Youtube videos

[admin]

The Night I Realised Epstein Wasn’t Normal w/ Eric Weinstein
by Chris Williamson
Aug 29, 2023 #ericweinst



Transcript

You met Jeffrey Epstein once. Talk to me about what that's like coming face to face with somebody of that caliber?

Whatever that means.

Well one thing is that there is a physiological reaction that corresponds to this phrase, you know, "the hair on the back of my neck stood on end." Like that's a real physiological feeling. I don't know whether the hair actually does that, but it's exactly what it feels like when you're meeting somebody who is Unholy.

And you know, one of the most interesting things is that he was beckoning us into a world that didn't seem to exist, that existed only for him as the doorman. I think that's one of the things that freaked out a lot of these rich people is that he felt rich in a movie sense, which is not something that you find among actually rich people.

What do you mean?

Well a lot of very wealthy people don't own an island. Islands are really tough to to maintain I'm obsessed with islands, and you know in general I have to be obsessed with islands that have airports run by other people, because there are populations on them. But every rich person starts to wonder, "Could I afford an island, or so many jets?"

And if you look at Jeffrey Epstein's wealth, it was beaten, it was like gold beaten into gold foil so that it could cover a vast area, and leave the impression of a solid gold life. But it was really probably a mid nine figure fortune that had been used to buy islands and planes, which is not what any nine figure person is going to do.

So you had a felt sense, an embodied sense of discomfort?

Oh hell yeah.

And where did that come from?

From the fact that he had a lipstick camera pointed at me from an art object that he laid on a table that was preposterously long and thin, with a tablecloth made of an American flag to make it look like a coffin, so that I would spill my coffee on the flag of my own country. I mean, the fact that he looked like a mutant Ralph Lauren, with this kind of lubricious quality, and he's talking all of the science and Market stuff, and nothing adds up. And there's an heiress bouncing on his knee to get her boobs to Jiggle to see whether it will distract him. I mean, it's like one of these crazy scenes where nothing about it was normal. There was just no trace of a normal world.

That's sounds like a script from a movie, like John Travolta putting a gun to your head, and forcing you to drink, and break a code in a minute.

Yeah. And then do you remember that story The Most Dangerous Game, where a man invites you to his Island so he can hunt you? You know, this was scary, and it was meant to be scary.

Sounds menacing.

Well, I think his product was silence. People think that his product was sex, or finance, but it was silence, I'm pretty sure.

What's that mean?

If you're scary enough, look, rich people can get sex, but they can't necessarily get people to shut up afterwards. So my take on it, and that was instantly, was this is not an actual human. This is a construct of someone. Someone has created a fake human being called Jeffrey Epstein, who's a mysterious currency trading "financier" with crazy rules, so that no one would ever invest with him. And I think that was to keep people from seeking his Investment services. I mean, he's labeled a "disgraced financier," but nobody has a record of trading with him. He comes into the meeting and he says, "Well, Eric, I was just doing some currency trading. And I thought about that scene that you sometimes see as a meme with Steve Buscemi with a skateboard over his shoulder, "Hello financial traders."  

So I'm thinking, "You don't really look like a rich guy who trades in markets." The thing that I'm finding myself intrigued by here is it takes a moderate amount of cognitive horsepower to be able to piece together this theater that you sat down at, deployed in a nefarious, malicious, manipulative way.

But it's smart.

What do you mean it's smart?

It's not something that could be done by a simple mind. Do you think he has a team of manipulators?

No, when I say I think he was a construct, I literally mean that I think he was constructed, like fitted with a story.

So you think he was a plant?

No, I think he was a construct.

What's that?

I think "Jeffrey Epstein, supergenius financier" was not a thing that existed. Where did the money come from? He mumbles "Les Wexner." But then there's this missing Fortune of Robert Maxwell, and this Fortune of Jeffrey Epstein that no one can explain -- are those the same fortune? It's like a conservation of money principle, that if you have a fortune that's missing, and you have a fortune that can't be explained, and they are connected by one Ghislaine Maxwell, --

I don't know why, considering the fact that a hedge fund manager has to file form, I forget if it's 13f, there are certain forms that you have to file. Why has nobody ever asked for these things? Who's his prime broker? Why hasn't somebody gone over the prime brokerage? What are his trades? He would have to move the market, if he was say doing a yard of Euros or Swiss Francs, that's a billion, that would move the market. So there's no way you can fake retroactively a hedge fund of immeasurable size that trades currencies. I don't think he was a currency Trader. He told me he was a currency Trader.

So when you say a construct, who constructs? Who's the Builder?

I don't know, I would imagine some version of the intelligence Community. You know, sometimes somebody's cover gets blown. We have a very famous unfortunate story of Eli Cohen, who was an Egyptian Jew, who was fitted with the backstory that he was an Argentinian Playboy who made a fortune in Argentina, but was Arabic in origins. And then he moves to Damascus, and rents out an apartment where he holds orgies, and becomes the best friend of Amin al-Hafiz, right?

And that's an example of a story we know of how the intelligence communities of the world create people who don't really exist.

I know that this is just a one time thing here that you got to see, but the construction of the coffin looking American flag, the spilling of the coffee, this weird power play thing that's going on. Now you say that it wasn't him even pulling his own strings? I learned this from Daniel Schmachtenberger. And he's spent some time with particularly powerful people. And he told me this really harrowing story of somebody who has both the desire and the means to treat themselves like an apex predator against their own kind. And so they broke the fourth wall about this, and said apex predators saw their own kind as prey. And I asked Daniel how does it feel to sit opposite somebody who isn't limited by the resources, who cannot only dream to be this plus, to have the motivation, or lack of virtue or Integrity, to go ahead and consider doing it. And then has the capacity, the assets, to be able to enact it. And it's giving me the same something. It feels like it's up on the top of my head. I's giving me some sort of a sense that this was intended to be terrifying.

It wasn't an accident, It was intended to be as fascinating as it could possibly be, which it was, and terrifying at the same time, and it achieved both objectives.

I was given an opportunity to meet him again, and I didn't know what to do.

The other thing I just found really weird is that he knew about my research, and it turned out that he was connected to my graduate department at Harvard. So he had a connection to the Harvard math department unbeknownst to me. I don't know when that began. I know two of the professors he was connected through, but this is some Unholy story that has nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. It has to do with whatever this thing was. We tripped over a structure.

Well, it must be very unfortunate in some regards for whoever it was, if that's true, that was in charge of this construction, that people got t-shirts with his name printed on them.

This was already going wrong in the early 2000s. You see, my sense of this is that this was a pre-internet plan that lived into the internet age, and couldn't survive contact with the internet age.

What did the internet bring in that didn't allow it to survive?

Eyeballs, discussion, a level of surveillance.

You know, there's a claim that nobody cares about Jeffrey Epstein, because it's this many years later, and we've all moved on. That's completely untrue. and we know that it's untrue because if you start talking about Jeffrey Epstein, the engagement goes up. So you have these fictions that are put out by mainstream Media, or traditional news desks, which is that nobody cares about this story. Well, you can see from social media that that's not true.

So the internet is constantly providing an ability to check whether or not these claims from inside the structure are true. And Jeffrey Epstein is an example of what I've called an anti-interesting phenomenon.

What's that?

Well an anti- interesting thing is something that would normally be fascinating but isn't. Imagine for example you had a story where you could get a Pulitzer Prize for breaking it. Everybody cares. You sell papers like hot cakes, blah blah blah. But here, nobody wants to report on it, and it's like right there. You could just ask the dumbest questions, and like the New York Times says, "Disgraced Financier." Well tell me, did you find his prime broker? Did you find the forms? Did you go to his offices in Villiard house?

Epstein Office Villiard House
by google ai
9/15/25

Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan mansion, located in the Villard Houses complex on the Upper East Side near Central Park, was a seven-story, 28,000-square-foot Neoclassical residence with 10 bedrooms and 15 bathrooms, originally built in 1933.

The property, purchased by Epstein in 1998 from his mentor Leslie Wexner, featured an eccentric and unsettling interior design that reflected his disturbing persona.

Epstein's office within the mansion was particularly striking, featuring a taxidermied tiger positioned on a bold black and red printed carpet.

This room, along with the rest of the house, was part of a carefully curated environment meant to impress and intimidate. The foyer was lined with dozens of framed prosthetic eyeballs, creating an atmosphere of constant surveillance.

In the wood-paneled office, Epstein prominently displayed a green first edition of Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita, placing it in plain sight as a symbolic totem.

The mansion also included a central atrium with a sculpture of a woman in a bridal gown suspended by a rope from the ceiling, adding to the gothic and macabre ambiance.

Photographs of Epstein with powerful figures such as Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Pope John Paul II, Elon Musk, and Mick Jagger were displayed throughout, serving as what some described as "social proof" or "receipts" of his connections.

Notably, one photo with Trump and Melania was cropped to exclude Ghislaine Maxwell.

The house was equipped with an extensive surveillance system, including cameras reportedly mounted above Epstein’s bed and in adjacent rooms, reinforcing concerns that private moments were recorded for potential leverage.

The property was sold in March 2021 for $51 million to Michael D. Daffey, a former Goldman Sachs executive, with proceeds directed to the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program.

So the story is anti-interesting. And it's very different than being uninteresting, which would suggest more collusion, more coordination. "Hello!" This is one of the most uncomfortable things. I think there was a time when if people said "collusion," or "coordination," the presumption was that that's kind of pretty far out there. Like post Elon musk's $44 billion Adventure at Twitter that showed there are these coordinating groups coordinating social media with the intelligence Community, or with the Department of Homeland Security, or with the state department. We now know that we're living in an orchestrated, curated, choreographed world, and we can't know it officially, but we all know it if we want to know, which is hysterical.

Well, are you a conspiracy theorist?

I read the slack messages; I read the emails; what are you even talking about?

Thank you very much for tuning in. If you enjoyed that clip with Eric, then press here for the full-length, 3-hour episode. Go on, press it.

[admin]

Jeffrey Epstein and the Nature of Evil | Eric Weinstein and Lex Fridman
Lex Clips
Nov 1, 2020

Eric Weinstein: On the Nature of Good and Evil.



Transcript

Can we talk a little bit about evil?

Sure.

I haven't actually talked to you about this topic, and it's been sitting on my mind mostly because everybody at MIT is quiet about it, which is Jeffrey Epstein. I didn't get a chance to experience what MIT was like at the time when Jeffrey Epstein was part of this, but I'd love to try to understand how evil was allowed to flourish in a place that I love, whether you think maybe -- let me ask the question this way: was the man evil, or was the system evil, or is evil too strong a word, because what I see is the presence of this particular human being, in the eyes of many, destroyed the reputations of many really strong scientists, and also weakened the ability of MIT, by making everybody quiet, like almost making them unable to say anything interesting or difficult. And what is that, and what am I supposed to -- why is everyone quiet about Jeffrey?

Obviously I want to scream about it too, right, and I probably have said too much about Jeffrey Epstein already. Look, something horrible happened. I don't know what it is, but something horrible happened.

Okay, the first thing I need to do is get rid of this woke crap about power differentials, okay? In general, you can say that hypergamy and power differentials, are Russell conjugates of the same concept, just the way particular proportions and symmetries are mathematically provable to be attractive in females to males. Male attractiveness is largely determined by male competence, and ability to amass power and success, and all these sorts of things. The relationship between consenting adults is quite frankly not something I want to sort out. The relationship between the sexuality of adults and minors, and particularly, you know, there's the 17-18 issue, which is very different than 12-13. We're talking about really sick depravity with respect to what it appears that Jeffrey Epstein was involved in at some level.

I believe this story is super complicated, in part, because I think one thing Jeffrey Epstein was doing was providing money encouragement and support to scientists. Another thing he was doing, I believe, was giving tax advice to very rich people. I believe another thing he was doing was hooking very wealthy people up with young adult females. Another thing he was doing, I think, was stuff with children that will curl your toes. So there's an entire spectrum of different stuff, and at the moment nobody can pull apart or deconflate anything, because the woke thing comes over it and says, you know, I think it's disgusting that a 43-year old billionaire would be partying with a 23 year-old, right? Yeah, I don't want to adjudicate that. I'm worried about 12 and 14 year-olds that we're not talking about. But I don't think MIT was deep into pedophilia. My guess is that that did not happen. I don't think that the scientists were the targets of the really sick depraved stuff. It's my guess that what you're looking at was a government construct. It may have been our government, it may have been a joint government project, maybe somebody else's government, I don't know.

I believe that in part we don't really understand Robert Maxwell.

Who is Robert Maxwell?

Ghislaine Maxwell's father. He was very active in scientific publishing. I don't know where peer review came from, I would love to run down the relationship between peer review and Robert maxwell, I would love to run down the missing fortune of Robert Maxwell, and the mysterious fortune of Jeffrey Epstein, because I don't think Jeffrey Epstein ever ran a hedge fund. i don't think he was a money advisor the way people claimed.

So there's two things I want to talk about. So one is the shallow conversations of woke identity politics that you're referring too, that seems to be removing everyone's ability and willingness to talk. Like, what the hell is this person, and how is he allowed, most importantly, how do we prevent it in the future? And from the individual perspective, the question for me is the same question I ask about 1930s nazi germany. I've been reading way too much probably, or not enough about that period, currently, if I was in germany at that time, what is the heroic action to take. We're not talking about virtue signaling. I wouldn't know what to do. I would like to know what we're up against.

Lex, you're not hearing me. The problem here is, "What was Jeffrey Epstein?"

Well that question might be the heroic action to take. That's what i'm trying to say. I'm just trying to get my first question --

You have to map the silence with Jeffrey Epstein. What you're describing is a map of silence at MIT. Is there a map of the silence in Washington state around Jeffrey Epstein? The bay area? New York City? The amount of silence around Jeffrey Epstein should tell you everything. The number of dogs that don't bark is like nothing we've ever seen.

You're exactly correct, but I want to know what is it telling us, because what it's telling me is not some kind of conspiracy, but more a disappointing weakness --

Not some kind of conspiracy? Not some kind of conspiracy? But you've got to be kidding me. No, you're so afraid of saying the word "conspiracy," that you don't think it's a conspiracy.

I personally just think it's people who I thought were my heroes just being weak.

No, be of good cheer sir.

You think that there is a conspiracy?

I think there is a conspiracy, and considering the scale of it, it's very impressive.

I tend to believe that large scale can only be an emergent phenomena.

Really? I find this so fascinating, because I always see you as logic driven. You're very logical. You're relentless. You've got a lot of love in your heart. I believe that if you would review the video, where is it, from Dubai, or Abu Dhabi, of the mysterious hit on the hotel guest? Did you ever seen this thing?

Dubai Hotel Murder: How Mossad Killed a Hamas Leader on Camera
WOW
Aug 28, 2025

In January 2010, Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was found dead in a Dubai hotel room. What first appeared to be a natural death soon unraveled into one of Mossad’s most daring operations. Surveillance cameras captured every step, exposing how Israeli agents moved in plain sight. This is the full story of the assassination that shocked the world.

This video is based on publicly available sources. All materials in these videos are used for informational purposes and fall within the fair use guidelines.

Dubai Hotel Killing 2010
by google ai
9/15/25

The assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a senior Hamas military commander, occurred on 19 January 2010 in a hotel room at the Al Bustan Rotana in Dubai.

Al-Mabhouh, a co-founder of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, was wanted by Israel for the 1989 kidnapping and killing of two Israeli soldiers and for facilitating arms shipments from Iran to Gaza.

He was found dead in his room, having been drugged, electrocuted, and suffocated according to initial reports.

The operation drew international attention due to the involvement of at least 26 suspects who used forged or fraudulently obtained passports from European countries and Australia.

Dubai police identified 12 suspects using British passports, six with Irish, four with French, one with a German, and three with Australian passports.

These individuals arrived in Dubai from various international locations including Zurich, Paris, Rome, and Hong Kong, staying at different hotels to avoid detection.

Surveillance footage captured their movements, showing them meeting in the hotel and using coordinated tactics such as disguises and electronic lock reprogramming to gain access to al-Mabhouh’s room.

The hit team used a room across the hall (room 237) as a staging point, where they waited before tampering with the electronic lock of al-Mabhouh’s room (230).

After he returned at 20, the assassins entered, killed him, and exited undetected, leaving the room secured from the inside.

The entire operation, excluding the actual killing, was captured on hotel surveillance video.

Dubai police chief Lt. Gen. Dhahi Khalfan Tamim stated he was "99% certain" the assassination was carried out by Israel’s Mossad, later declaring he was "completely sure" of Mossad’s involvement and requesting arrest warrants for Mossad chief Meir Dagan and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Israel has neither confirmed nor denied involvement.

Two Palestinians were detained in Dubai on suspicion of providing logistical support, though their identities were not confirmed by authorities.

The use of forged passports led to diplomatic fallout, with the UK, Australia, and Ireland expelling Israeli diplomats after confirming the forgery of their citizens’ documents.

Interpol issued red notices for the suspects, but none have been apprehended, and they disappeared after fleeing Dubai on separate flights to destinations such as Frankfurt, Bangkok, and Paris.

The case remains unresolved, with the suspects never seen or heard from since.

What happened is the assassination in 2010, 10 years ago, of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai, where i believe 26 separate individuals, on multiple teams, are shown coming in from all over the world on false passports, pretending to be tennis players, or business people, or vacationers, and all of these teams have different functions. And they murder this guy in his hotel room. And the Dubai chief of police, or security officer, was so angered, that he put together this amazing video that says, "We can completely detail what you did. We caught you on closed circuit tv. We don't know exactly who you are, because of your disguises, and your false passports."

Yeah 26 people converged to kill one person. No, I don't believe you. I don't believe after Cointelpro, Operation paperclip, and Operation mockingbird, i don't know whether i should even bring up Rex84 -- to not believe in conspiracies is an idiocy.

So you have a sense that evil can be as competent, or more competent?

First of all, when evil wants to operate at scale, it needs to make sure that people don't try to figure out evil.

When evil operates at scale?

Yes. From first principles you have to realize that evil does not want it investigated. That's the most efficient way to keep yourself from being investigated if you are an evil institutional player, who needs to do this repeatedly, is to invest in a world in which no one can afford to say the word "conspiracy."

CHAPTER XII: CONSPIRACY THEORY: THE GREAT AMERICAN TRADITION

The neocons, who are themselves a conspiracy, do not like conspiracy theories. But if we look at actual American history, we find conspiracy theories everywhere, even in the most exalted places. The neocon hysteria about conspiracy theories is therefore radically anti- historical, like so much else about this ideological and fanatical faction.

As the Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn convincingly argues in his prize-winning study, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967), the American Revolution was based on a conspiracy theory which saw the individual actions of George III as all being governed by a singly unifying design, which was to impose tyranny on the UK's North American colonies. This theory had been learned by some among the founding fathers from such British political figures as Edmund Burke, who made similar allegations themselves in a slightly different context. As Bailyn points out, the notion of a conspiracy centered on George III and his court was shared by the broadest spectrum of the founding fathers, from firebrand revolutionaries to cautious right-wingers like Dickinson.

Before the United States ever existed, there was a conspiracy theory. According to Bailyn, the Americans of the eighteenth century

... saw about them, with increasing clarity, not merely mistaken, or even evil, policies violating the principles upon which freedom rested, but what appeared to be evidence of nothing less than a deliberate assault launched surreptitiously by plotters against liberty both in England and in America. The danger in America, it was believed, was in fact only the small, immediately visible part of the greater whole whose ultimate manifestation would be the destruction of the English constitution, with all the rights and privileges embedded in it. This belief transformed the meaning of the colonists' struggle, and it added an inner accelerator to the movement of opposition. For, once assumed, it could not easily be dispelled: denial only confirmed it, since what conspirators profess is not what they believe; the ostensible is not the real; and the real is deliberately malign. It was this -- the overwhelming evidence, as they saw it, that they were faced with conspirators against liberty determined at all costs to gain ends which their words dissembled -- that was signaled to the colonists after 1763; and it was this above all else that in the end propelled them into Revolution. (Bailyn 95)

This conception was endorsed by George Washington in the Fairfax. Resolution of 1774, written in collaboration with George Mason. Here Washington asserted the existence of a "regular, systematic plan" of oppression. In conformity with this plan, the British government was "endeavoring by every piece of art and despotism to fix the shackles of slavery upon us." Washington wrote in a letter of this time that "beyond the smallest doubt ... these measures are the result of deliberation ... I am as fully convinced as I am of my own existence that there has been a regular, systematic plan formed to enforce them." (Bailyn 120)

Thomas Jefferson agreed; he wrote in a pamphlet of 1774 that although "single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day ... a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery." (Bailyn 120) This language prefigures the final text of the Declaration of Independence.

John Adams estimated in 1774 that "the conspiracy was first regularly formed and begun to be executed in 1763 or 4." At other times Adams traced the conspiracy back to the 1750s and the 1740s, mentioning in this context Governor Shirley of Massachusetts. According to Adams, the proponents of the conspiracy were exchanging letters that were "profoundly secret, dark, and deep;" this was a part of what Adams called a 'junto conspiracy." (Bailyn 122) According to the Boston Committee of Correspondence, one of the most important pre-revolutionary institutions, awareness of the conspiracy was a gift of divine providence, practically a revelation. They thanked God who had "wonderfully interposed to bring to light the plot that has been laid for us by our malicious and invidious enemies." (Bailyn 122) For these colonists, God was a conspiracy theorist.

