I am headed to Washington, DC today because I’m attending the press conference called by Congressmen Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) in which they will supposedly unveil a new slate of Epstein “survivors,” furnished to them by lawyer Bradley Edwards, who will also be present.
Good article, certainly problematic holes that assuredly would be exploited. My sense is Massie departed from his normal MO to offer something remotely passable, though by doing so has made it simultaneously useless. I hope he changes course hereafter and realizes his appeal is as a protest vote for what is good and avoids these compromising and defanged bills.
Once again, if this matter was just Epstein getting his rocks off and sharing the booty with friends, then it is much ado about not much. I still can't get around the fact that a nebbish like Epstein had access to scads of money given to him supposedly by billionaires for financial services. It doesn't wash. He had no backround to suggest he was a financial whiz and I seriously doubt that these moneybags were greasing him for sharing his harem with them.
Epstein was a math teacher. He was recommended to a Wall Street guy named Ace Greenberg who had a hiring philosophy centered around what he called "PSDs"—people who were Poor, Smart, and had a deep Desire to become rich. Greenberg believed in hiring ambitious, driven individuals who weren’t necessarily from elite backgrounds or Ivy League schools, but who had the hunger and intelligence to succeed on Wall Street.
Epstein, it turned out, was indeed the math whiz that Greenberg believed he was and Epstein ended up being successful at Bear Stearns. The rest is history.
Apparently it's just so hard to believe that a college dropout could be hired to do anything, but there's a very popular comic that posits that you only needed a pulse to be hired in a top role in the 1970s.
People forget back in the 1970s the world was not as credentialed as it is today. My uncle grew up in the 60s , never went to college but ended up an executive for a large hotel chain. That can’t be done today. As far Epstein he clearly showed a talent for tax dodges and how to move money around . Some people just have a knack or aptitude for some things
It's a question put forth by the investigative staff at Wall Street on Parade who is looking at what the government says about this case. How can any of this be ignored?
"National security" has become a very big umbrella, and an even larger club. "National security" can be invited to justify nearly anything, and all the government has to do is declare that some action is or could be contrary to national security. There is no independent scrutiny. Judges are not allowed to view the evidence, if any, that forms the basis for the government's claim.
All you need to do to understand it is change "national security" to "political security" every single time you hear it. It's their own security they're worried about.
Minor victims of sex crimes are entitled to their anonymity. The reasons are not simply to protect current victims, but to ensure the safety and prevent humiliation of future victims. So that they won’t fear identifying perpetrators.
Some of them might get paid. I can’t imagine how you could resent them but there you are being a bitter bitch.
So now, the government might not be driven snow because Pam bondi blah blah blah. But the government was infallible in regards to Acosta “under penalty of perjury “, or the feds NPA, or any other government document that you jump up and down about.
You seem to understand this better than most. In 1991 Robert Maxwell was found floating in the water off his yacht, The Lady Ghislaine.
In 2008 Epstein pleaded guilty to a state charge of procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18.
In 2019 Epstein’s life ended under suspicious circumstances. This wasn’t an ‘event’, or a ‘crime’, it’s a decades old pattern of international espionage, blackmail, corruption, and abuse. The are ten thousand more dots than this to connect. How would a serious journalist proceed? Very slowly, very carefully, and with great attention to detail.
That’s what Mr. Tracy needs to understand if he wishes to proceed, and also retain credibility.
I don’t think this case is going to go away, certainly not by squabbling over semantics and behaving like spoiled children. I think this investigation merits the best minds we have in journalism. I can wait.
Ominously, the few that dared were ignored by everyone. Even if Tracey, were broadly correct, coming in 5 years late to criticize the de facto experts is chicken shit. His obsession with Giuffre is pathetic and creepy. His pretend autism is an excuse to act like a boorish jackass.
I hate bullies and will ridicule him long after he’s dropped this idiotic Epstein thing.
