>wondering what is wrong with the US that allows these elite
>rapists and sex pests to continue on without being held accountable.
lacking any criminal charges... https://apnews.com/article/jeffrey-epstein-client-list-sex-trafficking-049c96080a2ca2c12c84ac506437e50b
... that leaves shame as the only way to make anyone step down from anything. and people like Musk, Trump, Gates, etc.. are all rich enough to not have to care about what other people think, and rich enough to scare media owners away.
Trump's also insulated by the fact that the only way to hold a President accountable (other than shame) is via the (very stupid) impeachment process.
From GftNC's excerpted monologue: I got a message from Tommy Vietor, one of Barack Obama’s former staffers and now a successful podcaster with Pod Save America. He said: “If Epstein forces out Starmer and Trump survives, I will explode.” There are so many scandals in these files, yet the Trump-Bannon-Musk-Howard Lutnick crowd is getting off so lightly.
I hear a lot of friends (especially in Europe) who are despairing over this, and wondering what is wrong with the US that allows these elite rapists and sex pests to continue on without being held accountable.
The problem we have is one of passive voice.
The media - either scared of being accused of left-partisanship or being directed by elites with editorial power acting to protect themselves or their sex pest friends and associates - make sure that all of their moral dudgeon gets heaped on convenient scapegoats. They work hard not to subject themselves to any legal jeopardy or put themselves in the line of fire from the toxic firehose of hate that is our current administration. The correspondences get reported, but in a way that keeps them safely disconnected from any call-to-action.
But the real reason why none of the mighty are pulled down to face accountability is that the GOP controls all the levers of accountability, and we keep allowing the GOP supporters to duck their own culpability in keeping the rapists and sex pests in power. The DNC is still hoping to lure some of those Trumpy swingers away from the right and so cannot afford to insinuate that those swingers have been actively shielding those elite rapists from accountability by insisting that this is just the way that both sides are. Cynicism allows them to wash their own hands of the corruption that they have allowed on their own side in the name of fighting a holy crusade for the soul of America.
We must take away this cynicism dodge from them and make them feel shame for how they have enabled their elite to avoid accountability. We have to strip away the passive voice dodges and show them the active ways in which they maintain the public defenses that insulate the rapists and sex pests on their side from accountability.
And yes, we do need to flip congress and take those levers back, but we won't actually be able to effect any change until and unless we take away our collective ability to hide beneath the mask of cynicism and make justice a public imperative for anyone who wished to think themselves moral.
Edited version of Alastair Campbell's monologue from The Rest is Politics on the Mandelson/Epstein affair:
I’m having sleepless nights. These usually happen when I am anxious, angry, depressed or confused. There is so much out of the Epstein scandal to make me feel all of the above. It is, on so many levels, almost impossible to process, personally and politically. Let’s start with angry. I’m angry at the content and the context of Epstein, which is so disgusting on so many levels, and frankly it gets to the point where you can’t face reading any more of it. I’ve heard some MPs, some Tory, some Labour, Nigel Farage, journalists too, call the Peter Mandelson betrayal “the biggest scandal of the century.” Journalist Marina Hyde wrote a brilliant piece in which she said “it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal.” She is right about that. The real scandal is the trafficking, the abuse, and the attitudes to women of so many rich powerful men. As Amelia Gentleman, in the Guardian, chronicled the way Epstein & Co talked about women in the files. How they see the role of women as being mere logistics, food, drink and sex. It’s horrible. It’s disgusting. I get angry that we all get tarred with the same brush, now not least because of the Peter Mandelson association, as if anyone who knows him somehow enabled Epstein. It all plays into the narrative that “they’re all the same, all in it for themselves, have no principles.” We are NOT all the same. I am very proud of the New Labour project, and many of the things we did, and despite everything believe politics and politicians can be a force for good. But this Labour government is now looking like the last Tory one as it lurches from one big bad moment to the next. That makes me angry given the size of the majority the country gave them, the scale of the things that need fixing, and the way so much of the first two years has been wasted. It’s a week now since we started to take stock of all this, and I still cannot, for the life of me, get my head round how close Peter Mandelson and Epstein seem to have been. That as I was part of the team trying to advise Gordon Brown after the 2010 election, and in talks with Nick Clegg to see if we could do a Lib-Lab agreement, Peter was talking to Epstein and boasting that he had persuaded Gordon to go. I can’t get my head round him sending Epstein confidential notes about big economic decisions during The Crash. I’ve known Peter for more than forty years. We’ve had many good times together, and some bad. Sometimes we’ve gone years without speaking, for example after his second resignation. I’ve always known he is tricky, manipulative, can be secretive, as well as charming and clever. But I genuinely cannot fathom some of his exchanges with Epstein. Like when Epstein, on the day he was released, and they were joking about strippers and young girls. Was there nothing in Peter to say “Jeffrey, have you learned nothing?” Yet also – and here lies some of my confusion and anxiety – precisely because I have known him so long, I have concern about where this might all end for him. I really don’t get how people can go from boasting of being a “close friend” one day to ”lock him up and throw away the key” the next. I was angry and concerned at the decision to appoint Peter as Ambassador to the US. I understood the attraction. He’s a big figure, he had the New Labour connection, he knows trade and the global economy, and Keir Starmer clearly felt he needed more than a conventional diplomat to handle the Trump administration. But as risk-reward decisions go, I always had a worry that this would not end well (if not quite like this) and I said so to the people making the decision. Listeners to my The Rest Is Politics podcast may recall how Rory Stewart outed me awhile back because he had heard me talking to one of the decision makers about David Miliband as a prospective ambassador, and I still think that would have been a better call. And I’m angry with myself maybe. I could have made a big thing about it, but I am conscious, sometimes, of having to balance the public-facing part of my life with the fact I often have privileged access to people who expect at least some element of confidentiality when I am acting either as an activist or being asked for advice, as does happen. That being said, I’m not terribly impressed with the scale of the dumping and the distancing since the Mandelson scandal broke. Would it not have made more sense for Keir simply to say he made a judgement, in the round at the time, based on the pluses and minuses, which were fully assessed, and it’s now transpired it was a bad judgement, and I apologise? Putting all the blame on the vetting, and being lied to, is what has made this even more a question of his judgement and also the competence of his operation, with all the inevitable changes now under way. I’m also angry that so many in the media, along with people like Farage and Michael Gove, who said it was a smart appointment at the time, now say it was obviously a bad judgement call. I hate hypocrisy and these people are never challenged over that. And of course the media tend, in the main, only to do one volume – very loud and very anti-Labour – which means anyone who has ever had anything to do with Peter Mandelson is somehow presented as tainted for having failed to know what he was up to and with whom. I understand the call from Gordon Brown to clean up politics, and at least he had an agenda about how to address it. But there’s a real risk when he makes that call in the way he did that, just as the expenses scandal harmed the reputation of all, not just the cheats, this too plays into the Reform framing: They’re all the same, everyone is corrupt, the system stinks, nobody can be trusted. Their answer? Trust the man who sold us Brexit on a pack of lies, and is now getting money from home, abroad and crypto and boasting about it, and stick him in Downing St. One thing that especially riles me up is the way the right wing, here and in America, are getting a free pass on all this. I got a message from Tommy Vietor, one of Barack Obama’s former staffers and now a successful podcaster with Pod Save America. He said: “If Epstein forces out Starmer and Trump survives, I will explode.” There are so many scandals in these files, yet the Trump-Bannon-Musk-Howard Lutnick crowd is getting off so lightly. And of course I’m angry about the way Epstein and his pals like Peter Thiel boast about Brexit being “just the beginning” and wonder, did Peter Mandelson not realise that this was part of his game too? As for the anxiety, it’s about what happens next and what it means for politics, and for the country. If Labour do not get their act together, and fast, then Farage is being gifted power, which I believe would be a disaster for this country. In that scenario, I fear we would soon see in Britain the kind of things currently debasing politics in Trump’s United States; the victory of slogan over substance; open and brazen corruption; the deliberate stoking of division and hate; threats to free media and the rule of law. It will be another gift to Putin. Another gift to the tech bros to whom this right wing populism is a route to a world in which they, rather than democratically elected politicians, have all the power. So I totally understand the calls for Starmer to go. So many MPs are angry, so many members of the public are frustrated and disappointed. Me too. I have felt for some time Morgan McSweeney’s position was vulnerable because whatever talents he has that helped Keir become leader and then Prime Minister, it’s a big problem if you are the chief strategist and the strategy isn’t working, or you are the Chief of Staff and the operation isn’t working. But the job of Prime Minister is a whole different level and those urging for change must have some idea of what happens next, and why it would be better. People really underestimate the skills you need for the job of Prime Minister. Maybe Keir Starmer underestimated them too. But I am far from convinced by the names currently in the frame. And that leads me to the most depressing thought of all. That because of the nature of our politics, the quality of people going into politics, the nihilism of the mainstream media, the anarchy of social media, with dissonance, hypocrisy, short-termism, naivety, industrialised rage and wilful ignorance off the scale, we are becoming ungovernable. That neither the parties nor the public are really prepared to face up to the big things that need to happen to turn this country round, given the sheer scale of real problems we actually face. So that’s the confusion to add to the anxiety. I am normally quite good at thinking ahead. I can usually see a course. Right now, as I write, I feel that is far from easy. So no. I can’t sleep. And I know from talking to plenty of other Labour people, I am not alone.
