Kudos to the Guardian for not soft-pedalling this:
Chomsky had deeper ties with Epstein than previously known, documents reveal
The philosopher and the sex trafficker were in contact long after Epstein was convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor, documents reveal
The prominent linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky called it a “most valuable experience” to have maintained “regular contact” with Jeffrey Epstein, who by then had long been convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor, according to emails released earlier in November by US lawmakers.
Such comments from Chomsky, or attributed to him, suggest his association with Epstein – who officials concluded killed himself in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges – went deeper than the occasional political and academic discussions the former had previously claimed to have with the latter.
Chomsky, 96, had also reportedly acknowledged receiving about $270,000 from an account linked to Epstein while sorting the disbursement of common funds relating to the first of his two marriages, though the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professor has insisted not “one penny” came directly from the infamous financier.
That is not much of a defence. Money is fungible.
Later, the article quotes from a letter written by Chomsky praising Epstein:
“The impact of Jeffrey’s limitless curiosity, extensive knowledge, penetrating insights and thoughtful appraisals is only heightened by his easy informality, without a trace of pretentiousness. He quickly became a highly valued friend and regular source of intellectual exchange and stimulation.”
In fairness, all that stuff about penetrating insights and thoughtful appraisals was probably true. Epstein would not have been able to rise as high – or sink as low – as he did without being able to read people. Epstein’s forte was befriending famous people, introducing them to each other, being at the centre of the networks of the global elite. My guess is that of the pleasures this position brought him, the status ranked higher in his mind than the money or the sex.
Added 23rd November: I am going to take the liberty of promoting a slightly edited version of something I wrote in the comments in reply to this excellent comment by Fraser Orr to the main post.
Fraser Orr writes, “FWIW, I find it a bit disturbing that mere association with this loathsome man (Epstein that is) that somehow convicts the associate”. I quite agree. Apart from the importance of the presumption of innocence in all circumstances, i.e. criminal or near-criminal wrongdoing needs to be proved, it should be obvious that a big part of the appeal of the sexual services that Epstein was offering was exclusivity. It wouldn’t have worked if everyone was invited. But I don’t think there’s any suggestion that Chomsky was involved in the sex stuff at all. My guess is what Epstein got out of associating with Chomsky was the feeling that he was an intellectual too, and one of the things Chomsky got out of associating with Epstein was a frisson of transgressiveness. He was above such bourgeois conventions as refusing to talk to someone who had been convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor. But it looks very much as if the other thing Noam Chomsky got from his association with Jeffrey Epstein was money. “Chomsky, 96, had also reportedly acknowledged receiving about $270,000 from an account linked to Epstein while sorting the disbursement of common funds relating to the first of his two marriages” This sounds evasive. What does the thing about “sorting the disbursement of common funds” even mean? It sounds like something to do with calculating how the money should be split between him and his first wife. I can see how working out how to divide joint earnings after a marriage ends might be complicated, but why did Noam Chomsky doing whatever he was doing regarding money from his first marriage require Jeffrey Epstein to send him more than quarter of a million dollars? For an intellectual to take money from a disreputable but very rich patron is not a crime, but all those who laud Chomsky as a fearless social justice advocate and opponent of abusive power might like to reconsider their tributes.
Jeffrey’ll fix it.
Reply
FWIW, I find it a bit disturbing that mere association with this loathsome man (Epstein that is) that somehow convicts the associate. The whole thing has a bit of a “Salem witch trials” feel to me. Of course if you are engaged in some of the terrible acts you should probably be hanging by your balls in a public square, but let’s be clear, a mere accusation, never mind some small circumstantial evidence, is nowhere near enough to allow us to initial that punishment. If people have done wrong let them be convicted by a jury of their peers. Not by the mob baying for blood, even less the ghouls in Washington whose private lives are hidden scandals, but would willingly throw some of these child victims to a pack of hungry dogs if they thought it would gain them one point in their approval ratings.
It might show bad judgement to associate with him post conviction, but the implication that men were doing the terrible things Epstein seems to have done just because they associated with him, is a very disturbing development. There is a lot of weirdness around the whole thing, and I agree it would be much better were it all out in the open, but even with regards to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and Virginia Giuffre, as far as I can tell she was 17 when they allegedly engaged in sex which, certainly in New York where the conduct is alleged, is perfectly legal, even is pretty gross.
And I think especially the endless attempts to associate Trump with this heinous behavior is politics at its very worst. Especially so since Guiffre has public stated several times that she never saw Trump participate at all, and the three supposedly terrible emails seem utterly benign to me. I guess one can see what one wants in these kinds of thing.
Reply
Fraser Orr writes, “FWIW, I find it a bit disturbing that mere association with this loathsome man (Epstein that is) that somehow convicts the associate”.
I quite agree. Apart from the importance of the presumption of innocence in all circumstances, i.e. criminal or near-criminal wrongdoing needs to be proved, it should be obvious that a big part of the appeal of the sexual services that Epstein was offering was exclusivity. It wouldn’t have worked if everyone was invited. But I don’t think there’s any suggestion that Chomsky was involved in the sex stuff at all. My guess is what Epstein got out of associating with Chomsky was the feeling that he was an intellectual too, and one of the things Chomsky got out of associating with Epstein was a frisson of transgressiveness. He was above such bourgeois conventions as refusing to talk to someone who had been convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor. But it looks very much as if the other thing Noam Chomsky got from his association with Jeffrey Epstein was money. “Chomsky, 96, had also reportedly acknowledged receiving about $270,000 from an account linked to Epstein while sorting the disbursement of common funds relating to the first of his two marriages” This sounds evasive. What does the thing about “sorting the disbursement of common funds” even mean? It sounds like something to do with calculating how the money should be split between him and his first wife. I can see how working out how to divide joint earnings after a marriage ends might be complicated, but why did Noam Chomsky doing whatever he was doing regarding money from his first marriage require Jeffrey Epstein to send him more than quarter of a million dollars? For an intellectual to take money from a disreputable but very rich patron is not a crime, but all those who laud Chomsky as a fearless social justice advocate and opponent of abusive power might like to reconsider their tributes.
Reply
Regarding the late Virginia Giuffre, I have no doubt that she was exploited by Epstein but she was not a reliable witness. In late March and early April 2025 there was a very odd sequence of stories in the Telegraph:
31st March: Prince Andrew accuser Virginia Giuffre: I have four days to live
1st April: ‘No injuries reported’ in crash believed to involve Prince Andrew accuser, say police
6th April: Virginia Giuffre’s injuries not entirely caused by car accident, family suggest.
But when she did die it wasn’t four days later it was three weeks later, and it wasn’t by renal failure – that just seemed to go away – it was by suicide.
Reply
Two final points before I go to bed: You write, “…with regards to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and Virginia Giuffre, as far as I can tell she was 17 when they allegedly engaged in sex which, certainly in New York where the conduct is alleged, is perfectly legal, even is pretty gross.” Yes. It’s sleazy, but either the age of consent means something or it does not. Epstein certainly had sex with many girls below the age of consent, which is a serious crime, but Virginia Guiffre was over that age when she had sex with now ex-Prince Andrew. Nor was she forced into it; at the time she thought having sex with a real-life prince was exciting.
The second point is that we shouldn’t be surprised that people being named in the latest batch of Epstein revelations are mostly Democrats. They were the ones with a decent chance of escaping scrutiny over the last few years. If the Democrats had anything significant on Donald Trump’s relationship with Epstein, we’d have seen it by now. Trump must be the most scrutinised person on Earth.
Reply
Roman Polanski Collaborators: Notable actors that worked with Roman Polanski after rape charges were filed in 1977.
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls538847946/
As actors are regularly sharing their opinions with us (Oh blessed Ricky Gervais, Captain my Captain) about pretty much everything, but particularly Donald Trump, I think it only fair to highlight their continued support for a genuine child rapist.
Hypocrisy nearly as vomit-inducing as when Meryl Streep et al gave a tearful standing ovation to Harvey Weinstein.
Reply
Can anyone tell me who Jeffrey Epstein was? From what I can gather, he was a maths teacher who somehow became a “billionaire” by being a “financier”. How exactly? It sounds cool, can anyone do it? What did he ever “finance”, and with what (or whose) money? It’s like he rose from nowhere.
As for the men who continued to associate with him after his conviction, has anything happened to the leftist Hollywood types who continued to befriend and champion Roman Polanski for decades after he was convicted of the rape of a 13 year old girl? Though, to be fair, that towering legal mind, Whoopi Goldberg, did explain that it wasn’t “rape rape”, so that’s all right. I’m surprised Sleepy Joe didn’t put her on the Supreme Court.
Reply
As a teacher he became acquainted with the chief exec of Bear Stearns as the latter’s kids were at the school. When he got released from the school the chief exec of Bear Stearns gave him a job, he then rose up the ranks. After he left Bear Stearns he set up his own consulting and then financial management companies.
Anyway,I had read some people saying the Epstein files couldn’t be fully released because it incriminated the American ruling classes so badly it would risk creating revolutionary upheaval in America. I think this is both a bit of a convenient rationale for some dubious people to hid behind and overegging it. The American ruling class is already completely discredited but still rules largely unchallenged. It is very good at containing and assimilating dissenters who can’t simply be discredited.
Reply
I have no idea about Professor Chomsky’s sexual tastes – and they are none of my business. I am not the sort of person who throws his brother under the bus for alleged sexual misconduct and, at the same time, unveils (with an exaggerated display of emotion) a memorial to members of the armed forces alleged to have committed sexual misconduct of a form that was, till recently, considered far worse than anything his brother was accused of.
As for Professor Chomsky generally – the book of essays titled “The Anti Chomsky Reader” is well worth study – it appears that all aspects of Professor Chomsky’s public life (again – I am not interested in his private life), were a fraud – even his academic work. The last thing came as a shock to me – as I knew that what Professor Chomsky said about politics was a collection of wild lies (often even the opposite of the truth – as in his claim that the right “manufactures consent” for its policies by indoctrination – when it is really the left that does so) – but I did NOT know of the attacks upon his academic work.
Reply
Martin:
I am aware of Epstein’s legend, but I do not think it tells the whole story, not by a long way. There are many Wall Street traders, but how many end up as the friend of princes and presidents, with their own island?
Reply
According to this Forbes article, Epstein’s two main clients were the billionaires Les Wexner and Leon Black. Why they did so much business with Epstein I don’t know, but the article suggests Epstein’s businesses made $370 million from the two in fees alone. Epstein located to US Virgin Islands, which being a tax haven saved him a fortune.
As for Epstein and Prince Andrew, I haven’t followed all the ins and outs of that, but it is widely believed the two were introduced through Ghislaine Maxwell. I have seen she denies this, but given the links her father Robert Maxwell had to powerful people in Britain and elsewhere it is definitely plausible.
Reply
“[I]t appears that all aspects of Professor Chomsky’s public life (again – I am not interested in his private life), were a fraud – even his academic work.”
Back when I was pursuing linguistics in university, a fellow student and I came up with a fictional political scientist named Choam Nomsky.
His political theories were brilliant but he insisted on ludicrously pontificating about linguistics on the side.
Reply
At the risk of sounding like a stuck record the Republican establishment (danger Will Robinson!) simply has to get working on election security for mid term swing districts otherwise a Dem Congress will stymie the remaining years of Trump 47 using Epstein as a pernicious excuse for still more impeachment bullshit.
Why nobody is kicking up a stink about the astonishingly high turnout for the recent NJ gubernatorial is both a mystery and a disgrace.
Reply
John – nothing can be done with the Senate filibuster rule still in place, not an end to the “mail-in-ballots”, not demands of proof of citizenship, nothing.
It is the same on getting government spending – whilst the Senate filibuster rule is in place 40 Senators can block anything – and there are never going to be 61 Senators in support of cutting anything, getting 51 would be incredibly difficult, getting 60 is fantasy.
So why does not “Leader John Thune” get rid of the filibuster? Which he could do.
Because Senator John Thune and the rest of the Republican “leadership” of House and Senate, do not really want to achieve anything – they see their rule as slowing up (and making a bit more gentle) “Progressive Reform” not REVERSING the tide of “Progressivism”.
Decline must (to them) continue – it must never be reversed.
“History has no reverse gear” as a “conservative” academic once told me.
What the point of living is, if there is no way to reverse the decline of Western Civilisation, they never explain.
Reply
JJM.
I know that Noam Chomsky’s political statements are a series of lies – wild lies (he often even reverses the truth), but is there value in his work on linguistics?
Is their value in his academic work on linguistics?
Reply
Paul, I have absolutely no qualifications in linguistics but have an interest in the subject. I have read wildly varying opinions from what appeared to be well qualified academics on the value of Chomsky’s contributions to linguistics. I can’t think of another subject, not even economics, where experts seem to disagree so drastically with each other.
I own on Kindle a book called “The Language Instinct” by Steven Pinker, whom I generally rate highly, but I must confess I haven’t read all of it. Its Wikipedia page says,
Reply
Thank you Natalie – that is indeed helpful.
Reply
“I have absolutely no qualifications in linguistics but have an interest in the subject.”
I graduated with a BA in linguistics (with a particular focus on Romance languages). I was toying with the idea of post-grad but instead chose another direction: I took the Queen’s shilling and became a Canadian Army officer.
Best decision I ever made. Linguistics has become ever more impenetrable, arcane and, I should add, woke.
Reply
FWIW, regarding Chomsky, this cute little video does a surface level discussion about the big contention Natalie alludes to, universal grammar.
FWIW, I like this lady Erica Brozovsky and her little videos, which I always enjoy.
Reply
Fraser Orr – thank you.
JJM – all academic subjects have gone “Woke” (i.e. Critical Theory Marxist) – because the “Woke” have taken over academia, and much else.
Cultural decline is turning into cultural collapse.
Reply
Martin:
As you say, it is inexplicable as to how Epstein came to make $370 million from the two gentlemen you mention. Was he a trader, a money manager, what? Who gets fees on that level?
I think we have to agree that his entire legend does not stack up. I do not know if we will ever hear the truth, too many people seem to have a vested interest in that never happening.
I am starting to feel a bit sorry for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. He is pompous, entitled and thick, but I doubt he had a clue what he was getting involved with. In his mind, teenage girls fancied him because he was just so great.
Reply
It might be an unfair generalisation, but I think there ought to be an unwritten rule for the monarchy to avoid any close personal ties with Americans. Edward VIII, Prince Harry, now Andrew….always ends in tears.
Reply
Chomsky in my view is a gutless wonder who never met a despotism he couldn’t praise to high heaven. He was critical of the systems that provided him the the freedom and means to be critical. Amazing that biting the hands that feed you could come to be so honored.
Reply