Showing posts with label Jeffrey Epstein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeffrey Epstein. Show all posts

Monday, February 23, 2026

Verse of the Day (W. H. Auden and Christopher Isherwood, on a Long-Kept Secret)

“At last the secret is out,
as it always must come in the end,
the delicious story is ripe to tell
to tell to the intimate friend;
over the tea-cups and into the square
the tongues has its desire;
still waters run deep, my dear,
there's never smoke without fire.”— English-born American poet, critic and playwright W. H. Auden (1907-1973) and Anglo-American novelist, playwright, screenwriter, memoirist, and diarist Christopher Isherwood (1904-1986), The Ascent of F6: A Tragedy in Two Acts (1936)
 
Well, in the case of The Person Formerly Known as Prince Andrew, Duke of York, that would be secrets, plural. And they are probably not all out, but so many have emerged about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that he has been stripped of his royal title and, as of last week, arrested on “suspicion of misconduct while in office.”
 
Before his (since terminated) marriage, this ex-royal enjoyed something of a reputation on Fleet Street of what might be called in the British Isles “a bit of a lad.” But nothing prepared the country for the firestorm surrounding e-mails and photos released from the Epstein files that further undermined Andrew’s disastrous attempt at damage control a few years ago.
 
Like Mark Twain, I have long believed that “the kingly office…is no more entitled to respect than the flag of a pirate.” But these days, I think that the British are doing far more to hold to account those in the highest positions of their country than we are here in the United States.
 
And that goes for the fellow here who would like to hold all power, with nobody to second-guess him. All his talk about the Epstein revelations having “exonerated” him only leaves most of us exasperated. If he’s really innocent, why not release the remaining 3 million documents?
 
(The image of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor that accompanies this post was extracted from a photo of him with Juan Manuel Santos, President, Republic of Colombia. It was taken on Nov. 9, 2017, on the presentation of the Chatham House Prize, and was made available by Chatham House. Since then, Andrew’s title, along with his smile, has disappeared.)

Friday, February 20, 2026

TV Quote of the Day (‘Yes, Prime Minister,’ on What Worries the U.K. Government)

James Hacker [played by Paul Eddington]: “Humphrey, I'm worried.”

Sir Humphrey Appleby [played by Nigel Hawthorne]: “Oh, what about, Prime Minister?”

Hacker: “About the Americans.”

Appleby: “Oh yes, well, we're all worried about the Americans.” — Yes, Prime Minister, Season 1, Episode 6, “A Victory for Democracy,” original air date Feb. 13, 1986, teleplay by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, directed by Sydney Lotterby

Forty years after this episode in this hilarious series aired, the British have even more to worry about their partner in the “special relationship” than they did back when it only concerned Americans going crazy about Communist subversion.

Now, the Prime Minister has so much more on his mind—like whether the current American President will destroy the transatlantic alliance, subvert representative governments around the globe, spark a trade war by ratcheting up tariffs, or use Royal Air Force bases for potential unilateral strikes on Iran.

Moreover, the Prime Minister and King Charles are sweating over what else the Americans have in the Epstein files—like whether they could make matters even worse, if possible, for the former Prince Andrew, and, with more revelations spilling out about additional cabinet ministers, whether the government of Keir Starmer could fall.

Friday, July 25, 2025

TV Quote of the Day (‘Yes, Minister,’ With the Transatlantic ‘Golden Rule’ of Scandal Containment)

Bernard Woolley, the Minister’s principal private secretary [played by Derek Fowlds, left]:So what do we believe in?”

Sir Humphrey Appleby, the Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Administrative Affairs [played by Nigel Hawthorne, right]:At this moment, Bernard, we believe in stopping the minister from informing the Prime Minister.”

Bernard: “But why?”

Sir Humphrey: “Because once the Prime Minister knows, there will have to be an enquiry, like Watergate. The investigation of a trivial break-in led to one ghastly revelation after another and finally the downfall of a president. The golden rule is don't lift lids off cans of worms. Everything is connected to everything else. Who said that?”