lj, it's all of those things except, as you say, 2. The Tories have got a fucking nerve, after the corruption of BoJo, not to mention the PPE/Covid VIP lane scandal
which is estimated to have cost the nation about £1.4 billion.
CaseyL: hard agree with what you say. Apart from the man that nous so memorably calls the Clementine Caligula, I am still amazed that, for example, Bannon's involvement in trying to rehabilitate Epstein's image has not done more damage to MAGA.
By starting a list like this, I don't mean to be dismissive (except for the Tory complaints, perhaps). Multiple things can be true, so it feels like the attempt to define this as one thing means it doesn't become anything.
I'd say it is critical mass.
In Europe the Epstein associates are a tiny minority while in the US they occupy many positions of power (in and out of official politics) that allow for stonewalling and mutual support. Plus the tradition in the US not to hold the powerful accountable. So, in Europe it does not undermine the system to go after at least some prominent culprits. There simply is no long row of domino pieces to fall. In the US* Epstein seems to have (deliberately) infected the system itself with a rot so widespread that he probably hoped it would forever protect him. He is gone but the rot remains and fully uncovering - let alone thoroughly removing - it would shake the system to the core, which is why it is unlikely to happen.
*and, so some info I've seen but can't judge the veracity of says, in Israel
Apologies in advance for putting a US-centric spin on this, but what has struck me the most is the NON-impact the Epstein case has had on the US politicians and hangers-on who were Epstein intimates... starting, of course, with the complete waste of protoplasm currently occupying the Oval Office.
Seeing how being close to Epstein, or even adjacent to Epstein, is ending political careers all over Europe while Epstein's closest associates in the US are untouched has me seething.
I don't have a ton of time until I get in later tonight, but I was very struck by this piece by Marina Hyde a couple of days ago, and rather think most feminists agree, particularly with this sentence:
I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal.
Obviously, we have all (lefty/liberals that is) been discussing this incessantly. I can tell you that in general the consensus among people I know (several of whom are rather involved in Labour) is this, all of which also reflects my opinion:
We foolishly thought that because Mandelson is gay he must have been unaware of all the disgusting sex abuse stuff. The consorting with Epstein when he knew about the conviction etc was certainly very bad, but we thought maybe he didn't believe it because he'd never seen any sign of it. Ridiculously naive, I now see.
Most of us (not all) reluctantly believed that although Mandelson is a rather brilliant Machiavellian snake, that made him the perfect person to deal with the snake pit in the White House.
Everybody is astounded by the divulging of state economic secrets stuff. None of us would have believed that he was capable of such a thing, given that despite his snakiness we believed that he was, in his way, devoted to Labour and his country (so proud of being Herbert Morrison's grandson etc). The word treason was bandied about between us, but when I looked it up it seems it doesn't apply. He continues to say he has done nothing criminal. We shall see.
All I can say is, now that Morgan McSweeney's gone, I desperately hope this doesn't take Starmer down. There's no obvious successor, and the main alternatives are several orders of magnitude worse (i.e. Tories and Reform). But there's no doubt that Starmer is not in any way cut out to be a politician - it's been very clear for ages that he's no good at it.
I would guess it has no impact on the special relationship. Or what's left of it these days.
Trump has no loyalty to others, so the fact that, in the UK , other Epstein buddies are getting taken down? Not going to matter much.
Provided they don't say anything bad about him. Anyone who does that is beyond the pale. If it's a UK media, he'll maybe trash them. But if it's anyone in government, the UK joins his enemies list.
