So...Alex Acosta...

[jfish26]

Trump's previous personal attorney Michael Cohen is doing time, so how nice it must be for him to have a new "fixer":

There are so many ways in which the damage from the events leading up to the present moment will outlast and continue to haunt after Trump's presidency ends (should he let it). It is nearly unfathomable that the Attorney General can act in such open and obvious bad faith, and will totally get away with it.

^^^ x 1,000

I imagine it's much too much to hope for, but there's a part of me that can't help but want this unrelenting lack of regard for convention, for the separation of powers, and the lack of respect for the rule of law, i.e., the abject obstruction by the Trump Administration at every turn, to motivate Bob Mueller to go off script, rogue, and tell us what he really thinks next week during his testimony to congress. It might be our last hope that they don't "totally get away with it".

And this is why, regardless of whether the Senate would ever convict (and regardless of whatever "win" it might give Trump), I lean more and more strongly toward the House proceeding with an inquiry and then possibly adoption of articles of impeachment.

I think it is incredibly important - perhaps even vital to the long-term status of our country as the world's leader - that we record as much as possible about where exactly we are, and how exactly we got here. And then, we need to record who stood for what in light of these facts.

I am not hopeful that even a hero turn by someone who matters (whether Mueller, an actually-principled high-ranking cabinet official or GOP legislator, an influential donor or otherwise) would result in stopping this train abruptly in its tracks. I think sunlight is the only disinfectant that will work here, and that even that will take a political generation or three to take hold.

[PhDhawk]

This is incredibly reductive and facile, but: it is not lost on me that the same office that is now getting around to prosecuting Epstein spent two years (?) on an investigation that resulted in criminalizing violations of the NCAA's rulebook.

Completely different divisions.

That's like getting upset at the KC Chiefs because the Royals made a bad trade.

As I tried to acknowledge - it's not a perfect or even very good set of dots to connect. It is undoubtedly true, though, that SDNY (as evidenced here) has much more important fish to fry than breakers of NCAA rules. And it has only so many fisherman to catch the fish, and only so many cooks to fry them up, and only so many kitchens to fry them in.

Not really.

If you're investigating corruption, you're not also investigating child pornography.

I mean, you can argue, (pretty easily) that the agents involved in the ncaa investigation could find something better to do...but it would be something else involving public corruption...because that's what they do. They wouldn't be investigating child pornography. That's under the cybercrime division, whereas corruption is part of the criminal investigation division. They don't all investigate the same things, they have different training, and different skill sets.

I mean, I can't get mad at a public defender because he won't be my personal injury lawyer.

You could argue that there should be re-allocation of money and agents from one division to another...but I don't think you can make that conclusion using one case from each division as your support for that...that's pretty clearly a very very small sample size, with a pretty clear recency bias attached to it.

[Shirley]

...

And this is why, regardless of whether the Senate would ever convict (and regardless of whatever "win" it might give Trump), I lean more and more strongly toward the House proceeding with an inquiry and then possibly adoption of articles of impeachment.

I think it is incredibly important - perhaps even vital to the long-term status of our country as the world's leader - that we record as much as possible about where exactly we are, and how exactly we got here. And then, we need to record who stood for what in light of these facts.

I am not hopeful that even a hero turn by someone who matters (whether Mueller, an actually-principled high-ranking cabinet official or GOP legislator, an influential donor or otherwise) would result in stopping this train abruptly in its tracks. I think sunlight is the only disinfectant that will work here, and that even that will take a political generation or three to take hold.

Sadly, I agree with you 100%, Fish.

In retrospect, I feel so naive to have blindly assumed our system of checks and balances would hold. But then, like the founding fathers, we never anticipated someone as sinisterly narcissistic as Trump would ever ascend to the presidency, or that the members of one of our two major political parties would enable and abet him. It's gone way beyond the SMFH point, and is becoming existential to our society.

[jfish26]

Completely different divisions.

That's like getting upset at the KC Chiefs because the Royals made a bad trade.

As I tried to acknowledge - it's not a perfect or even very good set of dots to connect. It is undoubtedly true, though, that SDNY (as evidenced here) has much more important fish to fry than breakers of NCAA rules. And it has only so many fisherman to catch the fish, and only so many cooks to fry them up, and only so many kitchens to fry them in.

Not really.

If you're investigating corruption, you're not also investigating child pornography.

I mean, you can argue, (pretty easily) that the agents involved in the ncaa investigation could find something better to do...but it would be something else involving public corruption...because that's what they do. They wouldn't be investigating child pornography. That's under the cybercrime division, whereas corruption is part of the criminal investigation division. They don't all investigate the same things, they have different training, and different skill sets.

I mean, I can't get mad at a public defender because he won't be my personal injury lawyer.

You could argue that there should be re-allocation of money and agents from one division to another...but I don't think you can make that conclusion using one case from each division as your support for that...that's pretty clearly a very very small sample size, with a pretty clear recency bias attached to it.

"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."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-e ... ors-source

[jfish26]

...

And this is why, regardless of whether the Senate would ever convict (and regardless of whatever "win" it might give Trump), I lean more and more strongly toward the House proceeding with an inquiry and then possibly adoption of articles of impeachment.

I think it is incredibly important - perhaps even vital to the long-term status of our country as the world's leader - that we record as much as possible about where exactly we are, and how exactly we got here. And then, we need to record who stood for what in light of these facts.

I am not hopeful that even a hero turn by someone who matters (whether Mueller, an actually-principled high-ranking cabinet official or GOP legislator, an influential donor or otherwise) would result in stopping this train abruptly in its tracks. I think sunlight is the only disinfectant that will work here, and that even that will take a political generation or three to take hold.

Sadly, I agree with you 100%, Fish.

In retrospect, I feel so naive to have blindly assumed our system of checks and balances would hold. But then, like the founding fathers, we never anticipated someone as sinisterly narcissistic as Trump would ever ascend to the presidency, or that the members of one of our two major political parties would enable and abet him. It's gone way beyond the SMFH point, and is becoming existential to our society.

Yes. I naturally lean toward a social-liberal, fiscal-conservative position. I am well-educated and, I think, generally a strong critical thinker. And I was 100% blind to the long con that was in the works by formerly-but-no-longer-fringe elements of the right.

For what it's worth - I don't think DT "ascended" to the presidency so much as he was pushed upward into it, by forces known and unknown to him personally. My strong guess is the seeds of this outcome were planted when DT, knowingly or unknowingly (at the time) let some pretty bad money get cleaned in connection with getting himself out of dire financial straits.

[PhDhawk]

As I tried to acknowledge - it's not a perfect or even very good set of dots to connect. It is undoubtedly true, though, that SDNY (as evidenced here) has much more important fish to fry than breakers of NCAA rules. And it has only so many fisherman to catch the fish, and only so many cooks to fry them up, and only so many kitchens to fry them in.

Not really.

If you're investigating corruption, you're not also investigating child pornography.

I mean, you can argue, (pretty easily) that the agents involved in the ncaa investigation could find something better to do...but it would be something else involving public corruption...because that's what they do. They wouldn't be investigating child pornography. That's under the cybercrime division, whereas corruption is part of the criminal investigation division. They don't all investigate the same things, they have different training, and different skill sets.

I mean, I can't get mad at a public defender because he won't be my personal injury lawyer.

You could argue that there should be re-allocation of money and agents from one division to another...but I don't think you can make that conclusion using one case from each division as your support for that...that's pretty clearly a very very small sample size, with a pretty clear recency bias attached to it.

"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."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-e ... ors-source

ah. that's really surprising. These cases are normally handled by cyber criminal squads.

My bad for making an assumption. thanks for correcting me.

But...if nothing else, it shows how these cases can lead to unexpected territories.

[jfish26]

I don't think it was a bad assumption on your part. It would make sense given the nature of the underlying charges.

[Shirley]

...

And this is why, regardless of whether the Senate would ever convict (and regardless of whatever "win" it might give Trump), I lean more and more strongly toward the House proceeding with an inquiry and then possibly adoption of articles of impeachment.

I think it is incredibly important - perhaps even vital to the long-term status of our country as the world's leader - that we record as much as possible about where exactly we are, and how exactly we got here. And then, we need to record who stood for what in light of these facts.

I am not hopeful that even a hero turn by someone who matters (whether Mueller, an actually-principled high-ranking cabinet official or GOP legislator, an influential donor or otherwise) would result in stopping this train abruptly in its tracks. I think sunlight is the only disinfectant that will work here, and that even that will take a political generation or three to take hold.

Sadly, I agree with you 100%, Fish.

In retrospect, I feel so naive to have blindly assumed our system of checks and balances would hold. But then, like the founding fathers, we never anticipated someone as sinisterly narcissistic as Trump would ever ascend to the presidency, or that the members of one of our two major political parties would enable and abet him. It's gone way beyond the SMFH point, and is becoming existential to our society.

Yes. I naturally lean toward a social-liberal, fiscal-conservative position. I am well-educated and, I think, generally a strong critical thinker. And I was 100% blind to the long con that was in the works by formerly-but-no-longer-fringe elements of the right.

For what it's worth - I don't think DT "ascended" to the presidency so much as he was pushed upward into it, by forces known and unknown to him personally. My strong guess is the seeds of this outcome were planted when DT, knowingly or unknowingly (at the time) let some pretty bad money get cleaned in connection with getting himself out of dire financial straits.

Damn, and I thought I was cynical...

[PhDhawk]

I don't think it was a bad assumption on your part. It would make sense given the nature of the underlying charges.

What it also means, is that these are likely just the first of many charges.

And while things like wire fraud and money laundering aren't as bad as what he's already charged with, they're the types of charges that make sure that a long sentence becomes even longer.

[jfish26]

I don't think it was a bad assumption on your part. It would make sense given the nature of the underlying charges.

What it also means, is that these are likely just the first of many charges.

And while things like wire fraud and money laundering aren't as bad as what he's already charged with, they're the types of charges that make sure that a long sentence becomes even longer.

It will be fascinating to watch, because there's so much at stake (without even getting into the truly horrific underlying atrocities). Presumably, he knows enough that he could again keep himself from getting a de facto life sentence (by implicating others). Or, whoever is in the same web of entanglements is more powerful than him, and can get him to accept that de facto life sentence.

And then there's an outcome that might (might) test the outer limits of just what we're willing to put up with any more.

[Shirley]

WARNING!!! AUDIO NOT SAFE FOR WORK!

Miami Herald
Published on Nov 30, 2018

Virginia Roberts was working at Mar-a-Lago when she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell to be a masseuse to Palm Beach hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein. She says she was groomed for sex with him and his associates, attorney Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew.

[jfish26]

You literally don't even have to leave the premises of this particular crime to see how this could be problematic for a significant number of significant people.

[Shirley]

Let's hope those involved are exposed with all the fanfare and attention they've previously benefitted from as a result of their positions of power. Prosecute them all to the full extent of the law. They can all go to hell, democrat or republican.

Jeffrey Epstein Is the Ultimate Symbol of Plutocratic Rot

...The Epstein case is first and foremost about the casual victimization of vulnerable girls. But it is also a political scandal, if not a partisan one. It reveals a deep corruption among mostly male elites across parties, and the way the very rich can often purchase impunity for even the most loathsome of crimes...

Epstein socialized with Donald Trump, who in 2002 described him to New York Magazine as a “terrific guy” whom he’d known for 15 years. “It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side,” said the future president. In 2000, a porter who worked next door to Epstein’s Manhattan home told a British newspaper, admiringly, “I often see Donald Trump and there are loads of models coming and going, mostly at night. It’s amazing.”

Epstein also hung out with Bill Clinton, who rode on his jet several times. Ghislaine Maxwell, a close companion of Epstein who has been accused of working as his procurer, attended Chelsea Clinton’s wedding in 2010, long after Epstein’s exposure...

Among the mysteries of the Epstein case are why powerful prosecutors of both parties treated him with such leniency. Alexander Acosta, now Trump’s labor secretary, was the federal attorney who oversaw the deal Epstein received in 2008. Though facing potential federal charges that could have put him away for life, Epstein was allowed to plead to minor state charges instead, an arrangement that was kept secret from his victims. He served 13 months in a county jail, where he got to spend six days a week in his office on work-release. In February, a judge ruled that Acosta’s team’s handling of the case violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. (Naturally, Acosta still has his job.)

After Epstein served his time, he had to register as a sex offender. Inexplicably, the Manhattan district attorney’s office, under Democrat Cyrus Vance Jr., asked a judge to downgrade Epstein’s sex offender status from Level 3, the most serious, to Level 1, the least. The judge, stunned, refused. “I am a little overwhelmed because I have never seen a prosecutor’s office do anything like this,” she said.

...In a detention memo submitted on Monday, federal prosecutors outlined some of the evidence seized from a search of Epstein’s house on Saturday night. It included hundreds — possibly thousands — of sexually suggestive photographs of girls who appear underage, as well as hand-labeled compact discs with titles like “Girl pics nude,” and, with the names redacted, “Young [Name] + [Name].”

It seems, at first, astonishingly reckless for Epstein not just to allegedly keep such material, but to keep it in Manhattan, instead of, say, on his private Caribbean island. Maybe, however, it’s simply a sign of how protected he felt. “In my mind there has always been this huge question mark: What is Jeffrey Epstein’s leverage?” Ward said. If we find out, we’ll know just how rotten our rulers really are.

[seahawk]

Interesting about Alex Acosta, whose Labor Department has a role in visas for sex trafficking victims:

So where does Acosta’s Labor Department fit in?

This T-visa application process — which ultimately gets adjudicated by the Department of Homeland Security — often begins with asking an agency to certify that an applicant is believed to be a trafficking victim and is cooperating with an investigation. The Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division is one of the agencies that can do this step.

Wage and Hour investigators are often the “eyes and ears” on the ground in migrant housing and other settings where workers are vulnerable to exploitation, explains David Weil, a division administrator during the Obama administration.

About two months ago, though, a new division administrator, Cheryl Stanton, was appointed. Among her first orders of business was to impose a seven-week moratorium on certifying any new T- or U-visas, as Bloomberg Law’s Ben Penn first reported . (Stanton said in a statement to Bloomberg Law that as part of her “due diligence,” as agency head, “I thought it was prudent to understand the authorities delegated from the Administrator to others in the agency.”)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 2e41b23238

[chiknbut]

Can a guy get a "JFC?"

[jfish26]

And DT is now disavowing knowledge of a guy he had some specific (and specific-to-this) words on nearly 20 years ago.

It is simply astonishing that enough people are willing participants that "these are not the droids you're looking for" really fucking works.

[ousdahl]

and I hate to make a partisan observation of sorts, but doesn’t it seem like the droid truck works much, mich better with the right wing?

shrug.

[ousdahl]

But for real, wanna know how to get Trump to implicate himself in Epstein’s crimes?


Just have someone ask him, “Is it true you never got invited to any of those child sex parties cuz you weren’t rich or famous enough?”

[Shirley]

and I hate to make a partisan observation of sorts, but doesn’t it seem like the droid truck works much, mich better with the right wing?

shrug.

Democrats fall in love, republicans fall in line.*






*with their candidates

[Shirley]

But for real, wanna know how to get Trump to implicate himself in Epstein’s crimes?


Just have someone ask him, “Is it true you never got invited to any of those child sex parties cuz you weren’t rich or famous enough?”

^^^

#forreal