Cooper poses as the stoic truth-teller, but under scrutiny he reveals the full Cluster B repertoire: mean-girl gossip, defamation, veiled threats, and brittle histrionics. His cultivated masculine pose collapses into something closer to an Amber Heard performance — the theatrics of grievance and fragility.
The narcissism is obvious. He casts himself as the keeper of hidden truths, yet reacts to factual correction as though it were a mortal insult. The histrionics soon follow: melodrama about tone, wounded ego, endless complaint, and the schoolgirl tactic of turning substance into gossip.
Then comes the darker note: defamation — insinuating Tracey “runs cover for pedophiles” — and even veiled threats of violence, deployed when facts proved inconvenient. And in classic borderline fashion, he oscillates wildly: one day declaring “never contact me again,” the next day reappearing with a fresh outburst. After nearly two weeks of supposed “bereavement” (while tweeting daily), he still produced nothing of his own — until “Mel the Crazy Village Lady” released her KGB-style thread, which he promptly plagiarized, passing off its inventions as his own research.
The net effect is not toughness but fragility. By Tracey’s standard of rigor, Cooper simply could not hold the line. Faced with exposure, he failed, and revealed himself for what he is: a Cluster B mean girl in the borrowed costume of a stoic.
lol you cast yourself as an intrepid journalist, just following evidence… but yet in the face of overwhelming evidence you dig in to be a contrarian. Save your “well I was called a contrarian before and I was right then”. A broken clock is right once a day. Stop clout chasing, it’s so unbecoming.
He is a Nazi-apologist who mixes some actual facts about the WW1-WW2 period with other highly misleading and subjective quotes and outright lies etc. to try to show the Nazis as victims when in fact they were the perpetrators. And in good Nazi propagandist style, he works hard to paint the Soviet Union in as black a way as possible - rather than accepting their role in saving the world from the Nazi scourge.
His anti-Israel bent does not stem from any feeling about the Palestinians (untermensch) but just good 'ole anti-semitism. I do wonder if he is not controlled opposition to heap the stench of anti-semitism across all who question the official Epstein narrative or question the myths of WW2.
> he works hard to paint the Soviet Union in as black a way as possible
It's hard not to. Regardless of Martyr Made's views on Germany, the USSR did ally with the Nazis to get the eastern half of Poland (and the Baltic states). That enabled Hitler quite a bit, no? Then, they attacked Finland and performed poorly (possibly inspiring Hitler to underestimate Soviet military capabilities). Stalin was no boy scout and is on the level of Hitler, but only one of them lost a war so there's that. And that's just to 1940.
Stalin spent the 1930s attempting to get France and Britain to join an anti-Germany front and failed. After that, Stalin took part of Poland to move the starting point for Barbarossa much farther away from Moscow - a masterstroke that saved the Soviet Union. He never allied with Nazi Germany.
You are just repeating Nazi and Cold War propaganda, pathetic. Of course Stalin was no boy scout, he had to get the Soviet Union ready to fight the Nazis. It is laughable how much the Finns think they won their war with the Soviet Union, as with their current idiocy.
Absolutely not true, seems that you are a Cooper apologist hiding behind a trite misleading statement. Tariq Ali was never called a Nazi apologist for detailing the utter incompetence of Churchill and also his crimes.
Also, the OPR report says that there was no technical obligation to notify the “victims” because the CVRA Act requires such notification only AFTER federal charges have been filed. And because the NPA prevented any federal charges from being filed, Acosta’s office did not violate the CVRA. Nevertheless, as an ETHICAL matter, the OPR said they should have been notified. But this is another nuance that people who don’t read the source documents seem to miss.
This whole episode and similar episodes where so many get really riled up over the objective research Michael Tracey has done has been really illuminating into the psyche of a certain type of online influencer on the right, and into the psyche of those not-so-influential who see pedophilia as a major issue among so-called "cabal" of elites. This is happening I believe because to those people the issue of pedophilia is tied up in their worldview as a central node within a larger sphere of horrible things that are being hidden by mainstream media about the ruling class. It is the reason the Q phenomena gained such credibility even though their belief in it was based on an extremely unlikely set of propositions. Why are they so quick to believe those things with such little proof, and then become so quick to denounce those who disagree with their belief system?
The idea of a cabal of elite pedophiles ruling the western world has essentially become like a religion to those people. What I mean is that a religion creates a worldview for people to anchor them in what they believe to be "reality." Which is why when people's religions are questioned by others many people get really upset with them. Because their anchor to reality is being shaken many react violently as a defense mechanism. To those whose false worldview of a cabal of pedophile elites ruling over us, that belief being shaken can be upsetting also because they have invested so much time and or money in supporting people and causes which they believe are fighting against "the cabal." Cognitive dissonance sets in and that can be especially upsetting if you have given a lot of money away based on a lie, or at least a big exaggeration, e.g., people who you believed were fighting "the cabal" and who you supported with lots of money are then exposed as either poor researchers or outright grifters knowingly conning you.
Look how they react to simple questions being raised by Michael Tracey as to the veracity of various objective facts--instead of a rational response of welcoming correction into their belief system, they attempt to destroy the credibility of Michael Tracey. This can be written off from paid influencers as Michael challenging the future of what they see as their income stream, but to those without that monetary relationship to Michael's journalism, it is reality itself that Michael is upending.
Total evisceration. I'd ask "how could Cooper possibly come back from this" but the answer is obviously that he'll just rely on his fellow grifters and idiotic audience to completely ignore it.
Has Michael Tracey lost his marbles? This childish bickering is CRAZY. Just take the Win Michael and leave Cooper the heck alone. You are becoming a bit obsessed and creepy. Spend a weekend at the Jersey Shore or something! Cape May is nice.
Michael is continuing a conversation. It would seem very strange if he failed to respond to Darryl's latest attack -- which came after Darryl promised never to contact him again -- especially considering the factual errors within that attack.
You’re ignoring the most basic rule of engagement: once the fight starts, you keep hitting the opponent until he stops moving or taps out. Cooper is a broken man now, his credibility and reputation in tatters, and never to be recovered.
Popular sure, so is Justin Bieber so what. He’s disgraced. That’s what matters. I care not one whit for those too stupid to recognize that, regardless of their bulk.
That's because Amreekans are dumb as dirt and prefer to stay that way. Michael is way too cerebral and dogged for the Cooper Clique. Go back to your easy peasy stage show where the MAGA crowd held up the Epstein Files binders given to them that contained absolutely nothing. That was hilarious, and that's what you prefer.
“'I’m not a lawyer,' Cooper concedes. 'I apparently said that Judge Marra’s 2019 ruling invalidated the 2007 non-prosecution agreement… that wasn’t exactly right.' Hey Darryl, I’m not a lawyer either. I’m just a 'social media poster,' as you put it."
Mostly agree, but something ironic about 7 paragraphs of name calling, house wife comparisons, etc. in Tracey’s article before getting to the substance. Social media personalities like Tracey and Cooper that rely on internet engagement are more similar than they’d like to admit.
Cooper is probably realizing that he has been caught cutting corners in a business where that matters. Maybe some of his contrarian takes do have merit, but unfortunately if he wants to make bold assertions, he can’t be fast and loose with the facts. I thought some of the Martyr Made podcasts were interesting but his credibility has taken a self-inflicted wound by his not having “journalistic standards”, those pesky things that keep bullshit from going mainstream (when they are applied). If he is going to be in the truth-giving business, he has to have better, not worse, standards for not peddling bullshit.
You are coming off like a jilted lover. Fatal Attraction vibes. The facts are now irrelevant and the focus is shifting to your motivations here. It can't be pure truth-telling given the level of malice. You are revealing much about yourself and its not good.
I do not follow Darryl Cooper. It is unnecessary to consider the work of a “historian” who gets the Holocaust and WWII wrong. Furthermore, anyone who follows Cooper to learn the truth about WWII or Epstein or anything else is likely a “low-info follower.” But on the Epstein story, most people are “low-info.” Who, other than journalists or someone directly involved would have the time or inclination to investigate it.
This is why a government and media that so often lie is so dangerous. If, to take one glaring example, the Hunter Biden laptop can be reported to be the product of Russian disinformation, when it obviously was not, it becomes a lot easier to believe that the opaque and disturbing allegations about Epstein are being covered up. This opens the door for the Darryl Coopers to pose as truth tellers.
Crazy Lady Mel isn’t some “random X account”….she’s (if she is indeed a women instead of a Pakistani or Iranian bot) is one of the most vile Jew hating, Holocaust deniers, Protocols of Zions quoting filth on X. So right up Darrly Cooper’s alley.
Bull💩. Check out the X feed of this absolute lunatic. Then please tell us whether she is just so concerned with the “plight poor palestians and those mean Zionists” or whether there is something else at play in her diseased mind.
I don’t have X, but Glenn Greenwald interviewed her a couple of weeks ago, and she didn’t come across as an “absolute lunatic” at all — or do you characterize everyone who objects to the Israeli slaughter of civilians the same way?
Micheal is a moron. He has been hammering Giuffre for weeks without answering the obvious question. If she was so horrible and so unhinged, why didn’t Epstein’s defense team obliterate her. According to Tracey, she received between 10-30 million dollars in damages. One hundred and fifty victims received millions of dollars, including two 14 year olds, who Tracey insists on impugning to somehow exonerate Epstein and adults who endeavor to fuck children. Not admirable. Defending Tracey is grotesque and enabling. I can’t imagine why you would be on that side. Contempt for cooper? Increasingly merited. Exoneration of Epstein and company? Not a fucking chance
I actually have no contempt for Cooper, because, from what I’ve seen of his other work, he seems to be a good researcher. He has not exactly covered himself in glory in this episode, however. He should have just answered Michael’s questions, without all the drama, personal attacks on wardrobe, etc.
I’m finding this entire conversation intriguing, as we all slowly come to realize that what we just assumed to be true, may not be true at all. I’m still open to hearing the truth, no matter where it leads. I don’t see Michael’s work on this topic to be focused on the “exoneration of Epstein” or anybody else involved, either. It looks to me as though we still need more facts, though last I heard, release of the “files” was being held up by a judge.
Giuffre did change some aspects of her story, and while I don’t doubt that she was taken advantage of by Maxwell, Epstein and the prince, it’s hard for me to accept everything she said at face value. I do find the circumstances of her death, and the events preceding it to be extremely suspicious.
I’m in no hurry to defend cooper. But the Tracey attack angle is just embarrassing. Parsing the 14 year olds from 17.9 year olds is just crazy. Victims or prostitutes is way besides the point.
The myriad of other circumstantial evidence is too numerous to even begin to address here. But Tracey has completely drilled down on Giuffre. He then uses the Non Prosecution Agreement as evidence of the severity of the federal government prosecution. I think that is bullshit. But it doesn’t really explain why the Feds even thought that case was in their lane. What am I missing?
Giuffre has carefully avoided any actual trial (ie cross examination), civil or criminal, or more likely her lawyers have, that’s why she’s never actually testified in a court of law - her specialty was settlements - so where would Epstein’s defense “obliterate” her? And her credibility issues well predate Epstein, she had falsely accused two schoolmates of rape, one of the boys was 16. And this was a life pattern till the end; when she announced she had “four days to live” as a result of a school bus ramming into her vehicle at 100 miles an hour, the school bus driver told the Australian press she wasn’t in the car (iow she wasn’t even at the scene). Giuffre being unreliable does not mean Epstein is innocent, nor has Michael ever implied that, but that doesn’t change the facts, including the inconvenient ones. If you think Epstein is a scumbag (no problem there) that doesn’t mean you mold all the evidence in that direction and call it journalism.
