Epstein Commits Suicide While on Suicide Watch (Maybe?)

nan said:

PVW said:

 You should probably stop now.

 Watch the video.  She does a good job putting it all together. Her attitude is that everyone is coming up with a conspiracy theory, so here is hers.

As for conspiracy theories... how is it that he was able to continue in business after he finished his last 'sentence'?  Were people waiting in line to give money to a convicted felon?  If so I hope he stole from them. 

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

 You should probably stop now.

 Watch the video.  She does a good job putting it all together. Her attitude is that everyone is coming up with a conspiracy theory, so here is hers.

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.

Oh... but it's the perfect territory to distract from the complicity of big American corporatists to maintain the expanding wealth (and it's privileges) gap that allows people like Epstein to keep being who he was... and maintain exploitation in its various forms.

Isn't the intelligence community highly screened for any history of behavior that would make them vulnerable to blackmail?

Is the idea that the intelligence community allowed Epstein to provide girls for powerful men to rape, to acquire Kompromat? That's a CT that should be listed along with the Brooklyn Bridge.

nan said:

PVW said:

 You should probably stop now.

 Watch the video.  She does a good job putting it all together. Her attitude is that everyone is coming up with a conspiracy theory, so here is hers.  She worked really hard on it.  She seems like the studious type anyway.

 Well if she worked really hard, by all means give her a gold star and a cookie. 

But that doesn’t make her believable. 

nan said:

 Watch the video.  She does a good job putting it all together. Her attitude is that everyone is coming up with a conspiracy theory, so here is hers.  She worked really hard on it.  She seems like the studious type anyway. 

That, nan, is a pitch-perfect endorsement for your favorite video sources.

paulsurovell said:

It's possible the MSM have decided in advance that the "intelligence" angle will not appear in mainstream discourse. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I think the MSM is far too entangled with the intelligence community to look into whether Acosta made the statement in question and if so, what it entails.

I’ve said I wouldn’t interfere with any conclusions you drew. Alas, that leaves a lack of denial, and we all know what that means for the credibility of your comment. 

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:

PVW said:

 You should probably stop now.

 Watch the video.  She does a good job putting it all together. Her attitude is that everyone is coming up with a conspiracy theory, so here is hers.  She worked really hard on it.  She seems like the studious type anyway.

 Well if she worked really hard, by all means give her a gold star and a cookie. 

But that doesn’t make her believable. 

She should have worked harder - no gold star and no cookie..  

Ms. Iverson suggests that the unnamed foreign president mentioned in the allegations against Epstein was French President Sarkozy. She says that France was Israel's largest arms supplier until the six day war, when France stopped selling arms to Israel. She then says that France became pro-Israel when Sarkozy became president - which she says was around 2000 which is around the time that Epstein was recruiting young girls and presumably was able to blackmail Sarkozy (around 20:45 on the video.)

Sarkozy didn't become president of France until 2007.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

It's possible the MSM have decided in advance that the "intelligence" angle will not appear in mainstream discourse. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I think the MSM is far too entangled with the intelligence community to look into whether Acosta made the statement in question and if so, what it entails.

I’ve said I wouldn’t interfere with any conclusions you drew. Alas, that leaves a lack of denial, and we all know what that means for the credibility of your comment. 

Acosta was asked at a press conference if he was told that Epstein was an intelligence asset. He declined to answer. (The article doesn't say who asked the question.)

"Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta declined to answer Wednesday if he had ever been told that Jeffrey Epstein was an intelligence asset during his handling of the 2008 child sex abuse case against the jet-setting financier.

Acosta, under fire for the non-prosecution agreement he’d made with Epstein’s attorneys and for the light 13-month jail stint that Epstein served more than a decade ago, told reporters at a press conference that he couldn’t answer questions about whether Epstein was allegedly tied to an intelligence agency in some way because he was prohibited from doing so due to Justice Department regulations.

“So, there has been reporting to that effect. And let me say, there’s been report to a lot of effects in this case. Not just now but over the years. And again, I would, I would hesitate to take this reporting as fact,” Acosta said."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alexander-acosta-dodges-when-asked-if-jeffrey-epstein-was-an-intelligence-asset

simple explanations:

Epstein got a very light sentence in his plea deal because he was a rich guy with powerful friends.

Epstein committed suicide because he had nothing left to live for.

Considering the life that this guy had had and the life that he was now facing with certainty, -am I the only person who thinks that it is entirely possible that this scumbag did kill himself?

(granted, it would have been proper and useful if he was better monitored).

steel said:

Considering the life that this guy had had and the life that he was now facing with certainty, -am I the only person who thinks that it is entirely possible that this scumbag did kill himself?

(granted, it would have been proper and useful if he was better monitored).

 absolutely 

I would describe it as (passively) assisted suicide in that I'd bet he was "given" his privacy.  I think that in some ways it was a highly rational decision for him.

jersey_boy said:

Isn't the intelligence community highly screened for any history of behavior that would make them vulnerable to blackmail?

 You mean like J. Edgar Hoover?

Steve said:

I would describe it as (passively) assisted suicide in that I'd bet he was "given" his privacy.  I think that in some ways it was a highly rational decision for him.

 Agreed. Highly possible it was suicide given what he was facing but someone inside that jail made a nice days work to assist or look away.

CBS now reports there was "shrieking" coming from the area of Epstein's cell.

Sound like suicide to you?

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

CBS now reports there was "shrieking" coming from the area of Epstein's cell.

Sound like suicide to you?

 sounds like what a person who found a guy hanging might do

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

 Watch the video.  She does a good job putting it all together. Her attitude is that everyone is coming up with a conspiracy theory, so here is hers.  She worked really hard on it.  She seems like the studious type anyway. 

That, nan, is a pitch-perfect endorsement for your favorite video sources.

 If all her video sources look like Kim Iversen, I say, keep ‘em comin’.

I say keep apostrophes right side up. But no one listens to me, either.

I’d love to keep Kim Iversen’s apostrophes right side up.  Yowza.

*sigh*

Yiz make fun of the body double proposition for the disappearance of Epstein to the island where Elvis is.

I saw the movie about Uday Hassain's body double.

The theory works for me.

sprout said:

Because blaming the Israeli's and "secret intelligence" is such a perfect distraction. It helps us ignore the regular systemic issues around wealth and poverty in our various corrupt American systems that let this guy be who he was (and continue to be who he was), while it overly-penalizes those without such financial resources.

 Not sure if you saw the Daily Beast article that said Epstein wasn't prosecuted because he "belonged to intelligence." The whole article is worth reading as a prelude to Whitney Webb.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/...

cramer said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

It's possible the MSM have decided in advance that the "intelligence" angle will not appear in mainstream discourse. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I think the MSM is far too entangled with the intelligence community to look into whether Acosta made the statement in question and if so, what it entails.

I’ve said I wouldn’t interfere with any conclusions you drew. Alas, that leaves a lack of denial, and we all know what that means for the credibility of your comment. 

Acosta was asked at a press conference if he was told that Epstein was an intelligence asset. He declined to answer. (The article doesn't say who asked the question.)

"Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta declined to answer Wednesday if he had ever been told that Jeffrey Epstein was an intelligence asset during his handling of the 2008 child sex abuse case against the jet-setting financier.

Acosta, under fire for the non-prosecution agreement he’d made with Epstein’s attorneys and for the light 13-month jail stint that Epstein served more than a decade ago, told reporters at a press conference that he couldn’t answer questions about whether Epstein was allegedly tied to an intelligence agency in some way because he was prohibited from doing so due to Justice Department regulations.

“So, there has been reporting to that effect. And let me say, there’s been report to a lot of effects in this case. Not just now but over the years. And again, I would, I would hesitate to take this reporting as fact,” Acosta said."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alexander-acosta-dodges-when-asked-if-jeffrey-epstein-was-an-intelligence-asset

 That's a Yes. 

paulsurovell said:

 That's a Yes. 

 More likely - Acosta was trying to get pressure off of him for his Epstein deal.  The "maybe he's with intelligence, not that I'm saying that" dodge would serve that purpose.  

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?

paulsurovell said:

 Not sure if you saw the Daily Beast article that said Epstein wasn't prosecuted because he "belonged to intelligence." The whole article is worth reading as a prelude to Whitney Webb.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/...

The article isn't about any potential "intelligence" link for Epstein. It contains a brief anecdote as a prelude to discussing that Epstein had influential friends.  The whole anecdote from the article:

Epstein’s name, I was told, had been raised by the Trump transition team when Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. attorney in Miami who’d infamously cut Epstein a non-prosecution plea deal back in 2007, was being interviewed for the job of labor secretary. The plea deal put a hard stop to a separate federal investigation of alleged sex crimes with minors and trafficking.

“Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?” Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he’d had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)

So, Acosta said that to unnamed "interviewers in the Trump transition", who didn't look into it any further, and that anecdote found its way second-, third-, or more-hand to the author of the article.

Not really something to rely on.

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.

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”? 

paulsurovell said:

That’s a yes.

Someone’s been watching A Man for All Seasons.