“trump and administration imho could not have passively acquiesced to an epstein hit.”
While they may not have acquiesced, they may have gamed it out and decided not to take extraordinary measures to prevent it.
1. If they decide the larger goals were still served (perhaps better) if he died,
2. If preventing his death could not easily be done,
3. If allowing his death created more evidence trails to the guilty,
4. If allowing his death expedited legal challenges,
5. If there was evidence the Epstein wanted to die,
6. If Epstein is not the key player that needed to be brought to justice for victims to have their day in court,
then it makes sense that they would decide to stand down and refuse to intervene.
Standing down to allow a murder would be criminal. I would even question the morality of allowing a suicide. It leaves to many people vulnerable to litigation.
sorry but i offer you the well known counterexample of the assassination while in LE custody of lee harvey oswald as an example that law enforcement should definitely never seek to follow, even passively.
ping
Epstein was being held in the Manhattan City Jail. That isn’t under the custody and control of the Feds at all, it’s the City of New York and de Blasio that run that jail.
~~~
1. If they decide the larger goals were still served (perhaps better) if he died,
2. If preventing his death could not easily be done,
3. If allowing his death created more evidence trails to the guilty,
4. If allowing his death expedited legal challenges,
5. If there was evidence the Epstein wanted to die,
6. If Epstein is not the key player that needed to be brought to justice for victims to have their day in court,