6 ms·

Was the connection just that they took money from Epstein? Did they already know about the things he was doing when they took the money?

bdcravens 7y ago
He was already a convicted sex offender at that point.
etrevino 7y ago
Joi Ito apparently knew Epstein personally and offered Zuckerman to meet Epstein in 2014, which was well after Epstein's punishment (such as it was) for pandering.
msghacq 7y ago
Joi Ito took money for MIT from Epstein after he became a convicted sex offender. He also allowed Epstein to co-invest in his startups and visited his houses (which were decorated with extremely provocative and possibly illegal photos). All investors do enough diligence that he would have known about the conviction before working and socializing with him.
- jessriedel 7y ago
  No one is allowed to accept charitable donations from felons? Or they can, but are morally on the hook if the felon commits another crime?
  - dekhn 7y ago
    I would say, in the sphere of public opinion, one should be cautious accepting charitable donations from felons. However, there's certainly precedent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Milken#Philanthropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Milken#Philanthropy
  - msghacq 7y ago
    I would say taking money from, investing with and visiting the houses of a convicted child sex trafficker is a really bad idea if you want to keep your and your institution's reputation intact. It's also recently come to light that Epstein continued to rape children during this time period (post-arrest). Two new lawsuits were just filed against his estate for it.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    I'd argue it's at least morally questionable to assist in a convicted and apparently unrepentant felon's attempts to whitewash their reputation via large amounts of cash.
  - SolarNet 7y ago
    Charity and investments are two different things. Further there are felons who are particularly egregious, human trafficking of children for sex ranks up there.
  - qntty 7y ago
    Sounds like he was closer to him than just accepting his donations.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > No one is allowed to accept charitable donations from felons? No, but the charges merit diligence. The facts and circumstances of Epstein's settlement, even knowing nothing more than the suspiciously-short jail time, should have raised red flags.
  - michaelt 7y ago
    One of the downsides of hosting sex parties with trafficked minors is when you get caught all your guests come under suspicion, even if the party they attended had no sex at all Unless there's an official register of everyone who attended each type of party, which seems unlikely.
    - goatinaboat 7y ago
      Fortunately there is an official register or everyone who flew on the Lolita Express.
      - msghacq 7y ago
        There is, but unfortunately only one of three pilots recorded names in the flight logs. Still, there is a lot of documentation.
    - skrebbel 7y ago
      I'm not sure that people who host parties with trafficked minors care much about the reputation of their guests.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    Well certainly the type of felon matters, no? Epstein's crimes are particularly heinous.
  - IOT_Apprentice 7y ago
    I'm wondering why you merely couch this as accepting money from felons, when you know full well that Epstein was not only a pedophile, but ran an international sex trafficking ring. We aren't discussing insider trading or possessing controlled substances. You would have to decide if you find it immoral to accept a donation from a specific person, based on your own moral code and how the person behaves and live with that.
    - jessriedel 7y ago
      I'm trying to understand what general moral principle is that is being suggested. You can't accept money from sex criminals? Or only if you think they won't commit a future offense? "You have to personally decide what's moral" isn't a very good response when a crowd is gathering to punish someone.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
    Epstein wasn’t just any felon. He was someone who was systematically using his wealth and influence to rape children and get away with it. If you accept charitable donations from him, you are increasing his influence and assenting that his crimes were not a big deal.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >No one is allowed to accept charitable donations from felons Of course they're allowed. It's a free country. We're discussing how reprehensible it is, and we focus on certain kinds of felons (not some guy who once did a victimless burglary or a DIU), and also on cases where they didn't just "accept donations", but visited the felons to their private lair...
  - stronglikedan 7y ago
    > are morally on the hook if the felon commits another crime? In the Age of Outrage, yes, even though it's stupid.
hwillis 7y ago
Literally the first sentence was that Marvin Minsky was implicated in his crimes[1]. > Did they already know about the things he was doing when they took the money? Clearly yes: "Joi asked me in 2014 if I wanted to meet Epstein, and I refused and urged him not to meet with him." The first cases against Epstein were in 2008 and Epstein's reputation has been well known since then. [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...
- azinman2 7y ago
  Let’s not forget that it’s an allegation against Marvin Minsky, not a proved event. He’s not even alive to confirm or deny the charge. As someone who was around Minsky, I have a very very hard time believing this for a number of reasons. Our culture has gotten to the point where an accusation is enough in the court of opinion. It’s good that these issues have brought awareness to places where victims have been otherwise minimized in the past, or have been proof less of the action despite it happening. And that’s a tough thing. But occasionally these accusations are proved to be false. I think we’re getting carried away here, at least as far as Minsky goes.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Our culture has gotten to the point where an accusation is enough in the court of opinion That's true. On the other hand, out culture was for far more decades (nay, millennia) to the point that people could not care less about such accusations, and the power figures could do whatever they liked... Also, it wasn't just an accusation in the "court of opinion", but a deposition to an actual court. "In a deposition, Giuffre, née Roberts, claimed she was trafficked to MIT professor Marvin Minsky, who died in 2016 at age 88, as well as former Maine Sen. George Mitchell, ex-New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and money manager Glenn Dubin, whose wife, Eva, is an ex-girlfriend of Epstein’s." Still, it's not proven and I'm against the "court of public opinion", at least in more shallow cases (e.g. Woody Allen). But here it's at Weinstein and worse level. I can see some fake-victim badmouthing a powerful figure to bring them down. Or to blackmail them. Or for revenge (e.g. from a bad relationship, etc). So I'd understand it if e.g. it was fake accusation just against one person. But it seems too much for a fake-victim to name names of several people, and powerful people at that, on top.

bdcravens 7y ago

He was already a convicted sex offender at that point.

etrevino 7y ago

Joi Ito apparently knew Epstein personally and offered Zuckerman to meet Epstein in 2014, which was well after Epstein's punishment (such as it was) for pandering.

msghacq 7y ago

Joi Ito took money for MIT from Epstein after he became a convicted sex offender. He also allowed Epstein to co-invest in his startups and visited his houses (which were decorated with extremely provocative and possibly illegal photos). All investors do enough diligence that he would have known about the conviction before working and socializing with him.

jessriedel 7y ago
No one is allowed to accept charitable donations from felons? Or they can, but are morally on the hook if the felon commits another crime?
- dekhn 7y ago
  I would say, in the sphere of public opinion, one should be cautious accepting charitable donations from felons. However, there's certainly precedent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Milken#Philanthropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Milken#Philanthropy
- msghacq 7y ago
  I would say taking money from, investing with and visiting the houses of a convicted child sex trafficker is a really bad idea if you want to keep your and your institution's reputation intact. It's also recently come to light that Epstein continued to rape children during this time period (post-arrest). Two new lawsuits were just filed against his estate for it.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  I'd argue it's at least morally questionable to assist in a convicted and apparently unrepentant felon's attempts to whitewash their reputation via large amounts of cash.
- SolarNet 7y ago
  Charity and investments are two different things. Further there are felons who are particularly egregious, human trafficking of children for sex ranks up there.
- qntty 7y ago
  Sounds like he was closer to him than just accepting his donations.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > No one is allowed to accept charitable donations from felons? No, but the charges merit diligence. The facts and circumstances of Epstein's settlement, even knowing nothing more than the suspiciously-short jail time, should have raised red flags.
- michaelt 7y ago
  One of the downsides of hosting sex parties with trafficked minors is when you get caught all your guests come under suspicion, even if the party they attended had no sex at all Unless there's an official register of everyone who attended each type of party, which seems unlikely.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    Fortunately there is an official register or everyone who flew on the Lolita Express.
    - msghacq 7y ago
      There is, but unfortunately only one of three pilots recorded names in the flight logs. Still, there is a lot of documentation.
  - skrebbel 7y ago
    I'm not sure that people who host parties with trafficked minors care much about the reputation of their guests.
- root_axis 7y ago
  Well certainly the type of felon matters, no? Epstein's crimes are particularly heinous.
- IOT_Apprentice 7y ago
  I'm wondering why you merely couch this as accepting money from felons, when you know full well that Epstein was not only a pedophile, but ran an international sex trafficking ring. We aren't discussing insider trading or possessing controlled substances. You would have to decide if you find it immoral to accept a donation from a specific person, based on your own moral code and how the person behaves and live with that.
  - jessriedel 7y ago
    I'm trying to understand what general moral principle is that is being suggested. You can't accept money from sex criminals? Or only if you think they won't commit a future offense? "You have to personally decide what's moral" isn't a very good response when a crowd is gathering to punish someone.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  Epstein wasn’t just any felon. He was someone who was systematically using his wealth and influence to rape children and get away with it. If you accept charitable donations from him, you are increasing his influence and assenting that his crimes were not a big deal.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >No one is allowed to accept charitable donations from felons Of course they're allowed. It's a free country. We're discussing how reprehensible it is, and we focus on certain kinds of felons (not some guy who once did a victimless burglary or a DIU), and also on cases where they didn't just "accept donations", but visited the felons to their private lair...
- stronglikedan 7y ago
  > are morally on the hook if the felon commits another crime? In the Age of Outrage, yes, even though it's stupid.

hwillis 7y ago

Literally the first sentence was that Marvin Minsky was implicated in his crimes[1]. > Did they already know about the things he was doing when they took the money? Clearly yes: "Joi asked me in 2014 if I wanted to meet Epstein, and I refused and urged him not to meet with him." The first cases against Epstein were in 2008 and Epstein's reputation has been well known since then. [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...

azinman2 7y ago
Let’s not forget that it’s an allegation against Marvin Minsky, not a proved event. He’s not even alive to confirm or deny the charge. As someone who was around Minsky, I have a very very hard time believing this for a number of reasons. Our culture has gotten to the point where an accusation is enough in the court of opinion. It’s good that these issues have brought awareness to places where victims have been otherwise minimized in the past, or have been proof less of the action despite it happening. And that’s a tough thing. But occasionally these accusations are proved to be false. I think we’re getting carried away here, at least as far as Minsky goes.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Our culture has gotten to the point where an accusation is enough in the court of opinion That's true. On the other hand, out culture was for far more decades (nay, millennia) to the point that people could not care less about such accusations, and the power figures could do whatever they liked... Also, it wasn't just an accusation in the "court of opinion", but a deposition to an actual court. "In a deposition, Giuffre, née Roberts, claimed she was trafficked to MIT professor Marvin Minsky, who died in 2016 at age 88, as well as former Maine Sen. George Mitchell, ex-New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and money manager Glenn Dubin, whose wife, Eva, is an ex-girlfriend of Epstein’s." Still, it's not proven and I'm against the "court of public opinion", at least in more shallow cases (e.g. Woody Allen). But here it's at Weinstein and worse level. I can see some fake-victim badmouthing a powerful figure to bring them down. Or to blackmail them. Or for revenge (e.g. from a bad relationship, etc). So I'd understand it if e.g. it was fake accusation just against one person. But it seems too much for a fake-victim to name names of several people, and powerful people at that, on top.