[dls2016]

They’re vastly different if you apply a class-based analysis, yes. An alleged billionaire abusing minors while palling around with heads of state compared to someone with a public defender?

And I don’t even understand how one can solicit prostitution from someone who cannot legally consent.

[matthewmarkus]

A "class-based analysis" implies you don't care about the crime but the identity of the criminal. If so, then why the gnashing of teeth now? Wouldn't the logical conclusion of that analysis be that MIT should not take donations at all?

I don't understand how one can solicit prostitution from someone who cannot legally consent either. But Ito played no roll in laying those laughable charges.

[dls2016]

It’s a straw man to suggest I don’t care about the crime. I would argue that our current system attempts to be “class blind” at various steps (notably, not when setting bail) but fails miserably. This case is a perfect example. Same with the lack of prosecutions from banking scandals after 2008 crash.

As for why the gnashing of teeth now? I know I’ve personally been aware of the details of Epstein’s case for years, but you sound like a crank when you show people photos of a pedophile’s weird temple and rant about all of the names in his flight logs. Why now for Cosby? Or Weinstein?

Perhaps it’s finally in the air that these men should be held accountable, perhaps to an even higher standard, for their abuse of power.

As for university funding... don’t get me started! Also can we start examining Kissinger and the other criminals employed by Harvard? The ivy institutions have decades old ties to the intelligence community. (Though it does sort of make sense to learn about the history of US plunder throughout the world from the people on the front lines... ok I’m starting to sound like a crank...)