SHARON CHURCHER’S INTERVIEWS WITH VIRGINIA ROBERTS GIUFFRE, SUBSEQUENT MISQUOTES IN ARTICLES, AND SUBSEQUENT FBI QUESTIONING OF VIRGINIA ROBERTS GIUFFRE AFTER THE ARTICLES ARE PUBLISHED
I begin here with a review of Virginia Robert Giuffre’s testimony on 11/4/16, released August 9, 2019. First I’m going to summarize what I believe the text demonstrates. Then I’ll quote the text and highlight the text I think makes my points in bold. I think I put enough text to show the context of the remarks I’ve highlighted, but I recommend that you read the full document here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6250478-Giuffre-Exhibits.html
Churcher, deliberately or not, misrepresented Virginia Robert Giuffre’s numerous, and in part, friendly communications with her. By twisting language and context, Sharon made it sound as though Virginia had given her first-hand information on an alleged helicopter flight piloted by Ghislaine Maxwell to Little St. James which included Bill Clinton, the Secret Service, and Virginia all as passengers. (My take is that although Ghislaine likely did pilot Bill Clinton to Little St. James in a helicopter, also likely with the Secret Service, the effort of Sharon Churcher to place Virginia in the helicopter with Bill and the Secret Service is an effort to falsely imply that Virginia was abused by Clinton, something Virginia has strongly and repeatedly denied.)
Further summary: Sharon also attributed a quote to Virginia that Donald Trump “didn’t partake in any sex with any of us but he flirted with me.” Virginia took issue with this statement attributed to her and testified in the referenced deposition that Donald Trump did not flirt with her, and “I can’t say who he had sex with in his whole life or not.”
Sharon Churcher also reported that Virginia told her that she had seen Prince Andrew at Jeff Epstein’s home in New Mexico, and Virginia, in the referenced text, denied telling Sharon anything of the sort.
After the articles Sharon published involving Virginia were published, Virginia testified that the FBI interviewed her. Note: I can find 3 articles in quick succession from Sharon Churcher referencing Virginia in the year 2011 on Feb 28, March 2, and March 5, but I have no way of knowing what the FBI thought or did not think of these articles. The March 5 article is referenced in the Deposition as Exhibit 7, I believe. In my opinion these articles which piqued the FBI’s attention, based on Sharon’s conversations with Virginia, exaggerated Virginia’s remarks involving Bill Clinton, exonerated Donald Trump in a way she testified that she did not do, and placed Prince Andrew at Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico, which that Virginia completely denied saying at all. I’ll highlight the text below so you can decide, then I’ll move on.
Begin Page 436.
Q Is there anything that you recall saying to Sharon Churcher that she then printed something different than what you had said to her?
A Yeah, I’ve read stuff. I mean, I just — I can’t remember what, but I read something that I think was, Oh, she got that wrong. I can’t remember an exact example off the top of my head.
Q Did you ever complain to Sharon Churcher about things that she got wrong?
A I didn’t see a point. I might have, but I — I didn’t see a point really because it’s already printed, you know.
Q You had a fairly voluminous set of communications with Sharon Churcher by e-mail, correct?
MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection.
A Voluminous, like a lot of them?
Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Yes.
Q And during any of those communications, do you know whether she printed things about you after you had any of those communications?
MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection.
A I don’t know. I know a lot of stuff was printed, and I never really stopped to read who printed the article, or wrote the article, I should say. Sorry.
Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Okay. I’ll show you Defendant’s Exhibit 7.
(Exhibit 7 marked.)
THE DEPONENT: Thank you.
Q. (BY MS. MENNINGER) I’ll let you read through the statements on the first page there, and if there is anything that is not absolutely true, just put a check by it and we’ll come back to it.
A It’s not very clear how she wrote it. “I flew to the Caribbean with Jeffrey and then Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick up Bill in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey had bought her.” That wasn’t an eyewitness statement. Like, I didn’t see her do it. Ghislaine was the one who told me about that; that she’s the one who flew Bill.
Q All right. If you just want to put a check by it, then we’ll just come back and talk about each one.
Q Just to move things along.
A Okay. I have made three checkmarks.
Q All right.