Even the Tories, the pro-British faction among the colonists, believed in a conspiracy theory of their own. In 1760 the royalist Governor Bernard of Massachusetts alleged that a "faction" had organized a conspiracy against the customs administration; he saw this group as a secret, power- hungry cabal. (Bailyn 151 )

As Bailyn sums up his exhaustive reading of the pamphlet literature and political writings of the time, "the conviction on the part of the Revolutionary leaders that they were faced with a deliberate conspiracy to destroy the balance of the constitution and eliminate their freedom had deep and widespread roots -- roots deeply embedded in Anglo-American political culture .... The configuration of attitudes and ideas that would constitute the Revolutionary ideology was present a half-century before there was an actual Revolution ... and among the dominant elements in this pattern were the fear of corruption -- of its anti-constitutional destructiveness -- and of the menace of a ministerial conspiracy. At the very first signs of conflict between the colonies and the administration in the early 1760s the question of motivation was openly broached and the imputation of secret purposes discussed ... The conviction that the colonies, and England itself, were faced with a deliberate, anti-libertarian design grew most quickly where the polarization of politics was most extreme .... But in some degree it was present everywhere; it was almost universally shared by sympathizers of the American cause ... The explosion of long-smoldering fears of ministerial conspiracy was by no means an exclusively American phenomenon. It was experienced in England too " (Bailyn 144-145)

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE: CONSPIRACY THEORY

The US Declaration of Independence signed in Congress in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776, is one of the most celebrated conspiracy theories of all time. Here we read towards the beginning a description of the present situation of the states which notes that

... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security ....

This is followed by a long catalogue of misdeeds and abuses committed by the British monarch, introduced by the refrain: "He has ...." At the end of the catalogue, there is a summary paragraph which makes clear that what has been presented should not be thought of as a laundry list of complaints about disparate events, but rather as the implacable and systematic operations of a concerted plot -- of a conspiracy. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, as edited by Benjamin Franklin and others:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having, in direct object, the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States.

The ministers changed, the policies shifted, but the controlling goal of tyranny remained. It is a conspiracy theory of the type which would make many a modern academic or neocon talk show host squirm. It is also one of the greatest political documents of world history. Were Jefferson and Franklin paranoids, mere conspiracy buffs?

It is perfectly correct to say that the United States as a country was founded on conspiracy theory, one which served as a powerful unifying ideology for the entire revolutionary generation. The approach of their analysis, it should be noted, was empirical as well as analytical: they recognized the need to back up their conspiracy theory with an abundant supply of factual material. This point of documentation and intelligibility is a key point, which the analysts and researchers of today need to remember.

Abraham Lincoln often serves as a kind of touchstone of morality and legitimacy in American politics, and he generally deserves this distinction. For progressives as well as traditionalists and conservatives (as distinct from right wing radicals and neofascist neocons), the notion of getting right with Lincoln has long been a fixture of American political thinking.

What would Lincoln do if he were confronted -- as we are today -- with the attempt to found an entire system of government upon a set of uncorroborated assertions about a certain violent event which has aroused hysterical passions and which has been seized upon by those in power to set off an unjust and aggressive war of conquest? Instead of speculating as to what Lincoln might have done, let us look at what he actually did do.

For Lincoln was, in his youth, confronted with a situation very much like our own after 9/11 and the beginning of continuous warfare.

SPOTTY LINCOLN

For the young Lincoln, the question regarded the James K. Polk administration's policy towards Mexico. Polk was a slaveholder and a proto-Confederate who wanted to expand US territory towards the south in such a way as to increase the power and influence of the slave bloc. Polk was willing to make sweeping territorial concessions to the British in regard to the disputed Oregon Territory, where he repudiated the famous "fifty-four forty or fight" slogan in favor of a rotten compromise. By contrast, Polk's entire administration was devoted to tireless efforts to embroil the US in an aggressive war with Mexico. Polk first sent an envoy named Stockton to meet with the leaders of Texas, urging them to start a conflict with Mexico which the US could then portray as a new outrage perpetrated by the dictator Santa Anna. But Sam Houston wisely rejected this proposal, and would not act as Polk's provocateur. The best study of this attempt is Glenn W. Price's The Origins of the War with Mexico: The Polk-Stockton Intrigue ( 1967), and it can be shown to those who assert that conspiracies do not exist. Here was one which tried to provoke war but failed.

Later, Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor to take a military force across the Nueces River to the Rio Grande. The international border between Texas and Mexico was then about halfway between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. When Taylor's forces got to the present site of Brownsville, Texas on the northern bank of the Rio Grande, they marched across Mexican farms and into the middle of a Mexican township located there. This inevitably led to fighting in which some of the US troopers were killed. Polk then used this incident as a pretext for extorting a declaration of war from the US Congress: after all, US troops had been killed by Mexicans on US soil! The Mexican War of 1846-1848 was on. The armed clash provoked by Polk became the 9/11 tocsin for the Mexican War. The pressure on any politician to go along with Polk's orchestrated incident was as great as today's pressure to go along with the 9/11 myth.

In the midst of the war hysteria, some of the better Americans of the age refused to go along. One was Henry David Thoreau, who went to jail rather than pay a special surtax connected with the conflict. Former President John Quincy Adams led a group of antislavery northeastern Whigs called the Immortal Fourteen who voted against Polk's supplemental budget request to fund the army in the field.

Abraham Lincoln in early 1848 was an obscure Illinois Whig and admirer of Henry Clay who had just arrived in Washington to begin serving his term as a member of the US House of Representatives. We are dealing here not with Lincoln the war president who saved the union, but rather with Lincoln as a member of the opposition during another war -- the Mexican War. Polk's 1848 State of the Union address was a defense of the administration's policy in regard to Mexico. This was the first major speech that Lincoln heard after being sworn in as a congressman. Polk was an earlier president who could never admit to having been mistaken:

... the great bulk was his justification in detail, page after page, of every one of the actions of the United States, and the Polk administration, in the war with Mexico. The most salient quality of this long presentation was its relentless self-righteousness. Its total defensiveness. Polk and America were always and in every regard in the right; Mexico was always and in every way in the wrong. Doubly wrong: Mexico was not just the aggressor who started the war; Mexico was also wrong in every point leading up to that beginning, and had been wrong at every point since. And now Mexico was further wrong in not agreeing swiftly to her own dismemberment -- to the "liberal" and "generous" terms that we are now offering. (Miller 164)

It was under these circumstances that the young Illinois congressman offered his famous series of Spot Resolutions -- demanding to know from Polk exactly where, in what spot it had been on American soil that the bloodshed had taken place -- with the obvious overtone that the fighting had not taken place on US territory at all, but in an area long settled by Mexicans and belonging to Mexico. Lincoln made a speech in favor of his Spot Resolutions on December 22, 1847, after just ten days in the House. Lincoln hammered away at these same issues in later speeches on January 12 and again on January 22, 1848.

The January 22 speech portrayed Polk as a provocateur, and demanded that he tell the truth about what had happened:

Let him answer, fully, fairly, and candidly. Let him answer with facts, and not with arguments. Let him remember he sits where Washington sat, and so remembering, let him answer, as Washington would answer. As a nation should not, and the Almighty will not, be evaded, so let him attempt no evasion -- no equivocation. If the president cannot or will not give the desired answers ... then I shall be fully convinced, of what I more than suspect already, that he is deeply conscious of being in the wrong -- that he feels the blood of this war, like the blood of Abel, is crying to Heaven against him.

Lincoln argued that Polk had been determined all along to find a pretext for war with Mexico; Polk had proceeded

... by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory -- that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood -- that serpent's eye, that charms to destroy -- he [Polk] plunged into it, and has swept, on and on, till, disappointed in his calculation of the ease with which Mexico might be subdued, he now finds himself, he knows not where.

Lincoln did not hesitate to attack Polk personally, nor to advance doubts about his mental state:

How like the half insane mumbling of a fever-dream is the whole war part of his late message! ... His mind, tasked beyond its power, is running hither and thither, like some tortured creature on a burning surface, finding no position, on which it can settle down, and be at ease ... As I have said before, he knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God grant that he may be able to show, there is not something about his conscience, more painful than all his mental perplexity!

Lincoln was convinced that the attempt to assign Polk's plots, lies and provocations such a central role in American public life was destined to have terrible consequences, and in this he was amply justified. The Mexican War and its aftermath, built upon Polk's falsehoods, precipitated the crisis that led directly to the Civil War. But before that Lincoln paid a considerable personal price for his principled stand in favor of truth. For his adversaries, he became "Spotty Lincoln," who had refused to support Polk's rationale for the war. Some Democratic editors referred to Lincoln as a Benedict Arnold.

One who baited Lincoln in such terms was Senator Steven Douglas, the Illinois Democrat who was later one of Lincoln's four opponents in the 1860 presidential election. At the very first of the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, held at Ottawa, Illinois, Douglas spoke of Lincoln in these terms: "Whilst in Congress he distinguished himself by his opposition to the Mexican War, taking the side of the common enemy against his own country [voice from audience: That's true"] and when he returned home he found the indignation of the people followed him everywhere, and he was again submerged or obliged to retire into private life, forgotten by his former friends [voice from audience: "And will be again"]."

Lincoln never gave up his principled position about Polk's method of engineering the war. When Lincoln received the Republican presidential nomination in 1860, he was asked to assemble a short campaign autobiography or autobiographical sketch for use in the campaign. Here it would have been easy to omit all mention of the Spot Resolutions, but Lincoln obviously felt that the question of truth was more important. He stood his ground in the 1860 sketch, arguing that

... the act of sending an armed force among the Mexicans was unnecessary inasmuch as Mexico was in no way molesting, or menacing the US or the people thereof, and ... it was unconstitutional, because the power of levying war is vested in the Congress, and not in the President.

On this point, Lincoln never wavered. Many scholars and biographers who otherwise admire Lincoln have been puzzled or even scandalized by his tenacity on this issue. What Lincoln saw, and which the scholars often do not see, was the fatally pernicious consequences of lies in public life. In this sense, as in so many others, Lincoln was the anti-neocon. Lincoln also knew that if provocations were allowed to pass unchallenged, executive rule by provocation and by the threat of provocation would soon be the result. As he wrote to his friend Herndon on February 15, 1848:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure .... Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars (Miller 164-191)

These examples from the life of Abraham Lincoln suggest that, if he were alive today, our greatest president would hardly have accepted the fantastic myth of 9/11 in the way that most current politicians have done. Lincoln would have been at the very least a skeptic in regard to the official version and its many fallacies. He might well have been sympathetic to the 9/11 truth movement, since it is this movement which has stood up for the best of traditional American values against the overbearing oppression of the much- repeated lie. All of the neocon arguments about the need to stifle domestic dissent in time of war fall to the ground when confronted with the example of Lincoln.

THE PARANOID STYLE

Objections to the 9/11 imposture in its official version are often dismissed as conspiracy theories. Supporters of the official version use this a term of contempt, even though it is clear that to label a point of view as a conspiracy theory is in no way to refute it. The charge or insult of conspiracy theory is not only demagogical, but also intellectually dishonest, since the official version, involving as it does Bin Laden and al Qaeda acting at a distance from remote caves with the help of laptops, represents a conspiracy theory of a peculiarly fantastic type. Implicit in this procedure is the assumption that a conspiracy theory which is endorsed and embraced by the controlled corporate media is no longer a conspiracy theory, but rather respectable, and presumed true. Minority views which are not supported by the controlled corporate media remain conspiracy theories, and cannot be credible, no matter how true they can be shown to be. To these applies the warning issued by the deranged prevaricator in the White House:

We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty. (UN General Assembly, November 10, 2001)

The entire controversy about conspiracy theory is a diversion, and is generally conducted in such a way as to lead away from the facts on the table. Charges of conspiracy theory represent in their own way a form of ideological terrorism, and grow out of the intellectual climate of cold war McCarthyite witch-hunts. Conspiracy itself has a history as long as humanity, since it is one of the primordial forms of political action. Machiavelli writes about conspiracy in a long chapter of his Discourses; what he means by conspiracy is a plot to kill a ruler and to seize power in his place, like the conspiracy organized by the Pazzi family against the Medici in the 1480s. Conspiracy is also an active category of the Anglo-Saxon common law.

Conspiracy theory as a term of opprobrium is relatively new. It dates back to the work of Richard Hofstadter of Columbia University. Hofstadter was himself a kind of neocon ante litteram who became a direct beneficiary of McCarthyism: he took over a job vacated by Prof. Philip Foner, who had come under ostracism as a member of the Communist Party USA. In his essay on "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" (1964) and in his other writings Hofstadter took issue with the 1880s-1890s prairie populist critique of international bankers, a critique which today seems prophetic in its foreshadowing of the destructive shenanigans of Lord Montagu Norman of the Bank of England during the interwar period (Norman was part of Brown, Shipley in London, the home office of Prescott Bush's Brown Brothers, Harriman in Wall Street) and of the International Monetary Fund during the entire postwar period. But for Hofstadter, radical critics of Anglo- American finance oligarchy were paranoids. His essay is doubly suspect because it appeared in the wake of the Kennedy assassination, and seemed to suggest that the many critics of the Warren Commission report were also -- paranoids. An interesting problem was posed for Hofstadter in that sophisticated western Europe, where populist paranoia was supposedly less strong, was even more critical of the Warren Commission report than was the alleged US citadel of paranoia.

Hofstadter's favorite habit of tarring political forces he did not like, such as the populists, with the brush of paranoia appears illegitimate. The paranoid typically fears that there is a conspiracy afoot specifically against himself. For Hofstadter, this notion becomes impossibly broad: anyone who thinks he sees a conspiracy anywhere is ipso facto a paranoid. What is lost here is the necessary reference point in reality: is there a conspiracy going on or not? US Attorneys have been proving the existence of conspiracies to juries for a long time, and they have generally escaped the charge of paranoia.

It is impossible to write political history without admitting from time to time the possibility of confidential agreements for concerted action made in advance. There are of course times when conspiracy plays no role: an absolute tyrant at the height of his power has no need of conspiracy; he can act directly by issuing orders. (Yet even here, even figures like Hitler and Stalin turn out to have been less absolute than usually assumed; it is enough to think of Hitler's chronic need to keep an eye on his Gauleiters, or the fact that the USSR functioned as an oligarchy during more years of its history than it did as a tyranny.) Similarly, an absolutely spontaneous mob -- a rarity, although a theoretical possibility -- is also innocent of conspiratorial planning. Between these two extremes, some form of surreptitious concerted action can frequently be found. As has been stressed throughout this book, US society today is neither a tyranny nor a democracy; it is organized from top to bottom according to the principle of oligarchy or plutocracy. The characteristic way in which an oligarchy functions is by means of conspiracy, a mode which is necessary because of the polycentric distribution of power in an oligarchical system, and the resulting need to secure the cooperation and approval of several oligarchical centers in order to get things done. Furthermore, the operations of secret intelligence agencies tend to follow conspiratorial models; this is what a covert operation means -- coordinated and preplanned actions by a number of agents and groups leading towards a pre-concerted result, with the nature of the operation remaining shielded from public view. So, in an oligarchical society characterized by the preponderant role of secret intelligence agencies -- such as the United States at the beginning of the twenty- first century -- anyone who rules out conspiracies a priori runs the risk of not understanding very much of what is going on. One gathers that the phobia against alleged conspiracy theory in much of postmodern academia is actually a cover story for a distaste for political thinking itself.

"Conspiracy theorist" as an all-purpose term of ad hominem argument to dismiss arguments which cannot be refuted thus goes back to the years after the Kennedy assassination, when the public was expected to accept that it was US government policy that this great crime, along with the further assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy in 1968, would remain permanently unsolved, and that those who objected would be vilified.

A more recent hue and cry against so-called conspiracy theory has been raised by the neocon academic Daniel Pipes, doubtless a nepotistic close relative of the Richard Pipes who was a prominent member of Bush 41's exercise in anti-Soviet alarmism, Team B. Pipes is a neo- McCarthyite who harasses academics who show sympathy for the Palestinian cause through his witch-hunting Campus Watch organization. He was also a beneficiary of a recess appointment to the board of the United States Institute of Peace, a procedure to which Bush 43 resorted when it became apparent that the US Senate would never approve Pipes. Pipes' book, Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From (1997) defines conspiracy theory as "the fear of a nonexistent conspiracy," as well as a form of political pornography. But what if the conspiracy exists? For Pipes, ones own ignorant prejudice that no conspiracy exists trumps anything that might be determined by empirical research. Pipes relies frequently on his interpretation of Occam's razor, the nominalist proposition that explanations should be kept simple, or more precisely that theoretical entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). In the hands of Pipes, this becomes an infallible all-purpose argument in favor of lone assassins over multi-member plots, since a lone assassin approach is always more economical than a conspiratorial group. But what if necessity, which even Occam mentions, dictates something more complicated to account for the effects observed? Pipes and his friend Gerald Posner, who has written an especially meretricious book supporting the 9/11 myth, have no answer. There is one conspiracy which Pipes does believe in: he alleges an Islamist conspiracy to take over or destroy the United States. According to Pipes, one of the focal points for this conspiracy is the Committee for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which he thinks wants to impose Islamic law on this country. In any case, we can be certain that Pipes has learned all about conspiracies from his enthusiastic participation in the neocon mutual admiration and self- promotion society, which has been remarkably successful in making its banal and mediocre members into intellectual and political authorities.

LINCOLN'S HOUSE DIVIDED SPEECH: CONSPIRACY THEORY

Probably the most famous speech in American political history is the one which students still know as the House Divided Speech of 1858. This is Lincoln's address to the Illinois Republican Convention in the process of his nomination as candidate for the US Senate. Here Lincoln is dealing with a series of events which had greatly increased sectional tensions between north and south, between the slave and free states. These events included Stephen Douglas's sponsorship of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, an attempt to mandate squatter sovereignty on the question of slavery in the territories which had set off a severe round of violence on the part of free-staters and pro-slavery border ruffians. The pro-slavery forces had been helped by the policies of President Franklin Pierce, a doughface and an ancestor of Barbara Bush, the mother of the current tenant of the White House. These policies had been continued under President James Buchanan, another doughface or northerner who embraced the slave bloc for political reasons. Finally, there had been the infamous Dred Scott decision, written by the old Jacksonian Democrat Roger Taney, who had asserted that blacks could not be citizens, that they had no rights, and that federal limitations on slavery were illegal. Were these events, carried out over a period of several years by a heterogeneous group of protagonists, mere coincidence and happenstance, or did they possess an internal coherence and interrelation? Lincoln saw it as very likely that the events of the 1850s were the result of conspiracy:

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen -- Stephen [Douglas, Senator and Democratic Party leader], Franklin [Pierce, US President, 1854-57], Roger [Taney, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, and author of the Dred Scott decision], and James [Buchanan, US President, 1857- 861], for instance -- and we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill -- ... in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood each other from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn before the first lick was struck.

Yes, the House Divided speech adumbrates a conspiracy theory. Nor was Lincoln the only founder of the Republican Party with a penchant for this form of analysis: a similar outlook can be found in the speeches of William Seward, the New York governor and senator who went on to serve as Secretary of State under Lincoln and Johnson. Seward was responsible for the 1860 campaign platform and key slogans of the Republicans. Seward needed a way to express distaste for the slavery-based southern society, along with resentment about the insatiable and inordinate power of the southern states over the federal government. He chose to do this while avoiding outright abolitionism. Seward's answer was the theory of the Slave Power Conspiracy, understood as the coordinated actions of the slave bloc designed to consolidate permanent power over the federal government. It was this slogan that helped to put Lincoln in the White House in 1860. Here the reference of conspiracy could not be more explicit. Any Republican of today who objects in principle to conspiracy theory should be reminded of the absurdity of his position, since his party rose on the basis of an overt conspiracy theory, expounded by leaders who were moral and intellectual giants compared to the pygmies of today.

As Eric Foner has shown in his work on the ideology of the early Republican Party, when the GOP prepared to contest the election of 1860, the new party needed a clearer ideological vision than it had possessed in 1856. On the one hand, the slavery issue loomed very large. On the other hand, the Republicans did not wish to make outright abolition in to their main slogan, for fear of a backlash in various states, including in the north. The central concept of the Republican Party in 1860 thus turned out to be the Slave Power Conspiracy. This theory saw the ruling slaveholder elite of the southern states as preparing to assert total control over the federal government in Washington, and thus threatening the freedom and the livelihood of every person in the north, whether they cared about slavery as an issue or not.

Thus, the United States was founded on a conspiracy theory. Abraham Lincoln's first important speeches in Congress were devoted to exposing a conspiracy by Polk and his friends to unleash the Mexican War. Lincoln's House Divided speech, the most celebrated political utterance in the chronicles of the US, adumbrates a conspiracy theory. The Republican Party itself first captured the presidency thanks to the efficacy of a conspiracy theory.

-- CHAPTER XII: CONSPIRACY THEORY: THE GREAT AMERICAN TRADITION, from 9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in USA, by Webster Griffin Tarpley

You will notice that there is a special radioactivity around the word "conspiracy." We have provable conspiracies. We have admitted-to conspiracies. You have been invited to conspiracies. There is no shortage. Conspiracies are everywhere. Some of them are mundane; some of them are like price fixing cartels. Trade groups are generally speaking conspiracies.

So the first thing you have to realize is that all of us are in a mimetic [mimicry] complex where you can be taken off the chess board by saying "conspiracy theorist." It's like a one-line "proof." "We don't have to listen to Lex, because he said he was a conspiracy theorist on this show," okay? That is partially distorting our conversation. If you want to ask me about Jeffrey Epstein, you have to agree with me that that is a logical description. If you want to commit conspiracies, you have to make sure that people are dissuaded from investigating, yes? It's a fascinatingly difficult idea, because the world with conspiracy theories, in the world without conspiracy theories, to the shallow glance looks the same.

My point is that there is responsible conspiracy theorizing, where you look at the history of unearthed conspiracies just like you would with any other topic. Just think about how different the rules in your mind are for conspiracy theorizing versus x theorizing where x can be anything, right? If i say that average weight is not the same between widely separated populations, I'd say average height is not the same between widely separated populations. You'd say yeah. Then I say, in fact no continuous variable that shows variation should be expected to be identical between widely separated populations.

We have a violent reaction to specific topics. So the first thing I want to do is just notice that conspiracy has that built into everyone's mind. That's really important to state.

Yeah, that's very interesting, and as a prerequisite, as you're saying, that would be the first step if you wanted to pull off a conspiracy in a competent way, that you would have to first convince the world --  

1971 FBI Raid
by google ai
9/15/25

The 2014 documentary 1971, directed by Johanna Hamilton, chronicles the break-in of an FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania, on March 8, 1971, by a group of activists calling themselves the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI.

The eight ordinary citizens, including a physics professor, teachers, and parents, orchestrated the burglary to expose government surveillance of civilian political activists, which they believed was infringing on First Amendment rights.

They meticulously planned the heist, choosing the night of the "Fight of the Century" boxing match between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier, anticipating that public attention would be diverted and the building would be unoccupied.

The group successfully stole over 1,000 classified documents from the FBI office, taking every file they could find.

These files revealed the existence of COINTELPRO, a secret and illegal surveillance program overseen by J. Edgar Hoover that targeted civil rights organizations, anti-war activists, and other political groups through intimidation, infiltration, and efforts to create paranoia.

The stolen documents showed that a significant portion of FBI resources were devoted to monitoring political dissent rather than serious crimes.

The activists anonymously mailed the files to several news outlets, most of which returned them to the FBI. However, The Washington Post, after verifying their authenticity, published a front-page story on March 24, 1971, based on documents received by journalist Betty Medsger, which triggered widespread media coverage and public scrutiny.

This exposure played a crucial role in prompting the [url=x]1975 Church Committee[/url], the first major Congressional investigation into U.S. intelligence agencies.

Despite one of the largest FBI investigations at the time, involving up to 200 agents, the burglars were never identified or apprehended during their decades of anonymity.

The statute of limitations expired before their identities were revealed. In 2014, on the 43rd anniversary of the break-in, several members publicly disclosed their involvement, coinciding with the release of Medsger’s book The Burglary: The Discovery of J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret FBI and the premiere of Hamilton’s documentary 1971 at the Tribeca Film Festival.

The film features interviews with the former burglars, archival footage, and reenactments, presenting their story as a pivotal moment in the history of government accountability and civil liberties.

I just watched the film 1971 about my favorite conspiracy of all time. I highly recommend it. The film is entitled 1971, and it's about the citizens committee to investigate the FBI, which was run by a student of Murray Gell-Mann, a physicist, who broke into FBI offices in Pennsylvania to steal files which allowed freedom of information requests that discovered a huge conspiracy. It was a conspiracy that unearthed a conspiracy inside the federal government -- a double conspiracy story -- which launched multiple conspiracies. I think that the problem with modern Americans is that they are so timid, that they don't even learn about the history of conspiracies that have been absolutely proven.

1971 is a great doc. I think you’ve got two names mixing together, so here’s a quick, tidy fact-check and mini-bio that should clear it up.

Murray Gell-Mann (note spelling) is the famous theoretical physicist — Nobel Prize in Physics (1969) — best known for introducing the “quark” model and for wide-ranging work in particle physics and complexity. He’s not the person who broke into the FBI office; he’s a prominent academic and scientist.

Born Sept 15, 1929; died May 24, 2019. Nobel Prize 1969 for work on elementary particles.

The person who was the mastermind and recruiter behind the March 8, 1971 break-in at the FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania was William C. Davidon — a physicist and Haverford College professor who led the small Citizens’ Commission to Investigate the FBI. Davidon organized and planned the burglary that exposed COINTELPRO and led to major press stories and later investigations/reforms.

William Cooper Davidon (1927–2013). PhD in physics (1954), research at Argonne and Enrico Fermi Institute, professor of physics at Haverford (1961–1981). He later shifted to mathematics and retired in 1991. He was a longtime peace and civil-liberties activist and is identified as the group’s mastermind.
Wikipedia

How the confusion probably happened

You remembered “a physicist” connected to the burglary (that’s Davidon), and a famous physicist name that sounds like “Murray Gelman” — that’s very likely Murray Gell-Mann. The two are different people with very different careers (Gell-Mann = Nobel particle physicist; Davidon = Haverford physicist + activist who led the break-in).

Murray Gell-mann, by Chatgpt, 9/15/25

So with that done, Jeff Epstein, in my opinion, represented somebody's construction.

It's scary to think about.

Well, what part of the story isn't scary?

I did something which I imagine may get me destroyed, because I was more worried about being destroyed by somebody else who I had a conversation with about Jeff Epstein, right? So I'm just trying to let it be known that I don't know anything more than I've already said.

Now your friends at MIT, yeah, their problem is that Jeff Epstein showed up as the only person capable of continuing the U.S scientific tradition. You see, the U.S. scientific tradition is a little bit like the Russian tradition. It's combative, okay. And we're a free society, and we act like a free society. We're a rich society, and we research like we're a richh blame for Jeff Epstein, in the the failure of the federal government to honor its commitment, right? Yeah, I'm glad you said it. Science is one of the things that is worth dying for. I mean, I'm not eager to martyr myself, but I've certainly risked my health, my fortune, I've destroyed myself economically over science. And I have a need to oppose these sons of bitches in chaired professorships, who are destroying our system along with everyone else.

[admin]

Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre’s diary revealed
60 Minutes Australia
Sep 14, 2025 #60Mins

To the rest of the world Virginia Guiffre may have symbolised strength, taking on and bringing down the rich and powerful - the likes of Jeffery Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and most famously Prince Andrew. But privately, she was fighting a battle of her own.



Transcript

She battled the world's most powerful. I was just a toy to be used and dangerous.
I got out of it. It was an escape, but it was an escape with a happy ending. But Virginia Jafrey kept another secret.
She was telling us like this is what I'm really going through. Now her family revealed. It's just like this switch.
Her private pain. I have never seen my sister that weak. And final wishes. We want to make sure the world knows.
Virginia Du Fray was an incredibly courageous woman. She made global headlines for taking on and bringing
down billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his accomplice Galen Maxwell.
In the process, she also revealed she'd been trafficked to Prince Andrew. But
very few knew of the private battle she endured at home. Virginia died in April
this year. Now, members of her family, along with her closest confidants, are
sharing neverbeforeseen photos, details from her personal diaries, and other
witness accounts about what was really happening in her life. They say it was
Virginia's final wish to tell the world about the agony of her last days.
There's my goofy. This is how goofy she That's my goofy sister.
That like sums her up in like one picture right there. Do you want to know who she was? This
this right here 100%. Goofy and cheeky is how Sky Roberts and
Danny Wilson remember their sister Virginia. To the rest of the world, she may have
symbolized strength, taking on some of society's most powerful, accusing them
of abuse and sex trafficking. I won't stop fighting. I will never be silenced until these people are brought
to justice. But to these bereft brothers, she'll always be their Jenna, as they called
her, to cherish and protect. As siblings, I mean, this shows you like
how much we loved each other, like how much we would lean on each other. And and I think that's why we're here right now with you guys. That's why we're
reading through her journals. That's why we flew out to Australia and did everything in our power because,
[Music] you know, we loved her and your family.
Yep. Praying for an angel to
call. In April this year, on her remote
property north of Perth, Virginia took her own life.
Her death ended months of physical and emotional turmoil. I got on the phone with a private uh
plane company to to go get her. We were going to do everything in our power to get her.
But tonight, the distressing account from those left behind their desperate
race across the world to save Virginia. Now I'm starting to get a little bit
nervous. I'm like, okay, something's wrong now. like I need to get in there. And for the first time, they shared the
terrible secret Virginia kept for 22 years. The truth behind her picture
perfect marriage. She was telling us like, "Hey, this is what I'm really going through."
The evidence you've never heard. And and they were responding to a 911 call, a call for help,
right? She'd been assaulted by her husband. From the sheriff to the DA, witnesses to a marriage marred by
violence. The bruise to her eye and her cheek area
was one of the worst I have seen. And in Australia, allegations of the
latest brutal attack. And she said, I swear it was just like
this switch, like he just snapped. But then the bewildering twist. Why?
Despite the obvious injuries, did police believe her aranged husband and not her?
And what do you make of Robbie's claim that that that was self-inflicted that he did not beat her?
You cannot do what she did to herself. She her sternum was cracked. Her face
was beaten. [Music]
This country is a second chance for a lot of people. For me, it was a second chance at a new
life. I'll always be grateful to Australia. It's um down to his blood. I
love it. We first met Virginia in 2019. She was
living near Ken's then, indulging her passion for animals and the quiet life.
The Canefields of Queensland really were a world away from Manhattan,
where Virginia was the most prominent voice in the fight to expose sex abuser
billionaire Jeffrey Epstein and his twisted co-conspirator and girlfriend,
socialite Gilen Maxwell. She accused them both of abuse and human
sex trafficking. Much of it here at Epstein's New York mansion.
There's a lot of scars hidden behind those walls.
It should be ripped down. It should be burned to the ground.
Some of my worst memories are from this place. But her most high-profile scalp was
undoubtedly Prince Andrew, who was stripped of his Royal Highness title and
duties. Virginia famously claimed to have been trafficked to him three times
by Maxwell. This is a real photo and that was the first time you met him. And that's the very first time I met
him. And that's right before I was abused by him. And Virginia said she was underage at
the time. It's about time that we all stand up together and stop letting the
perpetrators, the very strong and powerful involved in this case in particular, getting away with bullying
us back into silence. Times have changed. I think the tide of the meeting what no one knew was behind the
extraordinary victory on the public stage. Virginia was staying silent on a
very private battle. She has since alleged her Australian husband, Robbie
Juay, had been coercive and violent throughout their marriage.
With her gone, it's surreal and unsettling to watch them together.
[Music] I interviewed the couple 5 and 1/2 years
ago, and back then, neither gave any clue to problems of any kind.
I have that ability. Instead, much was made of Robbie's role in rescuing Virginia in 2002 from
Epstein's clutches. She was in Thailand sent by Epstein to study massage.
Wait immediately. Robbie was a martial arts instructor there at the same time. Incredibly, just
3 days after meeting her, he popped the question. Yeah. still remember when I won down the
one leg oldfashioned style and I'm proposed. Goodness. How could you both be so
certain of each other after such a short amount of time? Yeah, that's the magical question. You just know.
You just know. Personally, I I knew he was the one when he told me
the way that your life is going right now, the people that are abusing you,
it's not right. And you don't have to live like that. And he was the first person to tell me that.
This might seem a bit harsh or mean to ask you, but did either of you think
that instead of true love that this was an escape route?
It was an escape, but it was an escape with a happy ending. It was still.
Are you sure the one? I knew her from the first time I met her. So even then, not everything was as it
seemed. And in the years after, according to Virginia's brother, Sky Roberts, their marriage spiraled.
This was the the man that in her perception took her away from Epstein, right? Like where he did, he helped get
her away. And you would expect that to be like the Prince Charming story where you ride off into the distance and it's
this beautiful ending, but it's not. I think over the course of years it developed into
this physical and emotional abuse. In September last year, Virginia and
Robbie separated. But it is only now that Virginia's allegations of Robbie's
coercive control and violence are being made widely known.
Robert's behavior became more controlling, the stronger I became, the scarier he became.
We would not be aware of the extent of the abuse if not for Virginia's diary.
It's on these pages she shared her painful and personal secret. Her final
words only discovered after her death. Wavered as he constantly accused me of
being unfaithful almost on a daily basis, monitoring me via the many cameras he has set up at Ocean.
Sky is reading out his sister's words, certain she wanted to reveal the reality
of her life behind closed doors. not allowed to go downstairs when any mail
was over and that was every day I became a prisoner. Did she explain why she kept that
secret? I think there was just this this sense of like how strong she was in the public
eye, but then she couldn't fight the demon of, you know, what was
going on in her own home and her own home is really what her hardest battle of her life was. And we want to be
strong for her and we want to make sure the world knows her truth and you know what she wanted people to know and
understand about her. Up next, the holiday that ended in
hospital and the courts issue a restraining order against Virginia, not
Robert. I'm not going to say what's coming to my mind there. We'll just Why don't you tell me what's on your mind?
Inflicted. How did she run into his hand? I mean, [Music]
it's cold. [Music]
In January this year, picturesque Dunsborough in Western Australia was the
destination of choice for Virginia Du Fry and her aranged husband, Robbie.
Virginia had booked this holiday home for the family to come together to celebrate their daughter's 15th
birthday. Instead, according to the mom of three, it was where Robbie verbally and
physically assaulted her nearly 3 months before she died in late April.
She started to tell us what happened. We knew they were separated for some
time. Virginia told her sister-in-law and brother, Amanda and Sky Roberts, the
alleged attack was her breaking point. They're sharing the harrowing details
and these confronting photos for the first time, following Virginia's wishes
to let the world know the violence she says she lived with. He wanted to be intimate with her. Um,
and she said she first tried to like laugh it off and you know, oh no, you
know, and she said, I swear it was just like this switch, like he just snapped.
Um, and before I knew, he was just on top of me and just raining down blows on
top of me. And um, she said that he had her in he's had her in like a martial
arts position. There was bruising all over her chest and his ring imprint was
on her cheek. And she said
that she had a cracked sternum and a perforated eye.
Lynette Wilson, Virginia's other sister-in-law, was accustomed to seeing her as the rest of us did, unafraid to
expose abusers. This is a real photo. No matter how powerful or wealthy. But following the alleged assault in
January, Lynette discovered another side to this trailblazer.
How devastating was it for you to see that those photos of her? It gives me
goosebumps right now thinking about it. Um because she's this strong woman and that's you know I've known her actually
since she was a little girl. Um, you know, she's gone through so much and she's always had this joyful
presenting outlook and, you know, to see in that moment her hurt and fear, it was
startling. [Music]
It would appear Virginia and Robert have very different accounts of what happened here in Dunsborough, though both admit
there was violence. From what Virginia told family back in the States, after
she rejected Robert's request for sex, he physically assaulted her, punching
her over and over. But Robert's version has Virginia as the aggressor. He has
made allegations that after their conversation deteriorated into an argument, Virginia assaulted him with
headbutts, punches, and spitting. He claimed all he could do was to try and
protect himself by covering his face and fleeing as soon as he could. As for
Virginia's obvious injuries, Robert alleges she caused those to herself.
I don't think she could have caused a fractured sternum and caused the bruising that she had on her body. Just
don't think that it's possible. And I I believe Virginia and what she said about
what happened that night. Carrie Lden was Virginia's lawyer and friend. She
believes Virginia's injuries look like she came off second best in a one-sided
fight. On top of previous injuries from accidents and back surgery, she says
Virginia was already very incapacitated and required a carer. Robbie said he
suffered bruising and scratches, that he was spat on, and that he feared
for his safety and the safety of his children.
Why are you laughing? It's just absurd. It just beggars his belief that he could say that he was physically scared and
threatened by Virginia who had a full-time carer. She was unable to live
independently because of her injuries and health concerns. Robbie made allegations
against Virginia's mental health at the time, saying that she was unwell,
manipulative, and unpredictable. Did you see any evidence of that instability
that might have caused her to attack him? No, I didn't see anything from Virginia that would have caused her to attack him
or for her to be physically able to attack him. I just don't think it was possible.
Virginia called the police the next morning. On seeing her, they advised her to go to the local Bustleton Hospital.
Police then investigated Robbie for assault, but say there was insufficient evidence to charge him. What did Robbie
tell police? Robbie told police something along the lines of that
Virginia had inflicted these injuries on herself and that he hadn't touched her.
That's what the police had relayed to me and to Virginia about why they closed the case.
So, they accepted that at face value. The only two people who knew what happened was Virginia and Robbie, and
they believed Robbie's version of events over Virginia's.
Despite claiming he'd been assaulted and injured by Virginia, Robbie never sought
medical help. He did, however, go to court and, as the process allows, was
armed only with his version of events. The magistrate granted him a six-month
family violence restraining order against Virginia. It forbade her from going within 25 m of
her aranged husband or their home.
Back in the States, Virginia's brother Sky cannot be persuaded by police or the
court. To him, his sister's bruises are proof she was the victim.
He says the gravest injustice against her was being banned from seeing or
contacting two of her three children who were under 18 at the time. That shocked
me. I was confused because how can you put a
violence restraining order on somebody who has been abused? You would traditionally think that that would be
on the person that is the abuser. In the US, Robbie's allegations against
Virginia have raised doubts because it's here in Colorado that he has prior form
for domestic violence against Virginia.
In 2015, Sheriff Dale King was part of the investigation that led to Robbie's
conviction. Dale is sad to admit he was not surprised to learn of Virginia's recent
injuries. So, her allegation was that Robbie did that to her. His allegation is that it
was self-inflicted. I'm not going to say what's coming to my
mind there. We'll just Why don't you tell me what's on your mind? Inflicted. How did she run into his
hand? I mean, in 2014, chased by the media frenzy
surrounding the Epstein case, Virginia, Robbie, and the kids escaped to Tiny
Penrose in Colorado. The peace Virginia sought in this one-horse town was shattered when in a
peak of anger, Robbie physically attacked her. The dog had done something and he got
mad and grabbed the dog. I believe she said like in a headlock. I mean, put his head head right here and started
punching the dog. And she got down and she tried to stop him and she tried to pull him off and he
turns attention from the dog and starts hitting her.
So, this isolated property is one that you know pretty well. Yes. This is where Jenna and Robert
lived when they were here. In Colorado, the authorities take domestic violence very seriously. That
night, Robbie was arrested, removed from the family home, and put in jail.
She had Yeah, she had some bruising on this side of her the left side of her face. And immediate support was provided to
Virginia, who the next morning met with the local district attorney, Amy Ren.
I highly doubt that was his first time assaulting her. And why do you say that? Just the severity
of the assault. And most offenders don't immediately go to that level of assault.
How would you describe that level of assault? I was surprised it she didn't have any
broken bones um in her face. The bruise to her eye and her cheek area was one of
the worst I have seen for um what would be a misdemeanor assault here. Um I
remember being shocked by it. Robbie pleaded guilty to domestic violence and
as a firsttime offender in Colorado, he was given probation as long as he
underwent a 26-week course addressing violent behavior and coercive control.
Did you have any sense or did either of them say to you whether this had happened in the past?
Um, no. But there were injuries this time. Um,
and he was beating on the dog first, she told me. I don't think that probably was the
first time. Sheriff Dale King's instincts may well be right if Virginia's own words are to
be believed. 3 weeks before her death, Virginia sent
a disturbing bombshell text to her New York publicist Deanie von Murling,
accusing Robbie of abusing her as far back as 2010,
just after the birth of her third child and 5 years before his conviction for
domestic violence in Colorado. As she wrote to me on April 4th, he was
coming down off a three-day bender and punched me in the face, which dropped me to the floor and continuously kicked me
in the stomach. This man has been violent throughout the whole marriage. I
did call the cops on him who turned up and by that time, Rob reverently pled on
his hands and knees not to charge him. He always apologized and said that he needed help and would never do anything
like that again. But as time went on, it only got worse. I'm shattered even
writing this. What was it like for you to read it?
I mean, I was devastated um to think that this is the life that
she was living and that it was um
much more prevalent than anyone could have guessed.
Does it make you sad? That's an understatement.
What sort of a person did you find in Virginia?
Um, can we have a minute?
I mean, can I get up? Of course.
Coming up, tracking down the Australian witness who backs Virginia's claims that
she'd long been a victim of domestic violence. It was clearly a very obvious
black eye.
Trying to keep his reign short. Before her death in April, high-profile sex abuse victim Virginia Duy made
damning allegations of domestic violence against her husband, Robbie.
She alleged to family and friends violence occurred throughout their 22-year marriage, but detailed in
particular one assault she says happened while living in Australia in 2010.
We've now tracked down witnesses who support that allegation. They're a part
of the couple's circle and say they remember the time clearly. She had a great sense of humor, very intelligent,
and just a lot of fun. Um, and I really respected her as a mother as well. It was just very clearly evident that they
were her her world and that she was just full of love. While Jane is too frightened to reveal her identity, her
friendship with Virginia all those years ago compels her to share what she along with seven or eight others witnessed.
There was one time when I just saw a mark on her face and I didn't ask anything of it because it was just like
it was a mark and then um it was probably about 6 months down the track
where she had a very um obvious um black eye. I I just said that wasn't Robbie,
was it? And she said yes. She said it was. And I said oh my god you I can't
believe it. And I said this is not okay. and she just sort of shrugged and just said, "Oh, it was just a little scuffle.
It's no big deal." Her first response to you was to minimize it.
Yeah. Yeah. Very much so. But she she confirmed that it was Robbie.
Yeah. Did it look minor to you? It it did not. No. No. Not the second
time. Absolutely not. It was clearly a very obvious black eye. But it was this
social media post made in March this year that first alerted the world Virginia was in trouble.
And Prince Andrew's accusers, Virginia Duayra is tonight in a Perth hospital. She is fighting for her life after a bus
crash and a serious crash which has left her with just days to live.
She had been a passenger in a car hit by a school bus. a crash shearmingly
claimed left her so injured she only had 4 days left to live.
It was a private post Virginia accidentally made public. But instead of sympathy, the general response was
immediate skepticism and derision. Doubt Virginia's brother Danny Wilson says was
unfair and unfounded. It was an alarming post to read that Virginia was had been
told that she had 4 days to live. So I spoke with the doctors and uh they
told me she was in very serious shape and she had zero kidney function. What the doctor had told her was like
untreated in your condition with zero kidney function. If you do not get treatment, you got about 4 days before
your body poisons itself. Did she ever try to convince you to come
out for a visit? She always wanted me to come and visit her. Virginia did get the treatment she
needed, but according to her New York publicist and close friend, Deanie von Murling, the accident couldn't have
happened at a worse moment. I think they're having a really hard time. It followed an alleged attack by her
aranged husband, Robbie Juy, two months earlier in January this year, which
resulted in a restraining order against her. She was also banned from seeing her
children for 6 months, something she found unbearable as she shared with
Deanie. What did she say? She told me she wanted to die.
She didn't have her kids. That was all she cared about was her kids.
There was no point. I called her family in the US and told
her brothers they had to go there and be with her. We were like, "We have to get up and go right now."
Virginia's sister-in-law, Amanda, and brother Sky Roberts had no doubt about
how serious it was. Was Virginia asking for you to come at
that point? I have never seen my sister that weak.
I think that was the conversation that really drove me to be like,
"We have to go. We don't have a choice anymore."
Sky and Danny made a mercy dash to be by their sister's side with Danny leaving
the States first. She had gone through so much. Um, it was
kind of like a cat always landing on their feet. You just expected her to be okay.
A fortnight later, Sky followed. I think you can see it in that picture.
I just think you could see the relief from her. Like,
like my family's here. I'm okay.
In that moment, did you I mean, was that encouraging for you? Oh, yeah. That was very encouraging.
[Music] With the end of her marriage, Virginia
sought refuge here on her isolated property in near Gabby, about an hour
north of Perth. Despite being in the middle of nowhere, she considered this to be her happy place, out of the
spotlight and where she could care for her beloved animals. But ultimately and sadly, Virginia could not find the
solace she was seeking. On April 24th, Virginia was home alone.
Sky had chores to do in the nearby town. When he returned later that evening, he
couldn't raise his big sister. I walk up to the door. I start knocking. I'm like,
"Jenn, are you in there?" Like, "Everything okay?"
I'm like, "She's not answering." Like, and then I go to check the door and the door's locked. That's weird. Like, I
shouldn't usually knock the door. Now, I'm starting to get a little bit nervous. I'm okay. Something's wrong now. Like, I need to get in there. And
so, I'm beating on the door and I was like, "Screw it. I'm going to kick in it. And so I kicked the door open and
that's when I found my sister. Um
I attempted to resuscitate her for 45 minutes. Um I called the authorities immediately.
Um and
and she was pronounced dead about an hour later.
Coming up, the unthinkable. Virginia's distraught family blocked from her
funeral. Her mother deserves to put her to rest. Her family deserves to put her to rest.
Virginia Du Frry, the fearless sex abuse survivor, revered for her fight against
the powerful and depraved, took her own life in April this year. Her death is
being deeply mourned by her family in the United States. You know, you got these beautiful creatures and animals that are so
powerful and I think it represents her in so many ways. But their loss is compounded by anger. They're devastated
they were not invited to Virginia's funeral. Her brother Sky Roberts says the
41-year-old's aranged husband, Robbie, held a private service without bothering
to tell them. They say it's yet another example of the little regard he's shown
them over the years. How much of a shock sky did that come to
you to know that a funeral had taken place that you didn't know about?
I guess the the simple answer to that is that I didn't come to a surprise at all.
Um I think because it would have been the right thing to do. And so, no, it
wasn't a shock to me that we weren't invited and that we had to find out third party
about which I think is very heartless. Well, how hurt were you by it? I mean, I'm very hurt by it.
No doubt Robbie can be disarming as we found him in this interview 5 and 1/2 years ago where his support for Virginia
and her escape from the powerful people who abused her seemed boundless. Her
making that jump and leap I always say is the most miraculous. She took the leap. She's the one I learned how to
trust again. So she's my she's my little warrior.
You okay? But since then their marriage disintegrated. It's been revealed
Virginia accused Robbie of frequent domestic violence. In turn, he got a restraining order
against her in January this year, and she was banned from seeing her kids for
6 months. Was there any chance that Virginia in
the allegations she made against Rob, exaggerated it in any way, made false
statements, lied about it? When are we going to start believing
survivors? It's we're so quick to try to debunk that that person's actually
telling the truth. So the answer unequivocally is absolutely yes. I believe my sister.
The family says Robbie's apparent campaign against Virginia did not come
as a complete surprise. He had long revealed his nasty side to Virginia's
mother. Call would call her things like stupid. Um, and there's some words here I
probably won't state. Um, you know, I pray for you. Who is that
fiery wench? You're old. I see dumb people. Um,
I'm a uniard. Dumb you are. What an idiot. These are just some of the abusive
messages Robbie allegedly sent his mother-in-law after commandeering Virginia's mobile. According to
Virginia, he would often take her phone to read her messages and to send these
outrageous texts. He'd say things like, you know, "Send us the date, stupid.
Shut up, stupid." Um, this one's pretty yucky. Um, this
one I think is very, very important cuz it it states, you know, and this is to
my mom from Virginia in her words, "Rob's being very rude. The only way to try to hurt me is to hurt you. I'm so
sorry. Please ignore his texts. Quite disturbing. They're very disturbing. And I think
this is the type of human being he is. There's even one here. With Virginia's death, Robbie's heartlessness was further exposed. Her
family asked for a small amount of Virginia's ashes to be sent to them. Robbie has never bothered to respond.
You know, at that point, the mission was get get my mom what she wants. The mom
doesn't care about money or stuff. She just wanted a little cup of her ashes.
And and we called and we emailed and we texted and we were very careful about
the way that we presented it because they've got people grieving on their end, too, going through the same thing.
But hey, do the right thing. [Music]
Virginia's last wish was to have those ashes spread here at this wolf sanctuary
in Colorado, one of her favorite places. While that wish has so far been denied,
her family held a memorial here for her earlier this year. [Music]
On their return, they're welcomed by a mournful sound they find fitting for
this moment. This place is very special to us. I'll
say we feel like we can hear her when they how um and
it's yeah just a very special place for us. Virginia's family remains painfully
fractured. Sky and Danny are fearful of losing all contact with their niece and
nephews who clearly meant so much to Virginia, as she wrote in her diary.
To the kids, um, every day that I don't see your faces has a little less light. The world is dimmer without you in it.
Her final goodbye to her three children is heart-wrenching, but it's a message
Sky says is essential they hear. It'll all be all right. You'll always
have a rainbow over your head, angels by your side, and God in your heart. I'm
here for you here and everywhere. And that was essentially the end of the
diary. Yeah. And I think it's important for the kids to know how much their mother loved
loved them. But there's yet another battle for this grieving family.
When Virginia died, it's believed she was a multi-millionaire following payouts from Jeffrey Epstein,
Glenn Maxwell, and Prince Andrew. According to her lawyer, Carrie Lden,
Virginia wanted her children to be the major beneficiaries, as she made clear she did not want
Robbie to get a scent. She wanted to make sure that her kids
were looked after and um some other other family members. Virginia had an
intended will but unfortunately died before she signed it. Now her two adult
sons are arguing in the Supreme Court because she didn't sign the will she wrote. She technically died without one.
If they win their claim under the law, her estate will be divided between Robbie and the kids.
Robbie would be entitled to about a third of the estate and then the children would be entitled to the
remaining 2/3 of the estate to be divied up equally between each child. That's right.
How do you think Virginia would feel about that? She would be horrified. Why is that? The idea that Robbie gets
money from her estate um was something that she was dead against. She didn't
want money which was payouts essentially settlements from her being a victim of
sexual abuse going to Robbie who had himself abused her.
She made that clear to you. She made that clear to me. She made that clear to everyone.
Praying for [Music]
Virginia Juy will always be remembered for overpowering some of the world's
most powerful people. But she also wanted to be recognized for
her vulnerability. [Music]
She bravely shared her secrets to be transparent about a life that wasn't
always what it seemed. I just don't want her to fade away and
what she did to fade away. I just think she was tired. I think she was tired.
And so many things had just weighed on her over the years. From the abuse
with Epstein to the abuse in her own home to losing her kids to feeling like the
Australian government didn't have her back and not seeing a way out to get her
kids. That was her number one thing in her life.
We asked Robbie Juay for an interview and also sent written questions to him.
His lawyer sent a statement saying his client couldn't comment because there are matters currently before the courts.
If this story has raised issues, there is help available. You can call Lifeline
on 13114. If you or someone you know is a victim of domestic violence, call 1 800 respect
which is 1 800737732.
Hello, I'm Tara Brown. Thanks for watching 60 Minutes Australia. Subscribe
to our channel now for brand new stories and exclusive clips every week. And
don't miss out on our extra minute segments and full episodes of 60 Minutes
on now.com.au and the 9 Now app.

