Current Jeffrey Epstein - The fallout

Who killed Jeffrey Epstein?

  • He killed himself

    Votes: 15 12.7%
  • Rank incompetence enabled his suicide

    Votes: 17 14.4%
  • Bill Clinton

    Votes: 30 25.4%
  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 19 16.1%
  • The Russians

    Votes: 2 1.7%
  • The Saudis

    Votes: 3 2.5%
  • MI5/6 - British Royals

    Votes: 22 18.6%
  • Ghislane Maxwell

    Votes: 1 0.8%
  • Someone's Dad

    Votes: 9 7.6%

  • Total voters
    118

Remove this Banner Ad

I bet there are a few nervous people now

When you think about it, the Maxwell/Epstein operation is probably going to go down in history, as very well executed and a huge success.

With Epstein and Maxwell living as long as long as they did/have so far, and managing to keep the operation going for so long, as well as compromising some big names in the US judiciary from the historical legal action taken against Epstein/Maxwell, Epstein being arrested again and then mysteriously dying, then Maxwell on the run and now arrested, the operation just keeps on going.

It appears to have been designed to entrap people with money, influence and power (and their families) and make them feel nervous.

Everything is lining up nicely to reach a crescendo/peak (possibly not the only peak in the next 4 years) in the run up to the 2020 US Presidential Election.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Is Maxwell in any of those pictures of nudist underage readers?

And if she isn’t, is that indicative of her being the one taken the pics?

I couldn't find anything definitive on whether Maxwell was in the pictures herself, there has to be film somewhere though I'd think. That picture of Prince Andrew with Virginia Guiffre, I wonder who took that?
 
Among the records due to be released is a transcript of a 2016 deposition Maxwell gave in the suit - her only on-the-record account of her association with the late financier Epstein - which attorneys argue was given under an expectation of confidentiality that had been agreed to by both sides.
It is expected that the files will expose fresh details about Maxwell's sex life as well as her relation to powerful figures accused of taking part in the abuse of the late millionaire's victims. It is thought the deposition will include answers to questions asked about her involvement with Prince Andrew.
In her ruling last Thursday, Judge Preska said that the public's right to have access to the information carried heavier weight than the "annoyance or embarrassment" to Maxwell. She gave the defence a week to file an emergency appeal, but said both sides should proceed as though the documents would be made public "within a week".

I wonder how much she left out or fabricated in her "only on-the-record account of her association with the late financier Epstein"?
 
Last edited:
Maxwell lost her late bid but threw in a quick appeal to keep the documents sealed.

US District Judge Loretta Preska in Manhattan rejected Maxwell's argument that her arrest on July 2 and indictment were "compelling" reasons to continue sealing her April 2016 deposition, and a deposition by an unnamed Epstein accuser.

 
Hoffenberg was introduced to Epstein by a mutual friend, British arms dealer Sir Douglas Leese, whom Epstein was working for in London.

Was the money being used for off the books arms transactions?

Or are we yet again being spun a pack of lies or red herrings with things Epstein/Maxwell related

Shalev has an epiphany during his broadcast. Epstein, he explains, is really three things: First and foremost, an arms dealer; second, a money launderer and Ponzi schemer; third, a sex trafficker. When we think of Epstein in those terms, he becomes easier to understand.
 
GHISLAINE’S ‘SECRET SEX FILES’ KEPT SEALED FOR NOW
Meanwhile, a New York federal judge has agreed to postpone unsealing depositions related to the sex life of Maxwell until the alleged madam can file an appeal.
The order by Judge Loretta Preska will, for two business days, block the release of documents that relate to a deposition Maxwell gave as part of a now-settled civil defamation lawsuit filed against her in 2015 by Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre, reports the New York Post.
Judge Preska ordered the documents unsealed in a court hearing last week, but gave Maxwell’s legal team a week to file an appeal with the Second Circuit Court.
If the circuit court does not order them to remain sealed, the documents will be made public on Monday, according to Judge Preska’s order.
In her memo, Judge Preska also rejected Maxwell’s request that she reconsider her own decision to unseal the documents.
 

Here's the page with links to all the just released this afternoon docs from
Giuffre v. Maxwell (1:15-cv-07433)
District Court, S.D. New York
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Just watched this. Very NYNoir but gives a few more pieces to the puzzle. I don't think they can afford to have GM bumped off but then again.


Video is clearly crafted to destroy the reputation of Virginia Roberts.
It's what it leaves out about the Epstein story that is most revealing.

It's all one big intel op Pam. Isn't that obvious to you yet?
Likely including the vids like the one you posted.
Focuses most on those whose reputations they continually attempt to destroy.

The big story should not be who Team Epstein/Maxwell were entrapping, but who was alongside and behind Epstein and why?
 
Video is clearly crafted to destroy the reputation of Virginia Roberts.
It's what it leaves out about the Epstein story that is most revealing.

It's all one big intel op Pam. Isn't that obvious to you yet?
Likely including the vids like the one you posted.
Focuses most on those whose reputations they continually attempt to destroy.

The big story should not be who Team Epstein/Maxwell were entrapping, but who was alongside and behind Epstein and why?
Totally agree that the show is being used as a take down of certain people and there are so many more.
I laughed at first because it was so very cliched but I watched it to see what they said about his death.
I have been following the Epstein case since the early 90's before he was convicted the first time.
Can't quite remember whether it was a Vanity fair article or the New Yorker that I first read about him then but it was before the plea deal.
So when you say intel op...do you mean that the grey coats are managing this?
Or?
I believe that there are so many interested parties that there is more than one spy agency/national actor involved.
Both, who was alongside and who was being entrapped and why are the story.
For sure the GP is being fed certain lines and yes the video above takes a certain view.
In your posting of the links above to the newly released material have you found anything salient.
 
when you say intel op...do you mean that the grey coats are managing this?

in your posting of the links above to the newly released material have you found anything salient.
I don't think anyone dares do any serious really truly "independent" investigative reporting on this giving who is involved and what the stakes are.
If they did, I envisage they would get shut down one way or another pretty quickly.

Clicked on a few of the docs but don't have time or patience to plough thru it.
Was hoping someone somewhere might point me to the juiciest of that package of docs.
Like most. Am more interested and concerned about local pandemic matters.
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone dares do any serious really truly "independent" investigative reporting on this giving who is involved and what the stakes are.
If they did, I envisage they would get shut down one way or another pretty quickly.

Clicked on a few of the docks but don't have time or patience to plough thru it.
Was hoping someone somewhere might point me to the juiciest of that package of docs.
Like most. Am more interested and concerned about local pandemic matters.

I haven't had time to even start picking it apart yet.
 
The hole Prince Andrew's in just got a lot deeper.

Prince Andrew helped secure Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal by lobbying the U.S. Government, newly unsealed legal papers claim.

During a 2015 libel case, two women named only as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 attempted to force the release of paperwork proving the prince intervened to help his friend.

The women were both among those who accused Epstein of abusing them.

A motion submitted by their lawyers reads: "[They are] seeking documents regarding Epstein's lobbying efforts to persuade the government to give him a favorable plea arrangement, including efforts on his behalf by Prince Andrew and former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.



 
Epstein's lobbying efforts to persuade the government to give him a favorable plea arrangement, including efforts on his behalf by Prince Andrew and former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.

1. Compromise those in positions of power and influence and with lots of $$$ or control of lots of $$$$.

2. Those compromised can more easily be blackmailed/threatened/directed/requested/persuaded to your bidding/lobbying or not do or not support/endorse certain things.

(Honey/boodytraps 101 for Dummies)
 
Why does the below not mention any right winger or "Conservative" oriented ppl in this?

In the same interview, Ms Giuffre is asked to name people she saw flying on Epstein's plane to his island.
She lists models Naomi Campbell and Heidi Klum, as well as former presidential candidate Al Gore, and Simpson's producer Matt Groening

Surely she could/should/ have, or maybe actually did mention more names than those just as those listed above?

Have the other names been omitted, or where other names just redacted in the document the legal document that was used in the article?

Or is the Evening Standard just another propaganda outlet?

The Evening Standard (also the London Evening Standard) is a local free daily newspaper, published Monday to Friday in tabloid format in London. Since 2009 it has been owned by Russian businessman Alexander Lebedev. It is the dominant local/regional evening paper for London and the surrounding area, with coverage of national and international news and City of London finance
 
Why does the below not mention any right winger or "Conservative" oriented ppl in this?



Surely she could/should/ have, or maybe actually did mention more names than those just as those listed above?

Have the other names been omitted, or where other names just redacted in the document the legal document that was used in the article?

Or is the Evening Standard just another propaganda outlet?


We haven't seen the half of it yet I think.
 
Back
Top