Sarah Westall, Trafficking/Blackmail Cycle of Evil |410|

Jim - see previous comments to see the context of my statement. I was merely hoping Trump and Clinton would go down with Epstein. There is no concrete that has surfaced against either. All we have is hearsay and some eye witness testimony that we can choose to believe or not believe against both of them.

Eric, I think people have a waaaaaaaaay to narrow definition of what war is. Under Trump he has drastically increased economic sanctions on Russia AND Venezuela and Iran. These are extremely brutal acts that many consider illegal under the UN (and technically speaking many would be considered acts of warfare).

Donald Trump has also escalated drone bombing campaigns all over Africa and in the Middle East. He also dropped the Mother of All Bombs in Afghanistan. Trump has also kept the wars going in Afghanistan and Iraq, even escalating at times. Ditto Syria. I would hardly call any of the above caution.

I don't know who would have been worse between Hillary and Trump. I suspect Trump because his advisors include psychopaths like Bolton and Abrams, but we will never know. I think Trump has better with his language over Russia but in practice, he has been far far worse than Obama.
You would know a wider definition of war because you are a revolutionary waging the internal war against American society. You want presidents brought down by Epstein? Why so eager? You don't want Jihadis bombed? You warm up to socialist countries and oppressive regimes like Iran? Yep. Noted.
 
They wouldn't be prosecuting Epstein if they didn't have solid evidence. If they have evidence against Epstein then there could be evidence against other people too.
No. It doesn't follow that if there's evidence against Epstein that there is evidence against others. That's patently ridiculous. Unless you assume that every crime is a conspiracy. I do note that you hedged by using "could".

If there were hidden cameras all over Epstein's mansion, as many news reports say, that would be documented by the police. If there were cameras, where are the pictures and who is in them?
"If" being an operative word. Why you give credence to anything the media says escapes me entirely. It is being reported that Epstein had CDs labeled to suggest that they contain images of , at least, naked girls (aka child porn). We don't if these are home made or purchased, assuming the reporting is correct.

It is also possible for prosecutors examine victims, accusers, and witnesses and determine who are credible. Professionals know how to do that. They can't necessarily determine if any particular statement is true but they can reliably tell if someone is being forthright or deceptive. Then working with those who are credible, investigators may be able develop further evidence against Epstein and others.
Maybe and maybe not. They were unable to go too far with witnesses in the first case. One reason, according to Dershowitz is that the girls contradicted themselves and each other and also had social media wherein they admitted that they were making up some of the accusations. Media and political pressure will ensure that these women get their day in court. Or, if they don't, the conspiracy theorists will come out of the woodwork, per usual, and declare the only reason things turn out as they did in the first trial is that there is a global pedo cult that includes everyone in power.

That's the one problem with these conspiracy theories....the lack of evidence of the crime is interpreted to be evidence of the conspiracy.

For the record, I think Epstein is a pervert and hired wayward teen girls to fulfill his twisted fantasies. They did so willingly (which doesn't make it ok on Epstein's part).

Guess what, poor ass idiots living in trailer parks also get wayward teens to fulfill their pervy fantasies and they usually get away with it. Doesn't involve the powerful. So the conspiracy theorists overlook it. It doesn't fulfill their own peculiar psychological needs.

I see why professional debunkers get so much traction - it's too bad legit paranormal research gets dragged into all this idiot conspiracy BS
 
What evidence I can find is that the flight logs on Epstein's plane show Bill Clinton was on it 26 times. If that is true it could be used in court. There might be other names that are not as well known so are not in the news. With the flight logs pointing prosecutors in the right direction they may be able to develop additional evidence.

What I can find about Trump is that he banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago. If that is true there ought to be witnesses who can corroborate it. And the girl who supposedly was raped by Trump seems to be a fictitious persona. That would also be verifiable by investigators.

