Agreed.
Same.
What I’m saying is if we do the thought experiment. Then it all looks like a vast conspiracy of the global elite, and when hundreds of pee tapes aren’t revealed and governments are not toppled then “THEY” (usually Jews) wouldn’t allow it.
Trump has a well documented personal relationship with Epstein as well as some of the other accused. There’s a lot of big ole circumstantial connections to the abuse, via Mar A Lago. Assaults that went down in his house while he was there. There’s culpability here even if he never raped any of those kids. That is 100% the sort of thing that gets, and should get investigated.
Clinton really doesn’t have that. All actual detail and documentation is people saying he wasn’t that close to Epstein, that he was just another elite looking for charity junk. That he wasn’t around when this shit was going down. The one victim that has mentioned him was very explicit that he wasn’t involved in or aware of any of the assaults, several witnesses have said the same.
Even personal histories. Clinton is a creep, and likely a rapist. But I’m not aware of a single real accusation of him targeting children. Trump at a minimum confirmably cruised the dressing rooms at Ms Teen USA.
And I really just jumped on Clinton cause I recall the detail off the top of my head, he actually seem less connected than a lot of the people who get included this way.
But if we just jump on every person that floated across Epstein’s path and “thought experiment” we’re not really drawing conclusions. We’re speculating.
We’re also speculating if we say “everything we know about Epstein says he’d have made the offer”. What do we know about Epstein that says that? There aren’t really a lot of accounts of him just offering girls to randos. And these abusers tend not to do that sort of thing because it’s a big way to get caught.
In terms of people where there’s actual accusations, and a documented close relationship. It’s Dershowitz, Andrew, Ghislaine, Epstein. There are a few others who have been said to have gotten massages, or who have been named but not by a victim or without specifics.
The available facts don’t point to the “Shit even Opera was involved” level of either Q conspiracy, or the more general public speculation.
That could change, and it’s likely it will. But I don’t think for a minute it’s going in the “all the people we don’t like are going down!” direction a lot people are hoping for. Nor the “Epstein was dictating policy to Vladimir Putin” direction of fever dreams.
IIRC the suit in the Virgin islands shows that his estate had around $650m at the time of his death, and had been (purportedly) depleted to $250 within a year.
He wasn’t the Billionaire he claimed to be, doesn’t seem to have ever been. But does seem to have been legitimately extremely rich.
Why is this the most “compelling” theory? There’s been reports of large amounts of video, and I know huge amounts of child porn were found on Epstein’s computers. But we don’t really have anything specific claiming black mail, or even trafficking for profit.
Meanwhile all those civil suits had filled in a bunch of the “where did Epstein’s money come from”. It doesn’t seem to have been his businesses, but through personal investments. There’s still some question about where he got the money to invest at the level he did, when he did. And practically everyone he was professionally associated with is fraudtastic in the extreme.
But that idea seems to start with speculation, and tries to fill it in from there.
I think it’s pretty clear Epstein was a con, and there’s some sort financial crime going down with a lot of these people. But it’s big jump from that to blackmail ring. Or even trafficking and childporn being his real business.
1 Like
At least one of them was. Who was the guy who said “he likes his women a little on the young side?” or something like that? Note - knowing about it and not reporting it to authorities IS being involved.
5 Likes
Let’s not forget that Dershowitz, unprompted, admitted to getting a massage from a girl at Epstein’s place. Claims he kept his underwear on.
One of the world’s (one time anyways) most respected lawyers, gave that away for free. Which to me screams guilty, as he was likely afraid of having some girls come out with descriptions of his body.
11 Likes
Mainly because of the confluence of the actual mediocre performance of a hedge fund supposedly so amazing that ultra-wealthy people were clamouring to invest in it and his sharing a penchant for sex with underage children with some of those ultra-wealthy people.
Since wealthy people aren’t in the habit of paying high fees to keep their money in underperforming funds year after year*, the theory that Epstein’s “hedge fund” operated in part as a laundry for money extorted from his fellow paedophiles is a compelling one.
But, hey, maybe the two were totally separate. It’s not like Epstein was known for mixing business and pleasure. [Narrator: he was.]
[* a year or two, maybe, but then everyone goes sour on it and they move onto the next wunderkind.]
[edited for grammar/typos]
6 Likes
That was a Trump quote about Epstein.
Not the most damning one, but one of the most verifiable sources. I believe he was on audio or video for that quote
2 Likes
Is this the sexual misconduct equivalent of “I smoked marijuana, but I didn’t inhale”?
5 Likes
And like I said the digging through his estate going on right now seems to show that Epstein wasn’t making a major amount of money off that fund. Nor his financial management company. It looks like he didn’t really have a lot of clients, and there weren’t all that many people investing in his shit.
Instead his money seem to come from his own investments in better funds, real estate, stock portfolio etc.
This is also pretty much the default with hedge funds, particularly managed ones. They always under perform the market. They always have excessive fees. A hell of a lot of them are just basic, not very well set up indexes with a name slapped on them.
I don’t even neccisarily have an issue with the idea that Epstein was involved with money laundering in some way. Since that’s a heavy thing in the weird ass financial circles he ran in. Or laundering money related to his perving, since if you made money off the sexual exploitation of children you need to launder it. And a lot of these predators do.
But there’s a big gap between that and “billion dollar extortion racket”, and the only thing bringing us from point A to point B on that is “I expect this is of rich people”.
If, and likely when this doesn’t turn out to be that very specific thing. A hell of a lot of people are going to be screaming conspiracy, and you might have noticed that sort of thing is getting fairly dangerous.
3 Likes
16 Likes
Quote me where I claimed the last.
3 Likes
This is a clear case of “everybody sucks here”. Maxwell herself strikes me as someone who has suffered a lifetime of abuse by powerful men, but that of course doesn’t excuse the things she did either. And, yeah, it seems unlikely that the rich men she trafficked children to will ever face consequences. It’s just terrible all around and I hope the many victims here can get some closure from this verdict.
10 Likes
Admittedly you did not use the words “billion dollar”
I mean it’s almost certain if we’re grouping everyone in, this list will include Bill Gates, the Obamas, the Clintons, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos (and thus, the Washington Post is now suspect) , Elon Musk, Sergey Brin, Chris Tucker, MIT’s executive staff and higher ups there, Reid Hoffman, a bunch of people there, and probably everyone connected to those people.
He was a rich guy who liked to flaunt his wealth and power around other rich powerful people. He used charity to buy friendships with a lot of people.
If merely being associated with him is enough to be on the list of sex pests, it’s going to be a lot more impactful. And at this point, fine, I can believe the Obamas and Clintons and Bezos and Gates did this as much as I can believe the other people on the list. Why not? What would make them exempt from this behavior?
1 Like
It’s also worth pointing out that he used charity to buy preferential treatment from Law Enforcement.
The Palm Beach PDs unwillingness to follow up complaints seems to be a direct line from his heavy donations to PBA funds and Police associated charities. Like wise the Palm Beach DA’s fumbling of the original charge 20 years ago seems to go with that.
Whatever the fuck when down with Acosta seems to be something else.
I mean Clinton is a documented sex pest, among other things.
It’s just that “knew Jeffery Epstein” isn’t enough on it’s own to draw a conclusion of active involvement in the trafficking and rape of children. And there is often not much more than that to go on.
6 Likes
The deeper problem here as that the individuals in question – while not directly implicated in the rapes – were part of a milieu that effectively enabled the Epstein paedophilia/extortion racket for a long time. Epstein’s penchant for sex with underage girls was an open secret in that crowd years before it was exposed to the general public. They were also all contributing to the myth that he was some kind of hedge fund genius billionaire (their “due diligence” being that he made a few donations to favoured charities and gave them free plane rides and island vacations).
Part of his cultivating them as unknowing shills and ropers was an aspect of his con game, as I mentioned above. But disassociating themselves after the fact is only the start of what they should be doing. They should admit that they were gulled about Epstein’s financial acumen and that they laughed off the rumours about his sexual proclivities. I say “should” because none of the people you listed will ever admit to those things.
The good news is that the #Metoo movement and others that have followed have made it a lot more of a liability for these rotten cultures of power and wealth to keep abuse hidden.
8 Likes
I mean most of them have done just that at various points in this. But the reality is, no matter what they do, they enabled a child rapist. There will always be people who put them at the same level as Donald Trump and Prince Andrew in this, and to a degree, those people are not exactly wrong to do so.
And that’s kind of the point I have in all this. I hope she does turn (but I bet she doesn’t have anything TO turn), but if she does, it’s going to be seen as Q being right. And it’ll probably take out a lot more people than we’d think. Hell, doesn’t Joe Biden have connections to Epstein? Bernie Sanders?
1 Like
They really haven’t owned up it it. They’ve deplored his crimes, taken his name off buildings and foundations, and otherwise disassociated themselves from him, but only after the extent of his crimes became public. They haven’t admitted that they were gulled by him because that might have the public questioning their judgment and acumen.
The nutters will say what they will, but real-world conspiracies exist outside the realm of lunatic conspiracism. There was enough hard evidence of a conspiracy to sex-traffick kids to convict Maxwell; not so much with the conspiracy involving a paedophilic cult in the basement of a DC pizza parlour that had no basement.
Unless they were talking him up as a financial genius or were caught laughing away the rumours of his sexual proclivities (going back to his days as a teacher at Dalton under Barr’s father), the only people who’ll buy any tenuous connections to Biden or Sanders as damning are the Qnuts.
7 Likes
Honestly fake conspiracy theories are floated around in part to cover up actually conspiracies, like this and other things to preserve the current power structure.
18 Likes
YUP, and that’s why I stuck to the “basics” and “damningly obvious” ones like Trump, Dershowitz, and Prince Andrew, with a little Gaetz and Stone thrown in.
That’s plenty for starters, let’s focus on those folks and see where it takes things. Everything else is really just Q-adjacent speculation.
I’m not about to toss people who had dinner a couple of times onto the list of pedos.
Although I’m skeptical of Gates, he stays off of my list for now.
7 Likes
