
Epstein Arrest Leaves Top Technology Figures Racing to Distance Themselves - AndrewBissell
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-31/jeffrey-epstein-arrest-spurs-tech-figures-to-distance-themselves
======
TheCapn
The one thing I sort of held as truth over my life about why international
grand conspiracies would never be "real" was that there's just too many
individuals involved to make a coverup possible. Surely there has to be _some_
individual with morals to leak necessary evidence to the media right?

The more that comes out about this Epstein case the more I question that
truth. I'm sure there are people on the inside looking to call out and reveal
things but if our sole source of coverage for these events are media companies
owned by the very people guilty of such high crimes then what do we do? Surely
the internet would enable these voices to come forward?

The whole thing seems so weird and like a fiction novel. I'd love to see those
horrible people charged for their crimes, but in the absolute bare minimum I'd
like to see how such criminal empires operate without notice.

~~~
paganel
One of the magazines that were indeed reporting on people like Epstein was
Gawker, it’s actually mentioned in the article. We all know what happened to
Gawker but people in the Valley are too afraid to speak up against pretty
despicable guys like Thiel.

~~~
tomp
What "people like Epstein" was Gawker reporting on? Unfortunately I only know
it from Theil-related stories, i.e. reporting that Theil is gay and the sex
tape issue (neither of which seem "Epstein-worthy").

~~~
paganel
Epstein himself, for once, and that would be enough. Also, one of their
magazines/websites was reporting on some crazy parties, travel-trips and
weddings carried out by SV owners, things that nowadays will definitely raise
a few eyebrows in terms of economic inequality and conspicuous consumption,
but those article were very badly received by the employees of those people
the articles were writing about (so including people on this website) so that
not a lot of tears were shed when Gawker went down.

I’m not equaling Marie Antoinette-way of living to the despicable things
Epstein did, I’m just saying that in today’s political climate it would have
been very interesting to still have access to articles detailing how the
Google or FB owners were throwing out their money.

~~~
tomp
I don't really see a difference between "these evil rich people are spending
money / living if ways that we don't approve" and "these evil rich people are
having sex in ways we don't approve" (i.e. _Thiel is gay!!!1_ ). Both are a
needless distraction from progress/living happily and encourage a hostile
political climate.

------
rdtsc
> An active host, Epstein arranged a dinner in the early 2000s at his Upper
> East Side townhouse for former President Clinton, a no-show, according to
> New York magazine.

It seems they are trying to distance Epstein from Bill Clinton. Bill flew to
the island a dozen times, Epstein's girlfriend came to Chelsea's wedding...
Ah! but Bill didn't show for a dinner once so he wasn't really connected with
Epstein that much? If the reporter just left that part out completely it might
have worked, but they are trying a little too hard. I bet there is a deeper
connection there.

The case, overall is just so strange. The plea deal he got before, his
attempted suicide in his cell after(!) filing an appeal to post bail.

Also, he went from stealing checks in the mail
[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6962478/parties/united-...](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6962478/parties/united-
states-v-epstein/) to owning private islands, 7500 acre range in New Mexico,
apartment in Paris, a Boeing 727, getting a multi-million dollar mansions for
$1 as a "gift". It's just unbelievable stuff.

~~~
microdrum
Clinton also went on Epstein's private jet 27 times. He is by far the most
connected to him.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/nyregion/bill-clinton-
jef...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/nyregion/bill-clinton-jeffrey-
epstein.html)

It's weird how many articles say that Epstein was connected to "Clinton and
Trump." No: he'd met Trump. He was _connected_ to Clinton.

~~~
rdtsc
> Clinton also went on Epstein's private jet 27 times

Wonder how many of those flights were to the infamous island...

I thought it was interesting to see if the reporter is somehow connected to
the Clintons. It seems she was at least viewed as being favorable towards
them:

(from [https://wikileaks.org/podesta-
emails/emailid/33810](https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/33810))

> \- Reuters (Sarah McBride) is writing what should be a positive story on our
> campaign's efforts to attract the backing of young tech entrepreneurs.

I guess the lesson for Brin, and others, is to "cultivate" a better
relationship with the journalists so they can insert lines like these in their
articles "there was this one time when Brin saw Epstein, but Sergey quickly
crossed the street and didn't even say hello".

------
binarymax
An independent activist journalist has been digging into the case and has come
up with some interesting and alarming connections and history. Worth a read:
[https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2019/07/08/the-jeffrey-
epstein...](https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2019/07/08/the-jeffrey-epstein-
rabbit-hole-goes-a-lot-deeper-than-you-think/)

~~~
bitxbitxbitcoin
I find it interesting that both the words independent and activist had to be
brought out to qualify the wonderful journalism from Michael Krieger. Wasn't
there a time when it was somewhat assumed that journalists were both
independent and activists to some extent?

Thanks for sharing the link!

~~~
IfOnlyYouKnew
Journalists at quality publications (Economist, NYT, AP) still are
independent, at least in the sense that they are not accepting bribes from
Epstein or the oil industry etc.

The linked site has all the markers of being untrustworthy: conspiratorial
headlines ending in "What's really going on"; A fascination with
cryptocurrencies; Incessant calls for donations, the name, etc.

FWIW the Epstein angle – that he is a Mossad agent – isn't "buried" by the
mainstream media. I have seen this theory mentioned. It is just not featured
prominently because there is no substantive evidence for it. It's just a Deus
Ex Machina that could conveniently explain the dereliction of duty of the
criminal justice system in the case.

Journalists never were supposed to be "activists", except for some universally
accepted concepts such as democracy and transparency. There is a memorable
scene in a documentation of the NYT called "Page One", where Brian Stelter is
filmed asking Assange if he considers himselself a journalist or an activist.

What has changed are the widely-shared "assumptions". It's become a marker of
one's smartitude to rail against "mainstream" journalism.

~~~
danenania
Every journalist is an activist for some point of view. An establishment-
friendly bias is just as much a bias as anti-establishment bias. There’s
nothing wrong with this—journalists are just people. But it’s dishonest to
pretend that your own bias doesn’t exist and you are doing ‘objective
journalism’ while other perspectives are ‘activist’.

An informed reader should understand the biases present in anything they read
and weigh the arguments accordingly—pretending objectivity discourages this
kind of responsibility and is very harmful to good-faith discourse.

~~~
chiefalchemist
Yes and no, but mostly no.

Every person who is a journalist has a bias. But the point of the
practice/process of journalism is to mitigate those personal influences.

Just because you're investigating and writing does mean you're a journalist.
Maybe you're doing glorified op-ed. Maybe you're being a wannabe reporter. But
being a journaliat is a higher level.

If you're not aware of the difference between op-ed, reporter, and journalism
then...you're not a journalist. One of the biggest communication problems we
have today is that too many assume they understand the definition of
journalism (and the processess and ethics on which its built), but they do
not. Yet they continue to use the word inappropriately. Others blindly follow.
And so on.

Long to short, people use "journalism" like they use "literally"; most of the
time in the wrong way at the wrong time.

~~~
danenania
I agree with the distinctions you make and that we shouldn't conflate
journalism with opinion pieces. I also agree that there are huge differences
in journalistic quality. But _anyone_ who considers themselves a journalist
and is operating in good faith is trying to determine and shed light on the
truth, and they will all bring their own subjective beliefs to bear on this
effort.

My point is that just alleging the presence of bias to call a piece 'not
journalism' is wrong because all journalism is biased in some way. It's a
dishonest tactic that boils down to an appeal to authority.

~~~
chiefalchemist
To clarify, I agree.

To further clarify, what you think I said is not what I said.

The practice of journalism will not eliminate bias. Nothing can. But it can
and should mitigate it. And if you're not trying to mitigate the biases, then
that's not journalism. To write shamelessly with bias is not journalism.

Long to short, there is a fair amount of publishing that gets called
journalism, but is actually op-ed. There's nothing wrong with that per se,
other than as journalism, it's fake news.

The Rachael Maddow Show is not journalism; and in that context/form she is not
a journalist.

Many of the Fox News Shows are not journalism.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

The problem is too many people treat them as news and they're op-ed.

