Connect with us

Alternative News

Will The Coronavirus Spark Positive Transformation On Our Planet?

Published

on

Will The Coronavirus Spark Positive Transformation On Our Planet?
Photo Credit: Pexels

In the video below entitled “Coronavirus Capitalism–And How To Beat It,” author and activist Naomi Klein explores the impact of the Coronavirus in terms of the economic and political policy decisions that are being made in the face of the pandemic.

In her accompanying article on The Intercept, we come to understand Klein’s political affiliations as she expresses the premise of a book she wrote entitled The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism: 

“Thirteen years ago, I wrote a book [which] described a brutal and recurring tactic by right-wing governments. After a shocking event — a war, coup, terrorist attack, market crash or natural disaster — they exploit the public’s disorientation, suspend democracy, push through radical free market policies that enrich the 1% at the expense of the poor and middle class.”

She goes on to apply this to the current response she is seeing to the Coronavirus pandemic, while maintaining a glimmer of hope that some left-leaning policies may yet get the opportunity to germinate under these circumstances:

“The Trump administration and other governments around the world are busily exploiting the crisis to push for no-strings-attached corporate bailouts and regulatory rollbacks.

This crisis — like earlier ones — could well be the catalyst to shower aid on the wealthiest interests in society, including those most responsible for our current vulnerabilities, while offering next to nothing to the most workers, wiping out small family savings and shuttering small businesses. But as this video shows, many are already pushing back — and that story hasn’t been written yet.”

Only A Crisis Produces Real Change

What is perhaps most intriguing about the video is the suggestion that this could be a time of massive transformation in the way our societies function. She provides a quote from Milton Friedman, whom she derides as ‘an extreme free-market economist,’ in order to substantiate this idea:

“Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.” – Milton Friedman

Klein hearkens back almost a century ago to exemplify how a crisis was able to suddenly start to bring about the type of social and economic change she is in favour of:

“In fact, it’s possible for crisis to catalyse a kind of evolutionary leap. Think of the 1930s, when the Great Depression led to the New Deal.

In the United States and elsewhere, governments began to weave a social safety net, so that the next time there was a crash, there would be programs like Social Security to catch people.”

Looking Beyond The Polarity

Now granted, Klein limits her vision of transformation to the implementation of the current liberal talking points like universal health care and the Green New Deal. She considers Friedman’s idea of ‘keeping alive and available alternatives to the existing policies’ is the ongoing work of the opposition (minority) political party and its associated sponsors, lobbyists, and activists.

However, I am looking at something more radical. I’m looking at the transformation of the system as a whole, authored by a human collective that has begun to transcend the current either/or political affiliations. I am looking at something that comes out of the core of what it is for each of us to be human, not what powerful interests tell us we want.  And I believe this crisis, which has cut down many of the distractions we’ve always paid attention to without really forcing most of us into survival mode, is allowing us to contemplate our lives more deeply.

I consider this video to be an interesting jump-off point into a more profound discussion, into how we as individuals might get awakened by this crisis to become clearer on what we don’t really need and what we actually want in our lives. And hopefully, this will lead to new discussions about how we change course and find a different way forward.

The Takeaway

Naomi Klein, and for that matter most of the players on both sides of the established order, would be aghast at the notion that the type of transformation that the Coronavirus crisis has the potential to spark is one that goes beyond left/right politics, liberal or conservative ideologies, or socialist-capitalist economics. However, what Klein has pointed to may ultimately be something bigger than she is aspiring for: not just an improvement in our health care system or environmental policies, implemented by the same form of authority that has long outlived its natural expiry date, but rather the dismantling of those very forms of authority that are antithetical to individual health, liberty and autonomy.

As this pandemic runs its natural course, we will be keeping a close eye and will continue to discuss any signs that real transformation is coming, both in our collective awareness and in the implementation of changes that truly aim to honour the lives of all of the Earth’s inhabitants.

This article (Will The Coronavirus Spark Positive Transformation On Our Planet?) was originally created for Collective Evolution and is published here under Creative Commons.

The views in this article may not reflect editorial policy of Collective Spark.

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Alternative News

Bill Clinton Had “Intimate Dinner” With Ghislaine Maxwell After Epstein’s Crimes Were Exposed

Former president Bill Clinton reportedly met with accused sex-trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell for an “intimate” dinner in 2014.

