The article also makes it abundantly clear that a blind eye was turned to Epstein at multiple levels by multiple people and agencies, effectively as a matter of policy. It’s a “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” sort of thing. And both orangeboi and Bill Clinton are mentioned numerous times. I’m sure there are more, but that’s just from a quick glance.
So yeah, we’re probably gonna start another war as a distraction from this specific article 🫠
1 Comments
ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 23d
This is an excellent read, thank you for posting it. I was especially struck by the younger photo of Maria Farmer (about two-thirds down the page) and how in this one, taken in 1996, she looks like she could be Virginia Giuffre's twin.
I was also not impressed by the efforts to discredit the survivors: seems like every single person on the pedo side that was contacted by VF took a small detail, held it up, called it false, and then just left it there as though that would in itself discredit whatever the survivor said, like Morgan Fairchild insisting there was no radiator in Epstein's office or the circle jerk over the actual property line on Les Wexner's Ohio estate.
Yeah, no. They do that for the specific reason that these small details are often what make something provable, and even liars will often embellish a lie with elaborate details, but knowing a survivor myself and having seen directly how this kind of memory recall works, discrediting a single detail out of many tells me someone is very personally invested in discrediting the survivor. And then the question becomes: why?
And you can see it too. If you go back and read it carefully, the people responding on the pedo side are not actually calling the survivors liars. For example, Morgan Fairchild is not actually saying she was never in Epstein's office. Les Wexner's wife is not actually saying that Maria Farmer was never there. They can't, because they have no idea at all what evidence is still out there that could emerge and prove them liars. So they're just casting shade where they can, hoping some of it will stick as the rest of us bystanders skim through it.
But think about it. When was the last time you needed to personally discredit someone by not directly denying anything they said, but you want to make the speaker less-than-believable in any way you can, so you over-scrutinize one small detail of their recollection? Probably the last time you directly and knowingly associated with a rich pedo and now the heat is on you too, lol.
Anyway, someone I know is subscribed to VF which is how I have access; I don't know how hard it is for those who are not subbed to get the article, but if anyone needs it here is an archive link. There are known problems with the site but somehow it still has the content when no other archive site does, so use it at your own discretion.