"Pedophile" means sexual desire/interest for children. Nubile post-pubescent 17/18 yr olds are entirely different. If wanting to sleep with 17/18 yr old girls makes one a pedophile, that means me and my friends spent most of high school and college being "pedophiles".
"Pedophile" can be added to the list of words expanded hysterically beyond their original, intended meanings (aka concept creep) like: racist, white supremacist, trauma, fascist and genocide, among many others.
Now that our media sells hysteria by the pound as a business model (beats working!), they want to condition us to feel intense rage and hatred once they add a sizzle word to a story or headline. This is Pavlovian conditioning for our postliterate, tribal, screen-based world and all its clickbait farmers, who want us to be unthinking rage addicts now that punitive moralism and slander have turned all discourse into a pointless yet monetized food fight.
You can hate Trump, Epstein etc for their nefarious acts, but there's no need to add symbolic slurs to their list of misdeeds. We are not ruled by "pedophiles" just more horny old men looking to cash in their status for hot young pu$$y, same as it's always been.
I have to agree CP. This has always been the way of the world. In many cultures, even in the earlier West, marriageable age was considered 16. And you were on the shelf as a female if you were not betrothed by 20.
By the 2020s, first children are pushed to grow up too fast. And then once they grow up, they are infantilized. It is all backwards!
I am reminded of the line Donna Reed utters in It’s a Wonderful Life, after she tells “George Bailey” that she’s 18, and he replies “18!”
“Too young or too old?” she asks.
It is an odd line in this day’s culture, and I’m a little surprised some people aren’t trying to censor it, like wanting to cut Trump out of Home Alone 2, or cancel it like that Christmas song “Bsby it’s Cold Outside.”
I like your example. So true. Even in my youth, values that were entirely normal are questioned today under the new regime.
It's amazing how perspectives can be programmed into a culture, as they have been in ours over recent decades. This has ceased to be an organic development.
Yeah I was a little surprised the author didn't make that point more clearly. Maybe the pedant in me is running things these days - but the misuse of the term "pedophile" in the Epstein reportage has always bothered me more than any overreliance on scarce legal rulings. Don't get me wrong, I think he was a major league creep and sex criminal. But afaik there aren't really any allegations involving little kids.
And that would be a large part of the reason for using the word "pedophile", because most people associate that with young children, not necessarily girls on the cusp of legal age.
Does the 14 year old who's complaint of giving a sexualized massage to Epstein resulted in the eventual NPA and conviction for solicitation of a minor for prostitution (the 17 year old) count as a nubile post-pubescent? Starting to cut it rather close there, to say the least, isn't that fair to say?
In any case, I personally feel there is a significant difference between a 17 year old one day short of 18 and a 14 year old, specifically in terms of mental development. But that's just me.
If she was I doubt she could have pulled off the “I’m 18” lie. But the main point is that if we intentionally blur the like between bad behavior and monstrous behavior the results will be beneficial to the real monsters.
It’s a bad look bit old men with money and power chasing young women (that’s you DiCaprio!) is a bad look and I have no problem slamming it but it ain’t oedophilia
Many states have Rome and Juliet exception clauses to statutory rape for consensual sex between teenagers with age differences less than four (or five) years.
Romeo is assumed to be between 15 and 16 while Juliet was 13-14. They both were still living with their parents as children and subject to family rules.
Key word assumed. If you are of the digging type, you’ll find that assumptions range from 15 to 23, with mid range being 17-18, I e he is a grown up in those times, albeit a young one, as stated many times in the play by various characters.
23 is a bit out there but I like it for elegance. If you assume that the play is a whole text, I e there is nothing accidental, there is a dialogue between Capulet and Second, or old Capulet, where they discussed a party they attended 25 years ago to celebrate the marriage of a certain Lucentio. There is no such character in the play, but Montague is never named - ergo, it has to be him, see no accidents premise. Then they talk about his son being a ward as recently as two years ago, and literally in the next verse it’s all about Romeo, as tybalt wants to kill him.
So you can assume that this son is Romeo, and he is either over 22, or over 18, depending on what you assume the ward age to be.
It’s tenuous, of course, but so is everything else with regards to Romeo’s age.
I'm not sure, I know people want a solid, decisive formula to separate good/bad legal/illegal, but all encounters and relationships are unique.
When I was in my late 20s, I dated a few young women closer to 19/20 and if anything, they exploited me—just meaning, they were much sharper than me and def had the upper hand during our time together, that is, they played me like a sucker.
Age or sex just doesn't always tell you all you need to know about people, sometimes a young woman can be a real smooth shark!
I get, but I don't think you have kids. I have a girl that's 16. I couldn't imagine being happy if she were dating a 26 year old a year from now. Its a little different than when we were growing up.
That said, i was 25 and dated a 19 year old for 3 years.
Brain development continues until the day you die, with certain parts of the brain already in decline by the age of 25. That's why history's greatest mathematicians all achieved greatness before 25.
Yeah, but your point is well taken i definitely encountered a few younger girls who were exploitative. Some of which i wouldn't mention unless we were having a drink!
The early 20 somethings my mid-20's son was dating a few years back were pretty hot to trot, as we used to say. Horn dog that he is, he was even a bit taken aback by a pre-date text from one of them: "Are you DTF?"
Problem is that good/bad and legal/illegal exist on different moral planes. Conflating those two is what is being exploited here. A bad thing could be legal and good thing can be illegal. For the most part we have decided into a society that can only see things in legal terms versus moral terms. Much to our detriment. Epstein was “bad” because he was in violation of the law. Aging movie and rock starts chasing 19 years olds are just fine.
Thank goodness, Ryan! I started dating my wife of 40 years when she had just turned 24 and I was on the verge of turning 29! And our love is still going strong. What a relief!
Pedophilia is considered a disorder because back when we were sane, we considered all sexual attraction to those with whom children could not be conceived to be a disorder. The homosexuals didn't like that, so things changed.
Nevertheless, pedophilia remains "attraction to the prepubescent". It does not refer to attractions to the post-pubescent, however inappropriate. If we're ignoring social conventions, it makes rational sense for post-pubescent males of all ages to be most attracted to 16-year-old girls because they are at their most fertile age. Of course we should not actually ignore social conventions, but we shouldn't lie to ourselves about which attractions are mental illnesses.
And don't forget that the high school girls you and your friends were having sex with were pedophiles too. Indeed, perhaps worse than the males since boys mature more slowly than do girls.
While the clinical definition of "pedophile" is pre-pubescent and "ephebophiles" prefer late adolescents (15 to 19 year olds), most young men know that statutory rape of underage young ladies can put them in jail. In the vernacular (particularly in media), "pedophile" means someone who has sex with the underaged and gets caught.
I think "jailbait" is a more common term than "pedophile" (or "chickenhawk" for gay men), esp if people know or find out that the girl/boy in question was 16/17 and not a child.
If a man in his early 20s gets caught w a 16/17 yr old, he may even be called a statutory rapist, but I think "pedophile" has a pretty stable, solid definition. Or at least it did until it became chum for the culture war.
It seems most of the young ladies told Epstein they were 18, even when they were not. He was clearly a sex criminal regardless, but definitely not a pedophile, which is attraction to pre-pubescent children. Doesn't make him any less of a sex criminal, but the point is that the word pedophile is used to generate anger in people. When I was 23 I was dating a 17 year old, which was perfectly legal in my state. Maybe it shouldn't be, but that's how it was.
I still find it very odd that the post-1965 American culture which gave us the sexual revolution now has flipped the whole narrative so that if you simply look the wrong way at someone, it can be interpreted as sexual harassment. At the same time drag queens run library storytime for toddlers.
From one extreme to the other. Totally bizarre. And they expect any of this to be credible?
A guess, with a caveat first: I was born several years after 1965, so anything I write about that time will be supposition, not personal experience.
My personal observation is that there’s a significant part of the population who insist that someone else runs the world and consequently the speaker is powerless to change [insert whatever they’re mad about here].
I consider this to be a very poisonous viewpoint for that person and everyone around them. The person will be very angry and resentful that they are powerless. But because they consider themselves powerless, they will spend very little time to consider whether their response is proportional to the offense, or whether it will make things better or worse in the long run.
I don’t have any hard numbers on differences in how this shows up by gender, age, demographic group, region, etc.
My own personal experience is that for many women, the group who runs the world and is holding them back from what they want to achieve is men. Who are all “idiots who are just bigger boys with bigger toys,” and “only care about one thing!”
I do see a lot of memes written by men, for men, joking that the “one thing” they care about is good food, a cold beer, or some time to relax.
But I don’t hear that mentioned at all when it’s a group of angry women angrily telling each other about how unfair the world is because men run the world and only care about one thing! (If I was saying this aloud, I’d have a weary tone in my voice at this point because I’ve heard this a lot.)
I’ve also read that women tend to be higher in neuroticism, meaning anxiety and a negative outlook, than men. And there’s a definite attitude among many women that they are owed support and belief when they’re upset. Probably why there’s also lots of memes written by men showing a man in a bomb technician’s suit with a caption about “man getting ready to say ‘calm down’ to a woman he knows.”
So, I think the flip from sexual revolution to I’m terrified because he looked at me wrong is a combination of those factors. The sexual revolution was supposed to bring equality in private life, public life, and economic life. When it didn’t, there had to be some reason. Obviously those dastardly men who “only care about one thing!” and the patriarchal society that glorifies them! Now you’re down the weird rabbit hole of feminist literature. And women are objectively weaker and smaller than most men. That in combination is how a masculine and heterosexual man saying something sexual, or even just complementary, can be more threatening than a man who likes dressing up in women’s clothes.
Hmm, I haven’t run across that. Do you have any recommendations? That would be very interesting to read.
Mainly what I’ve run across is the comment that too often philosophy is biography explained. Sometimes philosophy is a true examination of the world to try and find truth. And sometimes it’s someone saying “Here’s how I live my life, and here’s why you should live your life that way too!”
