“This definitely won’t call more attention to my situation”
Tbh David Brooks definitely has that “I enjoy inviting the neighborhood children over for storytime in my naked puzzle basement” aesthetic going on
That’s daughter of former House Speaker Nancy, btw
There is so much because everyone associated with him are now trying to destroy our nation and rebuild it into s fascist state more amenable to the Epstein way of doing things which is abhorrent to any normal person
Punchable face.
Do people think he just had child whores at every dinner? Just because someone attended a dinner with Epstein doesn’t mean they’re a pedophile
It depends on where the photo was taken and context, if possible.
But why would he say we shouldn’t focus on them? That’s inexplicable.
Lay with dogs, get fleas.
Sure hope no one you ever associated with goes on to do something fucked up.
Yeah I mean honestly unless there’s direct evidence that the person did absolutely know that about him personally I’m gonna need a lot more. Not everyone is going to have encyclopedic knowledge of every criminal and what they’ve done and being on the look out every second of every day.
Did this guy write articles about Epstein before this? Then yeah he knew for sure
Honestly, we’re at the point now where anyone attempting to downplay anything related to this is so fucking obviously involved
We are at the point where the entire elite is in on it and trying to keep it under wraps.
Alex Jones in 2015: “Vast pedophile conspiracy! We have the documents!”
Alex Jones in 2025: “Nothing to see here folks. Maybe we can talk about aliens or lizard people or something instead.”
What a fucking time to be alive
Even diehards like Banon/MTG got pushed out over it. Never thought I’d see that.
Yeah no kidding, the best tactic is to keep quiet and as unknown as possible
Heh so many ways to deflect when you’re involved than saying oh there’s too much focus on this pedophile. Like maybe we had lunch, dinner? Hung out once or twice…no no, just too much focus on the pedophile I hung out.
Exactly. Simply being in a photo isn’t damning by itself. Depending on where the photo was taken of course.
Especially if you’re a journalist in New York, Epstein worked in finance in NY for over a decade and was at many exclusive events.
David Brooks divorced his wife and married his research assistant. 23 years younger.
We could have been done with the focus if you had the justice department do their fucking job years ago and prosecute the pedophiles and rapists that are in the files…
He’s definitely unbiased and trustworthy…
Seriously. After what we’ve seen with Epstein papers coverage and Zionism in western media, how can anyone ever trust it again?
Bullshit headline. Brooks is at a dinner with one of the Google founders. If Brooks was “hanging with Epstein” we’d likely see a photo of it?
Brooks just said on PBS Newshour that he didn’t know who Epstein was at the time of the dinner in 2011 and had zero comms with him. I’m going to take that at face value until there’s actual evidence presented, which is not contained in this article.
I’m glad the Epstein files are getting released but it’s inevitable that there will be shade on those named who literally have nothing to do with sex trafficking.
The Intercept, the same rag that ratted out Reality Winner, is lying with headlines? Say it ain’t so!
They fucked up. They admitted it. They apologized. And they paid her legal fees.
The real rags are the ones that fuck up and don’t even issue corrections or admit wrongdoing
I’m no native englisher, but doesn’t “hanging” here imply “having been hanged” rather than, what I suspect was intended - “hanging out”?
yup. saying “we’ll get together and hang” doesn’t usually mean a meeting at the gallows.
American dialects often omit the “out” for the same meaning.
I have my issues with Brooks’ article, but come on. Appearing in the same place/event as Jeffrey Epstein, by itself, means nothing.
They have multiple photographs of Brooks at the event and Epstein isn’t in a single one. This is a nothingburger.
My guess is that many people who spent time around Epstein were probably not pedophiles. Maybe even the majority of them. His “day job” was a guy who knew all the powerful people and could introduce anybody to anybody else. If he had been a woman, we would have called him a socialite.
Some of the people were probably in his inner circle and participated in the child abuse. But, others were probably just using him as a way to meet royalty, or as a way to connect to VC money.
But, you know what? I’m ok if plutocrats who weren’t actually pedophiles get caught up as collateral damage.
“I wasn’t in the pedophile inner circle, I was just on the edges trying to curry favor so they’d let me join”
maybe isn’t as great an excuse as it’s made out to be
Congress passed a law demanding disclosure of all files the government had about an infamous pedophile and child trafficer, with an explicit ban on redactions for embarrassed adults. Today they released a whole bunch of files, with essentially every adult in the pictures reacted.
Anyone who thinks this is a non-story is either a pedophile themselves or intentjonallh covering for child trafficing pediphiles. Especially if they are an old white guy who was definitely associated with the inhuman scum at the center.
We don’t know if David Brooks is a pedophile himself, but he sure as fuck isnt a journalist.
#1 apologist for the oligarchs.
I mean, Michael Wolff is out there, with plenty of email evidence that he was a hack “journalist” that was practically a PR agent for Epstein. Why attack Brooks?
? Por que no los dos ?
Brooks is a notorious hack who built his career shilling for neoconservative policies from the Weekly Standard to the NYT to PBS.
But that social circuit ran through Florida and Texas, rather than New York and London. He’s likely just tighter with a different group of pedophiles.
Anyone who thinks this is a non-story is either a pedophile themselves or intentjonallh covering for child trafficing pediphiles
Epstein isn’t even in the photos with Brooks. Which pedophile am I covering up for, exactly?
We don’t know if David Brooks is a pedophile
That’s entirely the point.
If you’re covering for David Brooks, and we assume that Brooks is not himself a pedophile to be charitable, then you’re covering for whatever unknown pedophile Brooks is covering for.
This isn’t a court of law, it’s an international private forum with no binding consequence on anybody’s liberty. We don’t have to presume people doing shady fuck are innocent, since we’re not even accusing anyone of crimes.
since we’re not even accusing anyone of crimes.
People are very clearly accusing him of crimes, in the “court of public opinion”. Evidence in said “court” shouldn’t be considered the same evidence in a real court.
Theres a photo of me with a convicted murderer and a photo of me with a convicted child sex offender.
The guy did 10 years for murder and I knew him from the custom car scene, I knew him after he got out, didnt talk about it much. I worked with the child sex offender before he got found out and sent away, that motherfucker is a fight on sight if I ever see him again.
The photos exist out there on the internet somewhere and theres jack shit I can do about it. (Actually the murderer was a pretty chill guy by the time I knew him, that photo doesnt bother me.)
