THE G#DDAMN VAULT: Inside America’s Most Radioactive Secrets — The Epstein Evidence the Feds Won’t T

[Luis Gonzalez]

THE G#DDAMN VAULT: Inside America’s Most Radioactive Secrets — The Epstein Evidence the Feds Won’t Touch Without Gloves
Filed in a State of Accelerated Paranoia by Your Intoxicated Bureaucratic Crypt‑Diver
The Last Wire

For nearly six years, the most powerful law‑enforcement apparatus in the world has held the raw materials of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation: hard drives, flight logs, surveillance archives, witness statements, intelligence memos, and thousands of pages of federal investigative files. And yet, with extraordinary consistency, the U.S. government has told the public almost nothing.

Not about the network.
Not about the money.
Not about the visitors.
And certainly not about the men who should — under even the most basic interpretation of federal trafficking law — have been investigated or prosecuted as co‑conspirators.

Despite Epstein’s operations involving minors transported across state and national borders, no adult male known to have traveled to his properties has been charged with any sex crime connected to those trips.

That silence demands an explanation.

Continue reading at The Last Wire

[bigheadfred]

 

[Cyber Liberty]

I think your analysis is correct.  I can't add anything based on my meager knowledge of the subject....

[Luis Gonzalez]

I think your analysis is correct.  I can't add anything based on my meager knowledge of the subject....

There will be a fall guy. Maybe there already is with Maxwell.

[DB]

The bottom line is it shows how deeply corrupt our government is, right on down to the DOJ.

[Cyber Liberty]

The bottom line is it shows how deeply corrupt our government is, right on down to the DOJ.

There is clearly a cover up to protect powerful people who committed Prostitution at the very least, likely Pedophilia as well.  We may see an accounting after all the guilty parties are dead, but I doubt it.  We still don't have any accounting for John F Kennedy's assassination.

[roamer_1]

There will be a fall guy. Maybe there already is with Maxwell.

There's the sticker... If Maxwell is the bagholder, she should not be - She should be the one holding the dirt, and thereby immune. 

[Smokin Joe]

What I see is this (something I also recently saw as a plot element in a spy show).

If you have a choice between eliminating a highly placed individual in a foreign government (or even in our own) and controlling them, which would you choose?

You eliminate them, fine, justice is served, and then, another nasty b@st@rd takes their place. The meanest beetle rises to the top of the dung heap. You have no leverage, no control over the new beetle, just someone else to sort and contend with and try to predict what nasty stuff they will pull next.

OR...

You inform them of what you have, and how easy and unfortunate it would be to destroy them if it were to leak. BUT you can guarantee that won't happen if they do you a favor down the line...

Immediately, they are pulled in, forced to constrain themselves, aware they are being watched. It doesn't stop them from being nasty, perhaps, but may have them doing preemptive damage control and constraining their urges and minding their manners a wee bit.

When you ask, they either comply or are slaughtered in the courts and public opinion, forced to resign or placed up on charges.

In the cold blooded world of spookdom, every op has its collateral damage. but ultimately, control over outcomes is the goal. (We only pray our spooks have our best interests in mind and would not have to resort to such methods, but there is a solid chance that high level people have covered the simple tracks, laundered the money, whatever, and might only have a few urgent and personal transgressions that can be manipulated by (or just not dismissed by) the press so as to be lethal and undeniable intel.

So, eliminate the bad dog, or put it on your chain?

If there are prosecutions, it will be the ones who won't play 'nice', just to act as a warning to the others.

[Cyber Liberty]

What I see is this (something I also recently saw as a plot element in a spy show).

If you have a choice between eliminating a highly placed individual in a foreign government (or even in our own) and controlling them, which would you choose?

You eliminate them, fine, justice is served, and then, another nasty b@st@rd takes their place. The meanest beetle rises to the top of the dung heap. You have no leverage, no control over the new beetle, just someone else to sort and contend with and try to predict what nasty stuff they will pull next.

OR...

You inform them of what you have, and how easy and unfortunate it would be to destroy them if it were to leak. BUT you can guarantee that won't happen if they do you a favor down the line...

Immediately, they are pulled in, forced to constrain themselves, aware they are being watched. It doesn't stop them from being nasty, perhaps, but may have them doing preemptive damage control and constraining their urges and minding their manners a wee bit.

When you ask, they either comply or are slaughtered in the courts and public opinion, forced to resign or placed up on charges.

In the cold blooded world of spookdom, every op has its collateral damage. but ultimately, control over outcomes is the goal. (We only pray our spooks have our best interests in mind and would not have to resort to such methods, but there is a solid chance that high level people have covered the simple tracks, laundered the money, whatever, and might only have a few urgent and personal transgressions that can be manipulated by (or just not dismissed by) the press so as to be lethal and undeniable intel.

So, eliminate the bad dog, or put it on your chain?

If there are prosecutions, it will be the ones who won't play 'nice', jut to act as a warning to the others.

That's where Mark Kelly fits in...an example must be made in the Insurrection Six.

[Smokin Joe]

That's where Mark Kelly fits in...an example must be made in the Insurrection Six.

You mean Mr. Gabby Giffords?

I agree. Slap them down with a censure, warn them that now that they know, no more of that crap (attempting to interfere with the Military Chain of Command) will be tolerated.

[Cyber Liberty]

You mean Mr. Gabby Giffords?

I agree. Slap them down with a censure, warn them that now that they know, no more of that crap (attempting to interfere with the Military Chain of Command) will be tolerated.

A Censure is nowhere near enough.

[Luis Gonzalez]

A Censure is nowhere near enough.

Bust him down to an E3 and activate his ass.