We mentioned many many posts earlier in the thread, that the problem with any uncurated “list of names of Epstein associates” is that it would include a bunch of people who had legit reasons to have had any kind of contact with him. Who would then wind up having to face demands that they prove they were not up to dirty deeds. IIRC even Trump himself mentioned that at some point but then of course just went with the flow that it would surely hit hard at a bunch of Democrats.
And, hey, I’m sure the TrueMAGAs FWIW are even open to that it would include some Establishment Republicans and such corporate moguls as they may dislike. And all of them were behind the whole thing from the start and are behind there being nothing coming out all the way to now.
But I can’t avoid imagining, that a bunch of the MAGAfluencers are ticked off because, well… remember, the party line had been that all the accusations against Trump, Trump associates, the Jan 6 insurrectionists, etc., were nonsense, fake, a frame-up. So what if the “quiet part” they’re not saying out loud is “why aren’t we doing THAT to THEM?” The Bizarroworld version of the people who were upset that Merrick Garland did not throw Trump in jail within the first year.
Sure, and it cant hurt trump at all. Having evidence that he cavorted with underage girls wouldnt do anything to him- remember the T-shirt “I am voting for the Felon”?
And Epstein had a private plane and lots of people took free rides on it, mostly innocent.
Exactly what would be gained by such a list? trump is immune, Maybe Bill Clinton? To what end?
Having said that, don’t any folks in this situation have somewhat of an obligation to be proactive about this rather than being found out?
Film director Kevin Smith tells a story about how just before the allegations dropped, Harvey Weinstein called him up and offered to make a new movie with him (Weinstein produced Dogma about ten years prior to this). Smith was happy to hear from him because at the time, Weinstein was just known as a legendary Hollywood producer. No one tried to cancel Kevin Smith for making a movie with this guy and no one tried to cancel him for having a friendly conversation with him the day before he became known as serial rapist Harvey Weinstein. No one accused Smith of anything improper either even though you would think a director and a producer would be pretty close.
If there are people out there who were close enough to Epstein to be mistaken for clients of his underage sex trafficking ring, they really should be as open and transparent about what they were actually doing as they can be. It stands to reason that Epstein didn’t greet people with an invitation to Pedophile Island and he must have had at least one or two business associates who only ever did actual business with him. But I think it’s much more suspicious if they try to pretend they don’t know him, never had dealings with him and certainly never took a flight on his plane or went to his island. Either a person had a legitimate reason to be there and has to defend it or they can try to cover it up and then try to defend it after they get found out. Which one looks more like a criminal?
So if you know a criminal, you should volunteer to become a victim of guilt by association?
What it you have young, or teenage, children, or even grandchildren? They are liable to be tormented by others in their classes for their father’s, or even grandfather’s, association. This is a legitimate fear. It thus seems to me morally wrong for the parent to be unnecessarily open and transparent in a matter where the association with Epstein might never come out.
In a fair legal system, the government does not unnecessarily name individuals who have some sort of association with lawbreakers and, for whatever reason, are not facing indictment. I presume this is the reason that a list of Epstein associate names was not released when we last had a responsible attorney general (Merrick Garland),
Here’s my speculation as to why no one was indicted after Epstein and Maxwell: Some of the same fragile witnesses in the Maxwell case would have to be called to testify and face cross examination again. Depending on which extremely powerful individuals they would have to testify against, the witnesses would face death threats, and need to be in the witness protection program. Also, the cases against the johns might not have been quite as strong as with Maxwell. One can imagine ruining the lives of witnesses despite the defendant being acquitted (or, if Trump, allowed to go free through other means). While this is unfair to the cause of justice, it also is unfair to make extremely serious charges without giving a potential opportunity for an honorable acquittal. The government should not be making charges of criminal conduct it cannot prove (as Trump does).
As to why Trump wants to effectively continue the Garland policy here, I suppose that is because Trump is one of the Epstein associates.
That isn’t even close to what DWMarch said and they are already volunteering to be victims of guilt by association by their silence.
Not that that matters since they’ve already been found guilty by the conspiracy nuts that have no fucking clue about, nor do they care, what the evidence actually supports.
I think the point is that the advice to, “…be as open and transparent about what they were actually doing as they can be,” means giving lengthy interviews and implies disproportionate public attention. Much wiser to keep your head low and provide a brief but factual account of your relationship with Epstein. Which many of the public figures have done.
I mean if you are an academic who ran a think tank supported by Epstein and never visited his island, what’s the point of making a spectacle of yourself?
Separately, I think it’s relevant that the little black book has already been combed by a reporter:
Epstein’s little black book isn’t little at all—it’s gargantuan. … Epstein collected people, and if you ever had any interaction with him or Ghislaine Maxwell, his onetime girlfriend and alleged accomplice, you more than likely ended up in this book, and then several years later you received a call from me.
Also:
(I have been aggressively counseled to remind the readers of Mother Jones that an appearance in the address book is not evidence of any crime, or of complicity in any crime, or of knowledge of any crime.)
Anyone in this situation is already guilty by association (in the eyes of MAGA and most of the general public, who don’t tend to be lenient about this kind of thing), trying to hide their interactions with Epstein will only make it worse. The only way out is through. If people have information and they aren’t talking right now, they are part of the cover-up.
Merrick Garland couldn’t tie his shoes for fear of looking political. He wouldn’t touch this in a thousand years. And he swore up and down that he operated independently from the wishes of the White House so assuming that is true, Garland used his discretion and stayed well away from this one because he could. I don’t think he covered it up, he just knew he didn’t have to dig it up. If someone else wanted to later, well so be it. But Garland? Not the man for the job.
Occam’s Razor: what are the chances that the admitted, adjudicated rapist who has well-known perversions for underage women went to Pedophile Island several times but behaved like a saint while he was there? I’m not calling you out specifically on this, I’m seeing a lot of people in the media giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. I guess they have to because he can sue them but I don’t owe him shit and I am calling it like it is. Virginia Giuffre (who also recently “committed suicide”) went from Mar-a-Lago directly to Ghislaine Maxwell. If Trump isn’t involved in this, he’s making every possible choice to make himself look like he was involved. To paraphrase Krennic in Andor, if Trump isn’t a child sex trafficker, he missed his calling.
We’re talking about 2000 people. There’s some safety in numbers, absolutely no safety for those who give a TV interview (not that you suggested that).
Click through my link and you can find a lengthy interview with a now 94/95 year old chemist who said, “Jeffrey Epstein was my best pal for decades.” He says he never visited the island and that he broke contact with Epstein after he learned about apparent sexual misconduct if I understand the story properly. I suspect MAGA’s attention won’t be with this guy, but rather with politicians or celebrities that they have heard of.
The rumors circulating the right wing board at which I sometimes lurk are that Epstein was the front for a massive Mossad honey trap/blackmail op and that Trump is sitting on the files to keep the entire government from falling apart.
Also, he was caught in the trap himself but keeping that info under wraps is better than having Democrats take over (yeah, I scratch my head over the logic, too).
Oh, forgot one. There is a shadowy non-Mossad cabal of people far more powerful than Trump which is using personal threats to him to keep the files under wraps. That ol’ Deep State is deep, man.
Just as I like it. The Attorney General, as a political figure, should not be deciding who gets indicted. Rather they should be involved with policy matters, such as the staffing levels in different department divisions, and whether a proposed new federal courthouse gets built.
As a general matter, criteria to apply in naming unindicted co-conspirators (whether or not anyone has yet been indicted in a possible case) could be one of the policy questions the AG weighs in on. But it would be reckless to change the rules because of a notorious case. And the policy should be to avoid releasing negative information about individuals when you cannot prove a criminal case to the satisfaction of jurors and appellate judges..
By the preponderance of the evidence available to me as a newspaper reader, Donald Trump is an unindicted unnamed co-conspirator in a sex crime. Most criminals do get away with the great majority of their crimes. This often cannot be helped.
Good characterization. Technical question: is co-conspirator the best characterization of Trump in this case, or is there a more accurate one, assuming Trump committed some crime such as having sex with a minor? Also assume there’s currently insufficient evidence to convict in a fair criminal trial.
Josh Marshall and others note that Trump’s cover-up drives MAGA bonkers because it ties in with the foundational Q-Anon faith that a cabal of elite pedophiles runs everything and Trump will uncover it all and smite them.
But like all vast and great conspiracy theories, “Epstein” isn’t a big scandal. It’s a theory of society. People on Twitter and Bluesky are now pulling together the most liked and shared posts on Truth Social of Trumpers pleading with Trump, demanding that he shift gears, that he insist on revealing the evildoers, the rich and powerful pedophiles. The belief in the whole thing runs really, really deep.
I have a dear friend who is a TPM reader and has TPM-like politics but who lives culturally and geographically in the heart of MAGA land. He was telling me last week that if “Epstein” isn’t true — if the moral drama is broken — the whole of MAGA crumbles.
Look at this post from Mike Flynn…
So we’re having a UFO cult moment, prophesies failing in realtime.
Someone needs to ask her straight up if any of the videos or photos show Trump. Make her lie about it. If she’s going to be the biggest pedophile protector in history, make her own it. Make her suffer for it not just for the rest of Trump’s life but for the rest of her life. Reporters should start by never asking her a question about any other subject or at the very least, always bringing the discussion back to Epstein at some point. But don’t give her a moment of rest, ever. That’s the least she should have to suffer for what she is doing.
It is truly tragic that this crowd never considered that Trump might be the pedophile this whole time. Well, they wanted this conspiracy and now they have it, just not the way they pictured it. Having said that, I’m kind of curious as to why Trump and co. haven’t tried to fake some evidence implicating anyone and everyone they don’t like. Too easy to screw this kind of thing up I guess. Or else maybe there is someone else out there who has the real information… That’s the kind of thing that should keep them awake at night.
I’m also curious to see what happens with Maxwell. And why isn’t anybody trying to talk to her right now? Someone should definitely check on her mental health and get a statement from her as to whether or not she is considering self-harm and if she has any kind of secrets she’d like revealed if/when she is found dead somewhere.
Yeah, exactly. If she could wring any leverage out of it AND had anything worth knowing (there is no certainty of that), I’m sure she’d be happy to share. But nobody is going to void her conviction, nor should they. She has no reason to say anything and some compelling reasons to say nothing. If she gets out of prison alive in the 2030’s, I suppose a tell-all book is possible. But I’d be inclined not to trust a word just on general principles and at any rate I’m not sure she’s the type to spill like that unless she desperately needed money. Most likely she’ll take whatever secrets she has to her grave.
Why doesn’t THIS surprise me at all coming from that crowd…
And of course as you point out they then cover themselves from having to prove anything:
Y’know… it these others are that far more powerful, wouldn’t they want THEM to be in charge, and not that weak loser they voted for?
Strictly at this point that would be if she’s going to be accused of that or be known as. And that ship already sailed. Even if what’s happening is honest to goodness “what I have is not something I can take to a court” she’s already cooked because people can’t believe it, or don’t care if it is so.
