2016: The Year the American Presidency was Stolen: The Epstein Factor. Part 2 of 3

(~~~) EpsteinAll we can know at this time is that there is a mutual friend, a person called Jeffrey Epstein, seen in photograph which was on the Daily Mail, who has been mentioned before in this blog, who may have played or be playing a major role in the relationship between the Clinton camp and the other camp, that of Donald Trump.

Jeffrey is known to have had a relationship with Bill Clinton. Bill said of him back in the days before he became wealthy himself and depended on him to give him a jet to fly to Africa:. “I especially appreciated his insights and generosity during the recent trip to Africa to work on democratization, empowering the poor, citizen service, and combating HIV/AIDS.”

After that Bill would use Jeffrey’s jet called the “the Lolita Express on many occasions that he could have been called a frequent flier. The plane logs of the trip showed that Bill was traveling with an actress in softcore porn movies.  There was also another woman who Clinton traveled with over a dozen time who some allege had provided underage girls to older men for sex. The plane got the name from locals who watched as “numerous girls were allegedly taken to [Jeffrey Epstein’s] 78-acre Little Saint James hideout in the US Virgin Islands.”

Jeffrey likes to tell people that “I invest in people — be it politics or science. It’s what I do.” We know when Jeffrey invests in something he buys it. Jeffrey said this of Bill:“He’s the world’s greatest politician.” It seems with his fondness for “investing” in people one can only question whether he has taken Bill on as part of his retinue. Maybe he has also invested in Hillary. We already know he invested heavily in Professor Underwear, Alan Dershowitz, aka Dersh Ball.

What is frightening about all of this is that not only is Jeffrey friends with the Clintons, he has another admirer. That is Donald Trump who had some nice words to say about him. Back a little over a dozen years ago he could not stop himself:  “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

As for Jeffrey Epstein, who is a billionaire and buys people I suppose the best way to sum him up is by quoting from this article:

“Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 in Florida to one count of soliciting underage girls for sex (and one count of adult solicitation), for which he served just over a year in county jail. But sprawling local, state, and federal investigations into the eccentric investor’s habit of paying teen girls for “massages”—sessions during which he would allegedly penetrate girls with sex toys, demand to be masturbated, and have intercourse—turned up a massive network of victims, including 35 female minors whom federal prosecutors believed he’d sexually abused. He has reportedly settled lawsuits from more than 30 “Jane Doe” victims since 2008; the youngest alleged victim was 12 years old at the time of her abuse.”

This is the type of man with whom Bill Clinton and Donald Trump maintain a relationship. They are not alone. In 2003 the Harvard Crimson noted that Dersh Ball, who called Jeffrey “brilliant”, was among his “bevy of eminent friends that includes princes, presidents and Nobel Prize winners. . . . “  The article also mentioned that Epstein served with  Larry Summers, secretary of the Treasury under Clinton, as well as Bill Clinton on the Trilateral Commission founded by David Rockefellow and the Council on Foreign Relations, “two elite international relations organizations.”

I noted it gets murky at this point – the secretive Epstein with his enormous wealth and friendships with “princes, presidents and Nobel Prize winners” who is admired by both the Clinton and Trump camps may be behind the plot that is becoming more obvious each day whose eventual goal is to put the Hill_Billy duo back in the White HouseDonald Trump is playing a major role in all of this either wittingly or unknowingly. Is Jeffrey Epstein pulling the strings?

 

 

5 thoughts on “2016: The Year the American Presidency was Stolen: The Epstein Factor. Part 2 of 3

  1. Someone’s really yanking the chain of associations to suggest that Trump’s back in the day, pre-Epstein revelations of randy Jeffrey’s rancid dealings with ” lolitas,” of a fellow billionaire financier are commensurate with Bubba’s penchant for placing his pickle in pubescent pecadilloes !!! Let’s keep it real ; Trump may enjoy the nubile, but fourteen women in Bubba’s sexual predator portfolio indicate that the LOLITA EXPRESS was Bubba’s frequent flier go to airfoil. And we little doubt he slobbered over the underage fare Jeffrey set his bacchanalian table with. So ” Why don’t you put some ice on it ” as Bubba infamously advised one of the survivors of the ” Republican War On Women ‘ and victim of his well documented serial sexual predation . STINGS DON’T IT ??? 🙂

  2. You would think that mere association with this guy Epstein would get you crucified in the media and laughed out of the presidential race.

    I remember when Gary Hart’s presidential bid was suddenly derailed when the “scandalous” pictures of him on a boat carousing with an ADULT model who was not his wife got leaked.
    Oh, how times have changed.

    Now it’s ok to not only be associated with, but backed by a billionaire pedophile.
    Key Word–Billionaire……..oh, now I get it.
    Money talks…….money walks…..

    Money is the tail that wags the dog…….Billary.

  3. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/gary-hart-hillary-clinton-2016-billion-dollar-campaign-116673

    Gary apparently shares my lament for FDR and Harry Truman………..even though I was referring to U.S. global presence and military capability,…..and Gary….the present “dynastic” (i.e. Clinton, Bush), money-driven (Trump?) state of politics and the leadership gap that exists today.

    “We’re narrowing it to fewer and fewer people,” Hart said, lamenting the current political environment. “And they’re smaller people. Where are the Roosevelts? Where are the Harry Trumans, for heaven’s sake?”

  4. Matt
    How about the elections being stolen in Boston?

    https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2016/jan/04/voting-machines/

    Over a third of Boston precincts reported system malfunctions in 2012 elections
    Poll workers reported issues ranging from “lights out in voting booth” to “ballot count screwed up” and “machine shut off completely.”
    by Carly Sitrin
    January 4, 2016
    edited by JPat Brown

    Documents obtained from Boston City Hall through a public records request reveal that approximately 37 percent of precincts in the Boston metro area reported technological issues or system malfunctions with their voting machines in the 2012 general presidential election.

    According to poll workers’ reports from the 2012 election, at least 96 of the 255 precincts reported issues ranging from “lights out in voting booth” to “ballot count screwed up” and “machine shut off completely.” The most common complaint that poll workers had with the voting systems was “scanner jammed.”

    At least 96 of the 255 precincts reported issues ranging from ‘lights out in voting booth’ to ‘ballot count screwed up’ and ‘machine shut off completely.’

    Symbolizes a link to our Twitter page
    Symbolizes a link to our Facebook page

    To fix the jam, the poll workers have to call in a repairman to physically open the machine up, remove the offending ballots, and reset the system. Often, the poll workers reported consecutive jams.

    In one instance, a repairman simply never showed up.

    So how did this happen?

    Massachusetts currently uses optical scanning equipment which takes in hand-marked paper ballots and tallies up the results at the polling location. Boston uses one of two different brands of voting equipment: the ES&S AutoMark and the Premier/Diebold (Dominion) AccuVote.

    The problem is, the laws around certifying and regulating these machines are hazy.

    The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) was created in 2002 as a part of the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and was tasked with establishing some form of standardization for voting machines nationwide. What it came up with was the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) which outlines the standards and regulations that all voting machines should adhere to. The catch, of course, is that these guidelines are “voluntary.”

    Typically, jurisdictions will purchase their own voting systems which have been submitted for testing by the individual vendors. The vendors are responsible for assuring that the machines meet required standards (state standards at least, sometimes federal standards). After these machines are tested and approved for use, states can purchase them. However, the requirements vary from state to state.

    As it stands, 37 states, including Massachusetts, require some aspect of federal testing. However, nine states have no federal testing or certification requirements whatsoever. With regard to these nine states (Florida, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon and Vermont), the National Conference of State Legislature website says:

    “Statutes and/or regulations make no mention of any federal agency, certification program, laboratory, or standard; instead these states have state-specific processes to test and approve equipment (Note that even states that do not require federal certification typically still rely on the federal program to some extent, and use voting systems created by vendors that have been federally certified).”

    The remaining four states refer to the federal standards but fall under other categories of certification.

    But, as evidenced by the issues poll workers experienced in the 2012 election, even federal testing cannot prevent all malfunctions. At one precinct, the safety seal on the ballot box fell off.

    Poll workers had to “manually put ballots inside machine.”

    These issues went as far as to cause discrepancies in the precinct’s totals.

    And in one case, an entirely new machine had to be brought in.

    The source of these glitches and malfunctions wasn’t cited in the reports, however, most of the issues can be attributed to aging equipment. Funding from HAVA for the voting machines was distributed to jurisdictions in a lump sum disbursement rather than in stipends over time. So, while the machines purchased with HAVA funding were all initially shiny and new, any repairs to the equipment would come at a cost to the state.

    According to a study put out by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, in 2016, Massachusetts will be using voting equipment that was purchased more than 15 years ago. And with each machine running a cost of around $3,000 multiplied by two units per precinct, the cost for Boston alone would near $1.5 million to replace them all.

    And with each machine running a cost of around $3,000 multiplied by two units per precinct, the cost for Boston alone would near $1.5 million to replace them all.

    Symbolizes a link to our Twitter page
    Symbolizes a link to our Facebook page

    The poll workers’ reports, which can be accessed at the election department at Boston City Hall, are all handwritten and are not digitized. When asked what happens with these reports after the election concludes, Sabino Piemonte, acting elections chief for the city of Boston, said that a committee reads through them and issues a processing report citing any changes that may need to be made. That processing report was unavailable as of this article’s publication.

    A sample of the logs can be read on the request page, or embedded below:
    Document
    Pages

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *