Monday, January 05, 2015

Epstein-gate: Hold everything...!

I've been having second thoughts about the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

What if Alan Dershowitz is innocent? What if Virginia Roberts is lying? Or rather, what if she "decorates" an essentially true story with one false charge?

Before you accuse me of hypocrisy, hear me out.

Some of you may recall a strange Jack Anderson column which appeared when the Watergate scandal was running full throttle. Anderson discussed an oddball named Gordon Novel (recently deceased), who somehow inserted himself into all sorts of scandals and controversies over the course of several decades.

Novel told Anderson about a rather wild scheme to save Richard Nixon's butt. Novel wanted to hire impersonators to stage a secretly-recorded phone conversation in which Nixon would give a direct order to E. Howard Hunt to commit the Watergate burglary. When this recording was leaked to the media, everyone would pounce on it as the key piece of evidence. Then the evidence would be exposed as fraudulent. At that point, the entire case against Nixon would lose credibility.

Although there was no attempt to put that scheme into practice, the basic idea is sound. In fact, it has been employed in other operations. (You may want to look into a shady fellow named Oswald LeWinter, who helped to unravel the congressional investigations into the 1980 "October Surprise.")

Sometimes, the best way to hide a chocolate bar is in a bucket of shit.

Sometimes, the best way to hide evidence of wrongdoing is to surround it with fake evidence. The fake stuff will make the real stuff seem fake.

The trick is to get everyone to talk about the ersatz and to ignore the genuine. When the ersatz is shown to be ersatz, an annoyed public will walk away from the entire matter.

With that principle in mind, let's take another look at Virginia Roberts, a.k.a. Jane Doe #3, the young woman who has made accusations against Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew -- and who has hinted of the involvement of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.

As I was taking a long walk on this cold and blustery day, one thought kept rattling around my noggin: If Virginia is telling the truth, then why is she still alive?

According to the story, Viriginia was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, the favorite daughter of Robert Maxwell. He was Mossad. So, I'm betting, is Ghislaine. Mossad has an assassination unit called Kidon. It's very formidable. You can read about the men and women of Kidon in Ostrovsky's books.

Maybe you don't want to bring spooks into this business. Maybe you consider the very idea of Mossad involvement to be preposterous.

All right, then. Consider this: Jeffrey Epstein is a billionaire. Everyone knows that if someone poses a serious threat to a billionaire, said billionaire probably knows a guy who can take care of the problem. Or he knows a guy who knows a guy. Professional help is always just a couple of phone calls away.

So let me ask the question again: Why is Virginia still alive?

I have a few more questions. Where is she right now? How did that picture come out? Why haven't we seen the other, more damning photos that we've read about? And how did Politico get hold of a Complaint that (I am told) was supposed to be under seal?

Another important fact to keep in mind: There are literally dozens of other girls who are talking -- behind the scenes -- about Jeffrey Epstein's sleazy operation. We don't know the names of these girls.

All the focus is on Virginia.

You know how magicians work: Misdirection. The magician does what he needs to do to keep your eyes on something other than what you should be looking at.

Alan Dershowitz has issued truly thunderous denials. He insists that he never met Virginia Roberts.
“I welcome a full investigation,” he said, daring the alleged victim, Jane Doe #3, to either file charges or repeat her accusation to the press. He noted she had repeated accusations against Prince Andrew, but curiously not about him.
Even though Dershowitz is a vindictive little piece of shit, and even though nobody I like likes Dershowitz, and even though only the slimiest of lawyers would dig up dirt on the victims of a billionaire sex criminal, and even though Dershowitz has behaved abominably toward Norman Finkelstein and others, I'm now starting to wonder: What if he's telling the truth in this case?

Virginia Roberts claims that she not only had sex with Prince Andrew, she met the Queen.
Virginia Roberts' father Sky said that his daughter was introduced to the Queen in London after the Prince's billionaire friend Jeffrey Epstein flew her to London in 2001.

He told The Sun: "She was so excited about meeting the Queen.

"She had been flown to London by Jeffrey. He would fly her all over the world on his private jet."

A spokesman for Buckingham Palace, which denies the allegations, said: “We have no record of such a meeting.”
Frankly, the story about the Queen seems more than a little iffy to me. It takes only one false claim to destroy the credibility of everything else Virginia has said -- not to mention everything said by the dozens of other Jane Does.

You should pay careful attention to the way right-wing conspiracy writers have treated this story. They are zeroing in on Clinton, even though there is no proof (in fact, no claim) that he ever had sex with Virginia Roberts or any other member of the Epstein entourage. 

Both mainstream news articles and "alternative" sources like Alex Jones' Prison Panet have accused Clinton of wrongdoing -- despite a total lack of evidence -- while simultaneously going to great lengths to cover up the name of Ghislaine Maxwell.

Repeat: They don't even want to mention her name. They will tell you that a woman connected to the Epstein case attended Chelsea's wedding, but they won't tell you that this woman was Ghislaine Maxwell.

They don't like to talk about her. And they never talk about Robert Maxwell's ties to Mossad.

(You should check out the Prison Planet segment at the other end of the above link. It's a hoot. Toward the end, the Alex Jonesians somehow link the Epstein scandal to the mythical Great Gun Round-Up that is supposedly a-comin' real soon. Good Christ, what is it with these clowns?)

All of Epstein's real contacts go to the neocon right. We saw the cavalcade of names in our earlier post: Ken Starr, Ghislaine Maxwell, Leslie Wexner, Jay Lefkowitz, the Mega Group, the Project for a New American Century. Why isn't anyone talking about those Epstein associates?

Please understand: I'm not convinced that Virginia is a liar. I am convinced that her lawyers are operating in good faith. They are certainly taking a risk, given Dershowitz' penchant for vindictiveness.

Yes, it is quite possible that I've been over-thinking this whole business. Maybe I'm being too paranoid. Maybe tomorrow I will have an entirely new attitude toward the case.

But let us pause to consider an alternative scenario. Perhaps the purpose of this charade is twofold:

1. Deep-six Hillary's chances, and

2. Destroy the credibility of all the other "Jane Does" in the Epstein case.

Perhaps there will then come a day when Virginia tearfully confesses that she made up some or all of her tale. And perhaps, behind those tears, Virginia will know that a transaction is taking place somewhere in Zurich...a transaction in which a seven-figure sum finds its way into a certain bank account with her name on it. Payment for services rendered.

No, I'm not saying that I believe in this alternative scenario. I'm saying keep the possibility in mind.
Comments:
"Sometimes, the best way to hide evidence of wrongdoing is to surround it with fake evidence. The fake stuff will make the real stuff seem fake." Isn't that exactly what happened to Dan Rather?
 
The whole affair with Dan Rather and the conveniently forged Texas Air National Guard documents comes to mind, too. I've been wondering how she's still alive, too.
 
Not everything is about Hillary, Joseph. The British royal family probably think they are a bit more important than an unemployed grandmother in the US. And not to belittle the talents of the Mossad, but the British services seem to have made a remarkable number of people die or disappear over the last 30 or so years, especially when those people were connected to cases of paedophilia involving the ruling classes either as victims or witnesses.
But we know that Epstein is a convicted sex criminal. We know he had 20 phone numbers for Bill Clinton, and we know that he had a computer stuffed full of sickening sex videos of rich and powerful people having at it with underaged girls. Whether he intended to use those for blackmail or mere entertainment doesn't matter. My question is, why is Epstein still alive?
 
Off topic, but:

A really great random interview of Gordon Novel as he was driving through California, by a very suprised Dave Emory:

http://spitfirelist.com/miscellaneous-archives/shows-m1%e2%80%94m30/

M3 Express­way Show
Part 1 42:50 | Part 2 40:56
KOME-FM
10/29/84

While appear­ing as guest on a San Jose, Cal­i­for­nia radio talk show, Mr. Emory spoke for about 20 min­utes with Gor­don Novel, a prin­ci­pal fig­ure in New Orleans’ Dis­trict Attor­ney Jim Garrison’s inves­ti­ga­tion into the assas­si­na­tion of Pres­i­dent Kennedy. Novel main­tained his inno­cence in the Kennedy assas­si­na­tion, but revealed some fas­ci­nat­ing infor­ma­tion con­cern­ing his con­nec­tions to the Water­gate scandal.

- Sorry for crossing topics, but this was great...
 
Anon, it's true that not everything is about Hillary. But as long as the American presidency is considered the world's most important political position, the Oval Office remains the great prize.
 
Dojo: I've heard that tape. Lots of fun. Novel refers to the other part of the Jack Anderson story, about Colson asking him (Novel) to erase the Watergate tapes. Novel says he would have done it if he had been paid.

A lot of people have misunderstood the exact meaning of this episode. It doesn't refer to the tape recordings that Nixon himself made. Novel was, at this time, in close contact with Jim Angleton on the second floor of CIA headquarters. Thus, Angleton had his OWN set of tapes.

Jim Hougan's "Secret Agenda" talks about how the CIA bugged the White House.

Many people have asked why Nixon didn't just burn the tapes. He couldn't. He knew that the CIA had their own tapes.

All of this must be weighed against he fact that, at the very end of his life, Novel went to great lengths to discredit himself. He started to talking about MJ12 and other nonsense. You can see it on his website (which I think family members still maintain).

I know for a FACT that he did not believe in that nonsense. So why did he say it?

Maybe he was just having fun.

Or maybe he needed to discredit himself. Once again, I think that the metaphor of hiding a chocolate bar in a bucket of shit is valid.
 
Hey Joseph...been awhile...
I have been following this for some time- ever since it appeared in Vanity Fair. I wasn't drawn into it so much this time, because it feels like old news to me.

In any case- the Vanity Fair article I can find online right now is from 2011. I think there might have been more than one, but the one naming Prince Andrew, Virgina Roberts and others is from 2011.
Roberts has already gone on record as one of the victims, and so it would make perfect sense that one of the victims photographed with him- is the one identified as Jane Doe. There are several other women named in that article that refused to go on record about the abuse with Prince Andrew. They are probably the other Jane Does and are genuinely afraid to speak. It should also be noted that Maxwell is discussed in that article.

As for Clinton- as long as Roberts is the focus, there is little heat that Clinton will truly be able to receive--because Roberts escaped in 2002 and as you said, Clinton began hanging out with Epstein around then.

It seems obvious that they were in the business of securing favor through blackmail- but who was Epstein working for....probably Mossad, but ...

Why is it coming out again? This case has been in the courts for years now, but the two Jane Does were added recently. The issue is against the Federal government not notifying them of the plea deal and reduced sentencing-that as you know, Dershowitz helped negotiate. He has already kind of lied, stating he doesn't know this woman. Well, he does in that he was involved in the plea deal so he knows about the victims and she is one of the only that has been in the press.

The only reason I question your concerns about Clinton is that she was gone, by the supposed timeline of Clinton's association with Epstein. The GOPtalking points are doing their best to keep you focused on Clinton-but the timeline doesn't fit for her to talk about Clinton-so she won't.

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/08/prince-andrew-201108
kc
 
Why is Virginia still alive? Maybe because she's built a brick wall around her ass and is in hiding?

If the fact that she's alive disproves her own claims, then her enemies should be paying her to make those claims.

Lots of shit-covered chocolate bars in the 9/11 stuff.


I am the One True Anon. Pay no attention to those imposters.


 
INCREMENT are probably more interested in keeping themselves secret than the bully-boys of Kidon. Also, I believe Andrew is rumoured to be gay.
 
I'm wondering if there is a Leon Black/CIA connection?
 
Sorry, want to believe: http://abovethelaw.com/2015/01/a-second-look-at-the-allegations-against-alan-dershowitz/
 
Hi Joseph,
After I posted, I read a little more and saw that Clinton had been involved with Epstein prior to 2002--and that Roberts did discuss his presence, but stated that she did not witness him taking the bait. The worst claims levied against Clinton are that Epstein stated that Clinton owed him a favor and that he had to have known of Epstein's penchant for young girls.

As for Dershowitz, the purpose in claiming his involvement- but not filing charges against him is to call into question the plea deal made without their (Jane Does) notification. To call into question the fact that no co-conspirators could be prosecuted with this case and finger Dershowitz as one of the co-conspirators would then null and void the deal- in my opinion. But- I am not a lawyer. The response that Dershowitz has given is that he was not involved in that portion of the plea deal and they should file rape charges against him directly, amongst other issues (disbarrment etc).

Cassell & Edwards (attorneys) have replied that they welcome him proving his innocence in this-that they have asked him to testify in deposition on numerous occasions and he has refused.

The Politico article that you call into question made assumptions based on Jane Doe naming Prince Andrew back in 2011 --as Roberts was the only Jane Doe to come forward prior with accusations against the Prince.

Naming Dershowitz was purely a legal maneuver to remove him from counsel and nullify the plea deal, IMO. True or not- it is what the lawyers believe, IMO. They were not seeking to prosecute further-only to nullify the plea deal. That was the original case filed in 2008--and the joining of Jane Doe #3 this past week introduced Dershowitz to the filing.

As for Maxwell- she is discussed all over and has been for awhile. It just shows the character of Jones and his like, to avoid the obvious. ...
kc
 
The claims that Virginia Roberts met the Queen were not made by Virginia, they were made by her father - and he has retracted this statement. He said that it was a misunderstanding on his part;
I want to clear up that many years ago Virginia stated to me she was to meet the Queen's son Prince Andrew and not the Queen herself. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2896075/Prince-Andrew-flies-skiing-holiday-tell-Queen-s-innocent-underage-sex-allegations-does-immunity-deal-government.html#ixzz3O41EQsXk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
sociopaths have no shame

they can blatantly lie and blatantly deny the truth

so much so that normal people who can't believe someone could look so entirely shame free unless they were shame free can be fooled by them

an extreme sociopath would make a great trial lawyer for that reason

sociopaths like to abuse children for sadistic and ego reasons not necessarily paedophile reasons - the bigger the taboo they break and get away with the more powerful they feel, the bigger the taboo the bigger the kick.

so... no

#

however whether or not any particular individual in this case is total scum or not doesn't change your basic (implicit) point that this stuff wouldn't be coming out unless someone wanted it out. my guess would be either:

1) there are two or more factions among the elite who are fighting each other

2) the people operating the honeytrap / blackmail ring couldn't get their main target so by making it public and getting Epstein to take a brief fall they can get anyone who knew Epstein by association just by asking

"did you ever spend time on Epstein's private island?"

 
"Anon, it's true that not everything is about Hillary. But as long as the American presidency is considered the world's most important political position, the Oval Office remains the great prize."

If Clinton didn't take the bait then by making the whole thing public they might hope to get him by association.

Although there are other names on Epstein's list connected to rumors of presidential runs that didn't happen.

 
Please don't squander your journalistic legitimacy making the facts fit to protect your candidate.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?






























FeedWind












FeedWind