site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   27998 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The FBI says Epstein wasn't trafficking women for powerful men.

It's tempting to say "cover up", and this saga has united all camps on the lurid "pedo cabal" narrative. We were told back in November that journalists weren't allowed to ask questions to the alleged survivors, and it seems at least one of the survivors' testimony at Maxwell's trial was questionable:

Members of the jury, I have a limiting instruction. I anticipate that you’ll hear testimony from the next witness about physical contact that she says she had with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico. I instruct you that the alleged physical contact she says occurred with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico was not, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, as the government has charged in the indictment. I’ll give you more instructions on the legal term, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, at the end of the case. However, to the extent you conclude that her testimony is relevant to the issues before you, you may consider it, but you may not consider this testimony as any kind of reflection on Mr. Epstein’s nor Ms. Maxwell’s character or propensity to commit any of the crimes charged in the document.

She (Annie Farmer) acknowledged that when she applied to receive millions of dollars from the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program — drawn from the Epstein estate — she wrote on the application that she experienced “sexual abuse” in the form of “hand-holding.” For this, she ended up receiving $1.5 million, not counting whatever she might have received from the subsequent settlement funds, such as JP Morgan.

https://x.com/mattforney/status/2021297917424734429#m

I don't like to quote Forney, but this is another "survivor" there's reason to be skeptical about.

The “other victim” Brown references is Sarah Ransome. Who is Sarah Ransome? She’s a person who says she came to New York City from London, by way of South Africa, when she was 22 years old. So already, right off the bat, nothing Ransome says — even if we were to take it all at face value — would corroborate anything remotely related to any pedophilic sex-trafficking enterprise. Nonetheless, here are some noteworthy facts about Ransome. She said that when she first arrived in NYC, in 2006, she generated income by working with an “agency,” through which she would be “paid to spend dinner with a gentleman.” For such dinners, she said, she would receive $1,500. On certain occasions, she engaged in sexual relations with these “gentlemen” on her “own accord” — because, she said, sometimes they “happened to be really good looking.” So that’s what this adult, Sarah Ransome, was doing at the time she later claimed she was brutally enslaved in a heinous sex-trafficking ring.

When she became acquainted with Epstein, Ransome said, he began to pay for all her living expenses, including accommodations (an elegant apartment on the Upper East Side), transportation, food, and medical visits. She started traveling with Epstein on his private jet to his private island, with the understanding that she was to be available to provide him with massages upon request. During one of these massage sessions, she said, Epstein asked her to undress and lie down on the massage table, which she did. Epstein then started to perform a massage on Ransome, she said, and it turned sexual. Ransome was asked if she told Epstein to stop. “No, I didn’t,” she said. She confirmed that she had an orgasm during the encounter.

I grant that “Convicted sex offender did not, in fact, abuse this specific accuser” isn't a headline that's likely to win any awards for tact, but I'm still vexed that we are expected to grant “survivor testimony” near unqeustioned social immunity even when the factual record (sometimes to a legal standard) has already established that no such abuse occurred in the instance alleged.

Interestingly, the latest files revealed that Epstein had recommended his own lawyer to Robert Kraft to beat charges (against Kraft) of trafficking women from China. Instead, all charges against Kraft and 24 other men were dropped, and it was four of those women (aged 41 to 60) whom he allegedly trafficked who were arrested, charged and convicted.

Irregardless of any new developments in this case, the public and all political camps have latched on to this "pedo cabal" narrative to let it unravel. Epstein appears to have been a sexual predator who, in at least one period of his life, did engage in conduct meeting trafficking definitions involving minors (to himself). But there's nothing to substantiate a baroque, centrally managed blackmail syndicate spanning half the planet. Wealthy and powerful people likely did participate in morally compromising environments, but there is little evidence that a structured, coordinated conspiracy of the sort popular imagination has constructed ever existed.

EDIT: I'm heading to work, will read the replies later, but I gotta drop this piece by Michael Tracey, as it's pretty damning regarding Virginia Roberts Giuffre's credibility. Here are the article highlights:

Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York found the marquee Epstein “survivor,” Virginia Roberts Giuffre, also known as VRG, to be so lacking in credibility that they were impelled to compose a lengthy December 19, 2019 memo detailing the many preposterous flaws with her many fantastical tales.

— They said they were “unable to corroborate” the central claim of VRG’s purported victimization, which had also given rise to the very essence of Epstein mythology as we now know it: that she was “lent out” for sexual services to prominent men, such as Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz.

— They noted that VRG’s accounts of her own sexual abuse were “internally inconsistent,” and not just over long periods of time, but within a single interview they conducted with her on September 9, 2019.

— They noted that VRG admitted to repeatedly lying about basic facts, destroying evidence, and telling falsehoods to the media.

— They noted that VRG schemed with a tabloid trash journalist, Sharon Churcher of the Daily Mail, to generate “big headlines” by accusing lots of prominent people of heinous child-sex crimes, in hopes that this would entice prospective publishers to buy their forthcoming “memoir” for big bucks.

— They noted that VRG claimed the FBI told her they were aware of “40 other Epstein victims,” but the FBI never told her any such thing.

— They noted that VRG had falsely claimed the FBI told her “Epstein had cameras watching her at all times,” and repeated this tantalizing claim to the media, but the FBI never told her any such thing. And indeed, they were “not aware of any such cameras.”

— They noted that VRG became “particularly combative” when asked for specific details of her claims, at one point cursing at the Assistant US Attorneys when they requested more information about the specific instances in which Ghislaine Maxwell had purportedly “directed her to have sex with another person.” An infuriated VRG eventually proclaimed: “She’s the one who brought me to be trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein in the fucking first place!” Which, conspicuously, did not answer the prosecutors’ question. Oh what I wouldn’t give for the video footage of VRG frothing at a stone-faced Maurene Comey.

— They noted that VRG “began using drugs so heavily that Epstein said he did not want her around anymore.” VRG has long acknowledged consuming large quantities of memory-impairing drugs during her tenure as a supposed sex slave, but I’m not aware of the drug-taking habit ever being cited as the proximate cause of her departure from Epstein. (But I could be misremembering; I’ve consumed such a lunatic amount of this material, I might as well be on some mind-melting substance.) Either way, VRG’s excess drug consumption is not supposed to be mentioned in polite company, because we’re not to “shame” her, even though VRG’s self-told memories of sexual misfortune many years after the fact are what unfortunately form the basis of the currently-existing Epstein mythology.

— They noted that VRG made a “continuous stream” of “sensationalized” claims in her public media appearances.