I think the accusations against Justice Kavanaugh are illustrative here. Whether or not you believe the accusation by Christine Ford, there were others who clearly made fake accusations. So I think we are going to have to see what the investigators come up with. Hopefully they will do a honest professional job of it without political oversight.
 
What evidence I can find is that the flight logs on Epstein's plane show Bill Clinton was on it 26 times. If that is true it could be used in court. There might be other names that are not as well known so are not in the news. With the flight logs pointing prosecutors in the right direction they may be able to develop additional evidence.

What I can find about Trump is that he banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago. If that is true there ought to be witnesses who can corroborate it. And the girl who supposedly was raped by Trump seems to be a fictitious persona. That would also be verifiable by investigators.

I think the accusations against Justice Kavanaugh are illustrative here. Whether or not you believe the accusation by Christine Ford, there were others who clearly made fake accusations. So I think we are going to have to see what the investigators come up with. Hopefully they will do a honest professional job of it without political oversight.
Jim,
I don't like either Clinton in the least bit. However, just because he/they were on E's airplane means nothing. That's guilt by association.

Exactly, re; Kavanaugh - I have no love for Epstein either. Never met the man. But all we have had, to date, is accusations and accusers getting paid. Now we may have more. Time will tell.

The reason he got such a lite sentence in the first trial was there was no evidence other than accusers' statements - and some of those accusers contradicted each other and themselves. See what it is that Dershowitz wants unsealed. He says it is social media records of some accusers stating that they were lying about his involvement in sex. I believe him to some extent because he wouldn't be asking for the unsealing otherwise.

Conspiracy theorists want it to be that E got off easy because...well...conspiracy!!!!
 
No. It doesn't follow that if there's evidence against Epstein that there is evidence against others. That's patently ridiculous. Unless you assume that every crime is a conspiracy. I do note that you hedged by using "could".
Someone expressed an opinion that there wasn't good evidence to prosecute. I was trying to explain that if something happened there could be evidence used to prosecute. It is not necessarily just hearsay. It is not just the accuser's words against the accused. There are other forms of evidence that could exist physical evidence, records, photographs, credible 3rd party witnesses (not victims, not accused).
"If" being an operative word. Why you give credence to anything the media says escapes me entirely. It is being reported that Epstein had CDs labeled to suggest that they contain images of , at least, naked girls (aka child porn). We don't if these are home made or purchased, assuming the reporting is correct.
Because all the evidence from the police investigation still exists. I am not giving credence to anything. I am saying if they have that evidence it would be relevant. I am making a point about how investigations work, not what actually did or didn't happen. I am arguing that there can be more types of evidence than just one person's word against another's.
Maybe and maybe not. They were unable to go too far with witnesses in the first case. One reason, according to Dershowitz is that the girls contradicted themselves and each other and also had social media wherein they admitted that they were making up some of the accusations. Media and political pressure will ensure that these women get their day in court. Or, if they don't, the conspiracy theorists will come out of the woodwork, per usual, and declare the only reason things turn out as they did in the first trial is that there is a global pedo cult that includes everyone in power.
What Dershowitz said supports my contention. People who contradict themselves are not credible. I am not discussing the court of public opinon I was discussing what could happen with a criminal investigation.
That's the one problem with these conspiracy theories....the lack of evidence of the crime is interpreted to be evidence of the conspiracy.

For the record, I think Epstein is a pervert and hired wayward teen girls to fulfill his twisted fantasies. They did so willingly (which doesn't make it ok on Epstein's part).

Guess what, poor ass idiots living in trailer parks also get wayward teens to fulfill their pervy fantasies and they usually get away with it. Doesn't involve the powerful. So the conspiracy theorists overlook it. It doesn't fulfill their own peculiar psychological needs.

I see why professional debunkers get so much traction - it's too bad legit paranormal research gets dragged into all this idiot conspiracy BS
 
Jim,
I don't like either Clinton in the least bit. However, just because he/they were on E's airplane means nothing. That's guilt by association.

