Not necessarily because of the awful things in it (and they are horrid) but because they are dabbing on us.
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.
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”.
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”.
Thank you for your service, I guess :/
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.
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.
That’s kinda what I assume Naomi Campbell role was in all that. Though I have nothing to prove, just a suspicion. And I think it’s important to point out that one of the owners of the NYT has a home in stolen Palestinian land.
I simply don’t believe Epstein had some kind of cult leader-like charisma or he was some kind of wizard at getting access to children. I think in this case - Occam’s Razor is in play. I think quite a few (very) attractive women who had charisma and got girls to trust them funneled girls to Epstein. I wish the truth of all this would come out but it never will.
Who?
I don’t remember the specifics. Could be Thomas Friedman. I remember hearing it from Max Blumenthal first.
Google actually worked. I’m amazed.