Originally published at: U.S. Virgin Islands claims Jeffrey Epstein shared "graphic photos of women" with JPMorgan Chase executive | Boing Boing
…
13 Likes
I don’t understand all the fuss about Jeffrey Epstein. He must have been the least successful pimp ever. He reportedly trafficked a whole bunch of women and girls so that he could offer them to his wealthy friends, but apparently not one person ever had sex with any of them (except possibly Epstein and Maxwell). He even had a private jet called the Lolita Express that he used to fly his rich buds to his private island so they could not have sex with all these women he had lined up for them.
We know the names of some of the people who didn’t have sex, such as Alan Dershowitz and HRH Sweaty Nonce (who so emphatically didn’t have sex with one woman that years later he even paid a giant amount of money to the person he didn’t have sex with to thank her for not having sex with him). We know that Epstein’s friends included Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, men who are practically by-words for undiscriminating lechery, and yet he couldn’t even get them to sample the merchandise. And that’s just for starters. By all accounts the full list of not-sex-havers is very long indeed, which makes Epstein’s utter, abject failure to get even a single one of his mates laid more pitiful still.
I admit, I don’t know much about the human trafficking business, but I can’t help feeling he must have been going about it the wrong way.
28 Likes
It is absolutely MIND BOGGLING to witness the mental gymnastics the maga cultists put themselves through when the very close Trump-Epstein relationship is presented. Don and Jeffrey were buddies for years back on the UES. Ghislaine is the one that introduced the then $2k a night escort named Melania to Donnie boy.
9 Likes
I’m surprised that Maxwell didn’t save a ton of evidence to bargain with.
5 Likes
what’s going on with the contents of Epstein’s safe?
his tacitly acknowledged collection of kompromat?
3 Likes
Someone started an new extortion business?
4 Likes
Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot.
Am I missing something here? A ‘tax haven’ is suing a financial institution for “channeling funds”?!
I guess they have to draw a line in the sand when it comes to corrupt morals happening on their turf/sand.
1 Like
Melania Trump won her defamation suit against the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper. The Daily Mail had to apologize to Mrs. Trump and specifically state that “We accept these allegations about Mrs. Trump are not true.” She did not get the financial damages she requested but she did receive some damages plus legal costs.
“The safe full of kompromat never existed. What? Oh, OK, it existed, but we couldn’t find the combination. Just have someone crack it, you say? Uh, yeah, OK, we did that, but a dog immediately ate the contents. In fact, the dog ate the entire safe. Very big dog. Very hungry. We lost everything. Just one of those unavoidable tragedies. Can’t prove anything. Too bad, too sad.”
I honestly have no idea if Epstein had any kompromat. I’ve heard it suggested that the source of his wealth was never fully explained, with the implication that someone else was feeding him the money he needed to maintain his lifestyle and encourage the powerful to compromise themselves around him. In that case, any kompromat he collected is probably in the hands of his ‘sponsor’. If so, it will probably never see the light of day, at least as long as those who are kompromised continue to do what they’re told.
In the hypothetical case that Epstein did have compromising materials in his own possession, it’s an interesting question as to what would happen to it. Anything that wasn’t seized by investigators is presumably gone gone gone by now. And anything that was seized would have been tagged and sealed as evidence in the case against Epstein. But with his death, that case has presumably been dropped, which means that any kompromat or safes that exist are likely gathering dust in a semi-secure facility somewhere.
And there they will probably stay. I don’t know whether federal investigators can request sealed evidence from one case in order to see if there’s anything that would allow them to open new cases. It might be different if they had an existing investigation of Individual X and were able to say “We believe that material relevant to our investigations is contained in this archive, we request access.” But absent such an ongoing investigation, I don’t know if they can say “We have no idea what’s in there, but we’d like to go on a fishing expedition to see if we can find anything we can use against people whose identities we don’t even know yet.”
I imagine that there are ways that they can do that, but they’re probably extremely slow and bureaucratic and legalistic, and would require considerable will on someone’s part to make happen. And I suspect that if there are any rich or powerful people who are worried that they might find themselves in the cross-hairs, then they are probably very quietly and discreetly using their personal and legal influence to ensure that no one gets enthusiastic about taking the matter any further. In which case the kompromat will probably remain on the shelves somewhere until it gets quietly and securely destroyed as part of a “routine” housecleaning at some point in the future.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
