#epstein shit

[houseofbrat]

Well, well, well...

Ever since barkjack tweeted about Andrew & the FBI, I did a search for all the news articles about the FBI allegedly "pausing" their investigation about Andrew.

Irish Star (on MSN)

GB News (on MSN)

The Express Tribune

Business Times

Metro (UK)

Sahara Reporters

Daily Mail (UK)

Somehow they are all quoting an EXCLUSIVE to The Mirror.

A source close to the case told the Mirror: “The agents and attorneys who have, for years, worked diligently looking into Andrew’s friendship with Epstein are beyond frustrated. “They’re angry that the probe has been parked. “But the truth be told, no new leads have been discovered for quite some time, and until new evidence is presented that can move the case forward, it has been shelved.” Last night, one of those abused by now dead Epstein when she was a teenager labelled the move, a “systematic cover-up”. The 36-year-old, awarded compensation from the Wall Street financier’s victim’s fund, said: “All of us who have continued to fight for justice knew this day would one day come. “From the very beginning, we have been denied our voices, brushed under the carpet and told to be quiet. The government always says that no one is above the law, but we all know that is untrue. For the past three decades, we have been party to a systematic cover-up, and this is now the final part of that.” [...] “We simply don’t have the resources to keep every case running at full capacity, and right now, it’s the Diddy case consuming the lion’s share of investigative efforts.” Despite the huge public interest in Andrew’s connection to Epstein, the Southern District of New York (SDNY) is not expected to officially announce the investigation’s status per protocol. However, a second source confirmed that the investigation into Duke, 64, has been put on hold for the foreseeable future. “Right now, resources are going elsewhere,” he stated. “The officers and agencies have compiled much of their findings on Prince Andrew from the years of investigations, but the matter remains at an impasse.”

Interesting how this is NOT being reprinted in American outlets.

Not even New York outlets are reprinting this. Not the NY Daily News. Not the NY Post. Not even the "paper of record," aka The New York Times is publishing any version of this. This kind of article is straight-up Page Six's alley, but they haven't done anything with this info.

Interesting how conveniently this EXCLUSIVE was published just a couple of days before Charles left for Australia. It's giving me flashbacks to 2019 when Andrew did the Newsnight interview while Charles was in New Zealand.

Seems more likely this article is now floating around because Andrew wants to head off any royal changes that would affect him when Charles returns from Down Under. Does Andrew really think this EXCLUSIVE is going to change anything?

[houseofbrat]

Oh, we haven’t seen the last of Andrew and his problems. 

I guarantee you that. 

What the fuck plant? Seriously. What the actual fuck.

I've never seen anyone implode like this. Not even Andrew.

[thedman0310]

What the fuck is this shit

[houseofbrat]

And yet there are plenty of people giving Alan Dershowitz a pass and follow his legal commentary.

We should be surprised Hunter is on an official trip and there’s no media outrage. Clinton, who had closer Epstein ties than Andy, has lunch with Biden at the White House and advises him on political strategy. Bill Gates who said “oh well Epstein is dead” when confronted on their ties which allegedly caused his divorce, freely travels to be lauded as a speaker.

It’s very convenient for US media to be outraged about Andy who will never be King & has no power, while ignoring their own elites who were also Epstein besties.

Pretty much

The irony is people not caring when objectively, we have more actual, proven evidence of what a piece of shit Hunter is than Andrew

[mythserene]

I've been rereading The Beatles' sections of Cellarful of Noise in between re-listening to the episode while I make a ring, and I disagree with Phoebe that “[Brian] also seems to be offering a bit of a mea culpa" in his version of the story, because I don't think there's a way to read this anecdote as anything other than Brian using it as an example of how he messed up early on by showing favoritism, leading to Paul getting upset and himself overreacting and all of them missing a show... and then calming down, them working it out, and Brian picking everyone back up at their homes to play the last show. (Happy ending.)

So it's more than a bit of a mea culpa.

I mean the thesis statement is, “I have no favorites among the Beatles and this they realize now, but it wasn't always so.”

I have no favorites among the Beatles and this they realize now, but it wasn't always so. A manager dealing with a close-knit foursome has to be as fair as and as cautious as a father of four children. And one night very early in my management of the Beatles this was brought home to me with an unpleasant thump.

It neither acquits nor condemns Paul for being late because the point of the story—bookended by others about the other Beatles—is the different personalities and bumps in the road with each one. (Except George, who he says he's never argued with.)

They're all, essentially, “we can work it out” stories.

The next example is the story of John in the studio telling him, "We'll make the records. You just go on counting your percentages,” and how Brian left the studio afterwards “in a sullen rage” and never got an apology.

"We'll make the records. You just go on counting your percentages." And he meant it. I was terribly annoyed and hurt because it was in front of all the recording staff and the rest of the Beatles. We all looked at one another and felt uncomfortable and John turned away, indicating that there was no apology coming. I left the studios in a sort of sullen rage.

Ringo's anecdote seems worse than Paul's, or at least as bad. (And a train is involved again.)

It was January and the Beatles were due to tackle a country in which —compared to, say, Scandinavia or Germany, they were an unknown quantity. Therefore I was anxious to make a good initial impact. This can be achieved, and the U.S. trip proved it, at the arrival airport.

But fog descended over Liverpool and Ringo Starr could not leave for London to catch the connecting aircraft to Paris. The other Beatles and I and a score of journalists were in London when we heard the news. Naturally I was very disappointed that three Beatles instead of four would descend the steps at Le Bourget Airport in Paris. I telephoned Liverpool and asked Ringo to catch the train so that he could join up in Paris as soon as possible.

He refused, possibly because he believed that a Beatle shouldn't travel by train, and said he would catch the first available plane. I didn't want this because I didn't trust the weather and I said so.

I said, "Ringo, I have never asked you to do anything especially for me before," and he replied: "Oh yes you have. You know bloody well you are always asking me to do things— to see the press, or travel for this or that. I'm not doing it and if you don't like it you can do the other thing." ...

Why was Ringo trying to sabotage Brian?? (Could it be because of Stu?) 🤔

...I was very angry and when, eventually, he arrived in Paris there was quite an atmosphere. But sulking has no place in a group like the Beatles and with just a couple of meaningful looks and a grin, all was well. And, as with other difficulties, a frank talk helped.

But all the little stories end with them understanding each other better and a compliment for the Beatle he's telling a Bump-in-the-Road story about.

Which is, of course, how his Paul story ends:

This was the only time any one of the Beatles refused to play and it could never happen now. But it was not the only time one or more of the Beatles fell out with me. It would not be normal or reasonable to expect four artistic men to glide through life without a clash of views, and although rows are rare, they happen.

So, Brian's takeaway is that “a manager dealing with a close-knit foursome has to be as fair as and as cautious as a father of four children.”

But Lewisohn's takeaway is:

John saw a bigger picture, and it would be surprising if it wasn’t equally obvious, or made obvious, to Brian and George. He likened Paul’s enduring snag with Brian to his other long-standing difficulty: “[Brian] and Paul didn’t get along—it was a bit like [Stuart and Paul] between the two of them.”

Inevitably, this wouldn’t be the only dispute to arise between Brian and a Beatle in their years together, but it is one of the few to be known, and its timing is telling. Brian devoted more than a page to it in his autobiography, saying how “worried, angry and upset” he was.

What?

One of the few to be known except the other two on the very next pages??

John causes Brian to storm out of the studio in a “sullen rage” and with Ringo he was “very angry” and there was “an atmosphere.” But Lewisohn makes it sound like Brian singled Paul out to tell this one story, so it must be a big deal.

I thought I had a very quick point to make, but somehow the moment you start to unravel any part of this you discover it's like a bottomless plate of spaghetti. (I should probably say, “the moment I start to unravel...” but from listening to the podcast I feel pretty confident that I am not alone in this.)

But at some point you just have to cut it off.

💡 🌚

[ncwhereman]

a cellarful of noise first american paperback edition, published july 1965

[houseofbrat]

Oh, so we're finally able to have a conversation on how Saint Elizabeth II put her head in the sand when the big moments came?

With confirmation that Prince Andrew has been invited to spend time with the King at Balmoral later this month, it emerges that when the Epstein-related allegations against him were revealed in 2015, the late Queen was quite dismissive of them. Three senior members of the Royal Household wrote to Her Majesty suggesting it would be wise if Andrew were suspended from royal duties pending a full inquiry. The trio received a curt reply conveying the royal displeasure from an assistant private secretary.  And their invitations to the staff Christmas party that year appeared to have got lost in the post.

[the-orange-shit-stain-scam]

I wonder what these two pieces of human sewage are so giddy about?

[angelx1992]

[lyndztanica]

gotta say i'd prefer to be in a coma the next six months rather than watch whatever's going to play out.

[captainpirateface]

“So this is how liberty dies…with thunderous applause.”

- Padme Amidala -

Fuck the Supreme Court.

Fuck the United States.

Fuck Independence Day.

Fuck Donald Trump.

Fuck this.

I'm fucking horrified.

[Presidential Immunity]

Good fuckin' job.

[inthecomputer]

hmmm i wonder if the fact that queen of england was this guys mother and the now king is this guys brother has anything to do with him not being punished for a certain thing this guy did... ohh.....

TOTAL COINCIDENCE FOLKS

NOTHING TO SEE

nooo that couldnt be epstein and maxwell at the queens personal lodge noooo

god save our righteous king

[houseofbrat]

But this is already well known. Epstein’s “black book” was published online a long time ago. 

“SIMON Le BON!!!!”

Ah, people who don’t know that Epstein’s little black book was basically Ghislaine Maxwell‘s Filofax, which he photocopied.

There are plenty of people on that list who knew Ghislaine Maxwell socially, might have met her at a cocktail party or a gallery opening, and who never once met Epstein.

How do I know this? I know someone on that list. 🇬🇧

Talk about a cliffhanger anon

[paulic]

Paul having a smoke very recently

[poryqons]

i'll be so honest i have such a disliking for makeship plushes in the exact same way i dislike squishmallows because they just look soulless and outright unappealing. i'll be so real sooo fucking many plushies of these random youtubers just look so not good imo. the side profiles especially.

also i dont see the appeal of having these physical effigies of youtuber's personas in your home. like thats based on a real guy. that feels creepy to me. a plush of a popular character is fine, but of the creator of that character???? i simply just do not get it

maybe its cause its made by a company and not lovingly crafted by some etsy creator. this is all entirely just how i personally feel in the end. i will say the most gripes i have are all on the human plushies, the nonhuman creaturely ones suck kinda less (but some still suck)

[azrael-5]

If you're upset about nudity in a piece of media that's presented in an unsexualized manner because you believe it to be "weird and unnecessary" you should probably think about both why you think the human body is weird and why you think everything in media has to be "necessary"