Epstein got a backrub and a little extra from hundreds of women for years and paid them. During a period of a few years, a couple dozen high school girls also snuck in among the carousel of women frequenting Epstein's house, about as casually as underage people asking friends to buy them alcohol or carrying fake IDs to get into a bar or club. We don't pretend those things don't happen nor do we think they're world-breaking news.
But because one day one of his former accomplices dropped the word "child" and "pedophile" into the issue, all these women got turned into little children with zero agency, whiteknight plaintiffs lawyers and prosecutors have to rush to their aid and keep the story going and going long after the original high schoolers who this entire moral panic is based on mostly wanted to move on or remain anonymous, because they didn't like the publicity. So it's totally legitimate to ask who are these women who do want the publicity?
Great post Michael. The lawyers and workings of the 'justice system' are so much more interesting and informative than 'survivor' mantras. And well done uber-fantastist Sara Ransome for calling out Guiffre! You see what a hard job these lawyers have keeping their 'girls' in tow. Seems Maria Farmer - the Mother Teresa of claimants, accused (or by proxy) one of her past lawyers (Boies, Edwards etc ) of rape. Reap what you sow boys, or boies...
In addition to the civil liberties aspect, it really bothers me how much the press has changed its reporting standards for this story. It used to be that if your credibility was below a certain level, the mainstream press simply would not print your allegations barring substantial corroboration. Even mainstream conservative press refused to give coverage to Larry Sinclair, the conman who claimed to have sold sex to/bought crack from Barack Obama. Even liberal press didn't grant much attention to the political operatives who claimed in 2016 to have found a Jane Doe whom Trump had assaulted at age 13. The press did give coverage to Julie Swetnick's allegations against Kavanaugh but at least seemed to feel bad about it afterwards.
After claiming to have sex tapes and then admitting the claim was fake, Ransome should have reached "too uncredible to quote" status and disappeared from newspapers unless she could corroborate anything, as should several of the people mentioned in this article. I've never seen so many cases where people mix normal and crazy allegations and the press just ignores the crazy stuff and reports the normal. I think there's just such a high demand for Epstein content that basically anything flies at this point.
"It’s always a crowd-pleaser to direct punitive state action at the most reviled figures in society — the most notorious of which in previous eras have included “terrorists,” “domestic extremists,” “drug dealers,” and the like."
Yep. Been going on for a loooong time.
"Perpetrators of quadruple homicide are less culturally anathema these days."
And War Criminals. Not compared to convicted pedos, mind you, but just anybody whose appearance or backstory fits the vibe.
Yep, we've all observed the hard drive tweets. I've preemptively blocked many a bot or idiot (who knows which) based on that criterion alone.
Hate to keep harping on AIs, but they do deserve to take over.
Great article. Please keep going on this. And you should be preparing a book. I don’t think the average person appreciates what civil liberties mean until it no longer exists! Happy New Year.
I would second that. In the course of Michael's interview with Ghislaine's brother, I thought to myself that the habeas brief he had referenced sounded interesting enough that I should probably have a look at it. Then he mentioned the fact that it was 900 pages long. Michael, you're doing us all a great service, analyzing all this stuff with care and conscientiousness. Please keep up the great work!
The erosion of civil liberties is purposeful and has been planned over decades utilizing every opportunity and creating additional crisis to further advance an agenda. One that requires the elimination of liberal democracy for a new ‘systems management’ model of governance. This will not allow human freedom.
Albeit only a micro-scoop, Taibbi’s revelation that Epstein had a two-inch penis when erect might be his biggest story of the year (it was a tough year for Matt). Though how exactly he knows this factoid to be true when he is invariably derisive of all other testimony by women victimized by Epstein is unclear (maybe they showered together?). Surely Taibbi will soon connect the dots— Hitler was recently revealed to have a tiny malformed member, Stormy Daniels tells us Trump had a mushroom-shaped stub in between his legs. Now we’re told Epstein’s wee-wee was shaped like a minuscule egg. Hmmmm.
Those who have yet to learn the critical importance of honesty think they are providing some benefit to society by attempting to invent some grotesque chariciture of the manhood of the condemned. Instead it comes across as "protesting too much".
Again, here I also agree with you. This is a provable pattern with false rape accusers. Here & again, Harvey Weinstein's two main accusers swore under oath that he had a vagina instead of a penis, forcing him to show his dick to the jury! And he has a penis! This is yet more evidence that there are multiple examples of FALSE rape accusers maligning the defendants man hood. This is a pattern! This is PROOF these accusers LIED and I'm sure it's the same with Epstein's accusers
This must be directed at Matt, I’m guessing? The only incontrovertible fact about Epstein he can muster is the size of his Johnson. Hitler is based on recent genetic analysis. As to Trump, it’s ‘he said she said.’
I don't know about Matt, but some accusers tried to claim that Epstein had an egg-shaped penis. Except that some other women saw it multiple times and made up slanderous stories but didn't mention that.
Interesting footnote: Taibbi breaks new legal ground by implying that Epstein’s unusually small package might be an extenuating circumstance and might help explain why he had a vast network of teenage girls at his disposal to service him at all hours. Although, it’s unlikely to ever to prevail in a court of law, it’s a bold legal theory, and if it ever does succeed, it should forever be known as the Taibbi Defense.
You're on to something. In fact, Weinstein's two main accusers SWORE under oath that he had no penis but instead had a vagina. In fact, one accuser basically accused Weinstein of being a hermaphrodite that is a MAN with a partial penis & partial vagina. Welp, guess what? Weinstein was made to show his dick to the jury, and it was normal! They LIED UNDER OATH about Weinstein having a vagina and he proved he had a dick! NO LIE! So not only are most rape accusers NOT credible, but they also tell the same types of LIES >notice?
That's a PROPAGANDA twist. The accusers SWORE UNDER OATH that> he had NO >PENIS. Not no testicles. So, they LIED right there. Yes he was made to show his penis to prove they LIED. Check my notes for the evidence. Also, the sex was consensual and in fact the two main accusers were inviting over their mother's house for dinner & haircuts over the course of FIVE YEARS. Again they swore under oath that he had NO penis. NOT no testicles. That article you gave a link to is a propaganda piece.
If there’s no “there there” then why are the Trump admin fighting tooth and nail to censor and block the release of the files? And if you never take the word of a victim then maybe you should look at your own system of critical thinking and values? The point of them demanding the release is because *that* is where the evidence is : in the files. It’s precisely *because* of the actions of the Trump Admin that logic gives more weight to the victims’ statements.
For those who lack the compute necessary to understand altruistic motivation, evidence of it in other people can't be accepted lest one gag on their own meaningless self-contained existence.
I don’t think there’s any such thing as true ‘altruism’, and i’m not alone in this philosophical argument. Many psychologists, philosophers, theologians have grappled with the issue over centuries. The overwhelming majority come down on the side of “no”.
That aside, altruism towards whom? Epstein? Larry Summers? Alan Dershowitz, Trump? i don’t see it as very altruistic, to say the least, when Micheal was engaging in years of disingenuous speculation, and outright accusations of dishonesty by victims of SA, R@pe, grooming, exploitation and abuse often ending with threats to their lives, with them living in fear, in a few instances (that we know of) of these poor girls/women taking their own lives and in at least one case being found with their “head blown off”, which the Detectives, Law Enforcement Officers and Forensic detectives stating that it was not a ‘self deletion’. This after she finally went to the authorities to report her story having been encouraged to do so many times but had until then been too afraid, saying to several separate witnesses that “i’ll be ki11ed if i do”.
Also casting accusations of dishonesty at the various journalists and investigative reporting over the years into Epstein, his crimes and accomplices or conspirators.
All this only for now the files, emails and court documents, evidence etc to more than add weight to the so-called “conspiracy theories” and “dishonest journalism”, showing that they’re actually ‘conspiracy facts’, completely demolishing the narrative onto which Micheal hitched his own wagon.
There's a simple explanation for the whole Epstein situation. People aren't going to like it , many won't accept it , some will throw a tantrum and attack the people presenting the information. The entire idea that underage massages took place beyond the confines of Epstein's personal privacy at his Palm Beach house originated from one person. She's on record asking her ghostwriter who she should say she was trafficked to. She then publicly accused these people as if it had actually happened. Her behavior gave the green light to some other accusers to embelish their own stories, adding to the hysteria. Some of the people she accused paid her money with hopes of her excluding them from accusations going forward, which she didn't do. Two of them committed suicide as a result of her dishonesty and one of them was imprisoned for 20 years. Another was an attorney who decided not to be extorted, so he fought back. She walked back her accusation against him. Having become convinced of wild theories due to her testimony, the public pushed for the unprecendented release of all the "Epstein files" which she, understandably, hadn't anticipated as a possibility. She knew it would inevitably expose her dishonesty, force the return of all her money, and probably land her in prison so she killed herself after attempting to create a fake narrative to make it look like a car accident was the cause.
