In today’s post, we delve into the recent episode of the popular YouTube channel “Triggernometry,” featuring Mike Benz, a notable conservative political commentator and former State Department official under the Trump administration. This discussion touches on several controversial topics, including the JFK files, Jeffrey Epstein, and the prevailing notion of a ‘Deep State.’ As these subjects have garnered significant public interest and debate, it’s imperative to examine the claims presented in this episode critically. Our aim is to fact-check the assertions made by Benz and provide clarity on the narratives surrounding pivotal moments in recent American history. Join us as we sift through the complexities of these issues to discern fact from fiction.

Find the according transcript on TRNSCRBR

All information as of 03/24/2025

Fact Check Analysis

Claim

If it turned out that our own intelligence services were involved in or allowed purposefully the assassination of our own president, that would have implications diplomatically for U.S. standing abroad.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Implications of U.S. Intelligence Involvement in Presidential Assassination

The claim posits that if U.S. intelligence services were involved in or knowingly allowed the assassination of a U.S. president, it would have significant diplomatic implications for the U.S. abroad. This assertion is grounded in the understanding that such involvement would undermine trust in U.S. institutions and potentially destabilize international relations.

### Historical Context: JFK Assassination

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 remains a pivotal event in U.S. history, with ongoing debates about potential intelligence agency involvement. While there is no conclusive evidence of direct CIA involvement, there are allegations of intelligence failures and cover-ups. For instance, Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin, was under CIA surveillance before the assassination, and there were disputes within U.S. intelligence agencies about the threat he posed[1][3]. These factors contribute to speculation about potential CIA involvement or negligence.

### Diplomatic Implications

If evidence were to emerge that U.S. intelligence agencies were involved in or allowed a presidential assassination, it would likely have severe diplomatic repercussions:

1. **Loss of Credibility**: The revelation would erode trust in U.S. institutions and undermine its moral authority on the global stage. This could lead to strained relations with allies and adversaries alike, as countries might question the stability and reliability of the U.S. government.

2. **International Perception**: The U.S. would face increased scrutiny and skepticism from the international community. This could affect its ability to lead international initiatives or negotiate treaties, as other nations might view the U.S. as less trustworthy or stable.

3. **Global Governance**: Such a revelation could also impact U.S. participation in global governance structures. The U.N. and other international bodies might reassess their engagement with the U.S., potentially leading to a shift in global power dynamics.

### Comparison with Other Scandals

Historical events like the Iran-Contra affair demonstrate how U.S. government misconduct can have lasting diplomatic consequences. The Iran-Contra scandal involved secret arms sales to Iran and diversion of funds to support the Nicaraguan Contras, leading to significant damage to U.S. credibility abroad. Similarly, any proven involvement of U.S. intelligence in a presidential assassination would likely have far-reaching and profound diplomatic impacts.

### Conclusion

While there is no conclusive evidence linking U.S. intelligence agencies to the JFK assassination, the claim that such involvement would have significant diplomatic implications is valid. The potential erosion of trust, loss of credibility, and shifts in international perceptions would all contribute to a challenging diplomatic landscape for the U.S. The need for transparency and scrutiny in such matters is crucial to maintaining trust in U.S. institutions and ensuring stable international relations.

### Additional Considerations

– **Transparency and Scrutiny**: Calls for transparency regarding potential intelligence misconduct highlight the importance of accountability in maintaining public trust and international credibility.
– **Organized Crime and Statecraft**: The blurring of lines between organized crime and legitimate statecraft, as seen in cases like Jeffrey Epstein, underscores the complexity of U.S. foreign policy and national security. This complexity necessitates careful examination to prevent unintended consequences, such as inadvertently funding unrest through international labor assistance programs.

Citations

Claim

The CIA was opening the mail for Lee Harvey Oswald for months before the assassination, suspecting that he was part of a counterintelligence probe implying he might be working for Russia.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: CIA Monitoring of Lee Harvey Oswald

The claim that the CIA was opening Lee Harvey Oswald's mail for months before the assassination, suspecting he was part of a counterintelligence probe implying he might be working for Russia, can be evaluated based on available historical evidence and declassified documents.

### Background on Oswald and CIA Surveillance

Lee Harvey Oswald was a figure of interest to the CIA due to his activities and associations. In 1959, Oswald defected to the Soviet Union, which naturally raised suspicions about his loyalties and potential ties to foreign intelligence services[1][2]. Before the JFK assassination, Oswald visited Soviet and Cuban diplomatic facilities in Mexico City, further heightening concerns about his foreign connections[1][3].

### CIA Surveillance and Mail Opening

While there is evidence that Oswald was under surveillance by the CIA, particularly during his visits to Mexico City, there is no clear, direct evidence from declassified documents or reputable sources confirming that the CIA was specifically opening Oswald's mail for months before the assassination. However, it is known that the CIA monitored Oswald's activities closely, and there were intelligence failures and disagreements between the CIA and FBI regarding the threat he posed[3][5].

Larry Sabato, a political analyst, has noted that the CIA denied for years knowing anything about Oswald or following him, which has been proven untrue[5]. This suggests that while the CIA did monitor Oswald, the extent of their surveillance, including whether they opened his mail, remains less clear.

### Implications of CIA Actions

The CIA's actions surrounding Oswald, including surveillance and potential withholding of information from investigative bodies like the Warren Commission, have contributed to conspiracy theories and speculation about the agency's involvement in the JFK assassination[1][3]. The release of declassified documents has provided more insight into intelligence failures and bureaucratic missteps but does not conclusively prove a conspiracy[3].

### Conclusion

While the CIA was indeed monitoring Oswald and had knowledge of his activities, there is no specific, reliable evidence to confirm that they were opening his mail for months before the assassination as part of a counterintelligence probe. The claim may be based on broader knowledge of CIA surveillance activities and intelligence failures but lacks direct support from declassified documents or academic sources.

### Recommendations for Further Research

1. **Declassified Documents**: Continue to analyze newly released JFK files for any mention of mail surveillance or similar activities related to Oswald.
2. **Historical Context**: Consider the geopolitical climate and the CIA's operations during the Cold War to understand the motivations behind their surveillance of Oswald.
3. **Intelligence Agency Practices**: Study general practices of intelligence agencies regarding mail surveillance and counterintelligence operations during the 1960s to contextualize the claim further.

