Media Played Up Alleged Pee Tape, Ignored Trump’s Rape Allegations Tied To Epstein

Soon after Donald Trump was elected president, the news media was alive with innuendo about a possible video of prostitutes peeing on our president elect. No evidence of such a tape existing or such an event ever taking place was given, no direct witnesses stepped forward to collaborate the allegation. It didn’t matter. The media ran with it and because of that, everyone heard about it. The source of this rumor was a document paid for by the Democratic Party and the Clinton Campaign.

Fast-forward to last night, when for the first time I heard about the civil lawsuit filed by an anonymous woman who claimed that she had been raped by Jeffrey Epstein AND Donald Trump when she was only 13 years old. Her allegations are corroborated by a second woman, who is also choosing to remain anonymous because she fears retribution.

This is a far more damning allegation than the one the news chose to cover and which people chose to share on social media. And the sources, while choosing to remain anonymous, are more convincing than the Steel Dossier, which years later is being shredded by the very same media that originally chose to uncritically share the most salacious allegations mentioned in it.

Why do you think the media chose to highlight the one while ignoring the other? As embarrassing as the revelation (if true) that Trump paid prostitutes to pee on him, it is merely that, an embarrassing revelation. That is a far cry from accusations of raping a thirteen-year-old. It is very difficult to paint the person peeing on another person as the victim, he who is being peed upon as the victimizer.

And yet the one story is picked up by the media while the other is buried. Strange. “Ah,” you say, “but the one involves a foreign government having compromising material on our soon to be president.” This is why it is so consequential, even though it is nothing but an utterly unfounded accusation.

But this leads to the question: Just who do you think Jeffrey Epstein is? And if you think that perhaps Epstein was either murdered or was permitted to kill himself, then you must ask who had the influence to get that done?

Jeffrey Epstein lured people into having sex with minors as a way of blackmailing them. But as Kim Iverson pointed out, a lot of those being blackmailed had more political power than monetary wealth. In other words, Jeffrey Epstein was not interested in money so much as political power. Why? One can only conclude that he was not working for himself but for someone or some ones who were interested in having the goods on powerful people.

Who could that be? I’m not making any accusations, but a foreign government would be a rather obvious guess. A foreign government in close cooperation with our own, judging by the way so many in the media and the criminal justice system looked the other way.

It’s not worth my time to speculate on what is the real story behind Jeffrey Epstein. It is far easier to point to those whose job it is to give us the facts behind the matter and say just how poor a job they’ve done. You can’t get a story so wrong for so long without it pointing to a very systemically flawed system.

A system that protects powerful pedophiles is capable of hiding ANY crime, perpetrating ANY atrocity, accepting ANY degree of corruption. It’s easy for us to say we are being led by a decadent and corrupt group of elites. It is less easy for us to admit that we’ve permitted them to get away with it for many years. There needs to be some kind of reckoning, and that will never happen until we are willing to demand more not just of our rulers, but of ourselves as well. However unpleasant this might be, we need to get to the truth on this matter.