On Wednesday I noticed this on twitter concerning Jeffrey Epstein and the Miami Herald:
The Miami Herald has put together a bombshell of an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and prosecutors who negotiated a sealed plea arrangement that allowed the billionaire to only spend a year in jail and avoid prosecution for allegedly sexually assaulting dozens of underage girls in what the paper described as a “sex pyramid scheme.”
As yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the blog, the name instantly brought back memories of days gone past, some very LONG past.
It’s axiomatic that sex sells so when you combine the words: “Private Island”, “Lawsuit” & “Orgies” you have a story that normally is guaranteed viral:
Tales of orgies and young girls being shipped to the island, called Little St. James, have been revealed as part of an ongoing lawsuit between Epstein and his former lawyers Scott Rothstein and Bradley Edwards.
That was from April 2014 and the entire gist of the piece titled
was how this story did not go viral because it involved Bill Clinton:
If there is one thing the media that loves to play the War on Women® card doesn’t want to touch it’s a story about people using their own private island to get laid that involves Bill Clinton.
What could the media do if this story involving the former father of the year? They would call it old news, not relevant, dirty tricks from a salacious lawsuit that doesn’t even involve him and an attack on Hillary that crosses the line. In fact the left will deploy a plethora of adjectives to discourage further discussion of this story from antiquated to zany, but there is one adjective that could not come out of their mouth to dismiss this story:
The last few years have proven that the left can convince a low information voter of a lot of things, but even the full power of the mainstream media and the strongest zealots from the War on Women® brigade would not be able to convince the American public that Bill Clinton would have no interest or business on a private island where orgies took place.
The real exclamation point to this argument came two years later in May of 2016 when on Morning Joe, Donny Deutch explained why the left’s attacks on Donald Trump vis a vis women could backfire because of the magic words: Jeffrey Epstein
“Here’s the tennis game,” Deutsch said. “Donald Trump kissed a woman in a bathing suit. Trump hits back: Tell me about the president’s relationship with a guy named Jeffrey Epstein. That’s your tennis match.”
and the entire Morning Joe table reacted, not in words but by their faces:
well take a look at the video and two things become immediately clear.
Everybody at the Table knows who Jeffery Epstein is, and what the story is
Nobody at the table wanted to talk about it
In fact they SO didn’t want to talk about it that NBC put in a copyright claim on the video that the Washington Free Beacon had excerpted in their piece thus hiding this previously viral video from anyone who didn’t remember the day, the segment and how to navigate the byzantine labyrinth of their embed system. As I put it at the time:
Maybe it’s just me but given how often we see stuff at mediaite et al it seems rather unusual for a news network to make a copyright claim over a clip from a news story that used as “fair use” by another news organization. Could this suggest that NBC wants to keep this clip out of the public view because it might hurt Hillary?
I can see the NBC reaction now: Nonsense, we’re not censoring the clip at all. The seven minute clip IS available IF you
Go to the Morning Joe site
Hit search taking you to the MSNBC search engine
Search for Donald Trump
Narrow the field to Morning Joe
Narrow the field to May 16th 2016
and sit through all the videos till you find the right one.
And skip ahead to the 12 minute mark on that video.
If you do so you CAN find the clip and watch the Morning Joe panel’s reaction to what Donny Deutsch says
All of this was of course completely consistent with DaTechGuy’s 1st law of media outrage which states
The level of Outrage or interest of the media and their allies on the left concerning any insult or prevarication concerning a person or thing will routinely be equal to the inverse of the degree of the political distance between said media / leftists and and the target of said insult or prevarication at the time it is made.
In this case we were talking an action rather than an insult or prevarication but the law fits. There was no political distance between the left and Bill Clinton and a clear connection to Mr. Epstein, therefore the level of interest or outrage concerning Mr. Epstein’s actions concerning underage women were consequently zero.
So what changed the equation more than two years later? This is partially answered by this line in the story at Twitchy (emphasis mine):
Since Epstein is linked to both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump and since the prosecutor who gave him the sweetheart deal is current Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta, we imagine we’ll be hearing a lot more about it in the coming weeks.
So there is a now a Trump/administration connection to be exploited here, but even so, Mr. Acosta has been secretary of labor for eighteen months and the Weinstein revelation and the #metoo have been a thing since at least Oct of 2017. Why wait a full year to go there, particularly when a scandal involving a Florida republican might have been useful to bring up before a critical 2018 Florida election, an election that Democrats lost?
The answer comes from a seemingly unrelated story in the Hill from last month
Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton during an event over the weekend left the door open to a possible 2020 run, saying that even though she doesn’t want to run, “I’d like to be president.”
Clinton’s comments come as speculation has increased over whether she will launch another bid after the midterm elections….
…She added that she’s not going to think about a possible run until after the midterm elections next month.
Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, announced this month that they will be embarking on a 13-city tour over the next year, hosting discussions about current events and politics across the country.
There are a lot of Democrats who are thinking of running in 2020 who believe they can beat Donald Trump but of all those potential 2020 candidates Hillary Clinton is unique as she is only one who we can say with complete certainty that President Trump is capable of defeating because he’s already done so once.
As the media primary purpose is to elect Democrats, it is in their interest and of course in the interest of every single other potential Democrat candidate that Hillary is NOT the 2020 Democrat nominee. The problem of course is finding a way to shall we say persuade Hillary and Bill that a 2nd run for President is a bad idea without risking her wrath by a direct attack?
That’s where Jeffrey Epstein and DaTechGuy’s 2nd Law of Media outrage comes into play:
The level of acceptance of the positions and/or actions of any group or organization by the left and media is directly proportional to their current or potential value in electing liberal Democrats.
If the MSM thought a Hillary Clinton for President 2020 run was good for democrats then the Jeffrey Epstein story would remain on open Washington secret only to be mentioned by conservative bloggers who can be banned by twitter or whose traffic can be manipulated by Google.
But with Bill and Hillary Clinton’s potential value in electing liberal Democrats in 2020 low or perhaps even negative, the media can, and indeed MUST expose the sweetheart deal that Mr. Epstein received at the hand of prosecutors years ago not because of their faux outrage over Epstein acts but because of their desire to win in 2020.
You might think that’s a rather cynical opinion, and 10 years ago today I might not have held it, but as I said yesterday:
There is an old saying that familiarity breeds contempt and nothing has increased by contempt for the MSM then observing them closely for 10 years except for one thing, that is being in the room with them as credentialed press and simply watching and listening to what they say and do.
After 10 years of watching these folks in action I submit and suggest that no other opinion is possible.
if you think this site is still worth supporting after 10 years please consider kicking in here:
Or even better subscribing.
Either way it’s most appreciated.