I suppose the null hypothesis is that rich and well-connected people can get away with even open crimes in public for years and years. Weinstein got away with rape for years and years, against well-connected people as well. Epstein was a financier just like Weinstein. They have what you need, and they have the ear of a lot of other well-connected people who need things from him.
Mossad seems to be the most likely player here[1][2]:
> Given the chance to refute Ward’s report, specifically that the Epstein case involved intelligence matters, Acosta did nothing of the sort. Indeed, he functionally admitted that it’s true.
> What then can we conclude at this point? It appears that Jeffrey Epstein was involved in intelligence work, of some kind, for someone—and it probably wasn’t American intelligence either. The U.S. Intelligence Community is lenient about the private habits of high-value agents or informants, but they won’t countenance running sex trafficking rings for minors on American soil, for years. While it’s plausible that Epstein was sharing some information with the FBI—many criminals do so to buy themselves some insurance—it’s implausible that he was mainly working for the Americans.
> Who are the suspects then? It seems awfully coincidental that Epstein’s best pal and business partner for decades has been Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite and daughter of the late Robert Maxwell, the media mogul who died under mysterious circumstances in 1991.
> Six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence services attended Maxwell's funeral in Israel, while Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogized him and stated: “He has done more for Israel than can today be said."
[1] https://observer.com/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-spy-intelligenc...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell#Israeli_connect...
I find it difficult to believe Epstein had no protectors. Natually, now nonone really knew the guy.
Somewhere or wheres, there has to be a couple boxes of hard drives that could burn the world down if they ever came to light. Although I may be being optimistic; the Panama Papers never amounted to anything.
Also, if Epstein was indeed an intelligence agency cutout then he was surely watched very closely at all times, so there might not have been an opening for him to set one up (or he might have been told in no uncertain terms what would happen if he tried). Or (most likely of all IMO) after the sweetheart 2008 deal he simply thought he was untouchable and above the law, so why would he need to take precautions against being assassinated?
To that particular person. Being personally shameless with corrupt friends does have a way of making one immune to many kinds of blackmail. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people who have more shame and better friends that can still be controlled via threats of blackmail.
The egotistical usually like it even less. To plan for a dead mans switch, means staring down the abyss that is your own mortality.
I figure for many of these people it's very much out of their character to do so.
The UK had Jimmy Saville and a similar story. He raised a lot of money for various important people and charities so nobody paid attention to the fact that he appears to have been a serial rapist for decades.
Don't overlook the snobbery and friend of royalty aspect. The Windsor boys have been very, um, unlucky in their choice of friends. Despite the fact they have advisors and the secret service keeps tabs on them so they aren't compromised by spies or assassinated.
It really is extraordinary that they were both so unlucky and so badly compromised in this way.
You are not unlucky - you are simply coming from a powerful family but otherwise useless, so the only people who active try to be your friends are people who can’t be friends to someone useful.
>We need a second Church committee. Obviously.
>If you don't want to call for one, then tell us why in an editorial. Why doesn't this recent pattern of state-protected child rape excite you as much as 17th century slavery? This story would sell newspapers & subscriptions. Let it.
I am 100% speculating, but I'd guess that's what Jeff Bezos did in relation to his extra-marital affair, and what Bill Gates and others have been doing in relation to Epstein.
I'd be interested in learning about what techniques they use, since they seem like something that ought to be countered.
I've seen it many times and it has always struck me as the kind of spin that PR firm would write and disseminate.
When you look at the whole Epstein story, the people and the patterns, it's pretty clear that Gates was in a very questionable relationship with Epstein. The MIT donations, the senior Gates employee being the executor of Epstein's will, Gates' denials of knowing Epstein before the NYT article hit and his failure to address his flights with Epstein and meetings at his houses, Gates' email to staff about meeting with Epstein and a "beautiful Swedish woman and her 15 year old daughter, late into the night"...
With Gates in particular a lot of people seem willfully ignorant or have a strong desire not to dig deeper. It was a the same with Matt Gronenig. Prince Andrew, Dershkowitz, Wexner... I think every assumes the worst there but a lot of people are struggling to digest their actual heroes turning out to be much less than they thought.
I mean, your heroes sometimes turn out to be all that and so many more, horrible things. It's hard to fathom that people can contain good and bad qualities, and after the fact push them aside among "bad people". But if you do this, you won't learn anything, or be watchful of your remaining heroes.
Next time you idolize someone, remember that. They may be more things and those things may not all be pretty.
The English Language strikes again. Apologies for wandering off-topic, but to (hopefully) clarify:
You're thinking of less / more in the quantitative sense, suggesting some people have _more_ traits, some of which are unpleasant.
I think GP was using less in the qualitative sense - "a lesser person for lacking moral fiber", if you will.
Both are valid, but contextual ambiguity interferes with interpretation.
There’s a perfectly sound explanation for those posts that seem “shillish”: sincerely held beliefs that are different from yours. I think fanboyism and ideology motivate a lot more people to argue on the internet than money. If you want proof of this, look at all the teeming masses arguing for all sorts of causes that the rich and powerful don’t care about.
Another example of these kinds of statements would be "Elon Musk is like a real life Tony Stark." Do I think that every Elon fanboy is paid to say this online? No, of course not. Do I think that Elon Musk like many celebrities has a public image crafted by a PR firm and that this kind of jingo-istic soundbite probably originated from that firm? Absolutely.
It's not necessarily relevant to this case, and I agree that calling those people out as such lowers the quality of discourse, but I think it's something important to keep in mind.
Now I’m getting in the weeds and questioning the motivations of party A. I suspect this might make party A feel the way party C does when people call them “useful idiots”. And perhaps it demonstrates how this line of questioning is an endless rabbit hole.
I think the criteria "that party B calls party C" is actually pretty irrelevant to the concept's usefulness.
> essentially an argument meant to invalidate popular support for party B
In most of the cases where I'd use the term "useful idiot" the "party B" doesn't have much popular support, but is rather engaging in manipulation, disinformation, dishonest propaganda, etc. The realization isn't useful as a dismissal, but rather as a reminder that you need to confront both the idiot's sincere belief along with their ignorance of it's goals, implications, and beneficiaries.
Have to say I'm particularly impressed with Reid Hoffman's PR outfit though. By all accounts he was a major Silicon Valley nexus connecting Epstein to Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and others, yet he managed to stay almost completely out of the headlines and even still hosts a show on NPR about the startup scene.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-univer...
I suppose it is mostly about connections with people in newspapers etc. and collecting favors from them.
Bezos put all cards on table to avoid being blackmailed.
Not just in his will but named as the executor of his will.
If you don't think that, well then we do have to hem and haw about how much guilt by association they carry. Because for a lot of people, business connections or rubbing elbows for money with bad people doesn't get much blowback. Just look at Tim Cook gladhanding dictators of nations where homosexuality is outlawed. Or manufacturing in countries with ethnic concentration camps.
But when your power base is threatened, when you are wide open and people feel you could go under. That's when you can exhibit that power. When you step forward and pronounce that black is white, and all the press and the politicians nod in agreement.
This entrenches their power. Nobody called them out.
I don't think the average American knows that until they hit 40, hence the midlife crisis.
one of the best protections the wealthy have in the US is the poor and middle class voting based on an imagined and unlikely future for themselves.
Mr. Gates started the relationship after Mr. Epstein was convicted of sex crimes.
Much more likely is that Epstein had dirt on Gates and/or connections Gates wanted.
And if someone commits a crime then the courts determine an appropriate punishment and that is the end of what gets called 'wrong'.
I'm on board if you don't want to talk to convicted paedophiles - seems reasonable to me - but being judgemental of someone else's relationships is not fair.
I swear we're going to have to relearn all of the lessons we learned over the centuries of developing civil society, all in the name of some strange utopian perfectionism we're putting on every popular person. Mob justice is rarely good justice.
The Gates case is more complicated, as you mentioned, but the general trend is worrying and I personally wouldn't public tell people I met with Epstein either.
When it comes to courts, absolutely.
When it comes to making a judgement call (and also associating with people), it's expected.
You make a choice who you maintain relationships with. You can, and will be judged by the choices you make.
That being said, it's not like people are out with actual pitchforks. We're talking about people on the internet criticizing Bill Gates' affiliation with Epstein. Gates is still rich, powerful and free from any real repercussions other than a deserved hit to his reputation (and really, barely even that).
Sadly I think we'll never see true justice since those tasked with it seem completely unwilling to do their job in this case.
If so then your example has nothing to lend.
The problem here is just, that apparently he did not moved on at all and just continued undisturbed.
> Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. [0]
The problem and crime is, when those people act on those attractions and the way society reacts to pedophiles is certainly not helping anyone and I’d assume hindering some of them from seeking or even receiving help.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-...