By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Photos released by the House committee on oversight and government reform show New York Times columnist David Brooks at an event on Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, though the context, including the date and location, is unclear. The New York Times stated the event occurred in 2011, several years after Epstein’s guilty plea, and that Brooks had no further contact with him. Brooks’ appearance in these photos is notable given his recent column expressing a lack of interest in the Epstein scandal and his dismissal of the story. Critics have questioned why Brooks didn’t disclose his attendance at the event, especially after writing about the subject.
Read the original article here
New York Times columnist David Brooks appears in latest Epstein photos.
The timing of the release of these photos is certainly… interesting, to say the least. It’s hard to ignore that just last month, David Brooks, a prominent voice at the *New York Times*, penned a column expressing his disinterest in the long-unfolding Epstein scandal. He seemed to brush it off, questioning why it was such a major focus in American life, and even went so far as to compare the fascination with the Epstein story to the QAnon conspiracy theory. He basically argued that Americans were irrationally convinced of a shadowy cabal of elites doing bad things behind the scenes. Now, suddenly, photos emerge.
This is where things get really sticky. The fact that Brooks himself is now appearing in these released photos is, well, it’s not ideal. Especially considering his previous dismissal of the scandal and the fact that he’s a man who often holds himself up as a moral authority. How convenient that he wrote off the entire thing as a “stupid story” just before his involvement became public. This is where the old saying, “rules for thee but not for me” really feels applicable.
It’s hard not to see this as a huge self-own. Here’s a guy who built a career on opining about morality and societal values, and then appears to be connected to the very thing he downplayed. And let’s not forget the irony. This is the same David Brooks who, after writing numerous columns on the importance of stable marriages, left his longtime wife for his much younger editorial assistant. The hypocrisy is, frankly, astounding.
Honestly, it’s not surprising. It’s almost the perfect example of someone with a reputation of having a smug demeanor and elitist opinions, seemingly having no expertise in anything other than the sound of his own voice. Many people noticed him downplaying the Epstein scandal as a political distraction during the more notable document and photo drops. There was even a feeling that he had some personal stake in the matter. It’s like, the best time to let him go was a decade ago, but the second best time is now.
The situation becomes even more eyebrow-raising when you consider his past behavior. There are accounts of him dining with young women, sparking a certain kind of “vibe,” and the fact that he was teaching an undergrad course at the time just adds to the unsettling nature of the whole thing. It’s hard not to feel that this incident fits perfectly into the existing public image of him.
Now, let’s be clear. Just being in a photo with someone isn’t automatically damning. But when those photos are connected to Epstein, and the gatherings were sponsored by him, or at his properties, or involve young women, the optics become far more problematic. It’s not a black-and-white situation; the degree of involvement definitely matters, and that is what matters the most. If that doesn’t get you fired from the *New York Times* and blackballed from legitimate journalism, I don’t know what will.
It’s almost as if Brooks was projecting. His words almost ring hollow now. He even went on PBS NewsHour and dismissed the entire scandal, declaring that it was “some stupid story.” Well, it seems the joke is on him.
It’s just another example of how the powerful seem to operate. The elites, the wealthy, and the connected, seemingly operate under a different set of rules. The Epstein scandal highlights how a cabal of elites may have gotten away with this. Now, it looks like, some of them went out of their way to hide their involvement and others looked the other way.
This whole thing has the distinct stench of hypocrisy and self-serving behavior. You can’t spend your career pontificating about morality and then be connected to something like this. It really makes you question everything.
It’s hard not to be disappointed. Even if someone might lean left, they might have admired some of his writing. It’s a real blow to his image, and it diminishes any respect one might have had for him. To see this kind of moralizing from a public figure, only to have it backfire so spectacularly, is a bit disheartening.
It just confirms what many people have always thought: there’s a certain arrogance and elitism to Brooks. He seems to think he’s above reproach, and this episode proves that no one is above the consequences of their actions.
It’s all quite a mess, and it just highlights the deep-seated issues that led to the Epstein scandal in the first place. You can’t feign disinterest in something when you yourself are part of the story.