politics

Yep. I have to add that David Brooks is not the only one at NYT doing their best to tamp down not just what will affect those in public office right now, but the many more not in office who were either directly involved with Jeffrey Epstein's financial and recreational interests and happy to go along with it, or obviously blackmailed by their complicity in it.

For example, yesterday NYT published this long expose called Scams, Schemes, Ruthless Cons: The Untold Story of How Jeffrey Epstein Got Rich (here's an archive link) but for as deep as they insist they delved into it, they completely avoided Epstein's time at Dalton (the school where he was hired by Bill Barr's father to teach as a very young man and from where he was brought into Bear Stearns, an almost impossible leap for anyone else as unconnected as Epstein was at the time, as a man in his early 20s just out of school himself) and elided ANY mention of the vast troves of photos, films, and other material Epstein historically collected on everyone who entered his personal residences, not just the island but in NYC and Paris, etc.

Instead, the authors maintain that he was just a thief, and only stole and conned his victims throughout, painting picture after picture of wealthy "dupes" and "victims" of Epstein's financial crimes. Throughout they use the refrain "inexplicable" and the like when the very rich victims of Epstein's financial crimes realize and even speak publicly of their huge losses, but somehow never, not once, bring themselves to report these massive and provable thefts to law enforcement, and only rarely even take him to court to try to recoup some of these losses.

In the case of a select few like Les Wexner, it's tens and possibly hundreds of millions they allege Epstein stole.

Yet we are to believe it's only theft, nothing more, Epstein was just that charming, and that all these very rich men who will sue anyone else at the drop of a hat all just shut up and stand back when Jeffrey Epstein steals their money. According to NYT, it's a total mystery.

Yeah, no. For anyone who's been paying attention, these omissions were glaringly obvious.

And to make it even more ridiculous, when the authors were called out in the comments, they "explain" that Epstein's financial victims did not want to be involved in lengthy court cases . . . even though they are all high-dollar people who are already involved in lengthy litigation, and often of their own making.

It's not just this expose, it's a current that runs through all NYT reporting on Epstein. They NEVER mention Epstein's death without the word "suicide" very firmly attached to it, and they've always swerved pretty widely around anything that directly points to blackmail, but yesterday's magnum opus obviously dedicated to making readers believe he was a thief and only a thief makes me think it's a directive there now.

One thing about the NYT it's good to remember is that while they do not make up facts, they absolutely can and do omit relevant facts when it suits them. New York City is a city of billionaires; it's where Epstein played and many of these rich "victims of only theft" reside. It's not a far stretch to think that NYT has interests other than pure reporting at play in their editorial decision making about Jeffrey Epstein.