Epstein Commits Suicide While on Suicide Watch (Maybe?)
sure. maybe they could have done it when he was holed up in his booby trapped state of the art camera infested mansion. talk about theories...
Robert_Casotto said:
sure. maybe they could have done it when he was holed up in his booby trapped state of the art camera infested mansion. talk about theories...
You’re confusing this case with the plot of the remake of “The Italian Job”.
Not familiar with that picture. Only Italian Job I know of is Chrissy Cuomo.
Robert_Casotto said:
sure. maybe they could have done it when he was holed up in his booby trapped state of the art camera infested mansion. talk about theories...
you mean the guy who was arrested after taking his private jet back from a vacation in France?
Who knows. Maybe they killed him ten years ago. All my info comes from Fredo on CNN.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
PVW said:
You need me to explain why it's a bad idea to share unfounded conspiracy theories that end at "the Israelis?"
Are you are saying that if there is evidence that Epstein was involved with Israeli intelligence that is off limits for discussion?Are you deliberately missing the difference between “unfounded conspiracy theories” and “if there is evidence”?
Withdrawn.
See below.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
PVW said:
nan said:
Kim Iverson connects a bunch of who done it dots and comes up with the Israelis.
You should probably stop now.
Because . . ?
You need me to explain why it's a bad idea to share unfounded conspiracy theories that end at "the Israelis?"
Are you are saying that if there is evidence that Epstein was involved with Israeli intelligence that is off limits for discussion?
PVW is obviously saying something other than that.
I think PVW's subsequent comment on Iverson indicates that my question was not far off the mark:
PVW said: The history of anti-semitism isn't really my beat, so I'm not really the
right person for this discussion, but just a heads up that blaming
"this Israelis" is trafficking in some very ugly, very dangerous
territory.
paulsurovell said:
Because . . ?
You need me to explain why it's a bad idea to share unfounded conspiracy theories that end at "the Israelis?"
Are you are saying that if there is evidence that Epstein was involved with Israeli intelligence that is off limits for discussion?
PVW is obviously saying something other than that.
I think PVW's subsequent comment on Iverson indicates that my question was not far off the mark:
PVW said: The history of anti-semitism isn't really my beat, so I'm not really the right person for this discussion, but just a heads up that blaming "this Israelis" is trafficking in some very ugly, very dangerous territory.
It appears not to be a comment on Iverson, so much as ending with blaming "the Israelis" (that specific term, as compared to, as you put it, "Israeli intelligence").
Would you end a conspiracy theory with blaming "the Syrians"? Or "the Mexicans"?
But Nan has a strong tendency to dabble along the edges of anti-Semitism, and then deny being anti-Semitic. However, I don't think blaming a whole nation of peoples would be typed from her keyboard for any other group.
sprout said:
paulsurovell said:
Because . . ?
You need me to explain why it's a bad idea to share unfounded conspiracy theories that end at "the Israelis?"
Are you are saying that if there is evidence that Epstein was involved with Israeli intelligence that is off limits for discussion?
PVW is obviously saying something other than that.
I think PVW's subsequent comment on Iverson indicates that my question was not far off the mark:
PVW said: The history of anti-semitism isn't really my beat, so I'm not really the right person for this discussion, but just a heads up that blaming "this Israelis" is trafficking in some very ugly, very dangerous territory.It appears not to be a comment on Iverson, so much as ending with blaming "the Israelis" (that specific term, as compared to, as you put it, "Israeli intelligence").
Would you end a conspiracy theory with blaming "the Syrians"? Or "the Mexicans"?
But Nan has a strong tendency to dabble along the edges of anti-Semitism, and then deny being anti-Semitic. However, I don't think blaming a whole nation of peoples would be typed from her keyboard for any other group.
In fairness to Nan, it's likely more a function of dabbling in conspiracy theories in general, and given the long history of anti-Semitic conspiracies in western culture, it's almost inevitable an uncritical consumer of conspiracies will find themselves at least anti-Semitic adjacent.
Begs the question I suppose as to whether one can be a critical consumer of conspiracies.
sprout said:
It appears not to be a comment on Iverson, so much as ending with blaming "the Israelis" (that specific term, as compared to, as you put it, "Israeli intelligence").
Would you end a conspiracy theory with blaming "the Syrians"? Or "the Mexicans"?
