Yes, William Barr could interfere in the Jeffrey Epstein case. And since he was hired for the purpose of protecting Donald Trump’s interests, he may very well do so. As to whether it would be “obvious” he was interfering, you may recall not too long ago that Barr prevented Paul Manafort from being incarcerated at Riker’s Island. And Barr was none too discreet about perverting the findings of the Mueller report to his own liking, so being obvious about pursuing a biased agenda does not seem to be a problem for Barr.

And bear this in mind: at the Department of Justice, the lawyers are not open to the same level of scrutiny as other lawyers. When they do something questionable, the matter goes to their internal affairs department, the Office of Professional Responsibility, to sort it out and those findings rarely if ever become public. It would be a case of first impression for the DOJ to investigate the Attorney General, and that’s not the way it would go anyhow. Congress would have to impeach him.

And don’t forget this: Back in January, Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse spoke with William Barr on what Sasse called the “miscarriage of justice” in the handling of Epstein’s Florida case. At that time, Barr said that he thought that he would have to recuse himself from any Kirkland Ellis cases, because he had made a prior agreement to do so, but he assured Sasse that the Department of Justice would address Sasse’s concerns, even if he did not do so personally. Sasse’s concerns were over the fact that Epstein, in a nutshell, had gotten off with a slap on the wrist because of his extreme wealth and personal connections. Barr went on record at that time agreeing with Sasse, “that justice has nothing to do with the size of your bank account or the number of attorneys you can hire.” Sasse went on to elaborate that none of the victims, whom he characterized as “voiceless and afraid” were told that a non-prosecution agreement had gone forward without them being notified, in violation of federal statute — and who was responsible for that? None other than then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, now Trump’s Labor Secretary.

Sasse suggested to Barr at that time that “moms and dads would like to know that you will pledge broadly to attack sex trafficking as a scourge in our society on both the supply side and the demand side. On the demand side, these dirtbags clearly demand this, but on the supply side these organizations clearly perpetrate these crimes. Can you pledge to us that this will be one of your priorities?” Barr’s response was, “They can count on it.” You can listen to the full exchange at this link to the Miami Herald.

The case has raised fundamental questions about whether well-connected individuals receive a different kind of justice than others who don’t have the means to hire all-star lawyers who wield influence with prosecutors through their legal and political alliances.

In the Epstein case, the Herald found that Acosta met privately with Jay Lefkowitz, a former colleague at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis. Another lawyer at the firm, Kenneth Starr, was also part of Epstein’s legal team, along with Alan Dershowitz, Roy Black and others.

Plus this, regarding Alex Acosta, from the same January article.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s inspector general urged Congress on Tuesday to allow him to investigate Alex Acosta — the former U.S. attorney in Miami whose controversial 2008 plea deal with a politically connected serial sex abuser has led to calls for Acosta to resign as secretary of labor.

Acosta’s unusual non-prosecution agreement with hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein may finally provide the turning point in a 30-year quest by the DOJ’s inspector general’s office to oversee and investigate Justice Department attorneys.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz, responding to a request last month by lawmakers demanding a probe into the Epstein case, said that while “important questions” have been raised about how Epstein’s case was resolved by the DOJ, the inspector general has long lacked the power to investigate his own lawyers.

Unlike other federal agencies, the Justice Department insulates its lawyers from congressional and public scrutiny by directing internal affairs investigations to the Office of Professional Responsibility, which rarely releases its findings.

“Over the past 30 years, my three predecessors as DOJ Inspector General and I have objected to this limitation on the [inspector general’s] jurisdiction because it shields prosecutorial misconduct from review by a statutorily independent Office of Inspector General,’’ Horowitz wrote.

A bipartisan effort to change the law died last year, but a bill, called the Inspector General Access Act, was reintroduced in the House earlier this month, and passed unanimously. It must now be taken up by the Senate, where both Republicans and Democrats have expressed support last year.

It looks like Alex Acosta’s goose might be cooked sooner, rather than later. We’ll be happy to stick a fork in him when he’s done. And if the Inspector General can investigate Acosta, that might shed a great deal of light on this entire matter.

The mis-handling of the Epstein matter in Florida was not received well, to understate it, and it would appear that federal authorities intend to properly redress the issue. William Barr has already gone on record saying that he would look into the matter, and that he had a commitment to eradicating the social ill of sex trafficking. Barr now may find himself skewered on the horns of a dilemma, wondering whether he should interfere on Epstein’s behalf, when he has said he’ll do just the opposite and look into whether Epstein’s case was mishandled, or, will Barr play Trump pit bull, and protect his master’s interests? Right now, Barr is between a rock and a hard place.

Make no mistake, this is a seismic event in Trumpworld. If you’ve never been in an earthquake, the shaking starts, gets worse until it peaks, then it gradually diminishes — but it’s still scary even after it stops. There are frequently aftershocks, depending upon how severe the initial shock was. Sometimes the aftershocks can go on for days. This episode has all the earmarks of registering very high on the political Richter scale.

Finally, consider this: The young woman using the name Katie Johnson, who claimed that Donald Trump raped her when she was 13, dropped the suit against him in November, 2016, due to death threats that she had received, not only against herself but her entire family. Perhaps that case could be reopened? If you never heard Johnson’s account of being raped by Trump, here it is on YouTube and it is appalling.

Any man who would do this to a young girl, or to any woman for that matter, has no business in government, let alone the White House.


Liked it? Take a second to support Ursula Faw and PolitiZoom on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

4 Comments on "Fmr FBI Official Warns Barr Could Hinder Epstein Case — Despite Promising Senate Ending Sex Trafficking Was High Priority"

newest oldest most voted

“being obvious about pursuing a biased agenda does not seem to be a problem for Barr.”
combined with…
” fundamental questions about whether well-connected individuals receive a different kind of justice than others who don’t have the means to hire all-star lawyers who wield influence with prosecutors through their legal and political alliances.”
in the time of Dimwit Donny, means I’m skeptical.

But given the coverage this case is getting, I’m very very hopeful.

p j evans

Barr might decide that Epstein is less likely to talk if he’s behind bars (after not getting a pardon, whatever he may think he’s been promised).
It will be interesting to find out what the charges are.