Friday, December 13, 2019

REPOST: Mueller Indictment - The "Russian Influence" Is A Commercial Marketing Scheme

A Russian influencer

Yesterday (February 16, 2018 ) the U.S. Justice Department indicted the Russian Internet Research Agency on some dubious legal grounds. It covers thirteen Russian people and three Russian legal entities. The main count of the indictment is an alleged "Conspiracy to Defraud the United States".

The published indictment gives support to our long held believe that there was no "Russian influence" campaign during the U.S. election. What is described and denounced as such was instead a commercial marketing scheme which ran click-bait websites to generate advertisement revenue and created online crowds around virtual persona to promote whatever its commercial customers wanted to promote. The size of the operation was tiny when compared to the hundreds of millions in campaign expenditures. It had no influence on the election outcome.

The indictment is fodder for the public to prove that the Mueller investigation is "doing something".

It distracts from further questioning  the origin of the Steele dossier. It is full of unproven assertions and assumptions. It is a sham in that none of the Russian persons or companies indicted will ever come in front of a U.S. court. That is bad because the indictment is build on the theory of a new crime which, unless a court throws it out, can be used to incriminate other people in other cases and might even apply to this blog. The later part of this post will refer to that.

In the early 1990s some dude in St.Petersburg made a good business selling hot dogs. He opened a colorful restaurant. Local celebrities and politicians were invited to gain notoriety while the restaurant served cheap food for too high prices. It was a good business. A few years later he moved to Moscow and gained contracts to cater to schools and to the military. The food he served was still substandard.

But catering bad food as school lunches gave him, by chance, the idea for a new business:

Parents were soon up in arms. Their children wouldn’t eat the food, saying it smelled rotten. As the bad publicity mounted, Mr. Prigozhin’s company, Concord Catering, launched a counterattack, a former colleague said. He hired young men and women to overwhelm the internet with comments and blog posts praising the food and dismissing the parents’ protests.

“In five minutes, pages were drowning in comments,” said Andrei Ilin, whose website serves as a discussion board about public schools. “And all the trolls were supporting Concord.”

The trick worked beyond expectations. Prigozhin had found a new business. He hired some IT staff and low paid temps to populate various message boards, social networks and the general internet with whatever his customers asked him for.

You have a bad online reputation? Prigozhin can help. His internet company will fill the net with positive stories and remarks about you. Your old and bad reputation will be drowned by the new and good one. Want to promote a product or service? Prigozhin's online marketeers can address the right crowds.

To achieve those results the few temps who worked on such projects needed to multiply their online personalities. It is better to have fifty people vouch for you online than just five. No one cares if these are real people or just virtual ones. The internet makes it easy to create such sock-puppets. The virtual crowd can then be used to push personalities, products or political opinions. Such schemes are nothing new or special. Every decent "western" public relations and marketing company will offer a similar service and has done so for years.

While it is relatively easy to have sock-puppets swamp the comment threads of such sites as this blog, it is more difficult to have a real effect on social networks. These depend on multiplier effects. To gain many real "likes", "re-tweets" or "followers" an online persona needs a certain history and reputation. Real people need to feel attached to it. It takes some time and effort to build such a multiplier personality, be it real or virtual.

At some point Prigozhin, or whoever by then owned the internet marketing company, decided to expand into the lucrative English speaking market. This would require to build many English language online persona and to give those some history and time to gain crowds of followers and a credible reputation. The company sent a few of its staff to the U.S. to gain some impressions, pictures and experience of the surroundings. They would later use these to impersonate as U.S. locals. It was a medium size, long-term investment of maybe a hundred-thousand bucks over two or three years.
The U.S. election provided an excellent environment to build reputable online persona with large followings of people with discriminable mindsets. The political affinity was not important. The personalities only had to be very engaged and stick to their issue - be it left or right or whatever. The sole point was to gain as many followers as possible who could be segmented along social-political lines and marketed to the companies customers.

Again - there is nothing new to this. It is something hundreds, if not thousands of companies are doing as their daily business. The Russian company hoped to enter the business with a cost advantage. Even its mid-ranking managers were paid as little as $1,200 per month. The students and other temporary workers who would 'work' the virtual personas as puppeteers would earn even less. Any U.S. company in a similar business would have higher costs.

In parallel to building virtual online persona the company also built some click-bait websites and groups and promoted these through mini Facebook advertisements. These were the "Russian influence ads" on Facebook the U.S. media were so enraged about. They included the promotion of a Facebook page about cute puppies. Back in October we described how those "Russian influence" ads (most of which were shown after the election or were not seen at all) were simply part of a commercial scheme:

The pages described and the ads leading to them are typical click-bait, not part of a political influence op.


One builds pages with "hot" stuff that hopefully attracts lots of viewers. One creates ad-space on these pages and fills it with Google ads. One attracts viewers and promotes the spiked pages by buying $3 Facebook mini-ads for them. The mini-ads are targeted at the most susceptible groups. A few thousand users will come and look at such pages. Some will 'like' the puppy pictures or the rant for or against LGBT and further spread them.

Some will click the Google ads. Money then flows into the pockets of the page creator. One can rinse and repeat this scheme forever. Each such page is a small effort for a small revenue. But the scheme is highly scaleable and parts of it can be automatized.

Because of the myriad of U.S. sanctions against Russia the monetization of these business schemes required some creativity. One can easily find the name of a real U.S. person together with the assigned social security number and its date of birth. Those data are enough to open, for example, a Paypal account under a U.S. name. A U.S. customer of the cloaked Russian Internet company could then pay to the Paypal account and the money could be transferred from there to Moscow. These accounts could also be used to buy advertisement on Facebook. The person who's data was used to create the account would never learn of it and would have no loss or other damage. Another scheme is to simply pay some U.S. person to open a U.S. bank account and to then hand over the 'keys' to that account.

The Justice Department indictment is quite long and detailed. It must have been expensive. If you read it do so with the above in mind. Skip over the assumptions and claims of political interference and digest only the facts. All that is left is, as explained, a commercial marketing scheme.

I will not go into all its detail of the indictment but here are some points that support the above description.

