David Brooks in the Epstein Photos
Who should appear in the Epstein photo dump but Mr. Moral Quest himself, New York Times columnist David Brooks.
***
David Brooks, pictured here looking supercilious, probably because he was served inferior deli meat, found himself embroiled in controversy last week for appearing in the Epstein file photo dump. Brooks is at some sort of event rubbing elbows with Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google.
His employer, the New York Times, was quick to cover his ass issue a statement.
“As a journalist, David Brooks regularly attends events to speak with noted and important business leaders to inform his columns, which is exactly what happened at this 2011 event,” the Times said in a statement to Semafor’s Max Tani. “Mr. Brooks had no contact with him before or after this single attendance at a widely-attended dinner.”
Nothing to see here!
But you think David Brooks would have at least mentioned meeting Jeffrey Epstein? Especially as he was so quick to scold us all for making such a big deal about the global sex trafficker.
Last month he wrote “The Epstein Story? Count Me Out” (gift link).
Why is Epstein the top issue in American life right now? Well, in an age in which more and more people get their news from short videos, if you’re in politics, the media or online it pays to focus on topics that are salacious, are easy to understand and allow you to offer self-confident opinions with no actual knowledge.
I dunno, David. You’ve made an entire career out of self-confident opinions with no actual knowledge.
Gosh Tracy, that’s mean.
Hey, the guy blames single mothers for the decline of civilization and poverty. I stand by my snark. Until he’s raised children while being owed thousands in back child support, he can STFU.
Brooks goes on to say we’re all susceptible to Qanon conspiracy theories. Epstein is an outlier!
What I don’t understand is why some Democrats are hopping on this bandwagon. They may believe that the Epstein file release will somehow hurt Trump. But they are undermining public trust and sowing public cynicism in ways that make the entire progressive project impossible. They are contributing to a public atmosphere in which right-wing populism naturally thrives.
Dude, releasing the Epstein files has been an all-too-rare bipartisan effort. Also, I’m familiar with this cheater mindfuck you’re employing.
STOP ASKING QUESTIONS!
Don’t you know your lack of trust will poison our marriage! Your irrational anger is undermining this fragile reconciliation! This entire project is impossible, not because a Great Crime was committed, but because you are reacting to it all wrong!
I’m just saying that a guy who left his wife for his much younger research assistant might be familiar with this kind of rhetoric.
Jeffery Epstein is a curious blindspot for a man who staked his entire reputation on being Mr. Moral Character. (Chucking one’s wife, notwithstanding.) Could David Brooks be pathologically clueless?
I know a thing or two about the American elite, ahem, and if you’ve read my work, you may be sick of my assaults on the educated elites for being insular, self-indulgent and smug.
Oh David, you’re lunch pail, Joe there, huh? Friend of the working class? The same David Brooks who derided his friend for charcuterie ignorance? The same David Brooks who put the Sissinghurst spoon rest on his wedding registry? I think you know a few things about being insular, self-indulgent, and smug, Sir.
The Epstein class is ‘inaccurate.’
But the phrase “the Epstein class” is inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible. Say what you will about our financial, educational, nonprofit and political elites, but they are not mass rapists.
Well, I guess we’ll never know if this giant cover up continues, but it sure does appear that a lot of elites don’t hold a little pedophilia against a fellow bro. David Brooks attended this event with Epstein after Epstein’s arrest. Again, curious company for the author of The Second Mountain: The Quest for the Moral Life.
Hey, Tracy, you gotta go where the sinners are.
Yes, I’m sure David Brooks was just there to shame them all for their elitism.
***
You can read my other snark on David Brooks here:
My internal SHOCK-O-METER gave “David Brooks at an Epstein Event” a 2 out of 10.
That high?
How does the saying go…where there’s smoke, there’s fire…This is all image management for the elites…they are scared now because whatever goodwill and trust was left, is now gone. Pass the popcorn because it’s getting interesting.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who has noticed–the loudest public voices arguing for morality are the same people whose personal and sexual morals are awful. Anybody who would dump their long-term wife for a younger underling is a piece of trash. I don’t care how much they pontificate about saving the planet or preserving culture or whatever is the cause of the week. They are still a piece of trash. Integrity is about doing the right thing when nobody is watching. People who cheat do not have integrity.
