A prosecutor involved in trafficking cases in New York writes about what to expect in the new trial of Jeffrey Epstein. Basically, he’s screwed.
But, finally, it looks like justice will be served to Epstein in the form of new sex-trafficking charges filed by the formidable U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York.
Epstein has reportedly been arrested for trafficking dozens of minors in New York and Florida between 2002 and 2005. And this time, Epstein shouldn’t expect the ridiculous sweetheart deal he got the first time around.
Charges of federal sex trafficking carry mandatory minimums of 10-15 years on each count. Mandatory means mandatory. In other words, short of a cooperation agreement with the government—which in the SDNY famously means full cooperation against all possible other subjects and targets—Epstein will serve at least 10-15 years in prison (possibly more depending on the number of counts) if convicted.
He ought to be sweating, but that last paragraph brings up a legal problem. If convicted, Epstein is a horrible sleaze who has committed great evil, and yeah, he should be locked up. But should we complain if he gets a reduced sentence if he provides evidence that sends a host of other sleazy pervs tumbling down? He could, conceivably, be the downfall of people like Dershowitz and Clinton and Trump and other highly connected rich goons. Would that be worth turning an Epstein loose?
Also, the writer speculates that Barr could potentially meddle in the case to protect those same highly connected rich goons. What is our recourse if that kind of blatant corruption occurs?
This could be an interesting and revealing case. I’ve been conditioned by the last few decades of bullshit to expect that what will be revealed is only greater levels unscrupulous grift than ever I imagined. I guess that still fits the definition of “interesting”. I wish I lived in a less interesting country, though.
He might get a reduced sentence for cooperating but every one will still know he is guilty as all fuck. Each person he brings down will be one more confirmation of his guilt.
“Also, the writer speculates that Barr could potentially meddle in the case to protect those same highly connected rich goons.”
Off topic, but does AG Barr ever attempt to enforce laws rather than protect his buds from the consequences of laws? There has been a lot of debate around Barr since he was installed, but I cannot remember a single news story in which about him doing normal AG stuff, i.e. investigating violations of federal law. WTF are we paying this guy for?
For Epstein it could mean the difference between spending the rest of his life in a minimum security country club, OR the rest of his substantially foreshortened life amongst the general criminal population.
Epstein and Barr. Two names that always go great together.
two names that caused me permanent liver injury and years of ill health.
don’t ever believe someone who tells you “the kissing disease” is nothing to worry about, or even that it comes from kissing.
…and if you work in a molecular and cell biology building? don’t cut through the autoclave lab to get to the other side of the building faster. turns out safety controls in those labs is severely lacking.
PaulBC: we’re clearly paying him to protect the god-emperor Trump from Killary and Obama.
Fighting crime? That’s not the justice department beat — it’s what ICE is for.
well one thing about modern times that might be beneficial is it seems to be getting harder to keep things hidden no less criminal but just everyone can see. The questions seems to be how many will care.
I do not think he would be in very much danger in the general prison population he has too much money he would be paying for his safety and comfort.
If he pleads and cooperates fully however and is released I would expect he would be spending a lot of time in civil court paying out a lot of his ill goten fortune in legal fees and judgements.
uncle frogy
Maybe not, but I think he can expect a presidential pardon if he keeps his mouth shut.
@#8, ridana:
Yeah, that word “federal” in the charge has me a little worried that Trump will just issue a preventative blanket pardon, like Nixon got, and that will be that. I don’t think it would hurt the public’s opinion of Trump, because anybody who would drop him for that has already dropped him for other reasons.
As you noted earlier, Dr. Myers, perhaps the human race does not deserve to exist.
This person is not professional. Charges do not carry any sentence at all. Only a conviction carries a minimum sentence. If they had stated it correctly, they would not be contradicting themself two sentences later.
#8: ridana said:
IIRC, the problem with pardons in this scenario is that they clear the way for prosecutors to force you to testify about accomplices and co-conspirators because you cannot claim the 5th about a conviction for which you’ve been pardoned, but you CAN go to jail for contempt for refusing a subpoena. So yes, Trump could pardon Epstein, but that turns Epstein into a giant stick for every federal prosecutor to use against others involved…which might include Trump. I also wouldn’t be surprised if there are state level charges that may be revisited in light of this, which a presidential pardon can’t touch.
New Data: Politico reports that the Epstein defense will cite the word “globally” in attempting to have the matter thrown out. It seems that prosecutors back then said, “It appearing that Epstein wishes to resolve these matters GLOBALLY…” They are saying that it’s a resolution for all times and places.
Even for someone as despicable as Epstein I would support a plea bargain if it helped convict others who were involved. But the original Florida plea bargain was predicated on, among other things, not pursuing Epstein’s co-conspirators. That’s not a plea bargain. That’s a cover-up.