Citations

Claim

Trump was going to release classified documents related to the JFK assassination but then put the brakes on it, believing they would show the mob was complicit in it.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Trump's Release of JFK Assassination Documents and Alleged Involvement of the Mob

The claim suggests that President Donald Trump initially intended to release classified documents related to the JFK assassination but halted the process, fearing they would reveal the mob's complicity. However, recent developments indicate that Trump did indeed order the release of these documents, contrary to the claim of putting the brakes on it.

### Evidence of Document Release

1. **Trump's Executive Order**: In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing the declassification and release of all remaining documents related to the JFK assassination, as well as those of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.[3]. This action was part of his campaign promise to provide transparency on these historical events.

2. **Release of Documents**: On March 18, 2025, the National Archives released tens of thousands of pages of previously classified documents related to the JFK assassination, following Trump's directive[1][5]. These documents included unredacted versions of files that had been previously released with redactions.

3. **Content of Released Documents**: While the released documents did not contain significant new revelations about the assassination, they did shed light on the CIA's surveillance of Lee Harvey Oswald and potential connections between organized crime figures and the assassination[1][2]. However, they did not conclusively prove the mob's involvement.

### Allegations of Mob Involvement

The claim that Trump halted the release due to potential revelations about the mob's involvement is not supported by the evidence. The released documents do suggest that organized crime figures had motives and connections that could be relevant to the assassination, but they do not provide conclusive evidence of direct involvement[2].

### Conclusion

The claim that Trump initially planned to release JFK assassination documents but then stopped due to concerns about revealing the mob's involvement is not supported by available evidence. Trump did order the release of these documents, and they have been made public, although they do not provide definitive proof of mob complicity in the assassination.

In summary, while the released documents contribute to ongoing discussions about potential conspiracies and intelligence failures, they do not validate the specific claim about Trump halting the release due to mob involvement. The release of these documents aligns with Trump's promise to provide transparency on historical assassinations, but it does not conclusively resolve long-standing conspiracy theories.

Citations

Claim

Jeffrey Epstein was involved in Iran Contra in the early 1980s.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Jeffrey Epstein's Involvement in Iran-Contra

The claim that Jeffrey Epstein was involved in the Iran-Contra affair in the early 1980s lacks concrete evidence from reliable sources. While Epstein was known for his connections to influential figures and his involvement in various financial and intelligence-related activities, there is no direct, credible documentation linking him to the Iran-Contra scandal.

### Background on Iran-Contra

The Iran-Contra affair was a significant political scandal during the Reagan administration, involving the secret sale of U.S. arms to Iran and the diversion of funds to support the Contras in Nicaragua. This scandal involved key figures like Oliver North, Manuchehr Ghorbanifar, and Adnan Khashoggi, but there is no mention of Jeffrey Epstein in the primary accounts or investigations of the scandal[2][3].

### Epstein's Known Activities

Jeffrey Epstein was a financier and convicted sex offender with connections to high-profile figures and intelligence networks. He was involved in various financial dealings and had ties to Israel's defense industry, investing in startups like Carbyne[1]. However, his activities were primarily focused on financial and personal networks rather than direct involvement in geopolitical operations like Iran-Contra.

### Speculations and Lack of Evidence

Speculations about Epstein's involvement in intelligence operations and potential connections to organized crime have been discussed in various forums, including podcasts and online discussions[5]. However, these claims are not supported by concrete evidence or academic research. The lack of credible sources linking Epstein to the Iran-Contra affair suggests that this claim remains speculative.

### Conclusion

Based on available information, there is no substantial evidence to support the claim that Jeffrey Epstein was involved in the Iran-Contra affair. While Epstein had connections to influential figures and was involved in various financial and intelligence-related activities, his direct involvement in Iran-Contra is not documented in reliable sources. Therefore, this claim should be treated with skepticism until further evidence emerges.

Citations

Claim

Epstein was accused of working for the CIA, Israeli intelligence, and having connections to British intelligence.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Jeffrey Epstein's Alleged Intelligence Connections

The claim that Jeffrey Epstein was accused of working for the CIA, Israeli intelligence, and having connections to British intelligence involves several layers of speculation and circumstantial evidence. Here's a detailed evaluation based on available sources:

### CIA Connections
There is no concrete evidence or credible sources directly linking Epstein to the CIA. The discussions around his intelligence connections primarily focus on Israeli intelligence and potential roles as an "access agent" or intelligence asset, rather than direct employment by the CIA.

### Israeli Intelligence Connections
Several sources suggest that Epstein might have had ties to Israeli intelligence, possibly as an intelligence asset. Former Israeli intelligence officials and reports have hinted at the possibility of Epstein operating a "honey trap" scheme to blackmail prominent figures, which could have served Israeli intelligence interests[1][2]. However, these claims remain speculative and lack definitive proof.

### British Intelligence Connections
There is limited direct evidence linking Epstein to British intelligence. However, Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's associate, is the daughter of Robert Maxwell, a British media mogul with alleged ties to Israeli intelligence[3]. While this connection is intriguing, it does not directly implicate British intelligence in Epstein's activities.

### Implications and Speculations
The Epstein case highlights the blurred lines between organized crime and statecraft, particularly in how influential figures can be compromised through blackmail and intelligence gathering. Historical precedents like the Iran-Contra affair demonstrate the complexity of U.S. foreign policy and national security entanglements with organized crime[1][2].

### Conclusion
While there are speculations and some circumstantial evidence regarding Epstein's connections to Israeli intelligence, there is no concrete evidence to support claims of direct involvement with the CIA or British intelligence. The discussions around Epstein's intelligence connections remain speculative and require further investigation for conclusive evidence.

### Recommendations for Further Research
1. **Intelligence Assessments**: Reviewing declassified intelligence documents or assessments related to Epstein could provide more insight into his alleged intelligence connections.
2. **Media Reports and Testimonies**: Continuing to analyze media reports and testimonies from former intelligence officials may uncover additional circumstantial evidence.
3. **Historical Context**: Studying historical cases of intelligence operations and organized crime can offer a broader understanding of the potential implications of Epstein's activities.

In summary, while Epstein's alleged connections to intelligence agencies are intriguing and warrant investigation, they remain speculative without definitive evidence.

Citations

Claim

Alex Acosta, the federal prosecutor in charge of the Epstein case, stated that he was told to back off the prosecution because Epstein belonged to intelligence.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Alex Acosta, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, stated he was told to back off the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein because Epstein "belonged to intelligence" is supported by some sources. According to Wikipedia, when Acosta was vetted for his cabinet post in the Trump administration, he reportedly stated, "I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone" [3]. However, this specific statement is not widely documented in mainstream media or official reports.

### Analysis of the Claim

1. **Source Verification**: The statement about Epstein belonging to intelligence is mentioned in Wikipedia but lacks direct citation from primary sources like interviews or legal documents. It suggests that Acosta may have made this claim during his vetting process, but without a direct quote or a reliable source, it remains speculative.

2. **Official Investigations**: The Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated Acosta's handling of the Epstein case and concluded that he exercised "poor judgment" but found no evidence of misconduct based on corruption or improper considerations [2][4]. There is no mention of intelligence involvement in these reports.

3. **Context and Implications**: The idea that Epstein might have been linked to intelligence agencies is part of broader conspiracy theories surrounding his case. However, these theories are not supported by concrete evidence from official investigations or reliable sources.

### Conclusion

While there is a mention of Acosta stating that Epstein "belonged to intelligence," this claim lacks robust verification from primary sources. Official investigations into Acosta's handling of the Epstein case focused on prosecutorial discretion and judgment rather than any alleged intelligence connections. Therefore, the claim remains speculative without further evidence.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

– **Primary Sources**: Seek direct quotes or statements from Acosta or other involved parties regarding any intelligence connections.
– **Official Documents**: Review any available legal documents or transcripts that might support or refute the claim.
– **Expert Analysis**: Consult with legal and intelligence experts to assess the plausibility of such claims within the context of U.S. legal and intelligence practices.

Citations

Claim

Epstein had power of attorney over Les Wexner's entire financial empire.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Epstein Had Power of Attorney Over Les Wexner's Entire Financial Empire

The claim that Jeffrey Epstein had power of attorney over Leslie Wexner's entire financial empire can be partially verified through reliable sources. Here is a detailed analysis:

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Power of Attorney**: Leslie Wexner did grant Jeffrey Epstein power of attorney in 1991, giving Epstein significant control over his financial affairs. This included the ability to hire people, sign checks, buy and sell properties, and borrow money on Wexner's behalf[1][2].

2. **Financial Involvement**: Epstein was deeply involved in managing Wexner's finances for more than a decade. He oversaw the sale of over $1.3 billion in company stock from trusts connected to Wexner, which Epstein managed as a trustee[2][5].

3. **Asset Control**: Epstein acquired several assets previously owned by Wexner or his companies, including a New York mansion, a luxury Ohio property, and a private jet[1][4].

### Limitations of the Claim

1. **Scope of Control**: While Epstein had significant financial control, the claim might overstate the extent of his authority over Wexner's "entire financial empire." The power of attorney primarily concerned Wexner's personal finances rather than the entire L Brands empire, which includes Victoria's Secret[1][3].

2. **Termination of Relationship**: Wexner cut ties with Epstein in 2007 after discovering financial misappropriation. This indicates that Epstein's control was not absolute or permanent[3][4].

### Conclusion

The claim that Epstein had power of attorney over Wexner's financial empire is partially true but may be exaggerated. Epstein did have significant control over Wexner's personal finances from 1991 to 2007, but it is unclear if this extended to the entirety of Wexner's business empire. The relationship was complex, involving both financial management and personal trust, which was later revealed to be misplaced[1][2][3].

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

– **Review Legal Documents**: Access to the original power of attorney document and other legal agreements between Wexner and Epstein could provide clearer details on the scope of Epstein's authority.
– **Financial Records Analysis**: A thorough examination of financial transactions and asset transfers during the period Epstein managed Wexner's finances could help clarify the extent of his control.
– **Interviews with Involved Parties**: Statements from individuals close to Wexner or Epstein could offer additional insights into the nature of their relationship and the extent of Epstein's financial authority.

Citations

Claim

There are significant implications for U.S. national security if it is established that intelligence services were involved in the JFK assassination.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Implications of Intelligence Involvement in the JFK Assassination

The claim that there are significant implications for U.S. national security if intelligence services were involved in the JFK assassination raises several critical points regarding national security, diplomatic credibility, and the integrity of U.S. intelligence agencies. This evaluation will examine historical context, expert analysis, and recent developments related to the JFK assassination files.

### Historical Context and Intelligence Failures

1. **Intelligence Failures and Potential Involvement**: The JFK assassination is widely regarded as a significant intelligence failure, with many questioning whether U.S. intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA, had any involvement or foreknowledge of the event[1][3]. Critics argue that the CIA suppressed information from official investigations, which could indicate a cover-up[1].

2. **Lee Harvey Oswald's Foreign Ties**: Newly declassified documents highlight Oswald's visits to Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City, reinforcing concerns about his foreign connections and potential intelligence agency awareness of these activities[3][5].

### Implications for National Security

1. **Diplomatic Credibility**: If proven, intelligence agency involvement would severely damage U.S. diplomatic credibility internationally. It would suggest that U.S. agencies are capable of orchestrating or facilitating the assassination of a democratically elected leader, undermining trust in U.S. foreign policy and institutions[4].

2. **Organized Crime and Intelligence Links**: Speculations about connections between organized crime and U.S. intelligence, as seen in the context of figures like Jeffrey Epstein, further complicate national security issues. These connections blur the lines between legitimate statecraft and criminal activities, potentially exposing vulnerabilities in U.S. national security frameworks[4].

### Need for Transparency and Scrutiny

1. **Transparency in Government Operations**: The release of JFK files and discussions around Epstein's network highlight the need for transparency in government operations, especially regarding potential intelligence agency misconduct. This transparency is crucial for maintaining public trust and ensuring accountability within national security institutions[4][5].

2. **Scrutiny of International Labor Assistance**: The entanglement of U.S. foreign policy with organized crime and potential intelligence operations underscores the importance of scrutinizing international labor assistance programs. Such scrutiny can help prevent unintended funding of unrest or criminal activities abroad[4].

### Conclusion

The claim that intelligence involvement in the JFK assassination has significant implications for U.S. national security is supported by historical context and ongoing debates about intelligence failures and potential cover-ups. The release of JFK files and discussions around figures like Epstein emphasize the need for transparency and scrutiny in U.S. national security operations to maintain diplomatic credibility and public trust.

**Evidence and Citations:**
– Historical context and intelligence failures: [1][3].
– Implications for national security: [4][5].
– Need for transparency and scrutiny: [4][5].

Citations

Claim

There are classified documents that the United States is holding about the JFK assassination that are supposed to be released every 25 years.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Periodic Release of JFK Assassination Documents

The claim that classified documents related to the JFK assassination are released every 25 years is rooted in the **President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992**. This act mandated the disclosure of all information collected on the assassination within 25 years, barring exceptions designated by the president[1][2].

### Background and Legislation

– **1992 Act**: The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 required the National Archives to collect and disclose all records related to the assassination. The deadline for full disclosure was set for October 26, 2017[1][2].
– **25-Year Disclosure Mandate**: While the act does not explicitly state a 25-year cycle for releases, it established a framework for periodic review and declassification. The initial deadline was 25 years from the act's passage, but subsequent extensions have occurred due to national security concerns[1][2].

### Recent Releases and Extensions

– **Recent Releases**: In recent years, there have been several releases of JFK assassination documents, including significant batches in 2017-2018, 2021, 2022, 2023, and most recently in 2025[1][3][4].
– **Extensions and Redactions**: Despite the original deadline, releases have been delayed due to national security concerns. Presidents Trump and Biden have extended deadlines or withheld some documents, citing potential harm to national security or foreign affairs[1][3].

### Implications and Speculations

The release of these documents is often anticipated to shed light on potential misconduct by U.S. intelligence agencies or other entities. However, the claim about a strict 25-year cycle for releasing classified documents is not entirely accurate. Instead, the process involves periodic reviews and declassifications based on national security assessments.

### Conclusion

In conclusion, while the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 does mandate the disclosure of assassination-related documents, it does not specify a recurring 25-year cycle for releases. The process is subject to extensions and redactions based on national security concerns. The claim is partially true in that there are periodic releases, but these are not strictly tied to a 25-year cycle.

### Evidence and References

– **Legislative Framework**: The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 is the foundational legislation governing the release of JFK assassination documents[1][2].
– **Recent Releases**: Documents have been released in batches over the years, with significant releases in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2025[1][3][4].
– **National Security Concerns**: Releases are often delayed due to national security concerns, leading to extensions beyond the original deadline[1][3].

Citations

Claim

Epstein's network was involved in illegal arms sales to Iran as part of the Iran-Contra affair.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Epstein's Network and the Iran-Contra Affair

The claim that Jeffrey Epstein's network was involved in illegal arms sales to Iran as part of the Iran-Contra affair lacks substantial evidence from reliable sources. Here's a detailed evaluation based on available information:

### Background on Jeffrey Epstein
Jeffrey Epstein was a financier and convicted sex offender known for his connections to influential figures. However, there is no documented evidence linking him directly to the Iran-Contra affair or arms sales to Iran[1].

### The Iran-Contra Affair
The Iran-Contra affair involved the secret sale of arms to Iran by the Reagan administration, with the proceeds used to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. This scandal was extensively investigated and documented, involving figures like Oliver North and Manucher Ghorbanifar, but there is no mention of Epstein's involvement[2][3][4].

### Epstein's Connections and Activities
Epstein had connections with various figures, including those in Israel's defense industry, such as Ehud Barak, through investments in startups like Carbyne (formerly Reporty Homeland Security)[1]. However, these connections do not establish a link to the Iran-Contra affair.

### Conclusion
Based on the available evidence, there is no credible support for the claim that Jeffrey Epstein's network was involved in the Iran-Contra affair or illegal arms sales to Iran. The Iran-Contra scandal was a well-documented event involving specific individuals and government officials, and Epstein's activities and connections do not appear to intersect with this historical event.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation
To further investigate claims of Epstein's involvement in arms dealing or other illegal activities, researchers should focus on:
– **Government Records**: Accessing declassified documents or records related to Epstein's activities and connections.
– **Investigative Journalism**: Reviewing in-depth investigative reports that might uncover previously unknown connections.
– **Historical Context**: Understanding the broader historical context of U.S. foreign policy and intelligence operations during relevant periods.

Without concrete evidence from reliable sources, claims about Epstein's involvement in the Iran-Contra affair remain speculative.

Citations

Claim

Hunter Biden was kicked out of the Navy for cocaine.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Hunter Biden Was Kicked Out of the Navy for Cocaine

The claim that Hunter Biden was discharged from the Navy due to a positive cocaine test is supported by multiple reliable sources.

### Evidence and Sources

1. **ABC News** reported that Hunter Biden was discharged from the Navy in February 2014 after testing positive for cocaine in June 2013. This was confirmed by a person familiar with the case, and Hunter Biden himself expressed regret over his actions leading to his administrative discharge[1].

2. **Associated Press** also reported that Hunter Biden was discharged from the Navy earlier in 2014 after testing positive for cocaine. He had been serving as a part-time public affairs officer in the Navy Reserve[2].

3. A **Trump Campaign Press Release** from 2020 reiterated that Hunter Biden was discharged from the Navy Reserve following a positive cocaine test in June 2013. This release also noted that he received two special waivers to join the Navy Reserve, one due to his age and another related to a past drug incident[3].

### Conclusion

Based on these sources, it is verified that Hunter Biden was indeed discharged from the Navy Reserve after testing positive for cocaine. His discharge was an administrative one, which typically occurs when a service member fails to meet the standards of conduct expected by the military.

### Implications

This incident highlights the strict drug policies in the U.S. military, where failing a drug test can lead to discharge, often without an honorable discharge. The case also underscores the challenges faced by individuals with substance abuse issues, even those from prominent families.

### Additional Context

Hunter Biden's situation is part of a broader discussion about substance abuse and its consequences in various contexts, including military service. His experience serves as an example of how such issues can affect individuals from all walks of life, regardless of their background or social status.

Citations

Claim

Hunter Biden did not pay his taxes for five whole years in a row.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that **Hunter Biden did not pay his taxes for five whole years in a row**, we need to examine the available information from reliable sources.

## Evidence from Legal Documents and News Reports

1. **Tax Evasion Charges**: Hunter Biden was charged with failing to pay at least $1.4 million in federal taxes from 2016 through 2019. This period includes four consecutive years, not five[1][2][3].

2. **Indictment Details**: The indictment alleged that Hunter Biden willfully failed to pay his taxes for the years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. Additionally, he failed to file tax returns on time for 2017 and 2018[1][2].

3. **Plea and Sentencing**: Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to all nine charges, including three felony tax offenses and six misdemeanor tax offenses. His sentencing is scheduled for December 16, 2024[1][3][4].

4. **Payment of Back Taxes**: It is reported that Hunter Biden eventually paid his back taxes, including penalties, after regaining sobriety in 2019[2][4].

## Conclusion

Based on the available evidence, Hunter Biden did not pay his taxes for four consecutive years (2016 through 2019), not five. The claim that he did not pay taxes for five whole years in a row is **inaccurate**. The legal documents and news reports confirm his failure to pay taxes for four years, but there is no evidence to support a fifth year of non-payment.

## References

– [1] U.S. Department of Justice. (2024). Robert Hunter Biden Convicted on Three Felony Tax Offenses and Six Misdemeanor Tax Offenses.
– [2] ABC7 New York. (2024). What to know about Hunter Biden's tax trial.
– [3] TIME. (2024). Hunter Biden Pleads Guilty to Federal Tax Charges.
– [4] CBS News. (2024). Hunter Biden pleads guilty to all 9 charges in tax evasion case.

Citations

Claim

The National Democratic Institute (NDI) is the DNC branch of the National Endowment for Democracy and is a CIA cutout.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: The National Democratic Institute (NDI) as a DNC Branch of the National Endowment for Democracy and a CIA Cutout

The claim that the National Democratic Institute (NDI) is a branch of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) associated with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and acts as a CIA cutout requires a detailed examination of NDI's origins, funding, and its relationship with the CIA.

### Origins and Structure of NDI

– **NDI as Part of NED**: The NDI is indeed one of the core institutes of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), alongside the International Republican Institute (IRI), the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, and the Center for International Private Enterprise[1][3]. This indicates that NDI is closely linked to NED but does not inherently imply a direct connection to the DNC.

– **Funding and Operations**: NDI receives funding from NED, which in turn is funded by the U.S. Congress[1][3]. This funding structure suggests that NDI operates under the umbrella of U.S. government-supported initiatives aimed at promoting democracy abroad.

### Relationship with the CIA

– **Historical Context**: The NED was established in 1983, partly as a response to the CIA's covert activities coming under scrutiny in the 1970s[4]. Allen Weinstein, one of NED's founders, noted that much of what NED does was previously done covertly by the CIA[1][4]. However, this does not directly link NDI to the CIA as a "cutout."

– **CIA-NED Connection**: While there is a historical connection between the CIA and NED, with some activities being shifted from covert CIA operations to overt NED actions, there is no direct evidence that NDI specifically acts as a CIA cutout[4].

### Implications and Conclusion

The claim that NDI is a DNC branch of NED and a CIA cutout lacks concrete evidence. While NDI is part of NED and receives funding from it, there is no direct link to the DNC. Additionally, while NED's activities have been compared to those of the CIA, there is no specific evidence that NDI acts as a CIA cutout. The relationship between NDI and the CIA is more nuanced and part of the broader context of U.S. foreign policy and democracy promotion efforts.

In summary, the claim appears to be an exaggeration or misinterpretation of NDI's role within NED and its relationship with U.S. intelligence agencies. Further scrutiny and evidence would be needed to support such a claim.

## References

[1] [The National Endowment For “Democracy”: A Second CIA](https://countercurrents.org/2022/05/the-national-endowment-for-democracy-a-second-cia/)

[2] [If the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) Is Subverting Democracy](https://covertactionmagazine.com/202

Citations

Claim

The CIA receives a copy of every grant that the National Endowment for Democracy makes.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: The CIA Receives a Copy of Every Grant Made by the National Endowment for Democracy

The claim that the CIA receives a copy of every grant made by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) lacks concrete evidence from reliable sources. While there are assertions about NED's role in promoting democracy and its historical connection to CIA activities, there is no specific documentation or official acknowledgment that the CIA systematically receives copies of NED grants.

### Background on NED and CIA

1. **Establishment and Purpose**: The NED was established in 1983 as a bipartisan, non-profit organization to promote democracy globally. It was created partly in response to revelations about CIA covert activities, aiming to conduct similar operations more openly[1][2][3].

2. **Relationship with CIA**: Critics argue that NED has taken over some of the CIA's covert operations, operating more openly but still serving U.S. strategic interests[1][4][5]. However, there is no direct evidence that the CIA receives copies of NED grants.

3. **Transparency and Operations**: NED publishes annual reports detailing its grants, but these reports do not indicate any systematic sharing of information with the CIA[3]. NED's operations are often criticized for influencing foreign elections and political processes, but these criticisms do not specifically mention CIA involvement in grant documentation[2][4].

### Conclusion

Based on available information, there is no concrete evidence to support the claim that the CIA receives a copy of every grant made by the NED. While NED's activities are often linked to U.S. foreign policy and strategic interests, and there are historical connections between NED and CIA operations, the specific assertion about grant documentation sharing lacks substantiation.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Official Records**: Investigate NED's annual reports and any available internal documents for evidence of grant sharing with the CIA.
2. **Government Hearings and Testimonies**: Review congressional hearings or testimonies related to NED and CIA operations for any mentions of grant documentation sharing.
3. **Independent Investigations**: Consider independent investigations or whistleblowers' accounts that might shed light on potential CIA-NED interactions regarding grant documentation.

In summary, while NED's role in promoting democracy and its historical ties to CIA activities are well-documented, the specific claim about the CIA receiving copies of NED grants remains unsubstantiated based on current evidence.

Citations

Claim

Hunter Biden was on the chairman's advisory board of the National Democratic Institute.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that **Hunter Biden was on the Chairman's Advisory Board of the National Democratic Institute (NDI)**, we must rely on credible sources and official records from the NDI.

According to available information, Hunter Biden is indeed associated with the National Democratic Institute. He is listed as a member of the **Chairman's Advisory Board** for the National Democratic Institute, alongside other notable figures like Madeleine Albright and Chris Dodd[5]. This affiliation is part of his broader involvement in various organizations, including his roles in other non-profit boards and advisory councils.

However, for definitive confirmation, it would be ideal to consult official NDI reports or organizational records directly. These sources would provide the most accurate and up-to-date information regarding the composition of their advisory boards.

In summary, while there is evidence suggesting Hunter Biden's involvement with the National Democratic Institute, verifying his specific role on the Chairman's Advisory Board requires direct access to NDI's official documentation.

Citations

Claim

Jeffrey Epstein was able to lease an apartment in New York City directly from the U.S. State Department.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Jeffrey Epstein was able to lease an apartment in New York City directly from the U.S. State Department is not supported by the available evidence. However, there is a documented case where Epstein leased a building from the Office of Foreign Missions (OFM) of the U.S. Department of State.

## Evidence and Analysis

1. **Lease from OFM**: In 1992, Epstein leased a building at 34 East 69th Street in Manhattan from the OFM. This lease was for a two-year term with an agreed rent of $15,000 per month. The lease required Epstein to obtain prior written consent from OFM for any subleases or assignments[2][3]. This case, *U.S. v. Epstein*, involved a dispute over a sublease agreement with Ivan Fisher, which was entered into without the necessary consent from OFM. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the government, ordering the eviction of Epstein and Fisher from the premises[2][3].

2. **No Direct Lease of an Apartment**: There is no documented evidence that Epstein leased an apartment directly from the U.S. State Department. The case involving the OFM lease pertains to a building, not an apartment, and it was a commercial arrangement rather than a residential lease for personal use.

3. **Epstein's Real Estate Holdings**: Epstein's real estate portfolio included significant properties in New York City, such as his Upper East Side townhouse and apartments at 301 East 66th Street, which were owned by his brother Mark Epstein through Ossa Properties[1][5]. These holdings were not leased from the U.S. State Department but were part of his extensive private real estate investments.

## Conclusion

While Jeffrey Epstein did lease a building from the Office of Foreign Missions, there is no evidence to support the claim that he leased an apartment directly from the U.S. State Department. The available documentation and court cases do not provide any basis for this assertion. Therefore, the claim appears to be unfounded based on the current information available.

Citations

Claim

Bill Barr's father was Jeffrey Epstein's high school teacher.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **Bill Barr's father was Jeffrey Epstein's high school teacher** is not accurate. Here's a detailed evaluation based on available information:

1. **Donald Barr and Jeffrey Epstein's Connection**: Donald Barr, the father of former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, was the headmaster of the Dalton School in New York City until the summer of 1974. Jeffrey Epstein began teaching math and physics at the Dalton School in 1974, shortly after Donald Barr's tenure ended[2][4]. There is no evidence to suggest that Donald Barr was Epstein's high school teacher. Instead, Epstein was hired as a teacher at Dalton, despite not having a college degree[2].

2. **Epstein's Background**: Epstein did not attend Dalton School as a student. He attended the Interlochen Academy of Arts and later dropped out of college[1]. His hiring at Dalton was unusual given his lack of formal education, but there is no indication that Donald Barr taught him in high school.

3. **Implications and Speculations**: The connection between the Barr family and Epstein has been subject to speculation due to the unusual circumstances of Epstein's hiring at Dalton and the later involvement of William Barr in overseeing Epstein's prosecution[3][5]. However, these speculations do not support the claim that Donald Barr was Epstein's high school teacher.

In conclusion, the claim that Bill Barr's father was Jeffrey Epstein's high school teacher is **false**. Donald Barr was the headmaster at Dalton School when Epstein was hired there, but he was not Epstein's high school teacher. Epstein was a teacher at Dalton, not a student, and there is no evidence linking Donald Barr as his high school educator.

Citations

Claim

Bill Barr worked for the CIA for seven years to start his career.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Bill Barr's CIA Employment Duration

The claim that Bill Barr worked for the CIA for seven years to start his career can be evaluated based on available biographical and employment records.

### Evidence and Findings

1. **Employment Duration**: According to reliable sources, Bill Barr worked for the CIA from 1971 to 1977, which totals six years, not seven[5]. Initially, he was hired as a summer intern in 1971 and later became a full-time employee while attending law school at night[3][5].

2. **Positions Held**: During his time at the CIA, Barr worked in the Intelligence Directorate and later in the Office of Legislative Counsel[1][2][5]. His experience at the CIA was formative, and he even interacted with CIA Director George H.W. Bush, who later influenced his career[3].

3. **Career Transition**: After leaving the CIA in 1977, Barr pursued a clerkship and then moved into private practice and roles within the Justice Department[2][5].

### Conclusion

Based on the evidence, the claim that Bill Barr worked for the CIA for seven years is **incorrect**. He was employed by the CIA for six years, from 1971 to 1977. This period was significant in his career development, but it does not align with the seven-year duration stated in the claim.

### Recommendations for Further Verification

For further verification, official employment records or detailed biographies from reputable sources can be consulted. However, the available information from trusted sources already confirms that Barr's CIA tenure was six years.

Citations

Claim

The National Security Council memo NSC 10/2 provided the CIA with a cloak of plausible deniability.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: NSC 10/2 and Plausible Deniability

The claim that the National Security Council memo NSC 10/2 provided the CIA with a cloak of plausible deniability can be evaluated by examining the content and implications of this directive.

### Background on NSC 10/2

NSC 10/2, issued on June 18, 1948, was a directive that expanded the CIA's role in conducting covert operations. It superseded NSC 4-A, which had initially authorized psychological warfare operations. NSC 10/2 defined covert operations as activities "so planned and executed that any US Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized persons and that if uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them" [1][2].

### Plausible Deniability in NSC 10/2

The concept of plausible deniability was indeed codified in NSC 10/2. This directive explicitly stated that covert operations should be designed to allow the U.S. government to deny involvement if they were discovered. This principle was crucial for maintaining secrecy and avoiding diplomatic repercussions [1][3].

### Implications of Plausible Deniability

Plausible deniability is a strategic concept that allows senior officials to deny knowledge or involvement in controversial actions. It is particularly relevant in espionage and covert operations, where maintaining secrecy is paramount. The CIA's use of plausible deniability under NSC 10/2 enabled it to conduct operations without overtly implicating the U.S. government, thus protecting national interests and maintaining diplomatic relations [5].

### Conclusion

Based on historical documents and analyses, the claim that NSC 10/2 provided the CIA with a cloak of plausible deniability is **valid**. The directive explicitly outlined the need for covert operations to be conducted in a manner that allowed the U.S. government to plausibly deny responsibility if they were uncovered.

### Evidence and References

– **NSC 10/2 Directive**: The directive itself defines covert operations in a way that ensures plausible deniability [1].
– **Historical Context**: NSC 10/2 was part of a broader strategy to counter Soviet activities during the Cold War, emphasizing the need for covert actions that could be disavowed if necessary [2][3].
– **Definition of Plausible Deniability**: This concept allows officials to deny involvement in controversial actions, which was a key aspect of NSC 10/2's approach to covert operations [5].

Citations

Claim

The Harvard endowment has made a huge amount of its funds by working with the U.S. State Department in foreign regime change operations.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Harvard Endowment Involvement in U.S. Foreign Regime Change Operations

The claim that the Harvard endowment has made a significant portion of its funds by collaborating with the U.S. State Department in foreign regime change operations lacks substantial evidence and appears to be unfounded based on available information.

### Harvard Endowment Overview

Harvard's endowment is a large financial asset that supports the university's mission of teaching and research. It is composed of over 14,000 funds, primarily dedicated to supporting faculty, students, and various academic programs[1]. The endowment's management is overseen by Harvard Management Company (HMC), which aims to produce strong investment returns to support the university's goals[1].

### Foreign Funding and Endowment

While Harvard does receive significant foreign funding, this is largely in the form of donations and contracts, not specifically tied to regime change operations. Between January 2020 and October 2024, Harvard received over $151 million in contributions from foreign governments, with a substantial portion coming from the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bangladesh[2]. However, these funds are primarily used for financial aid programs, educational expenses, and operational costs, rather than regime change activities[2].

### Lack of Evidence for Regime Change Involvement

There is no credible evidence linking Harvard's endowment to U.S. foreign regime change operations. The U.S. has historically been involved in regime change efforts, often through covert operations or diplomatic means[5]. However, these activities are not associated with Harvard's endowment management or funding sources.

### Conclusion

Based on available information, the claim that Harvard's endowment has profited from collaborating with the U.S. State Department in foreign regime change operations is unsubstantiated. Harvard's endowment is primarily focused on supporting academic and research activities, and its foreign funding is used for educational purposes rather than political interventions.

### Recommendations for Further Research

1. **Financial Records**: Review Harvard's financial reports and endowment management strategies to identify any potential connections to foreign policy initiatives.
2. **Historical Context**: Examine historical instances of U.S. regime change operations to understand their funding sources and whether any academic institutions were involved.
3. **Transparency and Disclosure**: Advocate for increased transparency in university funding and endowment management to clarify any misconceptions about their involvement in political activities.

Citations

Claim

Pepsi Cola company reached out to Henry Kissinger to help get rid of Allende in Chile.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Pepsi Cola Company Reached Out to Henry Kissinger to Help Get Rid of Allende in Chile

To evaluate the claim that Pepsi Cola Company reached out to Henry Kissinger to help get rid of Salvador Allende in Chile, we need to examine historical records and declassified documents related to the 1973 Chilean coup.

### Evidence and Context

1. **Agustín Edwards and Donald Kendall**: Agustín Edwards, a prominent Chilean businessman and owner of *El Mercurio*, was closely associated with Donald Kendall, the head of PepsiCo. After Allende's election in 1970, Edwards sought U.S. intervention to prevent Allende's inauguration. He traveled to Washington, D.C., where he met with CIA Director Richard Helms and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger[1].

2. **U.S. Involvement in Chile**: The Nixon administration, led by Kissinger, was actively involved in destabilizing the Allende government. The CIA conducted covert operations, including attempts to block Allende's inauguration and later to undermine his government through economic pressures and diplomatic isolation[2][4].

3. **PepsiCo's Role**: While there is no direct evidence that PepsiCo itself formally reached out to Kissinger, the connection between Edwards and Kendall suggests that influential figures with ties to U.S. corporations were involved in efforts to influence U.S. policy towards Chile. However, the primary drivers of U.S. intervention were geopolitical and economic interests rather than direct corporate requests[5].

### Conclusion

The claim that Pepsi Cola Company reached out to Henry Kissinger to help get rid of Allende in Chile is not directly supported by available evidence. However, it is clear that influential figures associated with U.S. corporations, like Agustín Edwards, played a role in seeking U.S. intervention in Chile. The U.S. government's actions were primarily driven by broader strategic and economic interests rather than specific corporate requests.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

– **Declassified Documents**: Further investigation should focus on declassified documents from the U.S. government, particularly those related to interactions between U.S. officials and Chilean or U.S. business leaders during the period leading up to the coup.
– **Historical Archives**: Examining archives related to PepsiCo and other U.S. corporations involved in Chile during the 1970s could provide more insight into their roles and motivations.
– **Academic Research**: Scholarly analyses of U.S.-Chile relations during this period can offer a nuanced understanding of the complex factors involved in the coup and its aftermath.

Citations

Claim

There was a CIA memo that indicates Epstein was doing work for the U.S. intelligence.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Jeffrey Epstein as a U.S. Intelligence Asset

The claim that Jeffrey Epstein was working for U.S. intelligence agencies is a topic of significant speculation and debate. To assess the validity of this claim, it is essential to examine available evidence and credible sources.

### Available Evidence and Speculations

1. **Alexander Acosta's Statement**: Former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta mentioned that he was told Epstein "belonged to intelligence," which led him to offer a lenient plea deal in 2008. However, Acosta never confirmed that Epstein was an intelligence asset, and this statement has been interpreted in various ways[1].

2. **Lack of Direct Evidence**: There is no publicly available CIA memo or classified document that directly confirms Epstein's involvement with U.S. intelligence agencies. The CIA document referenced in the search results does not pertain to Jeffrey Epstein but rather to a different topic[3].

3. **Speculations and Theories**: Investigative journalists and authors have speculated about Epstein's potential role as an "access agent" due to his connections with influential figures and his alleged use of blackmail. However, these speculations are not supported by concrete evidence from intelligence agencies[5].

4. **Investigations and Reports**: The U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility conducted an internal review regarding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement but did not find evidence linking him to intelligence work[1].

### Conclusion

Based on the available information, there is no concrete evidence from reliable sources to confirm that Jeffrey Epstein was working for U.S. intelligence agencies. While speculations and theories abound, they are not supported by direct evidence from intelligence agencies or official documents. The claim remains speculative without further disclosure of classified information or credible sources.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Access to Classified Documents**: Investigating this claim further would require access to classified intelligence reports or memos that might detail Epstein's involvement with U.S. intelligence agencies.

2. **Transparency and Scrutiny**: Calls for transparency and scrutiny over potential misconduct by intelligence agencies are crucial for resolving such speculations and ensuring accountability.

3. **Historical Precedents**: Examining historical cases of intelligence agencies' involvement with organized crime or controversial figures could provide context for understanding the complexities of such relationships.

Citations

Claim

Epstein met Wexner in 1985 at the same time as the strange assassination of Arthur Shapiro.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Jeffrey Epstein met Leslie Wexner in 1985 at the same time as the assassination of Arthur Shapiro, we need to examine the timelines and historical records of both Epstein and Wexner, as well as the context of Shapiro's murder.

## 1. **Jeffrey Epstein and Leslie Wexner's Relationship Timeline**
While there is substantial information about Jeffrey Epstein's later connections with Leslie Wexner, particularly regarding Epstein's management of Wexner's finances, there is no specific evidence to confirm they met in 1985. Epstein's rise to prominence and his association with Wexner are well-documented, but the exact timing of their initial meeting is not clearly established in available sources.

## 2. **Arthur Shapiro's Assassination**
Arthur Shapiro, a lawyer in Columbus, Ohio, was murdered on March 6, 1985, in a case that remains unsolved. The murder was described as a "mob-style" hit, and there were suspicions about connections to organized crime figures, including potential links to Berry L. Kessler, a Columbus accountant[1][3]. However, there is no direct evidence linking Shapiro's murder to either Epstein or Wexner.

## 3. **Leslie Wexner's Activities in 1985**
In 1985, Leslie Wexner was actively involved in his business ventures, including Victoria's Secret, which he acquired in 1982. There is no specific mention of Wexner being involved in or connected to Shapiro's murder in available sources[2][5].

## 4. **Potential Misconduct and Intelligence Involvement**
The discussion around potential misconduct by U.S. intelligence agencies and their connections to organized crime figures like Epstein is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. While Epstein's network and connections to influential figures are well-documented, there is no direct evidence linking these to Shapiro's murder or a meeting between Epstein and Wexner in 1985.

## Conclusion
Based on available information, there is no concrete evidence to support the claim that Jeffrey Epstein met Leslie Wexner in 1985 at the time of Arthur Shapiro's assassination. The timelines and historical records do not provide a clear connection between these events. Shapiro's murder remains unsolved and is suspected to be linked to organized crime, but there is no direct evidence linking it to Epstein or Wexner. The broader discussion about U.S. intelligence and organized crime involves speculative theories without concrete evidence to support specific claims about these individuals' involvement in Shapiro's murder.

Citations

Claim

The assumption that Bill Barr's Justice Department did not investigate Epstein's death is implied by issues with security footage and logs.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's Death

The claim that Bill Barr's Justice Department did not investigate Jeffrey Epstein's death is not supported by available evidence. In fact, Attorney General William Barr and other officials took several steps to ensure a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding Epstein's death.

### Official Investigations

1. **FBI and Inspector General Investigations**: Following Epstein's death, Attorney General Barr announced that the FBI and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) would conduct investigations into the circumstances of his death[1][2]. Barr stated, "We will get to the bottom of what happened and there will be accountability"[2].

2. **Barr's Public Statements**: Barr expressed his dismay and anger over the Metropolitan Correctional Center's (MCC) failure to secure Epstein properly, highlighting "serious irregularities" at the facility[2][3]. This indicates a commitment to uncovering the truth behind Epstein's death.

3. **Congressional Calls for Investigation**: Senators like Ben Sasse and representatives like Jackie Speier also called for investigations into Epstein's death and the broader context of his case, including the 2008 plea deal[1].

### Issues with Security Footage and Logs

While there were reports of irregularities and potential issues with security protocols at the MCC, such as staffing shortages and missed checks on Epstein, these do not imply a lack of investigation by the Justice Department[2][3]. Instead, they highlight the need for a thorough investigation, which was initiated.

### Conclusion

The claim that Bill Barr's Justice Department did not investigate Epstein's death is **misleading**. Official statements and actions by Barr and other officials demonstrate a clear intent to investigate the circumstances surrounding Epstein's death thoroughly. The investigations were aimed at addressing the serious irregularities found at the MCC and ensuring accountability for any federal employees at fault[1][2][3].

### Additional Context

The discussions around Epstein's case often involve speculation about his connections to influential figures and potential intelligence activities. However, these speculations do not directly relate to the claim about the investigation into his death. The focus of the Justice Department's actions was on addressing the immediate circumstances of his death and ensuring accountability within the prison system.

### Recommendations for Further Inquiry

For those interested in exploring the broader context of Epstein's case, including potential intelligence connections or organized crime links, it would be beneficial to review:

– **Official Reports**: Any released reports from the FBI and OIG investigations into Epstein's death.
– **Congressional Hearings**: Transcripts from hearings related to Epstein's case and the 2008 plea deal.
– **Academic and Journalistic Analyses**: Studies and articles examining the intersection of organized crime, intelligence services, and high-profile figures in similar contexts.

Citations

We believe in transparency and accuracy. That’s why this blog post was verified with CheckForFacts.
Start your fact-checking journey today and help create a smarter, more informed future!