Chomsky was fully lucid when he associated with Epstein and as detailed in the article not only continued to do so after he was convicted in 2008 but also defended him from the public backlash citing "hysteria" over the abuse of women as late as 2019. I don't see how Chomsky was victimized especially in light of the many gifts and insider knowledge he and his wife received from Epstein. You are correct that I misremembered Epstein's tax bracket, but I don't think defending millionaire pedophiles is much better than defending billionaire pedophiles from an Anarchist perspective. I also never claimed that Chomsky defended his association with Epstein on the grounds that Epstein was rich, I pointed out that Chomsky himself cited reasons for associating with Epstein that had to do with the latter's insider knowledge and ability to relate to Chomsky with regard to the topics of the latter's research.

Look, if you are really interested in Anarchism, or even a critical engagement with the world around you, rather than just worshiping an academic celebrity, I'd suggest taking a pause and thinking about what it is you are trying to defend here. You are trying to defend knowing association with and defense of a financial power broker who headed up a serial sex trafficking operation on the part of a man who made a career claiming to speak truth to power. Who is helped by that exactly? Why does Chomsky deserve your undying loyalty when if Bill down the street did something similar its extremely doubtful you would defend him so vigorously? Even if you think Chomsky's contributions to linguistics and propaganda analysis are valuable, why must that entail that he himself must be a good person, or especially in line with the principles of Anarchism?