Media Bias

[pErvinalia]

Argument? Scot couldn't construct an argument to save his life.

[Joe]

Maybe Hermit could help him.

[Brian Peacock]

I think Scott might be ready for Marxism.

[JimC]

I think Scott might be ready for Marxism.

Is your suggestion that inability to form an argument is a prerequisite to becoming a Marxist?

[L'Emmerdeur]

... T.O.S. attacks ...

Is this a term of art in the infra-bridge community? Is it your personal construction? Pray tell, what do you understand 'T.O.S. attack' to mean?

[Hermit]

Yeah, but what about this other really important question? Your previous post didn't even touch on that, but as you hate Trump I'm not surprised.

My apologies. I completely forgot about Jussie Smollett.

Isn't his auntie VP now?

Anyway, back to the point I was trying to make (still not sure if you got it)

If the department of sex crimes was investigating, it would be primarily about those victims. Ditto if it was the department of sex trafficking.

It was not.

It was the office of public corruption.

He was in jail because of corruption of public officials, rather than because of sex crimes.

Oh, that's your point. You could have explained when you first asked if I can confirm who was investigating and what, when Epstein was taken into custody.

Anyway, your assertions are interesting, but flat out wrong. There is no department of sex crimes. Ditto, a department of sex trafficking. As to charges levied against Epstein, you are also completely wrong. Although the case was handled by the Department of Justice's Public Corruption Unit, Epstein was not charged with corruption. He was charged with sex trafficking of minors. That's what the press release by the Department of Justice you linked to says in its title as well as the body of the text.

Title:

Jeffrey Epstein Charged In Manhattan Federal Court With Sex Trafficking Of Minors

Body of text:

...JEFFREY EPSTEIN was arrested Saturday and charged with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors.

The presser is entirely about sex charges. There is not a single word that even hints at corruption charges.

[Hermit]

Well, Scot has definitely pulled off the ad hominem of the week, calling the US Federal Reserve economic research agency a right wing think tank. It's especially ironic that he is trying to dismiss the US government's own data when it glaringly illustrates the very point he's making.

So the top 1% don't own 90% of wealth in the US, the top 10% sure as hell do, and the bottom 50% don't own jack shit.

Neither the Fed statistics nor the video Scot furnished to support his claim that the top 1% don't own 90% of wealth in the US. The Fed site reports that the top 1% in America own 30.5% of total net worth and 27.4% of total net assets. Scot's video claims that 1% of America has 40% of all the nation's wealth. He is out by a full 50 percentage points in comparison to a video he claims to support his ex recto assertion that the top 1% don't own 90% of wealth in the US.

Scot's video also states that the bottom 80% only owns 7% of the nation's wealth, by the way. That leaves the remaining 19% with a share of 53% of the wealth.

Maybe he stands against data he thinks is shit, even when it agrees with him.

The funny thing is that Scot stands for data that disagree with him. In other words, the video he linked to because he believes it to show the true picture of wealth distribution in the USA contradicts his own version.

[Cunt]

... T.O.S. attacks ...

Is this a term of art in the infra-bridge community? Is it your personal construction? Pray tell, what do you understand 'T.O.S. attack' to mean?

Terms Of Service attacks.

Like if I trick you into saying certain names during a livestream on youtube, I get your livestream cut immediately.

Trick you into doing a bunch more of that stuff, and I get your account banned.

It goes much deeper, of course, but that's the gist.

Anyway, your assertions are interesting, but flat out wrong. There is no department of sex crimes. Ditto, a department of sex trafficking. As to charges levied against Epstein, you are also completely wrong. Although the case was handled by the Department of Justice's Public Corruption Unit, Epstein was not charged with corruption. He was charged with sex trafficking of minors. That's what the press release by the Department of Justice you linked to says in its title as well as the body of the text.

Title:

Jeffrey Epstein Charged In Manhattan Federal Court With Sex Trafficking Of Minors

Body of text:

...JEFFREY EPSTEIN was arrested Saturday and charged with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors./quote]
The presser is entirely about sex charges. There is not a single word that even hints at corruption charges.

I am wrong, however you want to slice it.

But it IS the office of public corruption which charged him, so it looks to me that it was more than a simple sex trafficking bust.

[L'Emmerdeur]

... T.O.S. attacks ...

Is this a term of art in the infra-bridge community? Is it your personal construction? Pray tell, what do you understand 'T.O.S. attack' to mean?

Terms Of Service attacks.

Like if I trick you into saying certain names during a livestream on youtube, I get your livestream cut immediately.

Trick you into doing a bunch more of that stuff, and I get your account banned.

It goes much deeper, of course, but that's the gist.

Thanks. So who's doing the tricking and who's getting tricked? When you refer to 'saying certain names' are you talking about racial epithets? Or are you saying that just mentioning the names of particular individuals is grounds for 'getting your livestream cut immediately'?

'It goes much deeper' you say. Feel free to expound on that. Is this a collaboration of independent operators with a social media platform, or is it an operation between the platform and an organization or a number of organizations? Who is behind this agenda, in your opinion?

[Hermit]

Anyway, your assertions are interesting, but flat out wrong. There is no department of sex crimes. Ditto, a department of sex trafficking. As to charges levied against Epstein, you are also completely wrong. Although the case was handled by the Department of Justice's Public Corruption Unit, Epstein was not charged with corruption. He was charged with sex trafficking of minors. That's what the press release by the Department of Justice you linked to says in its title as well as the body of the text.

Title:

Jeffrey Epstein Charged In Manhattan Federal Court With Sex Trafficking Of Minors

Body of text:

...JEFFREY EPSTEIN was arrested Saturday and charged with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors.

The presser is entirely about sex charges. There is not a single word that even hints at corruption charges.

I am wrong, however you want to slice it.

But it IS the office of public corruption which charged him, so it looks to me that it was more than a simple sex trafficking bust.

If it were more than a simple sex trafficking bust, there ought to be some documents to that "more" publicly available. If anyone finds a credible link to such documents I'll be convinced that you are right, but I doubt they exist. The days of secret charges and trials by government justice departments has not really ever been a thing in the USA.

[Hermit]

... T.O.S. attacks ...

Is this a term of art in the infra-bridge community? Is it your personal construction? Pray tell, what do you understand 'T.O.S. attack' to mean?

Terms Of Service attacks.

"TOS"
Thoracic Outlet Syndrome: ...

"T.O.S."
Thoracic Outlet Syndrome: ...

No results found for "Terms Of Service attacks".
Results for Terms Of Service attack (without quotes): ...

No results found for "Terms Of Service attack".
Results for Terms Of Service attack (without quotes): ...

Looks like one of our member from Yellowknife's personal construction to me.

It's either that, or Google has been hacked by the Deep State.

[Cunt]

Anyway, your assertions are interesting, but flat out wrong. There is no department of sex crimes. Ditto, a department of sex trafficking. As to charges levied against Epstein, you are also completely wrong. Although the case was handled by the Department of Justice's Public Corruption Unit, Epstein was not charged with corruption. He was charged with sex trafficking of minors. That's what the press release by the Department of Justice you linked to says in its title as well as the body of the text.

Title:

Jeffrey Epstein Charged In Manhattan Federal Court With Sex Trafficking Of Minors

Body of text:

...JEFFREY EPSTEIN was arrested Saturday and charged with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors.

The presser is entirely about sex charges. There is not a single word that even hints at corruption charges.

I am wrong, however you want to slice it.

But it IS the office of public corruption which charged him, so it looks to me that it was more than a simple sex trafficking bust.

If it were more than a simple sex trafficking bust, there ought to be some documents to that "more" publicly available. If anyone finds a credible link to such documents I'll be convinced that you are right, but I doubt they exist. The days of secret charges and trials by government justice departments has not really ever been a thing in the USA.

I don't have such a link, but I think I have drawn your attention to the part I wanted to. Thanks for your effort.

Why is it the office of public corruption doing this? If not the obvious light sentencing suggesting preferential treatment?

Is there another, simpler explanation I'm missing?

[Cunt]

Looks like one of our member from Yellowknife's personal construction to me.

It's either that, or Google has been hacked by the Deep State.

I'm not sure why that's relevant. Someone said it. I remembered it.

I explained what was meant by it.

This is an example of 'I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you'

[Brian Peacock]

I think Scott might be ready for Marxism.

Is your suggestion that inability to form an argument is a prerequisite to becoming a Marxist?

No, because he sees central banks as organs of corporatist neo-liberalism - as indeed they are.

[Hermit]

Why is it the office of public corruption doing this? If not the obvious light sentencing suggesting preferential treatment?

Good question. One might expect the department's Violent and Organized Crime unit to handle the case.

The answer lies in how that investigative journalist I mentioned earlier uncovered Epstein's sex crimes. Julie Brown started off wondering how Epstein got off so lightly 2006. Now I'll dive into Wikipedia's article on Epstein for a short while and condense it for you:

The FBI compiled reports on "34 confirmed minors" eligible for restitution (increased to 40 in the NPA) whose allegations of sexual abuse by Epstein included corroborating details. Interviews with five alleged victims and 17 witnesses under oath, a high-school transcript and other items found in Epstein's trash and home allegedly showed that some of the girls involved were under 18, the youngest being 14, with many under 16.

And yet, the eventual outcome was a non-prosecution agreement. It turns out that the prosecutor was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alexander Acosta working via the Justice department's local Violent and Organized Crime unit. Alan Dershowitz helped to negotiate the agreement, which was to grant immunity from all federal criminal charges to Epstein, along with four named co-conspirators and any unnamed "potential co-conspirators". According to the Miami Herald, the non-prosecution agreement "essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe into whether there were more victims and other powerful people who took part in Epstein's sex crimes".

Eventually, Epstein finished up pleading guilty to a state charge (one of two) of procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18,[114] he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. While most convicted sex offenders in Florida are sent to state prison, Epstein was instead housed in a private wing of the Palm Beach County Stockade and, according to the sheriff's office, was after ​3 1⁄2 months allowed to leave the jail on "work release" for up to 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. This contravened the sheriff's own policies requiring a maximum remaining sentence of 10 months and making sex offenders ineligible for the privilege. He was allowed to come and go outside of specified release hours. The sentence was totally out of kilter with the severity and number of sex crimes involved. It was a sweetheart deal.

Just about everything about the case was highly unusual, and some of it downright illegal, pointing to corruption from the lowest to the highest level. Trump appointed Acosta to the position of Secretary of Labor in 2017, but after Julie Brown's digging around his involvement in the Epstein case he had to resign.

In light of the systemic corruption between 2005 and 2008 and the involvement of the Department of Justice's Violent and Organized Crime unit, which at best could only be described as incompetent, but in all likelihood was actually active involved in the accompanying corruption, the Department of Justice decided to not risk a repeat while prosecuting the same man, and handed the task to the unit that specialised in dealing with corruption - its Public Corruption Unit.