Uhh, this is in the opening stuff before the contents on the Wikipedia article:

Those citations will tell you exactly what he is in jail for and I checked the history to be sure and that has been there since at least 11 July, when he was sentenced...

For the record, Robinson is a racist pos whose only agenda is pushing hatred of Islam. Fortunately outside of the far right most people in the UK realise he's a huge bigot and when he ran for the European parliament he got a humiliating 2.2% of the vote, to the cheers of the entire room when the vote counts were announced.

Why do you really care about the link. It was a stupid and pointless post. I mean who really care that over a 10 year period that 50 republicans have been convicted of sex crimes. Each year there are somewhere around 70,000 convicted sex offenders. So what does 50 of around 700,000 convicted sex offenders really establish?

That Daily Beast piece is poor. It asks a bunch of rhetorical questions but has no real analysis or depth. The overall point that Epstein’s finances will now go under a microscope is correct, but the rest of it is shallow.

This one was my favorite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Mo...uct_allegation

Jeffrey Epstein Fallout Just Beginning

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019...ore-grotesque?

Question for Howard Treesong: I keep hearing commentators on various cable channels declaring that a near 2,000-page court filing document from a civil case filed against Epstein will be released to the public in the next few days - even [possibly] today. This alleged 2,000-page court filing supposedly lists as many as 50 prominent individuals by name who, by inference, may be involved in Epstein's alleged criminal activities.

Something doesn't sound right about this kind of rampant press speculation. I've always been under the impression that a judge will not allow such a document to be released - spelling out the names of unindicted individuals - unless those names have been redacted or blacked out. Am I wrong? (It would seem that citing people by name in a court filing against Epstein amounts to character assassination or guilt-by-association - at a minimum.)

Since most of these prominent individuals are so well known that they probably meet the [legal?] standard of being easily identified as "public figures," would normal protections not apply in this case? I've always thought [believed] that judges will not allow names of ancillary people involved in a case to be released publically unless such people have been indicted - especially in a case with this much public interest ...

Just ran down the issue. An Epstein victim named Virginia Giuffre sued Ghislaine Maxwell for defamation after Maxwell called Giuffre a liar in the press. A federal trial court denied Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment and the case settled. During those proceedings, Giuffre alleged that Dershowitz and others were involved with sex crimes. Dershowitz sought to unseal the record on summary judgment; he says that shows conclusive proof of the falsity of the allegations against him. The trial judge denied Dersh’s request and left the record sealed. Dershowitz appealed.

The court of appeals ruled on July 3 that the 76-page summary judgment opinion must be unsealed, along with its exhibits. The appellate court also told the trial court to look individually at other documents and determine whether or not each of those should be unsealed.

So the speculation looks largely right, although we won’t know for sure until the district court actually unseals — which should be soon given the appellate order.

Quick review on my part — on the road and short on time today.

The ruling and its exhibits should make interesting reading.

That's also the alleged victim that was pictured with the prince and Maxwell in the Times.

Epstein already settled with her, so "alleged" is a bit silly.

I didn't realize she was one of the original victims who got restitution. Gross stuff either way.

Here is a fun Atlantic article: How the Epstein case gives rise to conspiracy theories
Step 1: These are only allegations against Epstein. It isn't like he hasn't already been through the legal system.
Step 2: link Epstein case with pizzagate.
Step 3: Normalize. Don't worry. Corruption at the top is normal.
Step 4: link this stuff to anti-semitism.
The McMartin Preschool stuff is worth looking into imo. Naturally the Atlantic dismisses it without mentioning the actual name.

Bail denied, Epstein will remain in jail until trial.

If it's all conspiracy theories, why did Acosta resign?

Why he was hired in the first place seems like a better question.

I don't doubt that you adhere to conspiracy theories.

Acosta is smart and accomplished, so there were legitimate reasons to hire him. Also good reasons to resign given the current Epstein firestorm. I don’t subscribe to any of the loopy conspiracy theories.

Alan Dershowitz Explodes Over Pending New Yorker "Journalistic Hit Piece"

https://spectator.us/alan-dershowitz...-yorker-story/

Mr. Dershowitz proclaiming himself to be the totally innocent victim of totally false charges - which he claims to have "proven" to be totally untrue - has me looking forward to reading the New Yorker's journalistic "hit job" on poor Alan. When he starts his commentary off by insisting that all these false charges against him are motivated by "politics" and greedy lawyers looking for a quick financial gain, I'm reminded of a line from Shakespeare's Hamlet: "Me thinks the lady doth protest too much."

The "Editor's Note" at the end of Dershowitz's screed is interesting ...

Jeffrey Epstein's Wall Street Ties

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/b...ll-street.html

Kate Kelly, one of the NYT reporters on this story, appeared this morning on CNBC discussing Epstein. It's interesting all these bankers and hedge fund managers who did business with Epstein now claiming that they didn't do business with Epstein and/or barely knew him.

Joe Kernan asked Ms. Kelly (paraphrasing slightly): "When are we going to know all this and what's true and not true?" Ms. Kelly responded with a shrug stating "this is not going away" and "... we'll have to wait and see what comes out in court." Kernan stated the obvious: "There are a lot of people that don't want any of this to come out."

Good old Wall Street ... a place where some never let ethics or morality get in the way of making money.

This is just... slimey

Not sure about this, but I believe David Boies is representing clients who are suing Dershowitz. There's obviously no love lost between the two of them, but it's always entertaining when one lawyer accuses another lawyer of being sleazy.

You nailed it. Boies is his opposition, and Dersh is Dershing.

Correct.

I have been across the litigation table from Boies, and the positions he took then were highly aggressive and disingenuous.

dershowitz went on tv multiple times pretending(maybe) to not understand what bail was with regards to paul manafort or how it functioned.

dude is at best a dishonest political hack and at worst a senile old man that shouldn't be listened to about anything to do with law.

Does that give Dersh carte blanche to air these things? Isn't Dersh being accused of sex trafficking and pedo? So he exposes the other guys infidelities and philandering to deflect? And uses the victim pot smoking as a defense? Sick stuff man.

It would not shock me if Boies was being disingenuous here; obviously I know nothing about the merits of the accusations against Dersh. I don’t generally agree with Dersh’s hyperaggression either, but if someone made up a child rape allegation against me, I might do the same thing.

Suicide watch for Epstein, found injured in jail