Well people are posting Epstein stuff on hodge podge. Seems an odd place to post when there’s an Epstein topic. It would seem all things Epstein should be in one place.
Some Epstein comments are political. Those go on the political forum.
5 Likes
well then many already existing on this thread should go there is my point.
Putting them on hodge podge seems silly.
Not all of us want to join the political forum, but maybe we do want to discuss Epstein as a topic about privilege and power and abuse. People can police themselves and not go political on here but can let loose where it’s allowed.
9 Likes
@Youdon_tsay - exactly!
The Daily Beast has a good podcast today, discussing a German prof on MIT’s faculty, whose salary Epstein substantially augmented. Epstein asked “What to people think of me?” In an email exchange. The prof basically said, “that you’re a pedophile” (I am oversimplifying the exchange).
The point being: all these people who knew Epstein but claimed they had no idea of his proclivities are not being truthful.
6 Likes
If nothing else, it highlights the dysfunctional ecosystem of private university research funding. There was a similar article from a Stanford European academic who said he accepted Epstein’s benefaction with personal reservations, but accepted it anyway because he wanted to continue his research.
Tell me again why weird pedophiles should be the ones investing in breakthrough scientific research instead of, say, our federal government?
We have abdicated so much responsibility as a nation under the guise of philanthropy (which often ends up being no more than a tax loophole). There are other ways to do this.
11 Likes
Nah, no more than discussions of the admissions experiences of the HS Class of 2026 should be all in one place—there are very very good reasons for having separate parents and students threads.
The PF and OF moderators have discussed this concern, and it is our opinion that non-political discussions about this topic can take place here in the Open Forum (OF), as this issue should transcend politics and partisanship. Moving this discussion to the PF would shut out several active participants who do not wish to join the PF.
The majority of comments in this thread have been non-political, demonstrating that posters understand what is appropriate in this thread.
Keep in mind that posting news and information about how the White House or Congress are handling the situation is acceptable and consistent with our new rules regarding discussion of such topics in the OF. Where it crosses the line is when posters provide political opinions about the administration or other officials. Occasional posts that cross the line into politics can be flagged for moderator attention.
Thank you.
9 Likes
I hope they can quickly subpoena her again as an individual. Can you imagine if people didn’t have to answer about things they knew or did in a job just because they no longer held that job.
2 Likes
2 Likes
I think they can but she may claim immunity of some subjects since she was acting as a lawyer and some things may be privileged. The privilege continues after the attorney client relationship ends.
I have read numerous articles from legal experts who say that the DOJ is wrong. The person was subpoenaed for what she knew. It’s not the job that received the subpoena.
5 Likes
Any guesses why Melania Trump had a press conference today asking congress to interview the victims in the Epstein case?
Very interesting
Good for her but quite interesting
4 Likes
I hope I’m not treading into political waters, but the attorney general shouldn’t be able to claim attorney-client confidentiality—-they are the “people’s” lawyer, not the president’s personal lawyer.
The attorney general works (or in this case, past tense worked) for us–the American people, not the POTUS.
10 Likes
That’s not political; that’s fact. Stating a fact shouldn’t be political.
I think she is trying to get ahead of something big about to drop.
7 Likes
Yes, and the privilege belongs to the client, so who, as the people, has the authority to waive it? Is it the current AG (or acting AG)? Until it is properly waived, the attorney (Bondi) can’t violate it.
I think she has to show up for the subpoena, but then can’t reveal anything (strategy, content of documents) until she gets a client waiver.
One can only hope something big is about to drop.
4 Likes