It's possible that it's as simple as something like Xi asking, "What have you learned from Russia-Ukraine that will make our takeover of Taiwan less costly?" And didn't like the answer.
I'm not sure Xi is exceptionally paranoid. The Chinese Communist Party has always been concerned about alternate loyalties, in business as well as in the military. Although the party may worry a bit more about the military, given how many founders of the PRC were generals.
The age of the guys being replaced at least gives a bit of plausible deniability to speculation about an ideological purge.** And it might be a matter, as suggested, of just wanting younger guys who are more up on the changing military technology. Seeing how inflexible Russian generals have been in Ukraine, and how that has played out, would be a motivator there.
** Mass corruption charges, even if warranted, could be a bad look. When Xi first came in, a "new broom" story might have played. But to have a bunch of cases only now? That could look like he wasn't on top of things.
Maybe not moral insanity just brazen bull (I propose the unit of 1 Ph* for this kind of thing, subdivision to be determined)
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-gateway-federal-funds-rename-dulles-penn-station
Now he also wants to rename the already renamed Gulf of Mexico after himself. But will he do after renaming Greenland? How will he call America?
If he was still alive, this guy instead of Kim Jong Un would probably be his role model (although he'd be unable to poperly pronounce the name): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saparmurat_Niyazov
*after Phalaris whose main claim to fame was a brazen bull.
This is David French in today's NYT on fairly simple measures that can be taken to protect the midterms, given Trump's "nationalise the election" rhetoric:
On “Separated by a common language”
>wondering what is wrong with the US that allows these elite
>rapists and sex pests to continue on without being held accountable.
lacking any criminal charges... https://apnews.com/article/jeffrey-epstein-client-list-sex-trafficking-049c96080a2ca2c12c84ac506437e50b
... that leaves shame as the only way to make anyone step down from anything. and people like Musk, Trump, Gates, etc.. are all rich enough to not have to care about what other people think, and rich enough to scare media owners away.
Trump's also insulated by the fact that the only way to hold a President accountable (other than shame) is via the (very stupid) impeachment process.
"
From GftNC's excerpted monologue: I got a message from Tommy Vietor, one of Barack Obama’s former staffers and now a successful podcaster with Pod Save America. He said: “If Epstein forces out Starmer and Trump survives, I will explode.” There are so many scandals in these files, yet the Trump-Bannon-Musk-Howard Lutnick crowd is getting off so lightly.
I hear a lot of friends (especially in Europe) who are despairing over this, and wondering what is wrong with the US that allows these elite rapists and sex pests to continue on without being held accountable.
The problem we have is one of passive voice.
The media - either scared of being accused of left-partisanship or being directed by elites with editorial power acting to protect themselves or their sex pest friends and associates - make sure that all of their moral dudgeon gets heaped on convenient scapegoats. They work hard not to subject themselves to any legal jeopardy or put themselves in the line of fire from the toxic firehose of hate that is our current administration. The correspondences get reported, but in a way that keeps them safely disconnected from any call-to-action.
But the real reason why none of the mighty are pulled down to face accountability is that the GOP controls all the levers of accountability, and we keep allowing the GOP supporters to duck their own culpability in keeping the rapists and sex pests in power. The DNC is still hoping to lure some of those Trumpy swingers away from the right and so cannot afford to insinuate that those swingers have been actively shielding those elite rapists from accountability by insisting that this is just the way that both sides are. Cynicism allows them to wash their own hands of the corruption that they have allowed on their own side in the name of fighting a holy crusade for the soul of America.
We must take away this cynicism dodge from them and make them feel shame for how they have enabled their elite to avoid accountability. We have to strip away the passive voice dodges and show them the active ways in which they maintain the public defenses that insulate the rapists and sex pests on their side from accountability.
And yes, we do need to flip congress and take those levers back, but we won't actually be able to effect any change until and unless we take away our collective ability to hide beneath the mask of cynicism and make justice a public imperative for anyone who wished to think themselves moral.
"
Edited version of Alastair Campbell's monologue from The Rest is Politics on the Mandelson/Epstein affair:
I’m having sleepless nights. These usually happen when I am anxious, angry, depressed or confused. There is so much out of the Epstein scandal to make me feel all of the above. It is, on so many levels, almost impossible to process, personally and politically.
Let’s start with angry. I’m angry at the content and the context of Epstein, which is so disgusting on so many levels, and frankly it gets to the point where you can’t face reading any more of it.
