I'm reading "'Don’s Best Friend': How Epstein and Trump Bonded Over the Pursuit of Women/The president has tried to minimize their friendship, but documents and interviews reveal an intense and complicated relationship. Chasing women was a game of ego and dominance. Female bodies were currency" (NYT). That's in the middle of the NYT home page right now. I thought you should know. Trump chased women. And there's a concept — pushed by the NYT for political purposes — that chasing women can be a game of ego and dominance and that female bodies can be used as "currency."
A more interesting example of the NYT's Epstein journalism is this from a couple days ago: "What to Know About the Origins of Jeffrey Epstein’s Wealth/The sources of Epstein’s fortune have long been a source of speculation. Here are six takeaways from a Times investigation that found that he built it through scams, theft and lies." There's a comment over there that expresses my reaction to the story.... Oh! The comments section is gone! I'll get it from the Wayback Machine.... Oh! "Wayback Machine has not archived that URL." Well, I guess I could try to reconstruct it. The idea was that the article completely fails to explain how Epstein acquired his fortune. It identifies the steps and names the men who assisted him in making these inexplicable steps but gives no clue why those men were motivated to give him so much money and responsibility. It's not at all "What to know." It's very obvious that the reader is deprived of the main thing we want to know when we read the article.
Posts
82 comments:
As the source is the NYT, I’m waiting for the proof that any of this is true.
NYT has low regard for New York women. Do women in NY lack agency?
They really are determined to make something of this claim that there was an Epstein-Trump connection, aren't they?
Since the only actual evidence is that Trump and Epstein were both part of the New York high society party circuit so that there are a couple pictures of them in the same room, they have to get creative.
They just want to mention the two names together over and over. It is a propaganda technique used to associate two disparate things by intense repetition. What sticks out in sharp relief is the fact they are incurious about the mysteries surrounding Epstein. How he acquired money is just one aspect. That thread has yet to be pulled by the DNC Media and leads one to wonder why that dog won't bark.
There is zero evidence Epstein was Trump's "wing man" at all. If there was we would have heard about during the Autopen Admin when they were breaking every rule and law to get at Trump. By studiously avoiding the subject of Epstein's unearned wealth and the fact the DNC Media won't "go there" tells you progressive skeletons are in that closet and the NYT does NOT want to expose them.
Mr. Epstein was perhaps his most reliable wingman."
$1,000 says that The Times legal team insisted on the "perhaps."
I mean Eric Holder bragged about being Obama's "wingman" and there exist literally thousands of photos of them together. That's what a wing man does, stay alongside (or in formation) and work together. Where's the evidence they were inseparable?
I smell flop sweat. Far left flop sweat.
Still looking for that pony, I see.
Oh my God! I thought the liberals were the tolerant, sexy, fun-loving ones and the Republics were puritanical and straight-laced. It's now the opposite.
There is a great deal about Mr. Mossad that we're deprived from knowing.
Epstein collusion!
Dan Bongino, tired of covering for Epstein's wingman, resigns.
Now that I've given it more than a second's thought, I sort of agree with the NY Times. If you're going to sleep with so many women (children in Epstein's case), you should be quiet about it.
Adderall flop sweat evident in last night's rambling campaign stumble bum speech.
Trump is literally and figuratively Mossad's wingman. Coincidence?
What about when women use other women's bodies as currency, even their own daughters? Taking it further, Epstein wouldn't have been nearly so successful without his procuress Ghislane.
A chick is the best wingman.
Yes, I'm sure Trump "chased women". whether he had an "intense relationship" with Epstein in the 80s/90s is unclear. And their currency was "womens bodies". No, Sex was their "currency".
