Pages

Thursday, July 2, 2020

UPDATED: Bill Barr Is Still On The Job

AG Bill Barr's impeachment by the Dem's House may be imminent, but he continues to imperturbably do his job. It's almost like he just doesn't care about anything except the common good of the American nation. Refreshing.

Item: Some jerk named Jason Charter has been arrested as an Antifa leader who was in charge of the attempt to topple Andrew Jackson. He apparently has also been identified as a ringleader in the assault on Jack Posobiec. Who thinks that if enforcement of the law with regard to Antifa were left to Chris Wray at the FBI this would be happening? I don't. What other AG of recent memory would be willing to get in the Dem House's face in this way while they threatened his impeachment?

Item: Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's groomer and procurer, has been arrested by the FBI. The indictment is said to target the years 1994-1997 (wait, who was president then?), and Techno Fog promises a thread on why those years are important.

Sean Davis asks an interesting question about the timing of the arrest:

Is it just a coincidence that a mere two weeks after Attorney General Bill Barr fired Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, that the FBI and DOJ finally arrested and charged Jeffrey Epstein's madam?

Believe this or not, but there are actually people out there on the internet who don't believe this was a coincidence! Not only that, but the same people are asking questions like: What else was Berman holding up? Who else thinks Chris Wray never would have done anything like this, but for Barr? How many AGs never moved against Epstein's operation over the past 20 years?

Does this tell us something about why the Dems were so irate about Berman's removal?

By the way, how did Ghislaine Maxwell wind up in Bradford, NH--population 356? Was she there to see the Bement Covered Bridge, or ... what? Gotta be a story there.

In the meantime, employment numbers for the Trump recovery are stunning.

ADDENDUM: I'm not actually that interested in this case from any legal standpoint, but Jonathan Turley is--and I'll share that interest:

Maxwell's arrest could be bad news for a number of individuals including Prince Andrew. One wrinkle however is the outrageous plea deal struck by the Justice Department with Epstein that purportedly protects "co-conspirators."

Epstein Confidante Maxwell Arrested In New Hampshire
"In a surprising move, Ghislaine Maxwell, the British heiress and confidante to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, has been arrested in New Hampshire. Maxwell’s arrest  could have a ripple effect on both criminal and civil matters ranging from the still uncertain status of Prince Andrew to a number of defamation lawsuits."
... That deal however was not lawfully executed by Jim [sic--should be Alex] Acosta who did a great disservice not only to justice but more importantly these victims. Ironically, the improper role played by the Justice Department in the case may actually help it now with any prosecution of Maxwell.
We now have the indictment. Any problem with the Acosta deal made be avoided by not just attacking the validity of the agreement, as noted, but reliance on multiple perjury counts stemming from depositions (which would not be impacted by the agreement, even if enforceable).

Six counts:

Count 1-2: Enticement of a Minor To Travel To Engage In Illegal Sex Acts
Count 3-4:  Transportation Of A Minor With Intent To Engage In Criminal Sexual Activity
Count 5-6: Perjury

Turley thinks Berman wasn't holding anything up re Epstein/Maxwell. That's very charitable of him, given the past history of unusual legal proceedings and deals in this case.

UPDATE: Well, there is a story about Bradford, NH, and Maxwell. It sounds like she may have been hiding out there, while rumors put her in Paris. Per Techno Fog:

Ghislaine Maxwell - new info from the US Detention Memo: 
1) The grand jury returned the indictment on 6/29/20 
2) Maxwell has 15+ bank accounts. Some hold more than $20 million. 
3) Transfers of millions $$ to/from Epstein 
4) Cash purchase of 156 acre NH Property in 2019

According to the detention memo:

Most recently, the defendant appears to have been hiding on a 156-acre property acquired in an all-cash purchase in December 2019 (through a carefully anonymized LLC) in Bradford, New Hampshire, an area to which sha has no other known connections.


58 comments:

  1. As I've said before, I have no doubt that AG Barr is sharp as hell. My doubts stem mainly from his association with the Bushes, who I do not hold in high regard (although compared to the Clintons and Obamas, they seem like saints).

    If Barr is serious about getting the job done, then he and Durham had better work fast. The clock is ticking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is true. I do think he's working fast. As fast as may be in the circs. Like you, I'm baffled by his support for Jeb.

      Delete
  2. Co-conspirators like, Sarah Kellen, Adrianna Ross, Lesley Groff, & Nadia Marcinkova ?