I’ve heard some MPs, some Tory, some Labour, Nigel Farage, journalists too, call the Peter Mandelson betrayal “the biggest scandal of the century.” Journalist Marina Hyde wrote a brilliant piece in which she said “it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal.” She is right about that. The real scandal is the trafficking, the abuse, and the attitudes to women of so many rich powerful men.
As Amelia Gentleman, in the Guardian, chronicled the way Epstein & Co talked about women in the files. How they see the role of women as being mere logistics, food, drink and sex. It’s horrible. It’s disgusting.
I get angry that we all get tarred with the same brush, now not least because of the Peter Mandelson association, as if anyone who knows him somehow enabled Epstein. It all plays into the narrative that “they’re all the same, all in it for themselves, have no principles.”
We are NOT all the same. I am very proud of the New Labour project, and many of the things we did, and despite everything believe politics and politicians can be a force for good.
But this Labour government is now looking like the last Tory one as it lurches from one big bad moment to the next. That makes me angry given the size of the majority the country gave them, the scale of the things that need fixing, and the way so much of the first two years has been wasted.
It’s a week now since we started to take stock of all this, and I still cannot, for the life of me, get my head round how close Peter Mandelson and Epstein seem to have been.
That as I was part of the team trying to advise Gordon Brown after the 2010 election, and in talks with Nick Clegg to see if we could do a Lib-Lab agreement, Peter was talking to Epstein and boasting that he had persuaded Gordon to go. I can’t get my head round him sending Epstein confidential notes about big economic decisions during The Crash.
I’ve known Peter for more than forty years. We’ve had many good times together, and some bad. Sometimes we’ve gone years without speaking, for example after his second resignation.
I’ve always known he is tricky, manipulative, can be secretive, as well as charming and clever. But I genuinely cannot fathom some of his exchanges with Epstein. Like when Epstein, on the day he was released, and they were joking about strippers and young girls. Was there nothing in Peter to say “Jeffrey, have you learned nothing?”
Yet also – and here lies some of my confusion and anxiety – precisely because I have known him so long, I have concern about where this might all end for him. I really don’t get how people can go from boasting of being a “close friend” one day to ”lock him up and throw away the key” the next.
I was angry and concerned at the decision to appoint Peter as Ambassador to the US. I understood the attraction. He’s a big figure, he had the New Labour connection, he knows trade and the global economy, and Keir Starmer clearly felt he needed more than a conventional diplomat to handle the Trump administration.
But as risk-reward decisions go, I always had a worry that this would not end well (if not quite like this) and I said so to the people making the decision. Listeners to my The Rest Is Politics podcast may recall how Rory Stewart outed me awhile back because he had heard me talking to one of the decision makers about David Miliband as a prospective ambassador, and I still think that would have been a better call.
And I’m angry with myself maybe. I could have made a big thing about it, but I am conscious, sometimes, of having to balance the public-facing part of my life with the fact I often have privileged access to people who expect at least some element of confidentiality when I am acting either as an activist or being asked for advice, as does happen.
That being said, I’m not terribly impressed with the scale of the dumping and the distancing since the Mandelson scandal broke. Would it not have made more sense for Keir simply to say he made a judgement, in the round at the time, based on the pluses and minuses, which were fully assessed, and it’s now transpired it was a bad judgement, and I apologise?
Putting all the blame on the vetting, and being lied to, is what has made this even more a question of his judgement and also the competence of his operation, with all the inevitable changes now under way.
I’m also angry that so many in the media, along with people like Farage and Michael Gove, who said it was a smart appointment at the time, now say it was obviously a bad judgement call.
I hate hypocrisy and these people are never challenged over that. And of course the media tend, in the main, only to do one volume – very loud and very anti-Labour – which means anyone who has ever had anything to do with Peter Mandelson is somehow presented as tainted for having failed to know what he was up to and with whom.
I understand the call from Gordon Brown to clean up politics, and at least he had an agenda about how to address it. But there’s a real risk when he makes that call in the way he did that, just as the expenses scandal harmed the reputation of all, not just the cheats, this too plays into the Reform framing: They’re all the same, everyone is corrupt, the system stinks, nobody can be trusted. Their answer? Trust the man who sold us Brexit on a pack of lies, and is now getting money from home, abroad and crypto and boasting about it, and stick him in Downing St.
One thing that especially riles me up is the way the right wing, here and in America, are getting a free pass on all this.
