Acosta holds a press conference
I didn’t watch the Acosta press conference, but here’s a summary of what he said about his role in the Epstein case:
Labor Secretary Alex Acosta,…who served as a U.S attorney in Florida, said in a news conference that his office intervened in the case after state prosecutors failed to secure a plea deal that would have resulted in jail time for Epstein and give justice to his victims…
“I think what they would find is that the office acted appropriately,” Acosta said at the news conference. He also pushed back against criticism that he violated the law by not informing Epstein’s victims about the non-prosecution agreement.
Calling the case “complex,” Acosta argued that he and the other federal prosecutors were following Justice Department policy, and they waited until they secured the plea deal and added a provision that Epstein pay restitution to victims before notifying them in case the deal fell apart.
Interesting.
Reaction on the left is as expected: he’s a lying scumbag.
Reaction on the right: I can’t find too much as yet.
So here’s my own reaction: I’d like more information.
If that seems like a copout, so be it. But as far as I’m concerned, plea deals are strange beasts whose ins and outs depend on the details. And we don’t know the details yet.
Acosta is a person with a lot of opponents on the right as well as the obvious ones on the left. Those on the right are dissatisfied with his performance as Secretary of Labor for being insufficiently conservative, and with his performance in the Epstein case for failing to inform the victims of the plea deal in a timely fashion. Although I confess to not having previously followed the criticisms of Acosta, some of these arguments from his opponents seem compelling to me, at least at first glance.
But plea deals tend to always look bad, because as compromises they punish offenders less than the public ordinarily desires. With a plea deal, by definition the prosecution doesn’t get everything it wants. But in exchange, it gains the certainty of a conviction—and, in the case of the underage (at the time of the offenses) girls who might have needed to testify in the Epstein case, the elimination of the requirement that they do so.
To evaluate the Acosta deal fairly, we would have to know what the state prosecutors were about to give up and what Acosta changed about the deal, how strong the evidence for conviction was in the legal sense, whether the accusers were willing and able to testify and whether their testimony would have held up under cross, why they were not notified in a timely fashion, and probably a host of other things. So far I don’t know the answers, and I don’t see anyone revealing them.
This will almost certainly end up being resolved in some way that reflects politics. If I had to predict, I tend to think that Acosta ultimately may have to resign.
The Palm Beach State’s Attorney, Barry Krischer, seems to have been considerably more flagrant in his misconduct than Acosta, who should definitely resign, but what is increasingly clear is that this is a case involving much more than simply the egregious and repulsive behavior of Epstein. The mendacious MSM are desperate for this scandal to implicate Trump, but the real villains may well turn out to be powerful American political figures and shadowy members of the global elite.
I wonder who slipped limiting the scope of prosecution to “in this district for these crimes”. (Not exact wording) pretty big loop hole for Epstein’s lawyer’s to miss
Acosta must NOT resign, Neo, just because leftists lie about his (remarkable) conduct as a US Attorney.
He has done nothing bad, wrong or indifferent in the Epstein matter.
We must stand up for him. Otherwise we are gutless and are accessory tools for leftists to use in their moral relativity campaign.
As to Epstein and the new charges against him, where is the presumption of innocence evident? Everyone, right and left, is calling for his head. Not the way itused to work.
Trump surely has got to know that he has to distance himself from Epstein, and thus Acosta’s handling of that plea deal, just as soon as possible, mainly because of stuff like this:
I watched the presser.
The case was a state prosecution in which the Miami DA had agreed to a plea that gave Epstein no jail time, no designation as a sexual criminal, and no restitution to the victims. The Feds stepped in because they thought that was outrageous. They told Epstein’s lawyers (Dershowitz, Starr, and other top notch lawyers) that if he did not agree to 18 months in jail, designation as a a sexual criminal, and restitution to the victims; they were going to prosecute him in the Federal system. The negotiations took 5 months. When the deal was made, Acosta and his prosecutors believed that it was far better than what the DA had been able to get. They also didn’t think the evidence was so good that a guilty verdict at trial was a slam dunk. So, they agreed that it was not perfect, but better than what had been going to happen before they intervened.
One thing Acosta stressed was that back in 2006-2008 the defense lawyers were permitted to shame the victims on the witness stand in ways that are no longer permitted. I don’t know if that’s true, but it sounds plausible. That was one of the big unknowns about going to trial. Could Epstein’s top notch legal team destroy the victims’ credibility.
As to notifying the victims. The lead prosecutor for the case was supposed to contact the victims. Apparently she dropped the ball in that she wasn’t able to talk to all of them. No reason was given for that. A weak point in the presser.
All in all, I thought Acosta acquitted himself pretty well. He showed great concern for the victims and was in favor of the new charges against Epstein. He pointed out that, with the new emphasis on sex crimes and new rules for not shaming victims on the witness stand, there is a much stronger probability that Epstein will get convicted at trial.
However, I’m reading that Epstein will again have a top notch legal team and that he has dirt on many elite Democrats that might come out at trial. So, a plea deal may well be in the works again.
