Why are the "Epstein Survivors" refusing to answer questions?
Yesterday at the Epstein Survivors Press Conference in front of the US Capitol, one of the organizers, Congressman Ro Khanna, announced a moratorium on journalistic inquiry. “We do not want people asking questions and cross-examining the survivors,” Khanna declared. “They’re here to tell their stories and they should be heard by the American people with respect.”
He clarified that journalists were still welcome to ask questions of the elected officials present, which was very thoughtful of him, but as to the “survivors” — they were off-limits. Why? Good question. It appeared the “survivors” who had taken the lead in coordinating joint “survivor” logistics were Haley Robson and Annie Farmer. At the press conference, where I had a front-row seat but was not called upon (and stupidly did not bluster out my question unprompted, which worked for Jim Acosta) the collective “survivor” itinerary seemed to be managed by Haley Robson. “Hey guys, we’re actually pressed for time,” she said. “So, we are not going to be taking questions going further [sic].”
I can’t be certain that the no-question policy was decreed because Robson spotted me, sitting in the very front, but I’m certain she did see me, having made prolonged eye contact, and she did not look especially thrilled at my presence. She likely remembered our prior interactions at the first Epstein Press Conference, on September 3, when I asked her about the lengthy factual record establishing that she herself had recruited — or “trafficked” — teenage females to Epstein’s house in Palm Beach, and made plenty of under-the-table cash from doing so, while seeming to quite enjoy her gig as local equivalent of the “Hollywood Madam,” according to audio recordings taken by police of her gleeful boasts. She was also an adult at the time, and a probable cause affidavit was issued for her arrest. (See my recent Compact Magazine article for more details.)
Was this the type of inconvenient background information “survivors” did not want to field any “cross-examining” questions about? Because I’d wager if the viewing public had been apprised of these minor details, their perception of the “survivor” PR presentation would be dramatically different.
After the press conference, I asked Ro Khanna to clarify the reasoning behind the no-question policy he tried to impose. “Why was it declared that the victims, or the survivors, could not be questioned or cross-examined today?” I asked him. “Aren’t they engaging in public political advocacy? Why not question or cross-examine them to test the veracity of their claims?”
“Well, I think that you can ask members of Congress questions. They came here, they’re sharing their stories,” Khanna said. “They didn’t want to be subject to cross-examination in this forum.”
“But they’re entering the political arena!” I said. Indeed, the adult grooming survivor Lisa Phillips had even declared that she was launching “the first national survivor-led political movement in America.” And they were calling for the passage of legislation! They were demanding elected officials take political action! Literally in front of the US Capitol! If that didn’t qualify as “entering the political arena,” what would?
“I’m in the political arena,” Khanna said.
“So are they!” I said. “They’re at the Capitol advocating for legislation!”
I further expressed my incredulity to the Congressman that Haley Robson was one of the “survivors” he decreed we were not permitted to “cross-examine,” or in other words, ask any proper journalistic questions. “Did you know that an arrest warrant was issued for [Haley Robson] as an adult in Florida in the 2000s,” I asked, “on the grounds that she had actually, quote, trafficked other girls — and told them to lie about their ages to Epstein? This is why, I’m sorry, there needs to be cross-examination of these people, especially if they’re going to be in the political arena.”
Khanna replied to me with a question of his own: “You would agree that when you have people who are victims of abuse or rape, that even in our court of law, you can’t bring out other parts of their character in trying to destroy their credibility on the stand? I mean, that’s not how we do things. You can build other evidence, I don’t think we should be badgering people who have been abused.”
First of all, attempting to impeach accusers by “bringing out” evidence that might cast doubt on the veracity of their claims is exactly what defense attorneys in the United States do every single day, even in the case of accusers who claim to have been “abused or raped.” And the ability of defense attorneys to do this stems from a foundational tenet of the Sixth Amendment, which endows criminal suspects with the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” and as such, the right to himself “confront” those witnesses with any countervailing evidence that might prove exculpatory. So yes, contrary to Khanna’s weird assertion, this is most certainly “how we do things” in the US “court of law” — even if not always in the “court of public opinion,” as demonstrated by the woefully deficient fact-finding standards pervading the Epstein affair, especially in its manifestation as a political and cultural drama.
“How do we evaluate whether they’ve been credibly abused?” I asked Khanna. “Because Haley Robson admitted, effectively, to me and others — and in court documents — that she told other girls to lie about their ages and brought them to Epstein!”
“I don’t know every specific case,” Khanna said.
“Well, right,” I said. “But shouldn’t you investigate that stuff, if you’re going to appear alongside them?”
“What I do know is that there are enough survivors that did face massive abuse that are telling the truth about that,” Khanna said. “And that there are a lot of men who are implicated in that.”
“But which men?” I asked.
“Well that’s what we want to have [sic] the Epstein Files come out!” Khanna said.
Hold on a second. Politicians are running around asserting, as though it’s a proven factual certainty, that legions of prominent men are implicated in child sex-trafficking crimes, and have for too long escaped justice. What is their basis for making these confident assertions? Rumors? Hunches? Whispered insinuations from “survivors” and their profit-seeking lawyers? As opposed to any actual hard evidence, which they speculate could be forthcoming in yet-to-be-disclosed “Epstein Files”?
Sure, release the “files” — I’m all in favor. (Although the Khanna/Massie legislation that was just approved by the House and Senate yesterday won’t actually do that.) But aren’t you kind of egregiously putting “the cart before the horse” if you’re constantly rattling off these vague intimations of rampant criminal wrongdoing, without having any valid factual predicate for doing so? And aren’t you also undermining basic notions of fairness and due process, by prematurely deciding this criminal conduct has in fact occurred, without any tangible evidence to back it up?
Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie have both started using the term “rape island” to refer to Epstein’s estate in the US Virgin Islands. OK… who was raped on the island? And who did the raping? THEY STILL WON’T SAY! No one will! Epstein’s island has been the object of extreme cultural, political, and legal fascination for at least 15 years now. You’re telling us you know for a fact that mass rapes were committed there — but you still can’t say who was raped, and by whom? And to find out, we all have to just patiently wait for the “Epstein Files”? Alright then. I look forward to the future “Epstein Files” vindicating this mass rape hypothesis (which you shouldn’t be asserting as fact in the first place, if it’s only a half-baked hypothesis). We’ll see how that goes.
It’s incredible, as I speak to various people in DC, how comically devoid they are of basic knowledge about the Epstein case, even as they appoint themselves top legislative crusaders on the issue (Ro Khanna, Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene) or try to latch onto it for sundry political reasons (the entire Democratic congressional delegation).
Case in point for this could be observed Tuesday evening at a “vigil” held by the Democratic Women’s Caucus in the foyer of the Rayburn House Office Building. Dozens of House Dems stood in a solemn assemblage, clutching their electronic candle devices, as they were joined by several of the same “survivors” who spoke at that morning’s press conference. Taking charge at the “vigil” was once again Annie Farmer; she had quite a busy schedule, having also made another round of media appearances as Survivor Spokeswoman:
Does anyone ever stop and ask what criteria is even being used to designate someone a “survivor”? Of course not. The term itself is highly creepy. What are these ladies, Holocaust Survivors? Because if you took the time to actually examine the underlying details of the case, which is well beyond the paygrade of most politicians and journalists, Annie Farmer claims she is a survivor of… “hand-holding.” Seriously. And she was ruled by judicial edict to have undergone no “illegal sexual activity.”
I came across Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) after the moving vigil, which also doubled as a “celebration,” attendees said, when word came down that the Senate had swiftly passed the House version of the “Epstein Files” legislation. “Congressman, a quick question for you,” I said to Goldman. “One of the women who spoke tonight purported to be a Survivor. She actually testified in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. I think she alluded to it — Annie Farmer. In that trial, Judge Nathan instructed the jurors that she endured no illegal sexual activity, and therefore the jury could not use her testimony to convict Maxwell. So I’m just wondering on what grounds these people are being declared Survivors — if the only adjudicative process, judicially, found that she endured no illegal sexual activity.”
“I’m sure you’ll forgive me for not taking your word for it,” Goldman said. “But I’d like to see—”
“I’ll send you all the citations you’d like,” I offered.
“Please do, please do.”
“I’ll send you the full transcript.”
Goldman then walked away.
Here’s the full excerpt I was referencing from the Maxwell trial transcript. Which I’ll be more than happy to pass along to Rep. Goldman. On December 10, 2021, just as Annie Farmer was about to begin her testimony, Judge Alison Nathan said the following:
Members of the jury, I have a limiting instruction. I anticipate that you’ll hear testimony from the next witness about physical contact that she says she had with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico. I instruct you that the alleged physical contact she says occurred with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico was not, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, as the government has charged in the indictment. I’ll give you more instructions on the legal term, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, at the end of the case. However, to the extent you conclude that her testimony is relevant to the issues before you, you may consider it, but you may not consider this testimony as any kind of reflection on Mr. Epstein’s nor Ms. Maxwell’s character or propensity to commit any of the crimes charged in the document.
Judge Nathan went on to repeat this instruction at numerous points in the trial, including before jury deliberations. Which was highly notable, because this judge was otherwise absurdly partial to the prosecutors, as evidenced by her granting the government’s request that two of the four witnesses be allowed to testify under fake names, and another under her first name only. Annie Farmer was the lone witness who voluntarily opted to testify under her full real name, so kudos to her for that I guess. But let’s be clear about the significance of Judge Nathan’s instruction. In its original indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell, the government had alleged that in or about 1996, Annie was victimized by activity that constituted “sexual abuse.” And this activity would be shown to make Maxwell guilty of offenses including “Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts” and “Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity.”
But as the discovery process unfolded, it became clear that the government could not sustain its original contention that Annie Farmer had been subjected to “illegal sexual activity.” Even the prosecution, led by Maurene Comey, eventually conceded this was no longer viable. And it’s not difficult to see how this conclusion would’ve been arrived at, based on Annie’s cross-examination. She acknowledged that when she applied to receive millions of dollars from the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program — drawn from the Epstein estate — she wrote on the application that she experienced “sexual abuse” in the form of “hand-holding.” For this, she ended up receiving $1.5 million, not counting whatever she might have received from the subsequent settlement funds, such as JP Morgan.
So… how exactly do we know that Annie Farmer is a “survivor”? We do know that she got unknown millions of dollars (tax-free!) We know her loony-tunes sister Maria, whom she displayed an old photo of herself with yesterday, is currently suing the federal government — and demanding $600 million from US taxpayers — on the ground that the FBI shamefully failed to take action on Maria’s purported claim that in 1996, at age 26, she was lured into a pedophilic conspiracy involving Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and the “Jewish mafia.” We know about the hand-holding “abuse.” We know that she’s a licensed “trauma” therapist and network TV regular. But how exactly do we know she’s a “survivor”?
I really wanted to ask Annie how she reconciles Judge Nathan’s trial instruction with her much-trumpeted title of “survivor.”
So I very politely approached her at the “vigil” event. “When you testified in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, the judge ruled that you had endured—”
“I don’t want to talk to this man!” Annie shouted, cutting me off. “Can anyone help me with that?!?! I don’t want to talk to him.”
“Give her a little bit of space,” an unidentified person told me.
“I’m giving her space,” I said. “I’m just asking a question.”
“No, you’re not giving me space,” fumed a suddenly wrathful Annie. “You’ve never given me space, you’re not respectful. You were disrespectful the last time I was in DC.” (Read about the previous encounter here.)
At this point Annie scampered off. And the countless “survivor” PR handlers milling around, who wouldn’t identify themselves, were also getting increasingly agitated. “This man does not respect the word no, so he should be nowhere near survivors!” one unidentified woman raged at me. I guess I stood accused of journalistic rape.
And I guess we can see why these “survivors” and their allied politicians did not want to permit any meddlesome “cross-examination.”
I’ll describe the absurd fracas in more detail in my next article, which will be paywalled, so consider upgrading to a paid subscription.
Everyone on the internet claims to be an “independent truth-seeker exposing what the MSM won’t touch.” They’re lying, and you’re dumb if you believe them. Almost all of them are defending a team, a donor class, or at minimum their social calendar. Michael Tracey is the rare exception — partly out of principle, partly because he reads the room like a blind man in a power outage.
He has no stable in-group, no institutional pipeline, and no instinct for self-preservation. His autonomy is so extreme it borders on a personality disorder. He skipped finishing school in the sense that he never learned the basic human skill of calibrating his tone to avoid making everyone around him furious. It’s the only reason he can do journalism this way. If you’re on a team and he happens to validate you today, relax — he’ll betray you next week without blinking.
He applies skepticism with the same dead-eyed intensity whether it helps you, hurts you, or gets him banned from another press list. Ask him “Do I look fat?” and you’ll get a level of blunt honesty usually reserved for hostile cross-examination. That’s why every faction hates him and yet quietly relies on him: he doesn’t outsource his moral reasoning to the group, because he’s incapable of belonging to one.
There are louder brands and more polished operators, but nobody else manages to offend every camp while still being analytically useful to all of them. Like it or not, there’s only one Michael Tracey.
Starting to think the only woman with any credibility at all in this entire shitshow is Maxwell