Left goes into overdrive, trying to pin Epstein case on Trump
With the bust of longtime Democratic donor and Bill Clinton buddy Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges, it's pretty amazing, the scope of the Left's effort to pin the whole thing on President Trump.
It's going on all over, as if directed by some Mighty Integral from far above, to borrow a phrase from Tom Wolfe from The Right Stuff. It's orchestrated. It's universal. It's big. And it's about as honest and fact-filled as the Russian collusion narrative.
Here are the top three areas, and these aren't the only ones:
One, the press.
The New York Times, the Washington Post, and other media outlets have attempted to pin the matter on President Trump as a matter of his knowing Epstein in the past and saying nice things about him, and the bum deal cut with Epstein earlier in Miami, which involved Trump's now–labor secretary, Alexander Acosta.
Here's the New York Times' take (written by sex-and-Get-Trump-scandal-scarred Ali Watkins, no less, and Vivian Wang) on the 2008 bad plea deal trying to make the connection to Trump:
That deal was negotiated in part by Alexander Acosta, the former United States attorney in the Southern District of Florida, who now serves as Mr. Trump's labor secretary. Mr. Acosta met privately with a lawyer for Mr. Epstein, and his office allowed the financier's lawyers to dictate many of the plea deal's terms, the Herald reported last year.
In February, a federal judge ruled that Florida prosecutors had broken the law in 2008 by not keeping Mr. Epstein's victims informed of the plea deal. The Justice Department has also opened an inquiry into how the case was handled.
Bzzzt. Wrong. Botched it. And they aren't alone in getting this wrong. This line is also being pursued by the media hive: CBS, Bloomberg, others, all convinced that Acosta was protecting Epstein. But Ann Coulter had the real story of that last March, writing that it was Democrats who gave Epstein the sweet plea deal as well as the near no-show jail term, not Acosta. Acosta had merely had the whole mess thrown into his hands and tried to get something out of it for Epstein anyway after all this obfuscation. She wrote:
Epstein had given more than $145,000 to Democratic candidates and causes, including Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer. He was a big Israel backer. Bill Clinton and Democratic activist Ron Burkle were frequent guests on Epstein's private plane, dubbed the "Lolita Express." And Krischer was a hero for his dogged pursuit of Rush Limbaugh! Why bring up all this unpleasantness?
Thanks to Chief Reiter, President Bush's U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alex Acosta, did take the case, despite the fact that only Epstein's child rapes on his plane, on his private island, or with girls brought across state lines would make it a federal case.
As a result of the (Republican-led) federal investigation, Epstein was finally required to plead guilty to two state felony charges, accept a sentence of two years in prison, register as a sex offender, and pay restitution to his victims.
Still no coverage by MSNBC or CNN.
Inasmuch as Epstein was pleading guilty to a state charge, the matter of his confinement was out of the U.S. attorney's hands. It was Democratic county prison officials — not the feds — who placed Epstein in a private wing of the county jail and allowed him to spend 12 hours a day, six days a week at his Palm Beach mansion throughout his 13-month "imprisonment."
In 2014, the brilliant conservative lawyer Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards brought suit against the federal prosecutors for violating the Crime Victims' Rights Act in the Epstein case.
As bad as the U.S. attorney's office was, at least it did something. Democrat Krischer gave Epstein a walk. But no matter how appalling Krischer's behavior was, the Crime Victims' Rights Act only applies to federal prosecutions.
This rather doesn't suggest that Acosta was the problem here. The protection racket extended deep into blue-city politics, run exclusively by Democrats. The Times writers and the other reporters don't bring that up.
The Washington Post, meanwhile, focuses on Trump's supposed connection to Epstein, painting them as buddies, with Trump supposedly denying it now:
Back in 2002, when Jeffrey Epstein was known only as a mysterious financial whiz with a private island and a roster of A-list friends, being friendly with him was something to boast about. And Donald Trump did.
"I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump told New York Magazine that year for a story headlined "Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery." "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
This one's even more transparently dishonest as reporting than the Acosta gambit.
Let's look at the timeline.
When did Trump make that statement? 2002.
What happened around 2007? Trump booted Epstein from ever setting foot on the premises of his Mar-a-Lago clubhouse for assaulting an underage female guest. Trump protected the girl from this beast, and got no credit for it.
That's five years later and that doesn't sound like Trump thinks Epstein is a great guy anymore.
Yet the press chooses to wheel out that 2002 statement as proof that Trump and Epstein are still the best of friends and omits the news of the obvious fallout
What's more, it wasn't a club membership expulsion, it was an order that the guy never be allowed back at all. Epstein was never connected enough to be a member, so even that detail supports the idea that they weren't buddies.
They're trying very hard to create a "narrative" that Trump's been buddies with Epstein for years, same as Bill Clinton (when they deign to bring him up), when the facts show that the two are not on speaking terms.
Yet the media bias is hardly the only scope of this effort to Pin Trump we are now seeing.
Meanwhile, over at the Wikipedia desk, item two, the second front on pinning-Trump has leftists are beavering away, eliminating all evidence of Democrats involved in the Epstein case, too.
And, three, at Facebook, posts are being censored for references to Democrats, particularly Bill Clinton, regarding the Epstein case.
The effort is strikingly global. Anything to protect Democrats, just as the original bad plea deal in Miami was a deal to protect Democrats (and their campaign money supply) by letting Epstein off.
One can only suppose that it's going to get worse as all the names of the Democrat "faves" start to roll out.