NOTE FROM MT: The following article was originally solicited by and written for Unherd, the British media outlet to which I occasionally contribute, late last week.
What a solid article. I think it's sad that Andrew's family has thrown him to the wolves. One's own family should, ideally, at least give one the benefit of the doubt.
Micheal Tracy goes out of his way to dismiss pedophilia. He is clearly compromised. The latest Epstein files suggest something darker. The story at this point is how did three Attorney Generals and at least two FBI directors sit on 5? Million pages of incriminating evidence without one interview of Wexner? No search of the New Mexico property? Tracy and his supporters are vile morons. Likely they are both on a offenders list or have children on such a list
Good Lord!? It's clear to me you haven't the intelligence nor it appears sufficient control of your emotions to be telling ANYONE else who is or isn't "compromised," let alone who really is the "vile moron" here.
Yet with this level of invective (shadow projection perhaps?), I assume YOU must have a very interesting background, with many stories to tell...
And Karma is such a ruthlessly moral force. People are so often taken down not for monstrous acts but for being wretched in the most ordinary ways and eventually there accumulates a tipping point of petty failures to have simply been nice when it would've been--well--nice to have been so.
I do still find that notorious photo to be heartbreaking in its way. Teenaged Virginia had such a charming smile. What are the terrible things that ruined her, since they don't seem to be what everyone keeps shrieking about?
“And moreover, [Epstein] never exhibited paedophilic attraction to pre-pubescent children, at least according to all available evidence, of which there’s now quite a bit, especially after millions more “Epstein Files” have been indiscriminately mass-released.”
Regarding this, isn’t it true that “CSAM” or “CP” have been found on some of Epstein’s devices, according to the latest releases? Without jumping to the conclusion that this vindicates every popular loony pedo-sex trafficking ring theory out there, does it not at least point to the likelihood that Epstein did in fact have some pedophilic tendencies? Generally possession of such material is enough to get a person labeled as such.
No it does not, and this common category error is perplexing to me.
Pedophilia is an actual condition a small minority of men have that causes them to be attracted to prepubescent people (ie children). Normal people are attracted primarily to secondary sexual characteristics…large skull, developed face, adult bone structure, wide hips, breasts, all of which don’t necessarily finish at exactly 18 since women finish growing earlier than men on average.
Also, the “CSAM” material he supposedly possessed was “estimated” to consist of 15-20 images, out of several thousands of personal pics he kept. I have little faith that Bondi, Patel, and crew are being honest about what exactly those depict.
the CP was a handful of commercial pornography images that feature actresses who turned out to have been under 18 at the time of filming, which was common enough that anyone downloading thousands of porn images from the internet in the early 2000s, as epstein did, might end up with a few
I'd like to look on the hard drives of all the people falsely claiming that Epstein & his guests were paedophiles. Where else does a moral panic like this emerge from, if not projection?
Worth noting that his majesty has some form here. When Britain last went this doolally it was over deceased popular entertainer, and alleged sometime confidante of then prince Charles, Sir Jimmy Savile. The whole nation almost overnight remembered (with the help of an assortment of grifters and fantasists promoted by unscrupulous lawyers and a gullible media) how it had known all along that Savile had been an insatiable - and omnivorous - predator. And, of course, he must have been procuring, blackmailing, protected by friends in high places, and all the rest of it. Needless to say, Charles kept his head down as numerous others were hounded for their supposed associations. But this is part of the British backdrop to the Epstein furore. People really will believe the most extreme nonsense, few have the courage to stand by their friends and those who do take one hell of a beating. And, to cap it all, as you have found, very many people are upset and offended at any suggestion that maybe some people were not harmed.
I don't think you're "analyzing" much of anything, Chris--or even reading all of it in this case!--if this is all you've got against Tracey's substantial and apparently unimpeachable reporting and analysis.
It’s funny , conspiracy theorists think they know everything from incomplete evidence. Now the “debunkers” do too. Methodologically, you don’t draw sweeping conclusions from a partial archive… whether you’re inflating or dismissing.
Painting with the broad brush here but I think it's because that way he doesn't have to blame himself for why his life sucks. Reminds me of that Doug Stanhope joke, "Conspiracy theorists, just work on your own conspiracies first...like why does my own kid hate me? Pick the scab off of that little mystery! How come everyone's always busy on my birthday? Yes, solve that and then we'll figure out if we faked the moon landing!"
One day you need to write a book about this story. There's so much information and I haven't been following it since the start and so I don't really have the full picture. But as someone who originally thought that Epstein was running a child trafficking ring in order to blackmail politicians and American businessmen, I'd like to be able to sit down and read the full truth eventually.
Tracey would do well to approach the subject more soberly and lose the purple prose and breathless outrage. I'm guessing it's possible that UnHerd might have carried the piece if he could have reined himself in a bit. He comes across as unhinged and therefore unpersuasive on this topic, which is too bad, because he raises so many good points. One understands the exasperation, but precisely because so many people have bought into the received wisdom regarding Epstein, Tracey would be better served to lay out his case the way a defense lawyer might, when everyone just "knows" that his client is guilty. Leading with "mass hysteria" is not the way to go -- even if in the end he thinks it's the best description of what's going on -- at least if his goal is to persuade anyone. But I don't know, maybe it gets more clicks.
He's an atrocious writer. Got his style from Greenwald—all adverbs, endless ad hominem. You're right that he would be more persuasive if he took the time to learn how to write, but their goal is not actually persuasion, it's engagement, and dopamine.
Once again, you guys have NOTHING to counter Tracey's facts and rationale, do you? It's just your short-circuiting brains, overheated anger and childish insults.
I don't know who Jane Doe #3 is in the provided link, but a recent article in defense of Prince Andrew by Tracey, mentions that VRG recanted prior statements about Dershowitz and Brunel. He suggested Andrew may have waited and received the same.
What a solid article. I think it's sad that Andrew's family has thrown him to the wolves. One's own family should, ideally, at least give one the benefit of the doubt.
I see a lot of internal politics in it - otherwise I doubt they'd let any royal be fed to the mob of peasants because of 'justice'.
Micheal Tracy goes out of his way to dismiss pedophilia. He is clearly compromised. The latest Epstein files suggest something darker. The story at this point is how did three Attorney Generals and at least two FBI directors sit on 5? Million pages of incriminating evidence without one interview of Wexner? No search of the New Mexico property? Tracy and his supporters are vile morons. Likely they are both on a offenders list or have children on such a list
Good Lord!? It's clear to me you haven't the intelligence nor it appears sufficient control of your emotions to be telling ANYONE else who is or isn't "compromised," let alone who really is the "vile moron" here.
Yet with this level of invective (shadow projection perhaps?), I assume YOU must have a very interesting background, with many stories to tell...
This is a great piece.
And Karma is such a ruthlessly moral force. People are so often taken down not for monstrous acts but for being wretched in the most ordinary ways and eventually there accumulates a tipping point of petty failures to have simply been nice when it would've been--well--nice to have been so.
I do still find that notorious photo to be heartbreaking in its way. Teenaged Virginia had such a charming smile. What are the terrible things that ruined her, since they don't seem to be what everyone keeps shrieking about?
She claimed sexual abuse at a young age. Have no idea whether it's true or not, of course.
Yes, I'd read that too.
"What are the terrible things that ruined her?"
https://substack.com/@thebestbadfairyyouknow/reads
Must have been vaccines ... 😂
“And moreover, [Epstein] never exhibited paedophilic attraction to pre-pubescent children, at least according to all available evidence, of which there’s now quite a bit, especially after millions more “Epstein Files” have been indiscriminately mass-released.”
Regarding this, isn’t it true that “CSAM” or “CP” have been found on some of Epstein’s devices, according to the latest releases? Without jumping to the conclusion that this vindicates every popular loony pedo-sex trafficking ring theory out there, does it not at least point to the likelihood that Epstein did in fact have some pedophilic tendencies? Generally possession of such material is enough to get a person labeled as such.
No it does not, and this common category error is perplexing to me.
Pedophilia is an actual condition a small minority of men have that causes them to be attracted to prepubescent people (ie children). Normal people are attracted primarily to secondary sexual characteristics…large skull, developed face, adult bone structure, wide hips, breasts, all of which don’t necessarily finish at exactly 18 since women finish growing earlier than men on average.
Also, the “CSAM” material he supposedly possessed was “estimated” to consist of 15-20 images, out of several thousands of personal pics he kept. I have little faith that Bondi, Patel, and crew are being honest about what exactly those depict.
the CP was a handful of commercial pornography images that feature actresses who turned out to have been under 18 at the time of filming, which was common enough that anyone downloading thousands of porn images from the internet in the early 2000s, as epstein did, might end up with a few
I'd like to look on the hard drives of all the people falsely claiming that Epstein & his guests were paedophiles. Where else does a moral panic like this emerge from, if not projection?
Worth noting that his majesty has some form here. When Britain last went this doolally it was over deceased popular entertainer, and alleged sometime confidante of then prince Charles, Sir Jimmy Savile. The whole nation almost overnight remembered (with the help of an assortment of grifters and fantasists promoted by unscrupulous lawyers and a gullible media) how it had known all along that Savile had been an insatiable - and omnivorous - predator. And, of course, he must have been procuring, blackmailing, protected by friends in high places, and all the rest of it. Needless to say, Charles kept his head down as numerous others were hounded for their supposed associations. But this is part of the British backdrop to the Epstein furore. People really will believe the most extreme nonsense, few have the courage to stand by their friends and those who do take one hell of a beating. And, to cap it all, as you have found, very many people are upset and offended at any suggestion that maybe some people were not harmed.
Michael, on your interviews try a better strategy.
Being calm instead of hyped up will give your points more sway.
I know it's ridiculous but this is how we calm down people who fall for the hype soup.
That'll teach 'em to never text words like "pizza" or "hotdog" out of proper context!
The move here is simple: inflate the craziest version of the story, knock it down, and declare the entire thing imaginary.
I don't think you're "analyzing" much of anything, Chris--or even reading all of it in this case!--if this is all you've got against Tracey's substantial and apparently unimpeachable reporting and analysis.
Chris was never here to understand the Epstein case. He just gestures to his pet theory.
It’s funny , conspiracy theorists think they know everything from incomplete evidence. Now the “debunkers” do too. Methodologically, you don’t draw sweeping conclusions from a partial archive… whether you’re inflating or dismissing.
Mickey!!!!!
BIG DANGER
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
They arrested Mendelson too! HOW DARE THEY!
Remember the wailing! Remember the wall! Remember the Lion of Judah! The Torah! The Holocaust!
Oh. My. God.
This is, like, another Shoah!!!
Why are you obsessed with Jews
Painting with the broad brush here but I think it's because that way he doesn't have to blame himself for why his life sucks. Reminds me of that Doug Stanhope joke, "Conspiracy theorists, just work on your own conspiracies first...like why does my own kid hate me? Pick the scab off of that little mystery! How come everyone's always busy on my birthday? Yes, solve that and then we'll figure out if we faked the moon landing!"
Bigly.
Menachem!
My (Semitic) man!!!
How are you today???
I wish you a speedy recovery
Appreciate the kindness! I can only return the courtesy and wish you guys a speedy recovery too! G_d bless!
One day you need to write a book about this story. There's so much information and I haven't been following it since the start and so I don't really have the full picture. But as someone who originally thought that Epstein was running a child trafficking ring in order to blackmail politicians and American businessmen, I'd like to be able to sit down and read the full truth eventually.
Okay Michael, Andrew’s settlement means nothing, but everyone should shut up about Jeffrey’s plea deal in 2008.
By your logic, since a jury acquitted him, no one should think O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown & Ronald Goldman.
Tracey would do well to approach the subject more soberly and lose the purple prose and breathless outrage. I'm guessing it's possible that UnHerd might have carried the piece if he could have reined himself in a bit. He comes across as unhinged and therefore unpersuasive on this topic, which is too bad, because he raises so many good points. One understands the exasperation, but precisely because so many people have bought into the received wisdom regarding Epstein, Tracey would be better served to lay out his case the way a defense lawyer might, when everyone just "knows" that his client is guilty. Leading with "mass hysteria" is not the way to go -- even if in the end he thinks it's the best description of what's going on -- at least if his goal is to persuade anyone. But I don't know, maybe it gets more clicks.
He's an atrocious writer. Got his style from Greenwald—all adverbs, endless ad hominem. You're right that he would be more persuasive if he took the time to learn how to write, but their goal is not actually persuasion, it's engagement, and dopamine.
Once again, you guys have NOTHING to counter Tracey's facts and rationale, do you? It's just your short-circuiting brains, overheated anger and childish insults.
The comments were about his writing and communication style.
"Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe, making her available for sex to politically-connected and financially-powerful people."
"Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4's Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action" (filed in Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson"
https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2015_0102_epsteindershowitz.pdf
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00174356.pdf
"No other victim described being directed by either Epstein or Maxwell to engage in sexual activity with any other men."
I don't know who Jane Doe #3 is in the provided link, but a recent article in defense of Prince Andrew by Tracey, mentions that VRG recanted prior statements about Dershowitz and Brunel. He suggested Andrew may have waited and received the same.