Why were they hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein after he pleaded guilty to trafficking minors?
Tiana Lowe Doescher
Video Embed
Of all the questions that remain about the sordid saga of Jeffrey Epstein, the one that really tests the public imagination is not whether or not the convicted sex trafficker actually killed himself. It’s not the scope of his prostitution ring, or even how he managed to remain in polite society for decades. The most inexplicable part is why senior government officials, ranging from treasury secretaries to CIA directors, in addition to big business bosses and celebrities, continued to consider Epstein such crucial company even after he pleaded guilty to sex trafficking minors.
Nearly four years after Epstein killed himself (maybe), the Wall Street Journal is unearthing explosive scoops about not just the convicted pimp but also his surviving sidekicks. In a series of exposes, the newspaper found long after Epstein scored his 2008 sweetheart deal for soliciting prostitution from an underage girl, the failed financier continued to socialize with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Bard College President Leon Botstein, CIA Director William Burns, Obama White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, Larry Summers, Woody Allen, and Reid Hoffman.
STEVEN CROWDER DID THIS TO HIMSELF
Recall that when Epstein was convicted as a part of his nonprosecution agreement, the contents of the charges were public knowledge. Nobody was under the impression he was just running afoul of tax law, or even that he had hired a hooker at least 18 years old. Everybody knew that one of his rape victims was 14.
And yet, all these C-suite bosses, government officials, and celebrities still hung out with the guy, and as the Wall Street Journal notes, in person. So why the hell would they?
Allen, I get. Regardless of whether you believe Dylan Farrow’s claims that Allen sexually abused her as a toddler, the director is proudly married to the woman who used to be his stepdaughter. But for the rest of the bunch to make sense, you have to believe their ridiculous claims that they simply admired Epstein’s business acumen and checkbook.
“Their interactions primarily focused on global economic issues,” said a spokesman for Summers in response to the Wall Street Journal’s request for comment. A spokesman for Ruemmler struck a similar note, claiming that her relationship was “professional,” as Epstein simply introduced prospective clients to her.
“The director did not know anything about him, other than that he was introduced as an expert in the financial services sector and offered general advice on transition to the private sector,” a CIA spokesman said while defending Burns.
Despite Epstein’s close association with Harvard, his contact with Summers included, Epstein never attended the university. In fact, he never obtained a college degree. While conning his way into teaching at Dalton — in a not at all creepy coincidence, he was hired by the father of former Attorney General Bill Barr — Epstein conned his way into a job at Bear Stearns, where he was fired after just five years. That was Epstein’s entire professional resume prior to launching his own financial consulting firm, which, to this day, remains a mystery of accounting and possible law-breaking.
What would a former treasury secretary have to talk about “global economic issues” with a college dropout? Why would an attorney who counted Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton as clients need help from a convicted rapist to find new business? And why the hell would the director of the most influential spy agency in human history require “general advice on transition to the private sector” from someone who had never worked a day for the government, federal or otherwise?
It’s not as though all these industry experts were hanging out with a guy who might have made his entire fortune extorting actual billionaires. It’s that the unqualified con man in question also publicly confessed to raping a middle school-aged girl.
So why? The Wall Street Journal only continues to give us more questions surrounding this greater conundrum, rather than answers.