Hacker News Reader

> Also - there seems to be a thread lost. It really looks like Epstein was a US Intelligence Officer filming powerful people having sex with young women (including foreign officials) to obtain leverage on them for the United States.

I agree that the reporting silence on this aspect of the case is odd. The federal prosecutor who worked out Epstein's plea deal (Alexander Acosta) appears to have told the press that the deal was done because he was told "Epstein belonged to intelligence". This was widely reported in July (https://www.google.com/search?q=acosta+epstein+intelligence), and then this revelation was almost completely dropped when Acosta resigned from his position as Secretary of Labor due to fallout from his involvement with the plea deal.

I'll note though that Acosta did not explicitly claim that Epstein was working for the US intelligence services...

I thought it was because that was a clear lie used to provide cover for his generous plea deal, based on his connections with higher-ups.

The federal prosecutor was not in a position to be able to verify that claim.

No other evidence for it has come forth, making it hard to accept your view that "it really looks like" that's the case.

> making it hard to accept your view that "it really looks like" that's the case

I didn't use those words, the parent poster did.

Personally, I think the possibility that Epstein was working for a government agency (domestic or foreign) merits further investigation, but is far from a certainty. I agree that Acosta might have been lying. But if this is the case, I find it doubly odd that there has been so little follow up reporting.

My apologies for the misattribution.

Suppose Acosta started the lie, and refuses to talk about it. What would the follow-up reporting look like?

"I contacted 16 US intelligence agencies. 9 of them denied that Epstein worked for them, and the rest would neither confirm or deny that Epstein worked for them."?

Would you have seen that sort of reporting? Would it be convincing? How many relevant intelligence agencies are there in the US?

I agree that asking US intelligence agencies probably wouldn't produce anything worth reporting. I also agree that there is an asymmetry here, and that it would be very difficult to prove that he was not working for an intelligence agency.

The reporting I'd like to see would probably focus on finance and connections. How did Epstein make his money? Who were his clients? What did his business associates know about the sexual allegations? Who does Acosta claim told him? What were Epstein's internal motives?

I haven't seen any major news outlets focussing on these aspects. The simple explanation is that they fear that any explanation of Epstein other than "he's a monster" would reflect badly on them to the public. The more conspiratorial explanation is that the answers would reflect badly on people who have power over them.

But answering your questions: Yes, I probably would have seen that reporting if it existed; No, it wouldn't be convincing; I don't think the number of agencies matters, the connections he does have seem to lead to the CIA or Mossad.

You write that you haven't seen major news outlets focusing on questions like "How did Epstein make his money? Who were his clients?"

Here are some major news outlets which have tried. None have succeeded.

New York Magazine - http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/how-did-jeffrey-epste... - "How Jeffrey Epstein Made His Money: Four Wild Theories"

Vanity Fair back in 2003 trying to figure out the mystery - https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/03/jeffrey-epstein-2003...

Business Insider - https://www.businessinsider.com/how-financier-jeffrey-epstei...

Bloomberg - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-08/the-myste...

You ask "What did his business associates know about the sexual allegations?"

The only known business associate is Wexner. He has declined to comment, says Bloomberg.

You ask "Who does Acosta claim told him?" He has declined to comment. Eg, the Miami Herald at https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html says "Acosta did not respond to numerous requests for an interview or answer queries through email."

"The simple explanation" is that it was hidden well, protected by powerful people, and had not yet been figured out.

I have no doubt that "the answers would reflect badly on people who have power over them". That's how it has been squelched or diminished until now.

Other than the one comment, is there any evidence that an intelligence agency is really involved? Why can't it be a bunch of sexually abusive plutocrats supporting each other with their connections of power? Why can't the reference to "intelligence" be a convenient cover?

If it were the CIA or Mossad, do you not think that, perhaps, some time in the last 20 years they might have told him to tone down as he's going to get caught, and destroy their decades-long effort?

What are the connections between Mossad and Acosta? Any Epstein connections wouldn't affect the federal prosecutors' office, yet it was they who gave Epstein such lenient terms.

If Julie Brown, the investigative reporter who worked on the story for a long time for the Miami Herald, had been able to figure out any of these questions, do you think she would have reported it?

> He made a point about how statutory rape wouldn't be considered rape if it happened in a different location (e.g. Italy) or if the person's birthday were slightly adjusted.

