Jeffrey Epstein arrested: Israeli-American pedo ring to be exposed?

I believe you're thinking of this:

Typical hit piece to completely discredit Gunderson and any idea that such a satanic cult involving celebrities, politicians, bigwigs of every stripe and of global proportions, is, in fact, a horrifying reality.

I thought these excerpts from the above quoted material are quite remarkable considering what we now know via communication with the Cs along with Laura's research. Also, depending on your age, you may or may not be familiar with the Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald case. I remember it as well as the McMartin case as each created a huge media storm. Both were written off as completely unfounded and lacking credible evidence of any satanic cult activity:

:shock:
YES you're on the money,thank you.It was the McMartin preschool.
 
FYI - the previously quoted material, although appearing as Grey Faction (greyfaction.org), is actually The Satanic Temple website. Their linked Home page is a must read!

So, of course, they are attempting to obliterate any recorded or alledged activities, suggestions, news reports, etc. that could reflect badly on them and their beliefs/practices. They're just as innocuous and misunderstood as Wiccans and that inverted pentagram has no sinister connotations whatsoever! Their Mission statement:

From their About Us/Background that elaborates on The Satanic Panic:

Talk about major damage control!!! And it doesn't stop there! In About Us/FAQ they even bring up PizzaGate!

Yeah - so who would actually believe these pronouncements seeing that they're posted on The Satanic Temple's website? One would have to be extremely delusional to give these screeds any validity.

Search results for Part 2 of the McMartin preschool Satanic abuse mythology produced a reiteration of Part 1.

A detailing of this very sad, tragic, and incredibly expensive saga that absolutely unleashed a wave of hysteria:


A giant coverup?
It certainly seems like they're trying to cover their tracks.After all if they were honest and open they wouldn't use a front for a satanic website which is suspicious in an of itself,''oh we're not like those satanists,we're good old hometown type.In fact that other kind of satanism doesn't even exist and if you say it does you're a conspiracy theorist. The way it's written smacks of damage control.🤮
 
Notice, that the main reason the abc reporter was angry (in the leaked video) was not because the truth didn’t get out, but because she wasn’t able to break the story. Not because she cared about the abused children, but because she wanted credit and fame. Makes me angry.

Regarding Gunderson, there’s a lot of contradicting information about him. There should be a post by me in this thread that indicates that he might very well have been a ‘handler’ and planted opposition. Smoke and mirrors...
 
Notice, that the main reason the abc reporter was angry (in the leaked video) was not because the truth didn’t get out, but because she wasn’t able to break the story. Not because she cared about the abused children, but because she wanted credit and fame. Makes me angry.

Yeah, says it all really doesn't it? A purely careerist approach. Given those kinds of characteristics, no real surprise that she's backpedalling her comments now apparently.
 
Notice, that the main reason the abc reporter was angry (in the leaked video) was not because the truth didn’t get out, but because she wasn’t able to break the story. Not because she cared about the abused children, but because she wanted credit and fame. Makes me angry.

I think her being pissed because she couldn't air the story doesn't automatically mean she doesn't care about the victims. Perhaps that makes her sad instead, while her inability to air the story just pisses her off. And what if she have more than has already come out on Epstein etc?
 
I think her being pissed because she couldn't air the story doesn't automatically mean she doesn't care about the victims. Perhaps that makes her sad instead, while her inability to air the story just pisses her off. And what if she have more than has already come out on Epstein etc?

You have a point. The thing that solidified my impression was when she said (paraphrasing) “...and then three years later it started to come out...like it was a new thing...that I already had three years ago.” I may be too pessimistic, but I additionally think that someone with a healthy moral compass wouldn’t work for a company like ABC.

But I’m happy if she proves me wrong. Her initial official response wasn’t however too promising.
 
If genuine, I can only see the leak of the video as a positive thing, but ABC has now reached out to CBS and got the alleged leaker culprit fired.
 
And now, the person fired says she isn't the leaker, and the real leaker has revealed that s/he is still inside ABC!


 
Right now almost every article/image on Facebook, I just expect to see at the end of it, "And Jeffrey Epstein didn't Kill himself" - I suppose just an awareness of mine just how powerful the volly of recent Memes has been ?
 
This is a good run down. He cuts right to the chase and gets to the root of the problem why such outrages cover-ups happen on ABC and other mainstream networks. Because many people involved are terrible people and there is no good reason any person with a soul and motor function should trust them on anything.
"I don't know why any person with a soul and motor function would trust them on anything..."

 
Last edited:
That was a devastating take-down. Definitely worth sharing far and wide on Twitter and FB.

Yes, that was a good, common sense speech!

As a side note, it really feels like the battle between good and evil is now out in the open – it's always been there, but now the masks are coming off. It's good that there are people like O'keefe who expose these things, but I sometimes wonder if the enemy is just too powerful and the evil is too widespread for us to have any chance against it. I don't know how this will end, but the stuff that is being exposed every day is so ugly and makes my stomach turn. Like these pedophiles that were recently arrested, two of them being Disney employees, for absolutely horrific crimes that I will not describe here.

We can't put our hopes in just one man, but I feel that Trump's ongoing battle is a big part of this 'war on a higher level'. As I see it, Trump at the very least belongs to the less-evil camp, so if and when he looses, it's going to get even worse. The latest is that they are bringing medics and psychiatrists to 'testify' on Trump's mental instability and unfitness for office. How crazy is that? It's like something Goebbels would come up with.

Sorry, I digress, but I felt like ranting a bit! :cool2:
 
What's become obvious now is the tremendous hypocritical disparity between how the two current whistleblowers are being treated by the MSM - one hailed and defended to the hilt while the other is villified and fired.
A Fox Business segment trotted out an argument about the ABC News leaker that has gained some traction amongst commentators: that the former network staffer is a whistleblower akin to President Donald Trump’s and should be protected by news organizations at all costs.

CBS News fired a staffer this week after it was informed by ABC that the person — a former ABC employee — was believed to have accessed the video of anchor Amy Robach that was leaked to conservative activist James O’Keefe and his website Project Veritas. The video showed Robach complaining that her story on late sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein was ready to air three years ago, but was quashed by the network.

On Fox Business Friday morning, contributor and Wall Street Journal editorial page assistant editor James Freeman warned of grand hypocrisy. He had written an op-ed in the Journal about this, and used the news to undermine the allegations of corruption against Trump.

“You don’t need to take seriously anymore when ABC and CBS do another story worshiping the alleged federal whistleblower, pretending that there’s some sacred right to remain anonymous while criticizing the president,” Freeman said. “Because we’re seeing how they treat a whistleblower in their midst. This is an employee who didn’t like what was happening at ABC, didn’t like that they took so long to tell the Jeffrey Epstein sexual abuse story.”
CBS Reportedly Fired Innocent Woman For ‘Leaking’ Video On ABC Killing Epstein Story: I Am Not The Leaker

On Friday afternoon, Megyn Kelly continued her return to the news business in a bombshell interview with Ashley Bianco, the former ABC News producer who was fired after only four days at CBS News for allegedly being behind the tape of ABC’s Amy Robach admitting that the network quashed her reporting about alleged serial pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.




amy-robach-clintons-epstein-abc.jpg

 
What's become obvious now is the tremendous hypocritical disparity between how the two current whistleblowers are being treated by the MSM - one hailed and defended to the hilt while the other is villified and fired.

@JEEP ,

I can't help but notice that The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal seem to be almost covering their behinds with this development.
Let's hope this gains more traction. :-/
 
The latest is that they are bringing medics and psychiatrists to 'testify' on Trump's mental instability and unfitness for office.
Yes, it's also become very obvious that the push is on to convince all that 'Trump is crazy/mentally unstable' which would justify using the 25th Amendment to attempt removal of the President from office:
What is the 25th Amendment?

The short answer: It's a way, other than impeachment, provided by the Constitution for power to be taken away from a sitting president.

The long answer: The law provided an answer to painful questions posed by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. The Constitution is clear that if a president dies or is killed, the vice president takes over.

But what happens if a president is grievously wounded? What if he or she is mentally incapacitated and can't continue doing the job responsibly?

"There was no legal way for the duties of the office to be discharged by anybody else, so the government would be paralyzed," as writer Evan Osnos told NPR's Terry Gross in an interview last year.

So the nation adopted the 25th Amendment, which was introduced in 1965 and ultimately ratified two years later. The text of the amendment is available here from the National Archives.

What the amendment spells out is a procedure by which members of the Cabinet can agree to notify Congress that they do not believe a president can carry out his or her duties. The officials could send a letter to Congress explaining why and, if Congress agrees by a two-thirds vote of both chambers, lawmakers could make the vice president "Acting President," under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.

Does that mean the president would be taken out of office?
No. And, in fact, the original president actually could try to challenge this investiture of power in the vice president.

"[It's a] ... sort of nightmare scenario that scholars describe as contested removal, in which a president would object to the idea that he's been determined to be unwell," as Osnos said.
"And at that point, then Congress has three weeks to decide the issue. And you can just sort of imagine. It's kind of amazing to step back and think about what that would actually be like in practice, that you would have Congress actively, openly, publicly discussing the question of whether or not the president of the United States was mentally fit to return to the presidency."

This provision in law set up this situation for a reason: Suppose a president was badly hurt in an accident and was incapacitated for several months. The 25th Amendment ensures the vice president could lawfully carry out the duties of the office for that time. Then if the president recovered, he or she could take back over and serve the rest of the term without having had to resign.

The requirement for two-thirds majorities in Congress is designed to keep this process from being used for simple political reasons and ensure that Congress and the executive branch use the 25th Amendment only in situations — like the hypothetical accident — in which it is obvious to all this is necessary.

At the same time, as evidenced by Osnos' allusion to the "contested removal" scenario, it's possible that a president might not agree that all this was appropriate.

Read more:
 
Back
Top Bottom