For at least some of the 2nd wave feminist writers, a paying job outside the home was this awesome place full of self-fulfillment and self-esteem that men were selfishly hoarding for themselves. … I wasn’t alive then, so I’m not sure how they came to that conclusion. The grass is always greener on the other side?
Also, apologies for the multiple edits in my first reply. I’m typing this on my phone and keep hitting wrong buttons.
You might start with something like "America's Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything" by Christopher Rufo or "Social Justice Fallacies" by Thomas Sowell.
Read back issues of The City Journal by the Manhattan Institute.
Then there are the various Mark Steyn and Theodore Dalrymple books. Really, this is a never-ending topic. "Londonistan" by Melanie Phillips. Christina Hoff Sommers - "The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men". Or you could read about psychopathic early feminist Kate Millet. Kathy Acker was not far behind.
In other words, this is the history of Neo-Marxist social engineering in 1960s (and beyond) America. Which is what it was all about.
The 1960s feminist movement was, of course, a Neo-Marxist destruction tactic. But they pulled in masses of Useful Idiots.
In my view, Pedophiles are those who are sexually attracted to pre-adolescents. The problem is if they act on this.
Authentic Pedophilia, as opposed to just having a hankering for teen girls (not so uncommon) is a subset of Psychopathy. Not that the teen-hankering should be encouraged for adult males, but it is not Psychopathy either. My great-grandfather married my great-grandmother when she was 17 and he was in his 30s. It was a cultural norm at the time.
Yes, I realize it is not my view alone. That is not what I meant here. I was just trying to tone down the controversy so it did not explode again. I know all about these topics, Teresa.
I have known many long years what Pedophilia is -- since grad school at least, when I trained in related fields -- but people are going a bit batty over this Epstein saga.
He was not a Pedophile in this context. Those girls were all adolescent, and many of them 17 or 18. Maybe a Pimp, but not a Pedophile.
I have been insisting on getting the definitions correct from the start. As in....not only was he not a Pedophile, but he was just a modern version of a brothel owner savvy enough to operate a honeypot where he could potentially trap powerful moneyed men, who were quite stupid to fall for this. The keeping of a little black book has been a tactic for many, many years. Centuries, even.
If those girls were underage....where were the parents who were legally responsible?
I was born and educated in Europe. It’s alarming how many Americans use "pedophilia" as a catch-all for any under age sex, including the media who should know better.
It is not just Americans who mis-define, it is most people who get easily pulled-in to the the sensationalist press stories. They take their lead and their reality from this, unfortunately.
The first thing I asked in the ongoing Epstein story was, "Where were the parents in all of this? But maybe the question of the parents was not convenient for the narrative the press wanted to spread. So they did not mention it.
Epstein was only convicted of sexual contact with one minor. But it was a 14 year old who had initially raised the entire subject for investigation in Florida, if I’m not mistaken, because she was also invited to give a massage that “turned sexual.”
Perhaps he didn’t have sex with her or initiate contact with the 14 year old, perhaps he simply masturbated (or “serviced himself” as you put it) in front of a 14 year old which is what prompted her and her parents to go to the police.
I find it odd that this piece totally ignores the alleged involvement of a 14 year old girl in a sexualized massage while intensely focusing on the 17 year old who Epstein was convicted for soliciting as a minor for prostitution - even though the 14 year old’s own account is the entire reason that the conviction ever came about.
It’s true that he wasn’t convicted of sexual contact with that 14 year old - it’s also true that a 14 year old complaining about a sexual massage resulted in the convictions we do have on record. So are we to totally disregard that 14 year old’s allegations because Epstein was able to arrange a non-prosecution agreement which didn’t include her? I suppose that’s one of the morals to this story.
Yes, but maybe she was only a few days shy of 15, which rounds up to 20, so what's the big deal?
I'm joking, of course. This article is creepy as fuck. Why name and shame the one victim who has tried to put this behind her and was forced to testify? Why pretend that the one conviction is the only crime when that's clearly not the case? I've never believed that this guy was a master blackmailer or that he was murdered in jail, but let's not pretend that he wasn't a deviant, criminal, pervert.
My theory is that the author has exceptionally low opinion of the average American's intelligence.
Anyone with two brain cells and marginal familiarity with the way American criminal justice system works, would know that behind this single case of a nearly 18-year old, to which Epstein pleaded guilty, hides a veritable mountain of much more serious cases that never saw the light of day. And never will, which is probably for the better, considering the victims - not "victims". The fact that many of them had troubled background and knew that they are about to engage in prostitution doesn't make Epstein's behavior any more acceptable. Actually, quite the opposite.
Nor does anyone with two brain cells believe that everybody who's ever associated with Epstein is, by inference, a pedophile. Or that Epstein had to blackmail his acquaintances to be what's known as a "power broker".
However, the willingness of people who consider themselves part of the "elite" - financial, political, etc. - to associate with Epstein is truly disturbing. Considering that his behavior ("reckless and impulsive", as the author put it) was so open and notorious that even Florida's overburdened criminal justice system took notice. People who are being dragged through mud right now have nobody to blame but themselves.
Tashaj—but aside from the two guilty pleas—there have been zero other convictions. That’s why we have trials. (The two guilty pleas were presumably split into separate 12 months and 6 months so that Epstein could serve his time in the county jail system and not in prison.)
Accusations by a member of Congress, or insinuation by a news outlet, or by anyone else, doesn’t equal guilt.
Now that Thomas Massie has exposed that the FBI had evidence that Epstein TRAFFICKED his coterie of controlled victims to at least 20 men perhaps Michael Tracey (and Matt Taibbi) would like to update this article?
He didn't need to be inside his cell if he was inside the same unit/wing. The camera to Epstein's cell was "not working" (he was on suicide watch and being watched with a camera) and the one camera they do have footage of covers the entrance to the wing/unit, not the inside of the unit itself.
Tartaglione could have simply had his cell unlocked, walked to Epstein's (now also unlocked) cell, killed him in minutes, and walked back to his own cell. It would have taken less than 10 or 15 minutes. With Epstein's camera "not working" and no cameras watching the hall of the wing/unit itself, it would have been trivial to accomplish unseen and unrecorded.
Tartaglione also attacked Epstein just before Epstein died, according to Epstein. The prison investigated and decided Tartaglione had not attacked Epstein which resulted in Epstein being put on suicide watch.
All available information indicates both Epstein and Tartaglione were in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) and more specifically inside the 9 South wing. Tartaglione was removed from Epstein's cell following his alleged attack on Epstein, but all information available indicates he was still in the same SHU wing, 9 South.
So all the guards, all the camera operators, all the other prisoners, have all been bribed and/or threatened into keeping quiet and they've all done so successfully. Nobody has spilled the beans, no one has gone on a wild spending spree with their bribe money, nobody has had a change of heart, no one has tried to trade what they know for a lighter sentence. The cabal that wanted him dead had full access to all staff schedules so as to coordinate the hit (two different times!). Nobody who was approached about this Ocean's Eleven-level choreography said "no way I'm doing this" and called the FBI.
In the entire history of mankind, nothing like what's described above has ever happened in the real world. Not one time, ever.
Or this line, "No overt sexual contact occurred during that first visit — she simply performed an amateur massage in her underwear. In subsequent visits, she would’ve been 17."
I guess the Victoria's Secret shows aren't "overtly sexual" either, because these ladies have "underwear" on... FFS. There's zero way that a grown man pays a 16 year old to "give amateur massage in her underwear" if it's not sexual contact to him.
Which is the creepo part. Imagine your teenage daughter has a slumber party at her friends house and all the 16 year old girls are in their underwear and the friend's father just wants to "watch them" play truth or dare with each other and give him "amateur massages". You gonna call that not overtly sexual or you gonna call the cops?
I guess the moral of the article is that he wasn't convicted of anything in that case and so the media referring to him as a convicted pedophile cannot hinge on those allegations in any way even if they are part of the same investigation that led to the actual conviction of soliciting a minor for prostitution - the 17 year old. And even if those charges and the NPA itself were viciously litigated by Epstein's star lawyer team to get him the lightest possible charges. The only victim which can be fairly acknowledged resulting from that NPA, all the other allegations go in the trash, have zero value in terms of journalistic or reporting value.
That's the only way to read this article. The media/politicians/social media influencers/public can't use any of that information that led to the NPA as a basis to call him a convicted pedophile, only the one single resulting conviction from the NPA which allegedly was regarding a 17 year old a day shy of 18.
I appreciate this article as a reality check on the pretentiousness and presumptuousness of the public narrative on this matter. I haven't followed the story too closely, and may not be familiar with all the details, largely because the details have been crowded out by the moral posturing. At first, I had the vague impression that Epstein's Island was a place where pre-pubescent children were trafficked against their will to serve the perverted lusts of the rich and powerful, possibly including torture and human sacrifice. Then it became apparent that it was teen-aged girls, who probably went and served voluntarily. Now it seems that Epstein had a general requirement that the girls be 18, and paid them well for mild acts of stimulation that did not involve intercourse.
The term "pedophile" is thrown around too recklessly. The term properly refers to someone whose primary sexual arousal is toward pre-pubescent children, like 12 and under. Undoubtedly there are good reasons for parents to keep their daughters under wraps until they reach full maturity, and perhaps for laws to support such parents by setting a specific age requirement. The fact that an adult may have sex with someone a bit under the legal age does not make him a pedophile, legalist puritans to the contrary. Many normal adults find teenagers attractive, and teenagers are perfectly capable of intentional sexual activity. In the past, and in other societies today, girls have often married in their mid teens.
The fact that other accusations have been made against Epstein certainly adds to the story, but does not derail the writer's argument. Some may have been made by gold-diggers riding the wave of scandalous excitement. If the writer's account is correct, then essentially nothing has been proven in court about Epstein's alleged sexual crimes other than that he had intercourse with a special girl a day before she reached her legal age in Florida. For this, he is officially a sex offender, and a judge cavalierly refers to him as a "convicted pedophile."
