Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
WSJ: Epstein Apparently Blackmails Gates
WSJ goes there on Epstein and Bill Gates. This is their headline: “Jeffrey Epstein Appeared to Threaten Bill Gates Over Microsoft Co-Founder’s Affair With Russian Bridge Player.” Not exactly subtle.
Jeffrey Epstein discovered that Bill Gates had an affair with a Russian bridge player and later appeared to use his knowledge to threaten one of the world’s richest men, according to people familiar with the matter.
The Microsoft co-founder met the woman around 2010, when she was in her 20s. Epstein met her in 2013 and later paid for her to attend software coding school. In 2017, Epstein emailed Gates and asked to be reimbursed for the cost of the course, according to the people familiar with the matter.
The email came after the convicted sex offender had struggled and failed to convince Gates to participate in a multibillion-dollar charitable fund that Epstein tried to establish with JPMorgan Chase. The implication behind the message, according to people who have viewed it, was that Epstein could reveal the affair if Gates didn’t keep up an association between the two men.
In 2017, Epstein contacted Gates about the Russian bridge player, years after the relationship had ended, according to people familiar with the matter. He sent an email to Gates asking to be reimbursed for the costs of Antonova’s coding school, the people said.
The sum was immaterial for the two men and the tone of the message was that Epstein knew about the affair and could expose it, the people said.
This story is larger than it sounds at first because this is exactly what the CW (conspiratorial wisdom) has been describing as Epstein’s MO, and the reason that so little has been disclosed about the life and death, clients, and methods of a global child trafficker. Epstein was no idiot and protected himself by generating a world-spanning who’s-who of interconnected clients to blackmail.
Things did not suddenly grow tense between now-divorced Bill and Melinda Gates:
Of course, when you have Epstein/Gates money, you can purchase coverage like this.
Despite a headline of “Bill and Melinda Gates divorce after 27 years of marriage,” this puff piece focuses on their philanthropy and rather obsessively on the empowerment of women and a lecture about how to conduct a supposed equal-partnership marriage. Not mentioned at all is anything relating to the divorce, such as the tidbits hinted at in the opening paragraph to the NYT article pictured above.
The simplest explanation for the large Epstein story is that he successfully blackmailed enough powerful people that there remains an active cover-up by those selfsame powerful people and their associates to keep the real story suppressed.
Recall that Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted on numerous counts of something like trafficking minors for sexual abuse, which definitely requires clients, yet those clients have never been named.
To be clear, this particular case (the bridge-playing Russian girl) is not one of Epstein providing the girl to Gates. Instead, this is something that Epstein found out about later, and capitalized upon. This may be how it escaped the “cone of silence” surrounding Epstein’s clients. Gates may have been a child-sex client of Epstein’s later, and at any rate, flew on the Lolita Express or visited child-sex-slavery island dozens of times.
The WSJ article shows Epstein raising the topic of a pitifully small amount of money between two of the world’s most moneyed and powerful men. Why would he ask to be reimbursed for pocket change? To communicate that he knows there is something important enough for Bill Gates in that story that Bill Gates should do something for Epstein. Epstein was trying to use Gates’ name to secure some funding thing from JPMorgan — it fell through.
The real value here is the demonstration of exactly what an Epstein dunning letter / blackmail threat would look like. Of course, there’s no explicit quid pro quo in the mail. These people are evil, not stupid.
I was able to use this archival view to see the WSJ article (h/t PDW).Published in General
Who knew that bridge tournaments were such meat markets?
And the Feds want to keep it quiet because they always had some of the dirt, and now have most of it, and have never hesitated to J. Edgar Hoover with it.
Here’s a tweet:
I have no respect for Gates, but I just don’t like stories that use weasel words like “appeared.”
BTW, that WSJ also has a deep dive into the Bud Light controversy that refers to Mulvaney as “she” throughout.
ANd more context, including clarification that she was 20 when the affair took place. Again, this was not Epstein providing for Gates (not the right age range, amirite?) — that is Epstein finding out about Gate’s affair and then trying to capitalize on that.
International bridge tournaments, anyway.
Yes, but as mentioned elsewhere, I’ve seen and heard people refer to someone Gates’ ages with a 20-year-old girlfriend as a “pedophile.” Lots of people are that stupid, or even moreso.
It was not illegal just really really creepy
Unless there was a videotape. Which would not surprise me.
This seems like weak sauce. “implication…according to people…” Trivial amounts of money. What else ya got?
Gates was born in Oct. 1955, so in 2010 he’d have been 54-55 years old. Applying the “creepiness formula” for guys of 0ne-half his age, plus 7 years, would set his youngest non-creepy partner at 34-35 years of age.
She was 20? Yup -> creepy.
I wasn’t aware that “half plus 7 years” was one of the Commandments.
Someone just made that up, and they could have made it up some other way and some people would still think it means something.
May be best to stick with “I know creepy when I see it.” Like this.
Do not turn this into one of your “age of consent” rants.
More like “I know what I think is creepy when I see it.” Which is just a meaningless tautology.
Which is why I’m careful not to over-represent it.
I’m not carrying water for the WSJ’s style manual “apparently” being at war with reality.
That’s why I didn’t say that.
Actually you did say that, whether you realize it or not.
I see you are in one of your pedantic moods today. Practice on someone else.
I am reminded of one of the greatest quotes of all time:
As has been stated before regarding a similar case: I can only imagine the immense collective power that resides in [the still anonymous] Clients #1 through #8. Stories like the one you cite come often enough and quickly fade into nothingness thanks to the tight lips of those involved that are above the law* and the reliably incurious corporate media types. (That is, of course, unless you can find a thinly sourced rumor that Trump was involved…then info would leak and “journalists” would pounce.)
* It strikes me that the “Epstein blackmails” narrative gets some play here but the obvious corollary would center on others who may have the inside info about such things…like when they collect things during investigations…and then nothing else is ever heard of it. The great silence around “FBI blackmails” (and similar) is quite deafening. Nah, I’m sure Eliot Spitzer and Bill Gates are outliers among the rich and powerful. Carry on…
Forget her age. Consider her nationality. That’s the real story here.
Yes. Gives new meaning to Russian collusion.
Sometimes it’s necessary to be pedantic when someone else is being oblivious.
Someone is oblivious.
According to Brave, Merriam-Webster defines “pedantic” thus:
So in order to be pedantic, you’d have to be correcting an error. It looks like the supposed error you’re allegedly correcting is the idea that creepiness is an objective thing.
But it is an objective thing. So you’re not being pedantic. You’re just being wrong.
Or am I the one who’s oblivious? I can’t pretend to understand this conversation fully. Maybe I don’t understand it at all.
We are not doing another episode of the kedavis show. Flagged.
Ramaswamy has been emphasizing the need to publish Epstein’s client list. Probably making some promises he can’t keep, but I like the direction he’s punching.
If creepiness is objective, then by all means feel free to define the meaning of creepiness, in all situations, for all people.
Otherwise it’s not objective.
Sure, right after I do the same for some other objective things like good, evil, ugly, beautiful, rich, poor, healthy, unhealthy, rational, logical, musical, clever, wise, frugal, lawful, proper, happy, thorough, and on-topic.