Title : Attack on the family of Epstein's judge. Plus: Why we cannot trust Virginia Giuffre and Sarah Ransome
link : Attack on the family of Epstein's judge. Plus: Why we cannot trust Virginia Giuffre and Sarah Ransome
Attack on the family of Epstein's judge. Plus: Why we cannot trust Virginia Giuffre and Sarah Ransome
As you probably know, the family of federal judge Esther Salas was attacked by a gunman dressed as a Federal Express delivery driver. Her 20 year-old son was killed; her husband has been critically injured. The internet has taken note of the connection to the Jeffrey Epstein case.More recently, Salas has presided over an ongoing lawsuit brought by Deutsche Bank investors who claim the company made false and misleading statements about its anti-money laundering policies and failed to monitor “high-risk” customers including convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.That lawsuit is just as likely to lead to Trump; we've all heard the allegations that Trump properties have been used to launder money. Deutsche Bank, or a shady subsidiary thereof, has lent to Trump when no other bank would do so.
Right-wing Twitterati are focused on the Epstein connection. They rightists are practically shouting: "Clinton did it! Clinton did it!" (Of course, rightists shout those same three words if the dog soils the rug or someone scratches the car.) Right-wing writers do not seem to fear that this trail could lead to Trump.
What bothers me most of all is the obscene audaciousness of this hit. A message has been sent -- not just to the judge, but to the world.
Unfortunately, most people will get the wrong message. Most will presume that the killer intended to send this message to the judge: "Stay away from the Epstein case."
No. The actual message was delivered to the public, not to the judge. And that message is quite the opposite: "Pay attention to the Epstein case. All the rumors are true."
Why were those two people shot? Not to make the Deutsche Bank case go away -- that won't happen -- but to make sure that everyone in America is convinced that Jeff Epstein was at the heart of a deep, dark conspiracy involving very powerful people. People with a big, fat D next to their names.
Virginia Roberts Giuffre and the great sexual blackmail conspiracy. For years, I was convinced that Epstein really was party to (or perhaps mastermind of) a blackmail conspiracy. My earliest posts on the topic -- and I began writing about Epstein before most people heard of him -- were founded on a belief in the testimony of Virginia Roberts Giuffre. She is the one who insisted that Epstein used "his" girls to acquire blackmail on famous figures. The "blackmail ring" allegation traces back to her.
She mentioned Clinton. She also mentioned Al Gore.
Actually, she did more than mention Al Gore: She described his visit to Epstein's island in great detail. Yet she now admits that no such visit existed. When she spoke in detail of Gore walking on the beach on Epstein's island, she was being fanciful.
She also admits that she lied about her age. At first, she had the world convinced that she entered Epstein's world at the age of 15. She even described a "sweet sixteen" party that Epstein threw for her -- a party which culminated in her being statutorially raped.
But that whole tale was a lie. In fact, she took up with Epstein at age of 17 at the earliest -- and, by her own admission, she did not have sex with anyone else in Epstein's orbit until she reached the age 19, at which point she did so legally. (17 is legal in New York; 18 is legal in Florida; 16 is legal in the Virgin Islands.)
And before you say the obvious: Yes, the idea of a man in his 50s having sex with someone so young is very disturbing (to put it mildly), even if the relations were technically within the law. Nobody is making excuses for Epstein.
Nevertheless, the age of consent matters. Why? Because we're trying to determine whether Giuffre told the truth when she described a blackmail operation. An illegal sex act is "blackmailable;" a legal act is not. Not these days.
Consider: Virginia originally claimed that she had sex with Prince Andrew at the age of 15. We now know that she was 19. Thus, whatever your attitude toward Andrew, anything he may or may not have done with her was within the law.
The question is: Did he have sex with her? He denies it. Right now, the only evidence that he did is the testimony of Virginia Roberts Giuffre, a proven liar.
Here's my main point -- or rather, my main question:
If you subtract the claims of Virginia Roberts Giuffre -- and those of Sarah Ransome, an even more flagrant liar -- from the Epstein controversy, what evidence do we have that Jeffrey Esptein ran a blackmail operation involving VIPs?
Right now, I see none. None.
Yet the media continues to ratinalize the many lies told by Virginia and Sarah. Without those two, there is no sensational conspiracy story. Their credibility must be stipulated, in the face of all evidence that they have lied.
One of the worst "rationalizers" is the over-praised journalist Julie K. Brown. On Twitter, she has excused Virginia's lies with the usual pseudo-scientific blather: Studies prove that trauma victims have difficulty recalling details... Of course, she never cites actual research. Neither Julie Brown nor anyone else can point to a single piece of academic research which can explain away Virginia's whoppers involving Al Gore or that "sweet sixteen" party.
I heard the exact same "trauma" excuse repeatedly during the early 1990s, when I tried to write a book about Satanic Ritual Abuse claimants. For a long time -- years -- I tried to convince myself that these women were telling the truth, but eventually I had concede that their tales were absurd.
Now I find myself in a (characteristically) unpopular position.
Years ago, when I believed Virginia, I warned the world that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were running a blackmail operation. Today, that idea has ignited the imagination of millions of Americans. Having belatedly understood the truth about Virginia, I must sound a note of caution: The evidence for such an operation simply is not there. Not at present.
We may receive such evidence in the future. Or we may receive fabricated evidence, especially if the Trumpists can use such fabrications against Joe Biden (who vacationed regularly on the Virgin Islands). But right now, at this writing, the whole scenario rests on the credibility of Virginia Roberts Giuffre and and Sarah Ransome. Although the Netflix documentary treats them as unimpeachable witnesses, they are, in fact, two fabulists.
Do I need to say the obvious? Yes, I suppose I must: I am not excusing Jeffrey Epstein. Hardly!
The original testimony gathered by Florida officials was absolutely damning. But if you read that evidence -- in Patterson's Filthy Rich, and in the original documents available via Scribd -- you'll see no hint of a blackmail operation involving VIPs. All of the girls told the cops that they served Epstein and Epstein only. None of those girls mention Prince Andrew or Bill Clinton or anyone else. Those girls never mention Virginia Roberts or Sarah Ransome.
Sorry folks, but it's not sufficient to watch the Netflix documentary called Filthy Rich. (The documentary and the book share the same name, but the book is much better.) You have to do some actual reading.
The truth about Virginia. The Netflix documentary accidentally offers the truth about Virginia -- albeit in such a way that most audience members will miss it.
At the beginning of Part 4, we see footage from an interview that Virginia's first attorney, Brad Edwards, conducted with Jeffrey Epstein (who at first pretends not to recognize Virginia's name). Edwards asks: "Isn't it true you celebrated her 16th birthday with her and had sex with her on that day?" Epstein indicates that he'd love to answer the question, but his lawyers have advised him not to. When asked whether he forced her to have sex with others, Epstein momentarily forgets his lawyers' advice and answers "Are you kidding?"
That "sweet sixteen rape" story was a key part of Virginia's original story. Yet she herself now admits that she made it all up. She admits that she did not hook up with Epstein until she was 17, and that she did not have trysts with Epstein's associates until two years later.
Question: Why is Brad Edwards no longer representing Virginia Roberts Giuffre? Is it possible that Edwards wants no further association with a fantasist?
I finally turned against Virginia once and for all when I read the affidavit of her former boyfriend, one Anthony Figueroa -- a document included in this post. (Click to enlarge.) This document proves:
1. Virginia had complete freedom of movement. She was no "sex slave."
2. Virginia was an adult.
3. Virginia was a co-conspirator who procured underaged females for Jeffrey Epstein. Today, Virginia claims that she was victimized by Ghislaine Maxwell. It might be more accurate to say that she was Ghislaine Maxwell -- that is, she did the very things that Maxwell now stands accused of.
4. Virginia described meeting famous people, but not having sex with them. At no point did she describe a blackmail operation.
The truth about Sarah. I can't think of a non-vulgar way to make the following point, so I'll just come out and say it. Despite his current status as America's most notorious perv, Jeffrey Epstein wasn't much of a fucker.
The Patterson book makes this point very clear. Testimony from the Florida victims -- the real victims -- clearly indicates that Epstein almost never became fully erect and was rarely capable of vaginal intercourse. For obvious legal reasons, the investigators paid close attention to claims of vaginal intercourse; after interviewing dozens of girls, they found only four instances. Usually, Epstein pleasured himself while young females massaged him. When he trusted a girl sufficiently, he would touch her private parts with one hand while using the other on himself.
And that, for the most part, was it. That was his idea of sex.
Victim testimony demonstrates that he lost interest in girls once they passed the age of 19. Although his actions certainly constituted statutory rape, the victims never accused him of forcible rape.
Yet Sarah Ransome, who was 22 when she met Epstein, claims that Epstein violently raped her daily. In one outlandish news interview, Ransome insisted that Epstein raped her three times in one day, and the she made a daring escape by literally swimming with sharks. The New York Post has long possessed evidence that Ransome lies, but has refused to publish it.
There are other reasons to consider Ransome a dubious claimant. In 2016, she claimed to possess "sex tapes" involving Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. She now admits that this story was a fabrication.
Ransome says that she was targeted for assassination by Hillary Clinton and the CIA. She also says that she (Ransome) was working with the KGB in 2016. Make of that what you will.
The makers of the Netflix documentary Filthy Rich knew all about the problems with Virginia and Sarah, yet the filmmakers chose to hide these issues from the audience. Much of that documentary is The Virginia and Sarah Show. Unconscionable.
As you assess the upcoming "revelations" about the Epstein case, always keep in mind: Journalists have consistently refused to disclose the credibility problems besetting Virginia Roberts Giuffre and Sarah Ransome. What other lies are we being told?
Thus Article Attack on the family of Epstein's judge. Plus: Why we cannot trust Virginia Giuffre and Sarah Ransome
That's an article Attack on the family of Epstein's judge. Plus: Why we cannot trust Virginia Giuffre and Sarah Ransome This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article Attack on the family of Epstein's judge. Plus: Why we cannot trust Virginia Giuffre and Sarah Ransome with the link address https://darmonewst.blogspot.com/2020/07/attack-on-family-of-epsteins-judge-plus.html
Related Posts :
Gahan bans ‘Heyburn Nine’ from entering Nawbany city limits, then slaps down some Hammer vinyl.
BEER WITH A SOCIALIST: And the honor goes to Fuller's London Pride.
Pakistan Considers Mass Privitization Drive As It Seeks IMF Bail out!- The Gaming News
Be awakened: "A quick look at why small businesses are so important to communities."
0 Response to "Attack on the family of Epstein's judge. Plus: Why we cannot trust Virginia Giuffre and Sarah Ransome"
Post a Comment