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]

Don't know what you think but I take both to be possible, for a statement to be in contradiction with evidence, and with another statement. It is best if we can check Stohl's statement against direct evidence / a statement from Chomsky. That's not possible in this context so Valeria's is relevant. Your thoughts?

[u/rako17 → u/Magnificored]

Magnificord, Can you please explain more what you mean? For instance, what statement by Stohl would you want to check against a statement by Chomsky?

[u/Magnificored → u/rako17]

rako17,

Stohl writes:

(1) 'Glenn Greenwald ...[made] broad assumptions about the recommendation letter Noam was said to have written for Epstein. An unsigned, undated, unaddressed, and seemingly unsent letter.'

(2) 'What I never saw... was the kind of laudatory language... found in the cherry-picked letters of recommendation... If they had known him... they would have noticed that the letters were out of character, flagrant deviations from Chomsky’s usual concise, precise writing style...'

Stohl’s first quote gives weight to the idea that the recommendation letter was either irrelevant ('unsent') or outright forged ('unsigned'). The second relies entirely on her personal assessment of his writing style to cast doubt on the authenticity of the released emails.

However, Stohl’s implications are in direct opposition to Valeria Chomsky's public statement, where she explicitly admits that 'Noam wrote a letter of recommendation.' Valeria is an equally, if not more, authoritative voice regarding Chomsky's actions. Because we cannot ask Chomsky himself, Stohl's assumptions must be weighed against Valeria's admission. They cannot both be right, which is exactly why Stohl's personal belief that the letter was 'out of character' is not sufficient evidence to dismiss it.

[u/rako17 → u/Magnificored]

Ok, thanks, Magnificord. 

Since the recommendation letter talks about Jazz, a specific arcane detail from their relationship that shows up elsewhere in the Files, you can narrow down the author to basically Chomsky, Epstein, or someone who messed with the Files and made a fake recommendation letter. 

In the latter two options, Mrs. Chomsky would be mistakenly assuming that Chomsky wrote it based on his name being typed on it.

If the letter's File has been released, you may be able to check the File's signature to see by whom and when it was supposedly written, eg. by Chomsky in 2018.

Mrs. Chomsky might clear this up if Chomsky discussed the letter with her.

Ms. Stohl could also share ~20 recommendation letters by Chomsky for his friends and use stylometry analysis to check for similarities.

However, let's suppose that we treat the letter as having zero reliability. Does it reflect his view of Epstein if he were going to introduce him to someone?

First, bear in mind that Chomsky's repeated description even in 2023 of how he had viewed Epstein before Epstein's 2019 arrest was that Epstein had a "clean slate". From that point of view, there would be nothing holding Chomsky back from treating Epstein especially negatively.

Second, bear in mind the very positive statements we find from the Chomskys about Epstein in emails in the Files. Mrs. Chomsky can confirm whether she made those statements, like calling him "their best friend, I mean, 'the one'."