Author Topic: Jeffrey Epstein arrest  (Read 527 times)

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #50 on: July 10, 2019, 01:29:31 PM »
More about Acosta:

Quote
Epstein’s name, I was told, had been raised by the Trump transition team when Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. attorney in Miami who’d infamously cut Epstein a non-prosecution plea deal back in 2007, was being interviewed for the job of labor secretary. The plea deal put a hard stop to a separate federal investigation of alleged sex crimes with minors and trafficking.

“Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?” Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he’d had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)

One meeting? Who told Acosta it was above his paygrade and to leave it alone?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #51 on: July 10, 2019, 01:34:42 PM »
Does Trump get credit for draining the swamp if the swamp is drained in reaction to TDS?  :P 
I kinda think it should count.

I mean obviously the drain is IN the swamp... so how else was this suppose to work? 

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #52 on: July 10, 2019, 01:42:41 PM »
Trump getting the left to line up in a circular firing squad is definitely to his credit. It’s amazing to see him accomplish this over and over again.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #53 on: July 10, 2019, 01:49:50 PM »
Swamp creatures come in all flavors.  I don't morn their exits.  :P

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #54 on: July 10, 2019, 03:48:28 PM »
We hear from Acosta. Here's the summary:

Quote
Acosta said something like, when I came onto the case, there was already a deal in place to let Epstein off with no jail time whatsoever and no admission of having committed any sexual offenses; I and my prosecutors pushed to at least get some jail and a plea to soliciting an underage girl.

He now says that most of the witnesses against him didn't want to testify against him, because they didn't want to be identified. He's saying that this sort of plea arrangement is common, as prosecutors have to weigh seeking real justice against a sex offender, versus protecting his victims from further humiliation and pain.

He's stressing that at least his team got Epstein to admit to a crime that would force him to register as a sex criminal.

He now stresses that it's highly unusual that a federal prosecutor would intervene in a state case -- and remember, he's saying the state had already given Epstein a complete pass -- and pointing out that it's big deal that he even got involved at all to get something harsher. Without naming Harvey Weinstein, he points out that some sex offenders are let off with no charges at all.

He's pointing out that the female career prosecutor who handled this worked out an odd concession from Epstein: That any victim who came forward to sue him civilly would have her lawyer paid for by Epstein, and that he would have to plead no contest to the suit, agreeing to pay restitution. That career prosecutor did not want to notify potential victims, because Epstein could use knowledge of this deal to say, if they had to go to trial, "The DOJ is basically recruiting witnesses against me via this I-must-pay-restitution agreement. These 'victims' are just coming forward due to the smell of money in the air." So they decided to not notify victims until after Epstein agreed to plead guilty.

So from this, it sounds like Acosta inherited a *censored* sandwich and tried to make it as palatable as possible. I kind of get the rationale here but I still don't like it. I'd very much like to know who cut the deal that Acosta inherited.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #55 on: July 10, 2019, 03:53:39 PM »
That does tidily make him look like one of the few who at least tried to do SOMETHING.  An another helpless cog in the machinery.  Regardless of how accurate all that is, it's a darn nice piece of work.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #56 on: July 10, 2019, 05:02:49 PM »
Quote
He's saying that this sort of plea arrangement is common, as prosecutors have to weigh seeking real justice against a sex offender, versus protecting his victims from further humiliation and pain.

Shouldn't that decision be up to the victims? The ones who weren't told about the potential deal?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #57 on: July 10, 2019, 05:23:31 PM »
I don't know if it should be up to them, that's the prosecutor's discretion. However, while I think it's pretty *censored*ty they weren't notified there was a rationale for it that could have favored Epstein at a criminal trial had those notifications gone out (the prosecution recruiting and paying witnesses to testify against Epstein on Epstein's dime). I can see how a defense team could shred the prosecution witness for that and completely let Epstein walk free.

This was a very terrible deal all the way around, no other way to see it. But it seems like Acosta tried to salvage it. I'm not 100% convinced of that but it's the story we got so far so what can we do? Maybe more will come out.

Who pushed this deal before Acosta walked into it? Above his paygrade? Come on, that's movie line. One thing I've seen floated about that "CIA involvement" thing is that the CIA was using Epstein to snare foreign recruits. If you believe the whole blackmail thing, it's possible they let him run to keep getting leverage over someone influential in a foreign government or business. It's terrible but, given the CIA's history, not completely unbelievable.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #58 on: July 10, 2019, 05:43:01 PM »
If the CIA tells you not to prosecute a pedophile rapist, maybe its time to go to the press.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #59 on: July 11, 2019, 09:03:39 AM »
OK, Acosta inherited the deal from Barry Krischer:

Quote
The Florida prosecutor who allowed Jeffrey Epstein to get away with the abuse of children is a very popular guy in Palm Beach.

The YWCA of Palm Beach County (“eliminating racism, empowering women”) offers the Barry Krischer Humanitarian Award and the Domestic Violence Council has a Barry Krischer scholarship.

Last year, the ADL honored Krischer with its Jurisprudence Award.

The Florida Bar had honored Kirscher with a lifetime achievement award and he’s still listed as a member in good standing. Even Jeb Bush had bestowed a Peace at Home award on the prosecutor.

Krischer sits on the Criminal Justice Commission and offers training to law enforcement, court personnel and child welfare providers on dealing with crimes of sexual violence. His bio states that he remains active in “child welfare issues” through his work with the Department of Children and Families.

Krischer is also the guy that went after Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter - he's a hardcore Democrat with a zero-tolerance policy of prosecuting juveniles as adults.

Quote
But after Epstein had abused underage girls, Krischer, according to the detective on the case, ignored police efforts to charge him with four counts of unlawful sexual activity with a minor and instead the billionaire abuser was indicted only on a minor charge of solicitation of prostitution.

Interviews with over a dozen girls and witnesses were ignored.

The victims were not notified of when they needed to appear before Krischer’s Grand Jury. Calls by the police to issue warrants for the arrest of Epstein and his associates were ignored by Kirscher’s subordinates. Eventually, Kirscher’s people stopped taking phone calls from the police. 

The Palm Beach police chief claimed that information was being leaked to Epstein’s lawyers and wrote a public letter attacking Krischer and urging him to disqualify himself from the case. Instead the travesty went on. State prosecutors allowed Epstein to skip sex offender counselling, and hire a private shrink.

When the judge asked assistant state prosecutor Lanna Belohlavek if all the victims had signed off on the deal, she claimed that they had. The lawyer for the victims has said that was not the truth.

As a sex offender, Epstein should have been in state prison, but instead he received a private wing in the Palm Beach County stockade.

“There’s significant budget cuts in the county already, and sending him to the county jail and not the Dept. of Corrections is a significant cost to the taxpayer and the county,” the judge had objected.

But reporting to the stockade allowed Epstein to hire Palm Beach sheriff’s deputies as his security while he spent the day in his office on his work release program. The deputies stayed in the front room of his office, during the time that he was supposed to be in prison, while visitors went into his private office.

The deputies stopped calling Epstein an “inmate” and began referring to him as a “client”.

This jail arrangement is illegal. It was managed by Palm Beach Sheriff Ric Bradshaw, also a Democrat. Bradsaw and Krischer are well known as political allies - sounds like they were colluding on this treatment.

Quote
After 13 months of this, there was another year of house arrest in which Epstein was able to fly his jet around the country and around the world. Before long, he was partying with the smart set, including Charlie Rose, Katie Couric, Woody Allen and Chelsea Handler.

The people he's partying with ... what's their political affiliation?

Quote
The Palm Beach police chief had referred the case to the FBI, hoping to hit Epstein with federal charges. The Feds were able to assemble a 53-page indictment.

That fits with Acosta's story about inheriting the deal and trying to turn it into something and Acosta may have developed the best deal he could get after all.

In the end, we have a very aggressive Democrat prosecutor suddenly going soft and doing everything he can to give a very wealthy Democrat donor a free pass until Acosta got on the scene. Even then, the Democrat sheriff made sure it was as easy on the Democrat donor as possible. After which, Epstein goes on to party with Democrat celebs.

Has anybody checked phone records to see how many calls there were between Krischer and the Clinton's?

Quote
These days, Krischer is one of the founders of The Children's Place at Home Safe, an organization that claims to help abused children of around the same ages as Epstein's victims.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 09:05:55 AM by Crunch »

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #60 on: July 11, 2019, 09:24:22 AM »
Quote
Convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein never once checked in with city cops in the eight-plus years since a Manhattan judge ordered him to do so every 90 days — and the NYPD says it’s fine with that.

After being labeled a worst-of-the-worst, Level 3 sex offender in 2011, Epstein should have reported in person to verify his address 34 times before he was arrested Saturday on federal child sex-trafficking charges.

Violating requirements of the state’s 1996 Sex Offender Registration Act — including checking in with law enforcement — is a felony punishable by up to four years in prison for a first offense.

Subsequent violations carry a sentence of up to seven years each.

But the NYPD hasn’t required the billionaire financier — who owns a $77 million Upper East Side townhouse — to check in since he registered as a sex offender in New York over the controversial 2008 plea bargain he struck in Florida amid allegations he sexually abused scores of underage girls in his Palm Beach mansion.

Several current and former high-ranking NYPD officials were shocked to learn from The Post that the department had given Epstein a pass on his periodic check-ins, with one saying, “It makes no sense.”

Quote
The NYPD maintains that Epstein, 66, wasn’t required to check in with New York cops because he claims his primary residence is a private island, Little St. John, in the US Virgin Islands.

But state Supreme Court Justice Ruth Pickholz considered and rejected that very argument by defense lawyer Sandra Musumeci during the Jan. 18, 2011, hearing.

Musumeci insisted that Epstein wasn’t a “resident of New York” and that his seven-story townhouse at 9 E. 71st St. was a “vacation home” at which he had no plans to ever stay “longer than a period 10 days.”

Pickholz insisted that Epstein would have to abide by the mandatory reporting requirements for Level 3 offenders.

“I am sorry he may have to come here every 90 days,” she said, according to an official transcript. “He can give up his New York home if he does not want to come every 90 days.”

Judge ordered to check in every 90 days. Never does it once. NYPD says that's OK.

Quote
The NYPD cop assigned to monitor Epstein has repeatedly complained to Vance’s Sex Crimes Unit that Epstein wasn’t in compliance, according to a source familiar with the matter.

But prosecutors told the cop to merely send Epstein a letter reminding him of his reporting requirement.

Right. OK. Sounds like whatever happened down in Florida continued in NY. Who are the power brokers in NY that would have the kind of connections to Epstein and juice to pull this off?

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #61 on: July 11, 2019, 12:45:52 PM »
Why would we argue that?  I don't understand how the first deal happened.  Prosecutors in today's environment are wielding too much uncontrolled discretion.  Epstein is a gross example, and with "co-conspirators" receiving immunity - to me - the deal is so gross that it should be legal to set it aside as a clear result of some kind of illegal deal.  Smollet, to a much less extent, is a similar case to me on the abuse of prosecution judgment.  We have the inverse in NY, where the Attorney General flat out said she would be abusing her discretion to investigate everyone connected to Trump until she found crimes to put them in jail.

Honest to goodness, this is the kind of crap that led us to revolt from England, and it should be intolerable to any free people.

The only word of caution is technical.  How is this not a violation of double jeopardy?  It was a federal deal, and this is a federal prosecutor, so even the SC's recent backslide to allow state crimes on the same charges shouldn't apply.

Well, there are a number of reasons it's not a violation of double jeopardy.

1) He was not tried for or acquitted of the crimes he is now charged with.

2) The non-prosecution agreement was with SDFL, and the agreement lacked language (which is typically included in such agreements) specifying which districts were bound by the agreement. SDNY has cited case law that says SDNY is not bound by SDFL's agreements (because hoops that would involve them in the agreement were not jumped). Epstein's lawyers will be making the opposite argument, but various experts who are commenting on the case seem largely in agreement that SDNY has the law right.

In fact, the lack of such language in the agreement makes it look shady.

3) The fed/state divide IS in effect here - he only pleaded to state crimes in the previous deal.

#2 is the most important reason why this prosecution isn't invalid. He wasn't charged with federal crimes that he should have been charged with. Some of those crimes occurred in SDNY and they have no legal obligation to honor an agreement made by SDFL. SDFL could have done the work to get SDNY's buy in on the previous deal, and they didn't. That's probably because it was a bad deal made for bad reasons.

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #62 on: July 11, 2019, 12:48:44 PM »
BTW, Acosta's apologetics on this deal are pretty weak. Past court filings establish that his office had a 53 page indictment drafted against Epstein. You don't get that far with a weak case you don't think you can win.

I do believe that they might have thought Epstein's team would make their lives very hard and jeopardize their case. OJ got off, after all. It wasn't a good reason to give him a sweetheart deal and break the law with regard to notifying the victims. Sure, Epstein agreed to make it a bit easier for the victims who were in the know to collect damages, but all that really amounts to is paying them more than he originally wanted to.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #63 on: July 11, 2019, 03:48:52 PM »
While we're at it....

Manhattan DA's office asked judge to lower Jeffrey Epstein's sex offender status in 2011

Quote
There, Epstein's attorneys asked that he be given Level 1 offender status, the least restrictive level. Meanwhile, the State of New York Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders reviewed his history of abuse allegations and recommended he be classified as a Level 3 sex offender, the highest possible risk level.
But in a strange turn, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office agreed with Epstein's team. When the case went before the Manhattan Supreme Court in January 2011, the prosecutor asked that Epstein be labeled a Level 1 sex offender.
That argument drew pointed questions from Judge Ruth Pickholz, who said she had never seen the prosecutor's office make a "downward argument" like this, according to an appeals court filing. She rejected the request and termed Epstein a Level 3 sex offender.

But this makes it okay.

Quote
The DA's office says that argument was a mistake based on a legal misunderstanding, and that the office later agreed with the judge's determination.

Did I do that?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #64 on: July 11, 2019, 04:19:08 PM »
BTW, Acosta's apologetics on this deal are pretty weak. Past court filings establish that his office had a 53 page indictment drafted against Epstein. You don't get that far with a weak case you don't think you can win.

I dunno, those lawyers whip out 53 pages like nothing. I haven't seen the indictment but it's probably got everything but the kitchen sink in it. Compare that with what Krischer tried to deliver.

I do believe that they might have thought Epstein's team would make their lives very hard and jeopardize their case. OJ got off, after all. It wasn't a good reason to give him a sweetheart deal and break the law with regard to notifying the victims. Sure, Epstein agreed to make it a bit easier for the victims who were in the know to collect damages, but all that really amounts to is paying them more than he originally wanted to.

Acosta came to the game essentially after a deal was already cut with Krischer's office. That only happened because the police chief saw Epstein getting away with it and escalated to the FBI. It's actually kind of surprising that Acosta got that deal off the table and his in play.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #65 on: July 11, 2019, 04:25:30 PM »
Quote
Lawyers for Jeffrey Epstein proposed a bail package on Thursday that would allow the multimillionaire alleged sex trafficker to remain out of jail pending trial and live instead in home detention at his Upper East Side mansion, one of the largest residences in Manhattan and valued at $77 million, according to court documents.

The arrangement -- sure to draw the scrutiny of prosecutors, who have already asked a judge to have him detained without bail -- also would put Epstein under electronic monitoring by GPS, require him to post a "substantial" personal recognizance bond secured by his Manhattan home, and deregister and ground his private jet.

Quote
Along with home detention, Epstein's lawyers propose that he consent to US extradition from any country, require anyone who enters his New York home aside from his attorneys to have prior approval from federal authorities and have a live-in court-appointed trustee who would be required to report violations of his bail conditions.

$77 million bail! That's some serious green. But I bet that doesn't mean much to a guy of Epstein's wealth. I don't know if agreeing to extradition is really enforceable, the host country probably has some rules of their own.

Quote
Prosecutors, however, have said both in a written bail memorandum and in court that Epstein, 66, is a substantial flight risk.
"He is a man of nearly infinite means, your honor," Assistant US Attorney Alex Rossmiller told a judge on Monday, "and, as set forth in our submission, he has tremendous incentives to use those means to flee prosecution."

Citing his wealth, with luxury properties around the world, including a private island he owns in the Caribbean, and the seriousness of the charges he faces, prosecutors wrote to the court that "he cannot meet his burden of overcoming the presumption that there is no combination of conditions that would reasonably assure his continued appearance in this case or protect the safety of the community were he to be released."

If this guy gets bail, I'd be somewhat surprised if he didn't just disappear. All that money that nobody knows how he got and the connections, he could fall off the face of the earth.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #66 on: July 11, 2019, 04:47:33 PM »
And if he doesn't get bail, given the rumors and speculation flying around, maybe he disappears before trial anyway.  Just by different means.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #67 on: July 11, 2019, 04:56:23 PM »
Crossing the Clinton's is definitely bad for your health.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #68 on: July 11, 2019, 05:10:07 PM »
Or maybe someone just wonders out loud on twitter why nobody's done anything about this guy already since "the system" seems incapable?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #69 on: July 12, 2019, 01:04:25 PM »
Yes, yes. The Clintons are serial murderers. CDS?

And Alex, before you go...

Quote
Alexander Acosta, the US labor secretary under fire for having granted Jeffrey Epstein immunity from federal prosecution in 2008, after the billionaire was investigated for having run a child sex trafficking ring, is proposing 80% funding cuts for the government agency that combats child sex trafficking.

Acosta’s plan to slash funding of a critical federal agency in the fight against the sexual exploitation of children is contained in his financial plans for the Department of Labor for fiscal year 2020. In it, he proposes decimating the resources of a section of his own department known as the International Labor Affairs Bureau (ILAB).

The bureau’s budget would fall from $68m last year to just $18.5m. The proposed reduction is so drastic that experts say it would effectively kill off many federal efforts to curb sex trafficking and put the lives of large numbers of children at risk.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #70 on: July 12, 2019, 04:37:21 PM »
Yes, yes. The Clintons are serial murderers. CDS?

And Alex, before you go...

Quote
Alexander Acosta, the US labor secretary under fire for having granted Jeffrey Epstein immunity from federal prosecution in 2008, after the billionaire was investigated for having run a child sex trafficking ring, is proposing 80% funding cuts for the government agency that combats child sex trafficking.

Acosta’s plan to slash funding of a critical federal agency in the fight against the sexual exploitation of children is contained in his financial plans for the Department of Labor for fiscal year 2020. In it, he proposes decimating the resources of a section of his own department known as the International Labor Affairs Bureau (ILAB).

The bureau’s budget would fall from $68m last year to just $18.5m. The proposed reduction is so drastic that experts say it would effectively kill off many federal efforts to curb sex trafficking and put the lives of large numbers of children at risk.

You do realize that could be because they've discovered there is "significant overlap" with other agencies who also have jurisdiction in such cases? More specifically, agencies with law enforcement mandates. (ICE, FBI, etc) I can see how Labor has a finger in that pie, and a justification for it, but seriously? Only so many agencies can "take point" on a specific issue.

Labor's funding cut may correspond to increased funding in relevant efforts in other agencies.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #71 on: July 12, 2019, 07:01:46 PM »
The more I see threads like this, the more I'm convinced that anyone on either side who really gets dug in probably has a mental health disease or disorder.

Lol. Look at what you all are saying. Imagine if the other side with a different president was trying to shovel you that BS.

Liberals, conservatives, whatever. Imagine the president you hate, and imagine it isn't Trump but Obama. Or vice versa. Aren't you at least a little embarrassed?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #72 on: July 12, 2019, 07:19:44 PM »
We don't have to imagine.  Both on display all the time.  Why in the world would we want to take things seriously and treat it all as if we were rational adults?

Talk about a recipe for mental health problems.  I prefer to participate in selective absurdity.  It's preventative medicine.  :)

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #73 on: July 12, 2019, 07:23:14 PM »
We don't have to imagine.  Both on display all the time.  Why in the world would we want to take things seriously and treat it all as if we were rational adults?

Talk about a recipe for mental health problems.  I prefer to participate in selective absurdity.  It's preventative medicine.  :)

Money.

Sad, innit?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« Reply #74 on: July 13, 2019, 02:03:44 PM »
I'm totally fine with significant overlap on sex trafficking. The department of energy can get in on it for all I care. But you have no basis for claiming that it was a redundancy in the first place.