Barabak: Here's why Jeffrey Epstein's tangled web is conspiratorial catnip
There are loads of conspiracy theories out there, the granddaddy of them all being the conjecture surrounding John F. Kennedy's assassination. But most tend to fade and be forgotten, said Uscinski, who teaches political science at the University of Miami, where he studies public opinion and mass media, with a focus on conspiracies.
"Only a select few will attract a large number of believers, have movies made... get talked about by politicians," Uscinski said.
The Jeffrey Epstein saga has all the elements of one of those top-shelf intrigues, with an added Shakespearean twist — a president whose political rise has been fueled by outlandish conspiracy theories and now faces a backlash from some of his most faithful devotees, as he tries to wriggle free from a deceitful web of his own design.
Delicious, especially if you enjoy your schadenfreude served piping hot.
Read more: Trump resists bipartisan calls to release Justice Department files on Jeffrey Epstein
The known facts are these:
Epstein was an eye-poppingly wealthy financier, luxe man-about-Manhattan and convicted sex offender who sexually trafficked women and girls. In 2008, he agreed to an exceedingly lenient plea deal with federal prosecutors that resulted in a 13-month prison sentence, with freedom granted 12 hours a day, six days a week, under a work-release program.
A decade later, an investigative reporter at the Miami Herald identified scores of alleged survivors of sexual abuse by Epstein and some of his associates. In 2019, a new federal criminal case was brought against him. About a month after being arrested, Epstein was found dead in his cell at a jail in New York City. Investigators ruled Epstein's death a suicide.
An A-list fixture of the upper-crust social scene, Epstein has been linked in court documents with a galaxy of celebrities from the worlds of Hollywood, business and politics. It's an article of faith among some true believers — particularly within the MAGA movement — that a secret list of those serviced by Epstein's sexual enterprise exists somewhere in the bowels of the federal government, hidden by agents of the hated, anti-Trump "deep state."
In a Fox News interview in February, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said a list of Epstein's clients was "sitting on my desk right now to review," with its public release seemingly just a matter of time.
Then, like one of Trump's threatened tariffs, the list — or "list" — abruptly vanished. There was no such thing, the Justice Department announced earlier this month, along with a finding that Epstein had, in fact, killed himself and was not, as some assert, murdered by forces wishing to silence him.
A piqued president urged everyone to move on and forget about Epstein. "Somebody that nobody cares about," sniffed Trump, who moved in many of the same social circles as Epstein but now downplays their yearslong friendship.
All in all, conspiratorial catnip.
"Saying there are files and then saying there aren't files... setting up some expectation for revelations and then insisting that actually there's nothing there" has only deepened the well of suspicion, said Kathryn Olmsted, a UC Davis conspiracy expert who's studied past instances of government deflection and deception involving the CIA and FBI, among others.
Unlike some of the crackpot stuff she's heard — like Bill and Hillary Clinton murdering Joan Rivers to cover up Michelle Obama's transgender identity — the conspiracy theories surrounding Epstein have at least some grounding in reality.
"He was very rich and powerful and he associated with some of the most powerful and richest people in the world, including members of both the Democratic and Republican parties," Olmsted said. "And he was trafficking girls. There's an actual crime at the heart of this. It's not just something that people have made up out of thin air."
That's the thing that gives the Epstein conspiracy theories their distinctly frothy frisson: a blending of vital ingredients, one very old and the other comparatively new.
False allegations of child abuse date back to the blood libel of the Middle Ages and the assertion that Jews tortured and murdered Christian children as part of their ceremonial worship. From there, a through line can be traced all the way to the 2016 "Pizzagate" conspiracy, which claimed that Hillary Clinton and her top aides were running a child-trafficking ring out of a Washington pizza parlor.
Truly vile stuff.
Take that ancient trope and marry it to a modern lack of faith in the federal government and its institutions and you're gifted with an endless source of lurid speculation.
"The number of threads that you can pull out of [the Epstein] fabric are many," said retired University of Utah historian Robert Goldberg, another conspiracy expert. "And they're going to be long."
Read more: Trump slams his own supporters as 'weaklings' for falling for what he now calls the Epstein 'hoax'
Democrats, for their part, are eagerly fanning the controversy, as a way to undermine Trump and drive a wedge in his granite-firm base.
'He said he was going to release [the complete Epstein files] and now he's saying there's nothing to see here and appears to be wanting to sweep the whole thing under the rug,' Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who played a prominent role in the Jan. 6 congressional hearings, taunted on MSNBC. "There is overwhelming bipartisan, popular demand, congressional demand, to release all of this stuff.'
Indeed, Trump need only look in one of his gilded mirrors to see what's driven years of fevered Epstein obsession.
"He built a coalition of people who have these beliefs," said the University of Miami's Uscinski. "And I think he's learned that once you build a coalition of conspiracy theorists, you can't get them to [stop believing]. They came to him because he was telling them what they want. He can't turn around and do the opposite now."
Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
Get the latest from Mark Z. BarabakFocusing on politics out West, from the Golden Gate to the U.S. Capitol.Sign me up.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class
There are many questions that don't have simple answers, either because they're too complex or they're hypothetical. One such question is what it might mean for billionaires to pay taxes at the same rate as the upper middle class, whose income starts, on average, at around $168,000, depending on where you live. Find Out: Read Next: ChatGPT may not be an oracle, but it can analyze information and offer trends and patterns, so I asked it what would happen if billionaires were required to pay anywhere near as much as the upper middle class. Here's what it said. A Fatter Government Larder For starters, ChatGPT said that if billionaires paid taxes like the upper middle class, the government would bring in a lot more money — potentially hundreds of billions of dollars more every year. 'That's because most billionaires don't make their money from salaries like upper-middle-class workers do. Instead, they grow their wealth through investments–stocks, real estate, and businesses–which are often taxed at much lower rates or not taxed at all until the assets are sold,' ChatGPT told me. Billionaire income is largely derived from capital appreciation, not wages. In other words, they make money on their money through interest. And as of yet, the U.S. tax code doesn't tax 'unrealized capital gains' so until you sell your assets, you could amass millions in appreciation and not pay a dime on it, ChatGPT shared. Learn More: What Do Billionaires Pay in Taxes? Right now, many billionaires pay an effective tax rate of around 8% or less, thanks to loopholes and tax strategies. Meanwhile, upper-middle-class households earning, say, $250,000 might pay around 20% to 24% of their income in taxes. (Keep in mind that the government doesn't apply one tax bracket to all income. You pay tax in layers, according to the IRS. As your income goes up, the tax rate on the next layer of income is higher. So you pay 12% on the first $47,150, then 22% on $47,151 to $100,525 and so on). So, if billionaires were taxed at the same rate as those upper-middle-class wage earners, 'it would level the playing field–and raise a ton of revenue that could be used for things like infrastructure, education or healthcare,' ChatGPT said. The Impact on Wealth Equality I wondered if taxing billionaires could have any kind of impact on wealth equality, as well. While it wouldn't put more money in other people's pockets, 'it could increase trust in the tax system, showing that the wealthiest aren't playing by a different set of rules,' ChatGPT said. It would also help curb 'the accumulation of dynastic wealth,' where the richest families essentially hoard wealth for generations without contributing proportionally to the system. But it's not a magic bullet. 'Wealth inequality is rooted in more than just taxes–wages, education access, housing costs, and corporate ownership all play a role,' ChatGPT said. Billionaires paying taxes doesn't stop them from being billionaires, either, it pointed out. Taxing Billionaires Is Not That Simple While in theory billionaires paying higher taxes 'would shift a much bigger share of the tax burden onto the very wealthy,' ChatGPT wrote, billionaires are not as liquid as they may seem. 'A lot of billionaire wealth is tied up in things like stocks they don't sell, so taxing that would require big changes to how the tax code works.' Also, billionaires are good at finding loopholes and account strategies — it might be hard to enforce. What's a Good Middle Ground? We don't live in a black and white world, however. There's got to be a middle ground, so I asked ChatGPT if there is a way to tax billionaires more, even if it's not quite how the upper middle class are taxed. A likely compromise would come from a policy decision, which isn't likely to be forthcoming anytime soon. President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill only offered more tax breaks to the wealthiest. However, policy proposals that have been floated, include: A minimum tax on billionaires where they might pay around 20% of their overall income Limiting deductions and closing tax loopholes that allow them to significantly reduce taxable income Tax unrealized gains (those assets that have only earned but not yet been sold), gradually. ChatGPT agreed that billionaires could pay more than they currently do, even if they don't pay exactly what upper-middle-class workers pay in percentage terms. 'The key is to design policies that are fair, enforceable, and politically feasible.' I asked how realistic such policy proposals are, and ChatGPT told me what I already knew: They're 'moderately realistic' but only with the 'right political alignment.' More From GOBankingRates 9 Downsizing Tips for the Middle Class To Save on Monthly Expenses This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New poll finds 96% Idaho voters say public lands should remain in public hands
More than 60% of the land in Idaho is public land, including this high altitude lake at the base of Thompson Peak in the Sawtooth Wilderness. (Photo by Clark Corbin/Idaho Capital Sun) Ninety-six percent of all registered voters in Idaho believe that public lands should remain in public hands, according to a new poll paid for by Conservation Voters for Idaho. The poll was conducted in the aftermath of a federal proposal from U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, to make millions of acres of public land in the U.S., including in Idaho, available to be sold off. The poll specifically asked Idaho voters questions about Idaho public lands and who they support in Idaho's 2026 U.S. Senate race. Alexis Pickering, executive director of Conservation Voters for Idaho, said she has never in her career seen Idahoans from all sides of the political spectrum unite behind a single issue like they have behind public lands this year. 'It really is clear that voters are unified in keeping public lands in public hands,' Pickering said in a phone interview Wednesday. 'It demonstrates that Idaho voters are very cognizant of this fight right now,' Pickering said. 'They are very engaged, and they are not going to sit this out.' More than 60% of the land in Idaho is public land of some form. The polling firm Change Research conducted the poll among 1,027 registered Idaho voters from July 15-17. The margin of error was 3.2%, according to Change Research. One poll question asked voters, 'Did you support or oppose the amendment to sell off over 3 million acres of public land across 11 Western states, including Idaho?' – with 87% of respondents saying they opposed it. Battles over public lands loom even after sell-off proposal fails Another poll question asked voters which statement came closest to their opinion: Public lands in Idaho, where people enjoy outdoor activities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, and biking, should remain public and be protected so that everyone can keep enjoying them. Public lands in Idaho, where people enjoy outdoor activities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, and biking, should be made available for purchase and private ownership. Ninety-six percent of Idaho registered voters said public lands should remain public, including 97% of registered Democrats and 95% of registered Republicans, the poll found. Lee withdrew his amendment to sell public lands after a public backlash and three of Idaho's four members of Congress provided public opposition from within the Republican Party to selling public lands. Even though the public lands amendment was withdrawn, Pickering said the issue isn't going away. She said Conservation Voters for Idaho plans to highlight public lands as a central issue and continue to hold elected officials accountable for keeping public lands public. Pickering also said the public is deeply invested in the issue and knows Lee could file another proposal to sell public lands. She compared the proposal to sell public lands to waking a sleeping bear. 'Now that they have woken the bear, it will be really hard to get that bear back in hibernation mode,' Pickering said. Three of Idaho's four members of Congress, U.S. Sens. Jim Risch and Mike Crapo and U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, all R-Idaho, provided public Republican opposition to the proposal to sell off public lands, the Sun previously reported. On June 20, Risch and Crapo, both announced they were opposed to the provision in the budget reconciliation process to sell off public lands. Simpson co-sponsored the Public Lands in Public Hands Act. Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Russ Fulcher, R-Idaho, opposed the Public Lands in Public Hands Act, the Utah News Dispatch reported. In a phone interview with the Idaho Capital Sun earlier this month, Fulcher said, 'public land should remain public, but the control, management should be local stakeholders, not the federal government.' Polling data shows that Risch received a 10% bump in support among all registered voters after they learned Risch provided opposition to the proposal to sell off public lands, up from 41% to 51%. Among registered Republican voters only, Risch's support increased from 60% to 72% after voters learned Risch provided opposition to the proposal to sell off public lands. The poll only asked voters about Risch's upcoming U.S. Senate race, where he faces re-election in 2026. The poll did not ask about Crapo, Simpson or Fulcher, Pickering said. Idaho Capital Sun is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Idaho Capital Sun maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Christina Lords for questions: info@ Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Van Hollen: ‘A big lie' that UN aid for Gaza has been ‘systematically' stolen by Hamas
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said Sunday there is no truth to claims that United Nations aid for Palestinians in Gaza has been 'systematically' stolen by Hamas. 'This is a big lie, the claim that when the U.N. organizations were delivering food to Palestinians, civilians, that it was being systematically diverted to Hamas,' Van Hollen told CBS News's Margaret Brennan on 'Face the Nation.' 'I want to say loudly and clearly, this is a big lie,' the Maryland senator added. On Sunday, Trump said Hamas is stealing food that was meant for people in Gaza, saying to reporters on multiple occasions that goods are being stolen as he was pressed on the hunger crisis in the region. Trump, alongside President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen in Turnberry, Scotland, was questioned about his response to the images of starving children in Gaza. 'When I see the children and when I see, especially over the last couple of weeks people are stealing the food, they're stealing the money, they're stealing the money for the food. They're stealing weapons, they're stealing everything,' the president said. 'It's a mess, that whole place is a mess. The Gaza Strip, you know it was given many years ago so they could have peace. That didn't work out too well,' Trump continued. House Speaker Mike Johnson echoed Trump on Sunday's 'Meet the Press' on NBC News. 'This is important to note: Israel, since this war began, has supplied over 94,000 truckloads full of food. It's enough food to feed 2 million people for two years trying to get that into Gaza. But Hamas has stolen the food, a huge amount,' Johnson said. He also criticized 'the system,' calling it 'broken,' adding that beginning tomorrow, the Israeli military will open 'new channels of distribution to get it [food] to those people who are desperately in need.' Former President Obama said on Sunday that 'aid must be permitted to reach people in Gaza.' 'There is no justification for keeping food and water away from civilian families,' the former president added in a post on the social platform X on Sunday.
