DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

Somerset
Posts: 4119
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#226

Post by Somerset » Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:00 pm

Chilidog wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:56 pm
I thought of that as well.
Me too :) I was thinking of posting that this morning

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#227

Post by pipistrelle » Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:03 pm

Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

Somerset
Posts: 4119
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#228

Post by Somerset » Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:13 pm

pipistrelle wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:03 pm
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
Off Topic
I didn't know Childhood's End was the inspiration for that cover. A very haunting book

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 8920
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#229

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:14 pm

Maybenaut wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:55 pm
neonzx wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:43 pm
Maybenaut wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:13 pm


Yes. And assuming Safechuck and Robson’s accounts are true, Michael Jackson was a pedophile and a dangerous predator, no question.
Thanks. I admit when I'm wrong.
Not necessarily wrong... just that there may be more info out there than you're aware of :P
:thumbs: :bighug:
“A black woman can invent something for the benefit of humankind.” -Bessie Blount-Griffin, physical therapist, inventor of devices for disabled WWII veterans, and forensic scientist.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 33158
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#230

Post by Addie » Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:20 pm


User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6345
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#231

Post by Slim Cognito » Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:31 pm

Somerset wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:13 pm
pipistrelle wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:03 pm
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
Off Topic
I didn't know Childhood's End was the inspiration for that cover. A very haunting book
Just my gut reaction, but Zepplin`s cover doesn't affect me like Blind Faith`s. Although the children on LZ`s cover are a little older than toddlers, the overall effect is cherubic.

And I realize the girl`s parents were involved with the legit modeling gig for BF. Still, I consider it very poor taste.
Goodwill has opened their Halloween Dept which makes it officially Halloween Season! :dance: ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#232

Post by fierceredpanda » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:14 pm

Slim Cognito wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:31 pm
Just my gut reaction, but Zepplin`s cover doesn't affect me like Blind Faith`s. Although the children on LZ`s cover are a little older than toddlers, the overall effect is cherubic.

And I realize the girl`s parents were involved with the legit modeling gig for BF. Still, I consider it very poor taste.
Off Topic
Nirvana's Nevermind?

I understand your feelings, and respect that you find the issue triggering. Frankly, I can do without Blind Faith's cover (my respect for Eric Clapton as a guitarist notwithstanding) or Nirvana's, but I am also enough of a free expression purist that "disturbing" and "poor taste" strike me as insufficient justifications for censorship, if that's what's being suggested - and I'm not saying it is. The problem with the Supreme Court's "no artistic value" formulations vis a vis pornography is that the test is necessarily subjective depending upon the viewer. Lots and lots of art has been reviled as "offensive" or "distasteful" at one time or another. On the other hand, and continuing my pattern of knowing self-contradiction (iritating to many here, I know), I actually do like Justice Stewart's even more subjective formulation in Jacobellis v. Ohio to the effect that he didn't know what exactly constituted hardcore pornography, "But I know it when I see it." At least Justice Stewart admitted he was being subjective.

Even the "did that girl on the Blind Faith cover's parents subject her to that or consent to it?" argument has some problems. I suppose some might consider William Friedkin more or less a child abuser for what he put Linda Blair through while filing The Exorcist, to say nothing of what he made her say and do. These aren't at all easy lines to draw, and I get super uncomfortable the moment anyone starts proclaiming with certainty that they know exactly where to draw them.

That being said, I'm pretty sure I know what Epstein had pictures of, because we know what his taste was: Underage girls in various states of undress doing whatever he desired at that particular time. That's not art, no matter who is defining it. That's exploiting and humiliating children to get yourself off. Put his ass under the fucking jail, please.
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2910
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#233

Post by Fortinbras » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:16 pm

It seems as if a multitude of people - and virtually all of the Never Trump crowd - have accepted the notion, or at least the possibility, that the Stable Genius joined Epstein in making bouncy-bouncy with underage girls. Unlike Bill Clinton, Trump actually publicly revealed that he knew that Epstein was accumulating girls "on the young side".

Evidently when one cheats on three wives in a row, pays for sex with a porn actress (without a condom) and with a Playboy model, walks in on young girls changing out of their dresses, discusses his sexual conquests in his book and a taped interview, and is accused of forcible rape, people just won't presume innocence.

I think the popular assumption is that, if it goes to trial, Trump's name will come up. A corollary is that Epstein will be rewarded at the end with a pardon if he keeps Trump's name out of it. An assumption is that, if Trump grants Epstein a pardon, that proves his complicity and is one big reason for impeachment.

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6022
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#234

Post by neonzx » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:22 pm

Addie wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:20 pm
Tweet

[imgwidth=500]https:// pbs.twimg.com/media/D-_J7I3XUAg6Hyn.jpg[/imgwidth]
I hope that is true. But he is always going to be saddled with "I did not have sexual relations with that women."
Sorry.
To which Trump replied, Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

Jeffrey
Posts: 824
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#235

Post by Jeffrey » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:32 pm

The Trump crowd is citing as defense this interview with Bradley Edwards (apparently the lawyer for some of Epsteins victims) in which he states that Trump was the only person who cooperated and "gave no indication that he was involved:



The so called smoking gun comment by Trump about Epstein preferring women "on the younger side" was made in 2002, at which time Epstein was 59 years old, so that could be interpreted to mean women in their 20s or 30s which would be on the younger side. But then again I've taken heat for overly favorable interpretation of comments previously. To be fair and balanced, I also believe Bill Clinton wasn't involved as he claims.

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#236

Post by fierceredpanda » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:34 pm

neonzx wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:22 pm
I hope that is true. But he is always going to be saddled with "I did not have sexual relations with that women."
Sorry.
:yeah:

No apologies required by me, anyway. If Bill Clinton told me the sky was blue, I would go outside and check. The guy is a liar and a creep. Classic case of good politician-atrocious human being.
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 33158
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#237

Post by Addie » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:39 pm

Don't be sorry to me, Neon. If it turned out eventually that Clinton took no part in this filthy rotten behavior, I'd be surprised.
neonzx wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:22 pm
Addie wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:20 pm
I hope that is true. But he is always going to be saddled with "I did not have sexual relations with that women."
Sorry.

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 5193
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#238

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:43 pm

Wow I thought I heard it all. On some right wing Facebook page I follow are talking about the deep state because supposedly Jim Comey's daughter is one of the prosecutors involved in the case. Like poor Epstein?

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#239

Post by fierceredpanda » Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:01 pm

Epstein should fire his lawyer.

Per Law & Crime:
In Cringeworthy ‘Senior Moment,’ Epstein’s Attorney Makes Major Mistake During Hearing

Reid Weingarten, Epstein’s lead attorney, responded by asserting that the government is acting in bad faith by reneging on a signed non-prosecution agreement and exaggerating Epstein’s behavior, which he said was already addressed by Florida authorities in a “three year sophisticated investigation” that only revealed evidence of prostitution.

In his argument to the court, Weingarten reasoned that because Epstein did not force or coerce any of the girls to do things against their will, he should not be charged under sex-trafficking statutes which he claimed were enacted to protect girls from being forcibly raped by “15-20 guys” in a brothel under threat of violence.

Weingarten said that according to the facts, Epstein did not rape anyone, but conceded that Epstein did engage in “maybe a lot of prostitution.”

That prompted Judge Pitman to interject and question Weingarten’s legal reasoning.

“Isn’t it rape if the girls are underage?” Pitman asked.

Weingarten paused for over a second, then in a matter-of-fact tone replied, “well…statutory maybe,” before moving on. The packed gallery responded with a combination of audible laughter and shocked gasps as Epstein’s attorney appeared to be admitting his client had committed rape.

:snippity:

Before the proceeding came to an official close, however, Weingarten addressed his gaffe, telling Pitman his reference to statutory rape was a “senior moment,” insisting Epstein had not committed statutory rape because there was “no penetration.”
I don't know whether to laugh or cry that so many rich assholes go to court with lawyers whose courtroom performance I am certain even a small-town hack like me could exceed.
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 8920
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#240

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:09 pm

He sounds like he's cut from the same cloth as this judge rth posted about.

Judge ruled teen should get leniency in rape case because he "comes from a good family"
By MEG OLIVER CBS NEWS July 3, 2019, 6:40 PM

A family court judge in New Jersey is under fire over the way he handled a rape case involving two teenagers. In 2017, Judge James Troiano ruled a then 16-year-old boy accused of raping a drunk teenage girl should have leniency because "he comes from a good family," attended an excellent school and was an "Eagle Scout." The judge also expressed concern whether the victim's family had considered the "devastating effect" a trial in adult court would have on the boy's life.

But in a scathing reversal in June, a New Jersey appeals court warned Troiano against siding with privileged teenagers.

"I find the words of this judge to be absolutely appalling," said CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman.

Prosecutors said the boy took cellphone video of the alleged rape in the basement at a pajama party and sent the video to friends with a text message reading "when your first time having sex was rape."

New Jersey law allows a juvenile to be tried as an adult if they're accused of a serious crime. But Troiano said a traditional case of rape generally involves "two or more males using a weapon," sometimes in an abandoned "shed" or "shack," circumstances not matching the teen's alleged crime.

"It should never matter what a defendants background is it should not matter if he is rich or poor, if he is black, white, brown or yellow. The judge only looked at the boys background and did not regard anything he did as particularly serious of sexual assault or even rape," Klieman said.
“A black woman can invent something for the benefit of humankind.” -Bessie Blount-Griffin, physical therapist, inventor of devices for disabled WWII veterans, and forensic scientist.

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5522
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#241

Post by Maybenaut » Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:16 pm

fierceredpanda wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:34 pm
If Bill Clinton told me the sky was blue, I would go outside and check. The guy is a liar and a creep. Classic case of good politician-atrocious human being.
Off Topic
A few years back I took an English lit class at the local community college. Can’t recall how the subject of Bill Clinton came up... I suggested that Monica Lewinsky — even if she intentionally set out to blow the President — was nevertheless a victim because the most powerful man in the world publicly, and falsely, called her a liar. The classroom erupted in laughter. From the women in the class: “She’s no victim! She landed on her feet! She’s got that awesome line of handbags!” It made my heart hurt for the future of this country. I really hope the Me Too movement, flawed as it is, got their attention.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

Jeffrey
Posts: 824
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#242

Post by Jeffrey » Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:21 pm

TexasFilly wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:48 am
From my monitoring of news on this since Saturday night, the Federal SOL on sex trafficking was abolished in 2002. That's probably why you see that as the starting point. SOL on other federal crimes run from 5 to 10 years, with some exceptions.
Are you sure about that? I used to be obsessed with the Dwight York case and in that one, one of the defenses was that the sex trafficking charges were past the statute of limitations, specifically kids that were moved in 1993 but he got indicted in 2003. Or does the abolishment in 2002 only apply to stuff that happens after 2002? The prosecution side avoided the SOL thing by making it a RICO case.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/ap ... 25/565369/

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 8920
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#243

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:27 pm

Jeffrey wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:21 pm
TexasFilly wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:48 am
From my monitoring of news on this since Saturday night, the Federal SOL on sex trafficking was abolished in 2002. That's probably why you see that as the starting point. SOL on other federal crimes run from 5 to 10 years, with some exceptions.
Are you sure about that? I used to be obsessed with the Dwight York case and in that one, one of the defenses was that the sex trafficking charges were past the statute of limitations, specifically kids that were moved in 1993 but he got indicted in 2003. Or does the abolishment in 2002 only apply to stuff that happens after 2002? The prosecution side avoided the SOL thing by making it a RICO case.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/ap ... 25/565369/
Mimi Rocah explains in today's Daily Beast article:
There are already many important questions about this prosecution. First, how could Epstein be prosecuted this many years later? Because since 2006, under federal law, there is no statute of limitations for child sexual exploitation cases of this type. So as long as Epstein’s conduct was still chargeable under the prior statute of limitations in 2006, he can be prosecuted for those crimes today.
“A black woman can invent something for the benefit of humankind.” -Bessie Blount-Griffin, physical therapist, inventor of devices for disabled WWII veterans, and forensic scientist.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44478
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#244

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:34 pm

So do you think Reid Weingarten might be a SUPER LAWYER?

User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 13884
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#245

Post by Dolly » Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:23 pm

Fox host calls for Acosta to step down over Epstein

Fox News’s Steve Hilton on Monday repeated his call for Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta to resign for his role in helping secure a plea deal for financier Jeffrey Epstein that allowed him to serve just over a year in prison after he was convicted of sex crimes.

Epstein, who was arrested over the weekend on charges of sex trafficking, served 13 months in “custody with work release” after his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from underage girls, allowing him to spend 16 hours a day outside of prison in a deal approved by Acosta, then a U.S. attorney.

Hilton had previously called for Acosta’s resignation over the deal in December, saying he owed “all of us an explanation and an apology.”

The host of "The Next Revolution with Steve Hilton" reiterated his call on Monday, asking, "Will we finally see some accountability from Alex Acosta?"

"In my view, it really is time for him to go," he added.

Former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) agreed with Hilton and said he would be “surprised” if Trump did not fire the Labor secretary.

“When you continue to make yourself the issue and distract from the president's agenda, you no longer need to be serving there, and this is not going to go away,” Chaffetz said. “This case is going to continue on.”

"It's not anything he has done since President Trump appointed him. This is, as you said, a long time ago. But there's something about it. It's so egregious. It's so revolting. You just think, 'Come on,'" Hilton said.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... er-epstein

not sure where to post this. let me know if I should delete and post on Fox News maybe?
Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp

User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 3098
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#246

Post by AndyinPA » Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:53 pm

More reason for twitler to hate faux noise.

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#247

Post by RVInit » Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:45 am

Trump has already made the excuse that it was a long time ago. He's not going to fire Acosta unless and until Acosta starts getting more press than the orange pustule himself. That is the only crime that gets you fired from this administration.
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#248

Post by fierceredpanda » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:35 am

Thinking about this more, I think it's going to be regarded as something of a historical irony that - to a large extent - the impetus for reopening this whole sorry affair was Trump appointing Alex Acosta to be Labor Secretary. Perhaps the Miami Herald was already working on the story, but that story had serious legs because of the fact that the same person who signed off on the non-prosecution agreement was now a cabinet secretary. If not for that angle, it's an old story about a shady deal between prosecutors and a seriously high-powered defense team.

Also, here again we see Trump's inability to seize some good press on the cheap. Fox News essentially gave him a green light to can Acosta. Of course, there will be questions about vetting or lack thereof, but that can be laid off on staffers. Kicking Acosta to the curb for going easy on a child molester is the sensible thing to do, and Trump would be credited for doing the right thing. Of course, it's also what every other president would have done, which is precisely why he cannot bring himself to do it.

Irony abounds.
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 33158
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#249

Post by Addie » Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:40 am

New York Times Editorial
Who Protected Jeffrey Epstein?

On Monday, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York unsealed a 14-page indictment against Jeffrey Epstein, charging the wealthy financier with operating and conspiring to operate a sex trafficking ring of girls out of his luxe homes on Manhattan’s Upper East Side and in Palm Beach, Fla., “among other locations.”

Even in the relatively sterile language of the legal system, the accusations against Mr. Epstein are nauseating. From “at least in or about” 2002 through 2005, the defendant “sexually exploited and abused dozens of minor girls,” some as young as 14 and many “particularly vulnerable to exploitation.” The girls were “enticed and recruited” to visit Mr. Epstein’s various homes “to engage in sex acts with him, after which he would give the victims hundreds of dollars.” To “maintain and increase his supply of victims,” he paid some of the girls “to recruit additional girls to be similarly abused,” thus creating “a vast network of underage victims.”

If convicted, Mr. Epstein faces up to 45 years in prison. This seems a reasonable, if belated, punishment for the rampant abuse of girls of which Mr. Epstein stands credibly accused.

But Mr. Epstein is not the only one for whom a reckoning is long overdue.
Adding:
Miami Herald Editorial: Alex Acosta made an ethically compromised decision 10 years ago. Today, he should resign
WaPo: Pelosi adds her voice to those calling for Acosta’s resignation for earlier Epstein case

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 5193
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: DOJ Investigation: Re Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal; 2008 SDFL; 2019 SDNY

#250

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:12 am

Starting to see this all over twitter:




Waiting for Trump to start talking about it to try to taint the case against Epstein.

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”