William Barr's on again, off again non-recusal from the Jeffrey Epstein case, a case in which he has multiple conflicts of interest and which at least one member of the same regime he belongs to, Alex Acosta and the Trump Barr and Acosta both serve are directly implicated in the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein should be the death of relying on the honors system in the matter of recusal.
Yesterday, when Barr first said he was recused in that case, he cited his membership in the law firm that negotiated the illegal non-prosecution agreement that allowed Epstein to escape a possible conviction that would have sent him to prison for the rest of his life AND IN WHICH THE LAWYERS PROTECTING EPSTEIN AND ACOSTA AGREED TO EXEMPT ANY OTHERS CRIMINALLY INVOLVED WITH RAPING CHILDREN EPSTEIN PROVIDED TO THEM. That law firm is certainly implicated in covering up the rape of children by rich and, so, powerful men and the women who worked with Epstein to recruit the children they raped. That law firm should certainly be under some kind of serious criminal investigation since the agreement they came to appears to have been illegal. That it was lawyers who were involved in a possible criminal conspiracy shouldn't protect them from consequences. That they were lawyers, so-called officers of the court, while breaking the law should mean that they should be held to a more stringent standard than mere non-lawyers who conspire to break the law.
What William Barr didn't mention is that his father, Donald Barr, also had a professional association with Jeffrey Epstein, having hired him to teach mathematics at the elite Dalton prep-school when Barr Sr. was the principal of it. That is despite the fact that Epstein never graduated from college. There was certainly something that would lead the principal of an expensive, elite school to hire someone so obviously unqualified other than his natural ability to teach, whether it was a social connection, some kind of monetary inducement, blackmail or something in line what Epstein's claim to infamy would certainly have a good chance of being investigated since his job at Dalton put the child rapist in contact with exactly the age group of girls Epstein has raped and trafficked in the scores, likely in the hundreds. It is a rare active child molester who would not have manifested his predilection by the age Epstein would have been when he was working for William Barr's father. I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the coming days more about that doesn't come out that would cast a light on the motives of William Barr's father in his bizarre behavior.
I have read, but not in detail, that Epstein also got employment as a teacher at another elite prep-school, the Hackley school, but haven't had time to look into that. If that's accurate, how that could have happened - did Barr Sr. recommend him or someone there recommend him to Barr? - should be investigated.
And there are certainly other reasons that William Barr should have no part of a case in which his boss, Donald Trump, could very likely be exposed as a child rapist and which other powerful men could, those who are associates and allies of Barr and his ilk and those who are his opponents. If I were investigating this, I would look to see if William Barr has any kind of association with Jeffrey Epstein in his past, perhaps in the period when Epstein worked for his father or as he was a multi-millionaire or billionaire child rapist and pimp trafficking children to elite men. Barr certainly has professional relationships with some of those clients - perhaps blackmailed by Epstein the origin of whose wealth is veiled in mystery and unexplained sources.
Before Barr, the antics of members of the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and other Republicans exposed the willingness of members of the Supreme Court to engage in blatant conflicts of interest for which no one would or could hold them responsible. Their blatant refusal to recuse when they were in clear conflict on cases before the court is in contrast to Justice Elena Kagan who went overboard on recusing herself from case after case with no more obvious conflicts of interest than her male Republican colleagues had in cases they didn't recuse themselves from.
With Barr's grotesque series of acting when his interests couldn't be more obvious, it's clear that this whole matter of recusal and conflict of interest is inadequately covered in law and by the Constitution which rather stupidly depends on all of this being a matter of the honor of those with the conflict of interest and the honor of those who could hold them to account. Clearly there is no honor in the nest of criminality that is the Republican Party, today, there is no honor more generally that should be depended on to prevent the kind of corruption that flourishes whenever there are Republicans in control of a branch of government, not for decades and decades.
It should be a matter of law that someone with the kinds of multiple conflicts of interest that William Barr has in the Jeffrey Epstein case, one in which the "president" he serves and is the thug of could very possibly be exposed as a child rapist or enabler or merely a knowing and joking witness to must keep entirely away from such a case on pain of criminal prosecution and certainly the kind of sanctions that bar association reluctantly give to their members.*
When it comes to matters of serious crimes, whenever that crime gets even indirectly close to those supposedly have the responsibility or merely by the structure of government have power to investigate and prosecute and judge those crimes the honors system set up by the Constitution is at its most blatantly stupid. Having looked at enough of the most eminent "founders" and what a truly sleazy bunch they were in reality, as opposed to Parson Weems style of lying hagiography, it's high time we realized their sense of "honor" was inadequate to produce honest government. Even if they believed it could, it has not turned out that way in the intervening centuries. In the last fifty years, the depths of criminality and corruption achievable under the Constitution by men and women of no honor at all has become ever more apparent. It's time to remove the choice of recusal from the person with the conflict of interest because they would seem, in too many cases, to be the worst possible person to trust with making that choice.
* For that matter, why are the lawyers who aided in the creation of the illegal plea agreement with Acosta sill able to practice law? It took decades and decades of criminality for them to disbar Roy Cohn, shortly before his death.
No comments:
Post a Comment