politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The same David Brooks who wrote a column just one month ago claiming that people are paying too much attention to Jeffrey Epstein?
https://theintercept.com/2025/12/18/david-brooks-jeffrey-epstein-photos/
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/21/opinion/epstein-trump-conspiracy.html
Yep. I have to add that David Brooks is not the only one at NYT doing their best to tamp down not just what will affect those in public office right now, but the many more not in office who were either directly involved with Jeffrey Epstein's financial and recreational interests and happy to go along with it, or obviously blackmailed by their complicity in it.
For example, yesterday NYT published this long expose called Scams, Schemes, Ruthless Cons: The Untold Story of How Jeffrey Epstein Got Rich (here's an archive link) but for as deep as they insist they delved into it, they completely avoided Epstein's time at Dalton (the school where he was hired by Bill Barr's father to teach as a very young man and from where he was brought into Bear Stearns, an almost impossible leap for anyone else as unconnected as Epstein was at the time, as a man in his early 20s just out of school himself) and elided ANY mention of the vast troves of photos, films, and other material Epstein historically collected on everyone who entered his personal residences, not just the island but in NYC and Paris, etc.
Instead, the authors maintain that he was just a thief, and only stole and conned his victims throughout, painting picture after picture of wealthy "dupes" and "victims" of Epstein's financial crimes. Throughout they use the refrain "inexplicable" and the like when the very rich victims of Epstein's financial crimes realize and even speak publicly of their huge losses, but somehow never, not once, bring themselves to report these massive and provable thefts to law enforcement, and only rarely even take him to court to try to recoup some of these losses.
In the case of a select few like Les Wexner, it's tens and possibly hundreds of millions they allege Epstein stole.
Yet we are to believe it's only theft, nothing more, Epstein was just that charming, and that all these very rich men who will sue anyone else at the drop of a hat all just shut up and stand back when Jeffrey Epstein steals their money. According to NYT, it's a total mystery.
Yeah, no. For anyone who's been paying attention, these omissions were glaringly obvious.
And to make it even more ridiculous, when the authors were called out in the comments, they "explain" that Epstein's financial victims did not want to be involved in lengthy court cases . . . even though they are all high-dollar people who are already involved in lengthy litigation, and often of their own making.
It's not just this expose, it's a current that runs through all NYT reporting on Epstein. They NEVER mention Epstein's death without the word "suicide" very firmly attached to it, and they've always swerved pretty widely around anything that directly points to blackmail, but yesterday's magnum opus obviously dedicated to making readers believe he was a thief and only a thief makes me think it's a directive there now.
One thing about the NYT it's good to remember is that while they do not make up facts, they absolutely can and do omit relevant facts when it suits them. New York City is a city of billionaires; it's where Epstein played and many of these rich "victims of only theft" reside. It's not a far stretch to think that NYT has interests other than pure reporting at play in their editorial decision making about Jeffrey Epstein.