Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested By Walrus.


There are numerous reports that Ghislaine Maxwell has been arrested accused of being an accessory or enabler of Geoffrey Epstein’s alleged criminal sexual behaviour. We already know that there are allegations that Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton and a host of other high profile individuals were associates of Epstein and would have been aware of his proclivities, if not sharing them. They are thus vulnerable to blackmail.

Maxwell, as Epstein’s best friend and alleged procurer of underage girls, would after Epstein, know more about his activities than anyone else. Given that Epstein allegedly conveniently “committed suicide” in jail under suspicious circumstances, I think that Maxwell’s life must also be considered to be under threat. I imagine that she will be placed in custody where she will remain until a convincing death can be arranged. Perhaps she will catch Covid19.

I also wonder why she was allegedly hiding in New Hampshire. I would have thought her safest destination was Israel, a country where I think she might be safer and capable of making extradition quite difficult.

Given the evidence of the FBI operations labelled as Russiagate – based as we now know on the flimsiest of evidence if you could even all it that, and considering the national importance of the potential blackmail targets,  one wonders what resources they would be putting into investigating the cases of Epstein and Maxwell? What do SST members think?

This entry was posted in Walrus. Bookmark the permalink.

96 Responses to Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested By Walrus.

  1. eakens says:

    Trump has been cool as a cucumber. A little too cool. I think there is more to come before the election and Ghislaine is the tip of the iceberg.

  2. EEngineer says:

    The question is: who has the kompromat? Actually, I would expect many parties have partial copies of it, but who has the master set of originals? Bill Barr?

  3. Sidney Caesar says:

    You seem to have forgotten to mention President Trump and Donald Barr (William Barr’s father) being among the “other high profile individuals” who “were associates of Epstein”.

  4. J says:

    She went from a ‘safehouse ‘ in Israel to hiding out in Paris before ‘showing up ‘ in New Hampshire. Figure that one out.
    Her sudden in U.S. custody may have more to do with Dershowitz trying to clear himself by fingering former Israeli PM Ehud Barak as a pedophile predator, which is an embarrassment to both Israel’s PM office and their Mossad. Mossad’s pedophile blackmail honey trap operation is back under the limelight. Barak as PM was the recipient of the Mossad pedophile blackmail honey trap operation’s blackmail information on U.S. and World Politicians, Government, business personnel as well as Hollywood types who got ‘trapped ‘.
    Maxwell is a threat to high profile and very powerful people, by the information she has. So has she hidden away an ‘insurance policy ‘ for such an event as her ‘capture ‘?
    Faking her death along with plastic surgery and new identity, as a clause in her insurance policy perhaps?

  5. FakeBot says:

    Maybe she wasn’t so safe in Israel. Her father was rumored to have blackmailed Mossad and was killed for that reason.
    There’s little question this move to finally apprehend her ties into Geoffrey Berman’s firing and Jay Clayton’s nomination for the district attorney on the case. Now is Clayton there to protect people or is he there to get Ghislaine to reveal the whole truth?

  6. Fred says:

    I think this arrest explains why Barr asked for the resignation of Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, then asked Trump to fire him when he refused to resign. The indictment focuses on 1994-1997, remember who was in the oval office then? I think soliciting under age girls is the least of the issues involved. The indictement is linked below.

  7. BillWade says:

    Great title, good job Walrus!

  8. JamesT says:

    Covid-19 sounds right to me.

  9. Sean McBride says:

    What a curious situation. One would have expected Mossad and its American network to have been able to protect both Epstein and Maxwell. There was an enormous breakdown in that op that may comprise the real story behind the story. It will probably never see the light of day.

  10. Jim says:

    Ghislaine Maxwell, arrested, in jail.
    Why now?
    That was the obvious question a year ago with Epstein.
    The only rational reason to jail Epstein would have been to keep him ALIVE.
    In other words, if he decided he wanted to kill himself or more likely, perhaps others, many others, would have wanted to kill him?
    Thus only rational reason would have been to keep him alive so that all his alleged and actual crimes could be prosecuted – and the chance he would talk and bargain with prosecutors and, perchance, “NAME NAMES”.
    Jeffrey Epstein may forever be out of sight because of an alleged suicide, or homicide, or whatever.
    And we’re supposed to just swallow that the most famous criminal of 2019 vanished into thin air, for all intents and purposes, never to be seen again, never to testify.
    The AG is in charge of federal bureau of prisons; why wasn’t Barr called on the carpet? There was s—h—t [with a vowel missing] all over Barr’s face when this grotesque incompetence happened.
    Ghislaine Maxwell, arrested, in jail.
    Why now?
    Southern District of New York US Attorney Audrey Strauss says crimes they are prosecuting are for years
    1994 to 1997
    Bill Clinton was president.
    Don’t laugh.
    There is little information on how long the feds knew where she was, that they say was Bedford, NH.
    According to [[“An eye was being kept” on Maxwell was about all that Audrey Strauss]] said.
    That is past tense, was being kept, assuming this is accurate information.
    For how long, months, days, years, decades, all the way back to the 1970s?
    CNN framed it this way:
    [[FBI New York Assistant Director in Charge William Sweeney said that bureau officials “have been discreetly keeping tabs” on Maxwell who had “slithered away to a gorgeous property” in New Hampshire.
    “We learned she had slithered away to a gorgeous property in New Hampshire, continuing to live a live a life of privilege while her victims continue to live with the trauma inflicted upon them years ago. We moved when we were ready and Ms. Maxwell was arrested without incident,” he said.
    Sweeney said that the FBI, along with the NYPD, arrested Maxwell in Bradford, New Hampshire, this morning without incident.
    Audrey Strauss, acting US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, explained the process that led to Maxwell’s arrest: “an eye was being kept, and information was being collected and then the indicted was just recently voted and filed and that is when we were able and prepared to move to arrest her.”
    Sweeney said that indictment alleges that from 1994 until 1997, Maxwell assisted Epstein in committing crimes against minors.]]
    Strauss said and the indictment of Maxwell says, numerous times: 1994 to 1997 alleged crimes, aiding and abetting Epstein.
    What is interesting, at least to me, in a news report by The Guardian – this report say that the DOJ said that Maxwell had the ability to get out of the US.
    Which begs the questions: Then why the hell didn’t she? The feds don’t explain that part.
    The Guardian: [[The sprawling property in Bradford where she was arrested was purchased “through a carefully anonymized LLC”, federal prosecutors said.
    Maxwell also has the money to flee if let out on bail, they maintained.]]
    Will we go from Epstein-gate, to Ukraine-gate, to Impeachment-gate, to Corona911-gate, to BLM-gate and now to Maxwell-gate – with perhaps a not so subtle attempt to piss all over Bill Clinton, since these alleged crimes were when he was commander in chief?
    One other thing that may be related to the timing of this apprehension of her.
    One of the alleged victims of Maxwell, who, according to a civil lawsuit filed against her in federal court in January. . . well, there was a “tiny problem.”
    The lawyer for the plaintiff, a Jane Doe, who claims to have been a young teen – when: “It all started in 1994 when 13-year-old Jane Doe met Epstein and Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell at a summer camp in Michigan. . . .”
    This civil complaint says: “In 1997, while at Epstein’s townhouse on 9 East 71st Street in the city of New York, Epstein asked the 17-year old Doe if she had a boyfriend. Doe replied that she did not. Epstein responded that when she did have a boyfriend she would want the sex to be ‘good’ and that she should ‘get it over with already’ meaning lose her virginity. Despite Doe’s resistance, Epstein then pushed Doe down onto her stomach and raped her. From that point forward for several years in New York, Epstein raped Doe on multiple occasions. During Doe’s time in New York, Maxwell also regularly facilitated Epstein’s abuse of Doe and was frequently present when it occurred.”
    Any ways, the little problem was that: despite numerous times the Jane Doe lawyer tried to serve Maxwell, many times, this lawyer always came up empty.
    But on June 15, the presiding federal judge ruled that. . . that because of certain judicial rules and because of the numerous attempts, the judge deemed that Maxwell had been served.
    Doe’s lawyer, the judge ruled, had done enough to demonstrate service; and thus the service attempts were deemed to have been “reasonably calculated to place Maxwell on notice of this suit and to constitute sufficient service under the circumstances presented here.”
    Thus Maxwell must respond, in a federal civil lawsuit brought by an alleged rape victim, that this plaintiff claims the pair [her and Epstein] betook against her.
    This mean Maxwell can be jailed for contempt of court, should she continue to run and hide; that is: ignore court orders in this civil lawsuit.
    With today’s jailing of her by the DOJ, on what looks like the same facts as in the civil case, [though it may not be; even if the 1994 to 1997 time period is the same] — Maxwell’s concerns about the civil case now pale in comparison with the new, criminal case against her. That is, assuming DOJ gets conviction.
    The judge’s June 15 order deeming her served in the civil case, however, meant that Maxwell would have been facing jail if she failed to appear according to any court orders requiring her to.
    So one question I don’t know answer to is: why did she remain in the US? [Or did she actually flee, and we just ain’t being told that? I D K]
    Would no other country take her, did she attempt to leave and was rebuffed [by who?] or did she want to stay here and take her chances, knowing that she could run, assuming she tried to, that is; but could not hide forever?
    We’ll see if Maxwell-gate can trump BLM-gate, and all manner of other sorts of Hang Outs happening before our eyes.
    Lastly, I’m not saying it’s a weak case; but, why her and why now, since they obviously had no trouble locating her, assuming they did not always have tabs on Maxwell.
    If anyone actually has an actual photo of her being taken out of her New Hampshire house, I’d like to see them.
    For Roger Stone, we don’t have to ask this question.
    Perhaps Judge Amy Berman should handle this case and/or share it with Judge Gilbert and Sullivan.

  11. Vegetius says:

    I am thinking that only gentiles (and no conversos: e.g. AG Barr) should be allowed to interrogate, try, judge and punish this monster.

  12. Eric Newhill says:

    The FBI already has all kinds of evidence on a lot of people from their raids on Epstein residences. Now they just need Maxwell so they can squeeze her a little to tie up any loose ends. She will then die and the loose ends will be taken care of and the democrat/globalists will be safe from prosecution. FBI destroys some of the evidence they obtained and uses other evidence against their enemies (e.g. Trump associates, democrats gone off the reservation, like Dershowitz)

  13. turcopolier says:

    It seems likely to me that she was Epstein’s Mossad controller. Walrus is right. It will be difficult to keep her alive. Why she fled to NH escapes me so far.

  14. Balint Somkuti, PhD says:

    noone really sees into Israeli inner politics, but probably has to with the new grand coalition there.
    Just my guessing.

  15. J says:

    Department of Justice
    U.S. Attorney’s Office
    Southern District of New York
    Thursday, July 2, 2020
    Maxwell is Alleged to Have Facilitated, Participated in Acts of Abuse
                       Additionally Charged With Perjury in Connection With 2016 Depositions

  16. Barbara Ann says:

    Count Three in the indictment interests me, as it is the only one mentioning third party defendants. If it wasn’t for this I’d assume the whole thing was scoped so as to limit any fallout beyond Ghislaine herself.
    “GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to wit, transportation of minors, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423 (a).” (emphasis mine)
    I’d like to hear Robert Willmann’s view on the significance of this, combined with the pertinence of the fact that the SDNY’s Public Corruption Unit is handling the case.
    This, combined with the fact that she was arrested in the US, is (as of the time of writing) still alive and Barr’s urgency in sacking Berman, gives me some hope that there is a real intention to go after someone else, perhaps higher up the food chain (Wexner?). Have Trump and Barr got a big surprise in store? I do hope so.

  17. Yeah, Right says:

    I had read somewhere that she believed that Mossad had killed her father, so she may not have thought that Israel was a safer location.
    Not sure. I don’t think that she ever came out and openly accused Mossad of his death, but I do believe she is on record as claiming that her father was assassinated.
    As for “why now”, it may simply be that it has taken this long to track down and seize all the “insurance” documents that she had.
    I certainly thought at the time that Epstein’s days were numbered the moment the FBI raided his Manhattan mansion, in the sense that that the raid was undertaken to seize that all the videos and photos that he was relying on to keep himself safe.
    Take those away from him = he is a goner.
    The same may be true of this woman.

  18. David Habakkuk says:

    I do not know how reliable Ari Ben-Menashe is as a source, but, for what it is worth, he claims that Mossad was not the Israeli agency for which Epstein and the Maxwells worked.
    From an article last month by Elizabeth Vos in ‘Consortium News’:
    ‘In an interview with Consortium News, former Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe said Epstein did not work with Mossad. “Military intelligence was who he was working with,” said Ben-Menashe. “Big difference,” he said. “He never worked with Mossad, and Robert Maxwell never did, either. It was military intelligence.”’
    (See .)
    Be that as it may, it is not clear to me that Ghislaine Maxwell would have been any safer in Israel than in the U.S.
    If she is prudent, she will have followed the example of the former NKVD ‘Resident’ in Spain, Alexander Orlov. From his ‘Wikipedia’ entry:
    ‘Meanwhile, the Great Purge continued as Stalin and his inner circle sought to exterminate all suspected enemies of the people. Orlov was alerted as close associates and friends were arrested, tortured and shot, one by one. In 1938, Orlov realised that he would soon be next. When he received orders from Moscow to report to a Soviet ship in Antwerp, Orlov was certain that he was about to be arrested. Instead of obeying, Orlov fled with his wife and daughter to Canada.
    ‘Before leaving Paris, Orlov left two letters for the Soviet Ambassador, one for Stalin and one for NKVD chief Yezhov. He told them that he would reveal everything he knew about NKVD operations if any action was taken against him or his family. In a two-page attachment, Orlov listed the codenames of numerous illegals and moles operating in the West.’
    (See .)
    He kept his side of the bargain, and ‘The Secret History of Stalin’s Crimes’ was only published after its subject’s death in March 1953.

  19. TV says:

    I think that being in Bureau of Prisons custody is her death warrant.
    The BOP brings new lows to that magical swamp concoction of incompetence and corruption.
    Put her in US Marshals custody.

  20. Barbara Ann says:

    David Habakkuk
    I am reminded of Don Corleone’s speech:

    I’m a superstitious man, and if some unlucky accident should befall Michael – if he is to be shot in the head by a police officer, or be found hung dead in a jail cell… or if he should be struck by a bolt of lightning – then I’m going to blame some of the people in this room; and then I do not forgive. But with said, I pledge – on the souls of my grandchildren – that I will not be the one to break the peace that we have made today.

    Epstein may well have died thanks to his being insufficiently suspicious. If Ghislaine Maxwell ever suffered from the same weakness, she must surely have been cured of it by now.

  21. JP Billen says:

    Bradford NH is a small town, less than 2000 residents. I wonder if they have known she was there for awhile and have had her under surveillance – hoping to trap one of Epstein’s perverted brothers in crime?

  22. J says:

    IMO I’m waiting to see and hear about the 800 pound gorilla hidden in the closet (U.S. agencies and personas who may have ‘known’ about the Israeli Intelligence’s Pedophile Blackmail Honey Trap Operation. Something that big had to be on somebody’s radar screen. And worse, those that knew and kept quiet, or those that knew and took advantage of it, or those that knew and were parties to it.
    Like I said, the 800 pound gorilla hidden away in the closet is what needs to be addressed and brought to the light of day and legal scrutiny where warranted.

  23. turcopolier says:

    David Habakkuk
    It could well have been Israeli IDF intelligence that she, Epstein and her father worked for. I knew these fellows well and the whole thing would have appealed to their sense of humor.

  24. Deap says:

    Covid would be a very inefficient way of offing someone, since it has a 99% recovery rate. Additionally Maxwell looks blushingly un-comorbid. I suspect she is now states evidence, and under federal protection while furiously recording her memoirs.
    Trump has not been publicly associated with Epstein since his much earlier conviction about 20 years ago and a Mar-A-Lago real estate dispute. Claims Trump never really liked Epstein and is on record saying this well before these latest attempt to prove his guilt by this long distant media association.
    Trump moved on the fringes of the mighty and powerful for years. Because this is what makes NYC run. Clintons were guests at his wedding to Melania. Try another smear.
    Harvard had no trouble taking Epstein money. Guilt by association with Epstein will prove to be a very equal opportunity player. Everyone loves a steamy summer novel, so looks like this unfolding story will fill the Bill (so to speak). Or we could go back to replays of Biden in the Basement. Or is that Biden in De-Basement.

  25. David Habakkuk says:

    Colonel Lang, Barbara Ann,
    As I began to realise, a long time ago now, and has become progressive clearer to me over the years, our ability to think has been rotted by bad academic theories.
    Among my – many – objections to so much ‘rational choice’ theory, there are 1. that it prejudges what people’s motives are, rather than actually going and looking, 2. that, if you do go and look, it becomes clear that ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ calculations are inextricably intertwined.
    So, seduction is commonly pursued by extremely ‘rational’ means; so also is revenge.
    But then, the beauty of the Don Corleone quote is that he is trying to achieve very ‘rational’ objectives, by bringing in ‘irrational’ elements.
    He uses these, to provide ‘rational’ reasons why the other side should calculate that, if they do not accept the bargain he is – implicitly – proposing, they are taking very large risks, while if they do, he will not take advantages of the opportunities this might create.
    As to our host’s remark about the IDF, that reminds me of a line from a strange and remarkable book, Herman Melville’s ‘The Confidence Man.’
    One of the characters, trying to make sense of the title character, remarks:
    ‘Was the man a trickster, it must be more for the love than the lucre. Two or three dirty dollars the motive to so many nice wiles?’
    Those lines came back to me, when trying – I thought in the end with some success – to make sense of Ahmed Chalabi.
    With so many people involved in these intrigues, it is material that they are the ‘powerless empowered.’
    This can lead to bizarre forms of recklessness: the feeling that, having got away so much, your luck will always hold, sometimes combined with a sense that, if it all collapses into dust and ashes, that was only to be expected: and may not matter all that much.
    (A classic example was Hitler. But the combination is recurrent.)
    As to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. In their situations, obviously, the ‘Orlov strategy’ made ‘rational’ sense.
    In their shoes, I would obviously have taken precautions to ensure that, should anything happen to me, all the ‘dirt’ the Israeli intelligence operations in which I was involved had accumulated would be exposed.
    (It should not, surely, be so difficult!)
    One cannot however be confident that either had the intelligence to see this.
    There is also, another possibility which, although I think it unlikely, I do not feel I can entirely discount – yet at least.
    It could be that Ghislaine’s arrest is involved with a kind of ‘covert bargain.’
    So, if she can be convicted on lesser charges, the outcome may be better for her, than the alternatives, and also better, for many others, than that which would be likely to materialise, should the original – probably IDF – operation be properly investigated.
    As to the origins of the operation, I think it may be material, as I think our host is suggesting, that the role of humour in human motivation is often understated, or totally missed.
    Certainly, as regards Robert Maxwell, I think pleasure in, as it were, taking those highly superior ‘Anglos’ down a ‘peg or two’, if not a great many more, may have been as important a motive as any other.

  26. turcopolier says:

    David Habakkuk et al
    Yes, the ability and need of warriors to see humor in the fell deeds they wreak upon their enemies or targets is much underestimated. It is a terrible thing but true. I first noticed this when in 1968 the enemy forces in Phuoc Long Province in the mountains in SVN began sending me notes across the lines addressed to “the rifleman” because I carried a scoped M-1 Garand. They clearly meant to kill me but the notes themselves were often humorous. The IDF GS intel people are very well educated and have a sardonically humorous view of life.

  27. CK says:

    @ David Habakkuk
    “(It should not, surely, be so difficult!)”
    A few questions if I may.
    How will it be exposed? Will the material be delivered to CNN for exposure by Mr. Blitzer? Or will it be exposed by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC?
    Will it be sent by some unknown third party to some Soros funded D.A.
    I see the movie scenario where Ms. Maxell gives her ( original or copies ) information to some one who is 100% trusted by her and 100% unknown to her antagonists. And that person having a brain power slightly larger than his/her/its shoe size realizes that he/she/it has been handed a death warrant, a sizzling stick of Acme dynamite and has no way to relieve himself/herself/itself of this fiendish device.
    The dead man’s switch works on railroads … sometimes. In the political world, in the legal world not so much. It is a worthy Infotainment trope and works wonders in movies and Dramadies but for the rest of us … .

  28. Marc b says:

    I noticed that Bradford NH is home to Burton Hersh who has written extensively on the CIA and the FBI’s relationship with Roy Cohn et al.

  29. Barbara Ann says:

    Whitney Webb, who has done extensive research for MintPress News on Epstein, Mega Group & the history of FBI corruption, thinks the charges against Ghislaine are purposefully light and that the aim is to bury the story once she is convicted. I don’t buy this. Surely having her disappear(ed) would bury the story much more effectively. Unless of course the plan is for her to skip bail.
    I’m more in favor of the ‘covert bargain’ thesis – not least because of the simple fact that Ghislaine’s arrest has made it much harder to disappear her. Arkancide in another MCC jail cell – really? What was wrong with a good old fashioned unmarked grave somewhere out in the NH backwoods?
    If the ‘covert bargain’ thesis is accurate then it seems mightily important to discover who the “others known” are in count three of the indictment. Time will tell, hopefully.
    eakens (above) notes Trump’s cool and I’d have to agree that he is playing like a man who has aces up his sleeve. I have not quite given up on Trump’s “drain the swamp” promise. Maybe all of us expecting a gradual opening of the sluice gates will be surprised. Trump and Barr could be about to dynamite the dam.

  30. Jim says:

    A day after, still no attorney has filed an appearance on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell with the federal district court.
    And, according to Andrea K. Johnstone, United States Magistrate Judge, for the district of New Hampshire, there was to be a hearing July 2, remotely, and folks could access this remotely [by telephone].
    Has anyone seen or been able to access an audio of this?
    Judge Johnstone’s 7-page order said [in part]:
    “In sum, the court finds that in this case a partial closure of court proceedings is necessary in that today’s hearing will be conducted by video and telephone conference. This partial closure is justified by the substantial interest of protecting public health and safety from the spread of COVID-19 and is narrowly tailored to protect that interest. The public maintains the opportunity to access these proceedings in full by telephone.”
    Why no photos or sketches at least released, yet, of Maxwell?
    Maxwell as of Friday night has no attorney listed on the docket to represent her; there is no audio of the July 2 hearing [that I can find], and no photos of Maxwell.
    Supposedly she is jailed at:
    Merrimack County Jail
    Boscawen, New Hampshire [and on her way to NYC?]
    According to Bloomberg news,
    — [[Lawrence Vogelman, the New Hampshire lawyer Maxwell hired to defend her, declined to comment on the charges after the hearing.]]
    The court docket has no record of Vogelman filing an appearance on behalf of Maxwell.
    [[Maxwell, who was arrested Thursday morning in New Hampshire, waived her right to a bail hearing there in a brief videoconference in federal court in Manchester on Thursday.
    “Are you waiving your right?” U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrea Johnstone asked Maxwell.
    “I am,” Maxwell said softly.]] according to Bloomberg news.
    The Miami Herald has a different version:
    [[Maxwell made an appearance by video before U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrea Johnstone in New Hampshire Thursday afternoon and is being transferred by the U.S. Marshals Service to New York, where she will face a hearing on the government’s request to deny her bail.
    Before the call started, a woman with her British accent could be heard sobbing on the line saying, “I don’t understand, I don’t understand.”
    The Miami Herald asked Maxwell’s attorney, Larry Vogelman, whether the voice had been Maxwell’s and he said that he had not heard the voice and that his client had no comment on the charges and the government’s request for her to be held without bail.]]

  31. mcohen says:

    All roads lead to the mary poppins directorate and it’s merry band of chimney
    So it will be Audrey vs Ghislane.
    Maxwell is not Epstein.

  32. mcohen says:

    1994-1997 was when Rabin was assainated and clinton was shaking hands with abbas and Monica.
    The almost peace deal (oslo) stopped by the religious right.
    That’s my guess about 1994-1997.
    Maxwell is produced with video and that’s that said the cat.Bite the apple and you get to the pips

  33. Mark Logan says:

    Jim, RE:
    “So one question I don’t know answer to is: why did she remain in the US?”
    It may be she had the means to leave but no place to go to. Someone peddling kids for sex would have a hard time getting a visa anywhere once the word got out, and it most definitely did. A visibly on-fire potato. Wouldn’t the surprise to find out the cops have known where she was for some time. If they felt confident she couldn’t get out of the bag they may have sat back and watched for evidence to gather. Once arrested she’s all lawyer’d up.

  34. Artemesia says:

    Another speculation about the narrow time-frame for prosecution revolves around a then-14 year old who claimed she had sex w/ Trump in those years.
    It is further speculated that acting attorney Strauss is a very tough cookie, selected by Berman as his replacement after Trump – Barr fired him, meaning that Strauss will be just as tough as Berman might have been.
    The timeline / case is narrowly focused on Trump; Maxwell will testify against Trump in exchange for all other charges accrued in all those other years being made to disappear.
    In this way, Israel never comes up in the court docket but Trump goes to jail.
    Maxwell will be whisked away to Israel to live happily ever after — maybe meet up with old pal Epstein.
    Everybody happy.
    Just a speculation.
    Validating factor is that Israel has long been able to influence NYC Souther District Court (it was the Morgenthau court for decades, Robert being son of FDR Treasurer Henry, JR), and Israel would not find it humorous to have their blackmail project exposed.

  35. Jack says:

    My swag is that Ghislaine made a deal. There’s no other reason I can come up with for her to be in New Hampshire. She could just as well hang out in Europe unless if she felt “safer” in US custody.
    Like many I believe the truth of this sordid story will be buried. Too many people among the Davos Club are implicated. And Bill Barr will not want the details of his dad’s association with Epstein come to light.
    What I still don’t get is why did Lex Wexner, Prince Andrew, Ehud Barak, Alan Dershowitz and all these smart wealthy people need Epstein for underage girls? They could easily have paid for top-rated hookers. Or follow Bob Kraft to an Asian massage parlor.

  36. J says:

    Let’s look at some items concerning Epstein in Federal Custody:
    The 2 cameras that were supposed to be filming Epstein in his jail cell were broken and the recordings deemed unusable.
    2 guards ‘allegedly’ slept through scheduled checks on Epstein and falsified records.
    One of Epstein’s trafficker billionaire buddies Jean-Luc Brunei disappeared right after it was reported that Epstein was dead, later showed up in South America.
    So…..Are Ghislaine Maxwellj’s jail cell cameras working, and when/if they fail to work, will their recordings also be deemed unusable?
    Will the Federal custody wonks have learned their lessons, and post U.S. Marshal ‘teams’ who have eyes on Maxwell at all times, and U.S. Marshal teams who are constantly roving the incarceration hallways as well as have Marshal teams manning all video and recording equipment for any sudden ‘glitches’.
    After the Epstein in custody debacle, I don’t trust the Bureau of Prisons, I don’t trust the FBI. The only ones I have any faith in are the U.S. Marshals. Outside that, military guard teams with fully loaded weapons, and Spec Ops Teams (loaded for bear) monitoring all hallways/rooms/perimiters/cameras-video-recording equipment/ceilings-crawl spaces etc..
    Final note, if the Israelis decide to whack Maxwell while in U.S. Custody, to prevent such from happening and hedge our bets, Spec Ops needs to be monitoring for Israeli (and hired contract) specialization teams/individuals, and ready to take them down quickly, very quickly.

