posted ago by vanillabluesea ago by vanillabluesea +10 / -1

I just saw a post that discusses regarding "What's going on with China, Biden and Trump fiasco." It's interesting and all but to me,

in order for "the hypothesis about Trump having had worked with Epstein" to make any sense, the following needs to be answered:

Why did he allow himself to get arrested?

Considering its nature, I would never expect it to be fully answered and proved. But we should try to connect the dots at least partially to build any credibility in said hypothesis.

·

1

Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on the night of Saturday July 6, 2019:

He was said to know about his upcoming arrest well beforehand, but still decided to fly from Paris to Teterboro Airport on that Saturday. Then, he was arrested at said Airport.

He's not just your run-of-the-mill billionaire:

He was a politically superx100-well-connected billionaire, and was described as one of the architects of the famed Clinton Global Initiative, ffs.

Before the arrest, did he make some kind of deal with the decision makers at the US Justice Department at that time?

·

2

Reportedly, he shipped a $100K cement truck to his island [LINK], three weeks later the Miami Herald published its expose about him (published on Nov 28, 2018). And he had the contractors pour cement into the precious tunnels. It was said to be just before the Christmas.

So, it's a safe bet that he knew about his imminent arrest after the expose. Or for some reason, he chose to abolish the evidence or the DNA traces of who have been to said tunnel.

Miami Herald's expose about him, was it really an expose? Or merely a part of laying down the groundwork, so to speak. If it was, then groundwork for what exactly?

·

3

Within less than 90 days after the expose; on Feb 21, 2019,

the US District Court Judge named Kenneth Marra ruled that, during Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (2006–2008), the federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).

From this moment on, the US media started to build up the narrative of "Epstein = Acosta = Trump."

Look at this scandalous title of the Daily Beast article's: Alexander Acosta, Trump's Labor Secretary, Broke the Law in Jeffrey Epstein Case: Judge [LINK]

·


·

So, what was going on when he died?

My hypothesis is

a group of people behind Trump administration made a deal with Jeffrey Epstein before the expose published: They planned for having brought Epstein in to have him to stand trial.

His testimony would include evidence that indicates Clinton Foundation being involved in international human trafficking. Of course they wanted to get ready for the upcoming Presidential election campaign. If someone related to Clinton clique becomes a Democratic presidential candidate, they would use the evidence publicly or not.

But the guy in this picture happened. For the record, Mr. Barr started his stint as the 85th US Attorney General on February 14, 2019.

To me, bring him in just to kill him doesn't make any sense. Besides, his suspicious death while in jail would only make the administration look bad. And if you want to kill him, why wouldn't you do it at a remote area, so so nobody would know? Why cause the ruckus?

·


·

What are you guys' assessments?

Comments (15)
sorted by:
4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
1
Jacobin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Epstein isn't dead. That body was clearly not him. I've got nothing at all to back this up or support it in any way but my guess is he's off living the lowlife in Terramar or something.

Maxwell also may not actually be in jail. Andrew seems to have gotten away with everything.

Also, Epstein met Virginia Roberts whilst she was working for Trump at Mar-a-Lago.

I know that Trump supporters who are interested in the truth usually bend over backwards to exonerate Trump for any and all wrongdoing but the fact of the matter is that he is a bit of a weirdo deviant. All those things he said about Ivanka and a lot of the photos just speak for themselves really.

Plus, whether you like it or not, Ivana and Melania are both trannies. Also, Trump was one of the early pioneers of allowing trannies to compete in womens competitions when he allowed the Canadian tranny to compete in some beauty pageant that he owned. I should say open tranny because those competitions are choc full of secret trans, just as with hollywood, royalty and politics.

None of these types ever pay for their crimes. I doubt that there even exists such a thing as white hats. There are wicked ones and idiot ignoramii.

1
Gaunt 1 point ago +2 / -1

That sounds a lot like rationalizing. What is your basis for presuming the innocence of Trump?

We know Trump snd Epstein we’re best friends for two decades, we know this because TRUMP said so himself. Trump also admitted knowing, during the friendship, that Epstein liked very young girls.

We know Trump was accused in court of raping a 13-year old girl at an Epstein party, with a witness. The case went away allegedly after the girl was paid off by Trump.

We know Epstein was arrested in 2007, but escaped Justice with an insanely sweet plea deal arranged by later Trump loyalist and labor secretary Acosta.

We know when Epstein was finally arrested, he was killed in prison under Trump.

Given these facts, Trying to excuse Trump from any complicity seems like a massive stretch.

2
Mad_King_Kalak 2 points ago +2 / -0

"We know when Epstein was finally arrested, he was killed in prison under Trump."

Trump couldn't even keep an election from being stolen. I think you wrongly attribute something happening while Trump was in office to thinking Trump was responsible. Every week there was some story about the Deep State pulling some shit that Trump didn't want.

0
Gaunt 0 points ago +1 / -1

You are partially correct, the fact that it happened under Trump does not mean that Trump is responsible: but it also does not mean he is not responsible.

The election wasn’t stolen but even if it was Trump did not have authority over state controlled elections, whereas he had complete control through his hand picked staff, over corrections and the prisons, particularly federal prisons.

If the fact was that he died under Trump, and that was the only relevant fact, and we couldn’t really draw any conclusions. But combined with the other facts listed above, then I think we can at least draw some pretty solid inferences

3
Mad_King_Kalak 3 points ago +3 / -0

Election was stolen, plain as the nose on your face. That said....

You think that Trump had control over low level union employees in federal prisons? lol

-1
Gaunt -1 points ago +1 / -2

No. It wasn’t. And if you have actually have hard verifiable evidence that it was. Then by all means preset it.

Someone had control obviously, and I think the president is a likely candidate given all of the other facts that were laid out

1
Mad_King_Kalak 1 point ago +1 / -0

The evidence is all hard and verifiable about the election theft, and if you have evidence it was free and fair, by all means present it.

If you think the president orders some low level guards about through like 15 layers of bureaucracy, that's just silly. If you do have evidence that Trump, say, gave an order, then by all means present it.

0
Gaunt 0 points ago +1 / -1

I think the President can absolutely order sympathetic guards, through his people. How is that any less laudable than “the Clintons ordered it”?

Obviously I have no evidence he did, as I laid out above: nor am I necessarily claiming he did. But add that to the string of facts linking him to Epstein and child rape snd sexual assault for decades, and it certainly becomes suspicious.

1
Mad_King_Kalak 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, there is a distinct and utterly large numbers of people that have wronged the Clintons committing suicide, and sometimes with two bullet wounds to the back of the head. But I see your point, which is that you're ascribing guilt by association, which is to say in more archaic terms, committing slander.

Carry on then.