This is scary tin foil hat stuff, but
[QUOTE=Squatty2;6739800]This sounds like bullshit due to the nature of the rotating providers. A honeypot tends to build a long standing relationship, Then starts asking for favors, etc. These chicks were here for a few weeks, and then off to another part of the country. This was purely a money scheme and they set up where the money was.
They have operations like this in every major city where men exist who make money. This one happened to get caught. There are operations in Manhattan, Queens, and many still functioning in the DC area. No one is being seduced / blackmailed out of the country's secrets based on these sorts of "agencies".[/QUOTE]The leverage that these agencies have over individuals has nothing to do with a single rotating provider, but to the fact that they frequent the establishments at all. The honeypot is the establishment, not the girl. To say you messed around with 1 girl, ok, you fell in love. To say that you are a regular and see many girls over many months or years, then that shows a pattern. That pattern is the leverage for blackmail or corruption that can cause weak people to be controlled. We all know that this happens, watch any James Bond film (smile).
Anyhow, that's my last comment on this. Back to our regularly scheduled program.
The speculation of a honeypot scheme is BS
[QUOTE=Derilious89;6739942]Technically speaking, we don't know for a fact that this is the case, since it's unlikely any of us would openly admit to getting blackmailed for secrets. But I do agree that the traditional MO for these types of incursions would be a long-term honeypot. It just doesn't make sense that guys would spill the beans on secrets after a few meetings; it usually needs to be a long-running "romance"/ sugaring situation. The agencies are set up to avoid that type of connection for their own protection by rotating the girls quickly before guys catch feelings.[/QUOTE]Yeah, and on top of that you have the fact that there is plenty of incentives to run a high end escort service that isn't a honeypot. The folks behind this are more likely to be traced back to some kind of organized crime than a foreign government. The PII they collect is to protect themselves, not to compromise people. Everything they do points to a shady outfit trying to make money. If you wanted to compromise people it would be a whole lot easier than creating an organization of this size.
Daily Mail is a notorious hype-rag
[QUOTE=Barkeater;6740061]Yeah, and on top of that you have the fact that there is plenty of incentives to run a high end escort service that isn't a honeypot. The folks behind this are more likely to be traced back to some kind of organized crime than a foreign government. The PII they collect is to protect themselves, not to compromise people. Everything they do points to a shady outfit trying to make money. If you wanted to compromise people it would be a whole lot easier than creating an organization of this size.[/QUOTE]The top bullet-point, immediately below the main headline, reads as follows:
"Investigators believe a network of high-end brothels operating in the Boston and D. C. Areas was a honey trap to ensnare politicians and government officials".
However, when you read through the article, at NO point do they mention having any info from anyone actually involved in the investigation. Instead, they quote anonymous intel "experts" and former spies who are quick to jump on the honeypot bandwagon. And they go to great lengths to explore why their honeypot theory is a strong one, while ignoring any facts that might argue otherwise.
Here's how it probably went down:
1. The Daily Mail either thought up the honeypot scenario by themselves, or one of the former intel "experts" suggested it.
2. The Daily Mail interviewed a shitload of people and threw out the scenario as bait to see who would grab it and run with it.
3. Not everyone agreed, so the article says it was a "consensus view" of the experts, and yet none of the dissenting opinions made it into the article.
4. No investigators were interviewed, so it would be a blatant lie to put that in the body of the article itself. Apparently headlines, and the supporting sub-headlines, are held to a lower standard. I guess they must think nobody will call them out for a clearly false and misleading bullet-point.
5. The Daily Mail then proceeded to insert a voluminous amount of irrelevant BS, such as info about Swalwell and Fang Fang, and about Menendez, and about Maria Butina. All of which has zero relevance except to add layers of BS to the article and to cast the illusion that the Daily Mail has the inside story!
British tabloid rubbish, in all its glory!
This is very easy for the cops
[QUOTE=ChrisCarr;6731784][URL]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/10-arrested-in-fairfax-county-sting-operation-for-soliciting-underage-encounters/ar-AA1ma0ny[/URL]
This was for catching hebephiles.[/QUOTE]Just showing up is a felony if they have the communication record proving that the guy thinks he is meeting an under 15 girl.
Update on local MA court proceedings
[URL]https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/probable-cause-hearings-announced-for-alleged-clients-in-mass-brothel-bust-case/3237248/[/URL]
My two-cents' worth:
The hearings are scheduled, in Cambridge MA, for Jan 18th, 19th, and 22nd. It's my assumption that these hearings will be limited to the 28 individuals referred to in the most recent news release, although there are no guarantees, so the number could be more (or less). Unless the list is released earlier, the court docket for the first hearing should be printed and posted the morning of the 18th. At that point the names of the clients scheduled for court (18th only) will be made public and those poor schmucks will be well and truly fucked. That's because, whether or not the hearings find probable cause, once outed the media will pounce like sharks in a feeding frenzy. And, assuming the docket is available to the media before the 10 am hearing (usually by 8:30 am), the media frenzy will start at that point. The likely outcomes for named (alleged) clients will be intense scrutiny, conviction in the court of public opinion, loss of job, divorce, etc.
