Is this the scandal that ends Hillary’s campaign? Former President Bill Clinton visited the hedonistic private island of a billionaire pedophile who police found was engaging girls as young as 12, multiple times. Now a new lawsuit may compel the former president to testify under oath about what he was doing there. The New York Post reported that Hillary is furious that Bill is mired in the scandal.
Democrat mega donor and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein was tied by Palm Beach Police to as many as 40 underaged girls and allegedly provided minor girls to Prince Andrew and lawyer Alan Dershowitz, among others. Now, a lawsuit to overturn a secret and controversial sealed wrist slap plea deal that got Epstein a mere 15 months in a Palm Beach Halfway house, may reveal what Clinton was doing on the island and why Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane 10 times to party abroad, according to FAA Logs. One woman abused on the island by Epstein told the UK Daily Mail Clinton was provided with two women “no older than 17″ when he visited Epstein’s island.
A lawsuit to overturn the secret plea and a secondary defamation suit deal filed by a respected former Judge and a Fort Lauderdale lawyer may force Dershowitz to testify, and could rope in Bill Clinton.
Incredibly, state and federal prosecutors charged Epstein with one count of soliciting only adding, “soliciting a minor” after objections by both the Palm Beach Police and the FBI. Epstein was allowed to spend 16 hours a day in his Palm Beach Mansion and report to jail only at night. A few nights ago on FOX, Ann Coulter spoke the truth on the Jeffrey Epstein case. She hit the nail on the head when she said, “This is the elites circling the wagon and protecting a pederast.”
Let’s take Coulter’s observations a step further: the Epstein case is about the pedophile elite VIP friends of Jeffrey Epstein circling the wagons and protecting not just Jeffrey Epstein, but themselves.
“Elitism” is really about people who believe, because they have huge amounts of power, money, and connections, that the rules of society that the common man or woman must follow do not apply to them. Jeffrey Epstein was running a well- organized sex trafficking ring that provided underage girls for himself and his pedophile friends, many of whom were VIP figures in business and politics with names you would recognize. Epstein ‘bought” a girl from Eastern Europe and was gifted three 12 years olds for his birthday by a wealthy European pedophile pal.
Virginia Roberts, known in a new lawsuit as Jane Doe #3, was the precious jewel of Jeffrey Epstein, who sexually abused her and pimped her to his friends. Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s pedophile girlfriend, was the one who snared Virginia into the Epstein web when she was a mere 15 years of age and working as a towel girl at a local Palm Beach spa in 1998. Ghislaine, one of several pedo recruiters for Epstein, Roberts became a sex slave and child prostitute who worked for Epstein for the next three years. Virginia, now 30 and a mother of three, says that she still cries at night when she thinks of Epstein. Many of these girls, now women, still cry when they think of what Jeffrey Epstein and his circle of VIP pedophiles did to them — how they stole their innocence.
Roberts said Epstein trafficked children to politicians, Wall Streeters and A- listers to curry favor, to advance his business, and for political influence. Courageous Virginia Roberts says that Epstein also made her have sex multiple times with both Prince Andrew and Epstein’s close friend Alan Dershowitz. Prince Andrew is currently getting shelled in the British media and very few Royal observers are sticking their necks out to support him.
Dershowitz has denied the allegation and has launched a media blitz using Greta Van Susteren on FOX but the National Review quickly found a parsing of words in an affidavit of denial Dershowitz filed with the Court as a PR Move. Dershowitz claims the lawyers never gave him a chance to respond to the charges when in fact the superlawyer has been ducking an under-oath deposition in the matter for two years.
It is a no brainer that Jeffrey Epstein should have been charged with sex trafficking and put away for a minimum of twenty years for all the damage he has wreaked on so many young girls, according to reports as young as fourteen.
Epstein’s legal troubles belatedly began in March 2005 when a fourteen year old girl told her parents that she had been sexually molested by the Wall Street billionaire. Palm Beach police carefully investigated Epstein for a year and built a detailed probable cause affidavit against him that included five molestation victims of Epstein and 40 others they suspected.
