545
Who is Robert Kraft? Columbia donor and ‘sex trafficker’
(www.trtworld.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2026
545 points (98.9% liked)
News
39262 readers
2228 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Ended up looking it up, they got the warrant by stating they were investigating an international trafficking ring. Krafts team argued that it wasn't a international trafficking ring, it was solicitation. So all 25 men caught were dismissed. The owner of the place and the manager were both convicted of solicitation of another basically.
So "we broke the law but you didnt write the warrant to catch us breaking that law, would you really justify a warrant to catch someone soliciting prostitution"
Notice how the semantic arguments always work for the wealthy, but never the average person
A corrupt and two-tiered justice system
Good lawyers are expensive
So if I murder someone on tape during an investigation for international trafficking, I get off scot free?
Depends. How much money do you have?
I guess they might not be able to use that film against you, so if that's the only evidence they have you may just walk.
Habeas corpus. No body, no crime!
cops would use the stupidest laws on the books to get evidence if they could.
But let's be real, if the owner and manager were convicted with said charges, why should the video surveillance of whom was involved in the acts not be admissable for use by the prosecutors to ensure that said admission of guilt doesn't catch all the stragglers who performed illegal acts.
What's the difference between raiding a home looking for an abducted child, finding they had multiple missing kids kept there and video footage of other people coming to the property and performing illegal acts on the kids. The footage should absolutely be admissable in my mind.