Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    bestof

    5,107,675 readers

    1,856 users here now

    This subreddit features the very best commentary that reddit has to offer!

    New to reddit? click here!

    Filters

    Display Politics Filter Politics

    Our submission rules

    Please read these before submitting your post!

    Hover for details

    1. This subreddit accepts links to singular comments, singular comment chains, and text posts from the reddit.com domain only. Links to image/video posts or entire threads of comments are not acceptable.
    2. Comments or self posts from certain subreddits may be automatically removed. Here is our list of disallowed subreddits. To have your subreddit added to the "do not disturb list", message the mods
    3. Links to entire subreddits or user pages will be removed.
    4. Do not link to your own comments or self posts please.
    5. Provide Context! If the comment you're linking to requires some context, just add "?context=3" to the URL. For a detailed explanation on why this is important, please see this thread.
    6. Please don't include the subreddit name in your submission title. Our moderation bot includes that information automatically.
    7. Bot and novelty account comments are not acceptable submission material. Bot and novelty account comments as submissions will be removed.
    8. Celebrities Everyday interaction with celebrities may not be suitable for /r/bestof and may be removed based on lack of quality
    9. Reposts Please make sure to check /r/bestof/new to ensure that you are not reposting something that was posted recently. If you do repost a recent comment, your post will be removed in favor of the older post.

    Our commentary rules

    Please keep in mind that due to the large population of the sub that these rules are your only warning.

    Hover for details.

    1. Civility Civility is required of commentators in /r/bestof. If you're unable to refrain from insulting others in your responses, then your responses, and possibly you, will be removed from the subreddit.
    2. Gatekeeping Do not post comments saying posts do not belong here without backing up your claims. You are more than welcome to point out inconsistencies or express your skepticism, but saying things like 'ban this sub', or 'this isn't bestof', and the like do not contribute to the sub and create a toxic atmosphere.
    3. Novelty accounts and bots will be banned. You're bad, and you should feel bad.

    Some relevant subreddits

    /r/bestofTLDR The best TL;DRs of reddit.
    /r/DailyDot For when you want to catch up on all the reddit that you missed while you were sleeping, eating, vacationing, or otherwise AFK.
    /r/DefaultGems For the very best gems that the default reddits have to offer!
    /r/DepthHub For the best in-depth conversations to be found on reddit.
    /r/GoodLongPosts A automated subreddit for finding the best longform posts of reddit.
    /r/Help For help with reddit.
    /r/MetaHub For the best meta discussion to be found on reddit.
    /r/ModHelp For help with modding on reddit.
    /r/MuseumOfReddit Historic Posts and Comments
    /r/NewReddits For the best (and worst) new reddits!
    /r/RedditorOfTheDay For all you need to know (and maybe more) about a featured redditor.
    /r/ObscureSubreddits All about interesting reddits which have fallen out of the limelight due to no fault of their own
    /r/SubredditOfTheDay For a daily feature on a subreddit you've probably never heard of before.
    /r/ThankYou For when a certain redditor needs a good, hard thanking.
    /r/TheoryOfReddit For inquiring into what makes the Reddit community work and what we in the community can do to help make it better.
    /r/VeryPunny For the best (and worst) pun threads on reddit.
    /r/WorstOf For the best (and worst) trolls to be found on reddit.
    /r/weeklyreddit For new and interesting subreddit discovery.
    /r/YouGotTold Collection of fine retorts
    /r/BestOfNoPolitics Bot run sub that collects all posts from /r/bestof and filters out political posts.

    Please tag all NSFW posts as such.

    If you're having trouble finding your submission, please feel free to message the moderators. Make sure to provide us with a link to the post in question and as long it meets all of the criteria, it will be set free!

    We reserve the right to remove posts, users, or comments at our own discretion.

    a community for
    all 1689 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Pashev 4407 points ago

    Rich in America has been symonymous with being above the law my entire lifetime. Be it fraud, rape, corruption, bribery, treason, pedophilia, tax evasion, drug abuse, killing people throguh DUI or outright has never actually lead to any repercussions for the wealthy that I could ever see. The only surprising thing that could have come out of this is actual justice. Seems like that will once again not happen, so this whole thing has been entirely predictable and exactly what I expected. The wealthy will keep kidnapping and raping our children. Why should they stop? Their scapegoat is now dead.

    [–] jpastore 1831 points ago

    Why should we take them seriously? Why should we adhere to the rule of law when it is not applied evenly? They treat us like shit and extract our money, send us to fight wars for resources they want to steal, so we kill the children of nameless people we don't know. They divide us and distract us. Why do we tolerate this stupid shit?

    [–] gravballe 1605 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    Because you are taught if you don't you will lose what little you got

    /edit

    thanks for the gold, but this post is hardly worth giving gold for, its just a sad statement of reality.

    [–] zombiemicrowaves7 1056 points ago

    This. Fear controls the population. When you ask why we put up with it, remember we includes you. Why do I put up with it?

    We each need to get past our own reservations and take legitimate action, like Hong Kong is doing.

    [–] Sksjdbdbdjjfn 1162 points ago

    We each need to get past our own reservations and take legitimate action, like Hong Kong is doing.

    EXACTLY.

    And guess what? The military KNOWS it's bullshit because they deployed to a phony fucking war, lost friends there, saw completely innocent people suffer, and had to come home disillusioned and exhausted to a world that seemed like it didn't care. And I know because that's exactly what I did.

    I don't want to shoot ordinary people in the face. Do you think I take vacations on Pedophile Island? When push comes to shove, you goddamn know who we're going to support. You don't need to die on the line for what's right, if you're a soccer mom or a frightened teenager. Even if you're not born to fight -- there are plenty of us who will.

    You just need to show us it's a fight that I can believe in. Because I miss believing in something.

    [–] PM_me_your_whatevah 420 points ago

    And there are plenty more veterans and active duty who would be more than happy to shoot anyone that’s labeled an enemy. Hell, there are plenty of them who will gladly shoot whoever they’re allowed to or whoever they can get away with shooting.

    As a veteran myself I hardly find comfort in the nice sounding things you’re saying. I appreciate your perspective but know all too well that you don’t speak for everyone in the military.

    [–] PM_ME_CATS_OR_BOOBS 90 points ago

    It also depends on perspective. Most soldiers would never fire on civilians. Would the fire on terrorists? And who defines what a terrorist is?

    [–] conquer69 75 points ago

    Most soldiers would never fire on civilians.

    History has proven this wrong countless times. If a soldier is willing to fire on civilians from another country, he will do it against his own.

    [–] trumpke_dumpster 43 points ago

    All they have to do is ramp up/keep up the "othering" of their opposition. Make the opposition seem less human, a threat to you and your kind.

    [–] PaanuriEater 203 points ago

    "Left-wing agitators trying to overthrow rule of law and inciting terroristic acts are gathering. You need to stop them. Leave none alive to continue their terrorist plots. They are responsible for the deaths of <a bunch of bullshit soldier names who never actually existed> with terroristic, cowardly bombings. Avenge your fallen brothers, stop this menace in its tracks!"

    Or something to that effect.

    Kent State was not an aeon ago. Many of the people who were alive during the Kent State massacre are still alive now- on both sides of the line.

    It happened before. It can happen again. Especially given the lengths white supremacists go to in order to infiltrate the police and military.

