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.
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.
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.
