[cc81]

What if it just was a suicide?

If he had dirt on people would he not arrange so it would be sent out in case of his death? Especially if there was a failed murder attempt just weeks before?

And what stops the victims of naming names now? And what would have stopped Epstein of just not talking and just denying?

[romwell]

>What if it just was a suicide?

It makes absolutely no difference.

The only thing they had to do was to keep him alive, and given his health, it was not a hard thing to do. If there were no benefactors, it would've been criminal incompetence. As it stands, incompetence is as likely as if he got killed by an anvil falling from the sky.

To paraphrase: it's as if I gave you a new iPhone to keep for a day, and you returned empty-handed and told me someone stole it from you... because you left it on the edge of the platform at a NYC subway station for the night and (surprise!) it wasn't there in the morning!

In this scenario, it makes no difference whether your friend took it, someone else took it, or it got knocked onto the tracks by accident. What matters is that you ensured that I don't have my phone back.

And that's what happened in the Epstein case. His keepers facilitated his death. The exact manner is irrelevant.

[AndrewBissell]

Funny to see this comment getting downvoted when it really gets to the heart of the issue: keeping Epstein alive was crucial to the cause of justice, everyone knew this and that many powerful people had a huge stake in having him silenced, so even if it was suicide his death was willfully facilitated.

[ethelward]

Let's take it the other way around and assume it was a murder.

> would he not arrange so it would be sent out in case of his death?

Not being able to do that while in high-security confinment.

> And what stops the victims of naming names now?

Not wanting to die.

> what would have stopped Epstein of just not talking and just denying?

The only way to be sure he would not talk is to definitely prevent him from talking.

Now I'm not saying the murder hypothesis is the correct one, but it still holds water IMHO.

[aphextim]

It also sends a clear message to anyone who may know information to keep their mouth shut.

It basically says, "Yeah you can be put on 24/7 security, in a prison cell watched by rotating armed guards and we will still find a way to disable the cameras, get the guards away from you cell, and murder you."

[jermaustin1]

Were cameras disabled???

[rubbingalcohol]

Yes, both cameras that watched the cell and hallway outside it had "technical difficulties" and there was no recoverable footage around the time of Epstein's death.

[topmonk]

The camera showing the hallway outside his cell was working, and showed no one leaving or entering during the time period of his death.

[topmonk]

If you have a subscription, here is the source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/investigators-scruti...

The relevant text:

At least one camera in the hallway outside the cell where authorities say registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein hanged himself earlier this month had footage that is unusable, although other, clearer footage was captured in the area, according to three people briefed on the evidence gathered earlier this month

[pvaldes]

The problem is that many jails are designed with lots of corridors and halls basically identical.

I assume that recording that nothing happened could be as easy as put a number over a different door, (or pick the equivalent door in a different floor), record for a while, stop, remove the number tag, and swap the records.

[malvosenior]

Do you have a source for that, because I've only ever heard that the camera outside his cell did not provide usable footage.

[cc81]

>Not being able to do that while in high-security confinment.

Why would he not be able to do that? He had access to his lawyer, right? Or why would he not be even more upfront and straight up tell the prosecution that someone tried to kill him and that he would spill everything for protection?

[TheOperator]

It's not impossible people are just pointing out it was implausible that the highest profile prisoner in the damn prison was the first person to successfully kill themselves in years and years.

A guard got blackmailed or something.

[RachelF]

>And what stops the victims of naming names now? They might be murdered.

The model who exposed Silvio Berlusconi's rape of her and the "bunga-banga" parties was poisoned with polonium.

https://apnews.com/e7dd3bb17f3e41e297c0ee401d5eae48

[joe_the_user]

I don't have information that would prove Epstein's death wasn't suicide. Given he was on suicide watch earlier, that doesn't matter much to the situation of those with power acting to conveniently dispose of him.

The Epstein case could still be pursued. But when the government disposes of the star witness, the average person quite reasonably tends to doubt the state is going to give satisfaction, plus the media-driving focus of attention is gone.

[mistermann]

> If he had dirt on people would he not arrange so it would be sent out in case of his death?

Considering the circumstances, if you received information from Epstein, what would you do with it? Even if you were brave enough to risk your life in the service of justice, what authority would you even send it to?

[larrywright]

Honestly, Glenn Greenwald would probably be where I’d turn to. I’d trust him as a journalist, for sure. There aren’t a ton of them who’ve publicly demonstrated how they handle something of this importance (Woodward and Bernstein are the only other two I can come up with off the top of my head).

[harry8]

Assange - for which I will get hate. He will publish, in full at considerable personal cost. I don't think there are any credible accusations about him doing anything else, ever. You can still hate him for whatever reasons you have and expect him to do just that.

Have you seen Greenwalds thoughts on Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

I'm not sure they should still be on that list... Maybe, but there's some doubt. More about them than say Assange, for this purpose which is pretty weird and unexpected to think about.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/28/bob-wo...

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/11/bob-woodward-sl...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvrSeiG5mJQ

[harry8]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/10/mannin...

Wherin Greenwald describes Woodward as follows:

"Bob Woodward is a servant-journalist for US government officials."

That's not pulling punches. Is it fair?

[spiralx]

I mean I could make the claim

"Glenn Greenwald is a servant-journalist for Russian government officials."

with at least as much evidence:

https://arcdigital.media/why-are-internet-radicals-helping-p...

https://www.towleroad.com/2019/05/glenn-greenwald-russia/

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-m...

Is it fair? I mean calling a journalist an agent of the deep state for publishing leaks given to them is quite a leap... especially given that Greenwald is famous in large part for the same.

[harry8]

I don't think there's any evidence of Greenwald publishing leaks provided by russian officials. Unless you go with the "Snowden is a russian asset" line which I find lacks credibility. Especially given how often it's been used. Lately Hilary is accusing Deomcrat candidates of it, which is, well, exactly in keeping with her character. An observation that is less controversial now than it used to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/22/hillar...

Never heard of towerload before, but wow, that article is comically terrible. Don't believe me? Here's a tweet from nobody making the same claim without evidence.

The arc digitial article (deliberately?) conflates all those idiots running around yelling "The President is a Russian spy!" and saying that is idiotic with not wanting Mueller's report at all as if those idiots were necessary for Mueller to perform his investigation and write a report.

So yeah, making the claim against Greewald. I'm going with "Not Fair" if that's the best evidence there is.

I've seen no credible evidence that Assange worked with russia fwiw (but the NYT article making the accusation had the silliest diagram I've ever seen in lieu of evidence - so silly it looked deliberately so - as a covert protest perhaps..? ymmv incompetence is the usual go to). If I saw some evidence I might well change my mind on that but I'm just not willing to see russians pulling strings without evidence. I believed WMD claims and I hope I learned /something/ from that error.

Quoting the actual content of Mueller's report. Yeah, I'm ok with that when reporting on it myself. Pointing out that Trump can be a horrible person and awful president without being a russian spy and that constant accusations of it are silly, counterproductive, a massive distraction from the duty of the fourth estate and just need to stop now so we can analyse reality is from the competent journalist playbook rather than a russian conspiracy IMHO.

The claim against Woodward has more legs because he gets top secret leaks and there's no investigation, there's no prosecution, there's no outrage and the stories he writes based on the leaks are anything but embarassing to the government. So I guess all that is at least consistent with what Greenwald is saying. I mean an article that embarasses the government based on leaks with woodward as author - that would be inconsistent and you'd have to address that to keep making the case at least. (well it's 1 this way and 5 the other or something - but I haven't seen the 1).

If I wanted to make a criticism of Glenn in the original context it is that he will use whatever you give him for maximum political impact in support of his political views (but will do so with integrity, eg Snowden is a republican and went to Glenn because of his integrity, also Barton Gelmann and deliberately avoided the NYT for burying stories which should have sent alarm bells ringing loud there, I wonder if it did). Is that political impact according to Glenn what you want? But I guess if what you want released embarasses the government, Woodward hasn't got much form since Watergate..?

[InterimNew]

I believe most of the major (and some of the minor) newspapers offer a SecureDrop instance to transfer confidential information.

So I would send the entirety of the information to every newsroom that could receive it, then pray that I: A) was not the only initial recipient of the Epstein drop and B) that the information I received doesn't contain any content that could be uniquely identified to me.

Afterwards I would sit down and have a long think about how my life got to the point where Epstein is communicating with me personally.

[magduf]

>what authority would you even send it to?

Well, you could send it to various foreign news outlets. I'm sure RT would love it.

[camjohnson26]

Newspaper?