— They noted that VRG falsely claimed the FBI had told her there was a “credible” death threat against her, and repeated this in public several times, including in front of the Manhattan federal courthouse after the infamous August 27, 2019 struggle-session hearing I’ve previously written about. The memo says the FBI actually told her the exact opposite: that there were no credible threats against her! WTF!

Tracey has been kind enough to attach a copy of the memo, for those interested.

Idk. The term and concept of 'sex trafficking' is an ongoing exaggerated moral panic. The conflation of pedophilia (bringing to mind 12-14 year olds) with sex with mostly-consenting 17 year olds is another. But the emails do seem to demonstrate Epstein was acting as a pimp providing women, some of whom were under 18, to powerful men, which is still rather distasteful.

And still illegal. Sex with a mostly-consenting 17 year old prostitute is still illegal basically anywhere in the world.

Same thing as happened during the Catholic sex abuse scandals. Genuine victims, but once the principle of "believe any accusation without questioning it" and large financial pay-outs was established, some people decided "Free money? I'll have some of that!" and gave their story of how they were victimised by local (now dead) priest or other. Any doubts cast were met with "how dare you victim blame this poor sufferer?" even where details in the story of alleged assaults were "what the hell, no way that tracks" level.

Most egregious example from my own place is this story.

is this story.

Think you accidentally added a 0 at the end there, I assume this is the link.

Thank you!

This is a pretty universal phenomenon, sadly. When "A Rape on Campus" was published, being the autistic chud I am, I immediately questioned it on the basis of a single detail (though the whole thing had tons of issues): the claim that the gang rape took place on a bed of broken glass. My autistic chud mind immediately thought "I can believe that there are violently rapist fraternities out there that do gang rapes without a second thought or anyone objecting, though it strains credulity. I cannot believe that these violent rapist frat bros would put their twig and berries anywhere close to shards of broken glass, especially not unclothed and while performing vigorous thrusting actions".

Unfortunately until it was exposed as a a hoax, I had several female friends and acquaintances get viscerally angry with me over questioning it. Most of my guy friends seemed to intuitively understand it was bullshit, though only a fraction actually voiced this (even when not around the ladies).

I have a story even more inane. When the Tate panic was all the buzz last year after Adolescence, you COULD NOT go without hearing about this fictional 13yo scrawny kid's "horrific" fictional crime against a fictional girl. My sister's colleagues came over for dinner, a couple and their adult daughter who was in law school. My sister and the daughter went on this big tirade about rising extremism, how Andrew Tate clips were allegedly being dissipated on 4chan... I had to struggle not to give them "the look". Setting aside this amusing implication that literally anybody (even Tate's so called fans) bothers enough to hop on 4chan just to listen to his ramblings, they obviously didn't have any experience with 4chan. On top of that, I know Tatebros irl. But they're not 13yo Jamie. They're douchy rizzlers who don't care for women's verbal validation, because they get in the way of sex! It was uncritically accepted that the garbage (no, I don't care about its technical merits or performances, I consider all woke propaganda hot garbage) was a "documentary", based on real events (but nothing specific, before you press them about it!), that there is this Tate driven effect resulting in a surge in knife crimes in the UK. Except there was one little problem: homicides, particularly against females, have been trending DOWN over the years. But don't let that inconvenient detail impugn the precious narrative!

Arthur Miller's interpretation of the Salem Witch Trials as sexual hysteria looks better and better every year.

I've heard the interpretation that the accusers were afflicted by severe trauma from the Indian wars, which also seems to be an important cause.

I've heard the interpretations that they ate some dodgy grain.

Meanwhile, my Catholic friend has argued more than once that the only possible explanation for the Salem Witch Trials… is that most of the accused actually were literal-pacts-with-Satan witches. That it's "impossible" to read the first-hand accounts and not conclude that "something clearly demonic" was happening in Salem.

the claim that the gang rape took place on a bed of broken glass.

Yes, that was the detail that made me also go "what the hell?" Accuser claimed she was attacked and knocked down onto a glass table, which shattered under her, then they took turns raping her.

Then she went outside to meet her friends - and nobody noticed her back streaming blood? She didn't go to a hospital or doctor for treatment?

Because you are going to bleed where there is broken glass.

That, and her claims about the dress she was wearing, but she couldn't ever produce it for the reporter, and excuses got up to "it's at home with my mom in a different state, sure she'll let you see it" until that dress never appeared.

Same with E. Jean Carroll and her "dress I was wearing when Trump raped me" story where she allegedly kept it unwashed for twenty some years, until it was produced for DNA testing (inconclusive).

You know who WAS able to produce the dress? Monica Lewinsky.

I maybe believe E. Jean Carroll is so brain-fried that she would leave the coat dress hanging on the back of her door for twenty years without going to the cops or anything about it, but really the conviction was all about Orange Man Bad. Now his political opponents and those who hate him can bang on about "convicted rapist!" thanks to the judge putting his thumb on the scale about "well ackshully it counts as rape even if the charge was sexual assault and that is what technically he was convicted of doing".

The same student also claimed that a beer bottle was smashed into pieces on her face. Yeah. Or maybe not.

The story was incredible, and I mean that in the sense of "cannot be believed". The main problem, if I remember from back then, was that the journalist in question was setting out to write a story about rape/sexual assault in colleges, since this was Hot Topic of the Day, but couldn't find a lot of data/spicy enough cases to actually write the story. Then someone got on to her about "oh, you must hear what this girl is saying" and it took off from there. Perfect scandal bait: it had the sympathetic victim, spicy details, accusations of university administration cover-up because they were protecting the fraternities, and of course accusing privileged white frat boys. Rolling Stone editors lapped it up, the usual suspects believed it unquestioningly, and it was only when the real holes in the story became too big to ignore that they finally had to roll it back. No cover-ups, no string of rapes, no proof anything happened the alleged victim.

it was only when the real holes in the story became too big to ignore

And that only happened because a cranky old white guy at the Washington Post was willing to call BS.

The blackmail syndicate idea has problems because people who hung out with Epstein seemed to like him. That's not usually the case for people getting blackmailed.

I'm leaning towards the idea that's been tossed around that Epstein's business was grey market international money moving. Also things like hiding assets in the case of lawsuits and divorce.

The girls were just complimentary amenities for clients.

That's the Michael Tracy position. He regularly excoriates the lack of investigative reporting during the various trials and points out that the main witness (Gioffre) was so unreliable, prosecutors tried to bury her testimony and every other claim was even more poorly investigated. There's a lot of smoke, but not a lot of heat. Surely there's some signal, but the noise is overwhelming.

An FBI memo had the names of 1000 victims and the Epstein victim fund + BoA settled with many victims. As far as I know we don’t have a large sample size of victim testimonies publicly available, but Virginia Giuffre is one person who claimed to have been trafficked while underage to multiple men. I don’t think many women want to be publicly known as a trafficking victim.

It's his network that leads me to believe in a "centrally managed blackmail syndicate". Epstein starts to be funded carte blanche in 1991 by a man named Les Wexner. Who is he? He ran the two most important Jewish organizations in America, the Wexner Foundation (intended to create “elite commandos” and a “cadre of Jewish lay leaders”), and the Mega Group. The Mega Group was the centrally-managed decision-making body of America's Jewish philanthropic and influence organizations. When the World Jewish Congress, the Republican Jewish Coalition, the United Jewish Communities (then endowed in the billions annually), and other orgs were allocating their money and influence to benefit Israel and the Jews, the heads would meet in secret at the Mega Group. And the head of this group was Les Wexner.

So Wexner starts funding Epstein in 1991, the same year he starts to chair this secret meeting of Jewish billionaires which decides how to allocate most of Jewry's billions of dollars toward various causes (they are responsible for Birthright, rescuing / refunding Hillel, the emigration of Soviet Jews, etc). This should already raise alarm bells. Why is someone whose raisin d’etre is the Jewish people funding Jeffrey Epstein carte blanche, with power of attorney and gifted properties? He better have a really, really good reason. Surely he has a good reason?

No, he does not. He has the worst reason ever. He says the reason is that he’s a putz. He says Epstein took advantage of him. His own head of security at the limited, Jerry Merritt, told Vanity Fair that he warned Wexner about Epstein for years, yet Wexner handed off $400 million dollars anyway. “The person that the Rothschilds rely on to efficiently allocate their dollars was being robbed by a con artist” is a quite unlikely story. It is such a bad argument that Wexner apologists will argue instead that Wex was gay for Epstein, and this is why he gave him millions. This is a better argument, but still ridiculous. We know that Wexner had previously dated a woman who converted to Judaism and changed her last name to Cohen, and this was never publicized but a scoop from a journalist, so it wasn’t a “velvet marriage” arrangement. And a gay billionaire who owns apparel stores in the 80s and 90s does not have to rely on a 38yo Jeffrey Epstein to satisfy his lusts. There’s no evidence Epstein ever trafficked boys afaik, and Wexner is now married with three three kids. So what did Wexner get from Epstein's services? There was never an answer. All five of Epstein’s funders, all five Jewish, can’t really provide an answer as to why they funded Epstein. Two of them have accusations from victims, but the other three do not.

The emails we now have about the Epstein-Wexner dealings are very suspicious, and do hint to something else:

There’s a lot more evidence that is laborious to get into: Epstein being best friends with Israel’s former military intelligence head, having dozens of meetings with him; Epstein’s accomplice being the daughter of a long-rumored spy; Epstein negotiating on Israel’s behalf with Ehud Barak in two separate security dealings; Epstein ghostwriting Barak’s pro-Israel op-Ed’s and helping Dershowitz crush Mearsheimer’s “the Israel Lobby” book; John Schindler a former NSA Analyst concluding that the Mega group had involvement; John Kiriakou’s confidence that Epstein was aligned with Israel; NSA / CIA / FBI security briefs which considered Israel a leading threat in “influence” and espionage operations.

What’s interesting is that his Jewish associates trust him with money and projects after a conviction in which he — they want us to believe — stole 100 million from Wexner. Surely they all knew this, and Wexner had the influence to absolutely crush Epstein. This tells us that the money really wan’t stolen, but was utilized in some important way. So what was it?

We know that Wexner had previously dated a woman who converted to Judaism and changed her last name to Cohen, and this was never publicized but a scoop from a journalist, so it wasn’t a “velvet marriage” arrangement.

And we know this from an article that tiptoes around how Wexner was probably very deep in the closet due to being so close to, and so managed by, his mother. It's even alluded to in the story, that being still single at his age, people wonder if he's gay.

We do know Epstein was very charming, very plausible, and had a knack of making connections with people in a position to help his career along. Being a combination wealth plus social manager for Wexner, as well as fellow Jewish, and a charming younger man who was easy to get along with all helped there. Wexner liked running back to Ohio, where he felt most comfortable, and that left Epstein in New York handling affairs for him.

That's the secret behind scams and cons. In hindsight, the victim and everyone else asks "how could I have fallen for that?" but at the time, it's all so normal-appearing that questions aren't asked, or if they are, the explanation is so plausible it shuts down doubt. Epstein is not the only scandal Wexner's name has been attached to; there's a sex abuse scandal with Ohio State University.

I think you kind of answer your own questions here.

It seems like Wexner, who was bankrolling all of these other organizations. Or, at least, helping them to get bankrolled by donors. Chucked $400m of his own money to Epstein as his grey market lead. Moving money, having the shady conversations with important folks all over the world that you want to have stay out of the press etc.

I don't think it's that shocking? "Fixers" have existed at the outskirts of legitimate organizations forever. Sure, they don't often get $400m, but, whatever, maybe Wexner just didn't care or wanted enough slush on Epstein's books in case something big came around?

The more I learn about all of this, the more and more apparent it becomes that Epstein was a charming middle man who liked to party. He eventually crossed lines for which he was convicted and then, realizing the party was over, killed himself. That's a story that's been repeated a million times. I think the difference is in scale here, not in kind.

But there’s no evidence that Epstein did do any deals as a middle-man between Wexner and other players throughout the 90s. The others who gave their money to Epstein (eg Rothschild, Black, Zuckerman) are already inside the fold of Jewish philanthropy. He would tell people he represented wealthy clients, but he didn’t, only Wexner and then the others later on. As perhaps the single most important person in the world of Jewish philanthropy, already presiding over a consortium of billions (12) which later expanded to 50 megarich individuals (hence Mega), and able to keep that a perfect secret for six years, it doesn’t read like Wexner needed help with capital investment. He had more than enough.

What we know about Epstein is that he went around partying with girls and trying to get close with important and wealthy people. According to Eric Weinstein who had met him, he seemed like an idiot who kept trying to bring the conversation back to girls and sex. In his interview with Steve Bannon he mentions he bought Zorro Ranch because it was close to retired nuclear scientists. This reads like a guy collecting influence and kompromat on behalf of Wexner, if not on behalf of the whole Mega Ecosystem.

An FBI memo had the names of 1000 victims and the Epstein victim fund + BoA settled with many victims. As far as I know we don’t have a large sample size of victim testimonies publicly available, but Virginia Giuffre is one person who claimed to have been trafficked while underage to multiple men. I don’t think many women want to be publicly known as a trafficking victim.

Giuffre is actually not a credible source. In fact, there are accusations, levelled by another victim, of Giuffre (adult at the time) herself being an Epstein recruiter. She also retracted 8 years of very detailed claims of sexual activity with Dershowitz.

I don't have much to say on the shady dealings between Epstein and Wexner, could it plausibly theoretically be the case that a creepy pervy bigshot was trafficking underage girls to another creepy pervy bigshot? Perhaps, or maybe Epstein "simply" knew where the bodies were.

I don't have much to say on the shady dealings between Epstein and Wexner, could it plausibly theoretically be the case that a creepy pervy bigshot was trafficking underage girls to another creepy pervy bigshot?

It's not really credible, as Coffee nodded to, that Les Wexner owner of Abercrombie and Fitch at the peak of its nudie magazine catalog and bags needed Jeff Epstein to get teenagers to sleep with him.

Nor is it all that credible that Les just handed Epstein a billion dollars for no real reason.

Ok, what about that memo and the settlements? If he's right, it's a bit more than just Giuffre?

The settlements which were also forked over to Annie Farmer and Anouska De Georgiou? Read the trial transcripts, they're very eye opening:

Annie

Members of the jury, I have a limiting instruction. I anticipate that you'll hear testimony from the next witness about physical contact that she says she had with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico. I instruct you that the alleged physical contact she says occurred with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico was not, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, as the government has charged in the indictment. I'll give you more instructions on the legal term, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, at the end of the case. However, to the extent you conclude that her testimony is relevant to the issues before you, you may consider it, but you may not consider this testimony as any kind of reflection on Mr. Epstein's nor Ms. Maxwell's character or propensity to commit any of the crimes charged in the document.

Q. After you filed that lawsuit, did you participate in a victim compensation fund for victims of Jeffrey Epstein?

A. I did.

Q. Do you remember what year that fund started accepting applications?

A. I believe that was in early 2020.

Q. What did you do as part of that fund?

A. I, with my attorneys, there was an application process. They interviewed me and they put together some materials about, you know, my story.

Q. How much money did the fund award you?

A. $1.5 million.

Q. Did that money come from the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein?

A. It came, yeah, from the victims' compensation fund.

Anouska, pseudonym Kate (odd considering she'd gone public with her real identity at least once before but I digress):

Members of the jury, before we begin the direct, I have a limiting instruction. You will hear testimony from the next witness about interactions that she says she had with the defendant and Mr. Epstein. I instruct you that because the witness was over the relevant age of consent at the relevant time period, any sexual conduct she says occurred with Mr. Epstein was not, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, as the government has charged in the indictment. For that reason, I have directed the government not to ask this witness about the details of any sexual conduct she says occurred with Mr. Epstein.

I instruct you that this witness is not a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment. To the extent you conclude her testimony is relevant to the issues before you, you may consider it. However, you may not convict the defendant on the basis of the testimony regarding the sexual conduct between this witness and Mr. Epstein, nor may you consider this testimony as any kind of reflection on Mr. Epstein's nor Ms. Maxwell's character or propensity to commit any crimes charged in the indictment.

Have you participated in a compensation fund called the Epstein's Victims' Compensation Program?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you do as part of that fund?

A. I had an interview with a forensic psychologist and I submitted a claim form.

Q. How much money did the fund pay you?

A. $3.25 million.

Q. Did that money come from the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein?

A. Yes.

Emphasis mine. And check out 31 year old Anouska offering to send nudes to Epstein when he was incarcerated in 2008. And yet, they're paraded as "survivors" by media and public alike. It's been a field day for sure, with the defendant dead and all. That's not to mention the other survivors making shoddy allegations but whose accounts remain immune to a grain of scrutiny cuz who wants to start their day with pedo allegations. We know that cases like this collapse the public’s tolerance for procedural nuance. Who cares that it's been legally established that at least two of these "survivors" weren't survivors after all? This is an all-you-want buffet and ol' Jeff is the mega canvas of all moral depravities you can think of: global pedo cabal, satanism, cannibalism, blackmail, Jews. No one wants to be caught dead defending that guy!

I don’t think many women want to be publicly known as a trafficking victim.

I don't have a link handy, but I've also seen allegations that at least some of the victims, due to traumatic imprinting and lack of other options, ended up working for Maxwell to recruit other girls. If that's true, they may be reluctant to testify for fear of legal repercussions.

If prosecutors wanted their testimony, they would grant immunity. We've had literal murderers granted immunity by prosecutors so they could go after the real big fish in mafia/drug ring investigations.

But there's nothing to substantiate a baroque, centrally managed blackmail syndicate spanning half the planet. Wealthy and powerful people likely did participate in morally compromising environments, but there is little evidence that a structured, coordinated conspiracy of the sort popular imagination has constructed ever existed.

This argument is rather weak when there are still significant amounts of the epstein files left completely unreleased, and what has been released is rife with plenty of illegal and unmerited redactions. The Trump admin has already had to unredact some of the files already because of how many there are. And that's despite the incredibly short time limit and restrictions they're allowing the senators to see the unredacted files for.

If there's nothing substantial to be gleaned, why is there still so much being actively hidden? Does the Trump admin just engage in coverups for the fun of it? This strategy of drawing it out for seemingly no reason has been nothing but egg on their face over and over, why do they insist on slow walking it and hiding so much of the files? This is the equivalent of walking into a kid's room after you told them to clean and they have that stereotypical cartoon bulge in the rug and saying "ah well must be clean then"

But ok sure, let's assume it really is just a nothingburger. Well that's what they get for spending years apparently lying to the public and courting the "conspiracy theorists" with bold claims. You can't just keep talking about the elite pedo rings you're gonna drain the swamp of, get into power and then say "nothing here". The only reason this even blew up is because they made releasing the files a whole spectacle, claiming they had the client list and other important details right there on Pam Bondi's desk and they would hand out information to journalists only to completely 180 and decide to hide everything.

Edit: And also, it seems pretty clear he was acting as a high class pimp even if all the women he pimped out were adults. That's still bad that he would have been running a fancy prostitute esque service for the elites, even if it's at least not a pedo ring.

If there's nothing substantial to be gleaned, why is there still so much being actively hidden? Does the Trump admin just engage in coverups for the fun of it?