Exactly, re; Kavanaugh - I have no love for Epstein either. Never met the man. But all we have had, to date, is accusations and accusers getting paid. Now we may have more. Time will tell.

The reason he got such a lite sentence in the first trial was there was no evidence other than accusers' statements - and some of those accusers contradicted each other and themselves. See what it is that Dershowitz wants unsealed. He says it is social media records of some accusers stating that they were lying about his involvement in sex. I believe him to some extent because he wouldn't be asking for the unsealing otherwise.

Conspiracy theorists want it to be that E got off easy because...well...conspiracy!!!!
I agree flight logs are not enough to convict. But they are evidence that can help prosecutors focus their investigation to develop further evidence. I asked someone about evidence. I am following up with that.
 
Someone I respect who was high up in the DIA and who daily briefed a US President thinks that Epstein was a Mossad agent running an old fashioned "honey pot" type op for Kompromat.

I have trouble with that

1. Epstein himself is the only credible accused pervert in the whole thing (like drug dealer consuming his own product...not a good thing)
2. Powerful people being blackmailed, one after another, for years doesn't sound right - why would new wealthy powerful people keep getting involved? They have means of screening who their dealing with, they could eliminate Epstein (boating accident, heart attack, etc), they could go to friends who could do other things to Epstein. They would continue to pay and play for years.
3. Epstein's circle of friends and guests included rock stars, NASCAR racing heroes, scientists, you name it. Why involve all of these people who cannot provide useful intelligence or provide Israel with favorable policy, etc?
4. Would powerful intelligence organizations allow a loose cannon like E, bound to be busted sooner or later, to keep going? I doubt it.
 
Someone expressed an opinion that there wasn't good evidence to prosecute. I was trying to explain that if something happened there could be evidence used to prosecute. It is not necessarily just hearsay. It is not just the accuser's words against the accused. There are other forms of evidence that could exist physical evidence, records, photographs, credible 3rd party witnesses (not victims, not accused).

Because all the evidence from the police investigation still exists. I am not giving credence to anything. I am saying if they have that evidence it would be relevant. I am making a point about how investigations work, not what actually did or didn't happen. I am arguing that there can be more types of evidence than just one person's word against another's.

What Dershowitz said supports my contention. People who contradict themselves are not credible. I am not discussing the court of public opinon I was discussing what could happen with a criminal investigation.
Right. Agree, of course.

That's the problem, I believe - accusers accused, but there wasn't any physical evidence to support their accusations and the accusers contradicted themselves.

If the accusers could have described, say, something unusual about E's penis that turned out to be true, then, there would be something to work on. If the police found hairs belonging to the girls in E's bedroom, that would at least be something. A semen stained dress...anything.....

...if these kinds of evidence existed - or potentially existed - and the police didn't follow through, then we have a problem. There could be some kind of conspiracy. However, I'm not aware of any saying this was the case. I honestly don't know. I'm just not hearing it.

yet, the conspiracy theorists want the lite sentence to be all about all pervasive pedo rings that control the govt. That is just stupid fantasy at this point.
 
Last edited:
What is the connection to paranormal research?

And I think you should not use derogatory terms about people who you disagree with.

Are calling me an idiot? Who do you think is an idiot?
Well, this is a paranormal site. right?

No. I'm not calling you an idiot. Actually, I think you're very rational.

At some point if people are speculating that 2+2 = 68,392, and they are resistant to learning math, then it is probably appropriate to write them off as idiots
 
2. Powerful people being blackmailed, one after another, for years doesn't sound right - why would new wealthy powerful people keep getting involved? They have means of screening who their dealing with, they could eliminate Epstein (boating accident, heart attack, etc), they could go to friends who could do other things to Epstein. They would continue to pay and play for years.
Senator Chuck Schumer: "If you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you." This statement is tantamount to an admission that the intelligence agencies control the elected government. Elected officials are afraid of them, and cannot restrain them or cross them. Blackmail is probably #1 out of six.

