By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite Jeffrey Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea and subsequent jail time for sex offenses, documents reveal he received numerous invitations from political insiders for exclusive events and even one-on-one meetings with over a dozen members of Congress. These entreaties came from intermediaries like public relations executives and major donors, seeking to connect Epstein with rising political figures and established lawmakers across various states. While it remains unclear how many of these opportunities Epstein accepted or if the lawmakers were fully aware of the nature of the solicitations, the documents highlight a persistent pursuit of the convicted sex offender by individuals tied to Capitol Hill in the decade before his death.
Read the original article here
New documents have surfaced, painting a concerning picture of Jeffrey Epstein’s continued social and professional connections, revealing that he was invited to gatherings with at least a dozen members of Congress years after his initial arrest. This information, gleaned from recently released files, indicates that the convicted sex offender wasn’t ostracized by political insiders in the decade leading up to his death; instead, he was actively pursued for engagement.
The period between 2011 and 2017, a substantial stretch of time after his initial legal troubles, saw Epstein receiving invitations to events that included prominent figures such as Senator Chuck Schumer, Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Representative Nicole Malliotakis, Senator Martin Heinrich, Senator Ed Markey, Representative Diana DeGette, and Delegate Stacey Plaskett. This persistence in seeking his company, even after his conviction, raises serious questions about the judgment and priorities of those involved.
The fact that these invitations continued post-arrest starkly illustrates how insulated many powerful individuals are from the consequences faced by ordinary citizens. For less severe infractions, many people would find themselves blacklisted, yet Epstein seemingly maintained access to political circles. There’s speculation that further revelations from these documents might also expose ties to early QAnon and MAGA movements, with calls for accountability for anyone found to be obstructing the release of this information, regardless of their political affiliation.
This situation leads to a natural inquiry: who was extending these invitations and why? Understanding the specific context of these gatherings and the motivations behind them is crucial. Furthermore, it prompts questions about how these political figures vote, their potential financial entanglements with Epstein, and whether they ever visited his infamous properties. The revelation that figures like Schumer and Jeffries are named suggests a potentially deep-seated rot within the political system, with some suggesting this could be the catalyst for positive change by removing those who have held back progress.
The sheer audacity of the situation is almost unbelievable, picturing congressional representatives making plans that involve associating with a convicted pedophile and sex trafficker. This invites a broader sentiment of wanting to “flush the toilet” of Washington, D.C., and remove all those implicated. The idea of withholding taxes until the files are fully released has been floated as a drastic measure to force transparency, underscoring the widespread frustration and demand for immediate resignations from those found to be involved.
The allegations surrounding Epstein’s activities and his connections to intelligence agencies, such as the CIA and Mossad, suggest a potential honey pot operation. Some believe that because governments are unlikely to turn on these agencies or even Israel, the full truth may never be revealed. This perspective adds another layer of complexity and potential cover-up to the unfolding narrative.
For some, this news only deepens their disdain for figures like Schumer and Jeffries, viewing them as part of a “pedophile club” that relied on Epstein for leadership and supply. The demand for resignations is immediate, with no tolerance for the alleged behavior. The notion that these were merely invitation lists and that Epstein’s initial arrest wasn’t public is offered as a defense by some, but the persistent pursuit of him by political figures remains a significant concern.
The possibility of some individuals being the same ones who traveled to Russia around a past July 4th is also raised, hinting at a pattern of questionable associations. An invitation to an intimate fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in 2015, sent by Howard Lutnick, is mentioned, though it’s unclear if it led to an actual meeting or attendance. The complexity of the database from which this information is drawn makes definitive conclusions difficult for some researchers.
The broader implications of this situation are that it undermines faith in American leadership, with some suggesting that all American leaders should be scrutinized given the nature of Epstein’s crimes. The call for term limits on Congress is reiterated as a means to prevent such entrenched issues from persisting. There’s a palpable desire for the actual files to be released, rather than “red herrings,” and a widespread belief that a reset of world leaders is necessary to purge those involved in such abhorrent activities.
It’s argued that the issue isn’t that everyone is implicated in child sex trafficking, but rather that a segment of polite society historically overlooked such associations if it served their interests. The lack of discrimination between political parties in these associations is also highlighted, with a reminder of Donald Trump’s past Democratic affiliation. The call for thorough investigations and questioning of all involved is strong, acknowledging that while some invitations might be benign, none can be outright ignored.
The parallel drawn to the mob, where silence is rewarded, suggests that those associated with Epstein may have felt a sense of impunity and trust in their ability to avoid repercussions. The core message from many is that these individuals prioritize money and power over the well-being of children. The powerful influence of money is seen as a driving force behind these problematic associations.
The question of what Epstein could offer to these political figures is central to the ongoing discussion. For some political factions, the implication of certain leaders could be an electoral advantage, particularly if it leads to the ousting of unpopular figures like Schumer and Jeffries, who are seen as holding back progress. The demand for the release of all files and subsequent investigations is unwavering, with some comparing it to the need for a 9/11-style commission.
Senator Gillibrand, who was involved in the push for Al Franken’s resignation, is now facing criticism herself for her past association with Epstein, with some calling her a hypocrite. While some argue that invitations were sent via mass emails from third parties and not direct personal invitations from Schumer or Jeffries, and that both voted to release the files, the nature of the enticement, which included the mention of Schumer’s presence, is still seen as problematic. The idea that their voting on the release of files absolves them is not widely accepted.
The persistent rumors of Epstein’s ties to Mossad, coupled with the perception that some politicians prioritize Zionist interests over American ones, fuels further speculation about the depth of his connections and the potential for hidden agendas. Ultimately, regardless of party affiliation, the overarching sentiment is that all individuals involved must be held accountable for their associations and actions.