By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Justice Department has asked a federal judge to keep the names of two associates who received significant payments from Jeffrey Epstein in 2018 sealed, citing privacy concerns. These payments, totaling $100,000 and $250,000 respectively, were made shortly after the Miami Herald began publishing stories critical of Epstein’s 2008 plea deal. Prosecutors had previously argued the payments were evidence of efforts to influence potential witnesses, who were also given protection from prosecution in the plea agreement. NBC News requested the names be unsealed due to Epstein’s death and the closure of criminal proceedings, but the Justice Department is defending the associates’ privacy interests.
Read the original article here
DOJ says names of two associates Epstein wired $100k and $250k to should stay secret, and this immediately raises some serious questions. It’s like the DOJ is actively trying to make things worse, especially if this decision is meant to protect individuals involved in sex trafficking of minors. The immediate reaction is one of disbelief and a strong sense of injustice. It fuels the suspicion that something is being hidden, and it’s infuriating.
The fact that the DOJ is allegedly shielding those who might be co-conspirators in such a heinous crime feels like a betrayal of justice. It’s difficult to understand how anyone could argue for keeping these names secret. It’s a glaring example of potential obstruction of justice, and it stinks of an attempt to protect powerful individuals. The public deserves to know who these people are, regardless of their connections or influence.
The DOJ’s justification for secrecy, citing “privacy concerns,” is simply not acceptable. If these individuals were involved in crimes associated with Epstein, their privacy rights should not take precedence over the need for justice and transparency. To even suggest that criminals should be allowed to avoid investigation based on potential embarrassment is ludicrous.
The mention of the “Herald series” as a source for identifying one of the individuals is particularly intriguing. This suggests that there is already a trail of information leading to a potential suspect. The fact that the name is being withheld, even though it was “featured prominently” in this series, only strengthens the impression that the DOJ is protecting someone of importance.
The speculation surrounding the names is inevitable. Are we talking about people with connections to powerful figures like Donald Trump or Peter Thiel? The fact that Epstein had business dealings with Thiel’s company, Valar Ventures, and was looking into surveillance technology is highly suspect. These connections and the alleged cover-up create an even more complicated web.
The narrative that the DOJ is more of a “Department of Obfuscation” rings true. The lengths to which they appear to be going to hide information about these financial transactions is deeply concerning. The potential for obstruction of justice looms large, and it demands a thorough and transparent investigation. There should be no hesitation to reveal the names of those who may have benefited from Epstein’s crimes.
The article goes on to mention other disturbing connections. Epstein’s involvement with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in the surveillance industry is particularly unsettling. It suggests that Epstein had his reach into multiple spheres of power, using his influence for personal gain. This adds another layer of complexity and reinforces the need for full disclosure.
The argument that the alleged secrecy is meant to protect potential victims is not believable. If these individuals were victims, they should be revealed, and the alleged silence is likely protecting someone other than them. Full disclosure is crucial. Transparency is paramount, and the public has a right to know who received these funds and the extent of their involvement.
The description of the two individuals in question also gives some valuable clues. The $100,000 recipient is labeled as a co-conspirator with protection under a Non-Prosecution Agreement, possibly Alex Acosta. The $250,000 recipient is described as an employee, possibly Ghislaine Maxwell. These leads offer valuable insights into who the DOJ might be protecting. The public should not be satisfied with anything less than a complete and transparent accounting of these transactions.
The Miami Herald series mentioned earlier provides invaluable information. It deserves the attention of the public and investigators alike. The “Herald series” should be the baseline of any serious investigation. The fact that information is being withheld should be of great concern. If it’s true that the DOJ is allowing criminals to shield themselves, it is an unacceptable failure of justice.
The idea that these names will be kept secret for any reason other than protecting powerful individuals is hard to believe. The implications of this case extend far beyond Epstein and his crimes. It speaks to the integrity of the government and the willingness of those in power to protect each other at the expense of justice. This cover-up of information is a betrayal of public trust and a mockery of the legal system.