How The Establishment Is Burying Epstein Again
This article was originally posted on The Heartland Beat.
Just one year ago, uttering the name Epstein came with bipartisan conversations over one of the most deliberated cases of government corruption in recent memory. It was obvious to everyone, including our current FBI director at the time, the previous administrations were lying about what they knew and refusing to prosecute those tied to human trafficking. For Ohioans, the fact that Epstein’s primary financier, someone potentially implicated in the murder of Arthur Shapiro, still resides in the state capital with not a single mark over his name is testament to how deeply local this international issue goes. At the center of it all now, is a 5’9 Gujarati man who is leveraging the full weight of the FBI’s trustworthiness on his shoulders alone. Can the FBI be trusted today to handle high-profile investigations or has it become another pawn in misdirection?
Last week FBI Director Kash Patel testified before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the FBI’s handling of the ‘Epstein Files’, a term which has taken on a life of its own in recent months as the push for criminal prosecution and acknowledgement of the Epstein/Maxwell trafficking network has somehow morphed into calls for ‘transparency’ and releasing unspecified documents in one of the most ingenious moves in recent memory.
Conversely this hearing was one of the most painful experiences anyone could endure to listen to if they held any knowledge of the Epstein/Maxwell operation. We have previously and exhaustively outlined the Epstein/Maxwell network here.
However, it did reveal consistent rhetoric tactics from elected representatives, and Patel himself, which created enough water muddying outcomes as to further obfuscate the real issue with regards to whether a foreign government or organization is successfully blackmailing US politicians and illustrated exactly why Patel fits perfectly in a long line of FBI directors who have done exactly what they were supposed to do; obfuscate and deny.
The Origin of Patel:
For many in younger generations, Patel was a relatively unknown individual who seemed to pop out of obscurity and be thrusted into the center stage of the Trump administration after his election victory. In the context of his work leading up to his appointment as FBI director, Patel ran the podcast circuit using his credentials of having worked for the DOJ under the Obama administration and as a senior aide to Devin Nunes as appeals to authority for why he knows what he claims to have known. More ridiculously, Patel authored a children’s book which attempted to describe the Russia-Gate Hoax as a medieval fantasy, putting himself in the role as a wise mage who protects the king (Trump).
The relevance of this background is pertinent to Patel’s entire thesis on his FBI; “Trust the FBI, because you trust me and I am trustworthy.”
In the above clip from the hearing, Rep. Jamie Raskin, one of several misdirecting Democrat players, shows podcast snippets in which Patel stated the reason why the previous administrations FBI did not release any Epstein Files was because they were concerned about who was in them. The secondary clip illustrates Patel was very much aware that the “Black Book” which contained Epstein’s business associates and contacts was in the possession of the FBI director. Raskin asks now that Patel has the black book, will he ‘release the list’.
Patel’s response here is to immediately evade the question and redirect to a completely different item, choosing to ignore the very item he previously referenced in the Glenn Book interview (which readers can find below completely unredacted), and claim most people are ‘actually referring to a rolodex’.
The ‘Black Book’ refers to a small black book of addresses and contacts provided to house staff at Epstein’s various estates for scheduling and reference. One particular house staff snagged a book during the initial investigation of Epstein in 2005 and circled multiple names of people he knew to be tightly involved in his business ventures. The staffer turned this over to the FBI, where it promptly gathered dust and was not investigated further. All circled named have been put into the article here.
The rhetoric game here is obvious, albeit painful on all parts. Raskin is seemingly ignorant of the entire operation of what Epstein and Maxwell were doing and who they were doing it for. Or he is pretending to be. The goal in this hearing from every Democratic representative was to try and push the narrative back into the confines of two-party politics. ‘You won’t release the names because Trump is in there.’ But the names have been released for years. No one wants lists. We want investigations and prosecutions. We want America to be sovereign again and any foreign state actors to be highlighted and addressed appropriately. Something Patel has already signed off on not doing under any circumstances. Neither party is addressing what should be the real target of this inquiry and it shows. Instead, Patel grandstands on the laurels of his accomplishments since taking over the FBI, including more prosecutions of child traffickers and predators than any administration in history. Except one in Las Vegas.
Last month, acting head of the IDF’s cyber security division was arrested in Nevada in a state and federal joint taskforce sting to capture child traffickers. Tom Artiom Alexandrovich was arrested with several others for attempting to lure a child to a closed location for sexual activity. He was subsequently released on bond where he immediately fled to Israel, a nation with no extradition, but with a consistent problem of harboring criminals from prosecution in host countries. Perhaps we could consider the issue a ‘one-off’ mistake, but information available indicates federal authorities intervened to order local officials to release Alexandrovich. He received special and unique consideration. A recurrent theme in the Epstein case.