They would obliterate her the first time she put her “crazy “ hand out. Using your school mates story for starters. The crazier you portray Giuffre , the crazier you and Tracey appear when you can’t reconcile the fact that she walked away with “10-30 million dollars “ per Tracey’s rectum calculator.
This from Tracey’s comment section on August 6th:
“If you're still credulously citing the "belonged to intelligence" quote at this point, you're off the reservation “
That utterly dismisses the initial question. Why such a light sentence? Why were the feds even involved? Why plead guilty to such a serious charge when your defense team is an all star cast? Especially when intrepid turd Michael Tracey has completely discredited the charges because only 2 were 14 years old? And they may have orgasmed?
Keep listening. Listen for his defense of Epstein, his seemingly endless smearing of minors, and weird obsession with the money they received. As if that makes them more guilty. Listen to Tracey use government decree and documents, or “penalty of perjury” in the era of 51 spooks, Russia gate, j6 hearings, 911 reports, and all things Covid. Using institutions as dispositive in 2025 is in itself suspicious.
Listen objectively, Tracey rats on himself. With an enthusiasm devoid of self awareness. Aided by his brain dead readers.
You don’t even grasp the basics of litigation, and you’re completely emotionally unhinged. They wouldn’t “obliterate” her the first time she put her “crazy hand out”, nor did they, they simply paid her, like they did dozens of others, no questions asked, to stem the deluge of lawsuits heading their way. This was addressed in one of the docs Michael conveniently linked for you, which you didn’t read, naturally.
So the Epstein estate paid $150million in an effort to protect the “good name” of a man who had already PLEADED GUILTY in 07 to engaging in solicitation of sex with a minor. If Tracey is correct, using his low number of 10 million alone for Giuffre, that’s a lot of money even if she’s been wronged. If she’s merely an unhinged person, she gets invited to fuck off. How do we know that to be true? Because that’s what Dershowitz actually did! Epstein’s own attorney! Is that proof? Hardly. But taken in total, it’s circumstantial in a sea of circumstantial. From working at Dalton to dying mysteriously while waiting to be tried for crimes that according to Tracey couldn’t have warranted suicide or murder. I know more about litigation than I care to admit. But your insults are consistent with a half wit losing the argument. Thanks for being my canvass. You’re crushing it.
Seems Cooper is beholden to vanity. End of. Not a good look for a 'serious' researcher in controversial fields. It's not so much his 'errors' that weigh against him, it's his bending of the facts to support his 'narrative' and his ad hominem manner of delivery, complete with unsavoury insinuations. These flicks of the viper, I've come to recognise, are when it is cornered. Just carry on Michael through the jungle! You're doing a great service to truth and justice.
Cooper poses as the stoic truth-teller, but under scrutiny he reveals the full Cluster B repertoire: mean-girl gossip, defamation, veiled threats, and brittle histrionics. His cultivated masculine pose collapses into something closer to an Amber Heard performance — the theatrics of grievance and fragility.
The narcissism is obvious. He casts himself as the keeper of hidden truths, yet reacts to factual correction as though it were a mortal insult. The histrionics soon follow: melodrama about tone, wounded ego, endless complaint, and the schoolgirl tactic of turning substance into gossip.
Then comes the darker note: defamation — insinuating Tracey “runs cover for pedophiles” — and even veiled threats of violence, deployed when facts proved inconvenient. And in classic borderline fashion, he oscillates wildly: one day declaring “never contact me again,” the next day reappearing with a fresh outburst. After nearly two weeks of supposed “bereavement” (while tweeting daily), he still produced nothing of his own — until “Mel the Crazy Village Lady” released her KGB-style thread, which he promptly plagiarized, passing off its inventions as his own research.
