The law is necessary repression. The religious passion plays, more circuses of our courts are neither law nor order, nor can any of this be rationally justified.
Epstein was a pimp and a fixer - but he’s dead.
Years dead.
May we leave invocations of rationality aside in this matter, I ask respectfully?
This is just a feminine pandering passion play to gain money, with the Judge as the replacement pimp.
Hardly unique in his profession, nor is this all that bizarre in the context of our society.
Not so sure. The Giuffre lawsuit drop is poorly reported by Taibbi and Tracey. She sued Dersh AND Dersh sued her. They mututally dropped, so at same time she dropped her claims he was lying, he dropped his claims she was lying. If she's untrustworthy because she dropped those claims, well Dersh simultaneously also dropped all claims that her lawywr David Boies was part of a cabal out to get him. So who is the fabulist?
PS When he claimed exoneration and CNN mouthpieced that for him VG pushed back strongly. She did an interview with the Daily Beast that said, paraphrasing, "Dersh should stop claiming he's exonerated. We both dropped our lawauits mutually. This does not exonerate him in any way."
I can think of several plausible scenarios other than the one you probably assume, which was that Epstein was a financial mark.
1) David Boies the super high powered lawyer (argued Bush-Gore election in front of SC) was her original attorney. Dershowitz made (later withdrawn) provacative unsubstantiated claims about Boies to get him knocked off the case, in what one might see as unfair false shit to get him removed. Without her top lawyer choice she might have liked her chances less.
2) she was right but thought there would be evidnece once everyone got all the emails and docs; but Epstein and co werent dumb enough to leave a trail. Nowhere for her to go if the docs werent there that she thought might be
3) She sued wanting to win but the costs, timeline and emotional toll were great and no longer worth it
4) she earnestly thought it was Dersh she interacted with but it was someone else; rather than sinisterly conjuring it up she made an earnest mistake caused by a fog of war/entire life of victimization. Not everyone has perfect memory and serious stressors involved. This would make her not a fabulist never to be trusted like Ransone (who is one) but simply wrong on one count.
Again Dersh co-dropped claims and must be considered a serial fabulist too; no one says or thinks that but his drops mirror hers, esp. the Boies drop.
Mutual dropping of charges is a tie not a win for either side. He claimed to win publicly and she publicly said back no fucking way we're just stopping lawsuits.
But to jump to the bottom line, do you believe that because of the dershowitz lawsuit outcome, Giuffre can't be trusted to be right about Prince Andrew? Because that is what Tracey will have you believe. That there is nothing at all to any of her claims and matbe the whole Epstein thing might not have happened! Because two people mutually agreed to drop lawsuits. It's the keystone claim by Tracey/Taibbi to say the whole this is just made up, or in Taibbi's case, to claim that even though this lawsuit drop happened in 2022, journalists were massively wrong to ever assume Giuffre might be right even in 2014.
I started reading Taibbi in 2018 and have been paying the max extra $150 level since then, but this silliness has me dropping that to be a regular Joe. Matt jumped the shark a year ago but saying Epstein is worst-reported ever because journos believed a credible accuser of a guy who had then-recently been found guilty of similar crimes, and had nothing to disprove the credible accuser for 12+ years, is laughable. It's like Taibbi fell in love with Tracey and we're seeing the elevation of his new girlfriend's work that he can't judge clearly.
Matt also is spreading the story that "there were no/very few underage women so saying this is about minors is questionable" and he's repeated that several times. When there's a fucking video of a press conference on the Capitol steps from Sept (2025) where three women state they were minors, they were recruited by minors, and there were tons of minors involved. One woman says she was 14 when recruited and she was recruited by a 13 year old.
Three women, showing their faces, not anonymous, and saying there are many more while telling the stories of fear, tons of literally threats and actually actively being followed (which goes to there being more, it's hard to find any to step up under such conditions and the DoJ found three).
But there's no reason to say this involved minors. Sure, Matt, sure.
1. She filed her lawsuit first. Counterclaims are quite common when one is sued.
2. You need to become acquiatnted with more of the unfortunately deceased Ms. Roberts's work. She went through some awful things, but was clearly delusional.
I read all of Tracey's stuff. Nothing conclusive. Her claims other than about Dersh are consistent with what Dersh himself says, as well as other lawyers who have seen the docs
That's how settling a suit works: both sides drop their claims. However, I will note that Dershowitz got all he was asking from her: a statement indicating that she "may have" been wrong about her accusations. The statement Giuffre issued upon the settlement is pretty close to what Dershowitz had suggested as a statement years earlier during their suit.
I'd suggest you go and read some of the court documentation out there involving Giuffre. She's nothing more than a teller of tall tales in pursuit of a settlement for making lurid accusations. From her lies (including to the FBI) about when she originally met Epstein, to her tall tales of alleged sexual activities with a hotel owner/prince/prime minister that are the same to her alleging that she sustained injuries in a severe car crash this past spring (when in fact the accident was a minor fender bender in which she may not have even been in the vehicle), Guiffre is what is politely called a "fabulist."
Even the photo is fake, huh? Serial fabulism is certainly a factor here. You don't build any credibility by saying three or four provably false things and alleging absolutely everything cant be trusted.
Here’s the issue I have with your thesis. You say Dershowitz was trying to get Boies thrown off the case. Did that happen before she dismissed it.? In any event, if Dershowitz was taking off after Boies, why would she then start trashing Boies herself? I am assuming Taibbi did not make up the comments she made about Boies given in this piece.
I think, also, that the “Rule of Law” we all think exists really is a veneer. In my lifetime I’ve witnessed both political parties/those in power absolutely trample “the law.” Certainly, there appears to be “justice” on different levels - generally a different set of laws for the poor and those unconnected to power.
So, in a way, par for the course. Epstein is WMD on a smaller scale. Superficial sensationalism wins people’s weak minds. Including judges and politicians and lawyers and ‘journalists.’ My mind has been changed on this topic- but I bet for every person looking at this differently there are a million who will not be moved.
There's a major factor looming in the background he didn't mention: A very large contingent of Trump-haters who have heard a million times, the walls are closing in on Trump. Each time, when ALL the facts are eventually revealed, the lurid accusations fall apart.
With each repeat of the stale old Epstein accusations, they once again have their hopes raised, the walls are closing in.
One sees it on almost any online forum having to do with Trump even when unrelated in any way to Epstein. There are ALWAYS multiple off-topic comments along the lines of, "What about the Epstein files?"
Ok. What about them? Get back to us when you have something.
So essentially James Comey's daughter was able to collect the names and phone numbers of women who proved themselves willing and able to tell any kind of story implicating someone in dubious sexual activity, all on the government's dime. Too bad she didn't find that information useful.
Good post. You've convinced me that I shouldn't trust much of the reporting on this issue. I actually stopped reading anything about Epstein a few months ago, but I trust Racket, so I made an exception.
At some point, I'd like to see you (and Matt) turn your attention to how Epstein came to be so rich and well connected as well as the circumstances surrounding his supposed suicide. In the meantime, people will just fill the void on their own.
There was a reason Epstein was able to charm his way to riches and blackmail the wealthy and powerful. It's because he knew the greatest secret of all.... Victoria's Secret.
There is quite a bit written about that subject. I can’t remember how he ended up befriending Les Wexner but it seems it all started around that time. He really didn’t graduate from anywhere but his ability to tell a good and convincing story while building so called friendships resulted in the scheme.
Yes, Les Wexner probably could clear things up, but I doubt he's willing to talk. And while there's been a lot written on the subject, I haven't seen anything that explains what he did for Wexner or Leon Black or any of his other "clients" that would merit such exorbitant compensation.
Yes. I ignored Leon Black and it seems those 2 were a major factor in his wealth building. I’ve just read about the very tight relationship Wexner had with Epstein.
I wouldn't be surprised if Epstein was a Psychopath, who had natural manipulation abilities. If so, this still does not make him more than a wealthy pimp and brothel owner.
Hmmm, it wouldn’t surprise anyone that Epstein was a psychopath.
The NYT ran a “history on JE”. It’s worth reading if only for who introduced him to whom and a few of his manipulative tricks of men who should have known better.
Same here. I really don’t care about Epstein or who flew on his plane, exchanged emails & texts with him, etc., but after reading this, I’m getting a definite McMartin day care vibe from this whole thing.
I read this NYT article after watching the Mike Benz supposed "case-cracking" video. There are only glancing intersections between the Benz research and what is revealed in this long NYT piece. Interestingly, the NYT article never mentions BCCI, the Bear Stearns-associated slush fund for the US, Israeli, and Saudi intelligence communities, which Benz claims is central to Epstein's rise to fame and fortune. Why? If Benz is correct about Epstein's central involvement with BCCI, wouldn't that connection have been part of the NYT's findings? Is Benz fishing in the right pond?
I thought I was starting to figure out this story. Now I'm confused again.
The issue was a judge letting people speak about the deceased accused in public. Sure, it affects the future deceased accused if that's allowed in future... but the living accused will get the trial, in alignment with their civil rights.
Hello, enough is enough. The only reason that this story is around is because the Democrats and whoever else want to find something on our outstanding President of the United States and say they 'got him;. Not there, life is short, a New Year is coming in. Happy New Year to all.
"Nothing about this person’s anonymous story made a lick of sense, but it was all lapped up totally uncritically, as Judge Berman decided anyone who believed themselves a “victim” could saunter into the courthouse that day and tell any Epstein-related tale they cared to conjure."
This is an identical psychological situation to what happens in Parental Alienation or in the decades-old False Memory Syndrome. That the authorities -- the courts in these cases -- arbitrarily make the decision that whatever comes out of the mouths of one class of persons will be considered the truth. And whatever comes out of the mouth of those persons they are pointing a finger at, will be considered a lie.
What the authorities never consider, and perhaps have no idea of (though why have they failed to educate themselves here?) is that there are other potential reasons why a person might falsely accuse another person of wrongdoing.
The old "voice of the child" excuse (which sounds so noble) was wrong from the start. Children can be and are influenced by adults to an enormous degree, so that they are acting as no more than a ventriloquist's puppet for the con-artist adult behind the scenes. Think of a hostage being held captive and on the phone to their family asking for ransom but insisting they are being treated well...with a gun to their heads. They say what they are told to say because they are in a survival situation.
Same with many of these children and youth. Though they could not explain it to you in so many words. And will not be able to until they are grown...if even then. By that time, to save face, they may still insist they were telling the truth all along.
There are some very strong tactics for influencing the minds of dependent and vulnerable persons, to believe that black is white and up is down. Cult leaders and con-artists and general Cluster-B personalities use these tactics all the time, while maintaining a good-guy mask.
I refer everyone to the tragic Neurauter case. Or any case of bona fide Parental Alienation. Or the many cases of false accusations in the Satanic Panic or False Memory Syndrome mass hysterias of the 80s/90s.
Vulnerable persons claiming abuse of one sort or another may or may not be telling the truth. They may not be intentionally lying even, but saying what was programmed into them by a predator in their lives. And the motivation for survival is strong enough that they repeat what they have been told to say.
I recommend stories of accusers/redactors who grew up and realized the truth -- "My Lie: A True Story of False Memory" by Meredith Maran. Or "Sabotaged!" by Ryan Thomas.
And then, in a category of adult vulnerables under a Cluster-B Therapist who knew all their deepest secrets, and was quite willing to blackmail these well-to-do clients of hers, is the story out of Stockholm twenty-five years ago about the Cluster-B con-artist "professional" who almost brought down the Swedish medical and legal systems in this manner.
"The Strange Case of Thomas Quick" by Dan Josefsson (masterful journalism, btw).
The idea of a taxpayer-funded "Victim's Hearing" for an un-convicted, deceased would-be defendant is insane. And it's pretty outrageous that those mentally ill and/or sociopathic lying grifters got all those millions in settlements.
But regarding the Constitutional issue of the supposed threat to civil liberties, isn't the term "civil liberties" inapplicable to a dead person?
Let's not put the cart before the horse. These mentally ill and/or sociopathic lying grifters got a lot of publicity and some settlement money - but it's their lawyers who walked away with a fortune.
As long as we have "civil rights" and "personal injury" lawyers working on contingency agreements, there will be a "victim industrial complex" going after any defendant with money, be it government agencies, insurance companies, or various unsavory, but wealthy characters like Epstein. Take contingency agreements out of the equation - and, magically, sociopathic lying grifters will fade into the woodwork.
My take, hardly a leap, is that people are taking advantage of the opportunity the despicable Epstein created to try to generate some unearned cash. America has a long history of shysters, frauds and wannabe's. I should know - my grandfather did magic tricks in a traveling circus, after which he sold phony cure-all elixirs. It's part of the collateral damage one gets with an unusually free society. The U.S., with about 24% of global GDP, generates over 50% of all legal revenues worldwide. If my grandfather were alive today, he'd be a litigator just like Gloria Allred.
As for my grandfather, he fell in love with my grandmother and they settled down, farming potatoes in Idaho. Maybe Gloria should raise horses or grow wine grapes somewhere.
Good thing your grandparents didn't join the many potato farmers of Prince Edward Island, in east coast Canada. It's being taken over now by shyster CCP "Buddhists" who plan a 1000 Year reign there.
While Berman earned his law degree from NYU in 1967, he earned a Master of Social Work degree in May of 1996 from the Fordham University Graduate School of Social Service.
His Fordham bio says he was appointed as New York State Family Court Judge (Queens County) in 1995 and was appointed Federal District Court Judge (SDNY) in November 1998.
He is the author of “Special Immigrant Juvenile Status;” “A Team Model to Identify Child Abuse;” “Seven Steps to Protect Children;” and “Community Service for Juvenile Offenders.” He was a member of the New York State Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children.
Judge Berman received the National Association of Social Workers (NYC) Emerald award for 20 years of leadership as a licensed social worker and judge in 2019.
It appears from your fine article that Berman's fervor for social justice overwhelmed his legal principles.
By the way, I had no idea that 'struggle session' referred to a Maoist China real-life version of Shirley Jackson's short story, The Lottery.
This Judge Berman, for all his supposed social justice instincts, does not seem to be aware of the patterns of psychology in cases such as these.
For someone holding such power to make or break individual lives, depending on whether he gets it right or not, I would have thought he'd have informed himself of the important psychological issues here.
He reminds me of the supposed professionals in the 70s/80s who grasped nothing at all about the nature of the cult movement of that era. In fact, Ted Patrick, a man with a grade 10 education, worked it out before the mental health professionals did.
Nevertheless, Epstein as "globalist kompromateur" working for Mossad and CIA has become an (almost?) crystal clear "no shit, Sherlock" case closed non-mystery.
Our leaders who have been effectively working on behalf of a foreign power need to be identified and dismissed, if not imprisoned. Anyone who yawns and waves hands dismissively is being stupid or is an enemy of the Constitution and Americans, imo.
I suggest you dig into Whitney Webb's "One Nation Under Blackmail". It is a bit dry but it shows quite a bit beside "unsupported innuendo" that leads straight to Mossad.
She is the most committed and thorough investivgative journalist of her generation. It's just hard to keep track of all the bad folks. I try to change what I can close to home. May 2026 bring us peace and joy. It starts from a commitment to love.
I love Owens, Garland Nixon (now 81 years old, and doing sometimes two shows a day) and James Corbett for helping me understand and connect all the bad folks.
Actually, Michael Tracey (author of this piece) has written about Witney Webb and what she purports about Epstein, too. Highly recommend the pieces he wrote about Webb:
Thanks for the reply. I've copied a comment from someone named Julia that she made after the second link.
"Spending time on poking holes in the work of the only journalist who even touched this stuff going back 6/7 years is not very wise. Just personally speaking, it was reading Whitney Webb’s stuff that first taught me about the existence of the MEGA group & Les Wexner etc…are petty internecine journalistic wars really worth it at this point? Isn’t staying focused on the big picture..ie the total control over the US gov by Israeli intelligence…a bit more important???"
I have some respect for Tracey, but I do believe if you look at the big picture, the state of Israel has a HUGE influence on US foreign policy, largely through bribery and blackmail. As a retired merchant seaman I can never forget the USS Liberty incident and LBJ's response to it.
Very Interesting. Has something changed at Racket news? This is now the second article in a row which falls into the “Move on, nothing to see here”, category. (Matt's article on Charlie Kirk assassination being the first).
Wild, evidence free allegations were the hallmark (or, should I say, with a snickering nod to the Biden-era intelligence community, the "earmark") of the Kavanaugh hearings. Two very different men, but a related phenomenon: performed in an atmosphere of deliberately fomented hysteria. Unlike dead man Epstein, the good judge was present to defend himself and did so gutwrenchingly. I have never personally witnessed such blatant, coordinated lying as I did the day I watched the Kavanaugh hearings live. It shocked me to my core and still does. Thanks, Michael, for pointing out the underlying issues of the undermining of civil liberties.
I had that same sickening reaction watching diane Feinstein and Kamala Harris attack this man, completely jettisoning any regard for not only the dignity of Congress but for civil rights and a search for the truth. The sham witnesses and lack of legitimate evidence in this kangaroo court setting was an insult to the American people. Yet, nary a word of criticism in MSM. Cause de jour has almost completely replaced civil rights and rationality. so, I welcome essays like Mr. Tracy's to remind us of this to bring us back to center.
"Yet, nary a word of criticism in MSM" Of course not. They had acquired Michael Avenatti by then and were busy touting him as a prospective Presidential candidate! CNN literally drooled over him! Where is he now? Oh that's right, prison!
Yup. And never forget, it was Trump (who despite all his faults) stood firm there. Is there another Republican alive who wouldn't have cracked and withdrawn the nomination?
Now the the Epstein files have been unloaded in the hundreds of thousands of documents, photos, statements, and every apparent morsel of information, but it ain't over until, somehow, some way, they can get Trump at Epstein Island holding his twang with a minor.
Today in the Wall Street Journal, a full blown article on the reason Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago. Paraphrasing the headline "Mar-a-Lago would send spa workers to their guests and an 18 year old spa worker was sent to Epstein's room. She reported to human services that he pressured her to have sex". And, so it went on with a rambling dissertation on every comment, date, gossip, and story from workers and others about Epstein's stay at the resort including an eye opener that Marla Maples disliked Epstein.
You have to wonder about the plight of media and its continuing downfall when a supposedly business focused newspaper like the WSJ finds this twaddle relevant to its readers. It recently looked like the WSJ was having a reboot from its slide to the left but it was apparently that knock on the head I recently suffered. Oh well.
I think some folks are overly emotional about Epstein. They will blast you for defending him.
But what you are really defending is law and rationality.
But emotional people feel oppressed by law and especially rationality, and anyone who imposes them.
The law is necessary repression. The religious passion plays, more circuses of our courts are neither law nor order, nor can any of this be rationally justified.
Epstein was a pimp and a fixer - but he’s dead.
Years dead.
May we leave invocations of rationality aside in this matter, I ask respectfully?
This is just a feminine pandering passion play to gain money, with the Judge as the replacement pimp.
Hardly unique in his profession, nor is this all that bizarre in the context of our society.
Regulum Legum Delenda Est. Felicium Annum Novus.
I don't discount public slavering to "catch" the rich and powerful acting rich and powerful in a suitably demeaning way.
I confess to my own interest in the "true crime" possibilities of the prison suicides. Coincidences are often interesting.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60443518
Not so sure. The Giuffre lawsuit drop is poorly reported by Taibbi and Tracey. She sued Dersh AND Dersh sued her. They mututally dropped, so at same time she dropped her claims he was lying, he dropped his claims she was lying. If she's untrustworthy because she dropped those claims, well Dersh simultaneously also dropped all claims that her lawywr David Boies was part of a cabal out to get him. So who is the fabulist?
PS When he claimed exoneration and CNN mouthpieced that for him VG pushed back strongly. She did an interview with the Daily Beast that said, paraphrasing, "Dersh should stop claiming he's exonerated. We both dropped our lawauits mutually. This does not exonerate him in any way."
Then why did she drop the case? It's far too easy to get away with baseless claims these days.
I can think of several plausible scenarios other than the one you probably assume, which was that Epstein was a financial mark.
1) David Boies the super high powered lawyer (argued Bush-Gore election in front of SC) was her original attorney. Dershowitz made (later withdrawn) provacative unsubstantiated claims about Boies to get him knocked off the case, in what one might see as unfair false shit to get him removed. Without her top lawyer choice she might have liked her chances less.
2) she was right but thought there would be evidnece once everyone got all the emails and docs; but Epstein and co werent dumb enough to leave a trail. Nowhere for her to go if the docs werent there that she thought might be
3) She sued wanting to win but the costs, timeline and emotional toll were great and no longer worth it
4) she earnestly thought it was Dersh she interacted with but it was someone else; rather than sinisterly conjuring it up she made an earnest mistake caused by a fog of war/entire life of victimization. Not everyone has perfect memory and serious stressors involved. This would make her not a fabulist never to be trusted like Ransone (who is one) but simply wrong on one count.
Again Dersh co-dropped claims and must be considered a serial fabulist too; no one says or thinks that but his drops mirror hers, esp. the Boies drop.
