Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link
Recent media reporting and scattered social-media sleuthing have revived an unsettling dimension of Jeffrey Epstein’s world—one that extends far beyond his sexual exploitation crimes and political networking. Emerging accounts suggest he harbored a deep fascination with gene-modification research, a line of inquiry that for some observers evokes the shadow of MKULTRA, the CIA’s notorious mind-alteration program. While the details remain murky, what is clear is that Epstein’s curiosity wasn’t limited to passive interest. For years he positioned himself close to the frontier of experimental science, cultivating relationships with researchers and pouring money into tech startups whose ambitions now sit squarely inside today’s bioethics debates. These ventures—ranging from predictive-behavior systems to early genetic-profiling tools—continue to raise alarms about privacy, power, and the unchecked influence of wealthy patrons over sensitive scientific fields.
MKUltra was an illegal CIA human experimentation program which ran from 1953 to 1973, when it was supposedly shut down. Jeffrey Epstein began working in 1974. Stick with me. Don’t let the drip releases distract you. pic.twitter.com/BdyZTaY25B
Layered onto this already eerie landscape is a strange but consistent thread involving dentistry. Epstein’s closest confidante in his final years was a female dentist who vanished from public view soon after his death. The recent release of photos from his U.S. Virgin Islands estate, including an image of a fully equipped dentist’s chair inside his home, fueled further speculation. Teeth have long been central to genetic identification and bio-sample extraction, so the presence of dental equipment in the residence of a man rumored to be dabbling in genetic experiments struck many observers as more than just an eccentric interior-decorating choice. Whether it was there for mundane personal reasons or something far more unconventional remains an unanswered question, but it undeniably added to the intrigue surrounding his scientific obsessions.
In the end, as the Epstein documents continue to emerge piece by piece, one of the most consequential revelations may not be about the crimes we already know, but about the scientific ambitions and experimental impulses that operated in the shadows. Whether these files ultimately illuminate serious forays into gene-modification schemes or merely confirm a pattern of disturbing fixations, the picture that is forming is one in which Epstein’s influence touched not only politics and finance but potentially the ethical boundaries of modern science itself.
Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link
On the December 3, 2025 edition of MSNOW’s Last Word, host Lawrence O’Donnell made a striking allegation: that President Trump’s recent moves toward a potential conflict with Venezuela are part of a deliberate effort to divert public attention from what has become the most politically explosive vulnerability of his administration—the Epstein files. As dramatic as that claim sounds, the idea that a president might reach for military action to overshadow damaging domestic troubles is far from unprecedented in American politics.
#BREAKING: Lawrence opener: "Donald Trump will continue to talk about waging a Vladimir Putin-style invasion of Venezuela every day that Donald Trump's old friend, the sex trafficker and rapist Jeffrey #Epstein, continues to make life difficult for Donald Trump."😳 pic.twitter.com/A2B5agXavR
History offers several examples of presidents facing crises at home while initiating or escalating military operations abroad. In 1999, as the Monica Lewinsky scandal and impeachment fight threatened his presidency, Bill Clinton authorized U.S. and NATO airstrikes in Kosovo. While the Kosovo intervention had legitimate humanitarian and geopolitical motivations, critics at the time argued that its timing conveniently shifted the national focus away from the turmoil engulfing Clinton in Washington. Similarly, George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq—authorized with congressional approval and publicly justified as a necessary step to eliminate weapons of mass destruction—has long been viewed by some political observers as a campaign that also helped neutralize criticism of the administration’s intelligence failures surrounding 9/11 and other mounting domestic issues. In both cases, military action absorbed media bandwidth, elevated presidential authority, and stirred a sense of national unity that could blunt domestic scrutiny.
The pattern, then, is an old one: foreign conflict can serve as a political reset button, even if the strategic and humanitarian stakes are genuinely complex. It is also a risky gamble, because wars rarely unfold according to plan. setbacks can deepen public dissatisfaction instead of alleviating it, and the use of military force for political cover remains one of the most controversial charges that can be leveled against any commander in chief.
Against this backdrop, if President Trump were to sidestep Congress and launch a military operation in Venezuela under the banner of fighting “narco-terrorists,” it would not emerge in a historical vacuum. It would more closely resemble a familiar—and troubling—pattern in presidential behavior. Yet recognizing a pattern does not mean the public should accept it as inevitable. Trump campaigned in 2024 on promises of “no more foreign wars” and “no more regime change,” commitments that resonated deeply with voters weary of costly, open-ended U.S. interventions. Many of his supporters viewed him as the candidate who would finally break the cycle of manufactured or opportunistic foreign entanglements that so often coincide with moments of domestic political stress.
That alone should give the president pause. If he truly intends to differentiate himself from past administrations, he must resist the temptation to use military force as a political distraction. The public—and especially the voters who backed him on the promise of a different foreign-policy era—deserve a leader who resists the cynical logic of war as domestic cover, not one who repeats it.
House Speaker Mike Johnson is under growing fire after a tense exchange with Senator ___ (D-AZ), who publicly accused him of deliberately refusing to swear in newly elected Democratic Representative Adelita Grijalva. The senator alleged that Johnson’s delay is a calculated move to stall an upcoming House vote on whether to release the long-suppressed Epstein files—documents that could expose the full extent of Jeffrey Epstein’s powerful network of associates.
#BREAKING: Hayes: "That was @SpeakerJohnson insisting three times in the past 24 hours, that he is not holding off on swearing in a duly elected Democratic Congresswoman [@AdelitaForAZ] to avoid a vote on releasing the #Epstein files. I'm not sure he's really helping his case…" pic.twitter.com/mP40Fl6kCx
The confrontation reportedly took place during a joint leadership meeting on Capitol Hill, where the Arizona senator pressed Johnson on the delay. Witnesses say Johnson attempted to deflect, citing “procedural timing issues,” but the senator shot back that the Speaker was “weaponizing procedure to shield the guilty.”
Johnson, who has cultivated an image as a devout Christian and moral conservative, now finds himself in an increasingly awkward position—forced to reconcile his public faith with what critics see as a willingness to protect the powerful at the expense of truth and transparency. “You can’t claim to walk in the light while covering for people who trafficked in darkness,” one Democratic aide remarked after the exchange.
The late financier Jeffrey Epstein was famously connected to some of the most influential figures in politics, business, and entertainment. Among them was Donald Trump, then a New York real estate mogul and now President of the United States. The Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files has only fueled suspicion that critical evidence—particularly anything implicating high-level figures—is being withheld from public view. Officials have repeatedly promised a “measured” release, but months of delays have left watchdogs, journalists, and victims’ advocates convinced the White House is hiding something.
Privately, some insiders suggest that Speaker Johnson may personally favor full transparency. However, given the Trump administration’s well-documented record of punishing perceived disloyalty, Johnson is said to be under immense pressure to toe the line. The Speaker, they claim, fears political retaliation—or worse, a full-scale MAGA backlash—if he defies the administration’s wishes and allows the House to move forward on the Epstein vote.
For now, the standoff continues. Representative-elect Grijalva remains in limbo, waiting to be officially sworn in while the partisan tug-of-war plays out behind the scenes. Whether Johnson’s delay is a procedural quirk or a deliberate act of political obstruction, one thing is certain: the issue isn’t going away. At some point, Speaker Johnson will have no choice but to seat the incoming Democrat from Arizona—and when he does, the House may finally be forced to confront the explosive truth behind the Epstein files.
MSNBC’s Legal Analyst Lisa Rubin appeared on the 09/19/25 edition of Deadline White House show where she made a compelling argument as to how Congress can and should go about getting Jeffrey Epstein-related information from former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta.
#BREAKING: Lisa Rubin re #AlexAcosta: "There are a BUNCH of documents that Alex Acosta saw, and or was involved in creating, that could be released by DOJ tomorrow, but also, some of them might still be in Alex Acosta's own possession. I just want to detail THREE of them…[1]… pic.twitter.com/lZgmUL9X8i
Rubin said that there are a bunch of Epstein-related documents that Acosta either saw, or was involved in creating. This, she argued, meant the said documents were either currently in the possession of the Department of Justice, or even by Acosta himself.
The first question Congress needs to ask Acosta is about the 60-count federal indictment drafted by prosecutor Ann Marie Villafaña in 2007. DOJ definitely has this document, and the allegations therein, may shed a lot of light as to Epstein’s illicit operation, and potentially, the actions of his his co-conspirators, most of who were later granted immunity.
The second question regards the lengthy prosecution memo that aforementioned Villafaña wrote regarding the federal case re Epstein. Rubin says this can shed a lot of light as to the evidence the feds had against Epstein to support the 60-count indictment
Finally, Rubin says Congress should ask Acosta about his own interview transcript from the office of professional responsibility investigation that was conducted at DOJ in 2020. That was an investigation started at the instigation of Republican Senator Ben Sasse. Rubin argues that Acosta must have that transcript in his possession because he and his lawyers were given an opportunity to review it and suggest any corrections.
