Master List: Epstein Confidantes and Consequences

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except, nobody cares. Old news.

Wasn’t it once the role of the most noble among us to look upon those who had been cast aside by society and welcome them into fellowship and reformation?

Obviously Epstein had issues and the government failed in their duty, but to cancel everyone who ever associated with the man is insanity. I don’t cancel the people in my family who are affiliated with people convicted any crime. If I came across a childhood friend convicted of murder (I have a few to be honest), I’d like to think I wouldn’t just cast them aside or refuse to speak with them. I certainly wouldn’t deem anyone who soaks with them later in life as worthy of cancellation.

This nonsense has gone too far.

It’s not about “cancelling” everyone but people taking responsibility for lapses of judgement and morality. Ignoring is endorsing.

New poster. I am all for going after the co-consirators to the full extent of the law. Anyone who was participated by procuring victims or abusing them, whatever party, should rot in jail. Anyone who knew about it and looked the other way should face legal consequences.

But putting someone who invited the guy to a wedding or even academics who kept up friendships with seedy people because the stupid system requires them to raise their own money is wrong. Utterly wrong. For one thing, if they didn't know what was happening, they in no way broke the law. And morally, these groups have nothing to do with one another.

Look, if I had invited someone to my wedding who later turned out to be a convicted sex offender I would be reviewing why I invited that person and how my judgment could have been so wrong. Maybe they tricked me. Maybe someone else I trusted asked me to extend the invitation. Maybe because it was expected due to the circles I ran in. But, I would be questioning myself.

Similarly if I am a university President doing fundraising. If I was trading chatty emails with a convicted sex offender. If I do him a favor and let someone into my university. I would be questioning myself.

Etc etc.

If the folks connected to this web who may not have done anything wrong themselves don’t take a good hard look at how they got tangled up and how thy can change things in the future we will have learned nothing as a society.

These folks - if they did nothing wrong - should let be fired. But I don’t see what is wrong with them standing up and saying they unwitting normalized the situation and they will endeavor to be more discerning going forward.

The longer they are silent the poorer I view their judgement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except, nobody cares. Old news.

Wasn’t it once the role of the most noble among us to look upon those who had been cast aside by society and welcome them into fellowship and reformation?

Obviously Epstein had issues and the government failed in their duty, but to cancel everyone who ever associated with the man is insanity. I don’t cancel the people in my family who are affiliated with people convicted any crime. If I came across a childhood friend convicted of murder (I have a few to be honest), I’d like to think I wouldn’t just cast them aside or refuse to speak with them. I certainly wouldn’t deem anyone who soaks with them later in life as worthy of cancellation.

This nonsense has gone too far.

It’s not about “cancelling” everyone but people taking responsibility for lapses of judgement and morality. Ignoring is endorsing.

New poster. I am all for going after the co-consirators to the full extent of the law. Anyone who was participated by procuring victims or abusing them, whatever party, should rot in jail. Anyone who knew about it and looked the other way should face legal consequences.

But putting someone who invited the guy to a wedding or even academics who kept up friendships with seedy people because the stupid system requires them to raise their own money is wrong. Utterly wrong. For one thing, if they didn't know what was happening, they in no way broke the law. And morally, these groups have nothing to do with one another.

How do you not understand that the Clintons et al reputation laundered Maxwell and Epstein, thus permitting the pedophilic abuses, money laundering, arms trading? That’s how it works! The alternative is condoning, formally okaying, a world that is scaffolded by sex abuse of the most vulnerable. It is NOT okay and NOT right and it just reinforces the idea that Chelsea Clinton was a person to be treasured and loved, and Virginia Giuffre was a soulless it to be raped til she bled. That is quite literally what you’re saying. Be ashamed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except, nobody cares. Old news.

Wasn’t it once the role of the most noble among us to look upon those who had been cast aside by society and welcome them into fellowship and reformation?

Obviously Epstein had issues and the government failed in their duty, but to cancel everyone who ever associated with the man is insanity. I don’t cancel the people in my family who are affiliated with people convicted any crime. If I came across a childhood friend convicted of murder (I have a few to be honest), I’d like to think I wouldn’t just cast them aside or refuse to speak with them. I certainly wouldn’t deem anyone who soaks with them later in life as worthy of cancellation.

This nonsense has gone too far.

It’s not about “cancelling” everyone but people taking responsibility for lapses of judgement and morality. Ignoring is endorsing.

New poster. I am all for going after the co-consirators to the full extent of the law. Anyone who was participated by procuring victims or abusing them, whatever party, should rot in jail. Anyone who knew about it and looked the other way should face legal consequences.

