[Bee] Former president and saxophone player Bill Clinton testified to members of Congress today that his answer to their questions depended on what the definition of "child trafficking" is.
"What is...'is?' And furthermore, what really IS 'child trafficking?'" Clinton reportedly told members of the committee. "I would like to ask you all, what does this term mean, and how can I get out of any culpability related to these accusations, rhetorically speaking?"
Clinton was grilled on his associations with the infamous deceased billionaire Jeffrey Epstein and what his relationship with the women who worked for Epstein entailed. During the questioning, Clinton repeatedly stated that his actions depend on what the working definitions of terms actually are.
"What is ’sexual predator?' What is ’a depraved pervert?' What is ’massive scumbag?'" Clinton asked. "I'm afraid it depends on your definitions of these words. I cannot give an answer if we don't agree on any solid definitions. Also, is it lunch time? Who else could go for a Big Mac?"
Democrats called the accusations against Clinton ridiculous and asked how a man with his character and spotless track record of upstanding behavior could be dragged into something so unseemly. Clinton responded by saying that it would depend on what any given person's definition of "unseemly" was.
At publishing time, President Clinton was last seen trying to hit on Nancy Mace.
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/28/2026 07:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1807 views]
Top|| File under: Human Trafficking
#1
Make him plead the 5th.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
02/28/2026 12:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Well, until a victim comes forward with proof-positive evidence that she was forced under the Epstein umbrella against her will at, say, age 17 or younger, I'll not get too worked up about the child exploitation angle.
I have a friend with knowledge who once told me the ways to the corruptible are through either "booze" (or other intoxicating substances), or "broads" (or whatever the sexual preference of the mark) or "the big deal" ("money for somethin' and my chicks for free"). These vehicles were available through Epstein, and the piper was paid via valuable intelligence with a dash of blackmail. Far more concerning, imo.
If you're not on Substack you should be. It's the literary Twitter, lots of laid-off journalists ran crying to Substack because they can make a living from TDS. I love getting into their replies and telling them to learn to code. It's where you can support Andy Ngo and the world's few remaining good journalists.
[IMightBeWrongSubstack] Trust me, Mr. President: Follow my advice and you won’t be stuck at 4,000 adorable little subscribers for long. Bush’s first post is about George Washington. It is not titled "I Was President: Here’s the Secret About George Washington That Will Blow Your Mind" because Bush still sucks at being a Substack author. The essay is a largely biographical account of Washington’s life, which makes me suspect that this might be a marketing ploy by the people who made the upcoming Young Washington movie. At any rate: There’s not much to nitpick here, unless you feel the need to quibble with sentences like "General Washington resigned his military commission in 1783."
President George W. Bush got a BA in history from Yale before getting that Harvard MBA. While he never pretended to be an intellectual, back in the day he, VP Cheney, and the gang used to read competitively — a common activity of the management set. Mr. Wife and a small group of his colleagues used to do the same.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Mikhail Kolovangin
[REGNUM] Britain has found itself at the epicenter of a political crisis caused by the publication of documents in the Jeffrey Epstein case.
On January 30, the US Justice Department released 3.5 million pages of investigative documents, setting off a chain reaction that has rocked the monarchy, parliament, and government.
The consequences were unprecedented: the arrest of a royal, a series of resignations in the prime minister's inner circle, and a profound crisis of confidence in the government.
NEVER SAY NEVER
Former Prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested by police officers on 19 February 2026, his 66th birthday, on suspicion of misconduct in public office.
Andrew had previously been stripped of his military ranks and most of his honorary statuses following a years-long scandal surrounding his ties to Epstein and allegations of sexual abuse.
Public outrage intensified after a disastrous BBC interview in 2019, in which he attempted to justify himself but only demonstrated a lack of remorse and political acumen.
Veterans' organizations and charities began disowning him en masse, and the palace came under pressure: a figure burdened with such toxic baggage could no longer symbolically represent either the army or any institutions. Ultimately, the Queen effectively sent him into "honorable exile."
In January 2025, Andrew's situation became critical: new legal documents and correspondence leaked to the press, revealing that he had maintained contact with Epstein for much longer than he had previously claimed. These documents revealed that the former prince's previous public statements were at best incomplete, if not misleading.
The scandal erupted with renewed vigor, credibility of the prince's story collapsed completely, and pressure on the king and government increased sharply. It was this new wave of revelations that provided the political and moral justification for stripping Andrew of all his remaining titles and statuses, thus permanently cutting him off from the monarchy.
Around 8 a.m., law enforcement officers arrived at Wood Farm on the Sandringham estate in Norfolk, where Andrew had moved after Charles III demanded he leave Royal Lodge in Windsor. It was the first arrest of a senior member of the royal family in nearly 400 years—the previous one was in 1649, when Charles I was taken into custody.
The investigation is not about previous allegations of sexual assault, but rather about allegations that confidential government information was passed to Epstein during the former prince's tenure as Britain's Special Trade Representative from 2001 to 2011.
Documents show Andrew shared classified trading information with a convicted financier.
The King's brother's sexual inclinations, though they caused him no small amount of trouble, did not result in an investigation. This fact speaks volumes about the situation in Britain and its morals. After 12 hours of questioning, Mountbatten-Windsor was released without charge pending the ongoing investigation.
Police conducted searches in Berkshire and Norfolk. Nine police forces confirmed they were examining materials linking Andrew to Epstein. Essex police are investigating the use of the paedophile businessman's private jet at Stansted Airport, while Bedfordshire police are investigating Luton Airport.
IS THE LAW THE SAME FOR EVERYONE?
Charles III issued a statement, signed personally rather than on behalf of Buckingham Palace, emphasizing the gravity of the situation: "I received the news about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor with the deepest concern. It is now imperative that the relevant authorities carry out a full, fair, and accurate investigation. They will have our full and unreserved support. Let me be clear: the law must work."
Prince William and Kate Middleton did not issue separate statements but supported the king's position.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer, under pressure over the scandal surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson (also implicated in the Epstein files) as ambassador to the US, addressed his faction with a call for unity, declaring that he had "won every battle" and refused to quit. However, his position had already been seriously undermined.
Following the departure of adviser Morgan McSweeney, the government was rocked by a series of new resignations. Among those leaving the cabinet was Tim Allan, the Prime Minister's Director of Communications, who served as Deputy Press Secretary under Tony Blair and founded the PR firm Portland (Omnicom). The politician left his post on February 9, just five months after his appointment. He explained his resignation by citing the need to build a new team at Downing Street. Allan becomes Starmer's third Director of Communications since July 2024.
The next to suffer exemplary punishment was Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service (the highest administrative position in the country) Chris Wormald, who resigned on 11 February "by mutual agreement" - the third major loss in Starmer's inner circle in a matter of days.
The departure of the top civil servant signaled a systemic crisis: he himself had criticized the appointments process, questioning how Mandelson could have passed the vetting process for the ambassadorial post given his known links to Epstein.
In light of these events, it's not just the opposition that is calling for the prime minister's resignation. Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar is the first high-ranking party member to publicly demand Starmer's resignation.
The cabinet's response was highly revealing. As if on cue, ministers posted social media posts in support of Starmer.
Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy wrote: "Keir Starmer has been given a five-year mandate... We support the Prime Minister."
Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper declared Starmer's leadership "essential on the global stage." Labour MPs Angela Rayner and Shabana Mahmood —both considered potential successors to Starmer—uniformly expressed their "full support" for him. The coordination was striking: the publications followed one after another, contained similar wording, and were clearly pre-planned.
For British citizens, this reaction looked less like a genuine display of unity than like a centrally controlled "rescue operation," an attempt to create the appearance of cohesion when the reality showed otherwise.
WHO WILL HAVE TO ANSWER?
It is not yet entirely clear to what extent the parade of messages in support of Keir Starmer has helped the head of government.
However, it's clear who he certainly didn't help. On February 23, British police finally arrested Peter Mandelson on suspicion of abuse of office, including passing confidential government information to Epstein while serving as Business Secretary. After questioning, he was released on bail, but the criminal investigation is ongoing.
Amid public pressure and leaks, Parliament decided to force the government to release the full array of materials related to Mandelson's appointment as ambassador and his contacts with the scandalous financier, including correspondence with ministers and senior officials in the months before and after the appointment.
Starmer's cabinet formally agreed to the release and promised to release the first batch of documents in early March. However, it immediately stipulated that some files would remain classified until Scotland Yard completed its work and assessed the risks to national security and foreign policy.
In practice, this means a compromise scenario. The government is unwilling to dig in its heels, preferring to shift responsibility to the police. Meanwhile, before publication, all truly sensitive files will be classified under the pretext of a police investigation.
The Epstein files scandal has once again exposed the vulnerabilities of the British system. The arrest of the former prince, one way or another, has become a landmark event in the history of the monarchy. Politically, the chain reaction of resignations—from the closest advisor to the top civil servant—testifies to a profound crisis in British politics and a loss of trust among voters.
A government that just 19 months ago won its biggest parliamentary majority in a century has been brought to the brink of collapse by a single personnel decision for which the entire Labour political machine is now paying the price.
Good. The English Labour Party are scum, with PM Sir Keir Starmer the scummiest of them all. May they soon find themselves in the wilderness, there to stay until the current generation dies out, like the Jews wandering forty years in the desert, until the entire people was only those who had been born in freedom.
[ZeroHedge] The answer defies the binary expectations of traditional military alliances. China is unlikely to dispatch troops or engage directly in any conflict, but to interpret this as passivity would be to misread the nature of 21st-century great power competition. China's support for Iran is real, multifaceted, and in some ways more sustainable than military intervention; it just operates on a different strategic wavelength.
At the UN Security Council, China has consistently deployed its most potent weapon: the veto-wielding power of principle. In an emergency meeting last month, Chinese Ambassador Sun Lei delivered a stark message to Washington: "The use of force can never solve problems. It will only make them more complex and intractable. Any military adventurism would only push the region toward an unpredictable abyss."
Posted by: Skidmark ||
02/28/2026 06:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1767 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Very unlikely. No money in it for them. China will soon be purchasing crude oil from the United States.
[ZeroHedge] Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG) said on Feb. 25 that Google and its cybersecurity partners disrupted a global espionage campaign that the group confirmed had hacked 42 countries and suspects infected at least 20 more.
“This prolific, elusive actor has a long history of targeting international governments and global telecommunications organizations across Africa, Asia, and the Americas,” the report reads.
The campaign is characterized by stealth tactics and the targeting of cloud-hosted products to disguise its traffic. The group stated that this campaign is distinct and separate from Salt Typhoon, a major Chinese regime-backed cyberespionage campaign.
And now a calm until the next eruption? A wonderful idea, if hard on the civilians in the area. Let the two terror sponsors wear themselves out, concentrating on each other, and leave the rest of the world in peace — much like the Iran-Iraq war that lasted eight years (1989-1988) and killed half a million on both sides, even if by the end of it Iran was sending schoolboys (with gold plastic keys they were told would open the gates of Paradise) to set off the mines in the minefields so that the following soldiers could reach the Iraqi trenches.
[Dawn] Kabul needs to address the question of armed groups operating from its soil; Islamabad must convert its battlefield advantage into diplomatic leverage.
Kabul needs to address the question of gangs operating from its soil; Islamabad must convert its battlefield advantage into diplomatic leverage.
When states escalate, they are usually clear about their capacity and objectives. The Afghan Taliban ...the Pashtun equivalent of men... , however, appeared to abandon that principle at the Pakistain-Afghanistan border ...also known as Pashtunistan, home of ignorance, poverty, and automatic weapons... last night, triggering an intense military confrontation — including Arclight airstrike ...KABOOM!... s and artillery exchanges — across the Durand Line as well as deep into Afghan territory.
The immediate backdrop of these tensions is not new. Islamabad has for years maintained that the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistain (TTP), a Pak terrorist group affiliated with the Afghan Taliban, operated from Afghan soil because of the official patronage it enjoys there.
Only hours before the latest crisis erupted, Foreign Office Spokesperson Tahir Andrabi plainly stated that Pakistain’s quarrel was not with the Afghan people but with terrorist safe havens that threaten Pak lives.
That was the political setting; it emphasised the need for patient engagement and discreet signalling. The Afghan Taliban, however, chose to announce what it described as "large-scale offensive operations" along multiple border towns, in a language that was both public and declaratory.
A MISCALCULATION BY KABUL?
There may have been reasons why the Taliban regime opted for that course. Firstly, the border remains, in the Afghan political imagination, a colonial imposition.
Secondly, the Taliban leadership sought to signal that it would not acquiesce to cross-border action, especially after Islamabad’s February 22 strikes against terrorist sanctuaries on the Afghan territory, and frame the move as a defence of territorial integrity.
However misplaced that logic may be, given that the initial breach of Afghan illusory sovereignty occurred when terrorist groups were allowed sanctuary there, the public mobilisation still serves a domestic purpose as it projects resolve to constituencies that expect the regime to defend Afghan soil.
Another calculation may have been that the escalation would remain contained. There is precedent. In October last year, after intense festivities, back channels and Qatar ...an emirate on the east coast of the Arabian Peninsula. It sits on some really productive gas and oil deposits, which produces the highest per capita income in the world. They piss it all away on religion, financing the Moslem Brotherhood and several al-Qaeda affiliates. Home of nutbag holy manYusuf al-Qaradawi... i-Turkiye mediation produced a ceasefire. Though the understanding was uneasy, it worked. Kabul may have assumed that another round of tit-for-tat exchanges would similarly be cooled by intermediaries once tempers had flared.
But that assumption proved risky.
Pakistain responded not with ambiguity but with a named operation — "Ghazab lil-Haq" or "Righteous Fury" — and carried out airstrikes that reached deep into Afghan territory, including targets around Kabul, Kandahar, Paktia and Nangarhar The unfortunate Afghan province located adjacent to Mohmand, Kurram, and Khyber Agencies. The capital is Jalalabad. The province was the fief of Younus Khalis after the Soviets departed and one of his sons is the current provincial Taliban commander. Nangarhar is Haqqani country.. . Meanwhile,
...back at the shootout, Butch shot Black Bart's gun out of his hand...... Defence Minister Khawaja Asif spoke in unusually blunt terms, saying patience had reached its limit and characterised the situation as open war.
Pakistain’s logic was clear. Terrorism inside the country surged after the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in August 2021, and even more sharply over the past year and a half. As a result, there is zero tolerance in Islamabad for threats perceived to be emanating from Afghan soil. In that context, a declared offensive by Afghan forces against Pak positions was unlikely to go unanswered because any perception of restraint in the face of a televised provocation would have carried both morale and political costs.
Resultantly, there was a spiral which neither side could easily control. Casualty figures differ widely, with claims and counterclaims dominating the official messaging.
BEYOND THE BATTLEFIELD
But far from the borders and the war zones lies the question of strategic arithmetic. The Taliban’s strengths are rooted in unconventional and guerrilla-style warfare, whereas Pakistain’s advantages lie in its conventional force structure, air power and deterrent capability.
It implies that a head-on military contest would therefore never favour Kabul. That is where the Taliban appear to have misstepped; by shifting the theatre from deniable sub-conventional activity to overt interstate confrontation, they exposed themselves to costs they were ill-equipped to absorb.
Yet, force alone will not settle the underlying grievance. Islamabad’s central complaint is neither territorial expansion nor ideological contest; rather, it is the presence of gunnies who strike inside Pakistain while operating from Afghan soil.
The concern is not merely rhetorical. Year after year, United Nations ...an idea whose time has gone... Security Council monitoring reports have documented the continued presence and activity of the TTP in Afghanistan and described linkages between the group and the Taliban regime. The international record, therefore, is also clear.
Now that the issue is terrorist sanctuaries, the remedy cannot be spectacle. It has to be structural.
First, Kabul will need to address, credibly and verifiably, the question of gangs operating from its soil; mere denials will not suffice.
Secondly, regional stakeholders with access to both capitals should be re-engaged at senior levels.Qatar and Saudi Arabia ...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula, largely made up of sand and oil rigs. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual haj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. Formerly dictatorial and steeped in Olde Tyme Religion, deferring to Salafist holy men on all issues, it has now done a 180 and is making a serious effort to modernize, so as not to be left in the sand by its Gulf Arab neighbors. The holy men have been shoved to the background and the nation is now still dictatorial but somewhat rational. That doesn't make them trustworthy, but it's a start... facilitated de-escalation in October last year. They are trying again. Others with leverage, including China and The Sick Man of Europe Turkey ...just another cheapjack Moslem dictatorship, brought to you by the Moslem Brüderbund... , can play quiet roles. Russia and Iran, too, have offered their good offices.
Third, both sides must reduce the temperature of public rhetoric since declarations of open war may satisfy domestic audiences but would complicate compromise, which has to ultimately happen.
There is no gainsaying the fact that there are no simple exits in such scenarios. Escalation acquires its own momentum, and each strike invites a reply, narrowing the space for discretion. As a result, economies suffer, border communities absorb the shock, and terrorist groups thrive.
