This program examines allegations presented in a book by a very conservative Nebraska state senator concerning organized pedophile rings within the ranks of the Republican party. These alleged activities overlap not only the administration of the elder George Bush but some of the activities involved in the Iran-Contra scandal as well.
1. The program begins with discussion of the arrest of a GOP mayor for allegedly luring a minor for sex. As we shall see, this sort of thing is not as unusual as one might suppose within the ranks of the GOP. The allegations contained in The Franklin Cover-Up put the concept of “family values”—much ballyhooed by the GOP, in a dramatically different light.
“Mayor Philip A. Giordano of Waterbury, who lost a long-shot bid last year to unseat Senator Joseph I. Lieberman and whose city has been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, was arrested in New Haven this morning by federal agents in New Haven and accused of luring a minor for sex. . . . At a news conference at the office of the United States attorney for Connecticut in New Haven, officials said Mr. Giordano had engaged in ‘inappropriate sex’ with ‘children,’ though they did not state the number, age or sex of the victims. The special agent in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Connecticut, Michael J. Wolf, said, ‘The public expects and deserves utmost honesty, integrity and strong moral fiber from those who serve on their behalf.’ He called Mr. Giordano’s conduct ‘disgraceful.’”
(“Connecticut Mayor Is Arrested by U.S. Agents in Child Sex Case” by David M. Herszenhorn; The New York Times; 7/27/2001; p. A19.)
2. According to the conservative Nebraska state legislator John W. De Camp (a decorated Vietnam veteran), the sort of activities that Giordano was accused of engaging in are, to a certain extent, representative of how elements of the GOP get their kicks. While probing the collapse of a Nebraska financial institution, investigators came upon some interesting operations allegedly supervised by a prominent Nebraska GOP bigwig, Larry King (not to be confused with the syndicated talk show host.) Mr. Emory notes that the second edition of the book contains some material which is easily discredited—due, apparently, to De Camp’s having been overly trusting of some of the information being disseminated by the less responsible elements of the militia milieu.
(The Franklin Cover-Up; by John W. De Camp; Copyright 1992 by AWT, Incorporated; ISBN 0–9632158‑0–9.)
3. De Camp describes Larry King’s political and “extracurricular” activities.
“When Larry King traveled the political circuit, he evidently had two agendas. To the public, he was the rising GOP star with the resonant baritone voice. Something else went on behind closed doors.”
(Ibid.; p. 166.)
4. What were the alleged clandestine activities that De Camp was referring to?
“At the Dallas [GOP] convention in 1984, King threw his splashy party at Southfork Ranch, remembered by me and many other delegates as an unparalleled extravaganza. According to several victim-witnesses, he also arranged some private events during the convention. They recall being flown to Dallas, to be sexually used by convention-goers. Gary Caradori mapped the recollections of the Webb foster children in his notes of February 1990: ‘During this visit [the children’s aunt] Marcy informed [social worker] Joanie that [the youngest Patterson Webb sister] Kendra had told her she had been transported around the country several times, she thought to Texas and Louisiana. Marcy remembered Texas in particular, and a Republican Convention because one of the children, possibly Kendra, had a book of matches from Texas and that is how the children had known where they were at. Joanie stated she remembered that the children had been exploited sexually in Texas, and she indicated that it was [the] feeling this activity had been occurring for several years.’”
(Ibid.; p. 167.)
5. De Camp continues with his allegations concerning King.
“I was later to learn from Paul Bonacci, that he was also at the famed Southfork party. He described it for me in exact detail, some seven years after the party took place. He had been here for the purpose of providing sexual favors for people Larry King wanted to accommodate, satisfy, or compromise. Paul said he was one of a troop of teenaged boys and girls, whom King had shipped to Dallas for his purposes.”
(Ibid.; p. 167.)
6.
“I have talked to Paul repeatedly about this party. I have listened to his description. Only by having been there, could someone describe the setting the way Paul did to me. Because I was there myself for the party, I am certain that Paul Bonacci was there and did not invent his story or his description of the party. This was, it happens, just one of Paul’s leads into matters surrounding Larry King and Franklin that I could personally check out and know the boy was telling the truth. Not because somebody told me he was telling the truth. Not because somebody said he passed a lie detector test on the subject. But because I was there and saw a part of it, and saw the exact same things this boy did.”
(Idem.)
7. More about King’s social activities and a Republican convention, this one in New Orleans in 1988.
“Again in 1988, attendance at Larry King’s party was virtually mandatory for any true Nebraska Republican attending the Republican National Convention, held this time in New Orleans. Most of the Nebraska delegation was transported to the party by bus. The theme of the festivities was Mardi Gras.”
(Idem.)
8. De Camp alleges that the “fun and games” that King was arranging at the New Orleans convention were similar to the activities at the 1984 Dallas convention.
“King’s parties were designed to bring in everybody, from the innocent to the top-ranking businessmen and politicians. I personally attended the two largest parties he ever threw, as did many Republican officials. As a guest at the party, you would not know from the outer glitter, what sordid activity was going on behind the scenes. I am sure that was the character of many of Larry King’s parties, particularly the political events. Outwardly, they had the appearance of legitimacy, with prominent people in attendance, from mayors to presidents, from businessmen to congressmen. So, when people say to me, Well, I was at one of Larry King’s parties and I did not see any of this sex or drug or pedophilia stuff,’ I understand that they may be speaking with honesty and accuracy. As to what really went on, I believe they are wrong.”
(Ibid.; p. 168.)
9. De Camp discusses some other interesting manifestations of King/GOP “family values.”
“King acquired contacts in Washington’s homosexual prostitution scene, one of whom was the late Craig Spence. A lobbyist and political operative, Spence maintained a call boy ring that catered to the political elite and, unlike most D.C. call boy rings, offered children to its clients.”
(Ibid.; p. 169.)
10. More about the aforementioned Craig Spence.
“Spence’s activities made banner headlines in the Washington Times on June 29, 1989: ‘Homosexual prostitution inquiry ensnares VIP’s with Reagan, Bush.’ Spence’s access was so good, that he could arrange nighttime tours of the White House for his clients. The Times added on August 9, 1989, that Spence ‘hinted the tours were arranged by ‘top level’ persons, including Donald Gregg, national security advisor to Vice President Bush. . . .” Spence, according to friends, was also carrying out homosexual blackmail operations for the CIA.”
(Idem.)
11. De Camp alleges that Larry King’s activities were discovered through an investigation into Spence’s operations.
“According to a Washington, D.C. investigative journalist who researched the Spence ring, ‘The way we discovered Larry King and this Nebraska-based call boy ring, was by looking through the credit card chits of Spence’s ring, where we found King’s name.’ Another investigator, with personal knowledge of the call-boy rings operating in Washington, put it this way: ‘Larry King and Craig Spence were business partners. Look at two companies, ‘Dream Boys’ and ‘Man to Man’, both of which operated under another service, ‘Bodies by God.’”
(Idem.)
12. Apparently, the investigation of Spence’s activities was followed by a serious downturn in Spence’s health. De Camp alleges that both Spence and King were involved with the Iran-Contra imbroglio.
“When Craig Spence turned up dead—a suicide, police were quick to say—in a Boston hotel room, in November 1989, it was the latest in the long string of deaths of persons linked to Iran-Contra covert operations and funding. There is evidence that Larry King had Washington business in that area as well. ‘In the 6 ½ months since federal authorities closed Franklin, rumors have persisted that money from the credit union somehow found its way to the Nicaraguan contra rebels,’ said a World-Herald article on May 21, 1989.”
(Idem.)
13.
“The first World-Herald reporter on the Franklin case, James Allen Flanery, apparently found more than rumors about the money-laundering. In late 1988, Flanery called Carol Stitt to discuss what he had learned. Their conversation is related in a February 21, 1989 report by Jerry Lowe: ‘Carol’s notes also have a reference to Larry King running guns and money into Nicaragua . . . . Carol’s notes on Dec. 21, 1988 reflect that she talked with Flanery and in addition to the Nicaraguan info, he was also now talking about CIA involvement and provided info that yesterday (Dec. 20) the FBI quit cooperating with him . . . . Carol’s notes next jump to Feb.6, 1989, where she talked on the phone with Flanery and Flanery told her that the appropriate people didn’t want to believe any of this and who was ever going to prosecute it. Apparently Flanery told Carol he was close to resigning and the reasons he didn’t think anyone wanted to do anything was because of the possibility of a White House connection, the connections to a number of big people, and he fact that the investigators wanted badly to confine this all to the money. Also many white people made Larry King [who was African-American], he did not happen on his own.’”
(Ibid.; p. 170.)
“Apparently Flanery told Carol he was uncomfortable on the phone, his editor was distressed and things he had written were continually edited, he wanted to his byline off the article printed the 9th among other things . . . Flanery also expressed concern to Carol that if he didn’t get off this story he worried about being compromised.” Soon Flanery was off the Franklin case, which continued for months to be the major news lead in Nebraska, and went to the University of Kansas on Sabbatical. When he returned a year later, Flanery no longer wrote. about Franklin.”
(Idem.)
14. The subject of the Iran-Contra scandal will be revisited later in the discussion. One should note that the views expressed in what follows are those of the speakers and are not to be misconstrued as homophobia. Rather, the self-righteous chest-beating on the part of the GOP, their embrace of the Christian Right and their excoriation of gays and cynical manipulation of homophobia in order to advance the Republican electoral agenda are quite noteworthy in this context. (Writer David Brock noted the gay skeletons in the Republican Party when he was attacked for his own gayness following the publication of his book The Seduction of Hillary Clinton.) De Camp notes the reaction of an official of the Franklin National Credit Union to his investigation. Again, the views expressed here are De Camp’s.
“Squelching interest in an Iran-Contra connection to Fanklin was also a topic of the hour, in that phone call I received from National Credit Union administration official Fenner, back in the early months of the legislative Franklin probe. ‘Why would the head of the NCUA be wanting to talk to me?’ I wondered out loud, when my secretary said that Fenner was on the line. The man on the other end of the phone said he knew I was a close friend of former CIA head Bill Colby, and that I also was Senator Loran Schmit’s personal attorney. He quickly came to his point.”
(Ibid.; pp. 170–171.)
15. De Camp discusses his relationship with former CIA chief William Colby and discussion of the looting of Franklin in order to finance the Contras.
“‘I know there are a lot rumors, that Franklin was being used as a front for laundering money for the Contras and that a lot of the money that is missing from Franklin actually went to finance the Contras.’ I acknowledged that I had heard such talk, and told, him, ‘I myself am one of those who wonder, if that is not a real possibility, in light of the way things have been shaking out on the Contra scandal.’ Fenner then gave me a flood of details on the secret Franklin accounts, and where the missing money supposedly went. No destinations linked with Iran-Contra were mentioned.”
(Idem.)
16. Note that the views that follow are those of the speakers.
“‘So tell me,’ I said, ‘just what is at the bottom of it? If it is not laundered money involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, what the blazes is it? And how could Larry King get away with this, without you or somebody else knowing what was going on? Looks to me as if he had to have one heck of a lot powerful political protection at the highest levels.’ ‘Homosexuals,’ Fenner said, ‘Franklin financed the biggest group of homosexuals any state has ever seen. A lot of awfully powerful and prominent personalities involved. But probably not anything you can do anything about.’”
(Idem.)
17. Other sources have noted the role of sexual blackmail operations in the context of power politics and the world of covert operations. One of the most powerful alleged players on this stage is Robert Keith Gray.
“The career of another Nebraskan, Robert Keith Gray, illuminates this milieu and why it would be so congenial to a person like Larry King. Gray is the chairman and CEO of Hill and Knowlton, one of the two biggest public relations firms in the world, with such blue-chip clients as AT&T, IBM, Xerox, and DuPont. CBS-TV’s 60 Minutes has called Hill and Knowlton ‘by far, the biggest, most influential PR firm in Washington,’ adding that ‘critics accuse them of being an unelected shadow government.’ Gray first came to Washington D.C. during the Eisenhower Administration, as Ike’s appointments secretary and then secretary of the cabinet. He went to Hill and Knowlton in 1961. Gray played a role in Ronald Reagan’s 1976 presidential campaign and, in 1980, he was deputy director of communications. Reporting directly to Bill Casey.”
(Ibid.; p. 178.)
18.
“On the strength of his connections in the new administration, he left Hill and Knowlton to set up his own PR firm. Within a year, Gray and Company secured over $9 million in billings from a clientele including Warner Communications, NBC, GTE, Mutual of Omaha, the American Trucking Association, the American Iron and Steel Institute, and the governments of Canada and Turkey. In 1986, Hill and Knowlton bought out Gray and Co.; Gray became chairman and CEO of Hill and Knowlton. Said to be Harold Andersen’s ‘closest friend in Washington,’ Gray is also reportedly a specialist in homosexual blackmail operations for the CIA.”
(Idem.)
19. The relationship between Gray and the Wilson, Terpil operations detailed in RFA#4.
“During the Watergate era, Robert Keith Gray served on the board of Consultants International, founded by CIA agent Edwin Wilson. When Wilson and fellow agent Frank Terpil got caught running guns abroad, Gray tried to deny his connection with Wilson. ‘Yet ten years before,’ according to Peter Maas’ book Manhunt, ‘in a top secret Navy review of Wilson’s intelligence career, Gray described Wilson as a person of ‘unqualified trust,’ with whom he’d been in contact ‘professionally two or three times a month’ since 1963.’”
(Ibid.; p. 179.)
20. De Camp relates Jim Hougan’s account of another aspect of Gray’s alleged activities. (Note that Tongsun Park—a key figure in the Koreagate scandal—was closely associated with the Moon organization, which also has strong connections to the Bush administration.
“Author Jim Hougan in Secret Agenda, reported another aspect of Wilson’s work for the CIA: ‘According to fugitive ex-CIA officer Frank Terpil, CIA-directed sexual blackmailing operations were intensive in Washington at about the time of the Watergate scandal. One of those operations, Terpil claims, was run by his former partner, Ed Wilson. Wilson’s base of operations for arranging trysts for the politically powerful was, Terpil says, Korean agent Ton Sun Park’s George Town Club. In a letter to the author, Terpil explained that ‘Historically, one of Wilson’s Agency jobs was to subvert members of both houses [of Congress] by any means necessary. . . .Certain people could be easily coerced by living out their sexual fantasies in the flesh. . . .A remembrance of these occasions [was] permanently recorded via selected cameras. . . . The technicians in charge of filming. . .[were] TSD [Technical Services Division of the CIA] The unwitting porno stars advanced in their political careers, some of [whom] may still be in office.’”
(Idem.)
21. De Camp alleges that the operations in which Wilson, Terpil and Gray allegedly engaged in were an extension of the activities of former Joseph McCarthy aide Roy Cohn.
“Gray’s associate Wilson was apparently continuing the work of a reported collaborator of Gray from the 1950’s—McCarthy committee counsel Roy Cohn, now dead of AIDS. According to the former head of the vice squad for one of America’s biggest cities, ‘Cohn’s job was to run the little boys. Say you had an admiral, a general, a congressman, who did not want to go along with the program. Cohn’s job was to set them up, then they would go along. Cohn told me that himself.’ The first president of Tong Sun Park’s George Town Club, where Wilson’s sexual blackmail operations were reportedly run, was Robert Keith Gray.”
(Ibid.; pp. 179–180.)
22. Gray’s activities overlap those activities of the Iran-Contra scandal and also the milieu of the Bush family. The Catholic youth home Covenant House was implicated in organized child molestation and also had ties to the Bushes.
“Gray employee Rob Owen set up a private group to solicit funds for the Contras. Owen was called before Congress, to testify on how he delivered bags of cash to the Contras. In February of 1989, Hill and Knowlton’s Charles Perkins rushed to New York for a fraction of the firm’s usual fee, to help with public relations for Covenant House. The youth organization’s director, Father Bruce Ritter, was alleged to have molested youth who took refuge with him.”
(Ibid.; p. 180.)
23.
“Lauded by the Reagan and Bush Administrations as a showcase for the privatization of social service, Covenant House had expanded into Guatemala as a gateway to South America. According to intelligence community sources, the purpose was procurement of children from South America for exploitation in a pedophile ring. The flagship Guatemalan mission of Covenant House was launched by a former business partner of Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza–Roberto Alejos Arzu–who had ties to the CIA, according to the Village Voice of Feb. 20, 1990. The Voice quoted Jean-Marie Simon, author of Guatemala: Eternal Spring, Eternal Tyranny: ‘It’s like having Idi Amin on the board of Amnesty International.’”
(Idem.)
24.
“A top source of money for Covenant House has been Robert Macauley, founder of Americares, a service organization implicated in channeling funds to the Contras. A close friend of the Bush family since Connecticut, Andover and Yale days, Macauley has George Bush’s brother Prescott on the Americares’ board. Father Ritter was a vice president of Americares, at least until he had to resign from Covenant House in February 1989, and spent weekends at Macauley’s estate in Connecticut, according to a former Covenant House employee. As in New York, also in Nebraska an institution that sheltered child abuse could count on protection from Washington. The attitude of federal agencies towards Larry King’s Franklin Credit Union fits the mold.”
(Ibid.; pp. 180–181.)
25. More of De Camp’s allegations concerning Larry King imply connections between King, the intelligence community and George Bush (the Elder.)
“If King was involved with CIA money laundering, that jibes with a report from a member of Concerned Parents: ‘I heard from two different black people in North Omaha that King used to send limousines down to Offutt Air Base [home of the Strategic Air Command] to pick up CIA personnel for parties.’ The sometimes expansive Larry King used to talk fondly about his friends. In a Sept. 7, 1988 interview with the Metropolitan, King said, ‘I know some of the people I admire aren’t very popular. Ed Meese. The late Bill Casey of the CIA. And I love former Chief Justice Burger. Those are the people I really like to talk to. Bill Casey. . . . I just thought so very highly of him.’”
(Ibid.; p. 175.)
26.
“Larry King adored Bill Casey, but what about one of Casey’s predecessors at Central Intelligence—George Bush? Ever since July 23, 1989, when the lead editorial in the World-Herald said that ‘one child . . . is said to believe that she saw George Bush at one of King’s Parties,’ King’s connection with Bush has been a frequently asked question about the Franklin case. Anxiety on this account has run especially high in Omaha’s black community, where in December 1990, one young lady stood up at a public meeting and proclaimed, ‘I think George Bush is involved in this child abuse case, and that is why all these people have been dying.’”
(Idem.)
27. According to De Camp, Bush’s name surfaced in the beginning of the investigation into the Franklin/pedophilia connection.
“Inside investigators of Franklin, and the Webb case before it, know that Bush’s name came up at the very beginning, and it came up more than once. The July 1989 World-Herald column, in an attempt to discredit this and other victim-witness testimony, attributed the mention of Bush to a person ‘under psychiatric care,’ meaning Loretta Smith. In reality, the report was from Nelly Patterson Webb.”
(Idem.)
28.