But putting someone who invited the guy to a wedding or even academics who kept up friendships with seedy people because the stupid system requires them to raise their own money is wrong. Utterly wrong. For one thing, if they didn't know what was happening, they in no way broke the law. And morally, these groups have nothing to do with one another.

Wow, could not disagree more!

1. Epstein was convicted of soliciting a minor in 2008. Anyone who communicated with him after this point knew, at the very least, that he was into young prostitutes. Do YOU “innocently” have any close friends who are into young prostitutes, pp?

Also, these are people with wealth, connections, and time. You think they just innocently don’t happen to know the reputation of someone like Epstein? Really?

2. If you reap enormous money and social status from working within our “stupid system,” instead of working to change it, then yeah, your reputation should take a huge hit when one of your friends and benefactors is the biggest human trafficker in US history. Thems the breaks! Sorry if that seems “unfair” to you.

3. Plenty of people blew Epstein off or declined to associate with him PRECISELY because of his reputation which was WELL KNOWN in these circles. You’re not hearing about them because they accomplished their mission of not being caught up in this mess, but one example would be the CEO of Hermes, who Epstein reached out to over and over again and who blew Epstein off every time because he KNEW he was a seedy, creepy guy. See how he protected his brand, his company, and his own personal reputation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except, nobody cares. Old news.

Wasn’t it once the role of the most noble among us to look upon those who had been cast aside by society and welcome them into fellowship and reformation?

Obviously Epstein had issues and the government failed in their duty, but to cancel everyone who ever associated with the man is insanity. I don’t cancel the people in my family who are affiliated with people convicted any crime. If I came across a childhood friend convicted of murder (I have a few to be honest), I’d like to think I wouldn’t just cast them aside or refuse to speak with them. I certainly wouldn’t deem anyone who soaks with them later in life as worthy of cancellation.

This nonsense has gone too far.

It’s not about “cancelling” everyone but people taking responsibility for lapses of judgement and morality. Ignoring is endorsing.

New poster. I am all for going after the co-consirators to the full extent of the law. Anyone who was participated by procuring victims or abusing them, whatever party, should rot in jail. Anyone who knew about it and looked the other way should face legal consequences.

But putting someone who invited the guy to a wedding or even academics who kept up friendships with seedy people because the stupid system requires them to raise their own money is wrong. Utterly wrong. For one thing, if they didn't know what was happening, they in no way broke the law. And morally, these groups have nothing to do with one another.

Wow, could not disagree more!

1. Epstein was convicted of soliciting a minor in 2008. Anyone who communicated with him after this point knew, at the very least, that he was into young prostitutes. Do YOU “innocently” have any close friends who are into young prostitutes, pp?

Also, these are people with wealth, connections, and time. You think they just innocently don’t happen to know the reputation of someone like Epstein? Really?

2. If you reap enormous money and social status from working within our “stupid system,” instead of working to change it, then yeah, your reputation should take a huge hit when one of your friends and benefactors is the biggest human trafficker in US history. Thems the breaks! Sorry if that seems “unfair” to you.

3. Plenty of people blew Epstein off or declined to associate with him PRECISELY because of his reputation which was WELL KNOWN in these circles. You’re not hearing about them because they accomplished their mission of not being caught up in this mess, but one example would be the CEO of Hermes, who Epstein reached out to over and over again and who blew Epstein off every time because he KNEW he was a seedy, creepy guy. See how he protected his brand, his company, and his own personal reputation?

I posted two above you and agree. Norm Finkelstein also fit into category 3 and called out Epstein, Dershowitz, and Harvard’s Pinker is saying NO to an invitation to meet with Epstein, citing the sex abuse explicitly, in 2015.

Everyone knew. They KNEW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except, nobody cares. Old news.

Wasn’t it once the role of the most noble among us to look upon those who had been cast aside by society and welcome them into fellowship and reformation?

Obviously Epstein had issues and the government failed in their duty, but to cancel everyone who ever associated with the man is insanity. I don’t cancel the people in my family who are affiliated with people convicted any crime. If I came across a childhood friend convicted of murder (I have a few to be honest), I’d like to think I wouldn’t just cast them aside or refuse to speak with them. I certainly wouldn’t deem anyone who soaks with them later in life as worthy of cancellation.

This nonsense has gone too far.

It’s not about “cancelling” everyone but people taking responsibility for lapses of judgement and morality. Ignoring is endorsing.

New poster. I am all for going after the co-consirators to the full extent of the law. Anyone who was participated by procuring victims or abusing them, whatever party, should rot in jail. Anyone who knew about it and looked the other way should face legal consequences.

