Rupert Murdoch, who has a long history of paying $millions to cover-up the sexual abuse and harassment of women at Fox News, is pictured with Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell below which points to them possibly being friends. But what is more interesting is that Jeffrey Epstein had Rupert Murdoch’s private contact details in his black book which was revealed in 2015 court proceedings.
With Jeffrey Epstein dead, the focus will now turn to his alleged co-conspirators such as Ghislaine Maxwell and you have to wonder what Rupert knows & was he involved in any way?
Jeffrey Epstein was a well-known paedophile who was friends with both US President Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton. Both Trump and Clinton have a long list of women who have accused them of sexual assault and rape.
Epstein was jailed in 2008 for “soliciting a prostitute and of procuring an underage girl for prostitution.” He served 13 months in custody with work release as part of a plea deal. Federal officials had identified 36 girls as young as 14 years old who had been molested by Epstein but he was never charged for those crimes at the time and it was blatantly a cover-up that wasn’t exposed until 2018 by investigative journalist Julie K Brown of the Miami Herald.
The prosecutor who negotiated the plea deal in 2008 was Alexander Acosta. “President Donald Trump nominated Acosta to be Labor Secretary on February 16, 2017, and he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 27, 2017.”
After Julie K Brown ran her stories in 2018 the FBI reopened their investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his paedophile trafficking. Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on the 6th of July 2019 and charged with sex trafficking minors.
Not long after Epstein was arrested Alexander Acosta resigned as Labor Secretary on the 19th of July as media reported his role in the 2008 plea deal done with Epstein. So why did Donald Trump appoint Acosta as Labor Secretary and was it linked to the Epstein plea deal in some way?
Jeffrey Epstein’s black book
The New York Magazine reported on the 22nd July 2019:
If you watch Fox News, you will believe Bill Clinton was Epstein’s No. 1 pal and enabler. If you watch MSNBC, this scandal is usually all about Donald Trump. In fact, both presidents are guilty (at the very least) of giving Epstein cover and credibility. There are so many unanswered questions about Epstein, but one that looms over all of them is whether the bipartisan crowd who cleared a path for him will cover its tracks before we can get answers.
In 2015, Gawker published Epstein’s “little black book,” which had surfaced in court proceedings after a former employee took it from Epstein’s home around 2005 and later tried to sell it. He said that the book had been created by people who worked for Epstein and that it contained the names and phone numbers of more than 100 victims, plus hundreds of social contacts. Along with the logs of Epstein’s private plane, released in 2015, the book paints a picture of a man deeply enmeshed in the highest social circles. (Click here to read more and for the full list of people of Epstein’s Blackbook)
The “black book” of Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy financier and now-accused child sex trafficker, is a smorgasbord of high-profile, powerful people, including Presidents Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, Britain’s Prince Andrew and former Prime Minister Tony Blair, and convicted sex assailant and comedian Bill Cosby, Epstein’s former neighbor.
Also in Epstein’s address book is supermarket mogul Ron Burkle, Clinton’s daughter Chelsea Clinton, former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and John Kerry, late Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, and media titan Rupert Murdoch, New York magazine noted in a new article. (Click here to read more)
Murdoch has two numbers — one New York, one California — listed in the address book.
If the FBI has been doing their job properly they would have contacted everyone in the black book and asked them about their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein which means they would have also contacted Rupert Murdoch.
I wonder what Rupert Murdoch told the FBI about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and why hasn’t it been reported in the media like everyone else’s relationship with Epstein has?
Murder or suicide?
Anyone with experience of how jails work will tell you that Jeffrey Epstein was either murdered or prison guards assisted his suicide. There are no ifs, buts or maybes, that’s what happened. Assisted suicide could and should also be regarded as murder as well.
It’s being reported that former prisoners say it is impossible to hang yourself at the jail Epstein was held:
“Jeffrey Epstein Death: Suicide Is ‘Impossible’, Says Former Inmate” (Click here to read more) and “Suicide supposedly nearly impossible at ulta-secure Jeffrey Epstein lockup” (Click here to read more)
The bottom line is that Epstein was meant to have a cellmate which he didn’t because his cellmate was moved a few hours before Epstein hung himself which any prisoner or former prisoner will tell you that wouldn’t happen unless it was a deliberate set-up. Because if there was no one to replace Epstein’s cellmate then they would have put Epstein into a cell with at least 2 others and not leave him by himself given his recent suicide attempt.
Epstein was also meant to be checked every 30 minutes which he wasn’t and he was off suicide watch about 8 days after he allegedly attempted suicide, which if true, would almost be a record for going off suicide watch after an attempted suicide.
There are at least 2 inquiries into Epstein’s “suicide” which might shed more light on it but I would expect someone will at least be sacked if not charged.
Rupert Murdoch’s cover-up of sexual assault and harassment of women at News Corp / Fox News
The picture below of Rupert Murdoch and Jeffery Epstein’s alleged co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell was taken in September 2010 which is a month after Epstein finished his house arrest. “Epstein served almost 13 months before being released for a year of probation on house arrest until August 2010.” (Click here to read more)
In 2016 the then News Corp owned Fox News forced their CEO Roger Ailes to resign after numerous sexual harassment allegations. They paid Ailes $40 million to go quietly which suggests a cover-up of a much bigger problem.
Gretchen Carlson who was one of the complainants against Roger Ailes was paid $20 million. “After Carlson came forward, six more women spoke to Gabriel Sherman of New York magazine, alleging that Ailes had sexually harassed them and that Ailes had “spoke openly of expecting women to perform sexual favors in exchange for job opportunities. (Click here to read more)
In January 2017 Fox News host Bill O’Reilly personally settled a lawsuit by Lis Wiehl for a “nonconsensual sexual relationship,” for $32 million. Despite this in February 2017 Fox gave O’Reilly a 4-year contract extension worth $25 per year.
In April 2017, The New York Times exposed that O’Reilly and Fox News had settled another unreported five lawsuits against O’Reilly dating back to 2002, totaling $13 million in compensation paid, so Murdoch and Fox fired Bill O’Reilly to cover themselves. (Click here to read more)
What the total amount was that Rupert Murdoch signed off for Fox to pay victims of sexual harassment/assault at Fox News has never been revealed but if you add the $40 million Roger Ailes was paid to go quietly, the $20 million Gretchen Carlson was paid and the $13 million a few of Bill O’Rielly’s victims were paid you get $73 million. Then add the rest and I doubt you would get any change out of $100 million.
The point about the $millions paid by Murdoch to cover-up the sexual abuse and harassment of women is that it is powerful circumstantial evidence to suggest that Murdoch would not care about Jeffrey Epstein abusing teenage girls. Murdoch possibly turned a blind eye to Epstein’s abuse of girls given Murdoch’s cover-up of the conduct of sexual predators like Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly. In fact, Rupert Murdoch has a long history of making $millions from exploiting girls by putting topless teenagers on page 3 of his UK papers for years.
This brings us back to the question of what did Rupert Murdoch know about Jeffrey Epstein abusing girls and was Rupert Murdoch involved. The FBI should know by now and hopefully they will reveal the answer sometime soon. There is also nothing stopping other media from asking Rupert Murdoch questions about the matter but at this point, they seem too scared to.
Please use Twitter, Facebook, email and the other buttons below and help promote this article.
Kangaroo Court of Australia is an independent website and is reliant on donations to keep publishing so please click on the Patreon button below and support independent journalism.
If you would like to support via PayPal use the button below or for other donation options click here to go to the Donations page.
Thank you for your support.
For the KCA t-shirt shop click here.