“Nelly first brought up Bush in 1986, when she told Julie Walters about the sex parties she was flown to in Washington and Chicago. She saw Bush at two of these parties, she said, one in each city. Nelly also told Walters that one frequent party-goer with King was a boy named ‘Brent,” the one who was ‘flown to another city somewhere’ after a falling out with King. Walters did not have the resources to cross-check this information with the life of Brandt Thomas, the Boys Town resident who had moved in with Larry King. Franklin credit union files contained a letter signed by King, in his capacity as Youth Affairs Committee advisor for the National Black Republican Council, listing Thomas as one of two national contact people for NBRC campus chapters.”
(Ibid.; p. 176.)
29.
“Three years later, with an investigation of abuse by King and the Webbs finally under way, Nelly was interviewed again. Speaking to Franklin committee Jerry Lowe, she repeated her account of the Chicago party, and said that Bush and two men he arrived with appeared to have left the affair with a young black man she called ‘Brandt.’ Of course, as I have made clear, mere attendance by a politician, be he the President or any other office-holder, at a Larry King party does not mean that person knew of or was involved in Larry King’s sordid activities. Almost every top Nebraska Republican, including myself, attended the two largest parties King ever hosted, the ones at the Republican national conventions in 1984 and 1988.”
(Idem.)
30. De Camp relates another alleged connection between Bush and the Larry King/pedophilia connections.
“Bush’s name surfaced again in Lowe’s May 1989 review of reports by Thomas Vlahoulis from the state attorney general’s office: ‘Sorenson told Vlahoulis that both Kimberly and Nelly brought up the name of George Bush and indicated that they had both met him. . . .’ On June 10, 1989, Lowe received a letter from a citizen: ‘There is a psychologist in Omaha who used to work for the CIA. In response to a direct question by an Omaha psychiatrist regarding George Bush’s private life, this psychologist reported hearing rumors when Bush was head of the CIA, that correspond directly with one of the inferences made by Nelly Webb, and commented to the psychiatrist, ‘But how do you investigate your boss?’”
(Ibid.; pp. 176–177.)
31. De Camp notes the elder Bush’s proclivities for appointing Nebraska Republicans.
“In August 1990, Bush appointed Ronald Roskens of Nebraska, to head the Agency for International Development (AID). Roskens had been fired the previous year as chancellor of the University of Nebraska, where Larry King was a member of his ‘chancellor’s advisory committee.’ Gary Caradori’s daily notes for Feb. 19, 1989 record: ‘I was informed that Roskins [sic] was terminated by the state because of sexual activities reported to the Regents and verified by them. Mr. Roskins was reported to have had young men at his residence for sexual encounters. As part of the separation from the state, he had to move out of the state-owned house because of the liability to the state if some of this sexual behavior was ‘illegal.’ Upon Roskins vacating the house, he was provided a house by Joe Seacrist [sic] of the Lincoln Journal-Star.’ The leadership of AID is the kind of sensitive job—AID assignments have been used as a ‘cover’ by CIA agents, for instance—for which appointees undergo a background check that would have to turn up what Caradori also heard. Nevertheless, George Bush appointed Roskens.”
(Idem.)
32. Investigator Gary Caradori was among the many casualties of the Franklin investigation. De Camp has an appendix of a list of “suspicious deaths tied to the Franklin case.”
“(1.) BILL BAKER. He was a restaurant owner in Omaha, and a partner of Larry King in homosexual pornography operations. He was found shot in the back of the head.
(2.) SHAWN BONER. Brother of victim-witness Troy Boner, he died of a gunshot wound from ‘Russian Roulette.’
(3.) GARY CARADORI. Chief investigator for he legislative Franklin Committee, Caradori told associates days before his death that he had information that would ‘blow this case wide open.’ He died when his plane crashed on July 11, 1990.
(4.) ANDREW ‘A.J.’ CARADORI. Died at the age of 8, in the plane crash with his father.
(5.) NEWT COPPLE. A confidential informant for Caradori and his investigative firm, Copple was a key behind-the-scenes activist fighting the cover-up of the Franklin case. Son of Commonwealth Savings owner S.E. Copple, businessman in his own right, an ex-champion wrestler with no prior health problems and parents who lived into their late eighties and nineties, Copple suddenly ‘died in his sleep’ in March 1991, at the age of 70.”
(Ibid.; p. 250.)
33. More of De Camp’s Franklin death list follows.
“(6.) CLARE HOWARD. The former secretary of Alan Baer, who arranged Baer’s pedophile trysts, Howard ‘died in her sleep’ in 1991.
(7.) MIKE LEWIS. A former caregiver for victim-witness Loretta Smith. He died of a ‘severe diabetic reaction’ at the age of 32.
(8.) JOE MALEK, associate of Larry King and owner of Peony Park, where homosexual galas were held. His death from gunshot was ruled a suicide.
(9.) AARON OWEN, the brother of victim-witness Alisha Owen. He was found hanged in his cell in Lincoln, Nebraska, hours before one of his sister’s court appearances.
(10.) CHARLIE ROGERS. A reputed homosexual partner of Larry King, Rogers said that he feared for his life, in the days before his death. His head was blown off with a shotgun, in what was ruled a suicide.
(11.) DAN RYAN, an associate of Larry King. He was found strangled or suffocated in a car.
(12.) BILL SKOLESKI. An officer in the Omaha Police Department who was believed to be keeping a file on Larry King, he died of a heart attack.
(13.) KATHLEEN SORENSON. The foster parent for Nelly and Kimberly Webb after they fled the home of Larry King’s relatives, Jarrett and Barbara Webb, she was an outspoken activist against Satanism. Her death in a suspicious car crash is related in Chapter 15.
(14.) CURTIS TUCKER. An associate of Larry King, he fell or jumped out of the window of the Holiday Inn in Omaha.
(15.) HARMON TUCKER. A school superintendent in Nebraska and Iowa, a reputed homosexual, his death had signs of satanic ritual murder. He was found dead in Georgia, near the plantation which Harold Andersen and Nebraska-Iowa FBI chief Nicholas O’Hara used for hunting.”
(Ibid.; pp. 250–251.)
34. Among the casualties that De Camp believes to be connected to the Franklin investigation was the late William Colby, former director of the CIA. De Camp worked with Colby during the Vietnam War. Colby had worked with De Camp on the book, and served as an investigative source.
“It is a little over four years since I, John De Camp, wrote the words you have just read. My closes friend and mentor, Bill Colby, like so many others in the Franklin case, is dead; he was fished out of a river in front of his home, under the most questionable of circumstances, in April of 1996. Was he killed because of his involvement in Franklin? I don’t know. What I do know, is that Bill Colby was the heart and soul of the Franklin investigation. Although at a certain point he warned me against investigating the case further, it was he who relentlessly pushed to publicly expose what had already been discovered, when everyone else, including, at times, myself, wanted to call it quits. Without him, this book would never have been written.”
(Ibid.; p. 1.)
35. It is interesting that the late Colby had been a supporter of President Clinton and that his wife worked for Clinton.
“Not only was Bill’s wife, Sally Shelton Colby, in a senior position in the Clinton Administration, but Colby himself had emphasized to me, repeatedly, that Clinton was a great President, and that it was urgent that he be re-elected.”
(Ibid.; p. 388.)
36. De Camp describes the death of his friend and colleague.
“A week after out get-together, in which Bill spoke so enthusiastically about his work and his travels, he was dead—under the most unusual circumstances, his death officially labeled an ‘accident.’ I did not believe it then, and I do not believe it now. But I do believe what Bill said: ‘If it’s done right, you will never know how it was done, or who did it.’”
(Ibid.; p. 389.)
37. De Camp expounds on his skepticism concerning Colby’s death, based on extensive knowledge of the late director’s behavior.
“Colby had a sailboat and his little get-away cottage, where he went as often as he could. I visited him there on several occasions, as Bill invited me sailing whenever I was in town. Inevitably, however, the weather forecast would warn of a possibility of rain, or a drop of rain would fall, or he’d notice that the moon was not in the right position, or the sun too hot, or whatever. And Bill would decide not to take the risk and go out sailing.”
(Ibid.; pp. 384–385.)
38.
“My point is simple. Bill Colby was the single most meticulously careful, programmed, organized individual I have ever encountered, especially when it came to matters of safety, security, and personal activities. Therefore, the description given in the media, surrounding his death, does not cohere with Bill Colby’s personality, his character, his modus operandi, and my personal experiences with him over many years. Bill Colby was not the kind of person who would take off on an evening boating expedition, leaving his computer still turned on at his desk, his half-finished dinner still sitting on the table, and most of the lights on in the cottage. That was not Bill.”
(Ibid.; p. 385.)
39. Recounting an incident that escaped most people’s notice (including Mr. Emory’s), De Camp relates an incident that foreshadowed Colby’s death.
“Furthermore, Bill had been the victim of a ‘robbery’ in Washington, D.C., not too long before his death, in which he had been badly beaten, and easily could have died. This ‘robbery’ and his actual death were both mysterious incidents, in a relatively short span of time. I have a hard time believing in coincidences, when it comes to people like Bill Colby. His mysterious death has also brought, to my mind, his own explanations of how people end up dead, in the course of our discussing the death of Franklin case investigator Gary Caradori—a death Colby himself had investigated. His exact statement on this was: ‘If it’s done right, you’ll never know how it was done, or who did it for sure. That’s what professionalism is all about.’”
(Idem.)
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011–11-10/sports/30381212_1_child-molester-madden-claims-jerry-sandusky
SHOCKING PENN STATE RUMOR: Jerry Sandusky ‘Pimped Out Young Boys To Rich Donors’
Tony Manfred|November 10, 2011
(AP) Sportswriter Mark Madden went on WEEI in Boston and reported a rumor that alleged child molester Jerry Sandusky would pimp out boys to rich donors.
“I hear a rumor that there will be a shocking development from the Second Miles Foundation ... That Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile were pimping out young boys to rich donors.”
Madden claims it’s being investigated by “two prominent columnists.”
We’d say this is ridiculous, and that you should take it with a grain of salt. But Madden actually wrote about Sandusky for the Beaver County Times six months ago — long before the scandal blindsided everyone else this week.
http://www.businessinsider.com/jerry-sandusky-column-2011–11
A Newspaper Ran A Column About The Horrifying Penn State Scandal Six Months Ago
Tony Manfred | Nov. 9, 2011, 3:12 PM
Penn State’s bungled response to the Jerry Sandusky scandal is even more shocking when you consider this: there was a report about Sandusky’s alleged abuses six months ago.
On April 3, the Beaver Country Times ran a column by Mark Madden headlined, “Sandusky A State Secret.”
The column calls out the university for failing to stop Sandusky a decade ago, and warns that a impending grand jury report could cause a massive scandal.
It also asks many of the same questions we are asking this week.
“What did Paterno know, and when did he know it? What did Penn State’s administration know, and when did they know it?” he asks.
It’s hard to understand how anyone at Penn State — from Paterno to the president to the PR department — could have been unprepared for the scandal to explode considering it was already relatively public.
The column doesn’t make the alleged conduct of PSU officials any better or worse, it just makes the messy PR moves by the school over the last few days look even more terrible.
There was also a news story in the Patriot-News about the grand jury investigation in late March.
. . . . .
Original article from Mark Madden, who now accuses a pedophile ring involving “rich donors & boosters” in the Penn State/Sandusky case:
http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sports/mark_madden/madden-sandusky-a-state-secret/article_863d3c82-5e6f-11e0-9ae5-001a4bcf6878.html#user-comment-area
Sandusky A State Secret
Posted: Sunday, April 3, 2011 11:55 pm | Updated: 4:34 pm, Mon Apr 4, 2011.
by Mark Madden
The Jerry Sandusky situation seems a matter of failure to connect certain dots, or perhaps unwillingness in that regard. Lots of people besides the former Penn State defensive coordinator have some explaining to do.
Allegations of improper conduct with an underage male first surfaced in 1998, while Sandusky was still employed by Penn State. That incident allegedly occurred in a shower at Penn State’s on-campus football facility. No charges were filed.
Sandusky retired the next year, in 1999. He was 55, prime age for a coach. Odd, to say the least — especially with Joe Paterno thought even then to be ready to quit and Sandusky a likely, openly-discussed successor.
It seems logical to ask: What did Paterno know, and when did he know it? What did Penn State’s administration know, and when did they know it?
Best-case scenario: Charges are never brought, and Sandusky walks away with his reputation permanently scarred. The rumors, the jokes, the sideways glances — they won’t ever stop. Paterno and Penn State do the great escape.
Worst-case scenario: Sandusky is charged. Then it seems reasonable to wonder: Did Penn State not make an issue of Sandusky’s alleged behavior in 1998 in exchange for him walking away from the program at an age premature for most coaches? Did Penn State’s considerable influence help get Sandusky off the hook?
Don’t kid yourself. That could happen. Don’t underestimate the power of Paterno and Penn State in central Pennsylvania when it comes to politicians, the police and the media.
In 1999, Penn State was rid of Sandusky. His rep was unblemished, which allowed him to continue running a charitable foundation that gave him access to underage males. To be a volunteer assistant with a high school football team, thus gaining access to underage males.
If Paterno and Penn State knew, but didn’t act, instead facilitating Sandusky’s untroubled retirement — are Paterno and Penn State responsible for untoward acts since committed by Sandusky?
This is far from an outrageous hypothesis, especially given the convenient timeline.
Initially accused in 1998. Retires in 1999. Never coaches college football again. Sandusky was very successful at what he did. The architect of Linebacker U. Helped win national championships in 1982 and 1986. Recognized as college football’s top assistant in 1986 and 1999.
Never any stories about Sandusky being pursued for a high-profile job. Never any rumors about him coming out of retirement.
But there’s no shortage of stories and rumors about Penn State football sweeping problems under the rug, is there?
Why did college football let an accomplished coach like Sandusky walk away at 55? Why did he disappear into relative anonymity?
A grand jury, spurred by a complaint made by a 15-year-old boy in 2009, has been investigating Sandusky for 18 months. Witnesses include Paterno and Penn State athletic director Tim Curley.
Interviewing Paterno about a subject like this had to have been one of the single most uncomfortable acts in the history of jurisprudence.
Plenty of questions remain yet unanswered.
Potentially among them: What’s more important, Penn State football or the welfare of a few kids?
You might not want to hear the answer.
I’m sure there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for all of this (and that). Let’s be charitable.
Pterrafractyl: Your first link is broken (on the word ‘that’).
I seem to be having problems as well posting here at Spitfire. If this comment takes, it will be the first in a couple weeks of trying
@R. Wilson: Yeah, me too, unfortunately. I still believe there may be a glitch in the format. =(
@R. Wilson: Whoops! Looks like I left off the “http://” part from the URL and it got interpreted as a local link. This should work. And yeah, not sure what’s going on with the comments...
Let’s not forget that GW’s college nickname was Lips. In elite circles there is an element who practice homosexuality and pedophilia as an expression of depravity, contempt for mainstream morays and for inner circle initiation. Homosexual preferences can be more or less healthy but not so here. The sexual moralizing by the far right is an ongoing huge joke on the unwashed. Witness Roy Cohn’s adamant, vocal public opposition to all things homosexual while in the constant company of a parade of young male companions.
Continuing difficulties for a week trying to post any comment to this page.
I’ll try to write out the URL and see if that works:
www (dot) ibtimes (dot) co (dot) uk (slash) articles (slash) 397824 (slash) 20121024 (slash) tom-watson-child-sex-ring-sire-peter (dot)htm
Was Margaret Thatcher’s Top Aide Peter Morrison in Paedophile Ring?
By DOMINIC GOVER
October 24, 2012 6:50 PM GMT
The politician implicated in an alleged child sex ring at 10 Downing Street was Sir Peter Morrison, one of Margaret Thatcher’s closest advisers, IBTimes UK can reveal.
Morrison was the mystery “senior aide” MP Tom Watson alluded to at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs). Watson’s allegation of a paedophile ring close to Downing Street stunned the House of Commons.
Morrison was a Conservative politician who acted as Thatcher’s parliamentary private secretary while she was prime minister. He also masterminded her failed bid to hold on to the leadership in 1990.
Morrison left office in 1992 and died in 1995.
The sexual tastes of the prime minister’s trusted adviser were an open secret in some quarters but were concealed by a police cover-up and threats of libel by Morrison himself, according to a former editor of the Sunday Mirror, Peter Connew.
Simon Heffer wrote in the Daily Telegraph in 2009: “At least one member of Mrs Thatcher’s first cabinet was homosexual. Her last parliamentary private secretary, Sir Peter Morrison, was a constant trial to the whips, who were afraid that his late-night cruises around and skirmishes in Sussex Gardens would come to the attention of the press.”
Connew told IBTimes UK that he saw first-hand how efforts to name and shame Morrison were hampered.
Morrison, the MP for Chester, was arrested more than once for pestering young boys in public toilets for sex, said Connew. When police officers tried to charge him, the cover-up began.
“Such was the hush-up that nobody could get hold of the log of the arrest,” Connew told IBTimes UK.
“As soon as he was brought in for importuning young boys in public toilets, the seniors would come down. That was the reason the officers leaked the details: they were outraged that the seniors had ticked them off for arresting him.
“If they had nicked a lorry driver, he would have been up before the judge in no time.”
Print and I’ll sue you
When reporters acting on tip-offs doorstepped Morrison, he came out fighting, added Connew.
“When they doorstepped him, he said ‘print and I’ll sue you.’ This is something that Lord Leveson might want to consider.”
Allegations against Morrison first surfaced in the press in 1998. Investigative journalist Nick Davies reported how Chris House, crime editor at the Mirror, had been tipped off by police about Morrison’s activities — but was gagged by legal fears.
Not being able to expose the politician close to No 10 irked House, said Connew. “He categorised it as the most frustrating scoop he could never write. He was more involved in it than me.
“I had no idea Tom Watson was going to set off that hand grenade in parliament,” he added.
Morrison’s activities were thrown under the spotlight by Labour MP Watson at PMQs. The West Bromwich East MP alluded to a political figure who was cited in evidence at the 1992 trial of paedophile Peter Righton, real name Paul Pelham.
Watson said in parliament: “The evidence file used to convict paedophile Peter Righton, if it still exists, contains clear intelligence of a paedophile ring.
“One of its members boasts of his links to a senior aide of a former prime minister who could smuggle indecent images of children from abroad.
“The leads were not followed up but if the file still exists I want to ensure that the Metropolitan Police secure the evidence, re-examine it and investigate clear links of a powerful paedophile network linked to parliament and No 10.”
Righton was a high-profile public expert on the UK childcare system. He was convicted of importing and possessing child pornography in 1992.
UPDATE (25 OCTOBER 2012) Watson has gone on record to deny that the mystery aide referred to in his statement at PMQs was Peter Morrison, former aide to Margaret Thatcher when she was in power. Morrison was recently named by former Tory MP Edwina Currie as having had sex with teenage boys.
While it’s never a good time to be an elite pedophile, it looks like it’s going to be an especially bad time for any UK elite pedophiles. Let’s hope we don’t see a repeat of anything like this. Or this.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tory-mp-warned-of-powerful-paedophile-ring-30-years-ago-8507780.html
New evidence supports late MP’s claim of elite paedo ring
Tory MP warned of powerful paedophile ring 30 years ago
New evidence supports claim former backbencher’s life was threatened
FRIDAY 22 FEBRUARY 2013
A burly veteran of scores of amateur boxing bouts, the Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens was best known during his bustling 16-year career in Parliament as a pugnacious right-winger who supplied “hang ‘em and flog ‘em” quotes to the tabloids.
Eighteen years after his death, however, the backbencher’s reputation as a political lightweight is being revised in the wake of a Scotland Yard investigation which is exhuming a scandal long buried in the Westminster of Margaret Thatcher’s premiership.
New evidence suggests that Dickens stumbled upon an Establishment paedophile ring in the early 1980s – and that his efforts to expose a cover-up left him in fear of his life. Dickens told fellow MPs that after warning of the existence of the network, he had received threatening phone calls and been burgled twice. He also claimed he had been placed on a “hit-list”, he told the House of Commons in a little-noticed speech.
For four years between 1981 and 1985, Dickens railed in Parliament against a paedophile ring which he claimed was connected to a trade in child pornography, then controlled by gangsters.
In 1981 Dickens had used Parliamentary privilege to name a diplomat and MI6 operative, Sir Peter Hayman as a pederast and demanded the Attorney General explain why he had escaped prosecution over the discovery of violent pornography on a London bus two years previously.
...
Last month Metropolitan Police began Operation Fernbridge into allegations that residents of a childrens home in Richmond, west London, were taken to the nearby Elm Guest House in Barnes, where they were abused. Pornography involving adults having sex with children was allegedly shot at the property and then circulated commercially.
Sir Peter was among the visitors to the property. Others, according to a list seized by Scotland Yard last month, were the late Liberal MP Cyril Smith, the former Russian spy Sir Anthony Blunt, a Sinn Fein politician, a Labour MP, and several Conservative politicians.
After neighbours complained about the arrival of children, the police raided the guesthouse in 1982 but the operation was mysteriously cut short. A 2003 investigation also failed.
...
“Honourable Members will understand that where big money is involved and as important names came into my possession so the threats began.
“First, I received threatening telephone calls followed by two burglaries at my London home. Then, more seriously, my name appeared on a multi-killer’s hit list.”
...
However twenty-eight years after he made [the comments], Scotland Yard officers kept their new investigation secret for weeks, fearful that it would be closed down like earlier inquiries.
In a blog on his website, the Labour MP Tom Watson – whose claims of a powerful paedophile network prompted the new inquiry – said that he had been advised by childcare experts who have tried to expose the scandal to be careful about his personal security. He has asked the Home Office for the dossier presented by Dickens to Sir Leon, but it has not yet been found.
Well, it looks like the Pope’s call for prayers have been answered: The night before the Pope’s resignation we saw a new pedophile scandal emerge involving powerful people...and it doesn’t involve the Vatican. Tom Flanagan, Steven Harper’s former political adviser and a man characterized as the Godfather of Canada’s modern conservative, just told an audience that he’s been on the NAMBLA mailing list for years while defending child porn. It wasn’t well received:
This isn’t exactly the kind of issue a party wants to deal with weeks before an election:
Since the FDP is an ally of Merkel’s CDU it will be interesting to see how this impacts the electoral outcome, if at all. It might but maybe not too much.
Cue the QAnon disinformation campaign: The issue of high-level pedophile networks is back in the news following the surprise arrest of billionaire alleged child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein over the weekend.
This is one of those stories that intersects with the Trump administration in a number of way. First, there’s the direct Trump connections. As the following article describes, Trump himself was an associate of Epstein in the 90’s and early 2000’s. Epstein frequented Mar-a-Lago. Trump even gave a 2002 interview where he said, ““I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy...He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.” So Trump was hinting at Epstein’s child trafficking in that 2002 interview.
Another connection is that one of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Roberts, was working at Mar-a-Lago when she was recruited into Epstein’s network.
Trump himself was sued for rape in 2016 by an anonymous woman claiming to have been one of Epstein’s victims. But that accusation was eventually withdrawn and the journalists who pursued that story remain skeptical of the accuser. That’s the only instance of Trump himself being directly accused of having been involved with Epstein’s sexual trafficking.
So, at a minimum, Trump is a tangential character to this story. Bill Clinton is also a tangential character to this story, having flowing on Epstein’s planes multiple times. And those are just two of the shocking number of other powerful figures who could potentially be swept up in this investigation. In other words, we might be on the cusp of seeing a powerful underage sex trafficking network involving some of the most powerful people on the planet getting exposed, which means a lot of powerful people are going to be paying very close attention to this story and working to shape the public’s perception. If this new investigation does start to expose powerful people we should expect the deflection/disinformation to kick into overdrive. The fact that elite pedophile rings are central fixation of many right-wing conspiracy theories also more or less guarantees that this is going to be disinformation magnet. So get ready for a potential maelstrom of disinformation and deflection, because Trump and Clinton and just two of Jeffrey Epstein’s many powerful friends:
“Yet the nature of some of the allegations against Epstein has led to speculation that there could be even more to the story. In particular, one Epstein accuser has claimed in court filings that in addition to sexually exploiting her himself, Epstein trafficked her to other wealthy and powerful men, with the apparent goal of obtaining blackmail material on those men. (Prosecutors have not at this point made this allegation themselves.)”
Where there other powerful men involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s teenage orgies? That the question that’s undoubted going to make this a story watched by powerful people around the world. Because all it takes is a quick look through Epstein’s “black book” to get a sense of how widely connected he was. But in Trump’s case, those questions are compounded by the fact that Trump specifically referred to Epstein’s preference for women “on the younger side” in that now notorious 2002 interview, along with the fact that Epstein frequented Mar-a-Lago and Virginia Roberts was working there when Epstein recruited her:
And then there’s the accusations by “Katie Johnson”, who claims Trump violently raped her when she was 13. The journalists who looked into this story were wary of it at the time it emerged, but as the article notes, that was also before the Access Hollywood tape and the parade of women accusing Trump of sexual harassment. So a review of the plausibility of “Katie Johnson’s” story might end with a different conclusion today:
So those are some of the direct Trump connections to this story. There’s the other massive indirect connection through the fact that Trump’s Labor Secretary, Alex Acosta, was the federal attorney would negotiated Epstein’s 2008 sweetheart deal that allowed him to avoid federal prosecution. A deal that the Department of Justice launched a probe of back in February. Trump himself just today announce that he will be looking “very closely” at Acosta’s handling of the case.
But there’s another person who is going to be looking even more closely at this case and this person also has a bizarre connection to the Epstein case: Attorney General Bill Barr. As former FBI Assistant Director Frank Figliuzzi pointed out on Twitter over the weekend, Bill Barr’s father actually hired Epstein to teach at the elite private Dalton school. What makes this hiring curious is that Epstein had no college degree. So Barr’s father hired a man with no college degree to teach at an elite private school:
“First writing, “Watch for the current Secretary of Labor; Watch for why this is being handled by the Public Corruption section at SDNY, ” Figliuzzi, added, “Yes, AG Barr oversees the US Attorney’s Office in NY, so it’s possible he could attempt to interfere, though it would be obvious. Also, many years ago, Barr’s father hired Epstein to teach at the private Dalton school, with no college degree. So there’s that…””
It’s an odd connection, but given the circumstances of the charges against Epstein it’s potentially more than just odd. And as Fibliuzzi points out, Barr is going to be in a circumstance to run interference on this case if he chooses to do so.
But there’s another Barr connection to this case that has actually led to Barr recusing himself from one aspect of this case: Barr used to work for the law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, that represented Epstein in the earlier prosecution of him (the prosecution that Alex Acosta ended with a sweetheart deal). And as the following article notes, this has indeed resulted in Barr recusing himself. But he’s only recusing himself from any reviews of that earlier sweetheart deal Acosta negotiated. Barr is NOT recusing himself from the new investigation that was just opened. As Walter Shaub Jr., the former the head of the federal Office of Government Ethics and a virulent Trump critic, pointed out, technically Barr doesn’t have to recuse himself from the new investigation because Epstein is currently be represented by a different law firm. Shaub notes that it would still be prudent for Barr to recuse himself, but he doesn’t actually have to do it:
“I’m only sharing what the rationale of the DOJ ethics officials would have been. I don’t trust Barr further than I can throw his house and would like to see him recused from anything even remotely in Trump’s personal orbit. But such a recuse would be prudential and not mandatory.”
That was Walter Shaub’s take: he doesn’t trust Barr at all and a recusal would have been prudent, but it wasn’t mandatory. The Trump administration doesn’t do prudent.
So that’s all part of what makes this story so potentially explosive. Just given all the publicly available facts it seems very plausible that a new and more vigorous Epstein investigation could uncover all sorts of new evidence that leads back to Trump. At the same time, the publicly available facts include the fact that the Attorney General is refusing to recuse himself and potentially has his own personal stake in the investigation, suggesting that any new facts uncovered in this new investigation probably aren’t going to become public facts. At least not if they involve Trump. Any new damning Clinton-related facts will presumably be widely touted.
And in related news, the recent rape accusations against Trump by E. Jean Carroll are still largely being ignored by the media.
The reopening of the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein raises a number of potentially explosive questions, most notably the question of who among Epstein’s powerful friends was involved with Epstein’s underage sex trafficking network. But as Josh Marshall notes in the following article, there’s another large mystery looming over this case: How did Epstein become a billionaire? Because it turns out that no one has any idea where his billions actually came come:
“The simple fact is that none of the hedge fund types and private wealth managers who cater to that scale of wealth have any clear idea where Epstein’s wealth comes from and they don’t seem to think he’s really in the business they’re in. This is the gist of numerous articles on the man. But this part of the story has always or until recently been treated as part of his air of mystery rather than a key question to be answered in a broader story of criminal activity.”
So no one actually knows how he became a billionaire. But there are hints. And one of those hints came from Alex Acosta, Trump’s Labor Secretary who was the federal prosecutor who cut the extremely lenient 2008 deal with Epstein. According to reporter Vicky Ward, who has reported on Epstein for year, she was told that the issue of the Epstein case came up when Acosta was being vetted by the Trump administration for the Labor Secretary position. Acosta allegedly told the Trump administration that he’d had just one meeting about the Epstein case and he was told to “back off” Epstein because Epstein “belonged to intelligence”:
““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.)”
“I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone.” That was what Acosta allegedly told the Trump transition team and they found that to be an adequate answer. But is it a plausible answer? As Marshall points out, this recounting of Acosta’s vetting sounds like second or third hand information, so we don’t actually know that this is what happened. And even if Acosta did make this claim to the transition officials we shouldn’t necessarily take that at face value. What we do know is that Epstein had an abundance of powerful friends who no doubt wanted to see the case quietly go away:
Also note that Acosta just held a press conference about his work on the Epstein case and he was directly questioned about his alleged claims that he was told to “back off” Epstein because he “belonged to intelligence”. Acosta’s answer was simply “I can’t address it directly because of out guidelines”. So he clearly dodged that question but it’s not obvious why exactly he dodged the question.
Next, here a piece that covers some of the various scenarios for how Epstein got his wealth. One scenario is a Ponzi scheme. Back in 2009, Business Insider noted multiple red flags pointing towards a Bernie Madoff-style scheme. One of his early employers in finance, Steve Hoffenberg, was convicted of running one of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history. Adding to this speculation is the fact that Epstein was in jail during the 2008 financial crisis and yet this somehow didn’t destroy his financial empire during this hyper-volatile time.
As one of the lawyers for Epstein’s victims during the 2008 trial notes, they were never able to ever got solid documentation of how much Epstein was actually worth. The only known client for his financial management business was Lex Wexner, the founder of Victoria’s Secret. Vicky Ward suggested that Wexner may be the real source of Epstein’s wealth. Adding to that speculation is the fact that Epstein purchase, or received, his Manhattan townhouse from Wexner in 1998, but there were no property records on the transfer until 2011 when the company Wexner used to the buy the place transferred it to an Epstein-owned company for $0. Epstein signed the document for both sides.
Another possible source of Epstein’s wealth is blackmail. Specifically, using the underage girls to blackmail wealth associates and force them to invest their money through Epstein. This theory was backed by a 2015 court filing by one of Epstein’s alleged victims where she states that “Based on my knowledge of Epstein and his organization, as well as discussions with the FBI, it is my belief that federal prosecutors likely possess videotapes and photographic images of me as an underage girl having sex with Epstein and some of his powerful friends.” She also claimed that Epstein “debriefed her” after she was forced into sexual encounters so that he could possess “intimate and potentially embarrassing information” to blackmail friends into parking their money with him. Related to this is the possibility is he was involved with an offshore money-laundering/tax dodging scheme. And, finally, there’s the intelligence angle.
So the available evidence points towards a number of different, potentially overlapping, explanations for how Epstein got his immense wealth. All awful explanations:
“After sex-trafficking charges were handed down on Monday, executive-suite financiers discussed how absent Epstein was from the field: “He’s supposed to run an enormous FX [foreign-exchange] trading firm,” said Enrique Diaz-Alvarez, chief risk officer at Ebury. “But I never once heard of him or his firm or anyone who worked or traded with him.” And as Forbes wrote in a 2010 blog post with a very direct title — “Sex Offender Jeffrey Epstein Is Not a Billionaire” — his money-management firm based in the U.S. Virgin Islands “generates no public records, nor has his client list ever been released.””
Epstein’s firm generated no public records and never released a client list. It’s mysterious. Blackmail? A Ponzi Scheme? Offshore tax evasion and money-laundering? An intelligence front? All of these above?
Or was his only known client, Lex Wexner, the real source of his wealth? They definitely had some sort of unusual business relationship:
Also note that Wexner has long been a GOP mega-donor. He and his wife donated almost $2 million to the GOP between 2013 and 2018, including $500k to Jeb Bush in 2016. But Wexner became a ‘Never-Trump’ mega-donor and officially left the Republican Party last September. And that’s one of the potentially interesting twists in all this: The Trump administration probably really hates Wexner at this point. Wexner literally stopped being a GOP mega-donor specifically because he hated Trump so much. So while it remains to be seen how much we’re really going to learn about Epstein’s background, don’t be super surprised if very very little is released about how Epstein became a billionaire except for information tying Epstein to Wexner.
And regarding the possibility that Epstein could have been running a child sex trafficking ring as part of an intelligence front, this is also probably a good time to recall the strange case of George Nader, the Middle East’s man of mystery who figures so prominently in the various #TrumpRussia threads. Recall how Nader clearly worked with the US government on sensitive matters going back to the 80s and was repeatedly caught with child pornography and yet kept getting lenient sentences (including a light sentence by the Czech government). But back in June, Nader suddenly faced new child porn charges over a discovery investigators made last year. So as with Epstein, Nader was someone with a track record for getting lenient treatment for child sex crimes but is now facing new investigations. Now, there’s never been anything to indicate that Nader was somehow incorporating child porn into his sensitive government work, as would be the case for Epstein if he was running some sort of blackmail ring for intelligence purposes. But at a minimum, Nader’s story demonstrates the capacity for an official tolerance of such activities by people deemed to be doing important sensitive work. So George Nader represents another particularly disturbing data point suggesting that Epstein may indeed have been involved in intelligence work. The parallels are hard to ignore.
Here’s an interesting new twist on the mystery of Jeffrey Epstein and the questions of why he was given a sweetheart plea deal back in 2008. First, recall that Alex Acosta reportedly told the Trump administration officials who were vetting him for the Labor Secretary position that he gave Epstein that plea deal because he was told that Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Keep in mind that even if Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and that was the basis for his lenient treatment, that doesn’t necessarily mean he belonged to US intelligence. He could have been working with an allied intelligence agency, with Israel or the UK being obvious possibilities given Epstein’s associations. And now we just learned a new detail about Epstein’s background: When authorities recently raided Epstein’s mansion they found a safe containing cash, diamonds, and an expired fake foreign-issued passport from the 80’s. The passport had Epstein’s picture but a fake name. And it lists Saudi Arabia as Epstein’s place of residence:
“Although the passport was issued in the ’80s and is currently expired, other details about it raised some eyebrows. For one, the passport has a photo that appears to be of Epstein, but it has a different name on it. Secondly, it was a foreign-issued passport and listed his residence as Saudi Arabia.”
So was there a Saudi connection to Epstein’s child sex trafficking ring? Recall the evidence suggesting that the disappearance of Polly Klaas was part of an elite Saudi child-sex trafficking ring that specialized in providing underage white Western girls for Saudi elites. Was Epstein’s operation involved with something like that? To put it another way, would a fake passport that gives a fake name and lists Saudi Arabia as his place of residence be helpful for getting out of a difficult situation if the Saudi government wasn’t in on the scam to back it up if need be?
Keep in mind that, thus far, the reports about Epstein’s associates serviced by his underage victims haven’t included references to a large number of Saudis or trips to Saudi Arabia. But given the nature of that initial sweetheart plea deal and Acosta’s reference to Epstein “belonging to intelligence”, it’s possible that such evidence would have been kept from the public so far.
And note that, while the question of how Epstein made his fortune remains largely a mystery, at least one unnamed financial institution has confirmed that Epstein is currently worth more than $500 million. So he’s managed to maintain quite a fortune in the decade following his initial 2008 plea deal:
Also note that while the identity of this unnamed financial institution that confirmed Epstein’s wealth remains a mystery, we have learned about one institution in particular that would be well placed to know such things: It turns out Deutsche Bank recently severed its relationship with Epstein:
“The German bank, itself a subject of unrelated government investigations, closed Epstein’s accounts over several months, according to a person familiar with the situation, who asked not to be identified discussing private matters.”
Yep, just a few months ago, Deutsche Bank decides to end its relationship with Epstein. Keep in mind that the renewed scrutiny over Alex Acosta’s sweetheart plea deal with Epstein started back in November, so the bank was presumably reacting to those reports and the expectation that more bad press was coming for Epstein.
And note that this was Deutsche Bank’s notoriously corrupt private-banking unit that was working with Epstein. Recall that Deutsche Bank’s private banking unit was reportedly so scandalous lax in its enforcement of laws regarding money-laundering that a number of employees have becoming whistle-blowers. So learning that the most corrupt unit in Deutsche Bank was working with Epstein until only recently does add some clarity to the situation in the sense that it makes it more clear that there was something very shady likely going on with his finances in recent years too. There was already the mystery of how he made his fortune and now there’s a mystery of what he did with the money after he made it. Two mysteries that could be very intertwined if he was essentially offering money-laundering/tax evasion services for his clients as has been speculated.
So as we can see, this is one of those stories where, the more we learn, the more we learn about a coverup and the larger that coverup appears to get. It’s the kind of story that unfortunately means we probably won’t ever really learn what was going on. Especially if it involved a sweetheart deal for an intelligence-protected Saudi-connected underage sex trafficking ring.
@Pterrafractyl–
Saudi Arabia!
Interesting.
Maybe he was involved with, or adjacent to, some of the things mentioned at the conclusion of FTR 31001.
https://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-1001-further-reflections-on-weaponized-feminism-and-the-metoo-movement/
Best,
Dave
@Dave: There was a recent NY Times piece that included descriptions from guests of Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse last year. The walls were covered with photos of people Epstein had met. He apparently specifically pointed out his photo of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salmon to one of the guests.
