From what I read, it sounded like Acosta said that "someone identifying themselves as an intelligence agent" told him that Epstein was one of theirs. It did not sound like they used official channels. Which seems to me just as likely that someone was paid to say that or that Acosta made it up to cover his butt for being the softest prosecutor ever.

"Which seems to me just as likely that someone was paid to say that or that Acosta made it up to cover his butt for being the softest prosecutor ever."

Equally as likely as in 50/50? That's coin flipping at that point - basically the same as saying having no information or opinion - all outcomes are equally the same.

There's a lot more information in this case - that Epstein frequented the world's leaders, even had access to American presidents on his private plane without Secret Service, had video recordings of world leaders having sex with underage women, had professional faked passports issued to him with fake identities.

When given a chance to deny communications with intelligence, Acosta refused to do so.

I think skepticism is required in all things but not believing anything at all is a dangerous anti-pattern.

Equally likely as in, this is such a convenient story for Acosta that we shouldn't believe it without supporting evidence. We don't know why Acosta brought such light charges, and his vague insinuations that some unspecified agency told him not to don't provide any further information on the question.

For me the reality that Acosta was and is not in a position where he needs to lie or obscure to explain his actions, that nothing he has done as AG is illegal, there are no motions against him, there are better lies he could have told and that the AG (and Secretary of Labor) was not a criminal in this case leads me to believe him as a witness.

It's not clear to me what kind of further evidence you think should be necessary beyond witness testimony in this case, or what kind of standard this would apply to justice system in general. It's also difficult because - for instance - paper records such as the AG's inbox are missing.

Is there specific evidence you believe is readily available but that hasn't been forthcoming?

If my confidence in something is 0.001 something equally as likely is also 0.001.

I.e. probably not representative of reality.

Yeah I'm sure it happens very often that a U.S. Attorney like Acosta gets taken in by a rando off the street claiming to be with the CIA.

Also remember that Epsteins best buddy/procurer was the daughter of a man who was suspected to be a well connected spy and who had high ranking Israeli intelligence officials at his funeral:

> Six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence services attended Maxwell's funeral in Israel, while Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogized him and stated: “He has done more for Israel than can today be told."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell

It's a nice story but the problem is it does not fly in China, Russia, or the Middle East. While some of them have age of consent laws the reality is the act is just not viewed in the same light as it is in the US and Europe. So unless we were setting up allies the idea of trapping our enemies in humiliating situations with underage girls just does not hold a lot of weight. The problem is the facts are buried, but it sounds like a convienent excuse to me.

Weren't the targets the brits royalty and US billionaires?

> So unless we were setting up allies

LOL, the CIA would never!

It's just as plausible that it was a boys retreat for friends and that is the point.I don't discount powerful people could have been involved, but the reality is it could be a conspiracy either way but the mere mention of conspiracy makes one a kook when they happen all the time. I mean the literal definition of a conspiracy is people conspiring to do something. Every revolution that has happened at some point was a conspiracy, but people will take the very strange circumstances that circle around this man and say that there is no conspiracy to look into. That is the point we don't know if there was one or not, but no one is interested in looking under the covers.

> The implication here is that the sex trafficking to people in power was being used by US intelligence to get compromising material and leverage of leaders

I hate to delve into conspiracy theories but this is hardly a new idea. I was reading some articles after the FBI docs on the "Finders" investigation were released last year. Which supposedly was an investigation into a cult like group suspected of child abuse was completely halted when the CIA came in an took over.

From what I understand most of the theories are unproven and ofc, all the important details in the doc have been redacted but it fits a similar theme.

source?

Here are the sourced listed in Acosta's Wikipedia article:

- Ward, Vicky (July 9, 2019). "Jeffrey Epstein's Sick Story Played Out for Years in Plain Sight". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on July 10, 2019. Retrieved July 11, 2019.

- "It Sure Looks Like Jeffrey Epstein Was a Spy—But Whose?". July 10, 2019. Archived from the original on December 18, 2019. Retrieved December 11, 2019.

- North, Anna (August 14, 2019). "Why the Jeffrey Epstein case inspires so many conspiracy theories". Vox. Archived from the original on November 30, 2019. Retrieved December 11, 2019.

It's easy to find mainstream media coverage for additional sources as this was widely reported. Search "epstein acosta intelligence" or "acosta epstein belonged to intelligence".