IMHO, that first day's hearing is likely to stir up quite a shit-storm. I'm guessing at least some of the defendants' attorneys will make privacy-related motions and arguments. There's no way to predict in advance, but it's possible the judge could be persuaded to close some or all of the subsequent hearings. So there's a chance, even if a slim one, that clients scheduled for the 19th and 22nd (esp the 22nd) might escape the media frenzy (for the moment). That won't help those scheduled for court on the 18th, unfortunately.
Note: I'm working under the assumption that MA local courts post their dockets publicly, online and physically at the door of the actual court room, at the beginning of each day of scheduled hearings. If that's not the case, then the media frenzy will only start when they (media) have access to that list. Others have better knowledge of local MA procedures than I do, so feel free to correct any inaccuracies.
A lot will depend on how that first day goes. Both prosecution and defense attorneys will be assessing each hearing, and how the judge responds to various arguments and developments. I expect that attorneys who aren't scheduled until the 19th and 22nd will still attend the hearings on the 18th. Everyone, whether in MA or VA, will have plenty of info to process on the evening of the 18th.
Speaking of VA, I'm guessing local VA agencies will be watching closely and judging whether or not the script playing out in Cambridge will play well in Fairfax. It's still worthy of note that all we've heard in VA is radio-silence, so far. We'll have to wait and see if that changes.
P.S. Although the court has decided to hold public hearings, I wouldn't be surprised if one or more defense attorneys petitioned the court to reverse that decision. That would obviously need to happen before the 18th, so I'll be watching for any news on that front.
This video confirms my position. The honeypot is the brothel, not the girl
[QUOTE=DarkRai2;6744818]Found this Rumble video linked in The Liberty Daily. Former Rep. Madison Cawthorn mentions the "Honey Pot" scheme, pretty interesting to listen to, especially the part when three hot women approach him in a bar. [URL]https://rumble.com/v45shzu-former-rep.-madison-cawthorn-drops-the-ugly-truth-about-sex-compromised-mem.html[/URL].
One thing is true about the DMV, if you've lived here long enough and or work in certain fields, we know WE don't know the full story. Only what is told to the media.[/QUOTE]Once leveraged, the compromised politician will do whatever they say, including voting the wrong way or abstaining at the wrong time. Scary stuff! Review the OPSEC pages to stay low.
The Environment is Getting Hot on the East Coast
Fellow brothers,
Keep an eye open for your uncle at all times. Things are getting hot on the East Coast. Another bust that has ties to Virginia.
[URL]https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/man-arrested-east-coast-prostitution-ring-that-included-carolinas/GFTBSYA3HFERLMCG7D6P2CQMFE/[/URL]
Problems with that scenario
[QUOTE=BaconBread;6767840]#4 They drop all the legal proceedings against the Johns and the PC hearings never happen. Because the intent was always to squeeze them into testifying with the threat of prosecution, and the prosecutor may assess that the additional process isn't worth it. But who knows? Maybe there's a specific public figure they want to embarass.[/QUOTE]They've already publicly announced that they have (in their opinion) viable cases against approx 28 clients. That announcement has essentially constrained them with respect to what paths are realistically open to them.
The public vs private argument is really a side issue as the hearings can go forward either way. The prosecution has zero incentive to settle, or drop any charges, before the hearings for the defendants actually take place. If the result of a hearing is that probable cause is NOT found, then that case goes away by itself. But, for any hearing in which probable cause IS found, the pressure on that defendant increases massively and that's when the prosecution gains leverage and that's the point at which deals are usually made.
I don't necessarily agree that the intent of the prosecution is to persuade defendants to testify. From everything I've read and seen, the case against the three principals is pretty rock solid. I think the cases against the clients are intended to satisfy public and media demand for punishing the sex buyers and to send a message of deterrence. But, no matter how you slice it, no client will have any incentive to cooperate until after the hearings take place.
Right now it's the local magistrate on the hot seat, not the prosecution. LE can proceed equally well with the hearings in public or in private. If they were to drop charges against any of the defendants currently being targeted, that would result in a reputational hit of massive proportions, for no good reason. It would be like folding your hand before seeing any of the other players' cards. Think of the public outcry that would follow in the Boston area, at a minimum. Plenty of time to fold later, if warranted, but no reason to do so now and every reason to continue at least through the hearing process.