The net effect is not toughness but fragility. By Tracey’s standard of rigor, Cooper simply could not hold the line. Faced with exposure, he failed, and revealed himself for what he is: a Cluster B mean girl in the borrowed costume of a stoic.
Absolutely perfect comment. Bravo
lol you cast yourself as an intrepid journalist, just following evidence… but yet in the face of overwhelming evidence you dig in to be a contrarian. Save your “well I was called a contrarian before and I was right then”. A broken clock is right once a day. Stop clout chasing, it’s so unbecoming.
It’s indistinguishable from the “Stop being racist, Lee” school of argument
He is a Nazi-apologist who mixes some actual facts about the WW1-WW2 period with other highly misleading and subjective quotes and outright lies etc. to try to show the Nazis as victims when in fact they were the perpetrators. And in good Nazi propagandist style, he works hard to paint the Soviet Union in as black a way as possible - rather than accepting their role in saving the world from the Nazi scourge.
His anti-Israel bent does not stem from any feeling about the Palestinians (untermensch) but just good 'ole anti-semitism. I do wonder if he is not controlled opposition to heap the stench of anti-semitism across all who question the official Epstein narrative or question the myths of WW2.
> he works hard to paint the Soviet Union in as black a way as possible
It's hard not to. Regardless of Martyr Made's views on Germany, the USSR did ally with the Nazis to get the eastern half of Poland (and the Baltic states). That enabled Hitler quite a bit, no? Then, they attacked Finland and performed poorly (possibly inspiring Hitler to underestimate Soviet military capabilities). Stalin was no boy scout and is on the level of Hitler, but only one of them lost a war so there's that. And that's just to 1940.
Stalin spent the 1930s attempting to get France and Britain to join an anti-Germany front and failed. After that, Stalin took part of Poland to move the starting point for Barbarossa much farther away from Moscow - a masterstroke that saved the Soviet Union. He never allied with Nazi Germany.
You are just repeating Nazi and Cold War propaganda, pathetic. Of course Stalin was no boy scout, he had to get the Soviet Union ready to fight the Nazis. It is laughable how much the Finns think they won their war with the Soviet Union, as with their current idiocy.
> You are just repeating Nazi and Cold War propaganda
I'm repeating the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
Imagine defending Stalin in 2025, pathetic!
Now do Chamberlain and ‘appeasement’, idiot.
To be fair, every WW2 revisionist invariably gets smeared as a “Nazi apologist”, so that accusation rings kind of hollow at this point.
Absolutely not true, seems that you are a Cooper apologist hiding behind a trite misleading statement. Tariq Ali was never called a Nazi apologist for detailing the utter incompetence of Churchill and also his crimes.
You're not a slouch when it comes to mean girling either, I see.
But why are you a paid sub of his?
Also, the OPR report says that there was no technical obligation to notify the “victims” because the CVRA Act requires such notification only AFTER federal charges have been filed. And because the NPA prevented any federal charges from being filed, Acosta’s office did not violate the CVRA. Nevertheless, as an ETHICAL matter, the OPR said they should have been notified. But this is another nuance that people who don’t read the source documents seem to miss.
Yeah, I posted an image of that on Darryl's X thread a couple days ago at https://x.com/vrajadev/status/1961961241842487427
This whole episode and similar episodes where so many get really riled up over the objective research Michael Tracey has done has been really illuminating into the psyche of a certain type of online influencer on the right, and into the psyche of those not-so-influential who see pedophilia as a major issue among so-called "cabal" of elites. This is happening I believe because to those people the issue of pedophilia is tied up in their worldview as a central node within a larger sphere of horrible things that are being hidden by mainstream media about the ruling class. It is the reason the Q phenomena gained such credibility even though their belief in it was based on an extremely unlikely set of propositions. Why are they so quick to believe those things with such little proof, and then become so quick to denounce those who disagree with their belief system?
