I have no idea how to verify anything surrounding this debacle, whose interests stretch truth in what direction; no ability to make headway into understanding what Epstein was all about. (Frankly, I also don't care.)

So, being a responsible middle-of-the-road citizen, I just vaguely ignore the noise. Here' Barton Swain in the WSJ on this whole thing being overblown (or perhaps not, who knows)

Some of Epstein’s former pals, now protesting that their dealings with him were “limited”—word of the year—may have accepted carnal favors, though perhaps not criminal ones. Many only enjoyed the parties, business opportunities and social connections.

"There was, in the end, no sex-slave ring, no blackmail operation, no cameras recording dalliances for later use, no client list.""There was, in the end, no sex-slave ring, no blackmail operation, no cameras recording dalliances for later use, no client list."

Just a deeply sick and rich predator with a few enablers. Yet there was a ring of sorts—a circle of well-connected, wealthy and politically liberal men who looked past Epstein’s taste in girls and remained on friendly terms with this charming, lavishly generous and intellectually conversant epicure. Revilers of Epstein’s pals draw a fine distinction between those who continued to associate with him after the ’08 conviction and those who didn’t. I’m not convinced that’s all-important.

Today’s liberals spend a lot of energy discoursing on the American right’s pathologies, often justly. But it ought to bother them that 20 years ago the man they loathe most [Trump] took a look at Jeffrey Epstein’s conduct and got the hell out of there.

What do the schtackers say?

archive: https://archive.md/uY768