Ward begins here article with this arresting sentence:
A couple of years ago, I was interviewing a former senior White House official when the name Jeffrey Epstein came up.
Let's see. The interview took place "a couple of years ago," and the person interviewed was "a former senior White House official." That takes us back into the Obama administration. Ward was talking to a former senior official in the Obama White House. And what did that former senior official in the Obama White House have to say about Epstein, at a time when stories of the Lolita Express and Orgy Island were common currency? This:
... this person assured me that the New York financier was no serious harm to anyone. He was a good guy. A charming guy. Useful, too. He knew a lot of rich Arabs, including the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, and, further, he had clever ideas about creating bond issues for them. “OK, so he has a girl problem,” this person threw on, almost as an afterthought.
You can take that as the official Democrat establishment take on Epstein.
Move forward a few years. Alex Acosta, who was the US Attorney in Miami when the non-prosecution deal was cut with Epstein, is interviewing for the job of Secretary of Labor:
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.
I think what this translates to is that Acosta signed off on a deal that had actually been negotiated by Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz, at the direction of Alberto Gonzalez, with the approval of George W. Bush, because ... Hillary Clinton.
And about that deal--such a deal it was!
The deal granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators.” Most significantly, federal prosecutors agreed to keep the deal secret from Epstein’s victims, which meant they would not know to challenge it in court. As it turned out, this actually broke the law, because victims have a right to know of such developments, under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.
... After his absurdly soft jail time, Epstein carried on as before. He shamelessly wandered the streets of New York accompanied by startlingly young looking foreign women. People in his social set still tell me how “brilliant” he is and phone him for financial advice. A few years ago the journalist Michael Wolff wrote a profile of him for New York magazine that was meant to “rehabilitate” Epstein’s image and would tell of all the billionaires who still, secretly, hung out with Epstein. The piece had “fact-checking” issues and never ran. Even so, the notion that it was considered is mind-boggling.
Now that we know that Trump has been on to this for years, does this maybe offer a clue as to why the Establishment and the Deep State were so desperate to prevent a President Donald J. Trump--even at the price of a President Hillary Rodham Clinton? Even going so far as to manufacture the absurd Russia Hoax, and then drag Robert Mueller out of retirement to serve as the figurehead? And how could Mueller refuse--after all, he'd been Director FBI when the whole Epstein case was going down in slow motion in plain sight!