This week Daily Telegraph posted an article featuring a video by US journalist Kim Iverson which showed some strange coincidences in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial.
Iverson explained how the appointment of Maurene Comey as lead prosecutor in the case was highly unconventional. Maurene Comey is the daughter of Clinton Deep State operative James Comey. James Comey was the head of the FBI, and made the decision not to prosecute Hilary Clinton for alleged crimes pertaining to classified information during the 2016 Presidential Election.
Further, witnesses that would have provided damning testimony against Ghislaine Maxwell were not called upon by the prosecution to give evidence. Clearly these witnesses have aspects to their evidence which would have implicated certain other people. To prevent that embarrassment, or risk of inciminating certain third parties, they were left off the witness list, a decision which would have been made by Maurene Comey as lead prosecutor.
But there’s more dodgy coincidences involving the legal set up of the case.
Judge Alison Nathan:
- Appointed by Obama in 2011. Prior to that she was an associate White House Counsel and Special Assistant to Obama.
- A member of Cornell’s secret society, Quill & Dagger, which is much like Yale’s notorious Skull & Bones Society.
- Judge Nathan granted request to keep secret “sensational” information, to “protect the privacy of third parties”.
- At the behest of Senator Chuck Schumer, President Joe Biden just nominated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals – one step away from the Supreme Court of the United States.
In addition to Maurene Comey’s connections to the Clinton family:
- Alison Moe was one of the prosecutors pursuing fraud charges against Steve Bannon.
- Andrew Rohrbach previously worked for Jenner & Block. They are now representing staunch Democrat Alec Baldwin in the Rust movie shooting case.
- Lara Pomerantz used to work for Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, lawyers for the Clinton Foundation.
This is not to say that Ghislaine Maxwell is innocent, or that she is going to be unfairly tried.
What it does show is how easy it is for the powerful to stack the court with their operatives to ensure damaging information of high public interest doesn’t come out about certain members of the Washington swamp. It demonstrates how an apparently objective process like the law can easily be influenced by those with the right connections. And this is especially so when the legacy mainstream media don’t raise legitimate questions about the constitution of the court and prosecution, and don’t scrutinise prosecutorial decisions.