Oh yea. Wexner was the guy that purchased the Manhattan apartment in 1988 for 13.2 million that he gave to Epstein in 1998. I wonder if this gift was reported to the IRS?
I had to look it up with the help of Grok.
Epstein graduated from high school in 1969. He didn’t graduate from college.
In 1973 he started teaching math and physics at Dalton School. Reportedly he got the job due to his relationship with the father of Attorney General William Barr (it is a small world). Jeff taught for 2 years and was dismissed (nice word for fired) in 1976.
In 1976 he gets a job at Bear Stearns as a junior assistant to a floor trader based on a recommendation of one of his students parents that knew the CEO. By 1980 he was a limited partner advising clients on tax matters. He left in 1981 to pursue independent ventures but some sources suggest he had security violations.
Epstein started a business in 1982 that helped clients recover stolen funds from fraudulent brokers and lawyers. By the mid 80’s Epstein was managing Wexner’s money. A couple years later Wexner buys a $13.2 million apartment for Jeff to live in and then gives it to him in 1998.
I was wrong he wasn’t a currency trader. He was a wealth manager and switched the name of his business (and I guess what it did) in 1988.
Everything I read about the guy raises more questions.
“BREAKING: Department of Justice has informed the court that it is still reviewing the Epstein records for potential release, per Judicial Watch.”
Brings us back to the unsigned, undated, unindexed anonymous (draft?) memo leaked to Left Wing Axios.
Forget about Epstein for a moment – Who wrote the peculiar memo? Who reviewed it? Who leaked it? Why can’t we get a straightforward answer to those questions about something which happened just last week? And if the memo was an unauthorized plant by a disaffected or corrupted DOJ/FBI employee, why didn’t Bondi reject it out of hand when asked about it by a reporter?
All-in-all, I believe we are falling for another episode of mis-direction by employing so many neurons, synapses and words on an issue which is, most unfortunately, quite typical of how we are being ruled. Yes, the official fog-generation is despicable. That said, we are being deflected from even awareness (much less needed attention and analysis and change) much of more consequential matter.
This first became evident when Saint Comey announced the novel “no reasonable jury” prosecutorial standard. He was addressing only Saint Hillary’s “carelessness” in handling classified materials. He quite intentionally ignored her obvious motivation for creating and using a private server for official documents: hiding them from discovery under FOIA!. This was a glaring felony , perpetrating a fraud on the US government. As well, he ignored the fact she repeatedly destroyed documents and electronic storage which were not only discoverable, but under subpoena!! - a felony for which many are serving long sentences. The fact that nobody, except a few “subversive” lawyers like some on Scanalyst, is even aware of these hard facts, is testament to the effectiveness of misdirection as a potent political method of the telling big lies. (Of course, none of it could possibly work without the active connivance of the MSM - who are co-conspirators in all this travesty).
It seems to me to be a much more effective example of bread and circuses - propaganda, actually - taking our attention away from numerous actual existential issues we surely face. It’s like a reality show. Thus my limited participation. I reiterate my political mechanism: I vote for the lesser of evils. It’s not a choice between saints and devils. In the present case, the “devils” moiety is completely accurate when it comes to Demoncrats.
I hafta laugh. How long did we wait supposedly with bated breath for the info on the JFK assassination?
When it comes to the quest for THE TRUTH, the American public is like the proverbial dog that caught the car.
Yes release the Epstein crap, release it ALL. If it’s all child porn like Bondi said, so what? It’s not like there isn’t plenty of that available.
I think Judicial Watch should subpoena his tax returns and employment records. He was, after all, operating within U.S. jurisdiction.
I have a friend who has made predictions that I found rather ludicrous at the time, only to find he was correct several years later.
Before the last election, he told me he thought Trump was a plant. I try think about how I would know and I have a set of criteria I think about:
Is government power increasing or decreasing (is the government getting bigger)?
Spending: Increasing or slowing
Bill of rights: Strongly supported or being subverted
War: Stopped undeclared acts of war or not
Government corruption: Is it being eliminated?
Public trust: Are his actions increasing public trust in government?
Judicial appointments: Constitutional or corporate/government appointments (ACB).
Capitalism and the middle class:
Regulation: Are regulations increasing? If they are decreasing, does it help large
corporations or small business?
Immigration: Is any long term solution being implemented or is it like the first term
results which were overridden by the next President.
Manufacturing and middle class:
Are long term solutions being implemented or can all changes be
reversed by the next President?
Antitrust: Being enforced or being neglected
I am concerned that the powers that be take every opportunity to increase government and large international corporate power. They do this by whipping up the public into a frenzy through fear and then “addressing” the issue by taking more power and never really fixing the issue (only giving the appearance of fixing the issue).
Examples of what I am talking about are the “war on drugs”, the “war on terrorism”, the “great financial crisis”, COVID and immigration. The modus operandi of these criminals is to get in a position where they can shut down all disagreement with their methods by saying the person that disagrees (even if in the same party) is the problem because they want to kill the children or whatever nonsense.
This is normal political rhetoric, but at some point when the same old play is run and the only thing that really happened was that the government got more power it is sus.
I fully agree with you on this point, CW. As far as the Epstein issue is concerned, I think this might be a case of a cover-up to distract from a deeper cover-up. For me, the critial issue was never about the sex or the abuse (as abhorrant as that is), the issue of paramount importance and endurance is the resulting blackmail operation.
I don’t think anybody has forgotten about this or is unaware of the details—you can add it to the long list of corruption and injustice. Is Hillary having a private server and destroying evidence any better or worse than our politicians being blackmailed (particularly by a foreign country)? They’re both equally bad IMO.
Voting for the preceived lesser of the evils only makes sense when there is a real choice and a real possiblity of change. I believe that both the left and the right are part of the same machine and work hand-in-hand to achieve the same goals. For example, I believe that Trump’s assigned role is to bring in a Chinese-style digital control system (just like it was Bush’s role to bring in the so-called “Patriot Act”). As I said in a previous comment, we all believe what we want to believe—I just don’t believe in our system anymore.
According to Grok. The US Virgin Islands, while under US jurisdiction, offers advantages for financial privacy, tax benefits and relaxed regulatory oversight.
Think about that in terms of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance law which requires financial institutions to report information about accounts held by US taxpayers.
Think about that in terms of Peter Schiff’s bank which it appears the government illegally shut down.
The following thought occurred to me: If my thesis is correct, then voting for the “lesser of two evils” may be more than just a “hold-your-nose” compromise—it could be a core feature that allows the system to maintain itself. The usual justification, of course, is that it buys time or limits harm. But if choosing “lesser of two evils” is an integral part of the system—even necessary for it to function—then it may acutally accelerate the very outcomes that we hope to avoid. The Democrat/Republican dichotomy not only restricts our choices, it actively discourages the pursuit of real alternatives. In other words, we’re basically trapped in a cycle where meaningful change (for the better!!) can never occur.
Not technically. The lesser of two evils could take a longer time to get to the finish line which could be an advantage for those that won’t be around when the finish line is crossed.
If this it the case, there is no lesser of two evils. There is one evil that is using techniques to convince people there are two evils.
My belief is similar (see my above reply). The nuance is that it is possible that it is just how things play out as an empire crumbles or nation loses its morality. .
Most people will make slight compromises of their values in self interest and will rationalize it as if they didn’t compromise at all. They tell themselves that when it really matters they will “do the right thing”. Except strong moral character is developed with practice.
The vast majority of people will choose the lesser of two evils.
The lack of desire to investigate criminal behavior (The Epstein issue) maybe as simple as Trump and Biden both deciding that the lesser of two evils is to let multiple people get away with pedophilia than to blow up the US relationship with Israel.
By the way, @Gavin, it appears some of the victims were as young as 11 years old.
The combination of rationalizing doing wrong, a general lack of character and the lesser of two evils philosophy could be why it looks like it looks.
[…] Metadata embedded in the video and analyzed by WIRED and independent video forensics experts shows that rather than being a direct export from the prison’s surveillance system, the footage was modified, likely using the professional editing tool Adobe Premiere Pro. The file appears to have been assembled from at least two source clips, saved multiple times, exported, and then uploaded to the DOJ’s website, where it was presented as “raw” footage.
Experts caution that it’s unclear what exactly was changed, and that the metadata does not prove deceptive manipulation. The video may have simply been processed for public release using available software, with no modifications beyond stitching together two clips. But the absence of a clear explanation for the processing of the file using professional editing software complicates the Justice Department’s narrative. In a case already clouded by suspicion, the ambiguity surrounding how the file was processed is likely to provide fresh fodder for conspiracy theories. […]
How do we know that? FedGov says it is giving priority to protecting the identity of the victims, so we cannot know what age any of the girls (only girls? no boys?) were.
Some anonymous leaker in FedGov can tell some totally reliable “reporter” in the media that some of the victims were as young as 11 – maybe the same anonymous leaker who provided the undated unsigned memo telling everyone to move along. Do you believe that? How much confidence would you put in that kind of anonymous report, on a scale from 100% to 0%? I want to see the responsible individuals in FedGov sign off publicly on those kinds of reports.
Trust has been destroyed. The only way to get it back would be to do what the Trump Administration committed to do – and that is to release all the information to the public. We don’t need to know names & addresses of the underaged – but we do need to know the identities of the adults involved.
As a side note, genuine pedophilia with young children is abhorrent, and any adult involved in that crime needs to be brought to justice … now! But a 17-year old hooker who knows what she is doing and is demanding money for her services is not a “child”.
Multiple sources confirm that Epstein sexually abused and trafficked girls as young as 14, with some allegations suggesting victims as young as 11 or 12. For example, court documents and victim testimonies indicate that Epstein targeted vulnerable girls, including those aged 14 and 15, for sexual exploitation at his residences in Palm Beach, New York, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. A 2020 lawsuit by the U.S. Virgin Islands alleged that girls as young as 11 were trafficked to his private island, though some claims, like those regarding 11- to 12-year-olds, were based on observations (e.g., by airport staff) and not always substantiated with convictions. Additionally, FBI investigations and the Miami Herald’s reporting identified victims as young as 14, with one specific case in 2005 involving a 14-year-old girl molested at Epstein’s Palm Beach home
The probability that the memo reflects the position of the DOJ is nearly 90 plus percent. A deputy director tweeted on X today that the DOJ and FBI “signed off on it”.
People will then argue that the specific memo did not contain signatures. This is a game. If it wasn’t the position, then Bondi would have already said that it isn’t accurate and that it doesn’t represent the DOJ position. This guy would be fired. Trump wouldn’t say why are we talking about this.
The fact that someone leaked the memo for reasons that may be to harm the administration doesn’t change whether it is legitimate or that it reflects the administration’s position.
There is zero chance that neither heads of the FBI or DOJ wouldn’t disavow the memo if it didn’t represent their position.
There are multiple reports from supporters of the administration confirming the recent story by Axios that Dan Bongino had a heated discussion with Bondi about this issue and is considering resigning. Therefore, it may be that everyone in the entire administration doesn’t agree or didn’t sign off, but it doesn’t change that it does indeed represent the administration’s position.
Two things can be true. The leaker wanted to harm the administration and the memo accurately reflects the position.
My guess is that the statement was drafted and being reviewed. There may have been disagreements within the DOJ and FBI and it was leaked before it could be signed.
This doesn’t change much because there has been plenty of opportunity for clarification.
According to Grok. The US Virgin Islands, while under US jurisdiction, offers advantages for financial privacy, tax benefits and relaxed regulatory oversight.