UPDATED: What Might Come Of The Epstein Case?

I'll admit very frankly that, while I've read a certain amount about the Jeffrey Epstein case, I've shied away from writing about it for the simple reason that I don't want to get dragged down into the salacious details. Because I'm a bit squeamish about dwelling on such matters. Nevertheless, Epstein's arrest by federal authorities (actually, a joint FBI/NYPD task force) in the Southern District of NY--even as the US Attorney in Miami continues to resist reopening the case, and coming as it does in the runup to the 2020 elections as well as in the aftermath of the Mueller Dossier--raises unavoidable speculation. Fortunately I've come across an article that addresses some of these issues without the salacious details. The article is by Monica Showalter, So the Epstein bust means Democratic 'faves' may roll out of the woodwork? and it may prove a useful jumping off point for speculation on what to look for going forward.

As we'll see, Showalter's title is a reference to a tweet by Nancy Pelosi's daughter, Christine, but let's first glance at Showalter's first paragraph:

The bust of Bill Clinton's buddy and airplane-mate Jeffrey Epstein, monickered by Forbes as "Palm Beach pervert," for sex trafficking in underage girls, is a complex one. The news is speculative about whether Epstein was being protected by Robert Mueller's special counsel's office, and why the Department of Justice acted now, given that he's been problematic for years. There's also his role as a bigfoot Democrat donor, same as Ed Buck and other perverts who've financed the Democrats. A while back, I made a list here. But one thing's pretty clear, based on a tweet by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's daughter Christine: Democrats knew.

And here's what Christine Pelosi tweeted:

"This Epstein case is horrific and the young women deserve justice. It is quite likely that some of our faves are implicated but we must follow the facts and let the chips fall where they may — whether on Republicans or Democrats."

The first point, which most readers are no doubt already familiar with, is that when Christine Pelosi refers to "some of our faves" she's referring directly to the same person Showalter singles out: Bill Clinton. The reason is twofold. First, Clinton ditched the Secret Service 26 times to take trips to Epstein's private island on his private jet--the Lolita Express. Secondly, the fact that Epstein was "a bigfoot Democrat donor" is highly suggestive of just who Epstein's chosen companions were. Christine Pelosi says that the chips should be allowed to "fall where they may--whether on Republicans or Democrats." But she gives the game away with her sole reference to "faves." Coming from Pelosi's daughter that can only mean "Democrats." There is no such pointed reference to Republicans, no warning that Republicans are likely to be complicit.

Further, Showalter raises a shrewd point:

Why would Christine, who's probably tweeting as a proxy to her mother the way daughter Alexandra also seems to do, say something like that? Up until now, most of us thought it was just Bill and Jeff, a disgusting partnership based on trips to the Dominican Republic.

If Christine is, in fact, tweeting as a proxy for her mother, as Showalter believes, then what's Pelosi's game? Showalter wonders whether Pelosi may have a Democrat purge in mind. It's an attractive idea.

Then there's the question of why DoJ is doing this now?

I'll admit, I can't say how to what degree DoJ supervises local US Attorney offices. The USA in Miami has been stonewalling attempts to shine more light on Epstein and his high profile accomplices for something like 12 years, taking us back to the closing years of the Dubya administration and the entire Obama administration. One assumes that this was the Establishment protecting its own, so what has changed? Did Bill Barr give the SDNY the go ahead? Does he know that this may lead to questions about Bob Mueller's FBI--widely believed to have protected Epstein as an informant--and about Mueller himself? That's interesting. Democrat "faves" and possibly Mueller himself dragged down--that's the kind of thing that could really simplify things for Barr. And for Trump. All things considered, and admitting that I have no insight into relations between the AG and local USAs, it's hard to get away from the idea that Barr gave the SDNY the go ahead.

Now there is another matter. The prosecutor working this in the SDNY is one Maurene Comey, daughter of the disgraced former Director FBI. Is she doing this to try to embarrass Trump? I'm going to cautiously suggest that that won't be the way it works out.

In the first place, Christine Pelosi doesn't even hint in the direction of Trump. That should have been a given if the Dems had even a glimmer of a hope of ensnaring Trump or even smearing him. In the second place, while such smear attempts may come later, Trump appears to have a solid defense: Trump Was 'Only One' To Help Prosecutor In 2009 Epstein Case. If Fusion GPS couldn't come up with enough to smear Trump and instead decided to run with the Russia Hoax, well ...

UPDATE: Commenter Yancey Ward, below, provided an important link to a C-Span segment in which Sen. Sasse questioned Bill Barr during his AG confirmation hearings. Sasse specifically expressed his concerns about the way DoJ handled the Epstein case (again, cf. the Wikipedia Epstein article for details) and asked for assurances that Barr would investigate that. Barr's response is that 1) he was unsure what role he could play as he had been told he would need to recuse himself from matters involving his old law firm, Kirkland and Ellis, but that 2) he would see that Sasse's concerns were addressed. Interestingly, Barr's father, Donald, hired Epstein ("a noted math genius") to teach math at the Dalton School in Manhattan, where Donald Barr was headmaster. That was, of course, long before Epstein achieved wealth and fame.