We already know that of the millions of documents released so far the biggest "bombshells" the DNC Media have ginned up were:
(1) a weird "birthday card" that is atypical of anything known to be written by Trump and not at all tied to Trump [since memory-holed by DNC Media cuz it didn't work]
(2) Three different sets of "Trump with women" photos that were all already in the public domain but which, for nefarious reasons, the DNC blacked out trying to smear Trump when the photos were of adult professional models or Epstein victims who have already vindicated Trump
(3) The Vanity Fair smear job for which Wiles [stupidly] provided quotes, which were then interpreted [in bad faith] as meaning there is "no evidence" Bill Clinton did anything at Pedophile Island despite being the most frequent flyer on Epstein Air other than Epstein's own lawyers and Bill Gates
Of course when you are a democrat the media will not dig, will not link, will not inform their readers if the "news" reflects poorly on Clintons or Obamas.
We all know the NYT's will lie and portray every Trump action and relationship in a negative light. And omit anything that makes Trump look good. Unfortunately, you'd need a "fact checker" to go through the entire article and separte lies from the truth.
And if Epstein and Trump were going out with women over 18, well isn't that normal?
NYT story about a republican = a lie. They have been doing that for decades, but now reliably and consistently so. There is literally nothing interesting the NYT can write about politics.
"...female bodies can be used as "currency."
I must be doing it wrong. It's worked just the opposite for me.
What the NYT is avoiding is the relationship the Clintons had with Epstein and Weinstein.
IRC, the only reason Epstein got "caught" was because the MSM and Democrats thought their was an Epstein-Trump connection. Finally, they had a scandal that would destroy Trump. Only they didn't. Epstein got sacrificed to get the great White Whale.
Wait till the NYT finds out Trump isn't running in 2028. Writers and editors will need to go back and change the names in all their prewritten articles for 2028.
The sex-centric relationship is interesting and important given both sexually abused women. But I’m sure Epstein never gave Trump a clue that he was trafficking girls for sex. Sort of like the casino scene in Casablanca
The AWFL wail must be fed.
Leland said...
What the NYT is avoiding is the relationship the Clintons had with Epstein and Weinstein.
How about the relationship Oprah had with Weinstein?
Weird, during those nearly two decades I don't recall the celebrity entertainment media catching on to how Trump and Epstein were each other's closest friends or even closest acquaintances, constantly together, on the prowl for poontang. How did they miss that? For nearly twenty years?
"The idea was that the article completely fails to explain how Epstein acquired his fortune. It identifies the steps and names the men who assisted him in making these inexplicable steps but gives no clue why those men were motivated to give him so much money and responsibility."
A walk down memory lane is always worth taking, but maybe Michael Wolff knows "why". He's the most recent person on record for giving Epstein free shit...his reasons ought to be quite 'fresh' in his mind so let's ask him.
I gave up on the article halfway through. Some friends and business associates of Jeffrey Epstein say that Trump and Epstein were close friends. These friends and associates don't want to reveal their names because they feel they might be unfairly persecuted by the Trump administration. If there's one thing we know about the friends, employees and business associates of Epstein it's that they've dedicated their lives to speaking the truth and we have no reason to doubt the veracity of any of their statements........I believe Trump was friendly with Epstein and probably talked with him about affairs of the heart or wherever, but it's a bit much to claim that they were BFF's. The Times explicitly states that there is no evidence that Trump in any way participated in Epstein's trafficking or went to that island, but they do state that he assaulted numerous women......I believe that Trump's pursuit of happiness was aggressive and he probably got handy with a few women, but he wasn't some borderline Jack the Ripper prowling the streets with Epstein......It seems to me that there were a number of important people whom Epstein was closer to, like, maybe, for example, Bill Clinton or Larry Summers. The Times' disinterest in these other luminaries is more informative than their reporting on Trump. Is the NYT part of the conspiracy. Did Bill Clinton and Larry Summers gang rape under age girls on Lolita Island and is the NYT covering up for these crimes Unless Bill Clinton explicitly denies these allegations, I think we're forced to believe them. Unless the NYT explicitly denies that they're covering up for Clinton's crimes, we must also believe the worst.
Trump, a Person of Orange, loves curvy, mature feminine females, with consent, sometimes just in parades. The deplorable transphobe is equitable, not equivocal, inclusive, not indifferent.
