6 ms·

> Epstein had social relationships with many people who likely visited his private residences. We can't throw them all out because most of them are innocent. T

> Epstein had social relationships with many people who likely visited his private residences. We can't throw them all out because most of them are innocent. They all had to know that he had a vast criminal record involving prostitution and minors, and yet they continued to develop relationships with him. Would you feel comfortable developing a relationship with someone involved in a high-profile sex crimes case that had tremendous amounts of damning evidence? Epstein, for some reason, seemed to have a pretty active social life even after his trial. And it's striking how many around him downplay their relationships with him now, or actively tried to conceal his role in various activities, as MIT Media Lab did. > Peter Cohen, the M.I.T. Media Lab’s Director of Development and Strategy at the time, reiterated, “Jeffrey money, needs to be anonymous. Thanks.” The head of the media lab knew Epstein's donations needed to remain anonymous. > In October, 2014, the Media Lab received a two-million-dollar donation from Bill Gates; Ito wrote in an internal e-mail, “This is a $2M gift from Bill Gates directed by Jeffrey Epstein.” Cohen replied, “For gift recording purposes, we will not be mentioning Jeffrey’s name as the impetus for this gift.” They actively took steps internally to make sure Epstein's name wasn't on anything involving donations he directed from people like Bill Gates. So why did Bill Gates deny Epstein was even part of it? That doesn't add up. > Signe Swenson, a former development associate and alumni coordinator at the lab, told me that she resigned in 2016 in part because of her discomfort about the lab’s work with Epstein. She said that the lab’s leadership made it explicit, even in her earliest conversations with them, that Epstein’s donations had to be kept secret. Staff members knew what was going on, and in some cases, resigned over it. Peter Cohen clearly knew that Epstein was not be named anywhere in fundraising activities involving him, there was clearly culture at MIT Media Lab of obscuring his donation activities, and staff members resigned over it because they knew who he was. Hiding contact with a wealthy sex criminal and then lying about it doesn't look very innocent.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hackinthebochs 7y ago
>Hiding contact with a wealthy sex criminal and then lying about it doesn't look very innocent. "Contact" is vague and allows people to fill in the blank with a more sinister narrative. They took gift money that Epstein was "directing" (i.e. not his money), and decided not to mention Epstein in the record of the donation. I don't see a problem here.
- DoctorOetker 7y ago
  Please consider the possibility that Epstein rewarded (or promised future rewards in life) to the minors, who by now are adults, some of which are possibly studying, PhD-studying or working MIT Media Lab. This could be hush money through the Cloak of Charity. Check out one of my other comments where I link to my longer analysis. The "gifts" and "fundraisers" used in mainstream media are plausible deniability and downplaying of hush money and hide the "creative" cloak of charity construction...
leftyted 7y ago
Hiding that fact that a bad person donated the money or was involved in the donation doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. Yeah, it would be nice if the Media Lab had taken the high road. It would have been even nicer if Epstein had been locked up instead of let off. My point is that seven degrees of separation from Jeff Epstein seems like a distraction from the real issues here. I also think it's unreasonable to expect people whose job is begging for money (and whose continued employment is tied to their ability to get it) to be particularly stringent about whom they accept the money from. Also consider that Epstein's plea deal probably gave people like Ito and Gates some source of comfort. If the feds let Epstein off, he probably didn't do anything that bad, right? If the system catches you and then lets you go, that's a sign that you're not that reprehensible, right? Clearly that was not the case here. So why did Epstein get a deal? To me, this is the real issue, and this article is a distraction.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Is this passage from the article not damning? > According to Swenson, Ito had informed Cohen that Epstein “never goes into any room without his two female ‘assistants,’ ” whom he wanted to bring to the meeting at the Media Lab. Swenson objected to this, too, and it was decided that the assistants would be allowed to accompany Epstein but would wait outside the meeting room. > On the day of the visit, Swenson’s distress deepened at the sight of the young women. “They were models. Eastern European, definitely,” she told me. Among the lab’s staff, she said, “all of us women made it a point to be super nice to them. We literally had a conversation about how, on the off chance that they’re not there by choice, we could maybe help them.” They continued to work with someone whom they suspected of trafficking women. Not years prior, before his trial — right there in their own office. That’s beyond the pale. That’s what “tainted” means. Yes, Epstein’s plea deal for 13 months of prison time with offsite work privileges was a monstrous miscarriage of justice. That’s also an issue we need to fix. But let’s not pretend that this is the first we’re learning of the justice system’s heavy tilt in favor of rich people. There is no way Ito and Gates were unaware of how someone’s wealth and connections could allow them to escape justice.
  - leftyted 7y ago
rlt 7y ago
> Would you feel comfortable developing a relationship with someone involved in a high-profile sex crimes case that had tremendous amounts of damning evidence? If that relationship consisted of them anonymously giving me money, and me giving them nothing in return, then maybe? Maybe I’m missing something, but how did Epstein benefit from this anonymous relationship with the MIT Media Lab?
- neltnerb 7y ago
  Theoretically, because his legacy gets linked to prestigious research rather than trafficking children and pedophilia. I'm not sure how you would weight that downside, but Rockerfeller isn't remembered for the Ludlow Massacre (usually).
  - rlt 7y ago
    But... the donations were anonymous, right?
    - wyck 7y ago
      The founder of MIT's AI lab Marvin Minsky is accused of having sex with a minor via Epstein, there are several photos of MIT/Harvard scientists with Epstein on his island. There is nothing anonymous about this at all. Negroponte has admitted he knew about Epstein's conviction in 2012. And I quote "We all knew he went to jail for soliciting underage prostitution,” said Negroponte. “But we thought he served his term and repented." What a fucking joke.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      We know about them, so I'm guessing that they weren't anonymous? I didn't read it all but the New Yorker article says he acted as an intermediary between MIT Media Lab and others, so he wasn't anonymous to either party there.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  That’s called a “deal with the devil” and if you’re lucky the only price is having to look over your shoulder and the shoulders of the people close to you for the rest of your life. If you’re unlucky, you’ll look over your shoulder one day and see something you can’t unsee.
rolltiide 7y ago
MIT Media Labs acted the way it did because they accurately assumed you guys would act the way you are. Its the government's job to prosecute people and encumber assets. If the assets were part of a crime, the government has all the tools in the world to freeze those assets even if I don't agree with that ability either. if the government does not have the capability of freezing the assets, they have the capability of flagging them via sanctioning of [foreign] individuals. this is not the responsibility of recipients. it is disingenuous to pretend like it is. MIT Media Labs acted the way it did because they accurately assumed you guys would act the way you did. Think about all the other anonymous donations that occurred over the last decade and even today. You have no idea who is doing what and it doesn't matter. You still want projects funded, you still want cancer cured. The transactions themselves really has nothing to do with people's "access" and behavior. Focus on the good the money did. Focus on it being Bill Gates' money if it helps you sleep better. Focus on the money not being "discovered" to be proceeds of human trafficking.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- save_ferris 7y ago
  It's disingenuous to argue that an entity like MIT should behave morally, because they're only looking out for themselves and not thinking about optics? > If the assets were part of a crime, the government has all the tools in the world to freeze those assets even if I don't agree with that ability either. I'm not arguing that the government was incapable of doing its job. I believe, like many others who watched the Alex Acosta scandal unfold, that the government intentionally gave him a lenient sentence, for reasons we don't fully understand. MIT knew this and actively worked to keep his relationship with the school private. Why would they keep the relationship private if they didn't think what they were doing was wrong? Or are you arguing that MIT Media Lab is only permitted to act only for its own interests, even if that means working with people who was charged and convicted of sex crimes? The public shouldn't care when a known sexual predator forms secret financial relationships with a high-profile university? The guy had his own private cabin at a prestigious music summer camp for kids in the '90s.[0] This dude was a predator, but you're essentially arguing that the public has no right to know who MIT, an entity that relies heavily on public funds[1], chooses to take money from? Taxpayer funds go to pay the people working with the predators, how on earth is that not the public's business? 0: https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-had-his-own-lodge-at-interlochens-prestigious-arts-camp-for-kids-in-michigan https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-had-his-own-lo... 1: http://president.mit.edu/speeches-writing/federal-funding-priorities-and-mits-budget http://president.mit.edu/speeches-writing/federal-funding-pr...
dennisgorelik 7y ago
> he had a vast criminal record Are you implying that it is immoral to develop relationships with former criminal convicts?
- mayankkaizen 7y ago
  Except Epstein wasn't former convict (unless you insist on rigid legal technicalities). As is mostly clear now, he never mended his ways. Besides, he wasn't the kind of criminal who killed someone in a fit of rage or robbed a bank only once. He was way worse than that. God knows how many underage girls were his victims and for how long. And he wasn't even punished for his crime. I for sure will stay from such people unless I'm sure that guy in question has actually mended his ways.
  - dennisgorelik 7y ago
    > he never mended his ways Did Epstein continue to run prostitution business after being convicted? Or did Epstein continue to have sex with girls younger than 18? I tried to find any references to that, but only found older cases (2008 and earlier): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein#Civil_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein#Civil_cases

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

hackinthebochs 7y ago

>Hiding contact with a wealthy sex criminal and then lying about it doesn't look very innocent. "Contact" is vague and allows people to fill in the blank with a more sinister narrative. They took gift money that Epstein was "directing" (i.e. not his money), and decided not to mention Epstein in the record of the donation. I don't see a problem here.

DoctorOetker 7y ago
Please consider the possibility that Epstein rewarded (or promised future rewards in life) to the minors, who by now are adults, some of which are possibly studying, PhD-studying or working MIT Media Lab. This could be hush money through the Cloak of Charity. Check out one of my other comments where I link to my longer analysis. The "gifts" and "fundraisers" used in mainstream media are plausible deniability and downplaying of hush money and hide the "creative" cloak of charity construction...

leftyted 7y ago

Hiding that fact that a bad person donated the money or was involved in the donation doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. Yeah, it would be nice if the Media Lab had taken the high road. It would have been even nicer if Epstein had been locked up instead of let off. My point is that seven degrees of separation from Jeff Epstein seems like a distraction from the real issues here. I also think it's unreasonable to expect people whose job is begging for money (and whose continued employment is tied to their ability to get it) to be particularly stringent about whom they accept the money from. Also consider that Epstein's plea deal probably gave people like Ito and Gates some source of comfort. If the feds let Epstein off, he probably didn't do anything that bad, right? If the system catches you and then lets you go, that's a sign that you're not that reprehensible, right? Clearly that was not the case here. So why did Epstein get a deal? To me, this is the real issue, and this article is a distraction.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
Is this passage from the article not damning? > According to Swenson, Ito had informed Cohen that Epstein “never goes into any room without his two female ‘assistants,’ ” whom he wanted to bring to the meeting at the Media Lab. Swenson objected to this, too, and it was decided that the assistants would be allowed to accompany Epstein but would wait outside the meeting room. > On the day of the visit, Swenson’s distress deepened at the sight of the young women. “They were models. Eastern European, definitely,” she told me. Among the lab’s staff, she said, “all of us women made it a point to be super nice to them. We literally had a conversation about how, on the off chance that they’re not there by choice, we could maybe help them.” They continued to work with someone whom they suspected of trafficking women. Not years prior, before his trial — right there in their own office. That’s beyond the pale. That’s what “tainted” means. Yes, Epstein’s plea deal for 13 months of prison time with offsite work privileges was a monstrous miscarriage of justice. That’s also an issue we need to fix. But let’s not pretend that this is the first we’re learning of the justice system’s heavy tilt in favor of rich people. There is no way Ito and Gates were unaware of how someone’s wealth and connections could allow them to escape justice.
- leftyted 7y ago

rlt 7y ago

> Would you feel comfortable developing a relationship with someone involved in a high-profile sex crimes case that had tremendous amounts of damning evidence? If that relationship consisted of them anonymously giving me money, and me giving them nothing in return, then maybe? Maybe I’m missing something, but how did Epstein benefit from this anonymous relationship with the MIT Media Lab?

neltnerb 7y ago
Theoretically, because his legacy gets linked to prestigious research rather than trafficking children and pedophilia. I'm not sure how you would weight that downside, but Rockerfeller isn't remembered for the Ludlow Massacre (usually).
- rlt 7y ago
  But... the donations were anonymous, right?
  - wyck 7y ago
    The founder of MIT's AI lab Marvin Minsky is accused of having sex with a minor via Epstein, there are several photos of MIT/Harvard scientists with Epstein on his island. There is nothing anonymous about this at all. Negroponte has admitted he knew about Epstein's conviction in 2012. And I quote "We all knew he went to jail for soliciting underage prostitution,” said Negroponte. “But we thought he served his term and repented." What a fucking joke.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    We know about them, so I'm guessing that they weren't anonymous? I didn't read it all but the New Yorker article says he acted as an intermediary between MIT Media Lab and others, so he wasn't anonymous to either party there.
erikpukinskis 7y ago
That’s called a “deal with the devil” and if you’re lucky the only price is having to look over your shoulder and the shoulders of the people close to you for the rest of your life. If you’re unlucky, you’ll look over your shoulder one day and see something you can’t unsee.

rolltiide 7y ago

MIT Media Labs acted the way it did because they accurately assumed you guys would act the way you are. Its the government's job to prosecute people and encumber assets. If the assets were part of a crime, the government has all the tools in the world to freeze those assets even if I don't agree with that ability either. if the government does not have the capability of freezing the assets, they have the capability of flagging them via sanctioning of [foreign] individuals. this is not the responsibility of recipients. it is disingenuous to pretend like it is. MIT Media Labs acted the way it did because they accurately assumed you guys would act the way you did. Think about all the other anonymous donations that occurred over the last decade and even today. You have no idea who is doing what and it doesn't matter. You still want projects funded, you still want cancer cured. The transactions themselves really has nothing to do with people's "access" and behavior. Focus on the good the money did. Focus on it being Bill Gates' money if it helps you sleep better. Focus on the money not being "discovered" to be proceeds of human trafficking.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
save_ferris 7y ago
It's disingenuous to argue that an entity like MIT should behave morally, because they're only looking out for themselves and not thinking about optics? > If the assets were part of a crime, the government has all the tools in the world to freeze those assets even if I don't agree with that ability either. I'm not arguing that the government was incapable of doing its job. I believe, like many others who watched the Alex Acosta scandal unfold, that the government intentionally gave him a lenient sentence, for reasons we don't fully understand. MIT knew this and actively worked to keep his relationship with the school private. Why would they keep the relationship private if they didn't think what they were doing was wrong? Or are you arguing that MIT Media Lab is only permitted to act only for its own interests, even if that means working with people who was charged and convicted of sex crimes? The public shouldn't care when a known sexual predator forms secret financial relationships with a high-profile university? The guy had his own private cabin at a prestigious music summer camp for kids in the '90s.[0] This dude was a predator, but you're essentially arguing that the public has no right to know who MIT, an entity that relies heavily on public funds[1], chooses to take money from? Taxpayer funds go to pay the people working with the predators, how on earth is that not the public's business? 0: https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-had-his-own-lodge-at-interlochens-prestigious-arts-camp-for-kids-in-michigan https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-had-his-own-lo... 1: http://president.mit.edu/speeches-writing/federal-funding-priorities-and-mits-budget http://president.mit.edu/speeches-writing/federal-funding-pr...

dennisgorelik 7y ago

> he had a vast criminal record Are you implying that it is immoral to develop relationships with former criminal convicts?

mayankkaizen 7y ago
Except Epstein wasn't former convict (unless you insist on rigid legal technicalities). As is mostly clear now, he never mended his ways. Besides, he wasn't the kind of criminal who killed someone in a fit of rage or robbed a bank only once. He was way worse than that. God knows how many underage girls were his victims and for how long. And he wasn't even punished for his crime. I for sure will stay from such people unless I'm sure that guy in question has actually mended his ways.
- dennisgorelik 7y ago
  > he never mended his ways Did Epstein continue to run prostitution business after being convicted? Or did Epstein continue to have sex with girls younger than 18? I tried to find any references to that, but only found older cases (2008 and earlier): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein#Civil_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein#Civil_cases