MS. MCCAWLEY: And I just — before you continue, I just want to identify for the record, since this doesn’t have any identifiers on it, are you representing that these are statements from Sharon Churcher?
MS. MENNINGER: I’m not representing anything. I’m asking the witness questions about these statements. I asked her is anything on here not true. That’s all I asked her.
Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) So which ones did you put checkmarks by, Ms. Giuffre?
A I’d have been — I’m sorry. “I’d have been about 17 at the time. I flew to the Caribbean with Jeffrey and then Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick up Bill in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey had bought her.”
Q Okay. And what else did you put a check by?
A “I used to get frightened flying with her 3 but Bill had the Secret Service with him and I remember him talking about what a good job” — sorry — “job she did.”
Q Okay. And what else did you put a check by?
A “Donald Trump was also a good friend of Jeffrey’s. He didn’t partake in any sex with any of us but he flirted with me. He’d laugh and tell Jeffrey, ‘you’ve got the life.’”
Q Other than the three you’ve just mentioned —
Q — everything else on here is absolutely accurate?
MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection.
A Yes. Well, to the best of my recollection, yes.
Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) All right. What is inaccurate about, “I’d have been about 17 at the time. I flew to the Caribbean with Jeffrey and then Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick up Bill in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey had bought her”?
A Because it makes it kind of sound like an eyewitness thing.
Q Okay. Did you say that statement to Sharon Churcher?
A I said to Sharon that Ghislaine told me that she flew Bill in the heli- — the black helicopter that Jeffrey bought her, and I just wanted to clarify that I didn’t actually see her do that. I heard from Ghislaine that she did that.
Q You heard that from Ghislaine, and then you reported to Sharon Churcher that you had heard that from Ghislaine.
MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection.
A I heard a lot of things from Ghislaine that sounded too true — too outrageous to be true, but you never knew what to believe, so…
Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Okay. And after Sharon Churcher printed what she said you said, did you complain to her that it was inaccurate?
A I might have verbally with her, but again, I didn’t see a point in making a hissy over it because what was done was done. She had already printed.
Q What was inaccurate about, “I used to get frightened flying with her but Bill” said — “had the Secret Service with him and I remember him talking about what a good job she did”?
A I just don’t remember saying that to her. I don’t remember saying I remember him talking about what a good job she did.
Q All right.
A I just don’t remember that at all.
Q Okay. And I guess, just to be clear, my questions wasn’t do you remember saying this to Sharon Churcher; my question is, is that statement accurate?
MS. MCCAWLEY: Well, objection.
Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Did you used to get frightened flying with her?
Q Okay. Did Bill have the Secret Service with him?
A They were there, but not like on the — not where we were eating.
Q Do you remember Bill talking about what a good job she did?
A I don’t remember that.
Q So what is inaccurate about that statement?
A I just — it’s inaccurate because I don’t remember him talking about what a good job she did. I don’t remember that.
Q Does it inaccurately suggest that Bill had the Secret Service with him on a helicopter?
MS. MCCAWLEY: Objection.
A Well, not being an eyewitness to it, I wouldn’t be able to tell you. I can’t tell you what I don’t know.
Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) And do you believe you said that statement to Sharon Churcher?
A I mean, Sharon and I talked a lot, and if she misheard me or just wrote it in the way that she thought she should, I have no control over that. So I’m not too sure.
Q Did she record your interviews?
A Some of them. Some of them she didn’t. I mean, we, like — we, like, met for like a week, and we spent a lot of time together, and then even after that we just continued, like, kind of a friendship.
Q All right. What’s inaccurate about the last statement on that page?
A “Donald Trump was also a good friend of Jeffrey’s.” That part is true.
“He didn’t partake in any” of — “any sex with any of us but he flirted with me.” It’s true that he didn’t partake in any sex with us, and but it’s not true that he flirted with me. Donald Trump never flirted with me. Then the next sentence is, “He’d laugh and tell Jeffrey, ‘you’ve got the life.'” I never said that to her.
Q When you say, “he didn’t partake in any 8 sex with any of us,” who is “us”?
A Girls. Just —
Q How do you know who Donald Trump — Trump had sex with?
A Oh, I didn’t physically see him have sex with any of the girls, so I can’t say who he had sex with in his whole life or not, but I just know it wasn’t with me when I was with other girls.
Q And who were the other girls that you were with in Donald Trump’s presence?
A None. There — I worked for Donald Trump, and I’ve met him probably a few times.
Q When have you met him?
A At Mar-a-Lago. My dad and him, I wouldn’t say they were friends, but my dad knew him and they would talk all the time — well, not all the time but when they saw each other.
Q Have you ever been in Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein’s presence with one another?
Here I END of this set of referenced remarks. The end point is page 444.
LATER, PAGE 451
Q When was this conversation with the FBI?
A After Sharon printed the articles, the first articles that came out. I don’t know how many she printed, but when the first articles came out, after that the FBI contacted me.
Q What’s the next one you have a checkmark by?
A “I also saw Prince Andrew at a Ranch in 12 New Mexico.”
Q Did you tell that to Sharon Churcher?
A No. And I think it’s a mistake. Maybe she meant somewhere else, but because we had been talking about so much, maybe she just put New Mexico. I don’t think Sharon intentionally lied on any of these. I just — I think we talked so much over a period of a week, and then after that we had phone conversations, and so on and so forth, that some of the information just got misheard or mishandled, or whatever.
It’s easy to say one set of poor reporting, even reporting that involves crimes of two Presidents of the United States, even reporting that resulted in FBI questioning of crimes that implicated or exonerated two Presidents, is no big deal. But it tends to fit a pattern of media manipulation that favored Donald Trump at the expense of both Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton. For instance, in the run-up to the 2016 election, I would like to draw your attention to:
CONCHITA SARNOFF’S INEXPLICABLE DEFENSE OF DONALD TRUMP AGAINST THE RAPE ALLEGATIONS IN “KATIE JOHNSON’S” LAWSUIT
When I first researched Jeffrey Epstein shortly after Katie Johnson filed her rape lawsuit against Epstein and Trump on April 26, 2016, I found that Conchita Sarnoff was a widely-quoted authority on Epstein’s crimes. In the FBI files released on Jeffrey Epstein, some of Conchita’s articles, published in July 2010, were photocopied and included in Epstein’s FBI file (File 3, pages 72-78). Shortly before “Katie Johnson’s” lawsuit, Conchita had independently published a book TrafficKing on April 18, 2016 (according to Amazon). The “synopsis,” as described on conchitasarnoff.com, reads in part:
The story explores the darkest recesses of the corridors of power, from Harvard to the White House. Conchita Sarnoff, an investigative journalist, who despite bribes to stay silent, risked her life to expose the brutal reality of human trafficking and the Jeffrey E. Epstein case…
The revelations in this book could have serious implications in the upcoming 2016 Presidential elections.
I didn’t buy the book, but I did listen to two interviews which Conchita gave to Russia Today and Ed Opperman shortly after Conchita’s book was published and “Katie’s” lawsuit was filed. which were published on youtube. I’m going to post the links to the interviews. I transcribed a good bit of it for this article, so if there are any errors in it, that’s my fault. It’s a lot of material but I want the context included for the reader. First I will quote her statements in these interviews, and then below the transcriptions of excerpts of these interviews I’m going to take issue with her statements. Again, I think the context is there, but it’s always your responsibility to check original sourcing and context. I encourage you to listen to the interviews yourself.
Conchita Sarnoff on Russia Today: April 29, 2016
Conchita: So, you know, here we have this one victim who claims, and I would like if you permit me, to read you from her testimony. She gave a testimony to two attorneys, Jack Scarola, who represented Brad Edwards, and Brad Edwards from Florida, both attorneys from Florida, who has represented multiple victims. And I’m going to read you from her file, from her testimony because I think it reads best and so according to this girl, Jack Scarola asks Virginia Louise Roberts ‘can you give me an estimate as to the number of friends for whom Jeffrey provided and paid for your services?’ That means her services as a escort, if you like, as a prostitute, for these men. She says, Virginia responds, “There was about, you know, I don’t know eight guys possibly.’ The attorney asks her ‘and are you able to name those people for me?’ And she responds ‘no, not at this stage. I just, some of these people are really influential in power and I don’t want to start another shit storm with a few of them. I’ll tell you that there was some erotic massages given to, but I’m just afraid. I’m too afraid to tell you. So then he goes on and he asks her multiple questions, and towards the end of that testimony, he asks her about the former President Bill Clinton. And she says that she, there was sexual conduct and foreplay and there was a bed on Epstein’s jet, and she goes on to say what they did, which is not important, well you know, we don’t need to discuss that. And then when Scarola asks her, well when you say here, what do you mean by here, and she says, because he asks her where the former President Clinton is, and she places the former President on the Island, meaning in the USVI, which is the United States Virgin Islands where Jeffrey Epstein has his primary residence. And so she says, in the testimony she says, forgive me, Scarola says ‘when you say you asked him why is Bill Clinton here, where was here?’ Virginia responds, “On the Island.’ And then the attorney asks her ‘When you were present with Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?’ And Virginia answers Ghislaine, that is Ghislaine Maxwell, Emmy, Emmy Taylor, another victim, and there was two young girls that I could identify. I never really knew them well anyways. It was two girls from New York. And then the attorney asks her, ‘And were all of you staying at Jeffrey’s house on the island, including Bill Clinton? And she responds, ‘that is correct. He had about four or five different villas on his island, separate from the main house, and we all stayed in the villas.’ So, you draw the conclusion. I mean she certainly doesn’t say that Bill Clinton sexually molested her, she certainly does not say that Bill Clinton molested the girls….
That’s the END of what I transcribed, at the 10:22 mark. The interview continued for several more minutes. Moving on to the second interview:
Conchita Sarnoff on the Opperman Report May 16, 2016
Conchita: I believe that Mr., the reason that Mr. Trump has been included in this case, first of all, none of the files that I have read, and I have read thousands of files, that is court files, depositions, sworn testimony. I have spoken to the Chief of Police of Palm Beach, who was the one who arrested Mr. Epstein, and who started the case. I’ve even spoken with, several times with, to the prosecutor who prosecuted Mr. Epstein, who wrote a letter that I published on the Daily Beast on March 25, 2011. You can read it there, you can also read it in my book. The prosecutor behind Epstein’s case, the Chief of Police, all have said, and the hundreds of law enforcement officials that I have spoken to, no one ever hinted at Mr. Trump. I never heard anything about Mr. Trump. Whether I agree or disagree with Mr. Trump’s political views, that’s not what we’re talking about here. We are now talking about bringing in a presidential candidate in order, clearly, to make him seem as if he is as guilty as Mr. Epstein was found guilty, of something that I believe, given the files that I’ve read and the conversations I’ve had, I believe that Mr. Trump is not guilty of any criminal activity with this alleged victim named Katie Johnson.” …”
Opperman: On no, I don’t believe that one either, yeah that’s ridiculous, but the thing is…
Conchita: Right, Katie Johnson, a woman somewhere in California, filed a case on April 26.
Opperman: In Riverside, yeah we did a whole show, I did a whole show on that, so we don’t want to get too far off on that, but…
Conchita: But no, I don’t believe, I think that the reason Mr. Trump is being brought forward. It’s a political, clearly this is political
Opperman: But with Trump, Virginia Roberts did work at Maralago for Trump and so did her father, and also too, and Trump too flew on Epstein’s plane, we have a deposition from Epstein’s brother…
Conchita: Right, I understand. And this is what I have. I have, not only do I have the depositions that were given to me by a source, and forgive me not the depositions the pilot logs, that were given to me by a source, I also have the most recent pilot logs where, according to Fox News, former President Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane 26 times. I had, in my count, only 17 times. Well I now have been told and given proof that former President Clinton flew 26 times. But notwithstanding, I believe that even though Virginia Louise Roberts worked for Mr. Trump’s organization as did her father, he was the maintenance manager and Virginia Roberts was, I believe, a bathroom attendant, which is where Mrs. Maxwell meets her and finds her at Maralago, that clearly (laughs) doesn’t implicate Mr. Trump as someone who abused victims, I mean that just means that, you know, he as a matter of fact immediately asked Mr. Epstein to remove himself as a member the moment that Mr. Trump found out that Mr. Epstein had been indicted, his membership to his club was blocked.”
END of transcription at 20:41. The interview continued for many minutes.
OK. Let me pause here and make a few observations. In the Russia Today interview, Conchita Sarnoff referred to one of Epstein’s victims as a prostitute in a backhanded manner. Although she referenced someone else saying that Virginia had provided services, she didn’t have to say “That means her services as a escort, if you like, as a prostitute.” That was her choice of words. I was struck by the crude reference to Virginia, recruited from Maralago at the age of 15, from the “executive director of the Alliance to Rescue Victims of Trafficking.”
Epstein, by all accounts, had a large number of victims. There’s not a definitive source on how many to this day. In the interview with Opperman, Conchita says “I believe, given the files that I’ve read and the conversations I’ve had, I believe that Mr. Trump was not guilty of any criminal activity with this alleged victim named Katie Johnson.” Then she immediately, immediately, starts talking about Bill Clinton’s flights on Epstein plane. Conchita didn’t reference any information concerning Epstein’s victim “Katie Johnson,” who was using a pseudonym- not any conversations involving the plaintiff, not any files she viewed which involved the plaintiff, nothing. She could only refer to Katie as “someone from California.” How could whatever “files and conversations” that Conchita Sarnoff inspected, which she referenced involving Bill Clinton, possibly disprove that the alleged crime involving Donald Trump in 1994 did not happen? (“Katie” dated the rapes as “summer of 1994” when she refiled her lawsuit in New York).
I don’t see any reason to defend Donald Trump in this manner other than to, well, defend him for the same reason she described in the Opperman interview that she said Trump was “brought forward.” “clearly this is political.”
Let’s look at some text in Katie Johnson’s April 26, 2016 lawsuit. This text will simply highlight the fact that an eyewitness, Tiffany Doe, had agreed to testify on behalf of Katie Johnson in the April 2016 lawsuit. Then I’ll summarize my concerns about Conchita’s reporting and opinions below that and move on again.
“Tiffany Doe, a former trusted employee of the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, has agreed to provide sworn testimony in this civil case and any other civil or criminal proceedings, fully verifying the authenticity of the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson.”
“Witness Tiffany Doe was employed by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, for more than 10 years as a party planner for his underage sex parties. Tiffany Doe was physically present at each of the four occasions of sexual abuse by Defendant Trump upon the person of plaintiff Johnson, as it was her job to witness all of the sexual escapades of Defendant Epstein’s guests at these underage sex parties and later reveal all of the sordid details to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein.”
“Tiffany Doe will testify to the fact that the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was extremely fortunate to have survived all of the physical and sexual horrors inflicted upon her by Defendants Epstein and Trump.”
After reading the above text from “Katie Johnson’s” lawsuit, let me draw you back to a statement Conchita made in the Russia Today interview on April 29, 2016, three days after this lawsuit was filed: “So you draw the conclusion. I mean she (Virginia Roberts Giuffre) certainly doesn’t say that Bill Clinton sexually molested her.” Yet quite obviously, “Katie Johnson” did say that Donald Trump raped her in no uncertain terms.
My brief summary of Conchita’s interviews which I have referenced is as follows: Conchita strongly implied that Bill Clinton was guilty of statutory rape with Virginia Roberts, despite Conchita herself noting that Virginia did not make the claim. Conchita also said that she did not believe Katie Johnson’s claims despite Katie’s direct, detailed, graphic, written claim of not only statutory rape, but also forcible rape, and the willingness of a 10-year employee of Jeffrey Epstein to testify as an eyewitness. This started on Russia Today three days after Katie filed her lawsuit. As Conchita said, “So you draw the conclusion.” Moving on.
INFORMATION TRUMP GAVE TO BRADLEY EDWARDS ON JEFFREY EPSTEIN
It’s not a big “scoop,” as Rachel Maddow would say, to say that Donald Trump betrayed his partner in crime Jeffrey Epstein. Bradly Edwards, attorney for several of Epstein’s victims, said it in what I believe is a plain manner on July 9, 2019.
“He is the only person, who in 2009 when I served a lot of subpoenas, on a lot of people, or at least gave notice to some pretty connected people that I wanted to talk to them, he is the only person who picked up the phone and said ‘Let’s just talk. I’ll give you as much time as you want. I’ll tell you what you need to know,’ and was very helpful in the information that he gave, and gave no indication whatsoever that he was involved in anything untoward whatsoever, but had good information that checked out and that helped us. And we didn’t have to take a deposition of him.”
As I previously reported, Edwards questioned Adriana Ross about removing computers from Epstein’s Palm Beach home before the Palm Beach Police Department raided it. Edwards also asked Ross if Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor for President Clinton, had tipped off Epstein. I can’t say for a fact that Trump gave Edwards information which led to the questions implying that Sandy Berger had tipped off Epstein, but like Edwards said, Trump was very helpful. I can’t think of another person who would have access to the level of information (even without clearance) that led to Edwards line of questioning. When Edwards said that Trump was “the only person” willing to help him out, that’s saying a lot, assuming Edwards wasn’t on a fishing expedition based on nothing, which I really doubt. Trump was close to both Bill and Jeff. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Trump giving up Clinton and Epstein. The problem is, it all seems like an effort to sell others out to protect himself and later run for the White House. Now let’s move on to where the falling out appears to have originated and why.
THE WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE DEMONSTRATING THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS THE FALLING OUT BETWEEN TRUMP AND EPSTEIN IN LATE 2004; AND SUBSEQUENT PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT RAID OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S RESIDENCE
The Washington Post reported on an auction for the property Maison de L’Amitie which Epstein and Trump each participated in. This auction appears to have been the start of a falling out between the two, based on the following: The Post reported that there were no public sightings of the two together after this auction in November 2004. Trump said on July 9, 2019, a day after the government’s indictment against Jeffrey Epstein was unsealed in Southern District of New York, that he hadn’t spoken to him in 15 years after they had a falling out. Bradley Edwards said that Trump was helpful in providing information to him on Epstein in 2009, so it’s not a stretch to think that Trump was helpful in providing information to the Palm Beach police department in 2004, especially since Trump’s reference to the falling out occurring 15 years ago dovetails so nicely with the 2004 auction date on the property.
The text below is all I’m going to directly quote from the WaPo article. Then I’ll dig into the property auction which seemed to start the conflict between Trump and Epstein and finish my article.
On Nov. 28, 2004 — less than two weeks after the mansion auction — Palm Beach police fielded a tip that young women were seen coming and going from Epstein’s home, then-Police Chief Michael Reiter said in a deposition. Reiter declined to comment.
If you assume that the falling out between Trump and Epstein did start in 2004 after this auction, like I do, it raises an interesting question: what in the world was so important about this property that it would lead to a falling out between the two rapists? Let’s start with some history of the property.
Wikipedia says that Lex Wexner bought the Maison de L’Amitie in May 1, 1985 for $10 Million, and owned it until he sold it on May 28, 1988 Abraham “Abe” D. Gosman for around $12 Million. Gosman in turn filed bankruptcy in 2003, and the property was auctioned in 2004 when Donald Trump bought it for $41.35 Million.
Trump later sold Maison de L’Amitie to Dmitry Rybolovlev for $95 Million on July 8, 2008. I’ve seen people all over Twitter surmise that this was a method of money laundering to Trump, and I believed that too for awhile. But since this apparent falling out between Trump and Epstein over this property has come to light, I look at things differently.
Wexner’s involvement with Epstein looks like it began around 1986-87, and Trump’s friendship with Epstein began around 1987, according to Trump. Roy Cohn acquired AIDS in 1984 and died from it in 1986. Like I said before, I don’t believe “Epstein’s network” magically sprang to life in April, 1988 when Epstein purchased Little St. James Island. I believe Epstein joined an existing network. Let’s talk a little bit about the period when Wexner owned this mansion, 1985-1988. And this will be a hard transition.
Nelly Patterson Webb says she saw George Bush at 2 sex parties in 1986- Chicago and DC. I’m referencing a report by the late John DeCamp In “The Franklin Coverup.” This report also describes rape of children, murder, satanism, and human sacrifice. Yes that’s what I said. I’m not going to get into it more than that right now. Read it yourself.
“Trance Formation of America,” was published 1991, (Page 1 in the book), also involved many politicians including Presidents Reagan and Bush 41. This is my brief overview of just a few of the many things Cathy O’Brien made detailed claims about, some of which I noted with page numbers:
- Cathy O’Brien’s young daughter, Kelly Cox, was raped repeatedly by Bush and Reagan;
- Cathy was raped by Cheney;
- Cathy and Kelly were survivors of the “MK Ultra” program, and were trained for sexual purposes;
- Cathy’s efforts to get the CIA to acknowledge her name in any records they have (which CIA said they could not find in a letter replying to her dated July 17, 1991 (Page 55));
- The O’Briens documented therapy to recover from the trauma, including a doctor’s physical examination of her daughter at age 10 which did show abuse (Page 49);
- Cathy witnessed what she believed to be other female MK Ultra victims, who had reached an age to old to be useful, ritually sacrificed at “Bohemian Grove.”
- The first dated reference I noted was Fall of 1982 involving what I noted as “Cathy O’Brien provided to Ronald Reagan by Senator Robert Byrd.” (Page 127).
Now I know that’s a lot to take in, and no one’s talking about anything but Epstein right now. And once again, all I’m saying is that the network didn’t just spring to life on Little St. Jeff. Let’s just agree that the entire scope and history of whatever network this is, no matter how many Presidents it involves, no matter the level of US government involvement, needs to be investigated, can we do that, America?
The summary I gave of “Trance Formation of America” was obtained from a now-dead link which I believe was an accurate copy of this book, co-authored by Mark Phillips and Cathy O’Brien, for sale on Amazon. That link is not going to work, but I made a few notes when I read the link online some time ago. I just want to be as clear as possible exactly what my sourcing is. Again, I believe the information I reference to be in the same book Trance Formation of America for sale on Amazon, but having not seen the actual book, I cannot say for sure. If anyone knows of anything I’ve written here or anywhere else, for that matter, is incorrectly referenced, let me know in the comment section and I’ll change it.
Now with that unpleasantness out of the way, getting back to the Maison de L’Amitie property, I ask the question: what was going on at this property in the period when Les Wexner owned it 1985-1988?
A common theory today about how Epstein’s network operated involved Epstein videotaping politicians and VIPs in criminal or embarrassing situations. And I believe that’s very true. Donald Trump bought the Maison de L’Amitie and “renovated” it, as reported by Politico, which would be sufficient cover to remove and hidden surveillance cameras if they existed, and if Trump wanted to do such a thing. I’m purely speculating here, like we all are to an extent, in the absence of a legitimate investigation into the entirety of Epstein’s network, although that might be changing after the FBI raided Little St James August 12, 2019.
If you want to dig a little deeper into conspiracy land, maybe that’s what the “backhoe loader and dump trucks” later used to demolish the Maison de L’Amitie property were also doing, digging. I mean, $95 Million seems to be priced high just for the real estate plus the expenses of demolishing the home which Rybolovlev had to pay. Not that the property wasn’t worth it, and someone good with real estate couldn’t make money on a new property, it’s just that the property was previously purchased for way less (Trump paid $41.35 Million, Wexner paid $10 Million), and then a Russian gets the property and brings in heavy equipment. So Trump may have not only sold the real estate, but also any blackmail material contained on the property. And if that material was in the dirt, you get the picture. And then the roughly $50 Million real estate profit looks more like a profit for services rendered than money laundering. Again, that’s all speculation.
In the power struggle between Epstein and Trump over who controlled the property Maison de L’Amitie, it wasn’t a close contest with Epstein being arrested, sentenced, investigated by the FBI, later re-arrested, and then dead in a jail cell while Trump ascended to the White House. And everyone thinks Epstein could have given up Trump and Clinton. Really.
I’m going to wrap this up. If you’re one of the millions of people like me who have wondered why in the hell the Bush II Administration would cover for the likes of Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Donald Trump and Jeff Epstein, I suggest that you raise the “two Presidents involved” theory to four Presidents.
Who could Bill give up?