Was the Hunter Biden's Laptop Story Censorship a Coup on American Democracy?

What makes a coup d'état a coup? The Wikipedia defines it as: "a seizure and removal of a government and its powers. Typically, it is an illegal seizure of power by a political faction, politician, cult, rebel group, military, or a dictator"

But what if we consider a coup, not only a removal, but also a prevention that somebody will reach the government? What if a group controlling the media of a country would effectively hide a fact from the citizens that could change the result of an election?

Business Insider: 'Hunter Biden laptop mystery hints at a Russian disinformation operation, source tells Insider'
https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-laptop-real-fake-russian-intelligence-2020-10

The Washington Post: 'Facebook and Twitter take unusual steps to limit spread of New York Post story'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/15/facebook-twitter-hunter-biden/

CNN: 'The anatomy of the New York Post’s dubious Hunter Biden story'
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/18/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden-reliable/index.html

Politico: 'Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say'
https://t.co/fk6YlQ0dBh

NPR: 'Why haven't you seen any stories from NPR about the NY Post's Hunter Biden story? Read more in this week's newsletter➡'
https://twitter.com/nprpubliceditor/status/1319281101223940096

WSJ: 'Hunter Biden’s Laptop Is Finally News Fit to Print.
The press that ignored the story in 2020 admits that it’s real.'
https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-news-thats-finally-fit-to-print-hunter-biden-laptop-new-york-post-new-york-times-joe-biden-11647637814

Keep in mind that "6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America".

Now imagine if all the corporations (controlling the media and social networks) that censored the Hunter Biden's laptop story had previously agreed that Biden had to win... Would that qualify as a coup d'état?

Now remember that these corporations met regularly in absolute privacy to discuss what should be the future of the World (including the US) at meetings like the Bildelberg Meetings, the Trilateral Commission, the CFR and others.

When professional skeptics get it wrong

When the Afghanistan government collapsed, people were looking at the image that portrayed the old regime fall. People were trying to find the photo of the helicopter on the rooftop. One of the most popular photos was of a crowded plane full or refugees trying to flee the country.

There was a similar photo that was also distributed:

 

 

But this photo had been taken in the Philippines in 2013, and was quickly identified as a fake but many fact-checking sites.

Unexpectedly (or not?), as reported by Jordi Llàtzer in his podcast Espurna, some people began to tag the first photo, the real photo, as a fake, supposedly confusing the two photos. Was this accidental? It would be a very smart move to publish a similar fake photo, to create disinformation, if you don't want the legit one to be distributed.

Another example of what we could call failed skepticism is the recurrent debate around the novel (and movie) "Picnic at Hanging Rock". 

 

Being a fan of the movie myself, I had researched the web to find out if the novel and film were based on true events or not. It turned out that they were not. The verdict was that the story was fiction, because no newspaper of the time referred to it. But what if the skeptics had looked in the wrong place? An investigation by Janelle McCulloch, author of "Beyond The Rock: The Life Of Joan Lindsay And The Mystery Of Picnic At Hanging Rock", discovered evidences that the story could have been inspired by a real event:

"McCulloch then turned to online archives and found a document distributed to Victorian police stations at the time. This police gazette detailed that a couple of girls had disappeared in the late 1800s – their ages and descriptions matching that of the novel."

Midnight Mass and its view on Christianity

Having seen a couple of episodes of Netflix's 'Midnight Mass', I have opposed feelings: on one hand I love the eerie feeling of the series, but I hate the simplistic character development, specially Bev, the ignorant and evil catholic puritan, in contrast with the cultured tolerant and integrated muslim. Oh, and let's not forget how the evil puritan convinced everybody to take the oil companies' money, and give it to her (another nice prejudice including silly fishermen who can be fooled about how much money two years of fishing are worth...).

Midnight Mass if full of those common believes about Christianity and Catholicism that makes you wonder if the creator of the series really believes them, or it is just showing what he thinks the audience of Netflix wants to see...

For instance, about the number of Catholic, which the main character, makes a speech about, churches in North America (where the series comes from) here we have some real data:

 

Source

It is also funny how this main character claims that the idea "God works in mysterious ways" is basically making people miserable. It is funny because many studies say the opposite, that religious people are happier and more satisfied with their lives [1][2]. We could go on discussing how the lack of faith, the lack of spirituality, are leaving people emptier, easy prey for the elites who control the culture, the discourse (in another post we will discuss how the modern discourse resembles a religion).

It is not less funny how the mainstream media (for which Netflix is currently the paradigm) presents a parallel reality which, in fact, has become the only reality for most of the population, the 'official' reality.

In the 'official' reality, Muslims are oppressed and Christians are the oppressors. In the actual reality, Christians are being banished from most of the countries where Islam is the main religion.

The increase in the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia
is due to exiles from neighbor countries.

 

 

But you may say, this is not what happens in the 'Western World'. The fact is, 'Midnight Mass' could not have been made with a mosque instead of a Catholic church, not in any Muslim country, but neither, and this is important, in any Western 'free' country.

 

UPDATE Oct 20, 2021

We could discuss why Islam and democracy are incompatible, but that would require more time, but for you thinking that Christian extremists are dangerous, here is some data about the average Muslim in Europe.

There is a speech in the Midnight Mass from the sheriff Sharif:

"Muslims believe that Jesus is a prophet of God, and that the Injeel, the Bible, was revealed to him as the Torah was revealed to Moses before that. See, we love Jesus. And we love the message that was revealed to him. But we also believe, after the time of Jesus, thanks to the interference of men, there were deviations in Christianity. People altered the message. Priests, popes, kings. That’s why there’s so, so many versions of the Bible. People got in there, made their changes. Okay, we do though believe that the Bible contains some of the original word of God. But we also believe that God revealed the Quran as the final message. Never to be altered. To reassert the original revelations of the previous prophets." 

So basically he is explaining why Christianity is wrong and Islam is the true religion... So much for an atheist show. People tend to miss a point that comes from this speech: "God revealed the Quran as the final message". Muslims believe the Quran contains the words of Allah, the words dictated by Allah himself. This has a practical effect: there is no adapting the Quran to the modern world, because it is the word of Allah, there is only adapting the World to the Quran. This is one of the reasons explaining the next chart.

It is ironic that to find a criticism of the positive interpretation of Islam in Midnight Mass you have to go to Muslim sources:

The writers of Midnight Mass tried to present Islam as more reluctant to miracles than Christianity, but as Muslims themselves note, it is not the case. As put in here: "Along with the village’s doctor, Sarah (Annabeth Gish), and sheriff, Hassan (Rahul Kohli), these characters bring a more clear-eyed perspective to the bizarre happenings on Crockett—their reactions are filtered through the prisms of atheism, science, and, in Hassan’s case, Islam, which in some corners of the island is demonized." The good guys are atheists or muslims.

And in the end the church has to be burned to save the (outside) World, the priest throws his collar, and the Muslim boy converted to Christianity goes back to pray to Allah with his father. The perfect Netflix world.

Some thoughts on Allen v. Farrow: a failure of the system

'Allen v. Farrow' has caused a lot of controversy, mainly because it is rare to see the dark side of a Hollywood family, explained by the members of the family. But the issue laying underneath is the same as in 'Leaving Neverland': accusations of child abuse that took place several decades ago.

At first glance, this seems a really admirable task: to hold accountable those who haven't been held accountable (even if it is after their death). As I usually remind, abuses against children is one of the few (if not the only) passage in the New Testament were Jesus justifies something that could be interpreted as a death penalty:

'If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.' Matthew 18:6

...And I have to say that I would support the literal interpretation of this passage.

But if to think a little more about it, there are several things that shoudl concern us. The first question is why now? Why not before? Why not 20,25,30 years ago, when this abuses allegedly happened? Why these abuses, that arrived to court, were not properly investigated?

And this brings us to the first thing that I feel is missing from these documentaries: a more critical approach at the system that allows these alleged crimes to go unpunished, and especially out-of-court settlements. We saw this also in Harvey Wenstein case.

One thing that is completely undeniable is that if these allegations are true, this a true complete failure of the system. Yet, when you look at these documentaries, they present it just as some celebrity who got away with some "unappropiate behaviour", like this, if it was true, is not one of the most horrible crimes that can ever be commited.

But also the press and the media are to be questioned as why they didn't act in the moment. I remember hearing once as an excuse that "Michael Jackson was too powerful" and I thought what means "too powerful"? Was Michael Jackson too powerful for the CNN or The New York Times? Or were they just afraid too antagonize his production company, and it just a question of money? It seems like this documentaries are made when the accused person is not making big money anymore for the industry.

And then comes what seems the take-home message of these documentaries: no justice was done then, but now we make this documentary and we set the record right, we tell you how evil is/was this person and now there is justice. No, there isn't. Justice is not made by documentary makers, justice is made in the courts. To make a documentary about a crime commited 25 years ago that went unpunished is a failure of the system. But it feels like the companies that produce this documentaries are saying "it doesn't matter that justice was not made in the right moment, that this person was not condemned. we have made justice now". And it is something that it is also scary, media corporations presenting themselves as this sort of supreme court but that responds not to people but to a CEO and their shareholders.

The only point of such documentaries is to point out why this went unpunished and what we can do to solve it. From my interest in this subject I have come to the conclusion that there is always someone who knows, someone who suspects, someone who could and should have done something, that if these predators commit their crimes is because somebody has looked the other way (conciously or uncounciously). This is the way we stop this crimes, and not by making documentaries 20 years later.

Is HBO's documentary about 'Heaven's Gate' an excuse to attack Christianism?

One thing that really stands out in CNN's docuseries about the 'Heaven's Gate' cult for HBO is how it desperately tries to link the cult with Christianity. But maybe this explains why the CNN produced a documentary about a cult that was news almost 25 years ago... 

Let me share just a couple of thoughts about it.

Watching it left me wondering why Clay Tweel's documentary about a millenarist UFO cult is so filled with comparisons between this cult and Christianism... I have seen many documentaries about Heaven's Gate and about other cults (several about Jim Jones' Peoples Temple, for instance) and never seen anything similar before... One thing is that the cult founders took elements from Christianism in the origins of the cult; and another is that, in the documentary, every element of the cults' history and characteristics is compared to some element of Christianism.

For instance, the comparison by sociologist Reza Aslan of the change in the group's beliefs after Bonnie Nettles' death (one of the two founders), with an alleged change in what he calls the "Jesus movement" (sic) after Jesus' crucifixion, arguing that Jesus' death contradicted the "Jewish definition of the Messiah"... Well that is why it's called Christianism and not Judaism, isn't it?

The same Reza Aslan claims that the concept "cognitive dissonance" was created in the theology field, what is false...  In fact, Aslan, when he speaks about cognitive dissonance in the Heaven's Gate cult and in early Christianism, shows a perfect example of cognitive dissonance himself, by ignoring the fact that Jesus' figure was a rupture from established Judaism... An evidence of this is that Jesus' fate was decided by the Jewish people, not by the Roman authorities, when they choose him over Barabbas to be executed. So he was a rupturist figure from the "Jewish definition of the Messiah" already before his death.

While I was looking at it I saw other parallelisms that could have been brought up but were ignored.

Regarding the genderless society proposed by Marshall Applewhite, the same day I write this, we learnt that:

Mr. Potato Head brand goes gender-neutral, dropping "Mr." title https://t.co/R5sMUIt869

— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 27, 2021

And what about millenarism, and Applewhite's meassage 'follow me or you are doomed'...?

Pizzagate: Was There Any Truth In It?

I have stayed away from the Pizzagate because it was simply too unpleasent, but recently I saw a threat from Chris Cuomo in the documentary "Out of Shadows" (2020) that forced me to write about it.:

CNN tries to convince us it's "illegal" to read the #wikileaks emails so we have to rely on their fair and balanced coverage #PodestaEmails9 pic.twitter.com/tYDLFTi1qG

— October 16, 2016

 

Maybe what most intered me from Pizzagate and everything that surrounded it was to see if there was any truth in it. 

It is curious how the Pizzagate affair got so quickly out-of-hand, making it impossible to have a serious rational analysis of the content of Podesta's e-mails. It even seems that it was driven out-of-hand on purpose.

 

I will start by clarifying that I haven't found anything to support the theory of the hidden "pedophile code" in Podesta's e-mails. I haven't found any document prior to the Pizzagate scandal mentioning words like "cheese" or "pizza" as a code used by pedophiles (if anybody has such document, let me know in the comments).

I did find the document from the FBI from 2007 showing the triangle inside a bigger triangle as used by pedophiles, that resembles a symbol from Comet Ping Pong, but even that symbol having been used by Comet Ping Pong seems difficult to confirm now. The same goes for the alleged art that decorated the pizzeria, although here is a disturbing mural that undoubtedly decorated (decorates?) this allegedly family pizzeria.

 

What I have found is this capture of Comet Ping Pong owner, James Alefantis, Instagram that seems legit (let me know if it's not, or if you know how to find more legit captures):

 

The hashtag used in the post, #chickenlovers, is really disturbing. As you can read in this article from The Guardian from 2001, "chicken" is used as "sex with boys (or "chickens", as they are known on the scene". So we only have two possibilities, and there are not more: wether he thinks that being a "chicken lover" is fine, or he is making a joke. If the former is true, he should be in jail; if the latter is true, well, someone who thinks that making jokes about pedophilia is ok doesn't deserve any respect. Let's not forget that the mainstream media made turned this guy into some sort of martyr of fake news...

Another capture from Comet Ping Pong's owner Instagram (seems legit too) would proof that he was friend with Tony Podesta (whose taste in art we will later discuss):

 

 

Going back to the code, only an investigation into the whereabouts of the people involved checking them against the content of the e-mails could prove that such a code existed. 

 

Having said that, there are some things in Podesta's e-mails that are worrying.

 

You probably have heard about the "pizza for an hour" e-mail:

 

It surely is strange to use the expression "get a pizza for an hour", but you can think of an scenario were it makes sense: a lazy way of asking "Do you want to have lunch together? We can eat pizza. But I have only one hour". Of course the strange thing is that it seems they are talking about dinner (as the subject is "Re: You two free for dinner on 12 or 13 January?"), so it is a little strange to have only one hour for dinner...

 

There is however one e-mail that cannot be rationally explained. This one:

"I am popping up again to share our excitement about the Reprise of Our Gang’s visit to the farm in Lovettsville. And I thought I’d share a couple more notes: We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and they will be in that pool for sure."

To create a reasonable scenario to explain this e-mail is much more harder. But let's try: a group of friends is meeting in a farm. They have a pool and they are going to heat it, so they can swim. So far, completely normal. Then someone writes that children will be there and gives the ages. Ok, maybe other children are coming or can come, and they want to tell that they will be able to play together. But then comes the first unexplainable sentence: "Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment"... So the children are not there to play with other children, but to provide "further entertainment"... How are the children supposed to entertain those adults? And then a clarification: "they will be in that pool for sure". Why the hell a group of adults would care if the children get or not in the pool??? If other children are coming, and you want to let them know that they will be able to swim, you just write "children will be able to swim", you don't write "they will be in that pool for sure".

It seems to me that the Pizzagate conspiracy getting crazier and crazier was very convenient to avoid giving explanations about the serious concerning aspects in several of the e-mails as well as the extremely disturbing taste in art of some of the people involved (like Tony Podesta and the owner of Comet Ping Pong).

Regarding Tony Podesta, it is 100% TRUE that Podesta DID HAVE PHOTOS OF NAKED TEENAGERS:

"a bedroom at the Podesta residence hung with multiple color pictures by Katy Grannan, a photographer known for documentary-style pictures of naked teenagers in their parents' suburban homes" [The Washington Post]

Here are some examples of the art from Tony Podesta's home from Washington Life Magazine from 2015.

As many people have noticed, why did Tony Podesta and his wife have children toys in their bedroom if they don't have any children...

Check that in bedroom in this last page, there are children's toys next to the bed... But the Podesta's didn't have children.

Who Debunks The Debunkers? (III)

We have written about the true facts that snopes.com claimed were false. Another example: snopes.com writes about the claim "Did Trump Pay $35M to Settle Child Rape Claims Against Him?" that is "MOSTLY FALSE", but if you read the text it makes clear that it is completely false...

But if you read the text it says: "A woman using the pseudonym “Katie Johnson” has twice filed a civil lawsuit accusing Trump (...) when she was just 13 years old. However, her first complaint was dismissed by the court and the second was voluntarily withdrawn by Johnson..." And that "the case is not “pending,” and no evidence has ever been offered in court to support Johnson’s allegations.". So I wonder whre is the part of truth that justifies a "Mostly False" when there is NOTHING that supports that claim?

This a small example, but it helps to show that there is a serious bias in snopes.com analyses. But let's check this in another way: is nopes.com not debunking some false claims?

Let's check at the recurrent claim that the Norweigen far-right terrorist Anders Behring Breivik is an example of Christian terorism. We hear/read this every time an islamist attack takes place. 

 

Surprisingly, nowhere in snopes.com debunks the false claim that Breivik is not a "Christian fundamentalist" but a Christian at all.

Who Debunks The Debunkers? (II)

We have just written about snopes.com and their bias. Another example is the "analysis" snopes.com makes of a billboard seen in Indiana about Prophet Muhammad, which claims is "MOSTLY FALSE:

"What's True

The Muslim Prophet Muhammad had multiple wives.

What's False

There are no historical accounts of the Prophet committing rape or torturing people; he was known for freeing slaves, not "dealing" them.

What's Undetermined

The age of his youngest wife, Aisha, at the time of marriage is contested; the male members of a Jewish tribe in Medina were executed for treason during a battle, but the number is also contested."

The fact is that the billboard is MOSTLY TRUE, and what is not true is just "undetermined", as snopes.com puts it. 

1. Muhammad not only had multiple wives, he had 13 wives. 

2. "The Prophet Muhammad did not try to abolish slavery, and bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves himself." [BBC] 

3. The most accepted age of Aisha foin the moment of the marriage with Muhamaad and when the marriage "was consumed" are 6 and 9 years old: "The majority of traditional sources state that Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad at the age of six or seven, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, or ten according to Ibn Hisham,[30] when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina." [Wikipedia] 

4. So the only contested fact is the number of Jews beheaded on one day, as snopes.com puts it.

Snopes.com should have written "MOSTLY TRUE". If they didn't want to accept that it was true, they could have written "DISPUTED". In the moment they claim this is "MOSTLY FALSE" they are lying.

Who Debunks The Debunkers?

The website snopes.com described in Wikipedia as a "fact-checking website" and "as a 'well-regarded reference for sorting out myths and rumors'" has several examples of bias (if not straight fact-manipulation).

One undeniable exmample is the treatment of one of the leaked Podesta e-mails (copied at the end) has been described as "A leaked e-mail from former National Endowment for the Arts chairman Bill Ivey to Clinton campaign manager John Podesta revealed a Democratic "master plan" to "create an 'unaware' and 'compliant' citizenry", a claim that snopes.com says it is FALSE.", arguing this: "A more objective reading suggests that Ivey was actually stating the opposite, however — that a lack of awareness and a tendency toward compliance on the part of the citizenry in recent years was the result of the conflation of entertainment and the electoral process (as exemplified by the rise of Donald Trump), and these phenomena present a problem for democracy which must be countered."

The truth is that what the e-mail says is exactly what the "conspiracy theorists" claim. Maybe Ivey wanted to write what snopes.com but he wrote exactly the opposite, and snopes.com is lying when they say the claim is FALSE. But let's read carefully what Ivey says:

"And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking — and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging."

He literally wrote: "The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking". So according to Ivey, the "problem" is that "compliance is obviously fading rapidly". 

 

Let's put it in another way: if Ivey wanted to write what snopes.com claims he would have written "Although compliance is fading rapidly, the unawareness remains strong. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking", but he didn't write that. He wrote the opposite. Snopes.com is lying. 

 

If he wanted to write what snopes.com says, then he has serious problems with building ideas, which seems hard to believe from someone who was a a senior policy fellow for Americans for the Arts and trustee of the Center for American Progress.





From:bi@globalculturalstrategies.com 

To: john.podesta@gmail.com 

Date: 2016-03-13 17:06 

Subject: From Bill Ivey 

 

Dear John:

Well, we all thought the big problem for our US democracy was Citizens United/Koch Brothers big money in politics. Silly us; turns out that money isn’t all that important if you can conflate entertainment with the electoral process. Trump masters TV, TV so-called news picks up and repeats and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard and his hairbrained ideas, free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman and we’re off and running. JFK, Jr would be delighted by all this as his “George” magazine saw celebrity politics coming. The magazine struggled as it was ahead of its time but now looks prescient. George, of course, played the development pretty lightly, basically for charm and gossip, like People, but what we are dealing with now is dead serious. How does this get handled in the general? Secretary Clinton is not an entertainer, and not a celebrity in the Trump, Kardashian mold; what can she do to offset this? I’m certain the poll-directed insiders are sure things will default to policy as soon as the conventions are over, but I think not. And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking — and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.

Rubio’s press conference yesterday AM was good and should be repeated in its entirety, not just in nibbles. I will attend the Clinton fundraiser here next week but as I can only afford the low level of participation may just get to wave without a “hello.”

I fear we are all now trying to navigate a set of forces that cannot be simply explained or fully understood, so it is and will reamin interesting!

Sent with a handshake,

Bill

JK Rowling and the Gender Controversy

"People who menstruate"... I understand why JK Rowling felt hurt by this: describing women by a physiological process is an undeniable act of dehumanization. To do it allegedly in order not to hurt people who don't menstruate but feel as women is to think that the right of somebody to be identified as they feel is more important than the dignity of half of the Earth's population dignity.

She later had to explain herself:

What JK Rowling maybe didn't expect is for things to get scary. And I don't use the word scary in vain. The backlash that this tweet generated forced JK Rowling to write "bout Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues". I really advise reading this 3670-word piece.

There is a very revealing piece about a scientist who dared publish a paper about a worrying trend she had documented:

"The same phenomenon has been seen in the US. In 2018, American physician and researcher Lisa Littman set out to explore it. In an interview, she said:

‘Parents online were describing a very unusual pattern of transgender-identification where multiple friends and even entire friend groups became transgender-identified at the same time. I would have been remiss had I not considered social contagion and peer influences as potential factors.’

Littman mentioned Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram and YouTube as contributing factors to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, where she believes that in the realm of transgender identification ‘youth have created particularly insular echo chambers.’

Her paper caused a furore. She was accused of bias and of spreading misinformation about transgender people, subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work. The journal took the paper offline and re-reviewed it before republishing it."

"On the same day that PLOS One announced its review, Brown University took down a press release they had earlier posted about the paper.[4][19] Responding to critics, Brown University President Christina Paxson and Provost Richard Locke said they had not infringed on academic freedom and stated that Brown's commitment to only "publicize research that unassailably meets the highest standards of excellence" required Brown to retract the press release after PLOS One opened an investigation on the paper in question." [Wikipedia]

To understand how unusual is all this, we will quote a former Harvard Medical School Dean:

"The fact that Brown University deleted its initial promotional reference to Dr Littman’s work from the university’s website—then replaced it with a note explaining how Dr Littman’s work might harm members of the transgender community—presents a cautionary tale.

Increasingly, research on politically charged topics is subject to indiscriminate attack on social media, which in turn can pressure school administrators to subvert established norms regarding the protection of free academic inquiry.

There is a real problem with a lack of reproducibility of published science in many academic fields. (...) But that is not what has happened in regard to Dr Littman, whose critics have not performed any systematic analysis of her findings, but seem principally motivated by ideological opposition to her conclusions.

There is no evidence for claims of misconduct in Dr Littman’s case. Rather, unnamed individuals with strong personal interests in the area under study seem to have approached PLOS One with allegations that her methodology and conclusions were faulty. Facing these assertions, which predictably drew support from social media communities populated by lay activists, the journal responded rapidly and publicly with the announcement that it would undertake additional expert review.

In all my years in academia, I have never once seen a comparable reaction from a journal within days of publishing a paper that the journal already had subjected to peer review, accepted and published. One can only assume that the response was in large measure due to the intense lobbying the journal received, and the threat—whether stated or unstated—that more social-media backlash would rain down upon PLOS One if action were not taken.

In her letter, Dean Marcus cites fears that “conclusions of the study could be used to discredit the efforts to support transgender youth and invalidate perspectives of members of the transgender community” (my italics). Why the concerns of these unidentified individuals should be accorded weight in the evaluation of an academic work is left unexplained.

The idea that unnamed parties might apply conclusions from a study such as to cause some vaguely defined harm to other third parties is a spurious basis for the university’s actions. Virtually any research finding related to human health may be used for unrelated and inappropriate purposes by independent actors. Indeed, this happens frequently in medical science, as when nutrition research is used to promote diets far beyond the validity of the underlying data. When this occurs, responsibility lies with those committing these acts, not the paper or its author." [Quillete]

Trans activists do not act only like the Spanish Inquisition regarding scientific research, they also do not like the media talking about detransitioning (reversal of a transgender identification or gender transition, whether by social, legal, or medical means), and they attack any program on this topic as "transphobic". Here you have an example after the BBC dared dedicate 57 minutes to detransitioners.

It is fascinating to read how they argue that the program should not have aired, like a conspiracy theory joining Christian groups, alt-right, lesbians, feminists.... But the most ironic is the one regarding the figures of "patients [who] expressed transition-related regret or detransitioned" being between 0.47 and 2.2 (assuming there are not studies with higher figures, and that the selected studies are reliable -what was the period of the study?-, and that, as we have already seen, it is difficult to conduct scientific research that doesn't match the believes of the trans community). It is ironic that transgenders don't consider detransitioners significant enough over the transgender population, when the number of transgenders over the total population are similar to the ones they attributed to detransitioners over the total transgender population...

What we see here is that a small minority (non-representative if we would follow the same standards they apply to detransitioners) attacking and limiting free speech, free scientific research and free press...

US Protests: Inequality Wins?

Racism exists. It is everywhere. White racism is undeniable. But there is also racism in the arab world against blacks. Or even racism among blacks in Africa against albinos.

Having settled this, let me ask you this: a white person of the same socio-economical background of one black person, has more changes? In other words, once you remove the socio-economical differences, is racism still significant?

It is undeniable that black people live worse than white people, that they have less opportunities both professional and social, but I think the reason is economical discrimination. Black people are not poorer because they are discriminated; they are discriminated because they are poorer. And they are poorer because they started the "social race" from far behind, and, despite the opposite, there is no significant social mobility in the US (and the self-made man is a myth, but this is another story). Poorness brings criminality and criminality brings prejudice.

Let's talk about "Job applicants with white names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback; those with African-American names needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback"[NBER]. Now are these job applicants getting less calls because they have African-American names or because these names are associated with lower socio-economical backgrounds? I was thinking that it would be interesting to make a similar study in Spain: trying with traditional names and names that are more commonly used to lower socio-economical backgrounds (English names such as Kevin or Jennifer, for instance). I am sure there would be a significant difference.

Why this is important? Because while the media focus on how blacks are discriminated and setting social plasters/band-aids to solve this discrimination, they divert the attention from the root of the problem: economical inequality.

I don't think anybody believes that media corporations are independent. We all know they are owned by the financial elites. And what do financial elites above anything else? To mantain the status quo. So with inequality growing, and black people suffering specially from the Covid19 tragic effects, putting the blame on an inherent racism in american society instead of on the inherent (and growing) economic inequality seems a smart move.


PS: Upward income mobility in the US [Forbes]:

 

 Upward educational mobility in the US [Forbes]:

US doesn't meddle in foreign elections: it simply decides who is going to be the president

Transcript from the BBC of a leaked conversation (implicitely verified by the US) between State department's diplomat for Europe, Victoria Nuland, and US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt (2014) discussing who will be the next government of Ukraine:

Pyatt: I think we're in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, another opposition leader]. And I'm glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad that he said what he said in response.

Nuland: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea.

Pyatt: Yeah. I guess... in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok, the other opposition leader] and his guys and I'm sure that's part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.

Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.

Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that's right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?

Nuland: My understanding from that call - but you tell me - was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a... three-plus-one conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?

Pyatt: No. I think... I mean that's what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that's been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's going to take a while to show up for whatever meeting they've got and he's probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn't like it.

Nuland: OK, good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.

Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.

Nuland: OK... one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can't remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning?

Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.

Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.

Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there's a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep... we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.

Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president's national security adviser Jake] Sullivan's come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President Joe] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden's willing.

Pyatt: OK. Great. Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't want to end this post without a comment about the analysis of BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus, who says things like:

"The clear purpose [of Russia] in leaking this conversation is to embarrass Washington and for audiences susceptible to Moscow's message to portray the US as interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs." First of all, this conversation doesn't "portray the US as interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs", it indisputably shows how the US decides in Ukraine's domestic affairs. And this facts is not evident "for audiences susceptible to Moscow's message", but for anybody with a pinch of independence.

But the best is the final analysis: "Overall this is a damaging episode between Washington and Moscow. Nobody really emerges with any credit. The US is clearly much more involved in trying to broker a deal in Ukraine than it publicly lets on. There is some embarrassment too for the Americans given the ease with which their communications were hacked. But is the interception and leaking of communications really the way Russia wants to conduct its foreign policy ? Goodness - after Wikileaks, Edward Snowden and the like could the Russian government be joining the radical apostles of open government? I doubt it. Though given some of the comments from Vladimir Putin's adviser on Ukraine Sergei Glazyev - for example his interview with the Kommersant-Ukraine newspaper the other day - you don't need your own listening station to be clear about Russia's intentions. Russia he said "must interfere in Ukraine" and the authorities there should use force against the demonstrators." So we have just read how the US is deciding who will be in the government in Ukraine and this correspondant says that the US is "trying to broker a deal in Ukraine"... And then goes on to... chriticize Russia. So the biggest part of the analysis of the conversation showing the meddling in Ukraine by the US is to chriticize Russia...

The Biggest Fake News is the Importance of Fake News (And Bots)

Social media has remarkably small impact on Americans’ beliefs

Reports of social media’s influence on voters are greatly exaggerated

The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media

Researchers say fears about ‘fake news’ are exaggerated

Fake News and Bots May Be Worrisome, but Their Political Power Is Overblown

That sophisticated, specific Russian 2016 voter targeting effort doesn’t seem to exist

US Protests: Blueprint For A (Colour) Revolution?

I've been following the events in the United States, with special interest in the evolution of the protest: what began as a protest against police brutality has turned into the a national (intended worldwide) protest for the rights of black people.

But one question arises as distant observer: is the evolution of the protest "natural"? Or is there "somebody" behind it?

The first question is why this time? Unfortunately other black men have died in the hands of the police or white men. From my point of view, the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, a black jogger, was much more infurating. Why this time is different? It is true we have seen other protests throughout the history of the US, but never of this dimension. Could it be the trail of the Covid-19? Could it just be "I can breath" the last straw? It could perfectly be, society is unpredictable.

What has made me come to the serious conviction that there is "somebody" is the behavior of the corporate media. I don't speak about minimizing the dark side of the protests (the riots or the looting), but about the active promotion of the protests. CBS ("White silence on social media: Why not saying anything is actually saying a lot", "White silence on social media not going unnoticed") or Washington Post ("This movement is not anarchy. It could push America to be a better nation", ""Defund the police" is a call to imagine a safer America. We should answer it") are just a microscopic sample of the opinion articles where the corporate media has promoted (not informed about or analyzed) the protests. These are not about fighting racism (something we all agree on), but about criminalizing white people, or even supporting the defund the police movement, which is the culmen of cynicism coming from the elites. Media's soft approach on the "defund the police" slogan gives me the creeps, because I don't believe even for one second that they think it's a good idea... So what's their game?

But also, and this is the most important, these protests resemble suspiciously the "colour revolutions" we have seen in some not-aligned countries.

As an analyst defined it (or defined the Russian visions about it), colour revolutions are the "new US and European approach to warfare that focuses on creating destabilizing revolutions in other states as a means of serving their security interests at low cost and with minimal casualties" [source].

It is interesting to notice that some of the main organizations behind the protests have been supported by the same foundations that supported some of these colour revolutions. The most notorious case is George Soros' foundation, which has funded the Black Lives Matter movement [Politico][The Washington Times]. Soros was one of the figures behind the Ukraine's "orange revolution", as he himself admitted: "I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia. And the foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now" [CNN], and also intervined in Georgia's "rose revolution" [Wikipedia]. Ah, and Soros' foundation was advocating for "police reduction" already in 2016 [OSF].

Another key player would be the US' deep state (what Eisenhower called the 'military-industrial complex'). Here is a very interesting piece on Obama's Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland communications with Soros' team to discuss, among other issues, "EU visa liberalization for Ukraine and Georgia" [The Hill], which seems to me an absolute interference in EU issues. And here is an article about the involvement of the CIA in Ukraine's coup., and here Nuland's leaked call  discussing who should be in Ukraine's new government [BBC].

I don't think that the goal of the movement is to remove Trump. I think the main goal is to warn: to warn Trump's supporters and voters: "do not re-elect Trump, or this is what will happen". And it may also be a blueprint for an actual revolution in case of Trump's victory.

The Two Unexplained Child Disappearances That Shocked Spain

During the 80s there were two child disappearences that shocked Spain and that, to this day, haven't been solved.

The first one took place on June 25, 1986. That day, Juan Pedro Martínez Gómez was travelling with his parents in his father's tank truck, when the truck had a terrible accident. Juan Pedro's parents died that day, but inexplicable, Juan Pedro was never found, dead or alive. The first hypothesis of the police was that the body of the boy had been dissolved in the acid that filled the broken tank of the trunk. But this explanation was proven impossible. Where was the kid then?

The accident had been caused by the excessive speed of the truck, suicidal in the way down, reaching even 140 km/h. But even more strange, the analysis of the tacograph revealed that, on the way up, the truck had stopped 12 stops in less than 20 km, several of only 1 or 2 seconds, and the longest of half a minute.

Approximately one year later, in a new search in the truck remains, the police found illegal drugs. That brought up the most plausible hypothesis: the truck was carrying the drugs from the origin or from some point in the middle of the trip. The former possibility, that it was in the truck from the origin, is more likely, as the drug was found in a hidden space surrounded by acid. The 12 stops could be explained by an other vehicle (some witnesses stated that after the accident, a white van stopped and the passangers approached the truck), stopping them. One of the longest stops could be explained by the drug dealers stopping the truck to didnap the kid, as a "warranty".

Less than one year after the disappearence of Juan Pedro, David Guerrero Guevara, known as the "painter child", disappeared in Málaga, tenía 13 años cuando, el 6 de abril de 1987, never to be seen again. He was going to a gallery where one of his paintings was shown among paintings of recognized local artists. He was officially last seen walking to the bus stop only 250 m from his home. He never arrived to the gallery or to the painting lesson he was supossed to attend later. But that day the Queen of Spain was visiting Malaga, how could be a kid kidnapped in broad daylight?

There were only a few leads, but the most promising was one that involed a Swiss national, that was very similar to an sketch that the missing kid had given as a present to a classmate:

In the end of 2019, this sketch reappeared in the most unexpected way: the classmate that had given the sketch to the police in 1987 found it in her mailbox, a sketch that should have been in police possession. Also, some anonymous notes have been recived by the family in the last months. The brother, together with a journalist, made a new investigation, and found witnessess stating that he had not only visited the gallery, but that he had even arrived to the place where the painting lesson was taking place, the club El Cenachero. But he never attended the lesson, so he would have disappeared there.

The Case Against "search and rescue operations (SAR)" NGOs in the Mediterranean Sea

This text is an excerpt from a report trying to defend SAR NGO. Only adjectives have been removed to make the report less unbiased:

"The argument [against] NGOs operating SAR in the Mediterranean for enabling the arrival of illegalised migrants on European shores had been until recently confined to the conspirationist discourse of small groups (...). On 15 November 2016 for example, GEFIRA, a Dutch-based think-tank, published an article with the (...) title: “Caught in the act: NGOs deal in migrant smuggling” in which it accused NGOs of being “part of the human smuggling network”. On 5 December 2016 the same organisation published another article titled: “NGOs are smuggling immigrants into Europe on an industrial scale”, arguing that NGO SAR operations amounted to an “illegal human traffic operation”. The article, which as the previous one was quickly picked up in several (...) news outlets, was accompanied by the release of a video monitoring the activities of SAR NGOs through AIS vessel tracking data.

These (...) arguments however remained confined to the limited audience of these groups until the publication of an article in the Financial Times on 15 December 2016. The piece was based on “confidential reports” by Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, which according to the journalists accused the NGOs of “colluding” with smugglers (see Annex). The article mentioned a particular incident that the agency considered to be “the first reported case where the criminal networks directly approached an EU vessel and smuggled the migrants directly into Europe using the NGO vessel”, a claim we will assess within this report. It further reported the agency deploring that “the number of rescues triggered by a distress signal fell from roughly two-thirds of all incidents this summer to barely one in 10 in October (…). This drop-off coincided with a jump in the number of rescues carried out by NGOs in the central Mediterranean.” Despite a partial retraction that forced the Financial Times to admit that it had “overstated” its accusations, Frontex would consolidate its critique of SAR NGOs in subsequent publications in early February 2017.

On 15 February 2017, Frontex published its annual Risk Analysis Report, in which it made publicly accessible several of the claims that had been echoed by the Financial Times. (...) With regards to the central Mediterranean, Frontex notes in its annual report that “important changes were observed on this migratory route in 2016”. However, of the many evolutions that the agency might have mentioned based on the reports available to it and that we will discuss in more detail further on, Frontex focuses on one – the role of NGOs in SAR activities. It first observes the decrease in satellite phone calls to the Italian Coast Guard Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre in Rome to trigger rescue operations, which makes detecting and rescuing migrants more difficult and may result in vessels not being rescued. It then implicitly draws a “parallel” between this decrease and the increasing presence of SAR NGOs, suggesting a correlation – also shown in the graph reproduced below (...).

Frontex’s report then continues to draw a second “parallel”: “NGO presence and activities close to, and occasionally within, the 12-mile Libyan territorial waters nearly doubled compared with the previous year, totalling 15 NGO assets (14 maritime and 1 aerial). In parallel, the overall number of incidents increased dramatically”.

Frontex then generalises its critique of SAR to all actors operating close to the Libyan coast (...): “Libyan-based smugglers (…) heavily relied on the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), and associated SAR as well as humanitarian assistance efforts, turning it into a distinct tactical advantage. (…) Dangerous crossings on unseaworthy and overloaded vessels were organised with the main purpose of being detected by EUNAVFOR Med/Frontex and NGO vessels”.

The section of the report concludes that:

“Apparently, all parties involved in SAR operations in the Central Mediterranean unintentionally help criminals achieve their objectives at minimum cost, strengthen their business model by increasing the chances of success. Migrants and refugees – encouraged by the stories of those who had successfully made it in the past – attempt the dangerous crossing since they are aware of and rely on humanitarian assistance to reach the EU.”
Frontex, 2017 Annual Risk Analysis report.

Map and figures of the situation in the central Mediterranean between January and December 2016. Within the considered timeframe: migrants were rescued increasingly close to Libyan shores, as shown by Frontex and Coast Guard data; Frontex’s Triton operational area and EUNAVFOR MED’s operations area remained unchanged; Search and Rescue NGOs deployed a maximum of 12 vessels, and became the largest SAR operator in the central Mediterranean; crossings were comparable to 2014 and 2015 over most of the year, apart for the months of October and November which saw far more crossings then in previous years; deaths reached a record high and mortality rates peaked in Spring and Autumn. Credit: Forensic Oceanography. GIS analysis: Rossana Padeletti. Design: Samaneh Moafi.

Map of SAR events between 2014-2016, showing that they grew closer to the Libyan coast. 

AIS tracks of NGO ships contained in the final document produced by the Defence commission of the Italian Senate.

What Netflix's 'The Alcasser Murders' Hides

Netflix true-crime docuseries tend to always cast doubt on the official version of events. In a way this is positive, because the official theory usually has very loud "speakers". On the other hand, it can be dangerous, because with the audience that these documentaries have, they can contaminate a case (this could be what happened with 'Making a murderer').

The Netflix documentary "The Alcàsser Murders" (El caso Alcasser) is peculiar because it takes the opposite stance: supporting the official story.

'The Alcàsser Murders' focuses on one of the darkest episodes in the 90s in Spain, a case that defined the decade in the country: the triple murder of Alcasser where three young girls where kidnapped, tortured and murdered. The Netflix documentary supports the official theory by harshly attacking the two more notorious critics of the official theory, depicting them as only interested in the fame and money, which is a risky accusation to make considering that one of them is actually one of the murdered girls...

But this documentary is not the unbiased portrayal of the facts that it pretends to be. Many things have been left out, important things that show a clear intention to manipulate the viewer.

The first thing is that in 2017, only two years before the documentary premiered in Netflix, a teeth was found in the location where the bodies had been found in 1992. This clearly shows that the unearthing of the bodies was, at least, problematic. In fact, after the documentary aired, a couple found more bones in the site.

But there are other issues that the documentary suspiciously leaves out or downplays:

- DNA from between 5 and 7 different people were found on the corpses, that didn't belong to the suspects (one was later condemned, another ran away and has never been captured) [El País]. Still now, this mistery has not been solved [El País].

- How could the police find a hospital document that allowed to track one of the accused, in the burial site of the victims in the country after 75 days, after all kinds of weather including windy and rainy days? This document, that had the name of the brother of one of the suspects, didn't fall from a pocket, as it had been torn in several pieces... Meaning that the suspect had allegedly torn it and thrown it away... exactly were he and his accomplice buried three murdered girls...

- How could such a suspect (who forgets a document with his brother's name on a burial site of a triple murder), escape the police, flee the country, and never be found? Why this almost-impossible escape is skipped in the documentary?

- Why the documentary doesn't mention the also unbelievable key element of the official version that the two murderers with the three kidnapped girls arrived at the location of the murders in an Opel Corsa when even the documentary explains that the police could only get to the place with 4WD cars?

- The documentary also fails to mention the similarities between the Alcasser murders and a previous triple murder in Macastre (a town 40 km from Alcasser), only three years before the Alcasser murders.

Although Juan Ignacio Blanco and Fernando García, the two critics that the documentary focuses on, had made some big mistakes and taken wrong decisions, the choice to make them the center of the documentary feels like a debatable strategy to defend the official version.

Jeffrey Epstein Case Timeline

Jeffrey Epstein Case Timeline

1974-11 Epstein started working in September 1974 as a physics and mathematics teacher for teens at the Dalton School on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. He was hired by Donald Barr (father of U.S. Attorney General William Barr), headmaster until June 1974. Epstein teaches at the school until he was dismissed in June 1976 for "poor performance". Epstein becomes acquainted with Alan Greenberg (chief executive officer of Bear Stearns) whose son and daughter were going to the school. Greenberg, impressed with Epstein's intelligence and drive for financial success, offers him a job at Bear Stearns.

1976 Epstein joined Bear Stearns

1980 Epstein became a limited partner

1981 asked to leave Berr Stearns

1981-08 Epstein founds his own company. He is allegedly working in intelligence with the CIA

1992-11 A tape in the NBC archives shows Donald Trump partying with Jeffrey Epstein at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, now a private club

1995-04-27 Lynn Forester de Rothschild wrote a personal letter to Clinton thanking him for their talk about Jeffrey Epstein

2000-02 Donald Trump with his then-girlfriend, Melania Knauss, and Jeffrey Epstein with Ghislaine Maxwell at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla.

2000 Jeffrey Epstein's appointment to the board of New York's Rockefeller University in 2000. He is an enthusiastic member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations

2001-03-10 Prince Andrew is photographed at a party with Jeffrey Epstein. They are long time friends

2001 Between 2001 and 2003, Bill Clinton flies 26 times on Jeffrey Epstein's 'Lolita Express'

Bill Clinton and 22-year-old Chauntae Davies.Davies has accused Epstein of raping her



2005-03 a phone call to the Palm Beach Police Department in March 2005. The stepmother of a 14-year-old high school girl called police to say that Epstein had sexually assaulted the teen

2008 After reaching a deal called a non-prosecution agreement, Epstein pleads guilty to state charges in Florida of soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution, essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe into whether there were more victims and other powerful people who took part in Epstein’s sex crimes. Among the terms agreed upon: that the victims would not be notified, that the deal would be kept under seal and all grand jury subpoenas would be canceled

2010 Dinner at Epstein’s townhouse for Prince Andrew

2010-08-01 Ghislaine Maxwell attends Chelsea Clinton's wedding after Epstein had first been charged. This was shortly after she skipped a deposition for the Epstein case, claiming she needed to return to the U.K. to be with her deathly ill mother.

2015-01-23 Gawker publishes Epstein's "black book", including names as: David Rockefeller, Peter Soros, the nephew of George Soros (listed under the rubric of "massage,"), Berger, Sandy: National-security adviser for Bill Clinton (name found on Epstein’s private jet log), Tony Blair, Prince Pierre d’Arenberg, Lynn Forester de Rothschild (Name found on Epstein’s private jet log), Stephen Dunbar-Johnson (President, international, of the New York Times Company), Steve Forbes (Chairman and editor-in-chief of Forbes magazine), John Kerry, Henry Kissinger (served together on the Council on Foreign Relations)

2018-11-28 Reporter Julie K. Brown of the Miami Herald publishes an explosive investigation that sheds light on the allegations against Epstein and the deal he received.

2019-08-10 Jeffrey Epstein found dead in correctional


Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein#Financial_consulting
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-visited-clinton-white-house-multiple-times-in-early-90s
https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-high-society-contacts.html
https://www.foxnews.com/us/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known
https://abcnews.go.com/US/rise-fall-jeffrey-epstein-timeline-financiers-legal-troubles/story?id=64507847
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article221404845.html#storylink=cpy
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-high-society-contacts.html
https://gawker.com/here-is-pedophile-billionaire-jeffrey-epsteins-little-b-1681383992
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html