The Epstein files have revealed the names of many wealthy and prominent people within Jeffrey Epstein’s orbit, many of whom are now justifiably going down because of their affiliations with Epstein.
But the real rot regarding Epstein relates to the extremely sweet sweetheart plea bargain he received from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Florida.
There is no question but that the terms of that plea bargain were extremely sweet. After all, Epstein was charged with crimes related to having sex with underaged girls. We all know how federal prosecutors frown on that sort of crime — and rightly so. There is never any sympathy or sweetheart plea bargains given to people who have allegedly committed such crimes.
But under the plea bargain that was given to Epstein, the federal charges were dismissed, and Epstein was permitted to plead guilty to lesser state criminal charges. He then was permitted to serve a 13-month sentence in county jail rather than a state prison. He was also allowed out 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. He returned to jail each night to sleep.
Now, that is what I call a super sweet sweetheart deal for a person charged with horrific sex-related crimes with minors.
What was the then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta’s explanation for giving Epstein this super-sweet deal? He said that there was a risk that federal prosecutors could lose at trial and that a state conviction, even one with a light jail sentence, would be better than no conviction and punishment at all.
But when one is dealing with a horrific crime of this nature, wouldn’t it be better to pull out all the stops in an effort to secure a federal conviction? Sure, there is always the possibility of an acquittal, but doesn’t the gravity of the crime dictate that such a risk be taken?
And, after all, let’s not forget something important: Epstein’s cohort Ghislaine Maxwell, was later convicted of Epstein-related crimes regarding minors in a jury trial in federal court in New York and was given a 20-year prison sentence. If federal prosecutors were able to get a conviction of Maxwell, why wouldn’t they have been able to do the same with Epstein?
Interestingly, Acosta made the comment that Epstein “belonged to intelligence,” which he later stated was based on rumor and not on evidence. The question naturally arises: Is it possible that this “rumor” caused Acosta to buckle and give Epstein his sweetheart plea bargain? Equally important, is it possible that this “rumor” was true? For some reason, Acosta didn’t bother trying to find out. Why not? Was he scared to take a federal criminal investigation into sex with underaged girls in that direction? Was he scared of what he might find out? Did he fear potential retaliation?
It’s one thing that wealthy and prominent individuals are getting their well-deserved adverse consequences for having affiliated with the likes of Jeffrey Epstein. But those downfalls don’t go the heart of the matter. The real issues are: (1) whether Epstein did in fact “belong to intelligence”; (2) if so, whether the “intelligence” was the Israeli Mossad, the CIA, or other intelligence agencies within the Israeli and U.S. national-security establishments; and (3) whether the “rumor” that Epstein was connected to “intelligence” played a role, perhaps even subconsciously for Acosta, in securing Epstein his super-sweet sweetheart plea bargain? That’s where the major Epstein focus should continue to be — on examining the evil and malignant rot at the center of the U.S. and Israeli national-security states.
Originally published at the Future of Freedom Foundation.
