Briefly Noted: Acosta On Epstein The Intel Guy

H/T to emailer Jim. 

Guy Benson notes and asks: Theories Fly: Was Epstein Running a Massive Blackmail Scheme -- And Was He An Intelligence Asset?

Here's what's interesting. Benson quotes Alex Acosta at his press conference. Acosta is asked about that "intel guy" angle, that he supposedly told Trump transition vetters that the reason he did the Epstein plea deal was 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.

In his reply at his press conference Acosta says his guidelines don't allow him to comment on this matter, but he doesn't deny it. If this story was bogus, he could deny, IMO:

Asked about this angle during his presser, Acosta gave a convoluted and evasive answer:

"So there has been reporting to that effect and let me say, there’s been reporting to a lot of effects in this case, not just now but over the years and, again, I would hesitant to take this reporting as fact. This was a case that was brought by our office, it was brought based on the facts and I look at the reporting and others, I can’t address it directly because of our guidelines, but I can tell you that a lot of reporting is going down rabbit holes."

What does that mean?  Was Epstein a spy, or at least a valuable asset?  Was US intelligence exploiting his depravity because it helped ensnare connected and powerful people from around the world, furnishing exploitable leverage for gathering information?   

This seems like a far-fetched conspiracy theory on its face.  It's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence -- evidence that we do not have.  But if Acosta did in fact tell Team Trump that 'intelligence' was running Epstein during the mid-2000's prosecution process, that might help explain so much weirdness about this case.  It also may have been a self-serving deflection.  Either way, the departing Labor Secretary did not seem interested in answering questions on this subject this week.  One wonders if the public will ever get satisfactory answers about any of this.  Parting thought: Do the blackmail and intelligence theories fail under Occam's Razor -- or are they buttressed by it?

I'm not sure what to say. Benson's bottom line seems correct: None of the answers so far have been satisfactory.

Was Epstein An Intel Guy? Who To Ask

In an informative article at Epoch Times, Wilson Miller identifies four officials at "Main Justice," DoJ HQ so to speak, who were involved in the Epstein plea deal: Justice Department Sat on Mountain of Epstein Evidence for 10 Years. I'll keep this brief, and start from the last two sentences:

And why did main Justice have such an interest in a South Florida child sex offender? 

This quote from Acosta, cited in a July 9, 2019, Daily Beast article, may provide the answer: “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone.”

 Obviously, if we want to know whether Alex Acosta is telling the truth, there must be people who were at Main Justice who can tell us. Miller has identified those people:

Court records show that post-plea-deal decisions went up to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, who, according to one former DOJ official, has a stellar reputation. Filip was informed of reasons to approve the continued prosecution of Epstein if he didn’t comply with the non-prosecution agreement. Judge Marra noted that Filip reviewed the Epstein matter and determined that federal prosecution of Epstein was appropriate if he did not “comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement.” 

Another high-level Department of Justice official who had his fingerprints on the case is Andrew Oosterbaan, then-chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section. A privilege log filed on June 23, 2015, references several emails from 2007 between the Florida federal prosecutors and Oosterbaan regarding an “Epstein meeting” and “changes to the draft indictment and status of plea negotiations.” 

The same document shows emails from 2008 with Oosterbaan concerning a “continued delay in presenting case to grand jury due to failure to receive decision from D.C., the status of grand jury presentation and ongoing investigation” and a “meeting in DC” concerning the case. 

Additionally, these records appear to show Epstein’s attorneys reached out to Andy Lourie in May 2007 to arrange a meeting to discuss the Epstein investigation. Lourie was the acting chief of the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division in Washington in 2006, before becoming the acting principal deputy assistant attorney general and chief of staff to the Criminal Division by 2007. In 2007, he was also an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Florida. Lourie was kept in the loop on possible federal coercion and enticement charges, proposed changes to the indictment, “finalizing details with State Attorney’s Office,” and “final revisions to indictment package.” 

There are also notations of 2007 emails from Florida federal prosecutors to Myesha Braden, who was serving as a trial attorney for the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the DOJ’s Criminal Division, regarding securing a pre-indictment consultation contract. This correspondence took place months before Epstein signed the non-prosecution agreement. 

In other words, Main Justice was well-informed with the investigation and status of the case.

Some or all of these people know what the real story is.

ADDENDUM: Here's a link to a Fox article with video interviews with two top flight lawyers, including Paul Cassell, attorney for the victims.