Yes! They would definitely do that! Many of these people aren't very smart, many of them are very smart but put all their skill ranks in Bluff and not Knowledge, and either way their demonstrated competence over the past year implies they probably aren't going to be intelligently planning what to cover up and not. Consider the documents case, where for a while they could've just, like, returned the documents, but instead they had to make false statements and obstruct the investigation and such.

If there's nothing substantial to be gleaned, why is there still so much being actively hidden? Does the Trump admin just engage in coverups for the fun of it? This strategy of drawing it out for seemingly no reason has been nothing but egg on their face over and over, why do they insist on slow walking it and hiding so much of the files?

I try to maintain skepticism in the face of most partisan-flavored claims, but Bondi's performance in front of Congress was so weirdly and unnecessarily belligerent, it's hard not to entertain the "What are they hiding?" questions more seriously now. As a conservative who is allergic to both Trump and TDS, it's bewildering to me how thoroughly his anti-civics adversarial temperament has spread throughout his administration in areas where it is best played cool. Why the AG chose to treat that hearing as a defensive MAGA brawl, drawing more attention to it, than just matter-of-factly answering the questions as if there are serious people working on serious matters, is something I will never understand. Ted Lieu's presentation of uncorroborated tip line craziness should've been easy for her to smack down with a clinical legal response, but instead she went apeshit. It has to be more than just incompetence, right? It's like actively malicious incompetence, at best.

More likely imo Trump wants to get away from the Epstein thing because they were buds in the past and that just looks bad, and he communicated that to his people in the usual Trump way, and there's lots of internal dysfunction and drama and poor communication in the Trump admin as there has been elsewhere, and you see the result. It's possible that actually Trump and Epstein did unspeakable things together on the island and he wants to cover that up, sure, but I think nothing looks different in those two scenarios.

Why the head of the FBI chose to treat that hearing as a defensive MAGA brawl, drawing more attention to it, than just matter-of-factly answering the questions as if there are serious people working on serious matters, is something I will never understand. Ted Lieu's presentation of uncorroborated tip line craziness

Doesn't this answer itself? Ted Lieu repeated accusations that Trump raped a child and killed it, this isn't a serious matter, these aren't serious people. Maybe Placid Bondi would have been a better media strategy. But given that senior Democrats are now arguing we have a pedophile president coverup, I'm not convinced any other Bondi media strategy would have received less criticism. Bondi could have been totally calm and relaxed and people would be saying, "The head of the FBI doesn't care about crimes, she's drawing more attention to the coverup!"

Doesn't this answer itself? Ted Lieu repeated accusations that Trump raped a child and killed it, this isn't a serious matter, these aren't serious people.

Explaining that would've been better than yelling at Lieu. It would've made him look foolish. Instead, she upped the foolish stakes.

I'm not joking when I say I miss the days of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield. Whatever crimes you may think they committed, they appeared like civil servants who take their roles seriously and are informed about how to make it look like our institutions are working. Now we have a clown show. You might think that the clown show more accurately reflects reality, but Joe Public is less likely to act like clowns are in charge when he can't see any clowns, and that's good for society.

They lied to get us into the Iraq War. This exact attitude is why we got Trump. So in a way you deserve it.

Doesn't this answer itself? Ted Lieu repeated accusations that Trump raped a child and killed it, this isn't a serious matter, these aren't serious people.

Random witness testimony might not be great evidence, but it is a form of evidence. Pam Bondi's claim was specifically "there is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime.". That is just factually wrong.

If she said "there is no convincing evidence" or "no strong evidence" that would be an opinion of hers. If she said " no admissable evidence", she'd likely be corect.

But instead, she stated a blatant falsehood. Written witness statements are often not very useful in court due to the inability to cross-examine, but "not useful evidence to prosecute because it's inadmissible in its current form" is also not the same as "not evidence"

“u/magicalkittycat participated in a child sacrifice cannibal ritual on Mount Clinton. What, that’s a solid accusation, that makes it evidence, you have to refute this now, there’s evidence!”

We all understand what “no evidence” actually means. It assumes implicitly that some claims are so low-effort that they don’t merit rebutting. When you call random anonymous tip line accusations about child rape “evidence” you’re implicitly asserting that they’re credible. Otherwise, what kind of gotcha language game is this?

The falsehood happens when Ted Lieu treats total bullshit as worth anyone’s time. Then, when Bondi dismisses this out of hand, he gets to act offended. That’s what this all is, it’s an obvious political stunt. It’s manipulative and it’s not in good faith. Unless you want to argue that “Donald Trump raped and killed a child” is credible, then it’s obvious that the distinction between “no evidence” and “no credible evidence” collapses. Or what, is Pam Bondi getting angry at obvious bullshit supposed to be a crime now because Ted technically rigged the question? This isn’t subtle and everyone knows exactly what’s meant here.

“u/magicalkittycat participated in a child sacrifice cannibal ritual on Mount Clinton. What, that’s a solid accusation, that makes it evidence, you have to refute this now, there’s evidence!”

Yes that is evidence normally. It's not strong evidence, but someone saying they witnessed it is a tiny adjustment upwards for Bayesian reasoning. It might be from say, .000001% to .0000011% or whatever, but yes it is evidence.

When you call random anonymous tip line accusations about child rape “evidence” you’re implicitly asserting that they’re credible. Otherwise, what kind of gotcha language game is this?

You can debate how useful that evidence is, I don't think on its own there is much. But it does exist.

In fact, there was enough evidence to at least cause a preliminary investigation into Trump. The Trump DOJ itself acknowledges this.

The Justice Department looked into sexual misconduct allegations against President Trump in connection with the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein but did not find credible information to merit further investigation, Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, said on Sunday.

Why would they have investigated further at all unless the allegations had served as Bayesian evidence towards possible guilt?

Or what, is Pam Bondi getting angry at obvious bullshit supposed to be a crime now because Ted technically rigged the question?

He didn't ask if Trump committed a crime or not! He asked if the DOJ knows about the presence of any underage girls at the party Trump and Epstein had attended. She could have said "no, we are not aware of any" or something along those lines. Instead she falsely claimed there was no evidence of any crimes.

