as previous posters have mentioned, it’s just a name out of context. The context is Epstein name dropped her whilst getting a massage from one of the Jane Doe’s, and the Jane Doe said she had never met Cate Blanchett. Not a big Cate fan but she’s not guilty hereCate Blanchett has me puzzled.
Cate Blanchett is on that list.Full list of names so far View attachment 2668508View attachment 2668510
There’s more to come apparentlyCate Blanchett is on that list.
That's weird... I remember and you can all view it on YT her appearance on Graham Norton with Ricky Garvias, Graham mentioned Ricky's monologue at the GG & him referring to Jeffery Epstein, Cate interrupted and said she recalled and how the camera panned to her and she was like (confused looked) & Ricky laughs and says, Leonardo was sat also sat there (who's also named) thinking Phew, Ricky could have said worse than my date is under 25.
People often forget that Ricky was paid to roast celebs. He ain't no brave big man. Quite the opposite...Cate Blanchett is on that list.
That's weird... I remember and you can all view it on YT her appearance on Graham Norton with Ricky Garvias, Graham mentioned Ricky's monologue at the GG & him referring to Jeffery Epstein, Cate interrupted and said she recalled and how the camera panned to her and she was like (confused looked) & Ricky laughs and says, Leonardo was also sat there (who's also named) thinking Phew, Ricky could have said worse than my date is under 25.
Paid or not, it's pretty brave of him to go along with it against the Hollywood elite.People often forget that Ricky was paid to roast celebs. He ain't no brave big man. Quite the opposite...
See this thread.The few mention with actual context aside these lists are defamation at this point because "X celebrity is on Epstein's list/court docs etc" is basically going to be misconstrued into a involvement or even a guilty verdict by most of the public when clearly it isnt.
I always think its telling that Prince Andrew is the one thrown under the bus....he is a member of the British Royal Family...whilst minimal 'power' as such but definitely high profile. To publicly have him as the 'poster boy' of this horrendous situation says to me he is the deflection.The names don't really mean anything out of context. Some of them are victims names and some are just mentioned in passing or in questions. There's too much for me to read the whole lot but it seems like Prince Andrew has come out worst in these documents and all in all there's not much new info there and there's nothing that could land anyone in prison. Bit of a disappointment overall.
We'd been chatting about this case and she was working on her degree at the time and was doing a module on child sex trafficking. Youtube can be a good place for research and she had stumbled across the interview. It was just relevant to our conversation but it was sickening. I had to keep stopping it because it was explained so graphically. Truly horrific but it is reality sadly.Nice friend.Why would they do that?
Actually it doesn’t mean she had contact with him. It means her name came up in the deposition. Without knowing the context there is no more inference to draw at this point. It could have been “we were in the restaurant and Cate Blanchett was on the other side of the room”. Or “Jeffrey said he wanted to see the Cate Blanchett movie”. Or any number of things.There are so many names in that list and I think Epstein was "clever" he had contacts and this wining and dining was part of his life and therefore can be used as a cover. Cate Blanchett on the list, doesn't mean she was involved with the illegal activity and abuse it means she had contact with him.
This whole list thing is a big fat nothing so far. We have learnt anything that we didn't know before.People are jumping to massive conclusions about this list without understanding context at all and it’s ridiculous. This is a list of names that came up in deposition. Thats its. Trump for example Is mentioned twice, once because one of women says that Epstein mentioned him In passing when they were heading to Atlantic City, and once because the lawyer brings up his name and asks if he visited the island and she says she never saw him there. So he is not exactly exonerated but he’s in no way implicated by these documents (to many people’s disappointment I’m sure).
Honestly I get the impression that some people are desperate for this to prove that Cate Blanchett was in an orgy with Stephen Hawking and some little people writing equations on a board and Tom Hanks was there too because he once wore an ankle bracelet and looks dodgy.
Prince Andrew and Dershowitz are the big stories here, with Clinton looking pretty damn seedy (but I think no direct allegations about sexual contact, unlike the others).
The thing is I do think he trafficked girls and that wealthy people sexually abused these girls. But the information so far doesn’t really show the extent of it. Which isn’t a surprise because people that powerful always cover their tracks. A lot of it focuses on Prince Andrew and I know some people think he’s being used as a scapegoat but by using that term it’s almost like minimising what he has done.This whole list thing is a big fat nothing so far. We have learnt anything that we didn't know before.
Some rich and famous people travelled on Epstein's jet and went to events organised by him. None of that proves that they were indulging in orgies with girls that had been trafficked. The list doesn't prove that there's some elite pedalo ring either
The point I was trying to make is that we are still no nearer the truth regarding who Epstein was supplying 'services' to.The thing is I do think he trafficked girls and that wealthy people sexually abused these girls. But the information so far doesn’t really show the extent of it. Which isn’t a surprise because people that powerful always cover their tracks. A lot of it focuses on Prince Andrew and I know some people think he’s being used as a scapegoat but by using that term it’s almost like minimising what he has done.
There was a new report today about a young model who was on JE’s airplane’s manifest- Ruslana Korshunova. I’ve always been a fan of her so maybe that’s why this article today caught my eye. She unfortunately later killed herself at the age of 20 and was involved in a self help cult. There had been talk that Epstein used girls from underprivileged backgrounds and foreign countries. So potentially Ruslana would have been the perfect victim for him and it could explain part of why she ended up going to this cult. Which makes me think how many girls are there who crossed paths with Epstein who didn’t get out the other end? Who took their own lives or have fallen on bad times?
I don’t know, I’m probably not explaining myself well and I think I’ve gone off tangent here!
He was a Mossad asset who made his money gathering kompromat for Israel.He was obviously up to something (including financial dodgy dealing) and probably supplying his 'friends' with young women on request. I'm certainly not denying that but I do think the conspiracy theories online have gone way overboard with this idea that all these wealthy elite people are part of a satanic club of pedalos feasting on adrenochrome.
I would agree, but then there is SavileThe 'Prince Andrew is the fall guy because he takes the focus away from US perpertrators' may or me not be true - but - there was what seems ostensibly like a CBS Newsreader saying on a "hot mic" about the Royal Family threatening them before the Epstein story really broke worldwide. It was posted a day or so ago on Tattle. May well be on this thread. Though it is quite an old story now, it was doing the rounds in 2019.
Conspiracy theorists love taking things out of context and bear this in mind - but it begs the question (if the clip is true):
- What did The Queen and RF know? - We only know what our children tell us and of course HMQ was in no way responsible for her son's crimes - but most mothers would shop their children to the authorities if there was any hint of child abuse allegations. (I won't dig up the 'how many other stories do the RF bury?' because that's going off tangent and there's been other examples we know of). The RF don't want their 'family business' crumbling and all the privileges that go with it turning to dust? They would be a prime target for blackmail, even assassination if they lost their status. But why would they willingly protect a man of such dubious character, even one who was in line to the throne?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?