how can someone even send so many emails
Inside Epstein’s network: what 1.4M emails reveal
101–110 of 163 posts
Re: Inside Epstein’s network: what 1.4M emails reveal
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spot on. Unclear why this is being down voted. Underneath everything related to this "administration" is the implied threat of violence.
Because it's based on no evidence, and framed to imply a government official openly breaking the law is somehow the victim here (The files are already meant to be released by law, many of the redactions are illegal). If Bondi doesn't want to execute the duties of the office she can resign.
> If Bondi doesn't want to execute the duties of the office she can resign.
This is an incredibly naive view of a world in which people get blackmailed and murdered all the time at the whims of extremely powerful people.
It is very strange that you can't imagine a situation where someone is forced to play a role.
Re: Inside Epstein’s network: what 1.4M emails reveal
#103Jack Blanchard in the Politico podcast (almost as good as Odd Lots if you're fine with listening to stuff at 2x speed on commutes) remarked that one of the most important aspects of the response to the publicization of the first 2% of the Epstein Files is that it may be a watershed moment where the better parts of citizen journalism have become completely competitive with institutional journalism, due heavily to the…
Institutional journalism has done everything in its power to kill this story for 7 years. You don't need a fast turnaround time when the fourth estate is also busy protecting the wealthy. Note how we have all the goods on Matt Gaetz and everyone just conveniently forgot about him because daddy knows who to buy off. DOJ has all the time to pursue rinky dink charges against Letitia James for what would be at best a los…
Journalists have been on it from a long time ago. It's a Florida journalist who managed to 'get' Epstein.
The issue is that the line between 'opinionist' and 'reporter' journalists is blurred, while the difference between an investigative journalist and reporter journalist grow. I think it's due to a bigger personification of reporters (they are now filmed doing stuff, involving themselves instead of listening and taking notes/pictures in the background). The profession is split in two. And for sure, on part of the split seems to have sided with opinionist (mostly in televised media. Somehow written journalism is still good)
Re: Inside Epstein’s network: what 1.4M emails reveal
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a factual statement that email exists. If it is true or not is another thing. I don’t think it’s controversial to say someone with a history of pedophilia (yes a grown 38 yo man 17yo highschooler is pedophile) being mentioned a the island should at least step back and investigate it.
[flagged]
In my European country, the age of consent it 15 (or 13?), but it is also in the law that if the adult have a hierarchical/coercive power on the minor (parent, teacher, public servant, host/landlord, boss, probably other), the consent is automatically removed and this is pedophilia. It is the same in Spain, and I'd bet in Portugal.
The age of consent being this low is to avoid prosecuting 15-20 yo having sex with each other. Not for gross old men to coerce minors into having sex with them.
Why does minority/majority matter? Minors are considered inferior to majors. They can't vote, and can't decide most of their life by themselves (loans, bank account...). We consider it 'normal' for them to get yield at/beaten by their parents (and once upon a time, teachers). The _minimum_ society can do to make up for them is protecting them as much as it can. And that means protecting them from predators like Epstein or even Seinfeld.
Re: Inside Epstein’s network: what 1.4M emails reveal
#105Jack Blanchard in the Politico podcast (almost as good as Odd Lots if you're fine with listening to stuff at 2x speed on commutes) remarked that one of the most important aspects of the response to the publicization of the first 2% of the Epstein Files is that it may be a watershed moment where the better parts of citizen journalism have become completely competitive with institutional journalism, due heavily to the…
The amount of breathless conclusion jumping from citizen journalists has been completely bananas as well. I had to tell a friend of mine to take a break from it. The level of tinfoil hat theories (example: cannibalism) which people are now taking as the truth off of which to build more theories is really something. The unfortunate thing is - in our current environment, the crazy speculation and knowingly dealing in j…
Yes, and... the 330 gallons of sulphuric acid did come as a surprise to me.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15545409/330-gallon...
Half of the files were released, and instead of the congress mandated removal of victim names, perpetrators were blanked out.
Re: Inside Epstein’s network: what 1.4M emails reveal
#106Not a single mention of Trump. Really fucking impressive journalism.
This article is not about who was mentioned in the files or emails, but who was sending and receiving emails. Even then, it limits itself to only the top email senders and receipients. Trump might be mentioned often in the emails, but if he is not among the top couple of hundred senders/receivers of emails, then he’s not going to be mentioned in this article.
You'd think the guy that appears >1M times in the files would at least have its existence acknowledged in any article about who was in Epstein's sphere.
Re: Inside Epstein’s network: what 1.4M emails reveal
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article is not about who was mentioned in the files or emails, but who was sending and receiving emails. Even then, it limits itself to only the top email senders and receipients. Trump might be mentioned often in the emails, but if he is not among the top couple of hundred senders/receivers of emails, then he’s not going to be mentioned in this article.
You'd think the guy that appears >1M times in the files would at least have its existence acknowledged in any article about who was in Epstein's sphere.
...and he is mentioned in those articles. Regularly. This analysis is about the people Epstein emailed most, however, so Trump doesn't make the cut.
Re: Inside Epstein’s network: what 1.4M emails reveal
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Snopes confirms this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bondi-epstein-files-system... But everyone knows Snopes is leftist propaganda, so it's probably false. /s
It is amazing that this has to be confirmed on a website... Wouldn't there be a clip of her saying it? No one has even bothered to spend the 25 cents on an AI generated one as far as I've seen.
> It is amazing that this has to be confirmed on a website...
I think it has a lot of memetic power because it’s plausible given the other things she’s said, like trying to deflect to economic “success” by pointing out the DOW ~is~ was over 50,000.
It also doesn’t need to be an attributed quote in order to reflect the countering sentiment: “Yes, prosecute those in the Epstein files no matter the geopolitical and economic cost.”
It also has a certain whiney, servile tone to it that makes it just annoying enough to trigger the leftist “ick” instinct.
Idk, I hope the 50,000 dol- meme picks up and people stop spreading this fabricated quote.
Re: Inside Epstein’s network: what 1.4M emails reveal
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Respectfully, you also said that "we now know " that taking the COVID19 vaccine could have killed you earlier today, which is completely false. I don't think you are getting your news from reliable sources, and I see this comment as further evidence of that. I'm sure there's lots of information on 4chan about the identity of mass shooters, and that some of it is accurate, but most of it is probably wild speculation,…
[flagged]
Re: Inside Epstein’s network: what 1.4M emails reveal
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
There is a book “Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible” which you might want to consider before deciding truth doesn’t matter anymore. It describes an explicit strategy by the Kremlin to poison the information landscape with lies, half truths, and conspiracies. And amplify conflicting narratives. Eventually people stop caring about what is true anymore.
> It describes an explicit strategy by the Kremlin to poison the information landscape with lies, half truths, and conspiracies. And amplify conflicting narratives.
For someone who wants an intro to the subject, this 2016 paper by RAND is pretty good; 'The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model':
> The experimental psychology literature suggests that, all other things being equal, messages received in greater volume and from more sources will be more persuasive. Quantity does indeed have a quality all its own. High volume can deliver other benefits that are relevant in the Russian propaganda context. First, high volume can consume the attention and other available bandwidth of potential audiences, drowning out competing messages. Second, high volume can overwhelm competing messages in a flood of disagreement. Third, multiple channels increase the chances that target audiences are exposed to the message. Fourth, receiving a message via multiple modes and from multiple sources increases the message's perceived credibility, especially if a disseminating source is one with which an audience member identifies.
* https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html
See also Steve Bannon's 'flood the zone' technique:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_the_zone
Bannon seems to have connections with Epstein (who is may have links to Russia):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon#Connection_to_Jef...