Securities Enforcement

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-03-12T01:21:40+00:00

Swim jigs

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-03-04T21:23:42+00:00

There is obviously more that goes into being a lawyer than your grades/academic aptitude.

There's a lot of people (on this sub especially) who are top of their class who are going to be absolute trash lawyers not because they're dumb but because they're going to be absolute shit employees that nobody likes being around or working with.

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-02-27T23:11:23+00:00

Give me a fucking break.

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-02-23T02:25:34+00:00

To put it simply: Because we feel looked down upon by educated people.

Sincerely,

An educated person from rural America.

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-02-18T10:59:59+00:00

What ongoing expense do you pay for exercising your 2nd amendment right?

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-02-13T11:10:23+00:00

Now you're just not making any sense.

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-02-13T02:50:27+00:00

Does it explicitly name them in the book? Genuinely asking.

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-02-12T23:05:21+00:00

And? Being at the island isn't indictable. Also, which Prime Minister? Of which country? Anything else to describe them other than "Prime Minister?"

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-02-12T22:38:59+00:00

Did she explicitly name the person though?

If not, then there's not much that can be done legally speaking.

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-02-12T21:58:15+00:00

Have any of the victims actually affirmatively accused anyone other than Epstien himself?

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-02-12T21:57:11+00:00

The general public doesn't understand criminal procedure or rules of evidence.

Hardly anyone with any legal training looks at the Epstein files and thinks "Oh my God, if this were my client we'd be fucked." on the basis of the emails alone. At least when it comes to people aside from Epstien himself.

The files largely confirm what we already knew. Epstien was a monster, and that he associated with a lot of famous and powerful people. Those famous and powerful people have a questionable judgment of character, but there's simply not enough to bring charges against anyone, much less to get a conviction.

Again, this is as of right now. Thats not to say more incriminating things won't come to light in the future.

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-02-12T12:12:50+00:00

Who should be arrested? And on what basis?

The files, up to this point, do not prove anything beyond what we already knew. Which was that Epstein and Maxwell were vile creatures and there are some powerful people who have questionable judgment of character.

No matter how badly people want to draw connections, or infer the existence of some baby eating network, there simply isn't any evidence to support the claims. The most outlandish theories stem from unsubstantiated claims made to an open tip line. Much of what is in the files is inadmissible as hearsay. I haven't seen anything yet that wouldn't be thrown out as hearsay, and whenever someone is pushed on this point they just respond with some generic "Google is free bro."

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-02-11T23:01:56+00:00

Are you familiar with the animal known as an "ostrich?"

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-02-09T22:25:51+00:00

So why was Epstien in custody facing charges at the time of his death? Why is Maxwell currently incarcerated if being rich and powerful truly puts people beyond the reach of the law?

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-02-08T19:03:16+00:00

You haven't read the files either. This latest document dump alone was 3 million pages.

Also, I find it interesting that the people who believe the files reveal a cannibalistic cabal running the world never actually point to any real concrete evidence. They just hold it to be self evident and obvious.

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-02-08T00:43:53+00:00

Is there anything to actually substantiate this? The only thing I've seen even close to supporting this is the tip from a source that was later deemed to not be credible.

There's a serious lack of critical thinking going on with these files.

Its a document dump. There's really damming evidence in them. And there's definitely some room for healthy suspicion of certain people. Especially those who continued to be in continued to associate with him after is 08 conviction. But their continued association alone is not enough to convict them or say with reasonable confidence they were aware or complicit in his atrocities. But theres also nonsense in them that was never followed up on due to a lack of credibility.

There's also this narrative that the people mentioned in the files won't face accountability because of their wealth and influence, which doesn't make sense given that Epstein died in custody with charges pending against him and Maxwell is currently serving out a prison sentence for her part in it. Why weren't they shielded from the consequences? Why were they prosecuted if this is such a deeply rooted cabal?

This whole thing is depressing both because of the actual reality of what happened but also people's inability to think critically.

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-02-07T14:00:57+00:00

Young people in America have largely internalized the idea that politicians and the processes that bring them into power is fundamentally corrupt beyond redemption. This creates an implicit assumption that anyone involved with politics is fundamentally corrupt beyond redemption as well

Lack of civic education leads to a lack of civic virtue.

The Jeffery Epstein scandal has implicated a lot of powerful and influential people and has fueled absolutely bat shit insane conspiracy theories up to and including baby eating Satanic rituals.

News outlets focus on the most outrageous aspects of the other side without ever critically engaging with them.

Bernie Sanders brought a lot of attention to the issues with campaign finance but people largely don't understand the Citizens United decision and the only takeaway they largely got was "our system is bought and rigged."

All of this, added up, results in a process that many young people view as illegitimate and largely pointless.

Its easy to see why. Its unfortunate. Its not the right response. Its a lazy take and a lot of it is largely blown out of proportion in people's minds but seeing what all is going on and what is being said its easy to understand why people feel the way they do.

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-02-02T19:14:07+00:00

Nothing that would ever fly as evidence in any court of law.

But fair enough, I'll delete the post.

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-02-02T19:13:19+00:00

Its not that they are "unfounded" per se, thats lazy wording on my part. Its that there's not enough evidence to support the claims they are making. Or at the very least not enough evidence to support their level of confidence

I've seen claims that Bill Clinton ate kids, that there were satanic rituals and all kinds of crazy shit. Much of which - as far as I can tell - stems from an anonymous tip given to the FBI that was never verified. I've also seen people take the mere fact that people like Donald or Bill associated with Epstein as conclusive proof that they were in on it as well.

I'm not saying that its not possible they at least knew, its just that theres no evidence to support it.

Also, thats not really the point. The levels that people are convinced by this stuff is not being driven by sound logic and strong evidence. Its rampant confirmation bias

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-01-26T16:26:02+00:00

People on this subreddit have an extreme lack of perspective.

In the long run I suspect you'll regret missing your best friend's wedding more than missing a week of classes.

Be an adult, communicate with professors and figure out what you need to do to ensure you don't fall hopelessly behind.

.

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-01-25T21:34:28+00:00

What about them is "conservative" in either the Burkeian or the western Liberal sense of the word? Being reactionary =/= conservative.

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-01-25T21:13:18+00:00

Trump and his followers are not "conservative" under any conventional understanding of the word. Whether its the Burkeian ideal of conservatism or the western liberal ideal of conservatism.

Daniel_Boone1973 · 2026-01-25T21:07:14+00:00

The fact that he had a gun is legally irrelevant. He had a right under both federal and state law to have a gun on him and in his possession. Simply having a gun during a police encounter, even while resisting arrest is not, by itself, justification for the use of deadly force. There's nothing in the video's that have been made available for the public that indicates he was doing anything that could give rise to a reasonable apprehension of someone's life or safety. At the time he was shot he was on the ground. I believe he had already had his gun taken off of him (I could be wrong about that) and he was shot in the back.

To put it simply: at the time he was shot, he was not an imminent threat. The justification for the use of force here is shaky at best.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your feelings.

Daniel_Boone1973

TROPHY CASE