I understand what RMS is trying to say, but this strikes me as an incredibly weak argument. All laws are arbitrary, but pointing that out isn't a meaningful defense of someone who broke one.

It's like contesting a parking ticket by saying "well if parking had been allowed on that street at that time then I wouldn't have done anything wrong."

While I don't know about this case, a common problem with people arguing right/wrong and legal/illegal is that one side picks right/wrong and the other picks legal/illegal and they talk past each other. If the law happens to agree with somebody's opinion, they'll use that to justify that they're "right" and if it doesn't, they'll use some higher moral standard and disregard the law.

Sometimes it's obvious which the sensible choice to make is. If you're arguing whether the GPL allows linking to a proprietary library or not, then it's the law that's more important. But if you're arguing if sex with children is OK then it's some higher moral standard that's important and appeals to the law are essentially appeals to popular opinion as support of some moral standard.

Luckily, people usually agree on what the law means, so they just have to make sure they're arguing about the same point that their opponent is actually making.

That is a poor analogy, because if you can't park where you want that is a moderate inconvenience at the very worst. If you find yourself "in love" with a 17-and-a-half-year-old, it's not so easy as finding another spot.

That's what you think happened here? You think Epstein felt in love? With a child being trafficked for sex?

Thank you for making this point. It's somehow been mostly lost in the noise of this thread that the main reason RMS's comments are so unacceptable is because he gave this defense (theoretical or not) of someone accused of having sex with a child trafficking victim. Not because he happens to have socially unacceptable opinions about certain corner cases in consent laws. Fortunately in this case, there's a very very bright line, and RMS was way over it.

I mean, his defense was of Minsky, not Epstein. RMS believes that Minsky likely wasn't aware of of either her age nor the coercion so Minsky could hardly be blamed for not knowing. I haven't followed this too closely (except on HN) but I think that incident also predated Epstein's first trial (conviction?).

I suspect (and really really hope) RMS wouldn't have such a defense for Epstein himself.

RMS has in fact called Epstein a "serial rapist" and expressed that he should have received a much harsher sentence than he did.

No, of course not. That's why my comment didn't mention Epstein or sex trafficking, only the terrible comparison with parking regulations.

The point of an analogy is to be similar in some single illustrative way, not to be similar in all ways. If someone finds themselves "in love" then they could make some kind of argument based on that, but it wouldn't make the "but it would be legal somewhere else" argument any more compelling.

I'm not going to argue one way or the other. But for those saying legally it's one way or the other.

In Germany (and I find this disturbing) the legal age under which a grown up (over 21 years) can have sex with a kid is 14[1][2]. Of course a judge can find that the child or their legal representative not having been capable of giving consent in which case it's still considered child abuse.

Western societies themselves have such vastly different legal definitions of consent. To be honest I find germanies version to be the weirdest I've seen although I don't know much about the other european countries.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzalter

[2] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__176.html

14 is a common age of consent in East-EU/Balkans https://jakubmarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/age-of-co...

It looks like most of the world has it at 16 and below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

Could you explain what it is that you find so disturbing and weird about this?

> Germany (and I find this disturbing) the legal age under which a grown up (over 21 years) can have sex with a kid is 14[1][2].

It is not.

The general legal age of consent in German is 16 years. § 182 (3)

The special legal age is 14 and it's only legal if the other party is under 21.

Even then there are a lot of further exemptions that would make sex with a minor illegal. Prostitution and/or pornography involving minors is always illegal.

Not quite true.

In Germany, having sex with someone in the 14-15 range can be illegal if the other party is above the age of 21.

Relevant passage in German, from the parent's link:

"Über die Vorschriften des § 182 StGB Abs. 1 und 2 (Zwangslage, Entgelt) bezüglich des Schutzalters 18 Jahre hinaus, die auch für unter 16-jährige Opfer gelten, können sexuelle Handlungen von Erwachsenen, die über 21 Jahre alt sind, mit 14- und 15-jährigen Jugendlichen nach § 182 Abs. 3 StGB bestraft werden, falls ein gesetzlicher Vertreter des Jugendlichen Strafantrag stellt und im Strafverfahren das Gericht feststellt, dass der Erwachsene eine – etwa mit Hilfe eines Sachverständigen – festzustellende „fehlende Fähigkeit zur sexuellen Selbstbestimmung“ des Jugendlichen ausgenutzt hat. Der Bundesgerichtshof hat 1996 festgestellt, dass der bloße Hinweis auf das Alter der 14- oder 15-jährigen Person für eine Verurteilung des erwachsenen Beschuldigten nicht ausreicht."

