Meandering through social media, a popular meme with several variants runs something like this:
“Hey, this guy says the government believes in UFOs!
“See, nobody cares. Now show us the Epstein client list.”
The gist: the Jeffrey Epstein story is a bigger, more important story than the on 70-plus years of government control of the UFO story.
Well, we now know precisely why we cannot have either: a few specific politicians are blocking disclosure, one Democrat on the Epstein story and a handful of Republicans on the UFO story.
Hillary Vaughn of Fox News asked Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) why he — the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee — won’t subpoena Epstein’s flight logs to and from his private Caribbean island wherein sex trafficking with under-age females and males went on. His response? “I don’t know anything about his flight logs” and “This has never been raised by anyone.”
This is untrue.
UFO/UAP transparency, on the other hand, has gone much further than the Epstein — probably because there are fewer politicians implicated in crimes. Yet two major disclosure elements in a recent defense bill have been nixed by Mike Turner (R-Oh.) and Mike Rogers (R-Ala.). Journalist Ross Coulthart, who has covered this story best, ascribes this pair’s opposition to disclosure to their respective military-industrial complex constituencies. And Coulthart adds that Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also had a hand in disclosure suppression.
Both the Epstein and the UFO story reveal a lot about our government, which wants us to know the truth about neither.
And as for the notion that these issues must be played off each other, the proper memed response would be “Why can’t we have both?”
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
2 replies on “Two Roadblocks, and Their Names”
My expectation is that, if an alleged Epstein client list is ever given official release, or is leaked and then given official acknowledgment, then that list will be authentic though perhaps incomplete. But I simply have no expectation that whatever the state will present about UAPs will be unalloyed truth, regardless of any subpoena.
If the state claims that some person was amongst those on the Epstein flights who was not, then he or she or (in the case of persons no longer living) that person’s relatives and friends have interests in producing evidence to clear his or her name.
But who would be positioned to disprove lies about UAPs? How would he or she do it? And, if lies were somehow exposed, what is the expectation that prosecutions would follow? Developing a widely believed case that officials lied about UAPs for some good reason would be rather easier than formulating a plausible excuse for lying about Epstein’s clients.
At this point, what difference would it make? The federal government no longer has the trust of the people. They could ‘come clean’ on all of this and how many people would believe them? I can’t think of a single issue on which I would give the feds the benefit of the doubt.