    ReplyDelete

  3. katie
    @katie66249583
    ·
    3h
    Replying to
    @jkbjournalist
    Ghislaine Maxwell’s boyfriend Scott Borgerson formed an LLC registered to a law firm in Boston. That same LLC appears to have purchased a home in December

    https://twitter.com/jkbjournalist/status/1278719496568610817?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

    House. said to be “luxurious”,, is located in the woods near Bradford, NH. Population 1650.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jim Acosta? Isn't that the idiot reporter?

    Rob S

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where do you see Jim Acosta mentioned?

      Delete
    2. Alex Acosta. Former Miami US attorney who cut Epstein a deal. As I recall there is more to that story than Turley talks about.

      Delete
    3. Re “Jim Acosta” here is what Turley actually wrote, referring to Alex Acosta:

      That deal however was not lawfully executed by Acosta who did a great disservice not only to justice but more importantly these victims. Judge Kenneth A. Marra of Federal District Court in West Palm Beach found, as many of us have long argued, that the deal cut by Acosta violated federal law and allowed the infamous financier to get a disgracefully low sentence. Here is the opinion.

      Delete
    4. I forget the details off the top of my head, but apparently Acosta was told something to the effect that the national security implications were too serious to prosecute Epstein. The idea seems to have been that Epstein was working for the Deep State.

      Delete
    5. Apologies. I didn't notice the "Jim". When I reread Turley I only noticed the paragraph where he used the last name only. I'll edit and put a [sic] in there.

      Delete
    6. "Acosta was told something to the effect that the national security implications were too serious to prosecute Epstein."

      Hiding criminal conduct behind classification is illegal itself. But of course it's been done more than most might imagine. An attorney general who is actually about the law without regard for establishment crime syndicate preferences is such a stark and refreshing change from what we've seen for so long.

      Barr was desperately needed. No surprise the demoncrats are attacking him. Lying and abusing their power for the ultimate purpose of acquiring total power is all they do. I mean that is literally the sole reason behind every single thing they do.

      We need to find a way to keep Barr as AG for the next 100 years. That's probably about how long it would take to root out all the corruption and restore true, impartial rule-of-law justice in this country.

      Delete
    7. That's Acosta's story, and no one I've heard of has claimed he's lying. It is, as the court that upheld the deal said, "a national disgrace."

      Delete
  5. From that same Julie Brown tweet, here is the “Property Card” for Bradford, NH, on the place that was bought in December.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eb7_ZwuWAAE1ZfT?format=jpg&name=small

    ReplyDelete
  6. AG Barr has DJT's trust and ear. Wray has been a disappointment to Trump (and likely Barr as well) and will hopefully get the boot after the election.

    After Epstein's demise, I wonder if AG Barr is personally selecting the Federal DOC guards for Maxwell...?

    DJL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the word on the internet, she's not contemplating suicide. If I were Barr ...

      Delete
    2. Neither was her father, allegedly.

      Delete
  7. Perhaps the sudden chatter about "impeaching Barr" has more to do with pressuring him to let Maxwell off without forcing her to rat out the rest of the pervs who took the Lolita Express to Orgy Island to play with underage sex partners than it does with Barr's role re: Flynn case.

    If she sings, do not be surprised if it is a BIPARTISAN political scandal ... which is to say, there are many powerful people who are eagerly looking forward to her having a sudden suicide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although, re the "bipartisan," while I don't claim to be an Epstein expert, I'm not aware of prominent Republicans associating with him:

      https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-politicians-connections-donations-2019-7
      All the politicians registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein donated to ...

      Jul 11, 2019 ... Since 1990, Epstein has donated $147,426 to various Democrats and $18,250 to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

      Delete
    2. IT may lean Dem, but pretty sure the passenger list for the Lolita express is not exclusively Dems/Dem donors.

      Delete
    3. I don't think anyone really gives a hoot about who was doing what to whom. This is 2020. Very nearly half the country, and most the Western world, think 15 year olds are competent to vote and 5 year olds should be competent at putting a condom on the MaBLA member that lusts for them, after they select their gender of preference, before they can say their ABC's.

      The real secret, what caused Jeffie to "suicide" was: Who was his handler and for whom was he gathering "chestnuts".

      Delete
  8. Why would she stay in the United States when she could have gone anywhere that doesn't have an extradition treaty or law enforcement, prosecutors, or judges who could easily be bribed?

    ReplyDelete
  9. On what do you base that, EZ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My recollection from seeing the names from the flight manifests was that they weren't exclusively Dem/Dem donors. Lots of powerful people, but not exclusively one political orientation.

      My other point is this would explain why Epstein was able to keep operating for so long, regardless of whether there were Dems or GOP in charge in Washington. There was, it seems to me, a bipartisan lack of appetite to go after Epstein and his pals in any significant way until very recently.

      Delete
    2. Just to refresh your recollection:

      https://www.reddit.com/r/EpsteinAndFriends/comments/emvk4c/list_of_names_for_the_epstein_flight_logs/

      Delete
  10. “Impeach Barr” has been going on for a while… Nadler was itching to call him before his committee, along with a bunch of witnesses…

    Dems see the end is near for a number of theirs. If they could impeach Barr (fat chance), it would cast a lot of shade over the Durham prosecutions...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So...its 'obstruction of justice' for Trump to fully co-operate with Mueller's fake investigation into stuff that never happened, but Nadler can attempt to impeach Barr for legitimately investigating the most serious criminal abuse of government power in our nation's history?

      The Dems are far beyond even being a joke.

      Delete
    2. Trump cooperated with SC investigation. Impeach!

      Trump didn't take Mueller's perjury trap bait. Impeach!

      None of multiple investigations uncovered any evidence of "collusion" with Russia. Impeach!

      The president, who sets foreign policy, spoke with a foreign leader and said things that may have conflicted with the foreign policy decisions of the unelected "interagency consensus," which does not decide foreign policy. Impeach!

      Trump didn't do whatever democrats demanded. Impeach!

      Trump [insert anything here]. Impeach!

      These are not people to be taken seriously.

      Delete
    3. Except that it's no joke what they're doing to our country.

      Delete
    4. @ Mark

      "Except that it's no joke what they're doing to our country."

      I couldn't agree more.

      In the movies, isn't there always a moment when truth prevails?

      Delete
    5. Like when Trump says: "You're fired!" I wonder what Barr or Durham will say to Brennan, Comey, Clapper ...

      Delete
  11. Does It Mean Something That The SDNY’s Public Corruption Unit Is Handling Ghislaine Maxwell’s Case?

    https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/07/02/mean-something-sdnys-public-corruption-unit-handling-ghislaine-maxwells-case/

    ReplyDelete
  12. There is a story at zerohedge about a US District Judge Loretta Preska, stating she ordered destruction of records about epsteins ‘activities’ because they were “improperly obtained”, which have 2,000 pages of documents with over a thousand docket entries.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/judge-orders-jeffrey-epstein-accuser-destroy-files

    If true, and if Barr was still on the job, you might think he would have tasked someone to collect all the evidence befor it is destroyed by judges or anyone else?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you seriously suggesting that Barr is allowing evidence to be "destroyed"?

      All the judge is saying is that Virginia Roberts Giuffre's legal team has to destroy copies of the docs that are in their possession and which they "improperly obtained." The judge is not saying that the original docs will be expunged from existence.


      "if Barr was still on the job."

      Barr is still on the job.

      Delete
    2. A read of the entire Zerohedge article reveals this:

      Preska noted that a protective order governing the 'improperly obtained' documents only applied during a civil lawsuit proceeding which has been settled.

      Preska's ruling came after a request by attorney Alan Dershowitz to gain access to the documents. Giuffre has claimed that Dershowitz was one of the men Epstein forced her to have sex with. In response, Dershowitz sued Giuffre for defamation in 2019. Dershowitz claimed that obtaining the Epstein files would be an asset to his defense.

      Preska said in her ruling that Dershowitz's desire to see all of the files "with over a thousand docket entries" was not a "targeted strike" but a "carpet bombing.” - Newsweek


      Same link as above.

      Delete
    3. The point, however, is that the judge is requiring Giuffre's lawyers to destroy copies of documents in their possession--not to destroy original evidence.

      Delete
    4. Exactly. That needed to be clarified.

      Delete
    5. Off topic, but we haven’t talked about Vindman in a while. Now comes this political craziness:

      https://www.lucianne.com/2020/07/02/duckworth_to_block_promotions_for_1123br_military_officers_unless_esper_promotes_brvindman_37986.html

      Outrageous.

      Delete
    6. It is not clear that the 'originals' still exist, or the nature of the 'illegality'. Maybe it is just a copyright violation, or the same kind of BS that sequestered the planned parenthood baby tissue evidence? There was apparently little, if any, evidence preservation on orgy island, epstein's new york mansion, or epstein's western 'ranch'. Didn't epstein's former federal prosecutor Acosta say that prosecution was "above his pay grade" alluding to foreign and/or domestic intelligence operations?

      There are reported many powerful people compromised by epstein, with strong interest in destroying any and all epstein records. The judge's order should be to turn over all records to the DOJ, shouldn't it?

      Delete
    7. Bebe, that's just more of the craziness that plays out for Trump. Red meat for his supporters.

      Delete
    8. @Bebe

      I think just about everybody who's served has encountered a Vindman. Utterly incompetent but believe they're superior to everybody. They're the worst kind of officers. He actually merits no further promotion. Duckworth's support tells us everything we need to know. Maybe he was promised advancement in exchange for his role, hasn't gotten it and is threatening to rat.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous, I read somewhere that Vindman’s promotions had come only because of his being transferred to certain jobs. As I recall there were some very long stretches between promotions that indicated lesser ability. He is a cipher. A dangerous one, as it turns out, because the good face he chose to use when he went against the President was that he was loyal to his home country, Ukraine.

      Duckworth is wrong for many reasons. As a naturalized citizen, he has sworn loyalty to the United States of America. As a commissioned officer in our military, he has done the same. He has broken those vows. And he has been grossly insubordinate. He deserves no promotion. His service should be terminated.

      Delete
  13. "Most recently, the defendant appears to have been hiding on a 156-acre property acquired in an all-cash purchase in December 2019..."

    I'm not a lawyer, but it sure seems like the individuals that arranged the purchase of this property would be guilty of aiding and abetting a fugitive from justice. The manner in which this property was purchased suggests prior knowledge and the need for secrecy to continue dodging federal warrants. Is so, these enablers should suffer for their actions as well.

    DJL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would depend on when the indictment was dated, whether Maxwell knew of the indictment, and whether she took steps then to evade arrest.

      Delete
    2. Maxwell was said to have been arrested yesterday “near" her boyfriend’s home in New Hampshire. (The Sun) According to the Sun, Borgerson has been her “boyfriend” for at least five years. He was said to have left his wife for her. Maxwell has been staying at his home in Massachusetts.

      https://www.the-sun.com/news/117528/who-ghislaine-maxwell-boyfriend-scott-borgerson/

      The indictment (linked below) is undated, but was signed by Audrey Strauss as Acting United States Attorney. She assumed that position on June 20.

      https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1291491/download

      Delete
    3. The news report I saw stated the indictment was handed down on 29 June.

      As regards the use of LLC, paying cash, etc., in purchasing the property, IIRC that high value individuals often use this approach to purchase real estate for very obvious and perfectly legal reasons. As a high profile person whose name is in the news linked to the infamous Epstein, she was wise to seek anonymity in the transaction to keep accusers from harassing her, nosy journalists from snooping through her trash, and plain garden variety crackpots who want to bask in the reflected glory of fame of others showing up at her door, ranting about some vast conspiracy being waged against them by sinister people.

      Similarly, cash sales at that price level are common to avoid the delay and hassles associated with applying for a mortgage, especially if the buyer is rich enough to do it, and the seller eager enough to conclude the sale expeditiously, without risk of bank loan denials delaying or nullifying the purchase.

      That said, it does not preclude the possibility she ALSO did it this way because she thought it might insulate her from pesky FBI agents eager to interview her.

      Which brings us to the question many are asking: given she had foreign passports and enough money to travel to Mars (or any other place with no extradition treaty with the US,) if she had wanted to elude prosecution, why did she choose to stay within the US jurisdiction, knowing that there were investigations underway related to Epstein, in which she would at least be a person of interest, if not a target?

      I don't claim to know the answer, but will simply share what seems to me to be the most plausible explanation.

      IF she thought that the investigation(s)related to Epstein and her role in those events were "under control" such that she would not be arrested and charged, she had no reason to leave the US at all. Given the amount of money she has, plus the number of powerful people who could be implicated by her directly, or through Epstein's documents, photos, videos, bank records, etc., she may have been lead to believe that those powerful people had orchestrated things such that she was "untouchable." IOW, the fix was in, or so she had been told, perhaps. (or she blackmailed influential people to orchestrate her untouchability, take your pick.)

      That's a scenario under which she would have no compelling concern to cause her to flee the jurisdiction ... as long as it remained true.

      And that lead inexorably to the speculation that the removal of Berman as the head of SDNY on 20 June was perhaps related to the indictment being handed down on the 29th and Maxwell arrest a few days later. One wonders if Berman was sitting on it and not pulling the trigger. And that begets speculation as to why -- whether it was a professional difference of opinion on the viability of the case, or whether he was under pressure by blackmail, or bribery to NOT get the indictment. The timing of events suggests a possible connection between Berman's firing and the sudden indictment and arrest of Maxwell less than 2 weeks later, but doesn't prove it.

      Delete
    4. As you say, it's speculation--but it's based on specific and articulable facts. You'd be a fool not to want to get to the bottom of this.

      Delete
  14. On Bush vs Trump.

    Trump has ripped off so many masks Off so called ”Conservative” that said one thing to get elected, vs how they governed. A lot of supposedly “Republican” Commentators have been unmasked, as Democrats in Republican Clothing. It’s a huge cultural shift that Trump has ridden the wave of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He isn’t riding a wave. He has brought that wave and is the force behind it. He takes the heat. He fights and he leads. Most of the Congressional Republicans are empty suits, putting in their time, and that goes for state and local governments as well. He has a lonely job.

      Delete
    2. Trump has channeled the Jacksonian Persona of American Politics (see Walter Russel Meade model of American politics). The Tea Party showed the huge anger at the system, but the uniparty destroyed it. A lot of this was due to over reach by Obama (very Wilsonian).

      Delete
  15. A former US Attorney on FOX News last night (Tolman) made an interesting point:

    1) Maxwell is looking at huge jail sentence if the charges brought against her are proven -- likely to be the rest of her life.

    2) As a person who grew up wealthy and as an adult enjoyed an extremely pampered luxurious life style, she will not appreciate spending her remaining years in women's prison.

    3) He opined there is only one way she can help herself: by becoming a cooperating witness who can provide evidence and testimony that implicates the people who were serviced by the underage girls deployed by Epstein to entertain his rich/powerful guests at Orgy Island. He says this is the only way she can get a reduced sentence.

    That's a very powerful incentive for her to sing loud and long.

    And that raises some very intriguing questions about who she can implicate, and what if any political implications there can be in an election year of such people being implicated.

    What if the people she can implicate include many powerful, wealthy individuals who were and are political patrons (donors) for the very same politicians who have been leading the Russia Hoax, the fake Ukraine Impeachment, etc.?

    If Maxwell sings and implicates such people, they in turn, will have no appetite to spend the rest of their lives in a prison, and the only way they can help themselves is to do what Maxwell is likely to do: implicate powerful people in serious crimes (not necessarily related to sex with underage girls.)

    What if those people, once charged, or threatened with charges, flip and sing on the politicians they' been backing for the past 20-40 years, exposing money laundering, bribery, and corruption on a scale never seen before?

    Barr may be going around the barn the long way to get to the objective; which will discredit the people leading the smears against Trump, exposing them for the fraudulent political tricks they were. That paves the way for Durham's prosecutions to resonate with the public.

    What if those who get implicated in corruption of pols include major MSM figures? The MSM credibility would be destroyed, paving the way for Durham's charges to be objectively evaluated by a public not being fed a pack of lies every day in service of the Dem narrative.

    Food for thought about where this may lead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you check out the link to the flight manifests?

      Would definitely make a second term VERY interesting.

      Delete
    2. I did. Lots of powerful people; also many who's names do not ring any bells.

      Definitely potential for some intrigue if those people get caught up in Maxwell trying to save her butt.

      Delete
    3. She has nothing to lose at this point and everything to gain by singing long and loud.

      Delete
    4. Nothing to lose at this point?
      Unless a Biden win would get her
      1)(a slew of) pardons, c. 21 Jan. 2021, if she stays mum 'til then, vs.
      2) an Epstein-type (or worse) experience, c. 21 Jan. 2021, if she does sing.
      What applies to her here, also likely applies to such folks as Rosey, Baker, Priestap, ....

      Delete
  16. Interesting the Epstein flight log list.

    Lots of Hollywood types that have been very anti Trump, and nany of them mentioned on the blog crazy days and nights, as umm, having issues...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Epstein was, among other things, a collector of celebrities of various sorts, so that's no surprise. But how many GOPers are celebrities of any type?

      Delete
    2. Isn't GOPer politics a failing attempt to gain Hollywood-type celebrity for ugly, ethically unappealing people?

      Delete