I have not written about l’affaire Epstein and I do not intend to but, speaking of denial, if you believe that he has been getting the legal deals he has been getting for the last 20 years out of a spirit of bonhomie, you are not merely in denial but in a state of fugue. The only credible explanation I can come up with is that he has something on somebody. Maybe a lot of somebodies. Alexander Acosta is not the last notable on whom the mud will land.
Here’s your quiz for the day. Who is being shielded by the blanket non-prosecute deals (I suspect their legality is in serious question) in the Epstein matter?
- Alexander Acosta
- Bill and Hillary Clinton
- the entire upper echelon of Clintonistas (which means the DNC)
- Donald Trump (same social circle as Epstein)
- George W. Bush (it was during his presidency that most of these deals were forged)
- Alberto Gonzales (he was Attorney General when the deals were cut)
- Robert Mueller (he was head of the FBI when the deals were cut)
- Whoever was U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in 2007
- Barack Obama (he was president when the matter re-emerged in 2011)
- Eric Holder
- It goes a lot deeper than that
- Aw, they just cut deals like that for anybody with money. Or who they think has money.
My guess is that 1) the attempts to tar Trump with this particular brush are pretty feeble; 2) the Clintons’ reputation will be even more damaged if such a thing be possible; 3) the revelations have barely begun; 4) it could be all of the above; and 5) we may never know.
5.
The case will be dismissed due to double jeopardy. New evidence does not constitute a new crime.
The word is that a name dump is coming in days.
The Trump stuff is, yes, feeble. Its motivation is obvious. I seriously doubt Obama is materially involved. Bill Clinton will be knee deep. Other than those observations, its K.
I’ve not delved deeply into this, but the main thing that stands out is that statutory rape and related offenses are state crimes, and unless some additional factor is present (like interstate transportation), it’s not even clear what federal crimes were committed.
A reasonable interpretation of the deal with the feds (which included a confession to committing state crimes, restitution and signing up for the sex offender registry) is that this was the best that they could do given an unwillingness of the state prosecutor to do anything. And it’s not clear to me that any deal with the feds would preclude future state prosecutions under the dual sovereignty doctrine.
The focus is on Acosta because of his connection to Trump, but it should be on local government.
Forget the legalities here. They are irrelevant. The long knives have been sharpened. There’s going to be lot of blood on the floor. Whatever happens to Epstein will be but a footnote.
Epstein’s a con man. Whoever goes down deserves what they get. Young girls are not a commodity, at least in my book. But I wonder if Epstein won’t find support for his aberrant activities on the new left.
After all, they rode on his plane, ate at his buffet, drank at his bar, went skin to skin with a former POTUS, who are they to complain?
Just for the record I do not believe that Obama was involved in any way and the greatest extent of Eric Holder’s involvement is that he might have been consulted about the deals.
Mostly L. The world is different for the ultra rich.
“The focus is on Acosta because of his connection to Trump”
My understanding is that Acosta is the one who cut the deal, when as you point out it was kind of a state thing. Why did he do that, which is one reason he should be a focus. Also, like Bork, was he promised a job later in return for what he did? Finally, if there is a suspicion that there was corruption involved in this deal* then why wouldn’t you concentrate and get those involved who are still in office out?
* This could all just be a deal between two old law school buddies, perhaps with hopes of a better paying job in the future without any interference from higher ups.
Steve