The idea of a cabal of elite pedophiles ruling the western world has essentially become like a religion to those people. What I mean is that a religion creates a worldview for people to anchor them in what they believe to be "reality." Which is why when people's religions are questioned by others many people get really upset with them. Because their anchor to reality is being shaken many react violently as a defense mechanism. To those whose false worldview of a cabal of pedophile elites ruling over us, that belief being shaken can be upsetting also because they have invested so much time and or money in supporting people and causes which they believe are fighting against "the cabal." Cognitive dissonance sets in and that can be especially upsetting if you have given a lot of money away based on a lie, or at least a big exaggeration, e.g., people who you believed were fighting "the cabal" and who you supported with lots of money are then exposed as either poor researchers or outright grifters knowingly conning you.
Look how they react to simple questions being raised by Michael Tracey as to the veracity of various objective facts--instead of a rational response of welcoming correction into their belief system, they attempt to destroy the credibility of Michael Tracey. This can be written off from paid influencers as Michael challenging the future of what they see as their income stream, but to those without that monetary relationship to Michael's journalism, it is reality itself that Michael is upending.
Total evisceration. I'd ask "how could Cooper possibly come back from this" but the answer is obviously that he'll just rely on his fellow grifters and idiotic audience to completely ignore it.
"Plagiarizing a fake quote is as embarrassing as it is funny." - Abraham Lincoln
Has Michael Tracey lost his marbles? This childish bickering is CRAZY. Just take the Win Michael and leave Cooper the heck alone. You are becoming a bit obsessed and creepy. Spend a weekend at the Jersey Shore or something! Cape May is nice.
Respectfully disagree.
Michael is continuing a conversation. It would seem very strange if he failed to respond to Darryl's latest attack -- which came after Darryl promised never to contact him again -- especially considering the factual errors within that attack.
You’re ignoring the most basic rule of engagement: once the fight starts, you keep hitting the opponent until he stops moving or taps out. Cooper is a broken man now, his credibility and reputation in tatters, and never to be recovered.
If not to obtain this result, why go to war?
Haha Cooper is still 20x more popular than Tracey or Hanannanandnia
Popular sure, so is Justin Bieber so what. He’s disgraced. That’s what matters. I care not one whit for those too stupid to recognize that, regardless of their bulk.
That's because Amreekans are dumb as dirt and prefer to stay that way. Michael is way too cerebral and dogged for the Cooper Clique. Go back to your easy peasy stage show where the MAGA crowd held up the Epstein Files binders given to them that contained absolutely nothing. That was hilarious, and that's what you prefer.
This was hilarious!
“'I’m not a lawyer,' Cooper concedes. 'I apparently said that Judge Marra’s 2019 ruling invalidated the 2007 non-prosecution agreement… that wasn’t exactly right.' Hey Darryl, I’m not a lawyer either. I’m just a 'social media poster,' as you put it."
Mostly agree, but something ironic about 7 paragraphs of name calling, house wife comparisons, etc. in Tracey’s article before getting to the substance. Social media personalities like Tracey and Cooper that rely on internet engagement are more similar than they’d like to admit.
This is important because these people need to be discredited. It bears emphasizing that Cooper is of extremely low character.
Cooper is probably realizing that he has been caught cutting corners in a business where that matters. Maybe some of his contrarian takes do have merit, but unfortunately if he wants to make bold assertions, he can’t be fast and loose with the facts. I thought some of the Martyr Made podcasts were interesting but his credibility has taken a self-inflicted wound by his not having “journalistic standards”, those pesky things that keep bullshit from going mainstream (when they are applied). If he is going to be in the truth-giving business, he has to have better, not worse, standards for not peddling bullshit.
You are coming off like a jilted lover. Fatal Attraction vibes. The facts are now irrelevant and the focus is shifting to your motivations here. It can't be pure truth-telling given the level of malice. You are revealing much about yourself and its not good.
