Epstein is a pig and a child abuser but the plea deal that he took before one which gave him immunity and his plea deal may be his get out of jail card, free. The constitution does prohibit someone from being tried twice for the same offenses and many lawyers are saying that because the past agreement with the government sets up a double jeopardy situation thus the courts may set him free based upon that sweetheart agreement/plea/deal that he got before.

The only way that it would not be double Jeopardy is if there is evidence of offenses after that agreement then it would be new accusations and a new situation.  Most would believe that he would go free because of the political contacts that he has and what he may have on important, powerful, people but his freedom may come because of the Constitutional protections that all citizens have.  There is no question as to his guilt but let us just hope that some new victims will come forward.

Be as the Bereans ( Acts 17:11 )

Original Post
Jutu posted:
1130 posted:

so actually it is because of power and politicians, since most likely that is how he got the first deal

The Clintons won't let their pal be tried...to much he can say about them.

The Clintons didn't cut the deal with Epstein. Someone in Trump's administration did! At some point, the facts have to get through that deranged skull of yours.

I believe everyone knows this already from years ago

-----------------------------------------

Alexander Acosta, the US labor secretary under fire for having granted Jeffrey Epstein immunity from federal prosecution in 2008, after the billionaire was investigated for having run a child sex trafficking ring, is proposing 80% funding cuts for the government agency that combats child sex trafficking.

Related: I hope Jeffrey Epstein sings like a bird. And if some Democrats go down, so be it | Jill Filipovic

Acosta’s plan to slash funding of a critical federal agency in the fight against the sexual exploitation of children is contained in his financial plans for the Department of Labor for fiscal year 2020. In it, he proposes decimating the resources of a section of his own department known as the International Labor Affairs Bureau (ILAB).

The bureau’s budget would fall from $68m last year to just $18.5m. The proposed reduction is so drastic that experts say it would effectively kill off many federal efforts to curb sex trafficking and put the lives of large numbers of children at risk.

ILAB has the task of countering human trafficking, child labor and forced labor across the US and around the world. Its mission is “to promote a fair global playing field for workers” and it is seen as a crucial leader in efforts to crack down on the sex trafficking of minors.

Katherine Clark, a congresswoman from Massachusetts, said Acosta’s proposed cut was “reckless” and “amoral”. When seen alongside the sweetheart plea deal he granted Epstein in 2008, when Acosta was the US attorney in Miami, she said, it indicated that the labor secretary did not see protecting vulnerable children as a priority.

“This is now a pattern,” Clark told the Guardian. “Like so many in this administration Mr Acosta chooses the powerful and wealthy over the vulnerable and victims of sexual assault and it is time that he finds another line of work.”

Clark grilled Acosta about the proposed cuts in April, when he presented his departmental budget to the House appropriations subcommittee. On that occasion, she said, she found him “rude, dismissive, challenging”.

“I’m sure this is a very uncomfortable topic for him,” Clark said, “but I don’t think he should be able to hide from it.”

Acosta is facing mounting pressure from Democrats to resign, over the lenient deal he gave Epstein and in the wake of the billionaire’s new prosecution. Epstein was arrested on Saturday and indicted on two sex trafficking counts by federal prosecutors in the southern district of New York in an apparent rebuke to Acosta’s earlier decision.

Under the 2008 deal negotiated by Acosta, an FBI investigation that had produced a 53-page draft indictment involving more than 30 potential underage victims was shut down. The billionaire only had to plead guilty to lesser state charges of soliciting women who were controversially labeled prostitutes.

Epstein ended up serving 13 months in a Florida jail during which he was allowed out six days a week to attend his plush business offices.

Senior Democrats have been lining up to call for Acosta to go. On Tuesday the party leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, accused the labor secretary of having let a serial sex trafficker “off easy”.

Schumer said: “This is not acceptable. We cannot have as one of the leading appointed officials in America someone who has done this.”

Others to call for Acosta to go include House speaker Nancy Pelosi, the most powerful Democrat in Congress, Tim Kaine, a senator from Virginia, and former vice-president Joe Biden, now running for the presidential nomination.

On Tuesday, Donald Trump gave his first comments since Epstein’s arrest. Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, the president praised Acosta as an “excellent secretary of labor” said: “The rest of it we’ll have to look at very carefully but you are talking about a long time ago.”

Trump tried to minimize Acosta’s role in the 2008 plea deal, saying: “I hear there were a lot of people involved in that decision not just him.”

The Department of Labor is widely respected for its vital role in investigating, prosecuting and preventing human trafficking worldwide. Experts say any major cut to ILAB would be a direct threat to the US government’s ability to combat the sexual exploitation of children.

“A huge cut of this sort is bound to expose children to more risk of sexual trafficking,” said Kathleen Kim, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who co-aut****d California’s law on human trafficking.

Related: Jeffrey Epstein charged with federal sex trafficking crimes

“An 80% reduction at ILAB will undoubtedly eliminate many of the US government’s anti-human trafficking efforts that have been critical in encouraging action by law enforcement.”

Kim said Acosta having granted the lenient plea deal to Epstein, combined with the proposed cuts to ILAB, made it entirely inappropriate that he continued in his current role.

“He should step down,” she said.

The battle over the future of ILAB is ongoing. Acosta’s proposed cuts were imported into Trump’s $4.7tn federal budget, released in March, which contains several Republican goals including extra money for the military and funding of the president’s beloved border wall.

The Democrats have responded with a 2020 House budget that passed in June. It would see ILAB resources expand to $122m.

“Congress ultimately makes the decisions about how money is spent and appropriated,” said Clark. “We will prevail and the bureau will not be shuttered if we can get this item through Congress.”

L. Cranston posted:
Jutu posted:
1130 posted:

so actually it is because of power and politicians, since most likely that is how he got the first deal

The Clintons won't let their pal be tried...to much he can say about them.

The Clintons didn't cut the deal with Epstein. Someone in Trump's administration did! At some point, the facts have to get through that deranged skull of yours.

The correct statement would be in 2008 Acosta cut the plea deal with Epstein when President Bush was still in office.  Acosta is currently employed in President Trumps administration.   No way President Trump knew the details of the sealed plea deal either.

HIFLYER2 posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Jutu posted:
1130 posted:

so actually it is because of power and politicians, since most likely that is how he got the first deal

The Clintons won't let their pal be tried...to much he can say about them.

The Clintons didn't cut the deal with Epstein. Someone in Trump's administration did! At some point, the facts have to get through that deranged skull of yours.

The correct statement would be in 2008 Acosta cut the plea deal with Epstein when President Bush was still in office.  Acosta is currently employed in President Trumps administration.   No way President Trump knew the details of the sealed plea deal either.

Any way you wanna spin it, it's not the Clintons. Why must the majority of Republicans scream Obama or Hillary or The Clintons no matter what the case/incident.

SPIN?  It's the facts no spin about it.  Trumps insertion into condemnation surrounding the plea deal offered, in the past, to Epstein is irrelevant and only serves to gauge and indicate your own bias or anger regarding Trump.  The plea deal, no matter who it was under, was a bad move and the man should have had to serve hard time and received justice but he didn't.  Acosta was wrong in what he did and for him to pay for his bad decision, I have no problem with, but Trump was not involved what so ever.  

As for Clinton and the relevance of inserting Clinton into the argument or discussion there is relevance as Clinton flew at least 27 times on his good, close, friends Lolita express plain trips and Clinton's presence there and on Epstein's Island is very relevant reasons to assume or question whether Clinton engaged in some the same activities that Epstein did.  Until, though, there is evidence that Clinton did participate actively then it's only suspicion and looks bad and Clinton shouldn't be prosecuted or anything else.   If proof surfaces though then Clinton, like Epstein should face prosecution and any other person that participated even if it was Trump or anyone else but every one of them deserves the be treated as innocent until proven guilty, even Clinton. HIFLYER2 also deserves to be respected as calling out what you said as being false.  Acosta's job today has no bearing on what he did in the past and it's doubtful that the Epstein deal ever came up in his interview for the present Job.  You should not have attempted to tie that to Trump and that's all I see HIFLYER2 trying to say to you.  He's not attempting to spin it any direction but rather only calling out what's factual.

gbrk posted:

SPIN?  It's the facts no spin about it.  Trumps insertion into condemnation surrounding the plea deal offered, in the past, to Epstein is irrelevant and only serves to gauge and indicate your own bias or anger regarding Trump.  The plea deal, no matter who it was under, was a bad move and the man should have had to serve hard time and received justice but he didn't.  Acosta was wrong in what he did and for him to pay for his bad decision, I have no problem with, but Trump was not involved what so ever.  

As for Clinton and the relevance of inserting Clinton into the argument or discussion there is relevance as Clinton flew at least 27 times on his good, close, friends Lolita express plain trips and Clinton's presence there and on Epstein's Island is very relevant reasons to assume or question whether Clinton engaged in some the same activities that Epstein did.  Until, though, there is evidence that Clinton did participate actively then it's only suspicion and looks bad and Clinton shouldn't be prosecuted or anything else.   If proof surfaces though then Clinton, like Epstein should face prosecution and any other person that participated even if it was Trump or anyone else but every one of them deserves the be treated as innocent until proven guilty, even Clinton. HIFLYER2 also deserves to be respected as calling out what you said as being false.  Acosta's job today has no bearing on what he did in the past and it's doubtful that the Epstein deal ever came up in his interview for the present Job.  You should not have attempted to tie that to Trump and that's all I see HIFLYER2 trying to say to you.  He's not attempting to spin it any direction but rather only calling out what's factual.

You even called Epstein 'Clinton's long time friend', in a topic you started, but refused to see any connection between Trump and Epstein. Trump took at least one trip on the Lolita express. Trump hosted parties with Epstein. Trump was named in a lawsuit with Epstein. Nope, no connection to Trump. Tell me more about hypocrisy as you defend Trump the sexual predator.

gbrk posted:

SPIN?  It's the facts no spin about it.  Trumps insertion into condemnation surrounding the plea deal offered, in the past, to Epstein is irrelevant and only serves to gauge and indicate your own bias or anger regarding Trump.  The plea deal, no matter who it was under, was a bad move and the man should have had to serve hard time and received justice but he didn't.  Acosta was wrong in what he did and for him to pay for his bad decision, I have no problem with, but Trump was not involved what so ever.  

As for Clinton and the relevance of inserting Clinton into the argument or discussion there is relevance as Clinton flew at least 27 times on his good, close, friends Lolita express plain trips and Clinton's presence there and on Epstein's Island is very relevant reasons to assume or question whether Clinton engaged in some the same activities that Epstein did.  Until, though, there is evidence that Clinton did participate actively then it's only suspicion and looks bad and Clinton shouldn't be prosecuted or anything else.   If proof surfaces though then Clinton, like Epstein should face prosecution and any other person that participated even if it was Trump or anyone else but every one of them deserves the be treated as innocent until proven guilty, even Clinton. HIFLYER2 also deserves to be respected as calling out what you said as being false.  Acosta's job today has no bearing on what he did in the past and it's doubtful that the Epstein deal ever came up in his interview for the present Job.  You should not have attempted to tie that to Trump and that's all I see HIFLYER2 trying to say to you.  He's not attempting to spin it any direction but rather only calling out what's factual.

“Epstein was barred from President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., ‘because Epstein sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club,, according to court documents,’” The Washington Post reported.

“I learned through a source that Trump banned Epstein from his Maralago [Mar-A- Lago] Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club,” Fort Lauderdale lawyer Bradley Edwards’ said.
These same Democrats stealthily avoided any mention of former President Bill Clinton who is alleged to have visited Epstein’s private island many times.
“Jane Doe No. 102 stated generally that she was required by Epstein to be exploited not only by Epstein but also Epstein’s ‘adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen and/or other professional and personal acquaintances’ – categories Clinton and acquaintances of Clinton fall into,” court documents said. An attorney who represented the victims of billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual assault said that in 2009, the only person that helped him was then citizen Donald Trump.
Prosecuting attorney Bradley Edwards was interviewed in December 2018 in Palm Beach, Florida shortly after settling a court case he had with billionaire Jeffrey Epstein.

 

  An attorney who represented the victims of billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual assault said that in 2009, the only person that helped him was then citizen Donald Trump.

On Monday, Clinton's press secretary Angel Ureña said in a statement: “In 2002 and 2003, President Clinton took a total of four trips on Jeffrey Epstein's airplane: One to Europe, one to Asia, and two to Africa, which included stops in connection with the work of the Clinton Foundation." Supporters of the Foundation, and his Secret Service detail traveled on every leg of every trip.”

 

But a Washington Examiner review of flight manifest records contradicts these claims. It shows Clinton took 27 flights on Epstein’s private jet during at least six different trips.

Court documents outlining the trips and the individual flights were filed as an exhibit in a lawsuit by Bradley Edwards, an attorney for some of Epstein's accusers.

Epstein was arrested on Saturday when his plane landed in Teterboro, New Jersey, after taking off from Paris. He pleaded not guilty in federal court on Monday to charges of conspiracy and child sex trafficking.

The controversial financier struck a deal in 2008 with federal prosecutors, including Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, that allowed him to avoid 10 years in prison on charges of sexually abusing minors as young as 14 and having some of his victims recruit other girls in exchange for serving 13 months in jail and paying restitution to victims. 

  An attorney who represented the victims of billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual assault said that in 2009, the only person that helped him was then citizen Donald Trump.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×