fishweewee

Hill-dawg hired Ghislane Maxwell's 25 y.o nephew to run Libya/Syria policy

Rate this topic

14 posts in this topic

Posted (edited) · Report post

Well, that explains a lot.  

 

Fresh out of college, nephew of a politically-connected rapist/pedophile/sex slave groomer.

 

Libya is a failed state.  Dontcha know.  13 Hours blew that story out of the water.

 

Yeesh.  Ivanka and Jared never got anyone killed or blew up two entire countries.

 

https://www.uspoliticsandnews.com/how-did-everyone-miss-this-obvious-hillary-epstein-connection/

 

How Did Everyone Miss This Obvious Hillary-Epstein Connection?


By US Politics And News Last updated Dec 17, 2019

 

Why hasn’t Ghislaine Maxwell, the alleged pimp of deceased Clinton donor/pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, showed up for an interview with the FBI yet?  :point:

 

Just kidding! We all know the ugly answer to that question.

 

The Clintons have spent the past four years denying their years-long close personal friendship with Epstein and Maxwell, to limited success. A new and very blatant connection to the duo has just come to light, which makes us wonder why no one has uncovered it previously.

 

It’s almost as if the media doesn’t want to look too closely at the Clintons’ relationship with Epstein and Maxwell!

 

Hillary just had Botox done on her cheeks, which prompted a small busload of articles declaring the 72-year-old tyrant to be looking young, vibrant and oh-so-sexy compared to the Bad Orange Man.

 

She appears to be very close to finally jumping into the 2020 race at long last, so we think it’s important to highlight the Clintons’ friendship with this monstrous couple that abused dozens – possibly hundreds – of children.

 

This latest revelation about close Clinton friends dates back to 1994, but we’ll start with Hillary’s 2000 run for Senate in New York. That year, one of Hillary’s extremely wealthy donor friends in New York was dumping a lot of cash into supporting her run.

 

That person was Dale Djerassi, the son and heir of Carl Djerassi (inventor of the birth control pill). After pouring thousands of dollars into Hillary’s campaign, a big scandal erupted that caused the Clintons to distance themselves from Dale Djerassi.

 

It turns out that back in 1994, Djerassi had been a participant in one of the wildly anti-Christian “art” projects that was being funded by the NEA. In this particular “art” exhibit, a naked man in a Batman mask was being whipped by a couple of guys as he carried around a crucifix like Jesus. (You just can’t make this stuff up.)

 

Eventually, the two men pretend to nail the naked Batman to the cross. One of the men whipping the nude Batman was Dale Djerassi.

 

The Catholic League was rightly outraged by this blasphemous display posing as art, which was paid for by the US taxpayers. The League demanded that Hillary return Djerassi’s campaign donations. We don’t know if she ever did, but she publicly distanced herself from Djerassi at the time.

 

But 12 years later, Hillary repaid the favor the same way that she has always repaid favors to the donor friends of the Clintons: She gave Dale Djerassi’s son, Alex, a cushy post at the State Department.

 

This was blatant cronyism and smells nearly as bad as Hunter Biden’s cushy job in the Ukraine, which was obviously secured due to nothing more than his Vice-Presidential father’s name.

 

Alex Djerassi landed his big job at the State Department in 2012, and stayed on the job until 2015, right before Hillary left the State Department.

 

The younger Djerassi was just 25 years old when he landed this position. Oh, well, what’s the big deal, right? It’s not like Hillary gave an important job to a kid who was fresh out of college. Oh, wait.

 

According to his bio, young Alex Djerassi was put in charge of the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, covering the Middle East. He worked directly on the Arab Spring, and Hillary sent Alex as the US representative to the expatriate rebel groups Friends of Libya and Friends of the Syrian People.

 

In other words, Hillary put the inexperienced son of one of her donors in charge of handling two of the biggest foreign policy debacles of the Obama administration: Libya and Syria.

 

What’s this have to do with the Clintons’ connections to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell? Everything.

 

Alex Djerassi’s mother is Isabel Maxwell. As in, Ghislaine Maxwell’s sister.

 

Hillary Clinton put Ghislaine Maxwell’s fresh-out-of-college, 25-year-old nephew in charge of the Obama administration’s Libya and Syria policy.

