March 2026 Forecast

 

		Tax	Spend	Spend	Tot Sp	Primary		Total	Debt to	Debt %
Year	GDP	Rev	Other	SS	x Int	Deficit	Int	Deficit	Public	GDP
2025	30.7	5.2	4.4	1.6	6.0	0.8	1.0	1.8	30.3	98.7%
2026	32.3	5.6	4.7	1.7	6.4	0.8	1.2	2.1	32.4	100.2%
2027	33.7	5.9	4.8	1.8	6.6	0.7	1.3	2.0	34.4	102.0%
2028	35.0	6.1	5.0	1.9	6.9	0.8	1.4	2.2	36.6	104.6%
2029	36.4	6.3	5.1	2.0	7.1	0.8	1.5	2.3	38.9	106.8%
2030	37.7	6.6	5.3	2.1	7.4	0.8	1.6	2.4	41.2	109.3%
2031	39.2	6.9	5.4	2.2	7.6	0.7	1.6	2.3	43.6	111.2%
2032	40.7	7.1	5.6	2.3	7.9	0.8	1.7	2.5	46.1	113.3%
2033	42.2	7.4	6.0	2.4	8.4	1.0	1.8	2.8	49.0	116.0%
2034	43.8	7.7	6.1	2.5	8.6	0.9	2.0	2.9	51.8	118.3%
2035	45.4	8.0	6.2	2.6	8.8	0.8	2.1	2.9	54.7	120.5%
2036	47.1	8.3	6.6	2.7	9.3	1.0	2.2	3.2	57.9	122.9%
2037	48.9	8.6	7.0	2.9	9.9	1.3	2.3	3.6	61.5	125.8%
2038	50.8	8.9	7.6	3.0	10.6	1.7	2.5	4.2	65.7	129.4%
2039	52.7	9.3	8.2	3.1	11.3	2.0	2.6	4.7	70.4	133.6%
2040	54.7	9.7	8.9	3.2	12.1	2.4	2.8	5.2	75.6	138.3%
2041	56.7	10.1	9.7	3.3	13.0	2.9	3.0	6.0	81.6	143.9%
2042	58.9	10.5	10.4	3.5	13.9	3.4	3.3	6.6	88.2	149.8%
2043	61.1	10.9	11.3	3.6	14.9	4.0	3.5	7.5	95.8	156.7%
2044	63.3	11.3	12.2	3.7	15.9	4.6	3.8	8.5	104.2	164.6%
2045	65.7	11.8	13.2	3.9	17.1	5.3	4.2	9.4	113.6	173.0%
2046	68.1	12.3	14.2	4.0	18.2	5.9	4.5	10.4	124.1	182.2%
2047	70.5	12.8	15.4	4.2	19.6	6.8	5.0	11.7	135.8	192.6%
2048	73.1	13.3	16.6	4.3	20.9	7.6	5.4	13.0	148.9	203.6%
2049	75.7	13.8	17.9	4.5	22.4	8.6	6.0	14.5	163.4	215.8%
2050	78.4	14.4	19.3	4.6	23.9	9.5	6.5	16.1	179.5	228.9%
2051	81.2	15.0	20.7	4.8	25.5	10.5	7.2	17.7	197.1	242.8%

This is my latest forecast.  It shows the 150% of GDP mark being reached in 2043, which is 2 years earlier than the last time I did this forecast in June 2025.  The 110% mark, which I now think is important, will be reached in 2031.

The numbers seem a little high after about 2040 so I will need to double-check my math.  But you can see that once things start to really fall apart that the collapse accelerates. Interest compounds on itself and the growth in spending continues to outpace the growth of revenues.

Everyone seems to just assume that the situation will magically fix itself before it gets that bad.  But the entitlement spending will continue to rapidly increase, and the so-called discretionary spending, which includes military, is increasing faster than revenue as well. 

So here it is, maybe flawed, but I am sticking with it until I can look at it some more.

One of my sources is the latest CBO projection, here: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/62105

I should run this through ChatGPT and see what it comes up with.

FEMA Regions

 

Since I am interested in regional maps, here is the map of FEMA regions and the headquarters of each:

1 - Boston

2 - New York

3 - Philadelphia

4 - Atlanta

5 - Chicago

6 - Denton, TX (near Dallas/Ft Worth)

7 - Kansas City

8 - Denver

9 - Oakland

10 - Bothell, WA (near Seattle)

Proposed Map

 I got this from Instagram somewhere and took a screenshot.  This supposedly came from a PowerPoint presentation. 

But it is an interesting idea - what if the US were split into 7 different countries (9 if you make Alaska and Hawaii each independent)?  What would these countries be called and what would be the capital of each?

1. Atlantica - Albany, NY

2. Southeast Confederacy - Raleigh, NC

3. Midwest Confederacy - Springfield, IL (or Indianapolis, IN)

4. Cajun Wastelands (Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama) - Shreveport, LA. 

5. New Republic of Texas -  Lubbock

6. Sequoyah (Native American Governed State) - Billings, Montana

7. Cascadia - Carson City, NV

Will the military spend $1.5 Trillion in FY 2027?

 This came out in January but I didn't notice, and I think it is newsworthy.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday suggested that his administration will request $1.5 trillion in military spending for fiscal 2027. That request would be a record high by far, exceeding recent annual defense budgets by hundreds of billions of dollars. “After long and difficult negotiations with Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, and other Political Representatives, I have determined that, for the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars. This will allow us to build the ‘Dream Military’ that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.   https://defensescoop.com/2026/01/07/trump-calls-for-1-5-trillion-defense-budget-2027/

Here is an Op-Ed by Mike Pence, former VP:  While America remains the leader of the free world and the arsenal of democracy, the international framework of free nations built after World War II is under its greatest strain in generations. Russia is waging a brutal war of conquest in Europe, shattering borders by force and daring the West to respond. China is intensifying its military pressure on Taiwan, conducting large-scale exercises that simulate encirclement and invasion. Iran, weakened but still deadly like a wounded predator, is threatening to exact revenge on America and Israel. The United States must meet these challenges with strength and resolve. President Donald Trump’s proposal to raise America’s defense budget to $1.5 trillion is an absolute necessity in a world that has grown more violent and more dangerous in recent years. At a moment when authoritarian regimes are probing for weakness, the United States must ensure that its armed forces remain unquestionably capable of deterring aggression — and, if deterrence fails, of winning decisively.  Read more at: https://www.stripes.com/opinion/2026-02-01/america-needs-trump-defense-budget-20595728.html

The president recently announced his desire for a $1.5 trillion defense budget in fiscal year 2027, which would represent a substantial increase of $600 billion over current figures. As large a sum as that is, it is money the department could realistically use to address shortfalls in modernization and readiness. See also https://www.aei.org/op-eds/to-finance-the-1-5t-defense-budget-push-for-600b-in-reconciliation/

Meanwhile, it looks like a full-blown war has just started with Iran.  So Trump, the supposed peace-lover, may get his wish.   And of course a $600 billion increase in spending will blow up projections of future spending, so there is no point in projecting anything until we figure out if this is actually happening.  

Projected GDP through 2046

 See this from a year ago at https://aftermath2022.blogspot.com/2025/02/projected-gdp-through-2040.html

The actual GDP as of 3Q 2025 (9/30/2025) is 31,098.0 trillion (BEA).  I am using numbers from the Social Security trustee report, but they show 30,480 as of the same date, using intermediate assumptions.

To make this simple, I am using the Social Security numbers, but adding $600 billion to them, and then rounding to the nearest hundred billion.  I think the Social Security numbers use a calendar year instead of fiscal year but I am ignoring that.

		SS 2025	Adjust
Year	Prev	GDP	Round	CBO
2025	30,600	30,480	31,100 30,700
2026	31,900	31,754	32,400 32,300
2027	33,200	33,058	33,700 33,700
2028	34,600	34,455	35,100 35,000
2029	36,100	35,907	36,500 36,400
2030	37,600	37,377	38,000 37,700
2031	39,200	38,903	39,500 39,200
2032	40,800	40,497	41,100 40,700
2033	42,500	42,145	42,700 42,200
2034	44,300	43,836	44,400 43,800
2035	46,200	45,586	46,200 45,400
2036	48,100	47,409	48,000 47,100
2037	50,100	49,305	49,900 48,900
2038	52,200	51,277	51,900 50,800
2039	54,400	53,328	53,900 52,700
2040	56,700	55,363	56,000 54,700
2041	59,100	57,578	58,200 56,700
2042	61,600	59,881	60,500 58,900
2043	64,200	62,276	62,900 61,100
2044	66,900	64,767	65,400 63,300
2045	69,700	67,136	67,700 65,700
2046		69,821	70,400 68,100

	CBO
2047    70,500
2048    73,100                       
2049    75,700
2050    78,400
2051    81,200
2052    84,000
2053    87,000
2054    90,100
2055    93,200
2056    96,500

It looks like before that SS was assuming GDP would increase by 4.2% annually, whereas here it is 4%.  So after 2035 the GDP here is less than it was forecasted a year ago.

Update 3/9/26: I added a column for CBO.  This comes from https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2026-02/57054-2026-02-LTBO-econ.xlsx (tab 3. Econ Vars_Annual Levels, row 9 Nominal GDP).  I will use these numbers because they seem to be more accurate (no need to add $600 billion) and also they extend through 2056.

Half your income just to pay interest

 I saw this Zerohedge article and want to briefly comment on it.  https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2026-02-25/half-your-income-just-pay-interest-64-trillion-granddaddy-all-fiascos-warns-peter

In a February 2026 bombshell, Peter Grandich dropped the fiscal hammer: U.S. debt racing toward $64 TRILLION, with interest payments metastasizing into the trillions per year. Translation? Washington’s tab could siphon off HALF your income just to feed the bond market beast.

I have not watched the video or seen his source but assume it is true, that when the national debt hits $64 trillion, that half of all tax payments will go towards interest.  

So when will this occur?  By 2036, in 10 years from now, according to the CBO.

Q4 2025 GDP is $31.49 trillion

 As usual, the BEA is late with this and hides the actual data.  If you just read the first paragraph of the press release, it says: "Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 1.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2025 (October, November, and December)".

To get the actual number, go to Related Materials, Tables Only, Table 3, to see 31,490.1.  Even so, this says "Seasonally adjusted".  I would prefer my numbers un-seasonally adjusted, but there is no way to do so, so this is the best we can do.

The Debt to the Public as of 12/31/25 was $30.85 trillion, so the ratio is 98.0%.

As of 12/31/25, this ratio was 97.0% (28.8 / 29.7).  So Debt to the Public increased by 2.05 trillion, while GDP increased by 1.8 trillion.

========================

So net interest on the national debt is currently $351B for the first 4 months of this fiscal year 2026 (Oct to Jan).  The annual interest, if you multiply it by 3, is $1.053 trillion.  That is 3.3% of GDP.  The Federal Reserve rate is 3.5% to 3.75%.  If we use the 3.5%, the interest as a percent of GDP is still less than this number.  

By 2031, the interest percent of GDP will be larger than the rate- imagine 3.85% of GDP (if Debt to GDP is 110%).  In today's numbers this would be $1.2 trillion annual interest.

========================

Here is an unrelated article about the growth of the national debt by 2036 to 120% of GDP

https://reason.com/2026/02/19/u-s-to-spend-24-4-trillion-more-than-it-has-over-the-next-decade-report-warns/

=====================

And another unrelated article about UFOs and Extra-Terrestrials:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15576229/Trump-secret-government-files-aliens.html

The Point of No Return is October 1, 2031

 This post is inspired by an article I recently read (I didn't save the link) that said that Social Security will run out on October 1, 2031.  After this point, Social Security will either have to be cut or the shortfall will have to come out of the general budget.  I think it will be the latter, since it will be politically impossible to cut Social Security payments.

