« Bounties for Taliban? The New Big Russia Lie by Larry C Johnson | Main | "Hydroxychloroquine lowers COVID-19 death rate, Henry Ford Health study finds" Detroit News »

02 July 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


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.



"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?

David Habakkuk


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.

Mark Logan


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.


mark Logan

"Influence" is good but positive control would be seen as better.

Mark Logan


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.


@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.


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.


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.

Mark Logan


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.

Barbara Ann


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.

Babak makkinejad

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.



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.

English Outsider

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".

Babak makkinejad

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.


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."


@ 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.

"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.



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.


Fascinating discussion with Whitney Webb on the arrest of Ghislaine.


Barbara Ann


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.


David Habakkuk

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 https://news.sky.com/story/carl-beech-man-who-lied-about-vip-paedophile-ring-ordered-to-pay-24-000-to-victim-12003002 .)

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.

Barbara Ann

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.

David Habakkuk

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 https://www.scribd.com/document/458992503/Steele-deposition .)

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 https://dailycaller.com/2020/04/23/christopher-steele-dossier-deleted-emails-source/ )

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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad