Some Thoughts on the Epstein Indictment (And Where He Got His Money)

Given the subject matter, none of them can be called nice:

  1. All of the ‘careful what you wish for Democrats, this could backfire’ pundit talk just shows how little the pundit class understands Democratic voters. Very few of them are going to feel bad if some major Democratic donor goes down over this–many will be glad that a(nother) corrupt jackass was removed from power. Regarding Clinton, some might feel sad, but he’s just not that popular these days, especially among non-boomer voters.
  2. Speaking of Clinton, I don’t think he did anything illegal regarding Epstein. He probably enjoyed the eye candy, but his venality is underestimated and his randiness is overestimated. He was cozying up to Epstein for the money (foundation and contributions for his wife).
  3. The smartest take, and which explains some of the things that didn’t make sense, about Epstein I have found is here. In short, some (maybe much) of his ‘exclusive’ hedge fund money has been raised through extortion (and after which he probably provides additional services). Being a high-end pimp/extortionist can make you millions, but not the kind of money that allows you to drop tens of millions of dollars of charitable donations on a whim. Extortion is also pretty dangerous and risky, given his targets. But saying, ‘give me money in the form of a hedge fund contribution, and your problems will go away’ makes it easy to accept bribes (and the rich people actually get some earnings in return, though not as much as they would have if they had kept it themselves).
  4. I think the link above doesn’t take into account that some rich people probably sought him out willingly due common…interests, and use the hedge fund for payment of services. Doesn’t mean that Epstein wouldn’t have made some insurance video of his willing accomplices though.
  5. This whole criminal enterprise is much smaller, or perhaps even non-existent, if all of these fuckers paid much more in taxes. This is (one of) the seamy side(s) of extreme wealth.
  6. I have no idea if Trump is involved; moreover, I’m under no illusions that, even if there were hard evidence, that the Department of Justice led by Attorney General William Barr would do anything with it. Also, Cyrus Vance Jr., the Manhattan DA, needs to go down for being lenient on Epstein.
This entry was posted in Bidness. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Some Thoughts on the Epstein Indictment (And Where He Got His Money)

  1. Zachary Smith says:

    *****Speaking of Clinton, I don’t think he did anything illegal regarding Epstein. He probably enjoyed the eye candy, but his venality is underestimated and his randiness is overestimated.*****

    Compare that to what I saw this morning at a site run by an old rightwingnut:

    ***** Is Trump vulnerable? Probably not unless he was so self-indulgent as to let Epstein (“a great guy”) loan him one of these girls in days of yore. On the positive side Trump did ban Epstein from Mar a Lago a while back for an assault on a young woman. No. the vulnerables would seem to be mostly on the other side, especially the Clintons.*****

    It’s going to be fun watching the spinning of this story. Clinton wasn’t “randy”?

    *****Flight logs obtained by Gawker in January 2015 put Mr. Clinton on the billionaire’s infamous jet more than a dozen times — sometimes with a woman whom federal prosecutors suspect of procuring underage sex victims for Mr. Epstein. Fox News reported Friday that records show Mr. Clinton declined Secret Service protection on at least five flights.*****

    That’s from the Washington Times, and they’re sometimes economical with the truth. Fact is, a person can’t trust ANY sources right now. Clinton got off with the mildest of slaps on the wrist for frolicking with Monica, and I suspect he figured that sort of “immunized” him. When this newly rich guy (deferred bribes via speaking engagements) was offered young girls, he sure didn’t decline.

    Like most everybody else I’m just speculating, but my guess would be Epstein was a “state agent” for somebody. I’ve no idea if the man was really wealthy, or whether he had a (closely monitored) “credit card” worth a few hundred million to use for getting powerful figures on video in extremely compromising situations. Bill Clinton was no longer in office, but it was obvious to everybody Hillary was being groomed for Greater Things – he would be the wedge with her. 2008 didn’t work out, but 2016 sure did, and EVERYBODY knew the Butcher of Libya was going to become President.

    A “state agency” with access to unlimited US taxpayer dollars can afford to look ahead – to cover some pretty wild/unlikely bases. Trump has not yet attacked Libya, and the dirt they have on him may yet pay off. Personally, I’m predicting if the Iran Attack happens relatively soon, the prosecutors will suddenly discover they don’t have enough evidence on Epstein after all.

  2. Zachary Smith says:

    How I could write “Libya” instead of “Iran in that last paragraph is a mystery.

Comments are closed.