It looks more like Cooper's attacks on Michael reveal a great deal of malice.
I do not follow Darryl Cooper. It is unnecessary to consider the work of a “historian” who gets the Holocaust and WWII wrong. Furthermore, anyone who follows Cooper to learn the truth about WWII or Epstein or anything else is likely a “low-info follower.” But on the Epstein story, most people are “low-info.” Who, other than journalists or someone directly involved would have the time or inclination to investigate it.
This is why a government and media that so often lie is so dangerous. If, to take one glaring example, the Hunter Biden laptop can be reported to be the product of Russian disinformation, when it obviously was not, it becomes a lot easier to believe that the opaque and disturbing allegations about Epstein are being covered up. This opens the door for the Darryl Coopers to pose as truth tellers.
Crazy Lady Mel isn’t some “random X account”….she’s (if she is indeed a women instead of a Pakistani or Iranian bot) is one of the most vile Jew hating, Holocaust deniers, Protocols of Zions quoting filth on X. So right up Darrly Cooper’s alley.
What nonsense.
She is an actual lady, who was interviewed by Glenn Greenwald on System Update a couple of weeks ago.
Not everyone who calls out Israel's slaughter of civilians is a Jew hater.
In fact she has a podcast with her lawyer partner Jenin (Previously Prohibited) which Michael was on recently, so he knows who she is.
https://rumble.com/v6wxkjk-debating-epsteins-sweetheart-deal-w-michael-tracey-previously-prohibited-ep.html
Bull💩. Check out the X feed of this absolute lunatic. Then please tell us whether she is just so concerned with the “plight poor palestians and those mean Zionists” or whether there is something else at play in her diseased mind.
I don’t have X, but Glenn Greenwald interviewed her a couple of weeks ago, and she didn’t come across as an “absolute lunatic” at all — or do you characterize everyone who objects to the Israeli slaughter of civilians the same way?
Everything is antisemitism to people like Tracey and those that come after Darryl
I'm not familiar with Michael Tracey falsely labeling anyone "antisemitic."
Why does Michael Tracey side on the hand of Israeli Peadophiles???
Prove it -- because Michael has been successfully DISPROVING it for the past couple of weeks.
Micheal is a moron. He has been hammering Giuffre for weeks without answering the obvious question. If she was so horrible and so unhinged, why didn’t Epstein’s defense team obliterate her. According to Tracey, she received between 10-30 million dollars in damages. One hundred and fifty victims received millions of dollars, including two 14 year olds, who Tracey insists on impugning to somehow exonerate Epstein and adults who endeavor to fuck children. Not admirable. Defending Tracey is grotesque and enabling. I can’t imagine why you would be on that side. Contempt for cooper? Increasingly merited. Exoneration of Epstein and company? Not a fucking chance
I actually have no contempt for Cooper, because, from what I’ve seen of his other work, he seems to be a good researcher. He has not exactly covered himself in glory in this episode, however. He should have just answered Michael’s questions, without all the drama, personal attacks on wardrobe, etc.
I’m finding this entire conversation intriguing, as we all slowly come to realize that what we just assumed to be true, may not be true at all. I’m still open to hearing the truth, no matter where it leads. I don’t see Michael’s work on this topic to be focused on the “exoneration of Epstein” or anybody else involved, either. It looks to me as though we still need more facts, though last I heard, release of the “files” was being held up by a judge.
Giuffre did change some aspects of her story, and while I don’t doubt that she was taken advantage of by Maxwell, Epstein and the prince, it’s hard for me to accept everything she said at face value. I do find the circumstances of her death, and the events preceding it to be extremely suspicious.
I’m in no hurry to defend cooper. But the Tracey attack angle is just embarrassing. Parsing the 14 year olds from 17.9 year olds is just crazy. Victims or prostitutes is way besides the point.
