In Response to an Epstein Comment

It never ends.

From reader @KentClizbe:

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.

I promised myself I wouldn’t do this, either on my behalf or Michael’s, but what sex ring?

The New York Times a week ago ran a piece called “Democrats Release Photos Showing Epstein Ties to Powerful Men.,” about House members highlighting 95 photos of “prominent men” in the Epstein files. They are devoid of context, beyond the general: “Many of the wealthy and famous men who were once in his orbit have faced questions for years about what they knew about his lurid lifestyle and the accusations that he was trafficking girls as young as 14 for sex.” Even that passage is misleading, because “trafficking girls” to whom? Himself? The names of Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Bill Gates, Woody Allen, Larry Summers and others were shoved into a pile that grew today with new documents (Mick Jagger is the trophy head of the hour), but there’s no meaning to any of it unless one or more of these figures is tied to the sex crimes. Otherwise it’s just two lists, powerful friends and repulsive acts, not shown to overlap.

This is just what the Times did in April, 2019, when in the absence of proof of conspiracy with Russia they began chronicling “contacts” between Trump figures and “Russian nationals and Wikileaks, or their intermediaries.” In a literal sense, it was “connecting the dots,” as the Times put out schematic diagrams of Trump figures and their relationships to Russians, color-coding types of “contact” had by each. It suggested a great conspiracy, but without first establishing the “Russian nationals” had involvement with election meddling, it was the same excercise in compiling unrelated lists. The only thing giving it meaning was the technically still-open question of “whether” the lists of Russians “may” eventually be linked to Trump and election meddling. Only a few outlets were hard up enough to spell out this paper-thin premise out loud, e.g. Bloomberg’s “Mueller Laid Out the Dots. His Report May Show If They Connect.”

Years later, we have gripes here about Michael harping on the single minor conviction and failing to mention an unnamed 14-year-old whose parents’ complaint reportedly prompted the initial investigation or anecdotal evidence of others. These complaints are lurid but mostly immaterial. Whether Epstein was a clinical pedophile (unlikely) instead of a merely sociolegal one does have some bearing on the guilt-by-association aspect of the case, if the Summerses, Clintons, and Gateses knew about real pedophilic conduct as opposed to solicitation of “barely legal” types. But unless the men were involved in Epstein’s crimes, publishing photos of “prominent men” in the files is the same thing the Times did with “connections” after the Mueller report.

Epstein had a lot of powerful friends. He also victimized a lot of women. As we see here, it can be debated how grossed out one should be about it (for what it’s worth, one jaded lawyer told me Epstein rated “about a 4” on his personal list of abusers/rapists). Either way, it’s not a “ring” until you show the two lists overlapping. We have an allegation about a complaint from a 14-year-old starting the case, and if I were looking for pedophilia, I’d hunt there. But asking to get to the “core of the Epstein sex ring” is like Maxine Waters in 2017 saying about collusion proof, “we just have to do the investigation and find it.” Then and now, find what? What “ring” do you mean?

Connecting dots.