Put another way, just because you agree with an opinion doesn't mean it's
journalism.

~~~
danenania
Obviously, but disagreeing with a journalist’s opinions also doesn’t make them
any less of a journalist if they are in fact doing journalism in good faith.

I don’t watch Fox so I can’t speak to any of their shows, but from what I’ve
seen of Maddow (admittedly not a lot), she is clearly doing at least some
amount of journalism in terms of seeking the truth, verifying sources and
facts, etc. Sure she also pushes her opinions and has an agenda, but I would
argue that this is orthogonal to her journalistic integrity, which I haven’t
really seen any reason to question. She is not trying to present opinions as
if they were facts—she just mixes the two in a single show. Of course she is
biased in what she chooses to cover, but again the point is that _everyone_
does that to some degree. Claiming you have ‘mitigated’ your unavoidable bias
is just an attempt to privilege your own perspective above others.

Like science, journalism is falsifiable. If you can point to specific errors
or falsehoods, you should do so. Otherwise you’re just dealing in innuendo.

------
cafard
Frankly, a number of them sound as if they are already distanced. "Talked to
the guy at a fundraiser" or "discussed investing" are pretty slim connections.

------
camjohnson26
According to the article the list of prominent tech figures who socialized
with Epstein includes:

Sergey Brin

Richard Branson

Jason Calacanis

Bill Gates

Reid Hoffman

Elon Musk

Nathan Myhrvold

Mark Zuckerberg

That’s an impressive list.

~~~
anbop
Bill Gates is not a nice person, but I will believe almost everything before
believing that he was raping underaged girls on a secret island.

~~~
AndrewBissell
Even if none of them were involved in Epstein's worst crimes, their
willingness to even give the time of day to a convicted sex trafficker reveals
a disgusting toleration for predatory behavior. The overall picture it paints
is, "hey, as long as he could buy his way out of any real trouble it's safe
for me to associate with him."

~~~
JudgeWapner
Is it not possible that some of them only knew him before his conviction?

------
lawlessone
Question to ask is why they're only distancing themselves now?

~~~
save_ferris
Probably because Epstein thought he was in the clear after his sweetheart non-
prosecution agreement.

Let's be very clear here: anyone trying to distance themselves from him now
isn't doing it out of principle, as numerous allegations against him have been
rumored for many years. They're doing it for self-preservation.

~~~
pessimizer
There weren't rumors, there were convictions, a jail sentence, and numerous
known victims.

------
subdane
Eyes Wide Shut [https://www.newsweek.com/eyes-wide-shut-missing-footage-
epst...](https://www.newsweek.com/eyes-wide-shut-missing-footage-epstein-
kubrick-death-1449108)

------
inflatableDodo
Well, at least the US has finally jailed him. Here in the UK they don't even
need to be billionaires to wield the kind of influence to escape the eye of
the law. Just be the guy that reads out this week's government approved list
of popular tunes, on behalf the state broadcaster, to get the full protection
of the state, media and police. Saville was openly fingering underage girls on
live primetime broadcasts of Top Of The Pops and nobody did a thing until
after he died.

------
gumby
It does seem likely that most of these contacts were trivial. Apart from the
headline names in this Bloomberg piece, he often courted notable scientists
who of course would respond as he funded research. 99% or even 100% of those
were equally innocent.

I have wondered how people with odd (or horrible in this case) fetishes that
are looked down upon manage to meet. I imagine the number of people involved
in the abuse must be pretty small.

------
reitanqild
Here's another similar story from Belgium (underage victims, blackmail etc):
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/05/dutroux.featur...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/05/dutroux.featuresreview)

Edit: warning, the story above had me crying on public transit. It is worth
knowing about but terribly terribly sad.

------
eternalny1
Anyone he blackmailed to make his millions should be distancing themselves.

------
fromthestart
Just want to point out that a lot of this information has long been known in
circles dismissed as conspiracy theory under the overly broad label
"pizzagate."

Suddenly the crazy connections among business magnates, past and present world
leaders, and pedophile rings is not so crazy.

~~~
khazhou
Pizzagate was fiction and was easily debunked. The fact that there are
actually bad people who do actual bad things doesn't suddenly validate made-up
stories.

~~~
drak0n1c
Of course Pizzagate was fiction. That's not the point the original comment was
making. The comment simply stated that unrelated events such as Epstein were
being unnecessarily lumped in with the "pizzagate" craziness in recent years
(caused both by feverish conspiracy theorists, and a reflexive dismissal by
the media) and due to that the broader topic of 'pedophilia among elites' was
ignored up until now.

------
yeehaw5002
top finance figures: "meh"

------
crb002
Why? Unless they were in on the shenanigans he was just a well connected
investor with lots of cash. Better taking his money for good than letting him
use it for bad.

~~~
pessimizer
I'm jealous of people who think that using money for themselves is synonymous
with using it for good.

~~~
itronitron
especially when they are creating wealth for the people they are taking money
from