Long story short, the lingering questions about Jeffrey Epstein and his child sex trafficking operation must be answered, and key players like Acosta must not be allowed to come before Congress and just gaslight the public. These crucial documents are currently in the possession of the DOJ and/or Acosta, and the public deserves to see them.
An alternative route would be to have Ann Marie Villafaña testify before Congress. Who knows, she might have “kept receipts”.
Rep Ro Khanna (D-CA) appeared in a segment of MSNBC’s The Briefing with Jen Psaki (08/14/25) where he confirmed that together with Rep Thomas Massie (R-KY), they had arranged a 09/03/25 press conference with the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
It cannot be understated just how important this presser may turn out to be , not just for curious public, but also for the victims. Reps Massie and Khanna are giving them an avenue to vent out their grievances and frustrations, something they were denied when Epstein died before his criminal trial. They were robbed of an excellent opportunity to confront their abuser publicly in a court of law.
The presser will of course serve another very important function, and that is, bring back the media’s focus to the heinous crimes committed by Epstein and Maxwell, and how both shared a close relationship with Donald Trump, now President.
The Trump administration has moved heaven and earth to keep the Epstein story away from the mainstream media’s focus, so it will be very interesting to see what “shiny object” they dangle out there on 09/03/25.
An interesting segment on the 08/06/25 edition of MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes (Velshi subbing) delved into the widely reported “strategy session” that was supposed to take place at Vice President JD Vance’s residence to deal with the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. The scandal has engulfed the Trump White House and is leading to accusations of a coverup.
#BREAKING: Velshi in for Hayes: "…a coordinating session between a VP & DOJ officials is a sort of thing that Republicans would have made into a scandal before the Trump era, in fact, come to think of it, they did. Back in 2016, after a 30 minute get-together on an airport… pic.twitter.com/ZwAGcl9j0s
The MSNBC segment aptly pointed out the hypocritical Republican reaction back in 2016, when then AG Loretta Lynch was spotted at an airport tarmac chatting with former President Bill Clinton. The DOJ was at that time investigating Hillary Clinton–then the Democratic presidential candidate–over her email server. Many Republicans were very outraged by that meeting, accusing Bill Clinton and Lynch of conspiring to bury the email server probe. The firestorm surrounding the tarmac meeting almost led to AG Lynch’s resignation.
It is therefore quite interesting how the same Republican party which pushed for Lynch’s resignation sighting DOJ independence, is now very comfortable with the prospect of current AG Pam Bondi sitting down with Trump admin officials for a “strategy session” regarding the Epstein scandal which implicates President Trump.
What happened to their clamour for DOJ independence? It is a very hypocritical stance, and MSNBC’s All In crew deserves major kudos for calling it out
Back in February 2019, I wrote about the Trump-Epstein connection. My argument then, as it is now, is that Epstein & Trump were much closer than Trump has led the public to believe.
Well, a bombshell segment on the 07/16/25 edition of CNN’s Outfront with Erin Burnett has just confirmed how close the two were.
#BREAKING: Former Trump Hotel C.O.O. to🔥Erin: "One incident that I think, kind of proves their closeness [Trump & #Epstein] and how much they hung out together–one time, a Monday morning, I came in and the commission was waiting, the inspectors were waiting in my office. Donald… pic.twitter.com/Bn3PNNFyLU
It turns out, per a former Trump Hotel C.O.O., that Trump & Epstein once showed up at an Atlantic City casino at 1:30am on a Sunday with three women, one of whom was too young to be there(19). This raised a lot of concerns for the casino management who were afraid they may lose their license due to this.
The point is, you don’t run around at a casino in the wee hours of Sunday morning with just a casual friend. That’s someone you are really really close with.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi recently came out and declared the Jeffrey Epstein case officially closed. Epstein is the billionaire who was charged with child sex trafficking in 2019, but later died in prison while awaiting trial. The government declared his death a suicide, but there have been serious questions raised by some very credible voices, as to whether he really took his own life.
Part of the firestorm that has predictably erupted following DOJ’s abrupt closure of the Epstein case, stems from this theory that he was an intelligence asset tasked with a honey pot scheme aimed at compromising powerful U.S. figures. The argument in a nutshell, is that Epstein would befriend powerful figures and lure them into his illicit activities with minors, while secretly recording them for “kompromat”. These powerful figures, usually politicians, would then feel compelled to go with whatever the Deep State wanted–afraid to be exposed.
Among the loudest voices advancing this Deep State theory is longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon, who is now calling for a special prosecutor to be appointed to investigate everything about Epstein. Bannon argues that it is only through a special prosecutor probe of Epstein, that we will finally break the stranglehold the Deep State has on America.
BANNON: The real fight here is dismantling the deep state.
Epstein, Ukraine, the Middle East, the CCP infiltration: it's all connected to that same apparatus.
— Bannon’s WarRoom (@Bannons_WarRoom) July 9, 2025
It will be interesting to see how Bannon’s request for a special counsel probe plays out, or whether Congress decides to look into the matter via its various available investigative tools.
As someone who has consistently called for a new Church-type probe, I think this push for an Epstein special counsel probe dramatically increases the odds that a Church-type committee investigating our intelligence agencies, is where we will finally end—especially if it turns out that Epstein was indeed an intelligence asset.
On 02/10/2022 the Department of Psychiatry and the Peter O’Donnell Jr. Brain Institute at the University of Texas Southwestern (UTSW-Dallas), hosted an excellent webinar on Havana Syndrome featuring some of the leading minds in Neurology and importantly, offering suggestions on the path forward for both government investigators, and affected families (victims).
The webinar titled “Havana Syndrome: Medical, Scientific, and Policy Perspectives”, featured this esteemed panel of subject matter experts.
Among the visiting speakers(not from UTSW) were Cipher CEO Suzanne Kelly, Fox News National Security Analyst Daniel Hoffman, Former CIA Officer and Havana Syndrome victim Marc Polymeropoulos, NPR National Security Correspondent Greg Myre, and of course, the star of the show, the undisputed MVP, Dr. James Giordano(Georgetown), who they saved for last. Dr. Giordano’s entire presentation is below.
The key takeaway from Dr Giordano’s presentation was this(video at 17:00): “What this thing allowed us to do is to examine in greater detail, the technological readiness level(TRL),of forms of energy that could be directed in ways that would be scalable, fieldable, and therefore operationalizable. Now again, please understand that there is information that simply cannot be discussed in an open forum such as this, some of it exists as confidential and classified…but suffice it to say that information both at the time(2016, 2017, and part of 2018), and subsequently 2018 and 2019…reveal that there are two primary domains of directable energy that represented not only state of the science and technology, but were at a point of technological readiness that would allow or enable possible deployability and operational use. The idea of utilizing accoustic rangeable devices in the high sonic and/or ultrasonic range, very possible, very probable. The possibility of also utilizing some form of microwave energy particularly low to moderate gigawatt microwave energy that could be generated using very very rapid pulsing, perhaps utilizing a light source or laser source to be able to develop nanosecond or perhaps even quicker pulsing, would allow the scalability, the fieldability, and the containability of microwaves, and also get by some of the power source requirements that might be necessary. Why would such devices be in operation?…These types of devices can be used for surveillance, and/or they can be used either kinetically or non-kinetically, for disruptive effects. What do we mean by that[disruptive effects]? What we mean, is that there are a number of nations worldwide that have dedicated effort to employing these devices for testing organic and inorganic substances primarily in the occupational and commercial range…They[nations]include United States and many of its allies, China, Russia, among others. So the technology exists. We know the technology is being employed at least in part for the evaluation of vulnerability and volatility for organic and inorganic substances.”
A layman’s understanding of Dr. Giordano’s scientific analysis boils down to this(feel free to offer corrections/more insight): That microwaves and sound (accoustics) are the two forms of energy that scientists agree, could be harnessed, scaled and deployed to effect the kind of attacks experienced by U.S. Embassy staff in Havana, Cuba. Scientists also agree that this kind of technology(sound and microwave directed energy) is readily available in the U.S.(and its Western allies), China, and Russia, and is currently used for surveillance and other industrial applications(testing the vulnerability of organic and inorganic substances). This scientific analysis by Dr. Giordano is very important because to this day, mainstream media reports have characterized Havana Syndrome as being caused by some hostile foreign power(prime suspect Russia), using some mysterious technology that nobody in the U.S. knows about. Clearly, per Dr. Giordano’s analysis, this technology is already being used in the United States for surveillance and other industrial applications, meaning part of the inquiry into the causes of Havana Syndrome going forward, has to look inward, as opposed to only pointing the finger at Russia and China.
