DOJ Agrees To Investigate Epstein Deal . . . Sort Of

I have previously written about the disgraceful sweetheart deal given to accused serial pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The deal was struck by Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta and not only succeeded in protecting Epstein from serous jail time but protecting a host of high-profile friends including Bill Clinton who were regulars at his infamous island resort. The problem is that the investigation is not being handled by the Inspector General but the oft-criticized DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility. OPR is routinely criticized for its defense of accused officials, even in some indefensible circumstances. For critics, it often seems more like OPR offers more cover than scrutiny in controversies over prosecutorial abuse. Moreover, the Epstein scandal involves serious questions of corrupt influence by powerful friends of Epstein. Such questions require serious investigative measures. OPR is more likely to find that the deal was within the scope of permissible decisions by a prosecutor like Acosta despite being widely ridiculed as an utter disgrace.

In a letter to Sasse, the Justice Department said it would give the matter to OPR.

As we previously discussed, Sen. Ben Sasse, R.-Neb., has demanded an investigation into the sweetheart deal given to 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.

Yet, after cutting this ridiculous plea deal, Acosta’s career did not suffer. To the contrary, he flourished and even ended up with a cabinet position.

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.

The problem is that the matter was given to Bermuda Triangle of DOJ ethics controversies: the OPR. That is where good-faith allegations of abuse go to disappear.

This is why Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley has proposed legislation that would permit the independent IG to review allegations of attorney misconduct instead of OPR. That proposal has passed the House but it was blocked in the Senate. Now Epstein may benefit a second time from the inside track of U.S. politics.

Epstein enjoys the only thing better than a host of friends in powerful positions. He has a host of powerful friends who fear any serious investigation and disclosures from his sordid parties. It just may be the single most brilliant strategy of an alleged pedophile: associate untouchable figures in your activities and achieve effective immunity from any serious investigation.

58 thoughts on “DOJ Agrees To Investigate Epstein Deal . . . Sort Of”

  1. “DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility”? Now that’s an oxymoron. What are the chances a DOJ investigation would uncover anything criminal regarding to a Clinton?

    1. His involvement is a black mark on Alan Dershowitz, whom I otherwise admire. I theoretically grasp that a defendant is entitled to the best legal defense possible. But these deals like these let off pedophiles. That’s not justice, and the entire system is supposed to be just. Perhaps that is more Acosta’s fault than Dershowitz. I get that attorneys get to defend rapists and pedophiles, but at the same time, how do you work your hardest to get a pedophile back on the street? I guess it’s an emotional response.

      What is the statute of limitations on pedophilia, assault on a minor, or sex trafficking? Because each and every person who travelled with Epstein to Orgy Island should be criminally investigated, from the men, to the women who helped groom the girls and organize trips.

      Is there law in this country that applies equally to everyone, or not?

      1. Again, there is no indication that Epstein had any interest in pre-pubescent children. His charges were adolescents.

  2. The article is kind of a wild rambling rose. The title and author should be: Three Spots On The Wall, by WhoFlung Foo.

  3. Trump’s appointments people were likely looking for a well-credentialed Hispanic to name as a Dept head. Acosta looks good on paper. At the time, they were probably unaware of the Epstein sentencing scandal.

    1. If they were unaware of this scandal then they were and are incompetent. It could also be that they were fully aware. Either way it doesn’t reflect well on Trump. Don’t reflexively defend the President.

      1. If they were unaware of this scandal then they were and are incompetent

        Thanks for the ad hoc normative judgment. It’s been an education.

        1. Tabby, how would ‘you’ explain it? Isn’t it odd that no one vetting Trump’s nominees picked up on Acosta’s deal with Epstein? Most would say that was “slopping vetting”.

          I think TIN is right: Trump’s transition team was simply looking for ‘well-credential Hispanics’ (from a big states) who could give Trump some cover with what was sure to be a contentious fight over immigration.

          1. Petey, we understand that today is the day for Whataboutisms and we do appreciate you letting us know that we can follow your lead in that regard

            “Trump’s transition team was simply looking for ‘well-credential Hispanics’ (from a big states)”

            What about Bill Clinton nominating women to the Federal Courts to cover for his perjury? What about Hillary Clinton using LGBT to give her the infamous “LGBT vote” all the while her husband pushing DADT? what about David Brock trashing a black professional female like Anita Hill just to advance his career with right wing outlets? What about….

            so good to know that today is Whataboutisms day!

            1. Estovir, Trump has barely nominated ‘any’ women to the Federal Courts. But we’re supposed to believe he’s somehow more ‘progressive’ than Clinton..?? How dumb!

              And you didn’t know that Trump was also a friend of Epstein’s..??? Each has homes in both Manhattan and Palm Beach.

              If you didn’t rely on no-name sources you might know some of these things.

  4. I’m confused. So Epstein is free. Acosta is now a cabinet secretary and Dershowitz is all over Fox News offering comments in support of Trump?

    But wasn’t Dershowitz facing his own accusations? How did he make all that go away for himself? And then get his client Epstein such a deal? Riiiight. And of course we are supposed to just chalk it up to ‘things that make you go, Hmmm’…

    https://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/crime–law/jeffrey-epstein-sex-scandal-alan-dershowitz-suffers-setback-defamation-case/VAEPYCPV7dHUvjSp3ctVHP/

    Flight logs of Palm Beach billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet show attorney Alan Dershowitz flew on it at least four times.

    Those logs are contained in nearly 200 pages of documents filed in a defamation lawsuit against Dershowitz in Broward County Circuit Court, as reported in Friday’s Palm Beach Daily News.

    Attorneys Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, who represent some of Epstein’s underage victims, filed the lawsuit in January following Dershowitz’s media campaign against them. The Harvard law professor emeritus was fighting claims by their client — Virginia Roberts Giuffre — that she had sex with Dershowitz at the behest of Epstein when she was a minor.

    Giuffre has filed two sworn statements, accusing Dershowitz of having sexual intercourse with her at least six times in various places, including Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion. Dershowitz has vigorously denied the allegations.”

    1. Dershowitz has contended that he flew there in his capacity as Epstein’s attorney, and that he was accompanied by his wife and daughter on at least one such trip, and that the flight logs do not place him and his accuser on the island at the same time.

      I think it’s possible for a general charge to be true and for certain specifics to be bum raps. I’ll wager the accusations against Dershowitz are false.

      1. I don’t know his “tastes” but Dershowitz is very credible. Among the most credible lawyers who ever appears on tv that’s for sure.

        The mere fact a lawyer meets or travels to meet somehow with a despicable client does not impute anything bad at all to a lawyer. People are entitled to counsel, including rich perverts, and a lawyer can serve them ethically. Our whole system of justice is predicated on some kind of access to legal advice for people.

        1. I like Dershowitz and find him credible as well. But haven’t we been told by the Democrats and the media and Hollywood “MeToo” activists that we should “believe all women” ?? I’m so confused. (sarc on).

          And frankly, there are questions that arise in my mind when I read things he allegedly said. Such as this quote taken from the article I posted above:

          “I never got a massage from anybody. It’s made up out of whole cloth,” Dershowitz said in a Jan. 21, 2015, article in the New York Daily News. In an interview the following day on Local 10 News, he said, “I kept my underwear on during the massage.”

          Dershowitz said he received one massage at Epstein’s house “from a woman in her 40s. I think her name was Olga. I called my wife after getting the massage. It was an unpleasant experience. I’ve always acknowledged I had one massage. I said that from day one.”

          And this alleged Dershowitz quote from the article is Bill Clinton-esque:

          “I can account for every single trip on Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane. I never had sex with anyone on his airplane. I never had sex with anyone on any airplane in my life.”

          And to Dersh, I would say, “Okay, we believe you, sir. We believe you. But let’s be clear how you define “sex” — are you using Bill Clinton’s definition of ‘sexual relations’ or some other definition? Wink, wink. Know what I mean, jelly bean?”

  5. You mentioned Bill Clinton 5 times as someone who partook of Epstein’s activities, but Trump only twice. No details about how many times Trump took the “Lolita Express”, but lots of details on Bill Clinton. Trump even praised this slime for his appreciation of young females. Trump just nominated this turd to a major government position, and yet Turley harps on and on about Bill Clinton. Whatever Clinton did decades ago is far less relevant than what Trump is doing right now. Why is it OK that Acosta gets a high government position? Why isn’t Turley questioning what Acosta has on Trump? Where are Republicans and their so-called Christian family values? Just another example of Turley’s obvious bias and Republican hypocrisy.

    There is an amusing note to this piece, however. Dershowitz and Starr as some kind of legal giants capable of intimidating prosecutors into a sweetheart deal despite so much evidence on trafficking of underage girls? Puhleeze. I closely followed Dershowitz’s laughable “panty liner” defense of Mike Tyson. Dershowitz routinely makes an ass of himself defending Trump, although not to the extent of Cohen and Guiliani.

    1. Mike Tyson had an inexperienced corporate lawyer for his defense who was out of his depth. It was almost certainly ineffective assistance of counsel. There was plenty of evidence of consent.

      As for Epstein I seriously doubt Clinton is a “pedophile” even if he took advantage of women or young women procured by the slimy criminal Epstein. However there is plenty of evidence Bill Clinton is a rapist. The victims including foremost Juanita Broderick. Clinton’s many assignations show no signs of a predeliction for children. That is one accusation I do not believe.

      1. The term ‘paedophile’ is commonly misused by people who are forever confounding the genus (sex with underage youngsters) with one of the species (sex with prepubescent children). Epstein wasn’t catering to paedophiles. He was catering to adult men who got a charge out of copulating with fertile nymphets of 16 that they wouldn’t have gotten out of copulating with a woman of 22. Fully believable that Bilge is such a man.

        1. I agree.

          The same confusion relates to a lot of clerical abuse.

          The criminal laws do generally recognize the qualitative difference based on age of victim.

      2. Here’s the “panty liner defense” in a nutshell: Desiree Washington agreed to go on a limousine ride with Tyson while she was in Indianapolis as a contestant for a Black Expo beauty pageant. He said he had to stop at his hotel briefly to pick up his bodyguard or some other excuse, so she went with him to his room in the luxurious Canterbury Hotel. He tried to kiss her. She said he had halitosis and was aggressive, so she excused herself to go to the bathroom, where she removed her panty liner. She had another panty liner in her purse, but she didn’t take her purse with her to the bathroom because she was just trying to get away from Tyson, hoping he’d cool off. When she emerged from the bathroom, Tyson was undressed and proceeded to rape her, beginning with ripping off her clothes. Tyson’s defense tried to argue that removing the used panty liner constituted proof of intention to engage in sex. Here’s the problem with that line of thinking: if she was intending to voluntarily engage in sex, she would have removed her panties, liner and all, and probably the rest of her clothes. Therefore, removing a used panty liner has no relevance on the matter of consent. Dershowitz was in Indianapolis for the trial. I recall him running down the street, being chased by reporters after the “guilty” verdict, claiming that every single second his poor, innocent client spent behind bars magnified the injustice of his conviction, so he had to rush to get the appeal started. I recall what a theater of buffoonery that was, especially in view of the laughable “panty liner defense”.

        I’m sorry, did I miss that conviction of Bill Clinton for rape? What is the “plenty of evidence”, and even if it exists, what does that have to do with Acosta being nominated by Trump as Labor Secretary, and whether Acosta has the goods on Trump?

        1. Plenty of evidence from the woman victim a credible witness and corroborating witnesses who placed Bill Clinton at the location and who confirmed that she was injured after meeting him.

          ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-thought-juanita-broaddrick-wasnt-credible-i-was-wrong/2018/10/22/fd1b9764-d62f-11e8-aeb7-ddcad4a0a54e_story.html?utm_term=.e4e45a9c2d8e

          “believe women” they said– just not if they accused Bill Clinton

          1. By Richard Cohen
            Columnist
            October 22, 2018
            Almost a year ago, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said Bill Clinton should have resigned over his affair with Monica Lewinsky. At the time, I thought Gillibrand was wrong — not to mention tardy — but now I’m undecided. What moved me, though, has little to do with Lewinsky and much more to do with a name that seems to have been forgotten: Juanita Broaddrick. She claimed Clinton raped her.

            Broaddrick’s allegations first surfaced in the media in 1992 as Clinton was running for president, and then resurfaced in 1999 when he was being impeached. At the time, her story seemed to be just another wild accusation made by twisted Clinton haters — the “murder” of White House aide Vincent Foster, drug smuggling through Arkansas’s Mena Airport and, seemingly, the disappearance of anyone within 100 miles of Little Rock.

            Recently, however, I listened to a remarkable podcast. It is called “Slow Burn,” produced by Slate and narrated by its staff writer, Leon Neyfakh. Thus far, “Slow Burn” has covered two political scandals — Watergate and what started out as Whitewater but wound up as L’affaire Lewinsky. For that, Clinton was investigated by an obsessed special prosecutor, Ken Starr, and equally deranged members of the House. (Starr provided “Slow Burn” with a lengthy interview as did, surprisingly, Linda Tripp, who secretly recorded Lewinsky’s private confession of her affair with Clinton. Neither had substantial regrets.)

            The Clinton impeachment saga never goes away. It surfaced recently in the flap over Brett M. Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, because his accuser was yet another woman with immense credibility but no hard evidence. And it surfaced, of course, with Gillibrand’s comment last year about Clinton. Yet while her focus was on Clinton and Lewinsky — the tired formulation of the powerful man and the star-struck young woman — nothing was said of Broaddrick, whose story was found credible by numerous reporters.

            NBC’s Lisa Myers, who interviewed Broaddrick on Jan. 20, 1999, told Slate, “I tested her story every way I could, again and again and again. And no detail ever changed — it never got better, it never got worse. It was always the same.” And Peter Baker, covering the story in The Post, told the podcast the words he wrote in his journal after interviewing one of Broaddrick’s after-the-fact witnesses: “My God!”

            There were some problems. Two of the women Broaddrick said knew of the incident were suspected of anti-Clinton bias. Another problem was that Broaddrick had once — under oath — denied that Clinton had raped her. (She just wanted the whole thing to go away, she said.) But the main problem, as far as Starr and the House impeachers were concerned, was that an alleged rape was outside their purview — perjury, yes, obstruction of justice, yes. But rape? No. So they relegated the allegation to an asterisk in their report, referring to Broaddrick as “Jane Doe No. 5.” By the time Broaddrick’s story finally went public, history had moved on. Clinton, impeached by the House, was acquitted by the Senate.

        2. She removed the panty liner perhaps because it was dirty and she fully intended to remove him perhaps in a salacious dance or seduction of some sort, and did not want him seeing her discharge.

          He came at her fast, as anyone might expect of the notorious heavyweight champion of the world, and she consented. Perhaps the aftermath did not go as she liked and like many women who are disappointed with outcomes, she later decided to make up the false allegation. That’s my belief. It’s tricky of course, most people who meet and have hot and heavy sex, do not engage in the sort of clear dialogue indicating consent that feminist professors like.

          Here you can read more about Iron Mike. Personally I like Iron Mike a lot better than Bill Clintoris.

          ]https://www.indianapolismonthly.com/features/down-for-the-count-lawyers-look-mike-tyson-rape-trial/

    2. Dershowitz is a superb lawyer with an incredibly impressive academic and professional pedigree.

      He has wise viewpoints on a very wide range of subjects. He is about the only talking head on tv that I will stop and listen to as I walk by the tv as I habitually ignore it.

      That you think he makes an ass of himself reflects more on you than him

    3. Cohen does not appear to be defending Trump. I know that he went to what some consider the worst law school in the country, but regardless, he probably learned enough to know that his decision to walk out of the darkness and into the light ( or however he described his epiphany) isn’t beneficial to Trump.

    4. Natacha,…
      I reviewed some of the articles that I had read when there was a previous “wave” of news coverage about Epstein-Bill Clinton- Trump-Dershowitz in 2016-2017.
      I think the reason that Clinton featured more prominently in those articles, and in this JT column, is that flight logs show him taking 26 flights aboard the “Lolita Express”, Epstein’s 727 shuttle to his island resort.
      Epstein’s brother has said that Trump had flown once on the “Lolita Express”, but I never saw that this was confirmed by flight logs.
      Dershowitz said that he flew there accompanied by his wife and family.
      Some of the flight logs that list Clinton as a passenger do not indicate that he had the Secret Service with him.

  6. A thorough investigation would result in indictments at the DOJ and the highest levels of the pretend govt. as well as within the deep state.

    An investigation won’t happen unless Epstein or Acosta have pissed off someone who is superior to them in power. At that point, any investigation will be limited to “getting” only the immediate target(s) who pissed off the more powerful person(s).

    There is no justice in the US, certainly not for victims of powerful pedophiles.

      1. Well at least this guy got fired decades after everybody supposedly knew he was a sicko

        Who is this Mr. Everybody? Did Anthony Bliss know? Did John Dexter know? Did any of the successors to these men know?

  7. “I have previously written about the disgraceful sweetheart deal given to accused serial pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.”

    – Professor Turley
    ______________

    “Top FBI agents who were part of just a small circle at the bureau’s headquarters investigating Hillary Clinton’s private email server were preparing to exonerate the Democratic presidential candidate long before they finished gathering critical evidence and witness accounts, a new report reveals.’

    – The Hill
    _______

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

    – Andrew McCarthy, National Review

  8. Epstein was smart. Other people with big bucks like Clinton would deal with the blackmail, if epstein got outed. They had more to lose. It makes you wonder if everyone involved in the case, from the bailiff, to the court reporter, to the judge, went skinny dipping at orgy island.

    If this feathery boa club is now unearthed to smash Trump down in 2020, Clinton will sink deeper into the night soil. Trump will flaunt his penchant for a gaius caesar lifestyle, but clinton still struggles with his persistent internal melee between me too and me only. His arsenal is down to pointing his shaming left index finger at the other rapscallions who remain unnamed.

  9. So why not appoint a Special Prosecutor; let Mueller do something useful for a change? I don’t have as much faith in the independence of Inspectors General as does JT. At my agency they are beholden to management and since it’s a stepping stone for careerists to serve a stint in the IG’s office, they make sure they don’t step on the wrong toes – quite similar to DOJ’s OPR. Each federal agency having its own in-house IG undermines their independence and credibility. A truly indeoendent IG would be housed in its own entirely separate agency.

    1. Redundancy is an aspect of quality control. To repair agency I-Gs, require that all appointed to work in the I-G’s office be at least 55 years of age and serve until resignation or retirement, with no further opportunity for employment in the Department in question.

      The Congress could, if it ever got round to accomplishing anything, assemble the stand-alone agencies into departments, each with it’s own IG. Then you could set up 7-8 audit and control inspectorates to monitor the executive in one aspect or another.

    1. often women engaged in prostitution and procurement and what is now called human trafficking are willing participants and the key factor is fraud. since we are all ashamed when we have been tricked, often the victims will refuse to testify.

      at the same time, too much sex work by voluntary adult workers is now called “human trafficking” and the government and media habitually paint with too broad a brush

      https://fee.org/articles/why-governments-always-exaggerate-the-prostitution-threat/

      1. Can a little girl be a willing participant in the eyes of the law? Also, Turley mentions Clinton five times in his article and trump just twice. Why the greater emphasis on one when the other had a girl who was 13 at the time accuse him of rape, although after receiving death threats, declined to proceed?

        1. Enigma,
          You should review the hype that preceeded the “Lisa Bloom Press Conference” that was to present the victim of the alleged rape.
          The anonymous accuser, who would now be in her late 30s, was a no-show, and Bloom claimed that was because of threats.
          It was never clear who threatened the alleged victim and when, but the “threat claim”, whether used by Cohen to duck public Congressional testimony, or in the Bloom case, is a handy dodge.
          The alleged victim was given extraordinary leeway in filing, then withdrawing, then re-filing civil lawsuits.
          The driving force behind this farce seemed to be a former associate producer for “The Jerry Springer Show”, who was intermittently available to press, supposedly communicating on the unknown victim’s behalf.
          The guy used at least one alias, which did not help with his credibilty either.
          The scheduled Lisa Bloom news conference just happened to be scheduled within several days of the November 2016 Trump-Clinton election.
          Under these circumstances, how much emphasis do you think this story merits?
          This story was kept alive almost literally right up to Election Day; Bloom had gathered anxious reporters representing the established media, and on top of all of the other questionable aspects of this allegation, the “victim” does not appear.
          This story was not suppressed or killed. It committed suicide.

          1. So death threats are now a popular dodge? King Henry II said it more eloquently when he sid, “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?” Didn’t turn out so well for Sir Thomas Becket. You may dismiss death threats you find inconvenient as nonexistant but at least allow for the possibility they could be real. The President might have incited at least one follower by publicly calling Cohen “a rat” and Ford “a liar” along with the then 13-year-old girl. She allegedly didn’t come forward then because a powerful man might use his vast resources against her. Nothing has changed.

            1. Enigma,.
              If in fact there has been “death threats”, I think we’ll wait to see if Lisa Bloom, her anonymous “victim”, the Jerry Springer guy, Michael Cohen, his lawyer Scammy Davis, and others filed police reports as to when those death threats were delivered, how they were conveyed, etc.
              Forget about Henry and Becket and get real.
              You have alleged “victims”, the recipients of these “death threats”, whose credibility is damn shaky to begin with.
              I went over some of those credibility issues with the “Lisa Bloom-“victim”-Jerry Springer guy”.
              If you didn’t get that, I’m not going to waste my time and yours going into Cohen’s credibility issues.
              If and when you have specific info about these “death threats”, the details about when they were received, reported to authorities, etc.,let me know.
              I will say again that your strong combination of Faith and Hope leads to to all kinds of beliefs that you want and really need to have.

              1. Cohen (and Trump)n were f**king with the Russian and Italian mobs. You think they want their business out in the street. I believe that;s why Manafort would rather serve life in prison than see his family wiped out if he talks.

                1. Enigma,..
                  – Cohen’s flip ( out of the darkness and onto the path of righteousness😒) seems to indicate that he’s more afraid of prosecutors than Trump, or any real or imagined Trump associates.

                  1. His “flip’ was limited which is why the SDNY wants him to get a long sentence vs. Mueller who’s quite satisfied with Cohen. I think Manafort and Cohen (and Trump) are more afraid of Russians than anybody.

                    1. Enigma,…
                      – Which Russians? I’m thinking that Natacha is a Russian-sounding name.😉

  10. I’m thinking Acosta’s admitting that he thought Epstein’s lawyers would get him blacklisted by BigLaw firms.

  11. No clue what persuaded Trump to nominate this man to a cabinet position. There have been a number of bad appointments, the most salient of whom were figures in the Bush-era Republican establishment (Rosenstein comes to mind). This is also an indication, in case we needed one, that the Department of Justice is rotten to the core and that federal prosecutors have far too much discretion.

      1. I imagine he does greenlight for most positions. I’d like to know who recommended Rod Rosenstein and Christopher Wray.

Leave a Reply