Friday, December 10, 2021


Ah yes, the curious mr Epstein.  Right up there with Mr Bernie Madoff as an obvious fraud in hte financial world which sometimes is too easy on live and let live mentality.

Understand that nothing is more connected than the money business. Anbd it is easy to get the resume of a purported insider by simply dropping down to a local watering hole and asking.  If that does not produce a trading resume, he does not exist.  I used to play folks.

Madoffs perfect result record was impossible and no traders gossiped.  Really?  Same drill with Epstein.  It was merely a convenient cover story and there was no path to a real source of commercial cash flow which yoy can find for all of them.  It is someones money but it certainly is not his.

I have identified my share of phonies in my time.  Most were not worth challenging and getting into it.  Called live and let live or for lawyers it is professional curtasy.  So yes, he was an obvious Asset or Cutout as this item makes clear..


December 2, 2021

 Eric Weinstein, Managing Director of Thiel Capital, talks about when he met Jeffrey Epstein and what his impression of him was at that time and the questions that are not being asked. This is from an interview Eric Weinstein did with David Fuller from the Rebel Wisdom Channel in April 2019.


ERIC WEINSTEIN: Alright, there is some glass wall that is preventing the Epstein story from being discussed properly. Everyone’s interested in it, the questions are basic and there’s a guaranteed story to write.

Simply ask the most basic questions of the officials involved and print whatever comes back. Whatever it is, there’s no possibility of an uninteresting answer to the central questions and yet, the central questions are not asked.

DAVID FULLER: And what are the central questions?

ERIC WEINSTEIN: The first one is very simple. You have to ask every government that might be involved: Was Jeffrey Epstein known to be attached to any intelligence agency, anywhere in the world?

Then you have to ask were his activities known to the intelligence agencies and was there any kind of tacit approval or understanding or is there a categorical denial that such techniques may never be used?

Now, we have not recorded the ‘No comments’ or ‘We don’t discuss sources and methods’. That’s typical in these stories, where you should be able to say, ‘Can I at least get a statement?’ that we would never condone such activities to be used for intelligence gathering purposes,

Alright. The next question: Jeffrey Epstein was supposed to be a hedge fund manager of some kind and he had extensive offices at a place called Villard House, the former Helmsley Palace. This trophy building is a place that I, myself dropped off materials for Jeffrey Epstein to review in connection to a hedge fund matter.

What I want to know is where are the trading records from the Villlard House? It would be almost impossible to go back in time and fake trading records for a billion dollar-plus hedge fund and yet, nobody seems to have ever recorded a trade with Jeffrey Epstein, we don’t know where he did prime brokerage, there are no financial records that explain his fortune.

Are those – should those – be publicly available. I don’t even care about that. Where are the records?

If there are no records, I mean, presumably, this person paid taxes. Presumably, this person had to make SEC filings. I don’t know, but the key issue is, I don’t think there was a hedge fund.

When I met Jeffrey Epstein, which might have been something like 2002, before he was charged with sex crimes violations in Florida, I did not believe that Jeffrey Epstein was a hedge fund manager and I, in fact called my wife at the time and I said, ‘This man appears to be a construct.’ And she said, ‘What do you mean by a construct?’ I said, ‘It’s like they’ve hired an actor to play a hedge fund manager.’

But this person didn’t behave like the super-rich normally behaved. He didn’t behave like a hedge fund manager behaves. He didn’t have any of the substance that you would normally associate with people of that class.

I’m not saying he wasn’t smart but he was glib and he lived essentially like he was Gatsby. I only met him once, probably for about an hour or so but he was an absolutely terrifying person to encounter.

It would be surprising to me if I was alone, in that I immediately had the suspicion that I was looking at somebody who had been constructed, rather than something that had organically arisen within the financial community.

Further questions that need to be asked: ‘Where was Ghislaine Maxwell’s passport last sighted?’

Assume that she has one or more passports and assume that governments record when passports go through a border point,

Okay. We should at least be able to ascertain where was the last point where her passports – or at least one of her passports – were officially seen? I don’t know of anybody asking this question.

Can we not call up Interpol? Is there no sense in which we can guess where she was last located? What was the last social event in which she was recorded? We don’t seem to know anything about this person.

Why are we not talking to Les Wexner? I don’t understand why these people are not being interviewed or deposed. We have a very strange situation and in all of these cases, a simple declaration of ‘No comment’ would be a newsworthy story.

DAVID FULLER: I mean, I’m hopeful. I mean, investigative journalism does take time. I’m hopeful there are, because I really –

ERIC WEINSTEIN: You’ve got to be kidding. I’m gonna shut you down on this. It’s been over six months. This doesn’t take that long, to get a ‘No comment’ from the CIA. ‘No comment’.

DAVID FULLER: I’m not talking about the no comment. My point was going to be, given the amount of interest in the Epstein story, there must be some investigative journalists working on it. I completely agree with your points about the ‘No comments’ like that being –

ERIC WEINSTEIN: I’m sorry. It’s not a question of some investigative journalists. We tripped over some enormous structure. We don’t know what this structure was. It doesn’t make any sense.

The fortune that I think I’ve seen reference to, something like $600 million. Who, with $600 million dollars would make these purchases, you know? Multiple jet aircrafts, private islands, you know, a townhouse on 71st Street in Manhattan, a huge complex in the New Mexico desert, property in Paris.

It would appear that most of this was intended for display. I mean, in other words, the behavior patterns of Jeffrey Epstein suggests an eleven-figure fortune, maybe high eleven-figure fortune. This person appears to be somewhere in the nine figures that’s two orders of magnitude off.

Now, I know that ‘very rich’ is ‘very rich’ to many people but you know, as a person of much much smaller means, I can tell you that if you hang around with people who are in this stratosphere, they behave very differently, depending upon which order of magnitude they’re at and Jeffrey Epstein was at the wrong order of magnitude. He was behaving like a high eleven-figure type guy, maybe with what appears to be a nine-figure fortune.

DAVID FULLER: Yeah, I mean my point on this is that I don’t know where the media interest is and it doesn’t add up, that there wouldn’t be media interest, given that the the huge desire for the story, that you can kind of see every time you log on.

ERIC WEINSTEIN: Anything. Any scrap is interesting to everybody.

DAVID FULLER: Yeah. especially given that we already know the links to someone like Prince Andrew, the British Royal Family. This is one of the biggest, potentially one biggest stories that has ever has ever happened.

ERIC WEINSTEIN: Let’s talk about the interview with Prince Andrew. What was that? Now, I cannot believe my ears, when very intelligent people watch that interview in its entirety and then say, ‘Well, he was unprepared’ or ‘It was a mistake to grant that interview.’

I think that that’s not true. I think we have no idea what that interview represented. I think that that interview was so bizarre and so clearly, it was almost like he was trolling the media who was asking him questions.

Was he forced to give an interview and he decided that he would rather go down with the ship and give the world’s worst interview? Was he realizing that he was completely trapped and that his best strategy was to make fun of the entire process by giving answers that were so implausible that no child would ever believe them?

Whatever that interview was, it was one of the most remarkable pieces of footage anybody has ever seen on television, bar none. To not be talking about this and say, ‘We do not know what that interview represented.’

What was a member of the British Royal Family – the Queen’s son – doing giving that interview? Was it in Buckingham Palace?

DAVID FULLER: Yes, I think it was.

ERIC WEINSTEIN: It was an insane event that happened, where nobody came to a conclusion that makes that make any sense. I’d rather leave the problem open. Who was forced to do what by whom, that that interview would ever be granted?

DAVID FULLER: Yeah. I can remember when it was first announced, having a sort of double take of like, ‘This is not good. This is not gonna go well.’ And then the actual interview happened.

ERIC WEINSTEIN: I think it went brilliantly. For us. It was effectively an admission that something is so off in the world, something that’s so completely bizarre that that thing would be produced.

That was some sort of internal conflict. I don’t know whether it was between the Queen and her son or the intelligence services or I don’t know what but it was it was sort of the sense that you have like almost a hostage video where the person has to behave so bizarrely as to send a message and the message I got is: ‘I’m going to lie. I’m going to fabricate. I’m going to say preposterous things in an effort to just put this to bed in the worst possible way.

Like, ‘I want you to all know never to ask me questions about this, because I’m simply gonna say the most outrageous and insane things that I can possibly think of.’

DAVID FULLER: I mean, as I said, I it didn’t twig at the beginning it sounded like a terrible idea but then, I guess I rationalized it by thinking he’s clearly got no self-awareness. Maybe he did think that he could clear his name.

