system doesn’t usually enforce privacy like that in criminal proceedings.
Are you trying to say that these documents shouldn’t be public because it violates someone’s right to privacy?
I would agree that anyone who is specifically named in an Act of Congress requiring that to happen, which Act is then duly signed into law[1], should release their information. That doesn't currently apply to anyone other than the late Jeffrey Epstein, so we are all good.
1 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4405
But there's no reasonable indication that the person you're replying to has committed any crime, while there is evidence that some of the people on Epstein's list, including Trump, have committed crimes. In fact, Trump made a big deal of asserting this, back when he didn't expect this to blow back on him.
It's not the same to ask for public disclosure for people likely to be involved in a crime, for which there is at least some initial (albeit inconclusive) evidence than it is to ask the same of a random person for which there is no evidence at all.
> Just to add a bit more context: after years of trials, one of our former President finally went to jail for a few weeks. And now, they're invited by media all over the country so they can complain about how unfair it was, they published a book about it, sold in the tens of thousands, their son is the new TV's favorite...
Haha I was wondering where this other side of the pond was. This leaves no doubt. Quelle indignité.
For others: it's Sarkozy they are referring to, who was sentenced to 5 years of prison but spent only 20 days in it. He's free until his next trial. For having colluded with terrorists.
Sarkozy is out because in France you're free until proven guilty, unless you represent a risk to society or have a high risk of fleeing, neither apply to him, hence he's free until the final verdict
The other poster said sarkozy was sentenced to 5 years. How was that not the result of having been found guilty? I understand there are more trials to follow but do not see why that would free him.
Because you can appeal a decision, and a verdict isn't final until every legal options have been pursued, appeal being one of them
It's simple really, but if course it's not as outrageous and can't be used as rage bait
Wait, in France the sentencing is done before trial? Why would he already be sentenced to 5 years without first being tried or convicted?
You can appeal, and until every legal options have been pursued a verdict is not final. Since you're innocent until proven guilty, and you cannot be guilty untill all options have been pursued, you're free until the appeal has been completed.
No, he was convicted, put in prison, appealed the verdict and was released after 20 days waiting for the next trial
There was a special law (that his party voted for btw) that added sentencing enhancements for the specific crime he did iirc
It's surprisingly often the case that criminals assume everyone else is doing what they're doing, and want harsh punishments for it.
(see also: the rates of homosexuality among homophobes)
Sarkozy is the whiniest bitch imaginable, and then he even has the gall to write a book about his prison experience.
Someone wrote in Le Monde, "it's like a man writing a feminist essay because he emptied the dish washer once", and that sums it up pretty well.
It's interesting to see where the "too famous to prosecute" line lies. So far the highest profile casualty seems to have been Prince Andrew - as a result of the files, and NOT as a result of his actual court case with Virginia Giuffre, which he settled before her suicide.
Maybe it's possible. Berlusconi was brought down by his habit of young women eventually hitting one under 18.
When Berlusconi died, the current Italian government declared a national day of mourning broadcasted on national television. Never went to prison, convicted only 1 time for tax fraud, a lot of his quotes and videos are great source of memes that make the younger generations laugh (owning the Milan football helped him to be liked by younger people).
Please American people don't do the same mistakes as we did. It's like watching a remake (or a parody) of the same horror movie.
There needs to be a RICO case on the entire criminal abuse network which operated as an open secret for over three decades.
Andrew Windsor needs to be extradited to the US and face trial.
We need a referendum about whether we want child rape to be a tool of US policy. I say no.
> Andrew Windsor needs to be extradited to the US and face trial.
Reciprocity is a thing...
Yes! I don't understand how any American can support this kind of hypocrisy. For those who didn't know
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn
I want to see a tax audit.
Epstein was running what he said was legal tax avoidance system for his clients.
I'm not saying they were breaking any laws in it, but Epstein is a dodgy guy (also he used to be involved in IIRC a Ponzi scheme and was previously sacked from a big firm - red flags galore with this guy) and the scheme worked off asset prices and trusts.
