u/ALiddleBiddle

Synopsis:
This short APT news clip (about 5 minutes) shows a tense exchange from a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing on May 19, 2026, featuring Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche.

The key moment occurs when Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) questions Blanche about the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and speculation around possible clemency. Van Hollen first asks for a commitment that the DOJ will not recommend pardons for anyone named in the Epstein files. He then narrows it specifically to Ghislaine Maxwell. youtube.com

Blanche responds clearly: “Yes, I can commit to that. Of course.” He states that the DOJ will not recommend a pardon for Maxwell. axios.com

SUMMARY:

The MSN video features Andrew Bustamante, a former CIA covert operations officer, explaining why Jeffrey Epstein’s extensive network of powerful associates was never fully investigated by the FBI despite years of suspicions and evidence.

Key Points from Bustamante’s Analysis:

• Epstein as a likely FBI Confidential Informant (CI): Bustamante argues the most plausible explanation is that Epstein operated as a valuable FBI informant. This would explain the agency’s apparent reluctance to pursue his broader network aggressively. As a CI, Epstein could provide intelligence on high-profile targets (e.g., politicians, businessmen, and elites), granting him significant protection or leniency in exchange.

• Why the FBI “looked away”: Law enforcement agencies often shield CIs to protect ongoing investigations and sources. Exposing or prosecuting Epstein fully risked compromising cases against dozens of other influential figures. The FBI has tools to grant operational leeway for domestic crimes that the CIA lacks for U.S. citizens.

• Epstein’s lifestyle vs. official profile: Despite living like a billionaire (private islands, jets, etc.), Epstein had minimal legitimate financial filings or clear business sources, consistent with someone receiving covert support or protection.

• Broader context: Bustamante contrasts this with less likely theories (e.g., direct Mossad/CIA asset) and frames it within how intelligence and law enforcement prioritize bigger cases over individual prosecutions. He discusses this in interviews, podcasts, and related Discovery Channel content on conspiracies.

The piece is speculative but draws on Bustamante’s intelligence background to offer an insider’s rationale for the lack of deeper probes into Epstein’s enablers and clients. It aligns with ongoing public skepticism about Epstein’s 2019 death and the incomplete accountability for his associates.

Note that this is one expert’s informed perspective, not official confirmation.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Among the most striking revelations involves Doug Band, a longtime Clinton confidant and architect of the Clinton Global Initiative...

Click on link to read the full article.

The Scene Last Tuesday
In my office for an interview, facing a glinting stretch of the Pacific Ocean as muted blue backdrop.

To my right, a dead plant in a wilted state silently judging the stack of tabloid magazines plastered with Jeffrey Epstein’s face. Across from me, a reporter from the country’s most influential newspaper reading aloud past statements of mine, repeated out of context, crafted for a curated readership that often reflects its writer’s shifting moods and temperamental mindset.

“She sounds like she changes her mind often,” I wanted to explain.

But fluid perspectives seemed a foreign concept to my midday guest. And the more I expanded, the less he appeared to grasp what it is I do. Or at least, what it is I seek to do.

Mostly, the legacy newsman was interested in one claim in particular: Did I actually believe Bill Clinton had a sexual relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell?

If so, did I understand the implications of printing such a claim? His question came cushioned by a hypothetical scenario meant to intimidate, but humored me instead: Bill Clinton could take me to court over such a salacious rumor. Did that concern me at all?

No.

Did I believe this rumor?

Yes.

Why?

As someone who works in the business of gossip — which he kindly pointed out I do — it was a rumor with teeth; something I’d heard from all corners of my reach, believed to be true, and therefore worthy of printed theory. Imagining myself facing libel court waged by Bill Clinton, with discovery probing the backlog of his sex life, I found myself silently amused by such an absurd prospect.

Besides, I didn’t birth the rumor. Three years ago I did a deep dive on it.

To continue reading, follow the link.

On a Friday morning in May 2019, months after Deutsche Bank claimed to have severed its relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and just weeks before he was arrested, one of the financier’s longtime bankers sat at his desk in Deutsche Bank’s midtown Manhattan headquarters, scrolling through the bank’s internal systems. The numbers on his screen didn’t match the story his institution had begun telling the outside world.

“Since the client intends to have the rest of their accounts closed this week or next, let’s agree on what is still open,” Stewart Oldfield, then a director in Deutsche Bank’s U.S. wealth unit, wrote to colleagues on May 10, under the subject line, “Epstein account closure.” He added a line that showed the bank had still not made a clean break with Epstein: “I think some of the accounts are zero balance but still open.” Oldfield’s messages were contained in the cache of 3 million files on Epstein released by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Oldfield didn’t respond to repeated Fortunerequests for comment.

To read the full article, follow the link.