Jeffrey Epstein
-
The plot thickens or the toilet gets blocked with more shit
-
The Times has noticed...
Bill Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell: an uncomfortable connection
Ghislaine Maxwell looked at ease sitting on the Queen’s throne next to Kevin Spacey in a photograph that emerged last weekend. But as she appears in a New York court, somebody else who was there that day may be starting to squirm. The other guest on Prince Andrew’s palace tour was Bill Clinton.
It was 2002, the year after he was replaced as president by George W Bush. Clinton was in a period of flux as he tried to ignite his post-political career. He was on his way to the Labour conference in Blackpool where he gave a speech supporting Tony Blair’s endeavours in Iraq. After arriving in the resort, Clinton craved fast food. He and Alastair Campbell, Blair’s spin doctor, set off down the city’s golden mile in search of McDonald’s golden arches. Campbell writes: “Clinton loving the lights and the trams, he yelled out into the howling wind: ‘How can anyone want to be in those big hotels when they can be out here on a night like this with people like this?’”
It would be the company he kept the week before that would prove problematic. Clinton had landed in London after a five-day tour of Africa on Jeffrey Epstein’s jet, now known as “the Lolita Express”. With him were Maxwell, Epstein, Spacey and the actor Chris Tucker. Also on board was a 22-year-old trainee masseuse, Chauntae Davies, who appears in a Netflix documentary, Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich, accusing Epstein of raping her.
“The weird thing about this case is that everyone has known all this for a very long time and yet no one has done anything,” says the journalist Daniel Halper, author of books on both Clinton and Epstein. “In America the sheer power of money makes people do things that they wouldn’t otherwise have done.”
There have been no allegations from Davies or anyone else that Clinton was involved in the abuse of underage girls, or even that he knew of Epstein’s crimes, but the questions raised by the former president’s associations with Epstein’s sordid world are not going away.
Clinton has admitted six encounters with Epstein, including one “brief visit” to his New York apartment, all with staff and security detail in tow. Flight logs, however, suggest that he flew on Epstein’s plane at least 26 times in three years. Witnesses put him at several dinners with Maxwell and Epstein. There are two witnesses — Virginia Roberts Giuffre, one of Epstein’s accusers, and Steve Scully, an IT expert who was employed by Epstein — placing him on Little St James, Epstein’s 70-acre private island in the US Virgin Islands.
Clinton, 73, has denied these accusations, but the rumour mill churns. The latest claims, made in Halper’s new book, A Convenient Death: The Mysterious Demise of Jeffrey Epstein, written with Alana Goodman, suggest that Clinton and Maxwell had an affair. The book quotes an unnamed source claiming that Clinton “sneaked out” to visit the socialite at her Manhattan home. “[Bill] and Ghislaine were getting it on,” a source who witnessed the relationship said. “That’s why he was around Epstein — to be with her.” Clinton has strenuously denied the claim.
In the background is Clinton’s aide and adviser, Doug Band. Tall and unremarkable looking, Band, 47, is an elusive figure on New York’s social scene. But for a long time he was the only gateway to Bill.
Band began his political career as a White House intern at the same time as Monica Lewinsky and would go on to play as big a role in his boss’s career. Band became Clinton’s bag-carrier, the “butt-boy” in Washington parlance, whose job was to pre-empt the president’s needs and ensure he turned up on time. Later he became the svengali who created Clinton’s post-Washington profile.
Paul Begala, a former Clinton adviser, has said Band took charge “at a moment when he was dropping from about 60% [approval] to 39%” and managed to turn it around. “Bill is in a league inhabited only by himself and Nelson Mandela and the Pope. He’s one of the most beloved people on the planet and an American political colossus as well. That’s just astonishing — and Doug’s been central to that.” Clinton needed a role on the global stage and Band was the one who made it happen, first under the auspices of the Clinton Foundation, which he helped to set up, and later within the Clinton Global Initiative, his own brainchild. But what they had in prestige, they lacked in cold, hard cash. Clinton claims he was broke when he left the White House, having amassed $16m of debt defending himself against the Lewinsky scandal.
His earning power was enormous. In his first year out of office, Clinton gave 57 speeches and earned $13.7m from his “speaking and writing” business, according to the Clintons’ tax return, but philanthropic work of the sort Band and Clinton had in mind would need considerably more. In the early 2000s, Band was busy cultivating a network of rich, powerful businessmen. Band and Clinton were often guests of Ron Burkle, a supermarket mogul, on his Boeing 757 — known as Air F*** One. Burkle took Clinton on as a partner in his private equity firm, Yucaipa. Steve Bing, the Democratic donor and Hollywood producer who died last month, was another friend, as was Donald Trump, who donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. By Band’s own estimation, he travelled with Clinton to nearly 125 countries and 2,000 cities. When Clinton had heart bypass surgery in 2004, Band was by his side. Clinton does not email. The only way to reach him was to go through Band.
The adviser’s judgment was not always crystal clear. In 2005 Band brokered a deal between Clinton and Raffaello Follieri, a charming Italian businessman who turned out to be a crook. When people describe Band, “transactional” is the word that comes up again and again. The fateful trip through Africa on Epstein’s plane was also brokered by Band.
When Clinton started cultivating the relationship with Epstein isn’t clear. Halper, whose book Clinton Inc charted the president’s post-Washington career, says “both men offered something the other person wanted. Clinton left the White House in a cloud — he was broke and depressed, he needed friends and money. Epstein certainly had that.”
Epstein had donated $10,000 to renovate Clinton’s White House in the early 1990s but their relationship developed when both were based in New York — and Band’s role was key. He was one of the guests at Epstein’s house for dinner in 2002, alongside Peter Mandelson and Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google. Another witness saw him at a private dinner with Maxwell.
The 21 numbers for Clinton listed in Epstein’s little black book were under Band’s name. Flight logs from January 2002 put Band on a plane with Clinton, Epstein, Maxwell and two women described only as “Janice” and “Jessica”. There is also a photograph of Clinton and Maxwell standing at the door of the plane, his arm resting on her shoulder, happy and relaxed.
There is no suggestion Band or Clinton were involved in any abuse. The question is what, if anything, they knew. That Epstein benefited from his connection to Clinton is clear; the former outsider had the ear of the former leader of the free world. A bizarre painting in Epstein’s townhouse — of Clinton in a blue dress, pointing directly at the viewer — suggests the connection gave him a thrill. What Clinton got out of it is harder to explain. In 2006 a charity run by Epstein, COUQ, gave $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation, which, as transactions go, seems slight.
When the case begins against Maxwell, 58, who is accused of grooming underage victims for sexual abuse by Epstein, a rush of information will come out. Just as telling will be the questions that remain unanswered.
Roberts Giuffre once asked Epstein, who was found dead in a New York prison cell last year aged 66, why it was that he and Clinton were such good friends. “He owes me some favours,” Epstein laughed.
-
-
@JC said in Jeffrey Epstein:
The Times has noticed...
Bill Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell: an uncomfortable connection
Ghislaine Maxwell looked at ease sitting on the Queen’s throne next to Kevin Spacey in a photograph that emerged last weekend. But as she appears in a New York court, somebody else who was there that day may be starting to squirm. The other guest on Prince Andrew’s palace tour was Bill Clinton.
It was 2002, the year after he was replaced as president by George W Bush. Clinton was in a period of flux as he tried to ignite his post-political career. He was on his way to the Labour conference in Blackpool where he gave a speech supporting Tony Blair’s endeavours in Iraq. After arriving in the resort, Clinton craved fast food. He and Alastair Campbell, Blair’s spin doctor, set off down the city’s golden mile in search of McDonald’s golden arches. Campbell writes: “Clinton loving the lights and the trams, he yelled out into the howling wind: ‘How can anyone want to be in those big hotels when they can be out here on a night like this with people like this?’”
It would be the company he kept the week before that would prove problematic. Clinton had landed in London after a five-day tour of Africa on Jeffrey Epstein’s jet, now known as “the Lolita Express”. With him were Maxwell, Epstein, Spacey and the actor Chris Tucker. Also on board was a 22-year-old trainee masseuse, Chauntae Davies, who appears in a Netflix documentary, Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich, accusing Epstein of raping her.
“The weird thing about this case is that everyone has known all this for a very long time and yet no one has done anything,” says the journalist Daniel Halper, author of books on both Clinton and Epstein. “In America the sheer power of money makes people do things that they wouldn’t otherwise have done.”
