 |
|
Is Epstein a spy? ....
Posted on: July 10, 2019 at 23:11:50 CT
MUTGR MU
Posts:
68873
Member For:
24.83 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
https://observer.com/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-spy-intelligence-work/
"A major hint was dropped this week by Vicky Ward, the intrepid investigative journalist who has tried to expose the ugly reality behind the Epstein facade longer than anyone. In a report for the Daily Beast, Ward shed light on the Justice Department’s 2007 non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, that sweetest of sweet deals, since it got Epstein a laughably lenient sentence—for crimes which any normal person would have gone away for decades after admitting to.
Alexander Acosta, the current U.S. Labor Secretary, is in the hot seat, since a dozen years ago he was the U.S. Attorney for South Florida who cut that deal with Epstein. Ward explained the background of that deal, which is now a noose for Acosta. Specifically, she elaborated that the Epstein issue came up when Acosta was appointed to the cabinet by President Donald Trump. Ward writes:
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.)
Wait, what?
So, Acosta, according to himself, backed off on prosecuting Epstein back in 2007, despite the possession of ample evidence proving his guilt, because he “belonged to intelligence.” Whose intelligence, exactly? is the first of many questions that arise here.
This claim was met with an appropriate degree of skepticism, and Acosta had a chance to explain what he meant in a press conference this afternoon. On camera, Acosta maintained that he did the best he could with that case, while admitting that it hardly looks like a fair punishment now.
The intelligence issue came up, and Acosta’s response was bizarre. He punted on setting the record straight, instead proffering this strange word salad when asked about Ward’s reporting:
So there has been reporting to that effect and let me say, there’s been reporting to a lot of effects in this case, not just now but over the years and, again, I would hesitant to take this reporting as fact. This was a case that was brought by our office, it was brought based on the facts and I look at the reporting and others, I can’t address it directly because of our guidelines, but I can tell you that a lot of reporting is going down rabbit holes.
To anyone acquainted with our nation’s capital, that’s a non-denial denial of an epic kind. Given the chance to refute Ward’s report, specifically that the Epstein case involved intelligence matters, Acosta did nothing of the sort. Indeed, he functionally admitted that it’s true."
If this is true, it might explain why Trump appointed Acosta in the first place, and why he's not throwing him under the bus yet - despite the public outcry from both sides of the isle.
It might be Acosta is a card to play - who told him to back off Epstein?
Edited by MUTGR at 23:19:10 on 07/10/19
"A major hint was dropped this week by Vicky Ward, the intrepid investigative journalist who has tried to expose the ugly reality behind the Epstein facade longer than anyone. In a report for the Daily Beast, Ward shed light on the Justice Department’s 2007 non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, that sweetest of sweet deals, since it got Epstein a laughably lenient sentence—for crimes which any normal person would have gone away for decades after admitting to.
Alexander Acosta, the current U.S. Labor Secretary, is in the hot seat, since a dozen years ago he was the U.S. Attorney for South Florida who cut that deal with Epstein. Ward explained the background of that deal, which is now a noose for Acosta. Specifically, she elaborated that the Epstein issue came up when Acosta was appointed to the cabinet by President Donald Trump. Ward writes:
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.)
Wait, what?
So, Acosta, according to himself, backed off on prosecuting Epstein back in 2007, despite the possession of ample evidence proving his guilt, because he “belonged to intelligence.” Whose intelligence, exactly? is the first of many questions that arise here.
This claim was met with an appropriate degree of skepticism, and Acosta had a chance to explain what he meant in a press conference this afternoon. On camera, Acosta maintained that he did the best he could with that case, while admitting that it hardly looks like a fair punishment now.
The intelligence issue came up, and Acosta’s response was bizarre. He punted on setting the record straight, instead proffering this strange word salad when asked about Ward’s reporting:
So there has been reporting to that effect and let me say, there’s been reporting to a lot of effects in this case, not just now but over the years and, again, I would hesitant to take this reporting as fact. This was a case that was brought by our office, it was brought based on the facts and I look at the reporting and others, I can’t address it directly because of our guidelines, but I can tell you that a lot of reporting is going down rabbit holes.
To anyone acquainted with our nation’s capital, that’s a non-denial denial of an epic kind. Given the chance to refute Ward’s report, specifically that the Epstein case involved intelligence matters, Acosta did nothing of the sort. Indeed, he functionally admitted that it’s true."
If this is true, it might explain why Trump appointed Acosta in the first place, and why he's not throwing him under the bus yet - despite the public outcry from both sides of the isle.
It might be Acosta is a card to play - who told him to back off Epstein?
Edited by MUTGR at 23:19:10 on 07/10/19
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Is Epstein a spy? .... - MUTGR MU - 7/10 23:11:50