maybe the Democrats in the House should hold no-holds-barred hearings with them in public, live, online. Of course it would only work if they asked them really tough questions. I don't know if there is any legal-lore superstitious rite that would allow them to do that having them sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to give it that false aura of TV lawyer show reliability. I have yet to see the liars of the Republican-fascist party who lie their asses off under oath held to any kind of account. But such a hearing would produce public claims by Bill and Hillary Clinton which could, then, be used by the Republican-fascists though the same is true of any testimony on the record that they give.
The Democrats on the relevant committees could invite the Republican-fascists on those committees to ask questions - THOUGH THEY SHOULD NEVER DO THAT WITHOUT THERE BEING RULES THAT THE REPUBLICAN-FASCISTS HAD TO, THEMSELVES, BE HONEST AND RESPECTFUL. My guess is if they had to abide by honesty and fairness rules the fascists would choose to not participate because that wouldn't serve their purpose.
I am curious to hear Bill Clinton explain his relationship with Epstein outside of the kind of lawyerly truth shaving that his 1990s sworn testimony about his marital infidelity demonstrated. He has no political career or presidency to worry about and, if he's truly innocent of crimes, he doesn't have the same kind of worries about a crooked prosecutor and judge that he rightly had to consider three decades ago.
Of course he could have, well before this, given a full, public account of his relationship with Epstein, Maxwell and the others involved with the child trafficking and rape and, I have absolutely no doubt, compromat and blackmail ring. I say the same about George Mitchell or any others who appear in the Epstein files.
Looking at the online list of those whose names appear in the Epstein material, I was pleased to see only three names of musicians, Michael Jackson, Mick Jagger and, for pity sake, Itzhak Perlman. I take it from that that Epstein wasn't a music lover. You can contrast that with the names of those in the movie racket or other degenerate media. I think that other than the super-rich and political, perhaps neo-Darwinists and theoretical physicists and other such orthodox materialists account for a lot more of them than could be considered by chance. I'm tempted to go into the Pinkers and Dawkins and the old ScienceBlogs crowd and their relationship with Epstein along with the recently posted podcast of one of their own Rebecca Watson pointing out what a boob Larry Krauss is but that's more an indulgence than something important. I still might do it.
-------------------------------
A lot of what went on in those circles were a direct result of the Supreme Court knocking down the post-Watergate clean-elections laws in the Buckley v Valeo decision that opened the floodgates of dirty money, influence and law buying that the idiot "civil libertarians" did in that and subsequent "free speech-press" rulings by the idiot ridden Supreme Court. You would have to be a totally callow idiot who had spent a lifetime in the general make-believe of "the law" to not realize what the result of knocking down those laws would be, EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE ADOPTED TO STOP.
Fifty six years after the crimes of Nixon horrified those who wanted clean government, our politics AND SO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is dirtier than it's ever been.
Trump is a direct result of those "first amendment" rulings. The Epstein money operations and those like it, known and yet to be revealed, may well have never found the foothold they did in our politics without those rulings and with the clean elections laws that the ELECTED OFFICIALS OF THE 1970s adopted in order to clean up our politics and government. The Roberts Court, a product of such money corruption in our politics is also a direct result of those "first amendment" "civil liberties" rulings.
I think its notable that the present British "Labour" government that may well fall due to the corrupt links to the Epstein crime gang is led by the hypocritical and corrupt Kier Starmer, who made his reputation as a "civil liberties" lawyer. That fact did nothing to dissuade me of my complete skepticism of that pseudo-liberal lawyer racket on either side of the Atlantic.
No comments:
Post a Comment