in law enforcement when you have a criminal then find associations you investigate them thoroughly. you try and parse out code phrases, bring people in for questioning, etc. But we're on basically the 3rd time around where Epstein is the subject of an investigation, and the first 2 times no other people were arrested outside of Maxwell. So no one should have any faith that the FBI or any other law enforcement organization is taking a good look at anyone, just saying "these guys are all talking about beef jerky" and not even taking any closer of a look.

guilt by association is of course wrong, but suspicion by association isn't nor should it be. most decent people dont have lengthy email correspondence with child sex traffickers.

For sure it should be investigated, but he said everyone should be prosecuted which is not the same thing.

Suspicion by association is also wrong, it's not in line with investigation. If your friend rapes a woman in a park and then people suspect you of being a rapist based on nothing but the association, is that ok? If your dna is found at the scene, this makes you a suspect, not your non-criminal association with a criminal. If a drug dealer is calling you three times a day from a burner, and talks about delivering quantities of "beef jerky" to you, that is suspicious. Playing basketball with him is not suspicious.

This post was edited by Shadowoffury on Feb 16 2026 01:16pm

those comparisons are hardly valid. Epstein was a high level networker who was known to traffic young women to high profile male clients. so yes, every high profile male acquaintance of his that he was in contact with is right to be suspected simply by their association. the context of how Epstein operated make suspicion by association in this context very valid.

to even draw a valid comparison from yours we'd have to say police pick up a drug dealer who is known to find new customers at pick up basketball games, in which case the fact you played with him should cause the cops to suspect you.

Well that is why the drug dealer example is a good example.

What you said about it is still wrong though. A suspect is a person who police have reason to believe committed a crime. This person may be detained. Even if the drug dealer does find new customers at pickup basketball games, not everyone is a suspect. Everyone may be investigated, but a court will rule against police if they detain every single person that played basketball with the guy, obviously, because playing basketball is not reasonable evidence of criminality. You need something else, even something circumstantial to form a pattern that shows reasonable suspicion. If you played basketball and then followed him into an alleyway then exited the alleyway 3 minutes later, for example. Literally almost anything else on top of that, but there does have to be something else.

It seems like you're making my point, in order to raise the same level of suspicion on your example to be in line with Epstein you need to go to great lengths. but youre missing out on a key aspect, the FBI dont need to detain anyone really. they just need to use the evidence they already have any then take it to Maxwell to get more information. they wont tho. im sure anyone in this thread would be happy to see her get a sweetheart deal if it meant prosecuting a pile of other people, but she'll get the deal anyways without turning over anyone.

that's not even taking into account the fact that in this case we have actual accusers, witnesses and victims of the crimes. witnesses we learned just this week the FBI refuses to take testimony from.

this is why all of your comparisons really aren't good ones imo. there is more than enough to start rolling out a case with a list of people to look into, and yet we both know they wont. while they hide behind the type of excuses you gave of guilt by association to hide the truth of plenty to go on. not to mention when has the FBI ever in it's history stuck behind typical law enforcement protocol like reasonable suspicion or probable cause? if they suspect they investigate, they follow you, they tap your phones, they literally infiltrate your life to collect info.

i like how there are still people out there who genuinely think any intelligence agency is going to investigate this seriously. Hopelessly naive. They're all owned by the same masters. All institutions and 3 letter agencies. No one will be seriously prosecuted for any of this and nothing will happen. Things continue on as usual while the masses fling shit at each other like apes.

its all one big team. clintons, bush, obama, trump, bankers, sultans, princes, tech CEOs, rabbis, you fucking name it.

you can lay your head down in apathy or you can be a man and do something

There's still a lot of assumptions in there. Obviously the best case scenario is that Maxwell tells all. But even with the threat of life imprisonment this is not necessarily going to be the case. She has already denied any knowledge of wrongdoing by either Trump or Bill Clinton. Do we believe her? If she isn't willing or able to fill in the gaps, where do we go? Is there any possibility we will believe anything other than that every single person that we hate who even had the slightest association with him is a vicious pedophile?

Body doubles serves the sentences. Island goes underground. Business reopens in 6 months.

Honestly though, do you really believe he's dead and she's in jail...

enough evidence exists to prosecute without 'gap filling' by a liar; Pam bondi and kash patel are covering for pedophiles at the behest of president pedophile donald trump. pam bondi has been running interference for him since she was AG of florida in 2011. why do you think epstein got a sweetheart deal? bondi and alexa acosta were all over it burying shit as deep as they possibly could

it is that simple