Or, we can accept this schizophrenic definition of evidence, where any accusation or implication made by anybody anywhere is evidence, and maybe we can agree on the following:

  • There is evidence that Donald Trump raped and murdered a little girl
  • There is evidence that Ted Lieu raped and murdered a little girl
  • There is a LOT of evidence that the 2020 election was stolen
  • There is evidence that the moon landing was faked by Stanley Kubrick
  • There is evidence that the Corona plandemic slash scamdemic was a Chinese plot by Anthony Fauci to poison us with mRNA technologies
  • There is evidence that a satanic pedophile cabal is running the Democratic Party and wants to install Hillary Clinton as president

Heck, I’ve even heard accounts in my lifetime that the aliens want to conquer earth for our stable supply of quartz, and you can tell which politicians are controlled by the demons by the shapes of their ears. It’s all in the book of OASPIE

There’s evidence for everything in the world! That’s what “evidence” means

Or, we can accept this schizophrenic definition of evidence, where any accusation or implication made by anybody anywhere is evidence, and maybe we can agree on the following:

This entire argument dismantles with the simple realization that different pieces of evidence can have different levels of strength to them. Yes a guy claiming he was abducted by an alien is evidence towards aliens abducting people. It's just extremely weak evidence, one that should update you from an absurdly low percentage to a still absurdly low (but slightly higher) percentage.

Edit: Also to note that again, the DOJ clearly found enough evidence to at least start a preliminary investigation into the matter per Todd Blanche's own words.

Big question here then, if allegations don't count as evidence whatsoever, then why would we ever investigate allegations? The response to something that doesn't move the needle at all would be to do nothing, the same way we don't randomly investigate a John Smith of Idaho for possible connections to a murder in Kansas. An example of a true non needle mover towards John Smith would be "it rained in Ottawa today". A needle mover is "I saw John Smith there in Kansas stabbing the victim"

Edit again: Actually even more obvious, if such allegations weren't a form of weak evidence then why do tip lines even exist? We would be wasting resources to not gather anymore evidence or direction on where to go.

Nobody really thinks an anonymous random or motivated accusation constitutes evidence. There is no evidence Trump raped and murdered a little girl. I think you’re committed to defending this ridiculous definition of evidence because the alternative is admitting that Bondi did not commit some kind of perjury, and you were wrong.

Nobody really thinks an anonymous random or motivated accusation constitutes evidence. There is no evidence Trump raped and murdered a little girl. I think you’re committed to defending this ridiculous definition of evidence because the alternative is admitting that Bondi did not commit some kind of perjury, and you were wrong.

I never said she committed perjury, that requires intent. Ted Lieu's accusations of perjury are quite weak in fact. Because it's reasonable to interpret "there is no evidence" as having meant "there is no credible evidence", the bar showing otherwise is quite high.

However, it is still an untruth as it's called to state that there is no evidence.

Presumably -- I shouldn't presume this about anyone in Trump's 2nd administration -- Bondi was prepared for some jackwad to come at her with one or more of the more hysterical tips and could have not only crafted a comprehensive and intelligent rebuke, but could've dug up some bizarre tips about Lieu or anyone else.

Ted Lieu slapped my ass and asked me to lick honey off of his toes. Pam Bondi is free to use this post as evidence of his disgusting crimes.

Look it’s one thing if Congress becomes a dysfunctional clown show that does nothing but produce clippets for TikTok but let’s not here dignify that by workshopping all the ways those clowns could have better pandered their quips for our sensibilities

But ok sure, let's assume it really is just a nothingburger. Well that's what they get for spending years apparently lying to the public and courting the "conspiracy theorists" with bold claims. You can't just keep talking about the elite pedo rings you're gonna drain the swamp of, get into power and then say "nothing here".

Well, whether it's true or not, the important thing is you've found a way to blame MAGA either way.

If there's nothing substantial to be gleaned, why is there still so much being actively hidden? Does the Trump admin just engage in coverups for the fun of it? This strategy of drawing it out for seemingly no reason has been nothing but egg on their face over and over, why do they insist on slow walking it and hiding so much of the files?

Congress passed a law demanding 200 pizzas for the high school football team's championship game half an hour before closing and is shocked that all 200 pizzas aren't out piping hot and ready by the time the call is done. As in, what exactly do you think it looks like to process and release documents? There's just a big button Trump is refusing to push?

That's still bad that he would have been running a fancy prostitute esque service for the elites, even if it's at least not a pedo ring.

What objection would you have with Epstein in this scenario?

What objection would you have with Epstein in this scenario?

That I want the Elites to have to follow the laws us plebs do and prostitution is still illegal. So book them for solicitation if nothing else.

"Plebs" can engage prostitutes without being charged either.

The statute of limitations has run.

Well, whether it's true or not, the important thing is you've found a way to blame MAGA either way.

"Found a way". There's a very simple mechanism for the Trump admin to use that they refuse to, release the Epstein files as required by law and that they've been saying they would do since before they even won the election!

I didn't have to find a way, it's a giant glowing neon sign with a huge flashing arrow pointing at the way.

Congress passed a law demanding 200 pizzas for the high school football team's championship game half an hour before closing and is shocked that all 200 pizzas aren't out piping hot and ready by the time the call is done. As in, what exactly do you think it looks like to process and release documents? There's just a big button Trump is refusing to push?

They were saying they would release the files almost a year before it was even passed. But even if we assume that no redaction work was being done during that and they were just blatantly lying about their plans during the first few months, they still had tons of time to prepare as it was being drafted and passed.

What objection would you have with Epstein in this scenario?

What objection could I possibly have against pimps and prostitutes? Trading "your girls" for favors or whatever else isn't reasonably different from direct payments.

There's a very simple mechanism for the Trump admin to use that they refuse to, release the Epstein files as required by law

The Trump administration is currently releasing the files. You can argue that they're being forced to so it doesn't really get them any credit. But in that case, nothing that's been revealed so far seems to justify all the hullabaloo.

they still had tons of time to prepare as it was being drafted and passed.

I think you dramatically underestimate the work involved in releasing sensitive materials. Dozens of bored overworked lawyers combing through millions of files by hand navigating an impossible mandate to release everything, all at once, now, but also nothing that violates national security.

The Trump administration is currently releasing the files. You can argue that they're being forced to so it doesn't really get them any credit.

Yes, they are being forced to. We know this because the only reason the law even came about is became they double backed on their own promises to release the files to begin with.

But in that case, nothing that's been revealed so far seems to justify all the hullabaloo.

Which is exactly a point I addressed, there's still tons of files left completely unreleased and even what was released is known to have tons of unnecessary redactions.

I think you dramatically underestimate the work involved in releasing sensitive materials. Dozens of bored overworked lawyers combing through millions of files by hand navigating an impossible mandate to release everything, all at once, now, but also nothing that violates national security.

It is February 2026, Trump was elected in January 2025. While I understand it wasn't going to be an immediate priority, over a year is a pretty good length of time for them to fulfill their promise when it's one of the easiest to do. The only reason it needs to be rushed at all now is because they double backed and engaged in a coverup.

