5 ms·

This is not true, the Sackler families have already put up $4 billion dollars of their own money as part of one settlement in this and they're still being sued

This is not true, the Sackler families have already put up $4 billion dollars of their own money as part of one settlement in this and they're still being sued by others not part of the settlement. There's also a criminal investigation into members of the Sackler family.

braindead_in 7y ago
There was a criminal investigation into Epstien as well. Look what happened to him. They even got his dead mans switch.
- riffraff 7y ago
  Assuming Epstein was killed, he was killed while he was in prison, both things hardly make him seem untouchable.
  - i_feel_great 7y ago
    The Epstein affair was not just Epstein the single individual. He could not have operated alone all these years in the way that he did. He got lenient sentences whenever he was brought to justice. The people who supported him remain untouchable.
    - darawk 7y ago
      Ok, but he was rich. And he got "touched". Therefore the rich are not untouchable, which was the original point under discussion. Just like the Sackler family does not appear to be immune from prosecution and confiscation of their property.
      - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
        We don't know that he got touched. We have a press story with some unlikely events that strongly suggests he got touched. There's a between-the-wars novel by English author Evelyn Waugh called Decline and Fall. The main character gets involved in all kinds of unspeakable crimes, more out of naivety than inherent criminality, and at the end is "disappeared" out of jail and given a new identity. Waugh was an Establishment insider and knew how the upper classes operated. It's a very interesting novel. I'm not suggesting Epstein was naive - far from it. But if you're in a position to bribe prison guards and authorities to cover up murder-by-fake-suicide, I suspect it's not significantly harder or more expensive to bribe prison guards and authorities to cover up an escape. It's debatable if it would more expedient to remove the evidence permanently or have it moved to another location where some of its skills might continue to be useful. But I would be surprised if option 2 wasn't at least a possibility. As for the Sacklers - we'll see if any of them do jail time.
        selimthegrim 7y ago
        Epstein’s brother identified the body.
        Haga 7y ago
        Give genetic samples to the public.
        rosybox 7y ago
        > But if you're in a position to bribe prison guards and authorities to cover up murder-by-fake-suicide, I suspect it's not significantly harder or more expensive to bribe prison guards and authorities to cover up an escape. > It's debatable if it would more expedient to remove the evidence permanently or have it moved to another location where some of its skills might continue to be useful. But I would be surprised if option 2 wasn't at least a possibility. To think any of this is plausible given the context requires an unwell mind.
      - mikeash 7y ago
        The rich are touchable if and only if they harm other rich people. See also: Bernie Madoff.
        darawk 7y ago
        Did Epstein harm other rich people?
        mikeash 7y ago
        Yes. He involved a lot of other rich people in his crimes. This was OK as long as he kept it under wraps, but once people started really looking into his activities there was a major risk of the fallout affecting others.
        darawk 7y ago
        Ok, but his crime was not hurting other rich people. He got in trouble because he did something that hurt non-rich people, and then other rich people got wrapped up in that. This is not an example of rich people only getting in trouble by hurting other rich people.
luckydata 7y ago
$4B is peanuts. I would put them in front of a firing squad for all the damage and suffering they caused.
fucking_tragedy 7y ago
> This is not true It is true. The Sacklers will never see the inside of a prison and will remain billionaires after the lawsuits and settlements.

braindead_in 7y ago

There was a criminal investigation into Epstien as well. Look what happened to him. They even got his dead mans switch.

riffraff 7y ago
Assuming Epstein was killed, he was killed while he was in prison, both things hardly make him seem untouchable.
- i_feel_great 7y ago
  The Epstein affair was not just Epstein the single individual. He could not have operated alone all these years in the way that he did. He got lenient sentences whenever he was brought to justice. The people who supported him remain untouchable.
  - darawk 7y ago
    Ok, but he was rich. And he got "touched". Therefore the rich are not untouchable, which was the original point under discussion. Just like the Sackler family does not appear to be immune from prosecution and confiscation of their property.
    - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
      We don't know that he got touched. We have a press story with some unlikely events that strongly suggests he got touched. There's a between-the-wars novel by English author Evelyn Waugh called Decline and Fall. The main character gets involved in all kinds of unspeakable crimes, more out of naivety than inherent criminality, and at the end is "disappeared" out of jail and given a new identity. Waugh was an Establishment insider and knew how the upper classes operated. It's a very interesting novel. I'm not suggesting Epstein was naive - far from it. But if you're in a position to bribe prison guards and authorities to cover up murder-by-fake-suicide, I suspect it's not significantly harder or more expensive to bribe prison guards and authorities to cover up an escape. It's debatable if it would more expedient to remove the evidence permanently or have it moved to another location where some of its skills might continue to be useful. But I would be surprised if option 2 wasn't at least a possibility. As for the Sacklers - we'll see if any of them do jail time.
      - selimthegrim 7y ago
        Epstein’s brother identified the body.
        Haga 7y ago
        Give genetic samples to the public.
      - rosybox 7y ago
        > But if you're in a position to bribe prison guards and authorities to cover up murder-by-fake-suicide, I suspect it's not significantly harder or more expensive to bribe prison guards and authorities to cover up an escape. > It's debatable if it would more expedient to remove the evidence permanently or have it moved to another location where some of its skills might continue to be useful. But I would be surprised if option 2 wasn't at least a possibility. To think any of this is plausible given the context requires an unwell mind.
    - mikeash 7y ago
      The rich are touchable if and only if they harm other rich people. See also: Bernie Madoff.
      - darawk 7y ago
        Did Epstein harm other rich people?
        mikeash 7y ago
        Yes. He involved a lot of other rich people in his crimes. This was OK as long as he kept it under wraps, but once people started really looking into his activities there was a major risk of the fallout affecting others.
        darawk 7y ago
        Ok, but his crime was not hurting other rich people. He got in trouble because he did something that hurt non-rich people, and then other rich people got wrapped up in that. This is not an example of rich people only getting in trouble by hurting other rich people.

luckydata 7y ago

$4B is peanuts. I would put them in front of a firing squad for all the damage and suffering they caused.

fucking_tragedy 7y ago

> This is not true It is true. The Sacklers will never see the inside of a prison and will remain billionaires after the lawsuits and settlements.