 

This is the exact type of cronyism that the Clintons have always engaged in, dating back to 1993 when Hillary fired the White House Travel Office staff to give those jobs to a Hollywood donor friend’s flight service in exchange for donations to Bill’s first presidential run.

 

How did everyone miss this obvious connection between the Clintons and the Epstein/Maxwell axis of evil? Because it makes the Clintons look even worse, of course. And we’re not going to stop talking about Hillary and Bill’s close ties to Jeffrey Epstein, because it’s important that the truth of their relationship eventually comes out. Oh, and good luck with your little 2020 campaign, Hillary.

 

 

Edited by fishweewee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, fishweewee said:

It turns out that back in 1994, Djerassi had been a participant in one of the wildly anti-Christian “art” projects that was being funded by the NEA. In this particular “art” exhibit, a naked man in a Batman mask was being whipped by a couple of guys as he carried around a crucifix like Jesus. (You just can’t make this stuff up.)

 

Eventually, the two men pretend to nail the naked Batman to the cross. One of the men whipping the nude Batman was Dale Djerassi.

Every. Damned. Time. 

 

6 hours ago, fishweewee said:

Hillary repaid the favor the same way that she has always repaid favors to the donor friends of the Clintons: She gave Dale Djerassi’s son, Alex, a cushy post at the State Department.

This is how sayanim operate. 

 

Robert Maxwell is confirmed mossad - NOT sayanim! Not that there is a yuge difference in terms of operation, but there is with respect to direction. 

 

Mossad has their tentacles all through the US government. Through relations like this. Through bribery and corruption. Through dual citizenship legislators. Through outright blackmail a la Epstein. 

 

I'd like to know how much involvement they have in antifa and BLM.

 

We are being controlled by a foreign government! Throwing off this yoke should be our top priority! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Hmmmmm...... well we did hear that Bill was rather fond of his aunt. Several books suggest that Bill was chasing his aunt all around that island paradise, having to dodge all the young girls just to catch her. 
 

Hillary knew exactly what Bill was doing hanging out with Epstein. She wasn’t in the dark about any of that. If y0ur wife discovered that you were molesting little girls, what would she do ?

 

So why didn’t Hillary do that ?

Edited by FishinMortician

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 mins ago, FishinMortician said:

Hmmmmm...... well we did hear that Bill was rather fond of his aunt. Several books suggest that Bill was chasing his aunt all around that island paradise, having to dodge all the young girls just to catch her. 
 

Hillary knew exactly what Bill was doing hanging out with Epstein. She wasn’t in the dark about any of that. If y0ur wife discovered that you were molesting little girls, what would she do ?

 

So why didn’t Hillary do that ?

In on it, and in to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 25 y.o. kid and "the brightest minds at Harvard and Yale" COMPLETELY FUQQED THIS UP!

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/2019-02-18/obamas-libya-debacle

 

Obama’s Libya Debacle

 

How a Well-Meaning Intervention Ended in Failure

 

By Alan J. Kuperman

 

March/April 2015

 

On March 17, 2011, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973, spearheaded by the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama, authorizing military intervention in Libya. The goal, Obama explained, was to save the lives of peaceful, pro-democracy protesters who found themselves the target of a crackdown by Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi. Not only did Qaddafi endanger the momentum of the nascent Arab Spring, which had recently swept away authoritarian regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, but he also was poised to commit a bloodbath in the Libyan city where the uprising had started, said the president. “We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi—a city nearly the size of Charlotte—could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world,” Obama declared. Two days after the UN authorization, the United States and other NATO countries established a no-fly zone throughout Libya and started bombing Qaddafi’s forces. Seven months later, in October 2011, after an extended military campaign with sustained Western support, rebel forces conquered the country and shot Qaddafi dead.

 

In the immediate wake of the military victory, U.S. officials were triumphant. Writing in these pages in 2012, Ivo Daalder, then the U.S. permanent representative to NATO, and James Stavridis, then supreme allied commander of Europe, declared, “NATO’s operation in Libya has rightly been hailed as a model intervention.” In the Rose Garden after Qaddafi’s death, Obama himself crowed, “Without putting a single U.S. service member on the ground, we achieved our objectives.” Indeed, the United States seemed to have scored a hat trick: nurturing the Arab Spring, averting a Rwanda-like genocide, and eliminating Libya as a potential source of terrorism.