For durable security, Islamabad must convert its battlefield advantage into diplomatic leverage rather than allow it to harden into permanent hostility. Meanwhile,
...back at the shootout, Butch shot Black Bart's gun out of his hand...... this conflict must drive home to Kabul that a policy of hosting terrorist sanctuaries carries strategic costs.
If that lesson is not absorbed, what is now a crisis will solidify into a recurring pattern, and hostility will become entrenched.
[via Clarice Feldman's FB page] Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡
@shanaka86
·
1h
Four weeks ago Saudi Arabia told Iran it would never allow its airspace or territory to be used for attacks. The Crown Prince personally called the Iranian President to deliver that message. It was published by the Saudi Press Agency on January 28.
Today the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement that erases every word of that call.
The Kingdom "condemns and denounces in the strongest terms the treacherous Iranian aggression." It calls the missile strikes a "flagrant violation of the sovereignty" of the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Jordan. It pledges "full solidarity" with every attacked nation. And then the line that changes everything: Saudi Arabia is "placing all its capabilities to support them in all measures they take."
Interesting. I guess Saudi capabilities won’t be available to back Pakistan in its little kerfuffle against Afghanistan — for the next little bit, anyway.
All its capabilities. All measures.
That is not diplomatic language. That is a blank check written in the middle of a war. Whatever the UAE decides to do, Saudi Arabia just said it will support. Whatever Bahrain’s response, Saudi will back it. Whatever Jordan, Qatar, or Kuwait determines is necessary, Riyadh just pledged everything it has.
One month ago Saudi Arabia was Iran’s diplomatic shield in the Gulf. The kingdom that brokered the 2023 rapprochement with Tehran. The country that told Washington it would not participate. The monarchy that built its entire post-Vision 2030 foreign policy on balancing between Washington and Tehran without choosing.
Iran forced the choice this morning by firing missiles at Riyadh.
AFP correspondents confirmed explosions in the Saudi capital. The kingdom that spent three years rebuilding ties with Tehran just had Iranian ballistic missiles in its airspace. The country that told America it would stay neutral just watched its sovereignty violated by the same regime it was trying to protect from American strikes.
This is the strategic catastrophe Iran’s leadership failed to game out. Every war-game in Tehran assumed the Gulf states would remain neutral or at worst close their airspace. Every IRGC calculation assumed Saudi Arabia would pressure Washington for restraint. Every diplomatic channel Iran maintained through Oman and Qatar assumed those relationships would survive a military exchange.
None of those assumptions survived contact with Iranian missiles landing in sovereign Gulf territory.
Iran attacked the UAE. One civilian dead in Abu Dhabi from debris. Intercepts confirmed by the Emirati defense ministry. Iran attacked Qatar, the country that hosted its diplomatic back channels. Intercepted, zero damage, confirmed by Qatar’s Interior Ministry. Iran attacked Kuwait, neutral for thirty years. Missiles dealt with in Kuwaiti airspace per KUNA. Iran attacked Jordan, which shot down two ballistic missiles. And Iran attacked Saudi Arabia, the one country whose neutrality was keeping the entire regional balance from collapsing.
The Saudi statement warns of "grave consequences of continuing to violate the sovereignty of nations." It demands the international community "take all firm measures to confront Iranian violations." This is the language of a state preparing legal and political justification for what comes next.
Iran did not just retaliate against Israel this morning. Iran turned every neutral state in the Gulf into an adversary with a single salvo. The coalition that Washington spent months trying to build and could not assemble, Tehran assembled in one morning by attacking everyone simultaneously.
The next 72 hours will be defined by what "all capabilities" and "all measures" means when translated from Arabic diplomatic language into military coordination between six countries that now share a common enemy they did not have yesterday.
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/28/2026 07:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1797 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Saudi Arabia
#1
Oh, you mean you Americans are not playing around again and plan to end the problem. Don't let us stand in the way.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Bee] Former president and saxophone player Bill Clinton testified to members of Congress today that his answer to their questions depended on what the definition of "child trafficking" is.
...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula, largely made up of sand and oil rigs. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual haj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. Formerly dictatorial and steeped in Olde Tyme Religion, deferring to Salafist holy men on all issues, it has now done a 180 and is making a serious effort to modernize, so as not to be left in the sand by its Gulf Arab neighbors. The holy men have been shoved to the background and the nation is now still dictatorial but somewhat rational. That doesn't make them trustworthy, but it's a start...
