Long before Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to prostitution charges in Florida more than a decade ago, his fellow Palm Beach resident and hedge-fund manager Douglas Kass was intrigued by the local gossip about his neighbor.
“I’m hearing about the parties, hearing about a guy who’s throwing money around,” says Kass, president of Seabreeze Partners Management. While stories about young girls swarming Epstein’s waterfront mansion and the sex parties he hosted for the rich and powerful were the talk of the town, Kass was more focused on how this obscure person, rumored to be managing billions of dollars, had become so wealthy without much of a track record.
Kass was well-connected on Wall Street, where he’d worked for decades, so he began to ask around. “I went to my institutional brokers, to their trading desks and asked if they ever traded with him. I did it a few times until the date when he was arrested,” he recalls. “Not one institutional trading desk, primary or secondary, had ever traded with Epstein’s firm.”
When a reporter came to interview Kass about Bernie Madoff shortly before that firm blew up in the biggest Ponzi scheme ever, Kass told her, “There’s another guy who reminds me of Madoff that no one trades with.” That man was Jeffrey Epstein.
“How did he get the money?” Kass kept asking….
The CIA is pushing for an expansion of a 37-year-old law that would deter journalists from covering national security issues or reporting on leaked documents. Thanks to a disillusioned CIA case officer’s actions in 1975, there are currently a few limits to what can or can’t be reported about covert operatives working overseas.
In 1975, Philip Agee published a memoir about his years with the CIA. Attached to his memoir — which detailed his growing discontentment with the CIA’s clandestine support of overseas dictators — was a list of 250 CIA agents or informants. In response to this disclosure, Congress passed the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), which criminalized disclosing the identity of covert intelligence agents.
The IIPA did what it could to protect journalists by limiting the definition of “covert agent” to agents serving overseas and then only those who were currently working overseas when the disclosure occurred. It also required the government to show proof the person making the disclosure was “engaged in a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose” covert agents. The law was amended in 1999 to expand the coverage to include covert agents working overseas within five years of the disclosure.
Now, the CIA is seeking to strip these protections from the IIPA. The agency wants the “overseas” requirement removed, allowing it (and other intelligence agencies) to designate whoever they want as “protected” by the IIPA in perpetuity. The removal of the overseas requirement eliminates the five-year period. Disclosing identities years after the fact will now be a criminal act….
It’s long been known that the CIA has covert agents operating illegally within the USA. Will that become legal now?
As the Jeffrey Epstein case continues to unfold, a laundry list of celebrities, business magnates and socialites who have flown anywhere near the registered sex offender’s orbit are now tainted with pedo-polonium. Many of them, such as Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, and Victoria’s Secret boss Les Wexner have sought to distance themselves from Epstein and his activities – however their attempts have fallen on deaf ears considering their extensive ties to the pedophile.
As Vanity Fair‘s Gabriel Sherman notes, “The questions about Epstein are metastasizing much faster than they can be answered: Who knew what about Epstein’s alleged abuse? How, and from whom, did Epstein get his supposed $500 million fortune? Why did Acosta grant Epstein an outrageously lenient non-prosecution agreement? (And what does it mean that Acosta was reportedly told Epstein “belonged to intelligence”?)”
Also illuminating is a statement by attorney Brad Edwards, who said during a Wednesday press conference seated next to Epstein accuser Courtney Wild that “There were other business associates of Mr. Epstein’s who engaged in improper sexual misconduct at one or more of his homes. We do know that,” adding “In due time the names are going to start coming out.
What’s more, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will release of approximately 2,000 pages of documents, likely over the next several days, which may reveal sex crimes committed by “numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known prime minister, and other world leaders,” according to the court’s three-judge panel.
The documents were filed during a civil defamation lawsuit brought by Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre, a former Mar-a-Lago locker-room attendant, against Epstein’s former girlfriend and alleged madam, Ghislaine Maxwell. “Nobody who was around Epstein a lot is going to have an easy time now. It’s all going to come out,” said Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies. Another person involved with litigation against Epstein told me: “It’s going to be staggering, the amount of names. It’s going to be contagion numbers.” –Vanity Fair
Other famous names associated with Epstein include LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg, who Musk introduced to the registered sex-offender. Zuckerberg spokesman told Vanity Fair “Mark met Epstein in passing one time at a dinner honoring scientists that was not organized by Epstein,” adding “Mark did not communicate with Epstein again following the dinner.”…
Back in 2003, before it was known Jeffrey Epstein had a penchant for exploiting underage girls, The Harvard Crimson ran an article telling its readers what a good guy Jeff was.
In addition to linking Epstein to a number of notables, including then Harvard president and future US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, the article notes Epstein was at the time a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.
Described as “one of the most pleasant philanthropists” by professor Martin A. Nowak of Harvard’s mathematical biology and evolutionary dynamics program, Epstein was said to have a “bevy of eminent friends that includes princes, presidents and Nobel Prize winners.”
The list also included Alan Dershowitz, at the time a Frankfurter Professor of Law.
Dershowitz told Jonathan Swan of Axios last December “he received a massage at Epstein’s Palm Beach home, adding that the woman who provided it was of legal age” and she was “an old old Russian.”
However, according to Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts, Dershowitz not only had a “therapeutic” massage given by an old Russian woman, but also had sex with Roberts when she was a child.
Is it possible Epstein worked as a pimp when he rubbed elbows with mucky-mucks at the CFR and Trilateral Commission as part of a blackmail plan to keep these servitors of the high financial elite faithful to the globalist plan?
Friday’s surprising report that Robert Mueller had successfully sought an extra week to prepare for his House testimony on Russiagate (now set for July 24) must have come as scary news to those of his fans who can put two and two together. Over the past few weeks, it has become clearer that each of the two frayed findings of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election has now come apart at the seams.
Saturday’s New York Times reports that “the Democrats said they chose to delay at the request of Mr. Mueller” after a day of negotiations, “as both Democrats and Republicans were deep in preparations for his testimony” earlier scheduled for July 17. The Washington Post, on the other hand, chose not to say who asked for the delay. Rather, it explained the abrupt change in timing with a misleading article entitled, “Mueller, House panels strike deal to delay hearing until July 24, giving lawmakers more time to question him.”
How to Avoid Eating Crow
As the truth seeps out, there will be plenty of crow to go around. To avoid eating it, the Democrats on the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, the stenographers who pass for journalists at the Times and Post, and the “Mueller team” will need all the time they can muster to come up with imaginative responses to two recent bombshell revelations from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Perhaps the most damning of the two came last Monday, when it was disclosed that, on July 1, Judge Dabney Friedrich ordered Mueller to stop pretending he had proof that the Russian government was behind the Internet Research Agency’s supposed attempt to interfere via social media in the 2016 election. While the corporate media so far has largely ignored Judge Friedrich’s order, it may well have been enough to cause very cold feet for those attached to the strained Facebook fable. (The IRA social-media “interference” has always been ludicrous on its face, as journalist Gareth Porter established.)
Ten days is not a lot of time to conjure up ways to confront and explain Judge Friedrich’s injection of some unwelcome reality. Since the Democrats, the media, and Mueller himself all have strong incentive to “make the worst case appear the better” (one of the twin charges against Socrates), they need time to regroup and circle the wagons. The more so, since Mueller’s other twin charge – Russian hacking of the DNC – also has been shown, in a separate Court case, to be bereft of credible evidence.
No, the incomplete, redacted, secondhand“forensics” draft that former FBI Director James Comey decided to settle for from the Democratic National Committee-hired CrowdStrike firm does not qualify as credible evidence. Both new developments are likely to pose a strong challenge to Mueller. On the forensics, Mueller decided to settle for what his former colleague Comey decided to settle for from CrowdStrike, which was hired by the DNC despite it’s deeply flawed reputation and well known bias against Russia. In fact, the new facts – emerging, oddly, from the U.S. District Court,pose such a fundamental challenge to Mueller’s findings that no one should be surprised if Mueller’s testimony is postponed again.
Requiem for ‘Interference’
Daniel Lazare’s July 12 Consortium News piece shatters one of the twin prongs in Mueller’s case that “the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.” It was the prong dripping with incessant drivel about the Kremlin using social media to help Trump win in 2016.
Mueller led off his Russiagate report, a redacted version of which was published on April 18, with the dubious claim that his investigation had
“…established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working in the Clinton campaign, and then released stolen documents.”
Judge to Mueller: Put Up or Shut Up…
A quarter of women who have serious maternal complications during childbirth also have premature births, posing a “dual burden” on families, finds research from NYU Rory Meyers College of Nursing, the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) California Preterm Birth Initiative, and Stanford University.
The study, published online in The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine and the first to focus specifically on “dual burden” births, shows that these complications occur in one of 270 births and are twice as likely to affect Black mothers….
Premature infants — those born at less than 37 weeks — experience a range of health issues, including problems with breathing, digestion, heart rate, and development. Mothers can also face serious to potentially life-threatening health issues during childbirth. These maternal complications — also known as severe maternal morbidity — include serious bleeding that requires a blood transfusion, blood clots, heart failure, emergency hysterectomies, and other serious problems. Research shows that severe maternal morbidity is rare but is also increasing nationally, with rates more than doubling from 2002 to 2014, and can have ongoing consequences for women and their families….
Several factors were associated with a higher risk of a “dual burden” birth, including cesarean birth, carrying multiples, smoking during pregnancy, being underweight, high blood pressure, and diabetes. The researchers also found that Black women were twice as likely to have a “dual burden” birth as White women when controlling for other factors.
“Racial disparities in health outcomes should be considered markers of exposure to racism, where poorer health reflects the exposure to chronic stress from discrimination and structural inequity, rather than race being a ‘risk factor’ for disease or poor health outcomes,” said Lyndon. “Our study suggests that combined maternal and infant health challenges may result from exposure to racism for Black families and illustrates the transgenerational impact of such exposure.”…
Lyndon is right that it’s a marker of racism, but probably not in the way she’s thinking: