Epstein Case: Attorney Michael Santucci Notes - Post Interview

Here is another youtube video made by Attorney Michael Santucci. Mr. Santucci is a Florida and a Federal Attorney according to this video.

Mr. Santucci obtained Mr. Epstein's request for a bail hearing. Mr. Epstein's lawyers attached to this request the document that is the "sweethart" deal that was given to Mr. Epstein years ago. Within the document is the equivalent of a non disclosure agreement. Since the document was put in the public request for a bail hearing; does that negate the non disclosure agreement and allow for more information to be released by the government? That is the gist of Mr. Santucci's presentation.

Epstein Case: Attorney MIchael Santucci Notes

Embedding for you.



So Acosta was told to ‘back off Epstein’ and that he was ‘intelligence’.

It would be nice to find out who instructed Acosta these directives.

originally posted by: KKLOCO


So Acosta was told to ‘back off Epstein’ and that he was ‘intelligence’.

It would be nice to find out who instructed Acosta these directives.

Unless Acosta talks, you'll never get that name.

And, if he's telling the truth about this person or persons telling him "he's intel," I'm sure Acosta would be best served (more precisely, "not dead") by shutting the F up and never even acknowledging his original assertion that Epstein is connected.

But, yeah. It'd be nice to know for sure who Jeff was working for. I'm still not sure.

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

Well, like Santucci stated, the confidentiality agreement was breached when it was disclosed on the motion to the judge asking for pretrial release. Makes you wonder how this could occur. His supposed connections with the Clintons, the British Monarchy and Mossad, as well as those exposed in his "black" book, makes him a marked man IMO.

a reply to: feldercarb

I'm not sure that any of it matters. Epstein's plea deal was negotiated over Epstein personally having sex with 4 minors. He is currently being charged with sex trafficking of minors, which is a totally separate kind of charge. Reports show that there's over 1 million pages of evidence against Epstein in the current case. A past plea agreement isn't going to save anyone from new charges being made against them.

Here is some more legal interpretation of the plea deal. I admit that I do not like the one sided presentation against only Acosta. But I do find it interesting that according to this lawyer that the plea deal had sections that were against the law. Most notedly keeping Epstein's lawyers notified but not keeping the victims and their lawyers notified.

originally posted by: 35Foxtrot

originally posted by: KKLOCO


So Acosta was told to ‘back off Epstein’ and that he was ‘intelligence’.

It would be nice to find out who instructed Acosta these directives.

Unless Acosta talks, you'll never get that name.

And, if he's telling the truth about this person or persons telling him "he's intel," I'm sure Acosta would be best served (more precisely, "not dead") by shutting the F up and never even acknowledging his original assertion that Epstein is connected.

But, yeah. It'd be nice to know for sure who Jeff was working for. I'm still not sure.

Considering that he was rewarded with a high government position for his part in this, it would have to be someone connected to the current administration, at least remotely. But that's just logic.

You don't get a reward for NOT doing a good job.

originally posted by: Duderino

originally posted by: 35Foxtrot

originally posted by: KKLOCO


So Acosta was told to ‘back off Epstein’ and that he was ‘intelligence’.

It would be nice to find out who instructed Acosta these directives.

Unless Acosta talks, you'll never get that name.

And, if he's telling the truth about this person or persons telling him "he's intel," I'm sure Acosta would be best served (more precisely, "not dead") by shutting the F up and never even acknowledging his original assertion that Epstein is connected.

But, yeah. It'd be nice to know for sure who Jeff was working for. I'm still not sure.

Considering that he was rewarded with a high government position for his part in this, it would have to be someone connected to the current administration, at least remotely. But that's just logic.

You don't get a reward for NOT doing a good job.

Or, it could have just been inexperience, bad advice or ineptness on the part of Trump and his top advisers. Unfortunately, I've seen enough of that type of crap in the past year or so, that I'm thinking the Acosta appointment had nothing to do with Party Boy Jeff.

That's all a smoke screen anyway. The bigger issue is WHO was Jeff working for/with? I still haven't been able to get really clear answers from associates that I believe know those answers. I'm peeved.