Fw: Epstein, Maxwell, and the Intelligence Question We’re Not Asking
Thuan Do
Epstein, Maxwell, and the Intelligence Question We’re Not AskingSome conspiracy theories, unsavory though they may be, deserve a second sniff.
As the public continues to demand disclosure of a so-called “Epstein client list,” we may be asking the wrong question. Instead of fixating on whether such a list exists, we should be asking: Were any intelligence agencies — foreign or domestic — keeping tabs on Jeffrey Epstein’s network of high-profile associates? When those associates include a former U.S. president (Bill Clinton), a flamboyant pretender (Donald Trump), and a British royal (Prince Andrew), the answer may be less salacious than it is obvious. Intelligence professionals know that honey traps — operations in which sexual liaisons are used to gain leverage over or gather information on powerful targets — are not the stuff of fiction. They are a documented, if deniable, tool of espionage tradecraft used by many nations, including U.S. allies. And they don’t always require the witting participation of those involved. So, when a shadowy financier like Epstein amasses extraordinary access to global elites while operating from behind a veil of unexplained wealth, light prosecution, and allegations of sexual blackmail, one must at least entertain the possibility of an intelligence dimension — especially given his close association with Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the late Robert Maxwell, a man with seemingly well-established ties to Israeli intelligence. Robert Maxwell — born Ján Ludvík Hoch — was no ordinary media baron. In addition to owning the Mirror Group newspapers in Britain, Maxwell allegedly maintained a relationship with Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence service. According to Ari Ben-Menashe, purportedly an ex-Israeli military intelligence officer, Maxwell was “a full-service asset,” who assisted in clandestine operations and helped track down Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli whistleblower who revealed details of Israel’s nuclear program. In Robert Maxwell: Israel’s Superspy (2003), journalists Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon detail how Maxwell reportedly facilitated arms shipments to Israel and used his publishing empire to advance Israeli interests. None of this is verifiable. None of it proves that Israeli intelligence had any hand in Epstein’s operations. None of it justifies the conspiratorial leap that Epstein was some kind of Mossad-run asset. But the intelligence connections of the senior Maxwell raise valid questions, especially given how frequently Israeli intelligence — small, agile, and diaspora-connected — has relied on informal assets and dual-national networks. In fact, it would be unusual if Mossad, for which I have the greatest respect, hadn’t at least been aware of the circles Epstein moved in. That alone doesn’t imply complicity. It implies competence. Ghislaine Maxwell, long alleged to be Epstein’s chief facilitator, was deeply embedded in elite Anglo-American circles. Her alleged recruitment of young women, and her proximity to Epstein’s operations, have led many to speculate about her father’s legacy and the possibility of a family role in more than just social climbing. And then there’s the curious bipartisan silence. Neither the first Trump administration nor Biden’s White House moved aggressively to declassify key investigative materials surrounding Epstein’s associates or the extent of law enforcement’s past knowledge of his operations. This reticence, too, could be read innocently — or not. Perhaps it reflects embarrassment. Or perhaps it suggests something more structural: an unwillingness to probe activities that might brush up against the delicate membrane separating diplomacy, elite privilege, and intelligence work. Consider, for instance, the story surrounding Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida who, under President George W. Bush, negotiated a controversial non-prosecution agreement for Epstein. The deal, reached in 2007–2008, allowed Epstein to avoid federal charges by pleading guilty to two state counts—soliciting prostitution and procuring a minor for prostitution—and serve just 13 months in a county jail, much of it on work release. Nearly a decade later, when Acosta was being vetted for Labor Secretary during Trump’s 2016–2017 presidential transition, he was reportedly asked about the plea deal. According to investigative journalist Vicky Ward, Acosta conveyed the following to the Trump team. He said that he had been told Epstein “belonged to intelligence” and had been advised to “leave it alone.”[^5]
Ward’s source -- allegedly a former senior White House official – has never been named and Acosta has never publicly confirmed the quote. But according to Ward’s reporting, the explanation satisfied Trump 1.0. Acosta got the Labor Secretary’s job. In short, speculating about whether Epstein’s operation was, in part, exploited by intelligence agencies isn’t wild-eyed conspiracy mongering. It’s common sense. That’s how real intelligence services operate — often opportunistically, and sometimes through intermediaries who don't even know they're being used. What would be excessive is pretending there’s nothing more to see here. Footnotes
Frank Snepp 360 is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Frank Snepp 360 that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments.
© 2025 Frank Snepp
|