Published

on

Photo Credit: TMU

(TMU) – Former president Bill Clinton reportedly met with accused sex-trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell for an “intimate” dinner in 2014, which is many years after her illegal activities with Jeffrey Epstein were well-known to authorities and the media.

A source told The Daily Beast that “This is an intimate dinner with Clinton in LA. Think of all the people [Clinton] knows in LA — and Ghislaine gets to attend.”

Another source confirmed the meeting with The Daily Beast journalist and added that Clinton’s PR team was relieved that the meeting didn’t make the headlines at the time, since Maxwell’s relationship with Epstein was already public knowledge.

The pair reportedly met at Crossroads Kitchen, a hotspot for celebrities and millionaires on Melrose Avenue. On the night of their meeting, famous actors like Bruce Willis and Sean Penn were also in the building.

Clinton and Maxwell met with mutual friend Steve Bing, a producer and major Democratic donor who killed himself earlier this year. It is not clear if his suicide had anything to do with his involvement in people like Ghislaine Maxwell.

“They’re always fighting against the reporting and not that they did it. That’s the problem,” one friend of the Clintons told the site anonymously.

In a new book called “A Convenient Death: The Mysterious Demise of Jeffrey Epstein,” authors Alana Goodman and Daniel Halper claim that Clinton was having an affair with Ghislaine Maxwell, who was just recently taken into custody over her involvement with the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein.

Clinton continued to carry on a relationship with both Maxwell and Epstein for long after they were both exposed as sex offenders. In fact, Maxwell was served court papers relating to the Epstein trafficking ring in 2009 while she was attending the Clinton Global Initiative at the Sheraton Hotel in New York City.

Just a few months later, Maxwell attended Chelsea Clinton’s wedding, and Bill continued his relationship with both of them for many years despite the public knowledge of their crimes.

Journalist Conchita Sarnoff wrote in her book TrafficKing that Maxwell was ironically served her court papers during a Clinton charity event for human trafficking.

“Ironically, photographs of Maxwell taken by a private investigator who accompanied the process server showed Maxwell receiving notice while standing beneath a human trafficking banner. Human trafficking was the Conference’s theme at the 2009 Clinton Global Initiative,” she wrote

Recent reports have suggested that Maxwell is prepared to fully cooperate with investigators and name the names of high profile individuals who took part in Epstein’s human trafficking ring.

In an interview with The Sun, Epstein’s former employer Steven Hoffenberg said that Maxwell ‘knows everything’ and will ‘totally co-operate’ after her arrest.

A set of documents that were unsealed from a previous civil trial between Maxwell and Virginia Giuffre, one of the most public and outspoken of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, indicated that Clinton was seen on Epstein’s private island with two young girls. In her testimony, Guiffre said that she remembered Epstein telling her that Bill Clinton owed him some favours.

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Julian Assange Is ‘Hearing Voices’ And At ‘High Risk Of Suicide,’ Psychiatrist Says

At a hearing for Julian Assange, a psychiatrist testified that the Wikileaks founder is experiencing strong hallucinations and is at a high risk of suicide.

Published

on

Photo Credit: TMU

(TMU) – At a recent extradition hearing for Julian Assange, a psychiatrist testified that the embattled Wikileaks founder is experiencing strong hallucinations and is at a high risk of suicide. Professor Michael Kopelman, an emeritus professor of neuropsychiatry at King’s College London, said that Assange has been hearing voices and has confessed to a priest that he was making preparations to kill himself. These preparations included drafting his will and writing a goodbye letter to his family and friends.

On Tuesday, at the Old Bailey courthouse in London, Professor Kopelman testified that he visited Assange over 20 times and has become concerned about his mental and physical health.

“He reported auditory hallucinations, which were voices either inside or outside his head, somatic hallucinations, funny bodily experiences, these have now disappeared. He also has a long history of musical hallucinations, which is maybe a separate phenomenon, that got worse when he was in prison,” Kopelman said.

The voices that Assange is hearing are saying things like “you are dust, you are dead, we are coming to get you”.

Kopelman said that the most severe hallucinations have begun to diminish, but Assange is still severely depressed and at a high risk of suicide. He also added that if Assange were extradited the risk would increase further.

“The risk of suicide arises out of clinical factors…but it is the imminence of extradition and or an actual extradition that would trigger the attempt, in my opinion,” Kopleman said.

Kopelman was cross-examined by James Lewis QC, who accused Assange of fabricating his mental illness to avoid extradition.

Kopelman disagreed with the assertion, and pointed out that Assange was reluctant to share details about his mental struggles with authorities, despite self-reporting in the past.

Professor Michael Kopelman, emeritus professor of neuropsychiatry at King’s College London, pictured outside the Old Bailey today where he  described how Julian Assange had been hearing voices in his head and was at ‘high risk’ of  suicide

Mr Assange was very reluctant to talk about his suicidal ideas and plans because he feared he would be put on constant watch or isolation,” Kopelman said.

He thinks as a leader he shouldn’t be showing weakness or psychiatric problems and he was concerned he would end up being further isolated on continuous watch and he didn’t want that,” he added.

Prison guards have previously confiscated a razor blade and two cords from his cell, and he has been kept under close watch the entire time he has been behind bars. Last month, his partner Stella Moris visited him for the first time since the coronavirus lockdowns began at the prison.

Assange is fighting extradition to the US, where he faces an 18-count indictment alleging a plot to hack computers and conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information. Pictured, some of his supporters outside the Old Bailey

Moris said that Assange is looking much thinner than he was the last time she saw him back in March. She says that the situation has been “incredibly stressful” and that he has been having some health problems, including a sprained ankle and a frozen shoulder. While the prison was taking virus precautions when Assange was having visitors, Moris says that they have done nothing to protect the prisoners during regular hours. Moris has also launched a crowd-funding campaign to help with legal costs for Assange as he fights extradition to the United States.

So far, the campaign has raised £138,445.

Assange is facing 18 charges under the U.S. Espionage Act from the 2010 release of 500,000 files that exposed US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Conspireality: Is It Time For A Serious Conversation?

Published

on

The Anatomy of Conspiracy Theories
Photo Credit: Getty

Madhava Setty, M, Guest Writer

Whether you believe in conspiracy theories or not, we can all agree that the use of the term has exploded in media and in conversation. The question is, why? Are we now using the term “Conspiracy Theory” more indiscriminately and on more platforms than previously? Are we, as a society, simply becoming unhinged and absurd? Are seemingly nonsensical stories, for some unknown reason, starting to resonate with people? Or are some conventional narratives getting challenged because some of these “alternative” explanations are in fact accurate, despite the fact that conventional sources refuse to acknowledge them as even potentially valid? Notice that the last two possibilities are different sides of the same coin. If you think “conspiracy theorists” are unhinged, it is highly likely that they are suspicious of your sanity as well. Both sides insist that they are right and that the other has been hoodwinked. Note that if you choose to not pick a side, you are, by default, allowing the conventional narrative to perpetuate. That is how convention works. 

Merriam-Webster defines the term conspiracy theory as “a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups”. The key elements of this definition remain consistent across all authoritative lexicons: the group responsible for an event must be powerful and covert. However, if we refer to the Wikipedia definition as of 11/2018 a new element emerges: “A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy—generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors—without credible evidence.”

When an explanation is labelled a “Conspiracy Theory,” by today’s definition, it has no evidence to support it. An explanation with no supporting evidence is a hypothesis, not a “theory.” “Conspiracy Theory,” as it is used today, is thus an oxymoron. These “Conspiracy Theories” we seem to hear about everyday should really be called “Conspiracy Hypotheses.” More concerning is that the “Conspiracy Theory” label identifies an explanation as inherently baseless. Given this linguistic construct, where is there room for a conspiracy that is in fact true?

There is also something troubling about using the term “credible” in the definition of conspiracy theory. Legally, evidence that is credible is that which a reasonable person would consider to be true in light of the surrounding circumstances. If evidence suggests an explanation that seems at the surface to be unreasonable, how does a reasonable person avoid automatically labelling the evidence not credible? If we are not careful, the credibility of the explanation and resultant conclusions would then determine the credibility of the evidence that supports it. Is this really so important? Perhaps you are quick to see that with this approach, our understanding of what is true and real can never evolve. If any evidence arose that radically disproved our understanding or eroded our faith in trusted institutions we would automatically discard it as “not credible” and remain entrenched in our accepted paradigm. “Credible” evidence cannot be a necessary requirement of a theory that challenges what is credible to begin with.