I have no axe to grind for Epstein, but I don't like the cruelty and insanity of moral witchhunts either. My main concern with the case is in whether his outfit was a honeypot operation by some shady organization that used it as bribery or blackmail to control our politicians. That would seriously involve the public interest. But if all there is to it is that some rich guy twenty years ago paid teenage girls to give him massages in their underwear, then I can find much better targets for my outrage.
Do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan killed the Kennedys as the Official Narratives state?
The bigger question is not whether Epstein was a criminal who received a light sentence at Acosta's direction (before silenced), but whether Epstein was trafficking young women for sex. Michael Tracey and Matt Taibbi say NO, that Virginia Giuffre was lying. The alternative is that the FBI has credible evidence that Epstein trafficked these young women for sex to 20 men, and that Tracey and Taibbi are lying.
Of course, none of these young women filed rape charges with the police. Nor did E. Jean Carroll or Tara Reade file rape charges. Does that mean no rape occurred? What would Michael Tracey and Matt Taibbi say?
You're making a normative argument. You may be right, you may be wrong. Your argument may be compelling; it may not be. I'm not weighing in.
But you're engaging in some impressive, intellectual tightrope-walking to get around Tracey's entire premise: that Epstein's sobriquet, "CONVICTED pedophile," hinges upon only one conviction, that of the 17-year old who's the subject of this piece. I'm gonna assume you're more-than-smart-enough to know that whatever "settlement" you're alluding to ain't the same thing as a conviction.
I don’t disagree that there is only one conviction, I acknowledged that. I used the word “settlement” incorrectly, the concept I was trying to convey was that this conviction was the result of a non-prosecution agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to two lesser charges, one of them being the solicitation of a minor (17) for prostitution.
My point was that this conviction, NPA, and entire investigation was launched due to the allegations of a 14 year old who complained of being hired for a sexualized massage. This 14 year old is not mentioned in the NPA and there are no crimes Epstein was charged with regarding the 14 year old.
So my point is this - it’s true there’s only one conviction involving a minor, it’s also true that this one conviction involving a minor stemmed from a non-prosecution agreement which left out the alleged victim who was the genesis of the entire thing, the 14 year old.
This 14 year old told a story that aligns with all the other girls. She was involved in a sexualized massage after being recruited by her “friends.”
My question is, should this all be ignored simply because there wasn’t a conviction? If you’d read this article you’d come away thinking yes, that should be disregarded as it isn’t a conviction so it holds no truth value, only convictions do.
So no, Epstein was not a “convicted pedophile.” That’s fair to say. It’s also fair to allege he absolutely was a pedophile, or at least attracted to young minors (14) and acted on it but simply wasn’t convicted.
I’m not saying the premise of the article is wrong. I’m saying the premise doesn’t encapsulate the entire narrative.
"should this all be ignored simply because there wasn’t a conviction?"
If the premise and point of the article is that the media, politicians, and other gadflies (over-)use the adjective "convicted" to make a broader point, generate hysteria, and generally foment a shit-show-in-perpetuity, yes, it should be ignored.
As I've hinted, you can have your own moral take on the whole saga. You be you, my man! But getting hung up on whether the author should supply the historical and procedural context of how Prosecutors ultimately procured that conviction is to miss, or choose to ignore, what the author is trying to say in his piece.
I’m not disagreeing with the premise or central point, and the criticism of how the media/others mischaracterize the conviction is fair and on point.
Though I don’t disagree with the thesis I think it’s appropriate to leave a comment reminding people that convictions aren’t the only thing one can use to inform their opinion of what he was actually doing, and more to the point, whether he was actively seeking out minors or if they just stumbled across the threshold of his door without him knowing they are minors. I do feel like the article might imply or lead one to believe that, based on the concept that the only sexual contact he was convicted for was a 17 year old a day before turning 18, supposedly.
Sex with a 14 year old by an adult, however wrong and disgusting it may seem, is not pedophilia. Pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent children. I think that is a big point of this article. It doesn't make him less of a sex criminal and scum bag, it just means he was not, so far as all the evidence appears to show, a pedophile.
I don’t care enough to split hairs between attraction to children who are pre-pubescent and attraction to children just starting or early on in puberty. Especially in the case of recruiting them for massages in their underwear.
A 14 year old going through early/mid stages puberty is a different condition but I don’t really see the point of the article as a debate about that. I think the point is that he was only convicted on one charge regarding one minor who was hours from being 18. I am simply saying there’s good reason to believe that despite the lack of conviction that isn’t where it ended.
From what I recall, the 14 year old you're mentioning didn't complain. She got into a fight at school because other kids called her a whore or something like that. The parents were called and either the school or one of the parents reported the allegation to the police. The 14 year old didn't raise it.
This is why I gladly pay for the Racket Substack. I want facts only, no matter which way they turn. It's the only mechanism to ensure an informed electorate/readership. Thank you.
Good article. I think Megyn Kelly says she knows attorneys or people involved in this case, and there really was very little "underage" sex involved in any of it. The guy was a sleaze ball, but you just can't believe all this hysteria and pearl clutching which is totally politically motivated. It IS strange about him dying in jail, though. Lots of coincidences there. But I'm sick of the whole thing.
It is advisable, I think, to read Taibbi’s accompanying piece at the same time. The point is the same-journalistic malpractice in the free and easy use of “convicted” and “trafficking”-but a number of points raised having to do with people like Virginia Giuffre are worth reading up on. I have no wish to disinter a suicide but she is one of the, or maybe the, most high profile people in this saga. It all deserves close reading.
What a garbage article, and no surprise that the comments are full of “ephebophiles”. I tried to come into this with an open mind, but I’m not sure Michael even knows what point he’s trying to make here. Great, so you’ve demonstrated that Epstein had sex with a minor, and was found guilty of such. This somehow makes the other accusations against him less valid? Do you truly, honestly think this was the only time he had sex with a minor?
Of course this victim isn’t going to appear on CNN and continue to lobby for recognition for her plight – her case was settled. That doesn’t mean all the other victims are liars, it means they haven’t received justice yet. And then we have the ludicrous dismissal of his later charges: “He was also charged with additional crimes in 2019, but died in federal custody, so those were never adjudicated.” Surely this means he’s innocent of everything, right Michael? But why, then, would he commit suicide in prison?
You have the attitude of that bit with Conan – “Jeff… Epstein? The financier?” – except it’s not a bit here. It’s all fine and dandy to make a record of the only crimes that Epstein was convicted of, but I don’t see why it should be suffused throughout with this air of incredulity that Epstein could have done anything bad besides those crimes. There is a middle ground between “Epstein was the mastermind of a global pedophile ring” and “Epstein did nothing wrong”, and you have made no attempt to find it.
I'm not hearing "Epstein did nothing wrong" from the article. I'm hearing that what actually occurred is nothing at all like what is being portrayed in the media. The fact that there was no sweetheart deal but instead that Palm Beach and Florida had a weak case (victims that don't want to testify against the accused is not a winning hand) and the US Attorney's Office applying pressure was potentially the only thing that got a conviction.
If you're familiar with a lot of the other "survivors" - many (most?) were of age in their dealings with Epstein - Maria Farmer, Sarah Ransome, etc. And then you have Virginia Giuffre who tells tall tales and gets away with it because no one does any fact checking.
What I’d like to be hearing from the article is “Epstein only provably did one thing wrong, and the rest is getting hyped up by the media when there’s no proof it happened”. Matt’s article had this tone, and I have no complaints. Michael, on the other hand, seems to find it ridiculous that Epstein could possibly have done anything beyond what he’s literally been indicted for, and only then if the case went through trial.
To take another example – Matt drew a distinction between being “clinically” and “legally” a pedophile. Michael finds it outlandish that Epstein could be a pedophile at all, explaining why this comment section is full of perverts and “ephebophiles”.
I haven't read Taibbi's piece yet, but the distinction between clinical and legal pedophilia is action. Being attracted to pre-pubescent childrent isn't a crime, but acting on it is.
Epstein wasn't a pedophile - all of the females he interacted with in these massages of various sexual degree were all biological adults (i.e., past the point of puberty) whether or not they were legal adults.
Anyone who says that he weas a pedophile as opposed to a sex offender (which is what he was) is contributing to the misinformation around him, making this into a more of a saga than what it was in actuality.
This article was written by Michael Tracey, not Matt Taibbi.
But since my earlier comment, I have read the Taibbi piece, and my comment above stands. The only distinction between "clinical" and "legal" pedophilia is action.
"Of course this victim isn’t going to appear on CNN and continue to lobby for recognition for her plight – her case was settled."
It's debatable if she was actually a victim unless you think her having consensual sex one day before her 18th birthday makes a person a victim. Why would she need recognition for her "plight"? What plight? The plight of having engaged in consensual sex one day before her 18th birthday?
"Do you truly, honestly think this was the only time he had sex with a minor?"
There is reason to believe that Epstein was not even capable of having sex, so I'm actually inclined to believe this girl may have been lying about the sex.
If you wouldn’t care if your daughter had sex with the creepy old man she was giving massages to in her underwear while she was still legally a minor, that’s up to you. Just know you’re not exactly in the majority.
Epstein was convicted of sex with an underage girl. He was a Registered Sex Offender.
He paid girls to procure other girls for him.
He flew girls to his island for activities with his political and powerful pals.
Prosecutors, even the ones that convicted him, were reluctant to treat him as a normal sex offender. He had high-level protection and cover--prosecutor in FL: "He's intel. Drop it."
He was plugged in to all facets of elite society--intel, law enforcement, political, business, academic--and was a master manipulator.
So, a convicted pedophile, registered sex offender, flew around the world with teenagers (how old? 13? 14? 15? 16? 17?....no one has nailed it down, but many witnesses were disturbed by his Lolita Express cargoes) and high and might co-conspirators.
Not clear what you think you're debunking. But, you're off on a tangent.
Instead of trying to check exact dates on birth certificates for the underage girl he abused, how about researching and reporting on the dozens of other girls involved in his network.
Pooh-poohing the facts because the girls could be seen as prostitutes does NOT lessen Epstein's crimes.
Please re-focus Racket's writing on getting to the core of the Epstein sex ring.
Maybe you're not interested in the technicalities of Epstein's law-breaking- alleged and actual - but I am.
Ministry of Truth media goes out of their way to slime those they politically oppose, But it's amazing how, when one of their political allies does EXACTLY the same thing -they turn a blind eye. Trump and Biden both took home classified docs. Only one of them - the one who had the authority to have them as president - got into legal trouble. Michael Flynn was accused of lying to the FBI during a "friendly" interview. Andrew McCabe irrefutably lied under oath three times. Flynn was put on trial, and McCabe suffered no legal repercussions.
Yes, I do want to know the exact dates on the girls birth certificates. Maybe to you, kind'a close to being underage is close enough. If you want to convict someone of a crime, the alleged victim's birth date matters.
Your and my opinions on whether Epstein was a creepy guy are probably in close alignment. But they are after all, only opinions. Opinion can enter into the discussion of whether Epstein broke the law or not, But that question depends to a much greater extent on the actual facts.
I like that the article laid them out. I welcome the clarity.
Well, luckily, that investigative foundation has already been laid. Maxwell was convicted of operating a sex ring, WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN, that trafficked MINORS to participate in illegal sex acts.
See the DOJ announcement of Maxwell's conviction, with specific charges--ALL INVOLVING MINORS--below.
In cases involving minors, the identities, and birth certificates, of the victims are concealed to protect the minors.
Actual facts. Actual convictions. Actual naming of Epstein as a conspirator in a minor-trafficking sex ring.
Not sure what Taibbi, and the crowd of his followers, is missing. Not sure why he refuses to accept the facts. Quite strange.
"GHISLANE MAXWELL was sentenced today in Manhattan federal court by United States Circuit Judge Alison J. Nathan to 240 months in prison for her role in a scheme to sexual exploit and abuse MULTIPLE MINOR GIRLS with JEFFREY EPSTEIN over the course of a DECADE. MAXWELL was previously found guilty on December 29, 2021, following a one-month jury trial, of CONSPIRACY to entice MINORS to travel to engage in ILLEGAL SEX ACTS, CONSPIRACY to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, transporting a minor to participate in illegal sex acts, sex trafficking CONSPIRACY, and sex trafficking of a minor."
Did Epstein have sexual intercourse with the victims? From reading the info in your link, the answer appears to be no.
Epstein and Maxwell seem to have engaged in vile acts with these young girls apparently limited to some fondling. The judge and jury thought they crossed the line into "sex acts", and I would probably agree with them. I hasten to add. you've provided only the prosecution's version; we haven't heard both sides.
It's reminiscent of Bill Clinton's denial he engaged in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. In simple terms, he based it on her giving him a BJ, while he was passive as she did it. From Clinton's deposition under oath:
Prosecutors asked Clinton about his interpretation of the definition of "sexual relations" presented at his deposition in the Jones case, which read as follows: "A person engages in 'sexual relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person."
Q.: "Is oral sex performed on you within that definition as you understood it, the definition in the Jones -- "
A.: "As I understood it, it was not; no. . . ."
Q.: "So touching, in your view then and now -- the person being deposed touching or kissing the breast of another person would fall within the definition?"
A.: "That's correct, Sir."
Q.: "And you testified that you didn't have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky in the Jones deposition, under that definition, correct?"
A.: "That's correct, Sir."
I's not an argument I would have attempted. But apparently Clinton thought it was worth trying. And for him, it worked.
The details matter, not b/c they're titillating, but b/c the facts are different from what people imagine. The media constantly plays these tricks on the public.
I want to know, what is MSM leading us to believe, and how is is different from what actually happened?
A final comment- Maxwell's "sexual trafficking" conviction makes one think these young girls were victimized by multiple perpetrators beyond Epstein and Maxwell. Were they? If they were, we still to this day, even after a trial and conviction, don't know who else had sex with these young girls.
" Maxwell's "sexual trafficking" conviction makes one think these young girls were victimized by multiple perpetrators beyond Epstein and Maxwell. Were they? If they were, we still to this day, even after a trial and conviction, don't know who else had sex with these young girls."
Exactly!
That's my point! We do NOT know if/who/how/where/when Epstein provided his trafficked minors to other men. And if he did, what those men did to them.
The circumstantial evidence points resoundingly to the extreme likelihood that Epstein was not the only man engaging in illegal sex with his trafficked minors.
Your questions are exactly what I'm begging Taibbi to investigate and answer. It's what he does.
Remember the allegations and innuendo about Twitter censoring, shadow-banning, de-platforming pre-Musk ownership? There was a massive effort to shut down anyone making such allegations, or even asking questions. But Taibbi got the data, and did an investigation, and reported his findings. It was even worse than the allegations and innuendo suggested.
Why is he not doing the same thing with Epstein? Has he been warned off this case? Is he gun-shy? What gives? Why doesn't he do his job?
Were all these underage girls runaways? If not, where were their parents? If my mid-teen daughter was working as a masseuse or flying off to hidden resort islands owned by unknown persons.....I would be on the scene myself very quickly.
Interesting questions, but completely irrelevant. God bless you for protecting your daughter.
The family background of victims doesn't mitigate the crimes Epstein, Maxwell, and his cronies committed.
Manipulators choose their targets carefully--exploiting weaknesses and motivations. Poor, "trailer trash," runaways, broken families, and many other qualities would make prospects attractive to the finely honed, massive recruitment operation Epstein ran.
Thank you, Kent. Yes, I know about the attraction of vulnerabilities. This is what cult recruiters operate on too. I am just perplexed as to why no parents are ever held responsible here.
Teenage girls are notorious for not following their parents' guidance.
They're also notorious for being extremely vulnerable when they lack such guidance.
I'd wager that 99% of the "human trafficking" that's always talked about is under-age, and barely legal, girls who began willingly, or at least semi-willingly.
The Democrats harped on Epstein during this first year of Trump II because they were hoping against hope to have at last found the magic bullet to get rid of him without the hard work of actual successful Democratic elections. Suddenly he would be gone in instant disgrace. Forced to resign.
It was the same with the Russiagate hoax in Trump I: the mirage of a quick and an easy fix. Trump forced to resignvin instant disgrace! Except there was nothing there in Russiagate. And the Epstein story now looks to be a similar Democratic mirage in Trump II.
Nor is Epstein needed. 2025 turned out to be a banner year of anti-Trump Democratic election success. At this point we seem to be headed for a big Blue Wave in the mid-terms too. Time to put away childish things.
I would not be so sure about that "Blue Wave"; remember how the expected "Red Wave" of 2022 turned out to be more of a trickle? The GOP has been better at - or at least more serious about - the effort of electioneering, legally or otherwise, for as far back as I can personally remember, with an activist-wing that its leadership actually fears, whereas what I'd best call the 'Clintoncratic' Party has been an MLM-scam and Roach-Motel for actual change whose relationship with its base can accurately be described, and regularly is, as "abusive".
The latter doesn't even feel any NEED to win elections, not so long as they can terrorize and extort in exchange for nothing. There MIGHT have been some signs of change after 2024, what with the Donor-Class finally expressing impatience and dropping Harris faster than a lit stick of turd-powered dynamite, but given that they've recently decided to discard their own post-2024 autopsy, it's not looking promising.
Both parties, I sometimes hypothesize, are in a bidding-war to LOSE: Who wants to be caught at the helm when a ship that's been on a collision-course with R'lyeh itself for decades and refuses to correct finally gets devoured by Cthulhu?
They are making a much greater fuss over Epstein than the press ever made over Michael Jackson....whose sins may have been worse.
I cannot see this reasonably being such a brouhaha as the press is making it. Powerful moneyed men paying to keep company with attractive teenage girls (who seem to have joined the organization willingly). If the men were not big names, this would be a nothingburger.
"Pedophile" means sexual desire/interest for children. Nubile post-pubescent 17/18 yr olds are entirely different. If wanting to sleep with 17/18 yr old girls makes one a pedophile, that means me and my friends spent most of high school and college being "pedophiles".
"Pedophile" can be added to the list of words expanded hysterically beyond their original, intended meanings (aka concept creep) like: racist, white supremacist, trauma, fascist and genocide, among many others.
Now that our media sells hysteria by the pound as a business model (beats working!), they want to condition us to feel intense rage and hatred once they add a sizzle word to a story or headline. This is Pavlovian conditioning for our postliterate, tribal, screen-based world and all its clickbait farmers, who want us to be unthinking rage addicts now that punitive moralism and slander have turned all discourse into a pointless yet monetized food fight.
You can hate Trump, Epstein etc for their nefarious acts, but there's no need to add symbolic slurs to their list of misdeeds. We are not ruled by "pedophiles" just more horny old men looking to cash in their status for hot young pu$$y, same as it's always been.
I have to agree CP. This has always been the way of the world. In many cultures, even in the earlier West, marriageable age was considered 16. And you were on the shelf as a female if you were not betrothed by 20.
By the 2020s, first children are pushed to grow up too fast. And then once they grow up, they are infantilized. It is all backwards!
I am reminded of the line Donna Reed utters in It’s a Wonderful Life, after she tells “George Bailey” that she’s 18, and he replies “18!”
“Too young or too old?” she asks.
It is an odd line in this day’s culture, and I’m a little surprised some people aren’t trying to censor it, like wanting to cut Trump out of Home Alone 2, or cancel it like that Christmas song “Bsby it’s Cold Outside.”
My ears perked up at that line when I watched that movie last year! Great call.
I like your example. So true. Even in my youth, values that were entirely normal are questioned today under the new regime.
It's amazing how perspectives can be programmed into a culture, as they have been in ours over recent decades. This has ceased to be an organic development.
...meanwhile... https://x.com/moveincircles/status/2002851932172386307/photo/1
> for children
Yeah I was a little surprised the author didn't make that point more clearly. Maybe the pedant in me is running things these days - but the misuse of the term "pedophile" in the Epstein reportage has always bothered me more than any overreliance on scarce legal rulings. Don't get me wrong, I think he was a major league creep and sex criminal. But afaik there aren't really any allegations involving little kids.
And that would be a large part of the reason for using the word "pedophile", because most people associate that with young children, not necessarily girls on the cusp of legal age.
Does the 14 year old who's complaint of giving a sexualized massage to Epstein resulted in the eventual NPA and conviction for solicitation of a minor for prostitution (the 17 year old) count as a nubile post-pubescent? Starting to cut it rather close there, to say the least, isn't that fair to say?
In any case, I personally feel there is a significant difference between a 17 year old one day short of 18 and a 14 year old, specifically in terms of mental development. But that's just me.
14 is still beyond pedophilia, which usually tops out at 12 since it's an attraction to the pre-pubescent.
Exactly. People don't seem to understand that the lack of sexual development is the very thing that attracts pedophiles.
What if you are a late bloomer?
If she was I doubt she could have pulled off the “I’m 18” lie. But the main point is that if we intentionally blur the like between bad behavior and monstrous behavior the results will be beneficial to the real monsters.
It’s a bad look bit old men with money and power chasing young women (that’s you DiCaprio!) is a bad look and I have no problem slamming it but it ain’t oedophilia
>> if we intentionally blur the like between bad behavior and monstrous behavior the results will be beneficial to the real monsters. <<
Bingo!
Where were the 14 year olds parents?
Where were any of their parents?
Didn't they question the cash their daughters suddenly had, the new clothes/video games/CD's, etc. they possessed?
Great question.
Many states have Rome and Juliet exception clauses to statutory rape for consensual sex between teenagers with age differences less than four (or five) years.
The "logic" behind all of this is ... fuzzy.
A nod to the reality of biology in a culture not known for self-control. A grown man is assumed, rightly or wrongly, to have some self-control.
Hate to be pedantic, but Romeo was at least 17 and most likely 23. Which means he’d be in jail nowadays:)
Romeo is assumed to be between 15 and 16 while Juliet was 13-14. They both were still living with their parents as children and subject to family rules.
Key word assumed. If you are of the digging type, you’ll find that assumptions range from 15 to 23, with mid range being 17-18, I e he is a grown up in those times, albeit a young one, as stated many times in the play by various characters.
23 is a bit out there but I like it for elegance. If you assume that the play is a whole text, I e there is nothing accidental, there is a dialogue between Capulet and Second, or old Capulet, where they discussed a party they attended 25 years ago to celebrate the marriage of a certain Lucentio. There is no such character in the play, but Montague is never named - ergo, it has to be him, see no accidents premise. Then they talk about his son being a ward as recently as two years ago, and literally in the next verse it’s all about Romeo, as tybalt wants to kill him.
So you can assume that this son is Romeo, and he is either over 22, or over 18, depending on what you assume the ward age to be.
It’s tenuous, of course, but so is everything else with regards to Romeo’s age.
Juliet is 13, it’s stated directly.
I think the cutoff is 24 before it becomes exploitative
I'm not sure, I know people want a solid, decisive formula to separate good/bad legal/illegal, but all encounters and relationships are unique.
When I was in my late 20s, I dated a few young women closer to 19/20 and if anything, they exploited me—just meaning, they were much sharper than me and def had the upper hand during our time together, that is, they played me like a sucker.
Age or sex just doesn't always tell you all you need to know about people, sometimes a young woman can be a real smooth shark!
All's fair etc etc...
I get, but I don't think you have kids. I have a girl that's 16. I couldn't imagine being happy if she were dating a 26 year old a year from now. Its a little different than when we were growing up.
That said, i was 25 and dated a 19 year old for 3 years.
I’m 60 but my wife turned 49 yesterday.
I consider myself to be making out like a bandit here. 😎
Brain development is said to continue to age 24. Anything after that is fair game imo.
I 100% agree that women are wilier than men from birth. A lot of men who should know better are babes in the woods.
Sorry. But the entire Epstein thing is a case study of n lack of brain development at any age.
Brain development continues until the day you die, with certain parts of the brain already in decline by the age of 25. That's why history's greatest mathematicians all achieved greatness before 25.
I was 16 when I met a man who was 26, and we were married a couple of years later, after I graduated high school -- and no, I was not pregnant.
Everyone is different.
i get it, 16/26 is most likely pretty creepy.
also, the kids do seem pretty green these days....they don't even have sex w each other!
cheers
Yeah, but your point is well taken i definitely encountered a few younger girls who were exploitative. Some of which i wouldn't mention unless we were having a drink!
same! lol
but i learned some valuable lessons...
I dunno about that. . .
The early 20 somethings my mid-20's son was dating a few years back were pretty hot to trot, as we used to say. Horn dog that he is, he was even a bit taken aback by a pre-date text from one of them: "Are you DTF?"
Romance is truly dead.
Problem is that good/bad and legal/illegal exist on different moral planes. Conflating those two is what is being exploited here. A bad thing could be legal and good thing can be illegal. For the most part we have decided into a society that can only see things in legal terms versus moral terms. Much to our detriment. Epstein was “bad” because he was in violation of the law. Aging movie and rock starts chasing 19 years olds are just fine.
S
Thank goodness, Ryan! I started dating my wife of 40 years when she had just turned 24 and I was on the verge of turning 29! And our love is still going strong. What a relief!
Calling underage sex pedophilia is an insult to all victims of this horrific crime.
Seconded
Pedophilia is considered a disorder because back when we were sane, we considered all sexual attraction to those with whom children could not be conceived to be a disorder. The homosexuals didn't like that, so things changed.
Nevertheless, pedophilia remains "attraction to the prepubescent". It does not refer to attractions to the post-pubescent, however inappropriate. If we're ignoring social conventions, it makes rational sense for post-pubescent males of all ages to be most attracted to 16-year-old girls because they are at their most fertile age. Of course we should not actually ignore social conventions, but we shouldn't lie to ourselves about which attractions are mental illnesses.
And don't forget that the high school girls you and your friends were having sex with were pedophiles too. Indeed, perhaps worse than the males since boys mature more slowly than do girls.
While the clinical definition of "pedophile" is pre-pubescent and "ephebophiles" prefer late adolescents (15 to 19 year olds), most young men know that statutory rape of underage young ladies can put them in jail. In the vernacular (particularly in media), "pedophile" means someone who has sex with the underaged and gets caught.
Not sure I agree with that last part.
I think "jailbait" is a more common term than "pedophile" (or "chickenhawk" for gay men), esp if people know or find out that the girl/boy in question was 16/17 and not a child.
If a man in his early 20s gets caught w a 16/17 yr old, he may even be called a statutory rapist, but I think "pedophile" has a pretty stable, solid definition. Or at least it did until it became chum for the culture war.
It seems most of the young ladies told Epstein they were 18, even when they were not. He was clearly a sex criminal regardless, but definitely not a pedophile, which is attraction to pre-pubescent children. Doesn't make him any less of a sex criminal, but the point is that the word pedophile is used to generate anger in people. When I was 23 I was dating a 17 year old, which was perfectly legal in my state. Maybe it shouldn't be, but that's how it was.
I still find it very odd that the post-1965 American culture which gave us the sexual revolution now has flipped the whole narrative so that if you simply look the wrong way at someone, it can be interpreted as sexual harassment. At the same time drag queens run library storytime for toddlers.
From one extreme to the other. Totally bizarre. And they expect any of this to be credible?
A guess, with a caveat first: I was born several years after 1965, so anything I write about that time will be supposition, not personal experience.
My personal observation is that there’s a significant part of the population who insist that someone else runs the world and consequently the speaker is powerless to change [insert whatever they’re mad about here].
I consider this to be a very poisonous viewpoint for that person and everyone around them. The person will be very angry and resentful that they are powerless. But because they consider themselves powerless, they will spend very little time to consider whether their response is proportional to the offense, or whether it will make things better or worse in the long run.
I don’t have any hard numbers on differences in how this shows up by gender, age, demographic group, region, etc.
My own personal experience is that for many women, the group who runs the world and is holding them back from what they want to achieve is men. Who are all “idiots who are just bigger boys with bigger toys,” and “only care about one thing!”
I do see a lot of memes written by men, for men, joking that the “one thing” they care about is good food, a cold beer, or some time to relax.
But I don’t hear that mentioned at all when it’s a group of angry women angrily telling each other about how unfair the world is because men run the world and only care about one thing! (If I was saying this aloud, I’d have a weary tone in my voice at this point because I’ve heard this a lot.)
I’ve also read that women tend to be higher in neuroticism, meaning anxiety and a negative outlook, than men. And there’s a definite attitude among many women that they are owed support and belief when they’re upset. Probably why there’s also lots of memes written by men showing a man in a bomb technician’s suit with a caption about “man getting ready to say ‘calm down’ to a woman he knows.”
So, I think the flip from sexual revolution to I’m terrified because he looked at me wrong is a combination of those factors. The sexual revolution was supposed to bring equality in private life, public life, and economic life. When it didn’t, there had to be some reason. Obviously those dastardly men who “only care about one thing!” and the patriarchal society that glorifies them! Now you’re down the weird rabbit hole of feminist literature. And women are objectively weaker and smaller than most men. That in combination is how a masculine and heterosexual man saying something sexual, or even just complementary, can be more threatening than a man who likes dressing up in women’s clothes.
There has been a great deal written about those years. As in forced social engineering.
Hmm, I haven’t run across that. Do you have any recommendations? That would be very interesting to read.
Mainly what I’ve run across is the comment that too often philosophy is biography explained. Sometimes philosophy is a true examination of the world to try and find truth. And sometimes it’s someone saying “Here’s how I live my life, and here’s why you should live your life that way too!”