Why would Dersh continue if she dropped the charges? Once that happened he no longer needed to confront her. Anyway I think it's a non story.
Mutual dropping of charges is a tie not a win for either side. He claimed to win publicly and she publicly said back no fucking way we're just stopping lawsuits.
But to jump to the bottom line, do you believe that because of the dershowitz lawsuit outcome, Giuffre can't be trusted to be right about Prince Andrew? Because that is what Tracey will have you believe. That there is nothing at all to any of her claims and matbe the whole Epstein thing might not have happened! Because two people mutually agreed to drop lawsuits. It's the keystone claim by Tracey/Taibbi to say the whole this is just made up, or in Taibbi's case, to claim that even though this lawsuit drop happened in 2022, journalists were massively wrong to ever assume Giuffre might be right even in 2014.
I started reading Taibbi in 2018 and have been paying the max extra $150 level since then, but this silliness has me dropping that to be a regular Joe. Matt jumped the shark a year ago but saying Epstein is worst-reported ever because journos believed a credible accuser of a guy who had then-recently been found guilty of similar crimes, and had nothing to disprove the credible accuser for 12+ years, is laughable. It's like Taibbi fell in love with Tracey and we're seeing the elevation of his new girlfriend's work that he can't judge clearly.
Matt also is spreading the story that "there were no/very few underage women so saying this is about minors is questionable" and he's repeated that several times. When there's a fucking video of a press conference on the Capitol steps from Sept (2025) where three women state they were minors, they were recruited by minors, and there were tons of minors involved. One woman says she was 14 when recruited and she was recruited by a 13 year old.
Three women, showing their faces, not anonymous, and saying there are many more while telling the stories of fear, tons of literally threats and actually actively being followed (which goes to there being more, it's hard to find any to step up under such conditions and the DoJ found three).
But there's no reason to say this involved minors. Sure, Matt, sure.
1. She filed her lawsuit first. Counterclaims are quite common when one is sued.
2. You need to become acquiatnted with more of the unfortunately deceased Ms. Roberts's work. She went through some awful things, but was clearly delusional.
Counterclaims are within same lawsuit.
I read all of Tracey's stuff. Nothing conclusive. Her claims other than about Dersh are consistent with what Dersh himself says, as well as other lawyers who have seen the docs
That's how settling a suit works: both sides drop their claims. However, I will note that Dershowitz got all he was asking from her: a statement indicating that she "may have" been wrong about her accusations. The statement Giuffre issued upon the settlement is pretty close to what Dershowitz had suggested as a statement years earlier during their suit.
I'd suggest you go and read some of the court documentation out there involving Giuffre. She's nothing more than a teller of tall tales in pursuit of a settlement for making lurid accusations. From her lies (including to the FBI) about when she originally met Epstein, to her tall tales of alleged sexual activities with a hotel owner/prince/prime minister that are the same to her alleging that she sustained injuries in a severe car crash this past spring (when in fact the accident was a minor fender bender in which she may not have even been in the vehicle), Guiffre is what is politely called a "fabulist."
Even the photo is fake, huh? Serial fabulism is certainly a factor here. You don't build any credibility by saying three or four provably false things and alleging absolutely everything cant be trusted.
Here’s the issue I have with your thesis. You say Dershowitz was trying to get Boies thrown off the case. Did that happen before she dismissed it.? In any event, if Dershowitz was taking off after Boies, why would she then start trashing Boies herself? I am assuming Taibbi did not make up the comments she made about Boies given in this piece.
She’s dead too.
While ignoring the role of the media, the prime mover and weapon in every witch hunt.
Good call.
I think, also, that the “Rule of Law” we all think exists really is a veneer. In my lifetime I’ve witnessed both political parties/those in power absolutely trample “the law.” Certainly, there appears to be “justice” on different levels - generally a different set of laws for the poor and those unconnected to power.
So, in a way, par for the course. Epstein is WMD on a smaller scale. Superficial sensationalism wins people’s weak minds. Including judges and politicians and lawyers and ‘journalists.’ My mind has been changed on this topic- but I bet for every person looking at this differently there are a million who will not be moved.
The law is words.
I enjoyed reading Tracey's well-reasoned piece.
There's a major factor looming in the background he didn't mention: A very large contingent of Trump-haters who have heard a million times, the walls are closing in on Trump. Each time, when ALL the facts are eventually revealed, the lurid accusations fall apart.
With each repeat of the stale old Epstein accusations, they once again have their hopes raised, the walls are closing in.
One sees it on almost any online forum having to do with Trump even when unrelated in any way to Epstein. There are ALWAYS multiple off-topic comments along the lines of, "What about the Epstein files?"
Ok. What about them? Get back to us when you have something.
They'll never learn.
So essentially James Comey's daughter was able to collect the names and phone numbers of women who proved themselves willing and able to tell any kind of story implicating someone in dubious sexual activity, all on the government's dime. Too bad she didn't find that information useful.
Giving credence to bogus stories to smear others and aggrandize herself- the apple does not fall far from the tree does it?
Runs in the family.
Good post. You've convinced me that I shouldn't trust much of the reporting on this issue. I actually stopped reading anything about Epstein a few months ago, but I trust Racket, so I made an exception.
At some point, I'd like to see you (and Matt) turn your attention to how Epstein came to be so rich and well connected as well as the circumstances surrounding his supposed suicide. In the meantime, people will just fill the void on their own.
There was a reason Epstein was able to charm his way to riches and blackmail the wealthy and powerful. It's because he knew the greatest secret of all.... Victoria's Secret.
🤣
There is quite a bit written about that subject. I can’t remember how he ended up befriending Les Wexner but it seems it all started around that time. He really didn’t graduate from anywhere but his ability to tell a good and convincing story while building so called friendships resulted in the scheme.
Yes, Les Wexner probably could clear things up, but I doubt he's willing to talk. And while there's been a lot written on the subject, I haven't seen anything that explains what he did for Wexner or Leon Black or any of his other "clients" that would merit such exorbitant compensation.
Yes. I ignored Leon Black and it seems those 2 were a major factor in his wealth building. I’ve just read about the very tight relationship Wexner had with Epstein.
I wouldn't be surprised if Epstein was a Psychopath, who had natural manipulation abilities. If so, this still does not make him more than a wealthy pimp and brothel owner.
Hmmm, it wouldn’t surprise anyone that Epstein was a psychopath.
The NYT ran a “history on JE”. It’s worth reading if only for who introduced him to whom and a few of his manipulative tricks of men who should have known better.
Thanks, Loafergirl. Manipulation and deceit are the calling cards of the Cluster-B personalities. Especially the Psychopaths.
I am glad my grandmother did not live to see Walter Cronkite on Epstein island. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Same here. I really don’t care about Epstein or who flew on his plane, exchanged emails & texts with him, etc., but after reading this, I’m getting a definite McMartin day care vibe from this whole thing.
I think the whole #metoo spawned a spate of questionable prosecutions.
I believe you are 100% correct. Both legal prosecutions and social.
I suspect it was meant to. That was the goal.
Scams, Schemes, Ruthless Cons: The Untold Story of How Jeffrey Epstein Got Rich
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/16/magazine/jeffrey-epstein-money-scams-investigation.html?unlocked_article_code=1.A1A.LdiT.FK3FR7XbvH9f&smid=url-share
Thanks for the link. The article was long but didn’t really seem to cover anything I hadn’t already read in “Filthy Rich” years ago.
And it ultimately concedes, “One unsolved mystery of the Epstein era is what exactly Wexner got out of their relationship.”
I agree, but it's the only article I've been able to find dealing pretty exclusively with from where the money originated.
I read this NYT article after watching the Mike Benz supposed "case-cracking" video. There are only glancing intersections between the Benz research and what is revealed in this long NYT piece. Interestingly, the NYT article never mentions BCCI, the Bear Stearns-associated slush fund for the US, Israeli, and Saudi intelligence communities, which Benz claims is central to Epstein's rise to fame and fortune. Why? If Benz is correct about Epstein's central involvement with BCCI, wouldn't that connection have been part of the NYT's findings? Is Benz fishing in the right pond?
I thought I was starting to figure out this story. Now I'm confused again.
Mike Benz has done some good investigative work on this.
Michael Tracey actually wrote about it a bit on one of his pieces about Epstein. I think this is the piece I'm thinking about: https://www.mtracey.net/p/the-insane-multitude-of-misconceptions
Quote from the article:
Questions as to the sources of Epstein’s wealth are fair enough, but most of the people who menacingly ask such questions don’t appear to have ever bothered reading the copious information that’s already accessible to anyone with an internet connection. There’s a report [<https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1411494/000119312521016405/d118102dex991.htm#:~:text=BLACK%20LOANED%20%2430.5%20MILLION%20TO,and%20documented%20by%20legal%20counsel.>] on billionaire Leon Black’s connections to Epstein that one may view on the SEC website. Likewise, one can also easily read a report [<https://www.wexnerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Wexner-Foundation-Report-Following-Independent-Review4.pdf>] on Epstein’s financial relationship with billionaire Leslie Wexner.
Yet another example of why Matt Taibbi is currently one of the most consequential journalists working in the English language
This is a guest post by Michael Tracey, another old-fashioned journalist in the Taibbi mold.
Thanks for the correction. I am also a fan of Michael Tracey's work, having seen him a number of times on Glenn Greenwald's Rumble show.
Michael Tracey does the best interviews of Congress Critters of anyone.
I still celebrate his man on the street Vermin Supreme interview outside the DNC convention.
That's OK, Matt obviously thought it worth publishing here, so the remark about being consequential is still valid.
He should tell us more about the civil rights of dead people. Do they have freedom of speech?
My Beetlejuice-avatar would like to know!
Except it's not about JE's civil rights, but about the affects on the civil rights of cases like this on those still living.
The issue was a judge letting people speak about the deceased accused in public. Sure, it affects the future deceased accused if that's allowed in future... but the living accused will get the trial, in alignment with their civil rights.
The victimhood industrial complex is alive and well. Thank you for this article and having the fortitude to hold your ground
Hello, enough is enough. The only reason that this story is around is because the Democrats and whoever else want to find something on our outstanding President of the United States and say they 'got him;. Not there, life is short, a New Year is coming in. Happy New Year to all.
I disagree. If enough were enough then what would too much be?
Enough's enough, but too much is plenty?
Too fair!
"Nothing about this person’s anonymous story made a lick of sense, but it was all lapped up totally uncritically, as Judge Berman decided anyone who believed themselves a “victim” could saunter into the courthouse that day and tell any Epstein-related tale they cared to conjure."
