didntkillself

Perhaps another HN'er could explain it to you more clearly? Thanks for the insights and have a wonderful holiday season.

My opinion is that you've misinterpreted and misstated. The way you've framed it, the question does not use the word "jurisdiction" in a consistent manner with its definition or practice and does not address operative elements of the international legal system. The framing of the question also is also not on topic: the question about the legal basis of the challenge (all the way at the top of the thread) is a general one, and your framing here hyperfocuses on non-operative concepts ("juristiction") and a single country ("China"). Not only have you framed the wrong question in my opinion, but the question is rhetorical, and then you also bother to provide an answer.

In summary I'd say your comment is not relevant to discussion about legal basis of the challenge. It contributes to a different topic not being discussed: "What is your personal feeling about China?" to which you've contributed a thinly veiled "Boo China."

The question "Do other countries have jurisdiction in X?" is "no" for all countries X.

I presume you meant that as an informal straw man to represent the question as less pertinent than it is?

The version of the question I heard OP ask is:

"Is this might makes right, or is there an international legal standard and international judicial body to resolve this on a consistent basis?"

The way the OP asked it suggests OP thinks this may be "might makes right". But the question about international legal basis is a good one.

For me the reality that Acosta was and is not in a position where he needs to lie or obscure to explain his actions, that nothing he has done as AG is illegal, there are no motions against him, there are better lies he could have told and that the AG (and Secretary of Labor) was not a criminal in this case leads me to believe him as a witness.

It's not clear to me what kind of further evidence you think should be necessary beyond witness testimony in this case, or what kind of standard this would apply to justice system in general. It's also difficult because - for instance - paper records such as the AG's inbox are missing.

Is there specific evidence you believe is readily available but that hasn't been forthcoming?

"Which seems to me just as likely that someone was paid to say that or that Acosta made it up to cover his butt for being the softest prosecutor ever."

Equally as likely as in 50/50? That's coin flipping at that point - basically the same as saying having no information or opinion - all outcomes are equally the same.

There's a lot more information in this case - that Epstein frequented the world's leaders, even had access to American presidents on his private plane without Secret Service, had video recordings of world leaders having sex with underage women, had professional faked passports issued to him with fake identities.

When given a chance to deny communications with intelligence, Acosta refused to do so.

I think skepticism is required in all things but not believing anything at all is a dangerous anti-pattern.

Here are the sourced listed in Acosta's Wikipedia article:

- Ward, Vicky (July 9, 2019). "Jeffrey Epstein's Sick Story Played Out for Years in Plain Sight". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on July 10, 2019. Retrieved July 11, 2019.

- "It Sure Looks Like Jeffrey Epstein Was a Spy—But Whose?". July 10, 2019. Archived from the original on December 18, 2019. Retrieved December 11, 2019.

- North, Anna (August 14, 2019). "Why the Jeffrey Epstein case inspires so many conspiracy theories". Vox. Archived from the original on November 30, 2019. Retrieved December 11, 2019.

It's easy to find mainstream media coverage for additional sources as this was widely reported. Search "epstein acosta intelligence" or "acosta epstein belonged to intelligence".

Remember that Acosta stated that the US intelligence community approached and pressured him to limit charges to Epstein because Epstein was one of their agents. The implication here is that the sex trafficking to people in power was being used by US intelligence to get compromising material and leverage of leaders - which would not only be a significant scandal for US intelligence but also sufficient motivation for Epstein assassination/disappearing.