And now we’ve learned the country that issued Epstein’s passport: Austria. Intriguingly, while the name on the passport is fake, according to the following article, prosecutors still haven’t established whether or not the passport is actually fake or was indeed issued by the Austrian government:
“Prosecutors said the passport was issued by Austria, was dated in the 1980s, and gave a residence in Saudi Arabia. It was not issued under Epstein’s name but did have what appeared to be a photo of him. Prosecutors have not determined if it was issued by the government or is a fake, they said.”
So it’s entirely possible the Austrian government actually issued this passport with a fake name. According to the following article, the passport expired 32 years ago (around 1987). So it was presumably issued some time in the early 80s. According to Epstein’s lawyers, he got the Austrian passport to ward off hijackers and terrorists while traveling in the Middle East because his Jewish ancestry and immense wealth made him a target. Based on that, it sounds like Epstein was spending quite a bit of time in the Middle East in the 80’s:
““The passport was for personal protection in the event of travel to dangerous areas, only to be presented to potential kidnapers, hijackers or terrorists should violent episodes occur,” his lawyers wrote in court papers Tuesday, saying that Epstein’s Jewish faith and ample finances made him a target in the Middle East.”
That sure sounds like Epstein was doing a lot of Middle Eastern travel in the early to mid-80s. Recall that Epstein joined Bear Stearns in 1976 and left to start his own firm in 1981 to run in firm with hardly any publicly known clients. So the 1980s was a particularly mysterious decade in Epstein’s background that now includes an apparent large number of trips to the Middle East:
Now here’s an article from 2013 that describes Austria as the European country most willing to basically sell passports to the super-rich. Epstein’s passport was issued in the 80’s so it’s possible Austria’s current lax passport policy isn’t reflective of Austria’s policies at the time Epstein got the passport. But it seems like a pretty good bet that Austria was selling passports back in the 80’s too if they’re doing it today:
“But Austria remains the European country that does the most to gain well-to-do potential citizens. The government is permitted by law to grant citizenship to those foreigners “who have already made and are expected to make extraordinary achievements in the interest of the republic.” According to media reports, a Saudi hotel investor and Russian singer Anna Netrebko met these criteria and received Austrian passports.”
So as of 2013, Austria was the European government that was doing the most to sell passports to wealthy foreigners. Especially foreigners “who have already made and are expected to make extraordinary achievements in the interest of the republic.” So had Epstein already made extraordinary achievements in the interest of Austria back in the 80’s? Was he expected to at the time? Or did he simply make a large payment? At this point we have no idea.
But according to Epstein’s defense, he was given this passport by a friend and the passport had already been used before Epstein got it and had been used to travel to Saudi Arabia, France, the UK, and Spain based on the passport stamps. Epstein never actually used the passport. So if this story from Epstein’s defense is accurate, Epstein’s friend somehow got someone else’s passport and doctored it to add Epstein’s picture. It’s an alibi that raises the question of whether or not the doctored passport was the passport of an Austrian citizen or the passport of a wealthy non-Austrian who had purchased an Austrian passport. Because if this was the doctored passport of a wealthy foreigner who paid a large sum the Austrian government to get it that would imply Epstein’s fake passport was using the name of a rather wealthy and potentially internationally known individual, unless the name was changed too. Of course, it’s also possible Epstein’s defense is simply lying and it was Epstein who used that passport to make those trips in the 80’s:
“Their claim, in a letter to the judge who will decide if Epstein gets bail, came in response to a prosecution filing that revealed the passport contained stamps from France, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Saudi Arabia.”
The mystery passport just keeps getting more mysterious. Along with the mystery of why he kept this passport decades after it expired. Are expire passports from decades ago useful when fleeing?
There’s an element to the timeline of all this this also worth pointing out: while the specific child sex trafficking charges Epstein faces took place from 2002–2005, it’s worth noting that news reports from the early 90’s mentioned Epstein accompanying Ghislaine Maxwell, the London socialite who is alleged to be Epstein’s ‘madam’ who recruited the underage girls, going back to the early 90’s. So while Epstein’s discovered Austrian passport expired in 1987, years before the period when he’s charged with running the trafficking ring, the fact he was already partnering with Maxwell by the early 90’s suggests that he may have already been operating some sort of sex trafficking operation by that point. Additionally, some of his accusers date the events back to the mid-90s:
“Epstein’s 2019 charges are for crimes committed in New York and Florida between 2002 and 2005. However, there are allegations against Epstein from earlier time periods (such as Maria Farmer’s 2019 sworn affidavit that she and her 15-year old sibling were assaulted by Epstein and Maxwell in various locations in 1996—allegations that were reportedly nixed by an editor from Vicky Ward’s 2003 profile of Epstein). One thing to keep in mind is Epstein was a school teacher and would have had possible access to victims there as well. There are no reports that he did anything at Dalton school, but he was asked about his relations with students in a deposition in 2009 and here is what he said”
So two of Epstein’s accusers claim Epstein abused them in various locations in 1996. Beyond that, Epstein’s 2009 deposition sure hinted at relationships with students while he was teaching at Dalton back in the 70’s:
And in 1992, the Mail on Sunday, reported on Epstein traveling with Ghislaine Maxwell. So the pair who would for the core of this sex trafficking ring were already traveling together by the early 90s and Epstein was already trying to avoid photographers at the time:
It’s those allegations of abuse in the mid-90’s and the fact that Epstein was clearly already a traveling companion of Ghislaine Maxwell as early as 1992 that makes this mystery passport that expired in 1987 so mysterious. Especially given the general mystery of what Epstein was up to throughout the 1980s. We know he left Bear Stearns to start his own mystery financial firm with mystery clients in the early 80’s and that’s about it. The rest really is a mystery at this point.
And in related news, NBC just uncovered a video of Epstein and Donald Trump partying at Mar-a-Lago in 1992. They certainly seem pretty chummy at the time.
While the Jeffrey Epstein scandal poses a number of obvious potential direct threats to President Trump’s 2020 campaign — given both the unsavory nature of Trump’s past friendship with Epstein as well as the implicit focus the Epstein story puts on all the rest of Trump’s history of misogyny and creepiness around teens — here’s an article that hints at one of the indirect ways the Jeffrey Epstein scandal could end up creating more trouble for Trump. And more trouble for Deutsche Bank:
Deutsche bank employees are once against anonymously talking to the press about the outlandish conduct at Deutsche Bank’s private bank for high net-worth clients. This time it involves Jeffrey Epstein’s account. Or rather, the many accounts of Jeffrey Epstein. He apparently has so many accounts the bank keeps finding new ones. That’s right, Deutsche Bank keeps finding new Epstein accounts. Bank officers decided to end its relationship with Epstein following the December 2018 Miami Herald investigation into Epstein, but discovered that ending that relationship would be trickier than they imagined because Epstein and his business had several dozen accounts with the bank.
We’re told that the bank’s officials have previously thought they shut down all of Epstein’s accounts, only to discover new accounts they weren’t aware of and this apparently has happened on a number of occasions. So some of Epstein’s accounts were effectively hidden from the bank itself. It’s being blamed on Deutsche Bank’s “antiquated technology systems”. That’s how scandalously lax Deutsche Bank’s internal controls are at its private bank. Clients get secret accounts that are secret even to the bank itself thanks to an “antiquated technology systems”.
Of course, the narrative about bank officials thinking they close all of Epstein’s accounts only to discover new ones they didn’t know about could obviously be an “oop!” cover story so the bank can pretend like it didn’t knowingly wait until the Epstein scandal reerupted this year to end its relationship with Epstein. What we’re told at this point is that Epstein has been a client with Deutsche Bank’s private bank since at least 2013. The bank apparently doesn’t know if it had a relationship with the bank earlier than that period, which is the kind of ambiguity that suggests there was an earlier relationship that they don’t want to disclose.
We’re also learning that Epstein had previously had a banking relationship with JP Morgan’s private banking unit from the late 1990’s until 2013, which is the period of time when Epstein is charged with running his underage sex trafficking ring. So while the Epstein case is certainly very bad news for Deutsche Bank and Donald Trump, it’s also potentially pretty awful news for JP Morgan.
We’re also told that there were transactions taking place in “some of Epstein’s accounts” as late as “late spring” of this year. That suggests a late May-to-mid-June time frame. It also suggests Epstein still had multiple accounts as of “late Spring”. Keep in mind that Epstein was arrested a few weeks ago on July 6, so we’re talking about transactions out of multiple accounts that Deutsche Bank claims to have not known existed that happened about a month before his arrest.
In both 2015 and 2016, anti-money laundering compliance officers in Deutsche Bank’s offices in New York and Jacksonville, Florida, raised what we are told was a variety of concerns about the bank’s relationship with Epstein. Among those concerns were simply concern over the damage to the reputation of the bank that could happen from having someone like Epstein as a client. But we are also told that the compliance officers saw potentially illegal activity in one of Epstein’s account “on at least on occasion”. It’s, again, the kind of vague language suggests this happened on more than one occasion. These compliance officers filed a suspicious activities report but it’s unclear if it was ever filed with the US treasury department, which also suggests it wasn’t ever filed.
Then, earlier this year, as bank officials were trying to disentangle the bank from Epstein, the bank found additional “problematic” transactions in Epstein’s accounts. In this case it sounds like the suspicious activities reports were actually filed with the US government. We are also told that Deutsche Bank is are still trying to determine what Mr. Epstein was using his accounts for, including where and to whom he had previously moved money.
So we are now being told by these anonymous Deutsche Bank insiders that Epstein has had multiple accounts the bank has known about and at least one of these accounts was flagged for suspicious activity in 2015 and 2016 but likely never reported it to the government. And there are also multiple accounts that the bank has only recently discovered and the bank has yet to determine where and to whom those accounts moved money to. In other words, there was basically no due diligence going on at Deutsche Bank’s private bank.
How might this revelation about Deutsche Bank’s private banking divisions near complete lack of due diligence complicate Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign? Well, recall how one of the #RussiaGate affair included the mystery of Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya also working for defense of Prevezon, one of the companies charged in the Magnitsky affair for money-laundering involving Manhattan real estate. Also working on Prevezon’s defense was FusionGPS. And in 2015, Jared Kushner made purchase of Manhattan real estate from Lev Leviev, the owner of one, AFI, which is of the companies also charged with helping Prevezon with money laundering using Manhattan real estate. Kushner’s purchase was for $295 million. A month before the 2016 election, Deutsche Bank loaned Kushner $285 million. In 2016 and 2017, Deutsche Bank employees flagged a number of suspicious transactions from both Kushner’s and Trump’s accounts that looked like possible money laundering. So the question of whether or not those Trump and Kushner accounts at Deutsche Bank’s private bank were engaged in money laundering or some sort of other illicit activity is an ongoing unanswered question and now we learn about the Epstein case that Deutsche Bank’s private banking unit was even worse than imagined:
““We’re still trying to get our arms around it,” one of the people said.”
Yep, Deutsche Bank is still trying to “get our arms around” understanding what the bank itself did. The bank is playing dumb about its own actions. And the scary part is that the bank might actually be “dumb” in the sense that it’s intentionally blinding itself to what’s going on inside the bank so it can ‘legitimately’ claim to not know what’s going on during situations like this. Combined with the fact that Epstein had dozens of both personal and business accounts at the bank and it’s the perfect recipe for money laundering:
And note how vague descriptions of “antiquated technology systems” are used to explain how the bank can’t track down which accounts Epstein holds. If a bank uses an “antiquated technology system” in 2019, that’s a deliberate choice. The system is apparently so antiquated that Epstein was able to use his accounts at least as of late spring (up to mid-June) of this year despite the bank’s officers apparently deciding to close his accounts in December. It raises the question of how many other clients have secret bank accounts with Deutsche Bank that the bank ‘officially’ doesn’t know about:
It’s also pretty remarkable that the bank didn’t decide to quietly close these accounts in 2015 or 2016 after the bank’s own anti-money laundering compliance officers flagged at least one account that was potentially involved in illegal activity and these officers specifically brought up to the bank the risk to the bank’s reputation over the relationship with Epstein. It’s either a reflection of how little the bank cared about having unsavory clients or a reflection of how much the bank valued Epstein as a client. Given the ongoing question of whether or not Epstein was involved in intelligence, the fact that Deutsche Bank was so cavalier about a client like Epstein should be kept in mind when considering which intelligence agencies he may have been involved with:
But let’s not forget that Deutsche Bank isn’t the only bank that should be running away from its relationship with Epstein. JP Morgan is arguably in a much more precarious situation given that it was banking with Epstein from the late 90’s up through 2013, the period of time that covers the sex trafficking and whatever financial activity he was engaged in during that period when he was building his still-mysterious financial empire:
So it’s going to be interesting to see if the story of Deutsche Bank setting itself up to the perfect ‘see no evil, hear no evil, report no evil’ money laundering machine powered by ‘antiquated technology systems’ ends up becoming a larger story on its own. Perhaps large enough to make the American electorate notice that one of the most fascinating mysteries of the entire #RussiaGate scandal — the mystery of the suspicious transactions in the Trump and Jushner Deutsche Bank accounts and whether or not it involved one of the entities at the heart of the Magnitsky scandal — happens to involve this same money laundering machine. It’s one of the many intriguing criminal mysteries swirling around the 2020 election. That’s, of course, assuming enough of the US electorate cares whether or not the US president lived a life of crime, which remains one of the other mysteries swirling around the 2020 election.
There was recent three part series of articles in Mint Press by Whitney Webb about the mysterious background of Jeffrey Epstein. The overall gist of the series is that Epstein had deep ties to a network of people with deep ties to US intelligence (in particular Reagan-era US intelligence), Israeli intelligence, organized crime and a group of pro-Israel billionaires known as the Mega Group. Part of what makes this history so fascinating is that it’s basically a rehashing of much of what we already know about the many lines of historical continuity between the significant scandals of the 20th century involving Western covert operations and right-wing politics and the fascinating role the Mossad has played as both an independent force but also a partner for Western intelligence.
Another part of what makes this history so interesting is how friendly Donald Trump has been with so many of the figures involved with this history, in part because Trump’s mentor Roy Cohn has so many ties to these figures. In general, the network of wealthy and influential Jews described in the series veer strongly towards to the very conservative and right-wing Jews with deep ties to the Republican Party in the US and Likud Party in Israel. So while the story of Epstein appears to be a story involving Israeli covert operations, it’s important to keep in mind that this appears to be predominantly right-wing Jews networking with their right-wing counterparts around the globe. Given the indications that Epstein was a far right transhumanist, the fact that his closest long-time associates in the Jewish community appear to be predominantly tied to the Republican and Likud Parties seems particularly relevant.
The following piece also discusses the connections between Epstein and Ronald Lauder, the billionaire heir of Estee Lauder. As the article notes, Lauder is very close to the Republican Party and the rise of Benjamin Netanyahu and is a major financier of the Likd Party. In 1983, Lauder was made the United States Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Affairs despite having no experience outside of working for his parent’s cosmetics company. In 1986, Lauder was made the US ambassador to Austria. This is particularly interesting in light of the discovery of an Austrian passport (listing a Saudi Arabian residence) that was found in Epstein’s safe.
But it’s important to note that there appears to be a mistake in the following article (Part 3 of the series) regarding Epstein’s mysterious Austrian passport and the possibility that Ronald Lauder played a role in him acquiring it: The article states that Epstein’s passport was issue in 1987, which would be during the time when Lauder was ambassador to Austria. But as we’ve seen, Epstein’s prosecutors told us that Epstein got the passport “some time in the 80’s” and the passport expired 32 years ago, which would be 1987. So that makes it a lot less likely that Lauder’s status as ambassador to Austria played a role in acquiring that passport. Still, he’s an illustrative figure in terms getting a sense of the kinds of figures behind the rise of Epstein.
And there’s one particular angle to this history covered in Part 3 of the series that is particularly topical given the current environment of mass surveillance conducted by intelligence-connected Silicon Valley giants and one mega-hack after another: Robert Maxwell, father of Ghislaine Maxwell, was a key figure in the PROMIS software scandal of the 80’s (see Miscellaneous archives M50 Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4, M51 Parts 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, and 4, and FTR#82).
As we’ll see, it turns out Jeffrey Epstein was a primary investor in a contemporary company started by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barack that, on the surface, has an number of parallels with the PROMIS story. The company, Reporty Homeland Security, now called Carbyne, offers a smartphone app that allows people to immediately patch into emergency response dispatchers. So Reporty is ostensibly a public safety app. But it sounds like it’s much more than that. The key technological innovation developed by Reporty is the ability of the app to scan virtually all of the available modes of communication in a given area, find the best way to ensure someone can communicate with the emergency dispatcher without information being dropped. The algorithm quickly the available communication channels around someone (IP/ umts / 2G / 3G /4G / LTE etc.) and decides which channel to use to send the information to dispatcher. Reporty has several employees from Israel’s cyber operations intelligence units. So Reporty faciliates the rapid communications between a nation’s civilian telecommunications infrastructure and the emergency infrastructure infrastructure that includes technology for routing, indoor positioning platform, dispatch systems, and monitoring. That sure sounds like the kind of technology that would have some useful intelligence applications. Reporty is set up to work in 160 countries and the US Department of Homeland Security is reportedly quite interested in this kind of technology.
Epstein reportedly financed the bulk of Ehud Barak’s 2014 investment in Reporty. Ehud Barak’s name has already surfaced in the stories of Epstein following reports that Barak visited Epstein’s Manhattan residence and his private island. Barak asserts that he met Epstein 17 years ago after being introduced by Shimon Peres and has never attending any parties with him or seen him in the company of women or young girls. But Epstein’s Manhattan neighbors claim that Barak frequently stayed at Epstein’s place and photos have been released showing Barak entering Epstein’s place in the company of four women including one identified as an Epstein traveling companion. So Ehud Barak appears to be one of Epstein’s ‘clients’ in addition to being a business partner with Epstein which makes it worth asking whether or not Barak’s business relationship with Epstein is a result of Barak being a victim of sexual blackmail or if they’re genuinely friendly associates?
Also note that Barak announced a bid to unseat Netanyahu last month so this a as politically potent story in Israel right now. And that question of whether or not Epstein was engaged in acquiring sexual blackmail on Israeli politics, like the center-left Ehud Barak, raises the larger question of whether or who Epstein was ultimately working for in his sexual blackmail operation. Ehud Barak, a center-left politician, sure seems like the kind of target the right-wing allies of Epstein would like to be able to blackmail. In other words, given that Epstein is both obviously tied to Israeli intelligence but also clearly tied to US intelligence (with some sort of odd relationship with Austria), we have to ask whether Epstein’s sexual trafficking/blackmail operation was primarily an operation on behalf of a nation state’s intelligence service or primarily an operation on behalf of a private right-wing network of people who happen to have extensive intelligence connections? At this point it remains very unclear. It’s one of the biggest mysteries involving all of this: Epstein’s connections are so vast and yet opaque that the more we learn about who Epstein worked with, the less obvious becomes of who exactly he was working for in the end. Of Epstein’s associates, how many were really his friends and how many were people who tolerated him because he managed to blackmail them? Of the people he acquired blackmail material on, was he targeting them according to the national security interests of Israel? The US? Or the private interest of his powerful friends who happened to have deep ties to the national security establishments of Israel and the West?
“Perhaps the best illustration of how the connections between many of these players often meld together can be seen in Ronald Lauder: a Mega Group member, former member of the Reagan administration, long-time donor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s Likud Party, as well as a long-time friend of Donald Trump and Roy Cohn.”
