Summary

The article emphasizes the importance of critical thinking and careful reading of the Jeffrey Epstein documents, arguing against the sensationalist label of a "Client List" and highlighting that the documents contain a variety of names without necessarily implicating them in wrongdoing.

Abstract

The recent release of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's case has been widely mischaracterized as a "Client List," suggesting salacious involvement of high-profile individuals. The author, a former lawyer, urges readers to look beyond the headlines and engage in critical analysis of the 943-page compilation of legal filings, which includes depositions, motions, police reports, and emails. While acknowledging Epstein's and Ghislaine Maxwell's crimes, the author clarifies that the presence of names in these documents does not equate to guilt or direct involvement in Epstein's illicit activities. Notably, the paperwork does not implicate figures like Bill Clinton and Donald Trump in any wrongdoing, despite their mention in the files. The article underscores the necessity of distinguishing between name mentions, potential hearsay, and actual evidence of misconduct, cautioning against the rush to judgment based on the documents' contents.

Opinions

The author criticizes the media's sensationalist portrayal of the Epstein documents as a "Client List," viewing it as a symptom of society's dumbing down.
They advocate for intelligence, research, reading, and critical thinking rather than accepting headlines at face value.
The author suggests that the term "Client List" is intentionally misleading and does not accurately represent the content of the documents.
While acknowledging Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's proven crimes, the author emphasizes that the mere mention of names in the documents does not imply guilt or involvement in their activities.
The article praises the professionalism and thoroughness of the prosecutor's work as evidenced in the legal filings.
The author expresses skepticism about the media's portrayal of certain individuals, such as Bill Clinton, and provides a personal anecdote to illustrate Clinton's charisma without endorsing any inappropriate behavior.
Regarding Donald Trump, the author notes the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing in the released documents, despite the desire by some to see him implicated.
The author questions the context of Steven Hawking's mention in an email, suggesting it could have been an attempt by Epstein to use prominent names to exonerate himself rather than implicate them.
The article concludes by reiterating that the documents are not a "smoking gun" and that the names listed do not necessarily indicate guilt, urging readers not to be swayed by hype and to recognize the complexity of the information presented in the legal filings.

Why We Need To Stop Calling the Newly-Released Epstein Filings a“Client List”

Because It’s Not

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

No Medium membership? No problem, read this story here for free: https://readmedium.com/why-we-need-to-stop-calling-the-newly-released-epstein-filings-a-client-list-3a89dff3528e?sk=9a35802815f2ed08220bbfd90cb61d50

The long-awaited Epstein “Client List” has been dropped. Ohhh… Client list, doesn’t that sound salacious? Headlines are all over the new…”Epstein list…Names Clinton and Trump,” “Clinton and Trump Are Named in Jeffrey Epstein Documents.”

And it gets worse, David Copperfield, Steven Hawking, Michael Jackson, Leonardo DiCaprio, Cate Blanchett and Cameron Diaz were also named.

Let the social media campaign begin.

Let’s start vilifying these people on, what one of my friends actually called the “Pervert List.”

Or, let’s try something else. Let’s try actually looking at the documents and thinking critically. Headlines are designed to draw the reader in, they're designed to shock. And sadly, most people these days don’t read past the headline. And if they do, they don’t read beyond the first paragraph.

Reporters and media outlets know that. I don’t like it. I see it as yet another symptom of the dumbing down of society. I’m not here for that. I’m here for intelligence, actual thought, research, reading and critical thinking. I may be cancelled for those sins, but whatever.

I’ve gone through the so-called Client List, all 943 pages of it, and my first thought, as a former lawyer, is that we need to stop calling it a Client List.

Don’t worry, I’ve done the hard thinking and reading so you don’t have to.

These just-released pages are in no way a client list. The term is, to my mind intentionally misleading. It implies that either there is a list of people who availed themselves of underage girls provided by Jeffrey Epstein, or that everyone named in the documents was guilty of same — a who’s who of pervy freaks.

What these documents are is way more boring than that. They’re a compilation of legal filings, depositions, motions, police reports and emails.

A lot of it is boring procedural legal stuff. That said, I do have to give a shout-out the the prosecutor's side of things here. They did a crack job, professional, firm. I’m very impressed. I’ve seen a lot of crap legal work in my time, especially in depositions, which we call Discovery in Canada.

But that’s not what you’re here for, right? You’re here to hear all about the big names. Are Trump and Clinton freaky kiddie-lovers? What’s up with David Copperfield, Michael Jackson and Steven Hawking? And Leo? Lord no, not him!

Calm down and don’t get your knickers in a knot.

First, the documents contain a plethora of names ranging from former Epstein employees and victims to police officers, lawyers, and famous people who may or may not have been involved with Epstein.

I’ll pause here to say, in case it’s not obvious, that Jeffrey Epstein and his “associate,” Ghisilane Maxwell, are, were, sick, sick individuals who objectively, proven in a court of law, preyed upon and abused underaged girls. That’s just a fact. They’re exactly where they deserve to be.

But the fact that certain names appear in these legal filings doesn’t exactly implicate the people who are so named.

Let’s start with a biggie, Bill Clinton. We all know Bubba Bill digs the ladies. We all know he’s been “less than faithful” to his wife.

Heck, I met the man myself once, briefly. It was at an event where he was speaking back in the day. I was a young lawyer, hungry, eager to meet powerful people and knowing full well that I had to go where they were. Rubber-chicken dinners, charity events, and talks. It’s a thing that we do.

We go there, we smile, we represent.

It was pretty much nothing. We spoke briefly. He was remarkably older than I expected. I had the image of 1991 Bill with the sax on Arsenio in my head. He was more like that guy’s dad.

That said, he was charming, polite and his eyes twinkled as if he still thought he was 40-year-old Bill. He had a way of speaking to you, looking at you, that made you feel like you were the only person on the planet, even in a brief interaction.

He’s not my bag of chips, but still. I was aware he was checking me out. Okay, so? Looking at a fairly attractive 40-year-old when you’re 65 or whatever isn’t exactly illegal or scandalous.

He didn’t give me the vibe of being pervy like that. Liked the attention of younger, attractive women? Obviously. I mean, we’re all pretty well-versed in his extracurricular activities. But it’s a giant leap from womanizing to accuse someone of something as nefarious as engaging in inappropriate conduct with minors.

And the paperwork supports my theory.

Yes, Bill is mentioned several times in the newly released paperwork. None of it implicates him in wrongdoing. None of it, and I’m saying this as someone who was not a fan.

The closest thing to wrongdoing is in the deposition of Epstein victim Johanna Sjoberg where she testified that Jeffrey told her, “…Clinton likes them young…”(p41).

That’s not an indictment, that’s a statement from a victim testifying to what she was told. It doesn’t mean the former president was attracted to or engaged in anything inappropriate with underaged girls.

It’s a report of what she was told. And “likes them young,” could mean a lot of things. Did he like college-aged women who were inappropriate to his age and stage in life? Ummm, duh..see Monica. But there is nothing, nothing in these filings, to suggest anything else.

Speaking of former presidents, let’s talk about Donald Trump. A lot of us wanted to see him implicated here. Sorry, not even close.

Nobody’s saying he’s a great guy. But there’s nothing in these released filings that suggests wrongdoing.

Ms. Sjoberg mentions landing in Atlantic City with Epstein, et al and attending one of Trump’s casinos. That’s it.

She goes on in her deposition to deny meeting him or giving him a massage. She denied meeting not only Trump, but Al Gore, Tipper Gore, Kevin Spacey, Cameron Diaz, and Bill Clinton.

The only famous person she claimed to have met, on page 139, was Michael Jackson, whom she said she did not massage.

She was very clear that names like Leonardo Decaprio, Cate Blanchett and Bruce Willis were simple name-drops by Epstein during massages (p. 108 Deposition).

Naomi Campbell is mentioned in passing in Virginia Giuffre’s deposition as a time marker of something that occurred with a hotel owner in pairs, “…It was around the time that Naomi Campbell had a birthday party…”

Now, I will say the Prince Andrew stuff…that’s creepy and strange. The puppet? Really? Ewww.

I will admit, I was surprised to see Steven Hawking’s name mentioned, but let’s look at the context. It was an email from Jeffrey E to GMax dated Jan 12, 2015:

…you can issue a reward to any of Virginia’s friends acquaintances family that come forward and help prove her allegations are false the strongest is the Clinton dinner and the new version in the Virgin Islands that stven hawking patricia-ied in an underage orgy. (misspellings kept in)

So obviously these creeps were willing to pay people off for silence. What the late Dr. Hawking had to do with anything is beyond me. But let’s look at the language in the email…”the strongest is the Clinton dinner and the new version…” I could be wrong, but here’s how I read it as think Epstein trying to use both Bill and Steven as evidence to exonerate him, not to implicate them.

Jeffrey Epstein was a creepy abuser who ran with movers and shakers. He both courted and rubbed shoulders with the rich, famous, politically and financially connected. He no doubt offered underage girls to those who wanted them, and he from the documents, also blackmailed or attempted to blackmail many powerplayers. There was a lot of wrongdoing. No doubt there

There are people I’ve left out of my assessment. Some, I just don’t know anything about. Some, I just don’t, on a reading of the documents, have enough information to say anything about.

But this isn’t the list of bad eggs you think it is. The names listed in these released filings are just that, names. Names of staff, names of victims, names of people Epstein knew or purported to know. It’s not a smoking gun. It raised questions about some individuals, but largely exonerates many others, even those we wish we could vilify.

Names mentioned in these released papers don’t indicate guilt of wrongdoing. They’re names of people Epstein knew, worked with, employed, name-dropped, or was at some time or other associated with either tangentially or more. Don’t get bogged down by the hype. It’s not a client list. It’s a bundle of legal filings naming names in various capacities, from the innocent to the probably not so much. Stop calling it a client list, it just isn’t.

If you enjoy my work and would like to support it, feel free to buy me a coffee: https://ko-fi.com/mistyrae