The idea was that the article completely fails to explain how Epstein acquired his fortune. It identifies the steps and names the men who assisted him in making these inexplicable steps but gives no clue why those men were motivated to give him so much money and responsibility.
That is because you can't put CIA or Mossad in that article.
A Person of Orange or PoO under the Diversity umbrella.
constantly together, on the prowl for poontang. How did they miss that? For nearly twenty years?
Even then, they wanted to avoid talking about Clinton doing exactly that. It was just back then, everyone would have asked why do they keep mentioning Trump, who is a private citizen, and not Clinton?
Howard said...
Trump is literally and figuratively Mossad's wingman. Coincidence?
The swamp is too deep for Trump.
We are just going to have to elect someone worse in 2028.
Trump chased women? I bet he didn’t have to run very far.
What part did the Times play curious
The Epstein scandal has #MeToo written all over it. Beware the tides of climate change, Democrats.
Leland said...
What the NYT is avoiding is the relationship the Clintons had with Epstein and Weinstein.
And the fact that Epstein was colluding with elected Democrats during the J6 show trials to get Trump.
Althouse has let her TDS and gullibility swamp her skepticism.
It all makes complete sense if for both Epstein and Trump you replace “New Yorker” with “Florida Man.”
Left Bank of the Charles said...
It all makes complete sense if for both Epstein and Trump you replace “New Yorker” with “Florida Man.”
It all makes sense if you are stupid.
I think it's significant that no former girl on Epstein's island has come forward with any stories of Clinton's or Summer's misbehavior on that island. This leads me to believe that they might have murdered those girls. Some reporter should ask them if they have murdered any of the women they had relations with. It's a fair question to ask. A fair, objective press should demand that Clinton prove that he didn't murder any of the women he had relations with. We know that--in Clinton's own words--there were hundreds. Why have none of these women come forward with their stories? Is Clinton perhaps the most prolific serial murderer of all time?
jim5301 said, "...sexually abused women."
I'm not even going to address blatant libel, but this question keeps getting asked and people keep dodging:
At what point beyond the age of majority is a woman sexually responsible for her preferences and actions? How many 18+ year old women not only want rich and powerful men to "grab them by the pussy", but encourage it ("because they let you do it")? When does doing everything in one's power to facilitate such a situation up to and including letting oneself be used by a madame become "abuse"? Where is the line between being a victim, doing everything functionally possible to make yourself one, and being a willing consenting adult begin and end?
Being clear, I'm not talking about underage here. When does grabbing a woman who wants to be grabbed regardless of where become abuse, and more importantly, what is the statute of limitations on what increasingly looks like revocable consent?
A plan[e] has two wings.
"Trump chased women? I bet he didn’t have to run very far."
Nut meets nutshell.
Modern women today are proving over and over and over again that they will happily whore themselves out to men like Donald Trump.
It was no different 20 years ago. If Trump put out an announcement that he needed a woman for sex at any time during these 20 years he would have thousands of women jumping up and down to be picked.
Feminists have to pretend that Trump raped women. They must pretend it with all of their heart because the real truth is that modern feminists and particularly Democrat Women regularly whore themselves out to men like Donald Trump to get ahead and they can't say the truth about Democrat women out loud.
You all voted for Bill Clinton for god's sake.
How many post adolescent males stand on the third leg of the liberal triad? Masculine males?
How many males and females without Diversity, Equivocation or Indifference receive continuous affirmative action?
The auto-pen giveth and The Wayback Machine taketh away.
RideSpace - a jury unanimously determined that he sexually abused Jean Carroll. But you apparently were there and can explain where they screwed up. Care to share?
The Epstein files must be a big flop if the NYT is already settling for a guilt by association based on unnamed sources strategy.
Epstein visited the Clinton White House more than a dozen times. Clinton flew on Epstein's plane more than a dozen times. Ghislane Maxwell went to Chelsea Clinton's wedding. Seems that might be an interesting backstory to investigate, huh NY Times?
