Matt, you’re substantially misreporting the Giuffre-Dershowitz lawsuits.
I looked at it a little more based on your reporting the past couple days. Number one they mutually agreed to drop both lawsuits. Meaning that simultaneous to her dropping her lawsuit against him that claimed he was lying by denying events, dershowitz dropped his lawsuit against her that claimed she was lying.
You have reported this as a one-way affair, as many reporters have done in a way that ironically parallels the kind of journalistic misfire you're talking about overall.
The one-way street is Giuffre drops her claims therefore dershowitz is exonerated.
The simultaneous thing that happened is Dershowitz stopped his lawsuit calling Giuffre a liar as well, meaning that she might have been telling the truth.
Further a search or two in a couple of clicks found me a Daily Beast article where Giuffre explicitly says it was definitely not an exoneration for Dershowitz and he should stop saying it is. She cites that the lawsuits were emotionally unsustainable and she had drivers like that for ending them. They each stop calling the other a liar and drop the matter, not proof either way of either's case.
Another short dip in the pool and one learns that Dershowitz is exactly as unreliable as Giuffre if you're applying this litmus test. Long story short, Dershowitz forced Giuffre to drop David Boies as a lawyer by claiming Boies was extorting him. Yes, that David Boies so unlikely to be acting like a rookie and extorting. Anyway, as part of these settlements Boies dropped his case against Dersh in return for Dersh admitting he was mistaken that Boies was extorting and part of a RICO level plot against him. So Dersh dropped that accusation fully and his lawsuit, making a statement that his claims were not supported. If we're playing by any rules here, that's the same move that made Giuffre fully "untrustworthy".
Consider this a lead for more thorough reporting. Regardless, as a keystone in "Giuffre is not to be trusted", the fact that she dropped her defamation lawsuit has fully turned to dust if you ask me. The sick irony is that what seems most likely is that it played that way in the press due to Dershowitz's greater media savvy, Rolodex, and power, exactly the things people are claiming at play more broadly for wealthy friends of Epstein.
Further, at best Giuffre would have been public in what 2009 and then "discredited" in 2022 so your core premise is that people should not have trusted her statements for 12+ years for what reason exactly? That's a lot of time for people to reasonably believe her. "The reporting sucked" all those years because no one had 2020's hindsight, mostly.
We may also disagree in general on "evidence" of Epstein involving other men. It's certainly alleged and easy to find in tons of court docs that Giuffre and others said they were trafficked to specific friends. What Giuffre said is below, from a 30 second AI chat. It also claims a dozen or so other women are on record saying they were trafficked to specific friends of Epstein. Giuffre is also on record saying that she was specifically trafficked to Prince Andrew and Ehud Barak, and that Barak was physically violent and that after that happened 2x, Epstein told her just to deal with it and that's what made her realize she needed to run.
It seems like there certainly is evidence (not proof) of at least a short list of powerful men Epstein and Maxwell trafficked girls to. I just read some court docs from Florida that lay this out, too. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201913843.pdf
So is what you're really trying to say, Matt, that there are three lists? There's a girls list, a set of friends that were trafficked to, and then a set of men that were associates who were not? We all know that 91 year old Cronkite was unlikely to be dipping wick as opposed to accepting hospitality.
But it's certainly the case that there is evidence of powerful male associates who "got massages".
An allegation against any individual would need evidence to support, but I don't think we should play a game that there's no evidence of trafficking of girls to at least a set of men.
I’m having difficulty with the freely used term trafficking versus maybe pimping. From witness testimonies I’ve read, many of these young women were free to come and go, were paid for their “services” and were encouraged to bring friends. No where did I read they were imprisoned, drugged, kidnapped or did I miss that? Epstein was a disgusting human, but I’m having a problem seeing the sex trafficking ring also.
Good point. "The legal definition of sex trafficking is the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act, induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person is under the age of 18." So by those standards it would only apply to any girls that were underage that he passed off to his friends. I don't give a fuck about Epstein either, although you know that meme of Michael Jackson eating popcorn that people like to post whenever there's a squabble beginning online? That's meet waiting for rich and powerful heads to role over this. It's a real shame we can't bring back the guillotine.
What about the girls that admitted in the original FL case they encouraged their friends to come too. Are they trafficking. Read the transcript from the girl who referred to herself as Madame Heidi Fleiss. She received $200 every time she brought a girl and the girls she brought were told what to expect. Again, not supporting this slime, just adding to the facts.
The trafficking part seems to be essentially "arranging for their presence, personally and through employees, in places where they would perform sexual services for money". So this seems to include Jeffrey having an assistant call up a girl on their list to show up for a massage for him in a city he was headed to, or have them driven by car to such a place, or take a plane ride somewhere with him.
Providing sexual services to Epstein alone would qualify under that law as trafficking. I agree it gives a broader impression which would require other things to truly apply, but under the law it fits.
It actually claimed there were 30 but I am not doing more research because I couldn't give a f about Epstein or any of this it just seems irresponsible to act like there's no evidence that Prince Andrew got handies from Epstein provided girls, even if that evidence can be argued against.
Matt be like "there's totally no connection here at all between these lists"?
Like creationists staring at a fucking archaeopteryx fossil and asking where the missing link is.
And you know she's a fantasist because she pulled the Dershowitz claim back and then seems to have embellished an auto accident after that, is that right?
There are in fact hundreds of victims that have been paid hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements, from the epstein estate, major international banks, etc.
I just thought of another recent piece of evidence that can't be explained away by anything other than "sex trafficking to others".
Epstein wrote to an associate about Trump and used the phrase that he knew but "He never got a massage".
I mean what's the other reading of that phrase outside of it being common for Epstein to arrange sexual massages for other men? Epstein, talking to someone not expecting anyone else to read it, saying that. No other explanation I can derive.
The reporting on Epstein has always been very sloppy and loose. As possibly the world's worst litigation attorney I can tell you that there are big differences between what you know, what you believe, and what you can prove. And in a criminal law setting, that means prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Epstein has become the focus of a moral panic. Everyone wants to beat on him without allowing for any defense or alternative explanations.
There is plenty of proof, court docs, and convictions with England's grooming gangs. Yet, people somehow care FAR less, even with overwhelming evidence of incompetence and worse from the so-called authorities. And yet it gets far less attention than Epstein--just a single guy.
What exactly do you think journalists should be doing here? Or is it time to focus efforts in on-going criminal activity with living perps? What is the end game here?
Yes, and the sooner the better. Trouble is, the people out to get him are just as bad as he is. America has been in a race to the bottom since 1980. The election of a hands-off-my-privacy president (Reagan) imbued the nation with a warped understanding of plain old right and wrong. Unregulated capitalism's embrace of a twisted interpretation of Darwin (the poor man must be rolling over in his grave) to rationalize all forms of "predator-prey" behavior spilled over from the business world to the world of "what money can buy." Nothing was off limits if you could pay for it. Nothing was against the law because laws were made to be broken. And common decency of the sort we used to associate with the greatest generation and New Deal values, was replaced with, yeah, the law of the jungle.
Yes ongoing activity. 50-100 women, mostly trafficked and 20% or so underaged, on S. Figueroa in LA streetwalking every night and expected to turn ~12 tricks per night.
These are just the streetwalkers out in the open in one city. The DoJ is trying to stop it but needs local prosecution to be most effective. To start CA should reverse the cancellation of anti-loitering laws, which allowed cops to question the girls so they could start by finding the underage ones.
Here’s a clear, factual, citation‑supported 10‑sentence summary of what Virginia Giuffre has publicly alleged about her experiences with Jeffrey Epstein, based on the information available in the search results:
Virginia Giuffre has said that Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused and trafficked her when she was a minor.
She alleged that Epstein, along with Ghislaine Maxwell, recruited her into his network when she was a teenager.
Giuffre has stated that Epstein forced her to have sex with powerful men he associated with, including Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor (formerly Prince Andrew), beginning when she was 17, allegations he has consistently denied.
She said she was trafficked to Andrew on three separate occasions, including in London and the U.S..
Giuffre has described being flown around the world by Epstein as part of what she called a system of sexual exploitation.
She has said that Epstein controlled her through threats, manipulation, and the use of his social and financial power.
In her posthumous memoir, she reiterated that Epstein repeatedly abused her and forced her into sexual encounters with others in his circle.
She also alleged that her father unknowingly accepted money from Epstein, which she believed was intended to keep her compliant, though this allegation concerns her father rather than Epstein directly.
Giuffre became one of the most outspoken accusers in the Epstein case, publicly identifying herself and advocating for other survivors.
She maintained until her death that Epstein and Maxwell ran a trafficking operation that exploited her and many other girls, and she spent years pushing for accountability from those she said participated in or enabled the abuse.
You didn't watch that video, did you? Some of them have had legal representation since at least we 2019. They're trying to force accountability but with not much success.
The women who received settlements from Epstein probably had to sign an NDA and risk litigation if they come forward. They'd also have to explain why they stayed since they weren't imprisoned. Epstein was pimping jot trafficking. And Where were the 14 yr old's parents in all of this??
They are likely not fearless brave warriors as those of us with these powerful keyboards under our fingers are, either. There are reasons, unfortunately, that the more fearful and less self-confident end up as the people abused in these situations.
Actually, I did more research. the women were paid by Epstein's estate which is managed in a trust. But I was wrong about the NDA. They are only forbidden from pusuing any further LEGAL action against it. So they can go public with details of their time with Epstein, but they might not want to be questioned about any of it.
Not sure why it has to be uncivil, but perhaps you missed the point. I don't have to claim any of this is true to make my point. I don't even spend time deciding if I believe it's true because I don't care that much.
The claim Taibbi is making is different. He's saying there is essentially no reason to believe anyone was "trafficked" to a person other than Epstein himself.
And while it's far from proof in a court of law, all I'm saying is there are court documents saying it and women saying it in front of cameras and in print.
This is a three-judge panel of a circuit court:
"The facts underlying this case, as we understand them, are beyond
scandalous—they tell a tale of national disgrace.
Over the course of eight years, between 1999 and 2007, well-heeled and
well-connected financier Jeffrey Epstein and multiple coconspirators sexually
abused more than 30 minor girls, including our petitioner, in Palm Beach, Florida
and elsewhere in the United States and abroad. Epstein paid his employees to find minor girls and deliver them to him—some as young as 14. Once Epstein had the girls, he either sexually abused them himself, gave them over to be abused by others, or both. Epstein, in turn, paid bounties to some of his victims to recruit other girls into his ring."
Let me repeat: a three judge panel of a federal circuit court, which had reviewed extensive documentation and material in the case, said the above.
That's all evidence, true or not. Taibbi is making the claim that essentially there's no reason people even believe this. There's reason to believe and there's plenty of reason to doubt. But "there's nothing at all there" to think these women were introed to Prince Andrew at least is a clown take, to me.
You didn't read the post. My only use of the word "proof" was "And while it's far from proof in a court of law, all I'm saying is there are court documents saying it and women saying it in front of cameras and in print."
Nobody believes the litigation is financially unsustainable for the Guiffre estate. Dershowicz just wanted his name out of the tabloids and Guiffre, et al, lacked convincing evidence.
Turns out she said only emotional "The litigation was very stressful and damaging to my family, and to my health. We have endured years in which Mr. Dershowitz asserted my charges against him were a lie, made up out of whole cloth" and I was off. I edited accordingly.
You are incorrect that many girls have said they were trafficked to others. Unless you consider a half-dozen, most of whom retracted their claims.
Virginia Giuffre is the only semi-credible victim to name other men she was trafficked to. One was dead so he couldn’t defend himself. One was always with his wife. One proved in court she was “mistaken”. One settled with an NDA but that could be because he was told by the family to make it go away NOW (I’m referring to the Andrew formerly known as Prince). She later made accusations against Barak, but her publisher wisely had his name removed from the book.
How much do you know about the tragic life of Virginia Giuffre (née Roberts, aka Doe #3)? By her own claim she was homeless on the street at 13 where she was quickly recruited as a prostitute at age 13-14. She lost that job when her pimp was arrested. She ended up working in the women’s spa at Mar-a-Lago where Maxwell recruited her to perform “sexual massages” on Epstein.
Giuffre met her future husband in Thailand where she was taking a massage class. They ended up in his native Australia where they had 3 kids before separating & filing for divorce in the last few years. Earlier this year, a court issued a domestic violence restraining order against her preventing her from contacting Robert or her kids. She was vocally depressed on SM & when speaking with her family, then killed herself.
She lacked credibility to the extent that the Maxwell prosecutors refused to call her as a witness at trial even though she was a named victim & had volunteered to testify.
This is the absurd nature of the Epstein conspiracy theories. People are convinced there is evidence. But when you look into it, there’s nothing there.
There have been a couple who claimed they were trafficked to others who have recanted when confronted with dispositive evidence they were frauds, but it is unreasonable to claim they provide “evidence.” Some conflate Epstein assaulting women at Les Wexner’s properties with Wexner being a part of the SA but those cases have been dismissed or withdrawn.
Another case was where an adult woman in her late 20s (Jane Doe #11) was referred by Epstein to a psychiatrist (Henry Jarecki) for treatment. She claims Jarecki sexually assaulted over a period of 3 years; he said their relationship was consensual. She sued him, & the judge dismissed the case with prejudice (meaning she cannot refile based on same allegations). Not exactly a pedo ring case.
In the Courtney Wild CRVA appeal you link, a couple of sentences in the “statement of facts” could lead you to believe there were other named abusers but that’s not accurate. Because of the NPA there was no trial on the merits; claims were not tested. Names were not named. Witnesses & victims were not deposed or cross-examined.
The recent (September) press conference with Epstein victims resulted in the women saying there was no client list but that they could & would (but haven’t to my knowledge) create a list of those who knew about Epstein’s abuse. Under FL’s broad mandatory reporting law such facilitators could still be charged & tried for not reporting Epstein.
What must be remembered is that the FL state prosecution of Epstein was based upon the same police investigations & witness statements as the federal prosecution that was truncated by the NPA. Yet the FL case was solely about Epstein (as was Maxwell’s later case). Why, if there were other scumbags involved? The same level of evidence that led to Epstein’s plea in the FL state case would have also been applied to other abusers.
Interestingly enough, the federal NPA only listed 4 co-conspirators - Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, Lesley Groff, & Adriana Ross. It named no men.
There was nothing to prevent state authorities from prosecuting other abusers based on the investigations of both federal & state authorities so long as there was credible, admissible evidence. Thus, nothing prevented indicting any men credibly accused by Wild or any other girls in state court.
Note, too, that Wild never accused anyone but Epstein as her abuser.
There have been hundreds of lawsuits filed, adjudicated & settled involving Epstein’s voluminous sexual assaults. There has been a handful against other alleged victimizers, but only one was settled for money (Andrew), another settled for “my mistake,” the rest dismissed or withdrawn without monetary settlements. All told there were 5-10 initial accusations.
Lawyers make their money off big settlements (40-45% of millions adds up) not hourly fees. We go after deep pockets wherever possible. Of the 300+ women who have filed suits against Epstein’s estate & banks, you would also expect hundreds of suits against the rich & famous. Hasn’t happened. That means these victims are not naming names of abusers besides Epstein & Maxwell.
He was a trafficking ring with one consumer - Epstein himself.
And thus we see that lot of words are needed to refute lots of evidence. We can agree with the conclusion even, without needing to deny that the evidence still existed to be argued against so extensively.
In the law, as in life, it generally takes longer to clean mud off a wall than to throw it. “He raped me” is simple to say, but defending against such a claim may take hundreds of pages.
Saying “There’s a lot of evidence of a pedo ring” requires the inquiry,
“Ok, what is it?”
“Well, there are lots of victims who say so.”
“Ok. Name them. Who do they claim abused them?”
“Well, there are lots.”
“Ok. Here’s the ones I know of & here’s the facts behind their claims & why they are not credible.”
“You write so many words, there must be a big pedo ring.”
Sorry, you are arguing against people who think there's a pedo ring, and I'm not one of them. If you don't have the courtesy to read and understand my point, I don't owe you any more courtesy.
No, you're saying there's evidence. This guy is meticulously going through claims and saying they don't rise to the level of evidence.
Are you moving the goalposts now? If you're not seriously going to engage with people who give you their time, then you're just wasting all of ours with your endless arguing.
You have proof he was murdered? You really need to get that to the authorities then. I suspect he may have been murdered as well, but like everyone else that thinks that, I have zero proof. So the question of why he was possibly murdered becomes much less of a real question. I doubt we will ever know for sure one way or the other.
Well, we have proof, such as the injuries he sustained as he died and the strange goings on while he died (cameras out, guards just suddenly going off on their own, that missing minute that Pam Bondi lied about) and the fact that he had no reason to kill himself. He'd been bailed out before and by all accounts he seemed quite confident he would be again. But, of course, none of that is a written confession by the murderer and that seems to be our standard now, when it's convenient.
1. Have you ever been in a jail (the MCC SHU is a jail, not a prison)? I’ve been in several, from San Quentin to county lockups. They are always understaffed with low level personnel who are generally viewed as the bottom of the LE barrel. Hardware is old & malfunctions frequently. This is not the place where Magneto was housed.
2. Epstein made out a new will just hours before he died with his lawyers in the SHU. In any other case, what would you think if someone made out a will & was found dead 12 hours later? Maybe a beneficiary did it?
3. The cameras were not broken in the SHU. A video recorder had hard drive failures before E was placed back in the SHU after his first suicide attempt. This recorder is in a secure part of the MCC, not in the SHU. Guards do not have access to those recorders. This machine was old & had had similar failures in the past.
4. To get to the SHU tier where E was housed from the outside you must pass through 7 corridors with cameras & 4 locked doors with cameras. All of these cameras & recorders were operational. At least 2 of the locked doors have 24/7 guards stationed there to open the door. How did killers get through all these hallways & locked doors (including 1 elevator with a key card) & avoid all these hallways cameras?
5. To get into the SHU from the MCC main hallway you must sign in & have a guard in a closed booth buzz you in. This is not the desk you see in the video of the desk inside the SHU tiers where the guards slept & shopped online in the released tape.
6. If the killers entered during the missing 2 1/2 minutes of video at midnight, when did they leave? The BOP & DOJ released over 11 hours of video including almost 7 after midnight. Why is there no gap when they left?
7. Did E have a reason to kill himself? In the days before he died a lot of evidence of his sexual assaults was released. Brad Edwards, attorney for over 200 victims who interviewed E many times, believes he killed himself because E was a control freak obsessed with his image as a mover & shaker. This was his last controlling action.
8. Why kill E in the jail? For this to be pulled off, many low-level guards had to be in on it, many BOP staff at supervisory levels all the way up as well, not to mention top DOJ & FBI officials. Techs would have been needed to edit the video & disable the video recorders. The coroner & the lab folks had to be complicit, as well as the FBI forensics team. At any point, someone not in on it could have blown the whole plan by taking a forbidden cigarette or bathroom break & seeing what they shouldn’t have seen. Where was Epstein before he was arrested? He had been in Paris for a couple of weeks. He knew, through his lawyers, that a grand jury had been empaneled because GJ subpoenas had gone out. “Boss, I just got this subpoena. What should I do?” Top DOJ staff knew of the GJ & arrest warrant who would have had to be in on the hit. Why risk it in a jail when it could have been much more easily been done as a suicide or accident in Paris?
9. Did E’s wounds indicate murder? Dr. Michael Baden, coroner for hire who always finds for his clients (including his conclusion that Michael Brown was shot with his hands up, which even the Obama-Holder DOJ investigation said didn’t happen) said that cracks to the hyoid bone in the neck rarely happen in suicides. Problem is that’s not what the literature says. A 1996 study found hyoid bone fractures in 73% of males who hanged themselves. Another study found 80% of males 65+ had hyoid bone fractures (E was 66).
Epstein also did not have any tox results showing sedatives or narcotics in his system & no evidence of defensive wounds had he struggled.
10. If E was not blackmailing people (attorney Brad Edwards who interviewed well over 200 victims said he’d seen no evidence E had a list of clients or had blackmailed anyone) why would anyone kill him? The intel theory is absurd if you apply common sense - the CIA or Mossad would use a pervert who abused minors & could be arrested at any point & expose their entire op? Again, why not kill him in Paris? Or when he was first arrested (& no, Alex Acosta did not say he was told to lay off E because he was connected; that came from an anonymous “former senior WH staffer” in an anti-Trump magazine by a writer deemed unreliable by her editor & other writing staff & was debunked during a later ethics investigation).
So no, there is no real evidence E was murdered. The facts contradict this claim.
I agree with Matt’s points and they need to be stated but the larger point made by the commenter is wise. There’s room for a lot more nuance in reporting on this and not simply finding guilt by association, but Epstein’s story is the age old story of a man who can get away with victimizing young vulnerable women because of his wealth and power and because of the protection of his wealthy, powerful friends. That’s the very important larger point.
Nothing about Giuffre’s many whoppers? Accusing Alan Dershowitz of rape for eight years before retracting the claim? About the evidence from other girls about her recruiting history as an adult?
They can be victims and unreliable, victims and offenders. It all has to be weighed.
Actually I take back that Dersh is in the clear. Let's do some fucking reporting on what Giuffre has said about THAT.
And let's remember that a poor lady ending a three year lawsuit with a rich and powerful lawyer can sometimes be getting victimized again.
“I was shocked to read that Alan Dershowitz is claiming that our mutual dismissal of our lawsuits against each other somehow ‘exonerated’ him,” Giuffre said. “The litigation was very stressful and damaging to my family, and to my health. We have endured years in which Mr. Dershowitz asserted my charges against him were a lie, made up out of whole cloth, perjury, and part of a purported extortion plot. He has now admitted there was no perjury, no extortion plot, and that rather than making up what I said, I honestly believed the charges I made against him.
“Whether or not Mr. Dershowitz’s admissions undermine his previous denials of the charges made against him is for others to say. The settlement agreement limits what I can say and I will abide by it unless and until I am released from it. However, those admissions are not consistent with ‘exoneration.’
“Stopping the false charges against me, and securing Mr. Dershowitz’s public acknowledgement of my good faith was important to me and my family,” Giuffre continued in her statement. “However, I did not, and would never, ‘exonerate’ Mr. Dershowitz in return.”
Dershowitz is now in the clear and has no interest either way. He noted that because he was falsely accused, he got access to many documents during his defamation trials. And he now says: "I know for a fact documents are being suppressed, and they are being suppressed to protect individuals. I know the names of the individuals, I know why they are being suppressed, I know who's suppressing them. But I'm bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases, and I can't disclose what I know. But I, hand to god, I know the names of people whose files are being suppressed in order to protect them, and that's wrong."