Epstein had a lot of friends and associates. But the network of people he appeared to be associated with back in the 80’s, when he appeared to be getting established as an operative of some sort, had a distinct right-wing bent. This is exemplified by Ronald Lauder, a key patron of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud Party, and the Republican Party. And a long-time associate of both Donald Trump and Roy Cohn:
And while it’s unclear what Epstein’s direct ties to Lauder were in the 80’s, Lauder was close with a number of people who would later be identified as Epstein associates, including Alan Greenberg and Donald Trump. And Lauder was very close to the Reagan administration:
But, again, it’s important to note that Epstein’s mysterious Austrian passport expired in 1987. It wasn’t issued in 1987. So speculation that Lauder facilitated the issuance of this passport after being appointed ambassador to Austria in 1986 appears to be mistaken:
So did Epstein actually speak Austrian? That seems likes a relevant question.
Highlighting how this network has ties to US intelligence in addition to Israeli intelligence, note how Lauder co-founded the
the Eastern European broadcasting network CETV with Mark Palmer, a former U.S. diplomat, Kissinger aide and Reagan speechwriter known for co-founding the National Endowment for Democracy. Plus, Epstein himself once claimed to work for the CIA in the 80’s:
But while Ronald Lauder has a number of tangential ties to Epstein’s network of important associates that makes Lauder appear to be an important figure in Epstein’s background, Robert Maxwell has a far more substantive single tangential tie to Epstein: he was father of Epstein’s key partner in his sex-trafficking ring, Ghislaine Maxwell. And as the article notes, among Robert Maxwell’s many spy exploits as a long-time Mossad asset includes his role in the selling of the Promis software system:
And it’s Robert Maxwell’s history with the whole Promis affair — a story that appeared to involve the US government knowingly facilitating the sale of powerful database integration software sold to governments with spyware implanted by both the Mossad and the CIA — that makes the reports about Epstein’s relationship with Ehud Barak’s company Reporty so fascinating. Epstein quietly financed Barack’s investment in starting Reporty back in 2014, which was only revealed last month. So Epstein was a secret investor in a company that was integrated civilian telecommunications with a nation’s emergency telecom infrastructure. It’s not exactly like Promis. And it’s unclear how much sensitive information Reporty has access to as a part of providing its service. But if being connected to a nation’s emergency telecom infrastructure has intelligence applications it seems like Reporty would be very well placed to surreptitiously gather intelligence. Like Promis. And like Promis, Reporty appears to have the endorsement of the US national security establishment:
“Reporty’s team is no stranger to the world of operational security and technology. The company’s founder and CEO Amir Elichai formerly led an elite unit in the Israel Defense Forces and comes with a background in venture capital projects. He brings with him Pinchas Buchris, who has served in the past at the Ministry of Defense as its director. Bucharis also commanded the IDF’s signals intelligence unit 8200. Their VP for business development Lital Leshem joins the team with experience in the IDF’s operations branch. The company also has a strong set of tech minds, with VP for technology Alex Dizengoff coming from the Security Services’ Cyber unit and Yoni Yatsun, a veteran of the startup scene who is responsible for developing the navigation algorithms that are at the heart of the apps.”
The former Israeli Ministry of Defense director and the commander of the IDF’s signals intelligence unit 8200. That’s quite a series of resumes for a company that provides instant communications between users and authorities and sends audio, video, and location services. And emergency infrastructure it connects to include technology for monitoring and as of 2016 it was function in 160 countries. That sounds like the kind of technology that has plenty of dual use applications:
But there’s one government that appears to be particularly excited about this technology: the US government. And not just Reporty’s technology. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology Directorate (DHS S&T)-backed NextGen First Responder Technologies program also gave a grant to Tel Aviv-based SayVU Technologies Ltd which is developing a similar app that would have the capacity of sending audio back to authorities without even activating the app. Again, it seems like there’s a lot of dual use capability here:
That’s all part of why so many are noticing parallels between the Epstein saga and the Promis affair. Epstein clearly has deep ties to the Israeli political establishment and figures with close ties to Israeli intelligence. He also clearly has deep ties to the US political establishment and figures with close ties to US intelligence. Along with associations with powerful people across the world. Powerful people he was apparently tasked with putting in compromising situations for blackmail purposes. So who, of all those associates, were the people Epstein was working for vs the people he was hustling for the blackmail materials? That’s still unclear, but it’s looking more and more like the people he was ultimately working for in both the US and Israel hailed from the right-wing. So was he working for a government? Multiple governments? Or a private network of (largely right-wing) people with deep government connections?
The FBI just released a trove of old documents related to child sex-trafficking case with possible intelligence connections. But it’s not about the Jeffrey Epstein case. Instead, it’s a cache of old documents that were posted yesterday online on the FBI’s “The Vault” website about “The Finders” case. That’s the case involving a group of children, aged 2–6, discovered by police in February of 1987 under the care of two adults. The children were covered in insect bites and showed signs of being kept in conditions considered child abuse. It was then discovered the adults were members of a commune, the Finders, and the mothers of these children were members of the commune. Investigators initially found signs of child sexual abuse and suspicions grew that the Finders were involved with Satanism and child pornography. But within a couple of weeks the investigation was wound down and no charges were pressed.
It was a disturbing story out of the gate. But in 1993 it got extremely disturbing. In December of 1993, the Washington Times (owned by another cult, the Unification Church) published a story about alleged ties between the Finders has ties to the CIA. Potentially very close ties. According to the report, in April of 1987, a US Customs agent who participated in the initial raids on The Finders’ properties discovered that the CIA had sent employees to a company called Future Enterprises for computer training in the 80s. A later Customs report says the CIA “admitted to owning the Finders organization as a front for a domestic computer training operation but that it had ’gone bad.” That agent sent those documents to members of Congress and urged an investigation. As we’ll see in the second article excerpt below, the CIA vociferously denied that Future Enterprises was a CIA front, while acknowledging that, yes, the CIA had been sending employees to Future Enterprises Inc. for computer training in the 1980s. Even more disturbing is that the vice president of Future Enterprises confirmed that the company trained CIA employees in computer use and continued to do so to that day. To this day, the case of the Finders, why the investigation was so rapidly closed without charges, and what exactly its relationship was with the CIA remains unresolved, making it a case eerily familiar to the Epstein child sex-trafficking network.
So the FBI just data dumped 324 pages of documents related to that case. Why now? That’s unclear, but it’s worth noting that the first document has a stamp indicating it’s from early November of 1993 and a number of other documents appear to be from around that time. That’s interesting not only because it was about a month before the Washington Times made that explosive December 1993 report about the CIA ties to the Finders, but also because the date of this data dump (10/25/2019) is almost exactly 25 years (a week away from 26 years) after that early November 1993 period. So if these are the kinds of documents that were legally required to be publicly disclosed 25 years later, this would be the last week to release them because it will be 26 years later next week. So perhaps that explains the timing. Although not all of the documents are from November 1993. Some are from 1987, some from later in the 90s. And quite a few that make references to the CIA’s ties to various companies associated with the Finders (take a look at page 307 on General Scientific Corporation, a company the Finders apparently tried to infiltrate). The FBI has given no explanation or context for this dump so we’re left to guess.
But since this case is now back in the news, and disturbingly topical given the ongoing Epstein ‘suicide’ mystery, here’s a couple of article that highlight how disturbing this case was as it unfolded. First, here’s a February 13th, 1987, article about the FBI dropping the investigation into the Finders just one week after six children in the cult were discovered in conditions that suggested child abuse:
“The case of the Finders–and the missing mothers–made headlines last week when the youngsters were found in a Tallahassee park in the custody of two men. Police said the children were dirty, hungry and covered with insect bites. They charged the men with child abuse. Later, they said a doctor‘s report indicated more than one youngster showed signs of sexual abuse.”
Dirty and hungry children covered in insect bites and showing signs of sexual abuse. That was the initial discovery. This immediately turned into an avalanche of speculation about satanism and child pornography. Note this was during America’s ‘Satanic Panic’ period, which probably partly explains the Satanism allegations. But there was still an abundance of immediate evidence that these kids were being held in abusive conditions and growing up in a cult, and yet a week later the investigation was close and the group was absolved of all sexual abuse claims. It’s that extremely attenuated investigation that fueled speculation this group was someone being protected:
And note how the spokeswoman for the group, Diane Sherwood, claimed to have been a group member since 1971. It gives us an idea of when the group started:
It’s worth noting that Sherwood is referenced in the new FBI data dump. For example, on page 309 of the dump, there’s a number of notes going back to the early 80’s about Sherwood and another individual contacting people in Panama back in 1980. Someone in Miami appears to have asked the legal attache for Panama (Legat, Panama, in the documents) that year, although the context is unclear because so much is redacted. But there are a number of redacted references involving the CIA in that section of the data dump.
Ok, now here’s a December 17, 1993, Associated Press report that gives the CIA’s response to the explosive Washington Times report a week earlier alleging that the Finders’ company that the CIA was sending employees to for computer training was a CIA front company. The CIA doesn’t deny sending employees to the company, Future Enterprises, but it does denying it was a CIA front company. And the vice president of Future Enterprises claims the CIA is was still sending employees there to be trained. But according to police reports and Customs agent documents from 1987, the CIA admitted it was an agency front company at the time:
“Christian said Friday the CIA sent some employees to a company called Future Enterprises Inc. for computer training in the 1980s. But the spokesman said the CIA did not know about any connections between the company and the Finders and added the company “was in no sense a CIA front or ever owned or operated by anyone for the CIA.””
So the CIA definitely did send its employees to a company associated with the Finders in the 80s. No one denies that. What is denied by the agency is that the company was a CIA front company or that the agency knew about any connection between the Finders and the company at all. Interestingly, the vice president of the company also indicated the CIA was still sending its employees there for ‘computer training’ in 1993:
But according to police documents from the initial 1987 investigation into the child abuse case, the CIA confirmed to them at the time that it was sending its people to “a Finders Corp., Future Enterprises, for training in computer operations.” But the most explosive claim was that the CIA admitted to a Customs agent that the agency owned “the Finders organization as a front for a domestic computer training operation but that it had ’gone bad.”. The agent sent these documents to members of Congress and pushed for an investigation:
So that whole potential mega-scandal is what the FBI’s quiet Friday data dump was all about. Was the timing of the dump done out of an obligation to make the documents public after 25 years or was there some other basis? At this point we have no idea. We just know that we never actually learned, decades later, what the case of the Finders was all about. Much like the ‘Franklin coverup’ and the Epstein case. Which, taken together, is a pretty powerful lesson about how easily even mega scandals can fall down the memory hole.
In related news, the Miami Herald, which led the way towards the reopening of the Epstein investigation due to its dogged investigative reporting on the story, is trying to raise $1.5 million over the next three years to double its investigative journalism team. Keep in mind that the Finders case started in Florida so hopefully this FBI data dump gives that expanded investigative team the kinds of leads that could pull this story out of the memory hole.
Here’s an interesting update on the investigation of the mysterious ‘suicide’ of Jeffrey Epstein in his jail cell despite being on suicide watch at the time: criminal charges are now being filed against the two guards who were tasked with watching Epstein on the night of his death. The officers, Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, are facing charges of making false records and conspiring to interfere with the functions of the federal prison. The charges were unsealed on the same day the Senate Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing on the federal Bureau of Prisons, so this case unsurprisingly came up during that hearing. When asked by Senator Lindsey Graham whether or not investigators are looking into whether or not a criminal conspiracy was behind Epstein’s death, the top prisoner administrator in the US, Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, answered that, “the FBI is involved and they are looking at criminal enterprise, yes.” So, while it’s hard to have much confidence in federal investigations involving anything related to Epstein at this point, it sounds like there’s at least an investigation into whether or not Epstein had ‘help’ with his ‘suicide’:
“The nation’s top prison administrator, Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, told the committee that FBI agents investigating Jeffrey Epstein’s death are looking at the possibility that a “criminal enterprise” played a role in his suicide.”
Well, at least there’s an investigation, although we don’t really know how serious the investigation is and if it ends with these two guards it’s hard to imagine it was a very serious investigation.
And note how the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee appeared to be aggressively raising the prospect of a conspiracy to kill Epstein, with Ted Cruz also raising the prospects of a planned murder to silence Epstein. On the one hand, it’s good to see aggressive question of this case given the absurdity of the events that led up to Epstein’s death and the body of evidence that that he was an intelligence-connected/protected individual. But on the other hand, we can’t forget that in the modern political and social era for the United States, where movements like QAnon thrive on speculative nonsense, it’s not like we can expect honest aggressive investigations from the Republicans. And it’s not like we’re going to need a conclusion to this investigation for the right-wing to arrive at the conclusion that Bill and Hillary Clinton were behind it all. For example...:
“Donald Trump, president of the United States of America, retweeted two tweets promoting the baseless conspiracy theory that former secretary of state Hillary Clinton was involved in the apparent suicide of billionaire and alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein on Saturday.”
That was President Trump himself on the day of Epstein’s death. He wasn’t wasting any time trying to solidify that narrative. Of course this is exactly what we should have expected from Trump, especially given that Trump himself would actually be one of the prime suspects in any sort of criminal conspiracy to silence Epstein. He’s potentially got the motive and the certainly has the means. But it’s also what we should have expected even if Trump wasn’t a suspect. It’s what he does.
So we’ll see what, if anything, comes from the investigation of these guards. But it’s worth noting that these two guards were reportedly offered a plea deal last week and rejected it:
“Federal prosecutors offered a plea deal to two correctional officers responsible for guarding Jeffrey Epstein on the night of his death, but the officers have declined the offer, people familiar with the matter told The Associated Press.”
Is that a sign of confidence in their upcoming defense? Or a sign that these guards really don’t want to piss off their co-conspirators? We don’t know. Although it’s worth noting that one of the two guards wasn’t a regular corrections officer and was apparently pressed into service that night to deal with staffing shortfalls:
“Serene Gregg, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 3148, told The Washington Post that one of the people assigned to Epstein’s unit wasn’t a correctional officer, but a fill-in who had been pressed into service because of staffing shortfalls.”
So one of these two guards was a fill-in who had been pressed into service due to staffing shortfalls. Was that part of their reasoning for not taking the plea deal? A confidence that their best defense that these are the kinds of mistakes that should be expected from a massive staff shortage? It’s the kind of explanation that would be consistent with this really being an unforced egregious staffing error. Of course, having a fill-in on the night of Epstein’s death is also consistent with this being a conspiracy to ensure he died and a desire to get just the ‘right’ person in there to manage it.
It’s also worth noting the comments about the video cameras likely only being in common areas and not showing what was happening in Epstein’s cell:
It is true that cameras pointing into cells can’t necessarily prevent suicides and will just end up recording them. But that brings us to one of the other major anomalies in this case: the cameras that showed who came and went from Epstein’s cell happened to be broken:
“The two cameras were within view of the Manhattan jail cell where he was found dead on Aug. 10. A source earlier told Reuters two jail guards failed to follow a procedure overnight to make separate checks on all prisoners every 30 minutes.”
The two cameras within view of Epstein’s cell just happened to be malfunctioning that night. What a coincidence. One of so very many coincidences in this case. So we’ll see if the FBI manages to discover a broader criminal conspiracy behind Epstein’s death or if the trail ends with the two low-level guards who happened to enable the one thing so very many powerful people desperately wanted to happen.
I couldn’t help but notice that a Michael Baden has been hired by the Epstein family to investigate the circumstances of Epstein’s ‘suicide’. Could this be anyone but THE Michael Baden who has been involved in any number of shenanigans noted on these programs over the years? See the AP report from November 19th for more details.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-homicide-autopsy-michael-baden.html
It happened: Ghislaine Maxwell is under under arrest by US authorities nearly one the one year anniversary of Jeffrey Epstein’s 2019 arrest following a Grand Jury indictment. She was apprehended by the FBI in Bradford, New Hampshire, so either Maxwell — who was hiding out in France according to some reports — felt safe traveling to the US for whatever reason or there was some sort of agreement reached that brought her back to the US but it sounds like prosecutors have been keeping a close eye on her whereabouts since Epstein’s arrest.
So that was a major development in the Jeffrey Epstein case, but it’s the particular US Attorney’s Office unit that’s going to be covering this case that’s been raising the most eyebrows: Southern District of New York (SDNY) is going to have unopposed jurisdiction, which isn’t unexpected. It’s the fact that it’s the SDNY’s Public Corruption Unit handling the case that has so many wondering about the direction the case could go because it’s a hint at possible high-profile indictments of politicians or other public figures. High-profile figures that could hypothetically included people like President Trump or former President Bill Clinton.
Adding to the intrigue is the fact that this indictment was signed by acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss, the replacement for Geoffrey Berman who was recently fired by President Trump after Bill Barr asked him to resign and he initially refused to do so. As we’ll see, Strauss has insisted that Berman’s firing had nothing to do with the Epstein case, which sounds more plausible when you factor in the myriad of other Trump-related investigations Berman was overseeing. In other words, there could be all sorts of different reasons Trump wanted Berman fired, so if the Epstein investigation was a factor in the firing of Berman it was probably just one of many factors. Still, with this case unfolding in the middle of an election year and President Trump’s electoral prospects looking increasingly tenuous there’s no shortage of reasons to speculate about what the Trump administration has in mind for this investigation:
““I worked at SDNY and did sex trafficking cases,” noted former federal and state prosecutor and current CNN legal analyst Elie Honig via Twitter. “They do NOT run out of Public Corruption – unless there is some potential angle against a public official.””
Might there a potential angle against a public official in a case involving a sex trafficking ring catering to the rich and powerful? Let’s hope so. But even if politicians or other powerful figures do end up facing indictments this case, with Bill Barr’s Justice Department running the case it’s hard to imagine it’s not going to be highly partisan selective justice:
Although there another possibility: there’s an investigation into the original now notorious sweetheart 2008 plea deal for Epstein:
Part of what makes that scenario seem plausible is the fact that an investigation into the original Epstein investigation represents an opportunity for the Justice Department to address the long-standing stench of corruption in this case without persuing any of the rich and powerful perpetrators.
So we’ll see who else is facing an investigation. But given that this all happened shortly after the scandalous firing of Geoffrey Berman — the figure overseeing this and many other cases involving Trump — it’s no surprise that Berman’s replacement, Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss, felt the need to repeatedly stress that thee two events are completely unrelated:
“On Thursday, Strauss said the timing of Maxwell’s arrest was “not at all” related to Trump firing Berman.”
Not all related. It’s completely a coincidence that Berman was scandalously fired less than two weeks before the initiation of a historically politically potent legal preceding that represents both enormous peril and power for Trump. And maybe the firing of Berman was completely unrelated to this case. There were plenty of other cases he was working on that Trump would have been freaked out about.
But as the next article reminds us, the temptation to use this case for political gain is going to be increasingly irresistible for Trump simply because the Republican voting base is now almost entirely consumed by far right conspiracy theories that have Satanic networks of elite pedophiles at the heart of their narrative which is why QAnon figures keep winning Republican primaries this year even when Trump endorses their opponent:
“Boebert is one of several recent Republican primary winners to endorse the QAnon conspiracy. Oregon GOP Senate candidate Joe Rae Perkins said in his victory speech, “I stand with Q and the team.” And Marjorie Taylor Greene, a congressional candidate in Georgia, posted a video in 2017 saying she supported QAnon and wanted to “take this global cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles out,” referencing some of the theory’s fringe and unfounded beliefs.”
And that’s the political dynamic that the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell is going to be taking place in: the lead prosecutor on the case was just pushed out and Trump and the GOP are facing a primary revolt by a voting base that is enthralled with visions of diabolical liberal Satanic elites conspiring to destroy them and clamoring for Trump to unleash ‘the Storm’, mass arrest all of the non-Trumpian politicians, and send them off to Gitmo.
One of the more grimly interesting things to watch over the last couple of months has been seeing who ends up filling the chaos void left by Donald Trump’s departure from office. The daily guarantee that some sort of insane story was going to erupt, or a previous insane story was going to get more insane, was no longer a guarantee. Then again, it’s not like there was a shortage of left-over crazy for the party to work with. And, sure enough, the GOP disappoint the chaos gods:
There’s a growing investigation into a new possible GOP sex ring. An underage GOP sex ring. We don’t actually know it’s a ring yet. What we do know is that the Trump Justice Department opened up an investigation into Florida Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz in 2020 and it’s an ongoing investigation. And it’s not just about Gaetz. The sex-trafficking charges appear to be focused on Gaetz’s long-time close friend Joel Greenberg. Greenberg was recently elected to the office of Seminole county tax collector and part of the investigation involves Greenberg allegedly using state driver license databases to look up records on the underage girls Greenberg and Gaetz had “sugar-daddy” (sex for money/gifts) relationships with.
Crucially, the more details we learn about this investigation, the more hints was get that Greenberg and Gaetz may have been running a much larger operation involving other political clients. So it’s not just an underage sex-trafficking operation for Gaetz and Greenberg but an underage sex-trafficking operation targeting politicians, with all of the blackmail leverage that would come from such an operation. In other words, another Jeffrey Epstein-style operation.
And that brings us to another interesting aspect about this story: the sex-trafficking the federal investigators are looking at reportedly took place in 2017, in Florida. And that brings us to two interesting Epstein-related fun facts about this case: Florida was one of Epstein’s primary bases of operation, with Epstein owning a large mansion in Palm Beach. It was also Florida where Epstein received the now-notorious kid glove treatment by authorities back in 2009 following his initial investigation. As we’ll see in the third excerpt below, it was Palm Beach Sheriff Ric Bradshaw who oversaw the enforcement of the Epstein’s punishment (or lack thereof), and in 2019 a Florida Sen. Lauren Book claimed she was receiving harassment from Bradshaw’s political supporters after she wrote a letter asking governor Ron DeSantis to authorize a probe into how Epstein was permitted to leave the Palm Beach County Jail and spend much of his 2008–2009 incarceration in an office in West Palm Beach.
So while we don’t yet have any direct connections to Jeffrey Epstein’s documented political espionage sex-trafficking operation. But boy are there a lot of circumstantial connections. Which is why we have to ask: was Matt Gaetz’s an aspiring Jeffrey Epstein? If so, how big was this operation and who are the extortable clients?:
““There are a lot of people who are running for cover because there may have been more folks involved with it,” Planas told TPM. “Tallahassee, especially during session, is gossip haven, so never know what’s true or not, but in my experience, 80 percent of the rumors there are true.””
If people are running for cover in Florida. Are they cynically running for cover over suspicions that the sex-tracking goes beyond Gaetz and Greenberg? Or do they know it goes beyond Gaetz and Greenberg? Greenberg was creating fake IDs of these girls and Gaetz would reportedly ask the girl he had sex with to ask their friends if others would be willing to participate. That sure sounds like a possible sex ring:
The established fact aren’t a great look for Gaetz and Greenberg. At best they can claim they had innocent sugar-daddy relationships with what appears to be a large number of ‘sugar-babies’. That’s kind of the best excuse they have: Gaetz and Greenberg both amassed what amounted to large personal sugar-baby harems. Is that the situation we’re looking at here? A tale of out of control sex-addictions fueled by Gaetz’s and Greenberg’s co-dependency? Again, that’s the best case scenario here.
And then there’s the worst-case scenario. The ‘Epstein’ scenario. So let’s hope investigators are looking into what, if any, relationship Gaetz and Greenberg may have had with Epstein in recent years. Because it’s not like Gaetz and Epstein wouldn’t have had plenty of opportunities to cross paths. Again, the trafficking under investigation took place in 2017 and the Epstein investigation wasn’t reopened until December of 2018.
Also note the “cryptocurrency business” Greenberg was working on. A business that involved purchasing cryptocurrency but also purchasing servers to ‘mine’ more cryptocurrency. Keep in mind that Bitcoin mining — not purchasing bitcoins but actually mining them — is one of the methods or obtaining bitcoins without ever having to give up our ID or exchange cash. You get to obtain ‘clean’ highly anonymous coins generated by the system. If you’re going to run a political sex-trafficking (and possible blackmail) operation, have a steady supply of bitcoins would probably be handy. Especially bitcoins ‘mined’ by Greenberg’s own company.
It’s this constellation of data points that forces us to not only ask whether or not Gaetz and Greengerg were trying to create their own Epstein-style operation, but also ask if Epstein actually gave them advice:
“But things ramped up with his first grand jury indictment, in mid-June, accusing the then-tax collector of posing as a student and accusing a school employee, a political opponent of his, of sexual misconduct with a student. Greenberg also allegedly made a fake Twitter account that impersonated his opponent and that, according to the indictment, “represented that the school employee was a segregationist and in favor of white supremacy.””
Note the specific incident that led to this investigation: in mid-June of 2020, Greenberg was indicted for posing as a student and accusing a school employee, a political opponent of his, of sexual misconduct with a student and white supremacy. The white supremacy charge is particularly interesting given the obvious projection at work with Greenberg’s sexual misconduct allegation.
So if Greenberg hadn’t done that, this sex-trafficking ring might still be operating:
Soon after, we get new indictments against Greenberg that basically amount to constructing false identities for the underage teens he’s accused of trafficking. This was taking place between May and November of 2017, according to the indictment...when Epstein would have been available for any tips on how to set up an underage sex-trafficking ring:
The large cryptocurrency purchases, as well as ‘mining’ servers to ‘mine more cryptocurrency, only add to the circumstantial evidence that Greenberg was interesting in a serious operation. An operation that could operate at scale. We don’t know that this was the intended use of the cryptocurrency business but it’s hard to ignore the obvious applications a large pool of cryptocurrency would have for a sex-trafficking/blackmail ring:
Finally, note the Roger Stone tie in to this: In July of 2017, right when the trafficking was alleged to be taking place, Greenberg posts of photo on Twitter with Gaetz and Roger Stone. How close was the Florida-based Stone to this operation? We don’t know at this point, but we do know they were at least chummy enough with each other for that photo to be taken:
And when we start asking about the relationship between figures like Stone with Gaetz and Greenberg, that raises the much larger question of the relationship between trafficking networks of this nature — with political clients — and real political power. Like the questions about the relationship between the Epstein operation and real political power. Questions that were once again raised in 2019 after Florida senator Lauren Book claims she faced harassment for simply asking for a probe into why Epstein received such a sweetheart deal. Not only from the federal prosecutors but also the Palm Beach police task with watching him:
“Epstein, who has pleaded not guilty, roamed the halls of power before dozens of underage girls accused him of sexual assaults. After preparing a 50-plus-page indictment on sex trafficking charges, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida shelved the charges and allowed Epstein to plead guilty to minor charges in state court. That’s how Epstein ended up in the Palm Beach County Jail — and then on work release approved by Sheriff Bradshaw.”
Why did the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida shelve the earlier charges and allow Epstein to plead guilty to minor charges in Florida state court back in 2009? It’s still a mystery. With the related mystery of was Epstein was given such incredibly lax treatment by the Palm Beach police during this period. Note that this is the same police department that leads the law enforcement detail assisting the Secret Service during Trump’s visits to Mar-a-Lago. It was a politically sensitive investigation for a lot of reasons:
And when Florida senator Lauren Book asked the governor to investigate this lax treatment by the Palm Beach police, she reportedly got inundated with threats. This harassment reportedly happened on the same day Epstein was found injured in his cell:
It’s a reminder that the story of Jeffrey Epstein has never even remotely been adequately told. It remains a giant sordid mystery. The more we learn, more we learn how little we know. Which is exactly the kind of history that should raise questions about whether or not the Greenberg/Gaetz operation was an attempt to reboot whatever Epstein was doing on these decades.
It might seem hard to think of a worse look for Gaetz at this point. But it’s actually quite easy. All we have to do is point out the following for the December of 2017, which is right after the period when the trafficking allegedly took place (and was probably still taking place): Gaetz was the lone vote in the House of Representatives to vote against an anti-human trafficking bill:
“On Dec. 19, Gaetz cast the lone “no” vote on a widely bipartisan human trafficking bill that passed unanimously through the U.S. Senate in September before sailing through the House by a count of 418 to 1.”
It was quite a brave vote: standing up against the tyranny of big government’s heavy hand abusively cracking down on sex trafficking. No one else, even in his own party of reprobates, could bring themselves to take such a bold stand. Gaetz even went on to call for the abolition of the Department of Education and EPA during his Facebook Live defense of his vote. Matt Gaetz clearly cares about the kids:
So as we can see, if Gaetz wasn’t preparing for a secret life as an Epstein-esque sex-trafficking, he missed in calling. The guy was like born for this. Well, sort of. Because if we’re going to be remain true to the ‘Gaetz/Greenberg as Epstein’ analogy, Greenberg is probably the one closer to Epstein in this since he appears to have taken a more direct role in soliciting and trafficking these girls. Gaetz is clearly involved with not necessarily running it, which would make Gaetz out to be more of a Ghislaine Maxwell-like figure. Which is obviously still not a great analogy for Gaetz. Or Maxwell.
Is there a political dark money angle to the Matt Gaetz under-age sex-trafficking ring investigation? That’s the intriguing possibility raised in the following TPM piece that connects a number of dots between the Gaetz story — which almost sounds like an aspiring Jeffrey Epstein-like operation — to a local Florida story about a federal investigation into the improper use of dark money campaign donations to finance a number of sham nuisance candidates run to help confuse voters and strip away votes from Democrats. We learned that Florida state senator Frank Artiles was a key figure in orchestrating the sham candidacies because he’s come under federal investigation, but we never really learned who else was involved with financing that operation and its implied in the charging documents that Artiles was the true ultimate source of the funds.
So how does the Gaetz investigation relate to Frank Artiles’s sham candidacies? Well, it turns out the federal investigation into Gaetz includes a discussion he had about running a third-party candidate in the same district of Republican state senator Jason Brodeur, which is basically the same thing Artiles was doing. And an independent candidate, Jestine Iannotti, did indeed eventually run Brodeur’s district. Iannotti ran without a party affiliation but ran a well-financed ad campaign that portrayed her as Democrat. One of the sham candidates we know for sure was being financed by this dark money operation was Alexis Rodriguez. We know this because Artiles reportedly bragged about being paid to run an election night party in November 2020. Jason Brodeur’s election night party.
Taken together, it’s certainly enough to suspect that Gaetz was at least aware of the Artiles sham candidacy dark money operation. Which raises the obvious question of whether or not this sham candidacy operation was ultimately another Gaetz operation and whether or not the sex-trafficking operation was involved with the same pool of dark money:
“But in charging documents, prosecutors suggested that Artiles, who is accused of paying Rodriguez $44,000 to run, wasn’t the true source of those funds.”
That’s the crux of the mystery: we already had strong reasons to suspect someone was paying Artiles. And now we we learn Gaetz was discussing exactly this kind of scheme for Jason Brodeur’s race and Artiles was bragging about his scheme at Brodeur’s election night party, well, now we have strong reason to suspect that mystery person may be Gaetz. The guy was like the Energizer Bunny of sleazy schemes:
Finally, note the reality that while we know these dark money groups, Our Florida and The Truth, reported spending large sums of money in 2020, we’re only assuming that money was spent on the mailer campaigns. We technically don’t actually get to know how that money was spent:
So was Gaetz ultimately behind this dark money operation to pay off sham nuisance candidates to run and then pay for their advertising? At the same time he was operating some sort of political sex-trafficking operation that sure looks like it could have been a Jeffrey Epstein-like operation that involves the generation of political blackmail material? If so, were the finances of these operations co-mingled? It’s another aspect of this story that potentially ties into not just the sex-trafficking allegations but the broader question of just how much ‘dark money’ is actually being spent on political expenses and how much is it being used as a money laundering operation to cover for completely unrelated expenses. Keep in mind that Gaetz’s sex-trafficking co-conspirator, Joel Greenberg, was also running a crypotcurrency company and amassed large sums of bitcoins. What kinds of new money laundering possibilities get opened up when you can start combining the US’s dark money laws with, for example, bitcoin political contributions? Let’s hope investigators are asking these kinds of questions because it sure looks like Gaetz and Greenberg have been asking and answering these kinds of questions themselves for a number of years now.
As the House Democrats continue their push to force Steve Bannon to comply with a congressional subpoena over the role Bannon played in the lead up to the January 6 Capitol insurrection, Rolling Stone just came out with a rather stunning new report on one of Bannon’s extra-curricular activities following his departure from the Trump White House in the fall of 2017: hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein. Yep, it turns out Epstein and Bannon became remarkably chummy after the two were reportedly introduced in December of 2017.
Recall how we’ve received hints of the close relationship between Bannon and Epstein before. In 2019, the New York Times published a piece on Epstein that included the detail that Epstein invited the reporter, James B. Stewart, over to have dinner. Bannon and author Michael Wolff would both reportedly be in attendance. But based on this latest report, it sounds like the relationship between Epstein and Bannon went much deeper. Epstein apparently viewed Bannon as his ticket back into respectable society. Yep!
More intriguingly, after losing his position on the White House National Security Council, Bannon was apparently quite interested in Epstein as a possible source for intelligence. So we have to ask? Why was access to foreign intelligence so important to Steve Bannon at this point? Sure, it not doubt would have been quite interesting to have access to the kind of intelligence stream he would have had as a member of the National Security Council. But why would it be of such interest that Bannon was willing to befriend someone as publicly toxic as Epstein during a time when Bannon was obviously under a high level of public scrutiny. Hanging out with Epstein comes with costs, but Bannon was more than happy to pay those costs. Why? What was the intelligence Bannon was so interested in?
There’s also the basic question of whether or not Bannon was interested in the other major intelligence-related aspect of being friends with Epstein: the access to sexual blackmail services. Did Bannon have any interest in exploiting the already-sexually blackmailed? Is he planning on setting up his own blackmail network? And how about Bannon’s extremely close relationship with Chinese billionaire-in-exile Guo Wengui that was also being developed during this period. Did Guo have any interest in Epstein’s services? Well, as the following article notes, Guo allegedly used prostitutes and hidden cameras to compromise powerful figures as a means of clout and control according to lawsuits filed in Toronto.
So following Bannon’s exit from the White House in the fall of 2017, he made two new best friends. Both of whom ran sexual blackmail networks. It’s the kind of revelation that raises a number of question. Including major questions about what sorts of Bannon-related sexual blackmail operations are still operating:
“A former Epstein associate, who spoke to Rolling Stone anonymously for fear of professional reprisal, recalled being introduced to Bannon at Epstein’s Manhattan home. “He was the main person that [Epstein] would brag about to literally everyone. It wasn’t a secret,” this person said. Epstein “loved having this ‘one famous person’ around that he would talk about and introduce to everyone. Almost like [he was] using Bannon to get more people to accept him. That’s my sense.””
You know you’re in a rough social situation when bragging about your new friendship with Steve Bannon in order to get people to accept you. But that’s the situation Jeffrey Epstein was clearly in when he was introduced to Bannon in December of 2017, months after Bannon was kicked out of his position in the White House as a member of Trump’s national security council. Bannon and Epstein were suddenly news best friends.
So what was in it for Bannon? Intelligence, according to these sources. Bannon saw Epstein as a possible source of intelligence. Again, this was just months after Bannon lost his National Security Council seat, meaning he lost his direct access to all that intelligence. Epstein, as a someone thought to act as a middleman between US intelligence and foreign services, was a potential third-party intelligence source for Bannon. A wildly scandalous third-party intelligence source. That’s part of what makes this relationship between Bannon and Epstein so interesting: if Epstein’s alleged intelligence connections really was the primary force drawing Bannon to Epstein, Bannon must REALLY want access to intelligence. Epstein was already plenty radioactive in December of 2017. It’s not like there was no cost to associating with him. Yet Bannon did it. He desperately wanted access to intelligence. It’s a dark hint at the scope of his ambitions:
And then there’s the fascinating questions raised about a possible relationship between Epstein and Guo Wengui: Both men reportedly relied on sexual blackmail. Steve Bannon just can’t stop hanging out with specialists in sexual blackmail:
So in addition to asking the dark question of how much sexual blackmail material Steve Bannon is sitting on, we also have to ask if he obtained it from Epstein or Guo. We also have the general questions of just how extensive is Guo’s sexual blackmail operation and did Guo and Epstein ever meet and swap notes. Because based on everything we know about Guo’s operations, there’s nothing indicating that any sexual blackmail operations would have come to a halt. This is presumably an ongoing sexual blackmail enterprise, after all.
So is Bannon’s relationship with Epstein ultimately all about exploiting Epstein’s sexual blackmail networks? Or was it really Epstein’s general intelligence connections? We’re forced to speculate, but it’s worth recalling one of the curious aspects of the initial decision to install Bannon on Trump’s National Security Council: that decision came with a rule-change that gave Bannon access to the kind of intelligence usually reserved for generals:
“But the defining moment for Mr. Bannon came Saturday night in the form of an executive order giving the rumpled right-wing agitator a full seat on the “principals committee” of the National Security Council — while downgrading the roles of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence, who will now attend only when the council is considering issues in their direct areas of responsibilities. It is a startling elevation of a political adviser, to a status alongside the secretaries of state and defense, and over the president’s top military and intelligence advisers.”
A full seat on the “principals committee”. That was surprise gift to Bannon just a little over a week into the Trump administration in a move that elevated Bannon to the same level of then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. But in reality, Bannon was basically at the top of the pile in terms of Trump administration influence. In other words, he had access to everything:
So given that Bannon had around 10 months of direct access to the highest levels of US intelligence, and suddenly went running to Jeffrey Epstein to regain that intelligence access months after losing it, we have to ask: just what was it that the intelligence community was talking about that Steve Bannon was so interested in following? The guy was on a mission to foment a global white nationalist revolution, so it’s not hard to imagine that he was have a keen interest in intelligence. But we still have to wonder what exactly he was interested in. Or to be more specific, just how many other coups and fascist revolutions around the world was Bannon working on during his term in the White House? And now we have to also ask just how extensively was Bannon planning on having sexual blackmail play a role in these plans? Pretty extensively, based on available evidence.
We just got another shocking update in the ongoing Jeffrey Epstein saga. A shockingly predictable update: days after Denise George, the attorney general of the Virgin Islands, filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase accusing the bank of knowingly turning a bind eye towards Epstein’s use of the bank to run his sex-trafficking network, governor Albert Bryan fired George.
No reason for the firing has been publicly given, although we’re being asked to believe that Bryan wasn’t even aware of the suit against JPMorgan when he made the decision. But as we’re going to see, it turns out that not only does Bryan have a personal tie to the investigation but so did former governor John deJongh Jr. That’s because George’s suit also charges Epstein’s Southern Trust Company with lying to V.I. authorities about the nature of the company’s activities in order to obtain highly favorable tax status. Epstein’s companies first achieved that tax status back in 1999, granted him a 90% exemption from V.I. income taxes and a 100% exemption from gross receipts and excise taxes.
That special tax status was granted again to Southern Trust Company, one of companies George charges was used as a cover for Epstein’s illegal activities, in 2014, five years after that 2009 conviction, when John deJongh Jr. was governor. It turns out deJongh’s wife, Cecile, served as office manager for Southern Trust for over 20 years.
It also turns out that it was Albert Bryan who was head of the Economic Development Commission (EDC), the tiny government agency tasked with identifying firms deserving of the special tax breaks, at the time of that 2014 decision to grant that status to Southern Trust. So both the current and former governor of the Virgin Islands could potentially be implicated in any investigations involving Epstein’s use of his private archipelago as a hub for his sex-trafficking activities.
It’s also important to note that this case against JPMorgan filed by George wasn’t the first investigation George conducted into Epstein’s activities on the territory. While it is true that George didn’t open up any investigations into Epstein until after his 2019 ‘suicide’, she did already manage to extract a $105 million settlement from of Epstein estate over its criminal activities.
So, for whatever reason, governor Bryan chose now, days after the opening of George’s suit against JPMorgan, to effectively squash George’s investigations. Although, technically, the suit against JPMorgan is still open and could be pursued by George’s replacement. So we’ll see if that happens. But for now it looks like JP Morgan may have once again dodged culpability for its criminality.
Now, as we’re also going to see, that doesn’t mean JPMorgan has nothing to worry about on the Epstein-front. In fact, there was another case file by another Epstein victim back in November accusing the bank of basically the same charges George was leveling: that the bank knowingly covered-up Epstein’s activities for years.
That case was joined by another lawsuit filed back a second alleged Epstein victim against Deutsche Bank making similar accusations. There are reportedly considerations to combine the two lawsuits into a single class action suit. Oh, and then there’s the fact that Deutsche Bank was already fined $150 million by New York state financial regulator back in July of 2020 for its negligence in dealing with Epstein’s accounts.
All in all, things aren’t looking great for JPMorgan. Except, of course, it could be worse for the financial giant. The cover-up seemingly continues, after all:
“Attorney General Denise George filed a lawsuit in Manhattan last week alleging that the Wall St giant “provided and pulled the levers through which recruiters and victims” of Epstein’s offending were paid in the court filing, according to Bloomberg”
JP Morgan wasn’t just one of the banks Jeffrey Epstein used. It was a key financial component of his human trafficking network. Those damning charges were at the core of the charges brought against the bank by Attorney General Denise George just over a week ago. Until they weren’t. Just days after the suit was filed, Governor Albert Bryan fired George without giving an explanation. It was about as corrupt a look as Bryan could have achieved:
Adding to the corrupt nature of George’s firing is the fact that her suit against JP Morgan came just weeks after George announce that Epstein’s estate agreed to pay $105 million to settle a lawsuit over Epstein’s use of a private archipelago for sex-trafficking. Ms George was engaging in serious Epstein-related prosecutions. Apparently too serious for comfort for some of the V.I. elites:
And as the following AP report points out, George isn’t just accusing JPMorgan of negligence. The bank is accused of knowingly turning a blind eye towards the sex trafficking it knew Epstein was engaged in. Again, keep in mind that Epstein was convicted of sex trafficking in 2009 and yet much of what he’s accused of took place long after 2009. That’s part of the context of these accusations about JPMorgan knowingly turning a blind eye:
““Human trafficking was the principal business of the accounts Epstein maintained at JP Morgan,” the lawsuit reads. “JP Morgan turned a blind eye to evidence of human trafficking over more than a decade because of Epstein’s own financial footprint, and because of the deals and clients that Epstein brought and promised to bring to the bank.””
JP Morgan wasn’t just negligent. It turned a blind eye from sex-trafficking that it knew the bank was being used to facilitate. At least that’s what Ms George charged before getting fired. The bank “knowingly facilitated, sustained, and concealed the human trafficking network operated by Jeffrey Epstein from his home and base in the Virgin Islands”:
And then there’s the fact that the former first lady of the Virgin Islands was the office manager of Epstein’s Southern Trust company, which Ms George alleged was a cover for Epstein’s illegal activities. And it was none other now-governor Bryan who was the chairman of the Economic Development Commission (EDC), the agency that offered the special massive tax breaks to companies as an investment incentive. It’s not a great look for Bryan or deJongh:
And as we’ll see in the following Virgin Island Daily News excerpt, part of what makes those hefty special EDC tax breaks granted to Epstein’s South Trust so scandalous is the fact that, while Epstein’s companies first got the special tax breaks in 1999, it was 2014 when Bryan signed off on the Southern Trust tax breaks. This is five years after Epstein was convicted sex trafficker according to US courts. And then subsequently given a shockingly light sentence for that conviction.
It also turns out Former first lady Cecile de Jongh served as office manager at Epstein’s Southern Trust Company for 20 years. And John deJongh Jr. was governor for Jan 2007-Jan 2015, which puts that 2014 decision by the EDC to extend the special tax breaks to Southern Trust under his watch. Tax breaks that granted Epstein a 90% exemption from V.I. income taxes and a 100% exemption from gross receipts and excise taxes.
On top of it all, the current first lady, Yolanda Bryan, is currently employed by the Economic Development Agency (EDA) — the parent agency of the EDC — in a “Business Ambassador” position created by her husband in 2019 after getting elected. It’s not a great look given the situation.
Oh, and Governor Bryan’s office is claiming that he had no idea George even open the lawsuit against JPMorgan when he made the decision to fire her. Yep, we’re being told that he was simply dissatisfied with her performance on other matters. It was all a coincidence.
That’s the damning context of the sudden firing of the Virgin Islands’ attorney general days after she file a case against one of the most powerful financial institutions on the planet. The kind of context that makes this all look like an out-in-the-open cover-up. The latest out-in-in-open Epstein cover-up the will presumably succeed in keeping whatever is under this rock nice and covered
“Bryan appointed George as attorney general after he took office in 2019, and since January 2020, George has spent considerable time and Justice Department resources pursuing another civil suit against Epstein’s estate, which claimed his attorneys and associates fraudulently obtained tax benefits from the V.I. government through the Economic Development Authority.”
It’s not like George only suddenly focused her prosecutorial eye on Epstein-related crimes. She’s had been putting that civil suit against Epstein’s estate since January of 2020. But it’s only now, days after filing her suit against JPMorgan Chase, that she gets fired. It’s a remarkable turn of events, made all the more remarkable by the claims by Governor Bryan’s spokesperson claiming that Bryan was entirely unaware of that suit against the bank when he made the decision to fire her:
But it’s the relationship between both Bryan and former governor John deJongh Jr with the Virgin Island’s economic regulatory bodies that make Bryan’s firing of George scandalously remarkable. Because as George’s investigations have revealed, the Virgin Islands wasn’t just the site of extensive sex trafficking by Epstein. It was also a wildly generous territory to Epstein, handing his companies preferred tax status for years that gave Epstein a 90% exemption from the Virgin Islands income taxes and a 100% exemption from gross receipts and excise taxes.
It was the Economic Development Commission (EDC) that granted Epstein’s companies that status. It turns out Governor Bryan was serving as chairman of the EDC in 2014 when the agency signed off on giving Epstein’s Southern Trust that status in 2014. Don’t forget that Epstein was already a convicted sex trafficker at their point.
It also happens to be the case that then-Governor John deJongh Jr.‘s wife, first lady Cecil de Jongh, served as office manager for Southern Trust for 20 years. And on top of it all, First lady First Lady Yolanda Bryan is currently employed by the EDA as a “Business Ambassador”, a role created by her husband after he became governor.
So when we read about Bryan’s firing of George just days after she opened up an investigation of JPMorgan, it’s important to keep in mind that Bryan, his predecessor John deJongh, and both their wives are potentially implicated in the sordid story of how Epstein managed to maintain his favored tax status for decades, even after his initial sex trafficking conviction:
Also note that when we read about how Epstein was first granted this tax status back in 1999 from the Industrial Development Commission, that’s the old name for the Economic Development Commission. That’s how long Epstein received special tax status: since 1999. And according to George’s lawsuit, that status was achieved by presenting false information about the nature of the companies’ activities. Like the claim South Trust Company was involved with financial consulting services and biomedical informatics. Recall how Southern Trust was describing in filings as of 2019 as “a DNA database and data mining” company. Also recall Epstein’s disturbing interest both eugenics and impregnating large numbers of women to seed the future of humanity with his DNA. So when we see these charges about Epstein lying to the Virgin Island authorities about the bioinformatic nature of Southern Trust’s business activities, it’s worth keeping in mind that it’s possible Southern Trust was indeed performing some sort of ‘bioinformatic service’ in the sense that it could have been a cover for Epstein’s eugenic schemes:
And when we’re thinking about how George’s investigations could have potentially impacted Virgin Island officials, also note how the V.I. Justice Department apparently failed to uncover or even investigate reports of Epstein’s sex trafficking on the territory. Again, don’t forget that Bryan, as then-head of the EDC, signed off the 2014 granting of special tax status to Southern Trust, which was well after Epstein was found guilty of sex trafficking as a result of the initial federal prosecution that resulted in the kid glove sentence. That’s part of the context of the V.I. Justice Department’s failure to even investigate reports of sex trafficking: at least part of that failure happened long after the US federal government’s prosecution that found Epstein guilty of sex trafficking but then let him off with a slap on the wrist. What kind of relationship with V.I. elites was Epstein able to create after that US federal treatment of Epstein? It’s a question Governor Bryan made irresistible with his firing of George:
Also note how George was, ironically at this point, granted new levels of autonomy when she assumed office in 2019 to combat what Bryan described as a bias in the V.I. government that allowed individuals to use the executive branch “to intimidate, suppress and to exact political retribution on individuals and on other branches of government.” A bias that presumably played a role in protecting Epstein all that those years. Keep in mind that George’s suit wasn’t closed when she was fired. That will be up to the acting attorney general Thomas-Jacobs:
And then there’s the other major piece of context in this story: the $150 billion penalty imposed on Deutsche Bank in 2020 by the New York State Department of Financial Services for for failing to monitor Epstein’s accounts and “to scrutinize the activity in the accounts for the kinds of activity that were obviously implicated by Mr. Epstein’s past.” In other words, Deutsche Bank was fined $150 million for doing exactly what JPMorgan is accused of doing by the now-former attorney general of the Virgin Islands:
And as the following article excerpt from back in November describes, we got two more reasons to suspect there’s a lot more hiding under this rock in the from of two new lawsuits filed by two women, still unnamed, claiming to be Epstein’s former victims. One suit alleges JP Morgan was used in Epstein’s trafficking of the woman from 2006 to 2013, four years after Epstein’s 2009 conviction. The other suit, filed against Deutsche Bank, alleges the bank was used in her exploitation from 2003 to 2018. And it stands to reason that Virgin Island authorities were turning a blind eye towards Epstein’s sex trafficking during that period too, all the way up through 2018.
The two plaintiffs are reportedly interested in combining the suits into a class action lawsuit. So while it’s unclear what the fate of the suit opened by Ms George will ultimately be, JPMorgan still has plenty to worry about. And maybe a lot of other financial institution with Epstein’s skeleton still sitting in their closets:
“The Wall Street Journal reported that several women who fell prey to Epstein’s sexual abuse have filed legal claims against JP Morgan Chase and Deutsche Bank for ignoring warning signs about the late paedophile’s offending.”
It wasn’t just JPMorgan. Epstein had a lot of help from his friends in finance, including his friends at Deutsche Bank. And the governor of the Virgin Islands won’t be able to stop these lawsuits, although that doesn’t mean the cases can’t be stopped . Recall that disturbing July 2020 story about how the family home of the judge assigned another case involving Deutsche Bank and Epstein was attacked by a terminally ill far right individual who had a case pending before the judge, resulting in the death of her son and severe wounding of her husband. This all happened just four days after the judge, Esther Salas, was assigned the Deutsche Bank case. But, for now, these lawsuits are still happening, with JPMorgan facing accusations that the bank was used to facilitate the sexual abuse of one girl from 2006 to 2013. It’s another reminder that the accusations facing these banks are likely to span a number of years because these crimes were taking place for decades and include the years following Epstein’s 2009 conviction:
And then there’s the separate suite filed against Deutsche Bank that by someone who claims she was trafficked by Epstein from 2003 to 2018. Yep, Deutsche Bank was apparently still turning a blind eye towards how it was being used to facilitate Epstein’s sex-trafficking network in 2018. It’s the kind of accusation that, if true, suggests there’s a lot more scandal to be uncovered both in the Virgin Islands and elsewhere:
Finally, note how these two suits could be combined into a class action lawsuit. It’s going to be very interesting to see how that ends up getting thwarted:
So good luck to the two victims, along with all the other victims who could end up benefiting from a combined class action lawsuit. It would be quite an event should it actually succeed in bringing some sort of punishment to Wall Street. Especially if that punishment is a real punishment and not just more ‘cost of doing business with elite-sex-traffickers’ fines.
Following up on that recent piece about Douglas Rushkoff’s new found techno-dystopianism and his observation that the apocalyptic dehumanizing mindset of Silicon Valley oligarch is best exemplified by none other than Jeffrey Epstein, it’s worth noting a very import detail in the ongoing investigation into Epstein’s alleged ‘suicide’: that investigation has remained under wraps for three years, with no explanation for the ongoing silence and seemingly no reasonable excuse that can be discerned. In other words, the investigation into Epstein’s death has effectively entered ‘coverup’ territory. Because of course that’s how this played out.
As the following Business Insider report from back in March describes, it’s not just the case that there’s been near complete silence official on status of that investigation. As Epstein’s brother, Mark Epstein, tells it, the investigators almost immediately concluded that Epstein’s death was a suicide despite an array of evidence that suggested otherwise, and yet never provided him any of the evidence that they based those conclusions on. And that was three years. It’s been silence ever since.
Beyond that, it’s not Mark Epstein has to rely entirely on the information provided to him by investigators regarding the evidence they discovered. It turns out he hired forensic pathologist Michael Baden to attend the autopsy. And according to Baden, not only was the evidence around Epstein’s throat more consistent with strangulation than a hanging, but Baden claims that the forensic pathologist who carried out the autopsy, Kristin Roman, personally told him that she couldn’t come to a conclusion and listed the cause of death as “pending further study”. A few days later, New York City’s chief medical examiner at the time, Barbara Sampson, ruled the death a suicide after saying she reviewed additional evidence. That additional evidence has never been released.
Now, it’s important to recall that Michael Baden has a somewhat questionable track record when it comes to highly sensitive investigations involving possible scandals of national security state. Notable, Baden backed the Warren Commission’s “magic bullet” theory on JFK assassination. And while that’s certainly a past that should give us pause regarding Baden as a truly independent observer in this case, it’s also the kind of background that makes Baden’s claims all the more remarkable. The guy who didn’t see a coverup with JFK is seeing a giant Epstein coverup. It’s more than a little interesting.
Another fascinating investigative detail from Mark Epstein is that the investigators apparently have only considered the possibility that someone entered Epstein’s cell block to kill him, excluding the possibility of a fellow prisoner carrying out the act. So were prisoners allowed free movement around Epstein’s cell block? We still don’t have information either.
Also, regarding the broken security cameras that conveniently couldn’t record what happened in Epstein’s cell, it turns out there was another broken part of the system: Epstein apparently made numerous phone calls that were never logged. It sure would be interesting to know if those calls were at all being monitored as is standard for federal prisoners. But if they were monitored, those records have apparently been lost. Who was Epstein calling and what were they discussing? We’ll presumably never know.
Oh, and while Mark Epstein wanted to file a wrongful death suit which promised to reveal more information about his brother’s death, he ran into a somewhat unexpected obstacle: the executors of Epstein’s estate blocked the suit. Whoever is in charge of Epstein’s estate appears content on leaving this a ‘suicide’.
So when we see Douglas Rushkoff labeling Jeffrey Epstein as the once-living embodiment of dehumanizing apocalyptic mindset that dominates Silicon Valley technocratic elites, it’s worth keeping mind that an official coverup into Epstein’s death has been quietly ongoing for several years now. But it’s not just a coverup of his death. It’s also, implicitly, a coverup of the profound scale of influence Epstein had while he was still alive and kicking:
““They didn’t give me any information other than ‘After a thorough investigation, we determined it was a suicide,’ ” Mark Epstein said. “It was like I was talking to a fu cking robot.””
We have thoroughly concluded it was a suicide. End of story. That’s the level of detail Mark Epstein was apparently given the official investigation into his brother’s death. An investigation launched by Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General three years ago and yet still remains under wraps. Why the years of silence?
