Senator Renews Calls For An Investigation Into Sweetheart Deal Given Jeffrey Epstein After Abusing Dozens Of Young Girls

Sen. Ben Sasse, R.-Neb., has demanded an investigation into the sweetheart deal given to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein who was notorious for his infamous “Lolita Express” where he took friends like Bill Clinton by plane to his private estate on the Caribbean island of Little Saint James with young girls who allegedly were used as prostitutes.  Epstein was known for his preference for young women and powerful figures like Clinton were repeat guests.

Despite a strong case for prosecution, Epstein’s lawyers, including Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr, were able to secure a ridiculous deal with prosecutors. He was accused of abusing abused more than forty minor girls (with many between the ages of 13 and 17).  Sasse is correct, the handling of the case is a disgrace but it is unlikely to result in any real punishment. Certainly not for Epstein who pleaded guilty to a Florida state charge of felony solicitation of underage girls in 2008 and served a 13-month jail sentence.  Moreover, to my lasting surprise, the Senate approved the man who cut that disgraceful deal, former Miami U.S. attorney Alexander Acosta, as labor secretary.  The Senate did not seem to care that Acosta betrayed these victims and protected a serial abuser.  In other words, everyone was protected–he powerful Johns, Epstein, the prosecutors–just not the victims who were never consulted before Epstein got his sweetheart deal.

After the deal, it was revealed that not only did Clinton take the “Lolita Express” more than previously stated but that he notably told his Secret Service details not to come on the trips to what some called “Orgy Island.” Clinton was not the only fan of Epstein.  President Donald Trump referred to him as a “terrific guy” in 2002, saying that “he’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”  Epstein is accused of abusing dozens of teenage girls and running them like a stable for powerful political and business leaders. Notably, Harvard University received a $6.5 million gift from the sex offender but decided to keep the money.

The former money manager was facing a 53-page indictment that could have resulted in life in prison in jail. However, he got the 13 month deal.

In 2007, Acosta signed a non-prosecution deal in which he agreed not to pursue federal charges against Epstein. Acosta also protected the four women who the government said procured girls for him. Various potential witnesses like Clinton and Trump would be protected from the embarrassment of trial and possibly incriminating information. Not only that but Acosta stipulated “This agreement will not be made part of any public record.” I have never seen such an effort and arrangement in the federal system.  It is not uncommon to have a non-prosecution deal but the efforts made by the Justice Department to protect Epstein and these powerful men was breathtaking.

In a 2009 deposition, one key player said that federal prosecutors in Miami told him “that typically these kinds of cases with one victim would end up in a ten-year sentence.”

As for Acosta, his explanation of his handling of the case was pathetic. He wrote in 2011 that he yielded in the case because of  “a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors” by “an army of legal superstars” like Dershowitz and Starr.  He also wrote “The defense strategy was not limited to legal issues. Defense counsel investigated individual prosecutors and their families, looking for personal peccadilloes that may provide a basis for disqualification.”  That is bizarre. Most prosecutors would have the backbone to double their efforts in the face of such pressure. Instead, Acosta’s defense came off as a whining or whimpering excuse for letting these big bad lawyers scare him off.

Conchita Sarnoff, the author of “TrafficKing,” a book on the Epstein case, also said that Acosta that “he felt incapable of going up against those eight powerful attorneys. He felt his career was at stake.” What a disgrace, but the Senate confirmed him as a cabinet member.

Notably, while victims are supposed to be consulted on such deals or decisions under the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act, Acosta kept them in the dark and tried to conceal the whole deal until a judge years later ordered it to be unsealed.

I continue to hope for a real investigation into this case, but the same powerful figures behind Epstein are still forces in Washington.  Epstein may have abused young girls by the dozens but he made sure that some of the most powerful people in the world were part of his grotesque lifestyle.

107 thoughts on “Senator Renews Calls For An Investigation Into Sweetheart Deal Given Jeffrey Epstein After Abusing Dozens Of Young Girls”

  1. “If Comey had indicted Hillary, he would have convicted Obama.”

    – Andrew McCarthy, National Review

    If Acosta had fully convicted Epstein, he might have indicted Prince Andrew, Duke of York, with implications for one William Jefferson Clinton, Hillary et al.

    “In 2011, Andrew was forced to step down from his prominent position as special UK representative for trade after it was reported that Epstein had once hooked him up with a 17-year-old girl — one of a number of underaged girls Epstein allegedly groomed to entertain his powerful male friends.”

    – Mercury News

    “All the facts described above are not actually from a bizarre hypothetical, but rather, from the actual prosecution of billionaire hedge-fund manager Jeffrey Epstein, as detailed by a bombshell investigation from the Miami Herald. In 2008, then–U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta agreed to derail an active FBI investigation into a sex-trafficking ring — and let a man who was transparently guilty of molesting and/or raping dozens of underage girls serve a 13-month sentence (the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office then approved his 12-hour-a-day, six-days-a-week work-release arrangement). Acosta would later attribute the leniency of the agreement to, in part, harassment from Epstein’s high-powered legal team — which, according to the Herald, hired private investigators to dig up dirt on the billionaire’s victims, on the police officers investigating Epstein’s crimes, and on federal prosecutors.”

    – Intelligencer

  2. A far cut above regular media but still far too many illiterates to make any claims to fame. I did note the news today referenced several congressionals doing something or another which turned out to be four and that is the start line for several. 2 or three are ‘a few.’ Several are four to seven.’

    Even seasoned best selling authors get sold out by the editing using clips for magazines, calling much else by the wrong name and of course ‘decimate’ meaning kill one tenth as some kind of whole sale massacre.

  3. Tony – I do not care if Hillary is a lesbian, just if she is, she should not be in denial. I care about Hillary’s lack of moral compass. And it tickles me pink that she dropped to third as the most admired woman in America.

    1. There is a reason for that and it’s the same reason of the mass of urban housewives etc who voted for that slug. Same reason for calling everyone who disagrees with the left conservatives or referring to our Republic as a democracy.

      It’s leftish code the first for only certain types of women and that should go no furtheras it insults urban housewives, the second is from the progressives hand book of See The Elephant and the third the same.

      OH yes and claiming 2.8 million popularity poll results as votes.

    2. Paul, is Number ‘3’ really that humbling?

      There are probably about 170 million women in this country. To be ranked Number ‘3’ on the Most-Admired list doesn’t sound too shabby. But I suppose inside the right-wing media bubble that makes Trump supporters gloat with nerdy glee. There are, perhaps, ‘3’ Republican congresswomen.

      1. Peter Hill – for Hillary “I have a vagina so vote for me” Clinton, that is a humbling drop kick in the pantsuit. She led the list for 17 years. And the pollster is Gallup who is a Democratic pollster.

          1. Tony – I, on the other hand, pity those who will never have the chance to know me.

        1. Ben Franklin, we gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

          Franklin’s was a restricted-vote republic.

          Webster defines republic as representative governance by officials elected by a group of citizens entitled to vote.

          Early criteria were Male, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres.

          Never were the “poor,” foreigners or women intended to vote.

          Look around you. Look at America and tell me what you really think.

          Repeal, with extreme prejudice, the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th unconstitutional amenmdnets and the entire welfare state after declaring martial law.

          Martial law is not more illicit or deleterious than what liberal collectivists have done to the Constitution since Lincoln.

          Re-implement the literal “manifest tenor” of the Constitution:

          – Congress has merely the power to tax for “general Welfare” not “individual welfare.”

          – Congress has merely the power to regulate the “flow” or exchange of commerce not the design, engineering, production, marketing or any other aspect of free enterprise.

          – Congress has no power to claim or exercise – to possess or dispose of – private property which is held “…in exclusion of every other individual…” including the government, according to Madison.

          No central planning, no control of the means of production (i.e. regulation), no redistribution of wealth, no social engineering – none of the preceding in any form.

          Thank you, Ben Franklin.

  4. This whole thing stinks to high heaven. I enjoy Alan Dershowitz’s opinions, whether I agree with him or not, but in this matter he sorely disappointed me.

    The entire matter needs to be investigated, including whether Bill Clinton engaged in pedophilia or otherwise abused minors. The well-connected are not supposed to be outside the reach of justice, but that is not the case in America today. Justice is not equal for all, and there are many rotting in prison for far lesser crimes. My heart goes out to the girls. At that age, they were not equal adversaries with their far older, more sophisticated groomers. What chance did they have against the Epstein machine?

    Everyone involved needs to be investigated, including additional possible perps. This is a black eye on the justice system that will live in infamy.

      1. I don’t know. Can they re-sentence Epstein? I am also concerned that there may be significant numbers of well-connected perps out there who got away with abusing kids.

      2. DB Benson,…
        -It looks like Epstein already got the best justice that money can buy.😉



    The Herald story, linked below, is extensively detailed (about a 15 minute read). It appears their story was motivated when Alex Acosta’s name made the short list of replacements for Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. One day after this story was published, Acosta’s name was withdrawn from that short list.

    The fact that Donald Trump appointed Acosta as Labor Secretary is somewhat curious. Trump was, by all accounts, acquainted with Epstein and they both have homes in Palm Beach. Curiously famed attorney Alan Dershowitz was one of Epstein’s lead defenders. Dershowitz has since become a defender of Donald Trump.

    During Acosta’s Senate hearings for confirmation as Labor Secretary, California Senator Diane Feinstein made light of the plea deal Acosta agreed to with Epstein. Feinstein pointed out that any U.S. Attorney receptive to such a deal (which may have been illegal) was very poor choice for Labor Secretary.

    Here’s the MIAMI HERALD story; a very intriguing read!

    1. And this: Giuffre v. Maxwell
      December 17, 2018
      The Reporters Committee and 32 media organizations filed an amici brief in support of the Miami Herald’s appeal before the Second Circuit on its motion to unseal Giuffre v. Maxwell. The district court denied the Miami Herald’s motion to unseal the underlying case, a defamation lawsuit brought by one of the alleged victims of sex trafficking by financier Jeffrey Epstein. The amici brief highlights the importance of public access to judicial records, arguing that the district court erred in dismissing the significant public interest in the records of this case. It further argues that the district court should have done an individualized right of access analysis on each judicial record, rather than authorizing blanket sealing and redaction.

      I am unable to get links in. This is from the Reporters Committee.

      This information needs to come out. Trump and the Clintons are tight and they are all tight w/Epstein. There is a reason that his cabinet looks the same as H. Clinton’s would have.

      1. Jill, the Miami Herald is spearheading an effort to nullify Epstein’s 2007 plea deal. It seems Alex Acosta violated statues requiring that victims be formally notified of pending plea deals.

        1. PH, Yes, and I hope this will happen.

          Paul, pay attention to pictures of the Trumps and Clintons together. There are tons of these pictures. Look at the cabinet picks. Clinton or Bush could have chosen the same people. Bill, Hill and Don have all been to Jeff’s island. Think about it! They are all abusers. You have to look at this and get past propaganda.

          1. Jill – Trump has known and contributed to the Clintons for years. However, check out the YouTube by Body Language Ghost of the funeral. She breaks down the body language going on.

            1. Paul,

              You remind me of the Obama supporters. They refused to look at what he was actually doing, who told him to what to do and who to put in his cabinet. Trump is Bush’s 5th term, just like Hillary would have been. Obama people always excused him and that’s what Trump people are doing now.

              If you voted for a neoliberal and neocon foreign and domestic policy then you should be real happy w/Trump and his appointments and actions. If, like many people, you wanted to stay out of foreign wars and MAGA up then you need to start criticizing Trump right now. I really hoped the Trump people wouldn’t be so bamboozled like the Obama people were. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. If you feel like it, try reading @jaredbeck. He’s taking on the DNC along w/his wife, Elizabeth Beck.

      2. Jill – if you think Trump and the Clinton’s are tight, you did not see the film from Poppy’s funeral.

        1. PC Schulte,…
          Before Trump decided to run for office, he may have been “tight” with the Clintons.
          They were guests at Trump’s wedding —the Melania one–and Trump said some very complementary things about Hillary when she was Sec. of State.
          But I did sense “some”😉😀hostility between them that surfaced in the 2016 campaign, and that mutual hostility is still present.

        2. PC Schulte,
          …- Long before Bush 41’s funeral, there were indications of animosity and awkwardness in the Trump/ Clintons’ relationship.
          I’m not an expert on reading body language or facial expressions, but I watched Bill Clinton very closely during the 2016 debate when Trump invited Bill’s sexual assault accusers to the debate.

            1. One of the people Trump invited to the debate to embarrass the Clintons was Kathy Shelton, who was raped in the 1970s when she was 13.
              One of her rapists got off with serving only 10 months, largely due to the efforts of his court appointed lawyer, Hillary Clinton.
              Even without the $$$ and representation of a Jeffery Epstein, sometimes defendants just luck out.
              Not likely that the plea deal that got him off with ten months will be re-examined, but this case and others illustrate the vagaries and inconsistencies that can surface in our criminal jystice system.

      3. Jill – ” There is a reason that his cabinet looks the same as H. Clinton’s would have.”
        That’s a ridiculous statement! Any of Clinton’s choices would have at least been vetted and none would have just been waved through by the Republican Senate like Trump’s choices. Clinton’s choices would have to have at least the appearance of being qualified (unlike Carson) or not be currently under investigation as Pruitt was at the time.

        1. That’s a ridiculous statement!

          LOL! Fortunately Clinton was vetted and subsequently rejected; so we’ll never know just how ridiculous your statement was.

          1. Olly – Hope you had a nice Christmas and enjoy the New Year.
            It may be generally true that Cabinet choices of Republican’s and Democrats may not be all that different. Trump gave us DeVos, Carson, Pruitt, Zinke, a handful of Generals (all since departed). Please suggest just one Cabinet member you believe Clinton would have nominated? Ross was head of the Bank of Cyprus which was/is arguably the largest money laundering operation in the world (Deutsche Bank might object). Pruitt was under investigation and refusing to turn over his Emails with energy companies. DeVos had conflicts up the yin yang with her ties to private charter schools. Sessions would never have been nominated by a Democrat with his past statements that kept him from being a Federal Judge. Name one? Mnuchen got rich foreclosing on people while at Indy Bank. Name one?

            1. I agree, Enigma, there’s not ‘one’ Trump cabinet pick that Clinton would have chosen. But Bernie Bros loved pushing that narrative that Trump and Clinton were ‘both the same’.

              1. Why would anyone care what a Bernie Bro thought? Don’t play their game. Besides Jill is soooo smart she really doesn’t need your agreement.

              2. PH,

                You make me laugh calling me a Bernie Bro. I’ve never supported Bernays! Why on earth would I recommend reading @jaredbeck if I was a Bernays supporter? he and his wife are suing the DNC for rigging the primary. Bernays was clearly in on the rigging, thus it would be Clinton and Bernays who messed w/the 2016 election, not Trump. And you know, all Trump’s GS people that he was told to put in place? Do you really think a woman who got better than a cool 1/2 million wouldn’t have picked GS people for her team? Please, that is hilarious!!!!!! And don’t forget, Bolton and she have been gunning for Iran for years.

                I don’t agree w/everything that’s on @jaredbeck but he brings in people on the right, far right, left and far left plus the Beck’s have their own opinion. They have endured death threats on behalf of this lawsuit. I’d say they can be wrong but they are certainly gutsy and if you can open your mind to read differing opinions, it’s an interesting place to check out!

              3. There were people like Ron Brown and Mike Espey in the Clinton cabinet, and in the Clinton Administration.
                Before anyone starts squawking about “whataboutism”, I didn’t bring up Clinton.😉😊😂

            2. I had a great Christmas Enigma and pray you and your family did as well. Happy New Year!

              Please suggest just one Cabinet member you believe Clinton would have nominated?

              To what end? Okay then, George Soros for Treasury. Mills for AG. Blum (Feinstein’s husband) for Transportation. Adamov for Energy. Any Mexican matador for Homeland Security. Should I continue?

              No seriously, my opinion on who her choices might have been is thought exercise I have no interest in. But thanks for asking.

                1. Clintons ARE progressive socialists. You don’t get away with that one. Socialists ARE far left

                  1. Michael – You’re entitled to your opinion. Several here believe Jonathan Turley to be a progressive leftie when all I see is him providing cover for the right. To each his own. The Clintons, unlike many progressives, never caused Wall Street or the military industrial complex to fear, they knew they would continue to get what they wanted.

              1. Awesome, you and your ilk are fixated on this Soros character. Whatever it is you wingnuts think he’s done is miniscule to the froth he generates in your heads.

                to “wasn’t he on the grassy knoll and the trail driver on the migrant caravan?” olly

            1. She didn’t. Each state gets one electoral vote per Senator and per Representative. California has the most then NY, FL, TX, IL Mass etc. Her count comes from the popularity poll which is not a legal voting mechanism for the top two and only federal jobs requiring elections. In the end she got 45% and Trump got 55% of the legal votes. End of basic civics 101 for those with a social diploma.

              1. I’ll add that those two races require fifty% plus one vote unlike the state level which often go with the most even if under 50%. That is up to the States.

                It should apply to delegates to the federal government since SCOTUS exempted them from state voting laws as specified in The Constitution = or = they should be up for recall, term limits etc. One or the other. That SCOTUS was wrong for those two reasons. It needs a revisit when we get a real SCOTUS.

                What it really needs is their basic pay provided by the State as the principle employer the cost of going to and from and life in DC etc. the responsibility of the Federal Government.

              2. Michael, I notice you’re calling the Popular Vote a ‘poll’. Like it really means nothing. What a bunch of tripe!

                The fact is that Trump’s so-called ‘Electoral Victor” came down to just 80,000 people in three states.

                In other words, 80,000 people were able to over-ride the votes of 2.8 million. Doesn’t sound like democracy.

                1. A lot of people seem to make the assumption that the results of the popular vote would be exactly the same if

                  the popular vote determined the winner.
                  Candidates campaign to win states and electoral votes; if the Electoral College were to be abolished, and the nationwide popular vote determined the winner, the campaigns would adopt a much different strategy.
                  E.G., it’s a given that California will go for the Democratic presidential candidate; the GOP candidate will lose those 55 Electoral College votes if he loses CA. by 3-4 million votes, or if he loses CA by 3or4 thousand votes.
                  Therefore, there is no real incentive to campaign hard in a state like California for a GOP presidential candidate.
                  If the margin of victory in a lopsided state like California mattered, as it would if the nationwide popular vote determined the winner, candidates would try to narrow that gap, the “vote deficit”, in that state.
                  The CA. vote favored Hillary by about 4,000,000 votes, as I recall. So California account for ALL of the popular vote deficit, and then some.
                  We don’t know what the total popular vote would be if we changed the rules that were established c.230 years ago.
                  So if the complaint is that U.S. presidential elections “don’t sound like democracy”, we haven’t had a democracy for over 2 centuries and that is the “fault” of those who wrote the U.S. Constitution.
                  It’s extremely unlikely that an Amendment will change the current Electoral College system, but for the sake of argument, lets say that the popular vote determines the winner.
                  In a close nationwide popular vote, you’d be looking at a nationwide, state-by-state recount.
                  If a candidate lost by, say, a half of one percent ( or c. 700,000 votes), you could be looking at a mess like the 2000 Florida recounts playing out in each state.
                  As far as the 80,000 votes in a few states determining the outcome, a shift of less than 10,000 in 1976 would have given the election to Ford instead of Carter.
                  A shift of about 60,000 votes in Ohio would have given Kerry a win over Bush 43, despite the fact that Bush won the popular vote by about 3,000,000.
                  I think Kerry and others considered asking for a recount in California, but ultimately decided that they could not “gain” c. 60,000 votes in a recount.
                  So we can play these “what if” numbers games in at least a couple of other elections in modern history.

                  1. Tom, the Electoral College system was an incentive the founding fathers used to entice small states like New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island and Delaware to join the new country. Some of them had been reluctant to join because they feared domination by larger former colonies like Virginia and Pennsylvania.

                    But today the Electoral College allows small states to dominate much bigger states. 75% of America lives in the 20 largest states. Yet the 30 smallest states, with only one quarter of the population, have more than half the electoral votes required for victory. That’s in addition to the 60 senators who represent the 30 smallest states.

                    Take the Dakota’s, for instance. North and South Dakota combined have only about 1.7 million people. That’s about the same population as the city of Philadelphia. Not ‘metro Philadelphia’, just the city itself. Yet the Dakotas combined have 4 U.S. senators and 6 Electoral College votes (plus 2 congressmen). The people of Philadelphia have nowhere near that level of representation.

                    California has more people than the 20 smallest states combined. Yet those 20 states have more Electoral College votes than California and New York combined. And that explains why ‘2’ recent Republican presidents were able to squeak by on Electoral College victories; ‘people in small towns are more likely to vote Republican’. That explains why America is so polarized along urban and rural lines.

                    We can’t keep having Republican candidates win by Electoral College. It creates a very widespread perception that the system is rigged in favor of White folks in small towns. That perception is eroding faith in our democracy.

                    1. I’ll remind you that in 2004, we had a Democratic candidate who came very close to winning the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote by 3,000,000.
                      Had that occurred, the criticism of the E.C. system would have been muted by many of those complaining about it now.
                      Since the the 2000 and 2016 election broke for the GOP candidate, and Kerry did not benefit in 2004, we now see some claiming that there’s a continuing threat of ” Republican candidates winning by Electoral College.”
                      The “big state/ small state” compromise was worked out over 200 years ago.
                      There are still some who begrudge states like Wyoming and North Dakota their 2 Senators and their 1 Congressman, and would prefer that the largest states hog an even larger share.
                      VS. “only” the 55 Senators and Congress members that California now has.
                      It would be fine with some people to undo the compromise reached in the 18th Century so that the largest states could have even more domination over the less populous states states.
                      No matter how much you like to play with numbers, Peter, you’re beating a dead horse.
                      It’s extremely unlikely that you’ll see a Constitutional Amendment unraveling the current system.

    2. He was on the short list for AG: sez who?
      All I can find are the unattributed assertions that are the usual stock in trade of the Washington/East Coast elite media when it comes to any story that tarnishes Trump.
      “Sources” don’t cut it for me in the context of the media mendaciousness that many of us have decried for a long time, but has been turned up to “11” since the rise of Trump.
      Every one now knows that “sources” in Washington, more often than not, means power-tripping bureaucrats or even spooks with axes to grind. If they’re actual sources at all.
      You don’t get to extraconstitutionally destroy a presidency with tales of “sources say.” Especially not now.

  6. Turley omits that Epstein, according to what I have read in several places, had the cushiest “prison” on record. He was allowed to check out in the morning and return to his cell at bedtime. I am less outraged by Epstein’s conduct than that of the people who protected him or failed to prosecute him honestly. As for Trump, his comment on “young women” could possibly be a hint at what was going on rather than an endorsement of it.

    1. That’s another indicator that Epstein knows stuff and the prosecutor had a passable idea of what and about whom. You can’t hold Acosta legally accountable. You can impanel something like a ‘truth commission’. We’d benefit from learning who he and the judge were protecting from consequences, and who they thought they were protecting.

    2. According to the Miami Herald, Epstein was housed in a private wing of the Palm Beach jail. And he was allowed to leave jail 6 days per week to work from his private office down the road.

      1. I’m sure that sex offenders (especially those who have been convicted of non contact crimes) are impressed with the sweet deal that they could never even dream of. Many have lost their homes, jobs, friends, families, and even the right to speak or see their own children for making one stupid mistake. Even when they have paid their dues, they are on public registries (some for life) that shame them forever. Is this really the kind of justice system we want? Ruining the lives of those who have not even had contact with a minor and yet letting someone who is rich who has had lots of contact basically fly free? This is truly an outrageous sentence bought by power and wealth. It’s so wrong on every level.



    Recent revelations about billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s sweetheart deal with government prosecutors — thanks to a cadre of all-star defense attorneys who basically treated underage accusers like throwaways — are the tip of the iceberg in a scandal of money, power, sex, corruption and boys’ club criminality.

    The story has all the makings of a Hollywood blockbuster but for the sexual abuse of girls as young as 14 — and a decade-long process in which lawyers allegedly violated the victims’ rights under federal law.

    It all begins in 2005 when Epstein was accused of sexually assaulting a teenage girl at his Palm Beach home. Law enforcement expanded the investigation to other alleged assaults, including at his private isle in the U.S. Virgin Islands, which, as has been exhaustively reported, was frequented by celebrities.

    Epstein’s attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz and former Whitewater prosecutor Ken Starr, negotiated a non-prosecution agreement that ultimately afforded Epstein an absurdly lenient sentence: Just over a year in the county jail, sort of. Epstein was allowed to stay in a vacant wing of the jail and spend up to 12 hours a day in his office, six days a week. The agreement called for him to plead guilty to two state charges of soliciting prostitution, to pay restitution to some of the alleged victims, and to register as a sex offender.

    To say the least, this coup of disgrace was shamefully misleading, since under Florida law, someone under 18 can’t consent to sex and, therefore, can’t technically be a prostitute. It is otherwise ridiculous given the credible allegations in a 53-page, federal draft indictment, effectively dropped, which could have put him away for life.

    When the Miami Herald re-examined the case and published its deeply investigative story last month, the focus was largely on the role played by then-U.S. attorney and current U.S. Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta. Many have called for Acosta’s resignation, and Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., has requested a Justice Department probe into the case’s “epic miscarriage of justice.”

    Epstein’s attorneys and their investigators conducted in-depth, intimate interviews with some of the girls — doubtlessly aimed at discrediting the girls. Police reports reviewed by the Miami Herald show that the private investigators tried posing as police officers to conduct interviews — and picked through the Palm Beach police chief’s trash as U.S. Attorney Barry Krischer was trying to convince him to reduce the charges against Epstein to a misdemeanor.

    Ten years ago, many of the alleged victims were children and likely unaware of their rights. Now fully informed adults, many of the women — perhaps energized by the #MeToo movement — are seeking to set aside the non-prosecution agreement so that their voices can be heard.

    There’s no doubt that Epstein’s accusers were denied their rights under the 2004 federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Among other things, the law asserts that accusers are to be notified of any legal proceedings, including plea deals; and they or their attorneys are to be present at such proceedings, if so desired.

    None of this happened.

    Indeed, one of Epstein’s lawyers wrote a letter to Acosta on Oct. 23, 2007, that read in part: “I also want to thank you for the commitment you made to me during our October 12 meeting in which you … assured me that your Office would not … contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter.”

    For his part, Acosta has said that his judgment at the time was that a jury trial might not be the best route and a plea deal guaranteed jail time. Whether this is a valid perspective can be argued, but it seems in the context of victims’ legal rights a quite-charitable view.

    The sealed, non-prosecution agreement not only granted federal immunity to Epstein and four named accomplices but also to “any (unnamed) potential co-conspirators.” Wouldn’t we like to know those names? Some accusers have named other men with whom they allegedly had sex, but in the absence of evidence or an indictment, the accusations remain just that.

    Rest assured, the case is far from over. While Epstein is the locus of what’s being told primarily as a political tale via Acosta, the more-important story is about how power and money colluded to let a sex-obsessed monster get away with serial rape, underage sex trafficking, and conspiracy to violate federal law — and the big-league lawyers who allegedly helped him do it.

    Complete article from: “Epstein Accusers Deserve Due Process”

    12/12/18, Kathleen Parker, THE WASHINGTON POST

    1. The feds and local police constantly harass Chinese massage parlors and even restaurants for bogus nonexistent “human trafficking” but when they bag a real one, it’s a slap on the wrist !


      Is basically a condensed version of THE MIAM HERALD story posted further up.

  8. “The defense strategy was not limited to legal issues. Defense counsel investigated individual prosecutors and their families, looking for personal peccadilloes that may provide a basis for disqualification.” That is bizarre..

    I find it difficult to believe a conlaw professor who lives and breathes D.C. politics would consider that bizarre. That strategy is as old as original sin. It’s at the root of power and influence. It’s what fueled (dossier) the Mueller investigation; and it’s what nearly derailed the Kavanaugh confirmation. This is a key strategy in the weaponization of the modern administrative state. This is the grease that makes Lawfare effective. The only difference between this strategy and that used by the mob is the mob will disqualify someone permanently.

  9. This is indeed necessary. Epstein is a predator and should be behind bars. His interaction with the Clintons also should be investigated. The American public will be horrified when they learn the truth.

      1. Yes. Anyone and everyone, including Bill Clinton and Trump.

        “Trump has also indicated publicly he knew of Epstein’s interest in “younger” women, although he never suggested the financier crossed any legal lines. “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,’’ Trump told New York Magazine back in 2002. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.””

        1. Excerpt from the Politico link:

          A lawyer for Trump says the president was unaware of any wrongdoing by Epstein.

          Giuffre asserts in her complaint that Maxwell, the sole defendant in the suit and the daughter of late publishing magnate Robert Maxwell, routinely recruited underaged girls for Epstein and was doing so when she approached the $9-an-hour locker room attendant at Mar-a-Lago in 1999 about giving massages to the wealthy investment banker.

          Giuffre alleges that Maxwell ultimately trained her in how to give “massages” to Epstein that involved sex acts and, essentially, prostitution. When Maxwell publicly denied the allegations and called Giuffre a liar in 2015, that gave her the opening to head to federal court and file the defamation suit now headed for trial.

          An attorney for Maxwell did not respond to requests for comment. In court papers, Maxwell has denied knowledge of or involvement in any illegality. A lawyer for Epstein did not return messages seeking comment; he’s repeatedly invoked his 5th Amendment rights in depositions in the Giuffre suit and other cases.

          Epstein, 64, was a regular for several years at Mar-a-Lago. Testimony in a prior court case indicated that Trump flew at least once on one of the planes Epstein owned and Trump’s phone numbers were in Epstein’s personal phone directory.

          The Politico article cited by anonymous is over a year and a half old; I think the plaintiff settled the civil suit with Maxwell, Epstein’s girlfriend and alleged “recruiter” of underage girls.
          The legal team representing Epstein, the prosecutors involved in the plea deal, and the plea deal itself have all been under scrutiny, and the subject of criticism, for a long time.
          ( The article I’ve linked here is 3 1/2 years old).
          It looks like payoffs may have complicated efforts to prosecute. If victims and alleged victims were “incentivized” to remain silent in exchange for large payments, the prosecution might find it difficult to bring at least some of the charges against Epstein.
          The “deep pockets” of the accused not only buys the best legal representation, but can affect the behavior of potential witnesses.
          I think both Michael Jackson and Bill Cosby shelled out substantial amounts in “settlements” that prevented or delayed prosecution.
          If the Senate decides to press the Sasse/ Acosta issue covered in JT’s column, I don’t think that Acosta will be the sole target and subject of a Senate investigation.
          If there is Senate action, most of it would seem likely to be a rehash of facts that are already known.
          Maybe Sen. Sasse and others actually have significant, “fresh” information to work with.
          But it looks to me like the questions and accusations he’s now raising could have been brought forward years ago.

  10. How about the role of then FBI Director Robert Mueller? The Federal investigation was run from DC, and three months after Epstein’s plea deal was signed, the FBI admitted they hadn’t yet interviewed all the victims. Why? An FBI memo dated 9/18/2018 stated: “Epstein has also provided information to the FBI as agreed upon.” Was Epstein collecting blackmail material for Mueller? Was Mueller protecting Epstein just as he protected Whitey Bulger? You can see the actual documents by searching for The Gateway Pundit, “Robert Mueller’s FBI Gave Orgy Island Billionaire Epstein Easy Go.”

    1. It’s hard to believe so many of the reporters and pundits, including Turley, are unaware that Epstein’s girlfriend is the daughter of the murdered publisher / Mossad agent Robert Maxwell, aka “Israel’s Superspy,” or that Epstein was reported to have his houses wired with video and sound devices.

  11. Two-tiered justice at its worse. Anybody who doesn’t think it exists needs a candid talk with a lawyer whose been in the trial trenches. It’s here, it’s queer and it ain’t going anywhere until the public revolts against it.

    1. The public revolts against little but property tax hikes and contaminated water. In some parts of the country, poor performance during an ice storm or a blizzard kills you. In others, a hint that the football program might be cancelled kills you. Occasionally, you’ll see a politician brought down by trivia which resonates with voters (e.g. the Governor of Massachusetts whose public standing was destroyed when the media made it public that staff in her office had watched her kids on occasion and that she had sometimes used state aircraft to commute to her home in western Massachusetts).

      Politicians who lose face are commonly the object of bad publicity, and that’s a conspiracy between rival political figures and the media. See the fate of David Patterson, who is arguably the most conscientious and decent man to occupy the Governor’s chair in New York in the last 35 years.

  12. Donald Trump having said agreeable things about Jeffrey Epstein a half-dozen years before he came to the attention of law enforcement is put on the same plane with Bill Clinton having made repeated visits to Epstein’s locus of criminal activity. Does Turley ever quit backing and filling?

    It’s a reasonable inference that Acosta was anxious about what was under the rock, and elected to bury the case for that reason. Looking at his background, you can tell that (1) he’s not a dullard and (2) he had other things to do with his life than work for the Department of Justice.

    Trump needs to improve his personnel system.

    What the Prof. refuses to acknowledge is that the case is an exemplar of how horrid our legal system is, and how much discretion it vests in horrid people simply because they have JD degrees.

    1. What system is better? Ours sucks but maybe it sucks less worse than alternatives. Would it be better To have janitors or say union bosses judge cases? Easy to criticize not easy to fix

      1. 1. It commonly takes years to process cases criminal and civil. See Mark Steyn’s commentary on a civil suit he’s been involved in in the District of Columbia and on how American courts contrast with Canadian and British courts.

        2. Note in some states the wretched excess of discretion judges have over sentencing.

        3. Note also the wretched excess of discretion prosecutors have over the severity of charges.

        4. Note the use of plea bargains to secure perjured testimony, as well as the use of jailhouse snitches.

        5. Note the lack of accountability of prosecutors and judges for even the grossest misconduct.

        6. Note how haphazard is the provision of counsel to the indigent.

        7. Note the mess the appellate courts have made of evidentiary rules.

        8. Note the lack of a system for indemnifying defendants for the cost of mounting a defense when they’re acquitted or largely acquitted.

      2. While we’re at it, why do we have elected coroners, and why do we locate the coroner’s jurisdiction at the county level? The average county in this county has about 100,000 residents. There’s about 1 board certified forensic pathologist for every 300,000 people.

        1. How else should we select the people with power to either expose or conceal homicides?

      3. Would you agree to to a system where voting is regulated by bilionaires? Like California’s

      4. I would start with:
        1) Severely limit lawyer participation in government
        2) Simplify laws, procedures, and regulations made overly complicated by and for the benefit of the lawyer caste.

    2. I agree with you about the JDs. We could get by with 1/4 as much government and probably 1/4 the lawyers.
      As biased as I think Turley can be, I think his mentioning of Trump here was fair and properly contextualized next to Clinton’s many flights to Orgy Island. He did not infer guilt.
      No one as yet, to my knowledge, has demonstrated Trump ever went specifically to the island — although he reportedly took one or two flights with Epstein.
      Of course, Trump haters live on substance-free inference and love to draw false equivalencies between Trump and Clinton on the basis of that one statement alone.

  13. Men and women and even children who have been convicted of far less, including non contact sex offender crimes are given far harsher sentences than Epstein. This isn’t justice at all. He is still living the life of luxury, traveling to the Caribbean, working the whole time his prison sentence was being completed, getting special privileges in prison. Sex offenders often lose their jobs, families, homes for doing far less than he has. Many offenders are children themselves. Not everyone on the sex offender registry is a violent predator. It’s time we change the laws to make it very clear that serial predators like Epstein don’t get a pass while some schmoe who looked at a few pictures or fell victim to an internet sting doesn’t have their life ruined forever. Money and power should not let those like Epstein buy their way out of what others have no means to do.

    1. The pitchman for Subway got a 14 year minimum sentence and his confederate got a 27 year minimum sentence. What the fellow who got the 27 year minimum did was to take surreptitious photographs of friends of his children while they used his house bathroom, making use of an aperture in the wall. What the Subway ptichman did was to trade filthy pictures with this guy and to try to arrange assignations with teenage girls via a 3d person. These were deemed to be federal charges because reasons.

      So, we have draconian sentences for a couple of pervs who never injured or corrupted anyone while the guy who runs a sex colony populated with teen girls is let off with a sentence less than one-tenth what the pervy Mr. Fogle and his confederate received.

      Because our judges and prosecutors stink. Every president should have a three-digit staff in the White House reviewing every federal sentence over a certain duration and commute commute commute. There should be some judges and prosecutors for whom every case they handle gets reviewed.

  14. Ṓƒţϵﬡ ţḯӎϵƨ ƨḉħӎǔḉҟƨ łḯҟϵ Σᴘƨţϵḯﬡ ҟϵϵᴘ ϵⱴḯđϵﬡḉϵ äǥäḯﬡƨţ ţħϵḯᴦ ᴘѳѡϵᴦƒǔł ḉǔƨţѳӎϵᴦƨ äƨ äﬡ ḯﬡƨǔᴦﬡäḉϵ ᴘѳłḯḉƴ. Ḯ ѡѳǔłđ ﬡѳţ Ƀϵ äţ äłł ƨǔᴦᴘᴦḯƨϵđ ḯƒ ϵⱴϵᴦƴѳﬡϵ ḯﬡⱴѳłⱴϵđ ѡäƨﬡ’ţ Ƀłäḉҟӎäḯłḯﬡǥ ţħϵ ѳţħϵᴦ ḯﬡ ä Ӎǔţǔäłłƴ Äƨƨǔᴦᴦϵđ Đϵƨţᴦǔḉţḯѳﬡ ѳƒ ϵäḉħ ѳţħϵᴦƨ’ łḯⱴϵƨ ḯƒ ţħϵ ţᴦǔţħ ḉäӎϵ ѳǔţ.

    ӤѳɃѳđƴ ḯƨ ḯﬡﬡѳḉϵﬡţ ħϵᴦϵ ţħäţ ḯƨ ḯﬡⱴѳłⱴϵđ.

  15. I would love to see this fully examined. Bill Clinton is not the only one who went to the island. Hillary is supposed to have gone as well.

    1. PCS

      Did you forget to ask for a thorough investigation of Trump’s use of Epstein’s teenage girlfriends? And don’t forget Melania. Doesn’t she also have an exotic past? Did Melania violate our Immigration laws? Did her parents?

        1. mespo

          So, as a Trumpette, you aren’t concerned about any of the allegations about whether it was illegal for his family (starting with his mother) to have violated U.S. immigration laws and Donald’s trips with Epstein? Are you rich too? Your boy is in deep doo doo,
          so I’m sure he appreciates your belief in him.

          1. As a lunatic who refuses to take your thioridizine, you’re practiced at the art of shoveling your delusions in every direction.

              1. Why should I? He’s crapped up this forum with worthless 9/11 truther rubbish and is willing to peddle every other sort of rubbish. It doesn’t do public discourse any good to pretend this is anything but what it is.

        2. Both parents and daughter hold legal and valid citizenship. which is more than you can say for progressive socialists who rejected their citizenship by taking allegiance to a foreign ideology OR one whose elected and is even now prepared to take the oath of office and commit perjury with the first words.

Comments are closed.