0
8

[–] 19663930? 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Looks like our Stable Genius tapped Acosta for just this reason. Member of cabinet, when JE gets popped he knows Dems go after Acosta. Now Acosta gets to tell the whole story and the media is FORCED to cover (covfefe? kek) it.

0
0

[–] 19667385? ago  (edited ago)

hmmm About that press conference today...Why did trump hire scum Acosta and why hasn't he fire dhim ? Former Palm Beach State Attorney Barry Krischer says in a statement that Alex Acosta is "completely wrong." He says a 53 page federal indictment "was abandoned after secret negotiations between Mr. Epstein’s lawyers and Mr. Acosta. " In a statement Krischer says, "no matter how my office resolved the state charges, the U.S. Attorney’s Office always had the ability to file its own federal charges. "


Lefkowitz- one of Epstein's lawyer- wrote this letter to Epstein thanking him for keeping their deal secret and the victimized girls in the dark about it “I also want to thank you for the commitment you made to me during our October 12 meeting in which you . . . assured me that your Office would not . . . contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter.” https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5746048/Epstein.pdf

0
0

[–] 19663278? ago 

Hmm, and here I thought it made Trump look bad for hiring the guy. He tried to cut 80% of the anti trafficking budget too

0
1

[–] 19665918? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

We already know much of the budget was placed into slush funds for nefarious activities. It is possible Acosta was aware the anti-trafficking budget had been compromised and much went into such slush funds.

0
1

[–] 19664758? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Who? Acosta? Sauce?

0
5

[–] 19663224? 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Indeed! Not a single mention, at least that I could find in the MSM of his quote:

“Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?” Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he’d had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)...

Sauce - https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-10/bombshell-alex-acosta-reportedly-claimed-jeffrey-epstein-belonged-intelligence

0
0

[–] 19676295? ago 

However when Acosta was asked about this report he implied that it was NOT true.

0
6

[–] 19663217? 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I called it (not here but elsewhere today.) Said that Trump would have already fired him if he didn't have a damn good reason for doing what he did, and very likely with gold-standard documentation. If anything Acosta was always a contingency in their back pocket for when Epstein finally went to trial. How better to get the MSM to cover who really was pulling the strings back then.

0
2

[–] 19663852? 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I think Acosta was given his job with secret service protection because the info he has is the type that gets you killed, supposedly Epstein and others were threatening him and his family to get the deal he got.

0
5

[–] 19664899? 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I think he was told to back off by intel services, not Epstein or his cohorts. There should be sufficient documentation of it. Remember, Mueller was in charge of the FBI at the time. Doj brings the actual charges, but if he was running a honeypot for the intel agencies, then they'd say he was cooperating with them, which they said was the reason for such reduced charges.

[–] [deleted] ago 

[Deleted]