But putting someone who invited the guy to a wedding or even academics who kept up friendships with seedy people because the stupid system requires them to raise their own money is wrong. Utterly wrong. For one thing, if they didn't know what was happening, they in no way broke the law. And morally, these groups have nothing to do with one another.

Double standard much. Listen to all of the liberals all the sudden making up excuses for their Harvard alum and trying to use it as an issue to push their almost unrelated agenda. I say almost unrelated, because Epstein's agenda was clearly to take advantage of immigrants in an international sex trafficking ring.

So yeah, lets vote in more pro-sex-trafficking liberals, because they raped the girls.

Nah, I want to see these people with their social double standards crushed in the polls. I don't care if they sucked billionaires lollipops.

I don’t know how much of a sucker you have to be to make this about “liberal” vs. “conservative.” This is about the Epstein class- people who spanned all political affiliations from Noam Chomsky to freaking Kenn Starr. This is about a club of people in power who make a big show about politics to divide little people like you but who ultimately see you as fat, subhuman scum.

Don’t believe me? Look at Kathy’s emails about driving through New Jersey and seeing the fat normies at the rest stop and being sooo happy she’s not one of them.

That’s you, pp. You’re the fat Normie, and everyone from Trump to Kathy to Howard Lutnick to the Clintons thinks so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Except, nobody cares. Old news.

I don’t understand how anyone can say this. It is irrefutable that there is an international child trafficking ring. How can you possibly say that nobody cares? If you don’t care, then there is something deeply wrong with you. Seriously. If you want this to go away in order to protect your favorite politician, then you are actually a deeply disturbed individual. This should not be political. Every one of these MFers needs to be brought to justice. Their politics is the least of our concerns. Get help.

[Anonymous]

I agree this is not about conservatives or liberals or Dem or GOP. This is about people with mistaken moral compasses and/or bad judgment and/or who committed actual crimes themselves who were (and some still are) able to hold positions of power and influence.

For example, Bannon who can give advice and “media training” to Epstein privately while rallying to “disclose the files” to whip votes for Trump (ie Bannon).

Or Kathy who made fun of people who are overweight while accepting expensive gifts to “trick” herself out from “uncle Jeff”.

There are people who should be held to account and lose their position of power.

And also those people who put them in those positions should question themselves and their own judgement.

Take Larry Summers as another example. Remember his juvenile emails about adultery from the last batch of release. Several Presidential admins looked to him for economic advice (some of which in the rear view mirror was a mistake). Shouldn’t they be questioning themselves about their judgement listening to him? And shouldn’t Harvard question their judgement about letting him interact with students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except, nobody cares. Old news.

Wasn’t it once the role of the most noble among us to look upon those who had been cast aside by society and welcome them into fellowship and reformation?

Obviously Epstein had issues and the government failed in their duty, but to cancel everyone who ever associated with the man is insanity. I don’t cancel the people in my family who are affiliated with people convicted any crime. If I came across a childhood friend convicted of murder (I have a few to be honest), I’d like to think I wouldn’t just cast them aside or refuse to speak with them. I certainly wouldn’t deem anyone who soaks with them later in life as worthy of cancellation.

This nonsense has gone too far.

It’s not about “cancelling” everyone but people taking responsibility for lapses of judgement and morality. Ignoring is endorsing.

New poster. I am all for going after the co-consirators to the full extent of the law. Anyone who was participated by procuring victims or abusing them, whatever party, should rot in jail. Anyone who knew about it and looked the other way should face legal consequences.

But putting someone who invited the guy to a wedding or even academics who kept up friendships with seedy people because the stupid system requires them to raise their own money is wrong. Utterly wrong. For one thing, if they didn't know what was happening, they in no way broke the law. And morally, these groups have nothing to do with one another.

Do you think that the President of Bard College knew or should have known what Epstein was doing, based on what's in the files? https://www.thedailycatch.org/articles/epstein-used-botstein-and-his-prestige-and-connections-to-recruit-and-support-one-of-his-victims-a-violinist-from-europe/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except, nobody cares. Old news.

Wasn’t it once the role of the most noble among us to look upon those who had been cast aside by society and welcome them into fellowship and reformation?

Obviously Epstein had issues and the government failed in their duty, but to cancel everyone who ever associated with the man is insanity. I don’t cancel the people in my family who are affiliated with people convicted any crime. If I came across a childhood friend convicted of murder (I have a few to be honest), I’d like to think I wouldn’t just cast them aside or refuse to speak with them. I certainly wouldn’t deem anyone who soaks with them later in life as worthy of cancellation.

This nonsense has gone too far.

It’s not about “cancelling” everyone but people taking responsibility for lapses of judgement and morality. Ignoring is endorsing.

New poster. I am all for going after the co-consirators to the full extent of the law. Anyone who was participated by procuring victims or abusing them, whatever party, should rot in jail. Anyone who knew about it and looked the other way should face legal consequences.

But putting someone who invited the guy to a wedding or even academics who kept up friendships with seedy people because the stupid system requires them to raise their own money is wrong. Utterly wrong. For one thing, if they didn't know what was happening, they in no way broke the law. And morally, these groups have nothing to do with one another.

Double standard much. Listen to all of the liberals all the sudden making up excuses for their Harvard alum and trying to use it as an issue to push their almost unrelated agenda. I say almost unrelated, because Epstein's agenda was clearly to take advantage of immigrants in an international sex trafficking ring.

So yeah, lets vote in more pro-sex-trafficking liberals, because they raped the girls.

Nah, I want to see these people with their social double standards crushed in the polls. I don't care if they sucked billionaires lollipops.

I don’t know how much of a sucker you have to be to make this about “liberal” vs. “conservative.” This is about the Epstein class- people who spanned all political affiliations from Noam Chomsky to freaking Kenn Starr. This is about a club of people in power who make a big show about politics to divide little people like you but who ultimately see you as fat, subhuman scum.

Don’t believe me? Look at Kathy’s emails about driving through New Jersey and seeing the fat normies at the rest stop and being sooo happy she’s not one of them.

That’s you, pp. You’re the fat Normie, and everyone from Trump to Kathy to Howard Lutnick to the Clintons thinks so.

I'm just tied of so many of the political posters on this board that think that Epstein somehow reifies their world view and want to capitalize on it politically, when it's really their social system that is the problem.

[Anonymous]

You think people didn’t know? These are small circles. Everyone knew. Just like with Weinstein and Diddy. They heard the whispers. They willfully ignored it because it benefited them and they thought they could claim reasonable deniability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Casey Wasserman. Founder of the Wasserman group sports and talent agency. Head of the LA Olympic organizing committee.

Said to be selling his agency but LA is keeping him for the Olympic Committee.

If only American athletes would refuse to participate until he’s out.

Chappel Roan broke her contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except, nobody cares. Old news.

Wasn’t it once the role of the most noble among us to look upon those who had been cast aside by society and welcome them into fellowship and reformation?

Obviously Epstein had issues and the government failed in their duty, but to cancel everyone who ever associated with the man is insanity. I don’t cancel the people in my family who are affiliated with people convicted any crime. If I came across a childhood friend convicted of murder (I have a few to be honest), I’d like to think I wouldn’t just cast them aside or refuse to speak with them. I certainly wouldn’t deem anyone who soaks with them later in life as worthy of cancellation.

This nonsense has gone too far.

You are the company you keep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Casey Wasserman. Founder of the Wasserman group sports and talent agency. Head of the LA Olympic organizing committee.

Said to be selling his agency but LA is keeping him for the Olympic Committee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except, nobody cares. Old news.

Wasn’t it once the role of the most noble among us to look upon those who had been cast aside by society and welcome them into fellowship and reformation?

Obviously Epstein had issues and the government failed in their duty, but to cancel everyone who ever associated with the man is insanity. I don’t cancel the people in my family who are affiliated with people convicted any crime. If I came across a childhood friend convicted of murder (I have a few to be honest), I’d like to think I wouldn’t just cast them aside or refuse to speak with them. I certainly wouldn’t deem anyone who soaks with them later in life as worthy of cancellation.

This nonsense has gone too far.

It’s not about “cancelling” everyone but people taking responsibility for lapses of judgement and morality. Ignoring is endorsing.

New poster. I am all for going after the co-consirators to the full extent of the law. Anyone who was participated by procuring victims or abusing them, whatever party, should rot in jail. Anyone who knew about it and looked the other way should face legal consequences.

But putting someone who invited the guy to a wedding or even academics who kept up friendships with seedy people because the stupid system requires them to raise their own money is wrong. Utterly wrong. For one thing, if they didn't know what was happening, they in no way broke the law. And morally, these groups have nothing to do with one another.

My question about the wedding is, wouldn't the Secret Service have done a background check on the guest list?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flavio Briatore, from F1 racing world, no consequences I know about

Naomi Campbell, in photos with child victims more than once

Naomi is a provider and procured and accepted blood diamonds and war loot. Her dead friend Annabelle Neilson (“Ladies of London,” aristocratic background, addiction problems) is in the emails stating directly that she arranged for girls to come to Epstein parties.

Campbell has been tied up in extremely sketchy circles for decades. She even had to testify in a War Crimes Tribunal.