Why No Congressional Investigation into Mr. Epsteins Intelligence Connections? by Jacob G. Hornberger!
(2019-08-21 at 19:04:28 )

Why No Congressional Investigation into Mr. Epsteins Intelligence Connections? by Jacob G. Hornberger

With convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein now dead, the Justice Department has launched an investigation into prison procedures that allowed him to commit suicide.

Meanwhile, women who were sexually abused or raped by Mr. Epstein when they were minors are continuing civil actions against Mr. Epsteins estate.

But why no congressional investigation into Mr. Epsteins relationship, if any, to intelligence agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Mossad, or any others?

Have we gotten to the point where everyone is so scared to be labeled a "conspiracy theorist" that the United States Congress is precluded from conducting a legitimate investigation into the CIA or other intelligence agencies?

Such an investigation would not come out of the blue.

It would revolve around the undeniably sweetheart deal that the United States Attorney in Florida, Alexander Acosta, gave to Mr. Epstein and the reasons that he gave that sweetheart deal to him.

The plea deal enabled Mr. Epstein to escape federal charges for sex trafficking and allowed him to plead guilty at the state level to the much lesser crime of soliciting prostitution, which enabled him to serve one year in a local jail, sort of.

During that year, officials permitted him to leave the jailhouse on a daily basis to attend to business matters, after which he would return to spend the night in jail.

It would be extremely difficult to find a more sweetheart deal than that.

But the question is, Why?

We all know how tough federal prosecutors can be.

We also know that sex trafficking is not something that is ordinarily countenanced at the federal level, especially when it involves underaged girls.

So, why did Mr. Acosta do it? Why did he agree to that sweetheart deal rather than prosecute Mr. Epstein in federal court for sex trafficking?

That is what a congressional investigation would be intended to determine. And Mr. Acosta’s sworn testimony could well lead to an answer to that question.

An article that appeared in the August 19, 2019, issue of the Daily Beast by an investigative reporter named Vicky Ward points out the reason why such a congressional investigation would be warranted:

Mr. Epsteins name, I was told, had been raised by the Trump transition team when Alexander Acosta, the former United States attorney in Miami who had infamously cut Mr. Epstein a non-prosecution plea deal back in 2007, was being interviewed for the job of labor secretary.

The plea deal put a hard stop to a separate federal investigation of alleged sex crimes with minors and trafficking.

Is the Mr. Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?" Mr. Acosta had been asked.

Mr. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he had had just one meeting on the Mr. Epstein case.

He would cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Mr. Epsteins attorneys because he had "been told" to back off, that Mr. Epstein was above his pay grade.

"I was told Mr. 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 Mr. Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)

Okay, all that is hearsay. Nonetheless, it clearly provides the basis for a congressional investigation.

All that a congressional committee has to do is subpoena Mr. Acosta and ask he if actually made that statement.

If he acknowledges that he did, then he can be asked who said it to him and whether that was what motivated him to give Mr. Epstein the sweetheart deal.

Then, a subpoena could issue to the person who made that statement about Mr. Epstein.

When that person arrives to testify, he could be asked about the source of his information. The investigation could then proceed accordingly.

Moreover, the director of the CIA could be summoned to testify as to whether Mr. Epstein was a CIA asset, operative, or agent.

If Mr. Epstein did fall into one of those categories, it is certainly possible that the CIA director would lie about it, just as CIA Director Richard Helms lied to Congress back in the 1970s when he was asked about CIA involvement in Chilean regime-change operations.

Nonetheless, he would at least know that he would be subject to a perjury indictment if it were later discovered that he had lied about Mr. Epsteins involvement in the CIA.

Moreover, the CIA could be subpoenaed to produce all of its files and records relating to Mr. Epstein, which might indicate Mr. Epsteins possible involvement with foreign intelligence agencies, such as the Mossad.

Why would the CIA, Mossad, or other intelligence agency have been involved with Mr. Epstein and why would an intelligence agency have gone to bat for him in a federal criminal prosecution for sex trafficking?

That is something an investigation would be intended to answer.

Of course, the press could continue investigating whether Mr. Acosta actually did make that statement and, if so, whether it was true.

But the ability of the press to get to the truth is limited given its inability to force people to testify under oath and then have them prosecuted for perjury if they lie.

A congressional committee could both subpoena people to testify under oath and have them indicted for perjury if they lie.

Given the possibility of corruption in the federal judiciary at the hands of the CIA or other intelligence agency, the United States American people are entitled to such an investigation.

If sex offenders are being accorded favorable treatment in the federal criminal justice system simply because they happen to work for the CIA or some other intelligence agency, then what does that say for the entire federal criminal justice system?

If Mr. Epstein did have a relationship with the CIA or other intelligence agency, then, unfortunately, there are only two chances that the United States Congress would initiate an investigation into the matter: slim and none.

That is because an intelligence agency that is powerful enough to corrupt the judicial branch of the federal government is sufficiently powerful to do the same to the legislative branch.

Reprinted here with permission from Mr. Jacob G. Hornberger of The Future of Freedom Foundation!! Their Great Website!!