Often it will be suggested that to express misgivings about the defamatory maelstrom of Epstein hysteria, one must be suspiciously concerned with the reputational interests of “powerful elites.” Because even if certain “elites” might get wrongly impugned as child-sex criminals from time to time — what’s the big deal?
This has to be one of the greatest scams ever: any female who had any connection with Epstein at all, can now claim victimhood, and score a nice payoff -- and the attorneys who file all the paperwork are laughing all the way to the bank.
Epstein is revealing more and more to be just Pizzagate. Which, by the end tale of the Covid pandemic, (part of) the mainstream media was warning us it was spreading to more and more parts of the population via conspirituality. Guess they never predicted it would engulf them.
The other day, I saw someone speaking of the Franklin scandal as something real they had never heard of. The Franklin scandal was the Pizzagate of its heyday, the Satanic ritual abuse panic.
What happened in the call you had with KM that you mentioned in part 1? How did that come about? Will that be in part 3? How many more parts are there to this series and how long do we have to wait until the next one? Also, separately, did you wipe the floor with Bret Weinstein in the 'abolish podcasts' debate?
Mr Tracey do you have any comment on the Pulitzer Committee awarding Julie K Brown a special citation for her Epstein reporting and do you have any message for the Committee?
They had to invent a phony new retroactive "award" to give to her! Absurd, of course. I have plenty more I could "comment," but I'll probably save it for something.
Kristy Makuta is probably very much mentally ill and has been for years - I think the majority of responsibility for what happened in this case is on the greedy lawyers from Wigdor and her "adoptive mother".
Additinally, I still cannot comprehend how Karyna Shuliak who was Epstein's fiancee and life partner of about 10 years at the time of his death will probably receive literally zero from his inheritance despite he put her in his will as the biggest beneficiary while these "survivors'' are becoming millionaires. She could not receive ANYTHING yet because his estate is still under litigation. When the time comes there will probably be nothing left. Not to even mention how her life must look like from the summer of 2025 - if she has made any effort to move on with her life within those few years after his death it has all probably collapsed since the files were released and all her life from that period was made publicly available to read for everyone everywhere and compare with what "survivors'' had to "endure".
I don't think this stuff occurs because people are idiots. I just think it occurs due to fear of recourse. For instance, David Irving poked holes in a lot of the Holocaust narratives. But, heaven forbid people at the higher echelons mention that. And this is coming from an adamant Israel supporter by the way.
I thought the revised story from Christensen was that she was groomed by her biological family from a young age, not the cheerleader. Of course, it's difficult to figure things out with all the redactions.
Christensen said that "things that didn't make sense to [her]" all fell into place when learning this revised version of the story, implying that the original story didn't make sense to her (because it doesn't make sense. Why would her parents let her live with a cheerleading coach at age 15? What a coincidence that she happens to get involved with a cheerleading coach who trafficked her to Epstein, but who was running a camp for 8-12 year olds, and she was too old for it, but was allowed to join anyway...then the only girl living with the cheerleading coach, and the only girl trafficked to Epstein. This cheerleading coach was said by Christensen to have no background in cheerleading...but was running this program for 8-12 year olds, who are too young to fit Epstein's M.O...why? For a 15-year-old girl who has Down Syndrome and autism to coincidentally come by and willingly join).
The revised story makes even less sense. Originally, when she lived with the cheerleading coach, she had never done anything sexual before. Now she had been groomed from a young age...what was the purpose of sending her to live with the cheerleading coach? Wasn't all that grooming enough?
Then when she's sent to Epstein at age 16 he has to "teach" her how to do sexual acts she's been groomed to perform forever. What was even the point of the "grooming" then?
You don't need to groom 16 year olds from a young age to be sexually active at 16. What a joke. Most 16-year-old girls are already sexually active, and as the Palm Beach investigation established, there was no shortage of 16-year-old girls perfectly willing to give Epstein massages and other things for money.
The revised story also says that her 12-year-old sister was also approved for Epstein/Maxwell. Who has accused Epstein of doing anything to them when they were under 13?
Something interesting to note, although this isn't necessarily a smoking gun: Among the men she implies were involved with Epstein are Dan Snyder and Joe Gibbs. But Joe Gibbs was not the coach of the Washington Redskins (feels good to type that) during the time she alleged to have been trafficked by Epstein. He returned as coach in 2004. Note that she's from Virginia, hence the Washington Redskins are her local football team. This is likely why she thought to name all these people tied to the Redskins. She just mixed up the time period for certain details.
Of course, it's not impossible for Joe Gibbs to associate with the franchise before he returns as coach, but I think the most likely scenario is she was just trying to think of what celebrities she's familiar with she could tie into it.
"The four random men who were falsely implicated in child sex crimes by Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna — including an auto mechanic and an IT technician — have still yet to receive so much as a piddling apology from the two Congressmen most responsible for the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and the resulting mass production of “Epstein Files” by the DOJ. "
So this is a lie however I'm coming to realize that Michael here does this kind of thing and may even be controlled opposition but that's still up for debate. He may just be the typical liberal journalist with a some stage of TDS.
1) While there's not be a "formal" apology, Rhokanna did say "Sorry" publicly when it was revealed how these men were actually connected.
2) Michael is making sure to mention just 4 of the 6 men who's names were read on the House Floor by the Reps because 2 of them are wealth elites and so if he included them the narrative he's trying to build here wouldn't hit as hard and that makes sense when your goal is to push a narrative and not to report the facts.
3) Every day people face false accusations all the time and what is our recourse? Most of the time we're just SOL wo what makes these guys special? It's not that they ended up being falsely accused but it wasn't without good reason. The Federal Government has a long running reputation of using reaction to protect wealthy powerful individuals and so its only rational to think that any names being redacted were being done so for a reason that's not to protect the innocent as protecting the innocent is way down at the bottom of the Fed Gov list of priorities regardless of the party in power. The media ruins a lot of lives with false info to half truths. AS for the excuse "Then sue them" no every day avg person can fund that kind of lawsuit so NO that's not a rebuttal or reasons why it's different when journalists, like Michael, do this kind of reputation damage.
Rhoknna and Massie unlike most in government pushed hard for complete transparency. They weren't seeking redaction for just these few men's names but for all the files and the reality is that the public as a whole is better off for that even if a handful of people were unfortunately caught up and accused of something they didn't do. Michael is also trying to imply that Rhokanna and Masie said these guys were guilty when in reality they said that their names were being redacted likely because they had done something and were being protected since that is EXACTLY what the Feds do.
Michael isn't the only one in journalism who's mind literally broke when a non-establishment controlled president was sworn in. This is why I ask myself is Michael is actually controlled opposition. I have zero proof he is I just suspect he may be based on his words and actions.
"2) Michael is making sure to mention just 4 of the 6 men who's names were read on the House Floor by the Reps because 2 of them are wealth elites and so if he included them the narrative he's trying to build here wouldn't hit as hard and that makes sense when your goal is to push a narrative and not to report the facts."
That is in no way in contradiction with what he said.
Just stop. The Epstein story after 2008 is a hoax. Just before and after Epstein’s incarceration is when the gates opened up and we’ve seen the same nonsense over and over and over. This is just more blatant.
No, you either misinterpreted what Tracey wrote or jumped to conclusions.
Regardless, the other 2 of them were also not involved in any offending. Brad Edwards explicitly stated that Wexner was not involved in Epstein's sex crimes.
This has to be one of the greatest scams ever: any female who had any connection with Epstein at all, can now claim victimhood, and score a nice payoff -- and the attorneys who file all the paperwork are laughing all the way to the bank.
Great article, Michael!
what a great vocabulary you have!
Epstein is revealing more and more to be just Pizzagate. Which, by the end tale of the Covid pandemic, (part of) the mainstream media was warning us it was spreading to more and more parts of the population via conspirituality. Guess they never predicted it would engulf them.
The other day, I saw someone speaking of the Franklin scandal as something real they had never heard of. The Franklin scandal was the Pizzagate of its heyday, the Satanic ritual abuse panic.
What happened in the call you had with KM that you mentioned in part 1? How did that come about? Will that be in part 3? How many more parts are there to this series and how long do we have to wait until the next one? Also, separately, did you wipe the floor with Bret Weinstein in the 'abolish podcasts' debate?
Mr Tracey do you have any comment on the Pulitzer Committee awarding Julie K Brown a special citation for her Epstein reporting and do you have any message for the Committee?
They had to invent a phony new retroactive "award" to give to her! Absurd, of course. I have plenty more I could "comment," but I'll probably save it for something.
I'm sure you will
Kirsty Makuta should be charged with fraud. I doubt that'll happen given the current climate.
We are doing the Salem witch trials all over again. When Tracey urges caution, the finger is pointed at him.
thank you for your work. to the last point, skeptics/rationalists must go on the attack.
Wow. Just wow. This is incredible.
Kristy Makuta is probably very much mentally ill and has been for years - I think the majority of responsibility for what happened in this case is on the greedy lawyers from Wigdor and her "adoptive mother".
Additinally, I still cannot comprehend how Karyna Shuliak who was Epstein's fiancee and life partner of about 10 years at the time of his death will probably receive literally zero from his inheritance despite he put her in his will as the biggest beneficiary while these "survivors'' are becoming millionaires. She could not receive ANYTHING yet because his estate is still under litigation. When the time comes there will probably be nothing left. Not to even mention how her life must look like from the summer of 2025 - if she has made any effort to move on with her life within those few years after his death it has all probably collapsed since the files were released and all her life from that period was made publicly available to read for everyone everywhere and compare with what "survivors'' had to "endure".
I don't think this stuff occurs because people are idiots. I just think it occurs due to fear of recourse. For instance, David Irving poked holes in a lot of the Holocaust narratives. But, heaven forbid people at the higher echelons mention that. And this is coming from an adamant Israel supporter by the way.
I thought the revised story from Christensen was that she was groomed by her biological family from a young age, not the cheerleader. Of course, it's difficult to figure things out with all the redactions.
Christensen said that "things that didn't make sense to [her]" all fell into place when learning this revised version of the story, implying that the original story didn't make sense to her (because it doesn't make sense. Why would her parents let her live with a cheerleading coach at age 15? What a coincidence that she happens to get involved with a cheerleading coach who trafficked her to Epstein, but who was running a camp for 8-12 year olds, and she was too old for it, but was allowed to join anyway...then the only girl living with the cheerleading coach, and the only girl trafficked to Epstein. This cheerleading coach was said by Christensen to have no background in cheerleading...but was running this program for 8-12 year olds, who are too young to fit Epstein's M.O...why? For a 15-year-old girl who has Down Syndrome and autism to coincidentally come by and willingly join).
The revised story makes even less sense. Originally, when she lived with the cheerleading coach, she had never done anything sexual before. Now she had been groomed from a young age...what was the purpose of sending her to live with the cheerleading coach? Wasn't all that grooming enough?
Then when she's sent to Epstein at age 16 he has to "teach" her how to do sexual acts she's been groomed to perform forever. What was even the point of the "grooming" then?
You don't need to groom 16 year olds from a young age to be sexually active at 16. What a joke. Most 16-year-old girls are already sexually active, and as the Palm Beach investigation established, there was no shortage of 16-year-old girls perfectly willing to give Epstein massages and other things for money.
The revised story also says that her 12-year-old sister was also approved for Epstein/Maxwell. Who has accused Epstein of doing anything to them when they were under 13?
Something interesting to note, although this isn't necessarily a smoking gun: Among the men she implies were involved with Epstein are Dan Snyder and Joe Gibbs. But Joe Gibbs was not the coach of the Washington Redskins (feels good to type that) during the time she alleged to have been trafficked by Epstein. He returned as coach in 2004. Note that she's from Virginia, hence the Washington Redskins are her local football team. This is likely why she thought to name all these people tied to the Redskins. She just mixed up the time period for certain details.
Of course, it's not impossible for Joe Gibbs to associate with the franchise before he returns as coach, but I think the most likely scenario is she was just trying to think of what celebrities she's familiar with she could tie into it.
"The four random men who were falsely implicated in child sex crimes by Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna — including an auto mechanic and an IT technician — have still yet to receive so much as a piddling apology from the two Congressmen most responsible for the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and the resulting mass production of “Epstein Files” by the DOJ. "
So this is a lie however I'm coming to realize that Michael here does this kind of thing and may even be controlled opposition but that's still up for debate. He may just be the typical liberal journalist with a some stage of TDS.
1) While there's not be a "formal" apology, Rhokanna did say "Sorry" publicly when it was revealed how these men were actually connected.
2) Michael is making sure to mention just 4 of the 6 men who's names were read on the House Floor by the Reps because 2 of them are wealth elites and so if he included them the narrative he's trying to build here wouldn't hit as hard and that makes sense when your goal is to push a narrative and not to report the facts.
3) Every day people face false accusations all the time and what is our recourse? Most of the time we're just SOL wo what makes these guys special? It's not that they ended up being falsely accused but it wasn't without good reason. The Federal Government has a long running reputation of using reaction to protect wealthy powerful individuals and so its only rational to think that any names being redacted were being done so for a reason that's not to protect the innocent as protecting the innocent is way down at the bottom of the Fed Gov list of priorities regardless of the party in power. The media ruins a lot of lives with false info to half truths. AS for the excuse "Then sue them" no every day avg person can fund that kind of lawsuit so NO that's not a rebuttal or reasons why it's different when journalists, like Michael, do this kind of reputation damage.
Rhoknna and Massie unlike most in government pushed hard for complete transparency. They weren't seeking redaction for just these few men's names but for all the files and the reality is that the public as a whole is better off for that even if a handful of people were unfortunately caught up and accused of something they didn't do. Michael is also trying to imply that Rhokanna and Masie said these guys were guilty when in reality they said that their names were being redacted likely because they had done something and were being protected since that is EXACTLY what the Feds do.
Michael isn't the only one in journalism who's mind literally broke when a non-establishment controlled president was sworn in. This is why I ask myself is Michael is actually controlled opposition. I have zero proof he is I just suspect he may be based on his words and actions.
"2) Michael is making sure to mention just 4 of the 6 men who's names were read on the House Floor by the Reps because 2 of them are wealth elites and so if he included them the narrative he's trying to build here wouldn't hit as hard and that makes sense when your goal is to push a narrative and not to report the facts."
That is in no way in contradiction with what he said.
You're an idiot.
Just stop. The Epstein story after 2008 is a hoax. Just before and after Epstein’s incarceration is when the gates opened up and we’ve seen the same nonsense over and over and over. This is just more blatant.
No, you either misinterpreted what Tracey wrote or jumped to conclusions.
Regardless, the other 2 of them were also not involved in any offending. Brad Edwards explicitly stated that Wexner was not involved in Epstein's sex crimes.