To better illustrate this; let us consider an old but very real “conspiracy theory.” About 400 years ago, European civilization was emerging from centuries of scientific and philosophical stagnation known as the dark ages. What more befitting a place for such a renaissance to occur than the center of the universe? You see, the idea that the Earth was one of eight planets revolving around a star that is orbiting the center of one of hundreds of billions of galaxies would have been absurd in Europe in the sixteenth century. Any sane person could see that the Sun and the Moon and every celestial body rises in the East and sets in the West. At that time, if someone went about proposing the idea that everything rises and falls because the Earth was spinning, they would have been laughed out of the tavern. Would that person be a conspiracy theorist? They are not proposing that “powerful actors are carrying out a harmful act,” they are merely suggesting an alternative explanation for what is observed. However, the implication of their suggestion seems to incriminate the authority on such matters as ignorant of the truth or, possibly, the perpetrators of a lie. The possibility of a conspiracy has now been introduced.

Now, let us say that this person claims to have proof of their absurd theory. Would you have taken the time to examine the evidence or would you have been more likely to dismiss them without further consideration? The very idea that they could be right would have been not just silly or heretical, but inconceivable to many, if not all. How could the evidence be credible if it implied something inconceivable? Dismissing their idea would have seemingly been the most logical and, therefore, the smartest thing to do.

When Galileo Galilei appeared in 1610 armed with a rudimentary “telescope,” few would peer into it. He claimed that the refractive properties of the pair of “lenses” would allow you to see things at great distances very clearly. With it one could see Jupiter and its moons revolving around the giant planet just as our moon revolves around Earth. How enchanting! The difficulty would arise when you put the telescope down: your feet would no longer be planted on the previously immovable center of creation. Would you have looked into his telescope? What would have been the harm in taking a peek? Certainly the fear of being proven more gullible than most would have been on your mind. What about the fear that he might be right?

Imagine what must have been going through Galileo’s mind after his monumental discovery. He saw irrefutably that the entire model of the universe had been completely misconceived. One just has to look. Most did not. I can only imagine how hard he must have tried to convince anyone to simply stop, look and listen to what he had discovered. At the time, Galileo was the Chair of Mathematics at the University of Padua and had previously held the same post at the University of Pisa. Despite his bonafides and reputation as a solid contributor to the Italian renaissance, his discovery would likely have died in obscurity if it weren’t for the support of an influential family, the Medicis, who offered Galileo a platform from which he could spread his theory. It was only through allying himself with political power that he was able to slowly generate interest in his heliocentric model of the solar system. His proposition eventually caught the attention of the Catholic church, who initially warned him to desist. Eventually, he was brought to trial in the Roman Inquisition 23 years after his discovery. At the age of 70, the intrepid mathematician and astronomer was allowed to return home if he agreed to recant his story. Instead Galileo chose to spend the rest of his years in prison because he believed that that would be the only way to get people to open their eyes.

Did it work? It did not. Galileo died incarcerated while Europe continued to slumber under stars that moved around them. By today’s standards, Galileo would have been labelled a Conspiracy Theorist from the day he announced his findings until he was proven right fifty years after his death. When the Principle of Gravitational Attraction eventually became widely accepted as true, the church had to retract their position because the motions of the stars and planets could not be explained under Newton’s laws. 

On the other hand, Galileo is credited with being the father of not only observational astronomy, but of the scientific method as well. The scientific method demands that one tests an explanation without bias towards an outcome. All data is considered before deductions are made. When all other explanations have been proven wrong, the only explanation remaining becomes a theory. The theory persists as long as all subsequent experiments continue to uphold it. This is how we ultimately know what we know and have an inkling of what we don’t. If I had to choose a posthumous title for myself, “The Father of the Scientific Method” is one I could die with. Galileo is credited with this honorific not only because he valued it more than his freedom, but because he had the discipline to regard evidence objectively despite how unimaginable the implications were. This is how a body of knowledge expands. By considering the validity of the evidence first, we then can accept what was previously un-imaginable; otherwise what we know tomorrow will be no different than what we know today.

All conspiracy theorists are not Galileos. Neither are all conspiracy theories true. However, can we be certain that all of them are false? At their very core, all conspiracy theories directly or indirectly point at a central authority acting covertly and simultaneously at the media for either missing it or looking the other way. This, of course, is unimaginable, as we all know the government can make mistakes but would never do anything intentionally harmful to its citizens and then hide it. Even if they did, somebody would come forward and the media would let us know about it. This is why such a deception could never occur. The idea that your lover could be in bed with your best friend is inconceivable. Evidence of such a thing would not be credible. Dismissing all conspiracy theories seems logical and therefore seems like the smartest thing to do. 

In “Sapiens”, Yuval Harari proposes an explanation for why our species, Sapiens, out fought, out thought and out survived all other H. species on the planet. He suggests that it was our unique ability to describe and communicate situations and events that had no basis in reality which set us apart. In other words, we could tell stories and they could not. By uniting under a common idea, story or even myth, thousands (and now thousands of millions) of Sapiens could come together with a shared purpose, identity or belief system to disband our cousins who were as individuals more sturdy and just as cunning but not nearly as good at cooperating as we were. This advantage, Harari proposes, has not only led our species to eventual supremacy over all others, but has also allowed us to form communities, governments and global alliances.

Siding with the majority has served us well–until it hasn’t. One only needs to revisit the history of Galileo and basic astronomy to understand this. In actuality, the first observant minds woke up to the fact that the Earth went around the sun and not the other way round nineteen centuries before Galileo did. The Greek mathematician, Aristarcus, is thought to be the first Western person to place the Sun in the middle of a “solar system” in 270 BC. A human being travelled to the moon just 360 years after Galileo “discovered” what Aristarcus had shown nearly two millennia before. How many centuries was this journey delayed because an alternative explanation in ancient Greece became a “conspiracy theory” against authority and convention?

This poses an intriguing question. Is there something hardwired in our behavioural patterns that push us towards conformist narratives and away from alternative ones at a precognitive level? Is it this tendency that gave rise to our enhanced ability to unite that keeps us in “group-think” more than we should be? How do we know we are looking at the world objectively and rejecting alternative belief systems from a purely rational basis? How does one know whether one is biased or not?

One way is to apply the scientific method. The scientific method demands that every possibility, no matter how outlandish, is tested for its veracity and dismissed only when it can be proven wrong. Without this objective pursuit of truth, misconceptions can persist indefinitely, just as the geocentric model of the universe did. Interestingly, Aristarcus was allowed to retain his theory because he lived at a time and place where philosophers, mathematicians and scientists were revered, protected and free to pursue their notions. The freedom ancient Greek society afforded its scientists only endured for a few centuries after Aristarcus lived. In Galileo’s day, the Roman Catholic church had been presiding over such things as facts for well over a thousand years. His incontrovertible proof was suppressed by the power that had the most to lose.

These days, establishing the facts of the matter may not be as easy as we presume. Conspiracy theorists claim to have proof just like the debunkers do. How do we know that the proof offered on either side is valid? Who has the time to apply the scientific method? It certainly seems safer to go with the conventional narrative because surely there are more rational minds in a larger group. Though it seems a reasonable approach, it may be in fact where we misstep. By deferring to others, we assume the majority will arrive at the truth eventually. The problem is that those in the majority who are trained to examine evidence objectively often must take a potentially career-ending risk to even investigate an alternative explanation. Why would an organization be willing to invest the resources to redirect their scientific staff to chase down and evaluate evidence that will likely endanger their reputation with the public without any upside? Thus, conventional narratives survive for another day, or in the case of an Earth-cantered universe, for a couple of thousand years.

Whether or not you are not a “conspiracy theorist” we can all agree that there is a possibility, however slight, that some conventional narratives could be wrong. How would we know? Is there a source that we can trust 100%? Must we rely on our own wits? A short inquiry into this question can be disquieting. Most of us must admit that our understanding of history, science and geopolitics are merely stories that we have been told by people, institutions or media that we trust explicitly or implicitly. Because most of us are not authorities on anything, it would be impossible to overturn any conventional narrative with an evidentiary argument. Challenging these paradigms is necessarily left to others. Generally speaking, there is no real reason to argue with convention if everything is seemingly unfolding acceptably. But what if you wanted to know for yourself ? Is there any way to ever really know the truth without having to have faith in someone or something else?

