Seven years ago (yesterday) — July 2, 2019 — Jeffrey Epstein was indicted by a federal Grand Jury for perpetrating a “sex trafficking conspiracy,” based on conduct alleged to have taken place between 2002 and 2005, and which the Feds had largely already investigated over a decade before, culminating in a 2007 determination that any indictment brought against Epstein would’ve faced such severe evidentiary and legal “challenges” that prosecutors actually feared he could be
Longest article I've ever seen on Substack. Tried to focus and made it about 1/4 of the way down. Would you like an editor as a courtesy for your readers?
If you can’t sustain focus for long enough to read ~5000 words — should maybe take around 17 minutes — on a platform specifically designed for longer-form writing, no, I don’t think I require your assistance. But thanks.
It's not only the length. Any writer will tell you that it's hard to lose a reader's interest during good/interesting dialogue, even when lengthy. Your rambling list of historic inconsistencies in a twenty year investigation, and your subjective opinions on what the errors prove reminds me of how the New York Times attacks President Trump. It's hard to prove that an inaccurate statement is a lie. So they do not even try. It's hard for readers to finish NYT articles too.
I'm sure captivating journalists almost never build causal arguments or prove anything. It's probably the reader's fault, or Putin's, or President Trump's, or the 1/6 insurrectionists, or Iran's, or Israel's....
I wrote a longer article (~8,000 words) on the “Dancing Israelis” on 9/11 that extensively cites the FBI report on the topic. I’d be curious if you find my writing palatable and easy to read even if you don’t agree with my conclusions.
If it’s so clear to you that he had a good chance at fighting the case, it surely would also have occurred to his highly paid expert legal team and Epstein himself.
That certainly puts the notion that he killed himself out of a sense of defeat or inevitable conviction to bed, then.
It seems clear that if somebody is being paid for “massages” that include sexual behavior that goes so far as to compel the person to watch you masturbate or touch them sexually, the reason you are paying that person isn’t massages themselves. Whether that was ever explicitly stated doesn’t make it any less the case.
That might matter in legal parlance but morally it is the same as explicitly engaging in prostitution. Trafficking as a concept is highly flawed but there was a system for grooming (or since you dislike that word, procuring and acclimatizing young women to give sexualized massages), and that system consistently allowed minors into the sexual activity.
It also seems his recruiters knew he liked underage girls. Even if he didn’t ask for minors, his preference for them was revealed as he had reoccurring sexual encounters with them and kept asking for more whether it can be proven he knew they were minors or not.
This includes a 14 year old girl who was told to say she was not a minor, if I remember correctly, and she also was subjected to his sexual advances and behavior at 14.
Will the rapidly exfoliating and vehemently believed Epstein conspiracy phenomenon, complete with savage attacks on anyone daring to objectively examine the actual knowable facts of the case, one day go the way of Russiagate? Five years from now how many will be saying, "Oh, I always knew it was a fake. Never made much sense."
Michael-have you considered turning all your research into a book? I could imagine challenges finding a publisher, but at least this subscriber would be interested in purchasing compendium of yours on this topic.
Thanks. I hate to badger, but nobody else is gonna do it, so please consider upgrading to a paid subscription if you (apparently!) think I am worthy of a Pulitzer!
An excellent, well-written overview of the case. Thanks for this. It took me 20 minutes to read, but I did get up to get coffee and a couple of cookies. Nice ironic joke at the very end, too.
Some people on this platform specifically designed to feature longer-from writing (or so I thought) are apparently quite offended if they have to spend ~20 minutes reading something!
Longest article I've ever seen on Substack. Tried to focus and made it about 1/4 of the way down. Would you like an editor as a courtesy for your readers?
If you can’t sustain focus for long enough to read ~5000 words — should maybe take around 17 minutes — on a platform specifically designed for longer-form writing, no, I don’t think I require your assistance. But thanks.
It's not only the length. Any writer will tell you that it's hard to lose a reader's interest during good/interesting dialogue, even when lengthy. Your rambling list of historic inconsistencies in a twenty year investigation, and your subjective opinions on what the errors prove reminds me of how the New York Times attacks President Trump. It's hard to prove that an inaccurate statement is a lie. So they do not even try. It's hard for readers to finish NYT articles too.
I'm sure captivating journalists almost never build causal arguments or prove anything. It's probably the reader's fault, or Putin's, or President Trump's, or the 1/6 insurrectionists, or Iran's, or Israel's....
The Midwestern Doctor has you beat by a mile! The articles from the good doctor can take well over an hour to read, depending on the topic.
So you think you could probably read about 8k words in under 30 minutes then, right?
If these stories are turning into a high-volume book, I'd be honored to edit it. I'm just finishing up my novel, so I'd have some time.
I wrote a longer article (~8,000 words) on the “Dancing Israelis” on 9/11 that extensively cites the FBI report on the topic. I’d be curious if you find my writing palatable and easy to read even if you don’t agree with my conclusions.
https://andrewdolgin.substack.com/p/911-and-the-dancing-israelis-refuting?r=8yze6&utm_medium=ios
If it’s so clear to you that he had a good chance at fighting the case, it surely would also have occurred to his highly paid expert legal team and Epstein himself.
That certainly puts the notion that he killed himself out of a sense of defeat or inevitable conviction to bed, then.
It seems clear that if somebody is being paid for “massages” that include sexual behavior that goes so far as to compel the person to watch you masturbate or touch them sexually, the reason you are paying that person isn’t massages themselves. Whether that was ever explicitly stated doesn’t make it any less the case.
That might matter in legal parlance but morally it is the same as explicitly engaging in prostitution. Trafficking as a concept is highly flawed but there was a system for grooming (or since you dislike that word, procuring and acclimatizing young women to give sexualized massages), and that system consistently allowed minors into the sexual activity.
It also seems his recruiters knew he liked underage girls. Even if he didn’t ask for minors, his preference for them was revealed as he had reoccurring sexual encounters with them and kept asking for more whether it can be proven he knew they were minors or not.
This includes a 14 year old girl who was told to say she was not a minor, if I remember correctly, and she also was subjected to his sexual advances and behavior at 14.
I wonder how many 14 year olds pass for 18+?
Will the rapidly exfoliating and vehemently believed Epstein conspiracy phenomenon, complete with savage attacks on anyone daring to objectively examine the actual knowable facts of the case, one day go the way of Russiagate? Five years from now how many will be saying, "Oh, I always knew it was a fake. Never made much sense."
Michael-have you considered turning all your research into a book? I could imagine challenges finding a publisher, but at least this subscriber would be interested in purchasing compendium of yours on this topic.
Well, I'll give you the highest accolade I can for this sphere of genuine journalism. You're a worthy successor to Dorothy Rabinowitz.
And boy. Does Shakespeare remain evergreen in his remarks about lawyers.
Thanks. I hate to badger, but nobody else is gonna do it, so please consider upgrading to a paid subscription if you (apparently!) think I am worthy of a Pulitzer!
Well, with the Pulitzer people having discredited themselves so badly I'd say that the independent judgment of readers should warm your heart more.
Though I'm no journalist and, even, quite bad at basic math, I'm willing to declare that I could use your money far more than you could use mine.
I'm being neither churlish, or cheap. Just the way it is, kid. If I win the lottery I'll sign up on the day I cash the check.
An excellent, well-written overview of the case. Thanks for this. It took me 20 minutes to read, but I did get up to get coffee and a couple of cookies. Nice ironic joke at the very end, too.
Some people on this platform specifically designed to feature longer-from writing (or so I thought) are apparently quite offended if they have to spend ~20 minutes reading something!
Rest in power