It seems like you're making a nuanced argument about the complexities of achieving justice in a system that's been corrupted from top to bottom. Here are some key points I've distilled from your text:
1. **Corruption is pervasive**: You're suggesting that corruption can infiltrate every level of a system, making it extremely challenging to achieve a fair or just outcome.
2. **Fair process ≠ Just outcome**: Even if a fair process is followed, the outcome may still be unjust due to the corrupt nature of the system.
3. **The example of Jeffrey Epstein**: You're using the example of Jeffrey Epstein to illustrate how a corrupted system can protect and enable perpetrators, even when they commit heinous crimes.
4. **Black-and-white thinking is insufficient**: You're arguing that simplistic notions of "fair trial" or "just outcome" don't capture the complexity of real-world situations, where corruption and systemic flaws can undermine justice.
Overall, your point seems to be that achieving justice requires a more comprehensive approach than just ensuring a fair process. It involves addressing the underlying structural issues that allow corruption and injustice to thrive.
Am I accurately understanding your argument?