This is an identical psychological situation to what happens in Parental Alienation or in the decades-old False Memory Syndrome. That the authorities -- the courts in these cases -- arbitrarily make the decision that whatever comes out of the mouths of one class of persons will be considered the truth. And whatever comes out of the mouth of those persons they are pointing a finger at, will be considered a lie.
What the authorities never consider, and perhaps have no idea of (though why have they failed to educate themselves here?) is that there are other potential reasons why a person might falsely accuse another person of wrongdoing.
The old "voice of the child" excuse (which sounds so noble) was wrong from the start. Children can be and are influenced by adults to an enormous degree, so that they are acting as no more than a ventriloquist's puppet for the con-artist adult behind the scenes. Think of a hostage being held captive and on the phone to their family asking for ransom but insisting they are being treated well...with a gun to their heads. They say what they are told to say because they are in a survival situation.
Same with many of these children and youth. Though they could not explain it to you in so many words. And will not be able to until they are grown...if even then. By that time, to save face, they may still insist they were telling the truth all along.
There are some very strong tactics for influencing the minds of dependent and vulnerable persons, to believe that black is white and up is down. Cult leaders and con-artists and general Cluster-B personalities use these tactics all the time, while maintaining a good-guy mask.
I refer everyone to the tragic Neurauter case. Or any case of bona fide Parental Alienation. Or the many cases of false accusations in the Satanic Panic or False Memory Syndrome mass hysterias of the 80s/90s.
Vulnerable persons claiming abuse of one sort or another may or may not be telling the truth. They may not be intentionally lying even, but saying what was programmed into them by a predator in their lives. And the motivation for survival is strong enough that they repeat what they have been told to say.
I recommend stories of accusers/redactors who grew up and realized the truth -- "My Lie: A True Story of False Memory" by Meredith Maran. Or "Sabotaged!" by Ryan Thomas.
And then, in a category of adult vulnerables under a Cluster-B Therapist who knew all their deepest secrets, and was quite willing to blackmail these well-to-do clients of hers, is the story out of Stockholm twenty-five years ago about the Cluster-B con-artist "professional" who almost brought down the Swedish medical and legal systems in this manner.
"The Strange Case of Thomas Quick" by Dan Josefsson (masterful journalism, btw).
The idea of a taxpayer-funded "Victim's Hearing" for an un-convicted, deceased would-be defendant is insane. And it's pretty outrageous that those mentally ill and/or sociopathic lying grifters got all those millions in settlements.
But regarding the Constitutional issue of the supposed threat to civil liberties, isn't the term "civil liberties" inapplicable to a dead person?
If any money was taken from the Epstein estate as a result of this hearing, then yes, I would argue it's a civil liberties violation.
Even if all the hearing did was drive down the resale price of the estate's property.
Epstein's creditors and heirs have rights too.
But yeah, you can't rape a dead man--although you can steal from them.
Let's not put the cart before the horse. These mentally ill and/or sociopathic lying grifters got a lot of publicity and some settlement money - but it's their lawyers who walked away with a fortune.
As long as we have "civil rights" and "personal injury" lawyers working on contingency agreements, there will be a "victim industrial complex" going after any defendant with money, be it government agencies, insurance companies, or various unsavory, but wealthy characters like Epstein. Take contingency agreements out of the equation - and, magically, sociopathic lying grifters will fade into the woodwork.
My take, hardly a leap, is that people are taking advantage of the opportunity the despicable Epstein created to try to generate some unearned cash. America has a long history of shysters, frauds and wannabe's. I should know - my grandfather did magic tricks in a traveling circus, after which he sold phony cure-all elixirs. It's part of the collateral damage one gets with an unusually free society. The U.S., with about 24% of global GDP, generates over 50% of all legal revenues worldwide. If my grandfather were alive today, he'd be a litigator just like Gloria Allred.
As for my grandfather, he fell in love with my grandmother and they settled down, farming potatoes in Idaho. Maybe Gloria should raise horses or grow wine grapes somewhere.
She's got her hands full with her current vineyard of "sour grapes"
Good thing your grandparents didn't join the many potato farmers of Prince Edward Island, in east coast Canada. It's being taken over now by shyster CCP "Buddhists" who plan a 1000 Year reign there.
While Berman earned his law degree from NYU in 1967, he earned a Master of Social Work degree in May of 1996 from the Fordham University Graduate School of Social Service.
His Fordham bio says he was appointed as New York State Family Court Judge (Queens County) in 1995 and was appointed Federal District Court Judge (SDNY) in November 1998.
He is the author of “Special Immigrant Juvenile Status;” “A Team Model to Identify Child Abuse;” “Seven Steps to Protect Children;” and “Community Service for Juvenile Offenders.” He was a member of the New York State Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children.
Judge Berman received the National Association of Social Workers (NYC) Emerald award for 20 years of leadership as a licensed social worker and judge in 2019.
It appears from your fine article that Berman's fervor for social justice overwhelmed his legal principles.
By the way, I had no idea that 'struggle session' referred to a Maoist China real-life version of Shirley Jackson's short story, The Lottery.
Sounds like he wants to be "judged by history" instead of following the law.
This Judge Berman, for all his supposed social justice instincts, does not seem to be aware of the patterns of psychology in cases such as these.
For someone holding such power to make or break individual lives, depending on whether he gets it right or not, I would have thought he'd have informed himself of the important psychological issues here.
