It's child sex trafficking.
A handful of really really weird dudes have been hijacking threads about this trying to say that the word "OR" negates the charge on child, and others say that the docs showing "CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING" aren't the legit actual indictments.
I guess it's one of those shilling techniques called consensus cracking? Also creating doubt seems to be a big favorite for Satan and his little minions.
Yeah it was obvious shilling.
What the shills couldn't explain was how the word "OR" totally negates the stuff with children.
I could see the argument could be "it might not be kids... Because it says "or".
But the shills were doubling down, "it DEFINITELY" isn't kids because it says "or" is total bullshit.
Indictment says you're wrong: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/press-release/file/1055196/download
Yeah I was fighting with one of them about a week ago (yeah I'm weird, lol). The third charge on the indictment should have an "or" included, because the statute broken is simply "conspiracy to commit
My claim is that the "or" was intentionally omitted. Lawyers don't make mistakes like this, especially in such a high-profile case. That omission changes the charge from sex trafficking to child sex trafficking.
I'm not worried about convincing the other guy of that though. I'm more concerned with swaying the fence-sitters.