look, I know we like to dunk on the dumb libs on this show over gender stuff, but to any Trump supporters here, we love you, but come on, you guys are being taken for total fucking idiots by this rich billionaire.
Yes, but it often seems that expectation to be less tribal only falls on Trump’s critics. What is one to make of ‘Trump2028’ seemingly without irony 🤷🏼♂️.
A lack of tribalism would seem to involve country& constitution before party or ‘leader’.
I agree that mindless trump support is..mindless. I can't bring myself to be very judgemental because the left has a nearly exactly proportional number of delusional buy in for their candidates. You have to dunk on both sides of the delusion before it has any consistency.
The Epstein stuff has actually shown how false it is to say that Trump supporters are "cultists." If Trumpers are cultists, one would think that they would say, "Ok well Trump says there's nothing to the Epstein stuff, time to move on. Of course, Trumpers are very largely not falling in line. Kind of odd for a cult 😂.
I disagree. Cult leaders don't wield absolute authority over their minions; their power comes through manipulation, which requires an understanding of those minions. Lots of Trumpanzees are conspiracists, but Trump's admonition to ignore all this goes directly against that.
You can get a conspiracy theorist to discard facts, because most people don't really care about facts anyway. However, when Trump says, "Will you people move off the Epstein stuff already?", he's telling them to discard their entire worldview, and that's something people are VERY attached to. Some of them will do it, sure, but some of them won't.
I think the community here does a fair job of dunking on the crazies of both sides. There’s more far lefty types though but that seems fair. I appreciate them because they help me understand the other side. And while I may be a cunt sometimes, hopefully I can do the same from the right.
But yeah the moment you ignore crazies on your own side to just shout down the other side you kind of lose.
Like all this Epstein nonsense on the right. Absolute insanity and they’re all acting like morons.
What dem candidates that millions of folks have ebulliently supported show the same level of total corruption and bullshit? In my circles, everyone felt like Biden was Too Damn Old even before we knew how compromised he was. People weren't stoked about Harris until she was the candidate, and even then it was more like 'she's fine.' People love AOC, I guess?
I both think you are ignoring a sizeable cohort of democrat party voters who are nutcase level supporters, and overestimating the number of zealous trump fans.
Your statement on the feelings around Biden and Harris are mirrored in my experience with how people feel about trump. Its not rabid Fandom or mindless support. They just prefer it/him to the blue side. Most of my cohort was pulling for DeSantis to win in a primary.
I don’t feel like an idiot. I never cared about Epstein. I cared about immigration and the economy. One of those is going pretty well and the other remains to be seen but I think it’s a long game and I’m hopeful. Then there’s the Gaza thing and basically the whole Middle East and that’s going pretty well. Don’t care too much about Ukraine but I hope that’ll be turning around soon.
The entire Epstein drama isn’t even on my list. I never expected all these names or the truth. Did he kill himself or get Clintoned? Did he have dirt on all the rich people or not? Is there a trove of info that has been and is still being hidden? I’m quite agnostic on these issues. I don’t know and I never cared. It would be cool to definitively know, but I’m not gonna go insane over it like some other schmucks.
Ghislaine Maxwell’s arc is interesting. She had been a socialite in the UK, but when her father died, his empire collapsed and the extent of his financial misdeeds came to light. There wasn’t much money left, and it was tied up in lawsuits and investigations. It’s hard to be a broke socialite.
Across the Atlantic is a rich guy she falls in with. I always read her involvement as being enamored with him, and he can support her lifestyle, but there is no real romantic relationship to be had, because of her Tanner stage. So she became basically his procuress. An interesting, middle age woman with a British accent would be great for that, since the girls would be more at ease with her than a large, apparently very odd, man.
The actual facts of Epstein’s crimes and life are so terrible and fantastic, why does it need more to it? Clearly he was an excellent liar and manipulator, and must have been capable of being charming. He gets a job at Dalton when he only graduated high school. There were, unsurprisingly, reports that he was a bit creepy with female students. He gets fired, and charms his way into a job at Bear Stearns. I believe he got it through a student’s parent, but even if he didn’t, many were part of the same world.
Unfortunately I think the story is pretty banal - guy was a monster, but people were seduced by the lifestyle. Rich dilettante uses his money to buy access to interesting events, meet interesting people, give money to charities and research. The charity people and researchers now will gladly take his call and tell him how great he is! People see an opportunity to get close to that wealth and supposed power, overlook his crimes, perhaps justifying it to themselves. “He’s done terrible things, but he’s giving money to this important charity I run! Money to fund research.” Or it’s like…”what? You are inviting me to your private island on your jet? Sure!”
What I want to know is how he made money? He could have made a lot at Bear Stearns, but if it was private jet/island money, it would have been something we know about - maybe he was allocated shares in an IPO of a company that became huge, but Bear was more a Fixed Income shop. He did he go from getting fired to “advising” Lex Wexner. I believe he embezzled from Wexner, but what got him to the point that he was 1) in Lex Wexner’s circle and 2) Wexner thought he should be his money manager. You can’t embezzle unless you have been given control of assets! It’s not like he had a track record as a financial advisor at which to point. Even if Wexner met him by chance and thought “This guy has promised! I will give him a shot,” you would start with a small amount and not sign over power of attorney.
Robert Maxwell was an Israeli asset. This is widely accepted in the UK media after revelations in Helen Lewis's magazine Private Eye.
Wildly enough just because Jewish people or Israel is involved in something murky doesn't make the exposure of such antisemitic.
But good work on tossing the term at me. We are rapidly approaching an age when the Holocaust and antisemitism will count for very little in the general public because of it's constant abuse.
Okay, I apologise. However I don’t think Epstein being an asset is ridiculous in the slightest. Both in his life and death there are just too many oddities to be hand-waved away.