Now review a blog post I published in 2023: https://aftermath2022.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-point-of-no-return-is-october-1-2028.html , laying out specific criteria for what I call the Point of No Return.

So I will revisit them and revise the date:

1. The debt held by the public will exceed 100% of GDP.  This ratio will be hit as early as the end of this fiscal year when it may be at 100.6%.  By the end of FY 2028, it should be 104.1%.  By the end of FY 2031, the CBO projects it will be at 109.6%.  So I am being very conservative.  The reason why this matters, whichever date you chose, it that it is a multiplier.  For example, if the Fed rates are at 4% and the ratio is 110%, this means that interest will consume 4.4% of GPD.  The percent of GDP it consumes is greater than the rate. 

2. Interest will exceed $1 trillion per year.  I think we are already there.  Push that up to $1.5 trillion per year.  If it ever exceeds that number we are in serious trouble.  This should occur in FY 2031.

3. Net Interest paid exceeds the primary deficit.  We are already there.

4. The Debt/GDP ratio increases at least 2% per year.  This hasn't happened yet, since GDP continues to increase. But the increase from FY 2027 to FY 2028 will be about 2%.  And the big danger is FY 2032 to FY 2033 when it will increase from 111.5% to 114.0%, according to the last CBO report.

So what is my conclusion?  That we can pretty much ignore this issue on a practical basis until 2031.  After that, the country is certainly doomed.  Probably we are facing hyperinflation, which is inflation over 40% per year, at which point prices double every 2 years.

Drought

 

Lake Powell just dropped 36 feet in a single year—the fastest decline in the reservoir's 60-year history. Water elevation has fallen to 3,522 feet above sea level, the lowest level recorded since 1969, just six years after the dam first began filling. At current rates of decline, the reservoir will reach "dead pool" elevation within 24 months—the point where water can no longer flow through Glen Canyon Dam's outlet pipes, collapsing the entire Colorado River distribution system that supplies 40 million people across seven states.

NATO loses to Russia in wargame

 Read: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/13/russia-nato-wargame-germany-simulation-00778818

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/11/welt-war-games-simulation-germany-00776446

https://www.germanwargamingcenter.eu/en

This wargame occurred on December 1, 2025.

In each room, the players keep their eyes glued on a giant TV screen where, with the aid of AI, the initial action plays out in the form of short videos and a mock news show. During the course of the war game, the teams are kept apprised of the other team’s actions with written text that flashes on the screen. (An international group, including Longescu and Rathke, participate remotely from Brussels, Warsaw and Washington, keeping track of the action via a WhatsApp group text.)  The teams cannot hear one another. But they are informed of each other’s moves — broadcast on the large screens — as the simulation unfolds.

“Blue failed to do the one thing that would have forced Red to adjust its strategy: military action,” he said. The simulation ended with many questions left unanswered. Does Russia fully hold the corridor? Does NATO eventually activate its defense plans? Can Europe act without the United States? Does the German brigade ultimately fight? Would a Russian advance succeed in reality? None of this is resolved. But that was never the point of the war game. The aim was to expose German decision-making patterns and their weaknesses — and to explore what they could mean for the alliance as a whole. One thing, however, is clear: Deterrence does not fail at the moment of escalation. It fails long before.

Debt to the Public hits $31 trillion

As of today Feb 12, 2026, the debt to the public is  $31,010,830,716,181.61 .

I had previously predicted it would hit this number on 3/1/26, so this is a couple of weeks early.

This was 5 months after it hit $30 trillion in September 2025.  It was at $29 trillion just 2 months prior on July 4, 2025.

But under the 2 year pattern theory, the debt level is only growing arithmetically, not exponentially.  Let's see.

The debt was at $27 trillion on 1/23/24, just over 2 years ago.

It was at $23 trillion on 12/28/21, just over 2 years before that.

It was at $18 trillion on on 4/7/20, just under 2 years before that.  (I added an extra trillion in there to account for the COVID spending).

