Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on July 6 after landing at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey upon his return from a trip to France. Epstein was previously indicted in 2007 on charges he abused underage girls, but reached a controversial plea deal, in which he served only 13 months in a low-security facility that allowed him to work from his office each day.
Epstein now faces federal charges of sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking that may lead to him spending the rest of his life in prison. DOJ officials have indicated that they expect the charges against Epstein to expand as they delve further into the case. Attorney General William Barr has said he will not recuse himself from the newly opened Epstein case, although he “will remain recused from any retrospective review” of Epstein’s earlier case in Florida.
Questions surrounding Epstein have existed for a long time, including the source of his wealth and his relationship to former President Bill Clinton, who, according to flight logs, flew on Epstein’s personal jet 26 times.
And you can be assured democrats won’t care one bit. Attacks on a free press are only bad when it hurts democrats.
Now I’m not saying republicans are any better, but they were never supposed to be the defenders of free speech. That was supposed to be democrats.
In 2013, the Justice Department launched a brazen attack on press freedom, issuing sweeping subpoenas for the phone records of the Associated Press and several of its reporters and editors as part of a leak investigation. At the time, the subpoenas were widely seen as a massive intrusion into newsgathering operations. Last month, we learned that they told only part of the story.
A new report obtained by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and the Freedom of the Press Foundation (where the authors work) under the Freedom of Information Act shows that the DOJ’s actions against the AP were broader than previously known, and that the DOJ considered subpoenaing the phone records of other news organizations, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and ABC News. Moreover, they reveal how narrowly the DOJ interprets the Media Guidelines, the agency’s internal rules for obtaining reporters’ data.
What’s going on in California is what democrats have in store for America.
Let’s assume, hypothetically, that an independent journalist working in Washington somehow obtained a confidential FBI report on the death of a prominent Trump administration official that described its lurid circumstances, including the presence of a woman not his wife and the use of illegal drugs that caused, or at least contributed to, his demise.
Let’s also assume that the Justice Department responded to the disclosure by raiding the journalist’s home and confiscating computers and other tools of his trade, hoping to learn who leaked the report.
Democratic politicians and civil libertarians would erupt in outrage at a heavy-handed government act intended to discourage journalists from delving into areas that officialdom considered off-limits.
If Assange is guilty, he’s guilty, but I suspect this is more about the embarrassment of the leak than the leak itself, and a warning to any other independent journalist that the US government will come after you.
The Justice Department leveled an 18-count superseding indictment against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on May 23.
The new charges include conspiring with former army intelligence officer Chelsea Manning to obtain classified materials, compromising sources in the Middle East and China, and conspiracy to hack into a more secure military database.
Manning provided to Assange and WikiLeaks databases containing approximately 90,000 Afghanistan War-related significant activity reports, 400,000 Iraq War-related significant activities reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and 250,000 U.S. Department of State cables.