Ghislaine Maxwell Says Lady Rothschild Introduced Prince Andrew to Jeffrey Epstein – Philanthropist Also Introduced Disgraced Financier to Alan Dershowitz and Bill Clinton

The two-day interview of Ghislaine Maxwell with the DOJ continues generating headlines.

After the complete audio recordings and transcriptions of the interviews have been released, many nuggets of information have called the attention of the press and the public, including the relationship between the late convicted sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein and a world-famous British-American philanthropist.

During questioning by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Ghislaine Maxwell denied introducing Prince Andrew to Jeffrey Epstein, and said the two of them met for the first time at the holiday home Lady Lynn Forrester de Rothschild.

The Telegraph reported:

“’First of all, let’s just state, I did not introduce him [Epstein] to Prince Andrew. I did not introduce him to Prince Andrew or to Sarah Ferguson. That is a flat untruth. I’ll start with that’, Maxwell said over nine hours of interviews over two days in July.”

Lady de Rothschild was born in New Jersey, and is a telecommunications businesswoman turned investor, today chairing EL Rothschild, a wealth management firm which has The Economist Group in its portfolio.

“’She had a house or she rented a house in the Vineyard. I think it was in the Vineyard or Nantucket, I can’t remember now which one it was’, Maxwell told Todd Blanche, deputy attorney-general and a former personal lawyer for Donald Trump.

‘It was one of those. It was either in Nantucket or the Vineyard, and invited Epstein to go, and I believe that’s when he met Prince Andrew’.”

Keep reading

Ghislaine Maxwell Says She Does NOT Believe Epstein Committed Suicide in DOJ Interview

In newly released transcripts from Ghislaine Maxwell’s interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Ghislaine Maxwell was revealed to not believe the narrative that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide.

Still, she stated that she doesn’t believe somebody “murdered to keep him quiet or because he had information on rich and powerful people.”

“I also think it’s ludicrous, because… they would’ve had of opportunity when he wasn’t in jail,” She said. “And if they were worried about blackmail or anything from him, he would’ve been a very easy target.”

However, when asked, “if you don’t believe that there’s any truth to the allegations of blackmail or that he had kind of a list, or that he had reasons to have people hate him, why would somebody kill him in prison?” Maxwell initially avoided the question. “In prison, where I am, they will kill you or they will pay — somebody can pay a prisoner to kill you for $25 worth of commissary. That’s about the going rate for a hit with a lock today,” she said.

She later stated, “of course it’s possible” that somebody outside of the prison ordered his murder, “but I don’t know of any reason why.”

The official government line is that Epstein killed himself in a facility known for its stringent security measures, while the guards failed to do mandatory checks on Epstein. The guards were also asleep, falsified records to cover their negligence, and the cameras were reportedly not working.

The New York City medical examiner concluded that Epstein died by suicide via hanging. As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, however, Dr. Michael Baden, a renowned forensic pathologist hired by Epstein’s family, observed the autopsy and noted injuries more consistent with homicidal strangulation, including fractures of the hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage. Patel also dismissed this evidence, saying he’d never seen it!

Keep reading

The truth about the Epstein saga and why puerile partisan perspectives perpetually miss the point

The public loves a villain. It gives us somewhere to point the finger, someone to shake our fists at, a name to pin to the dartboard. In the case of Jeffrey Epstein, half the country threw darts at Bill Clinton’s face, the other half at Donald Trump’s. And in doing so, both sides managed the remarkable feat of being right and wrong at the same time.

Because Epstein wasn’t a Democrat scandal or a Republican scandal. He was an intelligence scandal. And if there’s one thing the intelligence community does better than spycraft, it’s convincing the public that their worst behaviour is an isolated incident.

The reality is that Epstein’s CV reads less like “rogue billionaire” and more like “contract HUMINT officer”. HUMINT—human intelligence—is the art of acquiring sensitive information by exploiting human beings, and it’s as old as espionage itself. In the old days, that meant cultivating an “asset” through ideology, bribery, ego, or, when necessary, a little creative embarrassment. Blackmail was not an aberration; it was the business model.

The 1st Bush administration’s seduction of a senior Saddam Hussein insider in the run-up to the Gulf War is a perfect example. This is still not public knowledge, but a source that previously worked with special clearance gleefully recalled the tale, pleased it was such a “successful op”. The chosen target? The general’s own niece, who enthusiastically agreed to seduce her own uncle in exchange for an Ivy League education and a U.S. passport. She didn’t consider herself a victim. They convinced her this was just a wise and fairly standard price to pay if you wish to become upwardly mobile. When your workplace normalises such trades, you stop seeing the moral lines at all. Plus, incest is rarely frowned upon in elite circles; the Rothschilds even brag about their inbreeding so as not to “pollute” the bloodline.

This dark manipulation is hardly unique to the Americans. The KGB’s “sparrow schools” in the Cold War trained operatives — male and female — in the art of seduction, teaching everything from body language to pillow talk as tradecraft. East Germany’s Stasi infiltrated West German politics with so many “Romeo spies” that entire ministries were quietly compromised over candlelit dinners. The British, not to be outdone, ran “Operation Mincemeat” in WWII — feeding the Germans fake invasion plans via the corpse of a man dressed as a Royal Marine, complete with love letters from an invented fiancée to make the ruse more believable. The detail wasn’t just for flair; HUMINT works because it feels real.

Sometimes, the tools were even cruder. In the 1980s, the CIA quietly ran “compromising photograph” operations in multiple foreign capitals, sending attractive case officers or recruited locals to seduce embassy officials, then arranging for conveniently timed “hotel room maintenance” or “accidental” walk-ins by an agent with a camera. The resulting images, often staged to look far more salacious than reality, could keep an official compliant for years — no need to prove the indiscretion, just to make it plausible enough to ruin a career. In the game of kompromat, perception is currency.

Organised crime played the game too. The mid-20th-century alliance between the CIA and the Italian-American mafia was a perfect marriage of convenience. The mob controlled unions, docks, and gambling networks; the Agency controlled passports, prosecutions, and political pressure. Together they ran extortion schemes, some sexual, some financial, with a reach that extended from Havana nightclubs to Las Vegas casinos. When your “asset” already runs a blackmail racket, plugging them into HUMINT operations is practically turnkey.

Since the 1960s, if not beforehand, Israeli intelligence reportedly ran sexual blackmail operations in the United States targeting powerful figures tied to Middle East policy. Some accounts detail elaborate “honey traps” involving call girls, hidden cameras, and luxury apartments — the exact contours of the more famous Epstein operation that evolved from the same murky playbook. This isn’t conspiracy theory territory; former Mossad officials have openly acknowledged that sexual kompromat has been a “standard tool” in their kit. If Epstein’s Rolodex felt oddly international, this is why.

Epstein’s assignment was simply higher-end. Rather than seducing Ba’athist bureaucrats, he was hosting heads of state, royalty, and titans of finance in a world where everyone smiles for the cameras and everyone knows where the bodies are buried — because they helped plant them. His address book wasn’t a little black book; it was a nuclear deterrent.

Whitney Webb’s research makes this plain: Epstein was “middle management” in a sprawling transnational blackmail apparatus. His ties to billionaire Leslie Wexner gave him both funding and cover. His friendship with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and even financial connections brushing up against Benjamin Netanyahu, linked him to networks with decades of kompromat experience. Robert Maxwell — Ghislaine’s father and an asset of Israeli military intelligence — had been playing the same game back in the 1980s, helping shuffle secrets through the Iran-Contra affair. Epstein’s methods weren’t innovative; they were inherited.

Keep reading

Jeffrey Epstein committed his first crime in the U.K. and it involved a bizarre deadly weapon

Jeffrey Epstein once admitted being convicted of a bizarre crime involving possession of an offensive weapon in the U.K.

The late disgraced billionaire revealed under oath that he was convicted of having a sword disguised as a walking cane, a device known as a ‘swordstick.’

It is unclear what Epstein’s punishment was for the crime, which happened decades ago, but records show a man later convicted of the same offense received a suspended jail sentence.

The incident, according to Epstein himself, resulted in his first criminal conviction, long before he admitted soliciting a minor in 2008, and was then charged with sex trafficking of minors in 2019.

Epstein spoke about the peculiar episode during a sworn deposition in a separate financial investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in New York in 1981.

According to a transcript of that deposition he was asked if he had ever been convicted of a crime, and replied: ‘I’ve been convicted of a crime in Great Britain at one point…I don’t believe it’s…no (U.S.) federal jurisdiction.’

He was then asked by an SEC lawyer: ‘Do you know offhand if it’s a felony or a misdemeanor?’

Epstein responded: ‘No I don’t.’

The lawyer went on: ‘What did it concern? What was the allegation and what was the conviction?’

Epstein said: ‘The allegation was I bought an antique swordstick and they said that could not be carried in the country, it had to be shipped out.’

Keep reading

Judge Refuses To Release Epstein Files, Says DOJ Should Do It Instead Of Legal ‘Diversion’

A Clinton-appointed federal judge on Wednesday denied the Trump administration’s request to unseal grand jury materials used to charge Jeffrey Epstein with sex trafficking, and instead said that the federal government is the ‘logical party’ to dump said ‘files.’

The information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts pales in comparison to the Epstein investigation information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice,” US District Judge Richard Berman wrote in a 14-page ruling, in which he said there is “clear precedent and sound purpose” for keeping the records under seal – and that the DOJ failed to show the Epstein papers demonstrate a “special circumstance” which would justify their release. 

You do it…

According to Berman, the government has already conducted a comprehensive investigation into Epstein, and has assembled a “trove” of documents, interviews and exhibits. In fact, the government has such a mountain of evidence outside of that case – records which “dwarf” the “70 odd pages” of grand jury materials, that Berman cited it as a “significant and compelling reason” to reject the request. 

The Government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein Files,” wrote Berman, adding “By comparison, the instant grand jury motion appears to be a ‘diversion’ from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government’s possession.”

Berman’s ruling is the latest in a saga pitting Trump – a former Epstein associate whose previous AG Bill Barr ‘presided’ over the death of the disgraced pedophile. Barr’s father, who wrote pedo-centric short stories – hired Epstein to teach children at the Dalton school in the early 1970s when Barr Senior was headmaster. 

Keep reading

House Oversight Committee to Make Epstein Files Public After Issuing Subpoena to DOJ

The House Oversight Committee will release some documents pertaining to the Jeffrey Epstein case later this week, after it issued a subpoena to the Department of Justice (DOJ) on August 5.

“The committee expects to receive the documents later this week after issuing a subpoena in August to the department for records related to Epstein,” CBS News noted.

The subpoena follows the Justice Department declaring in an internal review released in July that convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein had no “client list,” adding that investigators discovered no evidence of him blackmailing high-profile elites.

A spokesperson for the House Oversight Committee said that files will be released after reviews and redactions are made.

“The Committee intends to make the records public after thorough review to ensure all victims’ identification and child sexual abuse material are redacted,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “The Committee will also consult with the DOJ to ensure any documents released do not negatively impact ongoing criminal cases and investigations.”

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said on Monday that the Department of Justice has been cooperating with the subpoena.

Keep reading

DOJ to begin turning over Epstein docs to Oversight panel Friday: Comer

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee announced Monday it expects to begin receiving files related to Jeffrey Epstein from the Department of Justice (DOJ) by the end of the week. 

“Officials with the Department of Justice have informed us that the Department will begin to provide Epstein-related records to the Oversight Committee this week on Friday. There are many records in DOJ’s custody, and it will take the Department time to produce all the records and ensure the identification of victims and any child sexual abuse material are redacted,” Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said in a statement. 

“I appreciate the Trump Administration’s commitment to transparency and efforts to provide the American people with information about this matter.”

The plans spurred pushback from the panel’s Democrats, who said the DOJ was failing to fully comply by not meeting the original deadline and supplying all documents. 

The panel, on a bipartisan basis, subpoenaed the Justice Department for files related to the deceased financier who was awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges when he died by suicide. 

The motion last month from Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) called for the “full, complete, unredacted Epstein files to be delivered concurrently to the majority and minority.”

Comer’s announcement Monday came the same day that former Attorney General Bill Barr was deposed by the Oversight panel on the Epstein matter, the first in a series of scheduled interviews. 

Rep. Robert Garcia (Calif.), the top Democrat on the panel, said after the deposition that Democrats would require all requested records from the DOJ. 

“The most critical thing the House Oversight Committee needs for its investigation is the full, complete, and unredacted Epstein files, as well as any ‘client list,’” he said. 

“The bipartisan Oversight Committee subpoena requires these documents by tomorrow, and if the committee does not receive the files, it will be clear the Trump Epstein Coverup continues.”

Republican Reps. Nancy Mace (S.C.), Scott Perry (Pa.) and Brian Jack (Ga.) joined Democrats in approving the request in July. 

Keep reading

Oversight Chair: Bill Clinton Is “Prime Suspect” In Epstein Investigation

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer has named Bill Clinton as the number one suspect in the committee’s ongoing investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein saga.

Appearing on Newsmax, Comer urged that he will seek explanations for why Clinton visited the infamous Little St James island and flew on Epstein’s jet so frequently. 

Host Rob Finnerty remarked “The American people want to know what happened on Epstein Island. I’m not going to drop this topic,” adding “You’ve subpoenaed Bill Clinton. He’s going to fight you tooth and nail with the best lawyers in the country, in some cases. Do you think Bill Clinton ever actually testifies? I think his date is—what—October 12th?

“Yes. I think we have a very good chance at this. I’ve never lost a subpoena battle,” Comer responded.

“I’ve been chairman of that committee for a year and a half. This is the most challenging subpoena I’ve ever issued,” he added.

“But what makes this subpoena different is that the Democrats voted with Republicans. This is a bipartisan, congressionally approved subpoena, and I think that will hold a lot of weight in court,” Comer contiuned.

“You’re absolutely right—he’s going to have the best lawyers in America fighting us tooth and toenail on this,” Comer emphasised.

“But the fact that this was voted on by Republicans and Democrats—because we’re hearing from our constituents—means everybody in America wants to know what went on at Epstein Island,” he further urged.

“We’ve all heard reports that Bill Clinton was a frequent visitor there. He’s a prime suspect to be deposed by the House Oversight,” Comer concluded, adding “Hopefully, we’ll win that court battle with that subpoena and see President Clinton in October.”

Keep reading

CNN Data Analyst Harry Enten Says Epstein Story Has Become a Political ‘Nothingburger’

For a few weeks now, Democrats have been obsessing on the Epstein story, a topic that they had no interest in until the moment they thought it could be used as a political weapon against Trump.

The air is already leaking out of the issue, however.

CNN data analyst Harry Enten noted today that interest in the issue is way down. He even called it a political nothingburger.

From the Independent, via Yahoo News:

Epstein story has become a ‘nothingburger,’ data expert says

Weeks after being flabbergasted over the amount of interest the American public was showing in Jeffrey Epstein and the Trump administration’s botched handling of the investigation into the deceased sex offender, CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten now claims the issue is “quickly becoming something of a nothingburger.”

Vice President JD Vance unwittingly sparked a new wave of calls to release the so-called “Epstein Files” when he attempted to mock Democrats “who are now all of a sudden so interested” in the case during a Sunday interview with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo…

“I would say that this is, from at least a political point of view, quickly turning into a dud of a story,” Enten said on CNN News Central, causing anchor Kate Bolduan to remark how “wild” it was that interest had fallen off.

“Take a look here. Google searches for Epstein down 89 percent versus just three weeks ago. Falling through the floor,” an animated Ented exclaimed. “It is no longer the top term searched alongside Donald Trump‘s name – that‘s been trading off between tariffs and Vladimir Putin, with obviously the meeting coming up later this week.”

He added: “But at this particular point, the American people‘s interest in this story – it‘s quickly becoming something of a nothingburger!”

Keep reading

Judge Says Don’t Unseal Epstein Grand Jury’s Transcripts

Transcripts of grand jury testimony that led to sex trafficking charges against Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime confidante Ghislaine Maxwell shouldn’t be released, a judge ruled Monday in a stinging decision suggesting the Trump administration’s real motive for wanting them unsealed was to fool the public with an “illusion” of transparency.

U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer said in a written decision that federal law seldom allows the release of grand jury materials and that making the documents public casually was a bad idea.

The judge also belittled the Department of Justice’s argument that releasing grand jury materials might reveal new information about Epstein’s and Maxwell’s crimes, calling that premise “demonstrably false.”

The decision was a blow to President Donald Trump, who had called for the release of transcripts as he seeks to dispel rumors and quell criticism about his long ago involvement with Epstein, who killed himself in jail in 2019.

Trump campaigned on a promise to release files related to Epstein, but was met with criticism — including from many of his own supporters — when the small number of records released by his Justice Department lacked any real bombshells.

In his ruling, Engelmayer wrote that after privately reviewing the grand jury transcripts, anyone familiar with the evidence from Maxwell’s 2021 sex trafficking trial would “learn next to nothing new” and “would come away feeling disappointed and misled.”

“The materials do not identify any person other than Epstein and Maxwell as having had sexual contact with a minor. They do not discuss or identify any client of Epstein’s or Maxwell’s. They do not reveal any heretofore unknown means or methods of Epstein’s or Maxwell’s crimes,” Engelmayer said.

He said the materials also don’t reveal new locations where crimes occurred, new sources of Maxwell and Epstein’s wealth, the circumstances of Epstein’s death or the path of the government investigation.

The best argument to release the transcripts might be that “doing so would expose as disingenuous the Government’s public explanations for moving to unseal,” Engelmayer wrote.

Keep reading