So since 2020 (except for the extra COVID spending) the debt has been increasing almost exactly $2 trillion per year.  And it goes in a 2 year cycle to account for hitting the debt limit.

So, it should hit $32 trillion on about August 12, 2026.

How much I feel

 

… I don't know how this whole business started
Of you thinkin' that I have been untrue
But if you think that we'd be better parted
It's gonna hurt me, but I'll break away from you
Just give me the sign and I will be gone
Yeah, yeah, yeah

… 'Cause that's how much I feel
Feel for you, baby
(How much I need) well I need your touch
(How much I live) I live for your loving
That's how much (that's how much)
That's how much, that's how much

New CBO report

 The CBO has released a new report entitled "The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036".  It projects that the Debt Held by the Public will exceed 120% of GDP by 2036.  (It is currently at 99.4% as of 9/30/25).

It projects that interest will first exceed $1.5 trillion per year in 2031, and by 2036 it will be $2.1 trillion annually.

The NY Times article about this is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/11/business/federal-debt-record-levels-budget-office.html .  It blames Trump for making the situation worse by enacting income tax cuts and also for cracking down on immigration, which it says will reduce projected tax revenue by $500 billion over the 10 year period.

Rep Ted Lieu claims Epstein files have highly disturbing allegations against Donald Trump - provides no links

 Read: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1qvsksf/rep_lieu_says_epstein_files_have_allegations_of/  

https://www.c-span.org/clip/news-conference/rep-ted-lieu-claims-president-trump-is-accused-of-raping-children-in-the-epstein-files/5191713

Yes, there is one document that collected outlandish claims, highlighted in yellow, against Trump and others, which came from anonymous tips.  The FBI did not follow up on these because they were not credible.  If someone says "the Epstein files contain ... ", they need to provide the link because there are hundreds of thousands of documents in them.

This is the document, listed twice, with different redactions on each.  Obviously the FBI did not believe any of the allegations.  

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01660651.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01660679.pdf

===================================

I typed "Ted Lieu" in to the Epstein files search engine and he is mentioned in 5 documents.  These are in intelligence bulletins which for some reason are listed in the files.  But still, if you are being vague, Ted, you should explain why you are in the Epstein files.

====================

Here is another supposedly incrimination letter.

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01682027.pdf

This is all hand-written in cursive and it is a little hard to read.  It is from a certain Phyllis Morris Shaw dated June 14, 2025, and it was sent to the Assistant US Attorney for New York on 6/16/25.  In her letter she talks about her last year of high school in 1967, so she would have been born about 1949 or 1950. It starts out: "My testimony places Donald J Trump as a person involved in the sale of young women to the sex trafficking ring of Jeffrey Epstein and Saudi's."

I don't really care to read any more and the letter is 32 pages long.  This is obviously from a mentally disturbed old lady.

Ted Lieu probably believes every word is true.

Palm Beach police reports

 Palm Beach police report from 2005: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00022654.pdf

 Palm Beach police report from 2006: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%204/EFTA00007157.pdf

Also see a letter from Epstein's attorneys questioning some of the statements in the police report. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00208923.pdf

Virginia Giuffre v Epstein

 Was Epstein ever accused of having sex with Virginia Guiuffre when she was under 18?

Yes — Virginia Giuffre (formerly Roberts) did publicly accuse Jeffrey Epstein of sexually abusing her while she was under 18 and of trafficking her for sex with others when she was a minor, including in some of her accounts. However, the most widely reported lawsuits and accusations focus on her being 17 at the time of those alleged encounters, not younger than that.

Here’s the detailed picture:

🧵 1. Giuffre’s own accounts

• Virginia Giuffre said she was recruited by Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell when she was a teenager working at Mar-a-Lago and then pressured into sexual activity while she was around 17 and 18 years old.

• In legal filings and media interviews, she alleged that Epstein and Maxwell made her have sex with powerful men, including Prince Andrew, when she was 17.

• Some lawsuits (e.g., her 2015/2016 filings) contained claims about her being sexually abused starting as a minor.

📌 2. Age specifics

• In many of the most documented allegations, Giuffre was 17 at the time of the sexual encounters she described. This is below 18 and therefore a minor under U.S. law (though age of consent varies by state and country).

• Court filings about her age have been contested and debated. Some defense filings pointed to documentary evidence suggesting she may have been older than she initially claimed at certain points, but she herself maintained that she was trafficked and abused as a teenager.

⚖️ 3. Criminal charges and accusations

• Epstein himself faced federal and state charges for sex trafficking of minors, including accusations that he solicited minors for sex acts. Separately, Giuffre’s allegations about being trafficked as a minor were part of broader public and legal controversy.

• However, Epstein was never criminally convicted specifically for having sex with Giuffre herself, because many of her detailed allegations were made in civil suits, not in the criminal prosecutions that ended with Epstein’s death in 2019.

🧠 Summary

Yes, Giuffre accused Epstein (and Maxwell) of trafficking and sexually exploiting her when she was a minor (under 18), particularly at age 17. Many of her most public allegations—including those involving Prince Andrew—hinge on her being trafficked as a teenager, which is legally significant even if not all details are identical in every filing.

If you want, I can explain how the legal outcomes differed between Epstein’s criminal cases and the civil lawsuits Giuffre filed.

=================================================

Was Epstein ever successfully sued in civil court by Virginia Giuffre for sexual abuse or sex trafficking or anything else?

Short answer: no — Virginia Giuffre never obtained a civil court judgment against Jeffrey Epstein himself for sexual abuse, sex trafficking, or related claims.

Here’s the clean breakdown, because this stuff gets muddled a lot:

---

What didn’t happen

• Epstein was never found civilly liable to Giuffre by a court.

• There was no trial verdict and no judicial finding against Epstein in her favor.

• Epstein died in 2019 before any civil case against him could reach that stage.

---

What did happen

1. Giuffre vs. Ghislaine Maxwell (civil case)

• Giuffre did sue Ghislaine Maxwell for defamation in federal court.

• That case settled in 2017 for an undisclosed amount.

• As part of that settlement, Maxwell did not admit wrongdoing.

• This was not a judgment and not against Epstein.

2. Giuffre’s claims involving Epstein

• Giuffre publicly accused Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking her.

• Those accusations appeared in:

  • sworn statements

  • civil pleadings

  • media interviews

• But her claims against Epstein himself were never resolved by a court because:

  • some were not formally litigated to judgment, and

  • Epstein died before they could be.

3. Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program (after his death)

• After Epstein died, his estate created a victims’ compensation fund (administered by Kenneth Feinberg).

• Giuffre did receive compensation from this program.

• Important legal point:

  • This was voluntary compensation from the estate

  • Not a lawsuit

  • Not an admission of liability

  • Not a court ruling

---

Why this matters legally

A lot of headlines blur these distinctions, but in strict legal terms:

• Accused ≠ sued to judgment

• Settlement ≠ court finding

• Compensation fund ≠ liability determination

So while Giuffre’s allegations were serious, public, and influential, Epstein was never “successfully sued” by her in civil court in the sense lawyers use that phrase.

======================================

In conclusion: Epstein was never criminally convicted of sexually abusing or trafficking Virginia Giuffre.  He was also never sued by her.  

Affidavit against Alan Dershowitz

 I was looking information about Maria Farmer and came across these links:

https://epsteinweb.org/wp-content/uploads/epstein_evidence/images/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018027.jpg

(Page 2 of 4 of Affidavit). Maria Farmer says she was a receptionist ("manning the front door and keeping records") in 1996 at the NY Epstein mansion and questioned why young girls were coming over.  Maxwell said that they were interviewing for modeling positions.  Farmer saw Dershowitz go upstairs at a time when there young girls under 18 present.

(The affidavit was apparently signed in 2019 as part of the Virginia Giuffre v. Alan Dershowitz case, which was later dismissed).

https://epsteinweb.org/wp-content/uploads/epstein_evidence/images/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017949.jpg

(Page 15 of 28, paragraph 58).  Basically the same.

https://epsteinweb.org/wp-content/uploads/epstein_evidence/images/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017954.jpg

(Page 20 of 28, subparagraph (b)).  Dershowitz's claim that he had not "stayed" at Epstein's house was "proven false" by the statement of Maria Farmer (that she had seen Dershowitz go upstairs).  Subparagraph (f). Dershowitz's claim that he had never "been in the presence of young females" was "proven false" by, among other witnesses, the statement of Maria Farmer.

I am not really interested at this point in claims against Dershowitz.  I am interested in accusations from Maria Farmer and am not seeing anything yet.

=================

Dershowitz answered a lawsuit stating in part: "To the extent a response is required, the allegations Ms. Farmer makes concerning Dershowitz are false, and they are denied.  Upon information and belief, Ms. Farmer never saw Dershowitz in Epstein’s New York residence because her employment with Epstein ended months before Dershowitz ever set foot in Epstein’s New York residence.".   https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Dershowtiz-Counterclaim.pdf , page 9.

Dershowitz also called Virginia Giuffre a liar, which she apparently was. "Committed to her lie, and using Dershowitz’s public invitation to sue as cover, Giuffre has now sued Dershowitz for defamation for calling her a liar. But Giuffre is a liar. She has told numerous provable lies about her age, who she has met, whether she had emails concerning Dershowitz, and other fabrications, in addition to her false accusations about sex with Dershowitz. Her lies concerning Dershowitz have caused tremendous damage to his personal and professional reputation, his business, his health and caused him emotional and physical pain and suffering. " page 21.

==============================

My tentative conclusion is that Maria Farmer is not a credible witness.  The FBI did not believe her in her 1996 complaint, which I can't find a link to.  Later, she makes statements against Dershowitz which are proven false.

Why wasn't Epstein prosecuted for conduct occuring prior to 2002?

 Please outline why earlier complaints against Epstein (before 2002) weren't prosecuted.

Here’s a clear outline of why credible complaints about Jeffrey Epstein before 2002 — especially in the late 1990s — were not prosecuted at the time, despite later revelations that they existed:

---

🔎 1. Early Complaints Existed but Did Not Result in Action

1996 FBI Report (Maria Farmer)

• Newly released federal documents confirm that a complaint was made to the FBI in 1996 alleging Epstein had stolen explicit photographs of minors and might have been involved with child pornography and related sexual misconduct.

• The complaint reportedly included alarming details — including threats — but the FBI did not open a formal investigation until about 2006.

Why this wasn’t prosecuted then:

• At the time, neither the FBI nor local prosecutors appear to have pursued the matter. It’s not publicly clear why — records show no subsequent investigative steps were taken for nearly 10 years after the 1996 complaint.

• Internal DOJ reviews later omitted any reference to this early complaint, suggesting it was not integrated into broader law enforcement efforts.

---

🧑‍⚖️ 2. Law Enforcement Interpreted or Dismissed Early Reports

Local Police and Other Reports in the Late 1990s–2001

• Other accounts suggest that Epstein faced minor local inquiries or informal reports (such as a 1997 police contact or early Palm Beach interest in 2001), but without confirmed evidence of statutory crimes at the time, these did not lead to prosecution.

• Police comments in some local cases reflected skepticism about whether offenses had actually occurred, rather than immediate action on serious charges.

Reasons prosecutors often declined to pursue charges:

• Lack of physical evidence or credible victim testimony at the time: This is a common challenge in sexual abuse cases, particularly those involving powerful individuals.

• “He said / she said” litigation concerns: Prosecutors in the 1990s often hesitated to pursue cases where evidence beyond testimony was limited, especially against wealthy or well-connected defendants.

• Institutional inertia or low prioritization of sex crimes then: Prior to the modern evolution of child-abuse prosecution approaches, some agencies did not aggressively investigate or coordinate on such matters.

---

🧩 3. Systemic Failures and Delays in Response

A combination of factors appears to have contributed to why credible early complaints were not prosecuted:

A. Lack of Prompt Investigative Follow-Up

• The FBI did not engage fully with the 1996 report until years later, and there’s no indication early leads were pursued at the time.

B. Coordination Failures Between Agencies

• Early reports to local police were sometimes deflected to federal authorities, and communication between the FBI and local law enforcement was reportedly inconsistent in the 1990s.

C. Prosecutorial Hesitation

• Prosecutors historically hesitated to bring complicated sex-abuse cases that they felt might be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt without corroborating physical evidence.

D. Statute and Evidentiary Standards at the Time

• The law enforcement and prosecutorial environment of the 1990s sometimes treated allegations of this nature differently than later decades, when more specialized units and awareness of trafficking emerged.

---

📌 Summary

Credible complaints — including one in 1996 alleging child pornography and threats — were made to law enforcement about Epstein well before 2002.
But none of those early reports resulted in criminal charges at the time, largely because:

1. Authorities did not open a meaningful investigation when the first federal complaint was made;

2. Local police and prosecutors often did not see overwhelming evidence or statutory violations they felt could be successfully prosecuted;

3. There were failures in communication and follow-through among law enforcement agencies.

These gaps have since been the subject of public scrutiny and legal claims against the government for neglecting early warnings. 

Was Jeffrey Epstein clean after 2005?

 Did Jeffrey Epstein engage in any conduct after 2005 which was criminal in nature? Please exclude any conduct he engaged in before 2006 for which he was later accused or charged.

Short answer:
Based on credible public records and prosecutions, there is no documented criminal conduct by Jeffrey Epstein after 2005 that was ever charged or formally pursued by prosecutors as a standalone offense separate from earlier conduct. The major federal indictment in 2019 was based on alleged sexual abuse and trafficking up to 2005, not after.

Here’s a breakdown to clarify that:

---

📌 1. 2019 Federal Charges Did Not Allege Crimes After 2005

When Epstein was arrested and federally indicted in July 2019, the indictment charged him with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking involving dozens of underage girls. However:

• The indictment specifically alleged conduct occurring from at least 2002 through at least 2005.

• Prosecutors did not allege criminal conduct after 2005 in that indictment — even though the arrest occurred more than a decade later.

So although the case was brought in 2019, it was based on earlier criminal acts, not new offenses after 2005.

---

📌 2. No New Criminal Charges After 2005

Despite extensive scrutiny of Epstein’s activities after he was released from jail in 2009 and later years:

• No new criminal charges or indictments were brought alleging that Epstein committed crimes after 2005.
  Even after the massive release of documentation under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the U.S. Justice Department has stated that the materials do not establish grounds for new criminal charges related to Epstein’s conduct following the earlier period.

This means that — based on current public records and official statements — prosecutors did not find (or at least did not assert in court) credible evidence of distinct criminal acts by Epstein after 2005 that resulted in charges.

---

📌 3. Civil Litigation and Allegations

There have been civil lawsuits and allegations suggesting Epstein’s network and behavior may have continued in various forms after his 2008 conviction and 2009 release. For example:

• Some civil suits (not criminal prosecutions) have alleged continued exploitation or trafficking harms extending into the 2010s, including claims involving visits to his Virgin Islands properties.

However:

• Civil suits are not the same as criminal convictions or indictments.

• Claims in civil litigation do not mean that prosecutors found sufficient credible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to pursue charges.

• Many such civil allegations remain unproven and are not part of the official criminal record.

---

🧾 Summary

• Epstein’s criminal conduct that was prosecuted or formally charged all relates to activities up through 2005 — including the 2008 plea and the 2019 federal indictment.

• There were no documented criminal charges brought for conduct occurring after 2005.

• Although civil lawsuits and publicly released evidence raise questions about broader patterns of behavior, these have not resulted in additional criminal accusations of post-2005 wrongdoing that were prosecuted

Epstein and Friends

 

This was sent to me via WhatsApp and I don't know the source.  There is Michael Jackson holding a machine gun and Jeffrey on the right.  I don't know the other people in the photo.  It is obviously AI generated and it looks very realistic.