Ghislaine Maxwell is the daughter of Robert Maxwell, a multimillionaire who died under suspicious circumstances back in the 90s. He was suspected to be a corporate psychopath and there is some evidence he psychologically and emotionally abused Ghislaine; it's also speculated he may have physically and sexually abused her. There are also stories of her recruiting young women for her father at college. I think Epstein was someone she was comfortable with because of his familiarity - another corporate psychopath who would look after her if she did what he wanted. There's no doubt she is a very sick sociopathic person too.
He mentions during the housekeeping segment that he's "unfortunately had to dip a toe back into the apps lately" and then makes clear he's talking about dating apps
Personal relationships can sometimes escalate and also dissolve quickly, enough that the terms girlfriend / boyfriend / someone you are dating seriously, etc can be appropriate one week and not the next, or vice-versa. That said, based on the audio equivalent of reading-between-the-lines (maybe "listening between the sentences" ? ) I'm unconvinced whether Jesse's assertion of a girlfriend was a statement of fact, or a statement to deflect his podcast listeners from too much interest in his personal life. So maybe, or maybe not, there was a break-up.
I love the part of the Prince Andrew story where Virginia Guiffre talked about how he sweated all over her on the dance floor during one of their encounters while she was underage. Andrew counters by saying that due to an overload of adrenaline he experienced during his time in the Faulklands war, he is actually unable to sweat. The implication being that it must have been some other gross perv sweating on her. Of course online sleuths were able to find pictures of him sweating which was funny, as was the BBC interview he did about the allegations where he was (metaphorically) sweating like a pig.
There’s an issue with the “underage” claim, which Katie and Jesse made too - she was 17. In a country where the age of consent is *16*. That’s why she couldn’t accuse Prince Andrew of statutory rape. Ghislaine Maxwell wasn’t dumb, she brought to London a girl who was young but legal.
I wondered about the position of trust aspect of the consent laws. Apparently your mum being in charge of the police, courts and prisons doesn't count which seems like an oversight.
I listen to Louise Perry and a father of one of the grooming victims said “I don’t want to sound like a conservative…” and I was like “wtf did conservatives do that was so bad you can’t give a full throated defense of your child?”
The funniest aspect of this has been watching the American Libs do a total 180 on all the Epstein stuff, in the exact opposite direction as the Trump appointees in this episode. Previously, when only MAGA sorts were banging on about it, it was a sign of how deranged and weird they were… now, all the lib accounts and late-night hosts are giving it large about Trump’s ties to Jeff.
Yes, the libs are totally the ones being irrational in this situation...not the most powerful man in the world suddenly not caring about an issue he partly ran on and has stirred up crazy conspiracy theories because he is 100% on the list.
The distinction would be that a large part of the "America Libs" (and especially the politicians and influencers who are most active on publicly promoting it) don't think there's anything there - the point of the "total 180" is to hoist Trump, et al. on their own petard.
If I see someone with a small blood stain on their clothes and they say nothing I will probably assume it is nothing significant.
If they walk in and say “This is nothing, I murdered no one. Stop looking, why are we still talking about this blood stain. If you ask me one more question I will never talk to you again… in fact I might sue.” Well then I am suspicious.
Just got back from 10 blissful days at the mountain-ringed lake in Vermont, enjoying twice-daily swims and various types of boating—kayaking, standup paddle-boarding (I can’t pull that shit off, it turns out), and good old gasoline-powered motorboat cruising—and I’m simply beside myself here, Jesse: maple creemees are overrated???
Dude come on, a) that’s not even true of the regular-ass soft-serve-in-a-cone type creemees, but b) it’s *extremely* not true of the magnificent creemee coffee, which is exactly what it sounds like: basically an affogato but with delicious local maple soft serve instead of plain vanilla. There’s a sugarhouse like 2 minutes’ drive/10 minutes’ walk from the house we stay in and I had that for my coffee every single day (every day they were open anyway; Vermont isn’t exactly famous for long business hours, as anyone who’s been there for 36 hours could tell you). In the morning I just grabbed the dog, walked up the dirt road to the sugarhouse, and Christ alive was that a lovely way to start my day, like a cartoon of a bucolic northern New England idyll. Wouldn’t wanna make a jabit of those obviously but as a vacation morning routine it was just absolutely perfect. Maybe they’re less good in other parts of the state, I dunno, but my spot not too far from Stowe is doing it right!
Sweartagod man, I love Vermont; as goofy and crunchy as it is, it’s just a little miniature paradise. Could I live there? Eh, not until I’m at least 15 years older than I am now: just not enough going on up there in the least populous state in the country—for example most dinner places close at 8pm except in Burlington, and I don’t tend to hang around Burlington when I’m up there since I’m coming up from New York and the whole point is to be perched on the side of a mountain. But yeah, it’s a reeeeally lovely, special place, and even though the mountains are small (highest peak is Mt. Mansfield at 4,395’), it somehow doesn’t look or *feel* that way. (And I say this as a 10-year resident of Asheville/WNC where the peaks are much higher, fwiw.) Been going to Vermont for years and it still has that magic for me every time. Can’t wait to go back this winter for some skiing and snowmobiling (and creemee coffees), if not sooner.
As a dad, I would be remiss not to remind everyone on the thread to not forget upon seeing affogato on the menu anywhere to ask "What's the name of that dessert with the ice cream with coffee on top? Ah, it's so frustrating - it's on the tip of my tongue!" and then when someone says"Affogato?" you say "Me too! Let's try to remembero together!"
Who would have expected a paean to Vermont & maple affogatos for THIS episode? The unexpected life affirming beauty of this comment is exactly what I love about the BARPOD comment section. Smart people, unexpected insights.
The uncharacteristic eloquence is what makes me skeptical about this letter. Let's be real, Trump probably thinks an "enigma" is when someone shoots a bunch of water up your butt.
Do you think it's cognitive decline, an intentional ploy to appeal to the lowest common denominator, or a little bit of both? I've heard of other politicians ostensibly "code switching," and going from talking and behaving like normal bureaucrats during day-to-day policy work, to acting buffoonish and insane when they're in the public eye.
I finally understand why there are so many painfully pedantic guys here in BARPodland. They learned it from Katie.
I disagree that this is the dumbest thing to break up MAGA. It’s hugely symbolic. Rich and powerful men have been abusing young girls since the dawn of time. (And isn’t the prosecution of Bolsonaro itself somewhat corrupt?)
The Clinton Kill List seems crazy now, but it will seem less crazy once Bill and Hillary are gone. The rigging of the 1960 election was also considered a kooky conspiracy theory until everyone involved was dead, and now it’s accepted by many historians as fact.
I don’t think the analogy works. That some ballots were stuffed has been common knowledge for a very long while, the degree to which it actually altered the outcome is very much contested & there’s no consensus that it did.
Multiple murders of which the cover up would require a vast conspiracy in multiple jurisdictions (I’m assuming people don’t think they murdered all these people in the same place) over a very long period of time, given Bill & Hilary are both apparently long running & wider ranging seriel killers, is another thing entirely.
I personally have never really cared about the Epstein story one way or another, but something I've always found poorly explained is why a lot of very wealthy and powerful people kept hanging around Epstein after his initial legal problems became public. Like, yes, he was rich, but, based on what's been said publicly about his assets, he wasn't *insanely* rich. E.g., Bill Gates' net worth was literally about 100 times greater than Epstein's -- he could fly on an ultra-fancy private plane and have his own private archipelago if he wanted to -- so why keep socializing with someone who has those sorts of legal problems?
He was convicted on one count of soliciting a minor, who was on the older side of his victim age range. After that he went on to lean into giving money from foundations that he was involved with to scientists at MIT and other institutions, so maybe he didn't look like THAT bad of a guy to people. It was only after Julie K. Brown started looking into it, from 2016 on, that the details of how many victims there were, and how young they were, became more widely known.
What constitutes insanely rich? Besides his two private islands ($86m), he owned a mansion in Palm Beach ($12m), a ranch in New Mexico ($17m), an apartment in Paris($8.6m), and one of the largest private homes in Manhattan (+50m). He made hundreds of millions as a money manager for billionaires. He borrowed money and had dealings with Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan Chase, which have both paid out millions in settlements.
I was wondering if maybe he paid a guard to help him commit suicide? Would help explain the gap in the tape without a major conspiracy. The guard could have helped him get in position and then got out of there.
Why wouldn’t he? Because he’s an incredibly rich man with a lifetime of getting away with shit behind him and (potentially) a treasure trove of blackmail material.
(I am Devil’s Advocate-ing that, but I would guess that’s what believers would suggest.)
I agree that suicide is the most likely cause of death. Most conspiracies would require a staggering number of people to be involved, but not this one. Doesn't make it true, but it's not impossible.
Isn't the simplest explanation for Epstein's death that he was given privacy to commit suicide?
He was already on suicide watch, and made a previous attempt, and was clearly ready to go.
So it wasn't about getting Ninja Jason Bond in and out, but rather just switching off the feed for a couple of minutes and informing him: "OK Mr Epstein, you have privacy..."
Or even him just being told nobody would intervene, and then the tape being subsequently doctored to put however was supposed to be watching in the clear.
very minor correction. About 1 hour in, regarding Trump signing his name in a drawing. Katie tries to remember the name of a cartoonist who embedded his daughter's name, "Nina" ( spelled all uppercase "NINA" ) in his drawings, saying his name was "Al Hirsch". Close, it was "Al Hirschfeld", 1903 - 2003 ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Hirschfeld
For us Hirschfeld fans, a not so minor correction. Meanwhile, with all the tendrils creeping into everything with this unsavory story, better that Hirschfeld is spared any connection at all!
At the start of the episode you make fun of people who believe in IQ based on race, can you please give some context why those people are wrong? I kind of dont want belive in such things, but everything I ever read shows something else.
Because a difference in intelligence based on race has no scientific merit, nor makes biological/physiological sense? Like, define race? Define intelligence? Every human is a complex mix of DNA and blood lines, with unique traits and features. This is without even going into the fallibility of "IQ" being an accurate measurement of anything other than an arbitrary benchmark of knowledge within a particular cultural context. Impossible to prove and honestly, I query the intent of anyone attempting to do so in 2025. I'm not sure what you are reading, but any conclusions about disparities that can be drawn on the subject are going to be sociological, or psycho-social. There are always going to be disparities within broad groups in any given society, and the credulity you are giving to race and IQ "science" leaves the door wiiiide open for a slippery slope into all sorts of assumptions about a "natural hierarchy" and constitutes a backwards and senseless assessment of our inherent value, as members of humanity.
I am being facetious… I’m surprised you believe that. Why do you think Dutch people are taller? Do you believe height runs in families at all or is just environmental?
The hosts of the show have expressed openness to various traits being heritable, even cognitive ones. There aren’t sharp biological boundaries between groups but population geneticists are able to deal with gradients of difference between groups in a quantitative manner. Just throwing up your hands and saying that biological race is a fiction and therefore there can’t be differences in intelligence is only a little less silly than the people Katie and Jesse mock who think there aren’t physical differences between men and women
Wait no, I was disagreeing with the statement 😂 like I haven't heard anything about Dutch vs Italians....it's not a go to metric for me, I am in Aus 😂 I conceded in a comment below, yes, there are broad distinctions that can be drawn across racial lines, as well as geographical. I just think this difference becomes insignificant when it comes to internal organs, as I *believe* physical characteristics differ between racial groups based on proximity to the sun (in the most basic terms). I am not an evolutionary biologist so would love the POV of one. Also feel free to drop the links to the studies you speak of.
Yes I agree despite the various obvious differences between various human sub populations in a variety of physical genetic traits, there is absolutely no chance there are any sub population based differences in mental traits because that would hurt my feelie wheelies.
I agree that the "races" as traditionally defined is likely kind of stupid and not super helpful. Much better to use smaller and more specific groupings. But the "lalalalalalalala I am sticking my head in the sand" about the idea that various human subpopulations have relevant differences in general mental abilities however you want to measure them is just beyond childish.
Do you think there are height differences? What about differences in eyelid shape? Muscle fiber density? etc.
All sorts of ways people are different genetically. To think that this is true of almost everything physically, but with the brain (which is 100% physical BTW) it all somehow "washes out", is asinine.
It is also foolish to rest such a strong argument regarding moral fitness on it, because it will be found out eventually, or even if it isn't found, created through genetic engineering and embryo customization.
Look at the history of Ashkenazi Jews and high level academic achievement. Sure that *could* be all cultural effects...but seems sus as the kids say.
I mean who knows maybe the smartest people in the world are some tribe in Nigeria, there are for sure tons of cultural/environmental effects.
But the idea it is all a wash is sort of silly.
And regardless it still generally isn't moral ground for discrimination. If I need a basketball player I am going to disproportionately stay away from Asians and South Asians. But if one of them is Yao Ming's size, well, then lace them up.
The idea you are just going to wish away genetic variation by closing your eyes and mumbling "nazi nazi nazi" is like the Lysenkoism of the west.
Never mumbled Nazi, don't extrapolate from my comment. I just think this is a slippery slope topic which I'm not comfortable with entertaining in a comment section of people I know nothing about (agenda and views etc). In person I would be very interested to have the conversation, with appropriate references. You raise interesting points re: obvious physical differences between racial groups, however I am inclinded to believe that this becomes far less apparent when taking into account internal organs. I imagine this is mostly to do with evolution impacted by geographical location and weather etc. I know very little about evolutionary biology tho, so would like to hear the POV of someone with that expertise. My gut is still telling me this is an inconclusive and statistically meaningless hill to die on but, I'm still listening.
Just a random example, indigenous populations from South America tend to have higher dopaminergic circuits in their brain, probably selected for because such circuits increase wanderlust, creativity, long term planning, and risk taking, so it makes sense such mental traits would be positively selected for among the human populations that wandered the farthest from their homelands.
Since that is a mostly nice thing to find about the physical features of the brains of a sub population of "brown" people, such research mostly gets a pass and can be spoken off in polite company. Just make sure you don't ever do any research or mention anything that could hurt someone's political feelie wheelies or you could quickly find yourself academic persona non-grata.
The whole way the topic is treated is gross political pandering and badly anti-scientific. I would suspect there is a lot of highly interesting and useful science to do on human mental variation, and instead we tippy toe around it because we are terrified of the answers.
Which is hilarious because the answers we already have are pretty morally gross honestly. Parenting for example seems matter a lot less than genetics (assuming it hits some base level where you are not actively sabotaging your child).
So you might think hey I am a genius, should I do this or that or this other thing to give my child the best chance of also being a genius? but the truth is 85% of what you could have done you have already done because it is genetic. Look at Twins studies etc. Even in cases where the twins are raised in VERY different environments, their genetics mostly overwhelm that to a striking degree.
There's no need to provide context when the Overton Window has not only been closed, but nailed shut and covered in plywood.
We cannot make broad generalizations when there is variation within racial groups and also racial grouping in and of itself is not really scientific, in the same way that say, sex is scientific.
Many people object to the pursuit of this knowledge because they assume it will be weaponized to re-institute slavery or some other parade of horribles.
Maybe it could have some limited use in (re)designing K-12 curriculum where we have spent decades trying to fit round pegs into square holes.
look, I know we like to dunk on the dumb libs on this show over gender stuff, but to any Trump supporters here, we love you, but come on, you guys are being taken for total fucking idiots by this rich billionaire.
I'm sorry but minus one "I love you" to the Trump supporters from me 🥲
Progress is more likely if we hate on Tump and not the people who support him. Not that I’m one to talk as someone from a different country.
No- you’re right. Americans need way less tribalism.
Yes, but it often seems that expectation to be less tribal only falls on Trump’s critics. What is one to make of ‘Trump2028’ seemingly without irony 🤷🏼♂️.
A lack of tribalism would seem to involve country& constitution before party or ‘leader’.
Honestly, we don't care.
I wouldn't say "love;" tolerate is a better word, though the patience is wearing thin.
Agree!
I agree that mindless trump support is..mindless. I can't bring myself to be very judgemental because the left has a nearly exactly proportional number of delusional buy in for their candidates. You have to dunk on both sides of the delusion before it has any consistency.
The Epstein stuff has actually shown how false it is to say that Trump supporters are "cultists." If Trumpers are cultists, one would think that they would say, "Ok well Trump says there's nothing to the Epstein stuff, time to move on. Of course, Trumpers are very largely not falling in line. Kind of odd for a cult 😂.
I disagree. Cult leaders don't wield absolute authority over their minions; their power comes through manipulation, which requires an understanding of those minions. Lots of Trumpanzees are conspiracists, but Trump's admonition to ignore all this goes directly against that.
You can get a conspiracy theorist to discard facts, because most people don't really care about facts anyway. However, when Trump says, "Will you people move off the Epstein stuff already?", he's telling them to discard their entire worldview, and that's something people are VERY attached to. Some of them will do it, sure, but some of them won't.
I think the community here does a fair job of dunking on the crazies of both sides. There’s more far lefty types though but that seems fair. I appreciate them because they help me understand the other side. And while I may be a cunt sometimes, hopefully I can do the same from the right.
But yeah the moment you ignore crazies on your own side to just shout down the other side you kind of lose.
Like all this Epstein nonsense on the right. Absolute insanity and they’re all acting like morons.
What dem candidates that millions of folks have ebulliently supported show the same level of total corruption and bullshit? In my circles, everyone felt like Biden was Too Damn Old even before we knew how compromised he was. People weren't stoked about Harris until she was the candidate, and even then it was more like 'she's fine.' People love AOC, I guess?
I both think you are ignoring a sizeable cohort of democrat party voters who are nutcase level supporters, and overestimating the number of zealous trump fans.
