Michael, great reporting. I always learn a lot when I read you. When you offer political opinions, I usually don’t agree with them, but your reporting is always objective and in depth, so I love reading it. And I respect your reporting so much, that your opinions that differ from mine always provoke thought and cause me to challenge my assumptions. So, thanks for all of the hard and honest work you do.
In the interview with Douthat, Brown claims “these girls’ lives were essentially ruined.” Did she consult with a good psychologist in reaching that conclusion? This reminds me of Jesse Singal’s work on childhood transgenderism, and the disconnect between activists and journalists on one hand, who uncritically repeat statements linking suicide to lack of validation, and the actual psychology community on the other, which does not tend to grant suicide such a noble role.
Could the mainstream media be any worse? This woman profiting off of lies with no regard for the selfsame victims she claims (through labored tears im sure) to advocate for--despicable. (jfc those nauseating passages about her pathetic social life, are you a journalist or are you writing a telenovela?)
No matter how low my opinion of mainstream media has gotten over the years apparently it's never low enough. I'm glad at least you're out here, because as hard as it is for the 'brrrrr Pedophilic fetus eating monsters' crowd to stomach there is nuance to these stories and the actual truth matters.
Brown is fully aware of Ransome's lack of credibility. In 2024, she wrote:
"But she later recanted her statements, telling the Miami Herald in 2019 that she made up the stories because she was alarmed that the U.S. media had failed to investigate whether Trump and Bill and Hillary Clinton were connected to Epstein. Both Trump and Hillary Clinton were running for president at the time she made the false statements."
People, particularly MAGAs, forget that the original framing for Brown's series on Epstein was about Trump's labor secretary, Alex Acosta. It's in the title: "Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime". You'd think MAGAs might have been just a wee bit skeptical of this story that was unearthed to damage Trump's presidency and push a #Metoo narrative, but I guess the Elite Pedo Ring conspiracy theory was just too fun for them to resist!
She's a myth peddler. She started off her series with a lie then sensationalized the story. Vicky Ward also did a lot of sensationalizing. They suckered the world into their fantasy. Yes, Epstein was bad but if Acosta hadn't worked out the plea deal they'd filed a Federal case and gone to trial, he's have probably walked if the judge didn't throw the case out on the basis that it was a state matter.
FYI, I have read all of the Florida State Attorney files on the Epstein and there is nothing in there about Maxwell being involved in any way with any of the girls. Virginia Roberts Giuffre was Epstein's employee as was Ransome (who was an adult. So was Marie Farmer, who was diagnosed with a brain tumor.) I suspect Roberts, Ransome and Farmer wanted to cash in on the victim's restitution funds the plea provided.
Great article. It came out just as I’ve been reading Brown’s book and trying to assemble a timeline of the allegations. So far, I’ve learned there’s been nothing new since 2006. That the Florida case against Epstein had merit but was a real stinker. Too many unreliable witnesses and that faced with Epstein’s unlimited defense budget, no one wanted it. So Florida hands it to the Feds who hand it right back. So Florida settles it only because the Feds granted immunity to Epstein and all co-conspirators. So it was done by 2008 and only revived by Brown in 2018-19. Meanwhile, on the civil side, much money was paid in compensation to victims many of whom wanted nothing more to do with it.
And now we have a very serious Federal issue which is the SDNY Feds claiming they aren’t bound by the immunity granted by the Florida district. That is the issue on appeal in the Maxwell case. If SCOTUS doesn’t clarify this, no Federal attorney will be able to offer immunity in exchange for a plea. Crazy times.
Tara Palmari dragged Virginia Robert’s all over the country to try to “interview” anyone Virginia knew or thought she knew was associated with Epstein, and whether or not they saw her with him. I don’t believe there were any takers! There has never been much collaboration on anything she has claimed.
Because the state seeks to control every sexual transaction in America, and the creation of Epstein was one of the early steps in that direction. As I think Eric Weinstein posited, they burned Epstein because he was an analog technology. They have other things now. But whether he was used to blackmail doesn't actually matter, because they could make a story around him that achieves the same thing. You can get people to do what you want simply by threatening to have the Q-Anon bots claim you were on the flight logs, and then it may as well be true.
Amazing! When Bondi or someone else says there is nothing to ‘the Epstein files’ you need to believe her. When Epstein is described as someone who tried to ingratiate himself or be pictured with certain people, people who say they really did not have much of a relationship with Epstein, you need to also believe them. It looks like the media saw an opportunity to do what they love to do. They fanned the flames of lies and let the ensuing fire rage so they could write more about it.
I am more likely to believe the sightings of Elvis.
I genuinely think the disconnect you and Hanania are having with the mainstream is the delta between mainstream disgust at even petty/small bore sexual misconduct/ harassment of under 18 years girls and middle aged men and the apportionment of agency/blame in such situations, given power/money imbalance. You guys clearly don’t think it’s such a big deal and can’t understand the fuss around it. People just disagree with you guys about how outraged one should be, even if its not illegal
It’s a meta comment. You are not wrong about the details and your pain-sticking debunking/contextualization has been very helpful. I have listened to your discussions with Hanania and there’s a dismissal of petty sexual harassment (probably correctly so in context of exaggerated claims by mainstream) but I think that’s the gist of the disagreement. Hanania has made comments about how he thinks age of consent laws should be lowered and consensual sex with 15-17 yrs old girls should not be considered “pedophilia”. Maybe or maybe not but you can’t say it doesn’t color your and Hanania’s assessment of this
Still stroking my chin about when you’re going to get around to discussing Whitney Webb, or engaging with her, or Chris Hedges, about the significance of Epstein.
Whitney Webb has not responded to any of my DMs. I know you guys just love to repeat "Whitney Webb, Whitney Webb" like it's some magical incantation, even though you're oddly incapable of synthesizing what you take to be her decisively convincing argument or evidence. Chris Hedges featured an interview with Nick Bryant, a proven defamer and NGO bullshit artist, in his viral Epstein video. See my article from last week.
Ok, good to know. If I’m able to communicate with Webb (I’m not on X, and I think she only rarely uses it), I‘ll ask her to respond to your DMs and converse, for whatever it may be worth.
I’m not the professional. The idea is to have two serious people knowledgeable of the situation, who have had the time and energy to investigate the details of the Epstein saga from their seemingly fruitful perspectives, parsing each other’s arguments, assuming they are opposed or would be complementary, to arrive at greater insight about the situation. I would have expected you to want to talk to her first of all possible sources.
Nevertheless, I’m happy to synthesize what I understand of Webb’s arguments inasmuch as I’ve seen her interviewed several times by Brianna Joy Gray, Katie Halper, Tucker Carlson, and the boys at Due Dissidence, and have started to read her two-volume book on the Epstein matter:
Epstein is an epiphenomena, so to speak, of a larger deep political network consisting of a cross-section of intelligence and organized crime in collaboration that goes back to WWII, a formation par excellence of what Peter Dale Scott referred to as the larger informal, parapolitical arrangements that constitute the way we are systematically governed despite the existence of, or in conjunction with, our legitimate political institutions.
I’m not precisely clear yet about the degree to which she makes specific claims about Epstein’s sex trafficking and/or blackmail operations, but the most interesting things she says are about his probable U.S. and Israeli intelligence (or just government) connections, e.g. his 17 visits to the Clinton White House, and the fact that his sex crimes have displaced - and likely have been intended to displace - all conversation about his much more important, in terms of their economic and political influence, financial crimes, e.g. his knowledge of the offshore/shadow banking system, etc.
I think Hedges can also comment intelligently about Epstein independently of Nick Bryant.
It's worth your time to read the rest of the comment, Michael, because it gets into the important aspects of the Epstein story that the mainstream media will avoid like the plague. Follow the damn money! What was Epstein doing, and on whose behalf, that afforded him the wealth needed to support the largest house in Manhattan, a private island, a private plane, a "ranch" in New Mexico, a place in Florida, and the staffs to keep all that operating. Julie K Brown isn't going to talk about the Israel connections (Ghislaine's father was given a hero's funeral in Israel, likely in respect for his service in sourcing elements of Israel nuclear weapons program; Ehud Barak was a regular visitor to Epstein's NYC mansion.) That mansion, we are told, was loaded with hidden cameras. For what purposes? Where has the video output gone? There are so, so many question regarding Epstein that go way beyond alleged sex crimes.
She’s not responsible for saving the world and anyone is free to disagree with her about what is to be done to do it, though for the sake of reality, “Do your own thing” is a rank distortion of what she says, if it’s related to what she says at all.
The issue on the table is Epstein and what she knows and says about him. If you think that’s going to convince anyone who isn’t already gratuitously hostile to her not to listen to what she has to say, then do your own thing.
Excellent work. I was beginning to think Lady Victoria Hervey, Lady Colin Campbell, Alan Dershowitz and me were the only sane people commenting on this sordid affair.
Michael, great reporting. I always learn a lot when I read you. When you offer political opinions, I usually don’t agree with them, but your reporting is always objective and in depth, so I love reading it. And I respect your reporting so much, that your opinions that differ from mine always provoke thought and cause me to challenge my assumptions. So, thanks for all of the hard and honest work you do.
In the interview with Douthat, Brown claims “these girls’ lives were essentially ruined.” Did she consult with a good psychologist in reaching that conclusion? This reminds me of Jesse Singal’s work on childhood transgenderism, and the disconnect between activists and journalists on one hand, who uncritically repeat statements linking suicide to lack of validation, and the actual psychology community on the other, which does not tend to grant suicide such a noble role.
Nice work, Michael. No, you're not crazy.
Could the mainstream media be any worse? This woman profiting off of lies with no regard for the selfsame victims she claims (through labored tears im sure) to advocate for--despicable. (jfc those nauseating passages about her pathetic social life, are you a journalist or are you writing a telenovela?)
No matter how low my opinion of mainstream media has gotten over the years apparently it's never low enough. I'm glad at least you're out here, because as hard as it is for the 'brrrrr Pedophilic fetus eating monsters' crowd to stomach there is nuance to these stories and the actual truth matters.
Brown is fully aware of Ransome's lack of credibility. In 2024, she wrote:
"But she later recanted her statements, telling the Miami Herald in 2019 that she made up the stories because she was alarmed that the U.S. media had failed to investigate whether Trump and Bill and Hillary Clinton were connected to Epstein. Both Trump and Hillary Clinton were running for president at the time she made the false statements."
People, particularly MAGAs, forget that the original framing for Brown's series on Epstein was about Trump's labor secretary, Alex Acosta. It's in the title: "Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime". You'd think MAGAs might have been just a wee bit skeptical of this story that was unearthed to damage Trump's presidency and push a #Metoo narrative, but I guess the Elite Pedo Ring conspiracy theory was just too fun for them to resist!
She's a myth peddler. She started off her series with a lie then sensationalized the story. Vicky Ward also did a lot of sensationalizing. They suckered the world into their fantasy. Yes, Epstein was bad but if Acosta hadn't worked out the plea deal they'd filed a Federal case and gone to trial, he's have probably walked if the judge didn't throw the case out on the basis that it was a state matter.
FYI, I have read all of the Florida State Attorney files on the Epstein and there is nothing in there about Maxwell being involved in any way with any of the girls. Virginia Roberts Giuffre was Epstein's employee as was Ransome (who was an adult. So was Marie Farmer, who was diagnosed with a brain tumor.) I suspect Roberts, Ransome and Farmer wanted to cash in on the victim's restitution funds the plea provided.
MT I'm enjoying your astute take. Have Krystal and Sagaar acknowledged nick Bryant's lack of credibility? (Or JKB for that matter)
I feel like they're better than that! This Epstein fever sure is entertaining though.
Great article. It came out just as I’ve been reading Brown’s book and trying to assemble a timeline of the allegations. So far, I’ve learned there’s been nothing new since 2006. That the Florida case against Epstein had merit but was a real stinker. Too many unreliable witnesses and that faced with Epstein’s unlimited defense budget, no one wanted it. So Florida hands it to the Feds who hand it right back. So Florida settles it only because the Feds granted immunity to Epstein and all co-conspirators. So it was done by 2008 and only revived by Brown in 2018-19. Meanwhile, on the civil side, much money was paid in compensation to victims many of whom wanted nothing more to do with it.
And now we have a very serious Federal issue which is the SDNY Feds claiming they aren’t bound by the immunity granted by the Florida district. That is the issue on appeal in the Maxwell case. If SCOTUS doesn’t clarify this, no Federal attorney will be able to offer immunity in exchange for a plea. Crazy times.
Tara Palmari dragged Virginia Robert’s all over the country to try to “interview” anyone Virginia knew or thought she knew was associated with Epstein, and whether or not they saw her with him. I don’t believe there were any takers! There has never been much collaboration on anything she has claimed.
Because the state seeks to control every sexual transaction in America, and the creation of Epstein was one of the early steps in that direction. As I think Eric Weinstein posited, they burned Epstein because he was an analog technology. They have other things now. But whether he was used to blackmail doesn't actually matter, because they could make a story around him that achieves the same thing. You can get people to do what you want simply by threatening to have the Q-Anon bots claim you were on the flight logs, and then it may as well be true.
Amazing! When Bondi or someone else says there is nothing to ‘the Epstein files’ you need to believe her. When Epstein is described as someone who tried to ingratiate himself or be pictured with certain people, people who say they really did not have much of a relationship with Epstein, you need to also believe them. It looks like the media saw an opportunity to do what they love to do. They fanned the flames of lies and let the ensuing fire rage so they could write more about it.
I am more likely to believe the sightings of Elvis.
Thank you Michael, solid work! 👍
I genuinely think the disconnect you and Hanania are having with the mainstream is the delta between mainstream disgust at even petty/small bore sexual misconduct/ harassment of under 18 years girls and middle aged men and the apportionment of agency/blame in such situations, given power/money imbalance. You guys clearly don’t think it’s such a big deal and can’t understand the fuss around it. People just disagree with you guys about how outraged one should be, even if its not illegal
Remarkable. Nothing in this comment is responsive to a single thing written in this several-thousand word article.
It’s a meta comment. You are not wrong about the details and your pain-sticking debunking/contextualization has been very helpful. I have listened to your discussions with Hanania and there’s a dismissal of petty sexual harassment (probably correctly so in context of exaggerated claims by mainstream) but I think that’s the gist of the disagreement. Hanania has made comments about how he thinks age of consent laws should be lowered and consensual sex with 15-17 yrs old girls should not be considered “pedophilia”. Maybe or maybe not but you can’t say it doesn’t color your and Hanania’s assessment of this
A "meta-comnent?" Is that like "fictionalized memoir?"
Hanania here says sex with a 17 year old can’t be “trafficking” because age of consent laws should be lower. Do you agree?: https://x.com/richardhanania/status/1916054918009655303?s=46
Still stroking my chin about when you’re going to get around to discussing Whitney Webb, or engaging with her, or Chris Hedges, about the significance of Epstein.
Whitney Webb has not responded to any of my DMs. I know you guys just love to repeat "Whitney Webb, Whitney Webb" like it's some magical incantation, even though you're oddly incapable of synthesizing what you take to be her decisively convincing argument or evidence. Chris Hedges featured an interview with Nick Bryant, a proven defamer and NGO bullshit artist, in his viral Epstein video. See my article from last week.
Ok, good to know. If I’m able to communicate with Webb (I’m not on X, and I think she only rarely uses it), I‘ll ask her to respond to your DMs and converse, for whatever it may be worth.
I’m not the professional. The idea is to have two serious people knowledgeable of the situation, who have had the time and energy to investigate the details of the Epstein saga from their seemingly fruitful perspectives, parsing each other’s arguments, assuming they are opposed or would be complementary, to arrive at greater insight about the situation. I would have expected you to want to talk to her first of all possible sources.
Nevertheless, I’m happy to synthesize what I understand of Webb’s arguments inasmuch as I’ve seen her interviewed several times by Brianna Joy Gray, Katie Halper, Tucker Carlson, and the boys at Due Dissidence, and have started to read her two-volume book on the Epstein matter:
Epstein is an epiphenomena, so to speak, of a larger deep political network consisting of a cross-section of intelligence and organized crime in collaboration that goes back to WWII, a formation par excellence of what Peter Dale Scott referred to as the larger informal, parapolitical arrangements that constitute the way we are systematically governed despite the existence of, or in conjunction with, our legitimate political institutions.
I’m not precisely clear yet about the degree to which she makes specific claims about Epstein’s sex trafficking and/or blackmail operations, but the most interesting things she says are about his probable U.S. and Israeli intelligence (or just government) connections, e.g. his 17 visits to the Clinton White House, and the fact that his sex crimes have displaced - and likely have been intended to displace - all conversation about his much more important, in terms of their economic and political influence, financial crimes, e.g. his knowledge of the offshore/shadow banking system, etc.
I think Hedges can also comment intelligently about Epstein independently of Nick Bryant.
Sorry, I had to stop reading at "Epstein is an epiphenomena."
Suit yourself
It's worth your time to read the rest of the comment, Michael, because it gets into the important aspects of the Epstein story that the mainstream media will avoid like the plague. Follow the damn money! What was Epstein doing, and on whose behalf, that afforded him the wealth needed to support the largest house in Manhattan, a private island, a private plane, a "ranch" in New Mexico, a place in Florida, and the staffs to keep all that operating. Julie K Brown isn't going to talk about the Israel connections (Ghislaine's father was given a hero's funeral in Israel, likely in respect for his service in sourcing elements of Israel nuclear weapons program; Ehud Barak was a regular visitor to Epstein's NYC mansion.) That mansion, we are told, was loaded with hidden cameras. For what purposes? Where has the video output gone? There are so, so many question regarding Epstein that go way beyond alleged sex crimes.
Whitney Webb is a bullshit artist who, when asked, "what should be done?" offers up the answer "do you own thing".
Not a serious person nor thinker.
She’s not responsible for saving the world and anyone is free to disagree with her about what is to be done to do it, though for the sake of reality, “Do your own thing” is a rank distortion of what she says, if it’s related to what she says at all.
The issue on the table is Epstein and what she knows and says about him. If you think that’s going to convince anyone who isn’t already gratuitously hostile to her not to listen to what she has to say, then do your own thing.
Good take down, Mikey
Excellent work. I was beginning to think Lady Victoria Hervey, Lady Colin Campbell, Alan Dershowitz and me were the only sane people commenting on this sordid affair.