Some context to keep in mind:
Women can only be victims or Superheroes.
NYeT is green with adolescent angst... gender dysphoria? There's an SNL skit that explains the balance of the sexes.
Believing Jean Carroll is like believing the little green men from Mars.
William there just might be a three-letter explanation for the lack of talk: NDA. (I have no knowledge and this is speculation.)
So the flamboyant real estate tycoon / reality TV star / casino magnate / billionaire needed Epstein as a 'wingman' to help him pick up chicks, because he's so shy and unsure of himself, and can't attract women. Got it.
A New York jury, showing remarkable and unexpected dedication to the rule of law, rejected the charge of rape but manfully did their duty, coming up with a lesser (though equally undemonstrated by the evidence) claim in order to Get Trump.
“Women can only be victims or superheroes”
Or CIA agents capable of taking down a roomful of 6 ft, 220 lb bad guys with their bare fists.
The NYT has enormous power. It uses that power to damage our nation.
We'll learn more on the first story if Trump's lawsuit against Murchoch does not go away.
Agree with Baghdadbob. NYT has spent the last several decades intentionally ignoring Epstein’s relationships with prominent Democrats. But now we’re supposed to care about this flaming pile of a smear job because it involves the bad orange man. GTFOH
That is because you can't put CIA or Mossad in that article.
There is not much doubt that Epstein was an intelligence community asset. It is easy to surmise that he made tons of blackmail money.
He also got a ton of money from Les Wexner for reasons that have never been explained.
Regarding Jean Carroll:
In 2019, Carroll posed for a cover of New York Magazine in the Donna Karan blazer dress that she claims she was assaulted in. Carroll claimed that the ‘event’ happened in 1994, and that she wore the Donna Karan dress on that day.
The problem is that New York Times Fact Checkers found the dress wasn’t even made by Donna Karan until long after 1994. She then conveniently moved the date of the incident to somewhere between late 1995 / early 1996.
Carroll made repeated public assertions that the dress she said she wore during the alleged encounter contained Trump's DNA. Testing ultimately found no sperm cells on the dress (but possible trace DNA from others — including one of the magazine cover’s photography people).
There is a total absence of physical proof for her story: no DNA evidence, no video footage, no eyewitnesses from a very public place, and no police report or investigation contemporary to the 1990s incident.
She later wrote a story for New York Magazine detailing all of the other men who have raped her in her life: https://www.thecut.com/article/donald-trump-assault-e-jean-carroll-other-hideous-men.html
At this point I am more inclined to believe that she was ravaged by the beast in “Morning Glory Milking Farm”.
Because the audience for her story and that book overlaps greatly. You could probably get that book for your own reading pleasure through Althouse's Amazon Portal.
I am Laslo.
Not surprisingly a NYT piece is full of empty calories--and not much real information--but boy howdy it's full of opinions.
Laso. So why did the jury conclude otherwise. Did the judge not allow in the information you cite? why not? Did Trump have a bad lawyer? Did you read the trial transcript? What about the many other women who said Trump assaulted them?
I assume you believe all the women who accused Clinton of sexual abuse and none who accused Trump. But I’m sure that has absolutely nothing to do with your politics
Me, I think the evidence is pretty clear that both Clinton and Trump abused women over the years.
What they really want but can't find...'attracted to men.'
jim5301: said: “So why did the jury conclude otherwise?”
For many of the same reasons OJ’s jury found him “Not Guilty”: they made a decision based on their pre-determined opinions of the man, in conjunction with their own subjective personal sense of right-and-wrong — the legal facts of the case itself had little to do with it.
If you can go along with convicting someone when a date of the crime cannot even be provided for a defendant to defend against, that is on you.
If you choose to believe the Carrolls and the Blasey-Fords of the world, that is on you.
Like I suggested earlier: go get your copy of “Morning Glory Milking Farm” — you evidently don’t mind being milked.
I am Laslo.
RideSpaceMountain’s link to the article by a journalist who called people in Epstein’s address book is interesting, and explains why the book hasn’t been released. Epstein collected people and he put everyone in his book he ever met.
