[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Niels Groeneveld [@nigroeneveld](/creator/twitter/nigroeneveld) on x 12.9K followers Created: 2025-07-26 08:51:53 UTC Burns, Epstein, and the Overlap with Saudi Influence in Washington In the spring of 2014, Jeffrey Epstein was a convicted sex offender with a growing reputation for quietly reentering elite circles. William J. Burns was serving as Deputy Secretary of State, one of the most senior figures in U.S. diplomacy. That year, the two men met at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse. The encounter, confirmed by the CIA in 2023 after mounting public scrutiny, has since become a focal point in understanding how Epstein maintained proximity to powerful officials—even after his criminal conviction. But beneath the surface of this meeting lies a more strategic question: what did Epstein seek from Burns, and how might that meeting intersect with the growing influence of Saudi Arabia in Washington during a moment of quiet geopolitical reordering? At the time of their meeting, Burns was in the final months of a three-decade diplomatic career. He had been central to numerous delicate negotiations, from U.S.-Russia arms control talks to the early backchannel work that laid the groundwork for the Iran nuclear deal. Epstein, on the other hand, was positioning himself as a financier with global access—hosting scientists, advising billionaires, and courting proximity to sovereign wealth. To understand why their paths crossed, one must look not just at personal ambition or social fluidity, but at the larger landscape of money, diplomacy, and covert influence that was being reshaped beneath the surface of polite Washington. By 2014, Saudi Arabia had become one of the most powerful actors in U.S. foreign policy without ever appearing to lobby overtly. Its capital quietly flowed through think tanks, lobbying firms, academic institutions, and technology investments. The newly energized Public Investment Fund (PIF) was preparing for a major role on the global stage. The Kingdom’s ambassadors and envoys—many of them veterans of intelligence and security services—worked diligently to maintain bipartisan relationships in Washington, even as tensions over issues like Iran and Syria simmered. In this context, Epstein’s meeting with Burns may not have been a one-off curiosity. Epstein had shown a particular interest in Gulf power centers, including his suspiciously timed 2016 trip to Saudi Arabia and his claimed relationship with Mohammed bin Salman. If he was already cultivating access to Gulf elites, the 2014 meeting with Burns may have been an early step in mapping the diplomatic terrain Epstein hoped to navigate—an attempt to understand or influence the channels through which Saudi interests passed into American policy formulation. Burns, according to the CIA’s official account, was unaware of Epstein’s criminal history and met him only to discuss professional opportunities in the private sector after his government retirement. That claim is not implausible—many retiring officials seek career transitions in academia, think tanks, or finance. But the choice of Epstein as a facilitator remains troubling. By 2014, Epstein was a known quantity. While many in Washington were willing to overlook or forget his past, the decision to engage with him at a private residence rather than in a neutral setting suggests a level of informality and access that goes beyond a cold call or informational meeting. If Epstein saw Burns as a potential advisor or partner in brokering relationships with Gulf states, it would fit his emerging pattern. He was building a bridge between capital and influence, acting as a shadow liaison between the world’s richest people and those with policymaking authority. Epstein did not need to hold office; he needed only to demonstrate that he could open doors to those who did. Moreover, Epstein’s reentry into the elite world occurred at a time when Saudi Arabia was reengineering its global image. It was buying stakes in Silicon Valley, launching Vision 2030, and beginning the campaign that would later culminate in the Abraham Accords. These were years of deep repositioning—and Epstein may have wanted to attach himself to that shift, acting as an unofficial intermediary between Gulf ambition and Western access. What remains unanswered is whether Burns understood that context, or whether the meeting was truly as benign as described. No other evidence has emerged to suggest a continuing relationship. But the symbolism of the meeting is powerful. It shows that even at the highest levels of American diplomacy, Epstein’s network was still functioning—silent, discreet, and effective. In hindsight, the meeting reflects something more troubling than mere oversight. It reveals the permeability of power, the ability of a disgraced figure to reinsert himself into consequential conversations, and the vulnerability of officialdom to informal channels. Epstein was not an isolated figure. He operated at the intersection of wealth, secrecy, and ambition—and he understood that in Washington, those forces often converge. Whether he used that access to advance his own leverage, or to broker something far larger—such as Gulf policy influence—remains an open question. But in the long arc of Epstein’s ambitions, the meeting with William Burns was not an outlier. It was a signal that his reach remained intact, and that the corridors of American power still had room for those who knew how to navigate their shadows.  XXX engagements  **Related Topics** [jeffrey epstein](/topic/jeffrey-epstein) [Post Link](https://x.com/nigroeneveld/status/1949029895700468185)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Niels Groeneveld @nigroeneveld on x 12.9K followers
Created: 2025-07-26 08:51:53 UTC
Burns, Epstein, and the Overlap with Saudi Influence in Washington
In the spring of 2014, Jeffrey Epstein was a convicted sex offender with a growing reputation for quietly reentering elite circles. William J. Burns was serving as Deputy Secretary of State, one of the most senior figures in U.S. diplomacy. That year, the two men met at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse. The encounter, confirmed by the CIA in 2023 after mounting public scrutiny, has since become a focal point in understanding how Epstein maintained proximity to powerful officials—even after his criminal conviction. But beneath the surface of this meeting lies a more strategic question: what did Epstein seek from Burns, and how might that meeting intersect with the growing influence of Saudi Arabia in Washington during a moment of quiet geopolitical reordering?
At the time of their meeting, Burns was in the final months of a three-decade diplomatic career. He had been central to numerous delicate negotiations, from U.S.-Russia arms control talks to the early backchannel work that laid the groundwork for the Iran nuclear deal. Epstein, on the other hand, was positioning himself as a financier with global access—hosting scientists, advising billionaires, and courting proximity to sovereign wealth. To understand why their paths crossed, one must look not just at personal ambition or social fluidity, but at the larger landscape of money, diplomacy, and covert influence that was being reshaped beneath the surface of polite Washington.
By 2014, Saudi Arabia had become one of the most powerful actors in U.S. foreign policy without ever appearing to lobby overtly. Its capital quietly flowed through think tanks, lobbying firms, academic institutions, and technology investments. The newly energized Public Investment Fund (PIF) was preparing for a major role on the global stage. The Kingdom’s ambassadors and envoys—many of them veterans of intelligence and security services—worked diligently to maintain bipartisan relationships in Washington, even as tensions over issues like Iran and Syria simmered.
In this context, Epstein’s meeting with Burns may not have been a one-off curiosity. Epstein had shown a particular interest in Gulf power centers, including his suspiciously timed 2016 trip to Saudi Arabia and his claimed relationship with Mohammed bin Salman. If he was already cultivating access to Gulf elites, the 2014 meeting with Burns may have been an early step in mapping the diplomatic terrain Epstein hoped to navigate—an attempt to understand or influence the channels through which Saudi interests passed into American policy formulation.
Burns, according to the CIA’s official account, was unaware of Epstein’s criminal history and met him only to discuss professional opportunities in the private sector after his government retirement. That claim is not implausible—many retiring officials seek career transitions in academia, think tanks, or finance. But the choice of Epstein as a facilitator remains troubling. By 2014, Epstein was a known quantity. While many in Washington were willing to overlook or forget his past, the decision to engage with him at a private residence rather than in a neutral setting suggests a level of informality and access that goes beyond a cold call or informational meeting.
If Epstein saw Burns as a potential advisor or partner in brokering relationships with Gulf states, it would fit his emerging pattern. He was building a bridge between capital and influence, acting as a shadow liaison between the world’s richest people and those with policymaking authority. Epstein did not need to hold office; he needed only to demonstrate that he could open doors to those who did.
Moreover, Epstein’s reentry into the elite world occurred at a time when Saudi Arabia was reengineering its global image. It was buying stakes in Silicon Valley, launching Vision 2030, and beginning the campaign that would later culminate in the Abraham Accords. These were years of deep repositioning—and Epstein may have wanted to attach himself to that shift, acting as an unofficial intermediary between Gulf ambition and Western access.
What remains unanswered is whether Burns understood that context, or whether the meeting was truly as benign as described. No other evidence has emerged to suggest a continuing relationship. But the symbolism of the meeting is powerful. It shows that even at the highest levels of American diplomacy, Epstein’s network was still functioning—silent, discreet, and effective.
In hindsight, the meeting reflects something more troubling than mere oversight. It reveals the permeability of power, the ability of a disgraced figure to reinsert himself into consequential conversations, and the vulnerability of officialdom to informal channels. Epstein was not an isolated figure. He operated at the intersection of wealth, secrecy, and ambition—and he understood that in Washington, those forces often converge.
Whether he used that access to advance his own leverage, or to broker something far larger—such as Gulf policy influence—remains an open question. But in the long arc of Epstein’s ambitions, the meeting with William Burns was not an outlier. It was a signal that his reach remained intact, and that the corridors of American power still had room for those who knew how to navigate their shadows.
XXX engagements
Related Topics jeffrey epstein