5 ms·

Why would Bill Gates need Epstein to be the middle man for his $2 mil donation? Why didn't he just donate to the Media Lab directly? And given his insistence t

by tempsy 7y ago

Why would Bill Gates need Epstein to be the middle man for his $2 mil donation? Why didn't he just donate to the Media Lab directly? And given his insistence that the donation be made anonymously, it seems like he was well aware the optics would be bad if the public knew there was a connection between the two, and yet he chose to make the donation through Epstein anyway.

gjsman-1000 7y ago
Bill Gates has given many times personally to the Media Lab secretly. He gave on this occasion on Epstein's request. To him, this was just a financer asking if he could give some cash to the Media Lab, considering Gates had donated before, AFAIK.
- tempsy 7y ago
  Gates is flat out denying that Epstein had anything to do with this specific $2m donation at all.
  - wuliwong 7y ago
    Its hard for me to believe the emails were lies but I guess it is possible that Epstein lied to Ito about the money coming from Gates? Unless the money came from Gates' account and wasn't first transferred to an account controlled by Epstein, it will probably be hard to tell.
- wuliwong 7y ago
  You don't know what Bill Gates thought of Jeffery Epstein. And in 2014 Jeffery Epstein was not "just a financier".
FireBeyond 7y ago
Leaving aside this particular situation... Many philanthropists will say "I wish to donate $X", and then ask a friend/group/organization, "Where would you like me to donate this?", hence a "directed donation".
- tempsy 7y ago
  Gates is denying Epstein was involved in this donation at all, despite the emails. Plus, Gates was well aware how unsavery Epstein was given his insistence the donation be made anonymously. Doesn't add up.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    "Leaving aside this particular situation". I was just responding to your question of why a rich person "needs" someone to be a middleman on where to donate.
  - neffy 7y ago
    Joi providing a front for Epstein perhaps? Joi benefiting personally from this, is the smoking gun.
  - wuliwong 7y ago
    I didn't see anywhere in the article explaining the Gates wanted the donation to be anonymous. It looks like Peter Cohen of MIT wanted to not mention "Jeffery's name as the impetus for this gift." This certainly doesn't look good for Bill Gates. I have trouble believing that Ito was lying in his 2014 email concerning the Gates donation. Possibly, he was mislead by Epstein but I can't think of any reason Ito himself would lie. As someone else commented about a different aspect of the article, I'm doubt we will ever learn more.
baron_harkonnen 7y ago
Even though we won't find out more, this Epstein issue has given us a tiny glimpse to the mechanics of the plutocracy we really do live in. It's pretty clear that for certain individuals higher up in the social hierarchy than most of us will ever see, Epstein offered a very exclusive service. And was part of a world of that we mostly think of as fiction. Similar to when the Snowden leaks happened we all saw that "yes, the government really does perform mass surveillance on the population", we are now seeing that "yes, the extremely wealth do play by completely different rules and shape our society in complex ways". But we won't see much more. Joichi Ito is probably the least powerful person caught up in all this, and him and people like him provide the public retribution we all want to see. We'll see the justice has been served, and return the illusion that this was just a strange aberration rather than the status quo.
- AndrewBissell 7y ago
  Probably the most astute comment on this entire thread. In particular the willingness of putatively skeptical and inquisitive people to accept the most transparent, dissembling excuses from the likes of Gates has been quite a sight to see.
- shrimpx 7y ago
  What was this "very exclusive service" that Epstein was providing to people like Bill Gates?
AndrewBissell 7y ago
The involvement of people like Gates and Hoffman, for whom Epstein's money was effectively chump change, certainly does pose the question of what else he was bringing to the table for people with that level of wealth.

by tempsy 7y ago

gjsman-1000 7y ago

Bill Gates has given many times personally to the Media Lab secretly. He gave on this occasion on Epstein's request. To him, this was just a financer asking if he could give some cash to the Media Lab, considering Gates had donated before, AFAIK.

tempsy 7y ago
Gates is flat out denying that Epstein had anything to do with this specific $2m donation at all.
- wuliwong 7y ago
  Its hard for me to believe the emails were lies but I guess it is possible that Epstein lied to Ito about the money coming from Gates? Unless the money came from Gates' account and wasn't first transferred to an account controlled by Epstein, it will probably be hard to tell.
wuliwong 7y ago
You don't know what Bill Gates thought of Jeffery Epstein. And in 2014 Jeffery Epstein was not "just a financier".

FireBeyond 7y ago

Leaving aside this particular situation... Many philanthropists will say "I wish to donate $X", and then ask a friend/group/organization, "Where would you like me to donate this?", hence a "directed donation".

tempsy 7y ago
Gates is denying Epstein was involved in this donation at all, despite the emails. Plus, Gates was well aware how unsavery Epstein was given his insistence the donation be made anonymously. Doesn't add up.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  "Leaving aside this particular situation". I was just responding to your question of why a rich person "needs" someone to be a middleman on where to donate.
- neffy 7y ago
  Joi providing a front for Epstein perhaps? Joi benefiting personally from this, is the smoking gun.
- wuliwong 7y ago
  I didn't see anywhere in the article explaining the Gates wanted the donation to be anonymous. It looks like Peter Cohen of MIT wanted to not mention "Jeffery's name as the impetus for this gift." This certainly doesn't look good for Bill Gates. I have trouble believing that Ito was lying in his 2014 email concerning the Gates donation. Possibly, he was mislead by Epstein but I can't think of any reason Ito himself would lie. As someone else commented about a different aspect of the article, I'm doubt we will ever learn more.

baron_harkonnen 7y ago

Even though we won't find out more, this Epstein issue has given us a tiny glimpse to the mechanics of the plutocracy we really do live in. It's pretty clear that for certain individuals higher up in the social hierarchy than most of us will ever see, Epstein offered a very exclusive service. And was part of a world of that we mostly think of as fiction. Similar to when the Snowden leaks happened we all saw that "yes, the government really does perform mass surveillance on the population", we are now seeing that "yes, the extremely wealth do play by completely different rules and shape our society in complex ways". But we won't see much more. Joichi Ito is probably the least powerful person caught up in all this, and him and people like him provide the public retribution we all want to see. We'll see the justice has been served, and return the illusion that this was just a strange aberration rather than the status quo.

AndrewBissell 7y ago
Probably the most astute comment on this entire thread. In particular the willingness of putatively skeptical and inquisitive people to accept the most transparent, dissembling excuses from the likes of Gates has been quite a sight to see.
shrimpx 7y ago
What was this "very exclusive service" that Epstein was providing to people like Bill Gates?

AndrewBissell 7y ago

The involvement of people like Gates and Hoffman, for whom Epstein's money was effectively chump change, certainly does pose the question of what else he was bringing to the table for people with that level of wealth.