[admin]

BREAKING: Dems Publicly Allege 'Deeply Disturbing' Statements By Alex Acosta At Start Of Interview
Forbes Breaking News
Sep 19, 2025

House Oversight Democrats hold a press gaggle after the first hour of Alex Acosta's closed-door interview about his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:



Transcript

Okay, thank you. My name's Robert
Garcia. I'm the ranking member of the
oversight committee. We've got oversight
Democrats here. I think most folks
know that we have Alex Acosta with
us here for the next few hours who is
obviously right now involved in a line
of questioning on both Republican and
Democrats.

So we've just finished our
first hour with Mr. Acosta, and so we do
have some comments. Members are going
to talk about this, and this will
continue throughout the day.

I just want to
make some some things clear that we
heard from Mr. Acosta just in
this first hour. Now, it's very
clear that Alex Acosta ran a deeply
flawed investigation of the Epstein
case. That's clear. He also would not
admit that Mr. Epstein received a
sweetheart deal, which has been widely
reported and agreed upon,
since that deal was actually made by Mr.
Acosta and his team. So, he stands by the decision to
have given Mr. Epstein a sweetheart deal,
which was only 18 months, and which
during that time, he went on to abuse
multiple women that he raped during that
time when he was supposed to
have been in jail
by the team by Acosta.

Let me also just
add, which I think is really
important. He stood by his decisions, and would not
claim any responsibility to the victims,
and in fact said, and has admitted, that
he had no knowledge of what happened to
those victims. Even to this day, when
asked directly if he actually knew that
women were abused during that time, he would
not admit that he knew that, and actually refused to acknowledge the
victims.

And so with that, I'm going to
turn this over to Miss Crockett, and
everyone's going to say a few words.

Thank you. And I
want to pick where
Congressman Garcia left off. It is
this idea that he is not experiencing
what most of us experience, which is
that hindsight is 20-20. He seems to be
pretty dug in on the decisions that he
made. And so for me, obviously, I wanted
to dig in a little bit, and try to
ascertain why is it that he felt so
confident. And unfortunately, I heard
things that disturbed me, such as, well,
back in 2006, it was a different time.
And it seemed as if we were going back
to a little bit of victim shaming, and
believing that nobody's going to
believe these girls, or these women, so
he wasn't going to necessarily have a
good case. And so instead of rolling the
dice, or I think it was
a crapshoot was what I said, instead of taking a crapshoot, he just
decided that this would be better, and
would guarantee that he actually
spent some time in custody. Think about
that. Think about the responsibility
that is upon a prosecutor to go after a
child predator and then to say, "Well,
at the end of the day, we don't think
they would have been believed." As
someone who has been in these
courtrooms, who has had to defend
against these very types of cases, let
me tell you something, and I did try to
educate him on the experts that we have
that can lay out whether or not a child
has any inconsistencies as it relates to
the trauma that they have experienced.
It doesn't seem like Mr. Acosta
was equipped to be the US attorney at
that time, or he's just playing in our
faces. I haven't really figured out
which one. But neither one of these
ultimate conclusions should be okay for
the American people.

Hello. Congressman Maxwell Frost. I 100%
agree with what Congresswoman
Crockett just said. Mr. Acosta, at least
to us in this deposition,
essentially said he didn't have faith in
the victims, their stories, and their
ability to tell their own story, and
their own testimony, which is deeply
disturbing to all of us sitting in
there. Not just that, but it seems like
Mr. Acosta
really had no idea about what was going
on in his own office during this
investigation, during the deliberation on
what is the most high-profile
case that his office handled during that
time period, which is also a very
disturbing fact given all the other
cases that they handle as well.

There's going to be more questions, but something
else we also talked about was his time
being considered to be secretary of
labor. Another place where he didn't
have much information to give us, didn't
have much recollection of specific
questions that the administration might
have asked him about the Epstein case
when they were vetting him, and
considering him to be on the president's
cabinet.
He did not have much for us there. He
gave some things he
thought he maybe could have remembered.
And I think it was just deflection.
So there'll be more questions around
this, but as we know to this day, when
he resigned being Secretary of Labor,
he still contends that it had
nothing to do with this case. And I
think we all know much better than that.
Thank you.

All right. Well, good morning. I'm
Melanie Stansbury and I represent New
Mexico's first congressional district. I
want to lay out some key facts for you
all. It is our understanding from the
victim's attorneys that there were at
least 40 minors who gave sworn
statements to the FBI as part of the
investigation before a decision was made in this case,
that they had been raped, abused, and
trafficked -- over 40 minors. And the line
prosecutor in this case wrote an 82-page
memo to the leadership in the US
attorney's office recommending a
prosecution. And she was so convinced,
based on the evidence and interviews
that she had taken, and reviewed ,that she
drafted a 53-page indictment in this
case. And what Mr. Acosta just told us is
that based on his assessment of the case
with his team, that he did not see
sufficient evidence to move forward with
prosecuting the case, that there were
weaknesses in the case.

When asked if he made the decision as to whether or
not to fully prosecute this
case, he took responsibility for it. He
said it was the decision of him and his
team. But when asked if he had directly
reviewed the evidence itself in this case,
he said that he had not actually read
the statements of the victims.

So let me just say this, something doesn't smell
right here. We have a number of hours
that we will be spending today to
understand what and if Mr. Acosta
understood the full scope of the
evidence, what he used to make his
decisions, and why he chose, instead of
pursuing a prosecution in which we know
there were at least 40 minors, and
afterwards there were many more victims
during the nonprosecution period, why he made that decision. And so we
will be pursuing that in the coming
hours in this interview under oath.
But something doesn't smell right here,
and we're going to get to the bottom of
it.

I'm Congressman Suas from
Virginia's 10th congressional district.
Everyone seems to agree that there is
this terrible miscarriage of justice in
this case, except for Alex Acosta. He thinks
that his sweetheart deal was actually
the best course of action, and still
seems to stand by it. And he was
investigating Jeffrey Epstein, who was a
close friend of Donald Trump's. And this
came up during his vetting process to
join the Trump administration. And so it
seems like it's starting to make more
sense every day to me why the Trump
administration won't release the files,
is because Alex Acosta was involved in
the sweetheart deal. And it seems like
the Trump administration is going to
continue this cover-up until oversight
Dems gets to the bottom of this because
we're the ones that have actually been
pushing the right questions in this
case.

Good afternoon. It is clear from
what we have heard, and we know this,
Alex Acosta helped Jeffrey Epstein evade
the law. Allowing Epstein a single state
charge, and a nonprosecution agreement, is
a slap on the wrist despite over 30
identified victims at the time. As my
colleagues have mentioned, it is clear
that Alex Acosta holds no remorse, and
does not feel even in hindsight that
that Jeffrey Epstein received a
sweetheart deal.

Now, just a couple of
weeks ago, we all sat in the room with
the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine
Maxwell. We heard directly from them,
including individuals who were raped and
abused by Epstein during this sweetheart
deal, and during the time period where
Alex Acosta made sure that Jeffrey
Epstein was able to evade the law. I
continue to have more questions now than
I did walking into the room earlier
today, because this is somebody who is
not clearly answering questions. We
still need to find out why is it that
the Donald Trump administration felt
that he deserved to be the secretary of
labor during the first Trump
administration. So many questions are
left to be answered. I think Alex Acosta
is a small but important part of this,
and it's important to remember that this
is a massive cover up.

There are many, many more people involved, financial
institutions involved, potentially
foreign governments involved, but this
is one key part to getting to the bottom
and getting to the answers that we need
to get justice for the survivors.

Hi, Congressman Dave Men of
California 47. And before coming to
Congress, I was a law professor at UC
Irvine. And I'll tell you, after the
first hour of sitting with Alex Acosta,
I found him to be completely noncredible
as a witness. His answers were evasive.
He obfuscated, and was just not
believable. Just to give you one
example, we know that his chief
federal prosecutor, in addition to
bringing a long charging memo, and a
prosecution memo, had actually said
that the computer evidence that was
being withheld by the defense at that
point in time, all these files, the
surveillance videos, perhaps child
pornography, they were not producing
it. She had said that that was a smoking
gun, that that would put this whole thing to
bed. When I asked Alex Acosta about
this, his response was that he didn't
actually review the evidence on this
case and would have no input on this,
which is just impossible to believe
given the high-profile nature of Jeffrey
Epstein at the time. Given the fact
that Alex Acosta was having meetings with
the attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein
contemporaneous with all this, he is completely
noncredible. I doubt we'll get a lot of
honesty out of him today. But what we're
hoping to get is a roadmap to the types
of evidence that we can demand,
as the oversight committee, from the
Epstein estate. A roadmap to that. And
of course we're going to continue to get
a lack of remorse, and a lot of
obfuscation out of Alex Acosta. It is very
frustrating, but we are going to get
answers. Thank you.

Good afternoon. James Walkenshaw from
Virginia's 11th district. I was sworn
into Congress last week, and one of the
first things I did was sign the
discharge petition to release the
Epstein files. And what I heard today validated that
decision for me.

There is a clear throughline over the course of this
Epstein tragedy, and it is a callous
disregard for the victims and the
survivors, and Mr. Acosta demonstrated
that today. We know that he signed off
on the sweetheart deal for Jeffrey
Epstein without consulting with the
survivors. Today, he refused to accept
what those survivors have told us. That
after Jeffrey Epstein was released as a
result of that sweetheart deal, he went
on to abuse more women. A callous
disregard for victims and survivors. And
we are going to continue to push and
push and push, and fight, so that those
survivors get the transparency and the
justice that they deserve. Thank you.

Let me just close up, and then if there's
a question or two, because we've got to get
back to these interviews. I just want to remind
everyone, we actually heard from the
survivors recently, just a
couple weeks ago. One of the survivors
that was there was very clear that
she was abused,
and assaulted, and raped by Jeffrey
Epstein during his work release, and
during that time when he was out
during that 18-month period that was
given to to him by Mr. Acosta and his
team. And yet Mr. Acosta stands by the
deal, stands by the fact that women were
assaulted and raped during that time, and
clearly many before,
and would not even agree
that anyone was actually abused during
that time. He was asked directly if he
actually understood that during the
sentence that Jeffrey Epstein
received, that he went on to abuse
other women, and he would not answer that
question. He said he was not aware that
that actually happened, that he could not
confirm that that actually happened.
That has been widely reported. And so he
is completely not credible,
and he's clearly
involved in the broader cover up
that is happening right now, clearly
being directed by the White House and
the Attorney general.

Lastly, we call
again on the President, and the attorney
general, to release the Epstein files, so
that the full truth of what happened can
be released to the public, and most
importantly, so the survivors to get the
justice that they deserve.

There's one
question or two and then we're going to
head back.

Mr. Garcia, you covered a
lot on Acasta, but we need to ask you
about the Jeff Zin's transcript.
There's been a lot of reporting about
his testimony regarding the
President's cognitive ability when he
was president, suggesting that he needed
multiple meetings to make decisions, that
he had slowed down. Do you agree with
the characterization about what's been
reported, and what was your take on that
interview?

Look, I think the Republicans keep
trying to focus on the past, and they
keep focusing on President Biden and his
health, while they're ripping away
healthcare from 17 million Americans.
Right now, we're focused on the Epstein
interview. Yes, question.

During this first part of
his interview, did any more names come
up that you might want to investigate, or
who might have been on this "client
list?"

I think that every single interview
conversation that we have, there are
more people that we want to talk to, and
certainly more information that we need.
But in order to get to the truth, we
need to release the files. Next
question.

You you brought up vetting several times
around his labor secretary position. Did
Acosta say he was actually asked
about the Epstein investigation while he
was vetted for labor secretary?

He was evasive. He was very evasive about it.
Yeah. So he was asked that question, and he
wouldn't really answer the question.
I don't think we got a clear answer.
I don't believe we got a clear answer
who Acosta was speaking with, or
who may have been
speaking to him, not just before that
confirmation, but also possibly after.

And with that, we're going to actually
head back to the questions. So,
thank you very much.

[admin]

Why Kimmel’s Axing Makes Epstein Coverage Riskier Than Ever
Tara Palmeri
Sep 21, 2025 The Tara Palmeri Show

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges that the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, did willfully and with extreme malice violate her Civil Rights under 18 U.S.C ; 2241 by sexually and physically abusing Plaintiff Johnson by forcing her to engage in various perverted and depraved sex acts by threatening physical harm to Plaintiff Johnson and also her family.

6. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges that the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, also did willfully and with extreme malice violate her Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C.; 1985 by conspiring to deny Plaintiff Johnson her Civil Rights by making her their sex slave.

7. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges she was subject to extreme sexual and physical abuse by the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, including forcible rape during a four month time span covering the months of June-September 1994 when Plaintiff Johnson was still only a minor of age 13.

8. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges she was enticed by promises of money and a modeling career to attend a series of underage sex parties held at the New York City residence of Defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein and attended by Defendant Donald J. Trump.

9. On the first occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to manually stimulate Defendant Trump with the use of her hand upon Defendant Trump's erect penis until he reached sexual orgasm.

10. On the second occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to orally copulate Defendant Trump by placing her mouth upon Defendant Trump's erect penis until he reached sexual orgasm.

11. On the third occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson was forced to engage in an unnatural lesbian sex act with her fellow minor and sex slave, Maria Doe age 12, for the sexual enjoyment of Defendant Trump. After this sex act, both minors were forced to orally copulate Defendant Trump by placing their mouths simultaneously on his erect penis until he achieved sexual orgasm. After zipping up his pants, Defendant Trump physically pushed both minors away while angrily berating them for the "poor" quality of their sexual performance.

12.On the fourth and final sexual encounter with the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was tied to a bed by Defendant Trump who then proceeded to forcibly rape Plaintiff Johnson. During the course of this savage sexual attack, Plaintiff Johnson loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to "please wear a condom". Defendant Trump responded by violently striking Plaintiff Johnson in the face with his open hand and screaming that "he would do whatever he wanted" as he refused to wear protection. After achieving sexual orgasm, the Defendant, Donald J. Trump put his suit back on and when the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, in tears asked Defendant Trump what would happen if he had impregnated her, Defendant Trump grabbed his wallet and threw some money at her and screamed that she should use the money "to get a fucking abortion".

13. On the first occasion involving the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to disrobe into her bra and panties and to give a full body massage to Defendant Epstein while he was completely naked. During the massage, Defendant Epstein physically forced Plaintiff Johnson to touch his erect penis with her bare hands and to clean up his ejaculated semen after he achieved sexual orgasm.

14. On the second occasion involving the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson was again forced to disrobe into her bra and panties while giving Defendant Epstein a full body massage while he was completely naked. The Defendant, Donald J. Trump, was also present as he was getting his own massage from another minor, Jane Doe, age 13. Defendant Epstein forced Plaintiff Johnson to touch his erect penis by physically placing her bare hands upon his sex organ and again forced Plaintiff Johnson to clean up his ejaculated semen after he achieved sexual orgasm.

15. Shortly after this sexual assault by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, on the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, Plaintiff Johnson was still present while the two Defendants were arguing over who would be the one to take Plaintiff Johnson's virginity. The Defendant, Donald J. Trump, was clearly heard referring to Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, as a "Jew Bastard" as he yelled at Defendant Epstein, that clearly, he, Defendant Trump, should be the lucky one to "pop the cherry" of Plaintiff Johnson.

16. The third and final sexual assault by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, on the Plaintiff, Kati Johnson, took place after Plaintiff Johnson had been brutally and savagely raped by Defendant Trump. While receiving another full body massage from Plaintiff Johnson, while in the nude, Defendant Epstein became so enraged after finding out that Defendant Trump had been the one to take Plaintiff Johnson's virginity, that Defendant Epstein also violently raped Plaintiff Johnson. After forcing Plaintiff Johnson to disrobe into her bra and panties, while receiving a massage from the Plaintiff, Defendant Epstein attempted to enter Plaintiff Johnson's anal cavity with his erect penis while trying to restrain her. Plaintiff Johnson attempted to push Defendant Epstein away, at which time Defendant Epstein attempted to enter Plaintiff Johnson's vagina with his erect penis. This attempt to brutally sodomize and rape Plaintiff Johnson by Defendant Epstein was finally repelled by Plaintiff Johnson but not before Defendant Epstein was able to achieve sexual orgasm. After perversely sodomizing and raping the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, attempted to strike her about the head with his closed fists while he angrily screamed at Plaintiff Johnson that he, Defendant Epstein, should have been the one who "took her cherry, not Mr. Trump", before she finally managed to break away from Defendant Epstein.

17. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was fully warned on more than one occasion by both Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, that were she ever to reveal any of the details of the sexual and physical abuse that she had suffered as a sex slave for Defendant Trump and Defendant Epstein, that Plaintiff Johnson and her family would be in mortal danger. Plaintiff Johnson was warned that this would mean certain death for herself and Plaintiff Johnson's family unless she remained silent forever on the exact details of the depraved and perverted sexual and physical abuse she had been forced to endure from the Defendants.

MATERIAL WITNESSES

18. Tiffany Doe, a former trusted employee of the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, has agreed to provide sworn testimony in this civil case and any other future civil or criminal proceedings, fully verifying the authenticity of the claims of the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson. Witness Tiffany Doe was employed by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, for more than 10 years as a party planner for his underage sex parties. Despite being subject to constant terroristic threats by Defendants Epstein and Trump to never reveal the details of these underage sex parties at which scores of teenagers, and pre-teen girls were used as sex slaves by Defendant Epstein and Defendant Trump, witness Tiffany Doe refuses to be silent any longer. She has agreed to fully reveal the extent of the sexual perversion and physical cruelty that she personally witnessed at these parties by Defendants Epstein and Trump.

19. Material witness Tiffany Doe fully confirms all of Plaintiff Katie Johnson's allegations of physical and sexual abuse by Defendants Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein. Tiffany Doe was physically present at each of the four occasions of sexual abuse by Defendant Trump upon the person of Plaintiff Johnson, as it was her job to witness all of the sexual escapades of Defendant Epstein's guests at these underage sex parties and later reveal all of the sordid details directly to Defendant Epstein. Defendant Epstein also demanded that Tiffany Doe tell him personally everything she had overheard at these parties explaining to her that "knowledge was king" in the financial world. As a result of these underage sex parties, Defendant Epstein was able to accumulate inside business knowledge that he otherwise would never have been privy to in order to amass his huge personal fortune.

20. Material witness Tiffany Doe will testify that she was also present or had direct knowledge of each of the three instances on which Defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein physically and sexually abused the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson. Tiffany Doe will testify to the fact that the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was extremely fortunate to have survived all of the physical and sexual horrors inflicted upon her by Defendants Epstein and Trump.

-- KATIE JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. DONALD J. TRUMP and JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendant(s). COMPLAINT FOR CLAIM RELIEF DUE TO: 1. SEXUAL ABUSE UNDER THREAT OF HARM; 2. CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE CIVIL RIGHTS, Case Number: ED CV16-00797 DMG *(KSX), FILED: 2016 APR 26 AM 11:12

How are the silenced voices of Jimmy Kimmel, Epstein’s victims, and fearless journalists connected in a chilling effort to bury the truth?

In this explosive episode of The Tara Palmeri Show, Tara dives deep into the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, exposing shocking revelations about the cover-ups and the silencing of those who dare to speak out. From the indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show to FBI Director Kash Patel’s admission that he never reviewed victim testimonies, Tara uncovers the disturbing pattern of dismissing credible allegations, including those from Virginia Roberts Giuffre and other survivors. She also revisits her exclusive interview with Michael Cohen, who admitted to intimidating a Jane Doe accuser, and questions why major media outlets are shying away from this story. With powerful men like Alex Acosta and Donald Trump tied to the case, Tara explores the fear and suppression keeping these stories in the shadows. Stay tuned for her upcoming Substack series on how Epstein’s victims are fighting back against a system that refuses to listen.

What do you think is stopping the full truth about Jeffrey Epstein from coming to light? Share your thoughts in the comments below and subscribe to The Tara Palmeri Show for more fearless journalism!
Support independent reporting by signing up for Tara’s Substack at tarapalmeri.com and join the fight for truth.

Tara's article on Jimmy Kimmel's firing:
https://www.tarapalmeri.com/p/when-jo...



Transcript

Welcome back to the Tara Palmeri Show. We've got a lot of things to cover this week.
We've got to talk about Jimmy Kimmel, and how the cancellation of his show, or the
indefinite suspension, which means he most likely will not be back, is silencing everyone, not just
comedians, but journalists and most importantly, the people who are trying to get to the heart of
one of the biggest scandals and coverups going on right now, the Jeffrey Epstein story. But first,
I want to comment on testimony from two law enforcement officials.

Our top law enforcement official, Kash Patel, the FBI director, testified before the House Judiciary Committee, that he did
not think there was credible evidence to continue the Jeffrey Epstein case to continue to look for
third-party perpetrators, despite the fact that if you look at the depositions of
Virginia Roberts Giuffre, she names men that she was trafficked to. Some of those names are redacted,
some of them are not. He said it was not credible. She's not the only one. There are others. And if you actually look through the FBI vault, you'll see that yourself. But get this,
Kash Patel also admits at the same time that he's never actually looked through the files himself.
How is he supposed to say it's not credible? And by the way, what does it take to be credible?
These are testimonies under oath. These are depositions that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein
have submitted to be a part of their case, and yet not credible? I mean, the lead
prosecutor on the case in 2008 wanted to charge him with 35 counts of sex trafficking. And no,
not credible at all. It was a disgusting day. Um, it really was.

And then on Friday, Alex
Acosta, who was the US attorney at the time in the 2008 case against Jeffrey Epstein, that sweetheart
deal, the one who blessed it and sent it back to the state attorney, who put him in a
county jail for a year, he also admitted that he never read the victim's testimonies. What a slap
in the face for the victims.

Also to Marie Villafana, who was the prosecutor, I did a big deep dive on
this for the Broken Jeffrey Epstein podcast that I hosted, on Marie, and all of the work she did ,
and how hard it was for her to get a lot of these girls who were underage to open up and tell them
her story. Because what Jeffrey Epstein did to so many of these girls was convince them that they
were prostitutes themselves, that they were the ones in trouble when the police were coming around
trying to talk to them, that were trying to get to them. He said that what they were
doing was illegal. And they were so young. They had come from broken families. They didn't know any
better. They had recruited their friends. He had convinced them that they were just complicit in
this entire sex trafficking operation, offering them lawyers himself. And Marie Villafana had to
try to get these girls ,who were running from her, to sit down and tell their stories. And they
did. And once they did, they wanted justice. You can hear that in my interview with Courtney
Wild. I did two episodes on her in broken Jeffrey Epstein. Jane Doe won. And it's incredible.
I mean her story was so crucial, and she is a part of those victim testimonies that Alex Acosta never
even read.

But you know who he did meet with? Who he thought was worthy of meeting
with? Epstein's attorneys, Jay Lefkowitz and Ken Starr. He actually left Miami and went all the
way up to Palm Beach, which is about an hour and a half away from Miami, to meet with him in a shady
airport hotel, where he wouldn't be recognized, to meet with those two lawyers and hash out a
nonprosecution agreement for Jeffrey Epstein. And yet he's the one blaming the state attorney? He
was the one who made this happen. It's really disgusting, and it just goes back to the fact that
these victims have never been at the front of the story. Not back then in 2008, and not now.

It is despicable that Kash Patel could think that he could actually tell Congress that he's
never even read these 302s. He's never even read the depositions. He's never even listened to the
victim's accounts. In those accounts, they tell you who the other people are that they have
to go after, who are the perps, who are the Johns. And they give information about how to get there.
If you don't want to look, if you don't want to listen, if you don't think
they're credible enough, this is part of the problem with society. The credibility
bias is really towards the power structure, and away from the accusers. Accusers
have to go above and beyond to prove their truth. And it's just there's so many of them.
The FBI said there are a thousand. Why can't we believe them? Why is it so hard in this post Me2
era?

Okay, I want to keep going because this is a switch to another topic which
is in incredibly related and it's all related by the way. It's the silencing. It's this, you know,
suppression of voices of people who challenge the power structures, authority, um the victims,
the journalists, um even comedians now. So, as we all know, Jimmy Kimmel has been suspended
indefinitely. Uh, I doubt he'll be back on ABC. And it was a very swift decision. It was actually,
you know, the FCC chair, Brendan Carr, made it known he was unhappy with Jimmy Demhold. Um,
said that he might take away the licenses for some of the ABC affiliates for running his show.
ABC affiliates pulled it and the top brass at ABC at Disney within you know few hours decided let's
just cut our main talent no one's immune everyone is afraid and seeing that happen reminded me of
CNN I was watching um well it's a clip that's actually been going around for a while um and it's
of John Burman on CNN and he is interviewing one of the members of the House Oversight Committee.
Um, one of the members who would have been interviewing Alex Acosta and you know, John Burman
is adding a lot of caveats and he's saying a lot of things to protect Donald Trump. For example,
um, well, first, why don't you take a listen to the entire um the entire interview?

Again, I do want to say we have no reason to think that he was in any way involved with that check itself.
Also, no reason to think he's conducted any wrongdoing involving Jeffrey Epstein. You noted,
you're a prosecutor, you're a lawyer here. There's this definition. I think we have lots of reasons
to think he was involved in wrongdoing. I mean, at this point, there's a lot of smoke. Uh there
may be some fire, but I I would just push back and say I think there's a lot of reason to think
Donald Trump was involved. Involved with what? I'm sorry. What exactly what proof do you have that
that he was involved with wrongdoing in regards to Jeffrey Epstein? And if that's the case,
where why have there been no prosecutions over 20 years here? Because there haven't really been any
allegations that he was involved with wrongdoing. There are a lot of uh a lot of connections where
Donald Trump was named, right? We we had a 14-year-old claiming that she was raped by him,
uh then withdrew that claim after she was apparently threatened. Uh his name appears a
lot. Uh and again, we at this point, our job is to find justice for these survivors. And that means
that we need to continue digging knowing that there is a cover up taking place right now. Uh and
and I didn't say that we have proof. Uh at this point, we have like a lot of smoke. Uh but Donald
Trump's name is clearly mentioned multiple times. We've seen him lie over and over about things that
we now know to be true. Uh so again, I I think that we as the oversight committee deserve we we
owe an obligation to the girls, the American people out there uh to keep digging uh and find
out the truth. What whoever is involved. Again, uh you know, Donald Trump has not been named in
any connection or charged with any wrongdoing there. Glay Maxwell, take this for what it is,
but Glay Maxwell said, you know, she never saw Donald Trump or anyone for that matter engaged
in any wrongdoing connected to Jeffrey Epstein. Um Dave Mid Congress, I would just point out
that Guzain Maxwell was uh indicted for perjury uh after she made that statement that you mentioned,
transferred to minimum security prison in Texas.

So again, okay. So Burman says there's
no reason to think Donald Trump is involved in any wrongdoing with Jeffrey Epstein. He says there's
hold on, let me go through all the things. He says he he pushes back. He says involved with what?
What proof do you have? There haven't been any allegations that he was involved in wrongdoing.
Trump has not been charged with wrongdoing. And that last part is true. Trump has not been charged
with wrongdoing, but there have been allegations. the Jane Doe, the Jane Doe that Representative Min
is referring to. And really what he should have been saying is that that President Trump has not
been charged with wrongdoing by law enforcement. Add that caveat, law enforcement. But he he has
been accused by this Jane Doe who dropped her lawsuit before the 2016 election just days
before November citing intimidation.

Okay, now this is going to bring me back to and bring you
all back to an interview that I had in August with Michael Cohen, who you know is now a commentator
on the left, but before this in uh 2016, the period of time that but you know in 2016 when
President Trump was then a candidate and uh about to win re-election and this Jane Doe dropped her
citing intimidation. He was the fixer at the time, right? So, as you'll see in this interview that
I had with Michael Cohen, he tried to find this anonymous Jane Doe. And there's a reason why these
Jane dos file to be anonymous to to prevent the sort of harassment to to not be found,
to be anonymous. They don't use their own names and addresses. Um, that's why they're called Jane
Doe's. Otherwise, they'd use their own names and use their own addresses. They don't want to be
harassed. They don't want intimidation. They know what that could mean for them, their families,
their safety, especially when they're up against some of the most powerful people in the world. So,
take a listen to what Michael Cohen told me at the time about tracking down this Jane Doe.

The only case that I was involved with was a Jane Doe, an infant, um, by and through her mom, Mary
Jane Doe, right, as legal guardian. That case was dismissed not because of anything that I spoke,
well, I spoke to the lawyers and I've talked to every I've talked about this a million times.
I turn around and I receive this summons and a complaint and the averments in it are awful.
They're despicable. It talks about uh basically rape of an underage female claiming and alleging
that Donald was involved in it and all that other nonsense. I ended up taking a private investigator
and trying to find out who this person was. And we went to the address that allegedly
this minor lived at in the Bronx. Well, lo and behold, the investigator responds back and says,
"The only thing that's there is an empty parking lot. It's there's no building there. It's an empty
lot."

Now, Michael Cohen goes on to say that this woman didn't exist because the uh the address was
a parking lot in the Bronx. And of course, she would use a parking lot in the Bronx. Why would
she use her home address? Most of them use their lawyer's addresses, by the way. But this Jane Doe
chose to use the parking lot instead. But she's not going to use her home address. Otherwise, you
would just run it through a search people machine and find out the name of the person and out them.
That's not the point of being a Jane Doe. And that's an obvious use of intimidation. I mean,
private investigators have been used throughout the Jeffrey Epstein case. Frankly, Courtney Wild,
the victim that I referenced earlier, um, who was crucial in the 2008 case, putting it together,
she was harassed by her private investigators, nearly run off the road by them. So, to send a
private investigator to find a Jane Doe is a form of intim intimidation. And Michael Cohen
is admitting that he was a part of this Jane Doe who dropped her case due to intimidation. It was
a huge admission by the way. And Michael Cohen, if you listen to this full podcast, which is still on
my YouTube channel, it's called Inside the Epstein allegation. Trump's Fixer tried to shut down. You
can listen to it on my YouTube um channel. You can listen to it on podcast, wherever you're getting
it. You can listen to our full interview. Michael Cohen is lashing out at me after he makes his
admission that he did this for President Trump. And he says that this girl was a quote unquote
infant, that she was 13 at the time, and that they tried to figure out who she was. And I asked him,
"Well, what did President Trump say to you?" And this is what he said. If you take a look at Trump
about it, though, when you when you were like, "Well, I did ask him. I did ask him. He told me
it was bullshit. Take care of it." I said, "Okay, that was it. That was it. It's bullshit." He said,
"Bullshit. Never happened." Hm. Did you Were you like, "There's all these pictures. Is this
going to be a problem around the same time?" No. I said, "You sure?" I said, "Are you sure?" He goes,
"Michael, it's bullshit." That's just the way he communicates. Like, you don't you don't get
much more info than that. It's what he told me on this one. Yeah. And you believed him 100%. Then
he said to me, you know, um let let me know what happens. I said, "Sure."

Now, you will only hear
about this story on my channel because it's gotten pickup nowhere even though President Trump's fixer
made this admission on the record. This is a huge breakthrough, right? But you're not going to read
about it anywhere else. You're not going to hear about it. It's not being played on TV. And I've
seen my podcast, by the way, play on TV. They've play been played on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. They
have been People are happy to run podcasts. And this is a huge adventure. You think people would
follow the story, but no one has. And you want to know why? Cuz it flies way too close to the
sun. Now, I asked the White House for comment, and they declined. They didn't they declined to
comment on the record. Um CNN did not get back to me either, but if they were following this story,
they would know that there were allegations. Um and there are reasons to think, right? Um, now
I'll tell you why people aren't following this. Because there's fear. There's real fear. President
Trump last week filed a $15 billion lawsuit against the New York Times for pieces that he
said mocked him essentially. Uh, he filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal
for finding a h I guess you would call it a body. is that's the way it was described. Birthday card
given to Jeffrey Epstein that suggested that he knew about his underage sexual trrists or some
sort of sexual trrists. Um he denies that they're real and all of the coverage has been Let me read
some of the coverage. By the way, this is the this is how it was covered by the the press ABC.
It's not my signature, Trump says about alleged Epstein birthday card birthday book letter even
after the Epstein estate gave the entire book to the House Oversight Committee. And the New
York Times, even the New York Times writes their their headline inside Epstein's birthday book,
apparently signed by Trump. The book came straight from Epste's estate. Apparently. So,
did they forge it? Did they slip this fake card in from President Trump who is referenced twice
by the way in this book? Once from this card that is in the shape of a naked woman by the
way with his signature where you know you in the pubic region. FBI director Cash Patel was asked,
"Are you going to investigate this this forgery that was submitted to the committee?" And he said
that they hadn't even opened an investigation. And yet they're suing the Wall Street Journal for10
billion dollars over it. And when I say there, I mean President Trump. President Trump has sued CBS
over that interview with Kla Harris. They stood down ABC over George Panopoulos's comments. They
stood down and paid him out. Who's next? And and that's why in the interview that you saw
with John Burman, it's dizzying. There are so many caveats. So many. He hasn't been accused.
this that alleged yada yada yada. It is there are so many qualifiers even though we know at
the heart of the story why we're covering it is not just because there are a number of other very
powerful men involved but because the president also has connections to Jeffrey Epstein they have
a friendship and he's the one who's stopping the files from being released. So we need to know why.

Even if the allegations are are false like he said the Jane doe allegations that's fine but release
the Epstein tapes. um respond to these things and he's just unwilling to and in the meantime
everything is just being sanded down with caveats and qualifiers to protect President Trump and and
it's just exhausting. I mean that's what reporters tell me and it's just the second guessing over the
phrasing and and and it's not being covered quite aggressively as it could be. And this is why it's
the fear. If you can destroy a a a celebrated comedian who has so many um fans and and it wasn't
a ratings issue. It wasn't a fickle audience over the a threat from the government. I mean, no one's
immune to this. Certainly not us journalists. If you work in mainstream media and you say the wrong
thing, you didn't say the right allegedly. You didn't say the right allegation. Like I feel bad
for Bur for John Burman for having to say that he's a good guy. But like he clearly knows that
if he says the wrong thing, no one's going to back him up. That's the times we're in right now. Those
are the times we're in right now. That is that is the reality. And so, you know, I think that it's
a it's a stifling time. It's a silencing time. It's a frightening time. And you know, I'm I'm
committed to moving forward with my journalism. Even as I face intimidation and all of that,
um, I can't do it without you, without your listening, following, subscribing, your support,
signing up for the Red Letter. Um, I couldn't do it without my team. I want to thank my producer,
Eric Abbenante. uh Adam Stewart who does my thumbnails, Abi Baker who's doing research,
and Daniel Rosen who is helping me out build a uh a community and a business so that I can
keep working and keep digging and breaking these types of stories that you're not going
to find elsewhere. I hope you'll share this with everyone because a lot of people still
don't know about this story. And I hope you'll stay on with the channel. And I'll tell you,
when I see law enforcement officials being inconsistent, I mean, this is a really sad moment.
You've got the FBI director saying he's not even looking at the victim's testimonies. Believe me,
it's hard for those women to come forward and tell the stories of the abuse that they suffered. And
then you have the former US attorney of Miami saying he didn't even bother to look. He didn't
even look at the 50page memo that Marie Lefana spent almost a year working on to recommend 35
charges. I'm going to actually read you some of those charges just so you understand the severity
of them and how he didn't even look at them. Hold on one second. It's going to take me a minute
to find them, but it's worth it because it it it will make you I think sorry it was 53 pages long.
numerous federal sex crimes. And the charges included trafficking of minor
girls, some as young as 14, sexual abuse, recruitment of others by buying bounties,
and transport of minors for sexual activities. And by the way, the FBI went on to say there
were a thousand victims. He was charged with two counts, state crimes, ankle bracelet,
and he was still abusing and assaulting women. at that time while in jail. Actually, he got to go
to his office. He got to actually work from his office while he was in that 13-month period. And
that's when he was assaulting assaulting women one time with police on the other side of the door.

All right. Sorry to break it down for you. I am uh on this Sunday in such a way that uh is harsh and
telling and just tells you that people don't have to protect you. They don't have to listen. They
don't have to care. And uh and the victims, they tell me, they're not going away. In fact, I have a
series coming out soon about how they're fighting back, how they are trying to tell their story,
um how they're trying to hold lawmakers who refuse to listen to them to account. And uh you'll see
that I'll be featuring that on my Substack, the Red Letter. Go to tara palmeri.com. You can sign
up for it. You become a paid subscriber. You can support me and my independent journalism
and you can hear the stories that um some of the most powerful people choose not to. Thanks again.

[admin]

The Mayfair Set | Part 1: WHO PAYS WINS | Adam Curtis Complete Documentary | 1999
Adam Curtis Documentaries
Jan 28, 2024

COHN AND CORBALLY

Roy Cohn served Hoover politically through various means, including by acting as his intermediary in political battles and other power struggles. Cohn and Hoover understood the power of blackmail quite intimately, with both allegedly having been blackmailed themselves, leading to their roles in the Plaza hotel “blue suite” parties. Not only is there evidence of Cohn and Hoover participating in sexual-blackmail rackets alongside Lewis Rosenstiel and (in Hoover’s case) Sherman Kaminsky, but there is also evidence of Cohn and Hoover having ties to another sexual-blackmail scandal of the 1960s, one which took place in the United Kingdom and is remembered today as “the Profumo Affair.” The key link between Hoover, Cohn, and the Profumo Affair is a man named Thomas Corbally, who used Cohn as a conduit to pass inside information on the scandal to Hoover’s FBI as it was unfolding.

Corbally came from a family of private investigators, and his family’s detective agency had close ties to organized crime, particularly Meyer Lansky and his immediate network. These ties were extensive enough that the Corbally family used their detective agency to benefit organized crime interests, which included spying on federal agents in the 1920s and 1930s. As a young man, Thomas Corbally served in World War II in the OSS according to Anthony Summers and Stephen Dorril, though this is disputed by others such as author Steven Snider, who calls the claim a “Corbally embellishment.”140 Corbally does appear to have served in intelligence during the war but in military intelligence via the Army Counterintelligence Corps. He subsequently served in the War Department Detachment, a group whose name has been used interchangeably with the Department of the Army Detachment. The latter was a name used as cover by the CIA in Europe in the immediate post-war period.141

In the 1950s, Corbally became a jet-setting private detective who courted the rich and famous, particularly in London and New York. During this period, he met and befriend Roy Cohn, and the two remained close, with Cohn serving as Corbally’s attorney over the years. In the 1960s, Corbally began living in London, sharing an apartment with William Mellon Hitchcock of the wealthy Mellon family, who was previously mentioned in Chapter 1. Mellon Hitchcock was the former in-law of David Bruce, an OSS station chief and close ally of William Casey. During the time Corbally and Mellon Hitchcock shared an apartment in London, Bruce was US ambassador to the United Kingdom.

While living together, Mellon Hitchcock and Corbally developed a reputation for throwing “wild parties” or “orgies” for the elite.142 At the same time, Corbally was courting organized crime networks in the United Kingdom, becoming close to Irish gangster Johnny Francis, who later facilitated the entry of Philadelphia mob boss Angelo Bruno into various businesses in London. Those interests included the Colony Sports Club, where Meyer Lansky associate and Washington, DC-based mobster Joe Nesline held a significant stake.

Both Bruno and Francis worked closely with Ronnie and Reggie Kray, twin brothers and nightclub owners who ran the London-based organized crime gang known as “The Firm” for over a decade. As Stephen Snider and Douglas Thompson have both noted, the Kray brothers “were known to have supplied ‘rent boys’ [teenage boys] to Lord Boothby [Conservative MP and former Churchill aide] during” the time they were associated with Johnny Francis.143 Declassified MI5 documents reveal that British intelligence was aware of the Boothby-Kray association that included “sex parties” and “rent boys” at the time these events took place, with those documents also referring to both Boothby and Ronnie Kray as “‘hunters’ of young men.”144

Corbally was not only plugged into the more powerful crime networks in the UK, but he was also a member of the Clermont Club, an elite group of gamblers in 1960s London. Many of Clermont’s members became extremely powerful during the government of Margaret Thatcher. Several members also later developed close ties to Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell’s father, and the global arms trade. The Clermont Club was opened by John Aspinall in London’s Mayfair district in 1962. Aspinall gave £3,000 to Corbally shortly after he opened the exclusive casino. While he publicly claimed the payment was to settle an old gambling debt with the detective, others associated with the club claimed it was meant as tribute to the organized crime networks that, by that time, were deeply connected to Corbally.

The Clermont Club, as noted in Adam Curtis’ documentary series The Mayfair Set, acted as a catalyst for the formation of a power nexus around a series of powerful businessmen and politicians who were incredibly influential during Margaret Thatcher’s government during the 1980s.145 At the center of this nexus were figures such as David Stirling, Sir James Goldsmith, and Roland Walter Rowland. Goldsmith later employed Thomas Corbally directly. Lord Boothby was also a member of the Clermont Club.

Stirling and Rowland, in particular, had significant ties to the global arms trade as well as relationships with Saudi weapons dealer Adnan Khashoggi, who later became a client of Roy Cohn as well as Jeffrey Epstein around the same time, as well as a key figure in the Iran-Contra affair. Both Stirling and Rowland also had their own associations with the Iran-Contra operation. Roland Walter Rowland, better known as “Tiny” Rowland, was also a very close associate of Robert Maxwell, as was fellow Clermont Club member and corporate raider James Goldsmith. Goldsmith not only had ties to Maxwell, but also to white collar crime-linked figures including Charles Keating, Michael Milken, and, later, Jeffrey Epstein. Both Keating and Milken were directly connected to the savings and loan scandal of the 1980s that, according to Pete Brewton and others, was largely the result of a collaboration between the CIA and organized crime. The Goldsmith- Epstein connection is revisited in Chapter 11. Another figure at the Clermont Club was Jack Dellal, whose family business later backed Christine Maxwell’s homeland-security-focused software venture, Chiliad (see Chapter 21).

In the context of Corbally and the Profumo affair, another very important member of the Clermont Club was a man named Stephen Ward. Ward was an osteopath, who became intimately acquainted with top figures in Britain’s aristocracy through W. Averell Harriman. Harriman was the former governor of New York whose Wall Street firm, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., had been financially entangled with assets of Nazi Germany well after World War II had begun. Harriman’s bank employed George H.W. Bush’s father Prescott Bush and his maternal grandfather George Herbert Walker. At the time he was promoting Ward, Harriman was an “Ambassador at Large” of the Kennedy State Department.146

In 1904, the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (home to today's Human Genome Project) was built on the estate of Foster and Allen Dulles, lawyers for the Rockefeller Standard Oil Company. The Dulles Brothers, who openly professed John D. Rockefeller's racial hygiene doctrines, later directed the U.S. military's Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and after World War II, the CIA. Charles B. Davenport constructed the Cold Spring Harbor facility to provide a home for racial hygiene research, what was then called "eugenics research." The first racial hygiene laws in the world evolved from investigations and reports issued from here. The John D. Rockefeller and Averell Harriman, America's wealthiest oil and railroad magnates, invested more than $11 million -- an extraordinary fortune at that time -- in funding this facility....

In 1910, following the death of Averell Harriman who presided over Yale's infamous secret society, the Skull and Bones, his widow donated 80 acres of estate property to establish the Eugenics Research Association at Cold Spring Harbor, New York, along with the Eugenics Records Office. The following year, social Darwinism subscriber, John Foster Dulles, revealed his desire to help develop a "super race." He explained that by eliminating "the weakest members of the population," a purer Aryan race might be created.

-- The American Red Double-Cross, by Dr. Len Horowitz

Ward’s friends among the British elite included the Churchills and photographer of the royal family Sterling Henry Nahum.147 Nahum was particularly close to Lord Louis Mountbatten, Prince Philip’s uncle and mentor to Prince Charles.148 Nahum, Ward, and Lord Mountbatten were attendees of the so-called Thursday Club, which Nahum is said to have founded. Other attendees at the Thursday get-togethers included Prince Philip and the Kray twins.149 Many of the attendees of the Thursday Club dinners were involved in sex parties, such as those hosted by Corbally and Mellon Hitchcock. Nahum was also a regular host of such parties at his apartment in Piccadilly, some of which featured “girls dressed only in Masonic aprons.”150 Ward regularly attended Nahum’s sexually explicit get-togethers as well as analogous events hosted by elite members of British society.

The Godfather (The CIA, Born Full-Blown From Truman’s Brow), by Tara Carreon

Ward’s “talents” were quickly recognized by British intelligence outfit MI6, which had a “reputation for targeting visiting dignitaries in the UK with sexual blackmail operations and recognized Ward’s potential in this regard,” according to Steven Snider.151 Ward was first approached by MI6 agent Harold Tracey in 1952 and Tracey cultivated him for years with the help of a close confidant of Ward’s, Warwick Charlton. Tracey regularly passed MI6-derived money to Ward via Charlton, but MI6 has since claimed that they never made “operational use” of Ward, despite their known interest and funding.152

During the early 1960s, when Corbally and the Clermont Club were becoming established in London, a British politician named John Profumo, who was then serving as the UK’s Secretary of State for War, met Christine Keeler. Keeler was a nineteen-year-old model who lived with Stephen Ward, and she began having an affair with Profumo shortly after they met. Keeler was simultaneously having an affair with Eugene Ivanov, a Soviet military attache and GRU agent in London. Ward allowed Keeler and Ivanov to use his apartment over the course of their affair, and Ivanov had his own ties to Ward, having sought to use Ward as a back channel between the Soviet Union and the UK during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. MI5 began to have concerns that Ivanov was “working” Ward, and Keeler later asserted that Ward was a British and Soviet double agent. Incidentally, Ward was also close to the Astor family and rented a cottage from them. The Astor family’s estate at Cliveden was the site of Profumo and Keeler’s first meeting, which led to their subsequent affair.

The scandal began only after Keeler, for reasons that are still unclear, told Labour MP John Lewis that she was having affairs with both Ivanov and Profumo. Lewis subsequently informed Profumo’s political enemy, Labour MP George Wigg. Wigg, like Ward, was an asset of British intelligence at the time. Between her testimony to Lewis and via him to Wigg, Keeler also told her story to the British press, causing a scandal to erupt around Profumo and leading not only to his resignation but to the breakdown of Harold Macmillan’s Conservative government. As an aside, Macmillan’s wife was allegedly in a long-term adulterous relationship with the aforementioned Lord Boothby, who was a member of the Clermont Club along with Stephen Ward and tied to the same organized-crime networks as Corbally.

According to Phillip Knightley and Caroline Kennedy in An Affair of State, as cited by Steven Snider, it was David Bruce – William Mellon Hitchcock’s former in-law and former OSS station chief – who involved Corbally directly in the Profumo affair.153 According to the authors, Bruce was asked by Macmillan to uncover the truth surrounding Profumo’s relationship with Keeler, and Bruce turned to Corbally for information due to Corbally’s relationship with Ward, his profession as a private detective, and his close friendship with Mellon Hitchcock. Snider also notes a different account of these events is offered by Anthony Summers and Stephen Dorril in their book The Secret Worlds of Stephen Ward. Summers and Dorril assert that it was Ward himself who “dropped in” on Corbally and Mellon Hitchcock, where he confessed everything to them and begged them for help in preventing Keeler’s story from going to press.154

Whatever the details, Ward, Corbally, and Mellon Hitchcock ultimately met with David Bruce’s assistant Alfred Wells, and Ward told Wells how the incidents at the heart of the Profumo affair had transpired. At least a month prior to that meeting and apparently before Keeler had revealed the affair to John Lewis, both Corbally and Mellon Hitchcock had known about Profumo and Keeler via Ward. Bruce’s role in these meetings with Wells seems odd, as he sat on this inside information about the affair despite its security implications for the US State Department and the Anglo-American establishment.

Hoover’s FBI got the inside scoop from Corbally and began investigating other women of interest in Stephen Ward’s circle while the Profumo affair was just beginning. Corbally kept the FBI informed of developments in the scandal through Roy Cohn, Corbally’s longtime friend and attorney. In the public release of the FBI case files on the affair, nicknamed the “Bowtie dossier,” the information that Cohn gave to the FBI is entirely censored, as is a seventeen-page interview the FBI had with Corbally.155 One of the reasons for these extensive redactions likely owes to the ties between the other women associated with Stephen Ward and efforts to sexually blackmail John F. Kennedy. Peter Dale Scott discusses this subject in Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, drawing partially on the work of Anthony Summers in Official and Confidential:

[Meyer] Lansky had by the 1930s acquired compromising evidence of Hoover’s homosexual activities. In the 1950s, Meyer Lansky, and other mob figures such as Sam Giancana, supplied women to John F. Kennedy, some of whom were logged into Hoover’s growing files of dirt on the young senator. In the 1960s this deep political equilibrium was threatened by Robert Kennedy’s war on organized crime, which alienated Hoover. Feeling increasingly threatened, especially after the Kennedys began to collect their own files on Hoover, both Hoover and the mob began to escalate their collection of Kennedy sexual dirt. At first Hoover gained White House influence by protecting the Kennedys against mob blackmail, but in 1963 Hoover, desperate, began to leak some of his own dirt on Kennedy to the public.

Hoover’s sexual dirt on the Kennedys began to surface in late June 1963, after the President’s “peace speech” at American University with its appeal, “Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Cold War.” On June 20, the United States and the Soviet Union signed an agreement establishing a “hot line” between the Kremlin and the White House.

A week later, there was a flurry of veiled hints linking the President to the Profumo story, such as the Drew Pearson-Jack Anderson column for June 29: “Britishers who read American criticisms of Profumo throw back the question ‘What high American official was involved with Marilyn Monroe?’”

On the same day, in a front-page story, the Hearst paper in New York, the Journal-American, linked the Christine Keeler-Stephen Ward sex ring itself to a” ‘high U.S. aide,” one of the biggest names in American politics. Back in 1960, after his election but before his inauguration, the President had slept with two members of the ring, including Mariella Novotny (a former stripper in London’s Club Pigalle).156

Mariella Novotny, born Stella Marie Capes, met Stephen Ward through her job as a stripper at the Mayfair nightclub The Black Sheep. The owner of that club, Horace Dibben, was a close friend of Ward’s who also had an interest in sex parties. Dibben’s sex parties were alleged to have a notably occult element, with allegations of “black magic and men in masks” as well as “ritual sadomasochism” based around a master/slave dynamic. Novotny was directly involved in Dibben’s occult-themed sex parties, which reportedly attracted prominent individuals in Harold Macmillan’s government as VIP guests as well as Stephen Ward.157

Novotny was subsequently whisked away from London to New York, where she began working as an upscale prostitute, servicing a lengthy list of powerful men out of four different apartments just months after she arrived. She had been brought to New York through her affair with Harry Alan Towers, a British television producer, and both were charged with operating a sexual-blackmail ring in New York that specifically targeted UN diplomats and other men of influence. John F. Kennedy was also reportedly one of her “clients.”

Before she fled the US in 1961, Novotny left her address book, replete with the names and contact information of America’s rich and powerful, with the FBI. For “mysterious reasons,” the FBI dropped its case against Novotny and Towers and chose to destroy Novotny’s address book as well as their files on both Novotny and Towers.158

The other woman linked to both Stephen Ward and efforts to sexually blackmail John F. Kennedy was Suzy Chang, a former nurse turned model who moved to London at nineteen. How Chang met Ward is still unknown, though Chang later described Ward as “a good, good, good friend” whom she had met sometime in the early 1950s.159 Chang was associated with Ward’s close friend and Thursday Club founder Sterling Henry Nahum and lived at the Nell Gywne House in London, where another woman working with Ward also lived. William Mellon Hitchcock, Corbally’s London roommate, later referred to Chang as “one of Stephen’s girls,” and Chang later confirmed that she knew Corbally as well.160

Novotny is the source of the claim that Chang had sex with John F. Kennedy, which is possible given that Chang was in the US in both 1960 and 1961. Chang acknowledged knowing Kennedy but denied having sex with him. According to Snider, she reportedly denied the affair with “less vigor” as time went by, however.161 Another noteworthy event that, according to Snider, was more indicative of “shadowy purposes” was Chang’s mother hiring the law firm of former OSS chief William Donovan to secure Suzy Chang a visa to the US in 1962.162 The year 1962 was a critical year for John Kennedy, and it also happened to be the year that the Profumo affair first surfaced.

The first stories on the Profumo affair emerged in the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which may explain why Keeler decided to go public with her story and create a scandal around her lover, costing him his career and setting in motion the destruction of the entire Macmillan government. As previously mentioned, Ivanov had attempted to use Ward as a back channel during the crisis. Not only that, but Ivanov and Ward were also working with Permanent Undersecretary of the British Foreign Office, Harold Caccia, to arrange a summit conference in England to resolve the crisis. The precise timing of the Profumo affair ensured that Ivanov would be rapidly recalled to Moscow, thus scuttling plans for the summit.

In addition, as Peter Dale Scott points out, the reports attempting to link President Kennedy to the Profumo affair only emerged after Kennedy’s June 1963 “peace speech.” That speech deeply unsettled the anti-Communist network that included Hoover, Cohn, and others, and stories attempting to tie Kennedy to Profumo’s scandal were published by the Hearst Journal-American. The paper’s editor, Guy Richards, was very much involved in this anti-Communist network and had “excellent intelligence contacts,” according to Peter Dale Scott, citing Anthony Summers.163 Summers also noted that the story was published shortly after Richards brought an anti-Communist friend of Keeler’s, Michael Eddowes, to the United States.

In addition, Roy Cohn was a longtime close personal friend of Richard Berlin, the top manager of the Hearst newspaper conglomerate, which owned the Journal-American.164 Cohn was notorious for placing stories in Hearst newspapers, as well as publications controlled by his other close friends, such as Si Newhouse, for the benefit of his clients and his network.

The Profumo affair was probably Corbally’s most notable tie to a sex-blackmail ring, but it was hardly his only such connection. Years later, Corbally was deeply connected to the so-called Hollywood madam, Heidi Fleiss, as well as a VIP S & M scene in the Hamptons. Corbally claimed, in the case of the latter, to have started that ring, which he said he had “imported” from the UK.165 He was also said to possess numerous “pictures of various individuals engaged in some rather strange sexual practices that were staples of these parties.”166 Another important association of Corbally’s, though not tied necessarily to sexual blackmail, was his connection to Jules Kroll of Kroll and Associates, with many early Kroll employees crediting Corbally for the firm’s initial success. Kroll and Associates, long known as the “CIA of Wall Street” and believed by French intelligence to have been an actual front for the CIA, makes a few, yet critically important appearances in the last days of Robert Maxwell and other events related to Maxwell’s posthumous legacy in the US, which are discussed in more detail in Chapter 15.

-- One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union Between Intelligence and Crime that Gave Rise to Jeffrey, Epstein, Volume One, by Whitney Webb

The explosions that shot out of the east and north side of WTC 1 came from the computer room of Marsh Kroll, a Greenberg-owned (A.I.G.) company that profited from the "War on Terror." Note the white blast coming from the southeast corner.....

THE KROLL CONNECTION

It is interesting to note that Jeremy M. Kroll, the Managing Director of Marsh Kroll, is also on the "advisory board" of Elad Yoran's Security Growth Partners (SGP). This is a crucial connection in the Zionist network behind 9/11; this is where we hit the mainline. Kroll, the son of Jules B. Kroll, has been an executive at Marsh Kroll, a division of Marsh & McLennan Co. (MMC), since 1996. Jeremy Kroll's connection with Elad and Amit Yoran through SGP reveals a key link between the American Zionist network and Israeli military intelligence.


Jeremy Kroll of Marsh Kroll

MMC is headed by Jeffrey Greenberg, the son of Maurice Raymond Greenberg (a.k.a. "Hank"). Maurice Greenberg, the former CEO of A.I.G., has been a business partner with Jules B. Kroll since 1993 when he reportedly bought twenty-three percent of Kroll Inc. for $15 million. In 2004, MMC acquired the rest of Kroll for the hugely inflated price of $1.9 billion. Jules Kroll reportedly retired in July 2008.


Jeffrey Greenberg, is CEO of MMC. The first plane flew directly into his company's computer room.
What an amazing coincidence - or was it?

KROLL SECURITY AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER

Kroll Associates was responsible for "revamping security at the World Trade Center after the 1993 terrorist bombing," Douglas Frantz of the New York Times reported in 1994. This is a crucial point because those who controlled security at the WTC are prime suspects in the demolition of the Twin Towers. It was directly into the computer room of Marsh (Kroll) USA in the North Tower that the first plane struck, or was precision-guided, on 9/11. The light orange flame and whitish smoke that exploded out of burning computer room of Marsh USA are indicative of a Thermate reaction. Burning jet fuel produces darker orange flames and blackish smoke.

John O'Neill, the former chief of counterterrorism with the FBI, who had investigated Al Qaida, was the head of security for the World Trade Center complex, and was killed on his first day of work on 9/11. O'Neill had been appointed to this position by the managing director of the Kroll security company, Jerome M. Hauer. Kroll evidently continued to manage security for the WTC complex from 1993 until 9/11.


Jerome Hauer (left), the first director of Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management and the person who chose to locate the command bunker in Larry Silverstein's WTC 7.

Prior to joining Kroll, Hauer, a Zionist Jew, was the director of Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management (OEM), where he had been the driving force to have the OEM command bunker built in Larry Silverstein's 47-story WTC 7, the tower which fell into its footprint at 5:21 p.m. on 9/11. Testimony from Larry Silverstein and physical evidence strongly suggest that WTC 7 was demolished with explosives and Thermite.

HISTORY OF ISRAELI "SECURITY" AT PORT AUTHORITY

There is a very significant but little-known history of senior Israeli intelligence officers seeking to gain control of security of New York airports, ports, bridges, tunnels, and the World Trade Center in the 1980s. Being in charge of security at the twin towers was obviously crucial to the 9/11 operation. The explosive charges and Thermite that evidently demolished the three towers could not have been placed in the buildings without the perpetrators having complete control of security. Getting control of security at the WTC was something senior officers of Israeli military intelligence had actively sought since at least 1987. This was clearly part of the Israeli master plan for 9/11, a plan first openly articulated in 1979 by Isser Harel, the former head of Israeli intelligence (Director Shin Bet, 1948–1952; Director Mossad, 1947-1963).

Harel, formerly the director of Haganah intelligence in the 1940s, is seen as the founder of Israeli intelligence. The Haganah and Irgun were the largest Zionist militia/terrorist organizations in Palestine prior to the creation of Israel in 1948. Both organizations were involved in the terror bombing of the King David Hotel and other acts of terrorism.

Harel was evidently involved in the long-term planning of 9/11. More than twenty years earlier he had told Michael D. Evans, an American Zionist, that terrorism would "come to America." Arab terrorists would strike the tallest building in New York City, "a symbol of your fertility," Harel said.

Evans, a Jewish Zionist who has long had close ties to Israeli officials, wrote about Harel's prediction of 9/11 in several newspaper articles and talked about it in an interview that followed the publication of his 2004 book entitled The American Prophecies, Terrorism and the Mid-East Conflict Reveal a Nation's Destiny.

Harel had dinner with Evans on September 23, 1979, according to Evans, and told him that America's alliance with Saudi Arabia "was dangerous and would develop a tolerance for terror among Americans." Harel went on to say that "Islamic fundamentalists would ultimately strike America."

HAREL'S AMAZING PREDICTION OF 9/11

When Evans asked where the Arab terrorists would strike, Harel said: "In Islamic theology, the phallic symbol is very important. Your biggest phallic symbol is New York City and your tallest building will be the phallic symbol they will hit."

Now, how could Harel know in 1979 that "Islamic fundamentalists" would attack the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001 if he was not part of the planning? "Isser Harel prophesied that the tallest building in New York would be the first building hit by Islamic fundamentalists twenty-one years ago," Evans said in the 2004 interview. How amazingly prescient – or telling.


Isser Harel, founder of Israeli intelligence

Seven years after Harel's bizarre prediction, a team of senior Israeli intelligence agents, men who had worked directly under Isser Harel for decades, obtained the security contract for the Port Authority of New York, the agency that owned and operated the World Trade Center. The Israeli false-flag terror of 9/11, designed to create the "War on Terror" and drag the United States into the Israeli-Arab conflict on the side of Israel, was evidently planned decades in advance.

A team of senior Israeli intelligence veterans, men who had worked under Harel since the founding of Israeli intelligence, received the security contract for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PA) in 1987, according to a Washington Post article from April 12, 1987. The Port Authority manages operations at New York's airports, as it did at the World Trade Center prior to the complex being leased to Larry Silverstein in late July 2001.

The contract with an Israeli "security" company called Atwell Security of Tel Aviv was cancelled after the PA learned that the firm was headed by Avraham Shalom Ben-Dor, the former head of the Israel's General Security Service (GSS), a.k.a. Shabak or Shin Bet. The Atwell company appears to have been created only for the purpose of obtaining the security contract for the Port Authority and the World Trade Center.


Avraham Shalom Ben-Dor

Avraham Bendor, or Ben-Dor (a.k.a. Abe, Avrum, or Avram Shalom) had been forced to resign as head of the GSS, which he ran from 1980 to 1986, following the disclosure that he had ordered the execution of two detained Palestinian bus hijackers by having their skulls smashed with stones, and then lied about it. "Avrum lied and kept lying," a senior security official involved in the Bus 300 affair told the Jerusalem Post in 1995. "He failed because he was too sure of himself and too used to hearing how great he was."

Shalom, the head of the GSS, was identified by an Israeli Justice Ministry report in December 1986 as having ordered the murder and subsequent cover-up of the two Palestinian bus hijackers captured in 1984. Shalom and ten other Shin Bet agents were forced to resign, although President Chaim Hertzog subsequently granted them all pardons.

Shalom corrupted the GSS, as well: "Some of the vices of the Shalom regime still plague the GSS," the Post reported in 1995. "One problem…is the lack of parliamentary control over the GSS." This is a very important observation because it indicates that the Shin Bet under Shalom had become a rogue agency and had a history of being out of control. "The most disturbing trend is the recurring episodes in which GSS agents provide misleading information to officials and the courts," the Post reported.

"The head of Shabak [GSS] has an unusual personal relationship with Prime Minister Shamir, partly perhaps because of Shamir's own past in the espionage business," the Jerusalem Post wrote in June 1991.

Shalom had ordered the murders but tried to blame a senior army officer at the scene and later claimed that Shamir had given him a free hand. The former Irgun and Lehi terrorist Yitzhak Shamir (born Jaziernicki in Belarus) was the prime minister responsible for Shin Bet at the time.


Yitzhak Shamir was a leader from the extreme right-wing Likud. After joining the Irgun terrorist group in 1935, he joined its most militant faction, Lehi, in 1940. He personally authorized the assassination of the UN representative in the Middle East, the Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte, in September 1948. Inset is Shamir's son, Yair.

Edward J. O'Sullivan, director of the office of special plans at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, simply said that the contract with Atwell Security of Tel Aviv had been terminated because "we are no longer satisfied with the agreement," the Washington Post reported in April 1987. O'Sullivan said the port authority's legal office told him not to comment on why he was killing the contract. O'Sullivan said he acted after a reporter inquired about the contract and Atwell's president, Avraham Bendor, acknowledged that he was also known as Avraham Shalom. Atwell, a subsidiary of the Eisenberg Group [Shaul Eisenberg of the Mossad], had been chosen "largely on the basis of Bendor's credentials," O'Sullivan said. Use of such aliases in Israeli intelligence is common, the Washington Post reported. "One intelligence expert said that even Bendor may not be the former Shin Bet chief's real name."

A New York-based senior Israeli intelligence officer, Peter [Zvi] Malkin, had acted as a New York representative for Atwell Security of Tel Aviv in the negotiations with the PA, O'Sullivan said. Malkin is famous for being the Mossad agent who grabbed Adolf Eichmann during the Israeli kidnapping in Argentina in 1960.

The executives running the Port Authority in 1987, the mayor, and his first deputy, all Zionist Jews, certainly must have been aware of the PA's decision to hire a company run by a senior Mossad agent to provide security for New York's airports, ports, commuter trains, and the World Trade Center. The people who made the decision to give the security contract to Avraham Bendor's Atwell Security of Tel Aviv must have known that Zvi Malkin was a senior Mossad agent; they had negotiated with him, after all.

The executive director of the Port Authority in 1987 was Stephen Berger (1985-1990). As executive director of the PA, one of the world's largest transportation agencies, Berger was described by Thomas J. Lueck of the New York Times in August 1987 as, "a man at the center of New York City's economy, deftly pulling strings in business and government alike." Today, Berger is Chairman of Odyssey Investment Partners, a private New York investment firm that specializes in private corporate transactions. Berger, a Jew, is a member of the board of New York's Citizens Budget Commission (CBC) with fellow Zionist Jews Larry Silverstein and Felix Rohatyn.


Stephen Berger was director of the Port Authority, the owner of the World Trade Center, when Atwell Security, a Mossad company, received the security contract in 1987.

Prior to becoming director of the Port Authority, Berger was a principal with Odyssey Partners (1983-85) with Leon Levy and Jack Nash, both Zionist Jews. Before joining Odyssey Partners, Berger had been Director of Corporate Development at Oppenheimer & Co., where Nash and Levy had been "senior-most partners." Levy was "a hedge fund pioneer" who founded Odyssey Partners LP with Jack Nash in 1982. "Odyssey's leverage buyouts (LBOs) and other investments reveal a pattern of slash-and-burn management and financial opportunism," Brooks Bitterman, Research Director for Local 100 of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union in New York, wrote in September 1995. "And with Stephen Berger's return to Odyssey Partners in July of 1993, the firm has been reinvigorating its LBO investing business," Bitterman wrote.

Philip D. Kaltenbacher, a former running mate of Governor Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey, was the chairman of the Port Authority's Board of Commissioners from 1985 to 1990. Prior to becoming a PA commissioner in 1983, Kaltenbacher had been Chairman of the New Jersey Republican State Committee. Kaltenbacher's father, Joseph, was a founder of the New Jersey Chapter of the American Jewish Committee and a former member of the national board of governors of the AJC, a major Zionist organization.

Stanley Brezenoff, who later became executive director of the PA in 1990, was Deputy Mayor for Operations and First Deputy Mayor under Mayor Edward Irving Koch (1978-89) at the time the Port Authority's security contract was being negotiated with Zvi Malkin, a well known senior Mossad agent. Brezenoff was "the second most powerful official in the Koch administration and was the government's chief operating officer, often serving as acting Mayor in Mr. Koch's absence," according to the New York Times. Brezenoff directed the day-to-day operations of city agencies, including police, fire, and transportation. It is hard to imagine that Brezenoff, whose Yiddish-speaking grandparents had immigrated to the United States in the early 1900s from Russia and Austria, was unaware of the deal to give the PA security contract to Atwell Security of Tel Aviv. Malkin was, after all, a legendary figure among Zionist Jews.

Malkin was one of the Israeli intelligence agents involved in the kidnapping of Adolf Eichmann in Buenos Aires in 1960. Malkin later wrote a book entitled Eichmann In My Hands about his role in the kidnapping. It was none other than Isser Harel, then head of the Mossad, who had sent Malkin and six others on the mission to find Eichmann, where previous agents had failed. Harel had worked closely with Shimon Peres and Teddy Kollek in the pre-state Haganah militia of the 1940s when they had been responsible for procuring weapons and smuggling them to Zionist forces.

MOSSAD: AMERICA IS THE ENEMY

Other agents on the seven-person Mossad team involved in the Eichmann kidnapping were Avraham Shalom Ben-Dor and Rafael "Dirty Rafi" Eitan, the senior Mossadnik [not the Chief of Staff with the same name], who ran the Jonathan Pollard espionage operation against the United States in the 1980s. Eitan later told the Israeli press that he had been made a scapegoat to cover for Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Shamir, senior Israeli politicians who knew about Eitan's espionage network in America, but defended themselves - and the state of Israel - by saying it was "a rogue operation."

Eitan headed a special spying unit known as the Scientific Liaison Office and directed a team of agents working out of the Israeli Embassy in Washington when the Pollard spy operation was exposed in 1985. For Eitan, a minister in the current Israeli government and member of the cabinet, the United States has always been considered "the enemy."


Rafi Eitan, Mossad spymaster, advisor to Fidel Castro, and Israeli cabinet minister

That Eitan, a senior Israeli intelligence officer and member of the Israeli cabinet, would say to one of Israel's largest daily newspapers in 1997 that the United States is an enemy of Israel, and that his position would not be challenged, is something that, unfortunately, very few Americans understand.

"I failed in the Pollard affair, just as I failed in other intelligence operations beyond enemy lines," Eitan told the newspaper Yediot Aharonot in June 1997. "That is the lot of an intelligence officer who runs complex intelligence operations. When you work a lot and do a lot, especially in the intelligence field, you win some and you lose some," he said. "Nobody knows either about your successes or your failures. It doesn't cause a fuss. But this was a big fuss. You take such a possibility into consideration, but there is nothing you can do about it."

"I'm surprised he would admit this," Joseph diGenova, the U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case, said. "But this is basically all stuff that the evidence in the case shows." DiGenova said Eitan's statement was unusual in that it contradicted the "official Israeli position" that the Pollard case had been an unauthorized "rogue" operation, and in that Eitan "does not refer to the United States as an ally, which is regrettable." Eitan's statement about the Pollard operation being an operation "beyond enemy lines" reveals how Israeli intelligence veterans view the Israeli-U.S. relationship, something DiGenova seems unable or unwilling to grasp or articulate.

-- Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World, by Christopher Bollyn

Four stories about the rise of business and the decline of political power. Is a BBC docuseries by filmmaker Adam Curtis, it explores the decline of Britain as a world power. This episode focuses on the birth of the global arms trade in the 1960s.



The Mayfair Set - Part 2: "Entrepreneur Spelt S. P. I. V."
JustAdamCurtis
Jun 20, 2016

The rise of accountant, game theorist and asset stripper Jim Slater, who became famous for writing an investment column in The Sunday Telegraph under the nom de plume of The Capitalist. Originally broadcast on 25 July 1999.



The Mayfair Set - Part 3: "Destroy the Technostructure"
JustAdamCurtis
Jun 20, 2016

This episode tells the story of how Sir James Goldsmith, through a series of corporate raids, became one of the world's richest men, and a victim of his own success. Originally broadcast on 1 August 1999.



The Mayfair Set - Part 4: "Twilight of the Dogs"
JustAdamCurtis
Jun 20, 2016
By the late 1980s, the day of the buccaneering tycoon was over. Tiny Rowland, Sir James Goldsmith and Mohamed Al-Fayed were the only ones left.

Originally broadcast on 8 August 1999.

[admin]

Here’s Everything We Know So Far About the ‘Katie Johnson’ Allegations Against Trump — It’s Serious and MUST Be Dealt With. This gets tricky, but it doesn't sound out of character for Trump OR Epstein.
by Andrew Simpson
Political Flare
July 9, 2024
https://www.politicalflare.com/2024/07/ ... ealt-with/

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges that the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, did willfully and with extreme malice violate her Civil Rights under 18 U.S.C ; 2241 by sexually and physically abusing Plaintiff Johnson by forcing her to engage in various perverted and depraved sex acts by threatening physical harm to Plaintiff Johnson and also her family.

6. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges that the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, also did willfully and with extreme malice violate her Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C.; 1985 by conspiring to deny Plaintiff Johnson her Civil Rights by making her their sex slave.

7. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges she was subject to extreme sexual and physical abuse by the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, including forcible rape during a four month time span covering the months of June-September 1994 when Plaintiff Johnson was still only a minor of age 13.

8. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges she was enticed by promises of money and a modeling career to attend a series of underage sex parties held at the New York City residence of Defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein and attended by Defendant Donald J. Trump.

9. On the first occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to manually stimulate Defendant Trump with the use of her hand upon Defendant Trump's erect penis until he reached sexual orgasm.

10. On the second occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to orally copulate Defendant Trump by placing her mouth upon Defendant Trump's erect penis until he reached sexual orgasm.

11. On the third occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson was forced to engage in an unnatural lesbian sex act with her fellow minor and sex slave, Maria Doe age 12, for the sexual enjoyment of Defendant Trump. After this sex act, both minors were forced to orally copulate Defendant Trump by placing their mouths simultaneously on his erect penis until he achieved sexual orgasm. After zipping up his pants, Defendant Trump physically pushed both minors away while angrily berating them for the "poor" quality of their sexual performance.

12.On the fourth and final sexual encounter with the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was tied to a bed by Defendant Trump who then proceeded to forcibly rape Plaintiff Johnson. During the course of this savage sexual attack, Plaintiff Johnson loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to "please wear a condom". Defendant Trump responded by violently striking Plaintiff Johnson in the face with his open hand and screaming that "he would do whatever he wanted" as he refused to wear protection. After achieving sexual orgasm, the Defendant, Donald J. Trump put his suit back on and when the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, in tears asked Defendant Trump what would happen if he had impregnated her, Defendant Trump grabbed his wallet and threw some money at her and screamed that she should use the money "to get a fucking abortion".

13. On the first occasion involving the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to disrobe into her bra and panties and to give a full body massage to Defendant Epstein while he was completely naked. During the massage, Defendant Epstein physically forced Plaintiff Johnson to touch his erect penis with her bare hands and to clean up his ejaculated semen after he achieved sexual orgasm.

14. On the second occasion involving the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson was again forced to disrobe into her bra and panties while giving Defendant Epstein a full body massage while he was completely naked. The Defendant, Donald J. Trump, was also present as he was getting his own massage from another minor, Jane Doe, age 13. Defendant Epstein forced Plaintiff Johnson to touch his erect penis by physically placing her bare hands upon his sex organ and again forced Plaintiff Johnson to clean up his ejaculated semen after he achieved sexual orgasm.

15. Shortly after this sexual assault by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, on the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, Plaintiff Johnson was still present while the two Defendants were arguing over who would be the one to take Plaintiff Johnson's virginity. The Defendant, Donald J. Trump, was clearly heard referring to Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, as a "Jew Bastard" as he yelled at Defendant Epstein, that clearly, he, Defendant Trump, should be the lucky one to "pop the cherry" of Plaintiff Johnson.

16. The third and final sexual assault by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, on the Plaintiff, Kati Johnson, took place after Plaintiff Johnson had been brutally and savagely raped by Defendant Trump. While receiving another full body massage from Plaintiff Johnson, while in the nude, Defendant Epstein became so enraged after finding out that Defendant Trump had been the one to take Plaintiff Johnson's virginity, that Defendant Epstein also violently raped Plaintiff Johnson. After forcing Plaintiff Johnson to disrobe into her bra and panties, while receiving a massage from the Plaintiff, Defendant Epstein attempted to enter Plaintiff Johnson's anal cavity with his erect penis while trying to restrain her. Plaintiff Johnson attempted to push Defendant Epstein away, at which time Defendant Epstein attempted to enter Plaintiff Johnson's vagina with his erect penis. This attempt to brutally sodomize and rape Plaintiff Johnson by Defendant Epstein was finally repelled by Plaintiff Johnson but not before Defendant Epstein was able to achieve sexual orgasm. After perversely sodomizing and raping the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, attempted to strike her about the head with his closed fists while he angrily screamed at Plaintiff Johnson that he, Defendant Epstein, should have been the one who "took her cherry, not Mr. Trump", before she finally managed to break away from Defendant Epstein.

17. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was fully warned on more than one occasion by both Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, that were she ever to reveal any of the details of the sexual and physical abuse that she had suffered as a sex slave for Defendant Trump and Defendant Epstein, that Plaintiff Johnson and her family would be in mortal danger. Plaintiff Johnson was warned that this would mean certain death for herself and Plaintiff Johnson's family unless she remained silent forever on the exact details of the depraved and perverted sexual and physical abuse she had been forced to endure from the Defendants.

MATERIAL WITNESSES

18. Tiffany Doe, a former trusted employee of the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, has agreed to provide sworn testimony in this civil case and any other future civil or criminal proceedings, fully verifying the authenticity of the claims of the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson. Witness Tiffany Doe was employed by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, for more than 10 years as a party planner for his underage sex parties. Despite being subject to constant terroristic threats by Defendants Epstein and Trump to never reveal the details of these underage sex parties at which scores of teenagers, and pre-teen girls were used as sex slaves by Defendant Epstein and Defendant Trump, witness Tiffany Doe refuses to be silent any longer. She has agreed to fully reveal the extent of the sexual perversion and physical cruelty that she personally witnessed at these parties by Defendants Epstein and Trump.

19. Material witness Tiffany Doe fully confirms all of Plaintiff Katie Johnson's allegations of physical and sexual abuse by Defendants Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein. Tiffany Doe was physically present at each of the four occasions of sexual abuse by Defendant Trump upon the person of Plaintiff Johnson, as it was her job to witness all of the sexual escapades of Defendant Epstein's guests at these underage sex parties and later reveal all of the sordid details directly to Defendant Epstein. Defendant Epstein also demanded that Tiffany Doe tell him personally everything she had overheard at these parties explaining to her that "knowledge was king" in the financial world. As a result of these underage sex parties, Defendant Epstein was able to accumulate inside business knowledge that he otherwise would never have been privy to in order to amass his huge personal fortune.

20. Material witness Tiffany Doe will testify that she was also present or had direct knowledge of each of the three instances on which Defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein physically and sexually abused the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson. Tiffany Doe will testify to the fact that the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was extremely fortunate to have survived all of the physical and sexual horrors inflicted upon her by Defendants Epstein and Trump.

-- KATIE JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. DONALD J. TRUMP and JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendant(s). COMPLAINT FOR CLAIM RELIEF DUE TO: 1. SEXUAL ABUSE UNDER THREAT OF HARM; 2. CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE CIVIL RIGHTS, Case Number: ED CV16-00797 DMG *(KSX), FILED: 2016 APR 26 AM 11:12

My editor says I should put this disclaimer at the end, but I’m going to come right out front with it, just so you know this isn’t clickbait. I have been reporting on Trump since before he was ever president, and nothing that is “alleged” here doesn’t line up with other circumstances he himself has described as having done.

None of this has yet been proven in court.

But the severity of the allegations notwithstanding, Trump is a proud misogynist, and the myriad pictures of him leering at his own teenage daughter as she sat on his lap, later to say that if he weren’t her father, he might be dating her, make everything in this viral story seem like it holds water.

Basically, what we have now is the story of an anonymous accuser who has gone variously by Jane Doe and now Katie Johnson. A post featuring a case filed against Trump in 2016 by an anonymous woman and Jeffrey Epstein, the pedophile who died under mysterious circumstances in prison before he could be forced to testify about who had accompanied him on a plethora of “sex trips” to a private island of his, has been making the rounds since the release of a slew of documents related to the Epstein case were released recently.

The case alleged that she had been held by the men as a “sex slave” in 1994, when she was 13.

It says that she was forced to “perform lesbian sex acts” against her will.

It basically says everything that always came to your mind whenever you thought about Jeffrey Epstein, or Ivanka on Trump’s lap.

Bill Madden
@maddenifico
Y'all know now about Trump's rape of 13-year-old Katie Johnson. This is how people got the details, not only about Trump's rape of Johnson, but about the relationship between 'pedo bros' Trump and Jeffrey Epstein -- and their secret lives as sexual predators and child rapists.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/41 ... d-j-trump/

The April 2016 filing — coincidentally right around the time that Trump was being accused of his affairs with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, during the election — was dismissed by a judge on lack of merit. The case was refiled in June, then again in September of that same year.

At the time of the filing, Trump’s then-lawyer, Alan Garten, told Politico that the charges were “categorically untrue,” though the disappearance of Ms. Doe/Johnson certainly raises some doubts. She hasn’t been heard from since she dropped the last case she filed due to death threats.

“It is completely frivolous. It is baseless. It is irresponsible. I won’t even discuss the merits because it gives it credibility that it doesn’t deserve,” said Garten. That ALSO sounds a lot like what his lawyers were saying about Stormy and Karen — that they wouldn’t even dignify it with a response. Trump’s sentencing in the hush money case involving those two is scheduled for September.

Although Epstein died awaiting trial for his 2019 case of sex trafficking, his grooming partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted and is serving a 20-year sentence.

Among the things released with the Epstein documents recently were a trove of pictures of Trump and Epstein together, both on his plane and on the island, and even at Mar-a-Lago.

See the post here:

True Blue
@AginsMichael
Is raping a 13 year old at Epstein’s NYC mansion considered an “official act”?
Asking for Katie Johnson.
5:14 PM · Jul 8, 2024

Here is her testimony and it’s brutal:

Political World Network
@Sharpcut
BREAKING NEWS: Here is the full 2016 testimony of a girl who claimed she was raped by Donald Trump (with Jeffrey Epstein) when she was 13 years old. It is explicit. Please watch the entire video. If you believe her, please share.
4:00 PM · May 2, 2023



Transcript

I came to this interview on my free will. No, there was nothing promised to me for
doing this interview. Yes, everything that I say at this interview will be the truth.
I met Donald Trump at some parties that I was working for Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. There was
about three or four times that I had encounters with Donald Trump. I was 13. The first time that
I met Donald Trump was at a party at Jeffrey Epstein's mansion. We were he was --- there
was an orgy going on, and he was kind of watching off in the distance. And and he basically asked
if I could come over and give him give him a hand job. And at first I wasn't very comfortable with
it this was like my first or second party, and I I didn't you know I didn't think that that was my
responsibility, but my recruiter told me that I needed to do it so I agreed to and then he
you know I said I said began to uh --- sorry this is a little difficult ---- but before I
gave him a hand job he kind of slapped my hand away and said you need to use a glove. And the
recruiter ran over and handed me a glove and said 'no one touches Mr. Trump's penis
without a glove'. So I needed to use a glove. I gave him a hand job and then immediately after,
you know, he he had an orgasm he left, and I didn't see him again at that party.
Jeffrey Epstein is a billionaire friend of Donald Trump's that was responsible for throwing the sex
parties. There was --- I originally came to New York trying to be a model and in my travels I met
a girl named Tiffany there who was very interested in me and said that you know she that's what she
did is that she helped girls you know get what they wanted and and she could help me get it and
get into modeling that she knew a lot of people that were that were higher ups and that it would
be no problem. And so that's why you know she but I would just basically have to come model
at a couple of events and meet some people. It would be no sweat. So of course I went you know
that it sounded like no big deal. And she was recruiting the girls to come to these parties,
and they all looked I mean most of them were near my age there was you know maybe
a couple girls that were maybe 14 or 15 but it seemed to me like we were all very young so.
Jeffrey Epstein knew that I was 13 years old. When he interviewed me he asked me
to get down to my bra my just my panties and I thought that was weird but I mean modeling
maybe it was something about my figure and he asked that I give him a massage so he and then
he asked me my age he asked me and I told him you know I've told him that I was 13 I told him
why I was there and and he basically said well you'll do you know I'm sure that you'll you'll
fit pretty nicely here and then he he tried to basically slip himself inside of me. And I
pushed him away and I said I'm because ---- at that point in time I still believed that there
was models and then there was the girls that did that like I thought there was a separation. So,
um yeah I told him that I wasn't interested in that, but he said that I would do.
And as far as Donald Trump, he knew that I was 13 and I believe that Tiffany told him.
He seemed to take a liking to me, because I was I was so young and I was also a virgin -- so,
I don't know he's it seemed like he wasn't really into having having girls that that
were liked by the other guys he kind of --- you know the whole glove --- and he kind of
liked things to be his first you know if that for lack of you know better term,
but he was the one who wanted to get to get to a girl before everyone else did.
Donald's Trump knew that I was 13, because the first the first night that I was there
Tiffany actually suggested that, and she had a whole bunch of different wings than
I expressed interest in them you know I always told her that I would love to walk
around blue hair and so I tried some on and there was a blonde wig that she said
that looked great on me so I wore that wig. And Donald Trump had specifically asked about me,
because I remind him of his daughter and she said well she's 13 as well. So,
he knew the first time that he saw me but he took a liking to me because I look like his daughter.
The reason I'm coming out now is when it happened originally I just wanted to
forget about the whole incident and when I saw that he was running for President, I felt it
was my responsibility to come out and tell our country what kind of man this person is. I don't
think that he should even be the dog catcher let alone running the greatest country in the world.
After I met Tiffany at the bus station, she took me to basically went to her house her
apartment and got ready I put on a blonde wig, because it seemed fun to pretend to be someone
different but we went to the party that I was basically entering interviewing for.
And Jeffrey Epstein was the one that was running the party. He had a quick meeting
with everyone that was employed there, and he had a private interview with me.
The first time that I met Jeffrey Epstein he did try to force himself inside of me without
getting the go-ahead or anything and then on the it was probably about the third or
fourth party is when he basically forced it was it was another massage and it was
basically like it wasn't sex but it was there was penetration and I told him that I didn't
want that but he kind of got a little irritated so I don't know there was something about him
that I guess I kind of held him like I helped a lot of resentment towards him.
By that time that that happened I I kind of already started catching on
that maybe I wasn't there for modeling and maybe I was just
getting used for things and I felt that kind of held him responsible.
Um I did receive money to go to these parties. After every party I was paid by Mr. Epstein.
There wasn't --- out of all the girls that were there with me I never I've most of them
were 13 14 I think the oldest one might have been 16 just but just turned 16. I mean she'd
been there for a while. It was actually --- it was Tiffany he was it he was he he liked
to watch but other people have sex I I mean it was must and he he's the germ doesn't like
germs so he rather than partaking. He just watches so Tiffany I informed him that I was
the virgin and so he was I was basically sorry I right so it was Tiffany who introduced us.
The second time that I saw Mr. Trump was same scenario he was on-looking so at an orgy and
Tiffany came over to me and said that Donald Trump had requested that I perform oral sex on him. And
never I'd never done something like that with anybody so I was a little nervous so I walked
up to him and he was standing and saying they're very proud like and I just kind of moved to that
direction and he's kind of slapped me away and said what are you doing you know you need to put
a condom on like I was some like dirty filth or something without a condom. Tiffany ran over and
handed him a condom -- me a condom and apologizing profusely and said that would never happen again
that and she looked at me and scolded me being seemed kind of like a child and said that that's
not how a Donald Trump always you know anytime you took it touched his penis it needs to have a
condom on her glove you know you oh and especially when it comes to performing oral sex. So I'm I
apologized and then I performed oral sex on him. And once again once he was done he hopped up and
but that's the last I saw of him at that party. It's like when she's down he's out mm-hmm so.
Sometimes before the some of the things that I noticed that we're weird with him
well sometimes before the parties he would come over and him Jeffrey Epstein and himself would
kind of banter back and forth and he was very ---Donald Trump was very racist. He said a lot
of racist things. Like there was there was a lot of comments towards Mr. Epstein about you
know being Jewish and in comments 'you bastard', you know, so that he was cheap and there was some
words I didn't even understand --- something about the shape of his penis being directly
related to his mole or I'm not too familiar with did you know the Jewish tradition so but
I'm pretty sure that whatever he was saying wasn't very nice. Also referred to, you know,
people of Hispanic or you know Hispanic me and he called them spics. That was around
the first time that the World Trade Center had gotten the bombing in the 90s and he was
you know talking about the towelheads and how you know it would just be better off if we you
know I didn't let him in or you know basically got rid of everyone every single one that was
already here. And I thought I just that was it made me really uncomfortable really really
uncomfortable. He also loved to call black people niggers, and Arabic people he called sand makers.
The only time that that he tried to give me some money was the last our last encounter together
where he acted out a rape fantasy. I just I was forced to I was forced to give that money back,
because I Jeffrey Epstein paid us after the party so but he just gave me the money. I
don't even know why he gave it to me maybe didn't make me feel more cheap but it was
um it was a pretty bright I will it was a rape fantasy to him but I'd if I wasn't playing so.
There was those there was those two times and then there was after and the next the next thing that
was that a Tiffany approached me with was that he had a fantasy where he walked in on his maids
basically making out and that he it was some type of fantasy for him. So she asked I mean
I was at that point I was like I don't want to be involved with anything that has to do
with him. But she's like you were just basically the the other one so there's nothing that you'll
have to do just don't you know just you want he's requesting you to be involved. So I reluctantly
I felt like I didn't have a choice there but it was basically he's walking in his two maids I
was one of the main so I was the white maid and there was a Spanish girl Maria who was Hispanic
maid and we were making out and he walks in and he gets really angry and threatens to send call
immigration on Maria if she doesn't come over and make things right and give him a blow job.
So while she is over there giving him a blow job I am just look trying to you know I'm supposed
to look scared like oh no you know and cleaning tried cleaning up things and pretending like I'm
trying to go back to my job as a maid and then he his being was so rude to Maria I felt so bad for
her even though I guess it just didn't seem like a fantasy and it didn't seem like it's the weirdest
fantasy as far as that. You know he was threatened he was threatening to call immigration on her yes
so that she know how to you know she went to she wasn't even near going down to give him perform
oral sex on him before he slapped her away and said you know you what are you doing you know you
need to put a condom on and and she's trying to miss me and I'm so sorry and he's like you can't
even can't you understand what you're saying you know and just, you know. 'speak English',
you know he called her derogatory comments and then he's like 'you know what, you don't know what
you're doing. have her come over and show you how it's done'. And so, I again I said that I didn't
you know I had to go over there or else he was going to call immigration on Maria I didn't know
if it was true or not, but I felt that you know he said that if I was if I didn't show her how to
perform oral sex on him then he was going to call immigration on her and then get rid of us both.
You know it was anything that was in relation to him getting off or being satisfied or happy
had to do with him being in power but extreme power. And it's it's very it's very hard to
even it was it was always intimidating when he was like that. It was always you didn't really
know if it was true or funny. It's like if you refuse to play along would he really
call immigration on Maria? Would he really get rid of us both. And I didn't even want to know
what that meant. You know I always didn't --- it wasn't a game. We just felt like it wasn't a game.
The one night that I had the blonde wig on, he mentioned that I looked like, you know,
I looked like to you know that I reminded him of his daughter. And actually the the the maid
fantasy I didn't have a blonde wig on. And I was trying to stay away from blond wigs
at the time. But he actually requested -- told Tiffany that that's when he wanted me to wear
like he wanted in these and anytime I put it on anytime I had it on and he'd see me would
say oh man you look just and it wasn't like a oh you remind me of my daughter it was a sick
evil like mmm you remind me of my daughter. It was just this weird pleasure sick smile like I don't
even want to know what he was thinking about. I could imagine what he was thinking about.
After the parties would end, we were to a report to Mr. Epstein and basically tell
him everything that happened with who what they liked what they disliked if
there was any requests if there was any talk about anything. That's what when
we told Mr. Epstein everything and then he paid us and then we got to go home.
And with me you know I would either you know I normally got taken taken
to the airport you know so to go back home.
The fact that Trump has a chance to be the next president makes me feel disgusting inside. I've
always been proud to be an American, and I think we live in a beautiful country. But I just see
him ruining everything. He's a horrible what he portrays on the outside isn't even that great,
but people don't even know the half of it -- how evil help sick and twisted that man is.
I have a friend that's been my friend ever since the school year that I stopped going, you know,
the the eighth grade. I confided in her and she knows all about it. She knows everything
I mean I I destroyed everything like you know any planes - I didn't I couldn't risk it my my
dad finding out. And now I think I'm old enough to where I think I don't think you know I at
that point I didn't want to not be his little girl, you know, I didn't want to lose my dad.
Basically I I any I would never as far as keeping proof of any of the trips and the
only person.... I never told my parents you know I there would be no happy you know there
would be no good outcome of telling my parents, you know, they would have grounded me I would
have never been allowed of the house, you know, my father would have come unglued. I did tell a
friend my best she's still my best friend of this day. She knows everything. She knows it
all. I'm prepared to do whatever it takes to save the country that I believe that we have.
I know when he does behind pub-like closed doors like if that's all I'm
willing to sacrifice my life to put our country back - and they're right like
going maybe in some type of positive direction not even there's no right
or wrong but a positive direction. This guy's not gonna take us anywhere positive.
You know as far as my life changing by coming out of his information I've thought long and
hard about whether or not I should. And I've gone back and forth, but I think that I can't I think
that the American people need to know what kind of man this person is. And if my life changes
because of that. then so be it but the American people need to know what they're dealing with.
If I had the chance to talk to Donald Trump I would run the other way. I'm
scared of him like I've never been scared of him anything else in my
entire life. I can't I can't explain it to you, but I just the fear of him
even being in the next room may I have a panic I would have had a panic attacks.
The last encounter that I had with Donald Trump --- Tiffany approached me about a rape scene that
was he's supposed to be played out and I didn't like I didn't like the sound of that at all,
but Tiffany promised ensured me that it wasn't going to be if I if it was anything I wasn't
comfortable with we could stop. That she would be right there and that and would it wouldn't get
out of it wouldn't get out of hand and that it was just it was a fantasy like it wasn't really gonna
happen. And so she I told her that I would she she basically I mean she Tiffany was always nice
to me. I felt I trusted her else I will you know and I wouldn't always trusted her or done what
she asked me to but she was there. And he came in and I was basically tied to a bed with pantyhose,
and he tied him I knew they were so tied I could it hurt to even like lay there and I tried to you
know try to say something it was like and he's just 'shut up' and 'shut up bitch',
you know, this is it was basically like he was he was being really really rough, and
I understand that I don't I mean it just didn't seem like a fantasy, and I started to get scared,
and and he was you know basically like ripping my clothes off, and and I was actually real I
started I got freaked out I I told him that I don't want to do this. I was, you know,
I screamed over for Tiffany and she was like Mr. Trump she's only you know she's not she this is
scaring her and he's like 'oh, you shut up, too' - he just turned in this animal. It was a completely
different completely different person. It was like everyone in the room was scared of him and -- I
was --- it was like a I couldn't do anything about it. And he ripped off all my clothes and
he started to basically have sex with me and I was screaming, because I never had sex before was my
first time and Tiffany was yelling at him too she she was saying I was a virgin and he's told us to
'just shut the fuck up' and just basically took my virginity while I was crying and telling him
to stop and that's basically begging for him to just stop. And Tiffany didn't know what else to
do either she no one was there to help us -- or me. And so so after the fact and he he he
basically finishes it and didn't it didn't take that long at all I mean but it was just it felt
like it was like five and a half hours well it was an eternity like I don't even know how long it was
but he was done and I was crying and Tiffany was consulting me. And she was you know apologizing.
She told me that she would never she didn't she just never put me in that situation again. But
he comes over mad because I was crying -- he said that I should be thankful that someone like Donald
Trump took my virginity. Well he didn't say took my virginity he said I should be glad that someone
like Donald Trump pop my cherry and not some pimply little 14 year old. And I just was like
what if I yeah I said what if I get pregnant not even talking to him. I didn't want to talk to him.
I was talking to Tiffany. And he said well you'll get an abortion then bitch and then just walked
away and I I asked I went to I had told Tiffany I needed to go home. I never went back again.
I guess I guess it's for you to decide. You know I mean if I don't have any kids myself because
I'm afraid to have kids because and who knows what kind of damage they can get into. But if you have
a 13 year old daughter and you're I mean would you be okay with the person who's running our
country doing that to your little girl? And I just I don't know I just want people to know. I think
that I I haven't I know I have a faith in our in our society that will make the right choice.
He seemed to be taking great pleasure and like dominance and control and just
the more I screamed the more I got scared the more he was enraged and
like power enraged with power. And it was like he was just charged with it was scary.
My experience with Donald Trump and has made it to where I I can't be in a healthy relationship
much less I can't be in a relationship without without my self sabotaging it. I don't I don't
do well --- I mean I've been in I've been in a couple of relationships I mean they're never of
interest to me normally but one in particular that was a wonderful --- he was a wonderful
man --- and I completely knowing I I had like subconsciously I couldn't even control myself
it was like I had to get him out of my life because you know I don't I don't know why. It
was like anytime anyone loves me I don't feel worth it or you know I've I mean I've I don't
even know how to explain it. Like I can't friends I can have acquaintances that you guys that are
acquaintances but I just you know anytime it's maybe someone expressed anything else besides
that I can't --- I take some type of pleasure and not some type of I don't take pleasure in it but
subconsciously whether I mean to or not sometimes I've meant to it's like I hurt their feelings just
so they'll never talk to me again. Like and make sure that it's not ever a possibility.
Donald Trump, Donald Trump destroyed my feeling of self-worth and my self-esteem when
it was still --- I like when it just bloomed. It hadn't even had a chance to experience anything.
I have I have only spoken to to one therapist about this just recently actually I for a long
time I just really just tried to forget about it. Just tried very hard. But I've been to counseling
for other things, and I went to counseling for the previous the previous relationship
that I was sabotaging. And my counselor said something has happened to you that were you
or just you need to deal with that. That's actually what kind of was like hmm. He knew
that there was something that had happened where I was self sabotaging or you know sabotaging these
relationships. But, you know, he said that it was my responsibility to deal with it, of course.
This the situation with Donald Trump has left it just destroyed my self-esteem and
it's made it to where I feel like it's destroyed part of
my life. I haven't --- the only healthy relationship I've completely demolished.
And I love to choose the dysfunctional ones that I know I can just push away.
After what happened with him I can't trust a
man ever again. I --- thinking about it just makes me sick to my stomach.
So when when something so traumatic happens to someone that's so young,
you never ever really get over it

Sarah Kendzior
@sarahkendzior
Trump was accused of raping his ex-wife Ivana as well as a 13-year-old girl. Both cases went to court. People who discussed the cases were threatened. https://theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion ... ssion=true

In July, 2015, shortly after Mr. Trump declared his candidacy, the Daily Beast attempted to report on court documents stating that Mr. Trump had raped his ex-wife, Ivana. The inquiry into the case prompted a response from Mr. Cohen that mirrors the threat to Ms. Daniels: "I'm warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I'm going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting," Mr. Cohen told the Daily Beast reporter. "You write a story that has Mr. Trump's name in it, with the word 'rape,' and I'm going to mess your life up ... for as long as you're on this frickin' planet ..."

Few media outlets reported on the allegation after that, and the media were similarly timid in reporting other allegations of sexual assault -- most notably, that of a 12-year-old girl who said in a lawsuit that Mr. Trump raped her in 1994 while in the company of billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, a friend of Mr. Trump's who was an alleged trafficker of underage girls. In her affidavit, the alleged victim claims that Mr. Trump told her to stay silent since he was capable of having her whole family killed, and noted that another victim, a 12-year-old named Maria, had disappeared.

On Nov. 2, 2016 -- a few days before the election -- that accuser and her lawyer, Lisa Bloom, were scheduled to hold a press conference. According to Ms. Bloom, the press conference was abruptly cancelled due to intense threats to their safety, including a bomb threat. Two days later, the accuser dropped her lawsuit.

[admin]

Viral Moment: Erika Kirk Makes Hand Gesture at Charlie Kirk Memorial After Hugging Trump | N18G
CNBC-TV18
Premiered Sep 22, 2025 UNITED STATES

President Donald Trump called Charlie Kirk’s wife, Erika Kirk, to join him on stage after giving remarks at the late conservative activist's memorial service.

President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and a host of top administration officials vowed Sunday that the mission of slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk would only grow stronger in the wake of his assassination.

Trump’s address came after Erika Kirk delivered an emotional and powerful speech remembering her husband, vowing to continue his work and offering forgiveness to his assassin.

“He left this world without regret. He did 100% of what he could every day. But I want you to know something: Charlie died with incomplete work, but not with unfinished business,” Erika Kirk said of her late husband. She described the shock and heartbreak she felt seeing her husband in the hospital after he was assassinated, but also said she felt an overwhelming sense of comfort knowing he did not suffer.






Erika Kirk Makes Hand Gesture at Charlie Kirk Memorial After Hugging Trump | N18G, CNBC-TV18, 9/22/25

[admin]

Elon BLOWS UP Trump Epstein Coverup As All HELL BREAKS LOOSE!
Jack Cocchiarella
Sep 26, 2025 Jack Cocchiarella Show

Political commentator Jack Cocchiarella reacts to Donald Trump's Epstein coverup getting blown up again.

[admin]