Archive for the ‘BILL CLINTON’ Tag

JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE FASCINATING CASE OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S DEATH – NEW DETAILS ABOUT PRISON SECURITY – AN IMPORTANT SECRET REVEALED ABOUT HIS ISLAND – HOW HIS PARTNER GHISLAINE MAXWELL DID HER WORK – EASY ASSUMPTIONS MADE BY A MAINLINE PRESS WHICH ASKS FEW QUESTIONS – YET ANOTHER SMALL REASON WHY HE WOULD NOT HAVE KILLED HIMSELF – MORE BIG-NAME EPSTEIN ASSOCIATES   3 comments

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JOHN KIRIAKOU IN CONSORTIUM NEWS

 

“How a Suicide Watch Really Works

“If Jeffrey Epstein’s death turns out to have been self-inflicted, it would represent a complete breakdown in the system that was supposed to protect him”

 

John Kiriakou misses a few things here, and I would like to add new information which gives perspective to the events.

After Epstein was transferred to a cell with another prisoner, that prisoner was transferred out and not replaced. That seems rather odd behavior for a crowded and under-staffed facility.

Plus, there is the fact that we’re talking about an inmate recently taken off “suicide watch,” one who had a recent actual “attempt,” and not just any inmate but an extremely high-profile inmate, likely the most notorious prisoner in the country.

We know now that in the three hours before Epstein died, no checks on his cell were made, even though they are supposed to be made every thirty minutes at that facility.

The guards that were to have done the checks are now said to have fallen asleep, and it is claimed that afterward the log record was falsified to say they had indeed made the checks.

The wife of an inmate in the same facility has told reporters that security there was unbelievably strict. When she visited her husband, two guards and a senior officer were required just for his transfer to the visitors’ center.

There is still no meaningful explanation for why there is no video of the period, just the flabby assertion that the system was out of order.

I tend somewhat to disagree with the author’s assertion, “Epstein was likely a marked man from the minute he walked through the door.”

The author’s basis for saying that is the classic idea that in prisons, sex offenders are regarded as “the lowest of the low.”And that line is very much being taken by the mainline press. It just happens also to have the publicity value of tarring the prisoner, rather than scrutinizing his treatment.

While I think it is absolutely true of the kind of person we usually think of when we read the words, “sex offender,” as, say, someone who sexually assaults a young child, I’m not at all sure that it’s necessarily true of someone like Epstein. Prisoners are, of course, motivated by a sense that where they are forced to live cannot be regarded as a dumping ground for “scum.” There is a strict social hierarchy even in prisons.

Epstein did not regard himself as a “sex offender,” at all. He would openly discuss the matter with others, even members of the press, saying society was hypocritical, just as it was in many places with homosexuality, and that his kind sexual activity, in earlier times, was common in our society.

Of course, we do know that once it was common for a fourteen-year old girl to be married. In Europe, a few centuries ago, girls of twelve were betrothed sometimes, and in royal circles. And that is still common in many poor countries with girls as young as twelve being married off by their families, as, for example, in parts of India. Neither did Epstein’s demi-monde family view him as a “sex offender,” including a list of notable characters, such as Robert Maxwell’s daughter who acted as a Madam for the many young women.

Neither, pretty clearly, did his bevy of famous friends and visitors, including former President Bill Clinton, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, former Sen George Mitchell (I was sorry to learn), Alan Dershowitz, Woody Allen, the Saudi Crown Prince (who, like Bill Clinton, made many trips), many Silicon Valley notables (including Bill Gates who flew on “the Lolita Express” at least once), Britain’s Prince Andrew (many visits), Gov Richardson of New Mexico, (reportedly) former Prime Minister Tony Blair, and scores and scores of others.

I’m sure he was regarded as shady and salacious and off-color, but as a “sex offender”? With the sexual mores of our time? Explicit sex in advertising everywhere? Including images of either very young women or young-looking women used to sell and promote almost anything? Models and actresses and pop singers who starve themselves to appear very young and slight?

I am not sure that inmates would regard a man such as Epstein so much as a “sex offender” as a lucky man with the ladies, including very young ones. I don’t mean to minimize his offense of interfering in the lives of easily-manipulated young women, generally poor ones attracted by the offer of big money and high times, but I’m not sure that with the general public, and especially the shadier types in prison, things are quite so cut-and-dried. I just don’t know, but I think there is room for legitimate doubt.

As far as Ghislaine Maxwell is concerned, she is quoted in a story in Vanity Fair magazine, “When I asked what she thought of the underage girls, she looked at me and said, ‘they’re nothing, these girls. They are trash.’” The same story says Ghislaine’s method of recruiting young women for Epstein was to drive around to spas and trailer parks in Florida, offering them a job with good money. Obviously, she was quite successful. Ghislaine, herself, is said to have kept rail-thin, so that she appealed to Epstein.

We’ve also just learned another extremely important fact from Ghislaine Maxwell, one loaded with suggestion. Epstein’s private island was wired for video, literally everywhere, so that couples could not take off somewhere for a private get-together. If that doesn’t sound like an intelligence service’s elaborate “honey trap,” I don’t know what does.

Hard to see why Epstein and Company would record literally everyone, unless they were creating compromising material for potential blackmail or political pressure. Who would be interested in videos of a number homely, older men making love to young women, other than a blackmailer or a spy agency? But we have no evidence or even suggestion of blackmail. Many of Epstein’s big-shot friends remained his friends for many years, returning for visits again and again.

But there are suggestions, in the way his case was handled by prosecutors for his conviction in 2008 and the highly unorthodox sentencing he received, of some kind of powerful outside influence at work. There’s just no question about that. And, of course, his sentence allowed a complete return to the same arrangements he had had in New York to just continue on a private island, perhaps only adding a certain new sense of exotic adventure for visitors.

I think there are many elements in the whole story suggesting Epstein’s connection with an intelligence agency, the most likely one being Mossad. I say that because “honey-traps” seem to have been a favored technique of that agency. Even with what little we generally hear about such secret matters, we’ve had some well-publicized cases involving them. Including, famously, the entrapment of atomic weapons whistleblower, Mordechai Vanunu, and the work of Tzipi Livni, a former Israeli Minister who is said to have worked earlier on entrapping men who were to be assassinated. She was for some period wanted in Europe on war-crime charges.

 

One small additional thought about why I cannot accept that Epstein committed suicide, apart from what I have written about his nature and personality and conditions at the facility.

This was a wealthy and well-connected man. Had he gone trial, things could have been stretched out for years with the best lawyers.

Why should he kill himself before any effort had even been made?

 

Readers may enjoy these other observations:

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/08/13/john-chuckman-comment-some-new-observations-on-the-death-of-jeffrey-epstein-why-i-believe-it-impossible-for-him-to-have-killed-himself-what-this-death-vividly-demonstrates-about-america/

 

EPSTEIN CASE REFERENCES:

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/08/14/john-chuckman-comment-the-gift-that-just-keeps-giving-jeffrey-epstein-fascinating-new-facts-about-his-imprisonment-and-before-more-big-names-associated-with-him-and-a-big-and-highly-suggestiv/

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/08/13/john-chuckman-comment-some-new-observations-on-the-death-of-jeffrey-epstein-why-i-believe-it-impossible-for-him-to-have-killed-himself-what-this-death-vividly-demonstrates-about-america/

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/08/15/john-chuckman-comment-a-word-on-conspiracy-theories-reported-details-of-jeffrey-epsteins-death-just-raise-doubts/

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/08/10/john-chuckman-comment-jeffrey-epstein-kills-himself-just-as-the-fun-of-revelations-was-about-to-begin/

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/08/11/john-chuckman-comment-more-intriguing-bits-on-jeffrey-epsteins-suicide-in-custody-an-excellent-piece-by-philip-m-giraldi/

Posted August 14, 2019 by JOHN CHUCKMAN in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: COMMENTS TO AN ARTICLE ASKING WHETHER DONALD TRUMP WOULD BE A GOOD PRESIDENT   Leave a comment

John Chuckman

COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER

Not much to a reader’s observation about Putin and Trump being similar.

In fact, they are almost opposites in many ways.

Putin is soft-spoken, strategic in his thinking, and cunning.

Trump resembles nothing so much as a perpetual drunk shooting his mouth off at whatever crosses his path.

Trump is a walking emotional explosion.

__________________________________

In response to a reader who thinks big businessmen make good leaders:

Big businessmen and generals virtually always make poor presidents.

They are used to barking out orders, but that does not work in the real political world.

Clever persuasion is what’s needed, a quality Trump lacks utterly.

____________________________________

To a reader who thinks I don’t realize the importance of the economy in the election:

Oh, I do think I “realize.“

After all, I am a retired chief economist for a large Canadian company.

Anyone who understands classical economics knows that a government leader has very little to do with the performance of the real economy.

They do like to pose and strut around and take credit for what goes right, but it is mostly empty-headed nonsense.

The one way government can assist an economy is doing its basic job of providing essential infrastructure, avoiding wasteful spending like stupid wars, and seeing that the children receive good education. The United States has failed in every one of these essentials for decades, Republicans or Democrats making no difference.

You also fail to really comprehend Clinton`s election slogan. He was reminding himself of the importance of speaking on the campaign trail about what is important to ordinary people. In American politics, speaking about a subject is almost never the same thing as actually doing something about it if elected.

That was certainly true of Clinton, a pretty classless president who had not one admirable achievement.

As for Trump, he is a big-mouthed fraud, a confidence man, not an expert on economics, full stop.

JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: GALLIPOLI: CELEBRATING A POINTLESS DISASTER – WWI – CHURCHILL, BLAIR, CLINTON, AND OBAMA AS PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITIES – GERMANY AND EUROPE – OUR TERRIBLE POLITICAL SYSTEM AND THE LEADERS IT GIVES US   Leave a comment

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO THE GUARDIAN ON AN ARTICLE SUGGESTING WHAT GALLIPOLI TEACHES US ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR

Gallipoli was a terrible blunder, a pet project of the same Winston Churchill who gave the world more than his fair share of arrogant ideas and barbarities, including, later, the first mass bombings of German cities, well before Hitler’s bombings.

Churchill was always an advocate of imperialism and plenty of “backbone in war” stuff, and he was fond of referring to Germans as “Huns.”

Yet his is a seemingly benign and heroic figure in history. You can’t help emotionally responding to some of his eloquent speeches and old news photos even now.

Chamberlain, a genuinely decent man in many respects who wanted to avoid a repeat of the Western Front’s unbelievable horror just 20 years later, comes down to us as a somewhat disreputable figure, in no small measure because of the contempt heaped upon him by Churchill.

The word appeasement was used and has since become a favorite insult from the ignorant Right Wing which virtually always wants war and more war.

Of course the entire set of horrors and issues around the Second World War wouldn’t exist had not Britain entered the completely pointless First World War, one its chief cheerleaders for doing so being Churchill. The only outcome of a German victory in 1914 would have been a European Continent dominated by Germany, which is exactly what we have anyway today. But Churchill’s love of British imperialism could not stand the thought of that.

I shouldn’t say “the only outcome” because the other result, an even larger one, of Germany’s success in 1914 would have been no Hitler, no World War II, no invasion of Russia with 27 million killed, and no Holocaust.

People are so easily swayed by emotional words and appealing faces, and they lose the rational aspect of their minds to the rhetoric and backstage lever-pulling of men like Churchill. Democratic politics frequently yields to the superficial charm and secret deadliness of psychopathic personalities. Witness the recent examples of Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Tony Blair – all with their smiles and murders and plots possessing varying degrees of psychopathy, to a certainty.

The smarmy Tony Blair years later dedicated all his talents to making an illegal and unnecessary invasion, which we now know killed a million people, seem reasonable and morally right.

He was rewarded afterwards by immense wealth, having served the interests of immensely wealthy people, while the poor people of Iraq were left a disgusting mess of broken infrastructure, no reliable water and power, poisons and explosives everywhere, millions of refugees, no jobs, no hopes, and constant ripples of violence.

Large parts of our people still respond like murderous chimps thumping their chests at the right words put in their ears by the establishment through figures like Churchill and Blair.

I don’t see the author’s suggestions as helpful, and I don’t see any corrective for the foreseeable future. The ugly system we have works for those with power and influence, and it will keep right on working. Only the most fundamental changes in our political institutions offer any hope, and that only far into the future, if ever.

JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: OBAMA AND THE AUDACITY OF HUBRIS FROM A COLUMNIST WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER AND THE CHARACTERISTICS OF POLITICIANS   Leave a comment

JOHN CHUCKMAN
 
POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY REX MURPHY IN THE TORONTO GLOBE AND MAIL
I’ve always enjoyed you as host of Cross Country Check-up. You treat almost all callers with courtesy and decency.But in writing columns – I never read them before they were “unlocked” – I realize you truly are something of a Jekyll and Hyde character. This piece is silly blather: wordy, pointless, and stained with envy.Obama is not responsible for the immense response he generates in people, nor does he display the least indication of hubris in his reactions. The man is genuinely gifted: intelligent, graceful, thoughtful.

He achieved the remarkable feat of defeating a woman who had name-recognition and connections second only to George Bush, an accomplishment still not fully appreciated.

After 8 years of the most incompetent man ever to hold the office of President, a man whose every utterance causes millions to scrunch-up their toes in intellectual pain, the world is eager for a man of this quality to assume power.

When I compare Obama to McCain, the first adjectives that come to mind are “fresh” versus “tired.” After that, there’s “bright” versus “mediocre.” “Polished” versus “beat up.” “Informed” versus “uninformed.”

I’m sure he will win by a surprisingly large margin.

My God, he strode across Europe like statesman, impressing all who saw him. All McCain’s sad bunch could do was put out garbage about photo-ops and shows.

Clearly, you belong to their whining, unimpressive gang.

_________________

“I don’t recall JFK or FDR, the most popular presidents since Washington, being aw shucks shrinking violets.”

Yes, indeed.

Read Harry Truman on Roosevelt. The man, likely the most gifted leader the U.S. ever had, was an ego-maniac.

Putting oneself forward to lead a great state, or any state, is always in part a matter of strong ego.

Indeed, in some cases, it goes beyond inflated ego into narcissism and even to a low-grade psychopathy.

Some of Kennedy’s behavior, and Lyndon Johnson’s, suggests the last condition. So, definitely, does our charming Harper’s, for that matter.

The job of voters is not to be distracted by small issues like ego – so long as it remains in the range of the sane – but to judge the quality and character of a candidate.

He or she will act as the nation’s representative. In America, this involves the unfortunate double role of head of government and head of state.

Even many issues are not that important. Politicians often ignore their promises or fail in efforts to implement them.

Look at McGuinty’s shabby record of promises in Ontario. Look at Clinton’s failure to implement almost anything worthwhile.