ERIC WEINSTEIN: Nobody’s that dumb, David. Those questions were entirely expected and the answer is, if you look at the amount of twinkle in the eye – I mean, he’s clearly not a happy man but he’s saying absolutely ludicrous and preposterous things.

I think that the effect is exactly the reverse. If I had to speculate I really don’t want to I would say that this interview was given because an amount of pressure was put on a human being who decided that his life was effectively over, in most senses and this is the way he chose to go out, effectively making fun of the entire process.

DAVID FULLER: Yeah. But what’s really interesting is, I’m sort of aware, for example, the Royal Television Society Awards were two nights ago, the journalism awards and the Prince Andrew interview won Scoop of the Year and Interview of the Year, so it’s kind of been rationalized and I’ve seen people talk about how they got the interview. The News Night producer was trying hard and was on Buckingham Palace, which is kind of ludicrous; the idea that it was just the dedication of the journalist continuing to ask for an interview that made Prince Andrew say, ‘Okay, you’ve asked me so many times.’ I mean, that, in itself is kind of a ludicrous narrative but it is a narrative that I’ve seen the mainstream media kind of integrate that whole thing into, ‘Wow, this is an amazing scoop. You were dedicated and you got the story, which is which is kind of ludicrous, the idea that – so you see what I’m what I’m saying?

ERIC WEINSTEIN: I really don’t.

DAVID FULLER: What I’m saying is that it’s already been rationalized within the mainstream media, the reason that that interview happened was because they were so dedicated and they pursued Prince Andrew and they asked Buckingham Palace and eventually, they they conceded. They gave the interview, which is kind of ludicrous. I’m saying it’s ludicrous.

ERIC WEINSTEIN: Oh, it is ludicrous but I guess, I mean my expectation is that, even if the UK is no longer the world power it once was, I presume you still have adults with IQs over 70.

How could you possibly rationalize such a thing? I mean, we used to turn to you guys for intelligence and sophistication. This seems the height of folly. If I had that say this is much closer to a hostage video, where the hostage is attempting to send a message that is clearly not the ostensible message on video.

The really difficult part of the story, David is is that almost certainly, we’re talking about some kind of operation that was being run with the knowledge of governments, that may have involved pedophilia and was not shut down and what I can’t understand is what is it that is keeping some reporter from simply asking the questions that are on everybody’s mind?

Was this person connected to the intelligence services? Where was Ghislaine Maxwell’s passport last seen? Why are we not talking to Les Wexner? Where are the trading records? What is the source of the fortune?

Seems to me very clear that we have a missing fortune of Robert Maxwell and an unexplained fortune of Jeffrey Epstein. Are those the same fortune? Who’s asking these questions? Did everybody go to sleep when they taught journalism in school? I just don’t understand.

DAVID FULLER: I guess my sort of disconnect, as well is this sense of I worked in Channel 4 News. They had an investigative unit. These were the kind of bread-and-butter questions.

They pushed really hard, for example, on the phone hacking scandal in the UK. The Murdoch papers phone hacking scandal that also involved networks of power. It involved shady deals and involved corruption and they they pursued that quite intensely.

I’m feeling a sense of dislocation, because I agree with you, there are these questions that are not being asked and I find it difficult to understand why that is, knowing the public interest and knowing that these are questions have been asked in the past.

ERIC WEINSTEIN: Let me tell you what happened. People started asking those questions – and they stopped. And that’s what idea suppression is all about. ‘We don’t have the resources to pursue that right now.’

Well, actually, I’m concerned that this is starting to reek of conspiracy theory. I think, given the delicacies of the situation, I’m gonna need a lot more evidence before I give this thing the go-ahead.

These are the sorts of things that you say when you’re trying to shut down a line of inquiry and my guess is that whatever the story is it represents, some very powerful structure that we tripped over – and I tripped over that structure in 2002 and I was convinced at the time, before there was any knowledge about this Florida situation, that this was constructed.

I mean, we have a very famous case of a guy named Eli Cohen who was fitted with a backstory and became a playboy in Damascus and held orgies, if I understand correctly, where he collected information and leverage against people in the Syrian government.

If you take that situation, this looks remarkably similar. We’ve got a guy who was apparently a math teacher at a private high school and the next thing we know, he’s avoided jail in some sort of financial scandal and he suddenly set up as a mystery financier with connections to absolutely everyone in the top echelons of power.

Something doesn’t smell right about the story, given that nobody appears to have ever traded currencies with the guy who was apparently moving billions as a currency trader.

No comments: