Jeffrey Epstein arrested: Washington-NYC pedo ring to be exposed?

griffin

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
I think Trump is driving Epstein's prosecution, and what he wants is his reelection next year. I don't think he cares whether one or both of the Clintons eventually go to prison in the process. He just wants to win.
 

aragorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Things are getting very interesting, check this out:


Bombshell: Alex Acosta Reportedly Claimed Jeffrey Epstein "Belonged To Intelligence"
Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

To appreciate the significance of what I’m about to share, you really need to go back and read yesterday’s post: The Jeffrey Epstein Rabbit Hole Goes a Lot Deeper Than You Think.
In that piece, I shared many lesser known, but extremely bizarre facts about Jeffrey Epstein and the people around him. I also noted that it appeared his real job was to run a blackmail operation to ensnare some of the most wealthy and powerful people on earth. I alluded to the possibility that he was collecting this priceless information on behalf of a third party, and then just today we learn the following via the Daily Beast:

“Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?” Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he’d had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)...
For almost two decades, for some nebulous reason, whether to do with ties to foreign intelligence, his billions of dollars, or his social connections, Epstein, whose alleged sexual sickness and horrific assaults on women without means or ability to protect themselves is well-known in his circle, remained untouchable.
It should be noted the reason I attach credibility to the above is based on who wrote it, Vicky Ward. She has an extensive history of digging into Epstein, and wrote one of the earliest profiles on him back in 2003. As she notes in today’s article:

I spent many months on his trail in 2002 for Vanity Fair and discovered not only that he was not who he claimed to be professionally, but also that he had allegedly assaulted two young sisters, one of whom had been underage at the time. Very bravely, they were prepared to go on the record. They were afraid he’d use all his influence to discredit them—and their fear turned out to be legitimate.
As the article was being readied for publication, Epstein made a visit to the office of Vanity Fair’s then-editor, Graydon Carter, and suddenly the women and their allegations were removed from the article. “He’s sensitive about the young women,” Carter told me at the time. (Editor’s Note: Carter has previously denied this allegation.) He also mentioned he’d finagled a photograph of Epstein in a swimsuit out of the encounter. And there was also some feeble excuse about the article “being stronger as a business story.” (Epstein had also leaned heavily on my ex-husband’s uncle, Conrad Black, to try to exert his influence on me, which was particularly unwelcome, given that Black happened to be my ex-husband’s boss at the time.)
Many people had assumed Epstein was untouchable merely because he had so much dirt on so many powerful people, but it increasingly looks far bigger than that. It appears he may have been untouchable because he was systematically collecting this information on behalf of an intelligence agency. If so, we need to find out precisely who he was working for.

This should be the number one story in the country right now. Blackmail at this level is a genuine national security issue
 

Séamas

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I think it is possible that they want to hitch Trump to this Epstein affair. It will be interesting to see if Epstein is just a useful idiot to get at Trump. All the while totally ignoring the Clinton connection.


Looks like that's the game plan. Here's a post from reddit (I've seen many like this in the past few days):

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/cbfd41
Its the old "blame your enemies for what you are guilty of" game.
 

SummerLite

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Looks like that's the game plan. Here's a post from reddit (I've seen many like this in the past few days):

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/cbfd41
Its the old "blame your enemies for what you are guilty of" game.

OMG!!!! Please don't tell me we're in for another tedious, never ending, bogus smear campaign about Trump being involved with Epstein :deadhorse:. Surely the forces of entropy will be triumphant as the entire population of Americans keel over from devastating boredom.
 

c.a.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
OMG!!!! Please don't tell me we're in for another tedious, never ending, bogus smear campaign about Trump being involved with Epstein :deadhorse:. Surely the forces of entropy will be triumphant as the entire population of Americans keel over from devastating boredom.

