Sunday, November 10, 2019

MAJORLY UPDATED: Mark Zaid Linked To Epstein (Who Didn't Kill Himself)

Well! A shared interest in underage girls, judging from Zaid's social media. And Liberal politics. What other Dems is Zaid close to?

UPDATE: This "update" is a bit of a retrospective, digging up past blogging. Inquiring minds should find it rather fascinating that a "prominent national security lawyer" (a standard characterization of Zaid) was also a longtime lawyer for Epstein, and that Alex Acosta said he was warned off prosecuting Epstein for "intel" reasons.

From July, 2019:

Also yesterday, in Epstein, Acosta, Trump--And The Russia Hoax! I quoted investigative reporter to this fascinating effect:

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 obvious question is: "Intelligence"? What "Intelligence"? A number of talking heads have hinted at the possibility that Epstein was simply a front for bigger players. Zerohedge has carried two blogs by Mike Krieger that address that question. This morning in Bombshell: Alex Acosta Reportedly Claimed Jeffrey Epstein "Belonged To Intelligence" Krieger sets the table, so to speak:

it appeared his real job was to run a blackmail operation to ensnare some of the most wealthy and powerful people on earth. ... he was collecting this priceless information on behalf of a third party ...

Krieger is referring here to a previous blog in which he shares some "extremely bizarre facts about Jeffrey Epstein and the people around him." You can find that here: The Jeffrey Epstein Rabbit Hole Goes a Lot Deeper Than You Think. After sharing that information Krieger concludes:

It looks as if Jeffrey Epstein’s real job was to obtain blackmail on some of the world’s most wealthy and powerful players, and in this sense he was a huge success. The much bigger question is whether he was doing this primarily for himself or if he was a frontman for other players to whom such information would be priceless. 
The reason I put this together is to expose as many people as possible to this bizarre information. I hope journalists and criminal investigators dig deep into all this stuff (and more) in order to truly get to the bottom of who Jeffrey Epstein is, where his money came from and who, if anyone, he answers to. 
There may be a lot more here than meets the eye.

The current CW on Epstein, at least among the Smart People, is that there is no reasonable or even remotely plausible explanation for how he got his money. None at all. So from that standpoint, and taking Acosta's statement into account, Krieger's viewpoint seems, well, entirely reasonable in the circumstances. Read Krieger's Rabbit Hole blog entry for details.


  1. The members of the "cabal" are "diverse" wypipol.

  2. When you write "Also yesterday, in Epstein, Acosta, Trump--And The Russia Hoax!", the link goes to that post from 9 July, not yesterday.

    Any idea on just what sort of strings Zaid could pull, to get his pals such Clearances?

    1. Yes, that's a passage from a blog dated July 10. July 9 is "yesterday" to July 10. I was in a hurry and decided not to include the link to the blog I quoted from. Don't ask me to explain.

      As for the strings, I'd have to assume that would have involved politicking with very high level officials, who could override people doing the background investigations.

  3. Fair enough, on that date issue.
    Why couldn't Sen. Burr's panel grill those people doing the background checks, to out those blocking these investigations?
    Or, is sundance right about the SSCI?

    1. He appears to be right. These are difficult things to track down, and government regs provide loopholes for officials. That's how they're written.

    2. You mean Sen Warner's panel. There fixed it for you.

      Actually the senate "intelligence" committee would also be a target in investigation because of Warner's friendship with Steele.

      Rob S

  4. I'd guess that "who" Acosta took his one meeting (about JE) with would be a tidbit worth knowing, i.e. who told him to back off, and who told him Epstein belonged to intelligence.

    The blackmail speculation seems a leap too far, given what facts are actually known. At this point it appears to be layers of speculation built on layers of speculation.

    Leslie Wexner appears to have given--in one way or another--JE an enormous amount of money. Bill Clinton took ~23 flights w/JE--presumably that's "above Acosta's pay grade."

    Unless JE employed Mafia-like enforcement/collection techniques, it strikes me as unlikely for blackmail to be his raison d'etre. But then we're learning a lot of weird shit went on during the Obama years...

    1. "Unless JE employed Mafia-like enforcement/collection techniques, it strikes me as unlikely for blackmail to be his raison d'etre."

      Which is one reason people speculate about state backing by intel agencies.

    2. Or put it this way--not simply for his own benefit. He woulda been dead long ago in that case.

  5. One thing is for sure, Trump had nothing to do with underage sex and had his own doubts about Epstein.

    If this is really about blackmail, then our federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies need to be disbanded with several high folks in jail.

    Why the heck does everything appear to be a suspense/action thriller Hollywood movie with Chinese censorship self imposed?

    1. "Troubling implications"--is that the operative phrase?

  6. I re-read the Rabbit Hole thread this morning. I defy anyone to read it and tell me who Jeffrey Epstein was, who he worked for or how he made his money.

    But one thing's for sure: US Intelligence knows way more than its letting on.

    I have an image in my head of John Brennan going apoplectic on television after Trump met with Putin in Helsinki. He looked like his head was about to explode. He called Trump 'treasonous'.
    Let that sink in.

    The former head of the CIA -- in a deranged moment on a major television network-- called the President of the United States a traitor. Because he met with a foreign leader?

    There's some strange s**t going on here that the 'IC' really doesn't want exposed.

    And it seems there is absolutely no length they won't go to to prevent exposure and destroy Donald Trump.

    In a way I feel sorry for the Deep State. If Donald Trump and his sixty-three million deplorables (who don't understand that the Deep State knows best) would just let go, the CIA would fix every thing up in a jiffy and we'd be back to normal.

    For some strange reason the pussy-grabbing, tax evading, racist, sexist, homophobe just won't let go. There must be days when he wishes he were back to 'making billions' running Miss Universe pageants and firing people on reality tv.

    Since it looks like nobody is going to let go on this, it looks like we are in for a very interesting ride.

    1. "There's some strange s**t going on here ..."

      We were all raised to believe that strange sh*t like this didn't go on in the good ol' US of A. But now we know better.