At the end of this post below, is a transcript from a video made by a Washington D.C. bureaucrat, Catherine Austin Fitts , who explains that blackmail is used routinely. "We're literally watching a government that is being run by coercion whether it's the blackmail or control file or physical violence. If you don't do what you're told, there's really issues of physical violence now."

Just from following the news I came to the conclusion that many people in congress and many judges were being blackmailed long before I heard about Epstein.

Part of the reason for this is that a Sheriff in Texas did a professional investigation into the birth certificate that Obama released and found it was a forgery. This is not a question of citizenship or eligibility to be president. It is about a forged government document - objective evidence of a crime. However no one was willing to follow through with this. No one in congress would touch it. There were various lawyers that tried file court cases and it seemed like judges who were sympathetic, suddenly at the last minute gave poor excuses for throwing the case out as if someone got to them.

Another reason I suspected blackmail is that there were endless investigations in congress into crimes that never led to any prosecutions. It was all theater. The controlled congress people were given what they needed to win re-election without ever interfering with their masters' special projects.





In this video former CIA officer Kevin Shipp explains the relationship between the shadow government and the deep state.

The shadow government he says consists of the 17 intelligence agencies and is led by the CIA.

The deep state he says is the military industrial intelligence complex which is a group of corporations that receives $1 trillion a year in tax revenues spent by the government on military and intelligence contracts.

The owners of media corporations cooperate with the CIA and publish stories to influence public opinion.

This web of corporations and intelligence agencies controls the elected government.

The shadow government can do whatever it wants because it can classify any information about its activities it wants. There is no government control over it. Its budget is secret.

The military industrial intelligence complex controls congress through
campaign donations​
lobbying​
providing jobs when senators and staffers leave congress.​

The shadow government influences

The President by​
providing false information​
influencing elections​


Congerss by​
manipulating congressional hearings​
withholds clearances from representatives and senators​
classifies documents to conceal illegal activity​
blocks congress using state secrets privilege​


The judiciary by​
State secrets privilege - they can shut down any case against them by classifying any information they choose.​

Everyone​
Through the cooperation of media corporations that publish stories to influence public opinion.​


There is much much more information in the video.
The link is broken but this is where the quote (below) was from:
https://solari.com/blog/solari-stories-scandals-control-files-and-blackmail/
Catherine Austin Fitts :
So, it was several days later, I got called into the Secretary's office and he said, "Have you found a way to do this?" And I said, "No. There's no legal way to do this. You can't"
And he was, litterally - I have never seen a man that frightened in my life - he was scared to death. And I was sure just from watching him that he was under extreme political pressure and I believe blackmail. And he just looked scared to death. And I went back up to my office and one of my deputies pulled me aside and he said, "You know you have to be very very careful" he said, "because you know there's real sexual dirt on the Secretary. So you have to be real careful."

...

That was the same time the Franklin scandal hit the Washington Times headlines.

...

Even if you don't have a control file, you know I always encourage all of our subscribers to watch the movie Enemy of the State because it's a perfect example of, you know, Will Smith plays a totally clean lawyer in Washington and so he's got nothing in, his control file is empty, and yet the intellegence agencies are able to persuade his own family that he's corrupt when he's not, his own partners he's corrupt when he's not.

I went through a similar process and so people are not only afraid of what's in their control file, but they're afraid of spending eleven years in litigation proving that there's nothing in their control file.

You have a situation where, I always get very frustrated with citizens who think, oh lets just go talk to our senator. Well your senator is subject to these kinds of powers and controls that are very invisible but are very real.

...

We're literally watching a government that is being run by coercion whether it's the blackmail or control file or physical violence. If you don't do what you're told, there's really issues of physical violence now.
 
Last edited:
why would new wealthy powerful people keep getting involved?
Because blackmailers don't hang out a shingle advertising they are blackmailers. Their victims are controlled and don't go blabbing all over town warning others not to get blackmailed like they did. On the contrary they are used to entrap new victims.

And the victims are not wealthy and powerful when they are first blackmailed. Political controllers use a carrot and stick, "we can destroy you if you oppose us or we can make you rich and powerful if you cooperate." Someone might be willing to sacrifice themselves to oppose a blackmailer on principle, but when offered riches and power as an alternative their principles are not so relevant anymore.
 
Last edited:
Because blackmailers don't hang out a shingle advertising they are blackmailers. Their victims are controlled and don't go blabbing all over town warning others not to get blackmailed like they did.

And the victims are not wealthy and powerful when they are first blackmailed. Political controllers use a carrot and stick, "we can destroy you if you oppose us or we can make you rich and powerful if you cooperate." Someone might be willing to sacrifice themselves to oppose a blackmailer on principle, but when offered riches and power as an alternative their principles are not so relevant anymore.
Epstein didn't hang out anyone who wasn't wealthy. The wealthy have ways of nixing people from the social registry. A few words or phrases indicate that someone is to be avoided. The truly wealthy, who Epstein knew, have security agencies that give them intel on people they that are considering associating with.

People who are blackmailed and who are that wealthy and powerful have all manners of recourse to end the blackmailing, including causing arrests and death.

Of course they don't hang out shingle advertising that they're being blackmailed.

If Epstein was a Mossad operative (or whatever) then, sooner or later, counter intel agencies would approach his blackmail victims and offer a way out of the situation (various potential pathways).

That's my opinion.
 
Epstein didn't hang out anyone who wasn't wealthy. The wealthy have ways of nixing people from the social registry. A few words or phrases indicate that someone is to be avoided. The truly wealthy, who Epstein knew, have security agencies that give them intel on people they that are considering associating with.

People who are blackmailed and who are that wealthy and powerful have all manners of recourse to end the blackmailing, including causing arrests and death.

Of course they don't hang out shingle advertising that they're being blackmailed.

If Epstein was a Mossad operative (or whatever) then, sooner or later, counter intel agencies would approach his blackmail victims and offer a way out of the situation (various potential pathways).

That's my opinion.
I am not suggesting they are blackmailing plumbers and auto mechanics. If you are in a position of power, like a freshman senator from Podunk or a bureaucrat with control over large budget, the wealthy will cultivate your acquaintance if it suits their purposes whether or not you are wealthy.

I don't know all the details but I don't think all the blackmail photos were necessarily made on Epstein's island. I doubt Epstein worked alone. But I think an investigation into his crimes could lead to unraveling something much much larger than Epstein and a few kinky friends.
 
Last edited:
I think the US should isolate and let the rest of the world burn itself to the ground, including Europe. They've been at each other's throats for hundreds of years. We'll do business with the winner.
Actually, if the US stopped meddling and offering support (i.e. no more NATO) the European countries could easily settle amicably with Russia. I'd be delighted if Trump were ever able to dissolve NATO - it adds enormously to our danger.
Eric -- your extreme right political paranoia is a little bit troublesome. No one is behind AOC. The reason people fear and hate her (and Ilhan Omar) is because she represents a new kind of politics and new kind of political energy. You can disagree with her politics but to make claims that she is some kind of puppet is a joke. If anything, it is the opposite. Ilhan and AOC are not controlled which is why right-wing media and elements of corporate media have been so harsh on them (especially Ilhan Omar). Ilhan Omar single-handedly blew the top off the Israel lobby. The last thirty years of politicians and organizing was unable to do that but she did so by simply making a few honest tweets and having a couple of controversial speeches.
No IMHO the reason we should fear that crowd is that they are utterly insincere and just see politics as a personal game.

For example, I'm straight, but if I were gay, I'd have found the atmosphere in the UK perfectly acceptable decades ago. I have talked to one gay man I know, and he basically agreed with me. Everyone more or less got on, but now I can imagine a backlash on the horizon. People hate homosexuality being taught in schools - particularly to young children - and they are particularly uneasy with the idea of encouraging children who identify as trans to start that process off - before they have even gone through puberty. That is an abomination, and I have even seen suggestions that the puberty blockers they use may be carcinogenic. These politicians will just rampage on doing more and more extreme things until they cause real trouble, when they will slink away and leave society to pick up the pieces.

David
 
I am not suggesting they are blackmailing plumbers and auto mechanics. If you are in a position of power, like a freshman senator from Podunk or a bureaucrat with control over large budget, the wealthy will cultivate your acquaintance if it suits their purposes whether or not you are wealthy.

I don't know all the details but I don't think all the blackmail photos were necessarily made on Epstein's island. I doubt Epstein worked alone. But I think an investigation into his crimes could lead to unraveling something much much larger than Epstein and a few kinky friends.
Jim,
You're assuming there are blackmail photos. Everyone is. Maybe there are. It is not known at this time. It's reasonable to check if there such photos. But it is not a given. It is possible that Epstein is a pervert when no one is watching for the most part. It's his personal life.

What everyone is forgetting is that Epstein would have left himself open to blackmail. As a wealthy guy and (if) an intelligence agent, then he made himself more vulnerable, at least as open as his imagine blackmail victims.

And why aren't the girls dead?

The girls did shake down Epstein. Dershowitz says to the tune of $millions and looks like more suits for damages are on the way. If this was an intel op, the girls out foxed them all.

This is a another problem with conspiracy theories, people don't bother to think them all the way through in their fever to proof how the deck is stacked against poor little them per their favorite bogey man.
 
Last edited:
I guess this thread was always about politics, so lets keep this as our politics thread and keep politics out of other threads in general.
Remember that some people HATE politics!


David
IDK... I think one of the main points of the show is that the human compromise that accompanies these crimes against children transcend the phony political narrative. john podesta and dennis hassard (denny as podesta refers to him) were buddies because they were both pizzagaters.
 
Someone I respect who was high up in the DIA and who daily briefed a US President thinks that Epstein was a Mossad agent running an old fashioned "honey pot" type op for Kompromat.
Acosta, your friend at the DIA, and Assistant Secretary of Housing - Federal Housing Commissioner at HUD Catherine Fitts (below), are going with the intelligence/blackmail explanation. That is corroboration by people either in a position to know or with experience that qualifies them to have an opinion who think an intelligence/blackmail operation is the best explanation.

In my other post I quoted Chuck Schumer and Catherine Austin Fitts on background, which adds plausibility to the intelligence-blackmail explanation.

Senator Chuck Schumer: "If you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you." This statement is tantamount to an admission that the intelligence agencies control the elected government. Elected officials are afraid of them, and cannot restrain them or cross them. Blackmail is probably #1 out of six.

At the end of this post below, is a transcript from a video made by a Washington D.C. bureaucrat, Catherine Austin Fitts , who explains that blackmail is used routinely. "We're literally watching a government that is being run by coercion whether it's the blackmail or control file or physical violence. If you don't do what you're told, there's really issues of physical violence now."
Catherine Austin Fits:
I've always
01:22
believed after more and more got dished
01:25
out on the Clinton Foundation during the
01:27
campaign that it was to hide money the
01:29
money that they started when money
01:31
started to go missing from HUD in fiscal
01:33
19 in the 90s right I think that was
01:36
what financed the Clinton Foundation the
01:39
Blair foundation and Epstein's operation
 
Last edited:
A lot of people over here admire Trump (despite some gaffs) and wish him every success in the election next year. Don't be fooled by the idiots who flew that balloon over London for his 'benefit'.
If by ‘a lot’ you mean around 10 % then I guess your statement is true David.

“According to YouGov's polling, 11 percent of Britons believe Trump is a great or good president. But 67 percent, a vast majority, believe he is a poor or terrible president.”

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-popular-britain-heres-what-polling-says-1016136
 
Top