Thursday, July 18, 2019

Excellent Gregg Jarrett Interview With Toensing And diGenova

Last night Gregg Jarrett, subbing for Lou Dobbs, conducted a wide ranging interview with Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova, going over many aspects of the Russia Hoax. Much of it is in the context of the upcoming--maybe--testimony of Robert Mueller. I'll append the nine and a half minute interview, but I want to focus on two exchanges that I consider key--and which I've transcribed. The first deals with what I strongly suspect John Solomon was getting at in his tease: "new evidence emerging about the conduct of one of Mueller’s deputies." That deputy, as everyone has surely guessed, is almost certainly Andrew Weissmann:

JARRETT: [Speaks about how "dossier" credibility has been destroyed by John Solomon.] 
diGENOVA: Well, the most important thing about the spreadsheet is that it proves conclusively that the Bureau knew, before it ever filed the first FISA warrant, that everything, they couldn't verify it, and they told the FISA court four times that they had verified the information in the application for the wiretap on Carter Page, and that was a lie. And those four applications constituted crimes and everybody involved in that process at the senior levels of the FBI and at the senior levels of the Justice Department knew that. And we are told that there are Justice Department officials who were very concerned about it, but not one of them stepped up and stopped the filing of those four FISA warrant applications. There were crimes committed, just there, plus many other crimes as well. 
JARRETT: Well, and keep in mind, and I would ask Mueller this question Wednesday--assuming he'll testify, and I don't know if he will, really--but I would say, Wait a minute! The fourth FISA warrant application happened on your watch, yours and Rod Rosenstein's watch! Rosenstein signed off on it, the June, 2017, FISA warrant! Were you in on that? Were you submitting an unverified application, when on the top of it it says 'verified'? 
TOENSING: Yeah, well, we have a few more questions, too, for Mueller, who, he certainly can answer process questions, like, Did you ever know that Andrew Weissmann, when he was head of the Fraud Section--which, by the way Greg, I used to supervise, so I know what the portfolio is--were you ever told that he was briefed on the "dossier" and so therefore it would have been a conflict for him to be on your staff for the Special Counsel? Were you ever told that Andrew Weissmann told journalists that the "dossier" was just fine and dandy--when he was head of the Fraud Section? So it would have been a conflict? We have all kinds of those questions for him that are not about the investigation but about process.

The second passage concerns Mueller's visit to the Oval Office with Rod Rosenstein the very day before Mueller was named Special Counsel. That visit has all the appearance of a setup, a undercover recording of the President of the United States that violated standard White House security. There would need to be a written justification for that type of operation (called, in my day, "consensual monitoring"), specifying the investigative justification, including the crime being justified. Does such paperwork exist and, if not ...

Briefly Noted: The Epstein "Pedo-Polonium" Effect

Yeah, I wish I'd come up with that myself, but it's in the first paragraph of Zerohedge's roundup: "It's Going To Be Staggering": Epstein Associates Prepare For Worst As Massive Document Dump Imminent:

As the Jeffrey Epstein case continues to unfold, a laundry list of celebrities, business magnates and socialites who have flown anywhere near the registered sex offender's orbit are now tainted with pedo-polonium. Many of them, such as Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, and Victoria's Secret boss Les Wexner have sought to distance themselves from Epstein and his activities - however their attempts have fallen on deaf ears considering their extensive ties to the pedophile. 

So who are these "Epstein Associates" who have a lot of 'splainin' to do, that "laundry list of celebrities, business magnates and socialites"? Here's a quick copy and paste of names that are emerging. Most of it is smoke at this point, as compared to the fire of the Bill Clinton and Prince Andy allegations, but we all know that the fire will consume more than just those two. Ehud Barak may well be on that "fire" list. Anyway, I copy and paste:

Bill Clinton
Ehud Barak
Victoria's Secret boss Les Wexner
LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman
Elon Musk
Mark Zuckerberg
Bill Gates
Larry Summers
Steve Bannon
Alan Dershowitz
Lynn Forester de Rothschild
Prince "Randy" Andy

Anyone spot any likely GOPers in that list? There's Steve Bannon. That's it so far. The list will undoubtedly expand, perhaps exponentially. We're promised that by people who should know. Some choice quotes:

“Nobody who was around Epstein a lot is going to have an easy time now. It’s all going to come out,” said Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies. Another person involved with litigation against Epstein told me: “It’s going to be staggering, the amount of names. It’s going to be contagion numbers.” 
According to one source, Epstein had a steady stream of who's who's flowing into his Manhattan mansion, including Bill Gates, Larry Summers, and Steve Bannon.  
"Jeffrey collected people. That’s what he did," the source told Vanity Fair. 
"Epstein bragged about his contacts in Washington," said attorney David Boies. 
According to the report, "One theory circulating among prominent Republicans is that Epstein was a Mossad agent. Another is that the George W. Bush White House directed Acosta not to prosecute Epstein to protect Prince Andrew on behalf of the British government." 
"The royal family did everything they could to try and discredit the Prince Andrew stuff," said Boies. "When we tried to follow up with anything, we were stonewalled. We wanted to interview him, they were unwilling to do anything."

Should be quite a thing.

Briefly Noted: The Mueller Circus--Will It Ever Get To Town?

Today at Zerohedge there's a very nice roundup re the continuing circus surrounding Mueller's long rumored, then scheduled, then rescheduled, testimony to the House.

In Circus Mueller Is Delayed Raul Ilargi Meijer first notes that the entire Russia collusion hoax is on its last legs--so much so that only the truest blue of true believers--apparently including Ilhan Omar--dare mention it in public. Mueller has been forbidden by Judge Dabney Friedrich from mentioning his evidence-free theory regarding Concord Management--and that includes mentioning it in the House. Further, John Solomon has blown "another gaping hole" in the Steele "dossier" with his revelations about the FBI's spreadsheet demonstrating that it was all basically made up. Then he continues:

So it’s quite possible that once the House Democrats figured this out [the meaning of Judge Friedrich's ruling] they had to change strategy. Mueller has been barred from saying a single word about it, including in the House. 
With that part of his report out of the way, what is left for him to talk about? He himself already gave up on the whole collusion narrative, which would appear to leave only obstruction. Well, there’s the Steele dossier, but with John Solomon blowing another gaping hole in it yesterday, that may not be the wisest topic to discuss on the House floor. By now, only the very faithful still believe in the dossier. 

A Tease From John Solomon

I closed a recent post, John Solomon: FBI Knew Dossier Was Bogus, Used It Anyway, with the following note:

Oh, and Solomon is supposed to have another big story out later this week. I can't wait! Maybe this is what Devin Nunes was talking about when he said the Mueller testimony might never happen.

Last night Solomon appeared to tease that new, big story--and it sounds fascinating. And, yes, I do still wonder what affect this may have on Mueller's testimony:

John Solomon‏

Talking soon to @seanhannity on @FoxNews about the FBI spreadsheet that flagged the credibility of the Steele dossier as well as some new evidence emerging about the conduct of one of Mueller’s deputies. 
5:56 PM - 17 Jul 2019

Was There A Conflict Of Interest Between Flynn And His Lawyers?

Margot Cleveland at The Federalist isn't given to speculation. However, today Cleveland offers just that, regarding what's really going on with Judge Sullivan in the Michael Flynn case. Yesterday in Judge Sullivan Enters Dispute Between Flynn Lawyers, Past and Present I noted the unusual and marked manner in which Judge Sullivan had interjected himself, on his own motion, in the matter of the delay by Flynn's prior legal team from Covington and Burling in providing the full Flynn case file to Flynn's new legal team, led by Sidney Powell--long time and noted critic of the legal tactics pioneered by Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann. Covington and Burling, as has been frequently noted, is the law firm of Eric Holder and Trisha Anderson.

Today Cleveland asks whether there may be more to Judge Sullivan's intervention, touching on matters that may be very much at the heart of what will almost certainly develop into a challenge of the guilty plea that Flynn entered into with Team Mueller: Judge Orders Ethics Training For Michael Flynn’s Former Lawyers--Was there a conflict of interest between Michael Flynn and his Covington and Burling attorneys who used to represent him? New facts unfold.

Cleveland bases her speculation on two factors. The first is the fact that Judge Sullivan set the date for the meeting with the ethics officials and the lawyers a few days before a regularly scheduled status hearing--August 27, only three days before the scheduled hearing on August 30. Why, asks Cleveland, would the judge not wait the three extra days to handle all the business at one hearing? Especially given that Powell expects provision of the case file to be complete by then?

