patrick.net

porkchopXpress says

I don't think that's even remotely legal or appropriate to do.

What about just arresting the perps for rape?

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

porkchopXpress says
But he never vowed to release the files. Do you have a source for it?

2024: Trump: 'Weird situation' with jail camera at time of Epstein's death'; Vance: List should be released

"Yeah, yeah, I would (declassify the Epstein files)," Trump said on Fox & Friends Weekend on June 3, 2024. "I think that less so because, you know, you don't know if, you don't want to affect people's lives if it's phony stuff in there, cause there's a lot of phony stuff with that whole world. But I think I would." He also said, "Certainly about the way he (Epstein) died, it would be interesting to find out what happened there because that was a weird situation and the cameras didn't happen to be working, etcetera, etcetera. But yeah, I'd go a long way toward that one.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/07/11/trump-administration-jeffrey-epstein-client-list-timeline/84504096007/

35:27

https://www.youtube.com/live/HVKRNcQUbRY?t=2125s

Yep.

Now compare that to the dozens of times he said "NO NUKE FOR IRAN" in 2024.

PanicanDemoralizer says

Now compare that to the dozens of times he said "NO NUKE FOR IRAN" in 2024.

Apples and oranges. Epstein is totally in his control.

The term ‘Zion’ was cleverly taken from the Old Testament scriptures by the founder of the secular/political Zionist movement, Theodore Herzl as a means to hide their intentions to create a SECULAR state separate from the laws of God. Herzl himself stated that his movement is a political movement founded upon secularism. Herzl is universally recognized as the founder of the modern State of Israel and his portrait can be often observed in the background at important Israeli government functions.

In a similar move, the equally clever founders of our PRIVATELY owned and operated central bank used the word ‘Federal’ as means to fool the gullible into believing that the Federal Reserve is actually part of the Federal government and not a privately owned and operated mega bank.

RWSGFY says

Funny...if it was all make believe some banks got scammed.

In the Epstein case, JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank have made significant payouts to victims as part of settlements related to Epstein's sex trafficking operation. JPMorgan paid $290 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Epstein's victims, who accused the bank of ignoring red flags and enabling his trafficking activities. Deutsche Bank also settled for $75 million, facing similar accusations of facilitating Epstein's sex trafficking by providing financial services.

That's a lot of evidence.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/honeypot-friday-july-18-2025-c-and

The media and the internets burst into flames last night, after President Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to immediately seek court approval to release the sealed 2019 Epstein Grand Jury testimony.




The move came shortly after the Wall Street Journal published a salacious and thinly sourced birthday note allegedly sent from Trump to Epstein in 2003. The letter included “a sexually suggestive drawing,” hints of “shared secrets,” and an implied threat of blackmail-by-leak. Trump immediately denied the report and promised prompt lawsuits, accusing CEO Rupert Murdoch of reneging on a promise to “take care of it.”

Let’s take a moment to look at this “letter.”

The Wall Street Journal’s hit piece was headlined, “Exclusive - Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One Was From Donald Trump.” Allegedly, the letter was included in a leather-bound scrapbook of birthday wishes that Ghislaine Maxwell collected for Epstein in 2003.

To say the letter was ‘thinly sourced’ is like saying the Titanic had a slight moisture problem.

First, the Journal has neither the Birthday Scrapbook nor the letter. It said it “reviewed” the letter. When? Where? How? Was it just read to them over the phone? What does “reviewed” even mean? For sure, it means they don’t have it. The Journal described the letter as being “among documents examined by Justice Department officials” —what officials?— “according to people who have reviewed the pages.” People? The Village People? Psychics?

“I’m sensing the letter was typed… I’m seeing small arcs… there’s… a signature? Yes! It’s forming… it’s… Donald!”

In other words: the whole Scrapbook story is double anonymous hearsay. Some unnamed “people” said some unidentified “officials” reviewed the birthday binder and the original letter. Even bad lawyers wouldn’t consider trying to admit that in court. “Um, your Honor, someone told us that some government officials may have seen a letter, which someone else described to us… and we’d like to enter that into evidence.” Okay.

Next, the Journal’s future defendants admitted they know nothing about the letter’s provenance. “It isn’t clear,” the Journal admitted, “how the letter with Trump’s signature was prepared.” Great. And there’s no chain of custody. Nobody’s ever even heard of this Birthday Scrapbook before. “The existence of the album and the contents of the birthday letters,” the Journal conceded, “haven’t previously been reported.”

No leaks, no mention in any of the court cases, nothing, in over twenty years.

It’s just too much. Biden’s DOJ raided Mar-a-Lago for newspaper clippings, indicted Trump four separate times, subpoenaed everyone but Barron, surveilled campaign officials, and criminalized memes. They even leaked photos from the Mar-a-Lago raid. But we’re supposed to believe Democrats sat on a perfectly gift-wrapped, visually grotesque, plausibly deniable Trump–Epstein letter since 2019 or earlier— and just … what? Forgot to use it? Even during impeachment one and two?

Notwithstanding all those problems, the Journal glowingly described the “bawdy” letter. It waited till about three pages in, and then set out a very non-Trumpian, odd, quippy typed (not handwritten) fake dialogue between Trump and Epstein that sounds just like a scripted confession. “Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey,” the letter gushed. “Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it.”

To make sure we got the message, the carefully scripted, incriminating-sounding typed dialogue was allegedly placed inside a hand-drawn cartoon of a naked woman, with “breasts denoted by small arcs” (small breasts? pre-pubescent ones?) above “Donald,” scrawled as a signature in the sketch’s pubic region.

Get this— despite the obvious, explosive, salacious potential, the Journal did not publish a picture of the actual letter. It did not even explain the letter’s absence. Why not show the letter? Is it sealed? Confidential? Restricted? If so, why not just say that? Or is it possible the Journal never actually saw the letter but just “reviewed” an oral description?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Journal did not mention any forensic analysis. The convenient fact the incredibly suspicious ‘dialogue’ was typed eliminates handwriting analysis of that part, but what about the signature? The drawing? You’d think they’d have cited six forensic handwriting analyses before going to print with something like this.

Only the original letter with the wet ink signature could be subjected to forensic analysis. Anything else could be copy-pasta. Stroke direction, pen pressure, ink composition, paper age and source— none of these things can be analyzed from a PDF or cell phone snap.

In other words, it’s thinner than Shell station toilet paper. It’s so thin, if you held it up to the light, you’d see the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover shaking his head. So, the alleged letter is a stinking pile of hot garbage, and Trump is about to get another fat settlement to fund the “Golden Defamation Wing” of his presidential library. ...

Before Jeffrey Epstein could face trial in 2019 for running a sex trafficking ring so depraved it made Eyes Wide Shut look like a summer church potluck, a federal grand jury had to greenlight the case. A grand jury is like a legal litmus test. It doesn’t decide guilt, just whether there’s enough sketchy behavior to let prosecutors haul someone into court. In Epstein’s case, the grand jury reviewed evidence and testimony about a conspiracy to commit sex trafficking and sex trafficking of minors, then issued the indictment that landed him in that now-infamous Manhattan jail cell, where the cameras flickered, the guards napped and … well, you know the rest.

The grand jury in the Epstein case likely saw a one-sided highlight reel from prosecutors—because that’s how grand juries work. No defense attorneys, no cross-examination, just prosecutors walking jurors through flight logs, victim statements, bank transfers, surveillance footage, and possibly a who’s-who of eyebrow-raising guest lists.

They probably heard tearful testimony from survivors, saw photos of underage girls at Epstein’s homes, and maybe even reviewed those infamous massage room schedules. The pitch wouldn’t have been subtle: “Here’s a billionaire who shipped teenage girls across state lines like Amazon packages. Now can we please charge him with conspiracy and sex trafficking of minors?”

The jurors, ordinary citizens locked in a private, secured courtroom with all this filth, only had one job: to decide whether there was probable cause to indict. They did. And that indictment probably contains some very awkward facts for very powerful people.

To get an indictment, prosecutors did not necessarily need to show the jurors the client list, Epstein’s intelligence connections, the blackmail ring, or even name a single customer. But in 2019, they were operating under the full assurance that the grand jury room was a legal black box. Prosecutors present evidence to a grand jury understanding that the proceedings are secret, and that any records, transcripts, or testimony will remain sealed, absent a very rare court order.

In a politically charged case like Epstein’s, federal prosecutors almost certainly and confidently assumed that the grand jury transcripts would never see daylight. Prosecutors try to make their best case to a grand jury. That’s literally the job. And in a case like Epstein’s, they might have made it with a firehose, believing no one would ever read the transcript.

If the court grants Bondi’s request to unseal the Epstein grand jury transcripts, don’t expect a Hollywood-style exposé with names, photos, and smoking-gun confessions. Expect a dense, heavily redacted legal document—probably hundreds of pages long—filled with euphemisms, “Witness A”-style pseudonyms, and enough black ink to empty a toner cartridge.

Victims’ identities will be shielded, uncharged third parties will be scrubbed out, and any still-classified investigative details will vanish beneath thick redaction bars. But what does remain —timelines, charges, patterns, and unredacted narrative structure— could still paint a damning picture of what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how close they may have gotten to people the public has never been allowed to name.

Still, if the Epstein grand jury transcripts are unsealed, it would be one of the most explosive document releases in modern American legal history. If Epstein was killed to prevent the trial, releasing the Grand Jury report will give us the best look at what evidence would have surfaced in public. Presumably, it was evidence worth killing for.

In a way, this is Trump’s Revenge.

The DOJ renewed the Epstein investigation during Trump 1.0’s first year in office. They indicted the Financial Man of Mystery (at the Grand Jury) in 2019, and were preparing to try his case when Epstein died in federal custody, driving the whole thing into a graveyard ditch. Now, President Trump is ordering Pam Bondi to expose what was about to come out at trial in 2019, but had never gotten the chance.

And this probably wouldn’t have been politically possible, absent the Democrats’ recent demands for transparency while they were drunk on scandal momentum. Now, it’s bipartisan.

What about the court? The case now lands into the lap of an unlucky federal district judge, who will probably have to wade through tons of opposition. Lawyers for the victims will probably oppose release. Shady third parties will probably file sealed motions to at least scrub references to themselves. Each of these opposing motions is entitled to due process. Absent a miracle, expect the process to take weeks or even months.

The New York Times sneered that unsealing the grand jury transcripts isn’t the same as releasing “the whole Epstein file.” That’s technically true; but it’s also deeply misleading.

The Grand Jury testimony represents the best version of the case the DOJ believed it could prove, before Epstein’s death, before redactions, and without political caution. It’s the raw indictment pitch, presented to citizens in private, without spin or PR filter. Unlike rumors, anonymous leaks, or pages of potentially related or unrelated documents, grand jury material is presented under oath. The witnesses are sworn. The evidence is carefully cataloged. It’s all been formally curated by prosecutors.

Now we reach the most curious aspect of this developing ‘scandal.’ Some people have speculated that Biden’s DOJ invested its four years packing the Epstein file with misleading disinformation, or even manufactured evidence (like Birthday Scrapbooks nobody’d ever heard of), intentionally turning the full file into a politically useless powder keg of devastating ammunition aimed at Democrat enemies.

Let’s explore that notion a little further.

When Trump calls the Epstein scandal a “Democrat hoax” and “scam,” most people assume he’s gaslighting. But … what if he means something more tactical? Maybe Trump isn’t saying that Epstein didn’t commit crimes. Maybe he’s hinting that Democrats (and their deep state allies) weaponized the aftermath. Such as padding the FBI case file with misleading misinformation; creating just-plausible-enough “evidence” to entrap Trump or his allies; flooding the archive with innuendo, red herrings, and manufactured grotesqueries (like “bawdy letters” allegedly signed “Donald”); and intentionally making it too politically dangerous to release.

Maybe they aimed to put Trump in an impossible fix: either don’t release, and break his promises, or release, and get manufactured Epstein spooge all over himself and every other significant Republican. ...

Democrats had four long years to get ready. This theory would explain why Bondi first said, “I have the file”— and then said, “there’s nothing to see here.” Maybe she wasn’t backtracking. Maybe she was dodging the trap. She didn’t flip— she recognized a setup. ...

In other words, when Trump says Democrat hoax, maybe he means they sabotaged the file.

Did Bondi discover the Democrats had prepared a honeypot? They were aware of all the many promises made by Bondi, Kash, and Bongino to release the entire Epstein file. Did they prepare for it, by loading the file up with so many lies it would be impossible to untangle? Fine. We’ll pack it so full of so much scandalous crap that when it comes out, it destroys Trump’s people, not ours.

But Trump went sideways, and said, “we’re not releasing it.” It caused the Democrats to lose their marbles, turn on a dime, and suddenly start demanding it now! Hence the sudden surge of press coverage, calls from the left for “full transparency,” and suspiciously timed media grenades (like the mystery Birthday Scrapbook) that just happened to target Trump and no one else.

Unlike the bloated FBI archive, the grand jury transcript is court-sealed, time-locked (2019), prosecutor-curated, sworn and vetted, and immune to post-hoc deep-state meddling. It’s the version of the case built before Epstein’s death, before Biden’s DOJ, and before the cleanup crew arrived. It’s the last known account of the crimes as the Trump DOJ saw them.

When Democrats suddenly start demanding the release of the “full Epstein file” —after four years of DOJ silence, sealed records, and zero momentum— they mean they want their trap to spring. The last thing they want is for the grand jury file to be opened.

So Trump decided not to pry open the compromised FBI file, but the sealed courtroom vault. He outplayed them. ...

The Epstein case’s global scale, and its involvement with some of the world’s most well-known celebrities and top political figures, make it potentially the greatest scandal in human history. Nothing else comes close. Not Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, or even perhaps the Church Abuse Scandal. So it should surprise no one that the route to the truth looks like something from a “Family Circus” cartoon drawn by a schizophrenic whistleblower with an LSD-infused Sharpie.

https://www.kunstler.com/p/the-epstein-enigma

“Squad” stalwart Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) said the other day that she was “too busy” to delve into Epstein. Everybody else from Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to Jamie Raskin (D-MD) just barfed up word salad on MSNBC to excuse themselves for overlooking the matter. But since Mr. Trump affected to quash the whole psychodrama in the harshest tones, they’ve got all the time in the world to pore over Epstein docs. Well, maybe they’ll get what they asked for.

So, yesterday, the president ordered AG Bondi to release the grand jury testimony that has been under seal for years and years, and she has promised to do that today, Friday, July 18, subject to the court approval, meaning it could invite a months-long legal battle. Gawd knows what’s in there, but at least it was kept out of Christopher Wray’s clutches. So, it’s separate from the videos and other stuff alleged to be in the FBI possession. ...

The current state of the Epstein scandal looks a little like a ruse by Mr. Trump to hang his enemies out to dry and sell them the clothes-line to do it with. In all their garish attempts to get Trump, the Democrats have only ended up Wile E. Coyote’d every single time. Why would this round be any different?

I think this is different because there are powerfull, influential Democrats and Republicans (including those in business, banking, media, etc.) that would be exposed as pedophiles if, in particular, the VIDEO EVIDENCE were to be released. It would also expose Israel as a political blackmailer that used innocent children in order to achieve their political goals.

That’s why the FBI has been sitting on the video evidence for over six years and not one arrest or prosecution has taken place.

If that isn’t the case, then ask yourself why it is that not one person has been brought to justice?

https://www.ryandawson.org/p/epstein-lawsuits

Major Settlements in Lawsuits Related to Jeffrey Epstein
The total was over 807 million. With 4 people arrested 3 of whom are now dead.

Jeffrey Epstein was involved in numerous lawsuits related to allegations of sex trafficking, abuse, and financial enabling by institutions and individuals. These resulted in significant settlements paid by his estate, banks, and associates. Below is a table summarizing the key known settlements based on publicly reported figures. Note that some amounts are approximate (e.g., currency conversions), and not all settlements are directly to victims—some went to governments like the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) for victim support, anti-trafficking efforts, or legal fees. Undisclosed or minor individual settlements (e.g., Epstein's 2009 $500,000 payment to Virginia Giuffre) are not included here.

https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1944447673110548944

Up until 10 seconds ago there was unanimous agreement that Epstein was a pedophile and child sex trafficker with high profile clientele who all must be exposed and brought to justice. Now, out of the blue, we're being told that none of that is true and anyone who believes this thing that everyone believed is a whack job and a conspiracy theorist. This is the kind of shameless 180 degree unexplained pivot that leftists typically specialize in. Very weird to see it happening on the Right.
10:23 AM · Jul 13, 2025

4.4M Views

they also don’t want to talk about where his money came from. like all those intel ops, sudden injection of wealth no one can explain as he had no real businesses.

