111–120 of 770 posts
Playing devil’s advocate here: Accepting tainted money as charity is not the problem. Promoting the donors, giving them prestige, contacts, access or some other benefits as a result of donations is the problem.
Good. These were in no way innocent ties. He knew who Epstein was and misled people. Ito could be on the hook for civil fraud. The elements of fraud are: a purposeful misrepresentation of a fact with knowledge that it is false to a victim who justifiably relies on the misrepresentation who suffers actual loss as a result.
Edit: Removing my comment after reading the detailed New Yorker article linked from The NY Times.
> Joi shouldn’t be hung for giving someone the benefit of doubt. Epstein had already been convicted and banned from MIT donations. In a position of leadership you are responsible to keep a healthy and safe workplace. That’s part of the job of running a lab. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, you should not be in a leadership role.
>Mr. Ito has been a board member of The New York Times Company since 2012. The company did not immediately comment on Mr. Ito’s decision to leave M.I.T. This is the 7th paragraph in the story. Shouldn't it be higher up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't just assume where the money comes from.
There is precisely zero need for assumption here. The only way Epstein's behavior could have been more in the open is if he were advertising screenings of the "home movies" he made with these girls. When you continue to associate with that guy, you're saying, "People who do that are okay with us." That's normalization. Especially when, say, your day job is as the head of a pretty damned prestigious institution like J…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.” That same future president being quoted in an article about Epstein in 2002.
Great! Now do the one about Bill Clinton taking 27 flights on the Lolita Express! Or the one about Trump banning Epstein from Mar-a-Lago in 2008 when he started to suspect...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Leaving aside this particular situation... Many philanthropists will say "I wish to donate $X", and then ask a friend/group/organization, "Where would you like me to donate this?", hence a "directed donation".
Gates is denying Epstein was involved in this donation at all, despite the emails. Plus, Gates was well aware how unsavery Epstein was given his insistence the donation be made anonymously. Doesn't add up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't just assume where the money comes from.
There is precisely zero need for assumption here. The only way Epstein's behavior could have been more in the open is if he were advertising screenings of the "home movies" he made with these girls. When you continue to associate with that guy, you're saying, "People who do that are okay with us." That's normalization. Especially when, say, your day job is as the head of a pretty damned prestigious institution like J…
Thats for the police to figure out.
I disagree, even if its proven he did it, taking money and hanging out with child trafficker doesn't mean one condone the practice of the trafficking itself.
> I don't get it. This is one of those things where somebody noticed that things just didn't seem right and the proper response to that is to raise concern and ask questions. Sorry, but a 60-something "finance" guy with an entourage of teen models doesn't add up. Sure some of these people have trophy wives half their age, and it raises eyebrows, but this is far beyond that and totally unacceptable once somebody looks…
> Sorry, but a 60-something "finance" guy with an entourage of teen models doesn't add up. The only problematic thing here is the age of those models. Otherwise, rich people like that are often surrounded with girls of questionable morals and intentions, who do stuff and in return get stuff (some would call it prostitution, some would imply that prostitution had an agreement done in advance...). In some poorer countr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't figure out why anybody would think Epstein's previous criminal conviction was irrelevant to the matter of Epstein's reputation. I'm trying to assume good faith, but it's not easy.
Not everyone works from the same knowledge base. OP could have heard about Epstein in passing, per se, and not known about his extensive criminal history or previous arrest/trial. I only know about these things from Reddit posters and not much else. There is probably a whole host of information you and I do not know about him; it's important to be aware of your blind spots but also the blind spots of others.
