Saturday, February 07, 2015

Epstein/Dershowitz case update

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?


James said...

It does appear there's a lot more to this case than just the salacious sex scandal, and the overwhelming silence coming from almost the entire spectrum of what we generally consider to be the mainstream, or corporate, media corroborates this suspicion.

Stories of sexual depravity, especially those involving political figures or otherwise influential persons, typically dominate the news cycle in this country. In addition, during President Clinton's two terms in office it was de riguere to report on any and every detail of his sexual life, especially as the investigation spearheaded by Ken Starr uncovered all sorts of sordid details.

Interestingly, however, we're hearing nothing from the media about this case in particular. Why would that be? Why would Ken Starr, who portrayed himself as a beacon of family values during the '90s defend someone line Jeff Epstein, especially when he had to have known about his connections to the former president?

How is it that both state and federal prosecutors could be convinced not only to plea down charges that could have resulted in decades in prison not only for Mr. Epstein, but also for his numerous accomplices, but also provide a non-prosecution agreement protecting them from future federal prosecution?

Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, even though Mr. Epstein is touted as a democratic "mega donor", both Florida and the United States had Bush's at the helm when this deal was made. Are the political divisions of the D's and R's nothing more than kabuki theater in the upper echelons of power? You tell me.

So who financed Epstein? Who took the hard drives with the video captured in his palatial homes? Should his finances be audited, if they haven't already?

When is Mr. Dershowitz going to submit to a deposition, which is something he explicitly stated he would do during his media blitz?

This story is big...huge even...and we're about to find out how much power the deep state really has when Judge Kenneth Marra announces his decision as to whether or not the 15,000 pages of documents between Epstein's legal team and the DOJ will remain sealed or not, and whether the NPA will be invalidated.

If these documents are released and the NPA is lifted, hold on to your hats because we'll be in for a very bumpy ride, because animals become most dangerous when they're cornered.

FabA said...

"Why is Dershowitz so hesitant..."
Because he doesn't want to wake up dead. As James points out so thoughtfully, this case is huge. In my opinion, it would not only expose individuals at the highest levels of society as being the absolute pieces of crap that they often are, but it would expose the actual machinery of how our political candidates are chosen, who chooses them, and what sort of deals and favors are exchanged in the 21st century equivalent of smoke-filled back rooms.

The upper .1% are reluctant to let the plebes see what's behind the curtain, and that's why I don't believe that the pile of documents related to this case will ever see the light of day. As I have mentioned here before, Jeb Bush was governor of Florida when this deal went down, and I think the case is about much more than just the Bushes and the Clintons.

Dershowitz has served his masters faithfully all his adult life, and now he wants to continue enjoying the fruits of his labor.
Having a sudden desire to shoot himself repeatedly with a nail gun or try walking off the top of a 30 story building for no particular reason would not be a good career move for him.

CambridgeKnitter said...

Why do I keep having visions of the Cigarette-Smoking Man from "The X Files" as I read these comments about the deep state?

Anonymous said...

There's a book about this story that was written in 2012. It's called INSIDE A Look At Billionaire Sex Offender Jeffrey Epstein. It's on Amazon. Apparently, so many of the powerful elite got involved in 2007 because this case needed to be closed out because Hillary Clinton was in her campaign for President in 2008, and all would have been affected. How ironic that the sordid crime now resurfaces just as she's about to run again in 2016. Some dems will try to make it political, but it's not political on the legal side. It's Karma coming back to kick Epstein, Clinton, Dershowitz and many, many others right in the ass. Get the book, the entire timeline is covered and dirty parties/antics are covered. This will be the trial of the century of Judge Marra unseals this illegal non-prosecution agreement.

Anonymous said...

Insiders say the reason Hillary hasn't announced for the 2016 campaign is because of the Epstein scandal which, if it erupts, will go nuclear. They're allegedly in absolute panic mode.

KEN said...

The major media coverup is almost a bigger story than the story. It's getting to the point where it's hard for an intelligent person in the USA to not be a conspiracy theorist to some degree. There's absoultely no way to rationalize the relative attention given to this case compared to others. polanski is still looking at a long sentence if he comes back and these guys are getting community service awards. ironically polanski's movie "chinatown" really applies to this case. Dershowitz almost looks like that creepy old man with the Cowboy hat in the movie.