A few $hundred million in settlements for a hoax? Only in America!

AFAIK, jornos are protected from having to disclose the source if it can be obtained in any other way. Meaning it's enough to point to that scrapbook which, I presume, is sitting in some evidence locker somewhere. So all these lamentations about them not publishing the actual picture ring hollow. I predict in the end the line of defense will be "the book is fake and was manufactured by Hunter Biden", which is kinda what the author is steering towards already.

https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/jeffrey-epsteins-close-friend-told

I did not intend to spend another day trying to follow the Epstein-Trump-MSM-MAGA morality play, but I did.

Like a prisoner with a bowl of morning slop, I obligingly read about the alleged 50th birthday card from Trump to Epstein, reported in the WSJ, and read the words Trump either did or did not write. Next thing you know, I was trying to “understand,” what was “going on,” and what it all might mean.

To MSM, it was nothing short of the whale harpooning finale, almost with blood splashing onto screens.

Their amygdala driven excitations are more and more disturbing by the hour. Can’t they even feign being not quite so excited over a political kill? (It is the sum total of all previous kills thwarted—) ...

Exceptionally inscrutable and impossible to “understand” except as a form of neo-American Monarch mind control, in which you’re supposed to glean horror from a cryptic text the President may have written to his then “pal” Jeffrey Epstein 22 years ago.

But first, one would have to de-encrypt it, no?

It does not sound like Trump, but who knows? ...

The president denied writing the letter. When the Journal reached out to Trump for
comment, he said: "This is a fake thing. It's a fake Wall Street Journal story."
Shortly after the report was published Thursday evening, Trump threatened to sue...

There is actually one very interesting writer who scaled the mountain top on this story, whose name never comes up. He cracked the essence of the story, then sort of disappeared.

I remembered him today, and looked up the piece that left such an impression on me when I first read it years ago.

Leland Nally.

Nally called every single number (2,000—) in the “little black book,” (which held Epstein’s and Maxwell’s combined contacts) and one of the people who answered—Stuart Pivar—gave him a stunning, poignant, at time unintentionally funny yet also deeply tragic rant. ...

https://www.motherjones.com/author/leland-nally/

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/10/an-actual-conspiracy-kept-jeffrey-epsteins-accomplices-out-of-prison/

According to a ruling by US District Judge Kenneth Marra in February 2019, “from between about 1999 and 2007, Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than 30 minor girls…at his mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, and elsewhere in the United States and overseas.” The ruling goes on to describe a child sex ring: “In addition to his own sexual abuse of the victims, Epstein directed other persons to abuse the girls sexually. Epstein used paid employees to find and bring minor girls to him. Epstein worked in concert with others to obtain minors not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others.”

I think Trump or Bondi is now claiming that only Epstein abused all those girls, but a court found otherwise even back in 2019.

If there is one thing that would stop the Epstein news flow. it would be Obama getting indicted. -- See the "Crossfire Hurricane " OP

https://x.com/TRHLofficial/status/1945887395536081029

Interesting if real:

https://x.com/DionysianAgent/status/1944404184209424536

https://x.com/SomeBitchIIKnow/status/1944403031262482824

https://x.com/_Jase_C_/status/1944580147887124775

https://x.com/amuse/status/1675615707239677952

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell

Robert Maxwell led a flamboyant lifestyle, living in Headington Hill Hall in Oxford, from which he often flew in his helicopter, or sailing in his luxury yacht, the Lady Ghislaine, named after his daughter Ghislaine. Maxwell was litigious and often embroiled in controversy. In 1989, he had to sell successful businesses, including Pergamon Press, to cover some of his debts. In 1991, his body was discovered floating in the Atlantic Ocean, having apparently fallen overboard from his yacht. He was buried in Jerusalem.

Maxwell's death triggered the collapse of his publishing empire as banks called in loans. His sons briefly attempted to keep the business together, but failed as the news emerged that the elder Maxwell had embezzled hundreds of millions of pounds from his own companies' pension funds. The Maxwell companies applied for bankruptcy protection in 1992. After Maxwell's death, large discrepancies in his companies' finances were revealed, including his fraudulent misappropriation of the Mirror Group pension fund.[3]

https://www.mintpressnews.com/ari-ben-menashe-jeffrey-epstein-ghislaine-maxwell-israel-intelligence/262162/

For those who have examined Epstein’s ties to intelligence, there are clear links to both U.S. intelligence and Israeli intelligence, leaving it somewhat open to debate as to which country’s intelligence apparatus was closest to Epstein and most involved in his blackmail/sex-trafficking activities. A recent interview given by a former high-ranking official in Israeli military intelligence has claimed that Epstein’s sexual blackmail enterprise was an Israel intelligence operation run for the purpose of entrapping powerful individuals and politicians in the United States and abroad.

In an interview with Zev Shalev, former CBS News executive producer and award-winning investigative journalist for Narativ, the former senior executive for Israel’s Directorate of Military Intelligence, Ari Ben-Menashe, claimed not only to have met Jeffrey Epstein and his alleged madam, Ghislaine Maxwell, back in the 1980s, but that both Epstein and Maxwell were already working with Israeli intelligence during that time period.

In an interview last week with the independent outlet Narativ, Ben-Menashe, who himself was involved in Iran-Contra arms deals, told his interviewer Zev Shalev that he had been introduced to Jeffrey Epstein by Robert Maxwell in the mid-1980s while Maxwell’s and Ben-Menashe’s involvement with Iran-Contra was ongoing. Ben-Menashe did not specify the year he met Epstein.

Ben-Menashe told Shalev that “he [Maxwell] wanted us to accept him [Epstein] as part of our group …. I’m not denying that we were at the time a group that it was Nick Davies [Foreign Editor of the Maxwell-Owned Daily Mirror], it was Maxwell, it was myself and our team from Israel, we were doing what we were doing.” Past reporting by Seymour Hersh and others revealed that Maxwell, Davies and Ben-Menashe were involved in the transfer and sale of military equipment and weapons from Israel to Iran on behalf of Israeli intelligence during this time period.

He then added that Maxwell had stated during the introduction that “your Israeli bosses have already approved” of Epstein. Shalev later noted that Maxwell “had an extensive network in Israel at the time, which included [the later Prime Minister] Ariel Sharon, according to Ben-Menashe.”

Ben-Menashe went on to say that he had “met him [Epstein] a few times in Maxwell’s office, that was it.” He also said he was not aware of Epstein being involved in arms deals for anyone else he knew at the time, but that Maxwell wanted to involve Epstein in the arms transfer in which he, Davies and Ben-Menashe were engaged on Israel’s behalf. ...

After having been introduced to Epstein, Ben-Menashe claimed that neither he nor Davies were impressed with Epstein and considered him “not very competent.” He added that Ghislaine Maxwell had “fallen for” Epstein and that he believed that the romantic relationship between his daughter and Epstein led Robert Maxwell to work to bring the latter into the “family business” — i.e., Maxwell’s dealings with Israeli intelligence. This information is very revealing, given that the narrative, until now at least, has been that Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein did not meet and begin their relationship until after Robert Maxwell’s death in 1991, after which Ghislaine moved to New York.

Ben-Menashe says that well after the introduction, though again he does not specify what year, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein began a sexual blackmail operation with the purpose of extorting U.S. political and public figures on behalf of Israeli military intelligence. He stated:

In this case what really happened, my take on it, in the later thing, is that these guys were seen as agents. They weren’t really competent to do very much. And so they found a niche for themselves — blackmailing American and other political figures.”

He then confirmed, when prompted, that they were blackmailing Americans on behalf of Israeli intelligence. ...

In addition, when Shalev asked Ben-Menashe about the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Ben-Menashe stated “After a while, you know, what Mr. Epstein was doing was collecting intelligence on people in the United States. And so if you want to go to the U.S. if you’re a high-profile politician you want to know information about people.” Ben-Menashe subsequently stated that Barak was obtaining compromising information (i.e., blackmail) that Epstein had acquired on powerful people in the United States.