this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2026
11 points (67.7% liked)
The Epstein Files
785 readers
361 users here now
We keep track of the release of the files, but also to explore what’s already available, and why – with enough exposure – this could bring the man down, and who knows even his regime or the empire.
Our Rules
(Subject to Change)
- Be kind: keep it civil and amicable. The enemy is not in this community but in Palaces, The White House and penthouses.
- Trigger Warnings: required. Mark posts which may be triggering to read or see for victims of sexual abuse with "[TW]" in front of your post title. If you're posting an image or video with explicit thumbnail, you will have to set the entire post as NSFW AND include the TW.
- Cite sources: preferably direct link to the article/pdf and or an archive link in case there is a paywalled. In the article find a relevant few paragraphs and quote them in your post.
Our Justice System
- First offence: warning + 2 day ban
- Second offence: 7 day ban
- Third offence: permanent ban from community
- Creating multiple accounts to interact with this community: permanent ban for all accounts in community + report to your instance admin.
This community is run by volunteers so please don't test the justice system, as with all justice systems it is critically underfunded.
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Someone communicating with Epstein does not automatically make them an abuser. I'm sure you've probably communicated with pedophiles before, whether you knew it or not.
I think this is very intentional. Basically epstein wanted to get anyone of any fame in his sphere. He would then sorta feel them out. Oh hey this girl loves massage and is a great at massage. She would love to massage your feet. Initially is young but legal women but slowly make "conversation" and innuendo and see who goes into the inner circle. Read the stuff with the MIT professor that caused such a hubbub with stallman defending him. He was invited to this island paradise and he figured cool then you see he got really wierded out and got out of there. When it comes to epstein its going to come down to how long did they stick around. Was their meetings all one of party type things or did they regularly hang out with their friend. Did they communicate with him in wierd coded sounded messaging where they all seem to talk about the same innoucuous foods and drink or whatever. Its not hard but he definately created a lot of fog around his endeavour.
I don't understand what Epstein's intentions have to do with Groening's alleged involvement.
Because he cast a wide net intentionally to obfuscate his activity. There are those who accepted an invitiation to this guy who throws great parties and knows a lot of people so you can make great connections. Then there are those who use wierd insider language in communications while regularly going to his much smaller and less public events. This is why I laid out how you know who is someone who met him and who is someone who is in the cabal. Epstein biggest mistake is inviting someone in who would go on the howard stern show and answer a question about how young is to young and answer 12.
Again, don't know what any of this has to do with Groening, specifically.
I guess as much as this article. No its not time to cancel groening because nothing indicates he was deep in with epstein.
Understanding the mechanisms and dynamics of the system Epstein created is essential in seperating the idiots, from the criminals, from the pedos.
I understand the mechanisms and dynamics. What does any of that have to do with Groening?
With working out which one he is based off the evidence. You need context for evidence to make sense
You need evidence to allege wrongdoing. You have none.
You seem to be approaching this from the point of view that every person Epstein ever met knew and supported what he was doing. Why?
This is the same argument used to say not all cops are bad.
Turns out if you're not one of the bad ones you're at complicit in hiding the bad ones. Same applies here.
Not at all the same thing. Cops are complicit because they know what other cops are doing. We don't know what Matt was doing. You don't know what anyone you talk to is doing. Until you do, it makes absolutely no sense to hate them or you would hate absolutely everyone.
Not hate, but I do dislike most people.
I think it would be naive to believe that someone corresponded with Epstein and had no idea what they were doing. Even if they didn't partake.
Also what allegiance do you owe Matt Groening? I see no reason to defend another rich asshole.
Based on what? Did you correspond with him?
My only allegiance is to rational thought processes.
You seem to be approaching this from the point of view that every person Epstein ever met knew and supported what he was doing. Why?
It does read that way from my comment.
In this case I'm saying Groening had more than a couple interactions (see the guiffre stuff mentioned on this thread)
Sure just meeting the guy or talking once doesnt make you complicit, but a corresponding with might.
Might is the keyword here I think. A decade ago I had a couple coworkers I knew for a few years, talked video games with them all the time. One day the subject of Trump came up and I, for the first time, discovered they were rabid Trump supporters, never talked to them again.
I imagine there were many people in his orbit with no knowledge or interest in what he was doing, the sheer volume of people he associated with would make that a far likelier scenario. Until something directly tying him to actual allegations or evidence comes out his name in the files means very little to me.