These women are not minors. Some of them were minors in the 90s and 2000s and some were adults. They're all adults now. They just don't want to be known publically, as with Naia Bjorlin, who testified as Jane Doe even though she was known to have had a long-running relationship with Epstein.
When your wife or daughter or granddaughter are raped, be sure to insist that they identify themselves to the whole world. So as to be consistent. Patty Hearst and the jim Jones massacre folks had long running relationships with some real dirtbags. Doesn’t mean that they weren’t victims. Out of the 150 known victims, you predator types keep smearing the same people over and over again. Keep exposing yourself.
I am a victim of child sex abuse and I don't give a flying flip who knows it. The US Constitution stipulates that anyone accused of a crime has the right to confront their accuser in court. The idea of victims testifying under pseudonyms is fairly recent in history.
Good for you Sam! Not everyone shares your enthusiasm for sharing such things and perpetrators historically have used that shame to conceal their crimes. Surely you can grasp that? But even if you can’t, most people can.
Recovered ICSAM material? Let's hope it doesn't 'disappear' like Sarah Ransome's sex tapes that Edwards salivated about until it was clear it was just 'recovered memory' and not real at all. Come along way that Edwards since he was dumped in the middle of the Rothstein 'selling victims' ponzi scheme - the scandal no-one likes to talk about or maybe remembers. Could it have been 'repressed'? Who knows. Certainly not squeaky clean Brad who always comes up smelling of roses. Done really well in his 'relentless pursuit'. Fame and fortune? NO! He's a PI lawyer,standing up for victims.
It's impossible to speak with sincere curiosity about the Epstein case because even letting the thought of scrutinizing these accusations cross your mind means you're an Epstein apologist or something, nevermind the well documented history of flipflopping and falsehoods from some of the more high profile accusers. This is ignored by almost everyone of course. It's worth noting Brad Edwards has given interviews where he says Epstein wasn't a pimp, it wasn't a business, he did it for his own pleasure, and there are only a few accusations involving other people. But this is also ignored.
Michael I never thought much of you back in the TYT days but I'm glad to see you doing real investigative journalism on this case, which 99 percent of the mainstream and alt media are failing hard at.
I'm upset that the Massie/Khanna bill exempts anything having to do with "national security."
That's bogus.
Either Epstein WAS involved with one or more intel agencies, or he WAS NOT. If he was, I believe we have a right to know which ones. I'm tired of the government always leaning on this "national security" or "sources & methods" crap. It's all just a ruse, which allows them to hold onto anything they want.
Michael, I've read the memo several times and nowhere can I find a mention of "over 1,000 victims." As for release of government data, as one who spent 12 years in the military and held a Top Secret Clearance, I'm not convinced the public has a "need to know" everything. There is already plenty of information out there about Epstein for those who are actually willing to look and not just blow hot air and bullshit. As you know, grand jury testimony is normally kept secret and is only released on an occasional basis. As for Epstein, this whole thing was blown out of proportion mainly by Edwards and his army of professional "survivors of childhood sex abuse," like Annie Farmer, whose "abuse" consisted of Epstein holding her hand in the movies and lying down on her bed to cuddle.
"Consistent with prior disclosures, this review confirmed that Epstein harmed over one
thousand victims. Each suffered unique trauma."
Some of these supposed victims seem to be those in the allegedly "commercial pornography" he had on his hard drive. Let us say that Epstein enjoyed watching the 16 year old minor Britney Spears in the "Hit Me Baby One More Time" music video. Is Britney Spears then a victim of Epstein and did she suffer "unique trauma" despite not even being aware of his enjoyment of her music video?
I'd also chime in here with the "commercial pornography" wherein the actors depict sexual acts with minors. One of the biggest ones to satisfy the guys with is the schoolgirl in the plaid skirt that gets bent over the teachers' desk, etc. etc. If you are depicting these acts that could go on with females (or males) under the age of 18 even though the actors are 18+, are you then caught in the web of "thought crime" fantasy? Is this what's depicted in the Epstein collection? And people who do view this type of commercial porn, do they stop and ask themselves that very question?
Cooper’s reply should be read by the sycophants determined to validate Tracey’s idiocy. The crowd thins dramatically when the content isn’t free. Telling.
Mr. Tracy - I feel like it’s futile asking you questions and hoping for a response. Nevertheless, hope springs eternal…
You correctly wrote that the June 6, 2025 DoJ memo noted that some images “appear” to be underage girls. Do you know what “appears” means from a legal standpoint?
I’m asking for reasons broader than Epstein. How does this relate to criminality? Does simply believing an image is of an underage person constitute a criminal act? (I’m guessing the thinking is that this would be the “mens rea” necessity to demonstrate a crime?) So how would this carry over to the Alexandrovich Las Vegas arrest? How might it affect the future of AI porn (for lack of a better term)? In future cases there may not even be a victim in the traditional sense. Then finally, bringing this back to Epstein, if there are individuals in the photos who cannot be identified, isn’t it therefore dishonest (based on current evidence) to make a sweeping declaration that they’re victims?
NOTE: To any readers/friends/fellow community members who also see this comment and have an understanding in this field of the law, I’d be grateful for your thoughts as well. I’m asking this to expand my understanding - not to create controversy. Thank You!
A problem to me is that the result of this bill might be that it is passed, thus rendering the entire epstein conversation smoked over - and saving those who want it buried while pacifying those who think they will be getting real revelation.
I understand that. It says online that Epstein's estimated net worth was $560 million. Could even a whiz of a financial adviser get that rich? The actual investors I could believe but an adviser?
Good article, certainly problematic holes that assuredly would be exploited. My sense is Massie departed from his normal MO to offer something remotely passable, though by doing so has made it simultaneously useless. I hope he changes course hereafter and realizes his appeal is as a protest vote for what is good and avoids these compromising and defanged bills.
I'm content with Michael Tracey opening up this whole can of worms.
Once again, if this matter was just Epstein getting his rocks off and sharing the booty with friends, then it is much ado about not much. I still can't get around the fact that a nebbish like Epstein had access to scads of money given to him supposedly by billionaires for financial services. It doesn't wash. He had no backround to suggest he was a financial whiz and I seriously doubt that these moneybags were greasing him for sharing his harem with them.
Actually, it does. Read the trial transcripts. Epstein was a financial advisor to some very rich people who paid him big bucks for his services.
Just where did an ex high school math teacher get all this financial expertise? Maybe his little stint at Bear Stearns?
Epstein was a math teacher. He was recommended to a Wall Street guy named Ace Greenberg who had a hiring philosophy centered around what he called "PSDs"—people who were Poor, Smart, and had a deep Desire to become rich. Greenberg believed in hiring ambitious, driven individuals who weren’t necessarily from elite backgrounds or Ivy League schools, but who had the hunger and intelligence to succeed on Wall Street.
Epstein, it turned out, was indeed the math whiz that Greenberg believed he was and Epstein ended up being successful at Bear Stearns. The rest is history.
Apparently it's just so hard to believe that a college dropout could be hired to do anything, but there's a very popular comic that posits that you only needed a pulse to be hired in a top role in the 1970s.
People forget back in the 1970s the world was not as credentialed as it is today. My uncle grew up in the 60s , never went to college but ended up an executive for a large hotel chain. That can’t be done today. As far Epstein he clearly showed a talent for tax dodges and how to move money around . Some people just have a knack or aptitude for some things
It's a question put forth by the investigative staff at Wall Street on Parade who is looking at what the government says about this case. How can any of this be ignored?
https://wallstreetonparade.com/2025/09/its-time-to-name-the-wall-street-financiers-in-the-epstein-files/
"National security" has become a very big umbrella, and an even larger club. "National security" can be invited to justify nearly anything, and all the government has to do is declare that some action is or could be contrary to national security. There is no independent scrutiny. Judges are not allowed to view the evidence, if any, that forms the basis for the government's claim.
All you need to do to understand it is change "national security" to "political security" every single time you hear it. It's their own security they're worried about.
Yes.
Brilliant point.
*invoked not invited
Minor victims of sex crimes are entitled to their anonymity. The reasons are not simply to protect current victims, but to ensure the safety and prevent humiliation of future victims. So that they won’t fear identifying perpetrators.
Some of them might get paid. I can’t imagine how you could resent them but there you are being a bitter bitch.
So now, the government might not be driven snow because Pam bondi blah blah blah. But the government was infallible in regards to Acosta “under penalty of perjury “, or the feds NPA, or any other government document that you jump up and down about.
You seem to understand this better than most. In 1991 Robert Maxwell was found floating in the water off his yacht, The Lady Ghislaine.
In 2008 Epstein pleaded guilty to a state charge of procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18.
In 2019 Epstein’s life ended under suspicious circumstances. This wasn’t an ‘event’, or a ‘crime’, it’s a decades old pattern of international espionage, blackmail, corruption, and abuse. The are ten thousand more dots than this to connect. How would a serious journalist proceed? Very slowly, very carefully, and with great attention to detail.
That’s what Mr. Tracy needs to understand if he wishes to proceed, and also retain credibility.
I don’t think this case is going to go away, certainly not by squabbling over semantics and behaving like spoiled children. I think this investigation merits the best minds we have in journalism. I can wait.
Ominously, the few that dared were ignored by everyone. Even if Tracey, were broadly correct, coming in 5 years late to criticize the de facto experts is chicken shit. His obsession with Giuffre is pathetic and creepy. His pretend autism is an excuse to act like a boorish jackass.
I hate bullies and will ridicule him long after he’s dropped this idiotic Epstein thing.
These women are not minors. Some of them were minors in the 90s and 2000s and some were adults. They're all adults now. They just don't want to be known publically, as with Naia Bjorlin, who testified as Jane Doe even though she was known to have had a long-running relationship with Epstein.
When your wife or daughter or granddaughter are raped, be sure to insist that they identify themselves to the whole world. So as to be consistent. Patty Hearst and the jim Jones massacre folks had long running relationships with some real dirtbags. Doesn’t mean that they weren’t victims. Out of the 150 known victims, you predator types keep smearing the same people over and over again. Keep exposing yourself.
I am a victim of child sex abuse and I don't give a flying flip who knows it. The US Constitution stipulates that anyone accused of a crime has the right to confront their accuser in court. The idea of victims testifying under pseudonyms is fairly recent in history.
Good for you Sam! Not everyone shares your enthusiasm for sharing such things and perpetrators historically have used that shame to conceal their crimes. Surely you can grasp that? But even if you can’t, most people can.
Recovered ICSAM material? Let's hope it doesn't 'disappear' like Sarah Ransome's sex tapes that Edwards salivated about until it was clear it was just 'recovered memory' and not real at all. Come along way that Edwards since he was dumped in the middle of the Rothstein 'selling victims' ponzi scheme - the scandal no-one likes to talk about or maybe remembers. Could it have been 'repressed'? Who knows. Certainly not squeaky clean Brad who always comes up smelling of roses. Done really well in his 'relentless pursuit'. Fame and fortune? NO! He's a PI lawyer,standing up for victims.
It's impossible to speak with sincere curiosity about the Epstein case because even letting the thought of scrutinizing these accusations cross your mind means you're an Epstein apologist or something, nevermind the well documented history of flipflopping and falsehoods from some of the more high profile accusers. This is ignored by almost everyone of course. It's worth noting Brad Edwards has given interviews where he says Epstein wasn't a pimp, it wasn't a business, he did it for his own pleasure, and there are only a few accusations involving other people. But this is also ignored.
Michael I never thought much of you back in the TYT days but I'm glad to see you doing real investigative journalism on this case, which 99 percent of the mainstream and alt media are failing hard at.
I'm upset that the Massie/Khanna bill exempts anything having to do with "national security."
That's bogus.
Either Epstein WAS involved with one or more intel agencies, or he WAS NOT. If he was, I believe we have a right to know which ones. I'm tired of the government always leaning on this "national security" or "sources & methods" crap. It's all just a ruse, which allows them to hold onto anything they want.
Michael, I've read the memo several times and nowhere can I find a mention of "over 1,000 victims." As for release of government data, as one who spent 12 years in the military and held a Top Secret Clearance, I'm not convinced the public has a "need to know" everything. There is already plenty of information out there about Epstein for those who are actually willing to look and not just blow hot air and bullshit. As you know, grand jury testimony is normally kept secret and is only released on an occasional basis. As for Epstein, this whole thing was blown out of proportion mainly by Edwards and his army of professional "survivors of childhood sex abuse," like Annie Farmer, whose "abuse" consisted of Epstein holding her hand in the movies and lying down on her bed to cuddle.
"Consistent with prior disclosures, this review confirmed that Epstein harmed over one
thousand victims. Each suffered unique trauma."
Some of these supposed victims seem to be those in the allegedly "commercial pornography" he had on his hard drive. Let us say that Epstein enjoyed watching the 16 year old minor Britney Spears in the "Hit Me Baby One More Time" music video. Is Britney Spears then a victim of Epstein and did she suffer "unique trauma" despite not even being aware of his enjoyment of her music video?
I'd also chime in here with the "commercial pornography" wherein the actors depict sexual acts with minors. One of the biggest ones to satisfy the guys with is the schoolgirl in the plaid skirt that gets bent over the teachers' desk, etc. etc. If you are depicting these acts that could go on with females (or males) under the age of 18 even though the actors are 18+, are you then caught in the web of "thought crime" fantasy? Is this what's depicted in the Epstein collection? And people who do view this type of commercial porn, do they stop and ask themselves that very question?
https://open.substack.com/pub/martyrmade/p/epstein-questions-a-response-to-michael?r=ce20v&utm_medium=ios
Cooper’s reply should be read by the sycophants determined to validate Tracey’s idiocy. The crowd thins dramatically when the content isn’t free. Telling.
Keep burying your credibility Michael!
Oh, you unblocked me? hahahahahhahaha How you doin', Chuckie?
The grandstanding by Massie yesterday was really disappointing
Mr. Tracy - I feel like it’s futile asking you questions and hoping for a response. Nevertheless, hope springs eternal…
You correctly wrote that the June 6, 2025 DoJ memo noted that some images “appear” to be underage girls. Do you know what “appears” means from a legal standpoint?
I’m asking for reasons broader than Epstein. How does this relate to criminality? Does simply believing an image is of an underage person constitute a criminal act? (I’m guessing the thinking is that this would be the “mens rea” necessity to demonstrate a crime?) So how would this carry over to the Alexandrovich Las Vegas arrest? How might it affect the future of AI porn (for lack of a better term)? In future cases there may not even be a victim in the traditional sense. Then finally, bringing this back to Epstein, if there are individuals in the photos who cannot be identified, isn’t it therefore dishonest (based on current evidence) to make a sweeping declaration that they’re victims?
NOTE: To any readers/friends/fellow community members who also see this comment and have an understanding in this field of the law, I’d be grateful for your thoughts as well. I’m asking this to expand my understanding - not to create controversy. Thank You!
A problem to me is that the result of this bill might be that it is passed, thus rendering the entire epstein conversation smoked over - and saving those who want it buried while pacifying those who think they will be getting real revelation.
I understand that. It says online that Epstein's estimated net worth was $560 million. Could even a whiz of a financial adviser get that rich? The actual investors I could believe but an adviser?
Let’s get Epstein/Trump back to the top of the news. RESTACK everything Epstein and let’s get America to listen to the victims!
https://mdavis19881.substack.com/p/epstein-xi-an-open-letter-to-republicans