The myriad of other circumstantial evidence is too numerous to even begin to address here. But Tracey has completely drilled down on Giuffre. He then uses the Non Prosecution Agreement as evidence of the severity of the federal government prosecution. I think that is bullshit. But it doesn’t really explain why the Feds even thought that case was in their lane. What am I missing?
Giuffre has carefully avoided any actual trial (ie cross examination), civil or criminal, or more likely her lawyers have, that’s why she’s never actually testified in a court of law - her specialty was settlements - so where would Epstein’s defense “obliterate” her? And her credibility issues well predate Epstein, she had falsely accused two schoolmates of rape, one of the boys was 16. And this was a life pattern till the end; when she announced she had “four days to live” as a result of a school bus ramming into her vehicle at 100 miles an hour, the school bus driver told the Australian press she wasn’t in the car (iow she wasn’t even at the scene). Giuffre being unreliable does not mean Epstein is innocent, nor has Michael ever implied that, but that doesn’t change the facts, including the inconvenient ones. If you think Epstein is a scumbag (no problem there) that doesn’t mean you mold all the evidence in that direction and call it journalism.
They would obliterate her the first time she put her “crazy “ hand out. Using your school mates story for starters. The crazier you portray Giuffre , the crazier you and Tracey appear when you can’t reconcile the fact that she walked away with “10-30 million dollars “ per Tracey’s rectum calculator.
This from Tracey’s comment section on August 6th:
“If you're still credulously citing the "belonged to intelligence" quote at this point, you're off the reservation “
That utterly dismisses the initial question. Why such a light sentence? Why were the feds even involved? Why plead guilty to such a serious charge when your defense team is an all star cast? Especially when intrepid turd Michael Tracey has completely discredited the charges because only 2 were 14 years old? And they may have orgasmed?
Keep listening. Listen for his defense of Epstein, his seemingly endless smearing of minors, and weird obsession with the money they received. As if that makes them more guilty. Listen to Tracey use government decree and documents, or “penalty of perjury” in the era of 51 spooks, Russia gate, j6 hearings, 911 reports, and all things Covid. Using institutions as dispositive in 2025 is in itself suspicious.
Listen objectively, Tracey rats on himself. With an enthusiasm devoid of self awareness. Aided by his brain dead readers.
You don’t even grasp the basics of litigation, and you’re completely emotionally unhinged. They wouldn’t “obliterate” her the first time she put her “crazy hand out”, nor did they, they simply paid her, like they did dozens of others, no questions asked, to stem the deluge of lawsuits heading their way. This was addressed in one of the docs Michael conveniently linked for you, which you didn’t read, naturally.
So the Epstein estate paid $150million in an effort to protect the “good name” of a man who had already PLEADED GUILTY in 07 to engaging in solicitation of sex with a minor. If Tracey is correct, using his low number of 10 million alone for Giuffre, that’s a lot of money even if she’s been wronged. If she’s merely an unhinged person, she gets invited to fuck off. How do we know that to be true? Because that’s what Dershowitz actually did! Epstein’s own attorney! Is that proof? Hardly. But taken in total, it’s circumstantial in a sea of circumstantial. From working at Dalton to dying mysteriously while waiting to be tried for crimes that according to Tracey couldn’t have warranted suicide or murder. I know more about litigation than I care to admit. But your insults are consistent with a half wit losing the argument. Thanks for being my canvass. You’re crushing it.
Cooper is cringe!
W TRACEY! The people’s choice.
Seems Cooper is beholden to vanity. End of. Not a good look for a 'serious' researcher in controversial fields. It's not so much his 'errors' that weigh against him, it's his bending of the facts to support his 'narrative' and his ad hominem manner of delivery, complete with unsavoury insinuations. These flicks of the viper, I've come to recognise, are when it is cornered. Just carry on Michael through the jungle! You're doing a great service to truth and justice.
Meticulous, Michael. Excellent work, as usual.