I don’t know much about Brooks but FW narcopath was apparently telling acquaintances how disgusted he was by his own FW father cheating and abandoning the family. I had no idea he was cos-playing this moral character, he never wanted to discuss FIL at home
*** immediately googling “David Brooks Wife” ***
Googled it — yup yup yup
re: this “widely-attended dinner.”
Were any women over 25 invited? Any Black people? Any leaders who aren’t straight and white and men? Imagine walking into a dinner — on a private island! — and the only attendees are straight, white guys. Wouldn’t that tell you that you should back right the eff up and walk out? Are you powerful people gathered around to solve problems? If not, why not? If so, what’s with the circle jerk? Why are you there?
Casting aspersions a little broadly there, and yet not broadly enough. “Straight white men” aren’t the problem. Straight white men stormed the beaches in Normandy and charged into the burning twin towers. The problem is entitled sexual predators. Epstein and his accomplice Maxwell represent the same basic defect as P Diddy; as South American sex traffickers; as Islamic rape gangs; as homosexual priests and as Emanuel Macron’s wife and all the other such teachers preying upon children in their classrooms. Entitled predation isn’t found only in one race, gender, or orientation, and it isn’t the rule for any race, gender or orientation where it is found.
I agree that there’s no gender identity or race which is more inclined to sexual predation which is why I prefer to give abusers their own special category that supercedes all other identifiers: “abusosexual.”
But both because rates of violent crime committed by women has always lagged far behind rates of male-perpetrated violence and that divide hasn’t budged even after the advent of feminism, there’s truth to the assumption that men are more prone. And then because, in modern social research, something called “rape myth acceptance”– a view that’s always found among perpetrators of rape and their apologists and enablers– correlates with things like hostile sexism, racism and support for authoritarianism, there’s also truth to the idea that wherever you find clusters of people which are too homogenously male coupled with whatever ethnicity dominates that particular society, you’re probably going to find more rape apologism if not actual rapists.
Preach, Hell of Chump! You make excellent points and i want to use the term “abusosexual.” Never heard of the rape acceptance myth so thanks for that as well. These terms help us make sense of this misogynist fuckery.
A late friend– former NY Times journalist and AIDS activist– coined the “abusosexual” term to make the point that, by dehumanizing others, sexual abusers dehumanize themselves and lose the right to join other wagon circles such as straight, gay, bi, nonbinary, etc. because no one wants them as members (except other abusers). The fact that they’re sexually harmful is all anyone needs to know about them.
Men of many races stormed the beaches at Normandy and people of many demographics charged into the twin towers. My point was that — as soon as Brooks walked into that dinner — he could see the racism and sexism on display, which are indicative of character. I was not disparaging straight, white men. I was saying that those attendees were all there to reinforce each other’s sense of entitlement, and sexism and racism are by-products of that entitlement.
Yes!
Good point as well.
Thank you TKO. This isn’t said enough these days. The enemy is behavior and attitudes, and not gender or color or age. When I was 11 years old a neighbor boy of 14 tried to pull me into some bushes in our neighborhood. A few years later he was imprisoned for forcible rape, which clarified things for me (as I was 11 at the time I did not really know what was happening, I just knew I had to get away). Anyway he was white, but he was not old, or rich, or powerful. In college a brown twenty something man tried to grab me from in front of my apartment door. A black man in that college neighborhood used to fondle himself as the women walked by. A young non-white man I knew was sexually “forcibly coerced” by a young white woman on a first date. And a young lesbian woman sexually assaulted a young straight woman at a college party I once attended. Bad/criminal behavior spans every demographic, and limiting one’s ire to a small portion of the population is a disservice to victims and the change that is needed.
Now, having typed that little diatribe, I absolutely acknowledge the current and historic entitlement of people (yes, mostly white men) who hold power in society. It’s a problem, but it would be so regardless of the age, race, gender, etc. of the perpetrator.
straight, white men who are privileged and in their 50s and 60s for the most part. ewwwwww.
That is a racist and ageist statement.
I believe she’s talking about the known friends and suspected clients of Epstein, who were (with the exception of Jackson and probably Diddy) straight, white, wealthy middle aged and older men, so no, it is not racist and ageist, it is merely factual.
