WSJ is "zionist outlet" (whatever that means... _The Economist_ is apparently "Rothschild" per reply-guy on SN)

I’m not at all surprised a Zionist outlet is trying this line.

Undisciplined

The whole Epstein thing feels like one that is best ignored by the likes of us lowly stackers. Feels like there are wheels within wheels and trying to sort it out will half of the time get you into thinking the wrong thing and all the time leave you worse off than you were before...

...because even of the worst of these crimes are true, do we expect there to be any consequences? I certainly don't. The power structure in this country is such that we left consequences back with Nixon and Watergate (if we ever had them at all).

I don't believe most people are depraved fucks. But I'm also pretty naive.

Scoresby

 surrounding this debacle, whose interests stretch truth in what direction; no ability to make headway into understanding what Epstein was all about. (Frankly, I also don't 

So, being a responsible middle-of-the-road citizen, I just vaguely ignore the noise. Here' Barton Swain in the WSJ on this whole thing being overblown (or perhaps not, who knows)

Some of Epstein’s former pals, now protesting that their dealings with him were “limited”—word of the year—may have accepted carnal favors, though perhaps not criminal ones. Many only enjoyed the parties, business opportunities and social connections.

"There was, in the end, no sex-slave ring, no blackmail operation, no cameras recording dalliances for later use, no client list."

Just a deeply sick and rich predator with a few enablers.Yet there was a ring of sorts—a circle of well-connected, wealthy and politically liberal men who looked past Epstein’s taste in girls and remained on friendly terms with this charming, lavishly generous and intellectually conversant epicure. Revilers of Epstein’s pals draw a fine distinction between those who continued to associate with him after the ’08 conviction and those who didn’t. I’m not convinced that’s all-important.

Today’s liberals spend a lot of energy discoursing on the American right’s pathologies, often justly. But it ought to bother them that 20 years ago 

 [Trump] took a look at Jeffrey Epstein’s conduct and got the hell out of there.

https://archive.md/uY768

Politics_And_Law

I have no idea how to verify _anything_ surrounding this debacle, whose interests stretch truth in what direction; no ability to make headway into understanding what Epstein was all about. (Frankly, I also don't *care*.)

So, being a responsible middle-of-the-road citizen, I just vaguely ignore the noise. Here' Barton Swain in the WSJ on this whole thing being overblown (or perhaps not, who knows)

![](https://m.stacker.news/130070)

> Some of Epstein’s former pals, now protesting that their dealings with him were “limited”—word of the year—may have accepted carnal favors, though perhaps not criminal ones. Many only enjoyed the parties, business opportunities and social connections.

"There was, in the end, no sex-slave ring, no blackmail operation, no cameras recording dalliances for later use, no client list." 
---



> Just a deeply sick and rich predator with a few enablers. Yet there was a ring of sorts—a circle of well-connected, wealthy and politically liberal men who looked past Epstein’s taste in girls and remained on friendly terms with this charming, lavishly generous and intellectually conversant epicure. Revilers of Epstein’s pals draw a fine distinction between those who continued to associate with him after the ’08 conviction and those who didn’t. I’m not convinced that’s all-important.



> Today’s liberals spend a lot of energy discoursing on the American right’s pathologies, often justly. But it ought to bother them that 20 years ago **the man they loathe most** [Trump] took a look at Jeffrey Epstein’s conduct and got the hell out of there.

What do the _schtackers_ say?



---

archive: https://archive.md/uY768

"There was, in the end, no sex-slave ring, no blackmail operation, no cameras recording dalliances for later use, no client list.""There was, in the end, no sex-slave ring, no blackmail operation, no cameras recording dalliances for later use, no client list."