Justice May Finally Call on Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein

Justice May Finally Call on Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein July 7, 2019

The wheels of justice often move slow, but they DO move.

On Saturday, it appears New York stepped in to clean up the miscarriage of justice carried out in Florida over a decade ago.

Jeffrey Epstein, billionaire pal to Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and attorney Alan Dershowitz (to name just a few), got a sweetheart deal in Florida from then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta (currently serving as Trump’s Labor Secretary). Even as evidence of multiple accounts of sexual molestation and exploitation of underaged girls emerged.

In the deal made with Acosta’s office, Epstein pleaded guilty to minor charges, resulting in a scant 13 month sentence.

During the course of that sentence, he was allowed to leave the jail and work 12 to 16 hours a day at his office, for 6 days a week. He hired his own security detail, and only spent nights in jail.

His alleged victims were kept in the dark and were given no opportunity to be heard in court. They were shut out, therefore, had no representation.

Some reports are that Epstein agreed to work with federal authorities on the financial crimes case against executives with the investment bank,  Bear Stearns. The company collapsed in 2008, due to the subprime mortgage crisis.

If true, it would appear the state of Florida put more value on big money investors than they did the lives of the young girls Epstein and his pals exploited over the years.

There were also reports of an AG’s office unsure of how they would proceed with the case against Epstein, since his legal team dug up dirt against his accusers, alleging drug abuse.

I’m going to side note this: For many victims of sexual abuse, the need to bury the pain and shame will often lead them down even darker paths, with drug abuse being only one of the unfortunate aftermaths.

Fast forward to today, and we have the FBI-NYPD Crimes Against Children Task Force to thank for taking up a case that has received fresh scrutiny over the past year, prompted in large part to The Miami Herald, which has been all over this, with some incredible, deep dives in reporting.

So what are the charges that now stand against Epstein? Is this double jeopardy?

The new indictment—which, according to two sources, will be unsealed Monday in Manhattan federal court—will reportedly allege that Epstein sexually exploited dozens of underage girls in a now-familiar scheme: paying them cash for “massages” and then molesting or sexually abusing them in his Upper East Side mansion or his palatial residence in Palm Beach. Epstein will be charged with one count of sex trafficking of minors and one count of conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of minors—which could put him away for a maximum of 45 years. The case is being handled by the Public Corruption Unit of the Southern District of New York, with assistance from the district’s human-trafficking officials and the FBI.

Several of the billionaire’s employees and associates allegedly recruited the girls for Epstein’s abuse, and some victims eventually became recruiters themselves, according to law enforcement. The girls were as young as 14, and Epstein knew they were underage, according to details of the arrest and indictment shared by two officials.

Epstein apparently had a “party jet,” where he flew the young girls, along with some of his lecherous pals to exotic locales.

One of his frequent fliers was former President Bill Clinton.

Current President Donald Trump has praised his friend, Epstein, as being a “great guy” and mused over the young girls he kept in his orbit.

It’s called sex trafficking, guys.

“It’s been a long time coming—it’s been too long coming,” said attorney David Boies, who represents Epstein accusers Virginia Roberts Giuffre and Sarah Ransome. “It is an important step towards getting justice for the many victims of Mr. Epstein’s sex trafficking enterprise.

“We hope that prosecutors will not stop with Mr. Epstein because there were many other people who participated with him and made the sex trafficking possible,” he told The Daily Beast.

When the FBI announces the charges against Epstein on Monday, they will also provide a number for other alleged victims to call the Southern District of New York.

That could prove to be a busy number, so I hope they have adequate staff to man the post.

One of Epstein’s accusers, Giuffre, has some of the most scandalous and damaging claims, and could prove invaluable to the current case.

According to Giuffre, she was approached in 1999, at the age of 15, on her summer job working at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, by the woman called Epstein’s “madame,” Ghislaine Maxwell.

Giuffre claims that she was groomed, then molested multiple times by both Epstein and Maxwell.

She also gave a statement, alleging knowledge of Epstein “loaning out” young girls to powerful men like Dershowitz and British royal, Prince Andrew.

Both Dershowitz and Prince Andrew deny the claims.

Giuffre’s account of her involvement with Epstein and Maxwell, however, sounds sickeningly familiar, as it echoes the experiences of many victims of sex trafficking.

She said that when she began “working” for Epstein, he flew her to New York on his private jet and molested her at his Manhattan mansion. “I was trained to be ‘everything a man wanted me to be,’” Giuffre said in the declaration. “It wasn’t just sexual training—they wanted me to be able to cater to all the needs of the men they were going to send me to.”

Maxwell and Epstein allegedly ordered Giuffre to pay attention to what the men wanted, so she could report back to them. Giuffre said she traveled with Epstein from 1999 through the summer of 2002, to his homes in New York, New Mexico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Paris, France.

“I had sex with him often in these places and also with the various people he demanded that I have sex with,” Giuffre stated. “Epstein paid me for many of these sexual encounters. In fact, my only purpose for Epstein, Maxwell and their friends was to be used for sex.”

That’s because the sex trafficking industry dehumanizes the victims, and in fact, they are seen as no more than breathing sexual organs.

It’s disgusting. It’s inhuman, and no amount of money or connections should be an excuse to let it go.

Giuffre said she was also forced to have sex with another Epstein confidant, Jean Luc Brunel, who runs the MC2 modeling agency.

Brunel supplied Epstein with girls as young as 12, luring aspiring models from poor countries or poor backgrounds to the United States, Giuffre alleged. “Jeffrey Epstein has told me that he has slept with over 1,000 of Brunel’s girls, and everything that I have seen confirms this claim,” Giuffre stated. (Brunel, in a previous statement, denied being involved “in the actions Mr. Jeffrey Epstein is being accused of” and said “I have exercised with the utmost ethical standard for almost 40 years.”)

I imagine news of Epstein’s arrest and the announcement of new charges on Monday has more than a few of his wealthy pals in a cold sweat, today.


We don’t know yet if there will be any further indictments, but at the very least, we can hope for justice to finally be served for the victims of Epstein’s pedophilia.





"Have you stopped to consider that it is You who have changed? As I have ..."

Profiles in Cowardice: Ted Cruz
"I was a huge Ted Cruz supporter in 2015-2016. I put all my hopes on ..."

Profiles in Cowardice: Ted Cruz
"1. Yes, Schiff (not Schriff), conducted one leg of the investigation into Trump's misdeeds.2. It ..."

GOP Senators Vote to Conceal Evidence ..."
"You might do what you think others should do before you write something so devoid ..."

GOP Senators Vote to Conceal Evidence ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • IllinoisPatriot

    One of the Supreme court cases decided recently involved the question of Dual-Sovereignty that the defendant was trying to mask under double jeopardy.

    The claim was that if an individual was charged under Federal law, he could not then be re-charged/re-tried under State law for the same offense and vice versa.

    Fortunately the USSC decided against the plaintiff on the basis that the US is not a Democracy, but a Republic – which is a federation of SOVEREIGN states and to agree with the plaintiff would have been a Federal violation of State sovereignty or vice versa since the Federal Government is ALSO a sovereign entity.

    Though it was never mentioned, the first thing that leapt to my mind was the possibility of a corrupt president pardoning himself and his cronies for crimes at the federal level and the States then being unable to prosecute the cronies, the fixers or the “sitting president” (once out of office) for their crimes.

    The second thing that jumped to my mind was the possibility of a powerful (wealthy) state resident (think Richard Daley, Michael Madigan or Al Capone in Chicago or Donald Trump/Bill Clinton/Jeffry Epstein in NYC) living a criminally extravagant lifestyle based on the knowledge that as long as HE (and his various ‘fixers’) got to his “controlled” state courts first, he could forever fend off federal investigations or prosecutions because investigating and building a real case against an individual takes far longer than a ‘fake prosecution’ with insufficient evidence to “convince” a tampered-with jury (think the kangaroo courts you see on TV where the Sheriff and Judge are related) – but designed to let the defendant off the hook and to attach double jeopardy so they are inoculated against Federal prosecution.

    Then, not even a week later we see Epstein being re-tried in STATE court for the SAME offenses he was able to (apparently) bribe his way out of with Acosta as federal charges.

    Had the USSC ruled the other way (and at least Sotamayor and Ginsburg did), Epstein would be ineligible for prosecution under state law because he would now have Constitutional double-jeopardy protection.

    Are there any bets that had the USSC decided the “dual sovereignty” case differently that Trump would NOT have immediately issued federal pardons for all his cronies, thus protecting them from state prosecution and preventing any more investigations into HIS shady (and criminal) background ?

    Is there any doubt that had the USSC decided differently, that Epstein would have walked and the investigation now underway and publicized would never have seen the light of day ?

    The US Constitution really is a brilliant document. It was far ahead of its time and (if followed and upheld instead of ignored as the BOTH of our current partisan political parties are wont to do), would serve us well far into the future…..

    I also notice 2 things about the current ‘fight’ over the census citizenship question:
    1. Trump himself seems not to care about court rulings or rule of law.
    2. The question was rejected NOT because of any legal rational – but because of Trump’s intentions and racism evidenced in his speeches and tweets.

    I believe there is room for a federalist president to (a) remove the census preparation from direct WH control and (b) re-visit the citizenship question based on legal and constitutional grounds — provided that the sitting president does not poison the well by exposing his own personal racist and personally hateful biases. I KNOW there are MANY legal and logically consequential arguments to be made in favor of adding the question – just as I know that Trump is too blinded by his hatred and racism to make them.

  • Michael Weyer

    I disagree with you on a lot of things. However, I’m always appreciative of how much detail you put into your talk and such. Also like how you can bring up both sides yet not use the “but Clinton” bit to excuse Trump’s obvious hate and bias that’s shamed the Presidency so much.

    Someone just shared with me a bit of a poll of “Trump vs Dems” where every answer on “how do you trust” or such was Trump or “a lying Democrat/socialist Democrat/MS-13 loving Democrat” etc.

    I got a good chuckle thinking it was something from the Onion or such…then discovered this is no joke, it’s the official Trump site pulling out a poll featuring these questions. And his followers are fine with it whereas if Biden were to say one little mean thing on Trump it would be “look how horrible behavior that is.”

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Thank you for the good thoughts you’ve expressed above. I too have noticed the polling questions (from BOTH sides of the aisle) getting more and more extreme and partisan due to the inappropriate and extremely biasing “editorial adjectives” used to describe the “other side”.

    But it’s not just Trump. That same “editorial bias” in fundraisers, emails, and campaign speeches also exists throughout the rest of (what remains of) the GOP as well – I get Heritage fundraiser snail-mails and GOP snail-mails from multiple sources using “editorial adjectives” — even from the NRCC.

    This is just the GOP response to the DNC mailers and reporting that for years (decades?) have used the same snide “editorial adjectives / pejoratives” when describing anything conservative or constitutional or related to Republicans that did not fit into their DNC-sanctioned social-justice ideology.

    The only thing that’s really changed with Trump is that BOTH sides have become more partisan, more hateful, less civil and less tolerant of dissenting opinions and (because of Trump’s penchant for applying nicknames to those that he deems “disloyal”), more open with their partisan sniping and social attacks.

    The result is that a sizable number of Republicans have declared that “this is NOW who we are” and have left the GOP. Justin Amash is only one of the latest and more well-known to have done so.

    It would have been nice if a similar chunk of Democrats would have left the DNC for the same reason due to the scandals surrounding Clinton or Obama, but I am not aware of any such major defection happening within the ranks of the DNC.

    Perhaps the DNC really DOES speak for the Democrats – with all their pro-socialism and anti-Constitution talk as well as their suppression of religious liberty (forcing nuns to provide abortifactants and declaring – as Pelosi did – that people will just have to change their faith to accommodate the laws the DNC wants to pass) and now their much-bally-hooed gun-control legislation they expect to pass in 2025.