I got a message from Tommy Vietor, one of Barack Obama’s former staffers and now a successful podcaster with Pod Save America. He said: “If Epstein forces out Starmer and Trump survives, I will explode.” There are so many scandals in these files, yet the Trump-Bannon-Musk-Howard Lutnick crowd is getting off so lightly.
And of course I’m angry about the way Epstein and his pals like Peter Thiel boast about Brexit being “just the beginning” and wonder, did Peter Mandelson not realise that this was part of his game too?
As for the anxiety, it’s about what happens next and what it means for politics, and for the country.
If Labour do not get their act together, and fast, then Farage is being gifted power, which I believe would be a disaster for this country.
In that scenario, I fear we would soon see in Britain the kind of things currently debasing politics in Trump’s United States; the victory of slogan over substance; open and brazen corruption; the deliberate stoking of division and hate; threats to free media and the rule of law.
It will be another gift to Putin. Another gift to the tech bros to whom this right wing populism is a route to a world in which they, rather than democratically elected politicians, have all the power.
So I totally understand the calls for Starmer to go. So many MPs are angry, so many members of the public are frustrated and disappointed. Me too.
I have felt for some time Morgan McSweeney’s position was vulnerable because whatever talents he has that helped Keir become leader and then Prime Minister, it’s a big problem if you are the chief strategist and the strategy isn’t working, or you are the Chief of Staff and the operation isn’t working.
But the job of Prime Minister is a whole different level and those urging for change must have some idea of what happens next, and why it would be better.
People really underestimate the skills you need for the job of Prime Minister. Maybe Keir Starmer underestimated them too. But I am far from convinced by the names currently in the frame.
And that leads me to the most depressing thought of all. That because of the nature of our politics, the quality of people going into politics, the nihilism of the mainstream media, the anarchy of social media, with dissonance, hypocrisy, short-termism, naivety, industrialised rage and wilful ignorance off the scale, we are becoming ungovernable.
That neither the parties nor the public are really prepared to face up to the big things that need to happen to turn this country round, given the sheer scale of real problems we actually face.
So that’s the confusion to add to the anxiety. I am normally quite good at thinking ahead. I can usually see a course. Right now, as I write, I feel that is far from easy.
So no. I can’t sleep. And I know from talking to plenty of other Labour people, I am not alone.
"
Doesn’t look good for Labor. I’m beginning to believe British politics are more ‘effed up than ours.
Yay Seahawks!
"
lj, it's all of those things except, as you say, 2. The Tories have got a fucking nerve, after the corruption of BoJo, not to mention the PPE/Covid VIP lane scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_regarding_COVID-19_contracts_in_the_United_Kingdom
which is estimated to have cost the nation about £1.4 billion.
CaseyL: hard agree with what you say. Apart from the man that nous so memorably calls the Clementine Caligula, I am still amazed that, for example, Bannon's involvement in trying to rehabilitate Epstein's image has not done more damage to MAGA.
"
I feel like this whole thing is like a Rorschach test, pick the thing out that really pisses you off the most and you'll see it. You've got
By starting a list like this, I don't mean to be dismissive (except for the Tory complaints, perhaps). Multiple things can be true, so it feels like the attempt to define this as one thing means it doesn't become anything.
"
I'd say it is critical mass.
In Europe the Epstein associates are a tiny minority while in the US they occupy many positions of power (in and out of official politics) that allow for stonewalling and mutual support. Plus the tradition in the US not to hold the powerful accountable. So, in Europe it does not undermine the system to go after at least some prominent culprits. There simply is no long row of domino pieces to fall. In the US* Epstein seems to have (deliberately) infected the system itself with a rot so widespread that he probably hoped it would forever protect him. He is gone but the rot remains and fully uncovering - let alone thoroughly removing - it would shake the system to the core, which is why it is unlikely to happen.
*and, so some info I've seen but can't judge the veracity of says, in Israel
"
Apologies in advance for putting a US-centric spin on this, but what has struck me the most is the NON-impact the Epstein case has had on the US politicians and hangers-on who were Epstein intimates... starting, of course, with the complete waste of protoplasm currently occupying the Oval Office.
Seeing how being close to Epstein, or even adjacent to Epstein, is ending political careers all over Europe while Epstein's closest associates in the US are untouched has me seething.
"
Props to the UK for at least finding it scandalous.
Here in the US it's more like a national exercise in "la la la la I can't hear you"
"
I don't have a ton of time until I get in later tonight, but I was very struck by this piece by Marina Hyde a couple of days ago, and rather think most feminists agree, particularly with this sentence:
I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/06/jeffrey-epstein-scandal-politics-mass-abuse-women-girls
Obviously, we have all (lefty/liberals that is) been discussing this incessantly. I can tell you that in general the consensus among people I know (several of whom are rather involved in Labour) is this, all of which also reflects my opinion:
All I can say is, now that Morgan McSweeney's gone, I desperately hope this doesn't take Starmer down. There's no obvious successor, and the main alternatives are several orders of magnitude worse (i.e. Tories and Reform). But there's no doubt that Starmer is not in any way cut out to be a politician - it's been very clear for ages that he's no good at it.
"
I would guess it has no impact on the special relationship. Or what's left of it these days.
Trump has no loyalty to others, so the fact that, in the UK , other Epstein buddies are getting taken down? Not going to matter much.
Provided they don't say anything bad about him. Anyone who does that is beyond the pale. If it's a UK media, he'll maybe trash them. But if it's anyone in government, the UK joins his enemies list.
On “Xi and China’s military: an off the wall theory”
It's possible that it's as simple as something like Xi asking, "What have you learned from Russia-Ukraine that will make our takeover of Taiwan less costly?" And didn't like the answer.
On “Separated by a common language”
The Raving Monster Loony Party will finally get a PM!
On “Xi and China’s military: an off the wall theory”
I'm not sure Xi is exceptionally paranoid. The Chinese Communist Party has always been concerned about alternate loyalties, in business as well as in the military. Although the party may worry a bit more about the military, given how many founders of the PRC were generals.
The age of the guys being replaced at least gives a bit of plausible deniability to speculation about an ideological purge.** And it might be a matter, as suggested, of just wanting younger guys who are more up on the changing military technology. Seeing how inflexible Russian generals have been in Ukraine, and how that has played out, would be a motivator there.
** Mass corruption charges, even if warranted, could be a bad look. When Xi first came in, a "new broom" story might have played. But to have a bunch of cases only now? That could look like he wasn't on top of things.
"
If it's only a handful of military brass, then Xi isn't going full Stalin.
Never go full Stalin.
"
It is one thing for a leader to show no mercy to his enemies; it is quite another for him to be so pitiless with his friends.
Civilian authoritarian leaders have no friends in the military.
"
Apparently some big officer guy in Germany is forcing all the men under him to view Melania. We need to do some purging here of wackos and nutcases.
"
Yeah, there is that. But imagine if Xi is splitting the difference between those three and Marshall.
"
Hitler, Mao, and Stalin employed similar, albeit a bit more drastic approach to reforming their officer corps. Results vary.
On “Moral insanity”
Please add a 'what' (without tf) after But and before will.
"
Maybe not moral insanity just brazen bull (I propose the unit of 1 Ph* for this kind of thing, subdivision to be determined)
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-gateway-federal-funds-rename-dulles-penn-station
Now he also wants to rename the already renamed Gulf of Mexico after himself. But will he do after renaming Greenland? How will he call America?
If he was still alive, this guy instead of Kim Jong Un would probably be his role model (although he'd be unable to poperly pronounce the name): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saparmurat_Niyazov
*after Phalaris whose main claim to fame was a brazen bull.
"
This is David French in today's NYT on fairly simple measures that can be taken to protect the midterms, given Trump's "nationalise the election" rhetoric:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/05/opinion/trump-nationalize-elections-midterms.html?unlocked_article_code=1.J1A.41j0.KnVRs-ShXqZm&smid=url-share
On “Bingeing on schadenfreude”
You are dead
cody rudland<████████>
to <jeeproject@yahoo.com>
Aug 13, 2019 6:48 AM
Lol good riddance
"
Wow, when starting to read the post, I was thinking that it was some sort of alternative to gmail that was the subject.
...but then it ALL BECAME CLEAR.
So, not as big as gmail, but much less evil? Please proceed.
On “Moral insanity”
This, from Jamelle Bouie in today's NYT, seems a pretty succinct summing up of the governing idea behind the Trump presidency:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/04/opinion/trump-presidential-power-comments.html?unlocked_article_code=1.J1A.ZFRC.nNClfSmkgGZn&smid=url-share
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.