He reminds me of the supposed professionals in the 70s/80s who grasped nothing at all about the nature of the cult movement of that era. In fact, Ted Patrick, a man with a grade 10 education, worked it out before the mental health professionals did.
yet another district justice who chooses to make it up the way he wants it instead of following the law.
Interesting.
Nevertheless, Epstein as "globalist kompromateur" working for Mossad and CIA has become an (almost?) crystal clear "no shit, Sherlock" case closed non-mystery.
Our leaders who have been effectively working on behalf of a foreign power need to be identified and dismissed, if not imprisoned. Anyone who yawns and waves hands dismissively is being stupid or is an enemy of the Constitution and Americans, imo.
Where has there been any truth to what you’re saying? It’s only unsupported uniendo so far. Rumors.
I suggest you dig into Whitney Webb's "One Nation Under Blackmail". It is a bit dry but it shows quite a bit beside "unsupported innuendo" that leads straight to Mossad.
Candace Owens introduced me to Webb's book. I did not find it dry. She is a real journalist.
Candace Owens a real journalist? Scary thought!
Webb maybe?
Both. No one has taken the risks Owen has to uncover hard truths. What's scary is seeing Matt Taibbi pander to be the next Steven Colbert.
According to Matt Taibbi she is! She and Joe Rogan both!
She is the most committed and thorough investivgative journalist of her generation. It's just hard to keep track of all the bad folks. I try to change what I can close to home. May 2026 bring us peace and joy. It starts from a commitment to love.
I love Owens, Garland Nixon (now 81 years old, and doing sometimes two shows a day) and James Corbett for helping me understand and connect all the bad folks.
Actually, Michael Tracey (author of this piece) has written about Witney Webb and what she purports about Epstein, too. Highly recommend the pieces he wrote about Webb:
https://www.mtracey.net/p/the-webb-whitney-weaves
https://www.mtracey.net/p/whitney-webb-just-makes-stuff-up
Thanks for the reply. I've copied a comment from someone named Julia that she made after the second link.
"Spending time on poking holes in the work of the only journalist who even touched this stuff going back 6/7 years is not very wise. Just personally speaking, it was reading Whitney Webb’s stuff that first taught me about the existence of the MEGA group & Les Wexner etc…are petty internecine journalistic wars really worth it at this point? Isn’t staying focused on the big picture..ie the total control over the US gov by Israeli intelligence…a bit more important???"
I have some respect for Tracey, but I do believe if you look at the big picture, the state of Israel has a HUGE influence on US foreign policy, largely through bribery and blackmail. As a retired merchant seaman I can never forget the USS Liberty incident and LBJ's response to it.
The truth ruthlessly mocks emotional appeals to stand down.
Very Interesting. Has something changed at Racket news? This is now the second article in a row which falls into the “Move on, nothing to see here”, category. (Matt's article on Charlie Kirk assassination being the first).
Wild, evidence free allegations were the hallmark (or, should I say, with a snickering nod to the Biden-era intelligence community, the "earmark") of the Kavanaugh hearings. Two very different men, but a related phenomenon: performed in an atmosphere of deliberately fomented hysteria. Unlike dead man Epstein, the good judge was present to defend himself and did so gutwrenchingly. I have never personally witnessed such blatant, coordinated lying as I did the day I watched the Kavanaugh hearings live. It shocked me to my core and still does. Thanks, Michael, for pointing out the underlying issues of the undermining of civil liberties.
I had that same sickening reaction watching diane Feinstein and Kamala Harris attack this man, completely jettisoning any regard for not only the dignity of Congress but for civil rights and a search for the truth. The sham witnesses and lack of legitimate evidence in this kangaroo court setting was an insult to the American people. Yet, nary a word of criticism in MSM. Cause de jour has almost completely replaced civil rights and rationality. so, I welcome essays like Mr. Tracy's to remind us of this to bring us back to center.
"Yet, nary a word of criticism in MSM" Of course not. They had acquired Michael Avenatti by then and were busy touting him as a prospective Presidential candidate! CNN literally drooled over him! Where is he now? Oh that's right, prison!
Yup. And never forget, it was Trump (who despite all his faults) stood firm there. Is there another Republican alive who wouldn't have cracked and withdrawn the nomination?
Thank you Racket News for posting these articles by Michael Tracey. Very informative.
"widely unread 2020 memoir"
Now see, THAT's funny. :)
Judge Berman may be one of the great legal minds of our time...... Not!!!
He's not qualified to be an assistant dog catcher. Where do they find these bozos?
Now the the Epstein files have been unloaded in the hundreds of thousands of documents, photos, statements, and every apparent morsel of information, but it ain't over until, somehow, some way, they can get Trump at Epstein Island holding his twang with a minor.
Today in the Wall Street Journal, a full blown article on the reason Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago. Paraphrasing the headline "Mar-a-Lago would send spa workers to their guests and an 18 year old spa worker was sent to Epstein's room. She reported to human services that he pressured her to have sex". And, so it went on with a rambling dissertation on every comment, date, gossip, and story from workers and others about Epstein's stay at the resort including an eye opener that Marla Maples disliked Epstein.
You have to wonder about the plight of media and its continuing downfall when a supposedly business focused newspaper like the WSJ finds this twaddle relevant to its readers. It recently looked like the WSJ was having a reboot from its slide to the left but it was apparently that knock on the head I recently suffered. Oh well.
If you don't think that governments running on Epstein/Israel/CIA/Pedophilia is relevant, what is relevant to you?
That was a confusing article, I must say.