On the podcast Stay Tuned with Preet, there was mention that big decisions like Epstein’s case were certainly made “up the chain” at the DOJ, and not by Acosta alone.
Another podcast (cannot remember the name) mentioned how it’s not uncommon for high powered attorneys of wealthy clients go on a dirt digging & intimidation mission re: the prosecutors.
I know nothing about any of it, beyond often wondering what the real story is.
It’s interesting to me that Judge Berman today cited the danger that Epstein poses to society in rejecting his request to be let out on bail. I would think that his wealth and the ease with which he could flee the country would have been the main reason to reject it.
I wonder what, if any, significance it has that the judge focused on the danger.
ETA - my impression could be based on the article I read; I don’t believe his order has been published yet. From the original article linked in the OP:
Was this the one where the principal refused to say that it was historical fact, saying that he had to be “politically neutral” about what he apparently saw as differences of political opinion?
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20190705/spanish-river-highs-principal-refused-to-call-holocaust-fact
What on earth does Epstein have to do with the irrational principal? Serious question. Or seaweed?
Sorry. But my county is just sad and angry.
I’m trying to be careful to not mention names or,particulars
UCB, yes and yes.
So much ick. I didn’t save the link, but I read some believe he wasn’t even really that successful professionally, ie no one knows anyone who invested their money, but that his real money came from all this stuff and bribery.
I’m not going to waste too much time worrying about everyone else, he’s quite a dirtbag who will probably never see the light of day again.
I want to know if Epstein was one of the sexual abusers Dalton–a top Manhattan private school–protected. (Epstein once taught there, but I don’t remember seeing his name among the sexual abusers there who were 'outed.")
According to Vanity Fair, within a short time, thousands of pages of transcript in one of the civil cases will be released and those mention lots of important men. One speculative claim is that President Bush #2 agreed to the deal to protect Prince Andrew, who allegedly was one of Epstein’s visitors. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-case-grows-more-grotesque
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/all-we-know-about-the-new-case-against-jeffrey-epstein.html
There is so much horrifying detail to the Epstein case, and so very many victims, that it just seems unbelievable. Epstein had 3 high powered lawyers that dealt with the charges in Florida - Jay Lefkowitz, Ken Starr, and Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz has also been accused of sexual assault by a woman who says she was assaulted by Epstein, and I have to wonder if he’s the one who put the clause in the plea agreement that Epstein’s co-conspirators would have immunity, and it would be nationwide (not sure if that will hold but that’s the gist of it). Did Dershowitz figure the dirty truth would come out?
But why would Acosta meet with these lawyers privately, off site of his department, and let them take charge of the plea agreement? Why would he file the plea in secret and not inform the victims? They had more than 30 victims - surely not ALL of them would be unreliable or easily intimidated. They could also potentially have called the people who enabled the enterprise: the people who recruited the girls, drove them back and forth, paid them, etc. It was a huge criminal organization.
There was also a defamation case against Ghislaine Maxwell from 2015 and settled in 2017 that names Epstein, and likely many others (2000 or so pages of documents from that case will be released soon, and will contain more detail that we probably don’t want to see). The woman in that case, Virginia Giuffre has also filed a defamation case against Dershowitz.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article232251212.html
One thing I’ve learned is that multi-millionaires are their own sovereigns.
There’s a Vanity Fair article about Epstein’s little black book, it has Trump in it and 20 phone numbers for Bill Clinton! https://apple.news/ASZrvT3-QT7iARucmpEZHKA
No one is, or should be, above the law. No one.
I suspect the reason Epstein was let off so easily may be because there were a lot of powerful people who participated in his fetish. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had evidences to implicate some of them and he threatened to take them down with him if they didn’t protect him.
I hope he does–and I don’t care which “side” they’re on or who they are.
What is it with men and sex?
(Absolutely stupid question, I know. But wouldn’t you think they’d learn?)
I’d like to think that most men don’t, and do not want to, coerce/procure/pressure/force “sex” with girls. (not “underage women” as the papers too often write.)
There was a case in the news a couple of days ago about a teacher (female) who had sex with a sixth grade boy several times. She got 20 years.
Good. She should have. But that shows you the difference between justice for a normal person, and justice for a person who supplies victims to the rich and powerful. Epstein wasn’t just a sexual predator. He was a trafficker, who presumably then blackmailed his “friends”.
As far as Epstein being a Friend of Bill…sexual harassment, assault, and even rape allegations have followed BC his entire public life…until suddenly, after Monica, they stopped.
Okay I know I’m going to sound like an idiot, but when they’re saying trafficking what exactly does that mean? I thought it was kidnapping girls, holding them hostage and selling them. Are there other things considered trafficking?
He is accused of sending some girls on to others (procuring girls for his friends), I think that’s the trafficking bit. @eyemamom
Hate the term “underage women.” Those were children!!! Girls. Just because they were forced to have sex with someone and had sex they don’t automatically become women.