Yes, they are being forced to. We know this because the only reason the law even came about is became they double backed on their own promises to release the files to begin with.

That's not exactly the own you think it is. It's hard act outraged about Trump only releasing them when he was forced to by his own promise, when the other party was in a position to release them for years, but didn't, and didn't even promise to.

That's not exactly the own you think it is. It's hard act outraged about Trump only releasing them when he was forced to by his own promise, when the other party was in a position to release them for years, but didn't, and didn't even promise to.

Yeah, I don't think you'll find anyone who would argue the Biden admin released the files. They obviously didn't.

Doesn't that make it more interesting that both admins might apparently be trying to hide something? Massie made a similar point and just got responded to with insults

"You are responsible for this portion of it". No name calling nor deflection absolves them of their choices now.

when the other party was in a position to release them for years, but didn't, and didn't even promise to

Which gives Trump a golden opportunity to do what he loves most: look better than Biden. That he's not eager to seize on an obvious win is a little sus.

In the UK it’s caused massive hullabaloo. I meant to write an effort-post but one of the most important figures in the 2008 government (Peter Mandelson) was being actively treasonous, explaining to Epstein and his banker friends that they needed to “threaten [the Chancellor] a little” to get what they wanted on bankers' bonuses. Epstein was getting serious details like the PM’s resignation or changes to banking law under the table.

It’s a scandal that has a good chance long-term of bringing down the current PM, who reinstated the man.

I was promised a pedophile sex cult new world, not elite insider trading. I don’t know I guess I don’t know much about this specifically, maybe you should elaborate. Because this sounds like the kind of scandal that’s happening everywhere all the time, except this involves Jeffrey Epstein, who we know is the new Hitler, which means it must be really bad.

I think it’s bad Bill Gates cheated on his wife then gave her an STD risk and wanted to sneak her antibiotics, but I’m not sure what public good is advanced by these files being exposed.

This argument is rather weak when there are still significant amounts of the epstein files left completely unreleased, and what has been released is rife with plenty of illegal and unmerited redactions. If there's nothing substantial to be gleaned, why is there still so much being actively hidden? Does the Trump admin just engage in coverups for the fun of it?

Okay I should probably clarify first that my intention is not to defend Trump or Clinton or anyone else specifically, that is why I refrained name dropping any R or D in my OP. All of those are perfectly valid questions, and indeed the optics of staggered releases, redactions, and rhetorical overpromising warrant distrust (and maybe even disgrace) after years of grandiose “client list” language. What I'm getting at is epistemic proportionality. When key accusers have recanted major allegations, contradicted earlier statements, or demonstrated patterns of embellishment, well, not saying you should automatically invalidate all claims. But it does materially weaken the scaffolding required to sustain the theory of a coordinated, global pedo enterprise. If the most explosive extensions of the story (global ring, systematic third party trafficking, blackmail architecture) rest disproportionately on accounts that later wobble under scrutiny, isn't it fair to expect a greater evidentiary threshold?

Firstly, just as a general rule, we should expect crazy people are going to come out of the woodwork and make insane accusations (probably in many cases easily-disprovable) about pretty much any public figure. Some people are crazy and will grab the spotlight any chance they get. The fact that spurious accusations have been made of Epstein does not mean that there's no fire here, necessarily. (It does mean, imho, that we should take the numbers ("1200 victims" or whatever) with a grain of salt.)

Secondly, it should surprise no one if savvy operators arrange for such a scenario to be made, although I've seen no specific evidence of that here. But if there was actually worldwide conspiracy to do illegal stuff, would you not come up with trivially easy ways to undermine any case that could be made against you? Basic misdirection techniques are, well, basic, and I don't think pointing to what could be a pretty trivial misdirect that any competent conspiracy could put together and use it as slam-dunk evidence against a competent conspiracy is actually very persuasive.

The real thrust of my comment here is less about Epstein specifically and more the drum I keep banging on in here, which is how to evaluate how conspiracies (can) work. And while it's not clear to me that Epstein, who seems to have been pretty cavalier in his emails, bothered to take such defensive measures I think anyone who is contemplating the possibility of a competent conspiracy ought to at least consider that such things might exist.

I agree that most likely every radical claim about Epstein and his connections are unlikely to be true. People make shit up about things with way less incentive to lie over after all.

But there is still plenty of evidence that something weird was going on there and that something is damning for powerful people. His finances are mysterious AF, a lot of his associates apparently have some sort of revolving bipolar disorder on how they see him and Maxwell (like Lutnick who claims to have been so grossed out back in the mid 2000s he would never share a room with Epstein again, only to take his family to the island a few years after), and there's been a constant coverup behavior of who knows what across two admins.

It's suspicious as hell and that suspicion is not negated by idiots online making stupid or wrong allegations. Maybe the kid is hiding an animal he found outside under the rug instead of his toys he didn't clean up, there's still a bump in the carpet anyway.

See even if we live to see 100% of all the Epstein files unredacted, including those concealed by the Massie/Khanna bill, the mega narrative is never gonna unravel now.

If those files put "Trump" and "sex" together 600,000 times in Epstein's island, the obvious takeaway is Old Don is a pedo rapist. Even if his supposed "victims" were adult women who retrofitted their episodes with Epstein as "grooming" for multimillion dollar settlements. Because popular imagination is convinced that any kind of sexual activity that took place in that island involved some kind of child sexual abuse. If they did release the files and it was a whole lot of nothing, then obviously all the "real files" were scrubbed long ago Parallax Corp style. If they sit on their hands and do nothing, what the hell are they covering up? The facts don't matter anymore. Not even the most exhaustive documentary review or adjudicated exoneration vindicating the named individuals is convincing anyone. I checked reddit, well, not to say everyone outright buys the cannibalism and 9yo victim stories, but it's certainly in the ballpark. Maybe the global elite is shitting bricks, except it is less about the contents of these files and more about the volatility of an international public primed for outrage.

See even if we live to see 100% of all the Epstein files unredacted, including those concealed by the Massie/Khanna bill, the mega narrative is never gonna unravel now.

One big issue here: When there's a really really blatant coverup going on, it's hard to trust any claims of "there you go, we gave you everything now". If you're constantly lying and hiding something, suddenly choosing to be truthful and open for once does not rid you of rightful and fair suspicion. Still, plenty of people will be satisfied enough and if you do a proper job from now on you can slowly start to convince them and flip the margins. You don't need every Tom Dick and Harry convinced.

The facts don't matter anymore. Not even the most exhaustive documentary review or adjudicated exoneration vindicating the named individuals is convincing anyone. I checked reddit, well, not to say everyone outright buys the cannibalism and 9yo victim stories, but it's certainly in the ballpark. Maybe the global elite is shitting bricks, except it is less about the contents of these files and more about the volatility of an international public primed for outrage.

Can't be reaping "there's a global elite pedo cabal" theories when it's politically advantageous and not expect people to actually want you to expose the global elite pedo cabal. Play with fire you get hurt.

If you're constantly lying and hiding something, suddenly choosing to be truthful and open for once does not rid you of rightful and fair suspicion. Still, plenty of people will be satisfied enough and if you do a proper job from now on you can slowly start to convince them and flip the margins.

I think you're putting too much stock on the mob's purported composure. This is such a salacious narrative that none of the media bigshots and political pundits are about to let go of. This story has to end with arrests, anything else would be too anticlimatic. And the fact that there isn't any camp particularly keen on rehabilitating Epstein (unlike Russiagate) makes it unlikely that anyone not politically and socially suicidal will pursue it, so I have to commend guys like Tracey, Taibbi and Hanania for taking the lead.

Can't be reaping "there's a global elite pedo cabal" theories when it's politically advantageous and not expect people to actually want you to expose the global elite pedo cabal. Play with fire you get hurt.

Absolutely, my most generous 2 cents is that even Trump did not initially expect to see his own name in those files with such frequency. They may not be particularly incriminating, but still supremely humiliating and he deserves the generational aura loss for fanning the flames all these years. But irregardless of opportunistic snakes seeking to abuse moral hysteria, this feverish conspiracy mongering in the face of all facts to the contrary cannot be the antidote.

EDIT: When you see instances like this, which is far from unfamiliar in the recent history of our cultural landscape, when does conceding narrative control to the faceless mob become too dangerous? Who will be held accountable for this madness?

Epstein appears to have been a sexual predator who, in at least one period of his life, did engage in conduct meeting trafficking definitions involving minors (to himself).

Well,we're getting somewhere. Last we had this conversation here, I almost had the impression he's just a poor boy that dindu nothing.

But there's nothing to substantiate a baroque, centrally managed blackmail syndicate spanning half the planet. Wealthy and powerful people likely did participate in morally compromising environments,

The problem with that argument is that barring Epstein et all acting like complete idiots, and exchanging emails like "Oi, can you send little Suzy over to Steve's place, he's really dtf some 12-year-olds" without even a figleaf of plausible deniability, there's no reason to expect substantiation. Or am I missing something, and there is some form of evidence you'd reasonably expect to appear in this scenario, that we are just not seeing?

See, that's a Hollywood tier cinematic standard. Of course there was never going to be an email that read like a cartoon villain memo. Sophisticated people operating in legally and socially catastrophic territory don’t usually incriminate themselves in plaintext. That’s not how white collar crime, corruption, or even ordinary conspiracies tend to surface.

If there was a genuine multi client trafficking and blackmail apparatus, particularly one implicating heads of state, billionaires, and intelligence services, we would expect to see more than ambiguous proximity and social overlap. We’d expect repeated third party victim accounts converging on the same powerful clients. We’d expect financial structures that clearly map to services rendered beyond “social hosting.” We’d expect leverage events, like documented attempts at coercion, extortion demands, hush money escalations that can be tied to specific encounters. We’d expect at least one cooperating witness able to describe the system mechanics in detail.

But what we do seem to have publicly is a wealthy predator who cultivated proximity to power, exploited minors in earlier periods, and later surrounded himself with morally dubious but not obviously coerced adult environments involving other high profile individuals.

Well,we're getting somewhere. Last we had this conversation here, I almost had the impression he's just a poor boy that dindu nothing.

Somehow I doubt there was a "last time" anyone implied that, but can we at least agree that we should first try sifting the ore from the slag before declaring we've struck gold?

Somehow I doubt there was a "last time" anyone implied that

Well, I'll happily admit I'm prone to reading into things when they rub me the wrong way. Still, that's the impression I was left with.

but can we at least agree that we should first try sifting the ore from the slag before declaring we've struck gold?

Yes, absolutely. I didn't mean to attack reasonable skepticism.

We’d expect repeated third party victim accounts converging on the same powerful clients.

Agreed.

We’d expect at least one cooperating witness able to describe the system mechanics in detail.

Agreed.

We’d expect financial structures that clearly map to services rendered beyond “social hosting.” We’d expect leverage events, like documented attempts at coercion, extortion demands, hush money escalations that can be tied to specific encounters.

I don't know about that.

You're assuming this is transactional, rather than a honeypot meant to accumulate influence and/or enable intelligence gathering. There wouldn't be any hush money demands, if the demand is for getting your people to "penetrate ze cabinets" as it were. I don't know how you expect to tie them to specific encounters either, if they take place face to face.

Well, I'll happily admit I'm prone to reading into things when they rub me the wrong way. Still, that's the impression I was left with.

Look at this way: no children were harmed here! Isn't that a relief?

You're assuming this is transactional, rather than a honeypot meant to accumulate influence and/or enable intelligence gathering. There wouldn't be any hush money demands, if the demand is for getting your people to "penetrate ze cabinets" as it were. I don't know how you expect to tie them to specific encounters either, if they take place face to face.

...which raises the evidentiary bar, as this is essentially "god of the gaps" reasoning.

An influence operation allegedly spanning continents requires structure and, more importantly, downstream effects. If the goal was leverage rather than cash, then what are the list of observable outputs and how do you convincingly tie them to these honeypot events supposedly involving minors? Or we could apply occam's razor, question the "survivors" narrative where it actually falls apart, concede that the global pedo cabal story was probably always hot air.

Sidenote: Even if a skeevy email exchange between ol' Jeff and Steve did exist, that cannot corroborate anything on its own. It doesn't even prove lil Suzy is a real person. Are there more than two witness accounts that can put a 12yo girl and Epstein together in his island? Can they corroborate inappropriate touching or "private sessions" with the guy? How did she meet him? Was she really 12 at the time? Where did she live? Who were her parents? What school did she go to? Did no one notice her long absences? How come there are no missing persons report tied to Epstein? Did anyone see a confused little girl outside Steve's residence? How did she commute between her place, pedo island and pedo clients' place? Where is Suzy now? What does she do? What is her full legal name, and is she still using it?

Key facts, even Epstein was probably not so omnipotent that nobody raised these questions.

OP is reasonably expecting survivor testimony and other physical evidence the FBI had access to substantiate, which seems in short supply.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats