Why would Epstein’s legal team answer that question?
If this is really how you feel, why did you limit your first sentence to “conservative politics?”
Bill Clinton had Monica and others. Weinstein was a big donor to the Democrats. Kirsten Gillebrand has called out a lot of BS from Democratic party lawmakers. Kamala dated Willie Brown. Epstein had ties to folks across the political spectrum.
Being suspicious of attractive women IS a shitty attitude, and it doesn’t become less shitty just because you tried to limit it to women of a particular political ideology.
If you’re a hot girl with no morals, right wing grifting is a helluva career path. There is no left wing equivalent.
Separately, just getting in the door to be sexually harassed seems efficient. Bill OReilly paid $35 million!
Ugh. “That hot successful girl must be sucking dicks to get ahead” is a pretty toxic take.
2 Likes
When she’s standing next to Jeff Epstein? Really? Next to Harvey Weinstein? Really?
You guys aren’t getting that this is 100% when they are standing next to someone who makes people do that.
Who Hope Hicks has been sleeping with is public record.
“Hotbeds” or not, I’d urge you to focus more on the conduct of individual people (for example, we know that Hope Hicks was directly involved in damage control wrt the Access Hollywood tapes) and less on providing “reads” about [attractive] women generally. The broader brush you use, the more you start reinforcing the negative stereotypes (women who meet my standards of attractiveness must have slept their way to the top, less conventionally attractive women can’t be victims of harassment), that are incredibly harmful to women in the workplace.
Fair enough. I can see how my post could be read really broadly. It was intended for extremely specific situations. I think it’s more than fair enough to speculate about whether a guy with Epstein’s tendencies, resources, and it turns out plan to commit freaking suicide would be spending lots of alone time with a conventionally attractive female lawyer while he was supposed to be locked up in the SHU for reasons beyond legal advice.
I’m sorry but this is literally the line where we teeter into a caricature of ourselves. Of course that’s reasonable to assume until proven otherwise. And if she gets outed and doesn’t like what it does to her career she shouldn’t have been in an interview alone with Jeff freaking Epstein after his final arrest. She is absolutely not a victim here.
This is the point where we start to be anti feminist by removing all agency from women. Just like anyone they have choices to make about who they will spend time around under what circumstances and be judged for them. Every man who spent any considerable time around Epstein for the last 30 years is now more or less assumed to be a pedophile. That’s the level of guilt by association this dude carried around with him.
The idea of describing a lawyer visiting a client in prison as some sort of potential sexcapade, even if she were the type of hot nympho lawyer I assume exists everywhere I am not, is about the stupidest thing in this thread. And there are a lot of stupid things in this thread.
Yes, nobody with a brain would blame the Clintons, but not because they have no low-level contacts at the pen. One wouldn’t need their own personal contacts with low-level people, they would just need to know somebody higher up in the Italian or Russian mob. The Italian mob, for instance , worked closely with the intelligence communities from world war II on through the Cold war and probably to this day.
How did he pay her? I figure the firm was already charging him $600/hr just to chat so he wasn’t lonely and to semi-strategize about his case. Did the firm bill another $3000/hr on top of that, and she had a deal worked out with the partners and payroll department where she would get her extra $1500/hr cut for giving epstein handjobs in semi-private environment, all the while imperialing her bar card for life and subjecting the firm to millions in liability for the inevitable pimping-associates-out-for-sex-work lawsuit?
The less you know, the more plausible conspiracy theories become. They really are just the triumph of epistempic urges over information and cognitive discipline.
Lol, true simp. But if you’ve ever worked at any firm, then you know that first year associates get all the s*** jobs. Lol.
I don’t think you actually need to be a member of the bar to meet with a prisoner in a legal setting.
But I can see that would open the firm to liability, but then every prosecutor and defense attorney that’s ever worked with Epstein is probably subject to liability of some sort.
That is funny though the way you put it.
I’ve worked for two big national law firms, and neither of them would have any idea how to deal with the logistics of Epstein so much as copping a cheap feel on an associate and either of them would dump him and take the hit on $1m in lost billables without thinking twice.
Still lolling.
See I have no problem admitting that I was wrong and made a mistake. There’s a first time for everything! Sort of feels like I just lost my virginity and I’m actually proud of this moment and I’m sure to remember it for the rest of my life.
So I guess I was also wrong about forced labor in federal prisons. It looks like it is a requirement to work or to have employment while incarcerated.
Take note, Clovis. This is how humility works, sort of…
1 Like
Certainly Epstein or his benefactors employ multiple law firms, and certainly some of those firms are of the shadier variety.
my guess is that Epstein and his cohort are quite capable of insulating themselves from various liabilities.
I assume Epstein’s lawyers were way more than $600/h, no?
If I’m not mistaken though, there are actual documented and prosecuted cases of defendants or prisoners having sex with women in their attorney’s office if I’m not mistaken. It’s not unheard of.
and apparently Epstein had just naked pictures of young women all over his Lolita island Mansion. So perhaps this guy just gets off on dominance, voyeurism who knows what. Of course he’s dead now … or so we’re told. Mwuhahaha. …
2 Likes
This is what I’m talking about. This is terrible. Stop.
That Forbes article is just complete journalistic AIDS designed to gin up the kinds of speculation we see in this thread. One anonymous attorney claims there was a young woman (whatever that means) and it’s shocking because:
"The optics were startling. Because she was young. And pretty,” said the visiting attorney, who asked that his name not be used because he didn’t want to create friction with the prison administration.
Fucking amazing. There’s no corroboration from other sources, no explanation for why this was newsworthy, no evidence that this wasn’t just some routine lawyer shit, it’s just “Area Man Sees Hot Girl.” Like there isn’t enough crazy shit going on here that we have to frame every minor oddity some anonymous guy allegedly sees as a salacious mystery.
2 Likes
Fair enough.
However this case is a bit different than your garden-variety young hot attorney visiting your random client in jail. Epstein had certain proclivities that make these optics suspect.
and I don’t see how whether the woman was or wasn’t an actual attorney matters.
I did suspect that it would be the attorneys among unstuck who took exception to that post. I figured the phrase “harem of attorneys” would rub a few attorneys the wrong way.
Sooooooooooooo this.