By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As Florida Attorney General between 2011 and 2019, Pam Bondi could have pursued charges against Jeffrey Epstein, according to law professor Robert Jarvis. While federal prosecutors in New York brought sex trafficking charges against Epstein a decade after his release, authorities in Palm Beach started investigating him in Florida in 2005. It’s noted that Bondi represented Trump during his first impeachment proceedings. Bondi’s office has been contacted for comment.
Read the original article here
Pam Bondi ‘could have tried Epstein’ while Florida AG, law professor says, and the question of why she didn’t is a complex one, deeply entangled in the web of political maneuvering and alleged cover-ups surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. During her tenure as Florida’s Attorney General from 2011 to 2019, the Epstein case was far from dormant; in fact, it was a period when various pieces of the puzzle, including flight records, lawsuits from victims, and a growing mountain of evidence, were coming into the public eye. Given the scope of the allegations, which involved potential crimes within Florida, the question of why Bondi didn’t initiate a state-level investigation, or at least launch a probe, is definitely raised.
It seems that any real action might have had significant consequences. Some believe that going after Epstein, or anyone connected to him, could have jeopardized her chances of climbing the political ladder, potentially even a shot at becoming the U.S. Attorney General. The connections between Epstein and powerful figures were becoming increasingly apparent. This brings to light the idea that she was more concerned with securing a top position. This line of thought suggests that rather than pursuing justice, Bondi may have prioritized her own career aspirations.
The fact that Trump appointed Alex Acosta, the very prosecutor who was criticized for giving Epstein a lenient plea deal, as his Labor Secretary, does add a layer of suspicion. Acosta’s appointment seemed like a reward, despite his lack of relevant experience. This also adds to the claim that there was an effort to protect those associated with Epstein, potentially extending to those who were not directly implicated in the crimes but may have known or benefited from the arrangement.
The narrative takes a dramatic turn when considering the potential impact of an actual investigation or a trial. One can imagine a scenario where Bondi, if she had aggressively pursued the case, could have put a damper on any future ambitions she may have harbored. The implication here is that she might have chosen to protect powerful figures, or even avoid damaging Trump, at the expense of justice. It’s a case of choosing personal gain over accountability.
The idea that Bondi was somehow “bought and paid for” is another angle. Suggesting that her inaction was a direct result of influence or a quid pro quo arrangement. The details that include a possible $25,000 payment and a handshake to drop charges against the Trump organization certainly raise suspicions. It’s a damning picture, painting a narrative of politicians sacrificing their positions for personal enrichment.
It’s worth pondering why there wasn’t more action during Bondi’s time as AG. The article “Jeffrey Epstein’s Sick Story Played Out for Years in Plain Sight” paints a grim picture of the scale of the alleged crimes and the apparent reluctance to prosecute. The non-prosecution deal, cut by Acosta, appears to have put a stop to a federal investigation.
The article mentions the fact that Epstein’s name came up when Acosta was being considered for Labor Secretary. Some believe the fact that Acosta got the job despite having this baggage shows the degree to which the powerful were willing to protect each other. The allegations that Acosta was told to back off because Epstein “belonged to intelligence” further complicates the narrative. It suggests the possibility of some sort of governmental, and perhaps even international, involvement or protection.
It’s hard not to notice how the former administration and the events surrounding Epstein are linked. Even if she didn’t directly benefit from inaction, the implication is clear: the existing power structures were set up to shield Epstein, and anyone tied to him, from serious consequences. The suggestion that Trump may have been aware of a cover-up further raises questions, as it suggests a deliberate strategy to protect the guilty and further those in power.
The focus on Ghislaine Maxwell’s potential ties to Israeli intelligence also adds an international dimension to the alleged cover-up. Some believe Maxwell was an agent, perhaps handling Epstein. The idea that this might have been a factor in the reluctance to pursue the case, with the United States potentially not wanting to disrupt its relationship with Israel, is a pretty big one. In the end, it comes down to how some in power may be willing to prioritize these relationships over justice.
One should note that Trump donated to Bondi’s campaign around the time of the Epstein case. This seemingly simple act becomes a lot more significant in light of the claims of a cover-up. The reduction in funding for agencies fighting human trafficking during Acosta’s tenure also warrants reflection. It is very likely that these budget cuts hindered investigations into human trafficking, which included child sex trafficking.
The comments indicate that there’s a clear perception of obstruction and a potential sacrifice of justice for political gain. The recurring themes of corruption and power certainly paint a vivid picture of how people view the situation. Ultimately, whether or not Bondi “could have tried Epstein” is not a simple question. It’s part of a larger, intricate story, filled with allegations of political maneuvering, potential cover-ups, and the abuse of power.