Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/07/23/jeffrey-epstein-gave-dirty-mon.html
Accountability time.
5 Likes
Oh right, those dollars have been spent, but not these other dollars over here. Surely, Harvard has enough economists on staff to understand that money is fungible, no?
12 Likes
Do we really want the funds returned? For what, to pay his legal fees? How about marking them for use for scholarships or to orgs that help sexual assault victims?
13 Likes
I agree, I don’t think giving money back is a good plan. They should never accept more from Epstein, but refunds would be bizarre.
9 Likes
Agreed, returning it accomplishes nothing. But to say the money is already spent is a bit disingenuous on Harvard’s part.
4 Likes
The usual response is to donate the funds to an organization that fights whatever the donor is accused of.
11 Likes
Which, according to the post, has been suggested to Harvard and they still won’t do it.
So I say, to hell with Harvard! I won’t go to their damned college. That’ll show them…
Ugh. This day has already made me so tired.
7 Likes
Are you saying the money is dirty because it was aquired illegally, or because the person giving it was an asswipe? There is a big difference. Calling the money dirty is not the same as claiming an association between the the person giving the money and those who recieved it. You imply that those who accepted money from him are complicit after the fact. There is a name for this, guilt by association. It is a non-partisan sleazeball tactic which is popular with both the right and the left.
Following this logic, anyone who ate at chick-fil-a before 2011 when the chain became fast-food non grata is associated with homophobia and must vomit those meals because (to paraphrase one commenter) fast-food is fungible, and publically prostrate themselves for their complicity in evil. You will have done the right thing, but it will be a dark stain on your soul that will haunt you for the rest of your days. It goes without saying that anyone who has eaten there after 2011, even if they are unaware of the evil they have associated themselves with, is beyond redemption and no manner of groveling will save you from the firey pits.
waiiiit, poloce departments accept donations? how could this be anything but an open invitation for corruption? The perverse incentives are bad enough when they get to use seized funds for equipment, but c’mon… We really need to tighten up our “appearance of impropriety” standards around this shithole country.
4 Likes
So, “don’t insult the money, insult the humans?”
You are aware there are hints and allegations that Epstein never really had a fund he managed, it was just blackmail/initiation fees for his pedophile ring, right?
We will see what shakes out of his indictment and trial, but it’s not looking good.
If there is a reasonable claim to call money dirty, this might be it.
4 Likes
Wouldn’t it be a bit tricky if all NGOs and foundations had to keep a dedicated account with money earmarked for refunds in case any of their donors are caught doing something nasty?
But essentially that’s what Harvard is saying they do. Otherwise they couldn’t say the “money has been spent”. They would only be able to say they received money then and they have money now.
1 Like
Yes to the first half, retort with “because he’s a convicted felon”. This sort of crime is what Civil Asset Forfeiture was designed to be applied to. If it bears out that he blackmailed fellow kiddie diddlers, then every last asset in his name must be seized, and absorbed by the state of New York. The state, hopefully, will earmark the funds for appropriate restitution to the victims and to fund appropriate organizations that combat sex trafficking.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