Your statement on the feelings around Biden and Harris are mirrored in my experience with how people feel about trump. Its not rabid Fandom or mindless support. They just prefer it/him to the blue side. Most of my cohort was pulling for DeSantis to win in a primary.
I don’t feel like an idiot. I never cared about Epstein. I cared about immigration and the economy. One of those is going pretty well and the other remains to be seen but I think it’s a long game and I’m hopeful. Then there’s the Gaza thing and basically the whole Middle East and that’s going pretty well. Don’t care too much about Ukraine but I hope that’ll be turning around soon.
The entire Epstein drama isn’t even on my list. I never expected all these names or the truth. Did he kill himself or get Clintoned? Did he have dirt on all the rich people or not? Is there a trove of info that has been and is still being hidden? I’m quite agnostic on these issues. I don’t know and I never cared. It would be cool to definitively know, but I’m not gonna go insane over it like some other schmucks.
Also love y’all too. Trump 2028. 🇺🇸
Ghislaine Maxwell’s arc is interesting. She had been a socialite in the UK, but when her father died, his empire collapsed and the extent of his financial misdeeds came to light. There wasn’t much money left, and it was tied up in lawsuits and investigations. It’s hard to be a broke socialite.
Across the Atlantic is a rich guy she falls in with. I always read her involvement as being enamored with him, and he can support her lifestyle, but there is no real romantic relationship to be had, because of her Tanner stage. So she became basically his procuress. An interesting, middle age woman with a British accent would be great for that, since the girls would be more at ease with her than a large, apparently very odd, man.
The actual facts of Epstein’s crimes and life are so terrible and fantastic, why does it need more to it? Clearly he was an excellent liar and manipulator, and must have been capable of being charming. He gets a job at Dalton when he only graduated high school. There were, unsurprisingly, reports that he was a bit creepy with female students. He gets fired, and charms his way into a job at Bear Stearns. I believe he got it through a student’s parent, but even if he didn’t, many were part of the same world.
Unfortunately I think the story is pretty banal - guy was a monster, but people were seduced by the lifestyle. Rich dilettante uses his money to buy access to interesting events, meet interesting people, give money to charities and research. The charity people and researchers now will gladly take his call and tell him how great he is! People see an opportunity to get close to that wealth and supposed power, overlook his crimes, perhaps justifying it to themselves. “He’s done terrible things, but he’s giving money to this important charity I run! Money to fund research.” Or it’s like…”what? You are inviting me to your private island on your jet? Sure!”
What I want to know is how he made money? He could have made a lot at Bear Stearns, but if it was private jet/island money, it would have been something we know about - maybe he was allocated shares in an IPO of a company that became huge, but Bear was more a Fixed Income shop. He did he go from getting fired to “advising” Lex Wexner. I believe he embezzled from Wexner, but what got him to the point that he was 1) in Lex Wexner’s circle and 2) Wexner thought he should be his money manager. You can’t embezzle unless you have been given control of assets! It’s not like he had a track record as a financial advisor at which to point. Even if Wexner met him by chance and thought “This guy has promised! I will give him a shot,” you would start with a small amount and not sign over power of attorney.
He had to have some sort of blackmail on Wexner, right? If Epstein was that good a money manager, he would have had more clients.
Robert Maxwell was widely acknowledged to be an Israeli asset.
Jeffery Epstein is widely believed to have been a Israeli asset.
Wonder what connects the pair.
Antisemitism?
Robert Maxwell was an Israeli asset. This is widely accepted in the UK media after revelations in Helen Lewis's magazine Private Eye.
Wildly enough just because Jewish people or Israel is involved in something murky doesn't make the exposure of such antisemitic.
But good work on tossing the term at me. We are rapidly approaching an age when the Holocaust and antisemitism will count for very little in the general public because of it's constant abuse.
Alphonse, I know we have our spatty moments, but I wasn't being entirely serious!
I know the Maxwell part of it. I would argue that the assumption that Epstein is in a similar boat (no pun intended) has a slight whiff...
Okay, I apologise. However I don’t think Epstein being an asset is ridiculous in the slightest. Both in his life and death there are just too many oddities to be hand-waved away.
What ever happened to the "he belongs to intelligence" thing?
Ghislaine Maxwell is the daughter of Robert Maxwell, a multimillionaire who died under suspicious circumstances back in the 90s. He was suspected to be a corporate psychopath and there is some evidence he psychologically and emotionally abused Ghislaine; it's also speculated he may have physically and sexually abused her. There are also stories of her recruiting young women for her father at college. I think Epstein was someone she was comfortable with because of his familiarity - another corporate psychopath who would look after her if she did what he wanted. There's no doubt she is a very sick sociopathic person too.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-did-jeffrey-epstein-make-his-money/
Wait did Jesse break up with his girlfriend?
Sounds like it!!! I rushed here to see who else caught that. I just want Jesse to be happy :-(
What did he say? I’m re-listening now because I must have missed it.
He mentions during the housekeeping segment that he's "unfortunately had to dip a toe back into the apps lately" and then makes clear he's talking about dating apps
Thank you for that. Poor Jesse.
Not at all. He’s just growing the polycule.
… more of a stable, wouldn’t you say?
Hippocule??
Equintuple!
Stop teasing me! Ugh the dream to join the Singal polycule. He would attract the most based bisexual women.
“It’s complicated”
"... No it's not, just do the dishes Jessie"
He was tired of her leaving hoof prints on the sofa.
Time to gear up the blocked and reported personals again. Someone on here must be an eligible bachelorette.
It’d be funny if we organized as a community to find him a girlfriend.
😢
(distant whinnying sound)
I was so sad to hear that! It seemed like they had been together for a while.
I think she started dating Klay Thompson.
Personal relationships can sometimes escalate and also dissolve quickly, enough that the terms girlfriend / boyfriend / someone you are dating seriously, etc can be appropriate one week and not the next, or vice-versa. That said, based on the audio equivalent of reading-between-the-lines (maybe "listening between the sentences" ? ) I'm unconvinced whether Jesse's assertion of a girlfriend was a statement of fact, or a statement to deflect his podcast listeners from too much interest in his personal life. So maybe, or maybe not, there was a break-up.
I distinctly remember meeting a girl at the Christmas party who identified herself as Jesse’s girlfriend.
Thanks for your reply; and I accept your and AKI's actual evidence vs my speculation.
He definitely had a partner with him in London when he was at the The Studies Show live episode.
Thanks to you and Jmac for providing evidence that my speculation was wrong.
Missed opportunity with the fake passport discussion after defence are said to say it's to hide his Jewishness.
Jesse says the above.
Katie says, "Where is he travelling to, Gaza?"
Jesse fails to reply with, "Well we are told there are a lot of children there."
A shame.
I love the part of the Prince Andrew story where Virginia Guiffre talked about how he sweated all over her on the dance floor during one of their encounters while she was underage. Andrew counters by saying that due to an overload of adrenaline he experienced during his time in the Faulklands war, he is actually unable to sweat. The implication being that it must have been some other gross perv sweating on her. Of course online sleuths were able to find pictures of him sweating which was funny, as was the BBC interview he did about the allegations where he was (metaphorically) sweating like a pig.
There’s an issue with the “underage” claim, which Katie and Jesse made too - she was 17. In a country where the age of consent is *16*. That’s why she couldn’t accuse Prince Andrew of statutory rape. Ghislaine Maxwell wasn’t dumb, she brought to London a girl who was young but legal.
I wondered about the position of trust aspect of the consent laws. Apparently your mum being in charge of the police, courts and prisons doesn't count which seems like an oversight.
Ya’ll need to update those laws
Right now the Labour Party are trying to bring the *voting* age down to 16, so the chance of them also raising the age of consent is very small!
Do you want to come on my livestream some time and discuss “Britain: What Happened?!?!”
Everything has gone to crap since Churchill
I listen to Louise Perry and a father of one of the grooming victims said “I don’t want to sound like a conservative…” and I was like “wtf did conservatives do that was so bad you can’t give a full throated defense of your child?”
Hey, he had an alibi, remember? He was at Pizza Express!
In Woking!! Which was VERY unusual
The funniest aspect of this has been watching the American Libs do a total 180 on all the Epstein stuff, in the exact opposite direction as the Trump appointees in this episode. Previously, when only MAGA sorts were banging on about it, it was a sign of how deranged and weird they were… now, all the lib accounts and late-night hosts are giving it large about Trump’s ties to Jeff.
Something something Eurasia something.
Yes, the libs are totally the ones being irrational in this situation...not the most powerful man in the world suddenly not caring about an issue he partly ran on and has stirred up crazy conspiracy theories because he is 100% on the list.
I didn't say that wasn't funny as *well*...
The distinction would be that a large part of the "America Libs" (and especially the politicians and influencers who are most active on publicly promoting it) don't think there's anything there - the point of the "total 180" is to hoist Trump, et al. on their own petard.
If I see someone with a small blood stain on their clothes and they say nothing I will probably assume it is nothing significant.
If they walk in and say “This is nothing, I murdered no one. Stop looking, why are we still talking about this blood stain. If you ask me one more question I will never talk to you again… in fact I might sue.” Well then I am suspicious.
Just got back from 10 blissful days at the mountain-ringed lake in Vermont, enjoying twice-daily swims and various types of boating—kayaking, standup paddle-boarding (I can’t pull that shit off, it turns out), and good old gasoline-powered motorboat cruising—and I’m simply beside myself here, Jesse: maple creemees are overrated???
Dude come on, a) that’s not even true of the regular-ass soft-serve-in-a-cone type creemees, but b) it’s *extremely* not true of the magnificent creemee coffee, which is exactly what it sounds like: basically an affogato but with delicious local maple soft serve instead of plain vanilla. There’s a sugarhouse like 2 minutes’ drive/10 minutes’ walk from the house we stay in and I had that for my coffee every single day (every day they were open anyway; Vermont isn’t exactly famous for long business hours, as anyone who’s been there for 36 hours could tell you). In the morning I just grabbed the dog, walked up the dirt road to the sugarhouse, and Christ alive was that a lovely way to start my day, like a cartoon of a bucolic northern New England idyll. Wouldn’t wanna make a jabit of those obviously but as a vacation morning routine it was just absolutely perfect. Maybe they’re less good in other parts of the state, I dunno, but my spot not too far from Stowe is doing it right!
Sweartagod man, I love Vermont; as goofy and crunchy as it is, it’s just a little miniature paradise. Could I live there? Eh, not until I’m at least 15 years older than I am now: just not enough going on up there in the least populous state in the country—for example most dinner places close at 8pm except in Burlington, and I don’t tend to hang around Burlington when I’m up there since I’m coming up from New York and the whole point is to be perched on the side of a mountain. But yeah, it’s a reeeeally lovely, special place, and even though the mountains are small (highest peak is Mt. Mansfield at 4,395’), it somehow doesn’t look or *feel* that way. (And I say this as a 10-year resident of Asheville/WNC where the peaks are much higher, fwiw.) Been going to Vermont for years and it still has that magic for me every time. Can’t wait to go back this winter for some skiing and snowmobiling (and creemee coffees), if not sooner.
As a dad, I would be remiss not to remind everyone on the thread to not forget upon seeing affogato on the menu anywhere to ask "What's the name of that dessert with the ice cream with coffee on top? Ah, it's so frustrating - it's on the tip of my tongue!" and then when someone says"Affogato?" you say "Me too! Let's try to remembero together!"
Who would have expected a paean to Vermont & maple affogatos for THIS episode? The unexpected life affirming beauty of this comment is exactly what I love about the BARPOD comment section. Smart people, unexpected insights.
Thank you!!
The uncharacteristic eloquence is what makes me skeptical about this letter. Let's be real, Trump probably thinks an "enigma" is when someone shoots a bunch of water up your butt.
Trump's speech has degraded a ton over the years, he was a lot more articulate when he was younger.
Do you think it's cognitive decline, an intentional ploy to appeal to the lowest common denominator, or a little bit of both? I've heard of other politicians ostensibly "code switching," and going from talking and behaving like normal bureaucrats during day-to-day policy work, to acting buffoonish and insane when they're in the public eye.
Both are plausible but if it’s cognitive decline I think only a medical expert probably actually examining him could tell.
It’s not really like Biden where the whole world could see it just by looking at him.
With Trump, what’s a deliberate ploy, just general craziness or the product of aging is pretty much impossible to know.
My hunch, is the way of writing he’s adopted since becoming a politician has just become a habit & signature style, it’s now just natural.
He went to Wharton. His uncle is a genius.
My uncle is a pilot, but that doesn't mean I can fly a plane. /hj
Who taught the Unibomber!
Will Crémieux become a Prémieux?
Their inability to come even close to pronouncing this word correctly is baffling.
I finally understand why there are so many painfully pedantic guys here in BARPodland. They learned it from Katie.
I disagree that this is the dumbest thing to break up MAGA. It’s hugely symbolic. Rich and powerful men have been abusing young girls since the dawn of time. (And isn’t the prosecution of Bolsonaro itself somewhat corrupt?)
The Clinton Kill List seems crazy now, but it will seem less crazy once Bill and Hillary are gone. The rigging of the 1960 election was also considered a kooky conspiracy theory until everyone involved was dead, and now it’s accepted by many historians as fact.
I don’t think the analogy works. That some ballots were stuffed has been common knowledge for a very long while, the degree to which it actually altered the outcome is very much contested & there’s no consensus that it did.
Multiple murders of which the cover up would require a vast conspiracy in multiple jurisdictions (I’m assuming people don’t think they murdered all these people in the same place) over a very long period of time, given Bill & Hilary are both apparently long running & wider ranging seriel killers, is another thing entirely.
If somebody told me there was a Thatcher kill list I would find that crazy and I hate that rotting cunt.
UK politicians get a lot of hate, but aside from Harold Wilson being a Soviet agent, they don’t tend to get dragged in to these kinds of conspiracies.
I personally have never really cared about the Epstein story one way or another, but something I've always found poorly explained is why a lot of very wealthy and powerful people kept hanging around Epstein after his initial legal problems became public. Like, yes, he was rich, but, based on what's been said publicly about his assets, he wasn't *insanely* rich. E.g., Bill Gates' net worth was literally about 100 times greater than Epstein's -- he could fly on an ultra-fancy private plane and have his own private archipelago if he wanted to -- so why keep socializing with someone who has those sorts of legal problems?
Was Bill Gates offering?
He was convicted on one count of soliciting a minor, who was on the older side of his victim age range. After that he went on to lean into giving money from foundations that he was involved with to scientists at MIT and other institutions, so maybe he didn't look like THAT bad of a guy to people. It was only after Julie K. Brown started looking into it, from 2016 on, that the details of how many victims there were, and how young they were, became more widely known.
What constitutes insanely rich? Besides his two private islands ($86m), he owned a mansion in Palm Beach ($12m), a ranch in New Mexico ($17m), an apartment in Paris($8.6m), and one of the largest private homes in Manhattan (+50m). He made hundreds of millions as a money manager for billionaires. He borrowed money and had dealings with Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan Chase, which have both paid out millions in settlements.
It would not require a "Bourne level" operation to get into the prison. A couple of bribes to prison guards. That's it.
Also, Jesse said it would require a "James Bourne" level of operation when he should have said JASON Bourne. I demand a correction.
James Bourne is Jesse's completely original super-spy creation coming soon to a theater near you.
Shut up, Dwigt!
I like the theory proposed on The Fifth Column that Epstein died of autoerotic asphyxiation, Carradine-style.
I was wondering if maybe he paid a guard to help him commit suicide? Would help explain the gap in the tape without a major conspiracy. The guard could have helped him get in position and then got out of there.
Why wouldn’t he? Because he’s an incredibly rich man with a lifetime of getting away with shit behind him and (potentially) a treasure trove of blackmail material.
(I am Devil’s Advocate-ing that, but I would guess that’s what believers would suggest.)
I agree that suicide is the most likely cause of death. Most conspiracies would require a staggering number of people to be involved, but not this one. Doesn't make it true, but it's not impossible.
Isn't the simplest explanation for Epstein's death that he was given privacy to commit suicide?
He was already on suicide watch, and made a previous attempt, and was clearly ready to go.
So it wasn't about getting Ninja Jason Bond in and out, but rather just switching off the feed for a couple of minutes and informing him: "OK Mr Epstein, you have privacy..."
Or even him just being told nobody would intervene, and then the tape being subsequently doctored to put however was supposed to be watching in the clear.
#tinfoilhat
No, the easiest explanation is an underfunded prison system with overworked staff failed to stop it.
I have worked in 24 care facilities so the idea of staff screwing up because they fell asleep makes so much more sense than any conspiracy.
Even with a very high profile prisoner? (genuine question)
The NY/NYC prison system is notoriously underfunded and poorly staffed.
He was 66, he knew he'd never be a free man again.
very minor correction. About 1 hour in, regarding Trump signing his name in a drawing. Katie tries to remember the name of a cartoonist who embedded his daughter's name, "Nina" ( spelled all uppercase "NINA" ) in his drawings, saying his name was "Al Hirsch". Close, it was "Al Hirschfeld", 1903 - 2003 ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Hirschfeld
For us Hirschfeld fans, a not so minor correction. Meanwhile, with all the tendrils creeping into everything with this unsavory story, better that Hirschfeld is spared any connection at all!
At the start of the episode you make fun of people who believe in IQ based on race, can you please give some context why those people are wrong? I kind of dont want belive in such things, but everything I ever read shows something else.
Because a difference in intelligence based on race has no scientific merit, nor makes biological/physiological sense? Like, define race? Define intelligence? Every human is a complex mix of DNA and blood lines, with unique traits and features. This is without even going into the fallibility of "IQ" being an accurate measurement of anything other than an arbitrary benchmark of knowledge within a particular cultural context. Impossible to prove and honestly, I query the intent of anyone attempting to do so in 2025. I'm not sure what you are reading, but any conclusions about disparities that can be drawn on the subject are going to be sociological, or psycho-social. There are always going to be disparities within broad groups in any given society, and the credulity you are giving to race and IQ "science" leaves the door wiiiide open for a slippery slope into all sorts of assumptions about a "natural hierarchy" and constitutes a backwards and senseless assessment of our inherent value, as members of humanity.
Yep, also there’s no scientific merit in saying Dutch people have a greater genetic propensity for height than Italians, right?
Cant tell if facetious but ...as far as I am aware, yes?
I am being facetious… I’m surprised you believe that. Why do you think Dutch people are taller? Do you believe height runs in families at all or is just environmental?
The hosts of the show have expressed openness to various traits being heritable, even cognitive ones. There aren’t sharp biological boundaries between groups but population geneticists are able to deal with gradients of difference between groups in a quantitative manner. Just throwing up your hands and saying that biological race is a fiction and therefore there can’t be differences in intelligence is only a little less silly than the people Katie and Jesse mock who think there aren’t physical differences between men and women
Wait no, I was disagreeing with the statement 😂 like I haven't heard anything about Dutch vs Italians....it's not a go to metric for me, I am in Aus 😂 I conceded in a comment below, yes, there are broad distinctions that can be drawn across racial lines, as well as geographical. I just think this difference becomes insignificant when it comes to internal organs, as I *believe* physical characteristics differ between racial groups based on proximity to the sun (in the most basic terms). I am not an evolutionary biologist so would love the POV of one. Also feel free to drop the links to the studies you speak of.
Yes I agree despite the various obvious differences between various human sub populations in a variety of physical genetic traits, there is absolutely no chance there are any sub population based differences in mental traits because that would hurt my feelie wheelies.
I agree that the "races" as traditionally defined is likely kind of stupid and not super helpful. Much better to use smaller and more specific groupings. But the "lalalalalalalala I am sticking my head in the sand" about the idea that various human subpopulations have relevant differences in general mental abilities however you want to measure them is just beyond childish.
You genuinely think there is a measurable difference in mental ability between loosely defined racial groups? Outside of cultural impact?
100%. Would be stupid to think otherwise.
Do you think there are height differences? What about differences in eyelid shape? Muscle fiber density? etc.
All sorts of ways people are different genetically. To think that this is true of almost everything physically, but with the brain (which is 100% physical BTW) it all somehow "washes out", is asinine.
It is also foolish to rest such a strong argument regarding moral fitness on it, because it will be found out eventually, or even if it isn't found, created through genetic engineering and embryo customization.
Look at the history of Ashkenazi Jews and high level academic achievement. Sure that *could* be all cultural effects...but seems sus as the kids say.
I mean who knows maybe the smartest people in the world are some tribe in Nigeria, there are for sure tons of cultural/environmental effects.
But the idea it is all a wash is sort of silly.
And regardless it still generally isn't moral ground for discrimination. If I need a basketball player I am going to disproportionately stay away from Asians and South Asians. But if one of them is Yao Ming's size, well, then lace them up.
The idea you are just going to wish away genetic variation by closing your eyes and mumbling "nazi nazi nazi" is like the Lysenkoism of the west.
Never mumbled Nazi, don't extrapolate from my comment. I just think this is a slippery slope topic which I'm not comfortable with entertaining in a comment section of people I know nothing about (agenda and views etc). In person I would be very interested to have the conversation, with appropriate references. You raise interesting points re: obvious physical differences between racial groups, however I am inclinded to believe that this becomes far less apparent when taking into account internal organs. I imagine this is mostly to do with evolution impacted by geographical location and weather etc. I know very little about evolutionary biology tho, so would like to hear the POV of someone with that expertise. My gut is still telling me this is an inconclusive and statistically meaningless hill to die on but, I'm still listening.
Just a random example, indigenous populations from South America tend to have higher dopaminergic circuits in their brain, probably selected for because such circuits increase wanderlust, creativity, long term planning, and risk taking, so it makes sense such mental traits would be positively selected for among the human populations that wandered the farthest from their homelands.
Since that is a mostly nice thing to find about the physical features of the brains of a sub population of "brown" people, such research mostly gets a pass and can be spoken off in polite company. Just make sure you don't ever do any research or mention anything that could hurt someone's political feelie wheelies or you could quickly find yourself academic persona non-grata.
The whole way the topic is treated is gross political pandering and badly anti-scientific. I would suspect there is a lot of highly interesting and useful science to do on human mental variation, and instead we tippy toe around it because we are terrified of the answers.
Which is hilarious because the answers we already have are pretty morally gross honestly. Parenting for example seems matter a lot less than genetics (assuming it hits some base level where you are not actively sabotaging your child).
So you might think hey I am a genius, should I do this or that or this other thing to give my child the best chance of also being a genius? but the truth is 85% of what you could have done you have already done because it is genetic. Look at Twins studies etc. Even in cases where the twins are raised in VERY different environments, their genetics mostly overwhelm that to a striking degree.
There's no need to provide context when the Overton Window has not only been closed, but nailed shut and covered in plywood.
We cannot make broad generalizations when there is variation within racial groups and also racial grouping in and of itself is not really scientific, in the same way that say, sex is scientific.
Many people object to the pursuit of this knowledge because they assume it will be weaponized to re-institute slavery or some other parade of horribles.
Maybe it could have some limited use in (re)designing K-12 curriculum where we have spent decades trying to fit round pegs into square holes.
first < 3