Categories: News Corp, Rupert Murdoch
I refer to the paragraph in which the author links Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein. I do not know Trump, Clinton or Epstein, but I consider the author is blindly following the Democratic Party and the American MSM talking points in an attempt to smear Trump’s reputation approaching the 2020 election. I follow American politics from a distance, and my understanding of the situation is this. In the 1980’s Donald Trump purchased the Mar-a-Lago estate (previously known as the Winter White House). He subsequently converted it into a luxury club and resort. Many wealthy people became members; one was Jeffrey Epstein, who Trump later barred because of his alleged behaviour towards women. Other than being present at the some Palm Beach social events, Trump had little or no contact with Epstein. The author should correct me if he has additional evidence that Trump was socialising with Epstein for immoral purposes. It is reported that Pilot logs record Bill Clinton was a guest on Epstein’s aircraft known as the Lolita Express on more than 20 occasions. As previously mentioned, I do not personally know any of the people mentioned in this article, but consider it unjust to smear a person’s reputation merely because they have a business or social connections.
Trump is a buddy of Epstein. He is in untold numbers of pictures with him. He’s also was sued by a girl procured by Epstein before he even ran for president. During his 2016 candidacy he paid her off like the other woman he assaulted. And also like Clinton did. I thought the author went out of his way to lay out the fact that this is a bipartisan issue. Trump smears himself. His supporters get upset about the truth. Saying the truth is an stack on him. That flies in the face of our first amendment. And makes No sense as that is an issue that conservatives champion. They want to be able to call propaganda “news” in this country. We recently did a study about bias in American media. MSNBC screws left, but CNN falls in the middle. That doesn’t mean they don’t bring on opinion people who are hard on him. But they always also have a conservative on for opinion pieces. It sounds like you’ve been a victim of our very well funded propaganda. Which remember, is allowed to actually allowed to be called news in our country.
I’m the descendant of a Kronkite era, award winning, national journalist. I believe all news should be fair and unbiased.
The author of this article gives opinions at the end. But he lays out the questions he is trying to answer. And points out the bipartisan nature of the offenses. The questions are the same questions everyone here on both sides are trying to grapple with. So it’s not off the mark.
Epstein was operating an underage procurement racket from inside Mar-a-lago. (Source “Filthy Rich: Jeffery Epstein” interviewing locker room attendants Epstein recruited and absurd) .
Furthermore it wasn’t Trump that forced Epstein to leave the resort/club, Epstein and Trump were buddies and Trump bragged about him and his taste in women, Trump also sponsored “beauty pageants” and frequently walked — uninvited — into change rooms full of naked and semi-naked underage and young women.
It was another person who came in to run some business out of Mar-a-lago who raised the alarm and forced Epsteins racket to be shut down. There’s no way a sleaze like Trump didn’t know what Epstein was up to procuring underage girls in his own country club.
So many Cohencidences….
The glossy connection to Prince Andrew should not distract us from looking at the Epstein/Maxwell network with a magnifying glass.
Especially the examination that all the wealth in Ghislaine’s and Jeffrey’s hands look like proceeds of crime is important. There have been credible voices who said that Epstein was not wealthy when Ghislaine Maxwell arrived in New York – with fat bank accounts from her father. It later turned out that her father Robert Maxwell had defrauded his employees, stealing all their pension savings (£460m, 1991).
He must have emptied all funds accessible to him because Bill Browder (of Magnitsky Act fame) briefly worked for the Maxwell organisation. On the day Maxwell was found dead in the ocean, Browder was sent to the bank with a cheque to cash in. There were no funds at all in the company accounts in London and he was sent back without any cash. (See book Red Notice)
Maxwell, if he had intended to live beyond that day, would not have planned this kind of fiasco. He must have intended to ask his daughter Ghislaine in New York to drip feed money as required. That did not happen after his death and Ghislaine got together with Jeffrey Epstein who knew how to augment the money.
Credible reports said that Epstein was not wealthy before Ghislaine turned up. All the wealth, the millions in Ghislaine’s accounts now, the real estate holdings in France, Florida, New Mexico, New York, and the islands look like proceeds of crime, firstly from Robert Maxwell’s fraud and then the blackmail (to be confirmed) of people who had been entrapped.
Forensic accountants can track those things, the NSA records go back years. They claim to have deleted some but that is not credible. Somewhere in the files of 17 intel agencies, copies must still exist for security reasons.
For every Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, and Kevin Spacey there must be dozens of mid-level collaborateurs like Katherine Keating, a buddy of Ghislaine Maxwell, when you do a picture search. There’d be dozens of servants and staff, now they do not have to hold back any more.
Prince Andrew is a glossy side issue, confiscating proceeds of crime is what matters.
@PB. Any reasonable person requires prima facie evidence of criminal or immoral behaviour before attempting to smear an individuals reputation. Apparently, for some, this understandable and reasonable requirement does not apply.
There appears to be a concerted push to demonise sex and sexual drives. Surely in today’s world of legalised homosexuality and enlightenment there should be no place for those who criticise how gratification is obtained provided it is not at the expense of the defenceless or under duress. The gay and lesbian Geni is out of the bottle and I suspect will never be recontained. Normal this year was unacceptable and abhorrent last year.
Provided our dull witted politicians steer clear of making some of the modern behaviours complulsory, who among us can with clear conscience criticise others for what they do in private? The media are consummate voyeurs that serve to gratify the paying public need to watch anything of a sexual nature.
This article is total conjecture and may tell some truth but it would never stand up in court.
It is implausible to conflate homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children. Homosexuality is not a new thing nor has it always been hidden in Western society. It was virtually mandatory in ancient Sparta. Most adults don’t have a problem with gay people and never have, but religion has dominated our political and legal system for so long that homosexuality has been suppressed.
Sex with children is considered wrong because adults realize that children cannot consent to sex even if the child doesn’t show obvious signs of duress because children/teenagers’ brains and bodies are not fully developed. In societies where sex with children was openly tolerated by the powerful, such as ancient Greece, sex with children was still considered wrong due to the emotional and physical discrepancy between children and adults. It is telling that in ancient Greece and ancient Rome where sexual abuse of children was conducted, including by the very powerful in society, the societies soon fell apart.
The comments above that imply that Kangaroo Court is making the error of “guilt by association” are inaccurate. The rich and powerful regularly use people with less social and financial power as a means to an end. They care nothing for the truth or the effect of their actions on individual victims and the broader society. People as powerful as Epstein only get away with their crimes and abuse of power through the help of others. Not trying to stop his crimes or failing to report his crimes to the police and also the original “sweetheart deal” he was given in Florida is also an offence, which is why many in Epstein’s circle are now being investigated for conspiracy.
There is video footage of Trump saying that Epstein is a “great guy” in the same breath as saying that he likes women “a little on the young side.” One of the original people to oppose Trump when he first became nominated for President was a woman that said she had been raped by Epstein when she was 13 and that Trump was present. That particular news story was reported by Fairfax (now Nine) which is a mainstream news site. It doesn’t make the news reports automatically true, but there is enough information in the public domain to raise serious questions about these people’s associations with one another.
What are the true depths of Rupert Murdoch? He received a papal knighthood in January 1998. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/catholic-anger-at-murdochs-papal-knighthood-1145252.html
He received the knighthood at the recommendation of Roger Mahony then Cardinal and Archbishop of Los Angeles. Six months later Mahony was being grilled on the witness stand for his cover up and protection of paedophile priest O’Grady In 1980, shortly after Mahony became Bishop of Stockton, California, a parent wrote to the diocese accusing Father Oliver O’Grady, a priest of the diocese, of molesting his two sons. Mahony had O’Grady transferred to another parish in 1982, where more abuse accusations followed. In 1984, a police investigation into accusations against O’Grady was closed after a diocesan lawyer promised that O’Grady would be kept away from children. In December of that year Mahony had O’Grady transferred to another parish. Mahony was promoted to Archbishop of Los Angeles the following year. In 1998, six months after awarding Rupert Murdoch a pal knighthood, Mahony testified in a civil trial against the Diocese of Stockton, in which a jury awarded $30 million to two of O’Grady’s victims. O’Grady later was featured as the subject of the 2006 documentary film, Deliver Us from Evil.
I assume that’s $25 million?
Australia’s Paedophile Protection Racket: For more details click here: https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/0648890902