Like, let’s just step back and review what we’ve just witnessed. Damning and viral evidence ofremoved and abuse of little girls by presidents and the most publicly famous people on Earth. The democrats wanted the release of the files and now that they have them, there’s no response because they forgot they are weak and pathetic, and beholden to these same people in the files. So nothing will be done. These people are committing the most taboo of crimes in the open, with impunity.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I assumed the article would be bad but the NYT surprised me. On a scale of 1 to 10 - I rate it a zero.

The article is fucking awful and it beggars belief. I only managed to read about a couple thousand words but I was already highly annoyed and irritated. I'm shocked at how awful it is. Besides it being garbage - they blindside the reader with a gigantic mass of information, details, and names. You'd need a flowchart to keep track and it would still be a gigantic slog to follow their ever meandering narrative.

What's fascinating and notable is that they don't say there was no evidence of a blackmail operation. They make it seem that any pooh-pooh any reasonable guess about Epstein's wealth is being a "conspiracy theory".

Abundant conspiracy theories hold that Epstein worked for spy services or ran a lucrative blackmail operation, but we found a more prosaic explanation for how he built a fortune.

The NYT actually pretends Epstein became a billionaire because he had "many extraordinarily lucky breaks" and that he was "a prodigious manipulator, liar, and scammer".

[–] DaMummy@hexbear.net 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Thank you for your service, I guess :/

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 1 points 17 minutes ago

It's hours later and I'm *still mad. Yeesh - what a garbage media outlet.

And I now assume the reporters surely made a fundamental error in their reportage and their lack of skepticism went way beyond Epstein. Did they not think "Gee, how did Epstein human traffic girls to be sexually abused across borders? Who might have helped him? And how might they have helped him? I guess we can never know!"

A horrible person might have friends who have no idea how grotesque he is. But others surely went way beyond being helpful to being just as evil.

Epstein was about to meet someone who would usher him into even more elite circles while also playing a central role in his darkest crimes. His nearly decadelong romance with Eva Andersson [a model and former Miss Sweden] came to an end around 1990. In Epstein’s telling, the split was the result of a mutual realization that his future did not include “staying in one place and having a family.” The two remained close until Epstein’s death.

Did the reporters not consider that she might be the sort of evil human being who helped him? Could she have been directly involved? How could she remain "close" to him even after he was found guilty of sex crimes? Cltr-f for "Andersson" only gave three results. I don't know if the article actually explains her "playing a central role in his darkest crimes". Could she have been a recruiter.