Was Virginia Giuffre really a victim of Epstein’s evil cabal, or a profiteer?
Join us on Telegram
, Twitter
, and VK
.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Was Virginia Giuffre really a victim of Epstein’s evil cabal, or a profiteer? A legal case soon to be heard will put her on trial even from the grave to establish if she is a liar.
The recent publication of Virginia Giuffre’s book about her experiences as a trafficked sex worker of the former disgraced financier Jeffry Epstein has caused a storm on both sides of the Atlantic, but more so in the UK where the royal formerly known as Prince Andrew, has been stripped of all his royal pomp and is about to be evicted from the royal mansion.
The case in the U.S. is causing real problems for the Trumps, which I have elaborated on in earlier pieces, namely that Melania’s association with Epstein will create major political problems for the U.S. president if awkward questions are raised about her legal immigration status in the U.S. at the time of meeting the Donald, not to mention just how close she was to Epstein himself. Bluntly, this is a legal nightmare for the Trumps who have not sought good legal advice but have made the ratcheted razor chains even tighter on themselves as they try and stifle free speech and old fashioned journalism which should ask tough questions.
But as many pundits in the UK now predict that it’s only a matter of time before the U.S. justice system catches up with Andrew Windsor, his legal team might seek some solace with the emergence of an Epstein victim who questions the validity of Giuffre’s claims: Rina Ho.
Ho cannot be described in the same salacious way as Giuffre as she claims she did not receive money from Epstein for any of the favours – whatever they may be – that were required of her, although she admits to allowing Epstein to help her with her dream of being an artist.
Ho doesn’t consider herself to be a typical victim like other young women and so took great exception in Giuffre’s book to be accused of being the one who recruited her to be a trafficked sex worker. Although Giuffre died in April of this year, the defamation case that Ho has filed against her will still continue to go ahead as state laws do not limit such cases to the living but extend them to the defendant’s estate. The case itself if interesting as Ho will have to prove to a U.S. court that Giuffre is a liar and a profiteer who has essentially weaponized her victim status and made good out of it, by scandalous book deals with sensational allegations against the rich and famous. And she might well have a case as, against the common narrative followed by legacy media, Giuffre is hardly the naïve teen who was exploited by Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein.
We are lead to believe that a girl at the young age of 17 can get confused about huge amounts of cash being given to her to perform the role of travelling sex worker for the world’s celebrities and elite types, being flown across the Atlantic in a private jet. Some would argue though that Giuffre was paid handsomely for her services as, in the case of Andrew, it was later revealed through court documents that she was paid 15,000 USD for the three separate locations where she claims she was ‘forced’ to have sex with him – London, New York and Epstein’s island. Others might add that given that she did very well out of subsequent legal cases – at least 500,000 USD paid to her by Epstein (perhaps more over a longer period from his estate) – and a whacking 16 MILLION dollars paid out to her by the former British royal that the label ‘victim’ is starting to wear thin and that she is actually a savvy-minded opportunist who no one actually took advantage of at all. Was she really a victim?
The other question which is at the heart of this matter is whether she lied about her experiences. If in any way she sexed up what really happened and Ho can shed light on any evidence she may have to prove this, then this might turn the tide on public opinion about the Trumps and Andrew. It might even give Andrew a legal basis to also sue the estate of Giuffre for some or all of his money back. It would certainly provide the basis for Trump to let Maxwell live out the rest of her life in London while a counter narrative is fed to the press providing the required chaff to shift the focus away from the President and his opportunist modelling wife who probably worked in the U.S. in the late eighties illegally and probably had some sort of tawdry arrangement with Epstein in return for his network of associates and friends finding her an ideal billionaire husband. For this reason, the defamation case of Ho’s will be of mind-boggling importance to Trump and those who are in the Giuffre book but as yet to be named. If Ho can prove that Giuffre lied even about a small detail about Ho’s role, then the media will ask perfectly reasonably the obvious question, in their editorials “what else did Giuffre lie about?”. But there might still be a considerable task for Ho and her lawyers to extend her defamation in broader terms beyond the one main issue which Ho claims has ruined her life – Giuffre’s claim that Ho was some sort of child sex recruiter for Epstein – to claiming that her book is a work of fiction. One can only wonder who is paying her legal fees, in NYC of all places.
