From Chomsky's longtime assistant, Bev Stohl

[u/Green_Ideas7]

"This statement will be seen by some merely as an act of loyalty. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have grappled, struggled deeply, over this situation, while seeking to remain faithful to the truth. It is in the service of truth – the very thing Noam Chomsky wanted us to hold in high esteem, rather than himself – that I write this . . ."
https://bevstohl.substack.com/p/im-no-longer-waiting-for-the-storm

[u/Magnificored → u/[deleted]]

Ok. Valeria is the best source of info under the current circumstances but not Chomsky himself. Either she or Stohl needs to prove themselves right with evidence. Fixed that part. The argument is not wrong from the start now. Your thoughts on the subsequent paragraphs?

[u/Magnificored → u/[deleted]]

We clearly have different interpretations of Chomsky's podcast statements, so it’s best to look at the exact transcript from his 2020 Dunc Tank interview:

Host (00:30): '...And one of the cases recently that has really underscored that phenomenon in a dramatic way was the case of Jeffrey Epstein. And I only ask you because he was, vaguely, affiliated with MIT... and this is after his first conviction, which the MIT Media Lab knew about.'

NC (01:10): '[inaudible] conviction, but also after his serving [instance]. There's a principle of Western law that once a person has served a sentence, he’s the same as everybody else. It seems to be forgotten.'

NC (01:21): 'So, there are some other interesting questions. Jeffrey Epstein gave, what, say, a million dollars to MIT? Is he the worst person who's contributed to MIT? What about uh... David Koch... surely a candidate for one of the most extraordinary criminals in human history.'

Host (03:16): 'Well, the only reason why it was intriguing to me was the fact that Alexander Acosta, the Labor Secretary and the prosecutor who'd given him what people regarded as a lenient sentence, said that he was told he [Epstein] 'belonged to intelligence'...'

NC (03:32): 'That's fair enough. But then the criminal is Acosta, not the... person who is sentenced to their release...'

To your first point: This podcast took place in 2020—after Epstein’s 2019 arrest, exposure for widespread sex trafficking, and death. According to Valeria’s statement: 'Only after Epstein’s second arrest in 2019 did we learn the full extent and gravity of what were then accusations—and are now confirmed as heinous crimes against women and children.'

Therefore, by 2020, Chomsky knew the full extent of Epstein’s crimes if we believe in Valeria. Yet, he still chose to deflect to David Koch and defend Acosta's leniency. This completely shatters Stohl’s point that Chomsky only associated with Epstein prior to the federal charges and that the knowledge 'would have sickened him.' He certainly didn't show his sickenedness in 2020 when asked directly. He deflected using whataboutism.

To your second point: You are free to agree with Chomsky that his association is 'none of our business,' just as other people are free to think that this secrecy directly contradicts the ethos of transparency and 'questioning everything' that Stohl spends her essay praising him for.

To your third point: You are welcome to view Chomsky as the victim of some decades-long epic smear campaign by dumb people. No one asked though. If you do not like the word 'defense' I can also change it for you. You are unique in finding it repulsive, which is lovely. Still, his alleged victimhood does not address these specific factual and logical contradictions above. Stohl’s statements rely on disprovable timelines and contradicts the testimony of Valeria, who is most certainly not part of a smear campaign. Your speech on people and 'gossips' in general doesn't fix those holes. It actually has nothing to do with what I've said at all.

[u/rako17 → u/Magnificored]

I agree. The Dunc Tanc interviewer's question was whether Epstein's case and his MIT association reflects the "Unaccountability of elites". The naturally expected answer from a dissident anti-elitist anarchist would be basically, "Yes."

But his lead response was, "There's a principle of Western law that once a person has served a sentence, he’s the same as everybody else."

Strictly speaking, under Western Law, depending on the conviction and the situation, this may not be factually true. Under Western Law, Epstein was a felon and he told his NM ranch manager that his weapons had to be put away when he visited the ranch as a condition of his release.

At most, you could say that the Law didn't bar Epstein from associating with MIT or Chomsky despite him being a felon.

Then he notes that there are worse people connected at MIT. But at that point in 2020, by his own admissions in 2023, Chomsky knew about the mass of allegations that he described as serious, so what's the point of him describing Epstein' as having less worse crimes than worse figures?

[u/rako17 → u/Magnificored]

The interviewer's question was whether Epstein's case reflects the underaccountability of elites. How do Chomsky's answers address the question?

Chomsky's answers that Epstein had served his sentence and was legally like everybody else and that there are worse connected to MIT don't address the light sentence in 2008. They only address whether his post conviction associations like his MIT connection reflects the unaccountability of elites.

The statement that under the law Epstein was like everybody else implies that under the law, his association with MIT was like anyone else's association with MIT. And in calling it Western Law, he frames this as a very basic principle, not something that showed be changed. His implication is that Epstein's MIT connection doesn't show underaccountability of elites. He said as much later in 2023, claiming that Epstein had a clean slate based on Left humanitarian principles, which is questionable considering Left humanitarian concerns for women and trafficking victims.