Skip to content

Brave Journalist posts dangerous dirt about Jeffrey Epstein’s potential clients, starts dropping names

Elon raised quite a few eyebrows and reinvigorated interest in the Epstein scandal with a recent tweet in which he posted a meme pointing out that the Epstein-Maxwell client list, or “little black book”, had disappeared, captioning the meme by saying:

Only thing more remarkable than DOJ not leaking the list is that no one in the media cares. Doesn’t that seem odd?

It was then that journalist Adam Davidson, in a seeming response to Elon’s point that no one had dealt with the Epstein issue, tweeted about the Epstein scandal and how the “rich and powerful” try to coverup what they’ve done, saying:

I wrote something provocative about how I know stuff about Jeffrey Epstein and can’t publish it. I’ll do my best to explain and reveal here. It provides, I think, a good lesson in why it is hard to publish stories about bad things done by the rich and powerful: 1/

First: Just about everything I know has been published somewhere. It’s in books or articles or interviews with victims or revealed in depositions. And, I think, our podcast, Broken, went further than many in revealing scumbaggery. 2/

But, yes, there are things I believe, with good evidence, to be true that I feel I cannot publish. These fall into a few categories: Category 1: Protecting the victims. We spoke to dozens of Epstein’s victims and dozens of their lawyers. 3/

Many are, simply, terrified and don’t want to talk at all. Others are willing to talk off the record and will confirm things others said, but beg us not to reveal their names/info. Others are represented by lawyers who want to win settlements and don’t let them all. 4/

We chose to respect any victim’s decision. We had to rely on the very few victims who were willing to talk publicly. This is why @VRSVirginia is so brave. Pretty much every thing she told us was confirmed by others, off the record. But she is rare in being public. 5/

Will the Red Wave come crashing down on the Democrat's heads in November?(Required)
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The biggest issue is the victims we never spoke with. Epstein reportedly raped up to 3 girls a day for years. Most came once or just a few times. Their names are not known by anyone. That’s thousands of victims who are invisible. 6/

The next circle of sources are the enablers. Over the decades of abuse, Epstein had hundreds of staffers–pilots, house staff, chefs, assistants–the vast majority will never speak or will offer weak denials or will only speak through lawyers. 7/

We covered one of those enablers, Adam Perry Lang, quite well, I thought: he was Epstein’s chef for years and has become a Hollywood celeb chef, best friend of Jimmy Kimmel. A few of these enablers would confirm details off the record. 8/

Then there is a huge group of people–those who witnessed Epstein and fancy functions. They saw him with teenagers at scientific conferences or sitting on his knee at dinner parties. There are countless people like this. A few did talk to us–totally off the record. 9/

lastly, there are the people who (allegedly!) either had sex with children or were around when others were doing so. They are all rich and powerful and simply deny and refer to their lawyers often with clear insistence that they will sue. 10/

The result of all of this is that for most of the claims, there is one witness willing to go on record. That witness, more often than not, is @VRSVirginia I have full confidence in her recollections. We spent ~two years checking every thing she said and never found a lie. 11/

But courts and the public are not kind to single-source he-said/she-said cases. Virginia has already faced down and won against some very powerful people. But this is an absurd amount of weight to put on one person’s shoulders. 12/

So, I am not protecting the men who (I feel fairly confident) raped children or watched as others did so. Fuck those guys. I am honoring their victims’ requests. Like all of you, I have hoped it would all come out by now. I’m shocked it hasn’t. 13/

But here is what I feel confident in saying: If someone spent any amount of time with Jeffrey Epstein,  at a minimum they saw him physically touching girls in provocative ways and rather gleefully showing off his ability to do so. 14/

More than likely, they were offered sex with whatever their preference was (Epstein did employ, abuse, and traffic women who weren’t underage). And many did have sex with girls or women. 15/

So, ALL the people who spent real time with Epstein were–at best!–witnesses to the almost certain rape of children. And had a high likelihood that they engaged in illegal sex acts. Courts can presume innocence. We all should presume guilt. 16/

Donald Trump (note: read more on this accusation below, it’s been discredited), Bills Clinton, Gates, and Richardson. Ehud Barak. George Mitchell. George Church, Ito–and a lot of others at MIT and Harvard. There is an enormous likelihood that — at the very best — they spent a lot of time with a man they knew to be raping children. 17/

They saw him with those children. They saw naked photos on his walls and many saw naked children around his pool. They knew. Yes, of course, many participated. But ALL knew. I am not able to say the names of people I think participated without betraying victims. 18/

But these men should not be invited into polite society. They should not be celebrated on TV shows as experts on Covid or international relations or whatever. 19/end

Stunning accusations and claims, though ones that make sense and seem authentic. (other than the Trump accusation, which has been discredited: Trump knew Epstein through his Mar-a-Lago club, which he kicked Epstein out of after finding out that he was a pervert). But, other than the lie about Trump, props to the journalist for calling out all those people and what they’ve done to cover up their crimes.

By: Gen Z Conservative, editor of Follow me on Parler and Gettr.

24 thoughts on “Brave Journalist posts dangerous dirt about Jeffrey Epstein’s potential clients, starts dropping names”

  1. Get your shit together! Tell the truth for once! It is already a proven fact that Donald Trump isn’t one of them you say, was in to the under age girls at Epstein’s island! Trump meant Epstein a couple times but stayed away from him after that.

      1. A non-trump sentence at the BOTTOM of the report doesn’t cut it. You lied and should remove any reference. This is digital so it would show-up in any online search and edit is so easy. Get real, man!!

        1. Gen Z Conservative

          I’m not the one who made the tweets…someone else is. It’s a report on what the guy said and I noted that the Trump accusation was incorrect after finishing noting what all he said, most of which was useful and good to know…

  2. Get your shit together! Tell the truth for once! It is already a proven fact that Donald Trump isn’t one of them you say, was in to the under age girls at Epstein’s island! Trump meant Epstein a couple times but stayed away from him after that.

  3. Why would you include Trump and put his name first. I dont believe he participated in such activity. He is more up standing than that. You do know he ran Epstein off from MarALargo because he caught him messing with underage girls there. Stop trying to smear Trump . You need to be going after the Clintons as they were big participants in Jefferys escapades.

  4. Trump was put first because the report doesnt like Trump and he can add this to discredit Trump. You should be a shame of yourself, taking this opportunity to smear this man’s name.

    1. Gen Z Conservative

      Read the paragraph at the bottom…I specifically note that the Trump thing is incorrect

      1. Journalist are nothing but pigs, all you know how to do is lie, Trump had nothing to do with Epstine,so get your facts straight.

  5. Trump should not be on this list! He kicked Jeffrey Epstein off of his Hotel property. Up to that point I believed you were doing a good thing by being brave enough to uncover the names of those with clear knowledge of this evil that was allowed to go on for years, but then you throw Donald Trump in the mix! This discredits everything you have laid out. As a journalist you are supposed to check your facts! This is exactly why there is so little credibility given to those in your field!

    1. Gen Z Conservative

      Read the paragraph at the bottom…I specifically note that the Trump thing is incorrect

      1. So you print something in an article, and then print a “correction” down at the end of the article, so even though you put that disclaimer for Trump, it looks as if you have still done a masterful job of OFFICIALLY not implicating Trump, the negative connotation you had intended is still there, and doing what you intended for it to do. If you did not vet the information, why would you put it in there other than to cast Trump in a bad light ? The HONEST thing to do would have been to not include unreliable/unverified information in an article at all. If you had time to add the disclaimer, you had more than enough time to edit out the information you irresponsibly left in there.

        1. Gen Z Conservative

          It’s a report on what the guy said, most of which is useful to know. I’m not going to not include it just because he didn’t add context to Trump’s name in the Twitter thread. That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And no, the honest thing is to include what the guy said in a report on what he said

  6. Excellent article. Don’t worry about the people bitching about the Trump thing. IF you HADN’T put his name in, then everyone on the left would be saying it isn’t accurate because you didn’t include his name in the quote, and that it would “discredit” your article because you were being selective. Gotta pick your poison. It’s always the same. For those of you bitching, Grow up. Be ADULTS and actually read the whole article. You know what I said is true. We can’t present half truths if we write, and we also can’t be lazy and read half an article as a reader. Knowing half of a story actually makes you look more clueless than if you don’t know any of it.

  7. Funny how you put Trump out there just to tear him down and then add the correction at the end! You planted a seed in the minds of the reader’s to make Trump look as guilty as everyone else. As far as I’m concerned you actually don’t know squat except for what is already out there in the news and that we already know.
    Stop defaming Trump…you’re no better than the Liberal’s/Left spewing all that crap about him when you know it isn’t true. All that Left bull crap is exactly that bull…and as you all know it’s wrong you refuse to jump off your righteous band wagon just to not feel the embarrassment cuz you know you’re wrong and it isn’t right.

    1. Gen Z Conservative

      I reported that it isn’t true…it’s a report on what the journalist said about Epstein, not my personal opinions on the whole thing

  8. Seems to me you cleared Mr.
    Trumps name pretty well. Most form an opinion prior to finishing an article!

  9. For all those complaining about him leaving Trump in the article, I believe he has to because it is a quote of what another person said. I agree that it would be better to have left it out, but that would be editing what another person says, and if you are quoting then it has to be exact. If leftists only read that Trump’s name was in the article without reading the boldly typed disclaimer (one of which is RIGHT next to his name) then they are selectively reading only what they want to hear (probably to gaslight), or they have a reading comprehension disorder.

    1. Also, I meant to add that there’s a gif going around with Epstein and Trump talking together where Trump is obviously telling a joke or something because Epstein laughs. Now, leftists try to use this to forge a connection between Epstein Island and Trump, but this photo I believe is where Epstein was staying at Mar-a-lago, and given how old the photo looks (1990s?), it was probably taken before Epstein Island even existed anyway. So, leaving Trump’s name in and adding the disclaimer explains that Epstein stayed at Mar-a-lago sometimes, which is probably the only reason he was talking to him. I mean, it has it’s benefits, plus when leftists post that gif photo in comments then you can call them out for ‘disinformation’ LOL.

  10. Why print an article that gives no names, most know that the man involved were men who are in government, business, politicians and so forth. By not naming these perverts, you are as bad as Epstein, do you really thing these perverts have stop abusing little girls

Comments are closed.