Remember that Acosta stated that the US intelligence community approached and pressured him to limit charges to Epstein because Epstein was one of their agents. The implication here is that the sex trafficking to people in power was being used by US intelligence to get compromising material and leverage of leaders - which would not only be a significant scandal for US intelligence but also sufficient motivation for Epstein assassination/disappearing.
From what I read, it sounded like Acosta said that "someone identifying themselves as an intelligence agent" told him that Epstein was one of theirs. It did not sound like they used official channels. Which seems to me just as likely that someone was paid to say that or that Acosta made it up to cover his butt for being the softest prosecutor ever.
"Which seems to me just as likely that someone was paid to say that or that Acosta made it up to cover his butt for being the softest prosecutor ever."
Equally as likely as in 50/50? That's coin flipping at that point - basically the same as saying having no information or opinion - all outcomes are equally the same.
There's a lot more information in this case - that Epstein frequented the world's leaders, even had access to American presidents on his private plane without Secret Service, had video recordings of world leaders having sex with underage women, had professional faked passports issued to him with fake identities.
When given a chance to deny communications with intelligence, Acosta refused to do so.
I think skepticism is required in all things but not believing anything at all is a dangerous anti-pattern.
Equally likely as in, this is such a convenient story for Acosta that we shouldn't believe it without supporting evidence. We don't know why Acosta brought such light charges, and his vague insinuations that some unspecified agency told him not to don't provide any further information on the question.
For me the reality that Acosta was and is not in a position where he needs to lie or obscure to explain his actions, that nothing he has done as AG is illegal, there are no motions against him, there are better lies he could have told and that the AG (and Secretary of Labor) was not a criminal in this case leads me to believe him as a witness.
It's not clear to me what kind of further evidence you think should be necessary beyond witness testimony in this case, or what kind of standard this would apply to justice system in general. It's also difficult because - for instance - paper records such as the AG's inbox are missing.
Is there specific evidence you believe is readily available but that hasn't been forthcoming?
Also remember that Epsteins best buddy/procurer was the daughter of a man who was suspected to be a well connected spy and who had high ranking Israeli intelligence officials at his funeral:
> Six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence services attended Maxwell's funeral in Israel, while Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogized him and stated: “He has done more for Israel than can today be told."
It's a nice story but the problem is it does not fly in China, Russia, or the Middle East. While some of them have age of consent laws the reality is the act is just not viewed in the same light as it is in the US and Europe. So unless we were setting up allies the idea of trapping our enemies in humiliating situations with underage girls just does not hold a lot of weight. The problem is the facts are buried, but it sounds like a convienent excuse to me.
It's just as plausible that it was a boys retreat for friends and that is the point.I don't discount powerful people could have been involved, but the reality is it could be a conspiracy either way but the mere mention of conspiracy makes one a kook when they happen all the time. I mean the literal definition of a conspiracy is people conspiring to do something. Every revolution that has happened at some point was a conspiracy, but people will take the very strange circumstances that circle around this man and say that there is no conspiracy to look into. That is the point we don't know if there was one or not, but no one is interested in looking under the covers.
> The implication here is that the sex trafficking to people in power was being used by US intelligence to get compromising material and leverage of leaders
I hate to delve into conspiracy theories but this is hardly a new idea. I was reading some articles after the FBI docs on the "Finders" investigation were released last year. Which supposedly was an investigation into a cult like group suspected of child abuse was completely halted when the CIA came in an took over.
From what I understand most of the theories are unproven and ofc, all the important details in the doc have been redacted but it fits a similar theme.
Here are the sourced listed in Acosta's Wikipedia article:
- Ward, Vicky (July 9, 2019). "Jeffrey Epstein's Sick Story Played Out for Years in Plain Sight". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on July 10, 2019. Retrieved July 11, 2019.
- "It Sure Looks Like Jeffrey Epstein Was a Spy—But Whose?". July 10, 2019. Archived from the original on December 18, 2019. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
- North, Anna (August 14, 2019). "Why the Jeffrey Epstein case inspires so many conspiracy theories". Vox. Archived from the original on November 30, 2019. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
It's easy to find mainstream media coverage for additional sources as this was widely reported. Search "epstein acosta intelligence" or "acosta epstein belonged to intelligence".
So... Not only were the guards "sleeping" the day the Epstein was murdered, only a few cameras were working, and when it was time to bring the evidence to court the tapes were mysteriously "corrupted" to the point where the judge couldn't view them. Also on the Chans a guard who worked at the facility posted how they came and killed Epstein and didn't log a military vehicle who came to their post.
Now, if you have the balls to call any of this a "conspiracy" or that the US government isn't as corrupt as a run of the mill crack-pot tyrant, come have a word with me. The audacity. Acosta told them Epstein couldn't be touched because he's "intelligence". Fucking corrupt to the core.
Every day, I ask my self "are the laws that impact me negatively even worth following?" I think I've found my answer.
Alternative theory:
He was facing life in prison and was going to have his awful secrets exposed in detail in court so he just took the easy way out since he was going to die in prison anyway. His life was already over.
I assume most people in his situation would prefer to just kill themselves.
It's not really a stretch to imagine why he would want to kill himself. It's much more of a stretch the imagine a vast conspiracy to kill him. I'm going to prefer the simplest explanation 9 of 10 times. But hey, who knows?
He became the first person to do that, in a building filled top to bottom with people with as much or more reasons to kill themselves, in thirteen years. And, he did so at the precise moment there would be no witnesses or observers, human or electronic.
When you are done using it, please clean off Ockham’s Butterknife and put it back in the drawer.
Well of course he did at the precise moment there were no observers or witnesses or he wouldn't have been able to do it, they'd have seen him and stopped it.
If there was some vast conspiracy, why wouldn't they have just killed him before he was in custody when it would have been far easier?
That doesn't really explain everything else does it? The guards, the cameras, etc. And if he was the type to kill himself, wouldn't he have done so the first time he got caught?
> It's much more of a stretch the imagine a vast conspiracy to kill him.
For normal people, but not a guy who had "awful secrets" that many people in power don't want revealed.
> I'm going to prefer the simplest explanation 9 of 10 times.
Except occam's razor isn't on your side here. The simplest answer here is a conspiracy. Not suicide. Occam's razor says he was killed.
The guards not looking after him while he was on suicide watch. The cameras not working. Didn't medical examinations also show trauma rather than suicide.
People who don't know much about suicide prevention think these are important points, but anyone who works in suicide prevention can tell you that observations don't work; staff don't pay attention to the cctv monitors; staff lie about what they've done; people attach ligatures in ligature-point free rooms etc etc.
People kill themselves all the time, even when supposedly on 1:1 obs and in special wards.
> People who don't know much about suicide prevention think these are important points, but anyone who works in suicide prevention can tell you that observations don't work;
You are being intentionally misleading here. I'm not saying that they could have or should have prevented the suicide, but the guards should have been there to monitor. The cameras should have been there to record/document. It's not the prevention I'm concerned about, it's the convenient lack of documentation/monitoring/etc.
> People kill themselves all the time, even when supposedly on 1:1 obs and in special wards.
But how many cases as important as epstein, where he was being monitored via guards and camera, and being watched for suicide have both the guards and cameras fail?
Arguably the most important inmate in US custody ( maybe in history ) and the guards are sleeping and the cameras are not working? Give me a break. Even the most naive person has to admit things aren't kosher here.
> but the guards should have been there to monitor. The cameras should have been there to record/document.
Yes, but we know that guards do not monitor. We know cameras frequently aren't working.
> It's not the prevention I'm concerned about, it's the convenient lack of documentation/monitoring/etc.
You say "convenient", I say "sadly all too familiar".
> But how many cases as important as epstein, where he was being monitored via guards and camera, and being watched for suicide have both the guards and cameras fail?
Honestly loads. Fred West, Harold Shipman, were both notable serial killers who took their own lives when in prison. West murdered 12 people and was on remand. Shipman, who murdered over 200 people, had previously expressed suicidal intent and gave a reason for wanting to die.
> and the guards are sleeping and the cameras are not working?
You keep saying this, as if it's some kind of smoking gun. The thing I'm trying to tell you is that it's very common and that it's not in anyway surprising that a person, even a very high profile person, dies by suicide.
Were either of those serial killers allowed to take their own lives while they were still awaiting trial, and while their testimony was reasonably and widely believed to have the potential to implicate a large number of the ruling power elite?
Did either of them commit suicide within mere weeks of a previous attempt?
I just think it would require much less for a single guy to kill himself than for a vast conspiracy to have killed him in a secure facility. Stuck a conspiracy would have to have involved a great many people, many of whom are not rich and powerful.
It woyld have been far easier to just kill before custody, then they could have even just made it look like an accident.
They don't need to be rich or powerful - they just need to have something to lose or be believers in the 'it's for national security'. You don't need to ask the guards to fall asleep. You just need to ensure the doziest guards are put on the schedule.
Why do it in the prison?
A controlled environment where they have access to the cameras and all recording devices, not to mention all technology(access logs etc.) as well as no members of the public being around.
Out in public, you run a massive risk of some random noticing something/some camera inadvertently recording something.(or some random/some camera noticing/capturing something from the time leading up to it).
It's an avoidable mess.
Plus, a death in jail - people can rationalise it away - for the exact same reasons I listed above - 'oh, it's a controlled environment - $authorities control who goes in and out - they're not going let a random person walk around'
If I don't reply to this comment in 5 years, it is a sure sign that I have been targeted.
There was even one alleged suicide attempt several weeks before Epstein got his ticket punched! So any idea that this caught the jail by surprise is totally dishonest. Any idiot could (and many did!) see Epstein's death coming as long as they weren't wedded to pseudo-clever notions like "there's no such thing as conspiracies" or "they'd never do something so obvious and in-the-open."
Why are people so wedded to the notion that there is a conspiracy here? What if there isn't? What does it mean then?
I find that those who are strong believers in conspiracy theories never consider that they might just be wrong. No, anything that might suggest they're wrong is just further evidence of a cover up. I guess being wrong in this case would mean all the famous people who've been villainized for alleged participation in Epstein's trafficking aren't actually worthy of all the mud that's been thrown their way. He's actually more valuable as a political tool dead than he is alive so certain political groups can slander their opponents with connections to him and he can't refute anything. Here's an alternative conspiracy theory: right wing groups killed him so they could start a conspiracy theory that a powerful Democratic cabal that doesn't actually exist had him killed and dirty left wing politicians with association to him. Prove that didn't happen.
I'm not saying it's not true, maybe it is, but in absence of additional evidence it just seems most likely that the guy just killed himself to avoid being prosecuted for sex trafficking of children, which he was almost certainly guilty of.
But seriously, I still think any investigations should continue and any associates of his, whoever they are, should be brought to justice.
There is zero reason to think Epstein didn't at least entertain the possibility that he would get away with another slap on the wrist. Before the trial started the possibility was already being raised that his 2007 plea agreement would get him out of any legal consequences this time around.
The guy had such delusions of grandeur he wanted to freeze his head and penis and impregnate dozens of women simultaneously at his New Mexico ranch to "seed the human race with his DNA." He would have at least waited to see how the trial turned out before offing himself.
Government email? Personal email? If government, there will be backups and anti-tampering. There would also be copies on servers that involved anyone in the email threads.
They actually should but not because of technology. It would just be a subpoena or an order, if it comes from the right group. Government records are retained for a minimum period of time. If records are missing, then investigators need to find out why. It is not clear to me however if this is personal or government systems we are talking about.
Agreed. I worded that poorly. That is why I am saying the intelligence agencies won't have it. They would use policy to get the data, which ultimately translates into a court order. Failure to comply with the order would alert investigators to a bigger problem.
