By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Newly released documents reveal that U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick maintained business ties with Jeffrey Epstein for years after publicly claiming to have severed all contact. Records indicate Lutnick and Epstein were business partners in an advertising tech company called Adfin as recently as 2014, signing onto a deal together in late 2012. This business relationship and further correspondence extended well past Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea, contradicting Lutnick’s stated vow to never be in Epstein’s presence again following a 2005 meeting. The documents also show Epstein agreed to donate $50,000 to a 2017 dinner honoring Lutnick, despite private concerns about the appearance of their association.
Read the original article here
It’s quite something when reports surface about individuals who have publicly distanced themselves from figures like Jeffrey Epstein, only to find that their business dealings with him continued, sometimes for years. This situation, concerning a figure sometimes described in less-than-flattering terms in relation to the Trump administration, brings up some serious questions about honesty, transparency, and the very nature of public service. The narrative that emerges is one of a deliberate effort to create distance in the public eye while maintaining financial ties behind the scenes, a maneuver that speaks volumes about priorities.
The idea that someone could declare a severed connection to Epstein, a convicted sex offender, and then, according to reports, maintain business relationships with him for nearly a decade, shifts the conversation from a simple denial to a calculated strategy. It suggests a mindset where maintaining financial benefits, or “the Benjamins,” took precedence over a complete and honest break. This isn’t just about lying; it appears to be a sophisticated form of compartmentalization, utilizing mechanisms like shell companies and carefully constructed “arms-length” deals.
These intricate business arrangements seem designed to technically count as legitimate transactions without triggering the disclosure requirements that might expose these ongoing connections. The incentive is clear: to possess plausible deniability by stating that you don’t personally interact with Epstein, while still benefiting from shared ventures and the movement of money. This strategy, while technically allowing one to claim a lack of direct association, feels more like a semantic game than a genuine disassociation. The persistence of such practices in political and financially adjacent circles is striking, where the appearance of social distance is often prioritized over the concrete evidence found in paper trails.
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss the notion that many individuals associated with Trump’s orbit might have had some form of entanglement with Epstein. The sheer volume of alleged connections, coupled with this new report, paints a disturbing picture of a network where such associations, however denied, were apparently common. The parallel is drawn to other prominent figures, suggesting a broader pattern of association and potential compromise within certain high-profile circles.
The specific details surrounding one individual, Howard Lutnick, are particularly noteworthy. Reports suggest he was not only Epstein’s neighbor but also involved in a property transaction that was, at one point, owned by both Les Wexner and Epstein. This transaction, reportedly occurring for a nominal sum through a trust, adds another layer to the alleged business ties. Furthermore, the mention of Lutnick being investigated by the FBI for money laundering and racketeering, only to then hold a significant position in American commerce, raises eyebrows and fuels cynicism about the standards applied to those in positions of power.
The irony is not lost when considering the virtue signaling from certain political groups who, while publicly denouncing Epstein, seemed to have members who downplayed his role or even cast him as a victim. This stark contrast between public pronouncements and reported private actions highlights a perceived hypocrisy that erodes public trust. The phrase “I barely knew him” emerges as a recurring and increasingly unbelievable statement within this context.
This situation begs the question of what truly disqualifies someone from public office. It seems that in some circles, a history of alleged illicit dealings or associations is not only overlooked but perhaps even seen as a prerequisite for certain roles. The concept of nepotism and corruption, once considered disqualifying, appears to have been normalized to a startling degree. This shift in standards, where MAGA supporters are described as having “zero standards,” reflects a deep concern about the erosion of ethical boundaries.
The idea that individuals in power might be leveraged or blackmailed is also floated as a potential explanation for their continued association with problematic figures. If Trump holds leverage, perhaps through his pardon power or evidence of compromising information, it could compel his associates to comply with his directives, even if those directives are questionable. This creates a dynamic where loyalty is enforced through fear of exposure or legal consequences.
The notion that a sex offender status is now an acceptable qualification for high office, or even for the presidency itself, is presented as a grim reality. The ongoing involvement of individuals with questionable pasts in government positions, coupled with their companies profiting immensely from government policies, paints a bleak picture of corporate America and its influence. It’s a world where honesty and authenticity seem to be secondary to financial gain and maintaining power.
The persistence of such situations, where alleged involvement with figures like Epstein is seemingly brushed aside, suggests a systemic issue. The administration, in this context, is seen not just as a collection of individuals but as a mechanism for protection and perpetuation of these compromised relationships. The normalization of abuse and corruption, where even egregious actions barely elicit a shocked reaction, indicates a deeply fractured system.
Ultimately, the reporting that a “Trump goon who denied Epstein ties was reportedly in business with him” is more than just a juicy piece of political gossip. It’s a window into a perceived world of calculated deception, where public statements are carefully crafted to mask ongoing entanglements, and where the pursuit of wealth and power appears to overshadow ethical considerations. The question that remains is how long such a system, built on a foundation of alleged compromise and a willingness to engage with problematic figures, can truly endure before the facade crumbles.