Later in the hearing, Rep. Thomas Massie, one of the only members of the hearing with any actual knowledge of the operation, questioned Patel after meticulously going through multiple news headlines outlining Epstein’s connections to intelligence agencies, including Mossad and current and former Israeli prime ministers. This is actually the fulcrum of the issue, not whether or not Trump’s name shows up or how many times it does, but whether Epstein and Maxwell liaison with foreign governments and whether our government is covering that up and why. The hope is you will focus on the latter rather than the former.
You’ll notice the exchange here is far different. Massie essentially accuses Patel of failing to investigate credible allegations from victims of human trafficking for at least 20 different high-profile individuals that Massie knows about. Again, these are names that the public, if they have been following the story, already know. We have previously extensively covered the Epstein network here. However, Patel does not become argumentative like he did with the Democrats, instead he retreats to a professional demeanor and deflects.
The issue, according to Patel, is that multiple administrations, previous to his, have reviewed the testimonies and did not find them credible. These are the same administrations Patel previously stated were corrupt and lacking in prudence to take up the cases against America’s enemies. According to Patel, these admins are both abysmal failures while in office but now somehow also trustworthy sources when it comes to vetting information that would lead to investigations and charges.
He is careful to not state he personally has reviewed anything at all, and maintained that throughout the entire hearing. When asked, Patel does not say he will speak with any witnesses or victims. Unlike the photo ops with podcasters, Patel won’t involve himself with the investigation, unless it is to definitively shut it down and state no new charges or arrests will take place. He doesn’t deny the existence of any intelligence connections as Massie alleges, because that would be too easily disproved at this point. Instead he says he has ‘reviewed all information given to him’, which to his own admission, is effectively nothing.
Patel here simultaneously calls for new information to be provided to him but demands it only come through his curated channels. With Massie, Patel is a man of steadfast inaction and avoidance. He knows Massie has more information than anyone on the panel and he also knows he needs to avoid affirming anything that would get him immediately caught lying under oath. This is why Massie presents a unique problem for the current administration. He’s focused on the root of the issue and avoids two-party squabbles.
If the House Judiciary Hearing has shown us anything, outside of the lack of creativity from Democrats, it’s that by and large, justice is still as blind as it ever has been. The ‘most transparent’ FBI administration in history launched the spectacular ‘Phase 1’ release of the Epstein files to loyal podcasters, issuing a binder full of information already publicly available, and in greater redacted status than their previously leaked state. At first, many became frustrated at what they perceived as a massive administrative blunder. However, this hearing in hindsight reveals one of the best laid plans in some time.
In a truly spectacular art of misdirection, the FBI and DOJ has redirected the conversation away from ‘why aren’t we investigating Epstein and Maxwell’s financers like Les Wexner and going after finance records from J.P. Morgan Chase, which was fully aware of his operations, to ‘where are the documents?’ The narrative switch has been fully embraced in a controlled pivot by the Democrat party, which immediately chopped the bit to work a Trump angle into the narrative as well, all avoiding more pertinent questions. Namely, why was Epstein flying on planes owned by a private military contractor, Dyncorp, after his release in 2009, a company already flagged for trafficking women out of Eastern Europe? What did Epstein and President Clinton discuss during the 17 times Epstein visited the Clinton Whitehouse? The problem we have here is the public already has ‘the list’ and ‘the files’ are at this point already out in the ether.
We know Epstein and Maxwell worked for intelligence agencies, and provided information to the FBI itself.
The public demanded and was promised prosecutions and an end to a two-tiered justice system which seems to turn a blind eye to crimes committed by specific foreign nationals or elitist circles. The FBI has far more access to witness testimony than we do, and what we do have paints a clear picture of individuals still living free and clear of any hint of justice despite their evident connections.
That does not appear to be changing under Patel’s leadership. The DOJ memo released in July was a message to those circles, namely ‘We will protect you at all costs, even to the detriment of our base.’ When that of course failed to go over well with the conservative base, the next game was to hopefully get you distracted and disinterested by a game of endless tail-chasing over random ‘files’ no one can specify. What are the files? Who had them and when? These are the kinds of questions that get people to turn their television dials to another channel and that is the ultimate goal here.
One can believe Democrat reps. Raskin, Goldman and Moskowitz are legitimately stupid and are fine being made to look incompetent by continuing to focus their time in hearings on the ‘mishandling’ of documents and lists. Or we can acknowledge that Massie already stipulated this has ties to international espionage and ask ourselves why they decided not to ask those same questions. Further, if we cannot trust Patel to act honestly in his position regarding Epstein, can he be trusted to handle other investigations?
