Hillary Clinton's Achilles Heel? The Strange Case of Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton By Roger J. Stone

Few cases crystallize elite deviance more repulsively than the ongoing evasion of criminal justice by pedophile American billionaire Jeffrey Epstein. And in what might be a blow to Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton's campaign, her horny husband Bill peeks out from the pages of the case file. 

Elite deviance is a condition sociologists say exists in a society when the elite no longer believe the rules apply … to them. "It is not due primarily to psychopathological variables, but to the institutionalization of elite wrongdoing," said Professor David Simon in his landmark book now in its eighth printing, Elite Deviance.

Elite deviance is a phenomenon in which a tiny few people with enough material wealth, political influence and personal connections immunize themselves from considering the consequences of their most abhorrent, destructive, vile, and even criminal behavior.

Elite deviance protects and perpetuates moral depravity and debased ethical relativism among the powerful and wealthy in our midst. It is an aberration of civil society that is only possible through the elites' cadres of supporters, sycophants, apologists, and fellow travelers in media, academia, politics and high finance.

In short, elite deviance means the rules don’t apply to a select few among us. They are above the American criminal justice system; they can behave with impunity in ways that would otherwise incur severe, if not life-ending, repercussions for all others.

From 2006 to roughly 2008, Democrat mega-donor Jeffrey Epstein was the subject of extensive criminal investigations by both state and federal authorities for child sex crimes. When all was said and done, the authorities had compiled copious witness evidence establishing that the hedge fund billionaire had been serially molesting dozens of underage girls for years.

For Epstein, it was a lifestyle he shared with powerful friends.

For over a year, the Palm Beach Police scrupulously built a multi-layered case against Epstein centered on his repeated sexual abuse of five minor girls. The lead victim was just 14 years old. Many more victims either came forward or were uncovered by detectives. The Palm Beach investigation substantiated Epstein's extensive child sex crimes, leading to what was to be Epstein’s only prosecution.

Despite a plethora of evidence establishing that Epstein - along with adults he employed to procure young girls on his behalf - had engaged in serial child molestation if not systematic child sex trafficking, an Epstein-friendly prosecutor in Florida, Barry Krischer, led a grand jury by the nose to indict him on just one single charge: solicitation of prostitution. That's the sex crime equivalent to jaywalking.

Considerable public outrage in Palm Beach forced prosecutors to up the ante, but barely. As if the minimized charge in the plea deal wasn’t grotesque enough, the sentence was even more outrageous. The state cut a sweetheart plea deal resulting in Epstein’s conviction on just one count of the solicitation of a minor.

In the end, Jeffrey Epstein walked away with a "punishment" that would be a low-level drug dealer's drean in our justice system: 13 months of a 15 month sentence, served in a county lockup during nighttime only, during which Epstein was free to travel daily to his office. He even took trips to New York City.

To say Epstein was "incarcerated" is to misuse the word. To say Epstein was "punished" is to mock the serious criminal nature of child sex abuse.

In the immediate wake of the astonishing abdication of duty by Florida prosecutors to pursue criminal justice against a dangerous and prolific child sex predator, Epstein’s varyingly famous and infamous defense attorney, Alan Dershowitz, along with a platoon of high-dollar lawyers including Kenneth Starr of Clintonian Special Prosecutor fame, cut a mystifying deal with federal prosecutors. Everyone in Epstein’s camp - including Dershowitz - was granted immunity from any further prosecution.

Not only were the terms of this astounding deal sealed from the public, by court order, but they were withheld from Epstein’s victims throughout, and only revealed after the deal was done. No one in officialdom has even attempted to explain, much less justify, why federal prosecutors chose to violate the federal Crime Victims Rights Act on behalf of Epstein and his cohorts, as a United States Circuit Court of Appeals held in 2008.

Epstein’s "prosecution" ended without any vindication for his many victims of his elite deviancy, nor for the broader public and its interest in true justice for dangerous predatory criminals.

In December 2014, the case returned to the front pages after two more women came forward. Their Florida Jane Doe lawsuit, first filed by other victims in 2008, sought Epstein’s federal prosecution for child sex trafficking. In joining the two original plaintiffs, Jane Doe number three, a now-married-with-children woman named Virginia Roberts, alleged that Epstein forced her to have sex with none other than Alan Dershowitz and British royal Prince Andrew.

By any objective standard of typical criminal liability imposed anywhere in the United States, it is beyond question that Epstein, along with his billions and his clever, well-connected lawyers, managed to either buy, bargain or bully his way out of any meaningful legal or moral accountability for countless sexual abuse offenses perpetrated against dozens of children for years.

As if this travesty of justice itself were not enough to sate their sense of impunity, Epstein’s fellow elites have routinely praised, defended and otherwise excused Epstein, and now do the same for Dershowitz amongst Epstein’s other sex cohorts, including Prince Andrew - and yes, Bill Clinton, who visited Epstein's hedonistic private Carribbean island many times.

Now the Jane Doe lawsuit may compel the former president to testify under oath about what he was doing there.

The New York Post reported that Hillary is furious Bill is mired in the scandal. Her leadership of the infamously aggressive 1992 "Bimbo Eruptions" squad is already nipping at the edges of her presidential aspirations. Worried her husband's Epstein connection may snare her campaign, you can expect orchestrated push back from the Clinton camp. 

Enter Michael Wolff, an Epstein confidant and supposed journalist (Wolff now writes a regular column for British GQ), who recently penned a withering, faux-flummoxed attack in USA Today pooh-poohing the "new age" media and the American legal system, along with Epstein’s persistent "Jane Doe" accusers and their respected Florida attorneys.

Wolff exudes the condescension and indignation that is the hallmark of elite deviant cover-up artists rushing to excuse one of their own. His flustered, navel-gazing essay skips right over the part about his child-molesting pal Jeffrey Epstein’s buying himself and his confederates a free-pass from any real criminal punishment for heinous child sex crimes.

In the January 11 article, Wolff leaps right to the offensive against those forces, whether human or systemic, that he believes unduly besmirched Epstein’s elite sex cronies Alan Dershowitz and Britain’s Prince Andrew.

Wolff paints the whole thing in conspiratorial terms: "all part of a scripted game," he writes, but neglects to disclose to USA Today’s readers his own skin in the game: his courtesan-esque coziness and nearly two-decade (and presumably continuing) personal relationship with the billionaire child molestor himself.

Maybe Wolff forgets the 2007 New York magazine piece by Jeffrey Weiss delving into Epstein’s well-insulated personal fiefdom, with Wolff in the role of gushing, star-struck Epstein sycophant. The article further describes Epstein as a "discreet confidant to Wolff … when Wolff was involved in a bid for New York Magazine."

"It was all a little giddy", the article quotes Wolff as saying, describing his late 90’s entre into Epstein’s surreal fantasy life, as he boarded Epstein’s "beautiful 727" for a flight full of elites to a West Coast conference.

Jeffrey is living a life that once might have been prized and admired and valued, but its moment has passed … I think the culture has outgrown it. You can’t describe it without being held to severe account. It’s not allowed. It may be allowed if you’re secretive and furtive, but Jeffrey is anything but secretive and furtive. I think it represents an achievement to Jeffrey.

Apparently for Michael Wolff it is only a no-no to describe a degenerate criminal lifestyle such as Epstein’s, but not necessarily to actually live it, in which case "it may be allowed" as long as it remains covert.

Not to be too obvious exonerating Epstein, Wolff is quoted offering Epstein counsel on how to be less obvious about his pedophilia: "He has never been secretive about the girls … At one point, when his troubles began, he was talking to me and said, 'What can I say, I like young girls.' I said, 'Maybe you should say, 'I like young women.'"

Noble advice from a loyal friend.

Fast forwarding to 2015, Wolff’s USA Today editorial decrying public accusations against Epstein pals Dershowitz and the Prince is chock full of similarly subtle, almost subliminal, sophistry - and totally free of any supporting factual substance.

For example, he claims the Florida Jane Doe case advancing against Epstein and his pedophile pals is "unpromising" and "the allegations do not derive from law enforcement personnel making charges related to an investigation; rather, they come entirely from someone filing a lawsuit in an effort to win compensation and damages."

Wolff treats the case as if it is not a bold-faced public fact that the Palm Beach Police, led by Chief Michael Reiter, publicly expressed outrage and dismay at the miscarriage of justice in Epstein’s so-called prosecution and his subsequent federal non-prosecution.

For over a year, Reiter and his department had compiled a case against Epstein based on sworn statements establishing Epstein’s repeated sexual abuse of five young girls. Other evidence indicated Epstein’s abuse of up to 35 other underage female victims.

These law enforcement personnel would likely disagree with Wolff’s implication that there is nothing more to the case than Epstein’s one-count solicitation of a minor conviction and the negligible punishment arranged for Epstein between Dershowitz and Barry Krischer, the Florida State’s Attorney.

Wolff would do well to look into a California civil case a few years ago involving a civil defendant named O.J. Simpson who was found liable for murder where the criminal justice system found him not guilty. Should the federal government undertake the duty it has so-far shirked to pursue Epstein’s interstate child sex trafficking allegations, Wolff may yet eat his words.

Home | About Us | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Contact