  37. Babak makkinejad says:

    IDF murdered Rabin.
    Amir was one of those deranged fellows that are more often than not used as instruments for carrying out the deed.
    Everyone in Israel is Religious Right, it is a term without analytical content.

  38. Babak makkinejad says:

    Why would Israelis want to see Trump in jaill?
    Trump has listened to his most lavish funders and carried out their policy preferences.

  39. eakens says:

    My theory is that pedophilia and other sick activities are the glue that bind these groups of people together. It’s probably the method by which the Davos Club keep each other honest. It doesn’t end with Epstein. Marina Abramovic is probably but a dissimilar but effective controller as well.

  40. Jack says:

    Tucker asking what was the relationship with Epstein these powerful men had.
    I’ve always been curious how Epstein accumulated his wealth including the ability to acquire a large Manhattan townhouse, tens of thousands acres ranch in New Mexico, a private Caribbean island and of course his jet.
    Why did Trump labor secretary and former US attorney in Miami strike a sweetheart deal with Epstein? Why have most of his activities been obscured? It would not be that difficult for the FBI and the DOJ to get to the bottom of how Epstein made money and their sources.

  41. turcopolier says:

    “IDF murdered Rabin.” No. Now you really sound like an agent of Iran.

  42. CNN has a paragraph which makes something explicit:
    We do not yet know who else might be in the SDNY’s sights,
    but prosecutors did drop a tantalizing clue
    by staffing the case out of the Office’s Public Corruption Unit
    (as it did with the original case against Epstein).
    I [Elle Honig] did sex trafficking cases when I was with the SDNY,
    and I know that these cases typically would be handled by the Violent and Organized Crime Unit
    (which includes the Human Trafficking Coordinators),
    not the Public Corruption Unit —
    unless the case carried potential to implicate public officials.

  43. Babak makkinejad says:

    Col. Lang
    A country without a Constitution and a recognized border, at war with her neighbors since its inception,
    a country whose civilian governments have been headed by former military leaders,
    a country in which the initiatives for peace with Egypt as well as both the invasion and occupation of Lebanon came out of IDF,
    IDF has not wanted a Palestinian state and that is the salient fact here.
    In effect, IDF is the state.

  44. Barbara Ann says:

    Yesterday I listed the Whitney Webb’s 2-part phone interview of Maria Farmer, the first of Epstein’s victims to come forward way back in 1996. She was employed as a “servant” by Ghislaine and knows her very well. After a couple of years as a kind of secretary for Epstein in NY she spent 3 months living, effectively under house arrest, at Les Wexner’s Ohio estate guest house. The interview was rambling and I’d not recommend it unless you have a spare 4 hours, but a few interesting quotes/points came out:
    – “That woman [Ghislaine] is the most dangerous asset for Israel that you can even imagine” (part 1 06:30)
    – “Wexner [who is apparently gay] had a crush on Epstein” (part 1 1:03:00)
    – She describes Les Wexner as the “head of the snake” and said “Ghislaine was under Wexner” (beginning of part 2)
    – Ghislaine showed Maria her 5 passports: French, UK, Israeli, US + 1 other (part 2 12:00)
    – Ghislaine says Israel murdered her father (part 2 37:00)
    Maria says Ivana Trump used to participate with Ghislaine in ‘scouting’ missions for girls as young as 12 for Epstein using the cover that they were recruiting models for Victoria’s Secret. She says she saw a thousands of minor girls pass through Epstein’s NY office in the 2 years she was there in the early 90’s (5-10 a day)
    Wexner gifted the East 71st Street mansion to Epstein for $1. He apparently also did the same to Epstein’s previous NY residence. Maria says both were installed with pinhole cameras everywhere, as was Wexner’s guest property where she lived.
    The impression Maria leaves is of an utterly corrupt Jewish elite (she says Ghislaine is protected by the Rothschilds) with disdain for goyim like herself and an FBI entirely disinterested in what she had to say.
    Artemesia (above) may be right. Given the time frame of the indictment (1994 to 1997) maybe Ivana Trump is one of the “others known”. That would sure torpedo Trump’s re-election chances pretty convincingly, I expect. It all hinges on which side the not-so-blind ‘justice’ is taking and the DOJ’s track record is not encouraging.
    Here are the links:

  45. walrus says:

    My suspicion is that Maxwell thought she was safer in the U.S. than anywhere else. I would think the main threat that concerned her was the a british, although I have no evidence. One does not threaten the house of Windsor as Diana found out. Then there was Skripal, Kelly and probably others.
    I would imagine that Maxwell was offered a bargain in return for the physical evidence she had access to. She turned herself in. Unfortunately, for her, I don’t think the swamp keeps its bargains. I am aware of one Alan Bond, an Australian billionaire sent to jail for a few years. Rumor is that he paid the toughest criminals in his institution $50,000 each to keep him safe in jail. I don’t believe Maxwell will survive long enough to have that option. She needs to be under a witness protection program, wrapped in cotton wool, or she is dead meat. It will happen quickly, so that she has no time to call her lawyers once she realises she’s been conned.
    The utterances of moral outrage by the prosecutors are already preparing the public for her demise. It is telling that they are directed at Epstein’s behaviour with no curiosity whatsoever about his accomplices with the exception of the unfortunately photogenic Prince Andrew. If I was prosecutor, I would want to know who else supped at Epstein’s table and what they chose from his menu?

  46. walrus says:

    As for Epstein’s money, I think the answer is simple. Insider trading. Once a “friend” has tasted the delights available at Epstein’s table, I would have thought a tactful inquiry be Epstein asking for long term investment advice would be candidly answered.
    I don’t mean Martha Stewart day to day share trading rubbish which is visible in data streams, I mean deep background stuff with at least twelve month time horizons.

  47. walrus says:

    Does anyone else think that the “golden dome” on Epstein’s private island temple was the perfect hiding place for a satellite uplink? Or am I fantasizing?

  48. J says:

    Maxwell is in U.S. Marshal custody, and her whereabouts are unknown.
    It’s like Walrus is saying the British Crown is sweating bullets, in particular Prince Andrew as Maxwell is fully cooperating with U.S. Prosecutors on ‘everything’ about ‘everybody’. Another one sweating bullets is most probably Ehud Barak and some of his cronies in the Israeli government who used Epstein’s favors.
    She’s set to appear in court on Monday. If convicted on all counts she will serve 35 years in prison.
    Now the 64 dollar question, what about the 800 pound gorilla sitting in the closet, this was too big and too vast to be missed by IC radar screens. IC radar screens of the U.S. British, Russian, French, German, other partners of the Five Eyes, and Interpol.
    Who are the the other Israeli Intelligence operatives and controllers that are running this and most probably similar Pedophile Blackmail Operation Honey Traps?
    Who in the Israeli Government sanctioned/are sanctioning Pedophilia as an Intelligence Blackmail Operation? These are International Crimes being committed by the Israeli Intelligence Apparatus.
    We know that Ehud Barak was one according to Dershowitz, and this Israeli Intellitence Blackmail Operation stretches all the way into the Israeli PM’s and the head offices of Israeli IDF Intelligence and Mossad Intelligence. They abused ‘children’ for their blackmail schemes, not adults but ‘children’. Israeli Intelligence needs to pay for their crimes against all the children they used and abused.

  49. Adrestia says:

    Is this not part of a counter-offensive?
    BLM and other seem to be supported by Clintonites (ie progressive ‘left’ anti-Trump)
    What if DJT ordered to put the weight of the judicial system against participants of Epsteins comnpromising game?
    These kind of things (with children) also repulse the general population (although temporarily and superficially) Elections are coming and when the Democratic and left elite is compromised this will help DJT.
    In Europe we had the Dutroux-case in Belgium, who was nothing more than a jailer/provider of underaged children. There were a number of ‘suicides’ and disappearances too. People who were rumoured to have been participants were also in the upper echelons of society, including royalty.

  50. Fred says:

    “f I was prosecutor, I would want to know who else supped at Epstein’s table and what they chose from his menu?”
    We have mandatory contact tracing for this wuhan virus, but none of the vaunted “5 eyes” have been able to contact trace any of those who travelled aboard Epstein’s ‘lolita express’. Shocking, isn’t it?

  51. David Habakkuk says:

    I may very well have underestimated the problems for someone in Ghislaine Maxwell’s position in creating a situation where none of those with motives to silence her could afford to do so.
    So, the questions you raise clearly need reflection.
    Let me however turn them round, partly to help myself in thinking, partly because you, and others, on this ‘Committee of Correspondence’, might have useful thoughts on the matter.
    If you were in her position, and wanted to make sure that the accumulated information you held would provide more powerful people with reasons to prefer that you stayed alive than wanted to see you dead, how would you have gone about it?
    It is important to realise how operations of this kind commonly work.
    The art is to draw people in slowly.
    So, with someone like Prince Andrew, you invite him to parties. where there are both a lot of prestigious people, and a lot of young girls.
    (It may be material that the girl who has accused him was not actually underage, under British law.)
    A lot of booze flows, so, normal inhibitions are relaxed.
    (Also, although many of the underage girls may simply have been innocent victims, it is unwise to assume that all of them are as innocent as they want to present themselves today.)
    Once you have involved people in activities which they cannot afford to acknowledge, then you have them ‘hooked’, and may be in a position to, as it were, ‘reel them in.’
    And so Andrew, who is quite stupid enough to accept Ghislaine as just another London/New York ‘socialite’, without being able to grasp anything of the complex, and also traumatic, history out of which her father, and through him, she, come, could be ‘reeled in.’
    And then, I suspect, he could be used as ‘bait’, to trap others.
    The Israeli operation with which we are, I think, quite clearly dealing, could be sustainable, over a long period, in part precisely because, with so many important and influential others having been ‘hooked’, a situation was created where it was not so difficult for the targets to persuade themselves that the ‘omerta’ could not be broken.

  52. Mark Logan says:

    I see no reason why Israel would engage in a massively high-risk blackmail op on US politicians. They already have all the influence they can hope for. No US politician dares speak a bad word about Israel, and pledging allegiance to AIPAC is on all POTUS candidate checklists. They would be risking the whole game for very marginal improvement of that condition.
    Epstein probably blackmailed people all on his own in order to enrich himself and maybe to get some legal protection from lower levels of some governments.
    No doubt there are some very powerful people who would like to see her dead. IMO the best way she could protect herself would be to give a deposition ASAP. Get it on record so her death won’t save anyone.
    Not that I think it likely anybody will be able to get to her or anything. Corrections has a terrible embarrassment on their hands from her boss. Both of these s-bags going down in custody? That will not be allowed to happen. Not if it is humanly possible to prevent. She will be really really well watched.

  53. turcopolier says:

    mark Logan
    “Influence” is good but positive control would be seen as better.

  54. Mark Logan says:

    I suppose so. The risk/reward ratio would be still be rather poor though. I wonder if Epstein had a few of them by the short ones too.

  55. CK says:

    @David H.
    The problem is the material. Any films or recordings of sexual activities between adults and underaged children is illegal to posses, to distribute and certainly to broadcast. The legal assumption is that if you have this stuff you have watched it and are therefore a criminal. I’m just holding it as insurance for a friend will not cut the mustard.
    “Here good friend and buddy is my stash of kiddie porn from when I was Epstein’s procuress, will you see deliver it and yourself into the hands of the law for me as my dead man’s switch, my cutout?
    So what about her detailed notebooks of who was provided to whom and what they did, when they did it and how often they yelled Oh God.
    Without pictures or drawings? Worth about as much as that DC madam’s notebooks from a few years back. A number synonymous with zero.
    It’s not like there are real dead bodies to disclose or dna evidence to produce and analyze. It is not even ” He Said, She Said.” It is more like a child said and an adult said. Anyone with a decent memory remember the satanic day care schools child molestation panic of the late 80’s and 90’s?
    I am not smart enough to devise a way for Ms. Maxwell to have a reliable and undetectable dead man’s switch for her situation.
    Assange could do the encrypted files on multiple servers as his dead man’s switch but what he had was embarrassing to various nations and their stuffed shirts; reading it was not illegal.

  56. Fred says:

    Mark Logan,
    “No US politician dares speak a bad word about Israel,…”
    Not so sir. The current extremist wing of the democratic party as exemplified by AOC and the Squad are quite happy to do so.

  57. turcopolier says:

    Mark Logan
    You don’t understand the anti-goyim contempt that most of the Israeli intelligence people hold most of us in. They think we exist to be used. Career IDF intel men are very cautious about what you are suggesting. They know how unforgiving their own system would be. The IDF is full of women conscripts dressed in skin tight tailored uniforms with painted toenails and a couple of buttons undone. IDF officers often pointed out one or another to me regretfully because they were afraid to go off the reservation to get some.

  58. Mark Logan says:

    Their attempts to do their own thinking sadly distinguishes them from their colleagues.
    I believe I can see it now. Such people would tend to view any and all advantages as usable, if I got that right.
    Happy 4th, everyone.

  59. Barbara Ann says:

    It would be simple enough to create an online dead man’s switch which would email the kompromat to Uncle Tom Cobley and all unless explicitly stopped. For example a series of server-hosted email lists & prepared emails with a countdown to an automatic ‘send’ which can only be reset by your login.
    As you have noted, encryption could be useful, as possession of the material is only illegal if it is readable. Modern encryption techniques make it possible to send encrypted material to a recipient (e.g. the powerful parties that may want you dead) with proof that you hold the key. This way no one gets to see the material, but everyone knows you can – and of course that you can share the encrypted material & key too. This could work as a bluff in fact, so long as the recipient thinks the encrypted material is the kompromat they don’t want to see the light of day.
    The important aspects are to ensure the system is hidden/anonymized and diversified in every way so that it can’t be compromised and that your enemies know you have such a system and are thus incentivized to keep you alive.
    One potential weakness in the above-described system is the login. You don’t want a system where you can be abducted & forced to disable the system yourself. I’d build in a rubber hose factor to make it impossible to compromise the system through abduction/coercion.

  60. Babak makkinejad says:

    Col. Lang
    So, Israelis are just like Arabs: figured out how to cunningly manipulate and milk the Faranj/Goyim.
    The position of عبری عربی:‌ ب no difference.

  61. turcopolier says:

    The Iranians are more subtle. They have successfully deceived us into thinking they have a nuc. weapons program which they have not had since 2003. The Epstein thing is at base quite crude.

  62. English Outsider says:

    David Habakkuk,
    Not only did the Russians win the Presidential election for Trump. They also seem to have been responsible for Brexit –
    I submit the reference because it mentions one or two characters you have been looking at in another context. Mifsud is said to have intended to talk to Mr Johnson about Brexit and seems to have met him if only casually –
    It would take a Grace-Groundling-Marchpole to link this with the child abuse scandal that Walrus is discussing above but I hope it’s not too off-topic for this thread. “The Russians did Brexit” is accepted as an article of faith by some English news outlets, together with the twin assertion that the Russians got Trump elected. These are not assertions that sit well with “The Brits did Steele”.

  63. Babak makkinejad says:

    Col. Lang
    Will the Old Testament Protestant churches be able to endure the ramifications of the Epstein case?
    It goes to the heart of their theology, in as far as I understand such things.
    Turks, as the other half of the Seljuk/Ilkanid Empires, must be just like Iranians, minus the poise and polish.

  64. J says:

    Some twists and turns, it appears that a Federal Judge may be trying to protect somebody, as Senior U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled Wednesday that Virginia Guiffre’s lawyers that all the materials in the files “shall be destroyed?” Apparently the files Preska is referring to files that they had obtained on Epstein. Dershowitz had sought access to files claiming that they were needed to defend his name, as Guiffre had named Dershowitz as one of the men that Epstein had forced her to have sex with. So who is the Judge protecting with her destruction ruling? Rumors are that the info contained in the files says Bill Clinton and Maxwell were sexual lovers.
    What is interesting is that apparently Hillary Clinton sent a tweet on Parler quote: “Very sad to hear about the death of Ghislaine Maxwell who died by committing suicide by two gunshots to the back of the head.” endquote
    It appears that Clinton tweeted that she had hit send by mistake on her Parler tweet.
    Paul Joseph Watson
    July 2, 2020
    Hillary clicked ‘send tweet’ by mistake.
    HIllary Clinton
    “Very sad to hear about the death of Ghislaine Maxwell who died by committing suicide by two gunshots to the back of the head.”

  65. CK says:

    @ Barbara Ann
    Any dead man’s switch that must be periodically reset allows the surveillance society to track the user and discover the switch.
    Once those interested know where the switch is, discovering how it is reset is easy, any login can be tracked by a key logger, any onion router system can be compromised by riding the output of the outward facing router. If the material is of high enough value, the resources thrown at its discovery and elimination will far outstrip even Ms. Maxwell’s available wealth.
    As an aside, when we speculate about who might be in the Epstein/Maxwell files it is always Very Important and Very Well Known names; I would call them the clotted milk of the World’s powerful and wealthy, not the stereotypical image of the pederast.
    But as with the high sometimes you also have to cover the low. The drones and worker bees with similar tastes but much restricted wallets. Where there is an Epstein one can find connections to the Podesta’s and from there to much less impressive pizza parlours. Of course just thinking something like that makes me a deplorable conspiracy student.

  66. Jack says:

    “Ghislaine thought she was untouchable — that she’d be protected by the intelligence communities she and Jeffrey helped with information”
    This is going to get interesting. Either it is all a giant con and Ghislaine’s arrest is all kabuki to bury all the nefarious misdeeds or Israeli intelligence and their US allies may be getting rather concerned.

  67. Jack says:

    In 2003, the journalist Vicky Ward profiled Jeffrey Epstein, ….for Vanity Fair. Her piece painted him as an enigmatic Jay Gatsby type, a boy from a middle-class family in Brooklyn who had scaled the rungs of the plutocracy, though no one could quite figure out how he made his money.
    This was an opinion piece in the Times from a year ago when Epstein was indicted and arrested. Like Vicky Ward, I too have been intrigued by how Epstein made his money?
    We know that Lex Wexner “sold” him the NYC mansion for a buck. Naturally we ought to hear more from Lex and the FBI should dig into his proclivities. Apparently Lex and Sheldon Adelson are part of an Israel First group who were big donors to the Trump 2016 campaign. I wouldn’t doubt they were also big contributors to the Hillary campaign. If Michael Flynn was being targeted on FARA grounds for his deal with Turks, these guys should also be investigated to determine if they are agents of Israel and have filed appropriate filings with the federal government.
    The big question mark is will Bill Barr mount a serious investigation when there could be so many implications from Israeli intelligence to the highest levels of our plutocracy as well as Barr’s own father’s involvement with Epstein.

  68. Jack says:

    Fascinating discussion with Whitney Webb on the arrest of Ghislaine.

  69. Barbara Ann says:

    Another possibility has occurred to me: The accusation by a Jane Doe that Trump raped her as a 13 year old in Epstein’s NY mansion was in 1994 – within the range of the current indictment. IIRC the case was dropped after “Jane Doe” voluntarily withdrew the accusation. The alleged eye witness “Tiffany Doe” signed an affidavit stating, among other things, that she was

    “..hired by and paid directly by Mr. Epstein from the years of 1991-2000 to attract adolescent women to attend these parties, most of which were held at what is known as the Wexner Mansion located at 9 E. 71st St. in New York City.”

    Could the plan be to threaten to name Tiffany Doe as a co-conspirator with Ghislaine in trafficking minors in the current indictment? Such a threat could be used to pressure her to restate the allegation against Trump (regardless of its truthfulness) with very convenient timing before the election.

  70. David Habakkuk says:

    Barbara Ann,
    I think at this point one has to try to keep a very open mind, and try not to rule out any hypothesis that could conceivably fit the facts prematurely.
    For many years, claims of a top level paedophile ring over here, incorporating senior politicians and intelligence services people, were taken seriously, not least by the police.
    It is I think now clear that a large number of people had their names dragged through the mud on the basis of very plausible-sounding stories from supposed victims.
    (See .)
    In the case of Epstein and Maxwell, I think the evidence for an Israeli intelligence operation, aimed at targetting the ‘great and the not-so-good’, is clearly persuasive, in general.
    However, in regard to specific allegations, it has to be remembered that the same pattern of evidence can be produced by people who are genuine ‘victims’, and by those who are skilfully mimicking that condition.
    (And, people can be a bit of both, at the same time.)
    As to how this develops, a great deal would seem to depend on 1. who is genuinely implicated, and to what degree, and 2. who can plausibly be represented as being implicated, and to what degree.
    Different assumptions on these matters generate quite different predictions as to who might have an interest in seeing this ‘can of worms’ exposed, and who in using any means, from the relatively fair to the totally foul, to prevent this happening.
    My ‘SWAG’ has long been that the accusations against Trump of serious involvement are likely to be specious, designed to avoid a situation where he might think that ‘going for the jugular’ in relation to the Clintons made sense.
    But, I could be quite wrong.
    And, one has to ask how controllable these things are.
    What is not clear to me is how one side can use these allegations, in a controllable way, if they are at risk from the other side doing so.
    But then, if, for one reason or another, people who would like to keep the proverbial skeletons in cupboards decide that this cannot be done, a situation may be created where all they think they can hope to do is have some influence on which falls out where.
    And if different people are responding to the different decisions others make about that, it is not altogether unthinkable that there may be very odd ‘escalatory dynamics.’ But then, one can also have ‘dynamics’ leading to ‘covert collusion’ to keep skeletons in cupboards.

  71. Barbara Ann says:

    David Habakkuk
    You raise a very good point about the controllability of revelations coming out of this affair. This seems to me analogous to the problem of controllable escalation & deterrence in warfare. There is much room for miscalculation which could lead to undesirable outcomes in both cases.
    My exchange with CK, above, on the subject of a dead man’s switch (a fascinating subject warranting its own discussion IMO) got me thinking that the rules of MAD apply equally well to this scenario as to nuclear deterrence. In both cases a credible threat of second strike capability must be maintained in the eventuality that one is ‘taken out’. Equally important is that the switch not go off be accident. Bluff may also work well, up to a point.
    In relation to my comments above, I was factoring in the unhinged state of TDS-affected mind prevalent in the Resistance. It was with this in mind that I speculated on the possibility of Ghislaine being used as a tool to take down Trump. It is one of many possibilities.
    My hypotheses involving both Maria Farmer’s accusation of Ivana’s involvement and the 1994 rape accusation do not assume anything about the truthfulness of either claim. Political damage will be done in either case if Trump or his ex wife can be plausibly implicated, even if the claims are entirely baseless. The Resistance doubtless know this.
    The more I read about Audrey Strauss, the acting US Att. for SDNY, the more I suspect that she may, in fact, be determined to let justice take its course, no matter where it leads. This then may be a particularly dangerous scenario for anyone who supposes they can use Ghislaine for partisan ends. And I suspect elements of the Resistance in the FBI & DOJ (Comey’s daughter Maureen is one of the 3 prosecuting attorneys) may be foolish enough to do just that. This being the case would be very good for Ghislaine’s prospects of remaining among the living, at least until the job is done.
    My hope is that a miscalculation of this kind is made, which then leads to an uncontrollable escalation resulting in Epsteingate spilling its ugly guts all over the front pages; MAD. Such is the level of catharsis required to save the Republic from the immense corruption that has built up over the decades, resulting in a class of ‘untouchables’. It is necessary, but may not be sufficient, given the other issues Col. Lang describes in more recent posts.

  72. David Habakkuk says:

    Barbara Ann,
    It seems clear that the project of reversing what is seen as the monstrous aberration of Hillary’s defeat by Trump has become a kind of ‘corrupt holy crusade.’
    Bound up with this is an element which the election of Trump shares with ‘Brexit.’ It was perfectly possible to oppose the ‘Leave’ campaign, while however believing that the discontents that fuelled it – which have actually been visible for decades, to anyone who cared to look – could not be dismissed as simply illegitimate, and needed to be addressed.
    In general, however, this has not been the response to unexpected defeat, on either side of the Atlantic: the preferred strategy, in the best Stalinist/Maoist tradition, has been to blame ‘foreign devils.’
    As ‘English Outsider’ pointed out in a comment which has also given me a lot to think about, we have the bizarre spectacle of Boris Johnson’s refusal to publish the report of the ‘Intelligence and Security Committee’ into supposed Russian interference here being exploited to suggest that he, and even more his key adviser Dominic Cummings, are in Putin’s pocket.
    An ironic effect of all this is that in relation to Christopher Steele the incoherences of the ‘narrative’, on both sides of the Atlantic, have now become extreme.
    So both in relation to the ISC report, and a new report about Huawei, the involvement of Steele is clearly intended to suggest that the charges made in them are credible.
    At the same time, a casual reading of cross-examination of that figure by Hugh Tomlinson, QC, on behalf of the owners of the Alfa Group, in the High Court on 17-18 March, appears to confirm the impression given by report of IG Horowitz: that the former head of the MI6 Russia Desk is little more than a ‘village idiot.’
    (See .)
    Unfortunately, neither the discussions of the cross-examination by Chuck Ross, who made the transcript public, nor any others I have seen, appear to reflect any awareness of quite how strange the exchanges between Steele and Tomlinson are.
    I am still mulling over your suggestion that it may be helpful to see the possibilities opened up by Ghislaine Maxwell’s arrest in terms of ‘deterrence’ theory. Such theorising may also be useful in making sense of the games Steele has been playing.
    Unfortunately, both Ross and other journalists commenting on the transcript seem ignorant not only of theories of ‘deterrence’, but of arguments about the notion of ‘esoteric writing’ of which the followers of the late Leo Strauss are fond.
    Since I wrote about the (ab)use of these by Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt, in the early days of SST, I have realised yet more clearly that the central problem alike with Strauss and most of his disciples is that they treat deception as a presumption, and ‘cherry pick’ evidence to prove its presence.
    If the idea that, as it were, people not uncommonly ‘talk out of both sides of their mouth’, and in so doing subvert the ‘narratives’ they appear to be supporting, is treated as an hypothesis, and evidence both for and against assessed impartially to assess whether it applies in a given instance, it can be very useful.
    A very striking revelation in the cross-examination of Steele was that, between 17 February and 16 March – the day before the hearing in front of Mr Justice Warby opened – he produced four distinct witness statements.
    In these, the account of the genesis of memorandum 2016/112 in the dossier published by ‘BuzzFeed’, which provoked the lawsuit, was changed radically, and then changed again: with more new material introduced in the cross-examination.
    It would greatly help if one could get access to the witness statements, but the available evidence already suggests a possible ‘esoteric’ significance to some of changes involved: that is, that Steele intended to communicate messages to those ‘in the know’ which others, hopefully, would miss.
    A key suggestion Steele was making, I think, was that people in the FBI, DOJ and State Department have been attempting to make him the ‘patsy’ in relation to the origins of ‘Russiagate’ – and also, that IG Horowitz has been colluding with them.
    If people were in fact plotting to make him ‘take the fall’, obviously, they would have to reckon with the fact that Steele would have a ‘Samson Option.’
    But then, as ‘deterrence’ theorists have argued, time and again, to make use of threats whose implementation would be suicidal without actually committing suicide, one needs to find means of making them ‘credible’ which are not excessively risky.
    Unsurprisingly, Tomlinson followed the obvious strategy: assume the credibility of the account given by Horowitz, and use it to – further – demolish – that of Steele. The latter’s responses, however, challenged central aspects of the ‘narrative’ found in the report, but in a calibrated way.
    The strategy, I think, was to say enough to intimate that it would be unwise for others to proceed on the basis that, if pushed, Steele could not say a great deal more, even at the risk of ‘pulling the temple down over his head’, while not saying so much that, in effect, he had already done so.
    So, we have a kind of ‘spectrum’ in the transcript ranging from unambiguous statements to highly ambiguous ones.
    The crucial completely unambiguous one is that the origins of memorandum 112 are not on 11 September 2016, as his earlier witness statement suggested, but in a meeting at Perkins Coie on 29 July 2016, where Michael Sussmann told him about the ‘evidence’ supposed to establish a covert ‘comms’ link between Alfa and the Trump campaign.
    Crucially, Steele suggests that he was told the FBI already possessed the intelligence by this point.
    This claim is then used to suggest, among other things, that the handwritten notes by Bruce Ohr and Kathy Kavalec were ‘doctored’ either at the time or later, to suggest that he was the source of the claim about the ‘comms’ link.
    There is a great deal more, much of which I think is said, ‘esoterically.’ A key point, however, is that this strategy has been facilitated by the fact that the readers of the transcript prefer to follow Tomlinson along the obvious route, of using Horowitz to discredit Steele.
    So Ross himself wrote, of Steele:
    ‘He said that the IG report “has already been revised by the Department of Justice in terms of its interviewing of this primary sub-source.” He asserted that the revision “completely changed the nature of the interview that he gave to them in January 2017.”
    ‘It is not clear what Steele was referring to since the IG report has not had any significant revisions.
    ‘A spokesperson for the IG declined comment but pointed out a section of the report that discusses slight edits to sections regarding the dossier source’s comments to the FBI.’
    (See )
    Lete us however look at one of these changes.
    At four different locations, rather than it being claimed that the – supposed – ‘Primary Sub-Source’ said he ‘had no discussion’ with the – supposed – ‘Person 1’ about ‘WikiLeaks’, the new version reads ‘did not recall any discussion or mention.’
    However, Horowitz also pointed out that the second version already appeared in the account of the – supposed – interview conducted by Stephen Somma, David Laufman, et al, with the PSS in January 2017.
    In fact, as what Sussmann says about his contacts with Steele in his House Intelligence Committee rather vividly illustrates, ‘did not recall’ is what people very commonly say, when they would like to deny that something happened, but are afraid that someone else will produce ‘evidence’ that it did.
    This, obviously has to be seen in relation to Steele’s claim that ‘Person 1’ was not actually his source. The possible ‘esoteric’ significance of the suggestion that it could be Paul Manafort I have not yet worked out, but the key point is that he is in essence denying responsibility for the key 2015/095 memorandum.
    Whether the fact that nobody who has commented – publicly at least – on the cross-examination has picked up either these, or other, hints and intimations by Steele reflects the kind of obtuseness which often causes people to fall for a ‘limited hangout’, or a considered decision that it is better to let – at least some – ‘sleeping dogs lie’, I cannot say.
    What is therefore missed, however, is a potential opportunity to use what Steele has said to lever more of the truth not only out of him, but also out of other key figures on whose words and actions they bear: a list including, but not limited to, Bruce Ohr, Michael Sussmann, Stephen Somma, David Laufman, Michael Gaeta, and Kathy Kavalec.
    On 25 June, it was announced that the case brought by Gubarev will be heard on 25 July, and will be open. Doubtless, that will make things clearer. I am hoping, not however with any great confidence, that my suspicion that Steele’s ploy worked, and some kind of compromise has been organised, will be proved wrong.

  73. Jack says:

    It would appear that the coup attempt on Trump’s presidency and the Le Affaire Epstein at best would be resolved as a limited hangout. More likely it will all be obscured.
    The Horowitz report is a good example. Wray’s and the DOJ hiding of exculpatory evidence in the Flynn case is another example. We are 4 months away from the election and Barr/Durham have been “investigating” for over a year. Any indictments if they come will be latched on with typical hysteria by the media and the Democrats as well as establishment Republicans as politicization of DOJ. And it would have to be a limited hangout. The depth & breadth of the manipulation cannot be exposed. Imagine if the British, Australian, Israeli and Italian intelligence services are dragged into the sunshine along with the CIA and FBI counter-intelligence!! Imagine the implications of the plutocracy, intelligence agencies, the DOJ and the FBI are exposed as knowing and even worse abetting a pedo sex trafficking operation for decades.
    It would appear that the manipulators are going to pull all the stops to defeat Trump in November. It can all be quietly buried then.
    In this context what intrigues me is why Trump did not declassify all the coup materials when Devin Nunes gave him the initial list of documents and implored him to do so? That would have exposed the plot including the appointment of Mueller when it would have been important right at the beginning of his presidency. There’s something more than meets the eye here.

  74. blue peacock says:

    David Habakkuk and Jack,
    “…this has not been the response to unexpected defeat, on either side of the Atlantic: the preferred strategy, in the best Stalinist/Maoist tradition, has been to blame ‘foreign devils.’”
    And demonize the malcontents before and after the election as racist, reactionary, red-neck Deplorables. We can see with the BLM/Antifa ramp-up and the “cancellation” attempts on malcontent voices there is a move afoot to remove them from public discourse and worse to force compliance of everyone to the new orthodoxy.
    Now we’ll see how the forces are marshaled to get the “correct” result in the general election. My belief is that when that is achieved while they’ll step up the symbolic acts it will get back to business as usual in the neoliberal agenda of even more financialization, globalization (aka offshoring) and even more market concentration and the concomitant wealth inequality.
    “…what intrigues me is why Trump did not declassify all the coup materials when Devin Nunes gave him the initial list of documents and implored him to do so?….There’s something more than meets the eye here.”
    My speculation is that that when Trump gained office he didn’t know what was going on and how to put together an administration. After Bannon was showed aside by Jared, Trump had no Machiavellian to advise him. He then relied on the same DC Swamp who had no loyalty to either him or or his agenda. Jared of course didn’t get it and still doesn’t get that you can’t win praise from the elites no matter how much you bend your knee. In retrospect Trump’s weakness in response to the frontal attack and coup on his presidency has put him in a very tough situation. Right now he has lost the ability to dominate the narrative. Of course the election is some months away and he could get his mojo back. The question is how will he hang together an administration in the face of incessant attacks. Even if he scrapes through the election, he could very well be impeached and removed from office if the Democrats win the Senate by gaining just 4 seats.

  75. All:
    Several have argued that Trump exhibited weakness, fecklessness, and possibly ignorance
    in not declassifying and releasing at an earlier time certain documents (e.g., “all the coup materials”).
    There is a law in some parts of physics (Newton’s Third Law)
    that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
    That certainly holds true for the resistance to Trump.
    If Trump had declassified those documents,
    two reactions/countermeasures would have been certain:
    1. Some people in the IC and DOJ would have rushed to their favorite media mouthpieces to tell them, on an anonymous basis of course, what a terrible thing Trump had just done, how it betrayed sources, methods, the rule of law, the Constitution, his oath of office, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
    2. This would become the absolute number one story in the media, blared ad nauseum from the front pages to the editorial and op-ed pages.
    Whatever content and implications were in the declassified documents would be lost, hidden and buried, except at Fox News.
    Everywhere else the story would be that Trump had stepped in it again.
    As an example of the threats that were made along this line against Trump, consider this:
    “Rod Rosenstein threatened Trump that if he declassified documents it would be adding to a potential obstruction investigation and claim.”
    BTW, that CTH article contains some quite important assertions by Sundance about the coup.

  76. blue peacock says:

    Yes, you are spot on correct that’s exactly how the “Resistance” would have acted both inside the Trump administration and outside in the media. The Democrats and the establishment Republicans would have screamed bloody murder on Rachel Maddow’s show and on CNN. NY Times and WaPo would have written apocalyptic editorials.
    However, that would have been countered by the damning evidence of all the documents, memos and text messages. Average Americans could see for themselves that sources & methods are just excuses for an unprecedented coup attempt by top officials in law enforcement & intelligence in a previous administration. They would also know that the real interference in the election was by the Obama White House. His support from working and middle class America would have gone through the roof. They would know that the media was an integral element of the opposition. It would have emboldened folks like Nunes, Jordan, Meadows and may even have toppled Ryan as Speaker. Maria Baritromo, Lou Dobbs & Tucker would have been all over it.
    More importantly, Trump would have grounds to fire the lot. And if he had real guts to also take the fight to them, by ordering his hand-picked special prosecutor to go after the coup plotters. He would have been on offense. Not crying on Twitter for 3+ years about “witch hunts”.
    His response under fire showed weakness.

  77. Keith Harbaugh says:

    BP, I wish you were right.
    That’s all I am going to say.
    God bless you.

  78. David Habakkuk says:

    ‘Blue Peacock’, Keith Harbaugh,
    I think there is force in what you both say.
    However, although one obviously needs to learn from past mistakes, there has to be a sense in which the history is ‘water under the bridge.’
    We have at the moment a somewhat bizarre situation, in that the ‘Resistance’ are, quite clearly, ‘pulling out all the stops’, to undo in November what they see as a monstrous reversal of the ‘natural’, ‘progressive’ course of historical development four years ago.
    (Also, cynics might say, to obviate any danger that their ‘Brezhnevism’ might be exposed to ‘new thinking’, or the crimes to which it has naturally led be exposed.)
    As to how likely they are to succeed, from the other side of the Atlantic, it seems to me that the chaotic developments of the last months generate conflicting pressures.
    Obviously, ‘undecideds’ have to make up their minds as to which is the ‘lesser of two weevils.’
    (The scene from ‘Master and Commander’ was new to me when our host mentioned it recently, but I think it helps.)
    The insouciance about anarchy displayed by so many, both in your country and mine, reinforces my conviction that Trump, however many hopes he has disappointed, remains this.
    But how confused people will ‘jump’ in November I cannot guess.
    If however one does think Trump the ‘lesser weevil’, then it becomes critically important not to spend too much time discussing the past, but to concentrate on working out what the most effective strategy is in the present.
    And what one needs, moreover, is not the ‘optimal’ strategy, if somehow one could ‘wave a magic wand’ and have a different kind of Republican leadership, but one that there is a realistic chance that the existing Republican leadership might adopt. (Lindsey Graham and all.)
    Time is short!

  79. Jack says:

    What do you think are the implications of this British court ruling?

    A British judge on Wednesday ordered former British spy Christopher Steele to pay damages to two Russian bankers he accused in the infamous Trump dossier of having illicit ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
    The ruling, handed down by Sir Mark Warby, a justice on the High Court of England and Wales, marks Steele’s first loss in a dossier-related lawsuit.

  80. akaPatience says:

    I apologize if this has already been discussed here (I’ve quickly read all of the comments but haven’t read all of the links provided), but as to why the Maxwell indictment is for such a narrow time frame 25 years ago, it’s because part of Epstein’s controversial 2008 plea deal in Miami was the agreement that neither he nor his co-conspirators could be prosecuted by state or federal courts for further crimes. And while Maxwell was not one of the 4 other women named as co-conspirators in that deal, it’s thought by some that she considered herself shielded from prosecution as well, which may also explain why she chose to reside in the US instead of abroad where no such plea deal protection was afforded her. The current indictment’s time frame may be designed to avoid any conflict with the terms of the 2008 plea deal:
    The obvious caveat to all of this however is that Epstein himself was indicted once again and arrested last year, SDNY evidently choosing not to honor the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of his earlier plea deal which I presume would’ve been one aspect of his defense, if he would’ve lived.

  81. English Outsider says:

    David Habakkuk – yes, ” in relation to Christopher Steele the incoherences of the ‘narrative’, on both sides of the Atlantic, have now become extreme.”
    And at the pace the enquiries into that “narrative” in the States are proceeding those “incoherences” might well remain just that.

  82. leith says:

    I agree with Patience regarding the plea deal having a bearing on the 25 year old timeframe in Ghislaine’s indictment. However I also think they are focusing on a New York public official since this case is being prosecuted by the SDNY Public Corruption unit.
    So who are they going after is the question. Mario Cuomo, the current governor’s father, was NY governor up until 31 December 1994, which fits the time frame. George Pataki was NY governor from 1 January 1995 until 2001, so he fits the time frame also. Rudy Giuliani was Mayor of NY City from 1 January 1994 thru 31 December 2001 so he fits also. She has been photographed with Michael Bloomberg but he was not Mayor until 2001. Of course they could be going after smaller fish, lots of candidates in both parties.

  83. Jack says:

    While it has been perplexing why Trump didn’t declassify considering Devin Nunes gave him the initial list, I agree with you that it is water under the bridge.
    As far as the election is concerned I believe it is too early to game. Usually the campaign really gets going after the conventions. This time who knows if there will be one. Additionally I don’t see Biden showing up to any debates. If there are any it could all be virtual which would benefit him.
    This election the Senate will be very important as the Republicans are defending 23 while the Democrats only 12. They only need a 4 seat gain to have the majority. And there are several races like Arizona and North Carolina that could be toss ups that favor the Democrats.
    The pivotal states for the presidential election will be Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina and this year possibly Arizona. A small number of voters will determine whether Trump or Biden gain the majority in those states.
    I can see the possibility of Trump being re-elected but I think it will be hard for the Republicans to hold the majority in the Senate. I also wouldn’t be surprised if the Democrats win it all. If that happens then I’m willing to bet that we’ll get back to the neoliberal policies and add symbolic woke policies that will be popular with the urban/coastal folks. A Biden presidency would be Obama’s third term as he will be the shadow president. If Kamala Harris is nominated to be Biden’s running mate that will confirm that Obama is kingmaker in the Democratic Party.

  84. Deap says:

    Two Trumps:
    1. the Trump under incessant attack from day one; that you now dismiss as “weak”.
    2. The Trump who has been attacking from day one; regardless of the relentless onslaught from the media and the Democrats. That Teflon Trump remains strong.
    If you can’t see Trump Two, against all odds, has been incredibly strong and fundamentally changed this country in the right direction, I hope you come to your senses by election day.
    Don’t stay home; but do consider a new branding for the one person who can still keep draining the swamp. Recent court decisions and reigning in the Ninth Circuit is reward enough for this very strong President.
    Don’t demand courage from someone outside yourself. Show courage by staying the course, in face of this stupendous effort to take Trump down. He does not need a Machiavelli in his entourage, because Trump now understands the inside game. Anyone willing to cut the son-in-law of his own beloved daughter has gotten the message.
    He is now seasoned; but whether he wants to keep playing the game may well be the October surprise. We lose, if we lose Trump. He has earned his stars and scars. This is no time to walk out on him.

  85. akaPatience says:

    leith, I may be wrong but I don’t think a defendant necessarily has to be a New York public official in order to be tried in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) court.
    For example, John Mitchell was tried in the SDNY court for Watergate-related crimes allegedly committed while serving as Attorney General for the Nixon Administration (he was acquitted).
    SO, it’s anyone’s guess at this point who the other targets may be in the Maxwell case. That it’s been assigned to SDNY’s Public Corruption Unit instead of the Sex Crimes Unit is certainly one of THE most intriguing aspects of it all, no doubt about it.

  86. Eric Newhill says:

    It’s just gonna be war no matter how the election shakes out. The election and that whole system is moot at this point. You’re discussing a failed and dead paradigm. But feel free to keep painting lipstick on a dead pig if you want to.

  87. Keith Harbaugh says:

    We must be aware that the claim was posed (by DOJ!) that
    “declassification = obstruction (of justice)”
    “DOJ Ties a Trump FISA Release to Obstruction”
    In that article, note in particular:

  88. J says:

    Harris’s Wiki page has been scrubbed of information critical of her.

  89. blue peacock says:

    He got impeached anyway!

  90. Leith says:

    Patience –
    True what you say about Mitchell’s prosecution by SDNY. But if I recall correctly that happened a few years after he had retired as AG and was back living in NY City. And didn’t that have something to do with Mitchell interfering with an investigation into NYSE fraudster Vesco?

  91. Keith Harbaugh says:

    To BP: You may be 100% right.
    A lot depends on what is actually in those documents.
    Something I don’t know.
    I just have deep concerns about the power of the media (our Ministry of Truth) to mold men’s minds.
    As I hopefully implied above, I hope you are right about what would happen.
    To general readers:
    On the assignment of this case to the SDNY Public Corruption Unit,
    if the goal is merely to obtain justice for the then-underage female victims, that seems inappropriate.
    The Sex Crimes Unit would have the expertise and experience for that notion of victimhood.
    No, assigning it to Public Corruption suggests SDNY sees the larger body politic as having been victimized.
    I just hope they don’t squeeze Ghislaine in order to get her to implicate Trump in something.
    Recall Flynn said his C&B lawyers told him it would be to his advantage if he could implicate Trump in something.
    See specifically paragraph 16 in Flynn’s declaration:
    Who can doubt the SDNY attorneys, at some level, have the same goal?

  92. akaPatience says:

    Well Leith, you may be correct that NY residency is a criteria for cases being brought to the SDNY court, but if so, there’s a glaring omission in your previous list of possible targets: you forgot about former POTUS and Sec’y. of State Bill and Hillary Clinton, residents of Chappaqua, NY.
    It may be merely a coincidence, and it may be totally irrelevant, but the timing of Epstein’s controversial 2008 plea deal (that included the NPA, and which was negotiated for the most part in 2007), corresponds with Hillary Clinton’s first campaign for POTUS.
    Could there be issues related to the Clinton Foundation/Clinton Global Initiative that are of interest to the SDNY Public Corruption Unit?

  93. Keith Harbaugh says:

    David Habakkuk, you mention the Alfa case in remarks above.
    Perhaps you or others might find this rather extensive discussion of that case by Margot Cleveland of interest:

Comments are closed.