There may not be. However, it is also naive to believe that if someone, scientist or not, was in possession of evidence that challenged our deepest held beliefs that it would take root in the ethos on its own. Galileo enjoyed unsurpassed credibility as one of Italy’s foremost mathematicians. He also possessed irrefutable, verifiable and reproducible evidence for his revolutionary theory, yet the convention he was challenging did not crumble through his discoveries. History has shown us that it makes no difference how valid a point is; truth emerges only when someone is listening

So, rather than seeking to independently validate or refute what we are being told, it becomes more productive to ask a different question: How biased is our society by historical standards? How does our society regard alternative theories? Do we let them co-exist with convention as the ancient Greeks did? Do we collectively invest resources to investigate them openly? Or do we dismiss, attack and vilify them as was done in the papal states in Galileo’s time? Which kind of society is more likely to get it right? Which runs the greater risk of being hoodwinked in the long run? Which is more free?

About the Author

Although I am an Electrical Engineer and a practicing Anesthesiologist, I consider myself to be primarily an Epistemologist. In other words, I am most interested in how we, as individuals, know what we know. It doesn’t require much inquiry to see that most of us adopt narratives largely from what we have been told. Conscious Media, or the dissemination of information devoid of bias so that it may be considered openly and objectively is therefore vitally important to any society that is interested in the compassionate pursuit of truth. I offer my perspective as a physician and engineer in the hope that it potentiates Collective Spark’s mission to responsibly explore relevant topics and events in a manner that encourages curiosity and engagement.

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Huge Trove Of Epstein Flight Logs To Be Revealed, “Sparking Panic” Among Pedophile’s Wealthy Friends

All of the flight logs for Jeffrey Epstein’s private planes, including his “Lolita Express” jet, have been subpoenaed by the AG of the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Published

on

Photo Credit: TMU

(TMU) – The flight logs for Jeffrey Epstein’s private planes, including his “Lolita Express” jet, have been subpoenaed by the attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands, in a move that is believed to have sparked a panicked response from the wealthy and elite figures who partied with the deceased pedophile and disgraced financier.

Virgin Islands Attorney General Denise George has demanded that detailed lists documenting every passenger to step on-board his aircraft be handed over, so that courts can shed further light on the crimes he carried out while residing in his opulent mansion in the U.S. territory.

The lists would encompass anyone who flew on his four helicopters and three planes spanning the years 1998 until August 2019, when Epstein allegedly ‘killed’ himself in a New York jail while facing a potential prison sentence of up to 45 years on charges of pedophilia and sex trafficking.

The subpoena is a part of a broader against Epstein’s estate filed by the Virgin Islands’ attorney general, which alleges 22 counts including human trafficking, aggravated rape, forced labour, prostitution, child abuse and neglect, reports The Mirror.

Attorney General George is also demanding that all “complaints or reports of potentially suspicious conduct” be handed over, along with the names and contact details of those who worked for the pilots or “interacted with or observed” Epstein and any passengers associated with him be handed over.

Previous logs from 2009 detailing the names of flights by pilot David Rodgers resulted in a bombshell in world media after prominent figures including Bill Clinton, Prince Andres, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker and Naomi Campbell had each been on board the so-called “Lolita Express” jet.

Pilot logs in 2009 show Naomi Campbell flew on Epstein’s jet (Image: Getty Images)

However, their mere presence on the jet does not suggest that they were aware of Epstein’s grave misconduct.

“The records that have been subpoenaed will make the ones Rodgers provided look like a Post-it note,” a source told the outlet. “There is panic among many of the rich and famous.”

According to attorneys for Epstein’s victims, the 2009 logs don’t include the voluminous records of flights by chief pilot Larry Visoski, who flew for Epstein for over 25 years.

The news comes as British socialite and alleged sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, 58, continues to be held in a New York jail on charges that she assisted Epstein in grooming and sexually abusing young women and girls.

In July, U.S. prosecutors ordered the unsealing of over 80 documents, totalling hundreds of pages, that meticulously detailed Maxwell’s dealings with Epstein, her former boyfriend and associate.

The documents included flight logs from Epstein’s private jets, details about Maxwell’s sex life that lawyers had tried to prevent the release of, and the transcript of a seven-hour, 418-page deposition Maxwell had given which her attorneys describe as “extremely personal [and] confidential.”

Like her former partner Epstein, Maxwell is intensely well-connected with various members of political and business elites. Photographs have long circulated of Maxwell posing at social events with prominent figures drawn from political, cultural, and financial elites, yet those captured in photos with her deny any knowledge of her wrongdoing. Maxwell is known to have attended nearly every high society social gathering in New York City for a number of years.

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending Now

STAY AWARE

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

You have Successfully Subscribed!