|
|
|
|
|
by NickC25
1260 days ago
|
|
Maybe - but if the bank knew (of course they did as Epstein had been deep in this world for decades), they have an ethical and moral duty to curtail said behavior of said client. Look at it from the AG's point of view: here's a guy that's a convicted child trafficker and pedophile. We know how he moves his money around, and who is in his network. We know the people who have "donated" to his "charity" and how much money has been moved around. We know he was arrested, did some sort of "jail time" in Florida and was released quietly and quickly. We know that the lead prosecutor on the case was told to drop it as Epstein was "connected to intelligence". We know that the bank continued doing business with Epstein well after the "jail time", and continued doing so for over a decade. Why on earth wouldn't you want the bank to be held partially responsible? Here's a bank that knowingly did business with a convicted human trafficker and pedophile....and continued doing business with him after his sentence and release. |
|
> Why on earth wouldn't you want the bank to be held partially responsible?
Because the idea that criminals shouldn't be allowed access to banking services is fucking vile. Anyone seriously suggesting this genuinely deserves to be burnt on a stake. Not allowing convicted criminals to vote is bad, but this is infinitely worse.
What next? Shall we require sex offenders to wear special armbands and allow casual violence against them as they try to navigate society?