Allegedly wexner laundered cleveland mob money
The contention of bob fitrakis fwiw
The swamp is cold and deep
Did the author really do any research for the article? Epstein was nobody during the 70s and into the 80s. It's not likely that he and Trump crossed paths then. After that, you'd have to correlate the time Trump was on the prowl with the time he was in contact with Epstein. Didn't they both have other responsibilities that would have limited the time that could have been spent tomcatting.
A wingman is like a vice president. It has to be somebody who isn't serious competition and somebody who will take direction. If Trump wanted a wingman, he probably had plenty of options. Was Epstein really the most reliable?
Do we really know what Trump and Epstein talked about? Was it exclusively sex? If it was, how did that differ from the conversations John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush had with their cronies?
60 Minutes's Mike Wallace asked [Vernon Jordan], 'What do you and Bill Clinton talk about on the golf course?' and Jordan answered, 'Pússy.
According to Kelley, a journalist once asked George W what he had just been talking about with his father. "Pússy," he replied.)
Kitty Kelley isn't a reliable source, but still, it's not beyond belief.
Desperate Times, desperate measures!
There is suspicion that Epstein helped the Maxwells hide the money they embezzled. Beyond that, will we ever really know just why Wexner and Bronfman and Black and Staley trusted Epstein so much? Did anyone seriously think that we would find out? It's as unlikely as finding out all of Epstein's intelligence service connections and activities were.
Jimmy Numbers: “So why did the jury conclude otherwise?”
Were you alive during that time? Were you in a coma?
Did the judge not allow in the information you cite?
The judge not only gave a poor set of instructions on the options for conviction, but after the jury specifically rejected convicting on the charge of rape; the judge later claimed that Trump was found guilty of rape. The case should be tossed by the Supreme Court.
A former coworker, 20-something son of the chairman, was Trump's NYC wingman during 80s. Have photos. Felt like I was experiencing Trump in virtual reality.
RideSpace - a jury unanimously determined that he sexually abused Jean Carroll. But you apparently were there and can explain where they screwed up.
It takes an extremely stupid person - and that includes every person involved in that bullshit case - to think Donald Trump (a high-profile celebrity for decades) can just wander into a high-end department store and sexually abuse some bimbostein in a dressing room.
The guy had an entourage everywhere he went, and yet he manages to busy without anybody noticing?
Grow a brain.
"this question keeps getting asked and people keep dodging: At what point beyond the age of majority is a woman sexually responsible for her preferences and actions?"
Before history rolls over it, I would just like to point out that this question remains unanswered...again.
Steve Sailer did a bit of a deep dive into the question of how Epstein got his money (his Substack, mostly behind a paywall, offered FWIW). My thumbnail summary of what Sailer wrote is
1) Epstein was reasonable intelligent but equally likely to be high in the Dark Triad traits, and fundamentally lazy.
2) He used #1 along with some fortunate introductions in the NYC financial community to ingratiate himself with folks who liked to run counter to the Ivy League MBAs, positioning himself (kinda like Trump) as a hungry Outer Borough scrapper willing to skirt the lines to make a buck.
3) He developed a talent for a grift that involved convincing rich guys with mediocre social skills that they were being ripped off by the current folks managing their money (see #1 and #2). Since it's highly likely that you can find some moderately to highly shady deals happening (or at least some transactions you can spin that way) he was often able to become a 'fixer' for these guys (and in the process, start ripping them off for real). He really hit it big with Wexner who eventually let him manage a huge percentage of his portfolio. Before that he was more of a ham-and-egger.
TLA involvement? Sailer thinks probably not, at least not anything direct.
This deep dive from Shipwreckedcrew (his Substack, public post) pretty much demolishes two favorite conspiracy theories
1) that AUSA Alex Acosta dropped the Federal charges because Epstein was 'intelligence', despite what he claims he was told.
2) that Epstein was pimping for a network of rich pedos
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.