Another correspondence from the files released by the DOJ shows the Emirati businessman describing sexual experiences to Epstein
  • Hatshepsut@lemmy.worldEnglish
    36·
    9 hours ago

    Republican US Representative Thomas Massie said on 10 February that prominent Emirati businessman Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem was the sender of the “torture video” received by convicted pedophile, sex trafficker, financier, and intelligence asset Jeffrey Epstein.

    The revelation comes after several US representatives obtained access to unredacted parts of Epstein’s emails from the Department of Justice (DOJ).

    “In response to my posts on X today, DOJ unredacted an FBI file that LABELS two individuals as co-conspirators, unredacted a file that lists several men who might be implicated, and tacitly admitted that Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem was the sender of the torture video,” Massie said on X.

    “Until tonight no one knew who sent the torture video to Epstein. I went to DOJ, unredacted the email, and reverse searched the email to discover it was a Sultans. Our law requires VICTIM’s information to be redacted, not information of men who sent Epstein torture porn!”

    Earlier, Massie wrote on social media that “a Sultan seems to have sent” the email to Epstein.

    The email in question is part of the recent flood of shocking releases made by the DOJ, relating to Epstein and his close ties with prominent figures across the globe – including US President Donald Trump, former Israeli premier Ehud Barak, Prince Andrew of the UK, and others.

    “Where are you? Are you ok, I loved the torture video,” Epstein wrote in the mail.

    The person whose name has been redacted in the files made public responded saying, “I am in china I will be in the US 2nd week of May.”

    Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche also said on Tuesday that Sulayem’s name was available unredacted in file EFTA00666117.

    The Epstein files have recently revealed other confirmed correspondences between the late pedophile and the Emirati businessman, some of which related to sexual matters.

    In September 2015, Sulayem wrote to Epstein about a foreign exchange student at a Dubai university, saying, “She got engaged but now she back with me. Amazing body, best sex I’ve ever had.”

    Sulayem is the CEO of multinational logistics firm DP World, which specializes in port terminal operations and maritime services, among other things.

    Several images have been released of Sulayem and Epstein together.

    The recent DOJ releases have reinforced, if not confirmed, the belief that Epstein worked for the Mossad, despite some who have tried to label him as a Russian asset.

    A declassified FBI memo released on 30 January states that Trump was “compromised by Israel,” that Epstein was an Israeli intelligence agent, and that a Jewish religious movement, Chabad Lubavitch, had coopted Trump’s presidency.

    Trump is mentioned thousands of times in the Epstein files. Documents released last month included allegations that the US president raped a 13-year-old girl.

    Several twitter posts are also embedded.

    • hector@lemmy.todayEnglish
      7·
      6 hours ago

      Thanks for the rundown there. I am glad for the link to the fbi information about the president being an asset of Israel.

      Why do I not already know this with the NYTimes? Did I just miss it, or are they still just covering for Israel, and by extension Epstein, and all of his co conspirators.

      Are we sure the Times Editors and or owners aren’t on the epstein files?

      • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        14 minutes ago

        Why do I not already know this with the NYTimes? . . . Are we sure the Times Editors and or owners aren’t on the epstein files?

        Two things to know about NYT:

        First, when NYT actually asserts a physical fact, it is true or as close to true as they can ascertain: they don’t like lawsuits. They have this in common with WSJ.

        Second, how NYT couches any given fact and in what light they present it can be entirely disconnected from that fact’s context in reality. It’s easy to sue and win if they get their facts wrong, but editorialization is a different thing.

        So with the NYT, it’s best to note the facts, but take the presented context with a wheelbarrow of salt.

        Why? I have no information on NYT editors or owners, but it is definitely the newspaper of rich, establishment New Yorkers. Epstein was a rich, establishment New Yorker himself, and so were many of his friends, including Donald Trump. The paper is literally written for the Epstein class.

        So they have gone out of their way to editorialize facts about Epstein, such as running a puff piece late last year that tried to spin all the missing financial information about where Epstein got his riches into a “absolutely not blackmail, only theft, nothing to see here, move along” piece. (archive link) If you read that with the understanding that blackmail has always been a front and center suspicion with Epstein, not just financially but in regard to his use of technology to record what went on at his properties as well as his supposed intelligence links, you’ll see what I’m talking about. How is that missing? Well, that’s NYT.

        So don’t wait for NYT to piss off their core subscriber base. If it’s going to frighten them, expect it to be soft-pedaled and both-sides, maybe written in a way that is protective of them like the above-linked article, or just not appear prominently at all.