If a bunch of billionaires could manipulate asset prices (selling illiquid assets like mansions and artwork between each other and their trusts) I suspect they could really bring down their tax bills. This would be illegal (I think) but you'd need to untangle a large web of transactions to prove it.
> I want to see a tax audit.
Yes. IMHO, the parts that they really don't want to come out are the financial ties. It's the connections of money (and power and influence) that is being covered up, more then the child sex crimes that are now known.
The tax fraud can get a conviction, since there's a paper trail, and juries are more likely to think "yeah this billionaire might not be a monster but they probably cheated in their taxes".
Epstein didn't rape any children, he had a harem of young women. Some of the women were under 18, but all of them were old enough to be held responsible for their part in the crime, that is, being prostitutes. Many even have admitted to comitting "child" sex trafficking by inviting girls from their high schools to be prostitutes.
> after years of trials, one of our former President finally went to jail for a few weeks. And now, they're invited by media all over the country so they can complain about how unfair it was, they published a book about it, sold in the tens of thousands, their son is the new TV's favorite..
Yeah this is insightful. Another dictator went to jail in 1920s for staging a coup and used that time for writing his manifesto and getting sympathy from his followers. Some times (often these days) politics just lives on a plane outside the justice system. And it is really creepy.
The victims themselves want the files to be released. Also, we all know how terrible politicians are, but the whole of public opinion should be made aware of how low the bar is.
Do you know Berlusconi, from the Italian government? He was the Italian version of Donald Trump, and he was involved in a lot of scandals at the time, including being involved with the mafia and, you guessed it, underage girls.
I think for the duration of this four year term, at the very least, nothing will happen. But there's a bit of hope (possibly cope) that if these people accept an election loss in 2028 and voters keep this anger going, people involved may be charged and imprisoned.
History shows that it never happens in America and politicians always drop the "it's time for our nation to heal" line, but if the pendulum swings as far in the other direction as it did in the 2024 election, maybe things will be different. And the only hope of that happening is for people to stay pissed.
One thing I will say is the outrage about this has lasted longer than I initially imagined. America has had a lot of "this controversy won't be forgotten!" stuff that nobody remembers 2 months later. In contrast, I feel like this has been steadily ramping up and maintaining some degree of inertia for 2 years. Will it burn out by 2028? Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised. It was washed out of the news by trans people playing sports and that was somehow the biggest issue in the world. 2028 will undoubtedly have some weird "problem" that we can't yet imagine.
as history has proceeded these past 10 years, I am pretty confident american voters will have forgotten all about in 2028, assuming they still get to vote by then. Right now, I don't have faith in them to remember the purpose when they reach for the toilet paper roll,once they grab it :-/
"accept election loss" is a wild string of words, but such are th etimes we live in.
Regarding this error:
> like repeating they decreased drugs price by 600%
The NYT and other media outlets like to point out that this claim is mathematically impossible. However, “cut prices by 600%” is understood perfectly well by most people (but not pedants) to mean “we undid price hikes of 600%.”
I suspect that this phrasing was chosen as a “wedge” to drive home to the MAGA faithful that the news media is biased against them.
Does that logic apply only when the claimed cut is over 100%?
If I advertise that my store "cut prices by 50%" but the prices are actually only 33% lower (which is the same as undoing a 50% price hike), would it be pedantic to call me out on my bullshit?
> Does that logic apply only when the claimed cut is over 100%?
Yes, I’d say.
It’s the same as the informal usage of “X times smaller” to describe scaling by 1/X. The idiom generally isn’t used unless X > 1. (The exception might be when several values of X are reported together. Then one might say “0.74 times smaller” to maintain parallel form with nearby “4 times smaller” and similar claims.)
You ignored the 2nd part of their message, imagine this:
> We cut prices by 50%! Before $30, now $20
Would it be pedantic to call that price cut bullshit?
Sorry, I thought that my answer to the second question was implied by my answer to the first question.
To answer your question, no, it would not be pedantic to question that claim. It conforms to no common usage that I am aware of.
> It conforms to no common usage that I am aware of.
