741–750 of 770 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm talking about Epstein's 2008 conviction after the in-all-likelihood corrupt plea deal, not his pending 2019 trial.
He wasn’t even charged with trafficking in 2008. Can’t believe I’m getting downvoted.
To the members of the MIT community,
After recent events centered on the Media Lab, I know there is a tremendous sense of pain, sadness and disappointment across campus and throughout our global community. We all want answers.
For now, I write to share two important updates. Last Saturday, we retained the law firm Goodwin Procter to perform a thorough investigation of the facts surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s interactions with MIT. This work has already begun. We have asked the firm to explore all donations received by MIT, both those that came directly from Jeffrey Epstein and his associated foundations, and any donations that may have been received at the direction of Jeffrey Epstein. In addition, the investigation will cover who at MIT may have been aware of the donations. We have instructed Goodwin Procter to follow the evidence where it leads, and we are counting on this independent investigation to ascertain the facts. As I noted on Saturday, the firm will report back to me and to the Executive Committee of the MIT Corporation, MIT’s governing board.
If you have information relevant to the investigation that you would like to share with the law firm, please email REDACTED.
To be thorough, such an investigation will take time, on the order of a month. Although media reports will continue to focus on the issues during this time, I am hopeful that the MIT community will avoid forming a final judgment before the process is complete and will respect the privacy of members of our community who may have become involved in this matter in the course of doing their jobs for MIT.
Once we have the results, and once our separate internal review of our current processes on gift acceptance is complete, we will be able to understand what happened and what needs to change. Supporting the members of the Media Lab must now be at the center of our attention. The Provost has asked the Dean of the School of Architecture and Planning to work with the Media Lab community on interim leadership for the lab and a search for the next director. The interim plan will be finalized shortly, and we will share the news as soon as possible, along with other plans to support the lab community. I know this is a difficult and disorienting moment. But I have profound faith in the MIT community to learn from these events and find a constructive way forward.
Sincerely,
L. Rafael Reif
This is gossip, but it’s well founded gossip as I am one or two hops away from him. Epstein was very upfront with the people he worked what that he liked “young woman” while giving them money and invited them to his parties etc. I think it was his way to enmesh them and make them unwitting partners in his systemic abuse. Most people just went along, and were eventually given a massage from a child at his behest to fu…
I thought you were going to mention that comment about Trump saying that Epstein liked "his girls on the younger side". I think what's interesting is the ethical dilemma here. You have 1000s of people around you. No one is saying anything. Then they offer you money. Do you take it? Everyone else is? Then the counter to this is that of the 1000s of people that come crashing down why is it just Joi Ito and a few others…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is, for so many reasons, important to have people of diverse backgrounds and experiences around, in positions of authority, at all levels. Just not for this one particular reason of sniffing out predators. You're being hyperspecific here with your disagreement. I think if start enumerating them, you'll find almost all of those advantages you believe in are isomorphic to "different perspectives prevent groupthink…
I think you're oversimplifying. You're seeing a single example of a woman standing up here and extrapolating that it was because she was a woman, and assuming that no men were willing to do the same. It's not like she was the only woman to ever come close to his sphere of activity. Also there were plenty of men involved in both the first and second investigations that didn't buy into his schtick, even if his power an…
No, I'm taking an illustrative (and, frankly, really apt) example as a way to show readers here (who like you aren't generally very receptive to feminist arguments) the power of "diversity" in a way that makes immediate sense.
I'm certainly not saying that no straight man could possibly have been offended by Epstein. But, just as a matter of historical fact, most of his marks were fine with him, and they were AFAIK exclusively straight men.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/50295603@N02/48589712471/ https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/10/487685.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original New Yorker article says he was blacklisted after his 2008 felony conviction. I've been told that the CRM software used by university development offices is pretty phenomenal. It was hinted to me that it automatically annotates donor records with SEC stock transaction disclosures, and I wouldn't be surprised if it also annotates donor records with public criminal court proceedings.
>It was hinted to me that it automatically annotates donor records with SEC stock transaction disclosures I assume this is so they can hit you up for money right after you sell a bunch of stock? Clever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You started with conflating whatever happened to Epstein with felon disenfranchisement I have articulated a justification for that comparison. You making an actual point would be referencing that justification and attempting to debunk it. That's how you make actual points. > Somewhere in the middle you made up a definition of 'ostracism'. I made one up? MIT refusing to accept donations from someone is not my defini…
It is the definition of ostracism. No. Not even close. I left you a lengthy comment about this to which you did not respond. I have articulated You're making excuses for a child rapist. Over and over and over. Again, what the fuck, man? Once again, I'm asking you this directly.
I responded now. I simply hadn't seen it.
> You're making excuses for a child rapist. Over and over and over. Again, what the fuck, man? Once again, I'm asking you this directly.
I'm not sure why you insist on misreading me. I'm not making excuses for a child rapist. I'm not excusing Epstein's behavior. I'm excusing Ito's behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you assuming any of the guests knew they were underage as opposed to just young? Why are you assuming that the guests in general knew they were there there for any other reason than the waitstaff at hooters is there for? -- To host the event and be attractive. If things were as you seem to imagine them, why are the victims who have come forward not even alleging that?
>If things were as you seem to imagine them, why are the victims who have come forward not even alleging that? Why are they not alleging what ?
One of epstein's victims said that they were directed to offer Minsky sex ( https://twitter.com/_cryptome_/status/1159946492871938048 ... and yes, I did indeed look before sharing the link to Benford's comment, did you look before spreading defamatory conjecture? ). That's it, wrt Minsky. They didn't say they did offer it (though a third party did). They didn't say they had sex with minsky. They didn't say Minsky or other guests knew they were underage, or that minsky knew they were involved in prostitution.
Beyond repeated proximity to epstein there has been no specific allegation of wrongdoing by Minsky that I've seen, but there seems to be plenty in the imaginations of the posters here.
Maybe it turns out those things happened but if they had you would expect them to have been mentioned in the allegations. Maybe they'll be alleged later-- nothing wrong with that. Until they're at least alleged, however, I think it's pretty absurd, and frankly extremely unethical, to just assume them out of absolutely nothing. Hell, if there was a victim saying "Minsky was a really bad man" I would have said nothing about the further speculation, it's only the utterly reckless outright fabrication from peoples perverted imaginations that I thought deserved any rebuke.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If things were as you seem to imagine them, why are the victims who have come forward not even alleging that? Why are they not alleging what ?
They aren't alleging anything accused here. One of epstein's victims said that they were directed to offer Minsky sex ( https://twitter.com/_cryptome_/status/1159946492871938048 ... and yes, I did indeed look before sharing the link to Benford's comment, did you look before spreading defamatory conjecture? ). That's it, wrt Minsky. They didn't say they did offer it (though a third party did). They didn't say they had…
I would certainly agree if a potential victim of Minskky made a single twitter post claiming she had been "directed to have sex with Minsky" would look like some very misleading innuendo without actual claim of what happened subsequently.
However this is not what happened, you blindly follow Benford's conclusion, who is in turn citing the NYT, who is in turn summarizing an unsealed deposition. An unsealed incomplete deposition I should add, assuming the NYT isn't seeing the same incomplete deposition I am seeing. The choice of wording only appears suspicious because it is ripped out of context.
People like you are triggered by the seemingly suspicious choice of words "told to have sex", correct?
Did you or did you not before reading this comment actually even try to locate such a deposition? I don't know.
Part of me thinks you did, because you seem absolutely certain she only claimed to have been directed to offer Minsky sex. "That's it" in your words. How are you so certain? Do you have access to the complete depositions? If so, please share.
On the other hand, I think you didn't try to locate and read the depositions, because then you would have realized 1) there is nothing suspicious at all about the choice of words and 2) that in all likelihood, probably such a thing did happen.
Let me clarify 1) and 2), but first let me point out that incomplete depositions can be had at cryptome:
https://cryptome.org/2019/08/giuffre-maxwell-275-287.zip
Let me clarify 1) the circulated choice of wording "directed / told to have sex". This is a case between Giuffre vs. Maxwell, so obviously a lot of emphasis is placed on Maxwell's role in the underage prostitution scandal. Testimony needs to establish the facts that Maxwell directed these children as a third party to have sex with clients or targets. If the testimony merely said the child had sex with Minsky, then it would inaccurately leave out the fact that this was under Maxwell's (and indirectly Epstein's) direction. That's it. Your whole weird-phrasing-must-be-a-form-of-insincerity theory rests on the simple fact that her testimony is being ripped out of context (namely court proceedings in a case between Giuffre vs Maxwell.
2) regarding whether it did or did not happen
In the zip, go read pdf pages [144-149], note that those boundaries correspond to jumps in the deposition pages 128->203 and 208->247 so they are incomplete (as nearly all depositions in this dump). If you have the complete depositions, again, please share.
EDIT: a question to anyone who knows: I know the PDF file format allows for previous versions of a document to be contained within the PDF stream, but I am not sure how to extract or revover these, the reason I ask is because the file sizes are far from proportional to page numbers, so if anyone knows how to inspect this let me know.
The file sizes in kiB :
324 giuffre-275.pdf
468 giuffre-276.pdf
204 giuffre-277.pdf
121256 giuffre-278.pdf
448 giuffre-279.pdf
4744 giuffre-280.pdf
2784 giuffre-281.pdf
104 giuffre-282.pdf
190888 giuffre-283.pdf
508 giuffre-284.pdf
236 giuffre-285.pdf
932 giuffre-286.pdf
10648 giuffre-287.pdfEarlier quoted context omitted.
People are complicated. It’s entirely possible that Epstein was simultaneously involved in child sex trafficking and also genuinely wanted to donate to research initiatives he considered important. People can be pretty horrible on aggregate and still have a few good intentions left.
or perhaps the much simpler explanation that it was hush money / hush salary for victim(s) studying, PhD studying or working at Media Lab. What Ito received for himself was hush money to shut up about the hush money... so why would a smart person like Gates voluntarily pay someone else's hush money? why are we holding Gates (sponsoring his behaviour) to a lower standard than Ito (passing on hush money) if my hypothes…