Blog Overview
Below is a showcase of the various ways in which the public is responding to the ethical issue at hand. First, the general statements from the public about the ethical issue will be shown. For the best reading experience, this will be accompanied by the author’s comments in a commentary-based format, with each individual release being shown with the author’s thoughts directly following throughout the article.
The Court
When looking at the thoughts of third parties for this case, the first logical party to weigh-in on the conversation would be the court itself. More specifically, the judge of the settlement case, Judge Jed S. Rakoff. The New York Times reported his comment on the case, stating, “This case sent a message through this very substantial settlement that banking institutions have a responsibility.”
Jed S. Rakoff
Author’s Thoughts Such a statement could not have been more accurate nor better said. Judge Rakoff made the very notable conclusion that banks have been let off their “leash” for too long, and they cannot continue to make the trade of ethics for money. This case, and therefore his decision, will set a precedent throughout the banking industry on this exact dilemma. Now it is in the hands of society to hold the industry accountable for any missteps, as it is clear that it will not be tolerated.
The Broadcaster
Moving away from the courtroom itself, it is important to understand the insights from some of the more influential public figures in the space as well. An inquiry into said opinion brought eyes to the words of Emily Jashinsky, who is an esteemed author, editor, and broadcaster. As shown in a public profile, her works have been showcased in the Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, etc., as well as making regular appearances on shows like “Fox News Sunday”.
In an appearance on the well-known Breaking Points broadcast, she made an interesting comment on the issue. In conversation with the co-host, she said, “Dimon said obviously if we had known then what we know today we wouldn’t have had this business arrangement with Jeffrey Epstein. But, of course, that’s part of the problem here. JPMorgan Chase did have indications (Epstein’s 2008 conviction for sexual engagements with a minor), they did know, and this is one of the biggest remaining questions, and it’s not even a question in many cases. Why do people, Bill Gates included, continue to have relationships with Jeffrey Epstein after everything that exposed him as a predator? Nobody has a good answer to that question, and especially not JPMorgan Chase.”
Author’s Thoughts
Undoubtedly, Jashinsky seized the moment and utilized the stage she stood on to make a courageous, yet accurate point about the case that many swept under the rug. JPMorgan Chase, no matter how hard they try to cover it up, do not have any form of an excuse for why they remained in relation to Jeffrey Epstein with all the warning signs. It is their “skeleton in the closet”, and it seems that they will only pay for their actions if people like Jashinsky continue to press that point forward and bring it into the light.
News Outlets
And finally, it is important to obtain the thoughts of those in the mainstream news scene. To do so, the words of Briahna Joy Gray, who is a news anchor for The Hill, will be used.
During a show with co-host Shermichael Singleton, she was asked,”Do you think that JPMorgan Chase was upholding themselves to the ethical duties that were set before them, like reporting the money while Jeffrey Epstein was a client?” Her response was, “My short answer is no. Typically, companies don’t settle when they know that the case is a ‘slam dunk.’ While some
may choose to settle because they do not have the money to carry out a long trial, we’re talking about JPMorgan Chase here. They do, and they chose to settle because they knew it was not looking good for them.”
Author Response
Here, Gray showcased the exact reasoning why the trial went the way it did. JPMorgan Chase was backed into a corner, and they threw money at the issue until it went away. The company knew that it did not have any ground to stand on, and therefore went straight to damage control as a result. Summarized in a short amount of words, but the statement from Gray was completely reasonable in nature.
In Summary
With all of the various personalities being shown from different media sources, it is evident that there is a comprehensive view being shown here. Unsurprisingly, though, is the fact that the public sentiment remains united when looking at this case; JPMorgan Chase is in the wrong, and reform needs to happen.
Works Cited
Breaking Points. “JPMorgan COVERS TRACKS With $75 MILLION Epstein Settlement | Counter Points.” YouTube, 27 Sept. 2023, www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGOghO2YI0A.
Goldstein, Matthew . “Judge Approves JPMorgan’s Settlement.” New York Times, 9 Nov. 2023,www.nytimes.com/2023/11/09/business/jeffrey-epstein-settlement-approved.html.
The Federalist. “Emily Jashinsky, Author at the Federalist.” The Federalist, 5 Oct. 2023, thefederalist.com/author/emilyjashinsky.
The Hill. “NEW TODAY: JP Morgan SETTLES Epstein Suit With US Virgin Islands for $75M.” YouTube, 26 Sept. 2023, www.youtube.com/watch?v=9onRGTSP8ms
Jeremy LaValley 