Point 4:

Defendants, posing as US. persons and creating false U.S. personas, operated social media pages and groups designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and pages, which addressed divisive US. political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by US. activists when, in fact, they were controlled by Defendants. Defendants also used the stolen identities of real U.S. persons to post on social media accounts. Over time, these social media accounts became Defendants' means to reach significant numbers of Americans ...

Point 10d:

By in or around April 2014, the ORGANIZATION formed a department that went by various names but was at times referred to as the "translator project." This project focused on the US. population and conducted operations on social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. By approximately July 2016, more than eighty ORGANIZATION employees were assigned to the translator project.

(Some U.S. media today made the false claim that $1.25 million per month were spend by the company for its U.S. campaign. But Point 11 of the indictment says that the company ran a number of such projects directed at a Russian audience while only the one described in 10d above is aimed at an U.S. audience. All these projects together had a monthly budget of $1.25 million.)

(Point 17, 18 and 19 indict individual persons who have worked for the "translator" project" "to at least in and around [some month] 2014". It is completely unclear how these persons, who seem to have left the company two years before the U.S. election, are supposed to have anything to do with the claimed "Russian influence" on the U.S. election and the indictment.)
Point 32:

Defendants and their co-conspirators, through fraud and deceit, created hundreds of social media accounts and used them to develop certain fictitious U.S. personas into "leader[s] of public opinion" in the United States.

The indictment then goes on and on describing the "political activities" of the sock-puppet personas. Some posted pro-Hillary slogans, some anti-Hillary stuff, some were pro-Trump, some anti-everyone, some urged not to vote, others to vote for third party candidates. The sock-puppets did not create or post fake news. They posted mainstream media stories.

Some of the persona called for going to anti-Islam rallies while others promoted pro-Islam rallies. The Mueller indictment lists a total of eight rallies. Most of these did not take place at all. No one joined the "Miners For Trump" rallies in Philly and Pittsburgh. A "Charlotte against Trump" march on November 19 - after the election - was attended by one hundred people. Eight people came for a pro-Trump rally in Fort Myers.

The sock-puppets called for rallies to establish themselves as  'activist' and 'leadership' persona, to generated more online traffic and additional followers. There was in fact no overall political trend in what the sock-puppets did. The sole point of all such activities was to create a large total following by having multiple personas which together covered all potential social-political strata.

At Point 86 the indictment turns to Count Two - "Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud". The puppeteers opened, as explained above, various Paypal accounts using 'borrowed' data.
Then comes the point which confirms the commercial marketing story as laid out above:

Point 95:

Defendants and their co-conspirators also used the accounts to receive money from real U.S. persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements on the ORGANIZATION-controlled social media pages. Defendants and their co-conspirators typically charged certain U.S. merchants and U.S. social media sites between 25 and 50 U.S. dollars per post for promotional content on their popular false U.S. persona accounts, including Being Patriotic, Defend the 2nd, and Blacktivist.

There you have it. There was no political point to what the Russian company did. Whatever political slogans one of the company's sock-puppets posted had only one aim: to increase the number of followers for that sock-puppet. The sole point of creating a diverse army of sock-puppets with large following crowds was to sell the 'eyeballs' of the followers to the paying customers of the marketing company.

There were, according to the indictment, eighty people working on the "translator project". These controlled "hundreds" of sock-puppets online accounts each with a distinct "political" personality.

 Each of these sock-puppets had a large number of followers - in total several hundred-thousands.

Now let's assume that one to five promotional posts can be sold per day on each of the sock-puppets content stream. The scheme generates several thousand dollars per day ($25 per promo, hundreds of sock-puppets, 1-5 promos per day per sock-puppet). The costs for this were limited to the wages of up to eighty persons in Moscow, many of them temps, of which the highest paid received some $1,000 per month. While the upfront multiyear investment to create and establish the virtual personas was probably significant, this likely was, over all, a profitable business.

Again - this had nothing to do with political influence on the election. The sole point of political posts was to create 'engagement' and a larger number of followers in each potential social-political segment. People who buy promotional posts want these to be targeted at a specific audience. The Russian company could offer whatever audience was needed. It had sock-puppets with pro-LGBT view and a large following and sock-puppets with anti-LGBT views and a large following. It could provide pro-2nd amendment crowds as well as Jill Stein followers. Each of the sock-puppets had over time generated a group of followers that were like minded. The entity buying the promotion simply had to choose which group it preferred to address.

The panic of the U.S. establishment over the loss of their preferred candidate created an artificial storm over "Russian influence" and assumed "collusion" with the Trump campaign. (Certain Democrats though, like Adam Schiff, profit from creating a new Cold War through their sponsoring armament companies.)

The Mueller investigation found no "collusion" between anything Russia and the Trump campaign. The indictment does not mentions any. The whole "Russian influence" storm is based on a misunderstanding of commercial activities of a Russian marketing company in U.S. social networks.
There is a danger in this. The indictment sets up a new theory of nefarious foreign influence that could be applied to even this blog. As U.S. lawyer Robert Barns explains:

The only thing frightening about this indictment is the dangerous and dumb precedent it could set: foreign nationals criminally prohibited from public expression in the US during elections unless registered as foreign agents and reporting their expenditures to the FEC.


Mueller's new crime only requires 3 elements: 1) a foreign national; 2) outspoken on US social media during US election; and 3) failed to register as a foreign agent or failed to report receipts/expenditures of speech activity. Could indict millions under that theory.


The legal theory of the indictment for most of the defendants and most of the charges alleges that the "fraud" was simply not registering as a foreign agent or not reporting expenses to the FEC because they were a foreign national expressing views in a US election.

Author Leonid Bershidsky, who prominently writes for Bloomberg, remarks:

I'm actually surprised I haven't been indicted. I'm Russian, I was in the U.S. in 2016 and I published columns critical of both Clinton and Trump w/o registering as a foreign agent.

As most of you will know your author writing this is German. I write pseudo-anonymously for a mostly U.S. audience. My postings are political and during the U.S. election campaign expressed an anti-Hillary view. The blog is hosted on U.S, infrastructure paid for by me. I am not registered as Foreign Agent or with the Federal Election Commission.

Under the theory on which the indictment is based I could also be indicted for a similar "Conspiracy to Defraud the United States".

(Are those of you who kindly donate for this blog co-conspiractors?)

When Yevgeni Prigozhin, the hot dog caterer who allegedly owns the internet promotion business, was asked about the indictment he responded:

"The Americans are really impressionable people, they see what they want to see. [...] If they want to see the devil, let them see him."


Warren Buffett spends big bucks to promote baby killing

Vox recently praised billionaire Warrant Buffet’s Susan Thompson Buffet Foundation’s bankrolling of pro-abortion causes between 2001-2014 back in September.

(Article by Jose Nino republished from

It stated that it is “the biggest funder of access to abortion for low-income women in the United States.” Its funding of pro-abortion organizations continued until 2017-2018.

Buffet’s organization gave $76,967,256 to Planned Parenthood and its numerous affiliates across the country and abroad between 2017-2018, according to Foundation Directory Online Data.

Joseph Vazquez of Life News provided an overview of what this spending could have possibly been used for:

To put that into context, a 2011 estimate by Planned Parenthood stated that the cost of a first-trimester abortion can be anywhere between a range of $350-$950, meaning that the $76.9 million the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation gave to these organizations is enough to pay for between approximately 81,018 to 219,906 first-trimester abortions. A more recent estimate from Planned Parenthood said that a first-trimester abortion can be as expensive as $1,500, “but it’s often less.” Using that estimate ($1,500 per first-trimester abortion), the money the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation gave to Planned Parenthood and its affiliates just between 2017-2018 was enough to pay for approximately 51,312 abortions.

Vazquez continued:

The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute reported in 2018 that the average cost of an abortion (either surgical or medical) at 10 weeks of pregnancy was just over $500 in 2014. If true, that would mean the foundation’s tens of millions in contributions to Planned Parenthood between 2017-2018, in particular, is enough to pay for approximately 153,935 abortions.

In the fiscal year of 2017 (2017-2018), Planned Parenthood performed 332,757 abortions, which signified that Buffett’s foundation’s $76.9 million would have covered 46 percent of abortions Planned Parenthood carried out in the fiscal year of 2017.

According to Vox, Buffet’s foundation spent “$1.5 billion on abortion access in the US from 2001 to 2014, making it the largest single funder in the area.”

Based on Guttmacher’s own statistics for the average abortion cost for 2014 ($500), $1.5 billion can pay for approximately 3,000,000 abortions at 10 weeks of pregnancy.

From 2013 to 2017, Planned Parenthood performed at least 1,305,793 abortions according to its records on performed abortions.

Through Buffet’s foundation, he gave abortion groups worldwide $1,230,585,161 from 2001 to 2012.

These groups included Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the Population Council. These groups either campaigned for pro-abortion legislation, took it upon themselves to perform abortions, or helped develop the controversial abortion drug RU-486.

Additionally, Buffett gave $21 million to the aforementioned groups between 1989 and 1996.

During this time period, the $1.2 billion that Buffett gave to these organizations from 2001-2012 was enough to cover for 2.7 million abortions.

The right to life is one of America’s fundamental freedoms.

But for globalist elites and the financial oligarchy, rights like these seem passé.

Pressure will ultimately have to come from below to see any major changes regarding pro-life issues.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


UN Speakers Push Population Reduction for “Climate Emergency”

MADRID — To deal with the alleged “climate emergency,” reducing the number of people on the planet is high on the agenda among activists and speakers at the United Nations COP25 “climate” summit. The growing extremism and even paranoia among population-control advocates, who worry that more people will release more CO2 into the atmosphere, is reaching deafening levels. But the establishment media is largely keeping silent.

The advocates of population control and population reduction are divided, though, on what particular peoples and groups should be targeted most heavily. One key speaker at the UN summit said “white men” and especially Americans and Swedes must stop having babies. An exhibitor promoting “sustainable development,” meanwhile, argued that Africans and Asians ought to be the key target of the depopulation. Others think all of the above.
What means should be used was also a subject of debate. Some activists and speakers promoted propaganda, indoctrination, tax-funded contraception, abortion, ubiquitous birth-control availability, and even coercive population-reduction measures. Others say even more drastic means are needed to deal with the “emergency.” One UN speaker went even further earlier this year, suggesting that actually “killing” people could be on the table.

A major speaker at the UN summit, Oscar-winning director Michael Wadleigh (shown above) of “Woodstock” fame, minced no words in an interview with The New American. “Don’t have children — and I’m looking at you, white man,” he said on camera, speaking in a deep voice, echoing comments he made in high-profile official speeches at the summit.
The reason why it is so important to reduce the population of Europeans and their descendants is because their nations are more developed and they consume more resources, he said. Even Scandinavia and Sweden, which have a “clean” image, are destroying the planet, Wadleigh continued, warning that average Swedes consume 40 times more than average Tanzanians. Even socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is not radical enough on these issues, he said.




Thursday, December 12, 2019

Comey claims Horowitz report “vindicates” him but in reality the report exposes his FBI and leadership as toxic and unlawful

(Natural News) Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz released his long-awaited report on abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court by the FBI, and it contained very damning information.

As NewsTarget reported, Horowitz found “clear abuse” of the FISA application process used by the FBI to obtain surveillance warrants to spy on a member of the 2016 Trump campaign as well as “significant inaccuracies and omissions” in the application process — by seasoned federal agents, mind you — in the effort to place 2016 Trump campaign adviser Carter Page under surveillance.
Agents also “failed to meet the basic obligation” to make sure that applications were “scrupulously accurate,” the report noted. 

However, the news site noted further: 

But the IG also said he found no evidence of ‘political bias’ on the part of the Obama FBI and Justice Department in launching Spygate — despite the fact that everyone involved in the operation hated Trump, said as much in a series of memos and tweets, and that evidence was fabricated by at least one FBI attorney, all while misrepresenting former British spy Christopher Steele’s “Russia dossier” (which was bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC).

That finding, which simply means Horowitz did not interview any witnesses who copped to spying on the Trump campaign ‘for political reasons,’ was used by fired FBI Director James Comey to blast the president and his administration and supporters for “lying” about him all this time.

As reported by the Washington Times, Comey went so far as to accuse Attorney General William Barr in an op-ed for the very partisan Washington Post of ‘sliming’ the Justice Department by claiming that federal agents spied on the campaign.

“Well, the wait is over and those who smeared the FBI are due for an accounting,” Comey wrote.
“In particularly, [Barr] owes the institution he leads, and the American people, an acknowledgement of the truth.”

Comey should be in jail

In continuing his assault, the disgraced former FBI director said that Barr “slimed” the DoJ by supporting President Trump’s claims that his campaign was indeed spied upon.

“Unfortunately, it appears that Barr will continue his practice of deriding the Justice Department when the facts don’t agree with Trump’s fiction,” he wrote. “Pointing to his personally commissioned ‘review’ of the FBI’s case-opening, Barr has declared it is too soon to conclude the FBI was right to start an investigation. If his goal is to simply support the president’s conspiracy theories, it will always be too soon to acknowledge the facts.”

The fact is, Comey is projecting and posturing. He knows the Trump campaign was spied on; he was responsible for seeking the initial FISA warrant and subsequent warrants.
The New York Times reported the day Trump was inaugurated in January 2017 his campaign was spied on — “wiretapped,” in fact. 

And in fact, during testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Horowitz admitted that the Trump campaign was spied on and that Comey’s FBI should have seriously reconsidered ending their surveillance of Page in early 2017 after it became apparent to them that he wasn’t a ‘Russian asset.’

At that point, Horowitz noted, the exoneration of Page casts serious doubts on their continued legal right to surveil him (which, by the way, was only taking place because of a fabricated narrative — “Trump-Russia collusion” — that Comey likely played a part in developing).

The facts are clear: The FBI, under Comey, came up with an excuse to put the Trump campaign under surveillance; there never was any Trump-Russia collusion, as even Robert Mueller notes; and Comey was involved in spying on the Trump campaign, period.

If anyone owes someone else an apology, it’s Comey — to President Trump, to Barr, to the FBI he politicized, and the American people.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


‘Chill Greta, Chill!’ Trump blasts Thunberg on Twitter after she’s named TIME Person of the Year

US President Donald Trump suggested that famed 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg has anger issues and advised her to chill out after TIME magazine named her Person of the Year.

“So ridiculous,” Trump tweeted on Thursday while commenting on a tweet by actress and producer Roma Downey, in which she congratulated Thunberg on topping the TIME list of most influential people for 2019.

“Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!”

Trump and Thunberg briefly crossed paths on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York in September, where both of them delivered impassioned speeches. They did not speak to each other but the teenage activist was spotted giving Trump a now-iconic cold glare, which quickly spurred a plethora of memes online.



Judicial Watch: Federal Court Hearing on Awan Brothers, Congressional Democrat IT Scandal

Former Democrat IT staffer Imran Awan allegedly leaked secret data from House offices to a secret server and
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a federal court ordered a hearing for Friday, December 13, 2019, on the Congressional Democrat IT (information technology) scandal involving the Awan brothers.

The hearing was ordered in accordance with a November 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, which was filed after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) failed to respond adequately to two separate FOIA requests (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-02563)).
Judicial Watch’s first request, filed on May 26, 2017, sought:

  • All records related to any investigations or preliminary investigations involving former congressional IT support staffers Abid Awan, Imran Awan, Jamal Awan, and Hina R. Alvi. As part of this request, searches should of records [sic] should include, but not be limited to, the FBI automated indices, its older manual indices, and its Electronic Surveillance (ELSUR) Data Management System (EDMS), as well as cross-referenced files.

  • All records of communication sent to or from FBI employees, officials or contractors involving the subjects in bullet item 1.

The timeframe for the requested records is May 2015 to the present.

Judicial Watch’s second request, submitted on July 3, 2018, sought:

  • All records related to any investigations or preliminary investigations involving former congressional IT support staffers Abid Awan, Imran Awan, Jamal Awan, Hina R. Alvi and Rao Abbas. As part of this request, searches of records should include, but not be limited to, the FBI automated indices, its older manual indices, and its Electronic Surveillance (ELSUR) Data Management System (EDMS), as well as cross-referenced files.

  • All records of communications, including but not limited to emails (whether on .gov or email accounts), text messages, instant chats or messages on the Lync system, sent to or from FBI employees, officials or contractors involving the Awan brothers, Ms. Alvi and Mr. Abbas. Records of communications searched should include but not be limited to those between FBI officials, employees and contractors and officials with the Capitol Police, the Office of the Inspector General of the House, and the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer of the House.

In August 2019, the DOJ told the court that it would begin producing records by November 5, 2019. After producing no records, on November 13, 2019 the agency told Judicial Watch that it was having “technical difficulties,” and in a recent email claimed that “difficulties with the production remain.”

In a joint status report filed on December 5, 2019, Judicial Watch reported to the court that the DOJ claimed in a phone call that it was now unable to produce any records to either of the FOIA requests “because the agency was waiting for some unspecified action by Judge [Tanya S.] Chutkan in some other matter so as to avoid having to produce records in this case.” In that same report the DOJ told the court that Judge Chutkan is “presiding over a related sealed criminal matter” that prohibits the government from releasing the requested FOIA information. [Emphasis added]

Imran Awan and his family were banned from the House computer network in February 2017 after the House’s top law enforcement officer wrote that Imran is “an ongoing and serious risk to the House of Representatives, possibly threatening the integrity of our information systems,” and that a server containing evidence had gone “missing.” The inspector general said server logs showed “unauthorized access” and procurement records were falsified.

Imran Awan was Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s (D-FL) top information technology aide. Most lawmakers fired Awan in February, but Wasserman Schultz kept him on until he was arrested in July 2017, trying to board a flight for Pakistan.

In July 2018, Imran Awan was given a plea deal, and pled guilty to federal bank fraud but prosecutors found no evidence that Awan “violated federal law with respect to the House computer systems.”

The Awan brothers reportedly “were not given background checks before being given access to highly sensitive government information and no explanations have been given as to why.”

Additionally, “If they would have run this background check it would have found out not only multiple criminal convictions, but $1 million bankruptcy, a dozen lawsuits … it would have found a whole host of major red flags and the Democrats didn’t do any of those checks.”

“The Awan Brothers IT scandal implicates national security and involves a coverup by House Democrat leadership and, now, the Deep State DOJ,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
The hearing is before U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta.

Date:               Friday, December 13, 2019
            Time:               9:30 a.m. ET
            Location:        Courtroom 10
                                    U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
                                    333 Constitution Ave NW
                                    Washington, DC 20001


The FBI - Pushed By John Brennan - Lied To The Court Seven Times To Spy On The Trump Campaign

When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the relevant powers launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump.

The ultimate aim of the cabal is to kick him out of office and have a reliable replacement, like the Vice-President elect Pence, take over. Should that not be possible it is hoped that the delegitimization will make it impossible for Trump to change major policy trajectories especially in foreign policy. A main issue here is the reorientation of the U.S. military complex and its NATO proxies from the war of terror towards a direct confrontation with main powers like Russia and China.


A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama’s consigliere John Brennan, the current director of the CIA.

One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign.

The Inspector General of the U.S. Justice Department Michael Horowitz has investigated the FBI operation against the election campaign of Donald Trump. Yesterday he published his report, Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation (pdf). It is 480 pages long and quite thorough but unfortunately very limited in its scope.

Horowitz finds that the FBI was within the law when it opened the investigation but that the FBI’s applications to the FISA court, which decides if the FBI can spy on someone’s communications, were based on lies and utterly flawed.

Your host unfortunately lacked the time so far to read more than the executive summary. But others have pointed out some essential findings.

Matt Taibbi remarks:

The Guardian headline reads: “DOJ Internal watchdog report clears FBI of illegal surveillance of Trump adviser.”

If the report released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz constitutes a “clearing” of the FBI, never clear me of anything. ...

Much of the press is concentrating on Horowitz’s conclusion that there was no evidence of “political bias or improper motivation” in the FBI’s probe of Donald Trump’s Russia contacts, an investigation Horowitz says the bureau had “authorized purpose” to conduct.


However, Horowitz describes at great length an FBI whose “serious” procedural problems and omissions of “significant information” in pursuit of surveillance authority all fell in the direction of expanding the unprecedented investigation of a presidential candidate (later, a president).

There are too many to list in one column, but the Horowitz report show years of breathless headlines were wrong. Some key points:

The so-called “Steele dossier” was, actually, crucial to the FBI’s decision to seek secret surveillance of Page. ...


The “Steele dossier” was “Internet rumor,” and corroboration for the pee tape story was “zero.” ...

John Solomon finds:

Appendix 1 identifies the total violations by the FBI of the so-called Woods Procedures, the process by which the bureau verifies information and assures the FISA court its evidence is true.

The Appendix identifies a total of 51 Woods procedure violations from the FISA application the FBI submitted to the court authorizing surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page starting in October 2016.

A whopping nine of those violations fell into the category called: “Supporting document shows that the factual assertion is inaccurate.”

For those who don’t speak IG parlance, it means the FBI made nine false assertions to the FISA court. In short, what the bureau said was contradicted by the evidence in its official file.

The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and on everyone they communicated with.

The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had talked with Steele’s 'primary source’ (who probably was the later 'buzzed' Sergei Skripal) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were no more than unconfirmed rumors.

That the dossier was mere dreck was quite obvious to any sober person who read it when it was first published. Here is what we wrote about it at that time:

The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous asserted compatriot what two anonymous sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claim to have heard somewhere that something happened in the Kremlin.

They assert that Trump was supported and directed by Putin himself five years ago while even a year ago no one would have bet a penny on Trump gaining any political significant position or even the presidency.

There is a lot more of such nonsense in these new Hitler diaries. It is bonkers from a to z.

Those who thought otherwise should question their judgment.

It is now claimed that the FBI is exculpated because the Horowitz report did not find "political bias or improper motivation". But that omits the fact that at least four high ranking people in the FBI and Justice Department who were involved in the case were found to be politically biased and were removed from their positions.

It also omits that the scope of Horowitz’s investigation was limited to the Justice Department. He was not able to investigate the CIA and its former director John Brennan who was alleging Russia-Trump connections months before the FBI investigation started:

Contrary to a general impression that the FBI launched the Trump-Russia conspiracy probe, Brennan pushed it to the bureau – breaking with CIA tradition by intruding into domestic politics: the 2016 presidential election. He also supplied suggestive but ultimately false information to counterintelligence investigators and other U.S. officials.

The current CIA director Gina Haspel was CIA station chief in London during that time and while several of the entrapment attempts of Trump campaign staff by the FBI investigation happened. Horowitz spoke with neither of them.
Peter Van Buren concludes:

The current Horowitz Report, read alongside his previous report on how the FBI played inside the 2016 election vis-a-vis Clinton, should leave no doubt that the Bureau tried to influence the election of a president and then delegitimize him when he won. It wasn’t the Russians; it was us.

That is correct, but the whole conspiracy was even deeper. It was not the FBI which initiated the case.

My hunch is still that the FBI investigation was a case of parallel construction which is often used to build a legitimate case after a suspicion was found by illegitimate means. In this case it was John Brennan who in early 2016 contacted the head of the British GCHQ electronic interception service and asked him to spy on the Trump campaign. GHCQ then claimed that something was found that was deemed suspicious:

That summer, GCHQ’s then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at “director level”, face-to-face between the two agency chiefs.

The FBI was tipped off on the issue and on July 31 2016 started an investigation to construct a parallel legal case. It send out British and U.S. agents to entrap Trump campaign members. It used the obviously fake Steele dossier to gain FISA court judgments that allowed it to spy on the campaign. Downing Street was informed throughout the whole affair. A day after Trump’s inauguration the UK’s then Prime Minister Theresa May fired GHCQ chief Robert Hannigan
One still open question is how deep then President Barack Obama was involved in the affair.

There is another ongoing investigation by U.S. Prosecutor John Durham. That investigation is not limited to the Justice Department but will involve all agencies and domestic as well as foreign sources. Durham has the legal rights to declassify whatever is needed and he can indict persons should he find that they committed a crime. His report will hopefully go much deeper than the already horrendous stuff Horowitz delivered.


Wednesday, December 11, 2019

Hunter Biden’s ‘baby mama’ wants to know how much he made at Ukrainian energy firm

The ex-stripper suing Hunter Biden for child support wants him to reveal how much he made while he served on the board of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma, she said in court documents filed Monday.

The amount that Lunden Alexis Roberts is asking Biden, 49, to acknowledge he reaped at the energy firm is redacted in the 47-point request for admissions her lawyers filed in an Arkansas court.

But reports have said Biden was paid as much as $50,000 per month in the position. He sat on the company’s board of directors between April 2014 and April 2019.

The filing in Independence County Circuit Court also asks former Vice President Joe Biden’s son to admit that he received money from China for foreign or domestic investment purposes.

A judge last week chided both parties in the lawsuit for not being open about their finances and requested an affidavit of financial means covering five years for both Biden and Roberts.

“I do not want this drug out nor do I want to have to drag out the monies these individuals may have received in any form or fashion,” wrote Judge Don McSpadden in a letter dated Dec. 3.

CNN, MSNBC Refuse To Air DOJ Inspector General Hearing Live

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear from the Department of Justice’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, on the findings of his FISA report. After providing months of wall to wall impeachment coverage, CNN and MSNBC decided not to air the full hearings with Horowitz.

CNN and MSNBC stopped following the IG hearing after about 30 minutes, and both refused to cover the opening statements by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. The decision does not align with the recent live hearing coverage standard both networks have held for the last few months, giving endless air time to the impeachment hearings lead by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif, and Rep. Jerry Nadler.

Ronna McDaniel, the GOP Chairwoman was also upset over CNN’s omission.

“CNN aired everything Schiff and Nadler had to say. Why aren’t they showing Lindsey Graham? Is it because the facts of how the FBI mistreated Donald Trump contradict their coverage over the last 3 years?” McDaniel tweeted.

If the IG report proved that the FBI acted perfectly within its boundaries, as the mainstream media claim, then what’s the harm in airing this footage? The truth is, the IG report revealed abuse of power at the highest levels of the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community.

The truth does not fit the CNN and MSNBC agenda, and that is why they refuse to give a platform to it. 


New poll shows slipping support for impeachment with 51% saying they do NOT want Donald Trump removed as he boasts about winning in battleground states

New polling doesn't show a rainy picture for President Trump - more than half of registered voters don't support impeaching and removing him - and he's doing well in swing states

A new Quinnipiac University poll showed that 51 percent of registered voters nationwide didn't want to see President Trump impeached and removed 

  • That number grew from 48 percent of voters who shared that opinion with pollsters last month 
  • Recent polls in important swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan show Trump outpacing 2020 Democrats during impeachment  
    A slim majority of registered voters don't want to see President Trump impeached and removed from office. 
    A Quinnipiac University poll that was released Tuesday showed 51 percent of registered voters were against impeachment, while 45 percent of registered voters supported it. 
    'With Washington in turmoil and House Democrats poised to vote on impeaching the president for abuse of power and ostruction of Congress, American voters signal they are slightly more inclined not to impeach than to impeach,' said Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy in a statement. 
    The numbers showed a slight increase in those against impeachment compared to the same survey last month.   
    While 45 percent of registered voters asked in November said they supported impeachment, 48 percent said they were against it. 
    The poll has a 2.5 percent margin of error.  

    If you seek truth about 2016 ‘Russian election meddling,’ check secret Obama cables, which US REFUSED to release – Lavrov

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said he did not discuss ‘election meddling’ with his US hosts, but that Moscow is willing to publish communications with the Obama administration showing that nothing happened in 2016.

    After meeting with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the State Department, Lavrov also sat down with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office. The White House readout of their meeting said that Trump had “warned against any Russian attempts to interfere in United States elections.”

    “We did not discuss the election,” Lavrov told reporters later on Tuesday, adding that the talks focused on improving US-Russia relations going forward. When someone tried to frame that as an accusation that the White House had lied, the foreign minister clarified. “I did not read the White House readout,” Lavrov said.

    Insofar as the subject came up, the top Russian diplomat mentioned that Moscow was perfectly willing to publish the correspondence conducted with the Obama administration between October 2016 and January 2017, using the since-shuttered cybersecurity cooperation channel.

    Lavrov noted that he did not understand why the current administration is refusing to release the documents, which he said would show that Russia had offered to help and clarify any allegations of “meddling” in the 2016 vote, only to have the Obama administration “categorically refuse.”


    Tuesday, December 10, 2019

    The same type of psychiatrists who profit from the mass drugging of children with mind-altering medications now claim President Trump is losing his mind and needs to be removed from power

    (Natural News) The fake news media is getting faker by the day, with a new absurd claim that President Trump’s mental health is “deteriorating” due to the potentially “catastrophic outcomes” of the impeachment circus.

    A “trio of pre-eminent psychiatrists,” according to the really fake Independent (United Kingdom), is reportedly urging the House Judiciary Committee to dub Trump as “dangerous” due to his “brittle sense of self-worth.” In essence, they want Trump to be declared as mentally insane in order to justify removing him from office.

    “We are speaking out at this time because we are convinced that, as the time of possible impeachment approaches, Donald Trump has the real potential to become ever more dangerous, a threat to the safety of our nation,” the three said in an official statement.

    These three are Yale School of Medicine‘s Dr. Bandy Lee, The George Washington University‘s John Zinner, and former CIA profiler Jerrold Post.

    Included with their joint statement is a petition containing the signatures of some 350 “mental health professionals” who’ve similarly determined simply from watching fake news that President Trump is “mentally ill” and in need of immediate removal from the White House.

    To keep up with the latest false news accusations against President Trump, be sure to check out

    So now “medical professionals” are making diagnoses just from watching television?

    It used to be that doctors actually had to see patients in-person in order to properly diagnose them with an illness. But in the age of Trump, this is apparently no longer necessary, as “medical professionals” are somehow able to make clinical conclusions simply from watching CNN or MSNBC.

    None of the three individuals in this trio has ever met Trump in person, nor have they ever seen any of his medical records. All they know is what the talking heads on cable news are telling them about the President’s mental health, and this is what they’ve used to make their “diagnosis” that he’s “unfit.”

    What’s even more hilarious is that this has already been tried before, as a whole slew of Democrats tried to claim several years ago that Trump is “mentally unfit for office.”

    Since the time of their first declarations about his “mental decline,” Trump has contributed to a booming stock market, record unemployment, and positive economic growth all across the board.
    Trump has also taken a bold stand for religious freedom, as well as lifted all sorts of onerous regulations that mean we’ll soon be getting back normal incandescent lightbulbs, for example, and washers and dryers that actually work because they’re not “energy efficient.”

    While all of these things have been positive for everyday Americans, leftist Democrats see them as demonstrative of Trump’s “dementia,” or whatever mental derangement they claim he’s suffering from as he continues to advance his “America First” agenda.

    The ridiculous irony is that it’s these leftist Democrats who are clearly the ones suffering from some kind of mental illness as they liken Trump’s reversal of globalist policies to Alzheimer’s.

    In truth, it’s actually Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, and the rest of the Democratic lineup that are suffering from obvious physical health problems almost every time they appear in the media – so where’s their armchair diagnosis by these so-called “psychiatrists?”

    “This is getting so old,” wrote one commenter at The Gateway Pundit about how these deranged leftists keep trying to recycle the same false accusations and ridiculous mental health diagnoses at Trump that they’ve been lobbing at him ever since he was elected.

    “So I am to believe that this clearly BS impeachment sham based entirely on hearsay and third-hand info that conflicts with firsthand witness accounts is making Trump mentally unstable? The left must really believe that Dems are retarded because anyone that is paying attention can see this is utter BS.”

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


    Former CIA director Brennan lied to Congress about Steele Dossier, IG report reveals

    John Brennan tesifies before the House Intelligence Committee, 2017 © Reuters / Kevin Lamarque
    A dossier of salacious anti-Trump gossip was used to pad out the intelligence community report on supposed Russian election interference, and CIA Director John Brennan may have misled Congress about it, a new report reveals. 
    According to the Justice Department Inspector General’s report into the FBI’s surveillance of the Trump campaign, the information contained in the now-infamous ‘Steele Dossier’ was used to inform the Obama administration’s Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russia’s “Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections,” published several weeks before President Donald Trump assumed office. 
    A summary of the dossier was included in the assessment, former FBI director James Comey told the Inspector General’s office, because Brennan and a cohort of intelligence personnel felt it “important enough and consistent enough” to warrant entry.
    The ICA bolstered the arguments of ‘Russiagate’ proponents on Capitol Hill, and allowed lawmakers to accuse those critical of its findings of disagreeing with the combined intelligence apparatus of the United States. 
    This line of attack was deployed to derail the summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki last year. A parade of Democrats slammed Trump for siding with Putin over the US spy agencies, when he refused to sufficiently grill the Russian leader on his alleged election meddling. Brennan himself was among those who called Trump “treasonous” for disregarding the ICA.
    However, the ICA itself had been discredited long before Helsinki. Once it emerged that the Steele Dossier – which among other things, accused Trump of hiring prostitutes to urinate on a bed in a Moscow hotel room – was unverifiable and most likely false, Brennan was grilled by Congress.
    During a 2017 House Intelligence Committee session, then-congressman Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina) asked Brennan if the Steele Dossier had been used in compiling the ICA. The former CIA chief replied “No.”
    “It wasn’t part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had,” Brennan expounded. "It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done. It was not.”
    Also on FBI surveillance ‘an embarrassment to our country’, Trump says, after Justice Department report released 
    Trump has long accused Brennan of knowingly including the “phony dossier” in the ICA. According to the Inspector General’s report, the president was right, and Brennan lied to Congress under oath.
    Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

    FBI Didn't Tell Surveillance Court That Carter Page Was ‘Operational Contact’ For CIA With ‘Positive Assessment’

    The FBI failed to inform surveillance court judges that Carter Page was an “operational contact” for the CIA for years, and that an employee at the spy agency gave the former Trump aide a “positive assessment,” according to a Justice Department report released Monday.

    The finding is included in a list of seven of the FBI’s “significant inaccuracies and omissions” in applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Page, a longtime energy consultant who joined the Trump campaign in March 2016.

    The report said the FBI “omitted” information it obtained from another U.S. government agency about its prior relationship with Page.

    The agency approved Page as an “operational contact” from 2008 to 2013, according to the report.
    “Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application,” the report stated.

    Page told the Daily Caller News Foundation he believes the agency in question is the CIA. Page has previously said he provided information to the CIA and FBI before becoming ensnared in the bureau’s investigation of the Trump campaign.

    The report stated an employee with the CIA assessed Page “candidly” described contact he had with a Russian intelligence officer in 2014. But the FBI cited Page’s contact with the officer to assert in its FISA applications that there was probable cause to believe that Page was working as a Russian agent.



    TRUTH REVEALED! 9/11 Trillion$: Follow The Money! [FULL HD DOCUMENTARY]



    Forget for one moment everything you’ve been told about September 11, 2001. #911 was a CRIME. And as with any crime, there is one overriding imperative that detectives must follow to identify the perpetrators: #FollowTheMoney! This EPIC documentary is an investigation into the 9/11 money trail. BUCKLE UP, GRAB THE POPCORN & ENJOY THE SHOW, PATRIOTS! You do NOT want to miss these hard-hitting revelations with #JamesRedPillsAmerica!  Please visit my website at



    Monday, December 9, 2019

    REPOST: COME SPY WITH ME Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein were spies who used underage sex to blackmail politicians, ‘ex-handler’ claims

    GHISLAINE Maxwell and her paedophile lover Jeffrey Epstein were both Israeli spies who took pictures of powerful men having sex with underage girls to blackmail them, their alleged Mossad handler has sensationally claimed.

    The pair allegedly ran a "honey-trap" operation where they would provide young girls to politicians in order to squeeze them for information for the Israelis.

     Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein were Mossad spies according to explosive new claims
    Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein were Mossad spies according to explosive new claimsCredit: Getty - Contributor

    The unsubstantiated claims have been made by Ari Ben-Menashe who claims he is a former Israeli spy.

    Ben-Menashe claims that he was the “handler” of Ghislaine's dad Robert Maxwell, who was also a spy, and that it was the former newspaper baron who introduced Epstein and his daughter to the Israeli intelligence agency.

    He makes the unverified claims in a new book called "Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales".

    In a preview of the book, shared with Sun Online, Ben-Menashe says: “Mr Epstein was the simple idiot who was going around providing girls to all kinds of politicians in the United States.

    “See, f**king around is not a crime. It could be embarrassing, but it’s not a crime.

     Ghislaine Maxwell's father Robert allegedly introduced her and Epstein to Mossad
    Ghislaine Maxwell's father Robert allegedly introduced her and Epstein to MossadCredit: REX

     Ari Ben-Menashe claims he is a former spy handler
    Ari Ben-Menashe claims he is a former spy handlerCredit: Rex Features

    “But f**king a fourteen-year-old girl is a crime. And he was taking photos of politicians f**king fourteen-year-old girls—if you want to get it straight.

    “They [Epstein and Maxwell] would just blackmail people, they would just blackmail people like that.”

    Ben-Menashe is a mysterious Iranian-born Israeli businessman who claims to have worked for Mossad from 1977 to 1987.

    He was arrested in 1989 in the US on arms dealing charges but was acquitted in 1990 after a jury accepted he was acting on behalf of Israel.

    Israel tried to distance themselves from him, with government sources saying he never had anything to do with intelligence services, although other news reports - in both the US and Israel - confirmed he did.

    He later wrote a book called Profits of War: Inside the US-Israeli Arms Network and in the early 1990s claimed that Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine's dad, worked for Mossad.

     Epstein and Maxwell would photograph politicians having sex and then blackmail them, according to Ben-Menashe
    Epstein and Maxwell would photograph politicians having sex and then blackmail them, according to Ben-MenasheCredit: Getty Images

     Ghislaine is accused of procuring young girls for Epstein
    Ghislaine is accused of procuring young girls for EpsteinCredit: Getty Images

    The new book takes this further and claims Maxwell may have worked for other governments too as as a double or triple agent.

    Ben-Menashe claims that despite reports Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell met in the early 90s in New York, they actually met much earlier - through the socialite's father.

    He claims that Robert Maxwell introduced Epstein to Mossad and then Ghislaine got involved later.

    Files from the British Foreign Office, released in 2003 appear to back the claims Robert Maxwell may have been a spy, with one report describing him as a “thoroughly bad character” who was being “financed by Russia” and another saying his “questionable activities” had been brought to the attention of the Foreign Officer “on several occasions”.

    While the Maxwell family have always denied such reports, family friend Laura Goldman says in the book: “My feeling is that he probably was an agent to the Russians, the Israelis, and the British. I believe that Ghislaine continued his work.”

    It is not known whether Maxwell and Epstein gathered any intelligence about pal Prince Andrew in their alleged espionage work - although the book suggests the Royal was a target.

     Prince Andrew with pal Jeffrey Epstein after the disgraced financier's first arrest
    Prince Andrew with pal Jeffrey Epstein after the disgraced financier's first arrestCredit: Jae Donnelly

     Prince Andrew and his accuser Virginia Roberts with Ghislaine Maxwell
    Prince Andrew and his accuser Virginia Roberts with Ghislaine MaxwellCredit: Rex

    John Dougan, who served as Deputy Sheriff in Palm Beach, Florida at the time Epstein was in prison for his first slew of child sex offenses, says he was given access to Epstein's case file - including video tapes - in its entirety by Palm Beach Police Detective Joseph Recarey, who later died unexpectedly aged 50.

    Dougan managed to copy the tapes, encrypt them and flee to Russia, where he now lives.

    Although he has not watched the encrypted files he tells Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales that he is certain they contain blackmail material involving wealthy people - and that Prince Andrew was a target.

    “Do I think that Epstein was probably put up to getting some wealthy people to sleep with some underage women so those people could be black- mailed by Western intelligence agencies? Absolutely I do,” he said.

    MI6 were “concerned that Russia may have obtained kompromat, compromising material, on Prince Andrew,” according to a Times report - although Dougan claims he has given no information to the Russians.

    Epstein was found dead in his New York prison cell on August 10 after allegedly committing suicide, while he faced charges for sex trafficking minors.

     The new book is out next month
    The new book is out next month

    Melissa Cronin, the book's author, believes that Epstein's alleged intelligence links add weight to the theory that he did not kill himself but was murdered.

    She also points to Epstein's and Maxwell's links with prominent people from the science and technology industries - and believes the pair not only ran a honeypot operation but also an information-gathering operation.

    "Before I started with the book, I was extremely skeptical of the murder theory.," she told Sun Online.

    "I'm definitely not a conspiracy theorist by nature at all, but the more that we dug into this, there's just so much incontrovertible evidence about his work in the world of espionage, his work with Mossad and it all comes together to make a really compelling argument for the fact that he was murdered.

    "I think one thing that is interesting and important to say is that Epstein wasn't necessarily a spy in the traditional sense, he wasn't particularly loyal to Israel per se, he was a collector of information.

    "So of course there was the blackmail aspect of what he was doing in terms of the honey trap and getting this footage of people that he could use as leverage.

    "At the same time, something that a lot of people haven't really explored is how he cultivated these relationships within science and technology.

    "We get really deep into that in the book and to how he was meeting with and extracting really sensitive information from scientists and eminent theorists and things like that.

    "That material - probably even more so than the blackmail material - is what really would be of interest to a foreign power such as Israel."

    Ghislaine Maxwell has previously denied any wrongdoing. Sun Online reached out to her representatives for Maxwell. Representatives for the Israeli government did not respond to requests for comment.