There have been no allegations from Davies or anyone else that Clinton was involved in the abuse of underage girls, or even that he knew of Epstein’s crimes, but the questions raised by the former president’s associations with Epstein’s sordid world are not going away.
Clinton has admitted six encounters with Epstein, including one “brief visit” to his New York apartment, all with staff and security detail in tow. Flight logs, however, suggest that he flew on Epstein’s plane at least 26 times in three years. Witnesses put him at several dinners with Maxwell and Epstein. There are two witnesses — Virginia Roberts Giuffre, one of Epstein’s accusers, and Steve Scully, an IT expert who was employed by Epstein — placing him on Little St James, Epstein’s 70-acre private island in the US Virgin Islands.
Clinton, 73, has denied these accusations, but the rumour mill churns. The latest claims, made in Halper’s new book, A Convenient Death: The Mysterious Demise of Jeffrey Epstein, written with Alana Goodman, suggest that Clinton and Maxwell had an affair. The book quotes an unnamed source claiming that Clinton “sneaked out” to visit the socialite at her Manhattan home. “[Bill] and Ghislaine were getting it on,” a source who witnessed the relationship said. “That’s why he was around Epstein — to be with her.” Clinton has strenuously denied the claim.
In the background is Clinton’s aide and adviser, Doug Band. Tall and unremarkable looking, Band, 47, is an elusive figure on New York’s social scene. But for a long time he was the only gateway to Bill.
Band began his political career as a White House intern at the same time as Monica Lewinsky and would go on to play as big a role in his boss’s career. Band became Clinton’s bag-carrier, the “butt-boy” in Washington parlance, whose job was to pre-empt the president’s needs and ensure he turned up on time. Later he became the svengali who created Clinton’s post-Washington profile.
Paul Begala, a former Clinton adviser, has said Band took charge “at a moment when he was dropping from about 60% [approval] to 39%” and managed to turn it around. “Bill is in a league inhabited only by himself and Nelson Mandela and the Pope. He’s one of the most beloved people on the planet and an American political colossus as well. That’s just astonishing — and Doug’s been central to that.” Clinton needed a role on the global stage and Band was the one who made it happen, first under the auspices of the Clinton Foundation, which he helped to set up, and later within the Clinton Global Initiative, his own brainchild. But what they had in prestige, they lacked in cold, hard cash. Clinton claims he was broke when he left the White House, having amassed $16m of debt defending himself against the Lewinsky scandal.
His earning power was enormous. In his first year out of office, Clinton gave 57 speeches and earned $13.7m from his “speaking and writing” business, according to the Clintons’ tax return, but philanthropic work of the sort Band and Clinton had in mind would need considerably more. In the early 2000s, Band was busy cultivating a network of rich, powerful businessmen. Band and Clinton were often guests of Ron Burkle, a supermarket mogul, on his Boeing 757 — known as Air F*** One. Burkle took Clinton on as a partner in his private equity firm, Yucaipa. Steve Bing, the Democratic donor and Hollywood producer who died last month, was another friend, as was Donald Trump, who donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. By Band’s own estimation, he travelled with Clinton to nearly 125 countries and 2,000 cities. When Clinton had heart bypass surgery in 2004, Band was by his side. Clinton does not email. The only way to reach him was to go through Band.
The adviser’s judgment was not always crystal clear. In 2005 Band brokered a deal between Clinton and Raffaello Follieri, a charming Italian businessman who turned out to be a crook. When people describe Band, “transactional” is the word that comes up again and again. The fateful trip through Africa on Epstein’s plane was also brokered by Band.
When Clinton started cultivating the relationship with Epstein isn’t clear. Halper, whose book Clinton Inc charted the president’s post-Washington career, says “both men offered something the other person wanted. Clinton left the White House in a cloud — he was broke and depressed, he needed friends and money. Epstein certainly had that.”
Epstein had donated $10,000 to renovate Clinton’s White House in the early 1990s but their relationship developed when both were based in New York — and Band’s role was key. He was one of the guests at Epstein’s house for dinner in 2002, alongside Peter Mandelson and Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google. Another witness saw him at a private dinner with Maxwell.
The 21 numbers for Clinton listed in Epstein’s little black book were under Band’s name. Flight logs from January 2002 put Band on a plane with Clinton, Epstein, Maxwell and two women described only as “Janice” and “Jessica”. There is also a photograph of Clinton and Maxwell standing at the door of the plane, his arm resting on her shoulder, happy and relaxed.
There is no suggestion Band or Clinton were involved in any abuse. The question is what, if anything, they knew. That Epstein benefited from his connection to Clinton is clear; the former outsider had the ear of the former leader of the free world. A bizarre painting in Epstein’s townhouse — of Clinton in a blue dress, pointing directly at the viewer — suggests the connection gave him a thrill. What Clinton got out of it is harder to explain. In 2006 a charity run by Epstein, COUQ, gave $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation, which, as transactions go, seems slight.
When the case begins against Maxwell, 58, who is accused of grooming underage victims for sexual abuse by Epstein, a rush of information will come out. Just as telling will be the questions that remain unanswered.
Roberts Giuffre once asked Epstein, who was found dead in a New York prison cell last year aged 66, why it was that he and Clinton were such good friends. “He owes me some favours,” Epstein laughed.
That is quite a bizarre write up of contradictions.
Clinton in a flux, not knowing what to do? Yet earned millions on the speaking circuit.
Clinton needed friends and money? Evidence points to the opposite.Obvious that Epstein was one of many that Band networked Clinton into in setting up fundraising and profile opportunities yet no evidence of much in the way of 'transactions' between the two.
Once again muckraking with zero evidence of wrongdoing.
Happy for anyone that has broken the law to be brought to justice but have seen nothing that backs up the rumours except more rumours.
-
@Crucial Re: "Once again muckraking with zero evidence of wrongdoing.", whilst I don't disagree that there's zero evidence, I don't consider it to be muckraking. There are any number of huge scandals that have broken because journalists looked where they apparently shouldn't. All of those investigations would have started from a position of zero evidence and just something that smelled bad. And in many cases the only reason anybody in authority even bothered to look for any evidence was because of the pressure built through stories like this.
"Clinton in a flux, not knowing what to do? Yet earned millions on the speaking circuit.
Clinton needed friends and money? Evidence points to the opposite." OK, let's assume you're right, he didn't need the money or the contacts, his relationship with Epstein was based on a genuine mutual friendship. Is that supposed to be less worrying? -
@JC said in Jeffrey Epstein:
@Crucial Re: "Once again muckraking with zero evidence of wrongdoing.", whilst I don't disagree that there's zero evidence, I don't consider it to be muckraking. There are any number of huge scandals that have broken because journalists looked where they apparently shouldn't. All of those investigations would have started from a position of zero evidence and just something that smelled bad. And in many cases the only reason anybody in authority even bothered to look for any evidence was because of the pressure built through stories like this.
"Clinton in a flux, not knowing what to do? Yet earned millions on the speaking circuit.
Clinton needed friends and money? Evidence points to the opposite." OK, let's assume you're right, he didn't need the money or the contacts, his relationship with Epstein was based on a genuine mutual friendship. Is that supposed to be less worrying?It was more that the article reads as if Clinton was desperate and needed Epstein when the evidence shows that he already had stuff in place, it was furthering contacts to expand that was likely the driver to get in with someone that was by all accounts a bit of a network enabler.
As for the investigative journalism aspect, I'm all for that if what is written has factual conclusions rather than throwing a bunch of 'maybes' around based on association and then disclaiming them with a one liner to avoid libel.
I guess what is tempering my belief in much of this is the association with QAnon type theorising and conspiracy rubbish. Makes me want to see harder evidence.
-
@Crucial said in Jeffrey Epstein:
@JC said in Jeffrey Epstein:
@Crucial Re: "Once again muckraking with zero evidence of wrongdoing.", whilst I don't disagree that there's zero evidence, I don't consider it to be muckraking. There are any number of huge scandals that have broken because journalists looked where they apparently shouldn't. All of those investigations would have started from a position of zero evidence and just something that smelled bad. And in many cases the only reason anybody in authority even bothered to look for any evidence was because of the pressure built through stories like this.
"Clinton in a flux, not knowing what to do? Yet earned millions on the speaking circuit.
Clinton needed friends and money? Evidence points to the opposite." OK, let's assume you're right, he didn't need the money or the contacts, his relationship with Epstein was based on a genuine mutual friendship. Is that supposed to be less worrying?It was more that the article reads as if Clinton was desperate and needed Epstein when the evidence shows that he already had stuff in place, it was furthering contacts to expand that was likely the driver to get in with someone that was by all accounts a bit of a network enabler.
As for the investigative journalism aspect, I'm all for that if what is written has factual conclusions rather than throwing a bunch of 'maybes' around based on association and the disclaiming them with a one liner to avoid libel.
I guess what is tempering my belief in much of this is the association with QAnon type theorising and conspiracy rubbish. Makes me want to see harder evidence.
Fair enough. I guess my feeling is that, given that powerful people want to keep this on the down-low, the investigating organisations could do with a timely reminder that the world is watching and there will need to be some answers. The old canard of political motivation that's been used in the past can't be allowed to cloud the fact that there are genuine questions here.
-
I think it’s more than fair to say , just because you have been to that island , or were friends with Epstein, doesn’t mean you have had sex with minors .
It’s like saying , you have a mate that roots hookers , you do too , or if you have been to red light districts to drink and party , you have sex with hookers .
But it may mean you have to explain your case to the authorities:)
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Jeffrey Epstein:
I think it’s more than fair to say , just because you have been to that island , or were friends with Epstein, doesn’t mean you have had sex with minors .
It’s like saying , you have a mate that roots hookers , you do too , or if you have been to red light districts to drink and party , you have sex with hookers .
But it may mean you have to explain your case to the
authoritieswife -
@Virgil said in Jeffrey Epstein:
@kiwiinmelb said in Jeffrey Epstein:
I think it’s more than fair to say , just because you have been to that island , or were friends with Epstein, doesn’t mean you have had sex with minors .
It’s like saying , you have a mate that roots hookers , you do too , or if you have been to red light districts to drink and party , you have sex with hookers .
But it may mean you have to explain your case to the
authoritieswifeI go to Pattaya for the golf
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Jeffrey Epstein:
I think it’s more than fair to say , just because you have been to that island , or were friends with Epstein, doesn’t mean you have had sex with minors .
It’s like saying , you have a mate that roots hookers , you do too , or if you have been to red light districts to drink and party , you have sex with hookers .
But it may mean you have to explain your case to the authorities:)
Its not quite that simple
Firstly there is a big different between hookers and underage girls or boys
Also there is a difference between before 2008 (maybe someone never knew) and after 2008. Most well known people would know to take care afterwards.
And a difference between meeting Epstein in a social setting and either visiting his Island. In some cases more than once. Or having a financial relation with him. Esp after 2008.But even with hookers. There is a difference between
You have a mate that roots hookers and
You have a mate that roots hookers at a certain house and you had many visits with your mate to the house in question. Maybe you went just to keep him company but ... -
I'd suggest that it's really quite simple; what was your relationship to Epstein after he was charged?
-
@antipodean said in Jeffrey Epstein:
I'd suggest that it's really quite simple; what was your relationship to Epstein after he was charged?
Does before that not count?
Oh, that's right the actual accusations against Trump are from pre-2008. We are talking about possible actions by Clinton and others that no one has actually alleged in court.
-
@Crucial said in Jeffrey Epstein:
@antipodean said in Jeffrey Epstein:
I'd suggest that it's really quite simple; what was your relationship to Epstein after he was charged?
Does before that not count?
Why would it? If you're an acquaintance then the only problem would be if you were involved in the same activities.
Oh, that's right the actual accusations against Trump are from pre-2008.
What's that got to do with it?
-
Also worrying that large scale raping of children yields plenty of authorities and leaders in the know but never any action. Grooming gangs in UK the same. Despite eerily accurate victim statements.
Odd with all the virtue signalling and unsurprisingly the " Me too" movement conspicuous by their lack of noise and action.
-
@Crucial said in Jeffrey Epstein:
@antipodean said in Jeffrey Epstein:
I'd suggest that it's really quite simple; what was your relationship to Epstein after he was charged?
Does before that not count?
Oh, that's right the actual accusations against Trump are from pre-2008. We are talking about possible actions by Clinton and others that no one has actually alleged in court.
So what if they haven’t been alleged in court? I don’t think you can have it both ways, the other week we didn’t see you criticising the media from publishing unsubstantiated allegations about Trump knowing Putin had put a bounty on US soldiers. IMO that was a legitimate story then and this is a legitimate story now. Or neither is.