But Nan has a strong tendency to dabble along the edges of anti-Semitism, and then deny being anti-Semitic. However, I don't think blaming a whole nation of peoples would be typed from her keyboard for any other group.
What do you mean by that????????? I am Jewish, by the way. What do you mean I "dabble along the edges of anti-Semitism"? Of course, I deny being anti-semitic because IM NOT anti-Semitic. I defended Ilhan Omar who I also don't think is anti-Semitic. Is that why you are accusing me? I am sick of Israel getting a pass on everything, and being above the tiniest criticism. I was raised to NEVER say anything bad about Israel and my mother's response to the Palestinian crisis was to say, "Good, kill them all." I rarely even participate in discussions about Israel, but I've had to open my eyes to things happening such as their influence on our politicians and it has been painful for me, but I am sick of this"say anything about Israel and you are anti-semitic" attitude. And yes, I would blame the "Syrians" or the "Mexicans" but I don't see them having much influence on our country the way Israel does.
Seriously, you owe me an apology for that and I would report your post if I thought it would do any good.
PVW said:
In fairness to Nan, it's likely more a function of dabbling in conspiracy theories in general, and given the long history of anti-Semitic conspiracies in western culture, it's almost inevitable an uncritical consumer of conspiracies will find themselves at least anti-Semitic adjacent.
Begs the question I suppose as to whether one can be a critical consumer of conspiracies.
Let's remember Russiagate was a conspiracy theory also, so there are few among us who have not "dabbled in conspiracy theories" When it comes to Epstein I think there is plenty of material and I don't see the problem in exploring what ideas that people come up with. I'm open to hearing them all, and I would not dismiss any person or group just because they traditionally get picked on a lot. I posted Kim Iverson because I thought it was a good model for how one might come to some conclusions (and she did not just blame "Isreal" as someone said above). She gave some examples and tried to connect up the dots. One person found some flaws in her evidence, but I think the way she was going about trying to figure it out was analytical and a good model. I think that is much better than the herd of people on twitter saying it was Trump or Clinton, depending on whose side they are on with zero facts.
nan said:
sprout said:
It appears not to be a comment on Iverson, so much as ending with blaming "the Israelis" (that specific term, as compared to, as you put it, "Israeli intelligence").
Would you end a conspiracy theory with blaming "the Syrians"? Or "the Mexicans"?
But Nan has a strong tendency to dabble along the edges of anti-Semitism, and then deny being anti-Semitic. However, I don't think blaming a whole nation of peoples would be typed from her keyboard for any other group.
What do you mean by that????????? I am Jewish, by the way. What do you mean I "dabble along the edges of anti-Semitism"? Of course, I deny being anti-semitic because IM NOT anti-Semitic. I defended Ilhan Omar who I also don't think is anti-Semitic. Is that why you are accusing me? I am sick of Israel getting a pass on everything, and being above the tiniest criticism. I was raised to NEVER say anything bad about Israel and my mother's response to the Palestinian crisis was to say, "Good, kill them all." I rarely even participate in discussions about Israel, but I've had to open my eyes to things happening such as their influence on our politicians and it has been painful for me, but I am sick of this"say anything about Israel and you are anti-semitic" attitude. And yes, I would blame the "Syrians" or the "Mexicans" but I don't see them having much influence on our country the way Israel does.
Seriously, you owe me an apology for that and I would report your post if I thought it would do any good.
At the risk of just keeping this alive longer -- in this particular instance you decided to share a conspiracy theory that blamed "the Israelis" when there was no particular reason to bring Israel into this at all. And as @cramer noted, it's got key facts wrong, such as when Sarkozy was president of France.
Iverson wasn't just "saying things about Israel," she gratuitously and without basis in fact decided to put forth a conspiracy blaming the Jews (she says "the Israelis", but someone who can't distinguish between 2000 and 2007, doesn't strike me as the sort that cares to distinguish between "the Israelis" and "the Jews').
Find a different conspiracy theorist. This one is, at the very least, dangerously naive regarding anti-Semitic tropes.
Intelligent people on the internet tend to prefer referring to and debunking stupid people on the internet, when it would be much more productive to engage with the intelligent people with whom they might disagree.
Too long for a bumper sticker, like most worthwhile thoughts.
jersey_boy said:
Intelligent people on the internet tend to prefer referring to and debunking stupid people on the internet, when it would be much more productive to engage with the intelligent people with whom they might disagree.
