[davrosthedalek]

I agree, but these contributions were anonymous. So the reach of the sleazeball to boy scout effect was limited to the people Epstein talked to anyway, and could see the sleazeballness first hand.

[anigbrowl]

They were anonymous because the recipients hid the fact of their origin. There are receipts of their conversations about this.

[loeg]

Your comment is problematic for Ito, but non-responsive to the parent comment's argument.

The thread is: bb88 proposes that Epstein's charitable giving to MIT was a way to reputation launder ("turn a sleazeball into a boyscout").

davrosthedalek disputed that claim, as the donations were anonymous.

The reason for anonymity doesn't matter; the net effect is there is no plausible reputation laundering effect from anonymous donations.

[davrosthedalek]

Is it actually known who requested the anonymization? It's clear that it was required to hide it, but was it something Epstein wanted or only accepted? I didn't see it in any of the articles, but I might have missed it.