Referring to Maxwell? I haven't examined the testimony from that case yet but I intend to. I know that Guiffre was excluded from that trial, likely because she was seen as a liability after Dershowitz called her bluff. It looks like the prosecution used 4 accusers that each have credibility issues of their own, and it's their word against Maxwell's (who's already hated because of things they've said). I could see them convincing a jury of her guilt, with the proper coaching.
You’re delusional. Fucking Dershowitz didn’t call anyone’s bluff. He’s a nonce as well as a nonce’s lawyer.
You are literally defending the indefensible: child trafficking and child sexual abuse and exploitation. That’s *LOW* man, you can’t really sink any lower than that.
I think you can't ask Michael for contrition after having made yourself defamatory insinuations about his sexual intimacy. Please, let's not turn this into a twitter-like jungle of personal attacks.
What? I didn’t make any “insinuations” about his 😂 “sexual intimacy”…. are you a Victorian Maiden Aunt? I also didn’t ask him for contrition. I said it would been nice if he’d shown it of his own accord.
I note that you have not addressed a single one of my points.
You are naive. All of Epstein's hoes outed themselves as LIARS. So did Cosby's hoes and Weinstein's hoes also outed themselves as liars, in fact 97% of rape/SA claims are LIES. You are a classic SIMP. Only the most pussy whipped SIMPS would believe a single word from Virginia Guiffre and MOST rape accusers are just like her. Aging hoes looking for validation & money is getting obvious and that is what MOST rape accusers are including Epstein's hoes
For some reason most people on the internet (you and J-pat) can only grasp two sides: either every rape victim is to be believed or all rape victims are lying for money, both of which are delusional assertions
Not applicable here. FACT: 97% of rape accusers were in 'consensual' relationships with the accused and only decided it was rape AFTERWARDS. Prostitutes crying rape on pimps & johns is an oxymoron. Trading sex for favors is not rape. Drunken sex is not rape. IF you're talking about 'statutory' rape with minors that narrative has virtually been disproven as most of Epstein's hoes were college age and not little children. There is evidence that Epstein wanted IDS and proof the girls were 18. Some of them LIED about their age and yes MOST of them LIED outright. Also, you outed your bias here by calling accusers 'victims'
A “justice” system where the credibility of the victim is considered a criteria or requisite or prerequisite for pursuing justice, is a fallacy. A system where the victim’s credibility is demonised, instead of the perpetrator’s guilt rightly determined and punished in respect to and in honour of the victim, is demonic. I state again - a system where the victim’s credibility is demonized, is demonic.
Keep fighting the good fight Michael! Yes civil liberties are being eroded primarily due to the broader "pedohysteria" thing that has been going on for decades - it is not just Epstein though the case and the associated lies are significant and you do an extremely good job of debunking it.
Quite frankly though if it wasn't Epstein they would probably drag out another "pedophile" monster. In the UK we already had Jimmy Savile - an alleged "evil pedophile" who like Epstein died before answering to his charges. And many of the concerns you raise regarding courts simply "believing" victims even if they are obviously liars rang true in the Savile case as well. But similarly, the media refused to publish the other side of the story, many aging celebrities including really famous ones like Rolf Harris were arrested and their lives destroyed. Many died in prison or on that infamous register.
Every day though new people become sex offenders who have nothing to do with Epstein or Savile or any of these big cases. And they become sex offenders because of bad laws implemented as part of a hysteria that has no rational basis. When age of consent laws were first being aggressively enforced in the 1990s/2000s they argued the age of consent is necessary to protect those who might not know or understand what they are consenting to. However, once they had got all the laws and enforcement underway the argument changed to "even if it's obviously consensual, it's still rape, you are a pedophile. Even if you are a child yourself. Even if the victim doesn't consider themselves a victim". And somehow the whole debate was shutdown. You might find this an interesting read from a guy who actually went around visiting those on the registry and talking to their "victims" as well - some victims didn't even consider themselves victims! It's absolutely insanity of the highest order: https://solresearch.org/report/Riding_Registry - and to make matters worse that was written over a decade ago so I imagine the registry is even nastier now - though I am not sure how it can be...
Here I agree with you. The same can literally be said for MOST rape accusers. They are LIARS more often than not. It's as simple as this: w0e-MEN have been weaponized against MEN. They have been incentivized to lie for ATTENTION & MONEY...the SAME reason they got with these guys in the first place! Literally ANYTHING a BOY or MAN does with a girl can be used to entrap him criminally even if nothing criminal happened.
I'll put it like this.... if it's a public accusation, it's likely not accurate or a mischaracterization of what actually took place. Any reasonable person would handle this sort of thing privately. Unless they are trying to exploit public sentiment in their favor, because they know they'll get the benefit of the doubt from other women. The purpose of public accusations is to extort money by holding someone's reputation hostage.
Has anyone looked in the crawl spaces in your house? You appear to very worried about “false” rape accusations, which ALWAYS means you have very good reasons to worry about real accusations.
Predestination is probably incompatible with the concept of fairness among other things, like justice. Since everything is an act of God. By sin I'm referring to the 7 sins as problematic human behavior.
At this point the word "progressive" is utterly meaningless. Not surprising in a media and political world where Genocide Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are seen by the ignorant as "radical leftists" or even "radical Marxists."
Are you and Taibbi going to examine why Trump keeps killing random people on boats in the Caribbean? I personally think the US government murdering fisherman is a much more serious problem than the ‘mistreatment’ of a child molesting con man and his creepy buddies.
You have no evidence that Epstein was "molesting" children. This is the problem. When you use these words like that, you are devaluing the importance of those words. A 16 or 17 year is not a child
No they’re not. They’re not children anywhere. They’re not children and they’re not adults. That’s the truth of it. Adolescents and little kids may as well be on two different planets!
You said he was "molesting" children. That is dishonest if the person in question was 14-17 years old. In fact 14 is a legal age for sex in more than 10 countries in Europe. Besides, what evidence do you have that Epstein had sex with "many, many girls younger than 15"?
It’s more than that. In a number of those countries you are no longer a child at age 14. You get bumped into a new category called “juveniles,” with a lot more rights than a child.
1. Those countries are wrong and evil. If a person can’t vote or drive, they’re not capable of consenting to sex. 2. The complains of the girls themselves in the files are evidence he raped girls younger than 15.
Why are you defending this man? He was a monster and everyone who befriended him needs to be removed from public life and reduced to abject poverty forever.
1. No, you are wrong. At the age of 16 you are perfectly capable of consenting to sex. You are deeply ignorant and not a serious person if you think 16 year olds lack the capacity to consent to sex.
2. There are is no credibly evidence that he had sex with women under the age of 15.
3. No, that is my point. There is no evidence Epstein was a monster at all. Even if he broke some laws, those laws are based on a technicality. I dont see anything wrong with you getting a massage from a 16 or 17 year old woman. And there is no credibly evidence that Epstein ran a "pedophile child sex ring".
Epstein was not unlike many other men. He was sexually promiscuous, yes, but there is nothing unique about his case.
Epstein got a backrub and a little extra from hundreds of women for years and paid them. During a period of a few years, a couple dozen high school girls also snuck in among the carousel of women frequenting Epstein's house, about as casually as underage people asking friends to buy them alcohol or carrying fake IDs to get into a bar or club. We don't pretend those things don't happen nor do we think they're world-breaking news.
But because one day one of his former accomplices dropped the word "child" and "pedophile" into the issue, all these women got turned into little children with zero agency, whiteknight plaintiffs lawyers and prosecutors have to rush to their aid and keep the story going and going long after the original high schoolers who this entire moral panic is based on mostly wanted to move on or remain anonymous, because they didn't like the publicity. So it's totally legitimate to ask who are these women who do want the publicity?
Don’t you mean green knight plaintiff’s lawyers?
Great post Michael. The lawyers and workings of the 'justice system' are so much more interesting and informative than 'survivor' mantras. And well done uber-fantastist Sara Ransome for calling out Guiffre! You see what a hard job these lawyers have keeping their 'girls' in tow. Seems Maria Farmer - the Mother Teresa of claimants, accused (or by proxy) one of her past lawyers (Boies, Edwards etc ) of rape. Reap what you sow boys, or boies...
In addition to the civil liberties aspect, it really bothers me how much the press has changed its reporting standards for this story. It used to be that if your credibility was below a certain level, the mainstream press simply would not print your allegations barring substantial corroboration. Even mainstream conservative press refused to give coverage to Larry Sinclair, the conman who claimed to have sold sex to/bought crack from Barack Obama. Even liberal press didn't grant much attention to the political operatives who claimed in 2016 to have found a Jane Doe whom Trump had assaulted at age 13. The press did give coverage to Julie Swetnick's allegations against Kavanaugh but at least seemed to feel bad about it afterwards.
After claiming to have sex tapes and then admitting the claim was fake, Ransome should have reached "too uncredible to quote" status and disappeared from newspapers unless she could corroborate anything, as should several of the people mentioned in this article. I've never seen so many cases where people mix normal and crazy allegations and the press just ignores the crazy stuff and reports the normal. I think there's just such a high demand for Epstein content that basically anything flies at this point.
"It’s always a crowd-pleaser to direct punitive state action at the most reviled figures in society — the most notorious of which in previous eras have included “terrorists,” “domestic extremists,” “drug dealers,” and the like."
Yep. Been going on for a loooong time.
"Perpetrators of quadruple homicide are less culturally anathema these days."
And War Criminals. Not compared to convicted pedos, mind you, but just anybody whose appearance or backstory fits the vibe.
Yep, we've all observed the hard drive tweets. I've preemptively blocked many a bot or idiot (who knows which) based on that criterion alone.
Hate to keep harping on AIs, but they do deserve to take over.
Great article. Please keep going on this. And you should be preparing a book. I don’t think the average person appreciates what civil liberties mean until it no longer exists! Happy New Year.
I would second that. In the course of Michael's interview with Ghislaine's brother, I thought to myself that the habeas brief he had referenced sounded interesting enough that I should probably have a look at it. Then he mentioned the fact that it was 900 pages long. Michael, you're doing us all a great service, analyzing all this stuff with care and conscientiousness. Please keep up the great work!
I used to say The Epstein Files was Pizzagate on Steroids, but it’s actually even worse than that.
That's a good one
Wow.
Great work.
Thanks to both Michael & Matt.
So great! Apologies for pedos blackmailed by Jews. Real Pulitzer stuff. Be ashamed. You are going to burn in hell
I have never seen any topic that sparks more irrationality than children+sex
The erosion of civil liberties is purposeful and has been planned over decades utilizing every opportunity and creating additional crisis to further advance an agenda. One that requires the elimination of liberal democracy for a new ‘systems management’ model of governance. This will not allow human freedom.
Unlikely. If not having civil liberties was useful to whoever you think it is, we wouldn't have them in the first place.
Yes true, however people forget that and get stupid with their ideas.
Loved this:
"In his widely unread 2020 memoir, Relentless Pursuit. . . "
Bwahahahahahaha!
Albeit only a micro-scoop, Taibbi’s revelation that Epstein had a two-inch penis when erect might be his biggest story of the year (it was a tough year for Matt). Though how exactly he knows this factoid to be true when he is invariably derisive of all other testimony by women victimized by Epstein is unclear (maybe they showered together?). Surely Taibbi will soon connect the dots— Hitler was recently revealed to have a tiny malformed member, Stormy Daniels tells us Trump had a mushroom-shaped stub in between his legs. Now we’re told Epstein’s wee-wee was shaped like a minuscule egg. Hmmmm.
Those who have yet to learn the critical importance of honesty think they are providing some benefit to society by attempting to invent some grotesque chariciture of the manhood of the condemned. Instead it comes across as "protesting too much".
Again, here I also agree with you. This is a provable pattern with false rape accusers. Here & again, Harvey Weinstein's two main accusers swore under oath that he had a vagina instead of a penis, forcing him to show his dick to the jury! And he has a penis! This is yet more evidence that there are multiple examples of FALSE rape accusers maligning the defendants man hood. This is a pattern! This is PROOF these accusers LIED and I'm sure it's the same with Epstein's accusers
This must be directed at Matt, I’m guessing? The only incontrovertible fact about Epstein he can muster is the size of his Johnson. Hitler is based on recent genetic analysis. As to Trump, it’s ‘he said she said.’
I don't know about Matt, but some accusers tried to claim that Epstein had an egg-shaped penis. Except that some other women saw it multiple times and made up slanderous stories but didn't mention that.
Interesting footnote: Taibbi breaks new legal ground by implying that Epstein’s unusually small package might be an extenuating circumstance and might help explain why he had a vast network of teenage girls at his disposal to service him at all hours. Although, it’s unlikely to ever to prevail in a court of law, it’s a bold legal theory, and if it ever does succeed, it should forever be known as the Taibbi Defense.
You're on to something. In fact, Weinstein's two main accusers SWORE under oath that he had no penis but instead had a vagina. In fact, one accuser basically accused Weinstein of being a hermaphrodite that is a MAN with a partial penis & partial vagina. Welp, guess what? Weinstein was made to show his dick to the jury, and it was normal! They LIED UNDER OATH about Weinstein having a vagina and he proved he had a dick! NO LIE! So not only are most rape accusers NOT credible, but they also tell the same types of LIES >notice?
Apparently there was truth to Weinstein having something strange down there, though I see no evidence he had to flash his junk.
https://www.imdb.com/news/ni65161242/
That's a PROPAGANDA twist. The accusers SWORE UNDER OATH that> he had NO >PENIS. Not no testicles. So, they LIED right there. Yes he was made to show his penis to prove they LIED. Check my notes for the evidence. Also, the sex was consensual and in fact the two main accusers were inviting over their mother's house for dinner & haircuts over the course of FIVE YEARS. Again they swore under oath that he had NO penis. NOT no testicles. That article you gave a link to is a propaganda piece.
Huh? You provided no evidence.
ohhh… THAT’s why you do it, Micheal & Matt, “civil liberties’… (struggles to stifle laughter) you’re going with that are you. Ok 😉 *wink-wink*
You know who the real pedos are? Guys like you. Hoping against hope that others share your dirty little fetish.
Hahaha
"the real pedos"
Do one u 🔔 🔚
If there’s no “there there” then why are the Trump admin fighting tooth and nail to censor and block the release of the files? And if you never take the word of a victim then maybe you should look at your own system of critical thinking and values? The point of them demanding the release is because *that* is where the evidence is : in the files. It’s precisely *because* of the actions of the Trump Admin that logic gives more weight to the victims’ statements.
For those who lack the compute necessary to understand altruistic motivation, evidence of it in other people can't be accepted lest one gag on their own meaningless self-contained existence.
I don’t think there’s any such thing as true ‘altruism’, and i’m not alone in this philosophical argument. Many psychologists, philosophers, theologians have grappled with the issue over centuries. The overwhelming majority come down on the side of “no”.
That aside, altruism towards whom? Epstein? Larry Summers? Alan Dershowitz, Trump? i don’t see it as very altruistic, to say the least, when Micheal was engaging in years of disingenuous speculation, and outright accusations of dishonesty by victims of SA, R@pe, grooming, exploitation and abuse often ending with threats to their lives, with them living in fear, in a few instances (that we know of) of these poor girls/women taking their own lives and in at least one case being found with their “head blown off”, which the Detectives, Law Enforcement Officers and Forensic detectives stating that it was not a ‘self deletion’. This after she finally went to the authorities to report her story having been encouraged to do so many times but had until then been too afraid, saying to several separate witnesses that “i’ll be ki11ed if i do”.
Also casting accusations of dishonesty at the various journalists and investigative reporting over the years into Epstein, his crimes and accomplices or conspirators.
All this only for now the files, emails and court documents, evidence etc to more than add weight to the so-called “conspiracy theories” and “dishonest journalism”, showing that they’re actually ‘conspiracy facts’, completely demolishing the narrative onto which Micheal hitched his own wagon.
A little contrition might be good.
There's a simple explanation for the whole Epstein situation. People aren't going to like it , many won't accept it , some will throw a tantrum and attack the people presenting the information. The entire idea that underage massages took place beyond the confines of Epstein's personal privacy at his Palm Beach house originated from one person. She's on record asking her ghostwriter who she should say she was trafficked to. She then publicly accused these people as if it had actually happened. Her behavior gave the green light to some other accusers to embelish their own stories, adding to the hysteria. Some of the people she accused paid her money with hopes of her excluding them from accusations going forward, which she didn't do. Two of them committed suicide as a result of her dishonesty and one of them was imprisoned for 20 years. Another was an attorney who decided not to be extorted, so he fought back. She walked back her accusation against him. Having become convinced of wild theories due to her testimony, the public pushed for the unprecendented release of all the "Epstein files" which she, understandably, hadn't anticipated as a possibility. She knew it would inevitably expose her dishonesty, force the return of all her money, and probably land her in prison so she killed herself after attempting to create a fake narrative to make it look like a car accident was the cause.
There was more evidence than the testimony of one witness. There wouldn’t have been a conviction without it.
Referring to Maxwell? I haven't examined the testimony from that case yet but I intend to. I know that Guiffre was excluded from that trial, likely because she was seen as a liability after Dershowitz called her bluff. It looks like the prosecution used 4 accusers that each have credibility issues of their own, and it's their word against Maxwell's (who's already hated because of things they've said). I could see them convincing a jury of her guilt, with the proper coaching.
You’re delusional. Fucking Dershowitz didn’t call anyone’s bluff. He’s a nonce as well as a nonce’s lawyer.
You are literally defending the indefensible: child trafficking and child sexual abuse and exploitation. That’s *LOW* man, you can’t really sink any lower than that.
I think you can't ask Michael for contrition after having made yourself defamatory insinuations about his sexual intimacy. Please, let's not turn this into a twitter-like jungle of personal attacks.
What? I didn’t make any “insinuations” about his 😂 “sexual intimacy”…. are you a Victorian Maiden Aunt? I also didn’t ask him for contrition. I said it would been nice if he’d shown it of his own accord.
I note that you have not addressed a single one of my points.
Nah. You are not being reasonable by not admitting your insinuations. Your comment was not at all innocent and you know it.
"A little contrition might be good." --> That's what you actually said.
If your strategy is to defame anyone who criticizes, don't expect people to engage in your points.
You are naive. All of Epstein's hoes outed themselves as LIARS. So did Cosby's hoes and Weinstein's hoes also outed themselves as liars, in fact 97% of rape/SA claims are LIES. You are a classic SIMP. Only the most pussy whipped SIMPS would believe a single word from Virginia Guiffre and MOST rape accusers are just like her. Aging hoes looking for validation & money is getting obvious and that is what MOST rape accusers are including Epstein's hoes
For some reason most people on the internet (you and J-pat) can only grasp two sides: either every rape victim is to be believed or all rape victims are lying for money, both of which are delusional assertions
Not applicable here. FACT: 97% of rape accusers were in 'consensual' relationships with the accused and only decided it was rape AFTERWARDS. Prostitutes crying rape on pimps & johns is an oxymoron. Trading sex for favors is not rape. Drunken sex is not rape. IF you're talking about 'statutory' rape with minors that narrative has virtually been disproven as most of Epstein's hoes were college age and not little children. There is evidence that Epstein wanted IDS and proof the girls were 18. Some of them LIED about their age and yes MOST of them LIED outright. Also, you outed your bias here by calling accusers 'victims'
A “justice” system where the credibility of the victim is considered a criteria or requisite or prerequisite for pursuing justice, is a fallacy. A system where the victim’s credibility is demonised, instead of the perpetrator’s guilt rightly determined and punished in respect to and in honour of the victim, is demonic. I state again - a system where the victim’s credibility is demonized, is demonic.
Keep fighting the good fight Michael! Yes civil liberties are being eroded primarily due to the broader "pedohysteria" thing that has been going on for decades - it is not just Epstein though the case and the associated lies are significant and you do an extremely good job of debunking it.
Quite frankly though if it wasn't Epstein they would probably drag out another "pedophile" monster. In the UK we already had Jimmy Savile - an alleged "evil pedophile" who like Epstein died before answering to his charges. And many of the concerns you raise regarding courts simply "believing" victims even if they are obviously liars rang true in the Savile case as well. But similarly, the media refused to publish the other side of the story, many aging celebrities including really famous ones like Rolf Harris were arrested and their lives destroyed. Many died in prison or on that infamous register.
Every day though new people become sex offenders who have nothing to do with Epstein or Savile or any of these big cases. And they become sex offenders because of bad laws implemented as part of a hysteria that has no rational basis. When age of consent laws were first being aggressively enforced in the 1990s/2000s they argued the age of consent is necessary to protect those who might not know or understand what they are consenting to. However, once they had got all the laws and enforcement underway the argument changed to "even if it's obviously consensual, it's still rape, you are a pedophile. Even if you are a child yourself. Even if the victim doesn't consider themselves a victim". And somehow the whole debate was shutdown. You might find this an interesting read from a guy who actually went around visiting those on the registry and talking to their "victims" as well - some victims didn't even consider themselves victims! It's absolutely insanity of the highest order: https://solresearch.org/report/Riding_Registry - and to make matters worse that was written over a decade ago so I imagine the registry is even nastier now - though I am not sure how it can be...
This comment is so perfect! Thank you. A classic account of our unlawful intercourse laws in the last 20 years. Immaculate!
For those who want to know what Epstein's actual conduct consisted of, this is one of the original interviews with a girl.
Video: https://youtu.be/qtovG4MbCm8?si=F1bbDTTkCKiGmNyB
Here I agree with you. The same can literally be said for MOST rape accusers. They are LIARS more often than not. It's as simple as this: w0e-MEN have been weaponized against MEN. They have been incentivized to lie for ATTENTION & MONEY...the SAME reason they got with these guys in the first place! Literally ANYTHING a BOY or MAN does with a girl can be used to entrap him criminally even if nothing criminal happened.
I'll put it like this.... if it's a public accusation, it's likely not accurate or a mischaracterization of what actually took place. Any reasonable person would handle this sort of thing privately. Unless they are trying to exploit public sentiment in their favor, because they know they'll get the benefit of the doubt from other women. The purpose of public accusations is to extort money by holding someone's reputation hostage.
BINGO! My sentiments exactly. We agree on more than we don't.
Has anyone looked in the crawl spaces in your house? You appear to very worried about “false” rape accusations, which ALWAYS means you have very good reasons to worry about real accusations.
Thanks for doing what w0e-MEN do. Making projections & false accusations.
Thanks for making my case that >97% of rape 'claims' are LIES.
You made a projection and a false accusation right here. Proving my case
You are so pathetic.
And very very creepy.
Welp. Let the Progressives take over the law schools, live with the consequences. They're not even pretending anymore.
Always in any context there are those that can't resist sin.
I don’t want to start an endless spiral, but … if that’s true, then predestination seems really unfair.
Predestination is probably incompatible with the concept of fairness among other things, like justice. Since everything is an act of God. By sin I'm referring to the 7 sins as problematic human behavior.
At this point the word "progressive" is utterly meaningless. Not surprising in a media and political world where Genocide Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are seen by the ignorant as "radical leftists" or even "radical Marxists."
Yes, we are upside down. As others have observed, JFK would have to run as a Republican today.
Are you and Taibbi going to examine why Trump keeps killing random people on boats in the Caribbean? I personally think the US government murdering fisherman is a much more serious problem than the ‘mistreatment’ of a child molesting con man and his creepy buddies.
You have no evidence that Epstein was "molesting" children. This is the problem. When you use these words like that, you are devaluing the importance of those words. A 16 or 17 year is not a child
They are in Florida. Further, Epstein had sex with many many girls younger than 15.
No they’re not. They’re not children anywhere. They’re not children and they’re not adults. That’s the truth of it. Adolescents and little kids may as well be on two different planets!
You said he was "molesting" children. That is dishonest if the person in question was 14-17 years old. In fact 14 is a legal age for sex in more than 10 countries in Europe. Besides, what evidence do you have that Epstein had sex with "many, many girls younger than 15"?
It’s more than that. In a number of those countries you are no longer a child at age 14. You get bumped into a new category called “juveniles,” with a lot more rights than a child.
1. Those countries are wrong and evil. If a person can’t vote or drive, they’re not capable of consenting to sex. 2. The complains of the girls themselves in the files are evidence he raped girls younger than 15.
Why are you defending this man? He was a monster and everyone who befriended him needs to be removed from public life and reduced to abject poverty forever.
1. No, you are wrong. At the age of 16 you are perfectly capable of consenting to sex. You are deeply ignorant and not a serious person if you think 16 year olds lack the capacity to consent to sex.
2. There are is no credibly evidence that he had sex with women under the age of 15.
3. No, that is my point. There is no evidence Epstein was a monster at all. Even if he broke some laws, those laws are based on a technicality. I dont see anything wrong with you getting a massage from a 16 or 17 year old woman. And there is no credibly evidence that Epstein ran a "pedophile child sex ring".
Epstein was not unlike many other men. He was sexually promiscuous, yes, but there is nothing unique about his case.
He was a hebephile. No he had sex with a number of 14 year olds and one 13 year old.
You’re a fucking lunatic.
One. He raped one below 15.
And you’re fine with that? He should have spent the rest of his worthless life in gen pop in the nastiest prison in the US.