By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Email communications from July 10-11, 2019, reveal that the FBI allegedly instructed New York law enforcement agencies, including the New York District Attorney’s Office (DANY) and the NYPD’s Special Victims Unit (SVU), to halt their investigations into Jeffrey Epstein. One message indicates that NYPD leadership was informed that SVU was directed to “stand down” and that all Epstein-related matters were to be handled by the FBI. This directive potentially impacted DANY’s ability to proceed with their own independent investigators.
Read the original article here
The revelations suggesting the FBI instructed the New York Police Department to “stand down” following Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest in 2019 paint a deeply concerning picture. This alleged directive, if true, points to a potential federal interference with a state-level investigation, raising serious questions about the priorities and actions of law enforcement agencies. The notion that one agency would be told to cease its legitimate work by another, especially in a case as sensitive and far-reaching as Epstein’s, suggests a complex web of influence or a deliberate attempt to control the narrative and scope of the investigation.
This incident, occurring during the Trump administration, is particularly noteworthy. The fact that the Department of Justice, under President Trump’s purview at the time, might have intervened to halt the state of New York’s pursuit of Epstein suggests a concerted effort to manage or perhaps obstruct the investigation. It fuels the suspicion that the administration may have been actively seeking to protect certain individuals or interests connected to Epstein, rather than ensuring full accountability.
The idea of federal agencies like the FBI stepping in to halt state investigations, while seemingly straightforward in its implication of interference, is also understood by some as a common occurrence within law enforcement. It’s suggested that sometimes one agency has existing cases or jurisdiction over a matter, and therefore takes over or requests the case be handed over. However, the context of Epstein, and the alleged “stand down” order, elevates this beyond a simple jurisdictional squabble. The implications are far more sinister when considering the gravity of the charges and the individuals allegedly involved.
The coordinated nature of this alleged “stand down” directive, if accurate, suggests a systemic issue rather than an isolated incident. It brings to mind scenarios where powerful entities, potentially intelligence agencies, might be involved in a broader operation. The involvement of intelligence agencies like the CIA, and even whispers of international players like MI6 and Mossad, suggests that Epstein may have been more than just a financier of illicit activities; he may have been a pawn or a tool in larger geopolitical games.
The notion that U.S. intelligence agencies were aware of Epstein’s activities and did not warn allies, such as the UK, about compromised individuals appointed as ambassadors, further amplifies the sense of a compromised system. If intelligence agencies share information, as is standard practice, the failure to act or warn is not just an oversight but a deliberate choice. This points to a potential intelligence apparatus that prioritizes its own operational secrets and assets over public safety and international trust.
The theory that the U.S. government, or elements within it, may have been using Epstein to blackmail powerful figures for the sake of American hegemony is a chilling, yet plausible, explanation for such interference. If Epstein’s crimes against children were a tool for intelligence gathering and leverage, then stopping an investigation would be necessary to protect these operations and the compromised individuals involved. Exposing everything would not only anger the public but could also compromise U.S. assets and the credibility of multiple intelligence agencies.
The comparison to a cartel operation, where a powerful figure has hooks into every level of government, seems apt given these circumstances. The “stand down” order suggests that Epstein, or the information he possessed, was protected by a network of powerful individuals and institutions, creating a situation where accountability was actively undermined. The idea that the system itself, beyond financial markets, has become a tool for blackmail and psychological operations, requiring condemnation rather than protection, resonates deeply in this context.
The alleged involvement of the Trump administration in protecting Epstein, specifically during his first term, places the blame squarely on that period. The idea that “Trump’s DOJ” stepped in to prevent the state of New York from investigating is a direct accusation of executive branch interference. This aligns with the broader narrative of a “deep state” that President Trump himself often spoke of, suggesting that perhaps he was referring to these very entrenched, unelected powers operating within the government.
The question of which president was in charge of the FBI at the time of the alleged “stand down” order is significant, but ultimately, the responsibility extends beyond any single administration. While the Trump administration is implicated in the 2019 events, the mention of Bush/Acosta protecting Epstein in 2008/2009 suggests a longer history of such interference. This indicates a deeply entrenched problem that transcends partisan politics, pointing to a consistent pattern of enabling and protecting powerful individuals.
The speculation that Trump may have been involved in Epstein’s original arrest for personal reasons, and then acted to silence him when he realized the implications, is a complex theory. However, the narrative that Trump then used his administration to protect Epstein, potentially to cover up his own money laundering activities related to property transactions with Russian oligarchs, adds another layer of intrigue. This theory suggests a self-serving motivation for the alleged interference.
The persistent redactions in the Epstein-related documents are seen as a significant clue. The claim that these redactions are not just protecting Trump and his associates from child trafficking charges, but are also shielding a broader network of blackmail against U.S. politicians and elites, potentially orchestrated by foreign entities like Israel, suggests a national security crisis. The fear of widespread civil unrest if the public knew the extent of this control and blackmail is a potent reason for such secrecy.
The idea that Epstein was a U.S. agent, with his operations run by the CIA, and that intelligence agencies worldwide were aware of him as a global asset, paints a picture of a sophisticated and deeply unethical intelligence operation. The possibility that these agencies used child abuse as a form of international leverage, even involving other nations’ intelligence officials, is a horrifying prospect. The “stand down” order in New York then becomes a necessary action to protect these clandestine operations.
The question of why Biden’s DOJ couldn’t “stand back up” or reverse this alleged interference highlights the difficulty of dismantling deeply entrenched systems. If the “deep state” is as pervasive and interconnected as it appears, then merely changing administrations might not be enough to untangle the web of corruption and protect those who were complicit or benefited from Epstein’s network. The lack of leaks from within these agencies over a decade also suggests a high level of control and the understanding that any breach would put individuals and their loved ones at risk.
Ultimately, the alleged FBI directive to “stand down” in the Epstein case is more than just a procedural disagreement; it’s a symptom of a much larger problem. It points to a potential compromise of the justice system, the weaponization of intelligence, and a willingness by powerful entities to protect their interests, even at the cost of justice and public trust. The ongoing secrecy and redactions only serve to deepen these concerns, leaving the public to grapple with the unsettling possibility that the truth about Epstein and his enablers remains deliberately hidden.