So this confirms that the art of compromising notable persons by involving them in and near salacious activities; so why then did a worldwise prince of impeccable reputation, continue to associate himself with a person of ill repute? We are also being made aware that Epstein's houses were "wrapped" in surveillance equipment. Just what you would expect of any intelligence agency in the world, worth it's salt, even if not by Epstein himself. Of course, Epstein would do this to protect himself from prosecution for a very serious series of crimes. Only by obtaining "kompromat" on very powerful people while he had the chance, would he be able to bargain his way out of, what would be a life threatening jam.
Unfortunately, the worlds intelligence agencies would be looking for just such "honey pots" and having discovered one; most especially one being run by some rube, generally unskilled and probably unaware of how intelligence agencies work, they would easily be able to wire his properties and transports, for sound and film. No "conspiracy theorist" worth the title of "investigator", could ignore these possibilities. Consider, both policemen/women and intelligence agents and their agencies as well as politicians, legislators and even the Presidential staff, are all "conspiracy theorist", since they must work on solving problems before they happen, as well as think about how things did happen, in order to determine either who did it, or what was done. That requires them to engage in speculating about the various possible theories. Thus, the tag "conspiracy theorist", in reality, can never carry a truly pejorative connotation. Since every investigator is a conspiracy theorist, only the people who are themselves proven wacko's whose theories are so wildly improbable as to border on impossible, if not go over those borders; can be dismissed.
So, the question of why the Prince stood by Epstein is most easily answered by "Kompromat", as is Trump's "love affair" with Putin and other dictators who may be sharing the power of their Kompromat between themselves. The answer is; you shed those people who; based on the "appearance of compromise", should not be trusted with a nations most sensitive/important matters.
The dictum of the legal domain: "Innocent until proven guilty", does not extend to the area of national trust. You, very often cannot prove the case against a compromised person, because, if you could the kompromat would be worth nothing. Meanwhile, once a compromised person does their work successfully, it's probably going to be impossible to ameliorate the effects.
Thus the equation remains: Why would a national figure with a sensitive public portfolio, essentially and in effect; "desire to prove his loyalty to a friend "Jack the Ripper"? " It simply makes no sense when looked at from that perspective.
Unfortunately, the worlds intelligence agencies would be looking for just such "honey pots" and having discovered one; most especially one being run by some rube, generally unskilled and probably unaware of how intelligence agencies work, they would easily be able to wire his properties and transports, for sound and film. No "conspiracy theorist" worth the title of "investigator", could ignore these possibilities. Consider, both policemen/women and intelligence agents and their agencies as well as politicians, legislators and even the Presidential staff, are all "conspiracy theorist", since they must work on solving problems before they happen, as well as think about how things did happen, in order to determine either who did it, or what was done. That requires them to engage in speculating about the various possible theories. Thus, the tag "conspiracy theorist", in reality, can never carry a truly pejorative connotation. Since every investigator is a conspiracy theorist, only the people who are themselves proven wacko's whose theories are so wildly improbable as to border on impossible, if not go over those borders; can be dismissed.
So, the question of why the Prince stood by Epstein is most easily answered by "Kompromat", as is Trump's "love affair" with Putin and other dictators who may be sharing the power of their Kompromat between themselves. The answer is; you shed those people who; based on the "appearance of compromise", should not be trusted with a nations most sensitive/important matters.
The dictum of the legal domain: "Innocent until proven guilty", does not extend to the area of national trust. You, very often cannot prove the case against a compromised person, because, if you could the kompromat would be worth nothing. Meanwhile, once a compromised person does their work successfully, it's probably going to be impossible to ameliorate the effects.
Thus the equation remains: Why would a national figure with a sensitive public portfolio, essentially and in effect; "desire to prove his loyalty to a friend "Jack the Ripper"? " It simply makes no sense when looked at from that perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment