Jay-Z accused in a civil lawsuit of raping a 13-year-old girl in 2000 along with Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs
1y 6mon ago by slrpnk.net/u/ZeroCool in news from www.nbcnews.com
Jay-Z responded with a lengthy statement calling the allegations "idiotic." The accuser is anonymous.
He now has 100 problems
/thread
I'm glad that "rape" is in the headline. Too many try to sugar coat. "Sex with an underage...." etc.
We're only getting that because the accused are black.
No its because it's a he, it's usually "sex with a minor/student" if it's a woman perpetrator and rape if it's a man
Ohh yes a poor black man is suffering from systemic racist
Is that really the message you're taking from my comment?
Wait is that not what you were trying to say? Systemic, institutionalized racism results in headlines that are less favorable to black folk? Which I agree with (even if it means making the headline more ’accurate’)
That kinda seems like the point of your original comment
Not really, but do go on trying to prove it.
People with a towering intellect like yours are the reason why I believe internet user qualification tests should be mandatory before getting any access.
Motion to amend internet user qualification criteria to exclude smarmy douches like this
Aye
How is this not a criminal charge...
I feel like going civil route is diluting the gravity of what actually went down.
Where did they find 13 year old to rape?
Where are fucking parents of these children?
Between CEO getting executed and another elite child rapist... Who fucking rules us?
Who fucking rules us?
Sociopaths mostly I'd say.
There's a great Tom Waits song called God's away on business with some pertinent lyrics:
who are the ones we left in charge? Killers, thieves and lawyers
Great song btw.
That's from Waits' stage adaptation of the famous German unfinished manuscript Woyzeck (Voy-chek), it was a song from act 1 setting the scene in which a working class man would be toyed with and experimented on by high society and the army, driven to madness and killing his wife and himself.
I don’t know details of this, but when the lawyer had a press conference announcing info the first 100 lawsuits, he mentioned that a lot of the crimes were reported to authorities at the time, but for whatever reason, the crimes weren’t pursued.
Oh I can tell you why.
Bingo.
I chose to use the word authorities and not cops specifically because it isn’t just cops that don’t care about the wellbeing of women. It’s incredibly frustrating for that to be the case in the year 2024, but it’s true.
Cops don't decide charges. Prosecutors do
If you read the article, the alleged victim says she went to the VMAs without a ticket and started asking limo drivers if she could get into an afterparty. Diddy’s driver said she looked like what Diddy wanted.
The allegations are that she was hanging out by the stage door after a show. Maybe she wanted an autograph or to meet her idol? But even if she specifically sought out these men because she wanted to have sex with them, and even if her parents were wildly irresponsible, there is no excuse for drugging and raping a child.
Jay agrees:
"These allegations are so heinous in nature that I implore you to file a criminal complaint, not a civil one!! Whomever would commit such a crime against a minor should be locked away, would you not agree?" Carter said in a statement to NBC News. "These alleged victims would deserve real justice if that were the case."
Yeah becuase he knows it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt now and the has money to fight it.
They did get a conviction v Weinstein though.
Yeah becuase he knows it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt now
Oof.
Burden of proof is much higher in a criminal case. It's very hard to prosecute people for crimes that occurred 20+ years ago, but with a civil suit they are probably hoping for a settlement. Based on his statement, sounds like that's not going to happen.
And that's why crimes should be reported when they happen so proper evidence is collected.
I deff think Jay z did due to Diddy affiliation but this is he said, she said now.
Diddy was affiliated with every rapper in NYC back then. I don't think we can assume that everyone who ever associated with him shared his predelictions.
I think Jay probably got looped in on the lawsuit because they know he was at the party and he is filthy rich.
That's all random hearsay, it literally counts for nothing legally. Jay Z came from the ghetto, I'm sure he has done plenty of sketchy shit in his time.
But like why do you seem to think Diddy and R Kelly were going around bragging about their sexual perversions? They were coworkers in the same industry; I'm sure I have plenty of coworkers who have done heinous shit in their personal lives as well. But that doesn’t even remotely imply that I knew about it or was a part of it.
I don't think there is very much smoke at all, I haven't really heard any major accusations about Jay aside from this one. But also you're falling right into the trap. They would plan to accuse him because they know random people are going to use the heuristic of "where there's smoke there's fire", and generally assume that he is guilty without even a shred of evidence. They know people will see Jay Z and Diddy in the same headline about sexual assault and that's the only piece of information they'll remember from the whole article, assuming they even bother to read it. I'm going to bat for due process and common sense, two things which are in increasingly short supply nowadays.
Naive but you are entitled to your opinion and society will make their own judgements.
The beauty here is this lapring is about donr and plebs are ready with pitch forks for pedos celebs and parasitic executives.
You are spending a lot of time trying to defend some rich old pedo.
Why do you care anyway?
He ain't on working class team at all.
Not jumping up conclusions to confirm your own biases and assumptions is not naive, and the fact that you care more about whose "team" someone is on, than whether an accusation about them is actually true, exposes you as lacking integrity and real values, and not caring about actual justice.
It is a class war mate...
Lapring for a rich pedophile celebrity is not
integrity and real values
Pathetic, get a clue
The implication that child molestation is something only/primarily rich people do is colossally ignorant.
You need several clues.
The implication that child molestation is something only/primarily rich people do is colossally ignorant.
I never suggested such a thing... can you point me to where i said it was just them doing it?
The allegations are that J raped her and then Diddy raped her while an unnamed female celebrity watched.
I don't think we can assume that everyone who ever associated with him shared his predelictions.
That's exactly what I am assuming going forward though.
These celebrities don't deserve any deference, they over stayed their welcome in the public sphere and somebody is disposing of them.
It looks like they are all compromised though. So fuck 'em.
Lol okay champ. Impeccable critical thinking skills.
FAFO... The clowns are entering FO stage as society is turning on them.
They let pedos exist among them, they are all pedos to me now.
Gonna be a open safari on them in US the way things are going along with corporate executives haha
That's exactly what I am assuming going forward though.
And hopefully you'll realize sooner than later that this is a flaw, not a virtue.
Assuming guilt just because it confirms your biases is something you should be ashamed to have done.
I don't humanize rich parasites, sweetie...
As if the comment itself wasn't cringy enough, imagining how clever you thought you were while writing something so off-the-charts smug and condescending just magnifies it exponentially.
Grow up.
Trolling seems pretty routine for you.
Calling out sanctimony isn't trolling. Spend less time looking down your nose at people and more learning what words mean.
It is, actually.
lol, denial
What makes an adult man defend another adilt man who is accused of being a pedphile and who is associated with another pedophile held on charges of traffic?
It really is pathetic how black and white the thinking is.
'Not instantly assuming guilt with no evidence and an anonymous accusation? Why are you DEFENDING him?!?! 😡😡😡'
I don't know if he's guilty, and neither do you. Only difference is, I'm actually willing to admit that fact, while you decide to pretend you know anything about the situation.
I am sorry this hurt you boo
Imagine being proud of being gullible, couldn't be me lol
Because a criminal trial is an all-or-nothing charge, and if you fail to convince 1 juror, Jay-Z gets zero punishment for raping a 13 year old. Your odds of winning a civil trial over rape is much higher, and even if the defendant puts up a good case, you won't walk away empty handed.
You can do both a criminal and a civil charge. Failing to convict on a criminal charge doesn't mean a civil case will go the same way. See OJ for example.
You forgot another question: why nobody said shit in the past 24 years?
Many rape victims don't come forward until others do, if at all.
Going up against a couple of billionaire child-rapists isn't likely to get you anything other than slut-shamed at best. These are powerful people who can have you disappeared.
Not the victims the ones who went to these parties
My understanding is that people in the industry did speak to each other about it but these media hos ain't gonna ruin their careers over some child being raped.
WTF did you expect?
People are assuming that was the only child getting raped at this party.
Only apologist would assume that... These people clearly were doing this on the reg.
Plus we know limo drivers procured groupies for them.
Did Charlie sheen rape some kid in a limo?
No, he can't have done. He's white so he had a "historical abuse incident".
With Corey Haim if Corey Feldman is to be believed. Which he should be.
me man i love dunking on white cucks like the next person but but this is not race issue here. this is class issue. why do you keep trying to rope in color here...
we got rich white and black pedos doing this.... likely to poor children who are whatever race.
most rockers were pedos and they white... most rappers are black but they are also pedos?
hmm....
The statute of limitations is likely over
In thought that child abuse is exempt from it
Statutes vary wildly by state, with the exception of murder.
diluting the gravity
In fairness he did say it was “fake physics”
I didn't expect Jay-Z to get roped into this. But he's a big time musician and they seem to have felt like they can get away with raping teenage groupies for many decades now.
Makes me wonder how BIG would fit into all of this if he was still alive. I'm thinking it wouldn't be good for him either.
I'm sorry... are you saying it's not their fault that they raped teenagers because it didn't occur to them to ask them their age?
Despite a history of music stars raping teenagers going back to at least Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis in the 1950s?
What absolute nonsense.
Sounds like people have known for a while and haven’t prevented kids from being around them.
Why do you think that is an excuse for rape?
No. It should be for rape. If he did it, he raped her. An adult having sex with a 13-year-old is rape.
And there it is- another person deciding that women should always be suspected of lying about being raped so they can get money.
Rich people can’t rape people because rape isn’t a crime for rich people because rich people can lie, rape, and kill anyone they want because laws aren’t for rich people.
So I dunno what you’re upset about. He’s rich. Duh. He commits crimes. His next album will sell more because of this.
Unless they're in a civil suit. Which is what is happening,
But sure, she totally lied about her age back then as part of her plan to do a civil suit decades later or something.
And it's not like you can tell someone is a barely pubescent child just by looking at them, can you?
Oh wait, you absolutely can.
Imagine knowing the power dynamic between a world famous star and a teenage fan, and then blaming the fan. Some people's moral compass is screwed beyond repair.
A combination of hero worship and misogyny is not a good combination.
If sex act proven to have happened, it is statutory rape. Groupie or not, consent or no consen.
Ain’t a crime if you got the dough. Arrest the guy who brought her to the house. He’s not rich. That’s a crime.
I think the difference between a 13 year old and an 18 year old is generally pretty obvious and if you can't tell then don't even risk it.
That's a not a defense to statutory rape though
If sex act happened, it is rape.
It’s not a crime for rich people
That's the current practice but there is no legal exemption for them on the books.
Also it seems owner class is ready to get rid of these sex pests now for some reason
The sex pest just got elected. It’s the opposite of what you think. Fewer cases of RICH people will be tried.
Lol this is the hill you're going to die on? You can put any 13 year old in front of me and I'll immediately know it's a child, you know, because they are children.
This is not a good look.
Ew. You're gross 🤢
Never meet your idols.
I seriously stopped being a fan of any public figure because people seeking public attention are mostly off-putting at least. Then come the narcissists and psychopaths, it gets only worse.
And yet parents allow their children attend these concerts... Then pika face when their children get raped or worst ignore it.
if Jay-z is your idol then you really have bigger problems lol
At least 99 of them
Or don't idolize idiots. Popstars and corporations washed the market so much that they are now accepted by the public as smart or cool. Not so many years ago everyone considered them trashy.
Don't idolize any one person. Idolize ideas and actions, people are too easily corrupted.
I never understood adults larping some fucking clown on tv and internet but here we are adult men defending some rapper clown
If your idol turns out to be a jerk in real life, is that their fault, or does it mean you’re just a bad judge of character? And I mean generally - not you in particular.
Personally, I’d be more than happy to meet my idols. I’ve listened to them speak for hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of hours on podcasts. Nobody can hide their true personality for that long. I’m confident I already have a pretty good idea of what they’re like in real life. That’s also why it’s so funny when non-listeners try to convince me that they know these people better than I do.
Ignoring that it is possible for people to hide who they are (editing is a thing): I don't think idolizing podcasters is the flex you think it is.
Some of us have been conditioned to hide our personalities all the time, until it becomes automatic... We can't take off the mask even with effort...
And I imagine it'd be even easier on a podcast with a production crew to edit the material to help craft and maintain an image.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
Why the fuck is everyone in the comments jumping to conclusions and already slamming Jay? Everything is alleged and the accuser is anonymous. Let there be a ruling by the judge then we can make conclusions no?
He is a public figure who chose to associate himself with a sex pest...
Cope
Has it occurred to you that child molesters might not be explicitly informing everyone they know about their crimes?
I had a classmate in high school who got caught in a pedo sting operation. He himself was more of an acquaintance, but we had a mutual friend I was very close to, and we all hung out together on many occasions over the years.
Should we both be getting accused too because we were friends with that guy? Fuck off with that nonsense, how the fuck were we supposed to know?
Do you know what a diddy party is?
Do you know history of us celebrity culture that glorified raping early teens girls?
You are arguing plausible deniability which fair but nobody is buying it.
When did jayz started dating beyence?
Hmmm, the man clearly like that jail bait.
Never was a fan of these pests but I am sure they coming for me hip hop artists too...
Really had to cut a lot of rockers too.
This shit is disgusting, why did we ever pay them money?
Another reason why piracy is justified. These people are pests, deny them income.
From the entertainer 50 cent.
"Jay in hibernation he ain’t coming outside till this shit with puff blow over, no brunch, no lunch, No dinner. LOL 😆"
Please let's stop pretending when you hang out with pedophiles on the regular that it is just happenstance.
I am sure Jay slept with less underage girls than others during Diddy parties. In fact, I heard he hardly did it more than anyone else. I would say he slept with children the least out of all the other pedophiles.
I'm not gonna slam, but it's disappointing to hear anyway. I never idolized him, but still thought he was a good dude.
>"Good dude"
>Billionaire
Pick one.
How can you be disappointed when you don't even know if it's true?
I can actually explain why. Refraining from judgment causes the human brain to experience cognitive strain, so people tend to settle on a judgment even without evidence, in order to reduce the emotional stress caused by being undecided between two extreme possibilities. We feel insecure when we haven’t yet made a decision, because we are exposed to attacks from both sides. By aligning ourselves with one side, we gain allies and also gain the ability to disregard the humanity of our enemies. This is a universal weakness to human rationality, and lawyers are experts at exploiting it.
It's disappointing just to hear an allegation. How is that confusing for you?
Because the allegation is either true or false. Either it happened, or it didn't. If it didn't happen, then there's no reason for you to be disappointed in Jay Z.
And what stops him from still being a good dude? It's like you're having trouble wrapping your head around this being simply an accusation. You're basically saying everyone who associated themselves with Diddy is a bad person without knowing the depths of their relationship.
I have no judgements either way so far. Just saying it's disappointing to hear an allegation like this
Your grievances should be directed to the allegations alone and not the one being accused.
Because he's a multi-Billionaire, and there is no ethical way of making a billion dollars, let alone multiple.
You know that clip from Office Space where the neighbor is asked what he would do with a million dollars and the answer is "two chicks at the same time"? What happens if you have 1000x that much money?
What happens if you have 1000x that much money?
4 chicks at the same time
Between this and Scientology, Millennials are going to have a tough time with Collision Course
You really should not think that well-known people ending up being terrible is a generational thing :/
I just said it would be hard to listen to the album
That's the sort of posts about billionares you want to have on the frontpage
BOOK EM
I've completely switched to vocaloid artists. I'm tired of feeding these undeserving humans careers, I'm throwing my money at music made by artists that are sung by a fictional character who won't ever be on trial for fucking a kid.
Emotions aside, this seems like abuse of the legal system.
First, the lawsuit itself could be filed with little supporting evidence. Second, the burden of proof in a civil lawsuit is significantly less than a criminal one.
I don't care for Jay Z, I don't listen to his music and he's got too much money, but this is borderline defamation in regards to the damage it will cause.
Trump's rape of E. Jean Carroll was uncovered in a civil suit.
O.J. Simpson's only punishment was via a civil suit.
Alex Jones got fined over a billion dollars for harassing the parents of dead children in a civil suit.
It's not abuse of the legal system, it's fighting abuse of the legal system. Trump, Simpson, Jones, Jay-Z... they can all buy themselves out of a criminal trial. A civil suit is a hell of a lot harder to get out of.
And I hate to tell you this if this wasn't your intention, but this is some real "women are lying gold diggers" territory.
And I hate to tell you this if this wasn’t your intention, but this is some real “women are lying gold diggers” territory.
Fuck off dude. The comment you replied to didn't say anything whatsoever about women. You're the only one being sexist here.
Filing a civil lawsuit 25 years later alleging a crime of this magnitude is extremely suspicious. Occam's razor dictates that it's very likely to be a cash grab.
Y'all are so incredibly biased, predictable and easily manipulated it's embarrassing. If it makes someone rich and powerful look bad, Lemmings will literally eat the steamiest piles of shit and call it a wholesome meal. And that's why the plaintiff knows they can possibly get a settlement out of this, because most people are absolute sheep and believe whatever gets shoved under their noses without a second thought, and Jay Z can afford to just pay to make it go away if he doesn't want to deal with the harassment from the "Guilty until proven innocent" mob.
Isn't it reasonable to assume the judiciary in an oligarch run state is going to be compromised (I am referring to the US civil vs. criminal distinction and the inability of winning criminal lawsuits)?
I see a lot of parallels between the judicial corruption in my own country (Ukraine) and the US. Sure our goons are more direct, while Americans prefer more pomp and roundabout methods for corruption, but the outcomes are the same. My favourite US oligarch group is the Sackler family.
In a bankruptcy court filing on July 7, 2021, multiple states agreed to settle. Though Purdue admitted no wrongdoings, the Sacklers would agree never to produce opioids again and pay billions in damages toward a charitable fund. Purdue Pharma was dissolved on September 1, 2021. The Sacklers agreed to pay $4.5 billion over nine years, with most of that money funding addiction treatment. The bankruptcy judge Robert Drain acknowledged that the Sacklers had moved money to offshore accounts to protect it from claims, and he said he wished the settlement had been higher.
What I mean by this tangent is that is not unreasonable to assume that groups that are de facto protected are going to engage in criminals behaviour.
Isn’t it reasonable to assume the judiciary in an oligarch run state is going to be compromised (I am referring to the US civil vs. criminal distinction and the inability of winning criminal lawsuits)?
Not really, no. What do you mean by compromised? The American judicial system is set up in such a way that it's largely transparent, so large scale corruption would be nearly impossible to sustain.
It's perfectly possible to win a criminal case if/when you have hard evidence that a crime was committed. If you wait 25 years before bringing the case before the law, then it becomes nearly impossible for either the prosecution or defense to construct a convincing case. How do you go about calling witnesses and checking alibis for an event that happened 25 years ago? People aren't going to remember, and even when they do, it becomes a he said she said, because there is little to no possibility of verifying the accuracy of their memories. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable even when interviewed mere hours or days after the crime.
The Sackler family are scum, but your understanding of that case seems limited. They utilized financial engineering to move the money offshore, thus placing it beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. As far as the legal system is concerned, that money doesn't exist, because it can't be proven that they possess it. This is frustrating, but it's legally sound. It's not an issue with the courts, it's an issue with the legislature and their inability/unwillingness to craft laws to prevent rich people from hiding their money like this.
Furthermore, the achieved settlement of $40 billion over 9 years is absolutely massive, and it would be difficult to argue that anything else would be more beneficial to the victims of the opioid epidemic. Getting the Sacklers sent to prison would feel good, but it wouldn't directly help anyone suffering from opioid addiction. Additionally, the Supreme Court already overturned the original settlement earlier this year, ruling that the Sacklers were still liable and that the settlement could not proceed as previously agreed. So whatever bothered you about that ruling, it has been overturned. It's strange how American judges can never seem to agree with each other, despite your claim that they are compromised/corrupt.
The American judicial system is set up in such a way that it's largely transparent, so large scale corruption would be nearly impossible to sustain.
Lol. Have you seen our Supreme Court lately?
Yes? Who's on the payroll? Conservative judges ruling according to conservative doctrine isn't evidence of corruption.
Every single case that happens in the Supreme Court is documented by an army of scribes. It's all publicly accessible.
Do you honestly believe that I'm referring to their conservative beliefs? Have you been living under a rock? Google "Harlan Crow" for one.
Being publicly accessible does not preclude corruption. There is a reason that there are a few specific justices that are constantly arguing against any type of oversight.
Of course it doesn't preclude corruption, it just makes it incredibly difficult to pull off. There's no way to make it illegal for Supreme Court justices to have friends and family, is there? But when they start trying to bend the rules, they get caught very easily. Clarence Thomas is certainly suspicious but that's why there's public outrage and he's being investigated.
Indeed, FixTheCourt, an organization dedicated to greater court transparency, found that Justice Clarence Thomas had received some $4.2 million in gifts and luxury trips over the past 20 years, much of it from Republican megadonors. In contrast, FixTheCourt reported that the other eight justices, plus the eight retired or deceased justices got gifts that altogether were valued at roughly $600,000 over the same 20-year period.
So aside from Thomas, the other judges received an average of $37,500 in gifts each over the past 20 years. Not nearly enough to claim widespread corruption. The reality is that corruption is unecessary, the judges argue in a certain way because that's what they believe.
They were appointed to the Supreme Court in the first place because of their established judicial records which go back decades. There are several justices that frequently argue against government oversight because that's the kind of judges that Republican presidents have decided to appoint, because they believe in the same things. It doesn't always need to be some grand conspiracy, it's usually a much more banal form of dysfunction.
Why would I put Thomas aside? He is not the only one, by the way, look into Alito.
That is 2 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices. And I do not trust any person hand-picked by the Federalist Society. At what point should we be concerned about our highest court being corrupt?
Because he's the exception that proves the rule. If he in fact is corrupt, it indicates that it's very easy to catch a corrupt justice, because they have to disclose all of their gift, income, etc.
Look into Alito? You look into Alito, bitch. Have a report on my desk first thing tomorrow morning.
I am assuming you mean $4B not $40 B (was not able to find anything around a $40B). The exact number is irrelevant if it allows the criminal organization to retain enough money to live an opulent lifestyle on a "generational" basis. This is not a controversial statement.
Not really, no. What do you mean by compromised? The American judicial system is set up in such a way that it’s largely transparent, so large scale corruption would be nearly impossible to sustain.
Remember when I said in Ukraine the criminal do things in a direct manner, while in the US it is done with lots of pomp and in a roundabout manner? With the actual outcome being the same. Why do you think I mentioned this?
As far as the legal system is concerned, that money doesn’t exist, because it can’t be proven that they possess it. This is frustrating, but it’s legally sound.
This is just an excuse. If anything a country like the US can very much resolve this issue. There is a lack of desire. In another case the issue would be solved and there would no pretend BS about "legally sound". Imagine if something similar was relevant to a terrorism case on the scale of 9/11. They would resolve this without any pretend excuses, they would find a way.
You have a very naive view of the world if you think the judges are merely implementing the law. There is a massive feedback loop between the oligarchs, politicians and the judicial system. It's a bit supremacist to think that Americans are inherently incapable of such corruption constructs.
Getting the Sacklers sent to prison would feel good, but it wouldn’t directly help anyone suffering from opioid addiction.
So you believe that if you are an oligarch, it is a reasonable for a "non-compromised" (your implied words) judicial system to allow them to skip prison for their crimes (in this case organizing a massive drug cartel with probably 100K+ deaths)? Do you even read what you're writing? You're basically saying it's good that criminals don't get any liability as long as they are rich and well connected.
How do you know what was the goal of the original ruling being overturned (and subsequent the outcome)? And I didn't see anything about liability for the Sackler family.
I will give you an non-US example. There was a really corrupt court (with scandalous behaviour) in Ukraine that was scheduled to be shut down following the passage of new laws to improve the judicial system. This move was overturned by another high court. Can you guess why this happened? They eventually shut down the court following the fullscale russian invasion because the corrupt judges got scared (angry population) and due to the state of emergency.
Back to Jay-Z. Considering your own admissions that US criminals can and do go free as long as long as they are rich (and for starting a drug cartel that enabled 100K+ deaths, no less), it is reasonable to be skeptical of the overall process w.r.t criminal liability. Not to mention there are earlier examples where it was basically impossible to get anywhere with a criminal lawsuit.
4.5B X 9 years = 40.5B
Of course it's not fair that they still have generational wealth. But if you have no way of tracing the money, there's nothing that the courts can do about it. Again, that's the realm of the legislature, FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, etc. It's not that the prosecutors didn't want to take away all their money. It's that it's literally impossible to trace.
The 9/11 attack and Islamic terrorism in general is well known to be partially funded by wealthy Muslims, many of whom reside in countries which are nominal allies of the US. Pakistan was sheltering Osama bin Laden for nearly a decade, during which time they received around $10 billion in economic and military aid from the US. We were sending them billions of dollars which they were using to train more Taliban fighters and send them into Afghanistan to fight US troops. There's no need for pretend excuses, there is the very real excuse that this planet is insanely massive and complex and even the mighty US government can't control and dictate more than a fraction of what is going on.
You have a very naive view of the world if you think the judges are merely implementing the law. There is a massive feedback loop between the oligarchs, politicians and the judicial system. It’s a bit supremacist to think that Americans are inherently incapable of such corruption constructs.
Judges are charged with interpreting the law, the police are the ones who implement it. The feedback loop between politicians and big business is very real, but there are a ton of restrictions in place that make it difficult to influence the judicial system in the same way. Judges are subject to intense scrutiny and they're not allowed to do anything that might even suggest the possibility of a conflict of interest.
As I continue to read, you're making less and less sense, so I'll just leave you with this. If I started expounding on the intricacies of the Ukrainian government, you would rightly call me out. Why do you feel so confident in your understanding of the American government based solely on what you've read online? Ukraine is corrupt, I get it. But stop talking out of your ass regarding America.
Because I don't like ignorant Americans calling Ukraine (or any other country) a "corrupt shithole" while arguing that's it's OK that criminal oligarchs (who organized a massive drug cartel with deaths in the 10s of thousands) should avoid all criminal liability and retain enough money to live opulent lifestyles. You are really in so deep that you can't understand this?
I also don't like people who call others lemmings who like eating shit just because they happen to be be a more sceptical and are more critical about proganada polemics.
P.S. I said I currently live in Ukraine. Does that mean I haven't lived/worked/studied in the US for many years? I've even been to Flint multiple times! I loved how well the US judicial system worked when all those poor black people got life long poisoning.
Not very "free speech" of you I must add.
Because I don’t like ignorant Americans calling Ukraine (or any other country) a “corrupt shithole” while arguing that’s it’s OK that criminal oligarchs (who organized a massive drug cartel with deaths in the 10s of thousands) should avoid all criminal liability and retain enough money to live opulent lifestyles. You are really in so deep that you can’t understand this?
No one has said any of this. You're arguing with an imaginary straw man. None of this is okay, but if it were simply due to the American justice system being corrupt, it would be a much easier fix.
You're basically looking at the roof of a house leaking water, and your proposed solution is to put a bucket under the leak. While I'm trying to explain to you that the whole damn roof is falling apart and just putting a bucket in one place isn't really going to help in the long run.
I made a relatively calm (considering your shit eating lemmings rant), jovial remark about how a clear case of corruption (on an outcome basis) might undermine people's view of legal proceedings against a rich, well-connected celebrity/businessman.
You then went on a rant about how I am wrong to view the sackler case as an example of judicial corruption and that it was no big deal that some oligarchs who engaged in mass killings escaped criminal liability.
Where is the strawman?
You said I am not making sense. Can you in one (somewhat short) sentence say what I need to understand or admit to, in order for my agreement to make sense?
clear case of corruption (on an outcome basis)
First of all, this makes zero sense. That's like saying
clear case of murder (on an outcome basis)
You can't prove murder based on the fact that someone is dead. You need to demonstrate that the killing was premeditated, the killer planned to kill the victim and executed their plan. Otherwise it's manslaughter or negligent homicide. Similarly, how the fuck can you claim a case is a clear example of corruption just based on the outcome? Do you need me to provide the dictionary definition of corruption?
The Sackler family are scum, but your understanding of that case seems limited. They utilized financial engineering to move the money offshore, thus placing it beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. As far as the legal system is concerned, that money doesn’t exist, because it can’t be proven that they possess it. This is frustrating, but it’s legally sound. It’s not an issue with the courts, it’s an issue with the legislature and their inability/unwillingness to craft laws to prevent rich people from hiding their money like this.
Furthermore, the achieved settlement of $40 billion over 9 years is absolutely massive, and it would be difficult to argue that anything else would be more beneficial to the victims of the opioid epidemic. Getting the Sacklers sent to prison would feel good, but it wouldn’t directly help anyone suffering from opioid addiction. Additionally, the Supreme Court already overturned the original settlement earlier this year, ruling that the Sacklers were still liable and that the settlement could not proceed as previously agreed. So whatever bothered you about that ruling, it has been overturned. It’s strange how American judges can never seem to agree with each other, despite your claim that they are compromised/corrupt.
Did you have difficulty understanding what I wrote? Let me clarify.
THE SUPREME COURT OVERRULED THE RULING THAT YOU CLAIM DEMONSTRATED CORRUPTION. IF THE COURT IS CORRUPT, WHY ARE THEY OVERRULING THE OTHER COURT THAT YOU CLAIM MADE A CORRUPT DECISION? WHICH COURT IS CORRUPT? BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE?
We are going in circles. Short sentence on what you think I need to admit to. This shouldn't be difficult.
You need to admit that you aren't a very intelligent person. You literally couldn't even figure out that 4.5 times 9 equals 40.5. That's basic fucking arithmetic dude, it's like I'm trying to explain this shit to an 8 year old.
You need to admit that the Sackler case provides zero evidence of judicial corruption.
You need to admit that you are wrong.
I tried to keep the discussion somewhat measured.
And yet you come up with "Admit you are wrong and stupid!" What? How? What is going through that head of yours? Are you a teenager? Do you really expect anyone to go through with this?
I guess it's on me that I expected something different.
You can fuck righ off, you shit eating lemming!
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrington_v._Purdue_Pharma_L.P.)
The very first thing you said was about the Sackler case and how the ruling wasn't fair. The first thing I responded was that the Supreme Court already overturned that ruling. And after like 5 more comments I still have no idea if you are even aware that the ruling was overturned. You never once acknowledged reading that or clicking the hyperlink
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrington_v._Purdue_Pharma_L.P.)
My man... the fuck that supreme court had to over turn the ruling is the evidence of corruption.
WTF is u larping pedo celebs and regime around here for?
You tried to keep the discussion measured???? You never responded to a single one of my points!
In my very first comment, I made a number of points. You ignored them. I copied them into another comment and you ignored them again. I rephrased them and you ignored them again. You're not engaging in good faith, you're just ignoring everything that comes out of my mouth because you have no idea how to respond.
Was it suspicious when E. Jean Carroll sued Trump? Do you think he's innocent of raping her?
I actually have no idea about the details of that case. Given what I know about Trump (the grab em by the pussy line), I certainly wouldn't be surprised to hear that he is a rapist.
That's completely irrelevant to my point in this case though.
So Trump probably did it because you know more about his sexual proclivities than you know about Jay-Z's sexual proclivities. Even though in both cases it was decades after the fact.
And you think this is logical, do you?
The difference is what we KNOW about each accused person. In one case we have quotes from the person himself admitting to sexual assault multiple times, along with dozens of accusations over time. In the other case we have no other accusations over a 30 year career in the industry from a person who doesn't do anything to get headlines (unlike Kanye or Diddy) outside of make music. That doesn't mean the other person hasn't done bad things, but we know of absolutely no other instances. The person you're replying to said they wouldn't be surprised that the guy who admitted on tape of sexually assaulting women had raped a woman, and you're complaining that they are hesitant to condemn a person of something extremely heinous with no evidence or previous examples of bad behavior?
I didn't say he probably did it. I said I wouldn't be surprised. I said I don't know the facts.
You could literally look up the facts if you wanted to take a few minutes.
I don't want to. You could stop trying to avoid the topic at hand, but I understand that you find it very hard to ever admit to being wrong or making a mistake. You should try it some time, it actually feels good.
I'm not avoiding your victim-blaming. I'm just not agreeing with it.
Yes you are. If the allegation is false, then you're actually the one who is victim-blaming right now. But that's a possibility that you refuse to consider, because you seem to think it's sexist to suspect one individual woman of making a false accusation. If it was a man filing a lawsuit that he got beat up or robbed 25 years ago at that same party, I would be equally skeptical of his claims.
Equating rape with assault and robbery is not a good look.
Child rape, no less.
I never equated anything lmao. Are you incapable of responding with anything besides inane gotchas and straw men? Jfc
You literally did. This is what you said:
If it was a man filing a lawsuit that he got beat up or robbed 25 years ago at that same party, I would be equally skeptical of his claims.
A man getting beaten and robbed vs. a child getting raped.
These things are not even close to comparable.
I mean you could have said a boy getting raped, but you didn't. Apparently boy rape victims don't make false claims 25 years later.