For at least some of the 2nd wave feminist writers, a paying job outside the home was this awesome place full of self-fulfillment and self-esteem that men were selfishly hoarding for themselves. … I wasn’t alive then, so I’m not sure how they came to that conclusion. The grass is always greener on the other side?
Also, apologies for the multiple edits in my first reply. I’m typing this on my phone and keep hitting wrong buttons.
You might start with something like "America's Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything" by Christopher Rufo or "Social Justice Fallacies" by Thomas Sowell.
Read back issues of The City Journal by the Manhattan Institute.
Then there are the various Mark Steyn and Theodore Dalrymple books. Really, this is a never-ending topic. "Londonistan" by Melanie Phillips. Christina Hoff Sommers - "The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men". Or you could read about psychopathic early feminist Kate Millet. Kathy Acker was not far behind.
In other words, this is the history of Neo-Marxist social engineering in 1960s (and beyond) America. Which is what it was all about.
The 1960s feminist movement was, of course, a Neo-Marxist destruction tactic. But they pulled in masses of Useful Idiots.
In my view, Pedophiles are those who are sexually attracted to pre-adolescents. The problem is if they act on this.
Authentic Pedophilia, as opposed to just having a hankering for teen girls (not so uncommon) is a subset of Psychopathy. Not that the teen-hankering should be encouraged for adult males, but it is not Psychopathy either. My great-grandfather married my great-grandmother when she was 17 and he was in his 30s. It was a cultural norm at the time.
It’s not just your view. Pedophilia is a term used for sexual attraction to prepubescent children, a diagnosable mental disorder.
Sexual activity with a child is child sexual abuse and is illegal, regardless of whether someone has a diagnosis.
Yes, I realize it is not my view alone. That is not what I meant here. I was just trying to tone down the controversy so it did not explode again. I know all about these topics, Teresa.
I have known many long years what Pedophilia is -- since grad school at least, when I trained in related fields -- but people are going a bit batty over this Epstein saga.
He was not a Pedophile in this context. Those girls were all adolescent, and many of them 17 or 18. Maybe a Pimp, but not a Pedophile.
I have been insisting on getting the definitions correct from the start. As in....not only was he not a Pedophile, but he was just a modern version of a brothel owner savvy enough to operate a honeypot where he could potentially trap powerful moneyed men, who were quite stupid to fall for this. The keeping of a little black book has been a tactic for many, many years. Centuries, even.
If those girls were underage....where were the parents who were legally responsible?
I was born and educated in Europe. It’s alarming how many Americans use "pedophilia" as a catch-all for any under age sex, including the media who should know better.
Where were the parents? Good question!
It is not just Americans who mis-define, it is most people who get easily pulled-in to the the sensationalist press stories. They take their lead and their reality from this, unfortunately.
The first thing I asked in the ongoing Epstein story was, "Where were the parents in all of this? But maybe the question of the parents was not convenient for the narrative the press wanted to spread. So they did not mention it.
Epstein was only convicted of sexual contact with one minor. But it was a 14 year old who had initially raised the entire subject for investigation in Florida, if I’m not mistaken, because she was also invited to give a massage that “turned sexual.”
Perhaps he didn’t have sex with her or initiate contact with the 14 year old, perhaps he simply masturbated (or “serviced himself” as you put it) in front of a 14 year old which is what prompted her and her parents to go to the police.
I find it odd that this piece totally ignores the alleged involvement of a 14 year old girl in a sexualized massage while intensely focusing on the 17 year old who Epstein was convicted for soliciting as a minor for prostitution - even though the 14 year old’s own account is the entire reason that the conviction ever came about.
It’s true that he wasn’t convicted of sexual contact with that 14 year old - it’s also true that a 14 year old complaining about a sexual massage resulted in the convictions we do have on record. So are we to totally disregard that 14 year old’s allegations because Epstein was able to arrange a non-prosecution agreement which didn’t include her? I suppose that’s one of the morals to this story.
Yes, but maybe she was only a few days shy of 15, which rounds up to 20, so what's the big deal?
I'm joking, of course. This article is creepy as fuck. Why name and shame the one victim who has tried to put this behind her and was forced to testify? Why pretend that the one conviction is the only crime when that's clearly not the case? I've never believed that this guy was a master blackmailer or that he was murdered in jail, but let's not pretend that he wasn't a deviant, criminal, pervert.
My theory is that the author has exceptionally low opinion of the average American's intelligence.
Anyone with two brain cells and marginal familiarity with the way American criminal justice system works, would know that behind this single case of a nearly 18-year old, to which Epstein pleaded guilty, hides a veritable mountain of much more serious cases that never saw the light of day. And never will, which is probably for the better, considering the victims - not "victims". The fact that many of them had troubled background and knew that they are about to engage in prostitution doesn't make Epstein's behavior any more acceptable. Actually, quite the opposite.
Nor does anyone with two brain cells believe that everybody who's ever associated with Epstein is, by inference, a pedophile. Or that Epstein had to blackmail his acquaintances to be what's known as a "power broker".
However, the willingness of people who consider themselves part of the "elite" - financial, political, etc. - to associate with Epstein is truly disturbing. Considering that his behavior ("reckless and impulsive", as the author put it) was so open and notorious that even Florida's overburdened criminal justice system took notice. People who are being dragged through mud right now have nobody to blame but themselves.
Tashaj—but aside from the two guilty pleas—there have been zero other convictions. That’s why we have trials. (The two guilty pleas were presumably split into separate 12 months and 6 months so that Epstein could serve his time in the county jail system and not in prison.)
Accusations by a member of Congress, or insinuation by a news outlet, or by anyone else, doesn’t equal guilt.
Now that Thomas Massie has exposed that the FBI had evidence that Epstein TRAFFICKED his coterie of controlled victims to at least 20 men perhaps Michael Tracey (and Matt Taibbi) would like to update this article?
youtube.com/watch?v=qHhsTykWJWM
That's funny because I think there is less evidence of blackmail but actually very good evidence he was murdered in prison by Nicholas Tartaglione.
He wasn't sharing a cell with that meathead when he died, so unless he did it with a Mossad mind meld, I think Tartaglione's off the hook.
He didn't need to be inside his cell if he was inside the same unit/wing. The camera to Epstein's cell was "not working" (he was on suicide watch and being watched with a camera) and the one camera they do have footage of covers the entrance to the wing/unit, not the inside of the unit itself.
Tartaglione could have simply had his cell unlocked, walked to Epstein's (now also unlocked) cell, killed him in minutes, and walked back to his own cell. It would have taken less than 10 or 15 minutes. With Epstein's camera "not working" and no cameras watching the hall of the wing/unit itself, it would have been trivial to accomplish unseen and unrecorded.
Tartaglione also attacked Epstein just before Epstein died, according to Epstein. The prison investigated and decided Tartaglione had not attacked Epstein which resulted in Epstein being put on suicide watch.
All available information indicates both Epstein and Tartaglione were in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) and more specifically inside the 9 South wing. Tartaglione was removed from Epstein's cell following his alleged attack on Epstein, but all information available indicates he was still in the same SHU wing, 9 South.
So all the guards, all the camera operators, all the other prisoners, have all been bribed and/or threatened into keeping quiet and they've all done so successfully. Nobody has spilled the beans, no one has gone on a wild spending spree with their bribe money, nobody has had a change of heart, no one has tried to trade what they know for a lighter sentence. The cabal that wanted him dead had full access to all staff schedules so as to coordinate the hit (two different times!). Nobody who was approached about this Ocean's Eleven-level choreography said "no way I'm doing this" and called the FBI.
In the entire history of mankind, nothing like what's described above has ever happened in the real world. Not one time, ever.
It's a good thing I didn't allege what you described above, then.
Or this line, "No overt sexual contact occurred during that first visit — she simply performed an amateur massage in her underwear. In subsequent visits, she would’ve been 17."
I guess the Victoria's Secret shows aren't "overtly sexual" either, because these ladies have "underwear" on... FFS. There's zero way that a grown man pays a 16 year old to "give amateur massage in her underwear" if it's not sexual contact to him.
Which is the creepo part. Imagine your teenage daughter has a slumber party at her friends house and all the 16 year old girls are in their underwear and the friend's father just wants to "watch them" play truth or dare with each other and give him "amateur massages". You gonna call that not overtly sexual or you gonna call the cops?
I guess the moral of the article is that he wasn't convicted of anything in that case and so the media referring to him as a convicted pedophile cannot hinge on those allegations in any way even if they are part of the same investigation that led to the actual conviction of soliciting a minor for prostitution - the 17 year old. And even if those charges and the NPA itself were viciously litigated by Epstein's star lawyer team to get him the lightest possible charges. The only victim which can be fairly acknowledged resulting from that NPA, all the other allegations go in the trash, have zero value in terms of journalistic or reporting value.
That's the only way to read this article. The media/politicians/social media influencers/public can't use any of that information that led to the NPA as a basis to call him a convicted pedophile, only the one single resulting conviction from the NPA which allegedly was regarding a 17 year old a day shy of 18.
Tell me what I am getting wrong.
I appreciate this article as a reality check on the pretentiousness and presumptuousness of the public narrative on this matter. I haven't followed the story too closely, and may not be familiar with all the details, largely because the details have been crowded out by the moral posturing. At first, I had the vague impression that Epstein's Island was a place where pre-pubescent children were trafficked against their will to serve the perverted lusts of the rich and powerful, possibly including torture and human sacrifice. Then it became apparent that it was teen-aged girls, who probably went and served voluntarily. Now it seems that Epstein had a general requirement that the girls be 18, and paid them well for mild acts of stimulation that did not involve intercourse.
The term "pedophile" is thrown around too recklessly. The term properly refers to someone whose primary sexual arousal is toward pre-pubescent children, like 12 and under. Undoubtedly there are good reasons for parents to keep their daughters under wraps until they reach full maturity, and perhaps for laws to support such parents by setting a specific age requirement. The fact that an adult may have sex with someone a bit under the legal age does not make him a pedophile, legalist puritans to the contrary. Many normal adults find teenagers attractive, and teenagers are perfectly capable of intentional sexual activity. In the past, and in other societies today, girls have often married in their mid teens.
The fact that other accusations have been made against Epstein certainly adds to the story, but does not derail the writer's argument. Some may have been made by gold-diggers riding the wave of scandalous excitement. If the writer's account is correct, then essentially nothing has been proven in court about Epstein's alleged sexual crimes other than that he had intercourse with a special girl a day before she reached her legal age in Florida. For this, he is officially a sex offender, and a judge cavalierly refers to him as a "convicted pedophile."
I have no axe to grind for Epstein, but I don't like the cruelty and insanity of moral witchhunts either. My main concern with the case is in whether his outfit was a honeypot operation by some shady organization that used it as bribery or blackmail to control our politicians. That would seriously involve the public interest. But if all there is to it is that some rich guy twenty years ago paid teenage girls to give him massages in their underwear, then I can find much better targets for my outrage.
Excellent. Well said.
Do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan killed the Kennedys as the Official Narratives state?
The bigger question is not whether Epstein was a criminal who received a light sentence at Acosta's direction (before silenced), but whether Epstein was trafficking young women for sex. Michael Tracey and Matt Taibbi say NO, that Virginia Giuffre was lying. The alternative is that the FBI has credible evidence that Epstein trafficked these young women for sex to 20 men, and that Tracey and Taibbi are lying.
Of course, none of these young women filed rape charges with the police. Nor did E. Jean Carroll or Tara Reade file rape charges. Does that mean no rape occurred? What would Michael Tracey and Matt Taibbi say?
You're making a normative argument. You may be right, you may be wrong. Your argument may be compelling; it may not be. I'm not weighing in.
But you're engaging in some impressive, intellectual tightrope-walking to get around Tracey's entire premise: that Epstein's sobriquet, "CONVICTED pedophile," hinges upon only one conviction, that of the 17-year old who's the subject of this piece. I'm gonna assume you're more-than-smart-enough to know that whatever "settlement" you're alluding to ain't the same thing as a conviction.
I don’t disagree that there is only one conviction, I acknowledged that. I used the word “settlement” incorrectly, the concept I was trying to convey was that this conviction was the result of a non-prosecution agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to two lesser charges, one of them being the solicitation of a minor (17) for prostitution.
My point was that this conviction, NPA, and entire investigation was launched due to the allegations of a 14 year old who complained of being hired for a sexualized massage. This 14 year old is not mentioned in the NPA and there are no crimes Epstein was charged with regarding the 14 year old.
So my point is this - it’s true there’s only one conviction involving a minor, it’s also true that this one conviction involving a minor stemmed from a non-prosecution agreement which left out the alleged victim who was the genesis of the entire thing, the 14 year old.
This 14 year old told a story that aligns with all the other girls. She was involved in a sexualized massage after being recruited by her “friends.”
My question is, should this all be ignored simply because there wasn’t a conviction? If you’d read this article you’d come away thinking yes, that should be disregarded as it isn’t a conviction so it holds no truth value, only convictions do.
So no, Epstein was not a “convicted pedophile.” That’s fair to say. It’s also fair to allege he absolutely was a pedophile, or at least attracted to young minors (14) and acted on it but simply wasn’t convicted.
I’m not saying the premise of the article is wrong. I’m saying the premise doesn’t encapsulate the entire narrative.
"should this all be ignored simply because there wasn’t a conviction?"
If the premise and point of the article is that the media, politicians, and other gadflies (over-)use the adjective "convicted" to make a broader point, generate hysteria, and generally foment a shit-show-in-perpetuity, yes, it should be ignored.
As I've hinted, you can have your own moral take on the whole saga. You be you, my man! But getting hung up on whether the author should supply the historical and procedural context of how Prosecutors ultimately procured that conviction is to miss, or choose to ignore, what the author is trying to say in his piece.
I’m not disagreeing with the premise or central point, and the criticism of how the media/others mischaracterize the conviction is fair and on point.
Though I don’t disagree with the thesis I think it’s appropriate to leave a comment reminding people that convictions aren’t the only thing one can use to inform their opinion of what he was actually doing, and more to the point, whether he was actively seeking out minors or if they just stumbled across the threshold of his door without him knowing they are minors. I do feel like the article might imply or lead one to believe that, based on the concept that the only sexual contact he was convicted for was a 17 year old a day before turning 18, supposedly.
Right, I mean, imagine if this were an article about OJ Simpson.
Sex with a 14 year old by an adult, however wrong and disgusting it may seem, is not pedophilia. Pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent children. I think that is a big point of this article. It doesn't make him less of a sex criminal and scum bag, it just means he was not, so far as all the evidence appears to show, a pedophile.
I don’t care enough to split hairs between attraction to children who are pre-pubescent and attraction to children just starting or early on in puberty. Especially in the case of recruiting them for massages in their underwear.
A 14 year old going through early/mid stages puberty is a different condition but I don’t really see the point of the article as a debate about that. I think the point is that he was only convicted on one charge regarding one minor who was hours from being 18. I am simply saying there’s good reason to believe that despite the lack of conviction that isn’t where it ended.
From what I recall, the 14 year old you're mentioning didn't complain. She got into a fight at school because other kids called her a whore or something like that. The parents were called and either the school or one of the parents reported the allegation to the police. The 14 year old didn't raise it.
This is why I gladly pay for the Racket Substack. I want facts only, no matter which way they turn. It's the only mechanism to ensure an informed electorate/readership. Thank you.
Good article. I think Megyn Kelly says she knows attorneys or people involved in this case, and there really was very little "underage" sex involved in any of it. The guy was a sleaze ball, but you just can't believe all this hysteria and pearl clutching which is totally politically motivated. It IS strange about him dying in jail, though. Lots of coincidences there. But I'm sick of the whole thing.
p.s. This was interesting information.
It is advisable, I think, to read Taibbi’s accompanying piece at the same time. The point is the same-journalistic malpractice in the free and easy use of “convicted” and “trafficking”-but a number of points raised having to do with people like Virginia Giuffre are worth reading up on. I have no wish to disinter a suicide but she is one of the, or maybe the, most high profile people in this saga. It all deserves close reading.
The only thing that matters is that DNC-Media curates a narrative that "Trump is a pedo who rapes little girls on Epstein Island."
What a garbage article, and no surprise that the comments are full of “ephebophiles”. I tried to come into this with an open mind, but I’m not sure Michael even knows what point he’s trying to make here. Great, so you’ve demonstrated that Epstein had sex with a minor, and was found guilty of such. This somehow makes the other accusations against him less valid? Do you truly, honestly think this was the only time he had sex with a minor?
Of course this victim isn’t going to appear on CNN and continue to lobby for recognition for her plight – her case was settled. That doesn’t mean all the other victims are liars, it means they haven’t received justice yet. And then we have the ludicrous dismissal of his later charges: “He was also charged with additional crimes in 2019, but died in federal custody, so those were never adjudicated.” Surely this means he’s innocent of everything, right Michael? But why, then, would he commit suicide in prison?
You have the attitude of that bit with Conan – “Jeff… Epstein? The financier?” – except it’s not a bit here. It’s all fine and dandy to make a record of the only crimes that Epstein was convicted of, but I don’t see why it should be suffused throughout with this air of incredulity that Epstein could have done anything bad besides those crimes. There is a middle ground between “Epstein was the mastermind of a global pedophile ring” and “Epstein did nothing wrong”, and you have made no attempt to find it.
I'm not hearing "Epstein did nothing wrong" from the article. I'm hearing that what actually occurred is nothing at all like what is being portrayed in the media. The fact that there was no sweetheart deal but instead that Palm Beach and Florida had a weak case (victims that don't want to testify against the accused is not a winning hand) and the US Attorney's Office applying pressure was potentially the only thing that got a conviction.
If you're familiar with a lot of the other "survivors" - many (most?) were of age in their dealings with Epstein - Maria Farmer, Sarah Ransome, etc. And then you have Virginia Giuffre who tells tall tales and gets away with it because no one does any fact checking.
What I’d like to be hearing from the article is “Epstein only provably did one thing wrong, and the rest is getting hyped up by the media when there’s no proof it happened”. Matt’s article had this tone, and I have no complaints. Michael, on the other hand, seems to find it ridiculous that Epstein could possibly have done anything beyond what he’s literally been indicted for, and only then if the case went through trial.
To take another example – Matt drew a distinction between being “clinically” and “legally” a pedophile. Michael finds it outlandish that Epstein could be a pedophile at all, explaining why this comment section is full of perverts and “ephebophiles”.
I haven't read Taibbi's piece yet, but the distinction between clinical and legal pedophilia is action. Being attracted to pre-pubescent childrent isn't a crime, but acting on it is.
Epstein wasn't a pedophile - all of the females he interacted with in these massages of various sexual degree were all biological adults (i.e., past the point of puberty) whether or not they were legal adults.
Anyone who says that he weas a pedophile as opposed to a sex offender (which is what he was) is contributing to the misinformation around him, making this into a more of a saga than what it was in actuality.
Maybe read his piece before responding to my commentary on it?
This article was written by Michael Tracey, not Matt Taibbi.
But since my earlier comment, I have read the Taibbi piece, and my comment above stands. The only distinction between "clinical" and "legal" pedophilia is action.
"Sex with a minor"
One day before her 18th birthday. Yawn.
"Of course this victim isn’t going to appear on CNN and continue to lobby for recognition for her plight – her case was settled."
It's debatable if she was actually a victim unless you think her having consensual sex one day before her 18th birthday makes a person a victim. Why would she need recognition for her "plight"? What plight? The plight of having engaged in consensual sex one day before her 18th birthday?
"Do you truly, honestly think this was the only time he had sex with a minor?"
There is reason to believe that Epstein was not even capable of having sex, so I'm actually inclined to believe this girl may have been lying about the sex.
If you wouldn’t care if your daughter had sex with the creepy old man she was giving massages to in her underwear while she was still legally a minor, that’s up to you. Just know you’re not exactly in the majority.
He didn't say that at all. You're making value judgements, not based on any facts.
Sasha did – she “yawn”ed at the premise. That’s who I’m responding to, if you’re having trouble following the thread.
“No overt sexual contact occurred during that first visit — she simply performed an amateur massage in her underwear.”
Oh okay. Probably would’ve chosen a different word than “simply” in that sentence. You’re downplaying something that is still quite disgusting.
You're splitting hairs here.
Epstein was convicted of sex with an underage girl. He was a Registered Sex Offender.
He paid girls to procure other girls for him.
He flew girls to his island for activities with his political and powerful pals.
Prosecutors, even the ones that convicted him, were reluctant to treat him as a normal sex offender. He had high-level protection and cover--prosecutor in FL: "He's intel. Drop it."
He was plugged in to all facets of elite society--intel, law enforcement, political, business, academic--and was a master manipulator.
So, a convicted pedophile, registered sex offender, flew around the world with teenagers (how old? 13? 14? 15? 16? 17?....no one has nailed it down, but many witnesses were disturbed by his Lolita Express cargoes) and high and might co-conspirators.
Not clear what you think you're debunking. But, you're off on a tangent.
Instead of trying to check exact dates on birth certificates for the underage girl he abused, how about researching and reporting on the dozens of other girls involved in his network.
Pooh-poohing the facts because the girls could be seen as prostitutes does NOT lessen Epstein's crimes.
Please re-focus Racket's writing on getting to the core of the Epstein sex ring.
Maybe you're not interested in the technicalities of Epstein's law-breaking- alleged and actual - but I am.
Ministry of Truth media goes out of their way to slime those they politically oppose, But it's amazing how, when one of their political allies does EXACTLY the same thing -they turn a blind eye. Trump and Biden both took home classified docs. Only one of them - the one who had the authority to have them as president - got into legal trouble. Michael Flynn was accused of lying to the FBI during a "friendly" interview. Andrew McCabe irrefutably lied under oath three times. Flynn was put on trial, and McCabe suffered no legal repercussions.
Yes, I do want to know the exact dates on the girls birth certificates. Maybe to you, kind'a close to being underage is close enough. If you want to convict someone of a crime, the alleged victim's birth date matters.
Your and my opinions on whether Epstein was a creepy guy are probably in close alignment. But they are after all, only opinions. Opinion can enter into the discussion of whether Epstein broke the law or not, But that question depends to a much greater extent on the actual facts.
I like that the article laid them out. I welcome the clarity.
Bully for you! Demand those dates!
Well, luckily, that investigative foundation has already been laid. Maxwell was convicted of operating a sex ring, WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN, that trafficked MINORS to participate in illegal sex acts.
See the DOJ announcement of Maxwell's conviction, with specific charges--ALL INVOLVING MINORS--below.
In cases involving minors, the identities, and birth certificates, of the victims are concealed to protect the minors.
Actual facts. Actual convictions. Actual naming of Epstein as a conspirator in a minor-trafficking sex ring.
Not sure what Taibbi, and the crowd of his followers, is missing. Not sure why he refuses to accept the facts. Quite strange.
"GHISLANE MAXWELL was sentenced today in Manhattan federal court by United States Circuit Judge Alison J. Nathan to 240 months in prison for her role in a scheme to sexual exploit and abuse MULTIPLE MINOR GIRLS with JEFFREY EPSTEIN over the course of a DECADE. MAXWELL was previously found guilty on December 29, 2021, following a one-month jury trial, of CONSPIRACY to entice MINORS to travel to engage in ILLEGAL SEX ACTS, CONSPIRACY to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, transporting a minor to participate in illegal sex acts, sex trafficking CONSPIRACY, and sex trafficking of a minor."
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/ghislaine-maxwell-sentenced-20-years-prison-conspiring-jeffrey-epstein-sexually-abuse
Did Epstein have sexual intercourse with the victims? From reading the info in your link, the answer appears to be no.
Epstein and Maxwell seem to have engaged in vile acts with these young girls apparently limited to some fondling. The judge and jury thought they crossed the line into "sex acts", and I would probably agree with them. I hasten to add. you've provided only the prosecution's version; we haven't heard both sides.
It's reminiscent of Bill Clinton's denial he engaged in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. In simple terms, he based it on her giving him a BJ, while he was passive as she did it. From Clinton's deposition under oath:
Prosecutors asked Clinton about his interpretation of the definition of "sexual relations" presented at his deposition in the Jones case, which read as follows: "A person engages in 'sexual relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person."
Q.: "Is oral sex performed on you within that definition as you understood it, the definition in the Jones -- "
A.: "As I understood it, it was not; no. . . ."
Q.: "So touching, in your view then and now -- the person being deposed touching or kissing the breast of another person would fall within the definition?"
A.: "That's correct, Sir."
Q.: "And you testified that you didn't have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky in the Jones deposition, under that definition, correct?"
A.: "That's correct, Sir."
I's not an argument I would have attempted. But apparently Clinton thought it was worth trying. And for him, it worked.
The details matter, not b/c they're titillating, but b/c the facts are different from what people imagine. The media constantly plays these tricks on the public.
I want to know, what is MSM leading us to believe, and how is is different from what actually happened?
A final comment- Maxwell's "sexual trafficking" conviction makes one think these young girls were victimized by multiple perpetrators beyond Epstein and Maxwell. Were they? If they were, we still to this day, even after a trial and conviction, don't know who else had sex with these young girls.
" Maxwell's "sexual trafficking" conviction makes one think these young girls were victimized by multiple perpetrators beyond Epstein and Maxwell. Were they? If they were, we still to this day, even after a trial and conviction, don't know who else had sex with these young girls."
Exactly!
That's my point! We do NOT know if/who/how/where/when Epstein provided his trafficked minors to other men. And if he did, what those men did to them.
The circumstantial evidence points resoundingly to the extreme likelihood that Epstein was not the only man engaging in illegal sex with his trafficked minors.
Your questions are exactly what I'm begging Taibbi to investigate and answer. It's what he does.
Remember the allegations and innuendo about Twitter censoring, shadow-banning, de-platforming pre-Musk ownership? There was a massive effort to shut down anyone making such allegations, or even asking questions. But Taibbi got the data, and did an investigation, and reported his findings. It was even worse than the allegations and innuendo suggested.
Why is he not doing the same thing with Epstein? Has he been warned off this case? Is he gun-shy? What gives? Why doesn't he do his job?
Minors are not always the same as prepubescent females.
Were all these underage girls runaways? If not, where were their parents? If my mid-teen daughter was working as a masseuse or flying off to hidden resort islands owned by unknown persons.....I would be on the scene myself very quickly.
"Were all these underage girls runaways?"
Interesting questions, but completely irrelevant. God bless you for protecting your daughter.
The family background of victims doesn't mitigate the crimes Epstein, Maxwell, and his cronies committed.
Manipulators choose their targets carefully--exploiting weaknesses and motivations. Poor, "trailer trash," runaways, broken families, and many other qualities would make prospects attractive to the finely honed, massive recruitment operation Epstein ran.
Thank you, Kent. Yes, I know about the attraction of vulnerabilities. This is what cult recruiters operate on too. I am just perplexed as to why no parents are ever held responsible here.
"cult operators"
Exactly! Also pimps.
Teenage girls are notorious for not following their parents' guidance.
They're also notorious for being extremely vulnerable when they lack such guidance.
I'd wager that 99% of the "human trafficking" that's always talked about is under-age, and barely legal, girls who began willingly, or at least semi-willingly.
I hear you, Kent.
The Democrats harped on Epstein during this first year of Trump II because they were hoping against hope to have at last found the magic bullet to get rid of him without the hard work of actual successful Democratic elections. Suddenly he would be gone in instant disgrace. Forced to resign.
It was the same with the Russiagate hoax in Trump I: the mirage of a quick and an easy fix. Trump forced to resignvin instant disgrace! Except there was nothing there in Russiagate. And the Epstein story now looks to be a similar Democratic mirage in Trump II.
Nor is Epstein needed. 2025 turned out to be a banner year of anti-Trump Democratic election success. At this point we seem to be headed for a big Blue Wave in the mid-terms too. Time to put away childish things.
I would not be so sure about that "Blue Wave"; remember how the expected "Red Wave" of 2022 turned out to be more of a trickle? The GOP has been better at - or at least more serious about - the effort of electioneering, legally or otherwise, for as far back as I can personally remember, with an activist-wing that its leadership actually fears, whereas what I'd best call the 'Clintoncratic' Party has been an MLM-scam and Roach-Motel for actual change whose relationship with its base can accurately be described, and regularly is, as "abusive".
The latter doesn't even feel any NEED to win elections, not so long as they can terrorize and extort in exchange for nothing. There MIGHT have been some signs of change after 2024, what with the Donor-Class finally expressing impatience and dropping Harris faster than a lit stick of turd-powered dynamite, but given that they've recently decided to discard their own post-2024 autopsy, it's not looking promising.
Both parties, I sometimes hypothesize, are in a bidding-war to LOSE: Who wants to be caught at the helm when a ship that's been on a collision-course with R'lyeh itself for decades and refuses to correct finally gets devoured by Cthulhu?
Terrific part 1.
I look forward to what's to come
thanks
But the Jews! Mossad! Deep State!
It HAS to be more than a con man and teenage "masseuses" in their underwear. It HAS to be.
C'mon man, don't harsh my conspiracy.
And so the sliming begins, right here in the comments section.
They are making a much greater fuss over Epstein than the press ever made over Michael Jackson....whose sins may have been worse.
I cannot see this reasonably being such a brouhaha as the press is making it. Powerful moneyed men paying to keep company with attractive teenage girls (who seem to have joined the organization willingly). If the men were not big names, this would be a nothingburger.