The webinar also featured a joint discussion by Cipher CEO Suzanne Kelly and Fox News National Security Analyst Daniel Hoffman, which focused squarely on the national security implications of Havana Syndrome, as opposed to the other panelists who delved into the clinical aspects. Even though this was an interesting discussion, it totally sidestepped the million dollar question which many attendees, including Yours Truly tuned in for, and that is, Havana Syndrome among regular civilians(not government employees).
Interestingly, the million dollar question found it’s way into the webinar at the very end(after Dr. Giordano’s presentation), as the panelists were entertaining written questions from attendees. One of the questions directed at Dr. Giordano asked what regular civilians(ding ding ding–magic word) who suspect they are victims of similar directed energy attacks, should do?(see video below @ 1:50) Dr. Giordano’s answer was very interesting. He said regular civilians should first consult their attending physicians with their concerns, and upon a traumatic brain injury(TBI) diagnosis, have their attending physician refer them to Walter Reed for further analysis. It has to be a physician’s referral–none of that self-diagnosis stuff. A question as to whether there’s any evidence of regular civilians being victims of directed energy attacks came up at the 18:45 mark, and Dr. Giordano answered in the affirmative, saying yes, there is evidence both in Europe and domestically. WHOA!!
Hopefully Dr. Giordano’s suggestion for regular civilians suffering from directed energy attacks will encourage them to seek the much needed medical attention, and crucially, provide enough leads for scientists and government investigators, to get to the bottom of the Havana Syndrome mystery. Hopefully , it also opens up debate about the plight of regular civilians vis a vis directed energy weapons in the mainstream media, and in the halls of Congress where strangely, this remains a taboo topic, as exhibited by the tweet below.
CNN reports that prosecutors have subpoenaed the personal pilots of accused child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein in a move clearly aimed at corroborating victims’ accounts and possibly charging other actors.
It has been known for decades that Epstein befriended a lot of very powerful people and it was just a matter of time before prosecutors started digging into who among them accompanied Epstein on his illicit missions. The flight logs maintained by Epstein’s personal pilots are of course the perfect place for prosecutors to be digging for such information.
According to CNN reporter Kara Scannell, the relationship between Epstein and billionaire Leslie Wexner (the CEO of L Brands–the parent company of Victoria’s Secret), has attracted the attention of prosecutors.
Appearing on the Saturday morning edition of CNN’s NewDay, Kara Scannell said, “There are new details emerging about the relationship between L Brand’s CEO Leslie Wexner and Epstein. The New York Times is reporting how Epstein leveraged his relationship with the billionaire behind Victoria’s Secret for money and access to young aspiring models. According to The Times, Wexner gave Epstein power of attorney over his finances allowing Epstein to sign Wexner’s tax returns, borrow money in his name, and buy and sell properties. The financial ties between the men were also intertwined. According to The Times, Epstein bought at least two properties from Wexner including the New York mansion. Epstein also allegedly leveraged that friendship to gain access to women. According to a Santa Monica police report obtained by CNN, one woman said she met with Epstein in a California hotel room believing she was interviewing for a job as a Victoria’s Secret catalogue model but once inside, the woman alleges Epstein groped her…”
There is absolutely no question that Epstein’s very close personal and business relationship with Wexner raises a lot of eyebrows and prosecutors are justifiably curious about it. Is Wexner so ensnared by Epstein’s illicit conduct that he felt compelled to bow to his demands? Has Epstein been blackmailing Wexner using potentially compromising behavior the two have engaged in together over the years? These are the kind of questions beginning to pop up regarding the relationship between Epstein and Wexner and undoubtedly, there will be similar stories about other rich people Epstein dealt with, the most anticipated one being his relationship with Trump. CNN pointed out that Wexner’s camp has denied any involvement with Epstein regarding the child sex trafficking allegations.
Bottom line, as troubling as the allegations involved in Epstein’s child sex trafficking case are, his case presents a major test for the U.S. criminal justice system. For decades the charge has been levelled against the U.S. criminal justice system–that it is a two tier system that holds poor suspects to a very harsh standard while extending a lot of leniency to rich and powerful suspects, often times for more egregious crimes. Epstein’s case is clearly one where very rich and powerful people have committed horrific crimes against the most vulnerable victims–children. Will the U.S. criminal justice system rise up to the occasion and “throw the books” at the rich suspects or will it be the usual “slap on the wrist” treatment the public has become accustomed to? Only time will tell or as Trump famously says, “We’ll see what happens.”
For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App
Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com
Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More