Bernard: “The Cabinet Secretary?”

Sir Humphrey: “Nearly right. Actually, it was Lenin.” —Yes, Minister, Season 3, Episode 6, “The Whisky Priest,” original air date Dec. 16, 1982, teleplay by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, directed by Peter Whitmore

These days, the Trump Administration is well past the “golden rule” propounded by Sir Humphrey, let alone Jesus Christ. As he looks around the fast-developing wreckage of the Epstein scandal, the President must wonder, “How did I ever get into this mess?”

So now, the Orange Menace is resorting to what may be thought of as his 3D Defense. You know: Deny, Distract, Delay, then repeat, till events break your way.

It’s worked before. Let’s see if the old Trump Voodoo gets him out of this latest doo-doo. With Congress closing sooner this week (courtesy of House Speaker Mike Johnson), anything can happen.

Monday, August 19, 2019

Essay: Conspiracy Theories Leave Democracy in Tatters


“A vast number of conspiracy theories hinge on the existence of a subjugated yet honorable ‘people’ against a corrupt and scheming ‘elite,’ and, as it happens, so does populism. That conspiracism and populism are often found together probably comes as no surprise to anyone who has paid attention to Donald Trump’s supporters in any detail. But it does suggest that fighting conspiracy theories will mean understanding and taking seriously the causes of the rise of populism in the United States and Europe over the last few years. Addressing the conditions that enable conspiracism, rather than the content of the conspiracism itself, points the way toward quashing it.” —J.C. Pan, “When Facts Fail: The Roots of American Conspiracism,” The New Republic, July-August 2019

Pan’s strategy for countering conspiracy theories worldwide makes sense, but in the here and now, how are Americans going to defeat the men responsible for their spread in the United States—particularly when the perpetrators preposterously cast themselves as victims?

Both Donald Trump and the GOP leader who carries water for him on Capitol Hill, Senator Mitch McConnell, have assailed as “McCarthyism” any criticism of their curious inaction regarding Russian meddling in the U.S. 2016 election.

Most observers would regard this characterization as awfully rich—and not just because Trump’s mentor as a rising businessman was Roy Cohn, Joseph McCarthy’s chief counsel in the Army-McCarthy hearings as the Wisconsin Senator tarnished reputations and damaged careers with reckless charges of Communism. Nor is it simply laughable because, with each passing day, it becomes more impossible to explain how Trump could not have benefited from Russian interference in the 2016 election.

No, the charge of McCarthyism is also farcical because the Senator was adept at making spurious accusations involving “a conspiracy so immense,” then throwing out more half-baked charges that the media would promptly chase down a rabbit hole—practices that Trump has embraced with abandon. The charge of “McCarthyism,” in fact, is another instance of Trump’s penchant for projecting his own worst tendencies onto others.

Just as it became a parlor game to argue whether McCarthy was cannily concocting his deceptions or was an alcoholic too slobby to strategize, so speculation centers today on the level of craft that Trump is employing in his falsehoods. The point, though, is that both McCarthy and Trump were indisputably purveyors of what Trump loyalist Kellyanne Conway has helpfully labeled “alternative facts.”

A decade of conspiratorial buncombe

Among the conspiracy theories that Trump has peddled in the last decade or so are that:

*Vaccinations cause autism;

*Barack Obama was not born in the United States;

*The official who released Obama’s birth certificate died in a suspicious plane crash;

*Obama ordered a wiretap of Trump Tower;

*Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s father might have been involved in the Kennedy assassination;

*The suicide of Clinton friend and aide Vince Foster looked “fishy”;

*TV commentator Joe Scarborough may have been involved in the death of an intern;

*Climate change is a hoax, maybe perpetrated by the Chinese;

*The Democrats planned to steal the election with votes cast by millions of undocumented immigrants;

*The Democrats won New Hampshire in 2016 because of people streaming in “from parts unknown”;

*The “Fake News Media” wants to “crash the economy because they think that will be bad for me and my re-election," he thinks;

*The FBI’s Russia probe is a “deep-state” plot against him;

*Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia might have been murdered.

What rational voter believes all of these theories? Come to think of it, what rational voter believes any of these? But such is the state of American politics that these are run up the flagpole constantly.  

The current American environment for conspiracy theories differs from earlier ones in this respect: a President promotes them openly and daily.

Every American President since George Washington has had enemies bound and determined to run him out of office. At least two—Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon—privately complained to aides that some of their enemies were plotting against them.

But never before has a President seen signs of this everywhere he looks, and expressed that belief in public. Trump not only peddles conspiracy theories of his own, but also encourages those of others through retweets or through noticing them at appearances.

Through most of his business career, and all of his political one, Trump has gotten his way not through compromise—the real “art of the deal”—but through conquest. In turn, he dreads that someone else will follow the same path to victory at his expense. Spontaneously, he is gripped by the thought that someone is out to get him. 

El Paso and Epstein: Present and Future Results 

The effects of this conspiracy-mongering are ever more apparent. 

It wasn’t enough that the white supremacist movement was heartened first by Trump’s notion that Mexican “rapists” were coming to America, or his comment after the rally two years ago in Charlottesville that there were “good people on both sides.” But the President’s constant cries over the last few years about “invasion” by illegal immigrants—echoed endlessly at Fox News—made even more fetid the toxic rhetorical atmosphere absorbed by the El Paso shooter.

That atmosphere has become positively thick enough to gag with Trump’s suggestion—unsupported by any evidence—that Bill and Hillary Clinton were behind the recent death of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. The President’s source for this: one Terrence K. Williams, a comedian with no particular law enforcement expertise.

Many people, like myself, not only never heard of Williams before but wonder what purpose he serves in life except to rehash quarter-century-old Clinton murder conspiracy theories. But to Donald Trump, he’s “somebody that’s a very respected conservative pundit.”

Trump openly admits he has “no idea” whether the Clintons played any part in Epstein’s death. At minimum, that is speculation with no documentary, oral or forensic evidence. But there is another term for it that is far more merited than the other news items to which Trump has frequently attached it: “fake news.”

If the examples of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy mean anything, it is that the words of a President have enormous power to move a nation, even beyond the age in which he voices them—to rally the downhearted, to console the grieving, to appeal to what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.”

More so than any President in the last century, Trump has proven himself woefully unsuited to these tasks. By spouting conspiracies at every turn, he has placed a cacophony of crackpots at the center of American discourse, in a tireless attempt to distract and divide.

Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush and current conservative columnist for The Washington Post, wrote a hard-hitting piece recently that detailed the damage caused by conspiracy theories such as Trump’s, including that they:

*Sometimes influence behavior (e.g., vaccination rates fall);
*Distract attention from other issues;
*Encourage cynicism and apathy;
*Undermine democratic dialogue; and
*Undermine the search for truth itself.
Grave risks to democracy

All of these are true as they apply to Trump, but his conspiracy theories create even graver risks:

*They undermine the notion of a common body of knowledge for decisionmakers. Facts should be the common ground on which people of different viewpoints can proceed. But how can policies be made when each side has its own “alternative facts”—and the other side is stigmatized as criminal or traitorous?

*They give prominence—and the chance to be believed—to the lunatic fringe of politics. Twitter suspended an account that featured a post Trump had retweeted. The account promoted conspiracy theories. 

*They corrode the credibility of agencies meant to protect American citizens and institutions. For the sake of his immediate political future, Trump has fostered belief in the existence of a “deep state” in a group of voters never previously likely to feel this way: GOP voters. But his success has come at the price of undermining public trust in the CIA and FBI when he might need them later. When he wants to certify to America and the world that Iran is violating arms agreements, for instance, how will he believed without certification by the CIA? 

*They dissipate the moral authority of the Presidency, which remains the indispensable steward of American interests to the wider world. Trump has “decapitated the government of the United States, leaving a distrusted and disrespected void where the head of state should be….In any genuine emergency the nation may face in the next few years, it will be effectively leaderlessess,” David Frum writes in his Trumpocracy:The Corruption of the American Republic.

*They function as a “dirty tricks” operation unseen since the days of Richard Nixon, who at least had enough respect for appearances that he farmed out to operative Donald Segretti the task of spreading baseless allegations about Edmund Muskie, Henry Jackson and Hubert Humphrey. Trump’s claims about other politicians (including rivals) have no more credibility than those Segretti promoted, and he is striving for what Segretti attained for his boss: the weakest possible Democratic candidate.
 
*They encourage the targeting of specific rivals, opening other candidates to physical harm. Trump may think he is only serving up what Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan called “boob bait for the bubbas,” but he is wrong. In the current environment, who knows what materials might infect borderline personalities to strike at those they regard as murderers and threats to the republic?

Trump may have encountered only one conspiracy theory he hasn’t promoted: the one about Russian involvement in the 2016 Presidential election. Ironically enough, this might be the only conspiracy theory with the greatest possibility of being true, as its exposure has involved sworn grand jury testimony, intelligence intercepts, guilty pleas, and the President’s own inexplicable but unnerving statements supporting Russian President Vladimir Putin—even to the point of siding with him over his own intelligence agencies.

How far Trump’s empty conspiracy-mongering amounts to criminal activity is now up to Congress to decide. But at very least, they testify to a near-bottomless deprivation of character. 

Still craving legitimacy without exhibiting either honesty or dignity, Trump is ever more frantically pulling others down to his level, in the same way a bully drags into the mud a victim unexpectedly getting the better of him.

Friday, August 9, 2019

Essay: Dershowitz, Epstein, and the Perpetual Perils of Representing ‘The Dregs of Humanity’


“He had won acquittals for some of the most loathsome human beings on the planet. Yet not content to shrug and say that he had simply been upholding the purity of rights guaranteed by the Constitution, he insisted on going the unnecessary further step and proclaiming in front of cameras that his smirking client, shoes still sticky with his victim’s blood, was ‘totally innocent’ and, ‘really, a terrific human being.’

“Even colleagues who hadn’t lost a minute’s sleep in long careers spent defending the dregs of humanity shook their heads in wonder at Alan Crudman’s amazing protestations on behalf of his clients. Could he really have convinced himself of their innocence? Impossible. Too smart. It had to be more complicated: He had graduated to telling the big, big lies, daring God to challenge him. This fooled no one, but the media ate it up. The T.V. talk shows loved it. It got them callers galore. And Alan Crudman was never too busy to go on television, on any show, to comment about anything at all. If the Weather Channel invited him to go on to discuss the legal implications of a low-pressure system over Nebraska, he’d be there as long as they sent a limo for him. A short man, he demanded big vehicles.”— Christopher Buckley, No Way To Treat A First Lady (2002)

The accompanying photo should have been enough to clue you in, Faithful Reader, that the legal eagle in today’s quote was Alan Dershowitz. But, after Christopher Buckley’s spot-on description, were you ever really in any doubt? The surname of the media-obsessed attorney is the thinnest—but most hilarious—of fictional fig leaves over his reputation. 

At the time Buckley satirized Dershowitz, it was only a few years after the longtime Harvard academic had loudly championed a horndog, lying Democratic President facing investigation and impeachment. 

Two decades later, the political parties in charge of the House of Representatives and the White House have traded places, but one thing hasn’t changed: Dershowitz is still defending a horndog, lying President. 

And he’s still making people shake their heads, not merely for taking on controversial clients (Clarence Darrow specialized in this, of course), but also for trying to incinerate accusers’ reputations.

But there is a key difference between now and then: these days, it’s Crudman (I’m sorry—Dershowitz) who finds himself under attack—not only for negotiating a hideous “non-prosecution agreement” with the U.S. Attorney’s office in Miami that allowed then-client Jeffrey Epstein to serve a ridiculously light sentence for his sex crimes, but for allegedly being so friendly with the money manager that Epstein passed along a couple of his underage victims.

Perhaps the civil litigation involving Dershowitz and accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre will resolve these latter charges—if they’re not settled first (as a prior suit was). But in the meantime, Connie Bruck’s New Yorker profile has been so lacerating that Dershowitz has launched a preemptive strike against what he terms a “hit piece.” 

If you don’t chuckle over Dershowitz’s self-pitying title, “J’accuse” (in the 1898 piece that inspired it, novelist Emile Zola spoke out for Alfred Dreyfus, not himself), or the notion that Dershowitz is inveighing against a “partisan effort by a giant of the media to stifle the marketplace of ideas” (what is Dershowitz’s latest preferred media outlet, Fox News, if not “a giant of the media”?), you’ll laugh yourself silly as he extols his “perfect, perfect sex life.” (As for the latter claim: He undoubtedly blesses the fact that under law, a wife cannot be compelled to testify against her husband.)

Much like the current President he’s been defending, Dershowitz reveals himself in all his thin-skinned, egocentric ignominy, defeating every attempt by Buckley and every other satirist to make him more laughable than he makes himself.   

I am sure that The New Yorker vetted Bruck’s piece not just with its editors and fact-checkers but its lawyers. The profile can hardly be seen as flattering (the dissolution of his marriage to first wife Sue Barlach—including a contentious divorce—especially does not reflect well on him), but one might argue that it wasn't as bad as it could have been. After all, Bruck did not mention a particularly revolting defendant from early in Dershowitz’s career: nursing-home magnate Bernard Bergman, who went to jail on Medicare and tax fraud charges.

Since he first grabbed the public’s attention, Dershowitz has styled himself a civil libertarian, and he is surely correct in claiming that defendants are entitled to a vigorous defense. 

But, no matter how controversial, even disreputable, some clients might have been for the likes of William Kunstler or Ramsey Clark, these attorneys made a point of representing them for ideological reasons. In contrast, it has become an increasingly notable element of Dershowitz’s career that, the richer and more powerful a client is, the more vigorous offense the lawyer mounts.

Claus von Bulow may have been the first of Dershowitz’s made-for-tabloids clients, but by now he is hardly the most notorious. The icy aristocrat has been followed and arguably surpassed in loathsomeness by Mike Tyson, O. J. Simpson, and Jeffrey MacDonald. While not representing them in court, Dershowitz has also loudly supported William Kennedy Smith, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.

What’s the common denominator among these half-dozen figures? That’s right: they’re all males accused of violence against women. A strange streak, is it not? And this penchant for defending problematic men looks even dicier when associated with Dershowitz’s denunciations of both statutory-rape laws and prosecuting “johns” but not their prostitutes, as well as attempts to smear victims like Desiree Washington in the Mike Tyson case.

Can you understand now how #CreepyDershowitz might be trending so strongly recently on Twitter?

The Epstein case is particularly problematic. Dershowitz claims that, out of more than 250 cases in his career, this is the only one he regrets. 

But his claim that Epstein misled him about the extent of the allegations rings hollow. Even if he is correct that he had only heard about a half dozen possibly accusers, that is not insignificant. And, by the time the U.S. Attorney’s office in Miami tried to bring charges, it had identified 34 potential victims. 

Moreover, it is hard to believe, given the constant stream of young women around Epstein’s home, that Dershowitz would not have guessed that his friend was playing with fire. 

In short, Dershowitz’s “regret” might result more from his own legal jeopardy than from any qualms about having taken on such an unsavory client. (I mean, come on: This is the same man who said, “Every honest criminal lawyer will tell you that he defends the guilty and the innocent.”)

Whenever Dershowitz appears on Fox to defend President Trump, are viewers told that Jeffrey Epstein—the same shadowy figure, the network has reported constantly, who was always around Bill Clinton—won a remarkably lenient deal from prosecutors a decade ago with the help of the man they're viewing on the screen now?

Does the willingness of these viewers to excuse the President for nearly everything also extend to this attorney-apologist?

Just curious.