It is also statistics. Rape is primarily male on female and male on male. Not exclusively, but predominantly. Yes, Ghislaine was a part of it, and there have always been women who empower men’s bad behavior.
It is statistically incorrect as well. As a whole, it is not the 50-60 year old white male demographic that is responsible for the most rapes. In fact, lesbian women are one of the most at-risk groups to have been raped, stalked or a victim of domestic violence by an intimate partner compared to cis women (44% vs 35%).
The Epstein island rapes are just as heinous as rapes anywhere, and wherever they occur and whoever the rapist is, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That they have been swept under the table isn’t the whiteness or age of the perpetrators, it is that they are millionaires and billionaires and can afford the best lawyers and bribes.
I actually *agree* with you. But whiteness and age are strongly correlated with this particular network of millionaire and billionaires. It isn’t that whiteness and age make for predators. Only that this particular network of predators (heavily concealed by privilege/ money/ contacts/ good lawyers etc — hell, some of them even are celebrity lawyers!) is also heavily white, middle to late middle aged, and male. They were often also facilitated in snaring / shepherding of their prey by older, as far as I have seen, white women to put the younger more vulnerable women/ girls at ease. Classic grooming.
I said “for the most part”. Whether you like it or not, these circles are dominated by conventionally successful, older, white, males in the company of by and large conventionally pretty, and often vulnerable young women/ girls. Being part of such networks by definition means privilege. I don’t see that pointing out these characteristics is racist or ageist. Oh, and if you read the harrowing testimony of the woman who claimed she was r*ped by T when she was 14 or so (the suit was withdrawn but the affidavit is available online), it is clear that there were somewhat older women who were the handlers of the very young/ vulnerable women — it wasn’t only Maxwell.
The color you should blame is green.
You can learn a lot about a person by observing the company that they keep.
LFTT
My thoughts exactly. If character counts for you, being with these horrible people isn’t going to be something you want to do. Not at all.
One of the joys of being post-divorce is that I choose who is in my inner circle and who I’m with. I’m beyond worrying about my career, unhealthy obligations, and being seen in general. I exercise “no” quite a bit. All good.
I was at a major state event before the presidential primaries when a noxious candidate approached, hand outstretched and national media cameras trailing behind. I panicked, terrified I’d be photographed shaking hands with that man. I did the only thing I could think of. I turned my back.
“As a journalist, David Brooks regularly attends events to speak with noted and important business leaders to inform his columns, which is exactly what happened at this 2011 event,” the Times said … “Mr. Brooks had no contact with him before or after this single attendance at a widely-attended dinner.”
Journalists attend conferences and media events and briefings to speak with sources. A widely-attended dinner is not the place or time to get an interview. If Mr. Brooks wanted to get information, he could have used the phone. He went to that dinner because he wanted to be there. Perhaps he wanted to see what was going on, but that’s not what The NYT said in its
excuseexplanation.Having just recalled recently, my now Ex, pulling his cloak around him as he told stories of” other “Pediphiles who.almost got to his daughter. Then Silence but then Friendship towards his brother in law who was a molester??? I ALSO recalled the SILENCE when I spoke of men doing porn and hurting their wives in their intimate life. All the while he was one with all the above. Perhaps there is a pecking order in crimes against woman and children. Perhaps Epstein in the epitome of the male ladder of evil. But I wonder, in this good ol boy club of CYA how long Epstein will stay evil?
Meanwhile, back at the little people’s ranch. Cheaty and I had plenty of conversations about morality and ethics. He knew exactly where I stood on the subject of infidelity and of course, he agreed. And yet he still managed to create an affair using delusion rationalization. Turns out that flexible ethics were his “especiality”.
I can so relate to your situation. I’ve been in more than one relationship where we had those same conversations and I was very clear about my bottom line and boundaries and he agreed, but I guess just to appease me. It’s a very big reason my trust level is very very low.
They say all of the right things and go on about cheating is bad and yet—- they do it anyway or try to sell their behavior as not really cheating. And you the chump are just insecure and jealous.
I’ve found that the most damaging loss of trust was the trust I lost in myself.
He sold it as “not really cheating” with the classic “we were just really good friends.”
