If the corporate media doesn't get to the bottom of this then someone else will, it's just a matter of time. Everyone is so tired of being lied to by authority figures.
And it's a great letter. Of interest, it's extremely similar to Civil Disobedience which is a letter Thoreau wrote from jail, and of which King possessed a copy of at the time he wrote his own letter. Related, Gandi carried a copy of Civil Disobedience with him at all times. Thoreau's rejection of US taxing authority was far more influential than most realize, leading to cascading revolutions throughout the 20th century.
But you and I haven't dug deep enough to find it.
In theory this would be fine if we had a rigorous and well tested process for managing dangerous information, but the whole classification system has just been subverted to just hide whatever embarrasses the rich and powerful. It's an illegitimate farce.
If the example of Lee Harvey Oswald is anything to go by, your optimism might be misplaced..
If he had dirt on people would he not arrange so it would be sent out in case of his death? Especially if there was a failed murder attempt just weeks before?
And what stops the victims of naming names now? And what would have stopped Epstein of just not talking and just denying?
Considering the circumstances, if you received information from Epstein, what would you do with it? Even if you were brave enough to risk your life in the service of justice, what authority would you even send it to?
Have you seen Greenwalds thoughts on Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
I'm not sure they should still be on that list... Maybe, but there's some doubt. More about them than say Assange, for this purpose which is pretty weird and unexpected to think about.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/28/bob-wo...
https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/11/bob-woodward-sl...
Wherin Greenwald describes Woodward as follows:
"Bob Woodward is a servant-journalist for US government officials."
That's not pulling punches. Is it fair?
"Glenn Greenwald is a servant-journalist for Russian government officials."
with at least as much evidence:
https://arcdigital.media/why-are-internet-radicals-helping-p...
https://www.towleroad.com/2019/05/glenn-greenwald-russia/
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-m...
Is it fair? I mean calling a journalist an agent of the deep state for publishing leaks given to them is quite a leap... especially given that Greenwald is famous in large part for the same.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/22/hillar...
Never heard of towerload before, but wow, that article is comically terrible. Don't believe me? Here's a tweet from nobody making the same claim without evidence.
The arc digitial article (deliberately?) conflates all those idiots running around yelling "The President is a Russian spy!" and saying that is idiotic with not wanting Mueller's report at all as if those idiots were necessary for Mueller to perform his investigation and write a report.
So yeah, making the claim against Greewald. I'm going with "Not Fair" if that's the best evidence there is.
I've seen no credible evidence that Assange worked with russia fwiw (but the NYT article making the accusation had the silliest diagram I've ever seen in lieu of evidence - so silly it looked deliberately so - as a covert protest perhaps..? ymmv incompetence is the usual go to). If I saw some evidence I might well change my mind on that but I'm just not willing to see russians pulling strings without evidence. I believed WMD claims and I hope I learned /something/ from that error.
Quoting the actual content of Mueller's report. Yeah, I'm ok with that when reporting on it myself. Pointing out that Trump can be a horrible person and awful president without being a russian spy and that constant accusations of it are silly, counterproductive, a massive distraction from the duty of the fourth estate and just need to stop now so we can analyse reality is from the competent journalist playbook rather than a russian conspiracy IMHO.
The claim against Woodward has more legs because he gets top secret leaks and there's no investigation, there's no prosecution, there's no outrage and the stories he writes based on the leaks are anything but embarassing to the government. So I guess all that is at least consistent with what Greenwald is saying. I mean an article that embarasses the government based on leaks with woodward as author - that would be inconsistent and you'd have to address that to keep making the case at least. (well it's 1 this way and 5 the other or something - but I haven't seen the 1).
If I wanted to make a criticism of Glenn in the original context it is that he will use whatever you give him for maximum political impact in support of his political views (but will do so with integrity, eg Snowden is a republican and went to Glenn because of his integrity, also Barton Gelmann and deliberately avoided the NYT for burying stories which should have sent alarm bells ringing loud there, I wonder if it did). Is that political impact according to Glenn what you want? But I guess if what you want released embarasses the government, Woodward hasn't got much form since Watergate..?
So I would send the entirety of the information to every newsroom that could receive it, then pray that I: A) was not the only initial recipient of the Epstein drop and B) that the information I received doesn't contain any content that could be uniquely identified to me.
Afterwards I would sit down and have a long think about how my life got to the point where Epstein is communicating with me personally.
Well, you could send it to various foreign news outlets. I'm sure RT would love it.
> would he not arrange so it would be sent out in case of his death?
Not being able to do that while in high-security confinment.
> And what stops the victims of naming names now?
Not wanting to die.
> what would have stopped Epstein of just not talking and just denying?
The only way to be sure he would not talk is to definitely prevent him from talking.
Now I'm not saying the murder hypothesis is the correct one, but it still holds water IMHO.
It basically says, "Yeah you can be put on 24/7 security, in a prison cell watched by rotating armed guards and we will still find a way to disable the cameras, get the guards away from you cell, and murder you."
I assume that recording that nothing happened could be as easy as put a number over a different door, (or pick the equivalent door in a different floor), record for a while, stop, remove the number tag, and swap the records.
We could ask the smartest team of architects in the planet to design the most secure jail in the planet and then put idiots at charge. The security of the jail will vanish in a poof of "I couldn't care less about replacing this broken bulb"
Did the people who design the prison also work there as security guards? Is that what you're asking?
> We could ask the smartest team of architects in the planet to design the most secure jail in the planet and then put idiots at charge. The security of the jail will vanish in a poof of "I couldn't care less about replacing this broken bulb"
What does this have to do with what you wrote? This actually sounds that you're arguing that it most likely was a suicide if everyone was so inept. Let me ask, how many times did something like this happen before, do you think, in the last 40 years or so?
The relevant text:
At least one camera in the hallway outside the cell where authorities say registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein hanged himself earlier this month had footage that is unusable, although other, clearer footage was captured in the area, according to three people briefed on the evidence gathered earlier this month
Why would he not be able to do that? He had access to his lawyer, right? Or why would he not be even more upfront and straight up tell the prosecution that someone tried to kill him and that he would spill everything for protection?
The Epstein case could still be pursued. But when the government disposes of the star witness, the average person quite reasonably tends to doubt the state is going to give satisfaction, plus the media-driving focus of attention is gone.
It makes absolutely no difference.
The only thing they had to do was to keep him alive, and given his health, it was not a hard thing to do. If there were no benefactors, it would've been criminal incompetence. As it stands, incompetence is as likely as if he got killed by an anvil falling from the sky.
To paraphrase: it's as if I gave you a new iPhone to keep for a day, and you returned empty-handed and told me someone stole it from you... because you left it on the edge of the platform at a NYC subway station for the night and (surprise!) it wasn't there in the morning!
In this scenario, it makes no difference whether your friend took it, someone else took it, or it got knocked onto the tracks by accident. What matters is that you ensured that I don't have my phone back.
And that's what happened in the Epstein case. His keepers facilitated his death. The exact manner is irrelevant.
The model who exposed Silvio Berlusconi's rape of her and the "bunga-banga" parties was poisoned with polonium.
A guard got blackmailed or something.
Your vague “internal job” accusation is no exception to this.
https://soundcloud.com/trueanonpod
Plenty of crackpot theories abound of course, but the hosts here try to piece things together that are based in fact to get a more plausible understanding of the course of events.
I see very little sign of this. On the contrary, basically anywhere I look I see nothing but rabid enthusiasm for the latest Russia boogeyman story, and utter disdain for any idea that things may not be quite as we're told by the government and media.
I suspect the only reason there happens to be any interest in this story is that it involves children. Considering how relatively carefree the public seems to be on this story, when usually any story involving children and sex results in widespread hysteria and disgust, I think whoever is behind the memory holing of this story is probably feeling pretty comfortable with their ability to control people's perception of reality.