Jeffrey Epstein, who died in prison while awaiting trial for pedophilia, had earlier received an extraordinarily lenient plea deal for charges related to sex with minors, with one of the federal prosecutors who negotiated that deal, U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, ending up as a cabinet member for Donald Trump. Questions had been raised as to why Epstein off so easily and most answers were that he had used his money to buy favors from influential people.
But there may have been more to the story, as Betsy Swan writes, pointing to a question that California congresswoman Jackie Speier asked of department of justice officials during a recent closed-door hearing.
According to two sources with knowledge of the briefing, Speier then asked John Demers, the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division at the Justice Department, whether Jeffrey Epstein had ever worked as an undercover FBI asset. Then she pressed him on whether he had any personal knowledge of Epstein—a convicted pedophile who died in jail last August, awaiting trial—working with the FBI.
Demers responded that he worked for the Justice Department, not the FBI, and that he had no knowledge of Epstein doing such work. The question raised eyebrows, as it appeared to be based on a theory that law enforcement officials may have turned a blind eye to the serial rapist because he helped them gather information.
A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment, and a spokesperson for Speier did not provide on-record comment.
And Vicky Ward reported for The Daily Beast last August that Acosta later told Trump transition team officials that Epstein’s case was connected to intelligence matters. He went on to become Secretary of Labor. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” Acosta privately told Trump transition team officials before his confirmation, per Ward’s story.
It would not surprise me in the least that Epstein worked for the FBI. What would be good to know is what kind of information he was giving them and about whom.
Marcus Ranum says
It’d be great cover for a pedophile. Almost but not quite as good as being a royal.
It sounds like a reasonable hypothesis and in the grand traditions of J. Edgar himself.
A stray thought just occured to me. I wonder if a lot of Russiagate could be due to the fact that Trump is so shamelessly corrupt, racist and so on that the FBI lacked any levers they could apply?
Who Cares says
No. It exists to both hamper Trump (not that it did do that) and to give an excuse to Hillary and her true believers as to why she lost since it couldn’t be that Hillary made mistakes or how that Hillary came over to the people voting. That is also the reason that after the rapport came out they were still claiming that if you held the rapport up at the right angle under a full moon while wearing the Hillary Loyalist Decoder Glasses you could still read evidence that Trump was guilty in it.
A while back, I stumbled on this long essay about Roy Cohn, J Edgar Hoover, and sexual blackmail by the FBI.
It tries to draw a direct connection to Epstein, but it peters out at the end, handwaving rather than providing hard data, It looks a little too conspiracy minded.
It occurs to me that the question about Epstein might have been prompted by this site, or similar ones.
@ 4 Who Cares
give an excuse to Hillary and her true believers
Duh, sorry, of course. I should have made that clear. It was a great way to explain a poor candidate and incompetent campaign.
I guess I was wondering if some people used that stupid story to attempt to apply pressure on Trump since he seems immune to normal blackmail? Being Trump, of course he simply counterattacked.