Now, if evidence of a thorough investigation was ever provided and an independent observer concurred with the findings, that would be one thing. But as we’ve seen, this was as highly anomalous ‘suicide’ that included prison guards who didn’t carry out their security checks that evening and security cameras that were conveniently broken. And as this report describes, Mark Epstein had his own independent forensic pathologist hired to observe the autopsy, Michael Baden, who concluded that the evidence was more consistent with strangulation than suicide. Now, as we’ve seen, this is the same Michael Baden who has previously been involved with a number of high-profile forensic examinations including his defense of the Warren Commission’s Magic Bullet theory in the JFK assassination. So when we see Baden showing up in this story we have to ask how Epstein’s brother ended up hiring Baden in the first place. At the same time, Baden’s preposterous take on the Warren Commission doesn’t automatically negate his observations when it comes to Epstein’s autopsy. If anything, it makes his observations in what appears to be an ongoing cover up even more intriguing and in need of answering:
Regarding Baden’s involvement in this case and his hiring by Mark Epstein, it’s also worth noting that Baden sits on a commission that reviews all inmate deaths in New York state-controlled prisons and jails. And yet investigators apparently haven’t interviewed him. Or Mark Epstein. Or Epstein’s defense attorney’s Martin Weinberg and David Schoen. Beyond that, Baden claims Kristin Roman, the New York City medical examiner who actually conducted the autopsy on Epstein’s, couldn’t come to a conclusion and listed the manner of death as “pending further study.” But Roman’s inconclusive findings were overruled a few days later by New York City’s chief medical examiner at the time, Barbara Sampson, who cited “additional evidence” that has yet to be revealed:
So what’s the explanation for three years of official silence on this matter? Well, according to former DOJ Inspector General Glenn Fine, there are four possible explanations: 1. The investigation is still ongoing. 2. Other related investigations are still ongoing. 3. The report is current being written, which implies it’s going to be released soon. Or, 4. The report has been written and it’s just awaiting feedback from relevant parties before being released. Those were the four plausible explanations Fine arrived at. Now, options 3 and 4 aren’t really explanations that explains the three year delay, which realistically only leaves options 1 or 2. Either the investigation is ongoing or some other related investigations are ongoing. At least those are the reasonable explanations for the three years of silence. There’s obviously much less reasonable and more scandalous explanations:
Now, regarding the possibility that ongoing investigations are the source of the delay, note that the only criminal cases publicly linked to this suicide were the two prison guards. And yet their charges were formally dropped in December of 2021. So it couldn’t be that case that was the basis for the hold up. Beyond that, it’s not like the DOJ has maintained a cone of silence around this investigation. Then-Attorney General Bill Barr was publicly asserting this was a suicide within days of Epstein’s death:
And then we get to this very interesting set of details from Mark Epstein: not only was his brother reportedly optimistic about getting the charges dismissed, but the possibility that Epstein was murdered by one of the other 7–14 people that would have been in that cell block was simply never considered by the investigators. Beyond that, we don’t even know if inmates were allowed to move freely between their cells. And yet it sounds like Epstein had already started paying inmates for ‘protection’. It’s like the investigation was rigged from the outset to cover up the ludicrous circumstances Epstein was left in:
Now, regarding the obvious major question looming over this whole case as to which powerful people may have had an incentive to ensure Epstein died sooner rather than later, also note this other very interesting detail: numerous phone calls Epstein made while in custody weren’t logged. Keep in mind that prisoner phone calls are routinely monitored. Who was Epstein calling and what was the nature of these discussion? We have no idea, but someone presumably knows those details. And they’re covering it up:
Finally, note this very interesting detail: when Mark Epstein wanted to file a wrongful-death lawsuit against the Bureau of Prisons, believing it would be a “slam-dunk case” that might have generated answers about his brother’s mysterious death, he was blocked by the executors of Jeffrey Epstein’s estate. So the people put in charge of Epstein’s assets don’t want his death investigated:
What’s under that rock? Again, we’ll presumably never know. That’s the nature of a coverup. We get to know there’s been a coverup, some tantalizing scandalous details, and that’s about it, at which point we’re just asked to forget it all happened. Which is where we are now it appears. Three years into the ‘forget it all happened’ final phase of the ‘investigation’.
Sometimes it’s the circumstantial evidence that just screams ‘coverup!’. Sometimes it’s the physical evidence. But as we’ve seen in the case of the alleged ‘suicide’ of Jeffrey Epstein inside a the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) federal prison, these aren’t mutually exclusive scenarios. Sometimes it’s the circumstantial evidence around the physical evidence that’s been screaming ‘coverup’ for over three years now. In particular, the remarkable circumstances around the broken security camera that covered the cell Epstein died in. As we’ve seen, that camera just conveniently happened to not be functioning for still unexplained reasons on the night of Epstein’s suicide. We would have a very clear idea of what happened had that camera been functioning. But, lo and behold, it was wasn’t. What a coincidence. All the other cameras appear to have been working, including the cameras that covered who entered and exit Epstein’s cell block. Just not the camera that actually covered what happened inside the cell block.
And as we saw with the interview of Epstein’s brother, Mark, back in March, the public still has no idea as to whether or not the inmates in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) where Epstein was located were free to move about. Mark Epstein went on to alleged that investigators have exclusively considered the possibility of someone entering the cell block from the outside to kill him but haven’t at all considered the possibility of someone from inside the cell block carrying out the attack. It’s as pretty glaring investigative oversight if true.
So with the possibility that a fellow cell block inmate was allowed to kill Epstein without any cameras catching them in the act, it’s worth noting another highly anomalous detail the public learned about the malfunctioning cameras back in Jan of 2020: it turns out that same camera was malfunctioning during the July 23, 2019, initial ‘suicide attempt’ by Epstein where he was found semi-conscious in a fetal position on the floor of his cell. Speculation led to a possible attack by his cellmate, Nicholas Tartaglione. And yet, as we’ll see, Tartaglione’s defense team tried to get access to the security camera footage and even requested on July 25, 2019, that the footage be preserved. Despite that request for the preservation of the footage, we got a bizarre fiasco. First, on December 19, 2019, US Attorneys told the judge in the case investigating Tartaglione that the video footage didn’t exist. Then, the next day, jail officials reported they found the video, but it turned out to be a video from a different wing of the prison. We then learn that the FBI determined that “the requested video no longer exists on the backup system and has not since at least August 2019 as a result of technical errors.” So there was indeed a backup system. And that system did work for other cameras. Just not that specific camera and the backup system just happened to be broken “since at least August 2019” due to a still unexplained “technical error”. This was the case despite Tartaglione’s lawyers requesting preservation of the July 23 footage two days later.
That’s the absolutely damning circumstantial evidence surrounding the physical evidence in this investigation. Damning circumstances that synergize nicely with Mark Epstein’s observations that prosecutors systematically ignored the possibility that Epstein was killed by a fellow inmate.
Beyond that, as we’re going to see in a timeline of Epstein’s time at the jail published back in February based on the publicly released prison documents, we can sort of infer an answer to the question of whether or not other inmates in the cell block had the freedom to interact with Epstein: when Epstein first arrived at the MCC and concerns over a possible suicide risk were elevated, he had specially assigned inmates where were tasked with reporting on his visible psychological state. These inmates made these reports regularly throughout the day.
As we’re also going to see, an anonymous source suggests that the July 23 ‘suicide attempt’ was actually Epstein’s attempt to get moved to a new cell because he was scare of Tartaglione. And he did indeed end up getting moved to a new cell. The closest cell to the security guard’s desk, just 15 feet away. So when we see in the timeline that the two security guards on duty the night of Epstein’s death basically never checked up on his status, it’s worth keeping in mind that they only had to walk about 15 feet to do so. But for whatever reason, those checkups didn’t happen. Ok, first, here’s a report from Jan 2020 describing how the archive footage for the security camera in the SHU just happened to be lost starting in August 2019 for still-unexplained “technical reasons”. That’s despite the fact that Tartaglione’s lawyers request the preservation of the archived footage on July 25, 2019, just two days after the initial ‘suicide attempt’ and more than two weeks before Epstein’s eventual death:
“Although there is a backup system for video from the Special Housing Unit, the FBI had determined that “the requested video no longer exists on the backup system and has not since at least August 2019 as a result of technical errors,” according to the prosecutors’ letter.”
That’s right, a backup system does indeed exist for the video cameras inside the SHU. But for reasons that have never been explain, the system wasn’t backing up the camera outside of Epstein’s cell “since at least August 2019 as a result of technical error”. That’s the extent of any sort of explanation we’ve ever received. And while that’s a frustratingly vague statement, not that it’s not describing a backup system that was down for ALL of the cameras. It’s just “the requested video” from a particular camera outside Epstein’s cell that we are told is unsalvageable.
Also note that peculiar language here: we are we told the request video, which was recorded on July 23, was no longer available on the backup system “since at least August 2019.” Which raises the obvious question about the rest of videos captured on that camera over the course of July 2019. Was ALL of the footage for that camera lost for the entire month? Or did it just suddenly stop working right around July 23? We have no idea. But investigators obviously know the answer.
Worse, we also learned that at Tartaglione’s defense had requested the preservation of the video just two days after the July 23, 2019 attempted suicide. So over two weeks before Epstein ‘commits suicide’, there’s a request by his cellmate’s attorney to have footage from that camera same preserved. Again, recall Mark Epstein’s recent revelation: investigators never considered the possibility that someone inside the cell block killed Epstein and yet there’s still never been any public indication as to whether or not the inmates housed in the SHU were allowed to freely move about. Footage from that camera during the time Epstein was housed there would clearly help answer that question:
So given the still-unresolved mystery of what caused the loss of that July 23, 2019, video footage and why wasn’t the system repaired following the July 25, 2019, request by Tartaglione’s lawyers for a preservation of the video evidence, it’s worth taking a closer look at the available timeline of Epstein’s time in that prison. And that brings us to the following Daily Mail piece laying out the timeline from the released prison records. A timeline that doesn’t really provide any substantial answers, but sure raises a lot of questions:
“Using written records that the Federal Bureau of Prisons has released, we reconstruct the final days and hours of Epstein’s life to find out what really happened on that fateful night in jail…”
This appears to the most complete timeline of Epstein’s time on the MCC that we have, compiled from release prison records. And right out of the gate, we find this pretty amazing anomaly: when Epstein was first admitted into the prison, the forms described him as a black male with no previous sexual convictions. As a result, he was initially held with the ‘general inmate population’ in the area with the lowest security. That oversight appears to have been cleared the next day when the head of the prison, Lamine N’Diaye, apparently noticed the error and had Epstein transferred to the Special Housing Unit (SHU). How did such a gross oversight happen in the first place for such a high profile prisoner? And why was it the head of the prison who ultimately caught it? It’s just a bizarre start to the timeline:
Now, in terms of Epstein’s initial psychological evaluations, it sounds like there were initial fears he might be suicidal, and he’s put under ‘psychological observation’ with specially appointed inmates recording his behavior every five minutes. Recall what Mark Epstein noted back in March: there’s never been a public explanation as to whether or not the other inmates in the SHU had free movement within the unit. And here we see that specially appointed inmates were recording Epstein’s behavior every 5 minutes. That sure sounds like a situation where the inmates have the ability to intermingle unless those specially appointed inmates were cell mates:
So did Epstein seem suicidal during this period? Not according to the psychologist who assessed him and described Epstein as being in an ebullient mood at one point:
Then we get to this strange period leading up to the July 23, 2019, apparent ‘suicide attempt’: First, there’s a lack of ongoing concerns about Epstein’s psychological state despite the July 18 rejection of his bail application, with no assessments of the psychological impacts of that rejection. Then, on July 23, Epstein is found semi-conscious on his cell floor. Suspicions range from a murder attempt by his cellmate Nicholas Tartagione, a suicide attempt by Epstein, or, as one anonymous source suggests, a staged incident by Epstein in an attempt to be moved to another cell. To this day we still don’t know what happened thanks to the mysteriously deleted security camera backup system caused by a still unexplained reason:
Keep in mind another timeline detail from this period that we saw in the above article: it was on July 25, 2019, when Tartaglione’s lawyers requested that surveillance video of the camera closest to the cell be preserved.
Following that ‘suicide attempt’ incident, Epstein appears to maintain that he’s not suicidal and does indeed gets transferred to the cell closest to the correction officer’s desk, with a new cellmate Effrain Reyes. So the cell Epstein dies in is the closest to the correction officer’s desk. As we’re going to see below, it’s just 15 feet away from the desk:
A week and a half later, on August 9, Effrain Reyes is released, leaving Epstein alone in the cell. Epstein ends up spending the day with his lawyers, who describe him as not seeming suicidal. And as we can see, the amount of effort required for the security guards to check in on Epstein’s cell is a walk of 15 feet. That’s how far his cell was from their desk. So if someone from inside the cell block did enter Epstein’s cell, it’s hard to imagine the guards wouldn’t have seen it unless they just happened to not be at that desk:
And then we get the timeline for that evening, with the last apparent check on Epstein’s cell taking place at 10:30 pm when Tova Noel briefly walks to and away from the entrance door on the floor where Epstein’s cell is, which gives us a sense of what angles are available in the still-preserved security footage: We can see who entered or exited that cell block, but not what happened inside it. Which, again, raises the question Mark Epstein raised of why the possibility that Epstein was murdered by a fellow inmate was not even considered by investigators:
Finally, there’s the complete destruction of the crime scene that happened after Epstein’s now-dead body is raced to the hospital in violation of prison protocol:
And, of course, as we’ve seen, the evidentiary follies just continued from there, with Michael Baden — hired on behalf of Mark Epstein — attending the autopsy and alleging that it showed signs consistent with strangulation. Beyond that, Baden claims that the forensic pathologist who carried out the autopsy, Kristin Roman, personally told him that she couldn’t come to a conclusion and listed the cause of death as “pending further study”. A few days later, New York City’s chief medical examiner at the time, Barbara Sampson, ruled the death a suicide after saying she reviewed additional evidence. That additional evidence has never been released. More circumstantial evidence around the physical evidence that was screaming ‘coverup!’ at the time and continues to scream ‘coverup!’ to this.
It’s one of the truly depressing aspects of cases like there where an array of circumstantial evidence is screaming ‘coverup!’ of a story that is so awful it simply cannot ever be allowed to see the light of day. Juxtaposed with the enduring silence of an investigation that has gone as far as it’s allowed to go. It’s an especially deafening silence given the screaming circumstances.
It’s the kind of taint that doesn’t wash off. Your best shot is covering it up. It’s a lesson we keep learning about the taint of an association with Jeffrey Epstein. A lesson that at popped up again thanks to the recent demands by the Senate Finance Committee for details explaining a most curious Epstein-tie: Leon Black’s $158 million in payments to Epstein for ‘tax and estate planning’ services. As we’re going to see, the former private equity titan claims he was simply paying Epstein for his estate planning advice in relation to the transfer of roughly $2 billion in wealth to his children. And while Epstein’s whole persona was predicated on the notion that he was some kind of financial whiz, it’s clear that Epstein was paid far more for his services than Black was paying anyone else. Hence all the questions about what exactly was Epstein getting paid for?
And as with so much else about Epstein, this story points towards something far worse than just questionable payments for estate planning. First, it turns out that Black was allowed to quietly reach a $62.5 million settlement with the Virgin Islands back in January of this year. Which is some very interesting timing. Recall how lawsuits were filed by Epstein victims against both Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan back in November of 2022, alleging that Epstein hadn’t acted alone in his sex trafficking but had help from the banks. The suit alleged that the banks knowingly facilitated the large sex-trafficking-related cash flows. Then, a little over a month after that lawsuit was filed, the attorney general of the Virgin Islands, Denise George, also filed a lawsuit against JP Morgan on charges that the bank turned a blind eye towards Epstein’s use of the bank to facilitate his sex-trafficking. Then, days after George filed the suit, the governor of the Virgin Islands, Albert Bryan, fired George for apparently unrelated reasons. As we also saw, both Bryan and former-government John deJongh Jr. have personal ties to the special treatment Epstein received from the Virgin Islands government over the years he was based there, including special tax treatment. So the former Virgin Islands attorney general files a number of lawsuits or investigations in relations to Epstein, gets fired for mysterious reasons, and then weeks later Black is allowed to quietly reach this settlement. Keep in mind that the $158 million Black paid to Epstein for tax and estate planning services was paid to Epstein’s Virgin Islands-based Southern Trust.
And then we get to this very interesting detail that relates the Epstein’s ties to Black to the investigation into Epstein’s ties to JP Morgan: it turns out that Epstein’s role as a financial planner for Black ended up keep Epstein in contact with JP Morgan’s officers even after the bank severed its ties to Epstein in 2013. In other words, Epstein’s role as Black’s financial advisors apparently served as a kind of backchannel between Epstein and JP Morgan. So Black was wildly overpaying for services and, as a result, JP Morgan officers had an excuse to maintain contact with Epstein. What are we looking at here?
Ok, first, here’s a look at the Senate Finance Committee’s demands for information about the kinds of services Epstein was providing for Black. Services that apparently included extensive use of the now-close 1031 “like-kind” loophole for dodging capital gains on high-end art pieces:
“The most pointed attention on art and related transactions comes at the close of the letter, where Wyden notes that, on August 1, 2022, Black’s outside counsel “indicated that Epstein provided substantial advice related to your private art collection, which is worth over $1 billion,” in a briefing with the committee. “This advice reportedly included helping you form a new art partnership as well as assistance in connection with the sale of certain pieces of artwork.””
Jeffrey Epstein sure had a lot of lucrative skills, it would seem. Including skills in high-end art-related tax and estate planning apparently, in particular the $2 billion in wealth transferred from Leon Black to his children. Epstein was helping Black save so much money in taxes that he was paid $158 million in compensation. It was, as congress put it, an “extraordinary compensation scheme, which involved amounts that far exceeded those paid to other professional advisors.” And it was ‘like-kind’ exchanges of high end art pieces that Epstein reportedly advised Black rely on to see those tax savings. So given that Epstein was paid vast sums of money to basically give what amounts to rather standard tax advice, we have to ask what was it that was so special about this art-related advice? Was Black engaged in some sort of art-related tax fraud or money laundering? What’s the explanation?
It’s also rather notable that the Virgin Island’s investigation into these dealings was opened by former attorney general Denise George, who was fired just days after her office sued JP Morgan over its facilitation of Epstein’s sex trafficking activities:
As we also saw, lawsuits were filed by Epstein victims against both Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan back in November of 2022, alleging that Epstein hadn’t acted alone in his sex trafficking but had help from the banks. The suit alleged that the banks knowingly facilitated the large sex-trafficking-related cash flows. Then, a little over a month after that lawsuit was filed, Denise George also filed a lawsuit against JP Morgan on charges that the bank turned a blind eye towards Epstein’s use of the bank to facilitate his sex-trafficking. Then, days after George filed the suit, the governor of the Virgin Islands, Albert Bryan, fired George for apparently unrelated reasons. As we also saw, both Bryan and former-government John deJongh Jr. have personal ties to the special treatment Epstein received from the Virgin Islands government over the years he was based there, including special tax treatment.
So the investigation into Epstein is apparently ongoing, but under a new attorney general. And that brings us the following NY Times piece from back in July about the Virgin Islands’s investigation into Leon Black’s ties to Epstein. It turns the investigation was quietly settled back in January, with Black paying $62.5 million while admitting no guilt:
“The settlement shows the extent to which Mr. Black, once a titan of the private equity industry, has gone to limit scrutiny of his decades-long social and business ties to Mr. Epstein. Those dealings, including the revelation that he paid $158 million to Mr. Epstein for tax and estate planning services, had become a source of embarrassment for Mr. Black in the years after Mr. Epstein’s death.”
$62.5 million to end the investigating. Not a bad deal if you have a lot to hide. How much does Leon Black have to hide? We’ll presumably never really know thanks to this settlement. But note how the Virgin Islands reportedly had been weighing a suit that would have accused Black of facilitating Epstein’s sex trafficking operation via these very large payments for Epstein’s ‘services’. So was Black’s outsized payments to Epstein made in relation to Epstein’s sex trafficking? That would appear to be what former Attorney General Denise George suspected. And then she was fired:
Also note that that, while planning for a mediation sessions with Black began in December while George was still attorney general, it didn’t actually happen until after she was fired. It raises the question as to what kind of deal we could have expected Black to get had George still been in office. In other words, just how much of a bargain was that $62.5 million settlement? Again, we’ll probably never know:
Finally, in relation to the lawsuits against JP Morgan, note this very intriguing detail: Black’s ongoing ties to Epstein were used as an excuse to keep Epstein in contact with JP Morgan even after the bank severed its ties to Epstein in 2013. It’s a further indication that we can’t really separate investigations into JP Morgan’s relationship with Epstein and Black’s relationship to Epstein. There’s some sort of join scandal here:
It’s like Black was paying a premium to keep Epstein in contact with JP Morgan. Who was doing who the favor here? It’s a puzzling set of relationships. All the more puzzling thanks to the Virgin Islands’s decision to quietly settle for $62.5 million with no admission of guilt, weeks after the mysterious firing of Denise George. Again, what are we looking at here? Because it sure looks a lot like an ongoing coverup in plain sight.