It conforms to:
> “cut prices by 600%” is understood perfectly well by most people (but not pedants) to mean “we undid price hikes of 600%.”
which I agree is no common usage that I am aware of
No, it does not conform. As I wrote earlier, I have not seen that usage for less than 100%. So 600% conforms; 50% does not.
That is, expressions like "twice as slow/thin/short/..." or "2x as slow/thin/short/..." or "200% as slow/thin/short/..." have a well-established usage that is understood to mean "half as fast/thick/tall/..."
But "50% as slow/thin/short/..." or "half as slow/thin/short/..." have no such established usage.
For some evidence to support my claim, please see this 2008 discussion on Language Log:
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=463#:~:text=A%20fur...
Since HN has a tendency to trim URLs and might prevent this link from taking you to the relevant portion of a rather lengthy article, I'll quote the salent bits:
"A further complexity: in addition to the N times more/larger than usage, there is also a N times less/lower than [to mean] '1/Nth as much as' usage"
"[About this usage, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage reports that] times has now been used in such constructions for about 300 years, and there is no evidence to suggest that it has ever been misunderstood."
> I have not seen that usage for less than 100%. So 600% conforms; 50% does not.
> For some evidence to support my claim
Please note that the 2008 discussion you linked does not support your claim in any way, so 50% does conform.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
I believe that the history of English language usage is replete with examples such as "X times less than" when X > 1, but similar constructions for X <= 1 do not appear with appreciable frequency.
In any case, I think that continuing our conversation is unlikely to be productive, so this will be my last reply.
I will just say in closing that our conversation is a good example of why the MAGA folks have probably chosen phrasing such as this.
To be fair our conversation can be summarized as:
> only pedants misunderstand this, here's a 2 decade old source that doesn't support my claim, I rather not continue the conversation
so it was never meant to be productive
I've had the same exact feeling for a while: several people known to be in the files are not the purest people we know and I'm not sure them being there will have any effect whatsoever. Taking Trump, what would really change to his image? All his supporters are already ok with the stuff he did/said and his opponents are already against him.
All his political/business allies won't easily switch as they stay his connections and money, not his clean image.
It just feels like a real-life reality show to keep the news flowing and people just enough bewildered and curious to keep coming back for more. Basically the perfect material for a while.
Especially with all the hyper redacted parts, groups can start literally reading between the lines and make unfounded allegations to create even more clicks.
I think Trump being shown with underage girls (or irrefutably implicated in pedophilia) would damage his reputation with his MAGA fanbase. It's the one thing they won't forgive him for, if enough evidence is provided. They already clashed over this, with Trump lashing out against his supporters because of this, seemingly the only crack in their unflinching loyalty.
I think it's what happens when you cultivate a conspiratorial fanbase: eventually the conspiracies will mention you.
I’m not so sure. After years of ignoring every other sign, what would it take for them to believe? His suggestive comments about his own daughter on multiple occasions, his opinion of 12-year old Paris Hilton, his mentioning 12 years old as a limit with Howard Stern[1], turning up in beauty pageant changing rooms, the “grab em by the p*ssy” tape, the swerving between Epstein case is a hoax to frame him vs. it’s real but only implicates Democrats.
I think of JD Vance, when Trump’s Epstein birthday card had been described but not released, he scoffed they didn’t provide an image. Weeks later, we had an image released by Congress, so then JD Vance tweaked his arguments a bit but still denies basically everything. The evidence he requested did not change his mind anyway. Trump’s supporters, for the most part, will say it’s AI, faked images, paid liars, mentally ill accusers, Trump haters, fake news, Trump was only there to inform on Democrats, it’s not what it looks like, the media is lying about girls’ birthdates, etc etc before they’ll ever admit he’s a sick man. If they wanted to believe that, the evidence is already there.
Personally I have a fair amount of doubt that he has committed a crime against a minor, but he is obviously lecherous and well below the supposed moral sexual standards of many of his supporters. It should not matter to them whether a 60+ year old married man only peeks and banters about young girls or if he has actually touched them. If they’re still around, it will take a lot to snap them out of it.
[1] I know he didn’t actually say that 13 is okay or whatever, but what kind of pervert or fool jumps all the way down to 12 when asked? Way below the lowest age of consent in the States. This should be disqualifying on the grounds of horrendously bad judgment to phrase it that way in public, let alone what it may or may not reveal about his criminality.
I agree many Trump supporters will be able to spin -- even if just to themselves -- any damning news no matter what (especially in this age of easily spoofed photos and videos) but still, puzzlingly enough, his voting fanbase actually made the Epstein files a thing, so much that he publicly lashed against them when they wouldn't let go. It was the one crack in his armor, the only (mild) falling out with them he's ever had. Do you remember this?
I think Trump made the Epstein conspiracy such a thing, it's now hard to disentangle from the minds of his MAGA supporters. All it takes is for some of his political rivals (from within the party) to fan the flames.
I'm not sure about what Trump actually did, and we have no solid proof. I can only guess, judging from how the man behaves, and his general attitudes toward lying and women.
It does seem like the most significant schism he’s had, with Massie, MTG, and some podcasters etc defecting over this. I may be out-of-date. But I don’t think it’s gone very far though, considering some of these defections are considered to be career suicides, and that he got away with reneging on one of the party’s big bogeymen that just happened to be his former best friend. If this was a big weakness, there would be screams for impeachment and ditching him.
Agreed on the general principle of building your movement on conspiracy theories of the elite and then becoming elite. The situation is even worse for him; he was already friends with the subject of the conspiracy theory long before the public at large even knew about it, and then by some combination of bad luck and hubris he let the party chase the conspiracy. We’ll see if there’s anything bad for him in there that sees the light of day, and what his opposition makes of it.
Yes I‘m also watching with disbelief. Even more so since media attention in the EU about it seems higher than in the US. Although the recent trove I found especially disturbing.
I recently watched a documentary where elites from beginning of the 20th century were also portrayed. Self-portrayed as Philanthropists. Moral bankruptcy became obvious, although in other manifestations such as shooting members of worker unions. And the US government did something in form of the New Deal, splitting monopolies and other policies.
In an optimistic scenario I’d expect something similar. New ways to hold elites accountable and keeping extreme differences in wealth in check.
Thanks for writing this. I also feel disturbing such morbid outlook to someone’s private digital life.
Sarkozy is free on appeal, not like he was pardoned or found unaccountable
I think your underlying question comes down to a relationship with the media, accountability and prosperity
By distraction, I think that’s media driven, can be ignored. State actions are transparent enough that you dont need the media to tell you what to pay attention to
In some religious dogma, Prosperity is tied to good deeds, conformity to what collaborative for society. With the expected contrary being suffering.
Seen as “Prosperity Preaching” in Christianity, the concept of karma outside of Abrahamic religions. This is a fiction that has never matched the real world so once that expectation is dropped it will be easier to navigate the world. There is no relationship to financial reward from conformity to a social collaborative behavior, in fact its mostly the opposite, maximum extraction is a core tenant of our system and what is incentivized. If the market is interested in something you can earn from it
And this goes finally into the relationship with accountability. The justice system acts on the rails of its own mechanizations. Its a perversion to want that to include total ostracization, total financial distress for an indeterminate time, I actually dont know the limits of what people want. It seems more so related to how it affects poorer people that way while wealthier and savvier people are exempt from distress, but it shouldnt be the case for poorer people either.
Decades of unresolved corruption scandals , finally a chance to confirm what we suspected about sleazy and deplorable elites . Slim chances, but what else do we have
The victims themselves were asking for the files to be fully released so that their abusers are held accountable. This was a big "fuck you" to the victims when everything of significance was [REDACTED]
Foreign governments running honeytrap operations on powerful perverts like bill clinton is common knowledge amongst anyone interested in knowing about such things, but some people think it is a super big secret that needs to be revealed to the masses. Thomas Massie for instance. I don’t think it’s antisemitism but I’m pretty sure it’s not because of a sudden concern for teenage prostitution, which is a big ongoing problem that could be addressed by legislators crafting policy if they weren’t so busy slinging mud at each other looking for Epstein photos with their political opponents.