(emphasis mine)

To summarize: Having (consensual, of course) sex with a 14 year old is always legal in Germany if you're under the age of 21 and not a teacher or some such, and can be illegal if you're over that.

yes, dejure it can be legal (not it is legal) for a 21 year old to have sex with a 14-15 year old, defacto it isn't. The BGH decision merely states that for the range 14-15 the court has to look at the maturity of the victim on a case by case basis, because that's what the law says.

That only means the court (not the defendant) will get an expert witness who in the very very vast majority of all of cases will say "well yes, not mature enough, normal/underdeveloped 14/15 yo".

The point of this is not, say the lawmakers (as can be read in the Referentenentwürfe), to give a card blanche to adults to have sex with 14-15yos, but account for the very rare case a 14-15yo actually has a far above average developmental maturity, to the point where a special protection by law is no longer necessary, thus making the age of consent less arbitrary and closer related to the actual state of development of an individual.

> yes, dejure it can be legal (not it is legal) for a 21 year old to have sex with a 14-15 year old, defacto it isn't. The BGH decision merely states that for the range 14-15 the court has to look at the maturity of the victim on a case by case basis, because that's what the law says.

> That only means the court (not the defendant) will get an expert witness who in the very very vast majority of all of cases will say "well yes, not mature enough, normal/underdeveloped 14/15 yo".

The wikipedia link directly contradicts you:

"Dieser Rückgang wird in der juristischen Literatur nicht etwa so erklärt, dass die Zahl der Sexualkontakte Erwachsener mit Jugendlichen zurückgegangen sei, sondern dass solche Kontakte gegenwärtig gesellschaftlich weitgehend toleriert werden und Erziehungsberechtigte nur noch selten Strafanträge stellen.[6] Verschiedene Studien rechnen damit, dass nur jede hundertste bis zweihundertste sexuelle Beziehung einer über 21-jährigen Person mit einer 14- bis 15-jährigen Person zu einer Anzeige nach § 182 Abs. 3 StGB (in aktueller Fassung) führt.[5]"

It does not. Parents not filing complaints is an entirely different matter to courts letting perpetrators skate.

From everything I've read, the number of convictions following complaints by parents seem to be pretty rare. Unless we have actual numbers on that however, the discussion is rather pointless.

This is not a discussion about legality or facts. The fact is that a 18-old ex-sex trafficked girl approached Minsky and he turned her down. There is no legal case here for that. And that's what Stallman was saying also. There was no rape.

He draws a distinction between statutory rape (can't legally say yes according to the law, but otherwise willing and sexually mature) and forcible rape (when someone says no). He made a point about how statutory rape wouldn't be considered rape if it happened in a different location (e.g. Italy) or if the person's birthday were slightly adjusted.

One can draw a distinction between rape by physical force and rape by coercion, manipulation and deception - but it's kind of undesirable to push any kind of line that a lack of force makes this a automatically a different kind of crime. For example, sex with police officer or prison guard when someone is in custody is in many jurisdictions automatically considered to be rape because the circumstances mean a person can't really consent - and that's entirely logical. In this sense, "statutory rape" and forcible rape aren't entirely different.

Maybe one might find situations where under-aged sex isn't rape by manipulation - where you can argue consent could reasonably given (an eighteen year old with sixteen year in the same High school is hard to argue against). But the Epstein situation is clearly the wrong place to look for this.

Yes, I think this is true, and also that Stallman agrees.

> Stallman seems to consider Epstein a serial rapist (possibly for that fact?). He seems to be more pushing back on the pedophilia accusations.

Wait, what? I thought he was objecting to the claim that Marvin Minsky assaulted one of Epstein's victims.

https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...

There are numerous items in play at this point. You are correct about the events of the past week.

What's being referred to, in regards to his opinion of Epstein, is this piece from April: https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jan-apr.html#25_April_201...

well it might also have to do with that folks like bill clinton and donald trump were associating with him..