The Art of the Deal:

November 29, 2012 5-6 minute Read Snip:
It wasn’t the Godfather’s Michael Corleone who first uttered this well-known dictum. Actually, it came from Machiavelli in "The Prince," the definitive primer for how to be a dictator. You’d think that with my easy-going optimism, I’d never write a blog on this subject. But, au contraire!
As a manager or leader it is inevitable that we’ll want to add to our knowledge base, try to sell ideas, get people on board and even change the direction of our organization. One of the involved persons just might be your enemy. That’s my basic rationale for acting on Machiavelli’s instinct.

In the business setting, I refer to “enemy” as a person you have to interact with, someone who’s competing for your resources, who doesn’t follow through on his commitments, whom you don’t trust, with whom the “chemistry” isn’t there, or who disagrees with your perspective from the ground up. These are also people whom you’ll need in order to get your own personal and organizational objectives met. As both a manager and a consultant, I’ve found a number of people who fit in that same box. In short, I’ve found Machiavelli very useful for my own success.

But there are a number of exceedingly important reasons for keeping your enemies close:

1. You can learn a lot from people you dislike
2. You have to keep your enemies close to understand their perspective and interests
3. When your enemies are close, it’s easier for your allies to work with you.

Determining the motives of your enemy involves a significant amount of guesswork. One of the best ways to get to know that person is to listen to how he goes about persuading others. People want the world to be congruous with their expectations and in line with their predictions. So when they attempt to persuade others, they use tactics that would be persuasive to them. Observe them, listen to them and analyze what they say and how they say it. From that you can often figure out their interests and their values.

Finally, it needs to be said that you can’t keep your enemy close to you unless you know how to disagree agreeably, understand and share at least some of your enemy’s interests or values, are sometimes transparent with your differences and are willing to interact with that person in a social situation. In such settings it’s important to find out what that person wants that you can give them. Secondly, it’s just as important to figure out the resources you have to offer them in order that they’ll give you what you want. Don’t forget that some of the resources each of us has are information and contacts.
 

Séamas

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I think that if they don't succeed in using the Epstein crimes to knock out Trump, he will be assisted to suicide. They will not allow him to reveal openly the big fish.

Maybe... I was wondering why that hasn't happened yet. If he was involved in a blackmail operation he probably collected dirt on a lot of people, so maybe he set up an "insurance policy" that would release all if it if anything happens to him.
 

R-ME

Jedi
Trump hasn't said much recently regarding Epstein, and has made no tweets about it, so far. However, in this recent video he do say 'the rest of it we have to look at very carefully' in relation to Acosta back when handling the Epstein case. Did he imply more with saying that? He also says he wasn't a fan of Epstein and hasn't talked with him for maybe 15 years. The playtime will start where he speaks about this automatically to save time.

Trump tweeted the following back in 2002. Notice he wrote 'women' and not 'girls', which I think means he honestly didn't know then Epstein was a pedophile at the time.

Then, quoted from 'The Clintons' War on Women', this little item says:
In her lawsuit deposition, Roberts said she met billionaire
Donald Trump once at Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion and that
he was a “complete gentleman” and that she never saw him act
inappropriately. Trump turned down numerous invitations to
Epstein’s hedonistic private island and his Palm Beach home.
There is no evidence Trump did anything improper. “The one
time I visited his Palm Beach home, the swimming pool was
full of beautiful young girls, ” Trump told a member of his
Club Mar Lago “‘How nice,’ I thought, ‘he let the
neighborhood kids use his pool.’” Unlike the Clintons, Trump
cut Epstein and his underlings off the instant he heard about
the Palm Beach police investigation.

So that would fit in with Trump saying he hasn't spoken with Epstein for 15 years, and that he obviously became aware of Epstein being a pedophile when that investigation either started or took place.

In February 2015 he had this to say on the matter involving Bill Clinton.

I guess we just have to wait for further data but I hope Trump will do whatever he can to put all the pedophiles of any kind and place into prison.

Just thought I'd make this little brief synopsis.
 

R-ME

Jedi
I found one mistake in my previous post about the tweet of Donald Trump. It was apparently a tweet from Tim O'Brien in 2002 quoting Trump from what he had shared with New York Magazine in 2002 for a profile on Epstein. Well I guess it makes no difference.
 
Last edited:

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Top Bottom