The Epstein File: Corrupt Universities

 

Harvard’s Money Reputation Laundering

When we look at the miscreants that took Epstein money, the focus shouldn’t be on the ambitious and morally corrupt alone. People like that are everywhere. Yes, it is fun to name and shame, but in the end that is only cheap thrills.

Non-hideous people were also tempted into his maw by perversions of administration and misincentives. These institutional twists fostered corruption that allowed Epstein to remain influential by trading favors with the rich and powerful. We’ve already examined the role of corrupt reporters that allowed Epstein to thrive. Now we have to review the academic institutions that benefited from Epstein’s donations. In this case, that would be Harvard University.

Jeffrey Epstein’s association with Harvard cleansed him of seediness and gave him a carrot to dangle in front of young women without hope. He told young girls “he was on the board of directors at Harvard University. He promised that once she took her SATs and obtained the scores she needed, he would write a letter of recommendation for her, which he said would carry significant weight with regard to her admission.” He wasn’t on the board at all, but a naive search would show the entanglement of his name with theirs. This allowed him to find new prey for the appetites of him and his associates.

Harvard University got money. Millions of dollars of donations from Epstein gave him cache. The same is true for MIT Media Labs. This is how it worked, and why.

The Tell with Christine Axsmith is a reader community that examines gaslighting, systemic misinformation and coercive control. We chat about cults and pimps and solutions.

Elisa Knew

Larry Summers asked his friend Jeffrey Epstein for help securing money for a project of his wife, Dr. Elisa New. Dr. Elisa New was featured in the Wall Street Journal recently because a pet project of hers was funded by a non-profit Jeffrey Epstein controlled to the tune of $110,000 in 2016, and she also received a gift from Leon Black through Epstein’s recommendation. That’s bad enough. What’s really galling is that she knew he was problematic and took the money anyway. That’s what’s really revealed in the Epstein emails.

“… as soon as they heard about the gift, they took my project more seriously.”

In contacting Epstein to get her money, Dr. New advised a twisted path for forwarding the donation so that it wouldn’t be associated with his name. You know - reputation laundering. It belies Harvard’s claims that it didn’t take donations from Epstein after 2008 when he “plead[ed] guilty to state charges for solicitation of prostitution and one count of solicitation of prostitution from a minor in exchange for a 13-month prison sentence and registering as a sex offender.” Dr. New wrote:

[T]he best way for that money to come, I think, is as a gift to Poetry in America, an initiative at EdLabs at Harvard University. This will give me discretion over its disbursement to HarvardX and WGBH, but this will be absolutely be a Harvard gift that will count as Campaign success and from which Harvard will take some (but not as much) overhead.”

Incidentally, EdLabs at Harvard University was closed in 2019 when an investigation into Professor Roland G. Fryer, Jr. “concluded that he engaged in unwelcome sexual conduct toward several individuals, resulting in the creation of a hostile work environment over the course of several years.”

Subscribe now

In 2014, a New York Magazine article about Jeffrey Epstein mentions Professor Elisa New and describes possible reasons for setting aside any feminist qualms about him:

“Larry Summers wife, Elisa New, drops by. She teaches American poetry at Harvard and is putting together a proposal for a series on poetry that WGBH in Boston may produce and Epstein is advising on where she might go for added support … Perhaps it’s just the ultimate feminist nightmare: Men (and a few opportunistic women) continue to come to Epstein’s because, no matter their public bows to modern manners, they simply don’t care that he offends every aspect of feminist sensibility”

A Lolita Reading to Please Epstein

The degradation doesn’t stop there. In a twisted power move, Epstein prods her to read “Lolita,” a book about a French literature professor who sexually abuses a 12-year-old girl. Dr. New knew of Epstein’s sex crime conviction, and to fund her project asked him to use his powers to turn on the money spigot. The price of getting funding for a project that will educate the public about poetry is having to go along with this barely-disguised teasing. Dr. New tries to pivot the focus of the conversation to another book, doubtless trying to keep some self-respect. See below:

But Why, Elisa? Because It “Changed Everything”

One imagines that being a tenured professor at Harvard University would be the pinnacle of anyone’s ambition. It seems not. There are pecking orders within pecking orders, even at the nation’s most prestigious university.

Dr. New wrote that Leon Black’s gift to her Poetry in America project gave her status at Harvard, “but first and foremost, it gave me leverage, enabling me to set down a solid Harvard base for my activities by giving the school something to point to: this public humanities project among the list of project the Dean supports.” It got her project new respect. “… as soon as they heard about the gift, they took my project more seriously.” That elevated status got her a “rewired studio space” and “woke up the Dean to Harvard’s role in producing the highest quality humanities content for the WORLD, and not just for Harvard students.” Leon Black’s gift coming from Epstein’s support and the gift from that non-profit he was affiliated with allowed Dr. New to dream about future projects, presumably for the public benefit also. See excerpt below:

Many, many people associated with Epstein after his initial arrest for sex crimes. He did them favors, like donating to charities, getting daughters modeling jobs or meetings with Harvard professors. He offered Woody Allen a chance to teach film editing at his home, since they were friends. Tempting morsel, indeed, for any aspiring filmmaker.

For Dr. New, Epstein’s favors allowed her to manifest her dream of educating the public about poetry. This was only possible because an institution with billions in its foundation would only take her ideas seriously if there was a large donation attached to them.

That is the corruption. When a fabulously wealthy university weighs its priorities based on donations, the sincere and ambitious would be tempted, or even forced, to seek support from where ever they could get it. Even a sex offender.

It is that Dean’s evaluation criteria for which projects to support - when Harvard is insanely wealthy as an institution - that has good-minded professors consorting with the sleazy with spare cash. If that is the metric of a project’s value, of course lines will be crossed.

Harvard does not need more money. It has billions. And billions more. Ranking projects by how much money they bring into an academic department is absurd. All that decision-making process does is make little poetry professors scrabble around for cash - when they don’t need it anyway.

That is the part of the system that has to change. Dr. Elisa New just got caught in the gears.

Support our sponsor Kreiner Natural Soaps.  Specially made for sensitive skin with wholesome, natural ingredients.

 

The Epstein Files: Corrupt Reporters

Corrupt reporters allowed Epstein to prosper and become powerful, and played a major role in his staying powerful. An ecosystem of withholding information by corrupt reporters for a future book or some power leverage is a systemic problem that degrades the media’s role in our democratic system. Reporters find a neat, embarrassing nugget of information, and refrain from reporting it to advocate for the person they are supposed to exposing or to sell a future book.

This problem is systemic and is not limited to the Epstein matter. The corruptibility of writers who are trusted with truth-telling is a feature of modern political reporting. It is that feature which Epstein, and others, have used to maintain operations and to deceive the public.

It is written to and from two people who didn’t need clarification on “knew about the girls” - and neither does anyone else these days. They were discussing Epstein’s and Maxwell’s practice of luring girls into sex work. So Wolff knew. And gave Epstein media advice.

Landon Thomas, Jr.

Thomas wrote for the New York Times, and in that role communicated with Epstein about Donald Trump. Long after Epstein had been convicted of a sex crime, Thomas gave him a warning about a possible tell-all book.

But wait - there’s more! Thomas asked Epstein for money for a charity. You know, the guy that he was supposed to hold to account and roast when warranted. That trick got him fired from the New York Times, especially after “confessing” he has become friends with Epstein.

Michael Wolff

You can always rely on your friends in times of need. If you are facing media attention, a reporter pal can give useful tips and advice. In this case, writer Michael Wolff advised Epstein (did we mention he was a sex offender?) on how to handle the media and to help him write a response Trump could use if asked about Epstein during the presidential debate. From AP:

After being confronted, Wolff explained that it was all part of his kind of journalism. No apologies. Only excuses. It is understandable that Epstein was one of his “valuable sources.” That’s plausible. What is harder to believe is that Trump’s close relationship with Epstein wasn’t newsworthy enough to be put in one of his four books on Trump. He and Epstein believed Trump might be asked about their relationship during a presidential debate. Just the possibility of that happening means the topic is important enough to include in a political book.

But it doesn’t end there. Another email exchange implies that Wolff knew and understood about Epstein’s trafficking activities. Read the last sentence: “of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.” It is written to and from two people who didn’t need clarification on “knew about the girls” - and neither does anyone else these days. They were discussing Epstein’s and Maxwell’s practice of luring girls into sex work. So Wolff knew. And gave Epstein media advice.

Olivia Nuzzi

Imagine writing an article for a major news outlet about a noted sex and heroin addict from a prominent political family who is running for President. You somehow start an affair online which is best characterized as lopsided and humiliating. In trying to stay useful, and therefore worthy of a phone call, you hide huge political news about this candidate dumping a dead bear cub in Central Park. You write a plan of action for him when he is excluded from the presidential debates. You strategize together to parlay his assets into a position in the Trump administration.

It doesn’t work. He dumps you anyway and tells everyone you are a sex-crazed stalker.

Time to write a book! In it, you reveal that this candidate is abusing prescription drugs, and not sober in AA like he presents to the world. Of course this fact, like the dead bear cub in Central Park, is something you were paid to tell America months before, but allowed your sexual relationship - such that it was - to lure you into advocacy for that deranged politico.

When Olivia Nuzzi was outed as having a relationship with the subject of a profile she was writing at the time, she was fired. Rightfully so. The problem, systemically speaking, is that a corrupt reporter held back very relevant information from the public contrary to her role’s obligations. See the trend?

“Journalistic Ethics”

These stories of compromised loyalties are the center of modern media rot. Writers seeking personal gain withhold very relevant information from the nation and whatever publication that is hiring them. These corrupt reporters sway decisions of the electorate by hiding reality, hoping to cash in with a book, or in Nuzzi’s case, to have RFK, Jr.’s baby. (I know). They gather factoids and barter them for favors, even if the person is a moral toad.

Share

The depth of journalistic corruption can be measured by the willingness to flatter and protect a sex offender or a married sex addict who demands submissiveness. They were willing to engage with living repulsiveness, become friends with it, embrace it. Honestly, there seems to be no bottom to the people they would find common ground with to advance their own interests.

So now the media turns to academic outlets about “journalistic ethics.” Amidst the cluck-clucking, nothing changes. From the Northeastern Global News:

Ethics is no longer enough.

All journalistic entities need a written commitment by reporters that all conflicts of interest are disclosed and that no information will be withheld from reporting that later finds its way into a book or leaked emails. And there needs to be a penalty for violations.

This would not be a violation of the First Amendment, as it would be part of the job description of a reporter.

I can hear the screaming already. Add your comments below.

Support our sponsor:  Kreiner Natural Soaps.  Your source for natural soap for sensitive skin.

The President's Stalker

 

Single White Female

Chatted with some friends last week about the movie Single White Female, which was made back when you could actually write advertisements for roommates with that kind of title. The implication was that anyone matching that description should be pretty safe as a roommate. Pure prejudice and assumption. Then the movie dismantles your false ideas about race and gender as the single, white female roommate escalates into a bizarre and creepy attachment to the main character. It becomes clear that she is actually dangerous.

When Natalie Harp hit the public consciousness this week, the situation was laughed at. Ms. Harp, an attractive 35-year-old White House staffer, was infatuated with President Trump. The President, in turn, was flattered by her attentions. The whole scenario seemed sad and a little pathetic. The withering commentary about the whole “Natalie” situation was delicious revenge.

Then came the details. Harp was a conduit for foreign leaders to connect with the President of the United States. Harp didn’t even start the security clearance process for a year after working directly with the President. She waltzed around security regulations and had to be giving everyone else in the White House stress migranes with her access and influence. Think of it: you have worked and studied so hard, achieved so much, that you are now a staffer in the White House. Now all the effort means nothing because some woman with a portable printer prints out memes for Trump. And SHE’s the one with the influence. It’s got to be galling.

For sensitive skin, our family tradition of soapmaking for you.

Harp as a Stalker

There’s more to this story, though. She’s a dangerous stalker. Our witticisms are blinding us to the reality of how Harp is acting and what it means. A few decades ago, the popular wisdom was that stalkers are harmless. Now, stalking is considered a homicide in slow motion.

Merriam Webster defines a stalker as “a person who pursues someone obsessively and aggressively to the point of harassment.” Let’s break it down.

A Person Who Pursues Someone Obsessively

Ms. Harp does not take a day off. The White House is a very intense place to work. Most staffers last a few years and then leave. It is exhausting. Yet, Harp never leaves. She works on Sundays. She speaks to the President “late into the night,” implying long hours at work, alone with Trump. Just the volume of working hours leaves no time for anything else in her life, even eating. Her entire life’s focus is President Trump almost every waking moment.

Harp follows the President everywhere. She carries a printer with her as she prints out memes and social media comments from the internet that flatter President Trump. Most people would consider this behavior insufferable, like being prey to a digital wildebeest.

Harp credits him with survivng cancer, which somehow justifies her slavish devotion. Trump approved a program to accelerate new cancer treatments for people with advanced stages of cancer. She was one of those people, and has gone on stage in front of people to thank the President for saving her life.

Aggressively

Harp leaves little notes of admiration for Trump to find, which is more than a little aggressive in terms of method of contact. Even People Magazine has taken notice. She wrote:

“I miss when you used to call during my talk show days, and we’d talk about everything and nothing,” the former One America News Network host reportedly wrote in one of the letters. “I need to reunite my past self with my current into a better version who will make you proud. And please, when I fail, will you tell me?”

“You have the absolute right to cuss me out, if need be, when I deserve it, because no one knows or cares about me more,” she reportedly continued in part. “It is I who is unworthy.”

“I also am sorry if I was an embarrassment walking the course in Scotland” reports the New York Times. The letter goes on to say: “I want things to always be right between us. I also know I’ve been distracted all week (forgetting to eat throughout the days, and even forgetting to sleep, and only catching a couple hours at a time).”

In direct aggression news, Harp allegedly hopped into the trunk of a car to be close to the President when there wasn’t enough room inside of his car. Think about it. She had to talk someone in the Presidential motorcade into popping the trunk while she climbed in there. Surely there was some protest from the Secret Service. No one thought this was normal, even for a guy who feels he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and still be elected.

To the Point of Harrassment

Federal law defines stalking harrassment as actions creating a reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily injury. Trump is not afraid of our dear Ms. Harp, but I guarantee other people at the White House are. But “would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person” does apply to Trump. Just because HE isn’t seeing the weirdness of it all, doesn’t negate what a reasonable person would suffer in terms of substantial emotional distress. Because hiding in a trunk to be near your boss is something that would give anyone a reasonable fear for their safety. And more, leaving little notes of slavish devotion would accelerate those fears.

So yes, Hart’s actions are harassment.

Danger!

So many problems in this scenario. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law published “Assess and Managing the Risks in the Stalking Situation” by Paul E. Mullen, Rachel Mackenzie, James R. P. Ogloff, Michele Pathé, Troy McEwan and Rosemary Purcell (2006) 34 (4) 439-450; where it outlined some home truths:

In most stalking situations, except where the target is a public figure, the presence of threats increases the risk of a progression to violence.^7,32–34 Even though most stalkers do not carry out their threats, all threats should be taken seriously, as they are distressing in and of themselves, and not enough is known to differentiate the empty threats from harbingers of assault. (emphasis added)

While President Trump is a public figure, in this case he has a personal relationship with Ms. Harp. The article mentions risk factors that don’t apply to her as far as we know, such as substance abuse, history of violence, low education level, but “[c]are must be taken, however, as there is suggestive evidence that, when very serious or fatal violence occurs, it may involve a different pattern of risk factors with no association with either substance abuse or prior convictions.” (emphasis added).

Roughly 10 - 33% of stalking victims are assaulted. See James D, Farnham F: Stalking and serious violence. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 31:432–9, 2004; Schwartz-Watts D, Rowell CN: Commentary: update on assessing risk for violence among stalkers. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 31:440–3, 2003.

That’s a pretty big chance for an 80-something guy to take.