This is a good You Tube Video of Epstein Files discussion with Heather Cox Richardson and Rep Max Frost. He will still be looking into the files.
1 Like
An article I read said that there is no evidence that Epstein’s was involved with underage girls or trafficking before he hooked up with Ghislaine in 1991. Coincidence?
I’m reminded that her father, Robert Maxwell, was the one with connections to powerful people and entities all over the world, including spy networks.
These two facts combined lend credence to the hypothesis that the Epstein enterprise was really about blackmail and kompromat as their primary function.
So, to think that Ghislaine is in a country club prison and has the audacity to lobby for a pardon is appalling. The government should put as much pressure on her as possible to come clean about her activities with Epstein. Of course that would only happen in a perfect world. In the real world, it’s asking the government to acquire evidence against itself. It will never happen.
9 Likes
I don’t know much about her or her personality, but I’ll ask the same question I asked about Epstein. Why wouldn’t Ghislaine spill the beans on everyone, tell all book, shoot the moon? Maybe she will if she doesn’t get a deal.
1 Like
She is appealing her conviction and asking for a pardon. She can’t write a book until that’s over.
And who would be granting this pardon? The guy she’s supposed to spill the beans about (or his friends). Not happening.
1 Like
Judging by what this article says, it is quite likely how JE operated :
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/playing-fire-epstein-bankrolled-bill-095900161.html
1 Like
Snitches get stitches. Any type of disclosure risks her getting murdered in prison.
A book deal opens her up to civil suits and financial clawbacks from the victims and families.
8 Likes
More on Peter Attia’s connection to Epstein:
4 Likes
I realize that this begins on a political note, but the meat of the piece is an explanation of a settlement that appears to be imminent. For discussion purposes, the focus here should be on the settlement.
For example, the complaint against Bank of America alleges: “Rather than merely providing routine banking services to Epstein, Bank of America went far beyond what a non-complicit bank would have done and instead assisted Epstein in setting up the necessary financial structure to operate his sex-trafficking venture.”
Late last week, Epstein survivors announced they had reached a proposed settlement in principle with Bank of America. Such a settlement requires approval from the federal judge overseeing the case, and its terms are not public. It follows on the heels of 2023 settlements with JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank.
4 Likes
Interesting…
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article315131144.html
Above link should work but if not the article below is a pretty good summary:
“[Redacted] has never seen this amount of bags of shredded documents coming out to be put in the dumpster at the rear gate of the MCC,” the report reads, drafted by an FBI official whose name was also redacted. “Last week Epstein hung himself, and there is an ongoing investigation. There was a [Bureau of Prisons] After-Actions team that come, and they are supposed to review what happened.”
7 Likes
I think it’s all going to come out anyway, but it sure is slow.
3 Likes
What do they think the shredded documents were?
I would assume any documents related to his “suicide” that would make the official story look suspicious. Keeping in mind that this thread is not in Politics Forum, at the very least it appears errors were made with count slips, there is evidence that rounds were missed, cameras that should have been on were turned off, there were mistakes with cell assignments, Epstein was left alone and unmonitored even though his cellmate had previously threatened his life. At the time of his death, he was also awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges so (I think?) he could have had all kinds of personal files in his cell which would help him in his defense at trial or in negotiating a plea deal (again, since this isn’t the Politics Forum I will refrain from speculating about what might have been in those personal files.)
4 Likes
In October 2017, a yoga instructor emailed Jeffrey Epstein with a delicate question: When might she receive the tens of thousands of dollars she’d been promised by the billionaire Leon Black?
She and Mr. Black had been in a sexual relationship, and since at least 2009, hundreds of thousands of dollars had flowed to her from Mr. Black’s bank accounts. But in 2017, the setup changed. Now Mr. Epstein would wire the money — in this case, $100,000.
“He said that now he does it through you,” the woman wrote to Mr. Epstein in an email that the Justice Department released this year. Mr. Epstein wrote back, confirming the arrangement.
From nytimes.com
1 Like
The article is blocked for me - but they should name names. She’s not a victim. How can one believe it otherwise? Does Mr. Black comment in the story?
I’m not sure how one might conclude anything without reading the article. I am also unable to read it, but I’m not about to assume I know the facts without doing so.
Are you talking about the victimization? No jury would declare this person a victim - IMHO - after reading this. The person made a choice. For that much loot, any reasonable person might make the same.
“She and Mr. Black had been in a sexual relationship, and since at least 2009, hundreds of thousands of dollars had flowed to her from Mr. Black’s bank accounts.”
In a statement, Mr. Black’s lawyers, Courtney Forrest and Susan Estrich, said the Justice Department documents “make clear that Mr. Epstein embellished, exaggerated and lied about Mr. Black.” They said Mr. Black was not aware of Mr. Epstein’s sex trafficking or that he paid any women on Mr. Black’s behalf.
Maybe someone here has an extra gift link. Lots of horrifying stuff, including ties to Russia (some payees were immigrants who may have been threatened with disclosure to Russian intelligence).
I can’t see the article either, but if she was under the age of consent when the relationship began, she is a victim regardless of what arrangements were made later.
Similarly, if she was at or above the age of consent but the relationship began under coercion, she is a victim regardless of what arrangements were made later.
Again, can’t see the article so I don’t know if any of that applies here, but someone receiving a payment in the wake of a sexual relationship is not evidence of a lack of victimization.
5 Likes
Agree with underage. I do think the amount of $ matter. If Mr Black is saying untrue …but that’s why I don’t like reporting without names….although I get it if they are a victim but they make said person out as expecting $$ - and obviously they are concerned with her outing them.
I noted b4 how my wife thinks the Russian thing is why Trump is so friendly to Putin. Maybe she has a point. .