Welcome back and happy new year, Nightcap readers. Tonight, some Jeffrey Epstein-linked John Does just lost their anonymity in hundreds of court documents. Plus: Twitter's dwindling value and Harvard's secretive board. Let's get into it. By Allison Morrow |
| |
| | Last updated January 3 at 6:59 PM ET | |
|
|
AaronP/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images/Getty Images |
Hundreds of pages of previously sealed documents from a lawsuit linked to accused sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein were released Wednesday evening. The documents include dozens of names that were previously referred to in court documents only as John Doe or Jane Doe. The names include some of Epstein's accusers, prominent businesspeople, politicians and potentially more. This is the first set of documents to be unsealed as part of a December 18 court order; more are expected as part of the order. CNN is reviewing the documents. Why it matters Epstein, despite being a convicted sex offender since 2008, was a multimillionaire financier who ran in elite circles populated by other wealthy, powerful people in the worlds of business, finance and politics. The unsealed documents come more than four years after Epstein by suicide in his jail cell while awaiting federal sex-trafficking charges. While there may not be a bombshell in the documents — many of the names and alleged crimes have already been reported in the media or revealed in other court documents — any new details about Epstein's activities could provide fodder for further lawsuits. The unsealing also underscores the lack of a resolution for Epstein's accusers. Federal prosecutors indicted Epstein in 2019, accusing him of preying upon and sexually abusing dozens of girls, some as young as 14, at his homes in New York and Florida. VIP connections Appearing in court documents is by no means a sign of wrongdoing. But given the severity of the charges against Epstein and Maxwell, their former associates have been eager to distance themselves and denounce the alleged crimes. For example... - Former presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are known to have had connections with Epstein, though neither has been accused of wrongdoing related to those ties. (A spokesman for Clinton confirmed in 2019 that the former president had flown on Epstein's private plane but said Clinton knew nothing of the financier's "terrible crimes." Trump has told reporters that he banned Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago estate but has not publicly explained why their friendship ended.)
- Microsoft founder Bill Gates has said in interviews that he regrets having had dinners with Epstein to discuss philanthropy efforts. Gates has not been accused of wrongdoing linked to Epstein.
- Britain's Prince Andrew reached an undisclosed settlement with Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who accused him of forcing her to perform sex acts when she was underage. Andrew, the Duke of York, denied the allegations, but he was stripped of his military titles and can no longer use "His Royal Highness" in any official capacity.
- Leon Black, co-founder of private equity company Apollo Global Management, has denied allegations in court documents of raping underage girls at Epstein's New York home. One of the three lawsuits against Black was thrown out. Black stepped down from Apollo amid the scrutiny, saying he he regretted his association with Epstein and that their relationship involved only professional services, including "estate planning, tax and philanthropic endeavors."
There are others. My CNN colleagues are poring over the pages and will report what we find here. |
| |
How much is Twitter, the company now called X, really worth? A lot less than the $44 billion Elon Musk paid for it. Because Musk took the company private, we don't have as much insight into its financials as we did when it was publicly traded. But we can rely on investors' estimates of the value of their own stakes as a proxy. This week, investment giant Fidelity said it believes its shares of X are now worth 72% less than when Musk first purchased the company in October 2022. In a regulatory filing, Fidelity put the value of its X shares at just under $5.6 million, down from $19.7 million at the time Musk took over. Does that mean X as a whole has fallen 72% to $12 billion? Possibly. It's not clear how Fidelity reached its estimate. But this fall, X itself estimated its value at $19 billion, and that was before Musk's antisemitic tweets prompted an advertiser exodus. Either way, I think it's safe to conclude that the acquisition, at $54.20 a share, will go down as the most expensive weed joke in history. |
|
|
January is the month of detox. A time to brush off the dirt of the previous year and set ourselves on a healthier, more productive path. Someone might want to send Harvard the memo. See here: That iviest of Ivy Leagues has been through the ringer over the past few months. As my colleague Matt Egan reports, lawmakers are investigating it, donors are fleeing, early applications are down, and, of course, its president just resigned following a weekslong right-wing-led campaign attacking her credibility. At first, the board that runs Harvard, fittingly called the Harvard Corporation, stood by Claudine Gay while outsiders called for her resignation and threatened her safety. And then...it stopped. Over the span of three weeks, the board went from unanimously backing Gay to signing off on her resignation. Whatever happened, it happened behind closed doors, which is kinda just how the board does business. The 12-member Harvard Corporation, led by billionaire Penny Pritzker, wields its significant power largely in secret. They're the money guys. The ones chatting up donors and hand-picking the university's president, and generally championing the Harvard ~ brand. ~ But the dust-up over Gay's resignation suggests the board could do with a little reform. Management expert and Harvard alum Jeffrey Sonnenfeld argues the board itself needs a shakeup. "They have damaged the brand significantly. So, they deserve, generously, a D," he told Matt on Wednesday. Accused of plagiarism, the board did a lightning-fast, and ultimately too narrow, review of Gay's writing. "They were running cover for her, which is a bad board instinct," Sonnenfeld said. "Harvard is, of course, a national treasure. For them to be so tone-deaf to criticism was remarkable." See Matt's full story here. RELATED |
|
|
|
Last updated January 3 at 7:00 PM ET | |
|
|
|
Comments
Post a Comment