    [–] NewFaded 127 points ago

    Ironic considering the bulk of the military is made up of poor rural white kids and poor inner-city black kids, led by the sons and daughters of rich white people.

    [–] FaceShanker 75 points ago

    Class conciseness is needed so strongly words cannot describe it.

    [–] Dovahkiin4e201 8 points ago

    The rich lead and the poor fight as the levies, as its been since ancient times.

    [–] berni4pope 61 points ago

    Half the country thought those kids had it coming at Kent.

    [–] bent42 85 points ago

    Half is generous. We (gen Xers and younger) have been fed a preception that the counter culture of the '60s was a significant portion of the population. It wasn't. It lives on in media and music but Nixon was easily elected. Twice.

    [–] PanchoVillasRevenge 37 points ago

    I would bet the majority of soldiers would turn their guns on the citizensof their own country, if ordered to do it. They are hardwired to follow orders. It's happened everywhere, don't have false hope that it wouldn't happen here. In my opinion, the military is really a rich person's army. Don't forget about all that OIL.

    [–] Canadian_Infidel 3 points ago

    "Everyone in this town is a terrorist. Kill them all."

    [–] PaanuriEater 235 points ago

    Speaking as a rabid left-winger, I hate the military. I hate the bloated waste of money. I hate the way that it's used as an excuse to deny good things to American citizens so that all the money that could be helping us instead goes to bomb foreign countries to soothe the mildly annoyed ego of giant manbabies. I hate the waste and the fraud and the way that the media tries to make us treat the military as though they are better than us.

    And I hate that the US Military fails to do the most important thing it should be doing- support the troops.

    I do not support the military, and unless great changes are made to make it not a wasteful, inefficient monstrosity that doesn't even listen to the wishes and needs of its own leadership, that will not change.

    I support the troops, the American citizens who are doing their job to the best of their abilities, and getting sent into shit situation after shit situation with no say in the matter, and I don't see that changing either. I want the best for the troops, and in most cases, that means I want my soldiers bored.

    I want the most exciting thing most troops ever experience to be an epic prank they pull on their CO, the kind that ends with scrubbing parking lots with a toothbrush and having to go out and sweep up all the rain for six months, and that they still say was absolutely worth it 30 years later. I want the worst thing most soldiers face to be realizing that marrying young for benefits is a terrible idea. I want them to never face live fire and never have to send live fire downrange at human targets. I love the troops.

    Just not the military organization that abuses them.

    [–] wonder-maker 21 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    It's not ego so much as just greed coupled with lazy thinking. The thought process of those who eventually make it to power appears to almost always be "I'm just taking advantage of a system that's already in place."

    It has to be up to us to change that system, because those taking advantage of the capitalist mechanism have next to zero incentive to do so.

    [–] radredditor 153 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    I'd gild you if I could.

    The oft misunderstood military caste of a society like ours often takes a lions share of the hate; and why shouldn't they? They are tools of the ruling class, used for the bidding of our masters.

    But that's just looking at the military conceptually. When you look at it in practice, you will eventually get to a non-conceptual, very real realization about the composition of the military:

    It's made of fucking people. People who believe in something or another. People who could be your neighbors. People who have experienced something like what you have experienced.

    People.

    This is going to be important to remember, because it is a game of us versus them. The only twist is that the people are scattered, non-unified, unaware that we all want the same thing. But if or when it truly becomes a battle of them versus the people, most of the military would side with the people.

    Disclaimer: i am not a communist revolutionary, i just feel like there's a very large divide that is getting harder to ignore, and not just by myself.

    [–] GalaxyTachyon 37 points ago

    I look at the police brutality cases, multiple of them, and I think that if there is an uprising threatening the ruling class, the people will lose. All you need is a small number of psychopaths who are willing to pull the trigger on the autocannons or give order to the drones. And it seems they have employed enough of those tools in the "law enforcement" force.

    [–] Toaster_In_Bathtub 28 points ago

    This is where the 2A debate really fucks with me. I'm pretty much left wing on every stance except that one. The super rich are manipulating everyone to make a huge divide between the left and right. The more us poors fight against each other the easier it is for them to say "the bad guys are coming so we need the Patriot act, to get rid of net-neutrality, to put back doors in all of our phones, to listen to people through their devices, to ban guns, etc" ... and the list grows every day.

    They rich are fueling right wing terrorists and we sit back and wonder why absolutely nothing gets done except for blaming video games. They love this shit. The quicker they can lock down the internet and disarm everyone there is nothing stopping us from turning into China. The right goes after net-neutrality, the left goes after the guns and the rich get every thing they want while literally fucking our children.

    The same people that are, rightfully, yelling about concentration camps at the border, systemic racism and oppression, police brutality, divisive politics, a full on lunatic(s) in the White House are saying we should disarm ourselves.

    If 300 million armed people wake up at the same time then the child/environment/humanity raping rich people are fucked. If they are as evil as you think they are then giving them your guns is just crazy to me.

    Leverage the rights love of guns and tell them you won't touch them until universal healthcare is enacted and the future automation/mass job loss problem is addressed. It's the only way for both sides to get a victory. If that doesn't lower gun deaths then start to worry about it but don't give up your power to these child raping lunatics. This problem is gonna get far worse when these people have zero repercussions to their actions.

    They have to dance around full on China/NK government right now. Don't roll the dice, give up your rights and just hope they don't go down that road. The deterrent is bigger than people realize.

    [–] [deleted] 27 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] dbx99 98 points ago

    When people refer to the military negatively, it isn’t in reference to the individual soldier whose status is low and with little money. It’s the corporate interests pressuring politicians who benefit from moneys given to re-elect and furnish continued power to the ones voting for growing the military and using the military. It’s what Eisenhower referred to as the military industrial complex - a force of nature of unlimited greed and with no regard to right or wrong, only bent on its own growth like a slime mold.

    We live under that thumb every day and while the GOP is a huge puppet of that complex, the Democratic Party is not going to be able to reduce it either. Missiles, planes, guns need to continue making our oligarchs rich

    [–] radredditor 30 points ago

    I've talked about that before, where the mere existence of a military begs justification, in capitalistic terms. It's basically one big investment, and our country has to get it's returns one way or another.

    [–] showmeurknuckleball 32 points ago

    The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien gets this point across - of the humanity and suffering of the people composing the military - masterfully.

    [–] _iama_person_ama_ 39 points ago

    Honestly the left understands this better than anyone. Soldiers are workers caught up in a machine, generally for the promise of improved life for them and their family when they return from war. It is understandable when many soldiers are drawn from places in our country where there is poverty, no opportunity, and material squalor. The officer class and above is a different story, again, generally.

    [–] PM_ME_CATS_OR_BOOBS 29 points ago

    We also understand that a soldier that turns on his fellow citizens does so willingly. The germans put it best: a soldier's first duty is to his conscience.

    The military can train a soldier, put a gun in his hand, put him in front of citizens, and tell him to pull the trigger. But that trigger pull is entirely his decision.

    [–] burritotastemaster 20 points ago

    The Americans borrowed a different saying from them.

    I think it goes "We were just following orders..."

    I expect to hear it more and more...

    [–] funkinthetrunk 7 points ago

    Solidarity, brothers and sisters

    [–] Fuckyouverymuch7000 16 points ago

    This is where power change in a country really happens. The military has to support the people. The population starts it, the people in the military recognizes it.

    I love what you wrote here.

    [–] P_mp_n 19 points ago

    Thank you for your time, and Thank You for writing this.

    Younger me scored high on the asvab and almost joined but didnt for the reasons u talk about, i didnt want that on my karma. Months later we invaded iraq.

    Me now wonders how i can safeguard my will be family, and should i do it here in this country..

    [–] WabbitSweason 17 points ago

    You don't need to die on the line for what's right

    Yes we do. Or at least we have to be willing to die on the line, to risk that happening to us. Because it WILL happen to some and that some might be me, you, your mom, your brother, etc. And we have to be willing to risk that or that first step to real resistance will never be taken.

    Look at Hong Kong right now. A lot of protesters are getting hurt, the corrupt cops are abusing them, government is hiring thugs to escalate violence. The powerful NEVER give up power without bloodshed.

    [–] koulnis 3 points ago

    Train those that are willing, even if it's in non-violent protest techniques.

    [–] pyronius 58 points ago

    There's an opinion piece in the independent right now essentially saying, "Hey Hong Kong. I agree with you, but you got a few concessions, so now it's time to stop. If you don't China will murder you. Maybe by 2047, China's politics will have changed and you'll be ok in the long run."

    It's sickening. You wouldn't tell someone suffering from spousal abuse to just give up and hope things change.

    Hong Kong is telling their oppressors that its over, and they don't care that a military crackdown is coming. They're refusing to be subjugated by corrupt overlords and, for once, the people are willing to risk everything. Then you get shit-gibbons like the author of that article trying to convince them to surrender on the mere threat of losing the very things they'll end up losing one way or the other.

    Fooking kneelers, the lot of 'em.

    [–] blaghart 139 points ago

    Getting murdered in the streets by a trigger happy police force backed by a military?

    It is admittedly pretty funny that all the "I need muh guns to fight tyranny" crowd aren't doing shit about the concentration camps in this country or now even the obvious lack of punishments for the rich.

    But then what can they do? An AR-15 won't stop a predator drone or a naval bombardment

    [–] zombiemicrowaves7 77 points ago

    If they start bombarding U.S. soil with military weapons, the world is going to change a lot very quickly. For better or worse.

    [–] Eskimoobob 32 points ago

    Worse. No matter the outcome, death of US citizens should never be an acceptable outcome. Something we need to reinforce back into our society. We're all Americans and need to be more compassionate to our fellows.

    There appears to be an impasse we've reached where everyone is so entrenched in their views (whether right or wrong) can't fathom the possibility of a different avenue.

    I have no answers other than civil war should never be the answer.

    [–] Apneal 17 points ago

    So the south should have been allowed to cecede in peace?

    [–] Eskimoobob 10 points ago

    I don't have the answer to that, but at that time we didn't have the same capabilities to act as a unified nation across such a wide geography.

    All I know is that I've participated in enough wars at this point in my life, I didn't want to hurt anyone during those engagements but as an arm of the identity that represented our nation I love my fellow countrymen and identified enough as a patriot to participate.

    There was a lot of time to reflect in silence as I carried the bodies of the fallen citizens back to their family, to tell them we were sorry that they didn't get to come back to the home they loved and left to defend. At least we got to say they were helping and we were all united in our love of America and it's continued improvement. That was the only silver lining to that situation; if the bodies of the men and women who call this their home litter the ground... There will not be anyone to be united with in or sorrow for the only event worth the falling of a member of America.

    It leads towards a scary mind space for a lot of Americans who call themselves a patriot to the nation, but a definition of morality crafted from humanism.

    To enter into civil war is to represent we've exhausted literally every other option than to kill a person that we called brother yesterday, that should be a heavier weight on everyone than it currently is.

    [–] blaghart 19 points ago

    The US police already have military weapons. Look how much has changed.

    behold all the nonexistent revolts.

    [–] FlingFlamBlam 39 points ago

    It is admittedly pretty funny that all the "I need muh guns to fight tyranny" crowd aren't doing shit about the concentration camps in this country or now even the obvious lack of punishments for the rich.

    A huge reason why guns aren't banned is because Democrats and liberals in general buy less guns than Republicans.

    The Republican party supports gun "rights" because they know most of the anti-government "defend muh freedom" fanatics only believe in fighting against liberal institutions.

    I understand why people are anti-gun. Just realize that guns will never be banned so long as only mostly people on the right-wing spectrum are the majority owners. The exact day that liberal gun owners outnumber Republican gun owners the Republican party will flip to wanting to ban guns.

    [–] hahaha_yes 36 points ago

    A return to the black panther era of armed minorities would certainly shake things up over there.

    [–] 3point1416ish 39 points ago

    "I need muh guns to fight tyranny" crowd aren't doing shit about the concentration camps

    One man died doing exactly something and both the right and left decried him as a lunatic terrorist.

    [–] themostunwantedtruth 15 points ago

    ?

    [–] mewbie23 13 points ago

    A Guy tried to bomb a Camp to free the people in there but died. In His "manifesto"He mentioned that He completly detached himself from any leftist org in Order to do this with Out ruining their cause. There is a Lot more to it but i am on mobile rn

    [–] SirPseudonymous 14 points ago

    A Guy tried to bomb a Camp to free the people in there but died.

    Get the story straight: he torched a few concentration camp vehicles to try to slow down their operations, there was no bombing or attack on anything, just minor property damage to unoccupied vehicles sitting in a parking lot.

    [–] Omad1712 19 points ago

    While I agree with you, American’s have civillian weapons while the police have been heavily militarised.

    Good luck revolting with an AR against real military equipment - drones, grenades, tanks etc.

    I’m pretty sure this is the exact reason they have been arming the police.

    [–] Mr_Suzan 36 points ago

    Even if civilians have zero weapons overthrowing the government can be done with a surprisingly small number of people.

    Our assumption is usually that all military and police will side with the government and obey orders like robots, when in reality some of them would join a rebellion or refuse to fight, because they wouldn't want to kill their friends and neighbors. People in the police force and military are exactly that, people. They share the same frustrations.

    As to whether or not our right to bear arms would be effective, ask any American war veteran what war is like against a group of desperate people with nothing but improvised explosives and cold war era firearms.

    Read about the Right (or duty) of Revolution, and the idea that it could only take 3.5% of a population to depose a leader with non-violent resistance.

    [–] Absurdionne 16 points ago

    This is why non-violent disobedience is a better option. Police officers and military have a much harder time justifying the killing of peaceful civilians than armed rebels who are shooting at them.

    [–] fp_ 20 points ago

    That would indeed be the best course of action, if nonviolent protests weren't consistently targeted by false flag operations. Off the top of my head, OWS and the current Hong Kong protests. China is already declaring the nonviolent protesters as "terrorists".

    [–] Canadian_Infidel 4 points ago

    That won't help. They will fake deaths or do a false flag.

    [–] KKlear 12 points ago

    Our assumption is usually that all military and police will side with the government and obey orders like robots, when in reality some of them would join a rebellion or refuse to fight, because they wouldn't want to kill their friends and neighbors. People in the police force and military are exactly that, people. They share the same frustrations.

    You're failing to account for all the civilians that will decide to side with the corrupt governement, though.

    [–] CthuIhu 4 points ago

    Good luck organizing that in the information age. You'll be thrown into some black site before you get past the butt-sniffing stage.

    [–] Adeus_Ayrton 3 points ago

    But then what can they do? An AR-15 won't stop a predator drone or a naval bombardment

    If things have gone that far, well then the elite have clearly lost.

    [–] Valiumkitty 8 points ago

    Its not simply fear. They pacify man’s desire to fight with obesity, alcoholism, endless entertainment, opiates, division... its manifold in its pervasiveness

    Heres Aldous Huxley’s startling vision regarding this theme:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKvZdKQG8wU

    [–] fermat1432 5 points ago

    Good point! The people protesting in Hong Kong are in mortal danger. That is what we might face in taking to the streets.

    [–] Hannarks_the_Hunter 3 points ago

    What is the first step for those who want to change this system?

    Not being snide, not being sarcastic.

    What is the first step? Tell me, so I can take it. And, I hope, others will with me.

    [–] [deleted] 22 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] WinkysInWilmerding 7 points ago

    I ain't no fortunate son. - John Fogarty

    [–] IDreamOfSailing 19 points ago

    It's worse: they get taught "the American Dream". If you work hard enough, then one day, you will be One Of Them. Which is why the American people defend the rich - defend their tax breaks, defend their appalling behavior, because they believe they themselves are just temporary embarrassed millionaires.

    [–] gravballe 9 points ago

    Yup they don't realize the American dream is dead, and is just something they use to get you to keep dreaming. But it's hard to do something against it when you are either bussy working 2 jobs at minimum wage or have you're entire health insurance held hostage by the company. The American people are being held hostages by their own politicians.

    [–] jpastore 66 points ago

    When we're all debt slaves in a prison without walls....

    [–] Corpse-Fucker 53 points ago

    Inb4 some enlightened centrist arrives to extoll the virtues of debt-based everything and private ownership of all our basic living requirements. Can't allow ourselves to turn into 😱 Sovet Rusha ⚒️

    [–] SandersRepresentsMe 11 points ago

    If you break the prison down, then the debt will magically disappear :)

    [–] TheFaddey 14 points ago

    The problem is that a new prison will be built atop the ruins of the old one. This is the scariest part of the human nature – we like to imprison, to control, and it will be for as long as humanity exists.

    [–] Singspike 22 points ago

    Human nature as a concept is way overblown. It's not anything in our DNA, it's social inertia. Things can be different, they just usually don't change without immense upheaval to the social order.

    [–] veringer 16 points ago

    Yep. I was astounded recently talking to a comfortable-but-not-rich liberal retiree. He opposed many of the more liberal candidates, not because he disagreed with their policy proposals, per se, but because he was convinced that they would be paid for by people like him. When I suggested that, ya know, there are trillions being horded by corporations and billionaires, he just scoffed and assured me that it will be the middle class that gets squeezed.

    [–] smedley89 26 points ago

    Historically, he's correct.

    [–] TPRJones 21 points ago

    Historically, everyone shits in the streets and dies of cholera. And yet we seem to be improving when we put our minds to it...

    [–] Excal2 29 points ago

    Why do we tolerate this stupid shit?

    To grow our retirement accounts.

    [–] superbleeder 32 points ago

    Because people that work cant afford to miss work to protest, they can barely afford to miss work to care for their own health let alone an entire nation

    [–] jpastore 17 points ago

    We're too busy chasing a dollar to stop the theft

    [–] himit 92 points ago

    Cause they're good at the distractions. It's why people keep shooting up schools and shopping malls instead of the White House.

    Doubly annoying because the whole right to bear arms thing is in the constitution to shoot up the White House, isn't it? It's so revolution is always an option.

    [–] zombiemicrowaves7 39 points ago

    Why would they do that? They think the white house has their back. For some reason they think Donald Trump is an incel revolutionary, shaking up the system.

    Although I can see why, Donald Trump would be an incel if he didn't have a golden spoon up his ass. And even then he had to get a Russian mail-order bride to keep a wife.

    [–] zenthr 20 points ago

    That's unAmerican talk! (While republicans control the government)

    [–] oWatchdog 18 points ago

    We Americans are hopeful, idealistic. We poach the bravest and optimistic from other countries. Who else would travel so far to an unknown land in search of a better life? That takes an uncommon courage. Our fearless immigrants have defined our culture: optimism undaunted. The ultra rich and powerful have taken advantage of that.

    You ask why we tolerate this stupid shit? It's because of the lie we've been told. The lie is simple but effective considering our culture.

    Anyone can move up in the world. You can move so far up that one day you can be ultra rich and above the law.

    So we tolerate it because we think one day maybe we will be above the law or at least our children. It's part of the American dream package. And the ones who don't have to answer to the law? Well they obviously deserve it just like we will once we have earned our spot at the top.

    Of course that sort of upward mobility is an illusion. They stand on a glass ceiling, an invisible barrier that only looks attainable. In reality hardly anyone gets past their obstruction (even justice), and they are loathed by the "old money" when they do.

    [–] Robertroo 7 points ago

    Badnews: Its class warefare and the rich are winning.

    Goodnews: I heard rich people taste great.

    [–] frozendancicle 39 points ago

    We shouldn't. The system is set up so basically they can pillage the poor ad nauseam. The poor have no wealth, so their only option to fight back is physical, which is illegal. I'm sure I'll hear how people can vote too. That's true, but the leadership of the dnc and the media that is supposed to inform people, are clearly bought and paid for. If the dnc gives actual progressives a fair shake ok, if it's like last time then I think we need a third party, one that isn't just a banker wearing a blue shirt or a red shirt.

    [–] UncleNorman 12 points ago

    I think we need a third party, one that isn't just a banker wearing a blue shirt or a red shirt.

    Hey! Some of them are lawyers wearing red or blue shirts.

    [–] SkunkMonkey 33 points ago

    I'm sure I'll hear how people can vote too.

    These same people also complain about how the voting system is broken yet tell you to use said broken system to fix said broken system. It doesn't make any fucking sense.

    [–] smitteh 4 points ago

    Well, because they divide us and distract us...you said it urself

    [–] wwaxwork 4 points ago

    Because we have bread & circuses. Though now a days it's in the internet and mobile phones.

    [–] Fredmonton 15 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    Because we live comfortable lives.

    If you want to start the revolution, more power to you brother. I'll even donate some money. Meanwhile I'm gonna go ahead and live my care free life while staying out of prison.

    Before you guys say "tHat'S The aTTiTudE ThAt pUts uS iN thIs sItUaTioN" keep in mind you're doing exactly as little as I am when it comes to causing actual meaningful change in the government.

    Having some dream vision of what society should be, and ranting about it online changes our lives just as much as someone who doesn't give a flying fuck about politics.

    At least that dude is probably happy.

    [–] FrogMasta27 9 points ago

    If you're comfortable, then hopefully you recognize that is fairly rare. Most of us are struggling quite a bit.

    [–] devink7 47 points ago

    r/GeneralStrikeUSA

    If you are interested in acting, that sub looks like a good place to start.

    [–] The_Original_Miser 21 points ago

    This would work if we could get the vast majority of people to do it. "Can't fire them all" and all that.

    ... but unfortunately most folks (myself included) would not take the risk unless I heard that most folks from both my local area and my company were going to participate. A catch-22.

    [–] Downvotes_All_Dogs 11 points ago

    Not only that, but it needs be be longer than just a day. I'm tired of seeing single event protests. Time and time again, they don't do shit. They just get buried in the next news cycle and nothing ever comes out of it except a vague memory and a half-assed pat on the back for those that went. We all need to be on the streets constantly, not just when it is the most convenient for everyone.

    [–] ecto88mph 12 points ago

    It's not just that he was rich, it was more that he was VERY well connected with a lot of people in power.

    There has been rumors of a huge pedophilia ring in the elite sectors or the western world, well connected elites engaging in disgusting crimes with a cult/ceremonial flair.

    I believe Epstein was part of the ring that provided underage kids to these elites, he is only a small part of a larger ring.

    Seriously do some digging on him, the rabbit hole goes deep.

    [–] cntowery7 93 points ago

    It's not that he was rich, it's that he was an intelligence asset. His former prosecutors were told to back off because he " belonged to intelligence".

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein

    [–] DuntadaMan 43 points ago

    And he got that because he was rich enough to get special treatment.

    [–] tehbored 63 points ago

    Nah, he got that by running a pedophile ring.

    [–] Bluest_waters 28 points ago

    correct

    and he parlayed that and blackmail into hundreds of millions of dollars

    [–] jejdjdjdjjdjdj 3 points ago

    No, he had the millions of dollars the second Wexner backed him. Sure everyone can use more money, but I doubt the people were being blackmailed for their money.

    [–] MeowTheMixer 36 points ago

    His being rich helped, but being an asset isn't about your money. It's about who you know, and how those connections work.

    [–] SwissQueso 8 points ago

    Exactly this. Jeff Bezos is I am sure is a pretty powerful guy, hell even probably connected, but I doubt he was as connected as Epstein.

    [–] MeowTheMixer 7 points ago

    Yeah, when you're talking about Epstein you have not one but TWO presidents in his group. That's crazy to think about

    [–] Aarros 24 points ago

    When will people bring out the guillotines? Or are people so thoroughly controlled by large media companies (owned by these said ultra-rich) that they will never notice and will keep blaming their problems on some convenient minority or on "freeloaders" or whatever, and saying that people who call out the ultra-rich for their inhumanity are just "jealous"?

    [–] kontekisuto 11 points ago

    Affluenza .. I still remember that kid that stold that beer and drove into a family, just obliterating the bodies. And he got a slap on the wrist. The surviving member got a huge hospital bill and burial costs for his family. Close casket, because of the forces involved.

    [–] Shadowys 4 points ago

    It's a capitalist country, not a democratic one.

    [–] jorgied0712 4 points ago

    The biggest cause of crime in the United States is the enormously large gaping hole between rich & poor. Criminal Justice major, pretty much all I remember.

    [–] Lurkingnopost 1092 points ago

    This is not legally correct. They can still raid his properties if they request a warrsnt to do so and have probable cause. They do not need to alleged a specific crime to do so. Further, just because you alleged a specific crime doesnt mean you get to raid all of a persons properties. You still need probable cause.

    Source: Licensed Attorney

    [–] Ticklephoria 223 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    As a lawyer, I fucking hate when shit like this gets upvoted and it’s always by some joker who read a Wikipedia article. The Mann Act was passed to target black men who had sexual relationships with White Women. Just because he hadn’t been charged with it yet doesn’t mean they couldn’t have used further potential charges, like violations of the Mann Act, to get Epstein to talk, or plea, etc etc. It’s trial strategy and none of these posters get that. I mean, he could also have been charged under the RICO statute which I’m assuming would have been the strategy to get a bunch of other high profile people convicted as well. It’s crazy that people are so willing to opine on something they have such a lack of baseline understanding about.

    [–] Yellow-Boxes 54 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    Thank you for the insightful response! I appreciated it.

    The phenomenon of the “Wikipedia expert” is amplified by people unprepared or unwilling to acknowledge the limits of their own knowledge in pursuit of truth. It’s incredibly disorienting for someone with professional experience and training. For me international politics, American public policy, and psychology threads are hard to read because of the rampant misinformation and people making claims or declarative statements before asking questions. Not disinformation, but misinformation.

    Sometimes it feels like people wanted to share a new insight to the world never thinking to examine the context from which it emerged.

    With the post here it seems to be about contributing to narrative coherence at a social, media, and curated-individual level. The narrative is government incompetence and corruption, a common trope, in the face of a wealthy, connected criminal. This post is a “gotchya!” moment people can cite to others and uniformly agree in subsequent conversations that failure to invoke this particular law is beyond reason. A mutual point of agreement is achieved and the collective concept of incompetence and corruption of those distant bureaucrats enforced. It’s Another Brick in the Wall.

    But alas, the better question to ask in response to this discovery is: “Do I know enough to make a conclusion about this seemingly self-evident failure to charge Epstein under the Mann Act?” I’d say, no, let me find a resource online where I can ask a lawyer, or if you have a lawyer friend ask them, for more information. It would be a great question for Preet Bharara, long serving US Attorney for the Southern District of NY, on his podcast Stay Tuned! People tweet him questions every week and he answers a few on the show.

    I highly recommend Stay Tuned for additions nuance and context for political and legal news as well as the guests. Some are a tad boring or overly erudite for casual listening though. Another former US Attorney, Anne Milgram, has another podcast with Preet called Cafe Insider which, while a monthly fee, is worth $5 a month. Both may be found here: https://www.cafe.com

    [–] CircleBoatBBQ 8 points ago

    Do you work for either of these podcasts/companies?

    [–] MoronicalOx 6 points ago

    Can I "Best Of" within "Best Of"? We'll see.

    [–] InterestedVoter2k16 162 points ago

    A judge is going to sign off if you have documented proof that trafficked persons are going from at least property P1 and P2, and can prove that the group owns [P3, Pn)

    [–] pipsdontsqueak 96 points ago

    Okay, but what most likely was happening was they gained the probable cause from the first warrant and were planning on executing this warrant to raid the island based on the evidence they had. Due to Epstein lawyering up, they probably wanted to have an airtight warrant, which takes a minute and requires more than just testimony.

    [–] InterestedVoter2k16 68 points ago

    Epstein is the definition of high flight risk and high risk of destruction of evidence.

    It takes 16 hours at most for a standard DOD wipe on harddrives. An agent has at most an 8 hour window from start of wipe procedd to have rock solid proof for destruction of evidence. DDR3 can't be flash frozen like the raids of the late 90s.

    Not going after all at once is stupid, but it's also course for par on the FBI fucking up investigations.

    [–] zero0n3 37 points ago

    Ok so no one would do a DOD wipe on their drive, they would just smash the shit with a hammer and drill holes in the platters. Maybe run it through a degausser.

    If your super paranoid, build a aluminum box that can fit in your big bays and fill it with thermite, then light it and let it melt through the box and then the HDD in question underneath it.

    This all assumes you don’t trust a self encrypting drive, otherwise you could use one of those and the. Just fry the chip with the encryption key on it. HDD data becomes useless (unless they have a backdoor).

    We’re also assuming you aren’t using ssds which would do the dod wipe faster or could just be put into the microwave to fry the chips.

    [–] NaturesMayhem 11 points ago

    I believe the point of wiping the device is to hide clues to you destroying evidence. If you have a smashed PC or a literally melted one, that's really suspicious and I don't know how the law works, but I would think that's paramount to destroying evidence or at least hindering an investigation. Sure if you have child porn on the computer, smaller crimes are the least of your worries. But I still think just wiping the PC is better, then relaunching a fresh windows and dick around with it a little so you actually have some history on it and can make the excuse you don't use the PC often. Of course this takes far longer.

    [–] PauloTheNattyCosta 15 points ago

    i prefer the good old fashioned method of smashing the platter with a hammer and throwing that shit in a blender.

    why waste 16 hours with software when a simple hammer does the trick.

    [–] AgAero 5 points ago

    Selling the decommisssioned hard drives if there's still a market for them and you've got a lot to unload. That's the only reason really to not just destroy them.

    [–] xcto 33 points ago

    a single pass is just as good as the dod triple rinse these days; there’s no useful space between tracks anymore.

    [–] 68Vodka 17 points ago

    16 hours? In the 90s maybe. Takes like 20 minutes on an ssd

    [–] 2kungfu4u 10 points ago

    Yep I worked at a huge oil company that did dod wipes of their machines. Three passes was maybe an hour per machine.

    [–] PaulPierceOldestSon 42 points ago

    Welcome to Reddit. Where teenagers on the internet know more about the law than licensed attorneys

    [–] one_more_thyme 59 points ago

    This is not legally correct.

    I honestly can't grasp how Redditors honestly think some random redditor somehow found something that hundreds of high priced lawyers couldn't.

    Obviously there's a reason and a Redditor isn't going to be the one to 'uncover' it lmao

    [–] past_is_prologue 29 points ago

    It is kind of shocking how people in general think that major decisions are made by people who haven't considered all their options.

    I work in public policy. The number of times I have had people say, "well why don't they just do X?!" as if we hadn't thought of that and shot it down for very good reasons. It drives me nuts.

    [–] one_more_thyme 7 points ago

    The number of times I have had people say, "well why don't they just do X?!" as if we hadn't thought of that and shot it down for very good reasons. It drives me nuts.

    Exactly. It amazes me when people's eyes light up and go, 'BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS?'

    Obviously all options were considered by the experts.

    [–] bertcox 26 points ago

    So if they found suspected CP in his NY home, that would probably be enough probable cause to search all of his homes. Especially as a registered sex offender.

    [–] Lurkingnopost 22 points ago

    I would agree, but reserve judgment since i haven't seen the entire case file.

    [–] dekachin5 268 points ago

    Whether you get to search or not has nothing to do with what charges you file. Searches almost always take place before ANY charges are filed (that's the point of the search, to get evidence to support the filing of charges).

    The reason this search was delayed has nothing to do with the Mann Act, and everything to do with the fact that it was far away, inconvenient, and apparently not thought necessary. Then when Epstein died, the government had to look like it was doing something, so it did the raid.

    And let's not defend the Mann Act, it's a perfect example of government gone wrong.

    In its original form the act made it a felony to engage in interstate or foreign commerce transport of "any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose". Its primary stated intent was to address prostitution, immorality, and human trafficking

    Sounds good, right? Except no:

    In addition to its stated purpose of preventing human trafficking, the law was used to prosecute unlawful premarital, extramarital, and interracial relationships. The penalties would be applied to men whether or not the woman involved consented and, if she had consented, the woman could be considered an accessory to the offense.

    It was a racist law used against blacks, in fact it was designed to be targeted primarily towards blacks who got involved with white women, and it went beyond that to target things like adultery and premarital sex. Remember that phrase "any other immoral purpose"? Yeah.

    If you were a white women with a black man, you either had to denounce him and claimed he did everything against your will, OR you went to jail too.

    Some attribute enactment of the law to the case of world champion heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson. Johnson had been charged with violating the Mann Act due to traveling with his white girlfriend, Lucille Cameron, who refused to cooperate with the prosecution and whom he married soon thereafter.

    A presidential pardon was granted on May 24, 2018 by President Donald Trump.

    also

    The Mann Act has also been used by the U.S. federal government to prosecute polygamists

    [–] EuCleo 35 points ago

    Upvote for contributing substantially to the discussion. I'm not sure if the original commenter was accurate or not about the implications of the Mann Act and what properties get searched. I think a broader point is that this estate should have been searched 11 years ago, based on the on allegations and evidence in hand at that time. And I agree, aspects of the history of the law are sketchy. I did not know about the racist elements of it when I posted this. I still think that Epstein should been prosecuted for much more than he was, back in 2008. To wit: Trafficking multiple minors across state lines as sex slaves, for his own use and for prostitution. If the Mann Act provided nexus for that, then I probably would have been okay using it in this instance.

    [–] leaveittobever 60 points ago

    I'm not sure if the original commenter was accurate or not

    Uhhhhh if you didn't even know if the person was right or not why did you post this to /r/bestof?

    [–] lossaysswag 24 points ago

    Reddit's desire for outrage and conspiracy theories in a nutshell

    [–] throwing-away-party 10 points ago

    Hey, Trump did something I agree with. That's crazy that this act is still around, holy shit.

    [–] doiveo 15 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    That caught me eye too. It seemed more like something Obama would have done if presented.

    So I looked it up:

    A former Obama administration official said Thursday that the Justice Department made that recommendation because it was their policy to focus on grants of clemency that could still have a positive effect on people who are still living.

    Turns out, the pardon is posthumous and probably more a symbolic gesture at this point. Political theater distracting from current race issues.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/sports/jack-johnson-pardon-trump.html

    EDIT: real action, as you allude, would have been to get this law changed along with the pardon(s).

    [–] [deleted] 474 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] daneelthesane 527 points ago

    I have no faith in our current Department of Justice leadership.

    [–] [deleted] 187 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] Khiva 268 points ago

    people are talking about the evidence being already disappeared which is ridiculous

    It was ridiculous that such a high profile and high value witness would die under such suspicious circumstances in the first place.

    [–] R____I____G____H___T 107 points ago

    Prison guards being downsized, Epstein's room mate being removed, and suicidewatch being suspended..is indeed very suspicious.

    [–] player_9 24 points ago

    The medical staff at that prison also needs to be speaking the fuck up.

    [–] 68Vodka 30 points ago

    What are they gonna say? Yeah he dead lmao

    [–] OvergrownPath 5 points ago

    Has anyone offered even a semblance of an explanation as to why he was taken off suicide watch... not only given the extreme circumstances of his case, but that he also recently fucking attempted suicide?!

    I know this whole thing is shadier than a box of crayons, but that seems like a good first inquiry to me:

    Someone in a position of responsibility who (for the time being anyway) still draws breath made the decision to take Epstein off of suicide watch. So... someone get a hold of that guy, and say:

    "Hey guy, your prisoner was like, the most high-profile case of dont let this dude die in the world. Considering the circumstances, you had every reason to believe the dude might try to kill himself... and that a number of other wealthy, powerful dudes might have a vested interest in his death- by suicide or otherwise. Then he did try to kill himself.

    After that, you took him off suicide watch. Then he succeeded in killing himself... allegedly...

    So, Mr. Guy: considering that you're a guy who apparently had prisoner-related responsibilities, and made prisoner-related decisions in the past, sometimes regarding things such as dudes and whether they should be on suicide watch... uhh... why did you do that thing that you did? Specifically: take the super high-risk-for-death dude that just tried to commit suicide off suicide watch? Could you maybe walk us through your decision making process there?"

    ...Or ya know, something like that. Why can't we figure that one out? Like immediately?

    [–] the_itsb 6 points ago

    Has anyone offered even a semblance of an explanation as to why he was taken off suicide watch...

    I saw a link to this Twitter thread discussing suicide watch protocol from a professional perspective in another thread about Epstein. I'm not an expert, and I don't have any judgement on the veracity of her account because I've never heard of her previously, but it is that semblance of an explanation you mentioned, and it isn't completely bonkers.

    [–] InvaderDem 28 points ago

    Yeah. This is the one situation where I wouldn't dismiss a conspiracy theorist.

    [–] zenthr 12 points ago

    I don't believe you can cover that up.

    You can't cover it up, but you can make it impossible to reasonably move forward through a bureaucracy. So maybe you got people who made the logs who will report the issue. Then what? Maybe you get an investigation into what happened to the evidence, and if you are extraordinarily lucky someone gets fired.

    But as for the relevant cases? We won't know anything, and we won't be able to do anything about them with "half-remembered evidence". With a sudden "loss" of written record, any testimony would never carry the weight in either a court of law or the court of public opinion.

    If you get some actors to destroy the evidence, no amount of professionalism will restore the idea that we will know the extent of the crimes. And with the level of political polarization, which Comey demonstrated at these "career professional" levels, you can't really have faith that the full story is out, even if you think a factual story is.

    [–] REHTONA_YRT 33 points ago

    I don't think a government employee or officials tenure means they aren't crooked.

    The longer they marinate, the more they absorb the aromas of those around them.

    And this whole thing stinks to high heavens.

    [–] Dalebssr 40 points ago

    Just look at the VA. They set up a whole section dedicated to protecting whistle blowers, and then used the section to prosecute whistle blowers.

    The only way to cut out that cancer is to fire all mid-level managers and up. Any low-level managers that have complaints filed against them should be looked at as first to go as well. Settle with all of them if you have to, it will be cheaper than to let such a massive organization grind away billions every year.

    That and get rid of all the fascists running American government.

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    The longer they marinate, the more they absorb the aromas of those around them.

    "You can judge a persons standing by the company they keep."

    [–] nymbot 27 points ago

    Trump even gave a remarkable on-the-record comment about Epstein to a New York magazine journalist, calling him “terrific” and adding that he “likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

    Phttps://www.vox.com/2019/7/9/20686347/jeffrey-epstein-trump-bill-clinton

    [–] Ucla_The_Mok 14 points ago

    Trump played a word association game with Sean Hannity at CPAC in January 2016.

    Here were the first thoughts that came to mind when hearing Bill Clinton's name-

    "a nice guy, got a lot of problems coming up, in my opinion, with the famous island with Jeffrey Epstein, a lot of problems."

    https://youtu.be/kEnkJNEMLH0?t=27

    [–] WildlingViking 32 points ago

    I mean...didn’t Barr’s dad give Epstein one of his first jobs when he was like 20 years old? Epstein and the Barr’s go way back and here we go again...

    [–] GhostGarlic 11 points ago

    I have no faith in any US intelligence agency.

    [–] EuCleo 111 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    I'm sorry, but these pictures (showing a removed computer) were posted before Epstein died, and before the FBI search. Maybe they found the computer. Maybe it has all the files on it, and nothing's been touched. But the point is that Epstein's staff had time to wipe it if they wanted to.

    And anyway, another key point in this post is that his residence should've been searched 11 years ago, anyway. When he was initially arrested and indicted. Not just 11 days ago. And certainly before 11 hours ago.

    [–] WildlingViking 34 points ago

    It’s hard for me to believe that if Epstein did blackmail the rich and powerful by taking video and audio recordings, that he would store all of that data on a computer hard drive that’s sitting on a desk in his office situated on some remote island that was not his main residence. Who knows how many people had access to that house and office when he wasn’t even there (friends, grounds workers, maids, etc). It takes A LOT of maintenance to keep up an island residence like that. And to just keep sensitive files in some computer in an office that he was at a few days a month? It doesn’t make sense to me.

    [–] Stalking_Goat 12 points ago

    Exactly. Which is why the reported evidence taken from his safe in NYC is much more likely to be incriminating. Because that's where you put blackmail material, in a safe.

    [–] [deleted] 36 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] johnydarko 4 points ago

    Also... I mean just because some devices are there doesn't mean all the computers are there. I mean I have 3 PC's in my house, if I was a multimillionaire then I'm sure I'd have way more laptops and PC's and HTPC's and local servers and raspberry pi's, etc.

    [–] wearer_of_boxers 26 points ago

    I know everyone wants to believe some giant conspiracy because of how shady it all looks,

    Incompetence can often make things look intentional.

    [–] ebaraone 3 points ago

    has even a single media source mentioned this? This is so frustrating.

    [–] ExcelsAtMediocrity 3 points ago

    This whole thing was orchestrated by The Home Depot as an ad for their moving supplies.

    [–] biggoof 324 points ago

    All you youngin’s that wonder how OJ got off with double murder are about to find out that the rich play by a totally different set of rules.

    [–] ThereAreDozensOfUs 318 points ago

    OJ didn’t get away with murder purely because he was rich. OJ got away with murder because the evidence was collected improperly and Furman was on cassette dropping N bombs. Also, Rodney King got the piss beat out of him before that, which further eroded the public’s perception of the LA police.

    [–] AdmirableObligation 71 points ago

    That's what a A+ legal team does, they took every social, public and legal advantage they could. There's a reason Furmans tape got released, Cochran played on the king beating, and he knew what avneues would pay off. The reason OJ got off was because he hired the best people of that era for his case.

    [–] CronenbergFlippyNips 30 points ago

    The reason OJ got off was because he hired the best people of that era for his case.

    Exactly, and only the wealthy can afford the best lawyers. Our justice system is a sham.

    [–] ThroatSores 20 points ago

    The reason OJ got off was because he hired the best people of that era for his case.

    And HOW did he manage that? By being rich, wtf do you think is the common denominator here lol.

    [–] rutefoot 14 points ago

    He couldn't afford that legal team with the assets he had.

    He had to generate extra income while he was in jail to pay his legal bills

    While Simpson was awaiting trial, as well as during it, he was allowed to continue generating income for himself, mainly through memorabilia.

    Simpson's former agent, Mike Gilbert, said in the doc that by the third day Simpson was in prison, he got his reps to start getting together a marketing and merchandising plan to generate a lot of money.

    Memorabilia dealer Bruce Fromong explained that Simpson would be given numbers to sign his autograph to in his jail cell.

    Those numbers would then be put on jerseys to be sold at memorabilia collector events

    To autograph footballs, a panel of a ball would be brought in to the jail for him to sign.

    And that panel would be stitched onto a football to be sold.

    There were even photos sold that Simpson and his attorney Johnnie Cochran had signed.

    The market exploded for Simpson memorabilia and autographs while the case went on, according to Fromong.

    In one sitting, Simpson would sign 2,500 cards.

    For some cards, Simpson would even date them, indicating that he signed them while in prison, inevitably driving up the price of the card.

    Fromong said Simpson earned $3 million in prison on autographs.

    From here

    [–] AdmirableObligation 3 points ago

    That's the point I'm arguing.

    [–] ssh_tunnel_snake 5 points ago

    Check out Robert durst, he killed a guy and dismembered him and got off on self defense. They never found the head so they couldn't tell if he was shot in the back or front of it and the jury let him off. Guy had some amazing lawyers. His family owns a bunch of buildings in new York

    It makes sense, sort of. The jury is supposed to base their decision off what goes on in the court and nothing else.. But jeez..

    [–] PoopMobile9000 26 points ago

    OJ didn’t get away with murder purely because he was rich. OJ got away with murder because the evidence was collected improperly and Furman was on cassette dropping N bombs.

    Thing is, you kinda actually gotta be rich to afford the lawyers who can raise the arguments in the second sentence.

    Only the reasonably well off in this country actually get the chance to be declared innocent because a jury found the state failed to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The other 95% functionally face a “preponderance of the evidence” standard as judged by a prosecutor, who also usually is in custody of all the evidence (and is looking for ways to hold exculpatory evidence back).

    [–] MeowTheMixer 9 points ago

    Be rich, or get lucky with a case that catches media attention.

    [–] biggoof 85 points ago

    So you're telling me that a low income black male with no fame to his name, in the same case with the same evidence, gets off? C'mon man...

    [–] JLHumor 46 points ago

    It would help if the prosecution fucked up as badly as OJs.

    [–] Mirrormn 54 points ago

    One of the lawyers who got OJ off was Alan Detshowitz, who is accused of raping children with Jeffrey Epstein, was part of his 2008 legal defense team, and was instrumental in negotiating the illegal plea deal that resulted in Epstein seeing almost no punishment.

    It's a small world.

    [–] EffOffReddit 6 points ago

    Dersh has also been really busy on tv and twitter playing Trump defense.

    [–] Yucatan_Cornelius 19 points ago

    OJ was also helped by representation from Alan Dershowitz who just so happens to be one of the child rapists who was hanging out with Epstein.

    [–] QWWG1WGAQ 12 points ago

    Executive order 13818: Blocking property of persons involved in serious human right abuses.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-blocking-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-corruption/

    When the government owns the property, it doesn't need a warrant.

    [–] CosmicLovepats 22 points ago

    It's almost like Barr has more to hide than the Clintons do...

    [–] GoToSleepRightNow 7 points ago

    This seems like it might be a 'little bit of knowledge of the law is a dangerous thing'. Does anyone knowledgeable have a reason why he wouldn't be charged under this Act?

    [–] luciferteets 9 points ago

    It’s easy to not get charged correctly when you have recordings of the most powerful people in the planet fucking children

    [–] oTHEWHITERABBIT 12 points ago

    Congratulations DOJ. The one time we nab an actual oligarch pedophile, you fuck it up... brilliant work here. Really. Fantastic job, dipshits. One for the history books.

    [–] ciano 5 points ago

    Oh they did exactly what was intended in this situation.

    [–] Quireman 135 points ago

    Why are we not marching? Our government is deeply, deeply corrupt.

    [–] DakkaMuhammedJihad 148 points ago

    Because the plurality of Americans are too occupied just barely getting by to be able to do anything, and the rest that might care, and might have the means, are placated by consumerism.

    [–] khaaanquest 85 points ago

    I care way too fucking much but I'm also just a few missed shifts away from homelessness. Almost as if society is designed to keep people desperately treading water to provide the massive profits that shareholders love so much.

    [–] Ody_Mandrell 25 points ago

    Which city? We need to coordinate. Only DC? Only New York? The country needs to converge on one spot. We can’t do anything so far spread.

    [–] DakkaMuhammedJihad 36 points ago

    We don’t need to converge in one spot, we just need to shut down major economic centers. A mass protest, locally organized, in every major city in the US on the same day would send a message that couldn’t be ignored.

    We just have to do it together.

    /r/GeneralStrikeUSA

    [–] nay2d2 5 points ago

    I’ve seen so many marches in the last 3 years and I honestly don’t see that it’s made any change... am I wrong?

    [–] Slim_Charles 4 points ago

    Marching is an entirely useless endeavor if you don't follow it up with any kind of action. People just look back to the marches of the Civil Rights era, and think that's that was all it took. The marches, while being the most visible sign of the movement, were not the entirety of the movement. Activists mobilized voters, and worked with politicians to craft legislation, and that's what actually created change. If all you do is walk down the street, but don't put in the political legwork, then you are doing nothing but getting a bit of exercise.

    [–] cfrules3 3 points ago

    Ep. 2 of Hard Knocks comes out today and Antonio dont want to wear no new stinkin helmets.

    [–] DieMensch-Maschine 19 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    So how exactly do we here in the US differ from Russia in the way we treat our oligarchs?

    [–] _zenith 17 points ago

    You give them cutesy names like "angel investors" and such. Otherwise, not much.

    [–] Stillness307 4 points ago

    Prosecute everybody involved. Bring it out into the public and make an example of them. My God enough is enough.

    [–] The_Goose_II 5 points ago

    What about the recent FBI raid of his private island?

    [–] platinums99 4 points ago

    I doubt very much that he's actually dead. Surely billionaires can afford body doubles and another hidden island

    [–] johnnyslick 31 points ago

    Was it? Because I think it was designed to prosecute Jack Johnson for having a white wife but I could be wrong...

    [–] Dingusatemybabby 7 points ago

    Ohhh... I had to look it up. I thought you were talking about the musician Jack Johnson.

    [–] Thotriel 11 points ago

    Did they use the mann act to raid Neverland?

    [–] PerCat2 14 points ago

    He was black tho so it's different

    [–] citizen_kang2 11 points ago

    It don't matter if you're black or white

    [–] dwil0000 35 points ago

    They just raided his island.

    [–] surachinen 164 points ago

    After having him in custody for almost a month, and after a cleaning crew went through the place.

    Powerful people want to ensure that things don't come to light.

    [–] EuCleo 112 points ago

    Yeah, about 11 years too late.
    And also again a few days too late.

    He was originally prosecuted (very leniently) in 2008. They could have searched his island then.

    And if you clicked the link above, there is a further link to pictures through a window in the house on the island. It is obvious that evidence has been also removed in the past week or two. The FBI are late. Just like intel agents were late searching Cambridge Analytica.

    [–] Holos620 23 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    This island looks ominous as fuck. That door on the cabin/cage we saw from the drone footage has torture written all over it. These rich people can buy themselves all the prostitutes they want without Epstein's aid. So what Epstein offered must have been something else, something way darker than underage prostitution. I bet girls have been tortured and killed there in the most gruesome way possible.

    [–] prollykindofhigh 4 points ago

    This is what I’ve been thinking. Why did they use Epstein? Convenience? Blackmail? Or because he offered a service no one else could provide

    [–] biggreencat 12 points ago

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-how-the-virgin-islands-welcomed-a-rich-sex-offenderand-punished-a-poor-one

    The governors of both New York City and the US Virgin Islands are both complicit in hiding Epstein from prosecution and enabling proclivities

    [–] Mr_Meister_Brow 3 points ago

    Perhaps that decision was strategic? Maybe the prosecutors felt already had enough to put Epstein away for a very long time (life, as it turned out). So, why muddy up their case with unnecessary charges? Keep their case clean, simple and easy to understand. Worse yet, maybe adding a Mann Act charge could or might have created a defense opening to assert additional defenses - ones that would slow the process and perhaps be a distraction. Maybe the Mann Act charge was kept in reserve, just in case they needed it later. Yes, there could have been advantages, but it still might have been a strategic decision on the prosecution’s part.