Cleveland finds the clue to the explanation in a phrase from Powell's response to the Government's statement on the effect Flynn's changed posture in the "Bian Kian" trial might have on sentencing of Flynn in Flynn's own criminal case. In Flynn's Legal Team Responds To The Government I pointed out that, while Powell saw no reason why sentencing should be affected by that change in posture, she took the opportunity to signal to Judge Sullivan the direction in which her representation of Flynn was moving:

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Judge Sullivan Enters Dispute Between Flynn Lawyers, Past and Present

This is highly unusual, as The Hill reports:

Judge Emmet Sullivan, the Obama appointee overseeing Flynn’s case in Washington, D.C., scheduled a status conference for 11 a.m. on Aug. 27 after Flynn’s new legal counsel said his former Covington & Burling attorneys had not turned over all of the files related to his case. 
Sullivan also said he would invite a legal ethics official to the hearing to explain the applicable rules:
“In light of the representations made by defense counsel regarding the delay in receiving the client files, the Court hereby gives notice to the parties of the Court's intent to invite Senior Legal Ethics Counsel for the District of Columbia Bar to attend the status conference and explain on the record the applicable District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct,” Sullivan wrote in an order Tuesday. 

This action by Judge Sullivan is being taken in response to the statements made by Flynn's new lawyers.

In the filing by Flynn's lawyers dated 7/11/19 (DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S ORDER OF JULY 9 AND GOVERNMENT’S FILING OF JULY 10), page 2, paragraph 1, Flynn's lawyers stated:

1. We do not yet have the entire file from prior counsel, and Covington & Burling, LLP (“Covington”) (former counsel) has advised it will be several weeks before all the information can be transferred.

Judge Sullivan is taking this action, sua sponte--on his own initiative. In other words, while Flynn's lawyers only drew attention to the situation and didn't ask for any particular action from the judge, upon reflection Judge Sullivan decided to get involved in a very marked manner--summoning Senior Legal Ethics Counsel for the District of Columbia Bar to attend the meeting. The Covington & Burling lawyers are ordered to attend, clearly to explain their conduct in the light of professional and ethical responsibilities. This appears to be a clear shot across the bow to Flynn's former lawyers to get the transfer of files done ASAP. Here's the judge's order in its entirety:

Two Good Russia Hoax Reads For Today

Neither of these two articles are news, exactly, but both are shrewd commentary and both deal with the current state of play in the Russia Hoax on the Dem side. The narrative has collapsed and current events make its collapse ever more apparent. Indeed, the collapse is increasingly dangerous for the Dems themselves, who look to be caught in the house of cards as it comes crashing down.

Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, points out in Mueller, Dems Scramble as Russiagate Falls Apart that the entire Russia Hoax is collapsing. Now, that slow motion collapse has been apparent for quite some time, but McGovern is pointing out that this collapse is now becoming official. McGovern focuses on the two prongs of the Russia Hoax "collusion" narrative--the supposed Russian government "meddling" via social media, and the supposed Russian "hacking" of the DNC. He does this in the context of the current delay in Mueller's testimony to the House.

Another important point to bear in mind in all this is that Mueller's bizarre no-questions press conference--so seemingly inexplicable at the time--can now be seen to have been the price Mueller had to pay to avoid criminal contempt charges in the New York court room of Judge Dabney Friedrich, who is presiding over the Concord Management:

Friday’s surprising report that Robert Mueller had successfully sought an extra week to prepare for his House testimony on Russiagate (now set for July 24) must have come as scary news to those of his fans who can put two and two together. Over the past few weeks, it has become clearer that each of the two frayed findings of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election has now come apart at the seams. 
Saturday’s New York Times reports that “the Democrats said they chose to delay at the request of Mr. Mueller” after a day of negotiations, “as both Democrats and Republicans were deep in preparations for his testimony” earlier scheduled for July 17. ... 
["two recent bombshell revelations from the United States District Court"] 
Perhaps the most damning of the two came last Monday, when it was disclosed that, on July 1, Judge Dabney Friedrich ordered Mueller to stop pretending he had proof that the Russian government was behind the Internet Research Agency’s supposed attempt to interfere via social media in the 2016 election. ... 

Tuesday, July 16, 2019

John Solomon: FBI Knew Dossier Was Bogus, Used It Anyway

I know--that doesn't sound like bombshell news. However, John Solomon is reporting this based on source information and a "spreadsheet like" document that the FBI produced in their effort to verify information in Christopher Steele's "dossier". In his latest reporting, FBI's spreadsheet puts a stake through the heart of Steele's dossier, Solomon states that there is evidence not only that the FBI was warned by State Department official Kathleen Kavalec of the unreliability of Steele's work product, but that Steele himself warned the FBI as early as July and again in October of 2016. That confirms that the original FISA application was knowingly based on unreliable information, presented to the FISA court as reliable. In an interview with Sean Hannity, Solomon confirmed that this was done in the hope that dirt would be uncovered on Trump that would retroactively justify the FBI investigation. It was an attempted coup.

Over the succeeding months the FBI continued its attempts to verify Steele's work product, seeking to find substance to support the Russia Hoax collusion narrative. Every allegation was examined and the results were assembled in what Solomon describes as "a spreadsheet-like document":

Multiple sources familiar with the FBI spreadsheet tell me the vast majority of Steele’s claims were deemed to be wrong, or could not be corroborated even with the most awesome tools available to the U.S. intelligence community. One source estimated the spreadsheet found upward of 90 percent of the dossier’s claims to be either wrong, nonverifiable or open-source intelligence found with a Google search. 
In other words, it was mostly useless. 
“The spreadsheet was a sea of blanks, meaning most claims couldn’t be corroborated, and those things that were found in classified intelligence suggested Steele’s intelligence was partly or totally inaccurate on several claims,” one source told me.

In their efforts to confirm some part of the "dossier," the FBI pressed Steele to identify his Russian source. An agent interviewed that source in early 2017. The conclusion that the FBI came to was that--giving Steele the benefit of the doubt--the Russian had "misled" Steele:

For example, U.S. intelligence found no evidence that Carter Page, during a trip to Moscow in July 2016, secretly met with two associates of Vladimir Putin — Rosneft oil executive Igor Sechin and senior government official Igor Divyekin — as part of the effort to collude with the Trump campaign, as Steele reported. 
The inaccuracy of Steele’s intelligence on Page is at the heart of the inspector general investigation specifically because the FBI represented to the FISA court that the intelligence on Page was verified and strong enough to support the FISA warrant. It was, in the end, not verified.

And yet the FBI used this bogus "information" in the follow FISA extension requests, signed by Sally Yates, Dana Boente (currently the top lawyer at the FBI, for Chris Wray), and Rod Rosenstein. The FISA product was used by Team Mueller throughout their inquisition.

Solomon's sources also confirmed what we have pointed out, that the "dossier" was an evolving narrative that developed and changed as circumstances changed. For example, when Carter Page left the Trump campaign a new conduit for "collusion" had to be found. So Steele came up with the Michael Cohen-in-Prague tale. That, you may recall, came after Steele met with DoJ lawyers, including Andrew Weissmann:

Another knockdown of the dossier occurred when U.S. intelligence determined former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen was not in Prague in the summer of 2016 when Steele claimed he was meeting with Russians to coordinate a hijacking of the election, the sources said. 
Steele’s theory about who in the Trump campaign might be conspiring with Russia kept evolving from Page to Cohen to former campaign chairman Paul Manafort. None of those theories checked out in the end, as the Mueller report showed.

Weissmann needs to be grilled about his involvement in the FISA.

In the interview with Hannity, Solomon discusses Andrew McCabe's admission in testimony that without the "dossier" there would have been no FISA. However, there's another point that we've been making over the months. Without the "dossier" there would have been no Crossfire Hurricane to begin with. Yes, Crossfire Hurricane was the sine qua non for the Carter Page FISA. But it was also the the sine qua non for the Mueller inquisition, which Rod Rosenstein confirmed to be basically no more than an extension of Crossfire Hurricane.

As we've always known, the whole thing was a hoax, from start to finish.

Oh, and Solomon is supposed to have another big story out later this week. I can't wait! Maybe this is what Devin Nunes was talking about when he said the Mueller testimony might never happen.

ADDENDUM: In response to commenter dfp21, yes, from remarks Solomon drops it's clear that his source(s) is familiar with the results of the OIG investigation--including the results of the very recent interviews of Kathleen Kavalec and Chris Steele.

Monday, July 15, 2019

Seth Rich In The News Again

There's a story that came out earlier today that injects the whole Seth Rich - DNC narrative into the public view again. Here's the slightly more than 25 word version:

A businessman and ex Fox Business contributor named Ed Butowsky has, through his lawyer Ty Clevenger, filed a lawsuit in which he alleges--among much else--that Fox analyst Ellen Ratner told him that she had been informed by Julian Assange that Seth and Aaron Rich provided the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Obviously, IF TRUE, this is mind boggling. It's that "if true" that gives pause.

This is Ed Butowsky, via Wikipedia:

Edward "Ed" Wayne Butowsky (born February 12, 1962) is an American financial adviser and former Fox Business Network commentator. Butowsky was purportedly banned from the network's building in August 2017 after he gained notoriety over his role in a story published and subsequently retracted by Fox News concerning the murder of Seth Rich and his alleged ties to WikiLeaks.

Here is Ty Clevenger's account of the facts that Butowsky alleges in his lawsuit, linked to FR:

Lawsuit outs Ellen Ratner as source for Seth Rich information
LawFlog ^ | July 15, 2019 | Ty Clevenger 
Fox News news analyst Ellen Ratner relayed information from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to Texas businessman Ed Butowsky regarding Seth Rich’s role in transferring emails to Wikileaks, according to an amended lawsuit that I filed this morning on behalf of Mr. Butowsky. 
Although Ms. Ratner appears on Fox News, she is by no means a Republican or a conservative, and her role in the Seth Rich saga (like that of journalist Sy Hersh) obliterates the Democratic narrative that right-wing zealots fabricated the story about Mr. Rich leaking emails from the Democratic National Committee. 
Mr. Rich, a DNC employee, was murdered in Washington, D.C. on July 10, 2016, and the murder remains unsolved. Here’s an excerpt from the amended suit (“RCH” stands for “Russian Collusion Hoax”): 
45. Mr. Butowsky stumbled into the RCH crosshairs after Ellen Rattner [sic], a news analyst for Fox News and the White House correspondent for Talk Media News, contacted him in the Fall of 2016 about a meeting she had with Mr. Assange. Ms. Rattner’s brother, the late Michael Rattner, was an attorney who had represented Mr. Assange. According to Ms. Rattner, she made a stop in London during a return flight from Berlin, and she met with Mr. Assange for approximately six hours in the Ecuadorean embassy. Ms. Rattner said Mr. Assange told her that Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron, were responsible for releasing the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Ms. Rattner said Mr. Assange wanted the information relayed to Seth’s parents, as it might explain the motive for Seth’s murder. 
46. Upon her return to the United States, Ms. Rattner asked Mr. Butowsky to contact the Rich family and relay the information from Mr. Assange, apparently because Ms. Rattner did not want her involvement to be made public. [Continue]

The referenced Fox story is not the only story of this sort that has been retracted. The Washington Times also retracted a story re Seth Rich: Retraction: Aaron Rich and the murder of Seth Rich:

The Washington Times published an op-ed column titled, “More cover-up questions: The curious murder of Seth Rich poses questions that just won’t stay under the official rug,” by Adm. James Lyons (Ret.) (the “Column”), on March 1 online and on March 2 in its paper editions. The Column included statements about Aaron Rich, the brother of former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, that we now believe to be false. 
One such statement was that: “Interestingly, it is well known in the intelligence circles that Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron Rich, downloaded the DNC emails and was paid by Wikileaks for that information.” The Washington Times now does not have any basis to believe any part of that statement to be true, and The Washington Times retracts it in its entirety. 
The Column also stated: “Also, why hasn’t Aaron Rich been interviewed [by law enforcement], and where is he?” The Washington Times understands that law enforcement officials have interviewed Mr. Rich and that he has cooperated with their investigation. The Washington Times did not intend to imply that Mr. Rich has obstructed justice in any way, and The Washington Times retracts and disavows any such implication.

Obviously, given these retractions, I don't want to invest a lot of time in Butowsky's lawsuit. OTOH, I count myself among those who don't buy the official narrative that "Russia Hacked The DNC Emails". I believe that the case that an insider was responsible for transferring the DNC emails to Wikileaks is clear and convincing. I assume that the claim of a Russian "hack" was probably manufactured to smear Trump once the exfiltration was discovered. I simply can't see any innocent explanation for the bizarrely inept handling of this situation by the FBI and DoJ--as well as Team Mueller. It is critically important that the truth of all this come out. Here are two prior posts that go into that a bit:

Remember: The DNC Was NOT Hacked By The Russians
Roger Stone Questions DOJ on Predicate of Russia DNC Hack

CTH has also weighed in on the Butowsky lawsuit this evening, but cautiously. I can certainly subscribe to all of this:

The FBI, the DOJ and the Mueller special counsel have each purposefully claimed specific Russian actors were responsible for hacking the DNC in 2016.  If it turns out those claims were based on falsehood, the integrity of the DOJ and Special Counsel collapses. 
The DNC hack claim is contingent upon analysis by Crowdstrike computer forensics who were paid by the DNC to look into the issue. The FBI was never allowed to review the servers independently, and now we know the FBI never even looked at a full forensics report from Crowdstrike. 
Almost all independent research into this DNC hack narrative challenges the claims of a Russia hack of the DNC servers; and now this bombshell court filing, again if accurate, makes the DOJ claim completely collapse.

Unfortunately, I have nothing to contribute at this point that hasn't already been said.

Sunday, July 14, 2019

Briefly Noted: Epstein Goes Viral, International

The press in both the UK and Israel are picking up on the Jeffrey Epstein case. In the UK the focus is on the Royal Family, and especially "Prince" Andrew--or "Andy" to Jeffrey.

In Israel the case is perhaps more serious. The Jerusalem Post and Times of Israel have been all over the story. Former prime minister Ehud Barak has been closely tied to Epstein:

Barak, 77, served as prime minister from 1999 to 2001. This month he formed a new party to run for prime minister against Netanyahu, who called for new elections in September. Once political allies, Barak and Netanyahu have been sparring on social media, with Netanyahu producing a video raising Barak’s relationship to the multimillionaire New York financier, and Ohio billionaire Les Wexner, who has given money to Barak, the Times of Israel reported.
Barak was a close friend and business partner with Epstein for years. Now some of those business partnerships are being scrutinized amid questions about Barak’s own source of wealth

Briefly Noted: Actual News Re Carter Page! Nunes Re Mueller!

Just when we're despairing of new information, Paul Sperry comes through:

Paul Sperry‏

BREAKING: In 5/16/16 email exchange b/t Trump campaign advisers Carter Page & Walid Phares, Page proposed sitting out July trip to New Economic School to let Trump take spotlight like Obama before him, further undercutting dossier allegation Page traveled to Moscow to take bribe
4:26 PM - 13 Jul 2019

The collusion narrative continues to collapse.

And this from Devin Nunes on Fox--totally agree:

I think Mueller would be crazy to testify — I don’t think it’s wise for him to testify but saying that, I want him to testify.
You already saw this week it got postponed — it was supposed to be Wednesday and now it’s kicked to a week from Wednesday. My guess is it could slip again or not happen at all — we’ll see and we’ll be prepared.

Double Jeopardy In The Epstein Case

First things first: A new grandson is being baptized today, so I'll be away most of the time. 

Commenter Cassander wrote:

Off topic, but Andrew McCarthy has just published his opinion that Epstein can successfully argue double jeopardy against a new indictment in the SDNY.

I responded in a series of comments, noting that I've been wondering about that and more or less assuming that the SDNY claim that they weren't bound by SD-Florida's scandalous non-prosecution agreement would carry the day. McCarthy disagrees. I claim no expertise in this area and, in fact, Double Jeopardy (DJ) was very recently the subject of heated disagreement in the SCOTUS, in which we saw the spectacle of Gorsuch and Ginsburg--an unlikely combination under most circumstances--strongly disagreeing with Alito and (a reluctant) Thomas. With that in mind, here is my response comment, which will have to serve on this busy (but very happy) day. I make no apodictic statements, but express a hope:

I've read McCarthy, and I've also read Jonathan Turley, whom McC cites: Jeffrey Epstein forces Washington to deal with embarrassing connections. McC makes strong arguments, but he leaves out something that I hope will be important--and should be if the interests of justice are to furthered. Here's my hope. 
As McC recognizes, this case is a travesty of justice. My hope is that, as I mentioned above and as Turley also mentions, since Acosta violated the CVRA--the provisions of which bear directly on any plea deal process--courts will decide to void it and allow federal prosecution. I think this would be the better solution, rather than jiggering with DJ itself.

[CVRA = Criminal Victims' Rights Act.]
Turley also points out (and expands a bit on) what I did:
"The fact that there are only two counts in the new federal indictment this week may indicate that New York prosecutors are looking for crimes not covered by the earlier agreement, including new charges connected to photos of allegedly underaged girls that were reportedly found in the safe of Epstein."
BTW, Turley explains Barr's recusal, which I don't agree with but which is probably SOP:
"Barr has recused himself from an ongoing review of the plea agreement under the Southern District of Florida because his old law firm, Kirkland and Ellis, represented Epstein, although Barr himself had no role in the case."