His personal mindflog blender only had one setting… stir. Not the most powerful setting. But the one designed to combine the most ingredients: 2 cups of gaslighting, 1/2 cup minimizing, and 1/2 cup deflecting. If that fails to coagulate in the chumps brain resulting in self doubt and general confusion, slowly add 2 tablespoons of D.A.R.V.O. deny, attack, and reverse the victim and offender until the desired result of an apology from the chump for their inappropriate reaction to the betrayal is achieved.
The New York Times? Making excuses for and downplaying cheating and other deviant sexual behavior? Say it ain’t so, Fearless Leader!
Aren’t these the same raft of idiots that told us that we need to be nicer to those Coldplay cheaters?
So knowing ahead of time(that’s what that was…right?) that the guy was going to ping WHEN the Epstein files got released…the best cover they had for the idiot was “we knew he was there, he was being a journalist, and he had no other contact (except that he did?)”
Was their damage control really so flimsy that it was immediately disarmed by an infidelity blogger? (granted our Fearless Leader may actually be one of the best journalists going, ahem).
I have found it curious, if not telling that few if any of the people whose names appear in the Epstein dump elected to get ahead of the issue and release similar statements. It’s almost like they were hoping it would get quashed and if nothing else the people who had them wouldn’t throw them under the bus to get the stank off of them. The joys of corporate culture! “We don’t need to get ahead of an issue nobody finds out about.”
That’s the thing about the secret sexual basement-it’s a secret! And that’s what makes it so thrilling to them! They get to be high and mighty about everything else and then the world owes them some strange. Or something.
I feel like I am about do for a re-read of The Scarlet Letter. It’s been over a decade, but I feel the undercurrent of “we outed this person for villainy just to cover up our own great evil” is still culturally relevant.
EDIT: My my, Christmas brain has me truncating posts!
Have a Mighty Monday!
I’m sure his second wife thought she made a great “catch” poaching him from his first wife just so she could put a $ 16 spoon rest from Anthropologie on their wedding registry. Did she know he had attended a dinner with Epstein just after he (Epstein) had been all over the news? Would it have made any difference to her? Perhaps not. Maybe it was just another way for him (David Brooks) to rub shoulders with the rich and powerful, and that was all that mattered.
Mate poachers probably don’t care about the prize pig hanging out with Epstein types as long as the money and prestige keep coming (exhibit A: Larry summers second wife)
This is what I came here for today, thank you! I was going to send Tracy an article about Brooks being in the Epstein files but then I thought, “Nah, she’ll be all over it,” and she did not disappoint. The gift article was a nice touch, and I especially appreciate the opportunity to look back on some of Chumplady’s best takedowns of one of the most obnoxious and hypocritical asshats ever to occupy such a bully pulpit.
Brooks is such a smarmy knob. He’s a hypocritical disingenuous blob of snail goo (no hard feelings toward snails.) The fact that he changed religions to match Little Miss Research Assistant really ices the grotesque cake. Ironically, the earlier wife appliance, the one who birthed and I’ll bet raised his kids, changed hers way back when they married. What do you bet that he pressured her, way back when?
Of course he did. Religious conversions for marriage always grossed me out even before my chumpdom and now I know why!
Yeah, it’s very likely he did pressure her. Hard. The article below is badly written but here goes:
https://celebsuburb.com/david-brooks-wife-marital-relationship-with-anne-snyder/
Moreover, David also said it was Anne who motivated him to write a book about ‘morality’ and ‘inner life.’ She worked closely with him for three years. Furthermore, the author also revealed, “If there are any important points in this book, they probably come from Anne.”
Safe to say, they had started dating since the early 2010s. (I bet they did, LONG before he even moved out/started the divorce proceedings. He’s the type to monkey-branch and justified doing so when he wrote smack about Sarah/Jane – NSC)
Though David, after a few days backtracked from his comment towards Anne, it was more than evident he was head over hills for her. You know, Anne was the only one who was directly acknowledged by David. Other people were called Fact-checker, editor, friend, parent, or even ex-wife.
