It's simply astounding the slop Americans will accept as "Journalism" nowadays.

Though Musk slammed Trump's handling of the Epstein files, his attacks themselves were riddled with false assumptions, including conspiracy theories about the existence of an Epstein "client list," which is unsupported by evidence.

So ABC "News" just straight up parrots the Trump administrations talking points as if they are objective facts. "Left Leaning" bias my asshole :(

And what is the "evidence" they use to back up this supposed fact, some lawyer hasn't seen it. As we all know, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Good Job ABC, case closed.

Not to mention this lawyers story is full of holes.

First of all he claims to be representing Epstein's victims, but goes on to say that

"he is bound by attorney-client privilege and cannot ethically reveal the names of any of Epstein's alleged associates without permission from his clients."

Exsqueeze me? Admittedly I am not a lawyer, but what exactly would be the point of 'representing' the victims if they refuse to release the names of the people who assaulted them? Isn't the point to bring these people to justice? How would it benefit the victims in any way to not release the names? The only way that would make sense is if Edwards was only there to distribute hush money payments. Can anyone explain this to me?

Then he goes on to say

"It's difficult to even discern, when he would send a woman to one of his friends, whether that was even a motivation. What he was not is a person on the top of a sex trafficking operation that was sending women to powerful people around the world so that he could make money. It was not a business,"

but later in the exact same article the writer says

"And it raises questions whether those records, if made public, could finally lead to a better understanding of how a college dropout from Coney Island managed to accumulate astounding wealth and proximity to power -- a transformation that has long defied ready explanation."

Gee, its so weird how a guy who was a habitual child molester, who was friends with some very rich and powerful scumbags, who's partner was convicted of sex trafficking, and who was mysteriously able to accumulate "astounding wealth" is also clearly and unambiguously innocent of running a sex trafficking operation, because 'some guy said so'. If anyone read that sentence and thinks it sounds plausible please PM me, I just got some really nice bridges in famous cities and I'm willing to let them go for cheap.

Oh and here comes my favorite part:

Edwards describes the enigmatic Epstein as living, essentially, two separate lives: one in which he was sexually abusing women and girls "on a daily basis," and another in which he associated with politicians, royalty, and titans of business, academia, and science.

"For the most part, those two worlds did not overlap. And where they overlapped, in the instances they overlapped, it seems to be a very small percentage," Edwards said.

Ok? Edwards let's say that it was a 'very small percentage', WHO FUCKING CARES?! I don't care if it was one person, that person should be named and prosecuted. For Fuck Sake saying he only did 'a little bit' of pimping out underage children for the wealthy to molest as if that excuses it or diminishes it in any way makes me want to puke.

"There were occasions where a select few of these men engaged in sexual acts with a select few of the girls that Jeffrey Epstein was exploiting or abusing -- primarily girls who were over the age of 18."

Again, WHO THE FUCK CARES?! Why does this even need to be said? Even if we take what this clown is saying as absolute fact, that still means young women were being exploited and abused, and some % of them were underage. WHO WERE THE 'SELECT FEW' MEN? That is what we want to know, not hear excuses like "Well it was only a few men, and only some of the girls were underage". Get all the way the fuck out of here with that bullshit.

"That conduct was coercive, it was exploitative, and it was bad. But it's a small fraction of the men he was associated with," Edwards said. "And he was abusing hundreds of women, if not a thousand. And it's a very small fraction of those women that he was sending to men.

I'm not going to say it again. 🤮

he said he has seen no indication that Epstein kept a list of those men, or that he made it a practice to use those instances to blackmail or extort the men

The cameras in the bedrooms and the bathrooms were just there for the molesters safety and nothing else I'm sure.

"So the best thing would be: Protect the victims' names, release everything else, so that the world can see what is real, versus what is total fiction, and then everybody can move on."

Except that you and ABC have just spent an entire article regurgitating the Trump administrations excuses for not releasing them, so why in the fuck would they bother? But hey, now you can guys can pretend that you are for releasing the information even though you just gave them every excuse not to. Convenient.

There's more I could say but I'm getting sick just thinking about this crap. The whole damn thing is disgusting.