Briefly Noted: Acosta On Epstein The Intel Guy
H/T to emailer Jim.
Guy Benson notes and asks: Theories Fly: Was Epstein Running a Massive Blackmail Scheme -- And Was He An Intelligence Asset?
Here's what's interesting. Benson quotes Alex Acosta at his press conference. Acosta is asked about that "intel guy" angle, that he supposedly told Trump transition vetters that the reason he did the Epstein plea deal was 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.
In his reply at his press conference Acosta says his guidelines don't allow him to comment on this matter, but he doesn't deny it. If this story was bogus, he could deny, IMO:
Asked about this angle during his presser , Acosta gave a convoluted and evasive answer:
"So there has been reporting to that effect and let me say , there’s been reporting to a lot of effects in this case, not just now but over the years and, again, I would hesitant to take this reporting as fact. This was a case that was brought by our office, it was brought based on the facts and I look at the reporting and others, I can’t address it directly because of our guidelines, but I can tell you that a lot of reporting is going down rabbit holes."
What does that mean? Was Epstein a spy , or at least a valuable asset? Was US intelligence exploiting his depravity because it helped ensnare connected and powerful people from around the world, furnishing exploitable leverage for gathering information?
This seems like a far-fetched conspiracy theory on its face. It's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence -- evidence that we do not have. But if Acosta did in fact tell Team Trump that 'intelligence' was running Epstein during the mid-2000's prosecution process, that might help explain so much weirdness about this case. It also may have been a self-serving deflection. Either way, the departing Labor Secretary did not seem interested in answering questions on this subject this week. One wonders if the public will ever get satisfactory answers about any of this. Parting thought : Do the blackmail and intelligence theories fail under Occam's Razor -- or are they buttressed by it?
I'm not sure what to say. Benson's bottom line seems correct: None of the answers so far have been satisfactory.