The Palm Beach police handed off their meticulously documented and airtight case to Palm Beach State Attorney Barry Krischer, and that is where the corruption in the Epstein case began.
The fix was in.
Instead of a quick indictment of Epstein, followed by pressuring him with the hopes of getting him to plea bargain and give up the other co-conspirators in his massive sex trafficking ring, Barry Krischer made the unusual decision to call a grand jury to review the case.
In Florida, Grand juries are generally restricted to capital cases. Krischer presented evidence to that grand jury in 2006 and what came back was mind boggling — a one-count indictment of Epstein for solicitation of a prostitute. Nothing about raping a 14-year-old girl; nothing about running a massive underage sex trafficking ring for VIP pedophiles. Those adults who supplied him with children and the rich and powerful he catered to have gone unpunished.
A neutral observer could conclude that that State Attorney Krischer had been corrupted by the pedophiles and had intentionally tanked the case behind the secrecy of a grand jury, or that Krishcher was one of the most incompetent State Attorneys ever to serve in Florida.
Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter had identified around 40 children used for the pleasure of Epstein and his friends and at least six adults who were procuring them. Yet an intimidation campaign was waged against Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter, a good and honest man. He was being followed by strange men and “investigated” by the dark forces.
State Attorney Krischer ultimately made an absurd plea bargain deal with Epstein that allowed this mega pedophile and child sex trafficker to serve a mere 13 months in prison and with a 16/hour day pass. The lead lawyer negotiating this mind-blowing deal which included immunity from prosecution for himself and others was Alan Dershowitz, who sex slave Virginia Roberts says she was forced to have sex with multiple times.
Public outrage then prompted the federal government to step in. Most believed respected law-man Reiter had tipped off the feds to the State”‘fix”. As Ann Coulter said, federal prosecutors were also being tailed and intimidated. The feds then secretly rubber-stamped the lenient deal, added immunity for Epstein’s pedophile co-conspirators and then sealed their outrageously lenient plea-bargain. Epstein’s 40 victims were never informed of the secret deal by DOJ deal as required by law, which is the basis for the lawsuit. The Palm Beach Post, to their credit, went to court to get this wrist slap deal unsealed. Only after two years of litigation does the public know the terms of the secret deal. Why George W. Bush DOJ gave Epstein a pass after a flawed state investigation is a mystery.
All stories like this have a butler. In this case Epstein’s Butler Alfredo Rodriguez, who was arrested and did time for his role of paymaster to Epstein, marked up a copy of Epstein’s little black book for Palm Beach Police showing who Epstein had pandered pre-teen girls to. The list, which I have seen, is mind blowing. It includes a former governor, a billionaire Republican donor, a Prime Minister, a former Senate Majority Leader, a well known lawyer, royalty, socialites and scientists. Kingpin sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s take on all this?: “I’m not a sexual predator, I’m an ‘offender.’ It’s the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a bagel.”
Even before it was released on Christmas Day, Selma was under attack.
In Politico's "What Selma Gets Wrong," (12/22/14), LBJ Presidential Library director Mark Updegrove charged that the fictional film's depiction of the epic voting-rights battle in the Alabama town "misses mightily in faithfully capturing the pivotal relationship–contentious, the film would have you believe–between [Martin Luther] King and President Lyndon Baines Johnson." This served, Updegrove scolded, to "bastardize one of the most hallowed chapters in the civil rights movement by suggesting that the president himself stood in the way of progress."
Johnson adviser Joseph Califano struck next in the Washington Post (12/26/14), complaining that the film "falsely portrays President Lyndon B. Johnson as being at odds with Martin Luther King Jr." "In fact, Selma was LBJ's idea," Califano asserts. He asks of the filmmakers:
Did they feel no obligation to check the facts? Did they consider themselves free to fill the screen with falsehoods, immune from any responsibility to the dead, just because they thought it made for a better story?
You even had Post columnist Richard Cohen (1/5/15) lamenting that Selma is
a lie that tarnishes Johnson's legacy to exalt King's. This story needed no embellishment–and in my movie, King himself would’ve protested the treatment of Johnson. The greatness of King never depended on the diminishment of others.
This is the same Richard Cohen who a little more than a year ago (11/11/13) wrote that "people with conventional views must repress a gag reflex" when thinking about the interracial family of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. It's fair to say there are other people who can better judge what Martin Luther King would have to say were he alive today.
Now, Selma is a work of fiction, not a documentary, as a disclaimer in the film's credits goes out of its way to explain. Screenwriter Paul Webb and director Ava Duvernay do adjust certain historical events to tell a more powerful story; for example, the murder of the four girls in the Birmingham church happened in September 1963, not in late 1964, as the movie suggests. Such alterations are considered normal and unobjectionable in shaping history into a dramatic fictional narrative.
Op-eds, on the other hand, are supposed to stick to the actual facts. And the ones attacking Selma do far more to distort the reality of King's relationship with Johnson than the fictional film does.
Take the idea that Johnson was never less than an enthusiastic partner of King in pushing for voting rights. Cultural historian Louis Menand (New Yorker 7/8/13) described their actual relationship as a complex one, rooted in a Cold War context:
No elected official relishes having to deal with a charismatic popular leader; the usual forms of leverage are not effective. [John] Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson did not especially like dealing with King. But they needed him, because they needed a hero whose vision the democratic system could realize. The triumphalist narrative demanded it.
Menand's account of LBJ and MLK's conflicting priorities will sound familiar to anyone who has seen the film–and jarring to anyone who took Updegrove and Califano's op-eds at face value:
Johnson recognized the need for additional voting-rights legislation, and he directed Nicholas Katzenbach, soon to be his attorney general, to draft it. "I want you to write me the goddamnest toughest voting rights act that you can devise," is the way he put it. But then progress slowed. Johnson had the most ambitious legislative agenda of any President since F.D.R. (his idol), and he explained to King that he was worried that Southern opposition to more civil-rights legislation would drain support from the War on Poverty and hold up bills on Medicare, immigration reform, and aid to education. He asked King to wait.
King thought that if you waited for the right time for direct action (as nonviolent protests were called) you would never act.
Nor are the sometimes bitter tactical divisions an invention of the filmmakers. Here's an account by Bruce Hartford in The Selma Voting Rights Struggle & March to Montgomery, which notes that the attempt to lead a voting-rights march from Selma to the capital in Montgomery was happening at the same time Johnson was first sending ground troops to Vietnam:
Behind the scenes, President Johnson pressures Dr. King to cancel the Tuesday march…. But…news stories and images of Marines wading ashore to "defend democracy" in Vietnam clash with images of real-life American democracy in action on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama. Johnson is furious, and he wants no risk of any repeat violence on Tuesday that might compete with his public relations strategy, or continue to give the lie to his "freedom" rhetoric.
If Johnson was actually the architect of the Selma strategy, as Califano asserts, you might wonder why civil rights activists were staging sit-ins at the Justice Department and the White House to protest the Johnson administration's failure to protect marchers. These sit-ins were not invented by the filmmakers, nor was the anger LBJ expressed in response to them. Here's Johnson afterwards telling his aide Bill Moyers what should be said to King–not from the movie script, but from a tape made by the White House recording system:
I would take a much tougher line than we're going to with him. I think that it's absolutely disgraceful that they would get in the Justice Department building and have to be hauled out of there. And I don't care if we never serve another hour. They're going to respect the law while they do. He better get to behaving himself or all of them are going to be put in jail…. I think that we really ought to be firm on it myself. I just think it's outrageous what's on TV. I've been watching it here, and looks like that man's in charge of the country and taking it over. I just don't think we can afford to have that kind of character running. And I'd remind him what he had said and take a very firm line with him.
Threatening to throw Martin Luther King in jail–that's rather "contentious," wouldn't you say? The words of someone who is "at odds" with King?
The part of the film that seems to have most riled Johnson's defenders is the film's suggestion–not directly stated, but implied–that Johnson authorized FBI director J. Edgar Hoover to use secret tape recordings of sexual encounters against the civil rights leader. Cohen calls it a "profoundly ugly moment" that "a bevy of historians say…never happened."
What about Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Nick Kotz, who wrote Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., and the Laws that Changed America? There he quotes from a memo written to Hoover by one of his top aides, Cartha DeLoach, who had just delivered a summary of a particularly incriminating tape to Johnson's chief assistant, Walter Jenkins. DeLoach said Jenkins told him he would pass on the material to the president, adding:
"Jenkins was of the opinion that the FBI could perform a good service to the country if this matter could somehow be confidentially given to members of the press."
The thing about the attacks on the film Selma is that they not only distort the actual relationship between King and Johnson, they distort the film's portrayal of the relationship. LBJ is not the villain of the movie; the movie presents him as a complicated figure who under prodding accomplishes something great. (The speech he gives in support of the Voting Rights Act near the end of the film is an emotional high point.) But he's not the moral center of the film–that's King.
And that seems to be the problem that some of the critics have. In USA TODAY (1/7/15), Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund wrote a response to the complainers:
Any effort to hijack the attention this film richly deserves because of its portrayal of LBJ reflects everything that has been wrong with most civil rights films from Mississippi Burning to The Help – films that concern themselves principally with the heroism of white people in a movement that was created, driven and shaped by black people.
Johnson is the character most clearly intended for white audience members to identify with; no doubt like many of them, he starts out admiring King but not really understanding him, and over the course of the film he comes to realize on an emotional level why King says he cannot wait for political justice. In other words, he's a white man who has something to learn from a black man. Fifty years after the events portrayed in Selma, that's still evidently something some people don't want to see.
If LBJ depicted in "Selma" horrifies you get this incredible New York Times Bestselling Book - The Man Who Killed Kennedy- The Case Against LBJ-" I couldn't put it down- it reads like a thriller, yet Stone makes a compelling case that LBJ killed JFK".....Judge Andrew Napolitano
Order it here: AMAZON or Barnes & Noble
By Saint John Hunt
With the near economic collapse in this country, and the massive bail outs for the banks, the borrowing of astronomical sums from China to keep our “system” propped up, and the decline of our infrastructure, welfare system, public education and drastic cuts in funding low cost clinics to see to our poor and middle class, one would think that our government would have a shortage of money. This is not the case.
According to the latest statistics available from drugpolicy.org, in 2012; the U.S. spent over 51 billion dollars annually on the war on drugs. The number of people arrested for NON violent drug charges in 2012 was 1.55 million. That comes out to roughly 4,250 persons each day!
The number of people arrested for simple possession of marijuana in 2012 was 658,231. The United States has the highest percent of its population incarcerated with 2,228,400 in 2012. That's one out of every 108 adults. The highest rate in the entire world! Just to give you another statistic by which you can compare, the number of persons in the U.S. that were diagnosed with AIDS in 2012 were 27,928.
According to Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, in 2009, there was a drug arrest every 19 seconds
in the United States. In 2009, one out of every 100 American adults was behind bars. We have 22 percent of the world's prisoners but we only have 5 percent of the world's population. “Not one of the stated US drug policy goals of lowering the incidence of crime, addiction, drugavailability, or juvenile drug use, has been achieved. Instead, our approach has magnified these problems by creating a self-perpetuating, ever-expanding policy of destruction, yet the US still insists on continuing the war and pressuring other governments to perpetuate these same unworkable policies. The drug war wreakshavoc, funds terrorism, and causes major corruption around the globe. This is the very definition of a failed public policy. This madness must cease!”(LEAP)
As we all know, and I mean 'we' in the sense of Americans, as well as in a larger sense, citizens of the world, prohibition during the 1920's was a failed domestic policy and after over a decade of the most brutal period of lawlessness and the rise of modern organized crime, prohibition was repealed. That is a fact which is undeniable. Then 50 years later, President Richard Nixon instigated the nation's second 'War on Drugs'. However pure of heart Nixon may have been, whether to stem the flow of heroin flooding our cities as a result of the war in Vietnam, or to rid the country of a 'new' enemy, he implemented what we now call the war on drugs. It is impossible, in my mind, for Nixon and his advisers, one of whom was my Father, to not have realized that the previous war on drugs (alcohol) enabled the rise of this country's massive diversion of money into the pockets of organized crime. I further state that it was because of prohibition that the organization of what was before, just criminal gangs at war with each other over relatively small earnings from vice and loan sharking was created.
Are you with me? Okay. So, the idea of large amounts of untraceable cash from our citizens, now going to drugs rather than illegal alcohol, an obvious and proven fact, loomed in glaring neon for all to see. Would it make sense, for the inevitability of millions and billions of dollars to once again flow into the pockets of organized crime as it had during the first war on drugs (alcohol)? I think not.
In my opinion, a third grader would be able to dissect the two options involved here. Option #1: the flow of billions of dollars goes into organized crime i.e. Mafia, and option #2: have agencies of our government become the benefactors of all this untraceable cash. It's a no brainier. If we had a controlling interest in these drugs, then we could divert the cash resulting from its sales back into our own government. In other words create a self perpetuating machine which would enable our government to side step normal requests for funding. This has been proved during the 1980's under Ronald Reagan. After being denied funding for covert ops in Nicaragua, the CIA put the drugs to money plan into use. Obtaining huge quantities of cocaine was no problem, and CIA and DEA personnel highjacked known shipments of narcotics bound for the world market. The next step was obvious. Using known high level drug dealers across the U.S. the CIA became the dealers new supplier. Soon, all that cash just poured into their hands. This enabled them to purchase guns and military equipment for their secret war against the Sandinista forces in Nicaragua. Problem solved.
As my friend and fellow author Roger Stone put it “our agencies go in and busts these huge shipments of drugs, what are the drug dealers gonna do, go to the cops?” “We are the cops!” “Secondly, we take the drugs and re- sell them on the underground market.” Beautiful! What a win win situation! Thirdly, we then turn around and become partners with the dealers that we busted. We have become the suppliers and the dealers. Put another way - governments run drugs for three reasons : the profit is huge, they cannot be stopped because they are the cops and they have the means to put the competition out of business.
What follows is a true and little known tale of a drug overlord and an offer he made to the United States. The drug kingpin was a General named Khun Sa. He was master and war lord of several provinces in the rich heroin producing states of Burma, also known as the 'golden triangle' for it's huge heroin production. He funded his army of about 1,000 by growing, processing and selling raw heroin. In October of 1981, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) attempted to assassinate Khun Sa. The attempt failed. According to the DEA the share of New York street heroin coming from Khun Sa was the “best in the business.” It was 90% pure, and almost all the heroin was coming from General Khun Sa. In 1989 Khun Sa offered to sell his entire heroin crop to the United States government for 50 million dollars a year or he would continue selling on the international narcotics market. We rejected his offer and the heroin just kept pouring in. It's hard to say what the outcome would have been if we had bought all his heroin but it surely would have reduced the quantity by a noticeable amount.
Once 911 happened, the public focus shifted from the war on drugs, to the war on terrorism. A few years pass by and it's almost like the war on drugs must have ended because how could we have that much cash to wage a trillion dollar war on “terror” AND a 55 billion dollar a year war on drugs? Think about that. And so, the war on drugs is not only alive and well (funded), it's coming to your town, your neighborhood, and your home.
For the hottest Political news follow me on Twitter at:
Follow the STONEzone on Facebook: