The obvious answer to the compiling of the archive appears to be leverage on Epstein’s personal power over more powerful people. Your assessment of why and why now is most insightful. Thanks.
Thank you for your always unusual and discerning post. You help us to question correctly and not to accept the facile answers. It's always refreshing and delightful to read your work.
Apologies if this is ignorant on my part. You correctly remind us that the documents should have been collected and disclosed as relating to "the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein".
Is it known - and is it limited in the legislation - what he might be being investigated for? For instance, those Mandelson emails could plausibly be relevant to an insider trading investigation, either on its own merits or more likely to put on pressure relating to the charges most people are interested in.
Is that what you're thinking of with the "what does and doesn't it relate to" question?
I adore this piece, especially your last question which is incredibly powerful. It embodies my own thoughts about the timing of the release of this batch of documents relating, not just to Madelson, but also to other ‘high profile’ individuals who will attract media attention, thus ensuring readers minds & attention are turned away from ‘the gap’ in documents & the effect that the publication of such documents (if (still) in existence), might have on Trump’s presidency.
As always I apologise that I can’t phrase my thoughts so eloquently as you. Frustratingly my cognition issues mean that I can’t always express myself properly either verbally or in writing. But I very much enjoy the process of trying to comment on your writings, even though I often have to give up part way through.
Yes your last two questions tie in neatly with the last paragraph of Tina Brown's most recent and excellent Substack.
Which I have now read at your prompting, and I agree.
The obvious answer to the compiling of the archive appears to be leverage on Epstein’s personal power over more powerful people. Your assessment of why and why now is most insightful. Thanks.
Thank you for your always unusual and discerning post. You help us to question correctly and not to accept the facile answers. It's always refreshing and delightful to read your work.
Apologies if this is ignorant on my part. You correctly remind us that the documents should have been collected and disclosed as relating to "the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein".
Is it known - and is it limited in the legislation - what he might be being investigated for? For instance, those Mandelson emails could plausibly be relevant to an insider trading investigation, either on its own merits or more likely to put on pressure relating to the charges most people are interested in.
Is that what you're thinking of with the "what does and doesn't it relate to" question?
I adore this piece, especially your last question which is incredibly powerful. It embodies my own thoughts about the timing of the release of this batch of documents relating, not just to Madelson, but also to other ‘high profile’ individuals who will attract media attention, thus ensuring readers minds & attention are turned away from ‘the gap’ in documents & the effect that the publication of such documents (if (still) in existence), might have on Trump’s presidency.
As always I apologise that I can’t phrase my thoughts so eloquently as you. Frustratingly my cognition issues mean that I can’t always express myself properly either verbally or in writing. But I very much enjoy the process of trying to comment on your writings, even though I often have to give up part way through.
there's an old rule from biblical exegesis: a text taken out of context becomes a pretext