David Brooks Was Previously Married To Sarah Brooks: Shares Three Children With Her
Before his marriage with the beautiful Anne Snyder, he was in a marital relationship with Sarah M Brooks. The commentator’s first wife was born Jane Hughes but she later converted to David’s religion, Judaism, and changed her name to Sarah.
snip
You never know what the future holds (spoiler alert! It holds younger pussy for David). David and Sarah were happily wedded for 27-years before their divorce in November 2014. The news came out of nowhere.
At first, The Washington Post claimed they divorced in 2013, but as it turns out they were not divorced in 2013. The duo even purchased a million-dollar residence in D.C.’s Cleveland Park neighborhood.
Well, the rumors were all put to rest eventually and their divorce finalized in 2014.
somehow the conversion of the first wife to Judaism and then *his* conversion to Catholicism creeps me as much as anything. the entitlement/ hypocrisy/ double standards just *reek*. *shivers*
Here’s a link to an article about David’s conversion and the not-so-subtle self-serving reasons for it.
https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/david-brooks-conversion-story
He’s a smarmy mealy-mouthed lecherous arrogant fuckwit.
ughhhhhh.
I covered this whole thing in the links i put in the story. He thanks his wife Sarah in his book for raising their children, but oozes on about Anne his research muse. Also Sarah changed her name for Brooks (to Sarah) when she converted to Judaism for him. What a slap when he decides he’s a born again Christian for his fuckbuddy Anne.
it honestly makes me *shiver*
Those files have been scrubbed, redacted, and shredded to perfection. Trump had to make sure all references to him and his flunkies are long gone. The only reason he is now saying, release them, is because he is 100% sure they are clean of the stench of his name. There is no moral compass in America and the whole world knows it, look at the leader? All his major appointments are young, attractive women, who better than to boost his fragile ego. Sickening is the word that comes to mind.
Our saving grace is that the vast majority of his appointees of any sex are incompetent boobs, because they are not allowed to be any smarter than Our National Embarrassment.
Hey now, the many fake boobs in this administration are working hard holding things up for the cameras (and pervy male gaze)
I am besides myself with schadenfreude watching a significant number of the people who are on my pet hate list nailed on Epstein. If I were a betting woman, I’d say another guy who’s high on my list, Rudy Giuliani, is in those redacted pages.
So we also have;
Alan Dershowitz- loathe him with every fiber of my being.
Stephen Hawking- hated the FW, not surprised at all he’s a perv.
Bill Gates- POS and a FW. No surprise.
Woody Allen- A confirmed pedo. No surprise.
Bill Clinton- Uber perv. Expected.
Noam Chomsky- always gave me the heebie jeebies, and when I get the heebie jeebies for no particular reason, it always turns out that the guy is a pervert.
Deepak Chopra- Heebie jeebies as above.
Mick Jagger. Loathe. Long rumored to be into underage girls. No surprise.
Michael Jackson- I guess JE trafficked boys as well. Knew MJ was a pedo for about a decade before it was revealed.
Kevin Spacey- raped a teenage boy, so more evidence JE trafficked boys.
Richard Branson- Wasn’t really on my radar screen before. On the hate list now.
Prince Fucking Andrew. POS. But we knew that.
The redacting of the files to erase Republicans from them only makes it more laughably obvious that the hideous orange thing and his cronies are all over it, or at at least the older ones who did their perving in the 90s and oughts.
Is there anybody I missed?
Yeah, Larry Summers, Harvard president who said lady brains were inferior for STEM. Fuck that guy.
Btw, have you ever done an article on Ravi Zacharias, Jesus cheater? He sounds epstein-ish, what with the plane and all. I never liked him but my H did. Listened to everything he produced
Of course! Another pet hate and also totally predictable. Thanks CL and happy holidays.
truth. Mr Daughter_of_a_Chump and I have long despised Summers for his obnoxiousness. But to find out that he was commiserating with *Epstein* over how to snag a protegee — that outright abuse of position as well as being beyond ick.
Meanwhile Summers’ wife (still an Emeritus Professor at Harvard) was all about giving Epstein tongue baths to get money for her poetry institute. These people. shameful!
David Brooks knew darn well that if those photos ever came out, he’d be in at least one of them. Is it any wonder that he tried to deflect and steer attention away from the evidence with his, “There’s nothing to see here, folks, so keep moving“ quip?