
Laughs in property tax…


Ghislaine Maxwell is used to being the woman of the hour. The 59-year-old British aristocrat was a fixture of the London and New York social scenes throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, rubbing shoulders and champagne flutes with an international cast of power players that included two US presidents and at least one prince. In her jet-setting, party-hopping days, she allegedly lived a double life as a groomer of girls, serving up underage victims to Jeffrey Epstein and the megawatt men who moved alongside him.
All eyes are again on Maxwell as her trial opens in Manhattan federal court, just steps from the lower Manhattan jail where Epstein was found dead in his cell two years ago. The charges against her for her role in Epstein’s decades-long international sex abuse ring include six counts related to child sex trafficking in the decade spanning 1994 to 2004, involving four girls — the youngest aged 14. The alleged crimes occurred at Epstein’s residences in Manhattan, Palm Beach, and New Mexico, as well as Maxwell’s London apartment.
Maxwell faces a separate trial, as yet unscheduled, for an additional two counts of perjury for statements she made in connection with a long-settled 2015 defamation suit against her. If convicted on all counts, Maxwell could face 80 years in prison. She has always denied any involvement in, or knowledge of, Epstein’s crimes, and pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Epstein’s death in federal custody in 2019 left Maxwell bearing the brunt of public outrage at the chronic mishandling of his sex crimes by law enforcement and the courts. Still, Maxwell’s time with Epstein raises many questions: If she did indeed assist in his crimes, what motivated her? Was she in love with him? Was she aiding and abetting him in exchange for financial support? Apparently, not even Maxwell can explain the nature of her partnership with Epstein. We know that they were lovers, and at one point she was managing his households. But when asked in a 2016 deposition if she was Epstein’s girlfriend, she responded, “That’s a tricky question. There were times when I would have liked to think of myself as his girlfriend.”
Contradictions abound. On the one hand, she is a wealthy, Parisian-born heiress with an Oxford education and an enviable black book. On the other hand, she is, like Epstein, a person “mysteriously made and mysteriously protected.”
So Maxwell goes to trial in Epstein’s stead. The challenge for her defense team will be to wash away that guilt by association — to sever her public image from Epstein’s. But Maxwell without the Epstein tinge is still a strange figure with a strange past. And a closer look at the woman of the hour brings up more questions than answers.


Theodore Postol is one of the world’s leading authorities on warfare and weaponry. A physicist with a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering, he is Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, and International Security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and a former top policy adviser to the chief of naval operations.
During a career full of honors, he received the Leo Szilard Prize from the American Physical Society for “incisive technical analysis of national security issues vital for informing the public policy debate”; the Hilliard Roderick Prize from the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the Norbert Wiener Award from Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility for “uncovering numerous and important false claims about missile defenses”; and the Richard L. Garwin Award from the Federation of American Scientists “that recognizes an individual who, through exceptional achievement in science and technology, has made an outstanding contribution toward the benefit of mankind.”
Professor Postol was also a senior editorial board member of the Princeton-based Science & Global Security journal for more than 30 years—until he quit in protest over the journal’s refusal to publish an article he wrote that embarrassed the CIA and the U.S. government.
The article provided incontrovertible evidence that the murderous April 4, 2017, sarin gas attack on Syrian civilians was not the work of the Assad government but a false-flag operation by U.S.-funded jihadists designed to make it look like Assad was to blame.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite and media heiress who became a confidante of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was later accused of aiding the billionaire pedophile in trafficking children, is going to trial today. She will now face allegations spanning the course of 25 years in federal court in Manhattan on everything from participating in underage sex to trafficking young girls.
The potential to expose elites connected to Maxwell and Epstein make this trial a possible pivotal moment in the movement to go after these people. However, as we’ve reported for years, every time it seems like this group of people may be exposed, people die, things get swept under the rug, or special treatment grants these predators a pass. The mainstream media, whether deliberate or not, also plays a role in keeping this information from you.
As one of the largest sex trafficking cases in history goes before the federal court, corporate media is bombarding us with news of the “Omicron Variant.”
In a comparison of Google News hits, “Omicron Variant” is receiving more than ten times the number of hits as “Ghislaine Maxwell.” This media blitz is in spite of the fact that the doctor who discovered it, who is a Covid-19 adviser to the South Africa government said that symptoms linked to the omicron coronavirus variant have been mild so far.

With Twitter founder Jack Dorsey stepping down as CEO, it was announced that Parag Agrawal – the company’s current Chief Technology Officer – will take over the leadership role.
Agrawal, concerningly, is a vocal opponent of free speech and the First Amendment, and has sent tweets about all white people being racist:
“If they are not gonna make a distinction between muslims and extremists, then why should I distinguish between white people and racists.”
— Parag Agrawal (@paraga) October 26, 2010
The Indian-born migrant has used his tenure as Twitter’s tech chief to lead research on how best to silence voices across the platform under the myth of “fake news” and dismiss the ideals America was founded upon, often quoting his favorite leftist celebrities.
The president’s plummeting popularity, especially among independents, reflects a growing realization among voters that Joe Biden is not the man they thought they had voted for.
There’s a good reason for their disenchantment. They were denied the normal due diligence the media is supposed to conduct on presidential candidates.
It’s been more than a year since The Post published the first of a series of damning stories about then-candidate Biden, based on material on his son Hunter’s abandoned laptop.
It’s been more than a year since Facebook and Twitter colluded with Democrat-friendly media to censor a story that reflected badly on their preferred candidate less than three weeks before the 2020 election.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey blithely admitted after the election that locking The Post’s account for two weeks on the basis of a non-existent “hacking” offense was a “mistake.”
Facebook has never revealed the results of the “fact-check” it used as a pretext for blocking The Post. It likely never occurred because Facebook never contacted key recipients of emails we published from the laptop.
You must be logged in to post a comment.