 

That verdict, however, turns out to have been premature. In retrospect, Obama’s intervention in Libya was an abject failure, judged even by its own standards. Libya has not only failed to evolve into a democracy; it has devolved into a failed state. Violent deaths and other human rights abuses have increased severalfold. Rather than helping the United States combat terrorism, as Qaddafi did during his last decade in power, Libya now serves as a safe haven for militias affiliated with both al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). The Libya intervention has harmed other U.S. interests as well: undermining nuclear nonproliferation, chilling Russian cooperation at the UN, and fueling Syria’s civil war.

 

Despite what defenders of the mission claim, there was a better policy available—not intervening at all, because peaceful Libyan civilians were not actually being targeted. Had the United States and its allies followed that course, they could have spared Libya from the resulting chaos and given it a chance of progress under Qaddafi’s chosen successor: his relatively liberal, Western-educated son Saif al-Islam. Instead, Libya today is riddled with vicious militias and anti-American terrorists—and thus serves as a cautionary tale of how humanitarian intervention can backfire for both the intervener and those it is intended to help.

...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 mins ago, fishweewee said:

A 25 y.o. kid and "the brightest minds at Harvard and Yale" COMPLETELY FUQQED THIS UP!

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/2019-02-18/obamas-libya-debacle

 

Obama’s Libya Debacle

 

How a Well-Meaning Intervention Ended in Failure

 

By Alan J. Kuperman

 

March/April 2015

 

On March 17, 2011, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973, spearheaded by the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama, authorizing military intervention in Libya. The goal, Obama explained, was to save the lives of peaceful, pro-democracy protesters who found themselves the target of a crackdown by Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi. Not only did Qaddafi endanger the momentum of the nascent Arab Spring, which had recently swept away authoritarian regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, but he also was poised to commit a bloodbath in the Libyan city where the uprising had started, said the president. “We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi—a city nearly the size of Charlotte—could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world,” Obama declared. Two days after the UN authorization, the United States and other NATO countries established a no-fly zone throughout Libya and started bombing Qaddafi’s forces. Seven months later, in October 2011, after an extended military campaign with sustained Western support, rebel forces conquered the country and shot Qaddafi dead.

 

In the immediate wake of the military victory, U.S. officials were triumphant. Writing in these pages in 2012, Ivo Daalder, then the U.S. permanent representative to NATO, and James Stavridis, then supreme allied commander of Europe, declared, “NATO’s operation in Libya has rightly been hailed as a model intervention.” In the Rose Garden after Qaddafi’s death, Obama himself crowed, “Without putting a single U.S. service member on the ground, we achieved our objectives.” Indeed, the United States seemed to have scored a hat trick: nurturing the Arab Spring, averting a Rwanda-like genocide, and eliminating Libya as a potential source of terrorism.

 

That verdict, however, turns out to have been premature. In retrospect, Obama’s intervention in Libya was an abject failure, judged even by its own standards. Libya has not only failed to evolve into a democracy; it has devolved into a failed state. Violent deaths and other human rights abuses have increased severalfold. Rather than helping the United States combat terrorism, as Qaddafi did during his last decade in power, Libya now serves as a safe haven for militias affiliated with both al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). The Libya intervention has harmed other U.S. interests as well: undermining nuclear nonproliferation, chilling Russian cooperation at the UN, and fueling Syria’s civil war.

 

Despite what defenders of the mission claim, there was a better policy available—not intervening at all, because peaceful Libyan civilians were not actually being targeted. Had the United States and its allies followed that course, they could have spared Libya from the resulting chaos and given it a chance of progress under Qaddafi’s chosen successor: his relatively liberal, Western-educated son Saif al-Islam. Instead, Libya today is riddled with vicious militias and anti-American terrorists—and thus serves as a cautionary tale of how humanitarian intervention can backfire for both the intervener and those it is intended to help.

...

 

Libya was wanting to trade its oil to Europe, but wanting to trade in Euros, not dollars. The Globalists couldn't part with their conversation skim, and kilt ol Moammar for daring to suggest such a thing.  

Obama was just doing what he was told. I don't mean to absolve him of any responsibility, but he certainly didn't think up this all on his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.