Jac Wilder VerSteeg, a Florida columnist, has written a piece
about the Jeffrey Epstein case which underscores a point overlooked by most observers: This case is not about sex. Virginia Roberts has not brought any kind of lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz, and has not asked for money. As far as I can see, there is no possibility
of money changing hands, even if a judge or jury ends up believing every word she says.
The suit is not about sex. It's about justice.
Most of the hoopla is about the sex allegations. But that's not what this case really is about any more. It's not about corrupting children; it's about corrupting the state and federal legal systems.
This time it isn't a case of he-said, she said. It's a case of she-said, and representatives of the legal systems are trying hard as hell NOT to say.
Jane Doe No. 3 and some other Epstein victims want to know how Epstein evaded federal prosecution. The answer, or part of it, apparently is to be found in documents that detail how the feds arrived at their non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. With that agreement in place, the billionaire pedophile took the much easier state rap, which included ample time off from his prison cell for weekends and business meetings.
Jane Doe No. 3 says the federal prosecutors violated victims' rights when they gave Epstein that sweetheart deal, and she wants it nullified. And she wants details of the non-prosecution agreement made public. Federal prosecutors, along with Epstein lawyer Roy Black, are arguing to keep the public from knowing about what went on behind closed doors — the ones in the courthouse, I mean, not in Epstein's various mansions and luxury hotel rooms.
Suspicions in the Epstein case go beyond the day-to-day sausage-making of plea deals. It is reasonable to suspect that Epstein, who hobnobbed with celebrity politicians like Bill Clinton as well as just plain celebrities, might have gotten his deal because of his wealth and political connections.
Sunshine is the only way to eradicate that suspicion.
I honestly do not know if Dershowitz did or did not have sex with Roberts. I do
think that he has told a couple of demonstrable lies: He has called Roberts a "serial prostitute," which is not true, and he has said that this is a case of extortion, which is also not true. No-one has asked for money.
And that brings us to a key point: What would be Roberts' motive
for including a false charge in her statement? Many people lie, but few lie for no reason. If she were suing Dershowitz directly, we would have an obvious motive for mendacity. But in this case, the party being sued is the United States Government.
And why is Dershowitz so hesitant to discuss the appalling deal he brokered on behalf of his client and friend, Jeffrey Epstein?