XPost: alt.politics.republicans, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics
XPost: talk.politics.guns, talk.politics.misc

Holy chandeliers of shame, Batman. I predict a brand new social media
wildfire today, arising from the New York Times’ top-of-page story this morning, headlined, “New Photos of Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan Townhouse.” (Note: I pasted it as a gift link, so you might get past the paywall.) It
was the largest Epstein disclosure since 2019, and it included more
pictures than we have ever seen. Get ready. Remember— the last development
was Ghislaine Maxwell’s chatty Kathy interview and her relocation to Club
Fed.

That, my friends, is a photo of the artwork decorating the entry of
Epstein’s Manhattan home, where he lived next door to Woody Allen, and
where he met with loads of elites, celebrities, world leaders, and girls
aged 14-17. The “sculpture,” if you can call it that, was called simply,
“the bride.”

That wasn’t the weirdest part. “Dozens of framed prosthetic eyeballs lined
the entryway,” the Times drily reported. (But no pictures of the eyeballs, which is weirdly ironic, almost as weird as the frame prosthetics
themselves.) It was a twisted joke. You are always being watched.

The article included picture after picture identifying the locations of
hidden cameras in various rooms. Here’s one example, from Epstein’s master bedroom:

Epstein’s place was decorated with pictures of himself with various public figures. Presumably, this was to psychologically reinforce his power and influence for new visitors. Each new visitor (or victim) became another pictorial trophy added to Epstein’s collection. Here’s one example of
many:

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!fjBI!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto :good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post- media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F11e03638-4f32-4b7f-93ce- b6de9ea71529_1360x659.png

The Times used a helpful multi-media infographic technique to aid readers
in identifying the people in the various pictures. Here’s a framed dollar
bill, signed by Bill Gates, saying “I was wrong:”

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!qdQK!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto :good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post- media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F02bfd8fe-af93-4db8-b2c7- 9f1d320bbce2_1354x515.png

The collection of framed snapshots included never-before-seen (or rarely published) images of the serial rapist with people like: Pope John Paul
II, Elon Musk, Fidel Castro, Larry Summers, Bill Clinton, Richard Branson, Mohammed Bin Salman, and Mick Jagger.

One of the most damning disclosures was the article’s report of a signed first-edition copy of Nabokov’s pedophile novel Lolita, preserved in a
pristine condition on a wooden sideboard in Epstein’s office. (Also not pictured.)

One of the most remarkable disclosures wasn’t a photo from Epstein’s
townhouse at all, but a letter from Epstein’s Birthday Book, written by
his next door neighbor, Woody Allen. Here it is in full:

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!rBtV!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto :good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post- media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F2801b1a8-c0b8-4a0b-b735- 56d2c642f375_600x793.png

The most bizarre and darkly troubling element from Allen’s letter was its comparison of Epstein’s luxury townhouse to Castle Dracula: “well served
by several young women remding (sic) one of Castle Dracula where Lugosi
has three young female vampires who service the place.”

It was a strange compliment. The reference evokes unwholesome images of a dangerous, malevolent host (Dracula), morally ambiguous attendants
(Dracula’s “brides”—see entryway sculpture), and an ambience of
choreographed submission and control. Essentially, Allen was saying “This
place feels like it’s run by a monster who keeps beautiful women in a
trance.”

Let us not forget— Woody Allen should know. Not only was he right there,
but the director had a long, controversial history involving inappropriate relationships, including with women decades younger, and in one notorious
case, his own legally adopted stepdaughter. Allen’s public persona is
built around neurotic self-awareness— the kind of man who always knows the subtext and wants you to know he knows it too.

(Note: The Times brought up Trump’s alleged “naked woman” doodle, but —to
avoid liability— also mentioned Trump has denied it, and has sued the Wall Street Journal for defamation. No Trump letter appeared in the article.)

Now that you have an idea how sensational the imagery was, let’s dismantle
the story.

Consider this: in a story about never-before-seen photos from the inside
of a federal crime scene, with high-resolution images of one of the most politically and culturally explosive narratives going, the Times never
once said where the photos came from.

They didn’t say, “obtained through court records,” “forwarded by a source
close to the investigation,” or “provided by an official under condition
of anonymity.” They didn’t say anything about the source of the new
images. Nada. Bupkis.

Nor did the article explain why the photos were being released now. Or
where they’ve been since 2019. Or why nobody’s seen them before. Journalistically speaking, the absence of sourcing and timing is highly irregular, to say the least.

So that was the first revealing omission. But there’s more.

Next, the Times pointed out the cameras, the bedrooms, the massage rooms,
the cascades of elite visitors, and the network of “young female
assistants”— but never once directly connected those dots to the most
obvious, long-standing suspicion surrounding Epstein: That the townhouse
was a surveillance trap, designed to record blackmail material on the
world’s most powerful men.

They stopped, inches from the edge of the narrative cliff, and then just wandered away. They didn’t find a community college “expert” to quote or
even generally reference speculation about Epstein’s house being a
kompromat factory.

It’s not like the article was afraid to ask hard questions. But it limited
them to one short paragraph:

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!E9Bj!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto :good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post- media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F1cd71570-cfc0-4fa7-ae93- 1f26298754a6_1358x294.png

Finally, and the biggest admission of all: the Times pointed at but never mentioned all the potential witnesses. The article described dozens or
hundreds of staff and visitors, but never speculated about their value to
an investigation. It pointed out all the cameras, but never mused about
who installed and maintained them. Or where the videos went.

The Times showed us the cameras. They showed us the rooms. They showed us
the guests. But they never asked the only questions that matter: If the
house was wired —and it clearly was— then where are the recordings? Where
are the hard drives? Who had access? Who took custody? Where are they now?

Related: A fulsome 2019 Times story openly discussed a blackmail
operation, but said no cameras were found in Epstein’s lair (now
contradicted by yesterday’s story). But the entire long article, quoting multiple witnesses including Epstein himself (“we keep everything”), acted
like it was settled that the video archive was real and existed.

Which brings us right back around to the beginning of the controversy. To
the honeypot.

Pam Bondi essentially said the videos were missing. Here’s why I assume
that: Pam did say that all the FBI has now are thousands of hours of
disgusting child porn downloaded from the Internet. That obviously isn’t
the Epstein surveillance video. In other words, somebody took the video
and left behind a revolting “F-U” for Trump’s DOJ to find.

President Trump called it a DEMOCRAT SCAM. In all caps.

Specifically, Bondi said: “The videos of children — we are told — was just child pornography that Epstein downloaded off the internet.” We. Are.
Told. Told by whom?? By Biden’s FBI agents from SDNY who held the Epstein
file? Those three words are the key that unlocks where we are now.

In hindsight, when Bondi said “we are told,” it now seems clear that she
was signaling. It’s like saying “allegedly.” She was telling us, “I don’t believe it,” without saying, “I don’t believe it.” She’s the Attorney
General— she can’t start wildly accusing FBI agents of orchestrating a
cover-up without evidence. And they know it. That would just make her look deranged and non-credible.

Combined with these new unsourced Times disclosures, it looks even more
like the Epstein evidence was manipulated by Democrats between 2021-2024,
to create a new RussiaGate-style scandal-on-demand, this one engineered to derail Trump 2.0, smear his allies, and demoralize MAGA.

Let me know if we need to recap the honeypot theory. I’ll be happy to
round it up again, since the Democrats are feverishly trying to gin up a scandal to destroy everything good. Again.

https://floppingaces.net/most-wanted/the-epstein-files-sat-in-democrat- hands-for-3-years-now-the-tapes-are-gone-and-all-they-found-was- downloaded-porn/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)