1945 Dresden was a totally unnecessary war cime as was the firebombing of Japanese cities and the dropping of two atom bombs there. Taibbi is, like you, endorsing war crimes. Matt said on a podcast, for example, that he fully approved of Trump bombing Iran.
Dresden was absolutely a legitimate military target. Not only did it house many light industries supporting the Nazi war effort, but the rail yards were a gateway to the Eastern Front with the Soviets. It allowed shipping of arms, munitions, supplies & personnel to oppose the Soviets advance. Stalin had requested of the Allies anything they could do to soften Germany’s eastern flank making the Soviets advance less costly. There was also the impact on morale - bombing Dresden would be a serious blow to German morale & hasten the end of the war.
As far as dropping the nukes on Hiroshima & Nagasaki, Truman & staff had Magic intercepts showing the Japanese were gearing up for a suicidal defense of their homeland & were not close to surrender. The War Department estimated an invasion would cost ~250k dead & another ~250k-750k wounded Allied soldiers. Estimates of Japanese casualties included 1.5m-3m military dead & 2m-5m civilian deaths. The Japanese organized the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps (all men 15-60, all women 17-40), arming them with rifles, bamboo spears, grenades & satchel charges. Allied planners estimated that all of Japan’s major cities would be destroyed from aerial bombing & naval bombardment, railways & highways would be unusable, farms decimated along with the inability to bring food in to towns & cities. Utilities including electricity & water would be disrupted. This would lead to widespread disease & famine, adding as much as another 2m-5m dead civilians.
The War Department believed there would be so many military casualties from an invasion of mainland Japan, based upon earlier island attacks, that 495,000 Purple Heart medals were minted. We are still issuing these WWII relics today after awarding them in Korea, Viet Nam, & Afghanistan/Iraq.
Modern estimates of Japanese deaths from the atomic blasts & radiation in Hiroshima & Nagasaki are 90k-140k (Hiroshima) & 60k-80k (Nagasaki). So worst case 220k deaths vs 13m Japanese dead from invasion along with perhaps 250k Allied troops. Much of the Japanese infrastructure outside major cities was spared along with agricultural areas, allowing for faster recovery, along with saving over 18% of the civilian population.
The desire to end the war quickly using the atomic bombs had another benefit of putting Japan’s reconstruction under the US rather than Russia. The expected Russian invasion through Hokkaido, based on previous Soviet advances where speed was foremost & protection of civilians & infrastructure not a consideration, would have resulted in greater civilian deaths & infrastructure destruction. The Soviets had no plan for post-surrender Japan unlike the US, & it could have ended up with a partitioned nation like Germany or Korea.
So both Dresden & the atomic bombings in Japan were necessary.
Everthing you wrote here is bullshit. Japan was already negotiating a surrender. The only remainng sticking point was whether or not the emperor would remain as the head of the country. War crimes had already been committed in Japan even before HIroshima and Nagasaki. The firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities unnecessarily killed untold numbers of innocent civilians. The A-Bombs were dropped to intimidate the Sovet Union, and plans were already being made to drop atomic bombs all over Russia, China, and North Korea. Killing innocent civilians is a war crime whether it is in Germany, Japan, China, or Gaza. As to Germany, it had already lost WW2. There was no moral or legal or even pragmatic reason to firebomb Dresden.
Friend, I get it that as a socialist you have no concept of history or human nature, but there still are many evil people out there in the world who want you dead. There is no such a thing as a world citizen. There are many who want what you have & are very happy you will lay down & let them take it from you. If you ever have the chance to travel to places other than westernized countries you will learn more than you would ever imagine. If you live.
Its pretty clear we have become LITERALLY retarded as a Society. We currently exist in a world of pretty much nothing but 'narrative laundering'. I wonder where the edge of the cliff is....
It's amazing how many people seem to regard the lack of evidence in some claim as strong evidence in itself. "Yeah, but everybody knows ..." is the best they can come up with.
Seems to me that Epstein was a fairly ordinary sex obsessed bloke who liked youngish women and was prepared to pay for them. Lots of them.
As Matt says, there appear to be very few under 18 years old. So they were pretty well all adult women who acquiesced in the arrangement, largely for money. Isn't this viewed by feminists as female empowerment? Although feminists do seem to like to jump around if they can see what they call a 'power imbalance'. Not sure what rock they've lived under all their lives, but either women are entitled to have sex for money (or do it for free) or they're not. You can't have it both ways, as in 'it's all right some of the time, but not when it's someone we've decided to hate'.
My guess is there are a lot more people out there in the world who're doing WAY more sordid things than Epstein ever did. The lawyer Matt mentions above said he'd rate Epstein about a 4 out of 10 on the sordid scale. Sounds about right. My brother is a lawyer who deals with this sort of stuff a fair bit (poor him), and he sees many more sicko things than this in his job. And he's only one lawyer out of many thousands working on these sort of cases. Not just in America, but all over the world.
You know what I wish? I wish the mainstream media would actually do something useful and start exposing slavery around the world. It's largely women, often young girls. Now that'd be something really decent the media could get their teeth into. But for some reason, they prefer to exaggerate and lie about something pretty insignificant in the big scheme of things. Shame really. Such a waste of power the media could wield for good.
Bullshit. Ghislaine is in prison for raping/assaulting minors, teaching minors how to preform sex acts on Epstein, trafficking minors, and threatening young women (both over and under 18) with abuse or career repercussions for not playing ball. There are sworn affidavits from multiple victims in that case, girls as young as 15.
The only reason Epstein is not in jail for a lot more of this stuff is that he's dead. Tracey's reporting is the most bogus yet.
Most women who are part of "sex trafficking ring" are not minors and they don't have to be for it be illegal, particularly if you have your girlfriend start grooming and abusing them at 15-16.
Bollocks is right this is bullshit. Go watch the Sept 2025 victim press conference. There are three women on camera saying they were introed at 14 and made to do bad shit and that there was a revilving door of very young girls. One says she was introed at 14 by a 13 year old.
They all say too that they have been harassed, followed, and issued threats of harm and death. nuff said
This is why Matt and Mike are focusing on CONVICTIONS because anyone can SAY anything. It's only when it's tested/cross examined in court that the real evidence comes out.
Talk to any cop, and ask him about the gaping chasm between two peoples stories describing the exact same event. Even when people are not lying per say they pitch/spin the story to make themselves sound better, more innocent, it's human nature. When you have VG, who was caught making up most of the stuff about blackmail etc, even herself saying he asked for them to be over 18 that's bulletproof evidence he wasn't a pedo. Pedos don't specifically ask for people to be over age, the opposite. They drop hints and code words in the other direction.
So he's not actually a pedo, there does not seem to have been any actual sex, there is no evidence of blackmail, and the people he's photographed with didn't necessarily get these sexualised massages...so then the entire conspiracy is falling apart.
They are not focusing on convictions. They are involved in a conspiracy to say "there's such poor level of evidence that the reporting is completely indefensible".
They deny that any reporter could even take Giuffre seriously in 2013, NINE YEARS before she "recanted" anything.
What's true in reality, I don't care much. I've never believed the conspiracy theory level stuff, and still don't. I'm solely pushing back on this bullshit claim that "there has never been any reason at all to believe that Epstein introed women to other men for sexual favors, and this is the worst-reported story of all time", which Taibbi is explicitly saying. He is not saying "there's no proof". I agree there's no proof and would give zero fucks if they said that.
One of the funniest parts of all of this is everyone's inability to play in the grey. If you push back saying the entire journalistic enterprise might not have been completely off their rockers for believing a woman making additional claims against a proven sex offender, even for a while, 75% of the counterarguments are as if you said it's definitely the case that Mossad funded Epstein to get 9 year olds to take anal from Trump and Obama.
They’re not saying there is no evidence , they’ve carefully listed the evidence. You just want to believe it, I think, your mind is closed.
You are starting off with a conclusion and building evidence around it, disregarding anything that disproves or casts doubt on the central premise that this was a global child rape and blackmail cult. That’s your clue that you are emotionally invested rather than using your brain.
If evidence of blackmail and actual kids (or evidence of teenagers being forced into it and abused) comes out, I’ll look at it. My mind is not closed. I want the truth
This conversation started with this, and it's what I said was bullshit. Saying this is bullshit does not mean thtere'a global conspiracy, it means that Epstein himself molested a decent number of sub-18 year olds. In the context of sexual abuse, the gov't doesn't get three to join a trial unless there are plenty more, because accuers typically hold back.
"As Matt says, there appear to be very few under 18 years old. So they were pretty well all adult women who acquiesced in the arrangement, largely for money. "
I don't believe that any more because too many have come public saying putting public faces and names to it. I believed it as recently ago as 6 months ago. But they all went public in Sept, the women who were on the 2019 indictment as minors.
One of the funniest parts of all of this is everyone's inability to play in the grey. If you push back saying the entire journalistic enterprise might not have been completely off their rockers for believing a woman making additional claims against a proven sex offender, even for a while, 75% of the counterarguments are as if you said it's definitely the case that Mossad funded Epstein to get 9 year olds to take anal from Trump and Obama.
Fair enough. Let's drop "ring" and replace it with "random caravan of wealthy men traveling to the island of women of various ages." Having seen the photos, they weren't there for the deluxe accommodations, were they.
But then that wouldn't be much different than what you usually get with wealthy men and young women. Are we going to investigate the typical rock band tour caravan or professional athletes in town for a game caravan? There's ugly shit in the world, and most of it we shrug our shoulders at.
Look behind the wheel of every BMW or Porsche SUV you pass. Almost invariably, it's some hot youngish (or desperately trying to be) woman who was clear eyed in her youth and 'eyes wide open parlayed hotness into a very nice life. Al the 'victim' talk bores me.
I knew girls in high school that followed rock bands performances. They definitely did some hooking up and definitely were under 18 and they definitely shared their experiences. But of course, we didn’t have social media back then.
Interesting point. Different world and different attitudes. Lola was released in 1970. Clocked at 9 on the hot 100 and 2 in the UK. Nobody cared one way or the other.
This is true as far as it goes. I think the difference is that rock bands and athletes don't pretend to run the country. The only good thing that might come out of this is indisputable proof of rot at the top. I'm not holding my breath though.
I answered this someplace but can't find it. I mean politicians who pretend they were elected to pose for the camera and speak in self- important sound bites
Yes, as are all powerful men lusting after willing girls young enough to be their daughters. My only point would be that I don’t trust such corrupted powers-that-be to know the public good were they to trip over it. That's all. I just don't trust such people to lead, and it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing to blast them out of their hypocritical self-importance.
Perfect. Wealthy men who need to be exposed as johns, charged with sex crimes like every other john should be, and also, those who abused minor girls/boys sent to jail for statutory rape.
Charged by the same govt that has had this evidence all of this time, right? Because now you get to see some redacted information that won't substantiate a crime.
Matt will write article after article about epstein not trafficking woman, the thing he was convicted for, but he wont spend one hour doing actual journalism about epstein.
Ghislaine Maxwell WAS convicted of conspiring with Epstein to traffick women! Her convictions--for conspiring with Epstein to commit sex crimes--are the very definition of a sex ring.
She was convicted, and is in prison for conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to sexually exploit and abuse MULTIPLE MINOR GIRLS over the course of a decade.
She also was convicted of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, transporting minors to participate in illegal sex acts, sex trafficking conspiracy, and sex trafficking of a minor.
The only thing missing from the official record are the identities of the males who Epstein/Maxwell trafficked the girls to.
"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."
Again, none of that is in dispute. Its also not the fucking point. What IS the point being made is that, until names are named, by somebody, anybody, there is nothing but conjecture and its wily cousin, conspiracy. And, since we as a Public have been fed so much utter bullshit about so much in such a short timeline, some fatigue is not only understandable, but to be expected.
Try reading the DOJ announcement of Maxwell's conviction slowly. I'll put the key words in caps to help.
"Wily cousin, conspiracy." Note that Maxwell was convicted of CONSPIRACY--WITH EPSTEIN!
Excerpt below, and link to full announcement below that:
"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."
Sorry for my ineptitude in clarifying the obvious.
This whole discussion is in response to Taibbi's rant about the lack of evidence that Epstein and Maxwell, et al were running a sex ring.
I've shown clearly here that Maxwell was convicted of running a sex ring, conspiring with Epstein, who was in jail awaiting trial on the same charges when he died.
I've noted that the only thing missing is the identities of the clients/customers/abusers--although their existence is assumed since the Maxwell/Epstein sex ring was "trafficking minors for illegal sex acts."
"...until names are named..."
The lack of identification of the abusers should be a signal, if you're an investigative journalist, to INVESTIGATE. To do what investigative journalists do--get out there and find the names!
Taibbi refusing to investigate, and instead attacking those who call the Epstein/Maxwell sex ring a "sex ring," is puzzling at least, and disturbing at most.
"...dunno what to tell ya"
No need to tell me anything. Rest your troubled mind and continue in incurious ignorance.
Shockingly idiotic. Did anyone name any names in that comment? Do you think they trafficked the girls to no one? You are using strawman argument saying that because someone made one accusation that can't be proven therefore it wasn't a sex ring. How dumb.
Wtf is ur point here Bri? Theres no strawman or idiocy in anything Taibbi wrote. Nor I. Learn what that shit ACTUALLY means wouldya?
What IS idiocy is just shouting out more garbage in order to...what? Im tellin ya man...ur not gonna get a new hat for pissing into the wind, or for being another righteous indignation warrior, or whatever tf ur on about. Jfc dude...
You are wasting your time TWC. I've tried this before. You are arguing with the type of mindset that believes in the Pentagon being hit with a missile and the passengers of Flight 93 were landed and deplaned secretly.
This has risen to conspiracy theory.
You can't fight that with logic, it's EMOTIONAL BELIEF not rational belief. No convincing argument will change their minds. If you think you have stumbled on the secret 'grand unified political theory of everything' you will never let go of that because it's too amazing.
The implication is that all the persistent problems we have are all unsolved not because the world is complex and our leaders are just not very bright because we don't put bright people in charge...no the reason is a secret cabal makes sure that the people who rise high in politics are pedos, then they ship them to an island, blackmail them, and make them their bi1tch.
This kind of conspiracy thinking is so seductive because the easy conclusion is: if all the levers of everything, all over the world, can be pulled from the centre of a spiderweb like this, then we just need to give us good guys control of that centre and all will be fixed! It's too neat, they NEED to believe it.
Some are just reacting emotionally to the 'child rape' thing and they don't know how actual, real world, paedophiles operate (they are nowhere near as elaborate, smart or difficult to catch as this conspiracy suggests) so they don't know any different.
The accusation, and conviction was not that she trafficked the girls to others, it was that she sent them to Epstien for this sexualised massage bullshit and they were under 18
There is nowhere in that text that implies that there was a huge organised global network.
"Ghislaine Maxwell WAS convicted of conspiring with Epstein to traffick women! Her convictions--for conspiring with Epstein to commit sex crimes--are the very definition of a sex ring."
Yes, Maxwell was convicted of conspiring with Epstein to lure young women to have sex, but ONLY with Epstein. Wikipedia's definition of "sex ring":
"A child sex ring is a group of adults who are simultaneously involved sexually with multiple minors during the same general time frame."
There is no "group of adults...involved sexually with multiple minors" noted or identified in the DOJ press release you supplied, only sex with Epstein. I believe that's Matt's point.
1. A "group" can be two. Epstein and Maxwell were a group.
2. Epstein brought "groups" of men to his properties where they consorted with minor, and barely legal, girls. Some of the girls have testified that they were molested and raped by men at Epstein/Maxwell's behest.
3. Pretending that the men Epstein brought to his properties, to consort with the minors in his sex ring, were not partaking of Epstein's goods is naive at best, and willfully ignorant.
There is massive evidence that other men were involved in Epstein/Maxwell's sex ring.
Because the government, and those who control the government, won't allow an official investigation of the details doesn't make it go away.
It's a quite simple logical exercise.
Taibbi is an investigative reporter. Instead of splitting definitional hairs, he should be on this case--asking questions, gathering details, interviewing, digging into document releases (remember Twitter Files? Seems like he's forgotten).
Look at the perverse incentives here. How many of them (who had in reality come to that island willingly) claimed the horrors AFTER a multi million dollar fund was set up that the victims could take from?
Do you not see how that would make anyone lie or exaggerate?
Do you not see how false bullshit like this (they were fucking in their late teens for Gods sake!!!!!) takes the attention away from actual pedos and their victims?
However, years, maybe decades before any victim fund, authorities identified dozens, maybe hundreds of under-age victims.
"Estimates of the total number of girls allegedly abused by Epstein varies, with accounts ranging from a few dozen to over 100. The recent indictment charges Epstein with sexually exploiting and abusing “dozens” of underage girls at his homes in Manhattan, Palm Beach, and other locations, with allegations dating back as far as 2002. However, it seems likely that the total number of victims is much higher.
"Investigations into Epstein began in 2005, after the parents of a 14-year-old girl told Palm Beach police that Epstein had molested their daughter at his home. According to the Miami Herald, by 2008, when Epstein was granted his now-infamous plea deal, federal prosecutors had identified 36 underage victims.
"Julie K. Brown, the Miami Herald journalist who published a series of articles on the allegations against Epstein, told the New York Times that early in the process of reporting, she received a heavily redacted police report that mentioned more than 100 Jane Does. In November 2018, Brown reported that the Herald had identified about 80 women who alleged that they were molested or sexually abused by Epstein between 2001 and 2006. Of these women, the Herald was able to locate around 60, eight of whom agreed to be interviewed."
The victims were ignored, his crimes were minimized ("He's intel. Leave him alone.") and his perversion snow-balled.
As for whining that the trafficked girls were "late teens," or some other justification, change the law if you don't like it. Having sex with a minor is illegal. The age of consent differs in different states, but all states have an age under which it's illegal. Thousands of men have done time in prison for having sex with 17 year olds. Not a very good excuse.
"1. A "group" can be two. Epstein and Maxwell were a group."
Now you're parsing. The WHOLE phrase is "a group of adults who are simultaneously involved sexually..." Nowhere does the conviction indicate Maxwell was involved sexually. She was convicted of conspiring with Epstein to supply him (and only him) with women. Period.
"There is massive evidence that other men were involved in Epstein/Maxwell's sex ring."
Be that as it may, and I don't doubt it, nor does Matt refute it. It hasn't been adjudicated. I believe that's Matt's point.
"It hasn't been adjudicated. I believe that's Matt's point."
And my point is that Matt's job is NOT to adjudicate issues. He's an INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER! His job is to investigate! Dig into documents (a la Twitter Files). Discover hidden connections. Interview. Analyze, Report.
Instead we have Taibbi here arguing fine semantic points, and ignoring the huge mass of evidence just waiting for an investigative reporter to do his actual job.
All of the charges were based on Epstein; no others were mentioned. Indeed, when the court denied the DOJ’s motion to unseal the Maxwell Grand Jury documents, the judge specifically noted that the transcripts would not reveal any clients or a list.
“A member of the public familiar with the Maxwell trial record who reviewed the grand jury materials that the Government proposes to unseal would thus learn next to nothing new. The materials do not identify any person other than Epstein and Maxwell as having had sexual contact with a minor. They do not discuss or identify any client of Epstein's or Maxwell's. They do not reveal any heretofore unknown means or methods of Epstein's or Maxwell's crimes. They do not reveal new venues at which their crimes occurred. They do not reveal new sources of their wealth. They do not explore the circumstances of Epstein's death. They do not reveal the path of the Government's investigation.”
Please read the Maxwell indictment as well as the judge’s denial of the DOJ’s motion to unseal grand jury testimony in the Maxwell case.
From the indictment:
“1. The charges set forth herein stem from the role of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, in the sexual exploitation and abuse of multiple-minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. In particular, from at least in or about 1994, up to and including at least in or about 1997, MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18. The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew that certain victims were in fact under the age of 18.
“2. As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to Epstein's residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse. Moreover, in an effort to conceal her crimes, MAXWELL repeatedly lied when questioned about her conduct, including in relation to some of the minor victims described herein, when providing testimony under oath in 2016.”
Note that Maxwell was not alleged or charged with trafficking minors (or adults) to anyone other than Epstein.
From Judge Paul A. Engelmayer’s (S.D.N.Y.) denial of the motion to unseal the Maxwell grand jury proceedings:
“A member of the public familiar with the Maxwell trial record who reviewed the grand jury materials that the Government proposes to unseal would thus learn next to nothing new. The materials do not identify any person other than Epstein and Maxwell as having had sexual contact with a minor. They do not discuss or identify any client of Epstein’s or Maxwell’s. They do not reveal any heretofore unknown means or methods of Epstein’s or Maxwell’s crimes.”
You are correct, I misspoke. Only convicted for sex with underage girls and federally charged with sex trafficking, during which he committed suicide before trial.
Today I learned that powerful, wealthy men have access to many nubile, willing and enthusiastic sexual partners. Tomorrow I plan to learn that my cat thinks of me as a two-legged can opener that also grooms him on demand.
Looks like I need to increase the dosage of my antidepressants.
Also good idea to learn about the age of consent in the US. Child rape doesn't depend on whether they are nubile, willing or enthusiastic, no matter how much some may want it to. Unless they want to flee to Israel to live out their pedophile life there.
Yeah…if only the rich and powerful understood laws involving age of consent…then none of this would have happened. Are you really that naive? Read “Lolita;” you’re a few decades behind the curve.
Good one! See my comment to your idiotic comments listing the facts involved. Going to say Maxwell wasn't convicted of sex trafficking as his accomplice also?
Ghislaine Maxwell, his partner and associate, was convicted in 2021 for sex trafficking minors. Her conviction was directly tied to conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to recruit, traffic, and abuse minors. That and a few hundred million in settlements of hundreds of victims. And the thousands of pages of work by good journalists documenting the case.
He was federally charged with sex trafficking minors. Mayhe just on rumors tho
Matt have been a subscriber for a while. Why oh why have you jumped on the E-train? Really. Am really sick of the whole debacle. You have so many other topics to delve into. Are your readers or Americans in general so obsessed with National Inquirer type shite to continue to care about this? Go rent “ Eyes Wide Shut” instead and watch it every day. Enough!
"because important men don’t think ruining the lives of young girls matters very much."
Are you suggesting if some other criminality were involved (drugs, $ laundering, pay-for-political influence, etc.) that these "important men" would not have granted the "sweetheart deal"? IMO, the sweetheart deal had nothing with the fact that it involved "the lives of young girls"; if anything, whatever deal he got was because he knew too much, and important people with power wish to avoid scandal or embarrassment irrespective of the crime.
What sweetheart deal are you talking about? The federal non-prosecution agreement (NPA) that was crafted by 2 female career sex crimes prosecutors that was done to a) get a plea deal at the state level without dragging victims into court & b) avoid the possible acquittal because his victims were also his facilitators (the girls were paid the same for giving Epstein massages as for bringing in new girls).
The notion that Epstein got a good deal in FL because of connections is not supported by the facts in the case or the investigation & prosecution history.
Clearly. Matt is desperate to ask, "what sex ring?
1. Epstein was charged with sex trafficking and committed suicide before his trial.
2. Epstein was accused by many dozens of women in sworn testimony that they were trafficked by epstein to powerful men.
3. Epstein was rumored to be trafficking woman, specifically underage women, by dozens of sources. (Endless citations) ask Mrs McCain.
4. Maxwell was charged and convicted of sex trafficking as his accomplice and is currently in prison.
Please dispute these facts.
Anyone who claims to be a journalist who would say, "what sex ring?", is obviously either an idiot or is obfuscating on purpose. You can pick whichever you prefer.
No one is denying shit went on meathead....but where, when, to whom, etc. is whats pertinent here...and ACTUAL journalism involves knowing the diff btwn gossip, rumor, etc and consciously NOT following that crap. But, as I said elsewhere, its the jockeying for narrative that is paramount now. Do u prefer that one more guy (Taibbi) just throw more garbage into the fire? And then what?
Apparently asking what sex ring isnt denying there's a sex ring to you, meathead. And apparently it somehow refutes something? Who said where or when or whom? Still can't refute the facts I listed? Matt has been jockeying for narrative- the narrative the epstein was not trafficking women to powerful men. Which could only be believed if you were a clueless idiot and didn't want to read for 5 minutes.
That is not what I wrote. Or what Michael wrote. I’m not saying definitively Epstein didn’t traffic to third parties. I’m saying there is no evidence of this. Neither of his criminal cases even allege it. The only stories suggesting this came from highly questionable narrators in civil cases, and the allegations are all vague:unnamed powerful men at unnamed times and dates, mentioned years after conflicting stories. It’s possible, but it’s not supported. As for Trump I don’t care what the files say about him - if he made jokes about rolling with underage girls, let’s see it. It’s not like his history makes that unlikely. But his history isn’t evidence. The whole point is to get back to what the evidence says. Which isn’t much, when it comes to people apart from Epstein.
Hey Google! Was Ghislaine Maxwell convicted of directly conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to sex traffic minors? Hey google, tell Matt so he stops embarrassing himself!
He committed suicide while being literally charged with sex trafficking. There are more than a few dozen of sworn And his partner and associate Maxwell was charged and convicted of trafficking minors, with sworn, corroborated testimonies, in court, on the record. Maybe I just don't know what evidence means? To be a journalist and say nothing is ever official unless you find a written note in blood by the person admitting their guilt is ridiculous. You are ignoring overwhelming evidence and underplaying the available evidence. Including the over 1,000 victims (only according to the FBI and Dept of Justice).
You know Matt, this sounds like all the screaming about Trump being a rapist. When the fact is he was never convicted of that. You are reporting what the courts stated and the rest are allegations.
There are over 1,000 victims identified by the dept of justice and fbi, over 200 victims that settled with the estate for over $150mil, over 200 victims that settled with JP Morgan chase for $290mil, and dozens more that settled with Deutche and others for millions. Dozens identified by Miami Herald reporting. Dozens by prosecutors in Florida. Hundreds of testimonies. And way more that is redacted or withheld from the public for some reason.
I'm honestly starting to think the entire thing is BS.
This is giving me JFK conspiracy vibes. For years we kept being told it's coming the proof is coming, new files are coming out....then nothing. It's an endless cock tease.
If there were members of an organized ring we've members of congress involved who could have used their parliamentary immunity from being sued for slander and named them and spoke what evidence they had (getting around the utter bollocks excuse that the girls are afraid of being sued cos they signed NDAs...Jesus people don't know how the law works, an NDA cannot cover up a criminal act, it has no force in that situation).
I think it was just this...skeezy massages the guy gets off too cos he can't fuck normally...and he had all these big shots in politics around him cos he donated to DNC/RNC and AIPAC...that's it...I really think that's it.
Imagine if people cared that much about the underage victims of the extensive grooming gangs in the UK. Or the pimps actively running wild in places like Seattle, where the government funded a convicted kiddie pimp. Is this really about the girls, or just Trump... again?
Done. 1) Epstein was charged in the most recent case and committed suicide in jail. The case was dropped because he was dead and there was no conviction. 2) "Epstein was accused by many women in sworn testimony ..." . Those were civil cases, those women were suing for money. Thus the "sworn testimony" resulted in zero convictions for criminal activity. 3) Epstein was rumored to be trafficking women is just that - rumors. It is of zero significance outside the henhouse. 4) Maxwell was convicted independently of conspiracy to entice, conspiracy to transport, transporting, sex trafficking and conspiracy to sex traffick. The convictions all related to minor girls. Her convictions were upheld by the appellate court and the Supreme Court declined to take her case. She currently has pending a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The basis of that petition is an allegation of "substantial new evidence" that undermines the convictions. Epstein's only conviction was in the 2008 Florida case and was for solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of prostitution with a minor. This case was where the allegation pertaining to the 14 year old was involved but it is my understanding her allegations did not result in conviction. Furtheore it does not appear any of the women were charged with prostitution. PTL courts do not operate on feels, rumors , or "what everybody knows. Rather they proceed on admissable evidence which has been verified and authenticated. Testimonial evidence is subject to cross-examination. This was MTs point. He wants to see the evidence, not the accusation.
So far Maxwell is convicted. Rumors and accusations are not proof. As for Epstein himself the proof will never come. But you know, since you are good with rumor as fact, the rumor is he was murdered. And not by Maxwell. The simple truth is that I do not know what happened with Epstein. Taibbi does not know what happened with Epstein. But neither do you.
Am I asking what sex ring as a journalist? Or am I looking at the totality of information available and presenting facts?
Was Maxwell his partner and associate, living with him and traveling with him and trafficking women for him? Obviously. You'd have to not have a brain to pretend Maxwell is separate and was sex trafficking all by herself while living and traveling and working with epstein as his partner.
I don't think that anyone here is claiming Epstein is an innocent, however your complaint against Matt doesn't hold up. An actual journalist reports verifiable facts. You, in reality, have no concrete evidence, only supposition. Maybe you've been conditioned to believe that actual hard evidence is not needed. Lord knows the legacy media has pushed that notion for the last 10 years. You had better hope that you never tick off the "wrong" people and find yourself defending against rumors, because according to your metrics for conviction, well...don't bend over to grab the soap.
He remains obsessed with tying Epstein questions to people who have Trump Derangement Syndrome, which I don't. Some of us have been calling for investigations into Epstein's activities long before dems tried to use it for politics. And pretending to deny Epstein was involved with sex trafficking, among other serious crimes, makes you into an ignorant, anti-journalist hack.
Why call for investigations when you have decided Epstein was guilty of "sex trafficking [to others]...among other [unstated serious crimes"? What exactly do you think happened; why has nobody concluded a comprehensive and air-tight investigation; and is Taibbi obligated to lead the mob, or is just grabbing a flaming torch enough? Should journalist be independent and critical thinkers, or should just jump on the current thing. What makes one an "anti-journalist hack"?
There were investigations dummy. He got a sweetheart deal and immunity, and then was indicted and charged with sex trafficking and died before facing justice, while his accomplice was convicted and is in prison. There are thousands of pages and videos etc of evidence being held by the government and others, files reacted, etc, hence the massive call by the population to release the files. You people are purposely playing dumb because you can't ignore that much of a mountain of evidence available.
Since you have proof that he did not, I'm sure a lot of people would love to see it. I don't think he did either, but my thinking it is not proof. We will never get proof one way or the other, so it's really just pointless speculation to assume anything about it.
You are mistaken. The claim that Epstein trafficked minors or adult women to others is primarily based upon the claims of Virginia Giuffre (née Roberts, aka Doe #3). She consistently claimed she was trafficked to 4 men. One was dead before she accused him & could not respond. One was always accompanied by his wife on Epstein’s jet or at his properties. One settled with her, but whether that was forced by the Queen to stifle the scandal or was evidence of guilt will probably never be known. One claim she withdrew after he produced travel docs including his visa in litigation showing he was not where she said he abused her.
Several others have anonymously or publicly claimed they were trafficked. One appears to not exist except as a figment of the imagination of a publicist trying to hurt Trump; “she” filed suits in NYC & CA but withdrew them. She never appeared for scheduled press conferences & her high-profile celebrity lawyer admitted she’d never met her. Another woman admitted she had made the story up as a way to draw attention to Epstein.
Only about 4-5 women have claimed they were pimped out to others. All of them have either withdrawn their claims or have been shown to be fabulists to my knowledge. I welcome specific claims with legitimate citations if you know of others.
Name the women you believe have said they were trafficked to others & we can move forward.
They definitely flew to the island by the hundreds for the innocent sunbathing and the casual hangouts while epstein alone abused over 1,000 girls and no one saw anything or did a thing. And all the assassinations were a lone gunman because the courts. And Andrew had his royal titles removed because of bad press and his sweating disease. And jean luc brunel didn't do anything either because he hung himself before conviction too. And ghislaine got 20 years because she hooked epstein up with some women, no big deal.
Where do you get that hundreds of people flew to LSJ? This is just a part of what you “know” that isn’t true. Your source for “hundreds,” please.
The majority of the girls/women Epstein abused were SAed in FL, not LSJ. His method was to recruit a young girl to give him “massages” for $200; he would groom them to initially massage him topless, then give him hand jobs. He rarely if ever had coitus with his “masseuses.” There was speculation by some of the girls that his misshapen penis was due to his excessive sexual appetite (3 sexual massages a day, often with 3 girls, was not uncommon). He recruited girls starting in 2000 (first reported incident) & continued until his arrest in 2019. 1000 girls over that period would average 51 a year, or a new one every week. Most were used to recruit other girls they knew for $200 an acceptable recruit (girls reported he would reject girls over 25). It worked like a pyramid scheme.
Only a few favorites are known to have traveled with him to his Paris flat, LSJ, NM Zorro ranch, or NY townhouse.
Victim lawyer Brad Edwards explained how Epstein managed his girls. Most (after initial recruitment) would get a call & E or M would send a car or cab to pick them up. They would enter through the kitchen, be taken to E for his “massage” then either be escorted (if new) or find their own way back to the kitchen where they could get something to eat before being sent home. If the recruiter was just there to bring a new girl they would stay in the kitchen until the “masseuse”was done.
As attorney Edwards said in one interview:
“Edwards describes the enigmatic Epstein as living, essentially, two separate lives: one in which he was sexually abusing women and girls "on a daily basis," and another in which he associated with politicians, royalty, and titans of business, academia, and science.
“For the most part, those two worlds did not overlap. And where they overlapped, in the instances they overlapped, it seems to be a very small percentage," Edwards said. "There were occasions where a select few of these men engaged in sexual acts with a select few of the girls that Jeffrey Epstein was exploiting or abusing -- primarily girls who were over the age of 18."
This is lawyer speak for “I don’t know of any third parties who had sex with minors; if I had any such clients, I’d sue those bastards as well.”
This interview starts off with a telling sentence:
“Brad Edwards knows that what you are about to read may be difficult for some to accept.”
People want to believe there was a big pedo ring run by E & M. I remember during Covid when Q had “inside scoop” that the hospital ships Trump ordered to NYC & LA were really to house the hundreds of pedos the military was ready to round up. Didn’t happen. But you can always find conspiracy theories about international pedo rings. The proof never materializes. Not to worry - this just proves how powerful they are!
Not sure what your digression is about lone gunmen but I guess that’s just part of your belief in constant, vast conspiracies by people much smarter than everyone else.
Andrew definitely lost his military titles, the right to use “HRH,” & his patronage because of his association with E & the Giuffre allegations. He retains his peerage as the Duke of York. As a lawyer I’m not willing to say his settlement with Giuffre indicates guilt. I’ve done too many settlements to end litigation when my client was not at fault just to get it over with. But of all Giuffre’s claims of other men than E I think this is the most likely to be true. I can only imagine what the Queen thought of the scandal, & it is not out of the question that she told him to settle to stop the bad press even if she thought him innocent. Just because Giuffre was a very troubled woman who was a known fabulist I think the odds that they had relations at 75% or even higher. We know they were together in London & elsewhere.
Jean-Luc Brunel was Epstein’s European pimp. He had a “modeling agency” & would bring girls from the EU (mostly France) to FL using modeling visas. Some victims said he SAed them & I don’t doubt it. Pimps abuse girls. Hardly a powerful elite client of E’s - E was his client. But an important name in the Epstein saga as someone who trafficked girls to Epstein, not the other way around.
Maxwell got 20 years for facilitating E’s assaults on young women. I invite you to read her indictment & charges (which I’ve posted elsewhere in these comments). If you read paragraphs 1-8 of the indictment, reiterated for every count, you find that Maxwell’s crimes (alleged in the indictment & found guilty in the trial) involved her actions to provide girls to Epstein & no other. Try as you might, there is no indication that she trafficked or transported girls for anyone beside Epstein. The judge who denied the DOJ’s request to unseal Maxwell’s grand jury transcripts noted that they would not reveal anything not publicly discussed at her trial - no list of clients, no third parties that had sex with young girls. Nothing new.
Your entire argument is just trying to discredit women that have come forward on record, hundreds, who have been paid millions in settlements, apparently all for no reason, by your logic.
See the problem is 'xyz accusation' is not evidence ok?
Do you understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty? Do you know why it's set up like that? Because anyone can say anything!!! Anyone can say anything. Things prosecutors believe and cops believe get ripped apart in court every day. PEOPLE LIE.
VG lied her ass off about secret sites around Europe where the blackmail tapes were. Then when a prosecutor said "Ok I want those tapes tell me their exact locations" she admitted she made it up. How many others were doing that? Making stuff up to the millions in compensation money? You don't see how that could make dishonest or morally bankrupt people lie? Especially the type of people who would claim to have a bad experience with a sleazeball then recruit other young girls FOR that sleazeball?
This is why we can't just rely on accusations, we have to go with convictions.
Look at the Duke Lacrosse case. We had a victim there who SAID they gang raped her. Everyone bought it. EVERYONE. It was all over the internet and all over the papers I remember it. If you defended those guys by pointing out the giant holes in her story you got your head taken off. It was only when a proper investigation was done and it was going to go to court that the truth came out.
You cannot just rely on accusations. Accusations are NOT PROOF.
Number four is the only adjudicated (i.e., proven) item:
"4. Maxwell was charged and convicted of sex trafficking as his accomplice and is currently in prison.?"
True, but the conviction ONLY included interactions with Epstein, and did not include interactions with other men. That's Matt's point concerning the "sex ring". Read the DOJ press release:
Save it. There are plenty of others who will pretend to know something while they pull their leads from Chat GPT and you will probably be happy to read them.
Yeah, I'm extremely disappointed in Matt here for not giving this subject the 'vampire squid' treatment that made him the amazing reporter he once was. Probably dropping this subscription.
I’ve never been an Epstein fanatic, but as I see it, the most suspicious thing about him is how fast and how high he rose with no talent, connections, or accomplishments.
How does a college dropout without a teaching credential get a teaching job at an elite private school? When he gets fired from that job for allegations of impropriety, how does he quickly get hired by the elite NYC investment firm run by the father of one of his students, in spite of having no experience in finance?
Matt’s right, the evidence that Epstein was running a sexual blackmail ring is circumstantial. But if blackmail isn’t the reason that throughout his career, Epstein was repeatedly able to get powerful men to give him things, you have to wonder, what WAS the reason? Epstein would have to have had some kind of brilliance or charisma that I just don’t see evidence of.
Do you guys remember Bernie Madoff? Not that he was involved in sex stuff, but he was a con man and a lot of very smart people made him super rich. He even fooled the SEC. Epstein was a con man too .
Yes. And Madoff apparently did know a lot about the machinery of NSDAQ. (It is my understanding that he helped found it.) He just found being a con man was a more reliable path to wealth.
Was with you until “He even fooled the SEC.” The SEC was delivered tangible proof that he could not have attained the investment returns he was reporting -3 different times. They either could not understand the information provided (real possibility) or ignored it as Madoff had some very “connected” clients.
Well, isn’t that fooling them? He gave them his clearing number with the depository trust and they never checked on it to determine the securities were actually being transacted. I would say they got fooled…or didn’t do their job.
Ok. My point was he was well known and respected in the investment community. They asked for his clearing number but never checked into it. Call it what you may, but to me they didn’t because they assumed he wouldn’t have been conducting a Ponzi scheme. If they had merely done a simple check to see zero security trades in his account they would have discovered his scheme. Yet, they didn’t and it continued on until the market crash.
Apparently he was not talentless. It seems he was pretty good at math; good enough to teach it at the high school level. Being a college dropout is obviously not always a sign of lack of ability. Some dropouts usually named as examples are Bill Gates, Edwin Land (Polaroid), Steve Jobs, etc.
It does seem though that blackmail was also in his skill set.
Sorry, but that’s a ludicrous argument. That’s like saying apparently Hunter Biden was pretty good at fossil fuel extraction, as proven by the fact that he was handed a job on the board at a Ukrainian energy company in spite of his lack of credentials.
I’ve been in education for over 20 years, and I can assure you people don’t get teaching jobs at elite NYC prep schools because they’re “good at” the subject they teach. The parents writing checks to these elite schools are doing so because the faculty either have advanced degrees from prestigious schools, or impressive careers and accomplishments in those fields. I agree you don’t need a college degree to be smart. But Bill Gates and Steve Jobs created products that sold in the hundreds of millions. I don’t think Epstein got rich by being good at solving for X
I work in higher education and I've seen plenty of un- and under-qualified rise up. Sometimes life is who you know, how you talk, and how you manipulate.
I'm not going to review everything I wrote but maybe I wasn't clear enough. I think it was likely he got his teaching job through connections but he would not have gotten it if he didn't have some competence in the subject. There I do not think he was "talentless".
What are you talking about? What connections? He was a nobody. What talent? He had no accomplishments.
I’m saying there is a gap in the explanation of how he rose to the top. A curious person who wanted to report news would try to look into that gap, not explain it away
He started tutoring classmates in MATH while in Junior High. He impressed a parent of one of the students he tutored enough to be offered a job at the investment/stock firm Bear Stearns after graduating from high school at age 16 after skipping two grades. (I know what that is like. I did the same thing in the same school system. Skipped third and eighth grades. He attended P.S. 188. I went to P.S. 182.). He was not "talentless". Why do you insist he was?
I’m not insisting he’s talentless. I’m saying talent isn’t what got him his island, or that job at Bear Stearns. I also believe that you have talent at math, just as much as Epstein. What sea is your island in? What elite New York financial firm did you get a job at?
But he DID teach Math at a private school for awhile. So he got the gig through connections despite the fact he knew nothing about the subject? Now THAT'S a "sweet gig".
If he got the teaching job through the offices of wealthy and influential friends maybe they could have gotten him a job in a field in which he had some knowledge and competence instead of Math?
I did not say nor have I read anyone saying Epstein became wealthy by knowing how to solve for X.
You said he had talent in math. I’m saying I doubt talent in math is what got him that job. I won’t dispute he was good at math. I’m sure he was great at math. There are plenty of people out there who can teach high school math quite well, some with college decrees, some without. Most of them could not get a job at an elite NYC prep school. Whatever game Epstein was running, it wasn’t the math game.
I'd have to go back and check the exact words and sentence construction but I don't believe I wrote I thought he got the teaching job because he was good at Math. I wrote having the job indicates he was good enough in Math to get the job no matter how he actually got it. Even without having that job I find no particular reason to believe he was not mathematically competent, if not gifted. If you think he was not good in Math why do you think that?
Getting a job teaching high-school math might require somebody vouching for you, but it’s pretty small potatoes to characterize that as “running a game”.
Once you have the job it doesn’t take a genius to teach the subject.
I’m retired after having six different full-time jobs. I think it’s true that for every job but the first one I got in the door because someone there knew me.
Epstein was a nice looking young guy, apparently smart enough to teach math and physics convincingly. And play piano. What's not to like? How did Elizabeth Holmes get big shots to invest in Theranos?
Or look at the career of Des Moines Public Schools Superintendent Ian Roberts. The guy made an entire career of lies, fraud, and criminal activity...on top of being an illegal alien.
And Elizabeth Holmes got the big shots to invest in Theranos by convincing them she had a suitcase-sized device that could give quick, accurate blood tests. She gave demonstrations where this seemed to work. What was the narrative Epstein was selling?
This might sound absurd but there are actually nice looking guys who are good at math and play the piano who DON’T own their own islands. I almost think “what’s not to like” might not be an adequate explanation for how a non-island-owner becomes an island-owner
Michael Tracey has written on this. Two of the billionaires that were clients of Epstein issued reports on their financial involvement with him. Leon Black apparently paid Epstein over $150 million in fees for financial planning/money management in the 2010s. (see here: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1411494/000119312521016405/d118102dex991.htm)
Epstein had other financial clients, too. Les Wexner is a known one. IIRC, Ghislaine Maxwell mentioned some others during her proffer interview. He worked privately with rich individuals, so there is no public trail of information for the media to trace.
By definition capitalism doesn't need defending. It is the exercise of power. Power doesn't need a pep talk or cheerleaders--it's fucking power. When you can back it up, you don't need spandex back up dancers.
Being a psychopath is incredibly important in the raw exercise of power. Morality is one of the biggest obstacles to all power.
Epstein's marketable and very valuable talent was being a psychopath.
Side note: Capitalism eats cheerleaders whole--by definition. Think about it.
Not adequately blowing Floyd doesn't mean I love Zeppelin. (they both have some great stuff--sure there is some filler--and drugs, but still epic runs)
But frankly, my last post was an ode to capitalism.
Power is not a bad word.
Let me try this--and this applies to socialism, capitalism, and cheerleaders.
I don't even know what a "11 figure lifestyle is". As far as I know he did not have a mega yacht and from the pictures I've seen, "Pedo Island" was not all that impressive.
I think Epstein’s real money came from being the person managing the sales of weapons throughout the world. Darryl Cooper and Mike Benz do some really good analysis of this. So, it makes sense that Epstein would have a very diverse set of friends who liked to be with someone who could get them young p**y and seemed to float above the law. Until he didn’t. What’s surprising to me is I haven’t heard a lot about what happened during the summer of 2019 when someone/entity said ‘ok, Epstein has to go’. Cause, he was gone quickly, whether by his own hand or not.
It is maddening that so many people are such shallow drama addicts who don't let real truth get in the way of their perversions. My husband and I worked with a group called "Truckers Against Trafficking" about a decade ago as well as unwittingly helping a person break free from her traffickers. Epstein is NOT the face of sex trafficking. These people who are obsessed with this seem perverted themselves to me. They do go on and on about it ad nauseum.
All ages and the seven years once trapped in the life doesn't discriminate. If they are 12 or 14 they probably won't make it to be able to buy beer legally. No proms, first dates, college memories, marriage... Modern day slavery.
About 10 or so years ago my husband and I are trying to unclog our kitchen sink using a snake that is attached to a drill. He was feeding the snake into the pipe and I was controlling the drill. long story short after a few times of this I am backing the snake out and I back right into the swimming pool. (drill in hand) It's late October early November so the water is freaking cold. I am having an impromptu swim and my phone keeps ringing. (I still have a landline at this point.) Me, not being in the mood for a conversation tried to ignore it. No such luck. The caller just keeps calling back. I finally answer dripping all over the place and it is an old friend and neighbor from my past. It's been like nineteen tikiti-whatever since I had heard from her. She asked me if I was still in Dallas and said that her daughter (I recalled as a toddler) keeps calling her with short, strange messages and she thought she might be fighting with a boyfriend she had gone on vacation with or something. Would I mind picking her up. That turned out to be the beginning of a very long and very WTAF several days and a complete crash course in shit I never even wanted to know about. After that experience my husband and I through other acquaintances wanted to help in some way because you just can't unknow some stuff even if you would like to. My husband wrote a program for a group called Truckers against Trafficking and I started reading up on the matter. I didn't get to see her captors face but I can tell you he and his buddies were here illegally and that she had to break a window to get out. They were running after her to my mini-van and the cops that I called watched and did nothing. The same cops who had tried to get me to go home saying "These girls" and kept asking me "How did she get here?" I just kept saying "I don't know but I know how she's leaving." and "If you leave me in this bad neighborhood by myself I will call the news station." They decided to stay. She was a first year student at K.U. and was snagged on campus. Does anyone really think being a victim of sex trafficking lands you in private islands and private jets being forced to boink horse-faced princes and sleazy ex-presidents?
They were saying that these girls don't want to leave and stuff like that. Stuff that I knew wasn't true. My friends daughter cried as I was taking her to my house saying "There's a sixteen year old. You have to go back and get her. They are giving her heroin. " I felt really bad but I knew the police weren't going to help me do that after how they had behaved for the last 5-6 hours. I was traumatized by the whole thing and my friends daughter had to go through years of therapy. Her father sent me pictures of her college graduation and again pictures of her and her husband's wedding. I think too many people aren't so fortunate to have stubborn family and friends. I don't think too many people are waiting for settlements from estates and signing NDA's. I never spoke about this until recently over the summer with my brother in-law who is retired career FBI. I didn't even tell my mom who lives in the same area because the girl and her parents just wanted her to get past it and go forward. I believe them to be correct about that. I feel okay saying this now. I have no patience for the Epstein BS.
Completely bizarre and eye opening. There is like this different underbelly type elements of society that you can slip down and see if you actually force yourself to do so.
EXACTLY. We are chasing the shiny object that isn’t connected to anything meaningful, typical red herring nonsense. If the redactions point to some sort of connection between the Pedo Epstein, and his relationships with powerful people where those ‘friends’ are a part of his weird pedo world, then that is a real story. Otherwise it is all just clickbait. Those who would intentionally distract us from say the collapsing dollar, or the mini mobilization occurring in the EU, or a Carrier Strike Group off the coast of Venezuela just love these coliseum games in the news.
I thought it was a good article because I've known all along it was exaggerated. It's clear what a scumbag Bill Clinton is, but we didn't need to know about Epstein to know it. We've always known it. Trump at least threw the guy out of Mara-lago, so he figured out he was disgusting --on many levels. But he did it and a LONG time ago. I listened to Megyn Kelly who says there isn't that much "there there." Though there's no denying Epstein was also a huge scum bag. Whether he was tied in with Israel's intelligence or whatever, or ours, could be SOME truth to that even if informally -- could be why he got away with stuff. But I think Michael is accurate and I'm sick to death of hearing about it. But listening to that girl's description of Epstein in Michael's article was interesting and enlightening. The real deal is that powerful men did this stuff back then and in most high powered industries. I would think they think twice about it now. But then...
A full analysis of the guests to Epstein Island requires a calculation of the "grossness factor" among the clients. Yes, money and power will get you a date on the mainland somewhere along the Reptile Resemblance (RR) curve. But here is a non-island point of diminishing returns when ratio of time invested to actual date rises to unacceptable levels. And we all agree, time is money. Other factors cloud the data, as in, "super geezer power" to hire actresses or control federal hiring. Some AI may be required.
My main takeaway other than another well documented and informative piece by Matt is that this must be what he was referring to when he mentioned he was going to be a very unpopular journalist next week
There are far too many people who just want to believe a narrative no matter how much proof to the contrary there is. Or in this case, no proof at all to support their cherished views
Matt. Matt. Matt. Providing access to young women to powerful, mostly married men is disturbing. What Michael and you report seems like splitting hairs over what prosecutors were able to charge and prove in south Florida.
Sigh. This is exactly the point. We don't know that he was "providing access to young women" to "powerful, mostly married men." There just isn't evidence of this. If you want a justice and journalistic system that just assumes things, go for it. But currently what we have courts for is to determine the provability of crime, and the job of people like me is to point out the (sometimes unpopular) limits of what's known.
I grant that there is a lack of evidence established in court. I admit that I am under the influence of close to twenty-five years of gossip and innuendo from people who knew Epstein through the New York Academy of Art.
Critical theory has ruined the minds of a generation. Or two. They no longer even understand what you mean when you speak of this “evidence” stuff; unless you are supporting the approved narrative, all you are doing is babbling.
This is where people get it wrong. Take a step back, please. Check your assumptions. You believe that Epstein was providing women to others.
What is your evidence of this? Unfortunately, when you start from an unfounded assumption, everything from that point on will be incorrect.
Stop & think. Why do you believe Epstein provided women to others? Not, “Well, SINCE he provided women to others…” but “This is the evidence he provided women to others. Therefore…”
The evidence he provided women to others, upon which everything else is based, comes from one tragic girl/woman, Virginia Giuffre (née Roberts, aka Doe #3). Out of up to 1000 girls Epstein abused, she’s the only one to have made this claim. She accused 4 men. One was already dead & couldn’t defend himself. One defended himself in court & proved with travel docs & other evidence he wasn’t where she said he abused her & she had to retract her claims. One only spent time at E’s properties with his wife. One settled with her with an NDA which may or may not be evidence of the truth of her accusations.
Epstein associated with the rich & powerful. But according to the statements of his victims to their counsel, he kept the two worlds apart. He would get “sexual massages” 1-3 times a day. They rarely, if ever, involved coitus.
“But what about the Lolita Express? You don’t fly on E’s jet nicknamed that without knowing or participating!”
This nickname was a press invention after E was arrested in 2019. A Newsweek reporter wrote that according to an anonymous “local” on St Thomas Island that is what locals called it. It may have been something this “source” came up with on the spot. The press loved it & publicized it. There is no evidence Epstein or any of his passengers knew of this nickname.
The question remains - why do you believe E ever provided women to friends & associates? If you have nothing more than “everyone knows it” or “that’s just what rich men do” you need to reassess your assumptions.
I grant that there is a lack of evidence established in court. I admit that I am under the influence of close to twenty-five years of gossip and innuendo from people who knew Epstein through the New York Academy of Art.
Really? Did such conversations go back 25 years or did people say in retrospect after 2019, “Oh, we’ve known all about Epstein for years?” I’m genuinely curious what was discussed & when. In part because NY has a mandatory reporting requirement for certain individuals (which would presumably include many members of the Academy of Art set). See NY Social Services Law §§ 413–420 & NY Family Court Act § 1012.
& what exactly did they “know?” That Epstein got daily “sexual massages” from young women? That he operated an international pedo ring?
I always go back to the fact that only one of his victims claimed she was trafficked to other men. Why would the hundreds of other victims who sued Epstein (when he was alive), his estate & his banks not name & sue ANY of these rich & powerful abusers? As you say, other abusers not proven in court. Indeed, no other abuser was named in court filings. Odd. Lawyers always try to bring in deep pockets. Were they afraid? Brave enough to go after Epstein & Maxwell, but scared to sue some actor or scientist? Doesn’t make sense. If my client came to me with a credible story about the head of the CIA I’d sue them.
Start with “everybody knows” & ask 2 questions - what is the evidentiary basis for everyone knowing, & what would be left of all the theories if what “everybody knows” was false.
For example, would it make sense for assassins to kill Epstein in his jail cell if there was no big pedo ring to protect or secret intel connections? Take away the motive for murder & you have a normal jailhouse suicide. Uncommon? Why then do they take shoelaces & belts away from the incarcerated? Why is there even a thing called “suicide watch” if it’s not a common occurrence? Without the motive would we obsess over missing/corrupted 2.5 minutes of video from an old surveillance system? When we have guards sleeping & shopping online instead of doing their rounds? Wouldn’t the concern (if there was any) be about how poorly the MCC SHU was run?
Start with the evidence, not the theories based on assumptions & conjecture.
The article is behind a paywall. The NY Times has an extensive and well-documented history of printing outrageous lies, which led me to cancel my subscription several years ago. The title speaks of a complaint that wasn’t acted on. Can you tell us what the article says about why the complaint wasn’t acted on? Or are you still “not engaging further”?
Maria Farmer’s FBI report is very strange & her story raises more questions than it answers. It’s rather complex path your simple url has led me down.
The only documentary evidence from the FBI is the 9/3/96 report your NYT piece discloses about Epstein stealing nude pictures Maria took of her 2 younger sisters (12 & 16). While the NYT strangely does not link it, I was able to track the FBI report down.
Maria makes no mention in this report of the sexual assaults she said happened to her sister & her earlier that summer. That seems odd - isn’t your minor sister & you being assaulted more of a deeply personal crime than having pictures stolen? Wouldn’t you mention in a theft & threat report that the man who stole the nudes also assaulted you & your minor sister? “Oh, yeah, this is the same monster who sexually assaulted my 16-yo sister & me as I previously reported.”
Today the claims of the Farmer sisters’ alleged assaults are well known (I say “allegedly” but frankly until today I assumed they were real as I’m not in the habit of saying “allegedly” about any Epstein victim). Maria was an adult (26) when she now says she was assaulted by Epstein (& also by Maxwell) at a remote guesthouse on a Wexner property in Ohio. Her younger sister Annie was allegedly assaulted at Epstein’s NM Zorro ranch when she 16, a month or so earlier. Maria said that she was unaware that Annie had been assaulted (given a topless massage by Maxwell who touched her breasts & by Epstein who climbed into bed with her & groped her) until after Maria was assaulted.
What makes this interesting is that aside from claims made by Maria Farmer that she reported sexual abuse to the NYPD & FBI in 1996, no documentation that she reported abuse in 1996 exists. The only NYPD report (#1996-0067241, dated August 29, 1996; CBS News obtained a copy from which they quoted excerpts on air) & only FBI report (form FD-71 dated 9/3/1996, linked above) state only that Epstein stole pictures & negatives of nude pictures Maria had taken of her younger sisters, & that Epstein had threatened to burn her property. They do not mention sexual or physical assaults
When did Maria first share her stories about Annie Farmer & her being assaulted? Six years later when Vicky Ward, a gossipy reporter who had heard that Farmer had a bad experience with Epstein, contacted Maria. It was the first instance where she talked about assault. Ward’s editor, Graydon Carter (Vanity Fair’s editor-in-chief in 2003) has repeatedly stated that he cut the Farmer sisters’ allegations from Ward’s Epstein profile not due to external pressure from Epstein, but because her reporting “did not pass the legal threshold for publication” and lacked sufficient corroboration. In a 2019 NPR interview, he emphasized that the claims didn’t meet the magazine’s standards for libel risk, describing Ward’s sourcing as inadequate (e.g., only two on-the-record sources he deemed reliable, despite Ward claiming more). In a 2022 New Yorker article, Carter reiterated this, adding that Ward had a pattern of “misrepresenting her reporting” and that he distrusted her work on this story.
So Maria’s story of abuse didn’t get told in 2002. Fast forward to 2019, some 23 years after the alleged assaults. Prior to his arrest, the Epstein story was heating up. Virginia Giuffre was sued by Alan Dershowitz for defamation re her claim he repeatedly assaulted her (she countersued but settled the matter by saying she must have been mistaken when she IDed Dershowitz as an abuser from 2001-2002 who assaulted her in London, NYC, FL & NM; he had travel docs including his visa that showed he was not in those locations with her).
Maria Farmer filed a sworn affidavit in support of Giuffre in April 2019. She also started giving interviews saying she had been assaulted.
From 1996, when she says she reported the assaults to both the NYPD & FBI (who have reports she made about stolen child porn but not about sexual assaults), until 2019 she didn’t sue, press charges, or publicize her alleged assaults. When approached by Vicky Ward in 2002 she told her story for the first time for publication but the Vanity Fair editor rejected that aspect because it was too sketchy. Ward had been given Maria’s name, according to a 2022 New Yorker piece: “Ward was soon alerted to something even darker about Epstein. A friend told her that an artist named Maria Farmer had had a ‘bad experience’ with Epstein, and urged Ward to reach out to the young woman.” The thing that Maria’s story was darker than? Rather crude & graphic comments Epstein made in an interview with the pregnant Vicky Ward about the birthing process. Would another woman describe sexual assault of an adult woman & a minor child as merely a “bad experience?” Doubtful.
From 2002 until 2019 she didn’t talk or file. Why? If she was willing to tell all to Vicky Ward in 2002, 6 years after the alleged assaults, using her own name, it wasn’t that she was embarrassed or scared.
From the evidence we have, we can state some facts & draw reasonable inferences.
1. Maria made a report about the theft by Epstein of naked pix of her younger sisters that Maria had taken. She made this report to both the NYPD & FBI. She also reported that Epstein had threatened to burn her artwork if she told anyone about the theft.
2. She did not make a report about sexual assaults in 1996. No record exists at either the NYPD or FBI of a sexual assault complaint, while they both have her theft complaints.
3. Her big expressed concern was that pictures & negatives had been stolen & possibly sold by Epstein, & that he had threatened to go into her apartment (he had a key) & burn her paintings when she was not there.
4. The first time she mentions the alleged sexual assaults on her sister & herself was 6 years after the alleged events (2002) when asked by an sketchy reporter to dish dirt on Epstein for an upcoming Vanity Fair piece. Ward’s editor spiked that aspect of the story as not being well-sourced or credible, & others in the newsroom found it “shaky” as Ward was known as someone who exaggerated a lot.
6. Pure conjecture on my part, but I have to wonder if Ward encouraged Maria to spice up the story about Epstein in 2002. Stealing pictures to resell is not an Epstein bombshell that wins a Pulitzer. Was Maria expressly or subliminally coaxed to fabricate an evil story? “Is that all you’ve got? Not very juicy, is it? You sure there isn’t something more exciting you can tell me about Jeff? I mean, the guy’s clearly a douche canoe. I’d really like to nail this asshat.”
5. Maria did not seek to publish her story elsewhere or take legal action for another 17 years.
6. Given the facts as set forth here, I now doubt that the Farmers were assaulted as they claim. I had unquestionably believed Maria previously, but thanks to your NYT link & the trail it has led down, I now believe that, more likely than not, the Farmers’ assault claims are bogus.
7. This fact pattern does not support a claim that Epstein’s sexual predations (which were frequent & real) were discussed in the NY art scene 20+ years ago.
Matt Taibbi dropping truth bombs like it’s 1945 Dresden.
Keep up the great work Matt.....you're a national treasure.
Matt, you’re substantially misreporting the Giuffre-Dershowitz lawsuits.
I looked at it a little more based on your reporting the past couple days. Number one they mutually agreed to drop both lawsuits. Meaning that simultaneous to her dropping her lawsuit against him that claimed he was lying by denying events, dershowitz dropped his lawsuit against her that claimed she was lying.
You have reported this as a one-way affair, as many reporters have done in a way that ironically parallels the kind of journalistic misfire you're talking about overall.
The one-way street is Giuffre drops her claims therefore dershowitz is exonerated.
The simultaneous thing that happened is Dershowitz stopped his lawsuit calling Giuffre a liar as well, meaning that she might have been telling the truth.
Further a search or two in a couple of clicks found me a Daily Beast article where Giuffre explicitly says it was definitely not an exoneration for Dershowitz and he should stop saying it is. She cites that the lawsuits were emotionally unsustainable and she had drivers like that for ending them. They each stop calling the other a liar and drop the matter, not proof either way of either's case.
Another short dip in the pool and one learns that Dershowitz is exactly as unreliable as Giuffre if you're applying this litmus test. Long story short, Dershowitz forced Giuffre to drop David Boies as a lawyer by claiming Boies was extorting him. Yes, that David Boies so unlikely to be acting like a rookie and extorting. Anyway, as part of these settlements Boies dropped his case against Dersh in return for Dersh admitting he was mistaken that Boies was extorting and part of a RICO level plot against him. So Dersh dropped that accusation fully and his lawsuit, making a statement that his claims were not supported. If we're playing by any rules here, that's the same move that made Giuffre fully "untrustworthy".
Consider this a lead for more thorough reporting. Regardless, as a keystone in "Giuffre is not to be trusted", the fact that she dropped her defamation lawsuit has fully turned to dust if you ask me. The sick irony is that what seems most likely is that it played that way in the press due to Dershowitz's greater media savvy, Rolodex, and power, exactly the things people are claiming at play more broadly for wealthy friends of Epstein.
Further, at best Giuffre would have been public in what 2009 and then "discredited" in 2022 so your core premise is that people should not have trusted her statements for 12+ years for what reason exactly? That's a lot of time for people to reasonably believe her. "The reporting sucked" all those years because no one had 2020's hindsight, mostly.
We may also disagree in general on "evidence" of Epstein involving other men. It's certainly alleged and easy to find in tons of court docs that Giuffre and others said they were trafficked to specific friends. What Giuffre said is below, from a 30 second AI chat. It also claims a dozen or so other women are on record saying they were trafficked to specific friends of Epstein. Giuffre is also on record saying that she was specifically trafficked to Prince Andrew and Ehud Barak, and that Barak was physically violent and that after that happened 2x, Epstein told her just to deal with it and that's what made her realize she needed to run.
It seems like there certainly is evidence (not proof) of at least a short list of powerful men Epstein and Maxwell trafficked girls to. I just read some court docs from Florida that lay this out, too. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201913843.pdf
So is what you're really trying to say, Matt, that there are three lists? There's a girls list, a set of friends that were trafficked to, and then a set of men that were associates who were not? We all know that 91 year old Cronkite was unlikely to be dipping wick as opposed to accepting hospitality.
But it's certainly the case that there is evidence of powerful male associates who "got massages".
An allegation against any individual would need evidence to support, but I don't think we should play a game that there's no evidence of trafficking of girls to at least a set of men.
I'd be cautious about relying on anything Virginia Giuffre said. If you don't know why, look into it.
Yes. In such cases we must look for more evidence. So I inquired. You will notice the sentence:
"It also claims a dozen or so other women are on record saying they were trafficked to specific friends of Epstein"
I’m having difficulty with the freely used term trafficking versus maybe pimping. From witness testimonies I’ve read, many of these young women were free to come and go, were paid for their “services” and were encouraged to bring friends. No where did I read they were imprisoned, drugged, kidnapped or did I miss that? Epstein was a disgusting human, but I’m having a problem seeing the sex trafficking ring also.
Good point. "The legal definition of sex trafficking is the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act, induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person is under the age of 18." So by those standards it would only apply to any girls that were underage that he passed off to his friends. I don't give a fuck about Epstein either, although you know that meme of Michael Jackson eating popcorn that people like to post whenever there's a squabble beginning online? That's meet waiting for rich and powerful heads to role over this. It's a real shame we can't bring back the guillotine.
What about the girls that admitted in the original FL case they encouraged their friends to come too. Are they trafficking. Read the transcript from the girl who referred to herself as Madame Heidi Fleiss. She received $200 every time she brought a girl and the girls she brought were told what to expect. Again, not supporting this slime, just adding to the facts.
The trafficking part seems to be essentially "arranging for their presence, personally and through employees, in places where they would perform sexual services for money". So this seems to include Jeffrey having an assistant call up a girl on their list to show up for a massage for him in a city he was headed to, or have them driven by car to such a place, or take a plane ride somewhere with him.
Providing sexual services to Epstein alone would qualify under that law as trafficking. I agree it gives a broader impression which would require other things to truly apply, but under the law it fits.
It actually claimed there were 30 but I am not doing more research because I couldn't give a f about Epstein or any of this it just seems irresponsible to act like there's no evidence that Prince Andrew got handies from Epstein provided girls, even if that evidence can be argued against.
Matt be like "there's totally no connection here at all between these lists"?
Like creationists staring at a fucking archaeopteryx fossil and asking where the missing link is.
And you know she's a fantasist because she pulled the Dershowitz claim back and then seems to have embellished an auto accident after that, is that right?
Trafficked means possible big cash, whether a settlement from the Epstein estate or payments for a story. There are no clean hands here.
There are in fact hundreds of victims that have been paid hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements, from the epstein estate, major international banks, etc.
I just thought of another recent piece of evidence that can't be explained away by anything other than "sex trafficking to others".
Epstein wrote to an associate about Trump and used the phrase that he knew but "He never got a massage".
I mean what's the other reading of that phrase outside of it being common for Epstein to arrange sexual massages for other men? Epstein, talking to someone not expecting anyone else to read it, saying that. No other explanation I can derive.
The reporting on Epstein has always been very sloppy and loose. As possibly the world's worst litigation attorney I can tell you that there are big differences between what you know, what you believe, and what you can prove. And in a criminal law setting, that means prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Epstein has become the focus of a moral panic. Everyone wants to beat on him without allowing for any defense or alternative explanations.
I edited comment above - IMHO in an eye-opening way.
There is plenty of proof, court docs, and convictions with England's grooming gangs. Yet, people somehow care FAR less, even with overwhelming evidence of incompetence and worse from the so-called authorities. And yet it gets far less attention than Epstein--just a single guy.
What exactly do you think journalists should be doing here? Or is it time to focus efforts in on-going criminal activity with living perps? What is the end game here?
Get Trump.. that’s always the end game it seems
Yes, and the sooner the better. Trouble is, the people out to get him are just as bad as he is. America has been in a race to the bottom since 1980. The election of a hands-off-my-privacy president (Reagan) imbued the nation with a warped understanding of plain old right and wrong. Unregulated capitalism's embrace of a twisted interpretation of Darwin (the poor man must be rolling over in his grave) to rationalize all forms of "predator-prey" behavior spilled over from the business world to the world of "what money can buy." Nothing was off limits if you could pay for it. Nothing was against the law because laws were made to be broken. And common decency of the sort we used to associate with the greatest generation and New Deal values, was replaced with, yeah, the law of the jungle.
Yes ongoing activity. 50-100 women, mostly trafficked and 20% or so underaged, on S. Figueroa in LA streetwalking every night and expected to turn ~12 tricks per night.
These are just the streetwalkers out in the open in one city. The DoJ is trying to stop it but needs local prosecution to be most effective. To start CA should reverse the cancellation of anti-loitering laws, which allowed cops to question the girls so they could start by finding the underage ones.
What Virginia Saw:
Here’s a clear, factual, citation‑supported 10‑sentence summary of what Virginia Giuffre has publicly alleged about her experiences with Jeffrey Epstein, based on the information available in the search results:
Virginia Giuffre has said that Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused and trafficked her when she was a minor.
She alleged that Epstein, along with Ghislaine Maxwell, recruited her into his network when she was a teenager.
Giuffre has stated that Epstein forced her to have sex with powerful men he associated with, including Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor (formerly Prince Andrew), beginning when she was 17, allegations he has consistently denied.
She said she was trafficked to Andrew on three separate occasions, including in London and the U.S..
Giuffre has described being flown around the world by Epstein as part of what she called a system of sexual exploitation.
She has said that Epstein controlled her through threats, manipulation, and the use of his social and financial power.
In her posthumous memoir, she reiterated that Epstein repeatedly abused her and forced her into sexual encounters with others in his circle.
She also alleged that her father unknowingly accepted money from Epstein, which she believed was intended to keep her compliant, though this allegation concerns her father rather than Epstein directly.
Giuffre became one of the most outspoken accusers in the Epstein case, publicly identifying herself and advocating for other survivors.
She maintained until her death that Epstein and Maxwell ran a trafficking operation that exploited her and many other girls, and she spent years pushing for accountability from those she said participated in or enabled the abuse.
And yet none of the other girls have come forward. Weird.
I know, right? So fucking weird! Oh wait, breaking news they seem to hold press conferences on the Capitol steps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDPPl4XJcHg
And yet none named a perp. Weird.
If there was no perp to be named, pointless to be public now. Nothing at all in it for them.
If there's a perp to be named but you're afraid to name someone, you'd... publicly advocate for the files to come out.
You didn't watch that video, did you? Some of them have had legal representation since at least we 2019. They're trying to force accountability but with not much success.
The women who received settlements from Epstein probably had to sign an NDA and risk litigation if they come forward. They'd also have to explain why they stayed since they weren't imprisoned. Epstein was pimping jot trafficking. And Where were the 14 yr old's parents in all of this??
They are likely not fearless brave warriors as those of us with these powerful keyboards under our fingers are, either. There are reasons, unfortunately, that the more fearful and less self-confident end up as the people abused in these situations.
People need to stop saying this. AN NDA DOES NOT PROTECT A PERSON FROM CRIMES!
Who would sue if they broke a NDA? Epstein’s Ghost?
Actually, I did more research. the women were paid by Epstein's estate which is managed in a trust. But I was wrong about the NDA. They are only forbidden from pusuing any further LEGAL action against it. So they can go public with details of their time with Epstein, but they might not want to be questioned about any of it.
What girls, what set of men, what proof? Specific. Not generalities, but actual evidence. Otherwise you would be the cunt you appear to be.
Not sure why it has to be uncivil, but perhaps you missed the point. I don't have to claim any of this is true to make my point. I don't even spend time deciding if I believe it's true because I don't care that much.
The claim Taibbi is making is different. He's saying there is essentially no reason to believe anyone was "trafficked" to a person other than Epstein himself.
And while it's far from proof in a court of law, all I'm saying is there are court documents saying it and women saying it in front of cameras and in print.
This is a three-judge panel of a circuit court:
"The facts underlying this case, as we understand them, are beyond
scandalous—they tell a tale of national disgrace.
Over the course of eight years, between 1999 and 2007, well-heeled and
well-connected financier Jeffrey Epstein and multiple coconspirators sexually
abused more than 30 minor girls, including our petitioner, in Palm Beach, Florida
and elsewhere in the United States and abroad. Epstein paid his employees to find minor girls and deliver them to him—some as young as 14. Once Epstein had the girls, he either sexually abused them himself, gave them over to be abused by others, or both. Epstein, in turn, paid bounties to some of his victims to recruit other girls into his ring."
Let me repeat: a three judge panel of a federal circuit court, which had reviewed extensive documentation and material in the case, said the above.
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201913843.pdf
That's all evidence, true or not. Taibbi is making the claim that essentially there's no reason people even believe this. There's reason to believe and there's plenty of reason to doubt. But "there's nothing at all there" to think these women were introed to Prince Andrew at least is a clown take, to me.
You didn't read the post. My only use of the word "proof" was "And while it's far from proof in a court of law, all I'm saying is there are court documents saying it and women saying it in front of cameras and in print."
I said "That's all evidence, true or not".
Nobody believes the litigation is financially unsustainable for the Guiffre estate. Dershowicz just wanted his name out of the tabloids and Guiffre, et al, lacked convincing evidence.
Turns out she said only emotional "The litigation was very stressful and damaging to my family, and to my health. We have endured years in which Mr. Dershowitz asserted my charges against him were a lie, made up out of whole cloth" and I was off. I edited accordingly.
You are incorrect that many girls have said they were trafficked to others. Unless you consider a half-dozen, most of whom retracted their claims.
Virginia Giuffre is the only semi-credible victim to name other men she was trafficked to. One was dead so he couldn’t defend himself. One was always with his wife. One proved in court she was “mistaken”. One settled with an NDA but that could be because he was told by the family to make it go away NOW (I’m referring to the Andrew formerly known as Prince). She later made accusations against Barak, but her publisher wisely had his name removed from the book.
How much do you know about the tragic life of Virginia Giuffre (née Roberts, aka Doe #3)? By her own claim she was homeless on the street at 13 where she was quickly recruited as a prostitute at age 13-14. She lost that job when her pimp was arrested. She ended up working in the women’s spa at Mar-a-Lago where Maxwell recruited her to perform “sexual massages” on Epstein.
Giuffre met her future husband in Thailand where she was taking a massage class. They ended up in his native Australia where they had 3 kids before separating & filing for divorce in the last few years. Earlier this year, a court issued a domestic violence restraining order against her preventing her from contacting Robert or her kids. She was vocally depressed on SM & when speaking with her family, then killed herself.
She lacked credibility to the extent that the Maxwell prosecutors refused to call her as a witness at trial even though she was a named victim & had volunteered to testify.
This is the absurd nature of the Epstein conspiracy theories. People are convinced there is evidence. But when you look into it, there’s nothing there.
There have been a couple who claimed they were trafficked to others who have recanted when confronted with dispositive evidence they were frauds, but it is unreasonable to claim they provide “evidence.” Some conflate Epstein assaulting women at Les Wexner’s properties with Wexner being a part of the SA but those cases have been dismissed or withdrawn.
Another case was where an adult woman in her late 20s (Jane Doe #11) was referred by Epstein to a psychiatrist (Henry Jarecki) for treatment. She claims Jarecki sexually assaulted over a period of 3 years; he said their relationship was consensual. She sued him, & the judge dismissed the case with prejudice (meaning she cannot refile based on same allegations). Not exactly a pedo ring case.
In the Courtney Wild CRVA appeal you link, a couple of sentences in the “statement of facts” could lead you to believe there were other named abusers but that’s not accurate. Because of the NPA there was no trial on the merits; claims were not tested. Names were not named. Witnesses & victims were not deposed or cross-examined.
The recent (September) press conference with Epstein victims resulted in the women saying there was no client list but that they could & would (but haven’t to my knowledge) create a list of those who knew about Epstein’s abuse. Under FL’s broad mandatory reporting law such facilitators could still be charged & tried for not reporting Epstein.
What must be remembered is that the FL state prosecution of Epstein was based upon the same police investigations & witness statements as the federal prosecution that was truncated by the NPA. Yet the FL case was solely about Epstein (as was Maxwell’s later case). Why, if there were other scumbags involved? The same level of evidence that led to Epstein’s plea in the FL state case would have also been applied to other abusers.
Interestingly enough, the federal NPA only listed 4 co-conspirators - Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, Lesley Groff, & Adriana Ross. It named no men.
There was nothing to prevent state authorities from prosecuting other abusers based on the investigations of both federal & state authorities so long as there was credible, admissible evidence. Thus, nothing prevented indicting any men credibly accused by Wild or any other girls in state court.
Note, too, that Wild never accused anyone but Epstein as her abuser.
There have been hundreds of lawsuits filed, adjudicated & settled involving Epstein’s voluminous sexual assaults. There has been a handful against other alleged victimizers, but only one was settled for money (Andrew), another settled for “my mistake,” the rest dismissed or withdrawn without monetary settlements. All told there were 5-10 initial accusations.
Lawyers make their money off big settlements (40-45% of millions adds up) not hourly fees. We go after deep pockets wherever possible. Of the 300+ women who have filed suits against Epstein’s estate & banks, you would also expect hundreds of suits against the rich & famous. Hasn’t happened. That means these victims are not naming names of abusers besides Epstein & Maxwell.
He was a trafficking ring with one consumer - Epstein himself.
And thus we see that lot of words are needed to refute lots of evidence. We can agree with the conclusion even, without needing to deny that the evidence still existed to be argued against so extensively.
Where is the evidence?
In the law, as in life, it generally takes longer to clean mud off a wall than to throw it. “He raped me” is simple to say, but defending against such a claim may take hundreds of pages.
Saying “There’s a lot of evidence of a pedo ring” requires the inquiry,
“Ok, what is it?”
“Well, there are lots of victims who say so.”
“Ok. Name them. Who do they claim abused them?”
“Well, there are lots.”
“Ok. Here’s the ones I know of & here’s the facts behind their claims & why they are not credible.”
“You write so many words, there must be a big pedo ring.”
Sorry, you are arguing against people who think there's a pedo ring, and I'm not one of them. If you don't have the courtesy to read and understand my point, I don't owe you any more courtesy.
No, you're saying there's evidence. This guy is meticulously going through claims and saying they don't rise to the level of evidence.
Are you moving the goalposts now? If you're not seriously going to engage with people who give you their time, then you're just wasting all of ours with your endless arguing.
Epstein was killed in his jail cell just for funsies and he bought that island so he'd have a place to practice his golf swing.
T-T-T-T-TRUTH BOOOOOOMB wow it's amazing it's just like Dresden but in a good way says Substack commenter Evans W
Not what anyone was saying. Of course he was murdered but that doesn’t mean he had a “sex ring”.
So much of this(and the current gestalt) reminds me of the famous line from “A few good men”. “It’s not what I know, it’s what I can prove”
So what was that whole "of course murder” thing about in your personal opinion? Just a silly prank or?
You have proof he was murdered? You really need to get that to the authorities then. I suspect he may have been murdered as well, but like everyone else that thinks that, I have zero proof. So the question of why he was possibly murdered becomes much less of a real question. I doubt we will ever know for sure one way or the other.
Well, we have proof, such as the injuries he sustained as he died and the strange goings on while he died (cameras out, guards just suddenly going off on their own, that missing minute that Pam Bondi lied about) and the fact that he had no reason to kill himself. He'd been bailed out before and by all accounts he seemed quite confident he would be again. But, of course, none of that is a written confession by the murderer and that seems to be our standard now, when it's convenient.
Yea, well I believe that covid was purposefully released but I can’t prove it.
Just a couple of points here.
1. Have you ever been in a jail (the MCC SHU is a jail, not a prison)? I’ve been in several, from San Quentin to county lockups. They are always understaffed with low level personnel who are generally viewed as the bottom of the LE barrel. Hardware is old & malfunctions frequently. This is not the place where Magneto was housed.
2. Epstein made out a new will just hours before he died with his lawyers in the SHU. In any other case, what would you think if someone made out a will & was found dead 12 hours later? Maybe a beneficiary did it?
3. The cameras were not broken in the SHU. A video recorder had hard drive failures before E was placed back in the SHU after his first suicide attempt. This recorder is in a secure part of the MCC, not in the SHU. Guards do not have access to those recorders. This machine was old & had had similar failures in the past.
4. To get to the SHU tier where E was housed from the outside you must pass through 7 corridors with cameras & 4 locked doors with cameras. All of these cameras & recorders were operational. At least 2 of the locked doors have 24/7 guards stationed there to open the door. How did killers get through all these hallways & locked doors (including 1 elevator with a key card) & avoid all these hallways cameras?
5. To get into the SHU from the MCC main hallway you must sign in & have a guard in a closed booth buzz you in. This is not the desk you see in the video of the desk inside the SHU tiers where the guards slept & shopped online in the released tape.
6. If the killers entered during the missing 2 1/2 minutes of video at midnight, when did they leave? The BOP & DOJ released over 11 hours of video including almost 7 after midnight. Why is there no gap when they left?
7. Did E have a reason to kill himself? In the days before he died a lot of evidence of his sexual assaults was released. Brad Edwards, attorney for over 200 victims who interviewed E many times, believes he killed himself because E was a control freak obsessed with his image as a mover & shaker. This was his last controlling action.
8. Why kill E in the jail? For this to be pulled off, many low-level guards had to be in on it, many BOP staff at supervisory levels all the way up as well, not to mention top DOJ & FBI officials. Techs would have been needed to edit the video & disable the video recorders. The coroner & the lab folks had to be complicit, as well as the FBI forensics team. At any point, someone not in on it could have blown the whole plan by taking a forbidden cigarette or bathroom break & seeing what they shouldn’t have seen. Where was Epstein before he was arrested? He had been in Paris for a couple of weeks. He knew, through his lawyers, that a grand jury had been empaneled because GJ subpoenas had gone out. “Boss, I just got this subpoena. What should I do?” Top DOJ staff knew of the GJ & arrest warrant who would have had to be in on the hit. Why risk it in a jail when it could have been much more easily been done as a suicide or accident in Paris?
9. Did E’s wounds indicate murder? Dr. Michael Baden, coroner for hire who always finds for his clients (including his conclusion that Michael Brown was shot with his hands up, which even the Obama-Holder DOJ investigation said didn’t happen) said that cracks to the hyoid bone in the neck rarely happen in suicides. Problem is that’s not what the literature says. A 1996 study found hyoid bone fractures in 73% of males who hanged themselves. Another study found 80% of males 65+ had hyoid bone fractures (E was 66).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8907863
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260998426_Cervical_spine_injuries_in_suicidal_hanging_without_a_long-drop-patterns_and_possible_underlying_mechanisms_of_injury_An_autopsy_study
Epstein also did not have any tox results showing sedatives or narcotics in his system & no evidence of defensive wounds had he struggled.
10. If E was not blackmailing people (attorney Brad Edwards who interviewed well over 200 victims said he’d seen no evidence E had a list of clients or had blackmailed anyone) why would anyone kill him? The intel theory is absurd if you apply common sense - the CIA or Mossad would use a pervert who abused minors & could be arrested at any point & expose their entire op? Again, why not kill him in Paris? Or when he was first arrested (& no, Alex Acosta did not say he was told to lay off E because he was connected; that came from an anonymous “former senior WH staffer” in an anti-Trump magazine by a writer deemed unreliable by her editor & other writing staff & was debunked during a later ethics investigation).
So no, there is no real evidence E was murdered. The facts contradict this claim.
You suspect he was murdered? What motive do you suspect
He was supposedly a financial guru. He probably had all kinds of blackmail material that had nothing to do with underage girls.
So how about we invesigate that huh
Financial stuff, maybe?
"Of course?"
Amazing how quickly someone degenerates into name calling and insults in response to an completely innocuous comment.
You have exactly zero evidence that Epstein was killed. "B-B-B-but I haz da memes!!" is not evidence.
Take a course in logic. At least a remedial course.
Dresden was a war crime.
I agree with Matt’s points and they need to be stated but the larger point made by the commenter is wise. There’s room for a lot more nuance in reporting on this and not simply finding guilt by association, but Epstein’s story is the age old story of a man who can get away with victimizing young vulnerable women because of his wealth and power and because of the protection of his wealthy, powerful friends. That’s the very important larger point.
Nothing about Giuffre’s many whoppers? Accusing Alan Dershowitz of rape for eight years before retracting the claim? About the evidence from other girls about her recruiting history as an adult?
They can be victims and unreliable, victims and offenders. It all has to be weighed.
Actually I take back that Dersh is in the clear. Let's do some fucking reporting on what Giuffre has said about THAT.
And let's remember that a poor lady ending a three year lawsuit with a rich and powerful lawyer can sometimes be getting victimized again.
“I was shocked to read that Alan Dershowitz is claiming that our mutual dismissal of our lawsuits against each other somehow ‘exonerated’ him,” Giuffre said. “The litigation was very stressful and damaging to my family, and to my health. We have endured years in which Mr. Dershowitz asserted my charges against him were a lie, made up out of whole cloth, perjury, and part of a purported extortion plot. He has now admitted there was no perjury, no extortion plot, and that rather than making up what I said, I honestly believed the charges I made against him.
“Whether or not Mr. Dershowitz’s admissions undermine his previous denials of the charges made against him is for others to say. The settlement agreement limits what I can say and I will abide by it unless and until I am released from it. However, those admissions are not consistent with ‘exoneration.’
“Stopping the false charges against me, and securing Mr. Dershowitz’s public acknowledgement of my good faith was important to me and my family,” Giuffre continued in her statement. “However, I did not, and would never, ‘exonerate’ Mr. Dershowitz in return.”
From Daily Beast article.
GIUFFRE IS NOT CREDIBLE AT ALL!!! DID YOU NOT GET THAT!
Thank you for your considered and nuanced contribution to the conversation. I'll be considering your well-capitalized points for some time.
Dershowitz is now in the clear and has no interest either way. He noted that because he was falsely accused, he got access to many documents during his defamation trials. And he now says: "I know for a fact documents are being suppressed, and they are being suppressed to protect individuals. I know the names of the individuals, I know why they are being suppressed, I know who's suppressing them. But I'm bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases, and I can't disclose what I know. But I, hand to god, I know the names of people whose files are being suppressed in order to protect them, and that's wrong."
I solicit your thoughts on this.
We need more details! I was just thinking - Now why didn't Taibbi include this—he's slippin! Thanks for the clarification
1945 Dresden was a totally unnecessary war cime as was the firebombing of Japanese cities and the dropping of two atom bombs there. Taibbi is, like you, endorsing war crimes. Matt said on a podcast, for example, that he fully approved of Trump bombing Iran.
Dresden was absolutely a legitimate military target. Not only did it house many light industries supporting the Nazi war effort, but the rail yards were a gateway to the Eastern Front with the Soviets. It allowed shipping of arms, munitions, supplies & personnel to oppose the Soviets advance. Stalin had requested of the Allies anything they could do to soften Germany’s eastern flank making the Soviets advance less costly. There was also the impact on morale - bombing Dresden would be a serious blow to German morale & hasten the end of the war.
As far as dropping the nukes on Hiroshima & Nagasaki, Truman & staff had Magic intercepts showing the Japanese were gearing up for a suicidal defense of their homeland & were not close to surrender. The War Department estimated an invasion would cost ~250k dead & another ~250k-750k wounded Allied soldiers. Estimates of Japanese casualties included 1.5m-3m military dead & 2m-5m civilian deaths. The Japanese organized the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps (all men 15-60, all women 17-40), arming them with rifles, bamboo spears, grenades & satchel charges. Allied planners estimated that all of Japan’s major cities would be destroyed from aerial bombing & naval bombardment, railways & highways would be unusable, farms decimated along with the inability to bring food in to towns & cities. Utilities including electricity & water would be disrupted. This would lead to widespread disease & famine, adding as much as another 2m-5m dead civilians.
The War Department believed there would be so many military casualties from an invasion of mainland Japan, based upon earlier island attacks, that 495,000 Purple Heart medals were minted. We are still issuing these WWII relics today after awarding them in Korea, Viet Nam, & Afghanistan/Iraq.
Modern estimates of Japanese deaths from the atomic blasts & radiation in Hiroshima & Nagasaki are 90k-140k (Hiroshima) & 60k-80k (Nagasaki). So worst case 220k deaths vs 13m Japanese dead from invasion along with perhaps 250k Allied troops. Much of the Japanese infrastructure outside major cities was spared along with agricultural areas, allowing for faster recovery, along with saving over 18% of the civilian population.
The desire to end the war quickly using the atomic bombs had another benefit of putting Japan’s reconstruction under the US rather than Russia. The expected Russian invasion through Hokkaido, based on previous Soviet advances where speed was foremost & protection of civilians & infrastructure not a consideration, would have resulted in greater civilian deaths & infrastructure destruction. The Soviets had no plan for post-surrender Japan unlike the US, & it could have ended up with a partitioned nation like Germany or Korea.
So both Dresden & the atomic bombings in Japan were necessary.
Everthing you wrote here is bullshit. Japan was already negotiating a surrender. The only remainng sticking point was whether or not the emperor would remain as the head of the country. War crimes had already been committed in Japan even before HIroshima and Nagasaki. The firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities unnecessarily killed untold numbers of innocent civilians. The A-Bombs were dropped to intimidate the Sovet Union, and plans were already being made to drop atomic bombs all over Russia, China, and North Korea. Killing innocent civilians is a war crime whether it is in Germany, Japan, China, or Gaza. As to Germany, it had already lost WW2. There was no moral or legal or even pragmatic reason to firebomb Dresden.
Stop reading Zinn, friend. You are very much mistaken. But then, leftists eschew history & reason.
Stop reading neocolonial propaganda. Be a good world citizen, not an international bully.
Friend, I get it that as a socialist you have no concept of history or human nature, but there still are many evil people out there in the world who want you dead. There is no such a thing as a world citizen. There are many who want what you have & are very happy you will lay down & let them take it from you. If you ever have the chance to travel to places other than westernized countries you will learn more than you would ever imagine. If you live.
Its pretty clear we have become LITERALLY retarded as a Society. We currently exist in a world of pretty much nothing but 'narrative laundering'. I wonder where the edge of the cliff is....
That destination is Idiocracy, and whoever is driving has their foot on the gas right through the floorboard.
What are you talking about? No one is driving, it's FSD with no hands on the wheel while the person in the driver's seat doomscrolls into apocalypse.
Sometimes literally
Hey! You can't use the word "retarded" - these kinds of adjectives are offensive.
You have to use it as a noun to avoid giving offense. Like say "It's pretty clear our Society is full of retards". Much better that way.
It's amazing how many people seem to regard the lack of evidence in some claim as strong evidence in itself. "Yeah, but everybody knows ..." is the best they can come up with.
Narrative laundering. An accurately descriptive term. I am adopting that, with permission.
Look up, it’s above us, waaaaay up there….
It might be one foot away...
Just around the next blind curve.
Your update dropped down while reading today’s expose…. I shall quote my Dad who said this sparingly “ what a clusterfuck.”
Or, more delicately, fustercluck.
Oh—that might involve chickens.
That's clucked up ...
Thank you for the clarity of your thinking, the integrity of your process, and the forthrightness to speak the truth to stupidity in power.
Seems to me that Epstein was a fairly ordinary sex obsessed bloke who liked youngish women and was prepared to pay for them. Lots of them.
As Matt says, there appear to be very few under 18 years old. So they were pretty well all adult women who acquiesced in the arrangement, largely for money. Isn't this viewed by feminists as female empowerment? Although feminists do seem to like to jump around if they can see what they call a 'power imbalance'. Not sure what rock they've lived under all their lives, but either women are entitled to have sex for money (or do it for free) or they're not. You can't have it both ways, as in 'it's all right some of the time, but not when it's someone we've decided to hate'.
My guess is there are a lot more people out there in the world who're doing WAY more sordid things than Epstein ever did. The lawyer Matt mentions above said he'd rate Epstein about a 4 out of 10 on the sordid scale. Sounds about right. My brother is a lawyer who deals with this sort of stuff a fair bit (poor him), and he sees many more sicko things than this in his job. And he's only one lawyer out of many thousands working on these sort of cases. Not just in America, but all over the world.
You know what I wish? I wish the mainstream media would actually do something useful and start exposing slavery around the world. It's largely women, often young girls. Now that'd be something really decent the media could get their teeth into. But for some reason, they prefer to exaggerate and lie about something pretty insignificant in the big scheme of things. Shame really. Such a waste of power the media could wield for good.
Bullshit. Ghislaine is in prison for raping/assaulting minors, teaching minors how to preform sex acts on Epstein, trafficking minors, and threatening young women (both over and under 18) with abuse or career repercussions for not playing ball. There are sworn affidavits from multiple victims in that case, girls as young as 15.
The only reason Epstein is not in jail for a lot more of this stuff is that he's dead. Tracey's reporting is the most bogus yet.
Most women who are part of "sex trafficking ring" are not minors and they don't have to be for it be illegal, particularly if you have your girlfriend start grooming and abusing them at 15-16.
Well, no. Here are the jury’s findings:
GUILTY
Count One — Conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sexual activity
Count Three — Conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity
Count Four — Transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity
Count Five — Conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of minors
Count Six — Sex trafficking of minors
⸻
NOT GUILTY
Count Two — Enticement of a minor to travel to engage in illegal sexual activity
Absolutely, this is such a waste especially when you know what’s really going on out there in the slavery/sex trafficking world.
Bollocks is right this is bullshit. Go watch the Sept 2025 victim press conference. There are three women on camera saying they were introed at 14 and made to do bad shit and that there was a revilving door of very young girls. One says she was introed at 14 by a 13 year old.
They all say too that they have been harassed, followed, and issued threats of harm and death. nuff said
This is why Matt and Mike are focusing on CONVICTIONS because anyone can SAY anything. It's only when it's tested/cross examined in court that the real evidence comes out.
Talk to any cop, and ask him about the gaping chasm between two peoples stories describing the exact same event. Even when people are not lying per say they pitch/spin the story to make themselves sound better, more innocent, it's human nature. When you have VG, who was caught making up most of the stuff about blackmail etc, even herself saying he asked for them to be over 18 that's bulletproof evidence he wasn't a pedo. Pedos don't specifically ask for people to be over age, the opposite. They drop hints and code words in the other direction.
So he's not actually a pedo, there does not seem to have been any actual sex, there is no evidence of blackmail, and the people he's photographed with didn't necessarily get these sexualised massages...so then the entire conspiracy is falling apart.
They are not focusing on convictions. They are involved in a conspiracy to say "there's such poor level of evidence that the reporting is completely indefensible".
They deny that any reporter could even take Giuffre seriously in 2013, NINE YEARS before she "recanted" anything.
What's true in reality, I don't care much. I've never believed the conspiracy theory level stuff, and still don't. I'm solely pushing back on this bullshit claim that "there has never been any reason at all to believe that Epstein introed women to other men for sexual favors, and this is the worst-reported story of all time", which Taibbi is explicitly saying. He is not saying "there's no proof". I agree there's no proof and would give zero fucks if they said that.
One of the funniest parts of all of this is everyone's inability to play in the grey. If you push back saying the entire journalistic enterprise might not have been completely off their rockers for believing a woman making additional claims against a proven sex offender, even for a while, 75% of the counterarguments are as if you said it's definitely the case that Mossad funded Epstein to get 9 year olds to take anal from Trump and Obama.
They’re not saying there is no evidence , they’ve carefully listed the evidence. You just want to believe it, I think, your mind is closed.
You are starting off with a conclusion and building evidence around it, disregarding anything that disproves or casts doubt on the central premise that this was a global child rape and blackmail cult. That’s your clue that you are emotionally invested rather than using your brain.
If evidence of blackmail and actual kids (or evidence of teenagers being forced into it and abused) comes out, I’ll look at it. My mind is not closed. I want the truth
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/lawmakers-and-epstein-survivors-press-conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlxJyVDnclU
This conversation started with this, and it's what I said was bullshit. Saying this is bullshit does not mean thtere'a global conspiracy, it means that Epstein himself molested a decent number of sub-18 year olds. In the context of sexual abuse, the gov't doesn't get three to join a trial unless there are plenty more, because accuers typically hold back.
"As Matt says, there appear to be very few under 18 years old. So they were pretty well all adult women who acquiesced in the arrangement, largely for money. "
I don't believe that any more because too many have come public saying putting public faces and names to it. I believed it as recently ago as 6 months ago. But they all went public in Sept, the women who were on the 2019 indictment as minors.
One of the funniest parts of all of this is everyone's inability to play in the grey. If you push back saying the entire journalistic enterprise might not have been completely off their rockers for believing a woman making additional claims against a proven sex offender, even for a while, 75% of the counterarguments are as if you said it's definitely the case that Mossad funded Epstein to get 9 year olds to take anal from Trump and Obama.
reading comprehension for the loss
I appreciate your parsing the muck for us, Matt.
This is my own view, and it applies many topics he has covered, with some depth and perspective not really showing up elsewhere.
Fair enough. Let's drop "ring" and replace it with "random caravan of wealthy men traveling to the island of women of various ages." Having seen the photos, they weren't there for the deluxe accommodations, were they.
But then that wouldn't be much different than what you usually get with wealthy men and young women. Are we going to investigate the typical rock band tour caravan or professional athletes in town for a game caravan? There's ugly shit in the world, and most of it we shrug our shoulders at.
Sad and deplorable to consider—young lives sacrificed for those who can pay.
Look behind the wheel of every BMW or Porsche SUV you pass. Almost invariably, it's some hot youngish (or desperately trying to be) woman who was clear eyed in her youth and 'eyes wide open parlayed hotness into a very nice life. Al the 'victim' talk bores me.
Really? So now we pity high class escorts who engage in sex for good pay of their own choice and design?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/19/us/epstein-fbi-complaint-1996-maria-farmer.html
I knew girls in high school that followed rock bands performances. They definitely did some hooking up and definitely were under 18 and they definitely shared their experiences. But of course, we didn’t have social media back then.
Interesting point. Different world and different attitudes. Lola was released in 1970. Clocked at 9 on the hot 100 and 2 in the UK. Nobody cared one way or the other.
This is true as far as it goes. I think the difference is that rock bands and athletes don't pretend to run the country. The only good thing that might come out of this is indisputable proof of rot at the top. I'm not holding my breath though.
What does "pretend to run the country" mean?
I answered this someplace but can't find it. I mean politicians who pretend they were elected to pose for the camera and speak in self- important sound bites
Have you ever seen a tour rider? Talk about power corrupting.
I think that's girls who ride the bus? Yes, power attracts and corrupts. But Monica wasn't making policy.
Monica Lewinsky was an adult when she had an affair with Clinton. Consensual affairs with bosses are a tale as old as the workplace.
Yes, as are all powerful men lusting after willing girls young enough to be their daughters. My only point would be that I don’t trust such corrupted powers-that-be to know the public good were they to trip over it. That's all. I just don't trust such people to lead, and it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing to blast them out of their hypocritical self-importance.
Nope. See spinal tap.
No brown M&Ms! I'd forgotten!
Time for a rewatch -it's been a while!
Perfect. Wealthy men who need to be exposed as johns, charged with sex crimes like every other john should be, and also, those who abused minor girls/boys sent to jail for statutory rape.
Charged by the same govt that has had this evidence all of this time, right? Because now you get to see some redacted information that won't substantiate a crime.
How fucking stupid do people have to be?
Unfortunately, not any more stupid than they already show themselves to be.
Bread and circus!
Dude, that's damn near every vacation island on earth. Gimme a break.
Nearly every vacation island on earth isn't owned by one guy organizing who comes and goes. Is there a particular reason you're talking like a bimbo?
Matt will write article after article about epstein not trafficking woman, the thing he was convicted for, but he wont spend one hour doing actual journalism about epstein.
He was not convicted for trafficking women. He was not convicted for trafficking women. He was not convicted for trafficking women…
Ghislaine Maxwell WAS convicted of conspiring with Epstein to traffick women! Her convictions--for conspiring with Epstein to commit sex crimes--are the very definition of a sex ring.
She was convicted, and is in prison for conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to sexually exploit and abuse MULTIPLE MINOR GIRLS over the course of a decade.
She also was convicted of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, transporting minors to participate in illegal sex acts, sex trafficking conspiracy, and sex trafficking of a minor.
The only thing missing from the official record are the identities of the males who Epstein/Maxwell trafficked the girls to.
"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
Again, none of that is in dispute. Its also not the fucking point. What IS the point being made is that, until names are named, by somebody, anybody, there is nothing but conjecture and its wily cousin, conspiracy. And, since we as a Public have been fed so much utter bullshit about so much in such a short timeline, some fatigue is not only understandable, but to be expected.
Try reading the DOJ announcement of Maxwell's conviction slowly. I'll put the key words in caps to help.
"Wily cousin, conspiracy." Note that Maxwell was convicted of CONSPIRACY--WITH EPSTEIN!
Excerpt below, and link to full announcement below that:
"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
Ummm...ok? And?
Tell us WHO is involved, besides Epstein and Maxwell, and I'll throw myself on the barricades with ya. Otherwise...dunno what to tell ya
"Ummm...ok? And?"
Sorry for my ineptitude in clarifying the obvious.
This whole discussion is in response to Taibbi's rant about the lack of evidence that Epstein and Maxwell, et al were running a sex ring.
I've shown clearly here that Maxwell was convicted of running a sex ring, conspiring with Epstein, who was in jail awaiting trial on the same charges when he died.
I've noted that the only thing missing is the identities of the clients/customers/abusers--although their existence is assumed since the Maxwell/Epstein sex ring was "trafficking minors for illegal sex acts."
"...until names are named..."
The lack of identification of the abusers should be a signal, if you're an investigative journalist, to INVESTIGATE. To do what investigative journalists do--get out there and find the names!
Taibbi refusing to investigate, and instead attacking those who call the Epstein/Maxwell sex ring a "sex ring," is puzzling at least, and disturbing at most.
"...dunno what to tell ya"
No need to tell me anything. Rest your troubled mind and continue in incurious ignorance.
Shockingly idiotic. Did anyone name any names in that comment? Do you think they trafficked the girls to no one? You are using strawman argument saying that because someone made one accusation that can't be proven therefore it wasn't a sex ring. How dumb.
Wtf is ur point here Bri? Theres no strawman or idiocy in anything Taibbi wrote. Nor I. Learn what that shit ACTUALLY means wouldya?
What IS idiocy is just shouting out more garbage in order to...what? Im tellin ya man...ur not gonna get a new hat for pissing into the wind, or for being another righteous indignation warrior, or whatever tf ur on about. Jfc dude...
Saying "what sex ring" is ignorant and idiotic, obviously. It's the anti journalist in this case.
1. $290 million paid by JP Morgan Chase to over 200 victims of sex trafficking.
2. Miami Herald identified 80+ victims of his sex trafficking.
3. Federal indictments and court cases identifying hundreds of victims.
4. His partner and associate being convicted of sex trafficking minors with him.
5. Him being federally charged with sex trafficking.
6. Matt Taibbi writes "what sex ring?"
Hahaha laughable how twisted you'd have to be to think youre a smart journalist for saying that.
You are wasting your time TWC. I've tried this before. You are arguing with the type of mindset that believes in the Pentagon being hit with a missile and the passengers of Flight 93 were landed and deplaned secretly.
This has risen to conspiracy theory.
You can't fight that with logic, it's EMOTIONAL BELIEF not rational belief. No convincing argument will change their minds. If you think you have stumbled on the secret 'grand unified political theory of everything' you will never let go of that because it's too amazing.
The implication is that all the persistent problems we have are all unsolved not because the world is complex and our leaders are just not very bright because we don't put bright people in charge...no the reason is a secret cabal makes sure that the people who rise high in politics are pedos, then they ship them to an island, blackmail them, and make them their bi1tch.
This kind of conspiracy thinking is so seductive because the easy conclusion is: if all the levers of everything, all over the world, can be pulled from the centre of a spiderweb like this, then we just need to give us good guys control of that centre and all will be fixed! It's too neat, they NEED to believe it.
Some are just reacting emotionally to the 'child rape' thing and they don't know how actual, real world, paedophiles operate (they are nowhere near as elaborate, smart or difficult to catch as this conspiracy suggests) so they don't know any different.
The accusation, and conviction was not that she trafficked the girls to others, it was that she sent them to Epstien for this sexualised massage bullshit and they were under 18
There is nowhere in that text that implies that there was a huge organised global network.
"Ghislaine Maxwell WAS convicted of conspiring with Epstein to traffick women! Her convictions--for conspiring with Epstein to commit sex crimes--are the very definition of a sex ring."
Yes, Maxwell was convicted of conspiring with Epstein to lure young women to have sex, but ONLY with Epstein. Wikipedia's definition of "sex ring":
"A child sex ring is a group of adults who are simultaneously involved sexually with multiple minors during the same general time frame."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sex_ring
There is no "group of adults...involved sexually with multiple minors" noted or identified in the DOJ press release you supplied, only sex with Epstein. I believe that's Matt's point.
Again splitting hairs that is just sill.
1. A "group" can be two. Epstein and Maxwell were a group.
2. Epstein brought "groups" of men to his properties where they consorted with minor, and barely legal, girls. Some of the girls have testified that they were molested and raped by men at Epstein/Maxwell's behest.
3. Pretending that the men Epstein brought to his properties, to consort with the minors in his sex ring, were not partaking of Epstein's goods is naive at best, and willfully ignorant.
There is massive evidence that other men were involved in Epstein/Maxwell's sex ring.
Because the government, and those who control the government, won't allow an official investigation of the details doesn't make it go away.
It's a quite simple logical exercise.
Taibbi is an investigative reporter. Instead of splitting definitional hairs, he should be on this case--asking questions, gathering details, interviewing, digging into document releases (remember Twitter Files? Seems like he's forgotten).
Look at the perverse incentives here. How many of them (who had in reality come to that island willingly) claimed the horrors AFTER a multi million dollar fund was set up that the victims could take from?
Do you not see how that would make anyone lie or exaggerate?
Do you not see how false bullshit like this (they were fucking in their late teens for Gods sake!!!!!) takes the attention away from actual pedos and their victims?
Ok.
However, years, maybe decades before any victim fund, authorities identified dozens, maybe hundreds of under-age victims.
"Estimates of the total number of girls allegedly abused by Epstein varies, with accounts ranging from a few dozen to over 100. The recent indictment charges Epstein with sexually exploiting and abusing “dozens” of underage girls at his homes in Manhattan, Palm Beach, and other locations, with allegations dating back as far as 2002. However, it seems likely that the total number of victims is much higher.
"Investigations into Epstein began in 2005, after the parents of a 14-year-old girl told Palm Beach police that Epstein had molested their daughter at his home. According to the Miami Herald, by 2008, when Epstein was granted his now-infamous plea deal, federal prosecutors had identified 36 underage victims.
"Julie K. Brown, the Miami Herald journalist who published a series of articles on the allegations against Epstein, told the New York Times that early in the process of reporting, she received a heavily redacted police report that mentioned more than 100 Jane Does. In November 2018, Brown reported that the Herald had identified about 80 women who alleged that they were molested or sexually abused by Epstein between 2001 and 2006. Of these women, the Herald was able to locate around 60, eight of whom agreed to be interviewed."
The victims were ignored, his crimes were minimized ("He's intel. Leave him alone.") and his perversion snow-balled.
As for whining that the trafficked girls were "late teens," or some other justification, change the law if you don't like it. Having sex with a minor is illegal. The age of consent differs in different states, but all states have an age under which it's illegal. Thousands of men have done time in prison for having sex with 17 year olds. Not a very good excuse.
"1. A "group" can be two. Epstein and Maxwell were a group."
Now you're parsing. The WHOLE phrase is "a group of adults who are simultaneously involved sexually..." Nowhere does the conviction indicate Maxwell was involved sexually. She was convicted of conspiring with Epstein to supply him (and only him) with women. Period.
"There is massive evidence that other men were involved in Epstein/Maxwell's sex ring."
Be that as it may, and I don't doubt it, nor does Matt refute it. It hasn't been adjudicated. I believe that's Matt's point.
"It hasn't been adjudicated. I believe that's Matt's point."
And my point is that Matt's job is NOT to adjudicate issues. He's an INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER! His job is to investigate! Dig into documents (a la Twitter Files). Discover hidden connections. Interview. Analyze, Report.
Instead we have Taibbi here arguing fine semantic points, and ignoring the huge mass of evidence just waiting for an investigative reporter to do his actual job.
Puzzling, troubling, and disturbing.
What's his problem here?
I suggest you read the actual indictment.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/7061-u-s-v-ghislaine-maxwell-indict/96d918f9d16dbd14e656/optimized/full.pdf
All of the charges were based on Epstein; no others were mentioned. Indeed, when the court denied the DOJ’s motion to unseal the Maxwell Grand Jury documents, the judge specifically noted that the transcripts would not reveal any clients or a list.
“A member of the public familiar with the Maxwell trial record who reviewed the grand jury materials that the Government proposes to unseal would thus learn next to nothing new. The materials do not identify any person other than Epstein and Maxwell as having had sexual contact with a minor. They do not discuss or identify any client of Epstein's or Maxwell's. They do not reveal any heretofore unknown means or methods of Epstein's or Maxwell's crimes. They do not reveal new venues at which their crimes occurred. They do not reveal new sources of their wealth. They do not explore the circumstances of Epstein's death. They do not reveal the path of the Government's investigation.”
https://www.justice.gov/multimedia/Court%20Records/United%20States%20v.%20Maxwell%2C%20No.%20120-cr-00330%20%28S.D.N.Y.%202020%29/809.pdf
As Bradley Edwards, attorney for over 200 Epstein victims stated, Epstein was both the pimp & client.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/jeffrey-epstein-key-victims-attorney/story?id=123805543
Please read the Maxwell indictment as well as the judge’s denial of the DOJ’s motion to unseal grand jury testimony in the Maxwell case.
From the indictment:
“1. The charges set forth herein stem from the role of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, in the sexual exploitation and abuse of multiple-minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. In particular, from at least in or about 1994, up to and including at least in or about 1997, MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18. The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew that certain victims were in fact under the age of 18.
“2. As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to Epstein's residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse. Moreover, in an effort to conceal her crimes, MAXWELL repeatedly lied when questioned about her conduct, including in relation to some of the minor victims described herein, when providing testimony under oath in 2016.”
Note that Maxwell was not alleged or charged with trafficking minors (or adults) to anyone other than Epstein.
https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2020/07/02/u.s._v._ghislaine_maxwell_indictment.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
From Judge Paul A. Engelmayer’s (S.D.N.Y.) denial of the motion to unseal the Maxwell grand jury proceedings:
“A member of the public familiar with the Maxwell trial record who reviewed the grand jury materials that the Government proposes to unseal would thus learn next to nothing new. The materials do not identify any person other than Epstein and Maxwell as having had sexual contact with a minor. They do not discuss or identify any client of Epstein’s or Maxwell’s. They do not reveal any heretofore unknown means or methods of Epstein’s or Maxwell’s crimes.”
https://www.justice.gov/multimedia/Court%20Records/United%20States%20v.%20Maxwell%2C%20No.%20120-cr-00330%20%28S.D.N.Y.%202020%29/809.pdf
A very small one.
You are correct, I misspoke. Only convicted for sex with underage girls and federally charged with sex trafficking, during which he committed suicide before trial.
Any comment on my other facts listed?
Today I learned that powerful, wealthy men have access to many nubile, willing and enthusiastic sexual partners. Tomorrow I plan to learn that my cat thinks of me as a two-legged can opener that also grooms him on demand.
Looks like I need to increase the dosage of my antidepressants.
Also good idea to learn about the age of consent in the US. Child rape doesn't depend on whether they are nubile, willing or enthusiastic, no matter how much some may want it to. Unless they want to flee to Israel to live out their pedophile life there.
Yeah…if only the rich and powerful understood laws involving age of consent…then none of this would have happened. Are you really that naive? Read “Lolita;” you’re a few decades behind the curve.
I dont get it. Youre saying the rich and powerful follow all the laws written? Or they dont? What am I behind on?
What's the "age of consent" in Alaska? In Florida? In California? In New York?
Point being a day shy of 18 is not universally considered pedophilia, you fucking troll.
Oh do youre saying all 1,000 victims docuemnted by the fbi and dept of justice were all one day shy of 18. Even the 14 year olds. Got it. Good point
He was convicted in Florida because the age is 18. If it was in another state like NY, he wouldn’t have been.
Great comment
I try…although I’m no Mr. hat.
Lucky you!
Girl singular. One day before she turned 18. Did you read the story?
Brian has a problem with facts
The hat tightens.....
Now now boys, you’re making Mr Hat mad. Aka, The Mad Hatter?!
Ad hominem attacks and name-calling seem to be the preferred approach to disagreement around here. Far too often.
Nah it’s just humor. That one was just teed up just right. Try it.
Good one! See my comment to your idiotic comments listing the facts involved. Going to say Maxwell wasn't convicted of sex trafficking as his accomplice also?
What could possibly explain Maxwell’s conviction if she had not been working with or for Epstein?
Maxwell's conviction was directly tied to conspiring with Epstein to recruit and traffic victims for sex abuse.
You’re still wrong
Good talk!
Still wrong.
Ghislaine Maxwell, his partner and associate, was convicted in 2021 for sex trafficking minors. Her conviction was directly tied to conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to recruit, traffic, and abuse minors. That and a few hundred million in settlements of hundreds of victims. And the thousands of pages of work by good journalists documenting the case.
He was federally charged with sex trafficking minors. Mayhe just on rumors tho
And those girls in Salem were witches too!
that's the hill you're gonna defend? splitting hairs over semantics?
the moral outrage is because he trafficked female minors, he trafficked female minors, he trafficked female minors ...
His accomplice wasnt convicted for sex trafficking and he didn't commit suicide after being charged with sex trafficking (three times fast!)
Matt have been a subscriber for a while. Why oh why have you jumped on the E-train? Really. Am really sick of the whole debacle. You have so many other topics to delve into. Are your readers or Americans in general so obsessed with National Inquirer type shite to continue to care about this? Go rent “ Eyes Wide Shut” instead and watch it every day. Enough!
He got a sweetheart plea bargain because important men don’t think ruining the lives of young girls matters very much.
"because important men don’t think ruining the lives of young girls matters very much."
Are you suggesting if some other criminality were involved (drugs, $ laundering, pay-for-political influence, etc.) that these "important men" would not have granted the "sweetheart deal"? IMO, the sweetheart deal had nothing with the fact that it involved "the lives of young girls"; if anything, whatever deal he got was because he knew too much, and important people with power wish to avoid scandal or embarrassment irrespective of the crime.
What sweetheart deal are you talking about? The federal non-prosecution agreement (NPA) that was crafted by 2 female career sex crimes prosecutors that was done to a) get a plea deal at the state level without dragging victims into court & b) avoid the possible acquittal because his victims were also his facilitators (the girls were paid the same for giving Epstein massages as for bringing in new girls).
The notion that Epstein got a good deal in FL because of connections is not supported by the facts in the case or the investigation & prosecution history.
seems ur hat is on too tight Brian?
Did u not comprehend what's being said here? Jfc....
Clearly. Matt is desperate to ask, "what sex ring?
1. Epstein was charged with sex trafficking and committed suicide before his trial.
2. Epstein was accused by many dozens of women in sworn testimony that they were trafficked by epstein to powerful men.
3. Epstein was rumored to be trafficking woman, specifically underage women, by dozens of sources. (Endless citations) ask Mrs McCain.
4. Maxwell was charged and convicted of sex trafficking as his accomplice and is currently in prison.
Please dispute these facts.
Anyone who claims to be a journalist who would say, "what sex ring?", is obviously either an idiot or is obfuscating on purpose. You can pick whichever you prefer.
No one is denying shit went on meathead....but where, when, to whom, etc. is whats pertinent here...and ACTUAL journalism involves knowing the diff btwn gossip, rumor, etc and consciously NOT following that crap. But, as I said elsewhere, its the jockeying for narrative that is paramount now. Do u prefer that one more guy (Taibbi) just throw more garbage into the fire? And then what?
Apparently asking what sex ring isnt denying there's a sex ring to you, meathead. And apparently it somehow refutes something? Who said where or when or whom? Still can't refute the facts I listed? Matt has been jockeying for narrative- the narrative the epstein was not trafficking women to powerful men. Which could only be believed if you were a clueless idiot and didn't want to read for 5 minutes.
That is not what I wrote. Or what Michael wrote. I’m not saying definitively Epstein didn’t traffic to third parties. I’m saying there is no evidence of this. Neither of his criminal cases even allege it. The only stories suggesting this came from highly questionable narrators in civil cases, and the allegations are all vague:unnamed powerful men at unnamed times and dates, mentioned years after conflicting stories. It’s possible, but it’s not supported. As for Trump I don’t care what the files say about him - if he made jokes about rolling with underage girls, let’s see it. It’s not like his history makes that unlikely. But his history isn’t evidence. The whole point is to get back to what the evidence says. Which isn’t much, when it comes to people apart from Epstein.
Hey Google! Was Ghislaine Maxwell convicted of directly conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to sex traffic minors? Hey google, tell Matt so he stops embarrassing himself!
He committed suicide while being literally charged with sex trafficking. There are more than a few dozen of sworn And his partner and associate Maxwell was charged and convicted of trafficking minors, with sworn, corroborated testimonies, in court, on the record. Maybe I just don't know what evidence means? To be a journalist and say nothing is ever official unless you find a written note in blood by the person admitting their guilt is ridiculous. You are ignoring overwhelming evidence and underplaying the available evidence. Including the over 1,000 victims (only according to the FBI and Dept of Justice).
Forget it Matt...some folks just choose to be dim.
I wonder if Bri knows BJG?
You know Matt, this sounds like all the screaming about Trump being a rapist. When the fact is he was never convicted of that. You are reporting what the courts stated and the rest are allegations.
Mmk Bri...whatever u say, boyo. Keep that hat on tight, chum...it'll help save oxygen for the rest of us.
Solid stuff TWC! Great conversation with you!
Lol
'Which could only be believed if you were a clueless idiot and didn't want to read for 5 minutes.'
That would depend on *what* you're reading.
There are over 1,000 victims identified by the dept of justice and fbi, over 200 victims that settled with the estate for over $150mil, over 200 victims that settled with JP Morgan chase for $290mil, and dozens more that settled with Deutche and others for millions. Dozens identified by Miami Herald reporting. Dozens by prosecutors in Florida. Hundreds of testimonies. And way more that is redacted or withheld from the public for some reason.
So tell me what you are reading.
I'm honestly starting to think the entire thing is BS.
This is giving me JFK conspiracy vibes. For years we kept being told it's coming the proof is coming, new files are coming out....then nothing. It's an endless cock tease.
If there were members of an organized ring we've members of congress involved who could have used their parliamentary immunity from being sued for slander and named them and spoke what evidence they had (getting around the utter bollocks excuse that the girls are afraid of being sued cos they signed NDAs...Jesus people don't know how the law works, an NDA cannot cover up a criminal act, it has no force in that situation).
I think it was just this...skeezy massages the guy gets off too cos he can't fuck normally...and he had all these big shots in politics around him cos he donated to DNC/RNC and AIPAC...that's it...I really think that's it.
Imagine if people cared that much about the underage victims of the extensive grooming gangs in the UK. Or the pimps actively running wild in places like Seattle, where the government funded a convicted kiddie pimp. Is this really about the girls, or just Trump... again?
Done. 1) Epstein was charged in the most recent case and committed suicide in jail. The case was dropped because he was dead and there was no conviction. 2) "Epstein was accused by many women in sworn testimony ..." . Those were civil cases, those women were suing for money. Thus the "sworn testimony" resulted in zero convictions for criminal activity. 3) Epstein was rumored to be trafficking women is just that - rumors. It is of zero significance outside the henhouse. 4) Maxwell was convicted independently of conspiracy to entice, conspiracy to transport, transporting, sex trafficking and conspiracy to sex traffick. The convictions all related to minor girls. Her convictions were upheld by the appellate court and the Supreme Court declined to take her case. She currently has pending a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The basis of that petition is an allegation of "substantial new evidence" that undermines the convictions. Epstein's only conviction was in the 2008 Florida case and was for solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of prostitution with a minor. This case was where the allegation pertaining to the 14 year old was involved but it is my understanding her allegations did not result in conviction. Furtheore it does not appear any of the women were charged with prostitution. PTL courts do not operate on feels, rumors , or "what everybody knows. Rather they proceed on admissable evidence which has been verified and authenticated. Testimonial evidence is subject to cross-examination. This was MTs point. He wants to see the evidence, not the accusation.
So his accomplice and partner was in fact convicted of sex trafficking of minors.
And he was accused in sworn testimony by dozens (over 100?) women of trafficking to other men.
And he was rumored by dozens of sources on record to be trafficking minors to powerful men.
Thanks for confirming.
So far Maxwell is convicted. Rumors and accusations are not proof. As for Epstein himself the proof will never come. But you know, since you are good with rumor as fact, the rumor is he was murdered. And not by Maxwell. The simple truth is that I do not know what happened with Epstein. Taibbi does not know what happened with Epstein. But neither do you.
Am I asking what sex ring as a journalist? Or am I looking at the totality of information available and presenting facts?
Was Maxwell his partner and associate, living with him and traveling with him and trafficking women for him? Obviously. You'd have to not have a brain to pretend Maxwell is separate and was sex trafficking all by herself while living and traveling and working with epstein as his partner.
Hey man, just cause there’s a shitload of smoke coming out of the house’s windows doesn’t mean it’s on fire.
Did the house actually admit in writing that it's on fire?
False analogy to compare a house fire to one adjudicated as guilty.
But yea, what sex ring??
I don't think that anyone here is claiming Epstein is an innocent, however your complaint against Matt doesn't hold up. An actual journalist reports verifiable facts. You, in reality, have no concrete evidence, only supposition. Maybe you've been conditioned to believe that actual hard evidence is not needed. Lord knows the legacy media has pushed that notion for the last 10 years. You had better hope that you never tick off the "wrong" people and find yourself defending against rumors, because according to your metrics for conviction, well...don't bend over to grab the soap.
Pretty good effort, but noting that there was no conviction because of a dead defendant is not exactly a refutation.
It’s obvious
Matt was one of Epsteins lackeys!…….Or, perhaps
He just remains obsessed with with the truth rather than pandering bullshit to those obsessed with Epstein
He remains obsessed with tying Epstein questions to people who have Trump Derangement Syndrome, which I don't. Some of us have been calling for investigations into Epstein's activities long before dems tried to use it for politics. And pretending to deny Epstein was involved with sex trafficking, among other serious crimes, makes you into an ignorant, anti-journalist hack.
"He remains obsessed with tying Epstein questions to people who have Trump Derangement Syndrome,"
Beyond ridiculous conclusion.
This Brian clown, and those similar to him, are just willfully dim, while considering themselves as curious. Or investigative? Or something?
Why call for investigations when you have decided Epstein was guilty of "sex trafficking [to others]...among other [unstated serious crimes"? What exactly do you think happened; why has nobody concluded a comprehensive and air-tight investigation; and is Taibbi obligated to lead the mob, or is just grabbing a flaming torch enough? Should journalist be independent and critical thinkers, or should just jump on the current thing. What makes one an "anti-journalist hack"?
There were investigations dummy. He got a sweetheart deal and immunity, and then was indicted and charged with sex trafficking and died before facing justice, while his accomplice was convicted and is in prison. There are thousands of pages and videos etc of evidence being held by the government and others, files reacted, etc, hence the massive call by the population to release the files. You people are purposely playing dumb because you can't ignore that much of a mountain of evidence available.
Up to you to provide your source material and evidence, asshole.
Otherwise, you're just another internet moron who believes whatever is posted to further your belief.
Touch more grass, psycho.
And stop posting.
He provided it you clown.
He provided nothing. As in zilch.
You sound like the MSM, just making shit up.
What part is made up?
Epstein was not charged with sex trafficking.
None of its made up...it just isn't there
You didn’t read his article?or Michael Tracey’s, did you? Might want to try that.
No I didn't fucking read Michael Tracey's article. Are you joking?
I stopped reading your comment when you said Epstein committed suicide.
Since you have proof that he did not, I'm sure a lot of people would love to see it. I don't think he did either, but my thinking it is not proof. We will never get proof one way or the other, so it's really just pointless speculation to assume anything about it.
You are mistaken. The claim that Epstein trafficked minors or adult women to others is primarily based upon the claims of Virginia Giuffre (née Roberts, aka Doe #3). She consistently claimed she was trafficked to 4 men. One was dead before she accused him & could not respond. One was always accompanied by his wife on Epstein’s jet or at his properties. One settled with her, but whether that was forced by the Queen to stifle the scandal or was evidence of guilt will probably never be known. One claim she withdrew after he produced travel docs including his visa in litigation showing he was not where she said he abused her.
Several others have anonymously or publicly claimed they were trafficked. One appears to not exist except as a figment of the imagination of a publicist trying to hurt Trump; “she” filed suits in NYC & CA but withdrew them. She never appeared for scheduled press conferences & her high-profile celebrity lawyer admitted she’d never met her. Another woman admitted she had made the story up as a way to draw attention to Epstein.
Only about 4-5 women have claimed they were pimped out to others. All of them have either withdrawn their claims or have been shown to be fabulists to my knowledge. I welcome specific claims with legitimate citations if you know of others.
Name the women you believe have said they were trafficked to others & we can move forward.
They definitely flew to the island by the hundreds for the innocent sunbathing and the casual hangouts while epstein alone abused over 1,000 girls and no one saw anything or did a thing. And all the assassinations were a lone gunman because the courts. And Andrew had his royal titles removed because of bad press and his sweating disease. And jean luc brunel didn't do anything either because he hung himself before conviction too. And ghislaine got 20 years because she hooked epstein up with some women, no big deal.
Where do you get that hundreds of people flew to LSJ? This is just a part of what you “know” that isn’t true. Your source for “hundreds,” please.
The majority of the girls/women Epstein abused were SAed in FL, not LSJ. His method was to recruit a young girl to give him “massages” for $200; he would groom them to initially massage him topless, then give him hand jobs. He rarely if ever had coitus with his “masseuses.” There was speculation by some of the girls that his misshapen penis was due to his excessive sexual appetite (3 sexual massages a day, often with 3 girls, was not uncommon). He recruited girls starting in 2000 (first reported incident) & continued until his arrest in 2019. 1000 girls over that period would average 51 a year, or a new one every week. Most were used to recruit other girls they knew for $200 an acceptable recruit (girls reported he would reject girls over 25). It worked like a pyramid scheme.
Only a few favorites are known to have traveled with him to his Paris flat, LSJ, NM Zorro ranch, or NY townhouse.
Victim lawyer Brad Edwards explained how Epstein managed his girls. Most (after initial recruitment) would get a call & E or M would send a car or cab to pick them up. They would enter through the kitchen, be taken to E for his “massage” then either be escorted (if new) or find their own way back to the kitchen where they could get something to eat before being sent home. If the recruiter was just there to bring a new girl they would stay in the kitchen until the “masseuse”was done.
As attorney Edwards said in one interview:
“Edwards describes the enigmatic Epstein as living, essentially, two separate lives: one in which he was sexually abusing women and girls "on a daily basis," and another in which he associated with politicians, royalty, and titans of business, academia, and science.
“For the most part, those two worlds did not overlap. And where they overlapped, in the instances they overlapped, it seems to be a very small percentage," Edwards said. "There were occasions where a select few of these men engaged in sexual acts with a select few of the girls that Jeffrey Epstein was exploiting or abusing -- primarily girls who were over the age of 18."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/jeffrey-epstein-key-victims-attorney/story?id=123805543
This is lawyer speak for “I don’t know of any third parties who had sex with minors; if I had any such clients, I’d sue those bastards as well.”
This interview starts off with a telling sentence:
“Brad Edwards knows that what you are about to read may be difficult for some to accept.”
People want to believe there was a big pedo ring run by E & M. I remember during Covid when Q had “inside scoop” that the hospital ships Trump ordered to NYC & LA were really to house the hundreds of pedos the military was ready to round up. Didn’t happen. But you can always find conspiracy theories about international pedo rings. The proof never materializes. Not to worry - this just proves how powerful they are!
Not sure what your digression is about lone gunmen but I guess that’s just part of your belief in constant, vast conspiracies by people much smarter than everyone else.
Andrew definitely lost his military titles, the right to use “HRH,” & his patronage because of his association with E & the Giuffre allegations. He retains his peerage as the Duke of York. As a lawyer I’m not willing to say his settlement with Giuffre indicates guilt. I’ve done too many settlements to end litigation when my client was not at fault just to get it over with. But of all Giuffre’s claims of other men than E I think this is the most likely to be true. I can only imagine what the Queen thought of the scandal, & it is not out of the question that she told him to settle to stop the bad press even if she thought him innocent. Just because Giuffre was a very troubled woman who was a known fabulist I think the odds that they had relations at 75% or even higher. We know they were together in London & elsewhere.
Jean-Luc Brunel was Epstein’s European pimp. He had a “modeling agency” & would bring girls from the EU (mostly France) to FL using modeling visas. Some victims said he SAed them & I don’t doubt it. Pimps abuse girls. Hardly a powerful elite client of E’s - E was his client. But an important name in the Epstein saga as someone who trafficked girls to Epstein, not the other way around.
Maxwell got 20 years for facilitating E’s assaults on young women. I invite you to read her indictment & charges (which I’ve posted elsewhere in these comments). If you read paragraphs 1-8 of the indictment, reiterated for every count, you find that Maxwell’s crimes (alleged in the indictment & found guilty in the trial) involved her actions to provide girls to Epstein & no other. Try as you might, there is no indication that she trafficked or transported girls for anyone beside Epstein. The judge who denied the DOJ’s request to unseal Maxwell’s grand jury transcripts noted that they would not reveal anything not publicly discussed at her trial - no list of clients, no third parties that had sex with young girls. Nothing new.
Hope this helps.
Your entire argument is just trying to discredit women that have come forward on record, hundreds, who have been paid millions in settlements, apparently all for no reason, by your logic.
See the problem is 'xyz accusation' is not evidence ok?
Do you understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty? Do you know why it's set up like that? Because anyone can say anything!!! Anyone can say anything. Things prosecutors believe and cops believe get ripped apart in court every day. PEOPLE LIE.
VG lied her ass off about secret sites around Europe where the blackmail tapes were. Then when a prosecutor said "Ok I want those tapes tell me their exact locations" she admitted she made it up. How many others were doing that? Making stuff up to the millions in compensation money? You don't see how that could make dishonest or morally bankrupt people lie? Especially the type of people who would claim to have a bad experience with a sleazeball then recruit other young girls FOR that sleazeball?
This is why we can't just rely on accusations, we have to go with convictions.
Look at the Duke Lacrosse case. We had a victim there who SAID they gang raped her. Everyone bought it. EVERYONE. It was all over the internet and all over the papers I remember it. If you defended those guys by pointing out the giant holes in her story you got your head taken off. It was only when a proper investigation was done and it was going to go to court that the truth came out.
You cannot just rely on accusations. Accusations are NOT PROOF.
Number four is the only adjudicated (i.e., proven) item:
"4. Maxwell was charged and convicted of sex trafficking as his accomplice and is currently in prison.?"
True, but the conviction ONLY included interactions with Epstein, and did not include interactions with other men. That's Matt's point concerning the "sex ring". Read the DOJ press release:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/ghislaine-maxwell-sentenced-20-years-prison-conspiring-jeffrey-epstein-sexually-abuse
I believe it is highly probable (all but certain) that other men "enjoyed" the company of these young women, with "believe" being the operative word.
How man girls did Epstein kidnap anyway?
Riiiightt…? I betchyaa it was a lot…anyway lets get that guy!—I mean, wait, who are we supposed to get?
;-)
Is your retardation new, or have you had it your entire life? Asking for a friend.
Save it. There are plenty of others who will pretend to know something while they pull their leads from Chat GPT and you will probably be happy to read them.
Are you F’G retarded??? Why yes, yes you are🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Hmm. Except he wasn’t convicted of that
Yeah, I'm extremely disappointed in Matt here for not giving this subject the 'vampire squid' treatment that made him the amazing reporter he once was. Probably dropping this subscription.
I’ve never been an Epstein fanatic, but as I see it, the most suspicious thing about him is how fast and how high he rose with no talent, connections, or accomplishments.
How does a college dropout without a teaching credential get a teaching job at an elite private school? When he gets fired from that job for allegations of impropriety, how does he quickly get hired by the elite NYC investment firm run by the father of one of his students, in spite of having no experience in finance?
Matt’s right, the evidence that Epstein was running a sexual blackmail ring is circumstantial. But if blackmail isn’t the reason that throughout his career, Epstein was repeatedly able to get powerful men to give him things, you have to wonder, what WAS the reason? Epstein would have to have had some kind of brilliance or charisma that I just don’t see evidence of.
Do you guys remember Bernie Madoff? Not that he was involved in sex stuff, but he was a con man and a lot of very smart people made him super rich. He even fooled the SEC. Epstein was a con man too .
Yes. And Madoff apparently did know a lot about the machinery of NSDAQ. (It is my understanding that he helped found it.) He just found being a con man was a more reliable path to wealth.
Was with you until “He even fooled the SEC.” The SEC was delivered tangible proof that he could not have attained the investment returns he was reporting -3 different times. They either could not understand the information provided (real possibility) or ignored it as Madoff had some very “connected” clients.
Well, isn’t that fooling them? He gave them his clearing number with the depository trust and they never checked on it to determine the securities were actually being transacted. I would say they got fooled…or didn’t do their job.
I agree with the last part of your comment. But that is not fooling them.
Ok. My point was he was well known and respected in the investment community. They asked for his clearing number but never checked into it. Call it what you may, but to me they didn’t because they assumed he wouldn’t have been conducting a Ponzi scheme. If they had merely done a simple check to see zero security trades in his account they would have discovered his scheme. Yet, they didn’t and it continued on until the market crash.
Apparently he was not talentless. It seems he was pretty good at math; good enough to teach it at the high school level. Being a college dropout is obviously not always a sign of lack of ability. Some dropouts usually named as examples are Bill Gates, Edwin Land (Polaroid), Steve Jobs, etc.
It does seem though that blackmail was also in his skill set.
Sorry, but that’s a ludicrous argument. That’s like saying apparently Hunter Biden was pretty good at fossil fuel extraction, as proven by the fact that he was handed a job on the board at a Ukrainian energy company in spite of his lack of credentials.
I’ve been in education for over 20 years, and I can assure you people don’t get teaching jobs at elite NYC prep schools because they’re “good at” the subject they teach. The parents writing checks to these elite schools are doing so because the faculty either have advanced degrees from prestigious schools, or impressive careers and accomplishments in those fields. I agree you don’t need a college degree to be smart. But Bill Gates and Steve Jobs created products that sold in the hundreds of millions. I don’t think Epstein got rich by being good at solving for X
I work in higher education and I've seen plenty of un- and under-qualified rise up. Sometimes life is who you know, how you talk, and how you manipulate.
Yeah, that was my point. For this story to make sense, Epstein would have to be either brilliant or silver-tongued. Show me any proof of either
He seemed to have been "silver-tongued" enough to fool, or at least charm, a lot of fairly accomplished people.
Or he blackmailed them
And/or what you look like.
Well I’m done states you can become school superintendent’s while not being a citizen and having an arrest record.
I'm not going to review everything I wrote but maybe I wasn't clear enough. I think it was likely he got his teaching job through connections but he would not have gotten it if he didn't have some competence in the subject. There I do not think he was "talentless".
... Therefore I do not think he was "talentless".
What are you talking about? What connections? He was a nobody. What talent? He had no accomplishments.
I’m saying there is a gap in the explanation of how he rose to the top. A curious person who wanted to report news would try to look into that gap, not explain it away
He started tutoring classmates in MATH while in Junior High. He impressed a parent of one of the students he tutored enough to be offered a job at the investment/stock firm Bear Stearns after graduating from high school at age 16 after skipping two grades. (I know what that is like. I did the same thing in the same school system. Skipped third and eighth grades. He attended P.S. 188. I went to P.S. 182.). He was not "talentless". Why do you insist he was?
I’m not insisting he’s talentless. I’m saying talent isn’t what got him his island, or that job at Bear Stearns. I also believe that you have talent at math, just as much as Epstein. What sea is your island in? What elite New York financial firm did you get a job at?
A "curious person" would do a little research and be open minded. There does not seem to be any mysterious "gap".
No, you’re right, he was a good math teacher so he got tens of millions of dollars. I don’t see a gap
But he DID teach Math at a private school for awhile. So he got the gig through connections despite the fact he knew nothing about the subject? Now THAT'S a "sweet gig".
If he got the teaching job through the offices of wealthy and influential friends maybe they could have gotten him a job in a field in which he had some knowledge and competence instead of Math?
I did not say nor have I read anyone saying Epstein became wealthy by knowing how to solve for X.
You said he had talent in math. I’m saying I doubt talent in math is what got him that job. I won’t dispute he was good at math. I’m sure he was great at math. There are plenty of people out there who can teach high school math quite well, some with college decrees, some without. Most of them could not get a job at an elite NYC prep school. Whatever game Epstein was running, it wasn’t the math game.
I will adjust my most recent comment upon reading yours. You did not opine he was bad in Math.
It’s cool, I get that you’re not paying much attention to my arguments
I'd have to go back and check the exact words and sentence construction but I don't believe I wrote I thought he got the teaching job because he was good at Math. I wrote having the job indicates he was good enough in Math to get the job no matter how he actually got it. Even without having that job I find no particular reason to believe he was not mathematically competent, if not gifted. If you think he was not good in Math why do you think that?
Getting a job teaching high-school math might require somebody vouching for you, but it’s pretty small potatoes to characterize that as “running a game”.
Once you have the job it doesn’t take a genius to teach the subject.
I’m retired after having six different full-time jobs. I think it’s true that for every job but the first one I got in the door because someone there knew me.
Epstein was a nice looking young guy, apparently smart enough to teach math and physics convincingly. And play piano. What's not to like? How did Elizabeth Holmes get big shots to invest in Theranos?
Or look at the career of Des Moines Public Schools Superintendent Ian Roberts. The guy made an entire career of lies, fraud, and criminal activity...on top of being an illegal alien.
And Elizabeth Holmes got the big shots to invest in Theranos by convincing them she had a suitcase-sized device that could give quick, accurate blood tests. She gave demonstrations where this seemed to work. What was the narrative Epstein was selling?
This might sound absurd but there are actually nice looking guys who are good at math and play the piano who DON’T own their own islands. I almost think “what’s not to like” might not be an adequate explanation for how a non-island-owner becomes an island-owner
Michael Tracey has written on this. Two of the billionaires that were clients of Epstein issued reports on their financial involvement with him. Leon Black apparently paid Epstein over $150 million in fees for financial planning/money management in the 2010s. (see here: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1411494/000119312521016405/d118102dex991.htm)
Epstein had other financial clients, too. Les Wexner is a known one. IIRC, Ghislaine Maxwell mentioned some others during her proffer interview. He worked privately with rich individuals, so there is no public trail of information for the media to trace.
There is always very good pay for psychopaths.
Welcome to capitalism.
Yeah, that's different from Socialism where there is always good jobs for psychopaths. (Maduro, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro, etc.)
By definition capitalism doesn't need defending. It is the exercise of power. Power doesn't need a pep talk or cheerleaders--it's fucking power. When you can back it up, you don't need spandex back up dancers.
Being a psychopath is incredibly important in the raw exercise of power. Morality is one of the biggest obstacles to all power.
Epstein's marketable and very valuable talent was being a psychopath.
Side note: Capitalism eats cheerleaders whole--by definition. Think about it.
Socialism eats ... countries ... whole. Think about it.
Not adequately blowing Floyd doesn't mean I love Zeppelin. (they both have some great stuff--sure there is some filler--and drugs, but still epic runs)
But frankly, my last post was an ode to capitalism.
Power is not a bad word.
Let me try this--and this applies to socialism, capitalism, and cheerleaders.
What submits will be eaten.
Ok.
The New York Times just mapped it all out. 10,000 words, with diagrams. The guy was a hustler and social climber. Yeah I couldn't do it either.
Read this week’s NYT article about Epstein’s rise.
That is what I think too. It was about more than sex.
As has been pointed to: Epstein had an 11 figure 'lifestyle' while his books showed a 9 figure fortune. Doubtful we'll ever know what he was
I don't even know what a "11 figure lifestyle is". As far as I know he did not have a mega yacht and from the pictures I've seen, "Pedo Island" was not all that impressive.
I think Epstein’s real money came from being the person managing the sales of weapons throughout the world. Darryl Cooper and Mike Benz do some really good analysis of this. So, it makes sense that Epstein would have a very diverse set of friends who liked to be with someone who could get them young p**y and seemed to float above the law. Until he didn’t. What’s surprising to me is I haven’t heard a lot about what happened during the summer of 2019 when someone/entity said ‘ok, Epstein has to go’. Cause, he was gone quickly, whether by his own hand or not.
Maria thanks for this sensible post. Benz has researched this extensively. Do not need to read about this endlessly on Racket.
"I think Epstein’s real money came from being the person managing the sales of weapons throughout the world."
That line is taking a pay cut just to be extra dumb.
"the person"--it's too good.
Are Benz and the hitler was misunderstood dude really shilling this shit?
derp dee derp dee doo
It is maddening that so many people are such shallow drama addicts who don't let real truth get in the way of their perversions. My husband and I worked with a group called "Truckers Against Trafficking" about a decade ago as well as unwittingly helping a person break free from her traffickers. Epstein is NOT the face of sex trafficking. These people who are obsessed with this seem perverted themselves to me. They do go on and on about it ad nauseum.
Right. I investigated child abuse for years. There is no comparison between what likely happened here and the forcible rape of VERY young children.
All ages and the seven years once trapped in the life doesn't discriminate. If they are 12 or 14 they probably won't make it to be able to buy beer legally. No proms, first dates, college memories, marriage... Modern day slavery.
I was referring to the Epstein case. Specifically, the 17-18 year old.
Oh, I was talking about human trafficking. Epstein was so gross. What a creep. I can't say anything good about him.
Interesting - what would you say the REAL face of sex-trafficking looks like (I assume names are too much to ask)?
About 10 or so years ago my husband and I are trying to unclog our kitchen sink using a snake that is attached to a drill. He was feeding the snake into the pipe and I was controlling the drill. long story short after a few times of this I am backing the snake out and I back right into the swimming pool. (drill in hand) It's late October early November so the water is freaking cold. I am having an impromptu swim and my phone keeps ringing. (I still have a landline at this point.) Me, not being in the mood for a conversation tried to ignore it. No such luck. The caller just keeps calling back. I finally answer dripping all over the place and it is an old friend and neighbor from my past. It's been like nineteen tikiti-whatever since I had heard from her. She asked me if I was still in Dallas and said that her daughter (I recalled as a toddler) keeps calling her with short, strange messages and she thought she might be fighting with a boyfriend she had gone on vacation with or something. Would I mind picking her up. That turned out to be the beginning of a very long and very WTAF several days and a complete crash course in shit I never even wanted to know about. After that experience my husband and I through other acquaintances wanted to help in some way because you just can't unknow some stuff even if you would like to. My husband wrote a program for a group called Truckers against Trafficking and I started reading up on the matter. I didn't get to see her captors face but I can tell you he and his buddies were here illegally and that she had to break a window to get out. They were running after her to my mini-van and the cops that I called watched and did nothing. The same cops who had tried to get me to go home saying "These girls" and kept asking me "How did she get here?" I just kept saying "I don't know but I know how she's leaving." and "If you leave me in this bad neighborhood by myself I will call the news station." They decided to stay. She was a first year student at K.U. and was snagged on campus. Does anyone really think being a victim of sex trafficking lands you in private islands and private jets being forced to boink horse-faced princes and sleazy ex-presidents?
JFC....
"The same cops who had tried to get me to go home saying 'These girls'..."
I don't get this - "these girls" what? Is that a typo, or is that some kind of shorthand, or what?
They were saying that these girls don't want to leave and stuff like that. Stuff that I knew wasn't true. My friends daughter cried as I was taking her to my house saying "There's a sixteen year old. You have to go back and get her. They are giving her heroin. " I felt really bad but I knew the police weren't going to help me do that after how they had behaved for the last 5-6 hours. I was traumatized by the whole thing and my friends daughter had to go through years of therapy. Her father sent me pictures of her college graduation and again pictures of her and her husband's wedding. I think too many people aren't so fortunate to have stubborn family and friends. I don't think too many people are waiting for settlements from estates and signing NDA's. I never spoke about this until recently over the summer with my brother in-law who is retired career FBI. I didn't even tell my mom who lives in the same area because the girl and her parents just wanted her to get past it and go forward. I believe them to be correct about that. I feel okay saying this now. I have no patience for the Epstein BS.
How thoroughly bizarre.
Completely bizarre and eye opening. There is like this different underbelly type elements of society that you can slip down and see if you actually force yourself to do so.
EXACTLY. We are chasing the shiny object that isn’t connected to anything meaningful, typical red herring nonsense. If the redactions point to some sort of connection between the Pedo Epstein, and his relationships with powerful people where those ‘friends’ are a part of his weird pedo world, then that is a real story. Otherwise it is all just clickbait. Those who would intentionally distract us from say the collapsing dollar, or the mini mobilization occurring in the EU, or a Carrier Strike Group off the coast of Venezuela just love these coliseum games in the news.
"Coliseum games". Very good. I'm going to steal that.. Bread and Roses, too.
I thought it was a good article because I've known all along it was exaggerated. It's clear what a scumbag Bill Clinton is, but we didn't need to know about Epstein to know it. We've always known it. Trump at least threw the guy out of Mara-lago, so he figured out he was disgusting --on many levels. But he did it and a LONG time ago. I listened to Megyn Kelly who says there isn't that much "there there." Though there's no denying Epstein was also a huge scum bag. Whether he was tied in with Israel's intelligence or whatever, or ours, could be SOME truth to that even if informally -- could be why he got away with stuff. But I think Michael is accurate and I'm sick to death of hearing about it. But listening to that girl's description of Epstein in Michael's article was interesting and enlightening. The real deal is that powerful men did this stuff back then and in most high powered industries. I would think they think twice about it now. But then...
A full analysis of the guests to Epstein Island requires a calculation of the "grossness factor" among the clients. Yes, money and power will get you a date on the mainland somewhere along the Reptile Resemblance (RR) curve. But here is a non-island point of diminishing returns when ratio of time invested to actual date rises to unacceptable levels. And we all agree, time is money. Other factors cloud the data, as in, "super geezer power" to hire actresses or control federal hiring. Some AI may be required.
My main takeaway other than another well documented and informative piece by Matt is that this must be what he was referring to when he mentioned he was going to be a very unpopular journalist next week
There are far too many people who just want to believe a narrative no matter how much proof to the contrary there is. Or in this case, no proof at all to support their cherished views
On the topic of Epstein, Maxwell, et al, IRDGAF. There are way more important things to occupy my mind.
Matt. Matt. Matt. Providing access to young women to powerful, mostly married men is disturbing. What Michael and you report seems like splitting hairs over what prosecutors were able to charge and prove in south Florida.
Sigh. This is exactly the point. We don't know that he was "providing access to young women" to "powerful, mostly married men." There just isn't evidence of this. If you want a justice and journalistic system that just assumes things, go for it. But currently what we have courts for is to determine the provability of crime, and the job of people like me is to point out the (sometimes unpopular) limits of what's known.
I grant that there is a lack of evidence established in court. I admit that I am under the influence of close to twenty-five years of gossip and innuendo from people who knew Epstein through the New York Academy of Art.
Critical theory has ruined the minds of a generation. Or two. They no longer even understand what you mean when you speak of this “evidence” stuff; unless you are supporting the approved narrative, all you are doing is babbling.
Spot on Matt
This is where people get it wrong. Take a step back, please. Check your assumptions. You believe that Epstein was providing women to others.
What is your evidence of this? Unfortunately, when you start from an unfounded assumption, everything from that point on will be incorrect.
Stop & think. Why do you believe Epstein provided women to others? Not, “Well, SINCE he provided women to others…” but “This is the evidence he provided women to others. Therefore…”
The evidence he provided women to others, upon which everything else is based, comes from one tragic girl/woman, Virginia Giuffre (née Roberts, aka Doe #3). Out of up to 1000 girls Epstein abused, she’s the only one to have made this claim. She accused 4 men. One was already dead & couldn’t defend himself. One defended himself in court & proved with travel docs & other evidence he wasn’t where she said he abused her & she had to retract her claims. One only spent time at E’s properties with his wife. One settled with her with an NDA which may or may not be evidence of the truth of her accusations.
Epstein associated with the rich & powerful. But according to the statements of his victims to their counsel, he kept the two worlds apart. He would get “sexual massages” 1-3 times a day. They rarely, if ever, involved coitus.
“But what about the Lolita Express? You don’t fly on E’s jet nicknamed that without knowing or participating!”
This nickname was a press invention after E was arrested in 2019. A Newsweek reporter wrote that according to an anonymous “local” on St Thomas Island that is what locals called it. It may have been something this “source” came up with on the spot. The press loved it & publicized it. There is no evidence Epstein or any of his passengers knew of this nickname.
The question remains - why do you believe E ever provided women to friends & associates? If you have nothing more than “everyone knows it” or “that’s just what rich men do” you need to reassess your assumptions.
I grant that there is a lack of evidence established in court. I admit that I am under the influence of close to twenty-five years of gossip and innuendo from people who knew Epstein through the New York Academy of Art.
Really? Did such conversations go back 25 years or did people say in retrospect after 2019, “Oh, we’ve known all about Epstein for years?” I’m genuinely curious what was discussed & when. In part because NY has a mandatory reporting requirement for certain individuals (which would presumably include many members of the Academy of Art set). See NY Social Services Law §§ 413–420 & NY Family Court Act § 1012.
& what exactly did they “know?” That Epstein got daily “sexual massages” from young women? That he operated an international pedo ring?
I always go back to the fact that only one of his victims claimed she was trafficked to other men. Why would the hundreds of other victims who sued Epstein (when he was alive), his estate & his banks not name & sue ANY of these rich & powerful abusers? As you say, other abusers not proven in court. Indeed, no other abuser was named in court filings. Odd. Lawyers always try to bring in deep pockets. Were they afraid? Brave enough to go after Epstein & Maxwell, but scared to sue some actor or scientist? Doesn’t make sense. If my client came to me with a credible story about the head of the CIA I’d sue them.
Start with “everybody knows” & ask 2 questions - what is the evidentiary basis for everyone knowing, & what would be left of all the theories if what “everybody knows” was false.
For example, would it make sense for assassins to kill Epstein in his jail cell if there was no big pedo ring to protect or secret intel connections? Take away the motive for murder & you have a normal jailhouse suicide. Uncommon? Why then do they take shoelaces & belts away from the incarcerated? Why is there even a thing called “suicide watch” if it’s not a common occurrence? Without the motive would we obsess over missing/corrupted 2.5 minutes of video from an old surveillance system? When we have guards sleeping & shopping online instead of doing their rounds? Wouldn’t the concern (if there was any) be about how poorly the MCC SHU was run?
Start with the evidence, not the theories based on assumptions & conjecture.
Lester, thanks for providing this beautiful example of critical thinking, calmly and clearly articulated.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/19/us/epstein-fbi-complaint-1996-maria-farmer.html
The article is behind a paywall. The NY Times has an extensive and well-documented history of printing outrageous lies, which led me to cancel my subscription several years ago. The title speaks of a complaint that wasn’t acted on. Can you tell us what the article says about why the complaint wasn’t acted on? Or are you still “not engaging further”?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/19/us/epstein-fbi-complaint-1996-maria-farmer.html
It was 2022 or 2023 when I first heard what I admit was gossip and innuendo. I will not engage any further.
That's when the “25 years of gossip and innuendo” started? Two or three years ago?
Whoops, I meant to say 200 or 2003.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/19/us/epstein-fbi-complaint-1996-maria-farmer.html
Maria Farmer’s FBI report is very strange & her story raises more questions than it answers. It’s rather complex path your simple url has led me down.
The only documentary evidence from the FBI is the 9/3/96 report your NYT piece discloses about Epstein stealing nude pictures Maria took of her 2 younger sisters (12 & 16). While the NYT strangely does not link it, I was able to track the FBI report down.
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%204/EFTA00006107.pdf
Maria makes no mention in this report of the sexual assaults she said happened to her sister & her earlier that summer. That seems odd - isn’t your minor sister & you being assaulted more of a deeply personal crime than having pictures stolen? Wouldn’t you mention in a theft & threat report that the man who stole the nudes also assaulted you & your minor sister? “Oh, yeah, this is the same monster who sexually assaulted my 16-yo sister & me as I previously reported.”
Today the claims of the Farmer sisters’ alleged assaults are well known (I say “allegedly” but frankly until today I assumed they were real as I’m not in the habit of saying “allegedly” about any Epstein victim). Maria was an adult (26) when she now says she was assaulted by Epstein (& also by Maxwell) at a remote guesthouse on a Wexner property in Ohio. Her younger sister Annie was allegedly assaulted at Epstein’s NM Zorro ranch when she 16, a month or so earlier. Maria said that she was unaware that Annie had been assaulted (given a topless massage by Maxwell who touched her breasts & by Epstein who climbed into bed with her & groped her) until after Maria was assaulted.
What makes this interesting is that aside from claims made by Maria Farmer that she reported sexual abuse to the NYPD & FBI in 1996, no documentation that she reported abuse in 1996 exists. The only NYPD report (#1996-0067241, dated August 29, 1996; CBS News obtained a copy from which they quoted excerpts on air) & only FBI report (form FD-71 dated 9/3/1996, linked above) state only that Epstein stole pictures & negatives of nude pictures Maria had taken of her younger sisters, & that Epstein had threatened to burn her property. They do not mention sexual or physical assaults
When did Maria first share her stories about Annie Farmer & her being assaulted? Six years later when Vicky Ward, a gossipy reporter who had heard that Farmer had a bad experience with Epstein, contacted Maria. It was the first instance where she talked about assault. Ward’s editor, Graydon Carter (Vanity Fair’s editor-in-chief in 2003) has repeatedly stated that he cut the Farmer sisters’ allegations from Ward’s Epstein profile not due to external pressure from Epstein, but because her reporting “did not pass the legal threshold for publication” and lacked sufficient corroboration. In a 2019 NPR interview, he emphasized that the claims didn’t meet the magazine’s standards for libel risk, describing Ward’s sourcing as inadequate (e.g., only two on-the-record sources he deemed reliable, despite Ward claiming more). In a 2022 New Yorker article, Carter reiterated this, adding that Ward had a pattern of “misrepresenting her reporting” and that he distrusted her work on this story.
So Maria’s story of abuse didn’t get told in 2002. Fast forward to 2019, some 23 years after the alleged assaults. Prior to his arrest, the Epstein story was heating up. Virginia Giuffre was sued by Alan Dershowitz for defamation re her claim he repeatedly assaulted her (she countersued but settled the matter by saying she must have been mistaken when she IDed Dershowitz as an abuser from 2001-2002 who assaulted her in London, NYC, FL & NM; he had travel docs including his visa that showed he was not in those locations with her).
Maria Farmer filed a sworn affidavit in support of Giuffre in April 2019. She also started giving interviews saying she had been assaulted.
From 1996, when she says she reported the assaults to both the NYPD & FBI (who have reports she made about stolen child porn but not about sexual assaults), until 2019 she didn’t sue, press charges, or publicize her alleged assaults. When approached by Vicky Ward in 2002 she told her story for the first time for publication but the Vanity Fair editor rejected that aspect because it was too sketchy. Ward had been given Maria’s name, according to a 2022 New Yorker piece: “Ward was soon alerted to something even darker about Epstein. A friend told her that an artist named Maria Farmer had had a ‘bad experience’ with Epstein, and urged Ward to reach out to the young woman.” The thing that Maria’s story was darker than? Rather crude & graphic comments Epstein made in an interview with the pregnant Vicky Ward about the birthing process. Would another woman describe sexual assault of an adult woman & a minor child as merely a “bad experience?” Doubtful.
From 2002 until 2019 she didn’t talk or file. Why? If she was willing to tell all to Vicky Ward in 2002, 6 years after the alleged assaults, using her own name, it wasn’t that she was embarrassed or scared.
From the evidence we have, we can state some facts & draw reasonable inferences.
1. Maria made a report about the theft by Epstein of naked pix of her younger sisters that Maria had taken. She made this report to both the NYPD & FBI. She also reported that Epstein had threatened to burn her artwork if she told anyone about the theft.
2. She did not make a report about sexual assaults in 1996. No record exists at either the NYPD or FBI of a sexual assault complaint, while they both have her theft complaints.
3. Her big expressed concern was that pictures & negatives had been stolen & possibly sold by Epstein, & that he had threatened to go into her apartment (he had a key) & burn her paintings when she was not there.
4. The first time she mentions the alleged sexual assaults on her sister & herself was 6 years after the alleged events (2002) when asked by an sketchy reporter to dish dirt on Epstein for an upcoming Vanity Fair piece. Ward’s editor spiked that aspect of the story as not being well-sourced or credible, & others in the newsroom found it “shaky” as Ward was known as someone who exaggerated a lot.
6. Pure conjecture on my part, but I have to wonder if Ward encouraged Maria to spice up the story about Epstein in 2002. Stealing pictures to resell is not an Epstein bombshell that wins a Pulitzer. Was Maria expressly or subliminally coaxed to fabricate an evil story? “Is that all you’ve got? Not very juicy, is it? You sure there isn’t something more exciting you can tell me about Jeff? I mean, the guy’s clearly a douche canoe. I’d really like to nail this asshat.”
5. Maria did not seek to publish her story elsewhere or take legal action for another 17 years.
6. Given the facts as set forth here, I now doubt that the Farmers were assaulted as they claim. I had unquestionably believed Maria previously, but thanks to your NYT link & the trail it has led down, I now believe that, more likely than not, the Farmers’ assault claims are bogus.
7. This fact pattern does not support a claim that Epstein’s sexual predations (which were frequent & real) were discussed in the NY art scene 20+ years ago.
Thank you. This really helps put things in a proper perspective.