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:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
Gaunt 1 point ago +1 / -0

That is quite the spectacular double standard there.

But if it suits you to continue to gullibly believe that Trump is pure as the driven snow despite all the evidence to the contrary, then there really isn’t any help for you.

1
Mad_King_Kalak 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fallacy.

If I believe something should be not be against the law, say jaywalking, it doesn't mean that I believe in anarchy. Likewise, if someone (mostly) supports Trump, it does NOT mean that they think he's as pure as the wind driven snow.

Come back again with some basic logic.

Frankly, I don't even remember what I wrote on that thread, but whatever it is, you're not responding to it but with absurdity.

1
Gaunt 1 point ago +1 / -0

In this case, it does. You support Trump so you instantly exonerate him of everything, notably including the accused rape of a child, with witnesses, and try instead to blame Clinton, a bizarre tu quoque fallacy, on far less evidence. My point stands.

1
Mad_King_Kalak 1 point ago +1 / -0

Supporting Trump, over say, Biden or Hillary, does not mean you support everything Trump did, or does, or will do. You can cheer that Trump did X but boo that Trump did Y, and in the end just be happy that Hillary will never be president.

Are you a woman? Because only a woman would argue like you are here.