From The New York Post: Ghislaine Maxwell convicted of sex trafficking victims for Jeffrey Epstein

Jaybird

Jaybird is Birdmojo on Xbox Live and Jaybirdmojo on Playstation's network. He's been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and it was Zork that taught him how to touch-type. If you've got a song for Wednesday, a commercial for Saturday, a recommendation for Tuesday, an essay for Monday, or, heck, just a handful a questions, fire off an email to AskJaybird-at-gmail.com

Related Post Roulette

38 Responses

  1. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Guilty of Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts

    Not Guilty of Enticement of Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts

    Guilty of Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity

    Guilty of Transportation of a Minor with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity

    Guilty of Sex Trafficking Conspiracy

    Guilty of Sex Trafficking of a MinorReport

  2. Greg In Ak
    Ignored
    says:

    Good. Now she can go to jail for a long time. Unless ( insert conspiracy theory here).Report

  3. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    I don’t know why conspiracy people bother with “what if she blabs?”

    We could have video of Rich Guy X raping a 14 year old girl and half the media pundits would either ignore it or be posting thinkpieces on “locker room behavior” or “But Joseph and Mary!”.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      Half the media pundits? Both halves do it.

      You could have a case where someone like Alexander Acosta gets nominated for Labor Secretary and have him get asked about the Epstein deal and he says something like “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone” and, get this, the media turns a blind eye to it! Like, the incuriosity was mind-boggling.Report

  4. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    If you’re wondering whether the BBC interviewed Alan Dershowitz after the jury announced their verdict, the BBC *DID* do that.

    Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Why was this an issue? Who is Dershowitz and why couldn’t he be trusted as impartial?Report

        • Greg In Ak in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          Dersh was Epsteins lawyer and got him a sweet and super questionable deal to get out of jail 20 or so years ago. The victims weren’t informed and everything was hidden and Ep got away with whatever he did. He also hung out with him at times.

          At the very least there is no way he is impartial and even may be implicated or participated in some of the things Ep did.Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          I can never tell whether questions like this are sincere or not.

          Alan Dershowitz is a long-standing professor of criminal defense at Harvard Law School. He has been there so long that my criminal defense professor had him as a teacher at Harvard Law when Dersh was a baby professor in his late twenties or early thirties. He has also led thee successful appeal in many notorious criminal defense cases. See the book and movie Reversal of Fortune which was about his work in appealing the attempted murder conviction of Claus Von Bulow for allegedly attempting to murder his wife via insulin overdose. FWIW, I think von Bulow was probably innocent.

          Since the OJ Simpson trial, if not earlier, Dershowitz has become a famous TV person who goes on TV and talks a lot. This has expanded from criminal defense to nearly everything. Since the Obama years, if not earlier, he has become one of the “even the liberal Alan Dershowitz…” types that gets used to scold liberals for opposing conservatives.

          He was a lawyer and known associate for Jeffrey Epstein. He helped arrange Epstein’s previous sweetheart deal with U.S. government which allowed him a brief prison sentence in Miami jail and one that was more like checking in at night. Dershowitz has also been accused of having sex with Epstein’s victims, an allegation he denies. Dershowitz may or may not have had a role in facilitating Epstein’s post-conviction under the table
          donations.

          At the very least, he is not an unbiased source and discretion should have made him turn down the chance to speak or he should have been introduced as a biased source. Instead, he was given softball questions and allowed to go on the attack.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to Saul Degraw
            Ignored
            says:

            100% sincere. I knew Dershowitz only as “that lawyer guy I see on TV sometimes” so had no idea why he was particularly problematic with regards to being the TV-lawyer-guy in this scenario.Report

  5. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    (If you don’t want to click through, the relevant section says “Under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, I expect that she will face a presumptive sentence of 235-293 months (19 – 24 years). For a 60 year old, that would be tantamount to a death sentence.”)Report

  6. Marchmaine
    Ignored
    says:

    We now can say with some level of confidence that there was a Sex Trafficking of Minors Conspiracy (heh, a literal legal Conspiracy) that centered around Epstein/Maxwell.

    Are we satisfied that:
    1. These girls were solely for Epstein?
    2. No other people were involved either in the conspiracy itself (his brother Mark?) or benefitting from it ([redacted])?
    3. Are we confident that Epstein’s wealth, reportedly at $577M + intangibles, really came from his hedge fund?
    4. Have we pierced the veil that protects the Trust which inherited this wealth (his brother Mark?)?
    5. What happened to all the digital recordings that reportedly were found on the island?

    The Epstein ‘conspiracy’ isn’t really about his death (not for me anyhow) it’s about unravelling the actual conspiracy and whether the media/justice systems’ hearts are really in it. I suppose we could pat ourselves on the back and say Epstein’s dead and Maxwell’s going to jail. What more do you want?Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine
      Ignored
      says:

      Good news!

      Report

    • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
      Ignored
      says:

      I’m going to put my foot in it, and maybe I’m wrong, but here it goes. All the real lurid theories about what was going on with this guy have always struck me as far too gothic to ring true. From my read the actual story of this trial is rich scumbag with his hanger-on takes advantage of somewhat desperate, underage girls from the wrong side of the tracks. It’s absolutely disgusting but also a lot more banal than pedophile island where the rich and the famous sneak off to gang-rape children.

      Now none of that means that Epstein wasn’t a sexual predator fully deserving of opprobrium and the harshest penalties under the law. It doesn’t mean Maxwell isn’t a criminal accomplice getting what she deserves. It doesn’t even mean that lots of wealthy, powerful people didn’t turn a blind eye to awful and outrageous behavior due to wealth and privilege.

      What I am saying is I think the stories and expectations have far outrun what has ever been or is likely to ever be substantiated by evidence. Now maybe I’m wrong and they’ll tear into the estate and it will all come out. But my experience is the truth is usually a lot more boring (which again does not mean remotely defensible) with these sorts of things than people interested in them want to accept.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        The main theory that makes sense to me is that Alexander Acosta was not lying.Report

        • InMD in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          The part about him feeling as though he did not have enough evidence to successfully prosecute or the intelligence asset stuff? The first strikes me as quite plausible. The second for me falls into ‘I wouldn’t put it passed them but we will probably never know’ territory.

          But here’s my question. Why can’t it just be damning enough that our rich and powerful political elite is so crass and amoral that they will associate with people like this, just because of money? No need to go through the looking glass for that conclusion.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        Possible, but we have lots of stories of weird celebrities with strange/criminal sex habits that correspond to a ‘lone gunman’ sort of behavior. We barely twitch at the mention anymore. Sometimes we even invite them back, unless they make cringe You Tube videos like Kevin Spacey… but give him time, I really liked him in 21.

        This really has never had that kind of characteristic… and various investigative stories have been spiked over the years, Acosta told to settle, and when things did manage to leak out, it always points towards something closer to a network than just a rich guy who likes his girls on the youngish side [wink] (to paraphrase Trump). Plus most importantly we have some victims specifically claiming otherwise.

        I suppose there’s a possibly exculpating factor that while some accusers have come forward, clearly a number have not… typically we see the floodgates open after the secret becomes ‘open’. So maybe that speaks to a very small network or none at all? On the other hand, if we were to posit a still extant network of powerful people less dimwitted than Prince Andrew that are keeping the proverbial floodgates closed? I could go either way on that one… but there are already extant accusations – so at a minimum we can hypothesize at least one other person beside Epstein was a beneficiary of the conspiracy.

        I’m not even sure that I have notions of anything particularly lurid — just simple ultra-rich discretion via privacy and people looking in other directions rather than closely at what might (or might not) be happening.

        Is that not boring enough? What if the other guys aren’t the famous ones like Clinton, Trump or a Royal? What if it’s just Hedge Fund Partners and maybe, I duuno, the founder of Victoria Secret? All people we’ve never heard of? Do we not care or is that just a prerogative of being that rich?Report

        • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
          Ignored
          says:

          Taking this backwards, yes! It is scandalous enough that the rich and powerful would tolerate this in their midst. But that’s already been established hasn’t it? What else is there to prove on that count?

          To the rest I’m much more ambivalent. Sometimes accusers emerge because the secret is out. Sometimes they emerge because they see the possibility of some sort of payout or, in a case like this, fame. Human memory and reasoning are strange things, and the only way to sort it out is dispassionate investigation.

          And look I haven’t followed this as closely as others but if there’s really some kind of network there’s got to be evidence right? Someone willing to tell on everyone else for a slap on the wrist? Discoverable records, somewhere? Lawyers work big targets on contingency. No one like Epstein is a lockbox in the 21st century. But until any proof like that emerges I think it’s all firmly in the realm of bong hits and what ifs.Report

          • Marchmaine in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            “What else is there to prove on that count?”

            If there’s one thing I’ve learned from the Catholic Church’s scandal… it’s to never stop pulling on the network thread. The interesting thing is that the people who want you to stop pulling on the thread are not always the people who you would think.Report

            • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
              Ignored
              says:

              I guess I’m not sure I see the parallel with the Church, if for no other reason than that there’s an institution there with lots of people dedicated to (what is in their minds) protecting it. A common mission. Here we’re talking about a bunch of cut-throats, and mercenaries, and very selfish, self-interested individuals.

              But I suppose it’s possible there’s more honor among these thieves than I’d expect. If facts come out to support that then I’ll be all in on the most serious consequences available.Report

      • LeeEsq in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        Even your paired down story involves many of the most wealthy and powerful men in America and Europe doing crimes that would get more ordinary citizens a lock em up and throw away the key punishment. These are not unknown obscure perpetrators.Report

        • InMD in reply to LeeEsq
          Ignored
          says:

          Excuse me, my paired down story?

          Look I don’t really care what happens with these people. I just think it’s silly to pretend we know more than we do about anything, including this. I’m all for investigations and lawsuits and whatever else to get to the bottom of it.Report

    • Heelraiser in reply to Marchmaine
      Ignored
      says:

      Well, everybody wasn’t flying over there to play horseshoes now were they?Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to Heelraiser
        Ignored
        says:

        Don’t know… I’ll even stipulate in advance that some of the people may very well have gone just for horseshoes… heck, if you’re running a criminal sex trafficking conspiracy, some of the people you ferry around had darn well be ready to provide cover for ‘just horseshoes’.Report

  7. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    Re: Dershowitz

    “Hate to be an old-timer who chirps about better days. But at my old paper, a disaster this raw and embarrassing required us to shoot a senior editor, burn the cadaver in a newsroom pyre, then mix the ashes with printer’s ink and sent out in the home final as a warning to others.”-David Simon

    https://twitter.com/AoDespair/status/1476554392849592325?s=20&fbclid=IwAR2rU8j9UbxhyJT7QNXDPoA9gvzWbww_0bDIvTzibeF7hrXflB832xDpU-QReport

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *