Comey was DAG not Deputy Director during a portion of the Epstein case. But he left DOJ in August of 2005 to go to Lockheed Martin.TexAgs91 said:The things Schumer forgets to mention follow an interesting patternwill25u said:
TexAgs91 said:
I remember sometime around 2007-2010 a guy I used to work with was a Google fanboy. He would talk about all the great things that Google does and I expressed concern that they had too much power.
He says but they are good people. They will never use that power for evil. Their motto is literally "Don't be evil"
Wow... I just searched again and now Google's image search does show WJC and Epstein (still with pictures of Trump and Epstein too of course). This must have been going around the internet this morning and Google got embarrassed and switched it back.TexAgs91 said:Why does Google have aspirations to become the KGB?AgGrad99 said:Yep.Episode IV said:Not only that, but if you google "Clinton Epstein" every reference that comes up is Epstein and Trump, articles, photos, links, etc.annie88 said:
WTF
I mentioned this yesterday. ALL forms of media are connecting Trump to Epstein. Even though Trump is the one figure who prominently distanced, and publicly criticized/separated from Epstein.
Censorship of images in the Soviet Union
Again I ask who has the authority to scrub images from Google? I'm wondering if that could be destruction of evidence?Quote:
Wow... I just searched again and now Google's image search does show WJC and Epstein (still with pictures of Trump and Epstein too of course). This must have been going around the internet this morning and Google got embarrassed and switched it back.
Not likely, the images aren't hosted on Google, Google just directs people to the images. They are hosted elsewhere.aggiehawg said:Again I ask who has the authority to scrub images from Google? I'm wondering if that could be destruction of evidence?Quote:
Wow... I just searched again and now Google's image search does show WJC and Epstein (still with pictures of Trump and Epstein too of course). This must have been going around the internet this morning and Google got embarrassed and switched it back.
https://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-emails-google-eric-schmidt-relationship-with-clintons-2016-11aggiehawg said:Again I ask who has the authority to scrub images from Google? I'm wondering if that could be destruction of evidence?Quote:
Wow... I just searched again and now Google's image search does show WJC and Epstein (still with pictures of Trump and Epstein too of course). This must have been going around the internet this morning and Google got embarrassed and switched it back.
Likely true but if they change the algos to redirect queries? Bury the actual hosting sites, I think an argument could be made they are at least tampering with evidence.Quote:
I don't think it's google's job to maintain evidence related to Epstein and the Clintons
They are tampering with public perception, which is definitely their goal.aggiehawg said:Likely true but if they change the algos to redirect queries? Bury the actual hosting sites, I think an argument could be made they are at least tampering with evidence.Quote:
I don't think it's google's job to maintain evidence related to Epstein and the Clintons
No. Just no. You are better than that. The evidence hasn't been moved by google. Think about it like this, let's say you have evidence in police lockup that has a camera on it with a live feed. Moving the camera to a different area that doesn't have a picture of the evidence in no way tampers with the evidence. Unless the pictures are being hosted on a google platform AND google was the one deleting them, there is nothing criminal there.aggiehawg said:Likely true but if they change the algos to redirect queries? Bury the actual hosting sites, I think an argument could be made they are at least tampering with evidence.Quote:
I don't think it's google's job to maintain evidence related to Epstein and the Clintons
I was thinking in terms of physical evidence. Say there are business records in an office. An employee removes those records from the office but doesn't destroy them.brownbrick said:No. Just no. You are better than that. The evidence hasn't been moved by google. Think about it like this, let's say you have evidence in police lockup that has a camera on it with a live feed. Moving the camera to a different area that doesn't have a picture of the evidence in no way tampers with the evidence. Unless the pictures are being hosted on a google platform AND google was the one deleting them, there is nothing criminal there.aggiehawg said:Likely true but if they change the algos to redirect queries? Bury the actual hosting sites, I think an argument could be made they are at least tampering with evidence.Quote:
I don't think it's google's job to maintain evidence related to Epstein and the Clintons
You arent getting it. This is not a scandal. Fast n furious, irs gate, benghazi, etc. are not 'scandals'annie88 said:Yep. Trump comes up in most of them even though he's not in the selection criteria. Definitely manipulated.Episode IV said:Not only that, but if you google "Clinton Epstein" every reference that comes up is Epstein and Trump, articles, photos, links, etc.annie88 said:
WTF
Make no mistake, as horrible as all this is, and it is, and it should've been dealt with years ago. He should've been sent to prison for a long time, not the short amount he was, but the only reason this is coming to light now, after ALL these years is another effort to get Trump. They've known about ALL these details for years, they knew about Clinton's relationship with this guy for years and that of others with him and just decided to let it go.
Now, several times over the years some Epstein connections came up with all the Clinton, Trump or other big names but then it just died back out especially when Hillary was running for president. And I guarantee you if Hillary had won the presidency none of this would be coming to light right now.
Epstein is massively screwed, as he should be, it just remains to be seen who goes down with him.
What? Google is a search engine. Not a camera.brownbrick said:No. Just no. You are better than that. The evidence hasn't been moved by google. Think about it like this, let's say you have evidence in police lockup that has a camera on it with a live feed. Moving the camera to a different area that doesn't have a picture of the evidence in no way tampers with the evidence. Unless the pictures are being hosted on a google platform AND google was the one deleting them, there is nothing criminal there.aggiehawg said:Likely true but if they change the algos to redirect queries? Bury the actual hosting sites, I think an argument could be made they are at least tampering with evidence.Quote:
I don't think it's google's job to maintain evidence related to Epstein and the Clintons
The most likely explanation to me is warring partisans on both sides using SEO (Search Engine Optimizations) to game google's algorithms. There's a whole industry to do this for commercial purposes. I get spam offering to do this for our dept website and some lab websites all the time.aggiehawg said:Likely true but if they change the algos to redirect queries? Bury the actual hosting sites, I think an argument could be made they are at least tampering with evidence.Quote:
I don't think it's google's job to maintain evidence related to Epstein and the Clintons
Quote:
Wealthy hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein, arrested anew over the weekend in New York for sex trafficking and conspiracy, also has been accused of sex crimes at his New Mexico mansion south of Santa Fe.
He's never faced criminal charges here, despite allegations of sexual misconduct at his ranch near Stanley that have emerged in civil litigation.
At least three embarrassed New Mexico politicians have returned donations from Epstein that showed up in their campaign accounts over the years, and news reports say investigations of Epstein reached into New Mexico.
The U.S. Attorney's Office in Albuquerque on Monday provided a brief statement in response to a Journal inquiry on whether the office has considered filing any charges against Epstein for alleged crimes in New Mexico.
Thanks. Obviously, I really don't understand the complexities of how that all works. So I ask.biobioprof said:The most likely explanation to me is warring partisans on both sides using SEO (Search Engine Optimizations) to game google's algorithms. There's a whole industry to do this for commercial purposes. I get spam offering to do this for our dept website and some lab websites all the time.aggiehawg said:Likely true but if they change the algos to redirect queries? Bury the actual hosting sites, I think an argument could be made they are at least tampering with evidence.Quote:
I don't think it's google's job to maintain evidence related to Epstein and the Clintons
This would happen outside Google itself.
Sometimes this is called google bombing. Associating searches for Rick Santorum with a NSFW result is an infamous example.
LINKQuote:
TIMELINE OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S LEGAL TROUBLES
1999-2002 Virginia Roberts [Jane Doe #3] claims to she served as a 'sex slave' for Jeffrey Epstein and was required to engage in sexual activity with him and a number of his high-profile friends.
March 2005 Authorities in Florida launch a probe into Epstein after a mother calls and alleges that her daughter was molested at his Palm Beach estate.
May 2006 A probable cause affidavit is filed by the Palm Beach Police Department after the sexual battery investigation into Epstein, Sarah Kellen and Haley Robson Sworn. It charges Epstein with four counts of lewd and lascivious behavior for unlawful sex with a minor. Five victims and seventeen witnesses were interviewed, and alleged that Epstein engaged in unlawful sexual behavior. Sworn meanwhile was accused of profiting by providing young girls to Epstein, while Kellen was tasked with keeping a black book containing the names and contact information of these minors in her capacity as Epstein's assistant.
May 2006 - Barry Krischer, the State Attorney in Palm Beach, refers the case to a grand jury.
June 2006 - The grand jury returns an indictment of one count of solicitation of prostitution. This charge does not reflect that the individual in question was a minor. Only one girl testifies in front of the grand jury.
July 2006 - The Palm Beach Police Chief grows increasingly annoyed as he watches the lack of progress his investigation is making in the legal system, and convinces the FBI to open a federal investigation. It is dubbed Operation Leap Year and the possible crime being probed is 'child prostitution.'
November 2006 - Operation Leap Year picks up steam as the FBI begins interviewing potential witnesses and victims from the three states were Epstein owns property - Florida, New York and New Mexico.
June 2007 -The US Attorney's Office drafts a lengthy indictment as the federal probe of Epstein comes to an end, while at the same time Epstein begins negotiating a possible plea deal.
July 2007 - A new set of grand jury subpoenas are issued, including ones for Epstein's computers. When police go to execute those subpoenas at Epstein's Palm Beach home, they discover they have all been removed.
August 2007 - The US Attorney in Miami at the time, Alex Acosta, joins the Epstein negotiation talks.
September 2007 Epstein signs a non-prosecution agreement on September 24 after rejecting multiple plea deals. His criminal charges are then deferred to the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office.
October 2007 - Acosta meets with Epstein's lawyer Jay Lefkowitz to finalize the terms of the plea deal. It is agreed that the victims would not be notified, the deal would be kept under seal and all grand jury subpoenas would be canceled - including the one for Epstein's computers, which were still at large.
January 2008 - After months of demands, Epstein and his lawyers say they will not longer accept the plea deal because he forces him to register as a sex offender.
February 2008 A civil lawsuit is filed against Epstein by an anonymous woman, stating that as a 16-year-old minor she was recruited to give Epstein a paid massage. She demands $50 million, claiming that she was then force to perform sex acts on Epstein.
March 2008 - A federal grand jury presentation is planned following the FBI probe. Lawyers for Epstein begin harassing victims with phone calls and one of his investigators is accused of trying to run a victim's father off the road.
March 2008 A second woman files a civil action against Epstein.
May 2008 - It is announced that with no plea deal in case, the federal case against Epstein can proceed.
June 2008 On June 30, Epstein pleads guilty to one count of solicitation of prostitution and one count of solicitation of prostitution with a minor under the age of 18. Both are state charges and he is sentenced to 18 months in jail. He will also have to register as a sex offender.
July 2008 - Epstein's victims learn of the plea deal, but it will be another 10 years before they are informed of all the details, including the fact that victim was 16 in the charge to which Epstein entered a guilty plea and not 14 like the women were led to believe. This allowed Epstein to avoid registering as a sex offender in multiple states like New Mexico, where he has a ranch. An emergency petition is filed udner the Crime Victims' Rights Act, which mandates that victims be informed about plea agreements and the right to appear at sentencing. It is ignored.
August 2008 Epstein's agreement cannot be unsealed for the victims to see it is ruled in court, with federal prosecutors fighting to keep the records hidden from the public.
October 2008 - Epstein begins work release from the county stockad, where six days a week an he is transported to an office where he is able to work and entertain visitors. He returns to the stockade in the evening.
December 2008 - A judge grants Epstein's request to travel to New York for a day and then an extended stay. He says it is for a court case, but after an initial filing there is no follow-up in the case.
22 July 22, 2009 Epstein is released from prison.
Quote:
FBI, Director Mueller and his #2 James Comey agreed to stop the FBI investigation and drop it. Schumer forgot to mention that.
Cassius said:Quote:
FBI, Director Mueller and his #2 James Comey agreed to stop the FBI investigation and drop it. Schumer forgot to mention that.
why am I not surprised?!
FBI is garbage!
From the timeline posted above. Comey left his DAG position in August 2005. He was never at the FBI under Mueller.Quote:
July 2006 - The Palm Beach Police Chief grows increasingly annoyed as he watches the lack of progress his investigation is making in the legal system, and convinces the FBI to open a federal investigation. It is dubbed Operation Leap Year and the possible crime being probed is 'child prostitution.'
To this non-lawyer, it looks like the value was in making it look like somebody did something without going too far.annie88 said:
Simply put, the Palm Beach state attorney's office was ready to let Epstein walk free, no jail time," Acosta said. "Prosecutors in my former office found this to be completely unacceptable."
Acosta argued that it was his office that secured jail time, restitution and Epstein's registration as a sex offender.
"We believe that we proceeded appropriately, that's based on evidence, not just my opinion," Acosta said.
"There was value to getting a guilty plea and having him register."
There isn't a profile in courage anywhere near the Florida Epstein case in 2005-2008. Stat officials were crappy. Feds dropped the ball. It was a travesty all of the way around.Quote:
To this non-lawyer, it looks like the value was in making it look like somebody did something without going too far.
Then give your own explanation of why Epstein received a slap on the hand? Because he was a powerful guy who could kill people by hiring paid assassins? (He could and likely has in the past.) So were all of the Mob Bosses. Feds never backed down on those.Bunk Moreland said:
Just my opinion but you and others would do a lot better to stop trying to make Bill Clinton the linchpin in all of this. Through all the years that feels distorted.
Regardless of how gross/illegal Bill may or may not have been hanging out with Epstein...he has TONS of powerful friends. Trump said it himself... The guy was all over Palm Beach. Not every single thing in this story connects to the Clintons somehow. Epstein was a powerful and scary guy regardless of his friendship with Bill.
Your post is completely nonsensical. You said I was over emphasizing Bill's close friendship with Epstein because Epstein was powerful and had many other friends besides Bill.Bunk Moreland said:
Why do you keep bringing up assassins and 'he could kill a guy?'
You did that earlier in the thread too when some nut casually referred to the Clinton's and Espstein having Seth Rich killed and ironically a few posts later you or someone asked different posters not to hikack the thread. And even more ironic... News broke that the entire Seth Rich/DNC/Clinton's story that some outlets ran with was Russian garbage (so shocked).
I think you oversell Clinton influence because you so badly want it to be true, you undersell Epstein influence because you so badly want the Clinton thing to be true, and I think you way over analyze a situation where he probably just leaned on enough powerful figures who ran in circles he did to get the sweetheart deal he got. But this entire thing is about Epstein and his web. Bill Clinton is just a spot on the web. Probably an important one but Epstein is the spider.
Great post, which raises some additional questions in my mind:aggiehawg said:
After Acosta's explanation today, I am of two minds. First, as I suspected, the Palm Beach County State prosecutor misled Acosta's office as to the terms of the minimum plea deal they would accept with Epstein. He was assured a minimum of 18 months prison, registering as a sex offender and restitution to his identified victims.
OTOH, the feds had a 53 page information ready with which to charge him. Since the Statute of Limitations for federal child trafficking had been removed in 2002, there was no looming limitation problem. So what was the problem with the feds proceeding themselves and telling the state of Florida to sod off, we've got this?
Granted, the risks of trials are always daunting. And we are still talking about young girls and women at that point. The trauma of testifying, being destroyed on cross, the publicity, etc, certainly weighed into the decision but this wasn't a one or two victim crime. IIRC, they had identified 60 victims. Not all of them would be deemed to be non-credible by a jury. And there is always the repetition factor. Jury hears from 10-20 girls and women saying essentially the same thing, bolsters the overall credibility rather than detracts from it.
Then there is the matter of Epstein's girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein's employees who were the recruiters and assisted in the trafficking. Indict them, or offer a plea deal to them in exchange for their testimony. One of them would likely have turned state's evidence, making the case much stronger.
Bonus to that approach was that the feds could have gotten her to tell them what happened to all of Epstein's computers. When the Palm Beach residence was searched, this hedge fund manager and frequent trader didn't have a computer inside the entire house. Imagine that! There was also a large shredding machine that had been shipped from the Virgin Islands to Palm Beach while Epstein was under investigation. Ask the turned employee for what was it used and how often?
And if Epstein managed to take off and disappear before trial? He would have still been under indictment. He wouldn't be back. He's abusing children in some other country for the rest of his life. Not quite a win-win but close enough.
For US Attorneys, this was a career making case. Think Guiliani and Gotti. To walk away and leave it to the state of Florida, there either had to be major threats and intimidation happening, or Main Justice had passed the word down from the get go. Rattle some sabers but leave it to the state.
Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mukasey have some explaining to do.
Quote:
To appreciate the significance of what I'm about to share, you really need to go back and read yesterday's post: The Jeffrey Epstein Rabbit Hole Goes a Lot Deeper Than You Think.
In that piece, I shared many lesser known, but extremely bizarre facts about Jeffrey Epstein and the people around him. I also noted that it appeared his real job was to run a blackmail operation to ensnare some of the most wealthy and powerful people on earth. I alluded to the possibility that he was collecting this priceless information on behalf of a third party, and then just today we learn the following via the Daily Beast:This should be the number one story in the country right now. Blackmail at this level is a genuine national security issue.Quote:
"Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?" Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he'd had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He'd cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein's attorneys because he had "been told" to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. "I was told 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 Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)...
For almost two decades, for some nebulous reason, whether to do with ties to foreign intelligence, his billions of dollars, or his social connections, Epstein, whose alleged sexual sickness and horrific assaults on women without means or ability to protect themselves is well-known in his circle, remained untouchable.
