3 ms·

> i stopped reading when he classifies epstein as a "type 3" person. i think it's quite bold, especially without any evidence whatsoever, to claim that epstein'

by darawk 7y ago

> i stopped reading when he classifies epstein as a "type 3" person. i think it's quite bold, especially without any evidence whatsoever, to claim that epstein's money came from non-criminal activities. and this is coming from a "top" law expert. epstein's previously upcoming trial would have sorted through some of this, but it isn't clear at all that his money wasn't funded directly by his own criminal activities or indirectly by others' criminal activities. in fact, it's one of the biggest open questions: where did epstein get his money from? He addresses the questions around this directly... > It may be that we’ll discover that Epstein got rich by blackmailing people whom he had encouraged or enabled to commit abuse. I doubt it, but it’s possible. > also, his type 1 examples are laughable. tom hanks makes movies. taylor swift makes music, and vindictive music at that. what is it about those professions that is "doing good"? they aren't about doing bad, but they're just jobs. They're not doing a whole lot of good, they're just not doing anything particularly bad. He's not holding them up as examples of perfect people, just examples of people with no toxic publicly known behaviors that an institution like MIT might want to avoid.

nikofeyn 7y ago
>> He addresses the questions around this directly... > It may be that we’ll discover that Epstein got rich by blackmailing people whom he had encouraged or enabled to commit abuse. I doubt it, but it’s possible. providing a loose supposition and then immediately dismissing it is not addressing something directly. i am not an expert on the epstein situation, but from what i understand, lessig’s supposition is a rather naive one. it seems it is much more likely that epstein was making money from the services he provided and even more likely that he was bankrolled by some other entity or entities. the fact that lessig, as a supposed law expert, is just grasping at straws with unrealistic guesses to recover his and his friend’s position is really depressing.

by darawk 7y ago

nikofeyn 7y ago

>> He addresses the questions around this directly... > It may be that we’ll discover that Epstein got rich by blackmailing people whom he had encouraged or enabled to commit abuse. I doubt it, but it’s possible. providing a loose supposition and then immediately dismissing it is not addressing something directly. i am not an expert on the epstein situation, but from what i understand, lessig’s supposition is a rather naive one. it seems it is much more likely that epstein was making money from the services he provided and even more likely that he was bankrolled by some other entity or entities. the fact that lessig, as a supposed law expert, is just grasping at straws with unrealistic guesses to recover his and his friend’s position is really depressing.