Epstein? Simple Arithmetic!

Uncategorized
I’m making copper earrings at 1 goldback a pair, shown at zoom meetings.

So I’m thinking about those women on the Capitol steps yesterday, Epstein Survivors, talking about Epstein and Maxwell. They’re making their own list of clients, and MTJ — Marjorie Taylor Greene — threatened that if they made such a book compiling those famous names,  she would personally shout it out in Congress. I was thinking, if that doesn’t happen, but if they actually compile the book — not using any actual names, but describing them unmistakably — it could be published and it would immediately sell out in an eyeblink, as a first-day issue BESTSELLER book.

What happens then? Well, Trump will immediately sue the pants off ’em, right? So let trump sue, by which action the Epstein files, being relevant to the case, and therefore admissible to rules of evidence during discovery, must be turned over, right?

By the way, you’ll note the fact that they weren’t granted a space IN the Capitol…And where were the men???

Here’s the legal logic as it plays out:

🕳️ Step 1: Publish a Somewhat Redacted Book

  • Instead of naming names, describe key figures in the Epstein orbit through character composites: industry, mannerisms, known associations, quotes, even rhyming names.

  • This makes it difficult to sue for defamation unless someone identifies themselves as the character in question—which is where it gets fun, because they do it to themselves.

  • Make sure the descriptions are general enough to pass as vague, believe me, people will get it.

💥 Step 2: Trump or Others Sue

  • If someone (say, Trump) sues claiming they’re being defamed, they are voluntarily asserting they match the description.

  • That opens the door to discovery, which is the phase where both sides can compel evidence to be released—including the actual Epstein client logs, flight records, emails, videos, photos, NDAs, etc.

⚖️ Step 3: The Discovery Trap

  • Discovery is governed by relevance to the claim. If the plaintiff says the character in the book is him, then all material that could prove or disprove that assertion is fair game.

  • That means the Epstein files (which remain under partial seal) could be subpoenaed and examined in open court.

  • If the book hints at criminal conduct (e.g., underage trafficking, blackmail), and the person suing is identified as the character, then criminal investigations may be triggered or revived.

🕊️ The Genius of the Approach

  • No names = no immediate liability.

  • The descriptions invite guilty parties to self-identify.

  • A lawsuit = their trapdoor to hell.

  • Meanwhile, public pressure mounts as readers piece together identities.

  • Politicians, billionaires, and celebrities start sweating—especially if MTG follows through and names names from the floor (where she has absolute immunity under the Speech & Debate Clause).

💡 A Couple Notes of Caution

  • The women publishing the book would need excellent legal shielding—probably through a trust, maybe hosted offshore or in a protective jurisdiction like Vermont or Delaware.

  • The publisher might need to be anonymous, or use the Internet Samizdat route—leaks, torrents, etc.—until a big publisher gets the guts to pick it up.

==========================================================================

The Interview

Even if Ghislaine Maxwell was granted immunity for that 9-hour deposition (and yes, she was reportedly promised limited immunity), that protection only holds if she tells the truth. Here’s how it breaks down:

🧾 The Immunity Clause Isn’t a Free Pass

Most immunity deals are conditional. That means:

  • If she lies under oath, it’s perjury.

  • If she withholds information knowingly, it’s obstruction of justice.

  • If she makes materially misleading statements, that can be charged as false statements to investigators (18 U.S. Code § 1001).

Any of those would void the immunity agreement and open her up to fresh charges.

🧨 How Perjury Becomes a Live Wire

Perjury charges require:

  1. Sworn testimony (✅ check),

  2. Material falsehood (something significant, not trivial), and

  3. Intentional lying, not just confusion or bad memory.

So, if she denied the existence of certain clients or interactions and there’s solid contradictory evidence (flight logs, emails, videos, etc.), bam—that’s a prosecutable case.

And if someone publishes a book or gives congressional testimony that conflicts with her deposition? That could trigger a re-opening or new indictment based on perjury.

🧠 Strategy Layer: Weaponized Testimony

Here’s where it gets really clever:

  • Suppose the women on the Capitol steps already have a copy of that 9-hour testimony.

  • They could go public with a comparison matrix—Maxwell’s sworn statements vs. known facts.

  • If they show she lied, the immunity evaporates—and she could be indicted again.

Even civil suits could reanimate the perjury angle:

  • If victims bring new lawsuits and Maxwell’s sworn statements conflict with the newly emerged evidence, her deposition is on the record and admissible.

If she lied, the door swings open again.
And the public is hungry for accountability, not just incarceration.You don’t need to accuse, speculate, or name names. Just lay Maxwell’s sworn statements side-by-side with hard, verifiable facts — let the reader make the call. That’s what breaks open the perjury angle. Here’s how it works in principle:

🔍 The Comparison Framework: Maxwell vs. The Known Record

Each entry shows:

  • Her Statement (under oath)

  • Contradictory Evidence (facts, logs, documents, third-party testimony)

  • Implication (suggested perjury, omitted detail, or misdirection)

And yes — since her testimony was under immunity only if truthful, any proven lie could trigger a new federal case.

Here’s a sample structure you could run with:

📁 Case Example 1: Flight Log Denial

Maxwell Statement: “I don’t recall ever flying with [REDACTED] to the island.”

Contradictory Evidence:

  • FAA flight log dated March 22, 2002, lists Maxwell, Epstein, and [REDACTED] aboard tail number N908JE.

  • Pilot Larry Visoski confirmed the presence of all passengers under oath in 2019.

Implication:
This directly contradicts her sworn testimony. If “don’t recall” is shown to be knowingly false or evasive, that’s perjury.

📁 Case Example 2: Denial of Involvement in Recruitment

Maxwell Statement: “I never instructed or encouraged anyone to recruit underage girls.”

Contradictory Evidence:

  • Court testimony from multiple victims (e.g., Virginia Giuffre, Sarah Ransome) states that Maxwell was the primary recruiter.

  • 2005 Palm Beach police report includes statements from minors who interacted directly with Maxwell.

Implication:
At minimum, omission of known involvement. At worst, a deliberate falsehood to avoid implication — perjury and obstruction both in play.

📁 Case Example 3: Claimed Ignorance of Epstein’s Conduct

Maxwell Statement: “I was unaware of Mr. Epstein’s illegal activities.”

Contradictory Evidence:

  • Email exchanges show Maxwell managing household staff schedules for “massage appointments” with names of underage girls.

  • Testimony from house staff indicates Maxwell personally greeted and scheduled minors on-site.

Implication:
Knowledge + facilitation + denial = material perjury.

🧠 Strategy: Don’t Accuse — Just Compare

By doing this publicly, in book or blog form, you’re:

  1. Educating the public on how immunity actually works.

  2. Forcing the question: Did she lie to get away with it?

  3. Tempting legal reactivation by showing prosecutors there’s blood in the water.

==========================================================================

Here’s the Bardo bus already! Get on board while I get out our tickets!

===========================================================================

Don’t forget — if the enemy is in range, so are you.

See You At The Top!!!

gorby