Too long for a bumper sticker, like most worthwhile thoughts.
That's one of the least worthwhile thoughts I've ever heard. It makes zero sense. Who are "intelligent people" and who are "stupid people?" Lots of supposedly intelligent people fell for the biggest hoax of the last decade called Russiagate. None of these people think they are anything less than intelligent and that others who dare to even consider what our CIA/FBI "experts" tell us with great skepticism are the stupid ones. Also, anyone who says anything about Israel is automatically an anti-semite and I guess "stupid." So, basically, this is a call to always stay within conventional notions of acceptable topics and opinions.
I think once you start aligning yourself with the "intelligent against the "stupid" you are in danger of being stupid yourself.
There's a trend of posting what someone else thinks and discussing that person'a value as a thinker.
Intelligence is posting one's own thoughts, and being able to defend them against intelligent challenges without falling for trolls' nonsense responses.
I think if you are unable to distinguish the intelligent from the stupid, you probably are in danger of being stupid yourself.
jersey_boy said:
There's a trend of posting what someone else thinks and discussing that person'a value as a thinker.
Intelligence is posting one's own thoughts, and being able to defend them against intelligent challenges without falling for trolls' nonsense responses.
I think if you are unable to distinguish the intelligent from the stupid, you probably are in danger of being stupid yourself.
it's not about whether the people are intelligent or not.
it's whether or not the argument is well-reasoned and supported or not. And I've been back and forth with a couple people here and that's been my objection. It's that their conspiracy theories haven't been either necessary or sufficient causes to explain events we know have occurred. They aren't "stupid" and their arguments aren't "stupid." The word "specious" is probably more accurate.
Kim Iverson settled on Sarkozy as being the unnamed foreign president since she said there aren't that many presidents of foreign countries in the world (11:00 in the video.) She then goes on to say that Sarkozy was being blackmailed by the Israelis. I've previously noted that her timeline is off. Had Iverson done her homework, she would had discovered that Virginia Giuffre, in her testimony, said that the foreign president was Spanish. It didn't take much digging. Of course, it was more convenient to say it was Sarkozy because he was pro-Israel (and 1/4 Jewish.)
“There was, you know, another foreign president, I can’t remember his name. He was Spanish."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-unsealed-documents-name-powerful-men-in-sex-ring
cramer said:
Kim Iverson settled on Sarkozy as being the unnamed foreign president since she said there aren't that many presidents of foreign countries in the world (11:00 in the video.) She then goes on to say that Sarkozy was being blackmailed by the Israelis. I've previously noted that her timeline is off. Had Iverson done her homework, she would had discovered that Virginia Giuffre, in her testimony, said that the foreign president was Spanish. It didn't take much digging. Of course, it was more convenient to say it was Sarkozy because he was pro-Israel (and 1/4 Jewish.)
“There was, you know, another foreign president, I can’t remember his name. He was Spanish."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-unsealed-documents-name-powerful-men-in-sex-ring
Nan’s Theory of Seemingly Studious Viral Contagion: “I don't see the problem in exploring what ideas that people come up with.”
PVW said:
At the risk of just keeping this alive longer -- in this particular instance you decided to share a conspiracy theory that blamed "the Israelis" when there was no particular reason to bring Israel into this at all. And as @cramer noted, it's got key facts wrong, such as when Sarkozy was president of France.
Iverson wasn't just "saying things about Israel," she gratuitously and without basis in fact decided to put forth a conspiracy blaming the Jews (she says "the Israelis", but someone who can't distinguish between 2000 and 2007, doesn't strike me as the sort that cares to distinguish between "the Israelis" and "the Jews').
Find a different conspiracy theorist. This one is, at the very least, dangerously naive regarding anti-Semitic tropes.
I wonder how many people who are criticizing this video, actually watched it?
Iverson is very open that this is her attempt making a stab at a conspiracy theory in the "who done it" vein." She is not Alex Jones saying "This is what happened." She says right from the beginning, "I'm going to put on my tinfoil hat." She is just coming from the point of "this is what we have and this is what it could be." I don't think there is anything wrong with that and that is why I posted it--I think it's a good model for how a person could start thinking this through. Of course in MOL land if Iseral gets mentioned the person who posted the video, or speaks in the video is stupid, a conspiracy nut-job and anti-semitic. I hesitated before posting this because I was afraid that would be the reaction and I guess I should just follow that rule going forward because that's how MOL rolls--NO mention of Isreal as doing anything wrong. Got it. Check.
Now, let's review what actually is on the video.
She starts out saying a big problem is that we don't know how Epstein made his money. She says, that this being a "conspiracy theory" she feels it is OK to conclude that there is a chance he made money from blackmailing/extorting people. She says that so far the people who have been named as being involved are politicians, heads of state, people with political influence. She also says we know Epstein's accomplice was Ghislaine Maxwell, a Brittish socialite. We also know that Epstein got a sweetheart deal from Alex Acosta.
So, far, does anyone have any problems with this analysis? Looks like a good overview to me, let's continue.
So, Iverson says, based on these facts, we have some big questions:
1. Why would Epstein operate this pedophilia ring?
Discussion follows: Maybe because it was fun? But, that is not enough because if he was getting his money from extorting and blackmailing than it goes beyond fun and seems purposeful. She then reminds us that we are doing a lot of "assuming because we are conspiracy theorists here" so again -- this is not Alex Jones--this is a person trying to figure things out.
So, on to next question -
2. Did he do the extortion because he was trying to get money or for money/power/influence over people and the ability to control their decisions in a way beneficial to him?
Discussion follows: OK, it would be a bit strange if he was doing it for the money alone because the politicians and heads of state are more people with power rather than mega-bucks. So, based on that she is going to go with the theory that this was done to get people in their pocket. So, she says, this makes her think that Epstein was not getting gobs and gobs of money Extorting, but doing a job for somebody else. And that person/group was paying Epstin gobs and gobs of money. She does not think it was Epstein who wanted to have all of these people in his pocket because he does not have things that could benefit from that like a mega-corporation. He's not going to get better regulations, for example.
Iverson says the influence being saught was French, Brittish, and American, so it does not make sense for Epstein, an American to go after a British prince. Here she starts talking about the accused "president" and she mentions that not many nations have presidents, so it narrows down the choices. She says the Brazilians and the French have presidents, but she's picking the French (and she winks while doing this--she is having fun here--not being 100% serious).
She goes on to the next questions:
3. Who would want to collect political influence and could also pay Epstein gobs and gobs of money?
She then says she thinks it was the Israelis, and she hesitates a bit because she knows that's not a good group to pick (see MOL for example). She clarifies her conclusion by saying that it is not anti-semitic to say that Israelis might be involved with this. Obviously, many on MOL do not agree--hope you all post comments below her video instead of dumping on me. She says they have a lot of reason to want to gain influence and power. She does not say it is all of Israel. She says it could have been Mossad or another group, not related to the government, like AIPAC--a group that has Israel's interest in mind. So, those of you saying she is condemning all of Israel must have missed this part somehow.
Now up to this point, I think she has laid out some very good questions and suggested some good motivations for what Epstein has been up to. Maybe she steers off course after this, but I think she is pulling together key information and areas of inquiry.
So, then she wants to connect the dots which lead to someone/something who wants to benefit Isreal. She mentions that Jeffery Epstein is Jewish, so he might want to do something for Israel. She looks deeper into his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, whose father was accused of being Massad. He was at the least, a hero there and helped secure arms for the 1948 war. Thus, we have two people who might want to help Israel, over other random countries, say China. Maxwell's father, however, was perhaps a shady character and a double or triple agent-so who knows where this is heading, but I find it interesting.
So, Maxwell's daughter gets with Epstein and does the recruiting of the girls and heads of state, etc. She is a key player in this sordid endeavor. Iverson then concludes that Maxwell helped to do the blackmail of American, French and Brittish politicians to favor Israel.
So, that is her basic theory and I don't think it's crazy or nutty or anti-Semitic. I think it is what a reasonable person might come up with while pondering all the stuff and, remember, she is very emphatically saying this is a THEORY and nothing in stone.
Moving on she does a deeper drill on the details. She does what a reasonable person would do and asks the next question:
4: What proof do I have to support this?
Discussion follows: She tries to find examples in the three countries.
US: She says Bush 1 was not very pro-Israel and was hard on them over the settlements and he lost 24% of his Jewish support because of this. Then comes Clinton--and we know he was implicated with Epstein (26 times on his plane according to flight logs--my notes here), and he drastically changed the policies for Iseral from Bush's. Clinton shifted to the right from Bush.
She then mentions Trump, another Epstein associate and what he's doing when it comes to Israel. Also, Trump was a Democrat when he was hanging around with Epstein. There seems to have been a targeting of Democrats and she gives some more examples. She says that Republicans have historically been more pro-Iseral so there was less of a need to focus on them, so perhaps they wanted to get both sides in their pocket.
SheUK: Very pro-Israel, and she feels that it was just trying to get some of these big wigs than you are going to get a lot more support. Not much detail here - so I think she could have done better here.
France: She says the French-Isreali relationship deteriorated after the 60's. According to Iverson, France was the largest supplier of arms to Israel until after 1967 and then they took a turn and actually started favoring the Arabs and the Palestinians. This was shocking to the Israelis.
So, then she does say that Sarkozy was the President of France in 2000 and started supporting Israel, but it's hard to say why -- because she should know better and perhaps she was thinking of someone else--and this is a big blunder--I don't know --she needs to clarify. She also does not provide enough detail on the UK. So her proof does not fit her theories as well as they should It does not, however, make the whole theory useless and I think she deserves credit for trying to figure out could be behind the scandal. Perhaps others could do the same. I think some of her insights into motivation are good. I have no clue who done it myself, but I'm willing to listen to anyone's theory and I resent the notion that just because it might be a group in a particular country, no one can even raise a possibility
She concludes the video by talking about how Israel might view their relationships with other countries and the need to shore up allies. She mentions AIPAC and what they do to lobby and grease politicians pockets and says you can lobby all you want but there are no guarantees. Blackmail gives you guarantees.
She thinks Epstein is really dead, but that someone with great influence got in there to silence him. She finishes by mentioning the Daily Beast article where Acosta supposedly said Epstein was intelligence. She said he could have been a double or triple agent. Other counties have intelligence--it's not just us. She is not sure, but it's something else to think about.
She says right from the beginning, "I'm going to put on my tinfoil hat."
nan said:
PVW said:
I wonder how many people who are criticizing this video, actually watched it?
Iverson is very open that this is her attempt making a stab at a conspiracy theory in the "who done it" vein." She is not Alex Jones saying "This is what happened." She says right from the beginning, "I'm going to put on my tinfoil hat."
You really expect us to watch a video and read all you wrote after that sentence?
Red_Barchetta said:
You really expect us to watch a video and read all you wrote after that sentence?
You can do what you want. I was responding to another post. Anyway, I think this tweet about coments from former CIA Director, Allen Dulles give some insight:
nan said:
Anyway, I think this tweet about coments from former CIA Director, Allen Dulles give some insight:
The comment by Dulles that you found insightful (and that was tweeted by Lisa Pease, author of ”A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy”) appeared in a declassified 1999 book, “Studies in Intelligence,” which Pease cited.
Two paragraphs after the Dulles quote, that book states: “The CIA, in fact, used sex infrequently as an intelligence tool. In contrast to media speculation and a few random cases that came to light during the Congressional investigations in the 1970s, the Agency found sexual entrapment to be difficult to manage and often counterproductive.”
Any insight from that?
nan said:
I wonder how many people who are criticizing this video, actually watched it?
Iverson is very open that this is her attempt making a stab at a conspiracy theory in the "who done it" vein." She is not Alex Jones saying "This is what happened." She says right from the beginning, "I'm going to put on my tinfoil hat." She is just coming from the point of "this is what we have and this is what it could be." I don't think there is anything wrong with that and that is why I posted it--I think it's a good model for how a person could start thinking this through. Of course in MOL land if Iseral gets mentioned the person who posted the video, or speaks in the video is stupid, a conspiracy nut-job and anti-semitic. I hesitated before posting this because I was afraid that would be the reaction and I guess I should just follow that rule going forward because that's how MOL rolls--NO mention of Isreal as doing anything wrong. Got it. Check.
Now, let's review what actually is on the video.
She starts out saying a big problem is that we don't know how Epstein made his money. She says, that this being a "conspiracy theory" she feels it is OK to conclude that there is a chance he made money from blackmailing/extorting people. She says that so far the people who have been named as being involved are politicians, heads of state, people with political influence. She also says we know Epstein's accomplice was Ghislaine Maxwell, a Brittish socialite. We also know that Epstein got a sweetheart deal from Alex Acosta.
So, far, does anyone have any problems with this analysis? Looks like a good overview to me, let's continue.
So, Iverson says, based on these facts, we have some big questions:
1. Why would Epstein operate this pedophilia ring?
Discussion follows: Maybe because it was fun? But, that is not enough because if he was getting his money from extorting and blackmailing than it goes beyond fun and seems purposeful. She then reminds us that we are doing a lot of "assuming because we are conspiracy theorists here" so again -- this is not Alex Jones--this is a person trying to figure things out.
So, on to next question -
2. Did he do the extortion because he was trying to get money or for money/power/influence over people and the ability to control their decisions in a way beneficial to him?
Discussion follows: OK, it would be a bit strange if he was doing it for the money alone because the politicians and heads of state are more people with power rather than mega-bucks. So, based on that she is going to go with the theory that this was done to get people in their pocket. So, she says, this makes her think that Epstein was not getting gobs and gobs of money Extorting, but doing a job for somebody else. And that person/group was paying Epstin gobs and gobs of money. She does not think it was Epstein who wanted to have all of these people in his pocket because he does not have things that could benefit from that like a mega-corporation. He's not going to get better regulations, for example.
Iverson says the influence being saught was French, Brittish, and American, so it does not make sense for Epstein, an American to go after a British prince. Here she starts talking about the accused "president" and she mentions that not many nations have presidents, so it narrows down the choices. She says the Brazilians and the French have presidents, but she's picking the French (and she winks while doing this--she is having fun here--not being 100% serious).
She goes on to the next questions:
3. Who would want to collect political influence and could also pay Epstein gobs and gobs of money?
She then says she thinks it was the Israelis, and she hesitates a bit because she knows that's not a good group to pick (see MOL for example). She clarifies her conclusion by saying that it is not anti-semitic to say that Israelis might be involved with this. Obviously, many on MOL do not agree--hope you all post comments below her video instead of dumping on me. She says they have a lot of reason to want to gain influence and power. She does not say it is all of Israel. She says it could have been Mossad or another group, not related to the government, like AIPAC--a group that has Israel's interest in mind. So, those of you saying she is condemning all of Israel must have missed this part somehow.
Now up to this point, I think she has laid out some very good questions and suggested some good motivations for what Epstein has been up to. Maybe she steers off course after this, but I think she is pulling together key information and areas of inquiry.
So, then she wants to connect the dots which lead to someone/something who wants to benefit Isreal. She mentions that Jeffery Epstein is Jewish, so he might want to do something for Israel. She looks deeper into his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, whose father was accused of being Massad. He was at the least, a hero there and helped secure arms for the 1948 war. Thus, we have two people who might want to help Israel, over other random countries, say China. Maxwell's father, however, was perhaps a shady character and a double or triple agent-so who knows where this is heading, but I find it interesting.
So, Maxwell's daughter gets with Epstein and does the recruiting of the girls and heads of state, etc. She is a key player in this sordid endeavor. Iverson then concludes that Maxwell helped to do the blackmail of American, French and Brittish politicians to favor Israel.
So, that is her basic theory and I don't think it's crazy or nutty or anti-Semitic. I think it is what a reasonable person might come up with while pondering all the stuff and, remember, she is very emphatically saying this is a THEORY and nothing in stone.
Moving on she does a deeper drill on the details. She does what a reasonable person would do and asks the next question:
4: What proof do I have to support this?
Discussion follows: She tries to find examples in the three countries.
US: She says Bush 1 was not very pro-Israel and was hard on them over the settlements and he lost 24% of his Jewish support because of this. Then comes Clinton--and we know he was implicated with Epstein (26 times on his plane according to flight logs--my notes here), and he drastically changed the policies for Iseral from Bush's. Clinton shifted to the right from Bush.
She then mentions Trump, another Epstein associate and what he's doing when it comes to Israel. Also, Trump was a Democrat when he was hanging around with Epstein. There seems to have been a targeting of Democrats and she gives some more examples. She says that Republicans have historically been more pro-Iseral so there was less of a need to focus on them, so perhaps they wanted to get both sides in their pocket.
SheUK: Very pro-Israel, and she feels that it was just trying to get some of these big wigs than you are going to get a lot more support. Not much detail here - so I think she could have done better here.
France: She says the French-Isreali relationship deteriorated after the 60's. According to Iverson, France was the largest supplier of arms to Israel until after 1967 and then they took a turn and actually started favoring the Arabs and the Palestinians. This was shocking to the Israelis.
So, then she does say that Sarkozy was the President of France in 2000 and started supporting Israel, but it's hard to say why -- because she should know better and perhaps she was thinking of someone else--and this is a big blunder--I don't know --she needs to clarify. She also does not provide enough detail on the UK. So her proof does not fit her theories as well as they should It does not, however, make the whole theory useless and I think she deserves credit for trying to figure out could be behind the scandal. Perhaps others could do the same. I think some of her insights into motivation are good. I have no clue who done it myself, but I'm willing to listen to anyone's theory and I resent the notion that just because it might be a group in a particular country, no one can even raise a possibility
She concludes the video by talking about how Israel might view their relationships with other countries and the need to shore up allies. She mentions AIPAC and what they do to lobby and grease politicians pockets and says you can lobby all you want but there are no guarantees. Blackmail gives you guarantees.
She thinks Epstein is really dead, but that someone with great influence got in there to silence him. She finishes by mentioning the Daily Beast article where Acosta supposedly said Epstein was intelligence. She said he could have been a double or triple agent. Other counties have intelligence--it's not just us. She is not sure, but it's something else to think about.
the length of this post, and the energy that it required, is very disconcerting.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Anyway, I think this tweet about coments from former CIA Director, Allen Dulles give some insight:
The comment by Dulles that you found insightful (and that was tweeted by Lisa Pease, author of ”A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy”) appeared in a declassified 1999 book, “Studies in Intelligence,” which Pease cited.
Two paragraphs after the Dulles quote, that book states: “The CIA, in fact, used sex infrequently as an intelligence tool. In contrast to media speculation and a few random cases that came to light during the Congressional investigations in the 1970s, the Agency found sexual entrapment to be difficult to manage and often counterproductive.”
Any insight from that?
I think a fair inference is that Dulles was attempting to put the CIA in the best possible light given the revelations that he could not deny.
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Anyway, I think this tweet about coments from former CIA Director, Allen Dulles give some insight:
The comment by Dulles that you found insightful (and that was tweeted by Lisa Pease, author of ”A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy”) appeared in a declassified 1999 book, “Studies in Intelligence,” which Pease cited.
Two paragraphs after the Dulles quote, that book states: “The CIA, in fact, used sex infrequently as an intelligence tool. In contrast to media speculation and a few random cases that came to light during the Congressional investigations in the 1970s, the Agency found sexual entrapment to be difficult to manage and often counterproductive.”
Any insight from that?
I think a fair inference is that Dulles was attempting to put the CIA in the best possible light given the revelations that he could not deny.
So we've gone from "It's unconscionable that the FBI acted on a tip that Russian intelligence could have had sexual entrapment compromat on Trump" to "Don't minimize how much the CIA used sexual entrapment".
DaveSchmidt said:
The comment by Dulles that you found insightful (and that was tweeted by Lisa Pease, author of ”A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy”) appeared in a declassified 1999 book, “Studies in Intelligence,” which Pease cited.
Two paragraphs after the Dulles quote, that book states: “The CIA, in fact, used sex infrequently as an intelligence tool. In contrast to media speculation and a few random cases that came to light during the Congressional investigations in the 1970s, the Agency found sexual entrapment to be difficult to manage and often counterproductive.”
Any insight from that?
You start out by smearing LIsa Pease, whose book I am going to read soon. She has put her heart and soul into researching Robert F. Kennedy's murder and I think the time for just saying the Kennedy's were killed by rogue gunmen has passed. Pease started this book based on her own curiosity as a side endeavor to her day job. Even members of the Kennedy family support Pease's work. Here she is on C-SPAN talking about her book: https://www.c-span.org/video/?459353-1/robert-f-kennedy-assassination-reconsidered
The quote from Dulles stands, even if there is some attempts at qualifying later in the article. They may not have used it frequently, but they did use it.
drummerboy said:
the length of this post, and the energy that it required, is very disconcerting.
All I did was re-watch the video and type notes as I went along. I was accused of being an antisemite-I felt it was needed since I did not think I could rely on MOL moderators or posters to intervene in such an outrageous claim. So, enough with the pile-on.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Rentals
Advertisement
and even if Epstein had ties to intelligence, is that evidence he was murdered? As I've already written, the theory that Epstein was hit while in prison is way convoluted. As if the intelligence services couldn't have managed to have him killed at any time since his conviction in a place without a bunch of witnesses to be concerned with.