Posted on 07/16/2025 1:28:03 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Kenn Starr represented Epstein in the sweetheart deal. He used his connections in the Bush Administration to push on behalf of Epstein.
Now tell me in ONE sentence why you don’t want to find out if this paragraph is true and who was responsible and WHY????
“““The prosecutor added that someone in Washington – the book does not specify who – was “calling the shots on the case”. Villafaña warned fellow prosecutors at the time that Epstein was probably still abusing underaged girls, but according to the unnamed prosecutor quoted by Brown “it was clear that she had to find a way to strike a deal because a decision had already been made not to prosecute Epstein.”
You first. For the 3rd time I ask you
Declare — without deflection — do you want the AG or a special prosecutor to investigate?
The question is simple.
Spoiler alert: You’ll never answer even a simple question like this.
My honest answer is I don’t know. There are pros and cons. I can tell you I don’t want Bondi to do it.
I don’t know which is the right one if Bondi is no longer AG to get to the bottom of why Bush Admin went easy on this guy. Villafaña at the time said it was likely Epstein was still abusing girls and Bush Admin looked the other way.
I answered your question. Now answer mine.
You STILL CAN’T ANSWER! LOL
Yes or no.
If not Bondi then...
Do you favor a special prosecutor?
My answer will not change. If Bondi is not AG, I don’t know.
If Bondi is AG then not AG.
There are so many moving complex parts that clearly involve intelligence that I don’t know the best avenue. I don’t have enough knowledge of how the various investigative arms operate to know who is best suited.
Definitely, AG whether or Bondi or not need to cooperate in money laundering tax evasion investigation of Leon Black.
I have answered your question. Now answer mine. It is a much simpler question requiring a much simpler answer
Yes let’s get the answers to the Epstein situation. Let’s find out who he was and what was done.
I answered your question. You never answered mine.
You just deflected and tried to gaslight me by pretending you gave an answer.
So I gave you an answer. You failed to do so.
Don’t pretend you answered.
You didn’t. Gaslight someone you can fool.
I can’t comprehend your posts.
I have told you that I don’t know enough about the nitty gritty details of the investigative arms to know which one would be best given the complex nature and the fact it is very likely Epstein did work with intelligence. For pete’s sake, he was involved in Iran Contra arms dealing.
All I know for certain is that Bondi can’t be the one and I know there needs to be an investigation concerning MULTIPLE issues.
For EXAMPLE, is it better to have the OIG investigate whether the CIA intervened in the first round of prosecuting the pedophile. I don’t know. I was reading some info on the Finders case. The FBI is the one that investigated if the CIA was involved. Which would have been better? OIG or FBI??? I can’t answer that.
So stop with your nonsense that I didn’t answer. Of course, I did.
He told us that Obama and Biden admins reworked the data and that’s why he can’t/won’t release it? When? Where?
LOL OK. sing yourself to sleep with fairytales that you have given a coherent answer
Give me the specifics as to how each investigative arm works. I need details before I can evaluate.
For example, tell me who should have investigated whether CIA intervened in the Finders case. OIG , FBI, or someone else and WHY. law enforcement said CIA intervened.
so who investigates?
This case is such a big mess I agree it is tough to investigate what.
Inspector Generals have the talent pool to do an excellent job but even they are subject to political pressure.
One example relates to the Epstein case—the Bureau of Prisons Inspector General report on his “suicide”.
The report has huge gaps in its logic, does not answer a whole bunch of critical questions and is best used for toilet paper.
That only happens when political pressure from above “edits” the report until it is meaningless.
Article 2 is your friend
I am asking you to provide the information since you are demanding an answer.
Article 2 follows Article 1.
It’s near the front to make it easier for you.
Happy reading!
No, you tell me who should investigate whether CIA intervened in the the first prosecution since Acosta was told epstein belonged to intelligence and told to back off.
Who investigates whether he said that to trump transition team and whether it actually happened
Give me the reasons why. If you can’t do that then don’t expect me to answer because that is key component of the investigation.
Oh and article 2 of what..give me a link that specifically covers my question
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.