I agree with Cicero. We need to defend Acosta and Trump against this onslaught of ginned up outrage that makes assumptions about events of 12 years ago that are mostly baseless.
Holman Jenkins in today’s Wall Street Journal also weighed in favorably for Acosta. In a nutshell:
“But one element of the story should give us pause, and that’s the seemingly concerted effort by the press to make a secondary villain out of the only prosecutor who succeeded in holding Mr. Epstein accountable till now because, 12 years later, that prosecutor is Donald Trump’s labor secretary.”
bafp:
Precisely.
And I think quite a few people on the right are jumping on the anti-Acosta bandwagon. Some have other reasons for disliking him. And maybe all the reasons are valid, including this one. But I don’t think we have nearly enough information to decide.
Cicero:
“Everyone”?
I certainly haven’t been calling for his head.
I made a mild prediction (“if I had to predict”) that I thought he might ultimately be forced to resign, but I made it clear that I don’t think we have enough information to know whether he should resign.
Paul Mirengoff at Powerline focuses on the main points Acosta made in the press conference — here’s what he said about one of them:
I am so tired of this guy.
Ann:
I would await Andrew McCarthy’s take on the matter.
Unlike McCarthy, Mirengoff isn’t and has never been a US Attorney, and although perhaps he’s correct I doubt he knows the finer points of what was actually involved here. I also very much doubt he knows the details of what assurances Acosta got from the Florida prosecutors about the exact circumstances of Epstein’s future incarceration, as the deal was being made.
I don’t mean a wrong thing,
I’ve just corrected my email address.
Ok, now you can track me. So I will have to buy a bull so if you do run me down, I can run you down.
One of the modern aspects to human trafficking is increasing their drug addictions and forcing them to procure additional girls/victims. The girls are treated and brainwashed in a manner similar to members of a cult. The increased isolation, drugs, and brain washing make the girls at first glance as culpable as the trafficker. These circumstances were in play with the Epstein case. Some of the newer legislation is designed to address the unique victimology involved in human trafficking. Conchita Sarnoff actually wrote a book about the Epstein case if you are interested in further details.
I suspect Epstein is a blackmailer and has highly embarrassing video on many ‘important’ people.
As regards whether there’s any actual dirt linking Trump to Epstein, Michael Van Der Galien at PJ Media notes the following, “What makes Vanity Fair’s report double fascinating is that the leftist magazine clearly implies that Epstein doesn’t have any dirt on Trump himself. On Twitter, leftist users have been tweeting hopefully about how this could ruin Trump’s presidency. Vanity Fair knows better. When push comes to shove, this case will involve high-ranking and extremely influential Democrats.”
I hope he’s right.
I agree that I’d like to see what Andy McCarthy says. I thought Acosta’s answers were a little weak in some cases.
If he is going to be forced out of office, it ought to be because of his performance, or non-performance, in office.
I wonder also, since this was 2008, if pressure was exerted, and money was spent, by the Clinton machine to get the Epstein horror story buried to the extent possible.
HMS Rawalpindi.
I bet you never heard that ship’s name before. It may seem strange I respect Captain Kennedy. But game respects game.
The Rawalpindi, an armed merchantman, took on two German men of war. “We shall fight Tboth of them. They will sink us. And that will be that.”
The Shcharhorst and the Gniessenour.I may not have spelled everything correctly. I have enoufh trouble keeping track of ships I don’t sink.
Perverts are financing politics, no wonder its such a mess.
By the way, I never sank a US Navy Man of War. Not every American Sailor can say that.
I knew a Sailor who fired a torpedo in a US port.
Never fired a shot at my own ship.
The case was a state prosecution in which the Miami DA had agreed to a plea that gave Epstein no jail time, no designation as a sexual criminal, and no restitution to the victims.
Reminds me of the government making corporations immune to vaccine liabilities via a special court system.
Mirengoff on the question not answered:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/the-question-alex-acosta-didnt-answer.php
(Which might raise the question of “how high up does it all go?”….)
“…how high…?” (continued):
(Disclaimer: from “The Daily Beast”)
‘[Acosta had] cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone….”’
From:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epsteins-sick-story-played-out-for-years-in-plain-sight
I read somewhere there was a provision in the sentencing that Epstein would have to pay the legal fees of anyone of the victim’s and also new, unknown accusers. And the DA didn’t want to let that be known and so victim’s weren’t informed.
Originally I thought Acosta should be made to resign, for the simple reason that he and his actions on Epstein were a distraction for Trump and being used to attack Trump. I thought that would all end with Acosta’s resignation. Pretty sure now that is wrong, Trump attackers will never stop, just change weapons as needed.
Sending Acosta out to defend himself and take questions was the right thing to do. All the attention is now on him and his actions in the Epstein case. Trump has successfully separated himself.
There is no reason for Acosta to resign.
Reminds me of the government making corporations immune to vaccine liabilities via a special court system.
That was part of a Clinton deal that put all vaccines under fed control. The result was a shortage that lasted for years. It did about as much good as Obama federalizing student loans.
I don’t know much about this case. From what I have read, I do understand that prosecuters often make some unsavory decisions. But, I don’t know enough about this case to judge Acosta, and I am pretty sure only another Prosecutor would be qualified to judge him.
But I am thinking about the broader implications of this… Imagine if every decision you ever made as a professional could be reviewed under a magnifying glass and criticized with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Could anyone survive such scrutiny?
I was once in such a position. The company I worked for was purchased by another one. The new company sent an audit team to my my project and audited it based upon the new company’s Procedures Manual, not the original company’s manual. Guess what? They tore me a new one. It was totally unjust, but the stigma of that audit eventually forced me to resign. Eventually, every capable employee from the original company left, and the new company destroyed the capability and original value of the company they bought.
But, back to the original theme of the post… The only person whose decisions cannot be criticized are those who avoid making a decision. I fear that we are creating an atmosphere in which every professional in government will be afraid to make a decision. This is a recipe for organizational and societal paralysis.
Saw an interview on Fox News of Conchita Sarnoff, investigative reporter. I’ve searched for a link to the interview with no luck. 🙁 She said that it became clear that a trial would expose several political figures to embarrassing info – especially Bill Clinton. At the time (2007-2008) Hillary was spooling up her campaign for President, The revelations would have been very bad for her campaign.Sarnoff said that the AG, Alberto Gonzales, decided it would be best not to proceed to trial to avoid a political takedown of Hillary’s campaign. (Typical Republican deference to the other side?) If true, it would explain a lot about the plea deal that Epstein received and why there was no trial. This could be explosive stuff for the Democrats.
This could be explosive stuff for the Democrats.
People who have dirt on the Clintons tend to have short lives. Whitey Bulgar knew a lot about Mueller, for example. Wasn’t even signed in to that West Virginia prison when he was killed after his eyes were gouged out.
Mike K on July 11, 2019 at 9:32 am said:
What also resulted from that is that when American serfs have their children become autistic or dead as a result of enforced vaccination or even uninformed vaccinations, they have about as good a chance of suing the government as conservatives have of suing the IRS into submission.
The Clintons are small fish compared to the Deep State’s child pedo sex traffickers.
As well as the child sacrifice satanists at the upper echelons.
Kill off every Clinton in existence, and guess what, the Deep State hasn’t lost even 1% of their strategic assets.
Mike K on July 11, 2019 at 9:32 am said:
Also, the special vaccine liability courts weren’t a Clinton thing but a Reagan move.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act
Only a few problems with the altuism-vaccine hoax. Evidence for instance. But of course the increase in childhood measles, and whooping cough are a good thing. What else can we hope for? Bring back polio and smallpox! Rabies and tetanus for all! Because …. wait for it …. Deep State!
No doubt that basic sanitation; potable water and treatment of sewage are also a conspiracy too. Deep State is everywhere after all.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-jeffrey-epstein-scandal-is-likely-worse-than-we-know/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-roman-polanski-hollywood-sexual-exploitation/
Based on past form of the human race, I wouldn’t bet on that last sentence having any predictive value.
Ymar,
“As well as the child sacrifice satanists at the upper echelons.”
Really? Where do you get this … nonsense from?
Roy Nathanson:
Yes.
In law school I clerked for a judge for about a year. For the first few months, she was assigned to criminal court. We used to do between 100-150 cases a day, all plea deals, naturally. The whole process is a farce. First of all, there’s only about a 50% correlation between the charged crime and the defendant. On the other hand, there is a 100% chance that if the defendant didn’t do that particular crime, he did something worse. Second, the system in that state — PA — requires lying and the acceptance of lying: the judge has to ask, “Were you offered anything in exchange for this plea arrangement?” and the defendant has to answer “No,” which of course, is a flat-out lie. These were all low-level criminals represented by the Public Defender’s office. Usually, the PD and the ADA had to stand bracing up the defendant on either side, otherwise he’d fall down drunk or stoned.
When you get to the more successful criminals, the ones who’ve done well enough to afford a private lawyer, in most cases, the only issue is the suppression of evidence motion. The cops know who all the serious criminals are, and what they do. Besides which, in spite of all the detective shows, only about 1/3 of crimes are solved — those that are solved, which isn’t all that many — by detective work. For the remaining crimes, the victim or witnesses know the defendant, or the defendant is arrested for another crime and they match his fingerprints (now his DNA, much easier) with evidence from the former crime scene.
The reason the suppression motion is so important is because of the ridiculous doctrine that “if the constable erred, the criminal must go free.” Not only is this morally unjustifiable — what does one thing have to do with the other? — it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do, deter police misconduct. Cops are not evaluated on the number of successful prosecutions of their collars, but on the number of cases they “clear,” which means, arrest the person that they believe, based on cop standards of proof, was the person who did the crime. That’s why virtually all DA’s offices have their own investigators, to get from “arrested” to “triable.”
When you get to the top-level criminals, with the top-level lawyers, no DA’s staff wants to go up against really good lawyers. They tell you in law school that the adversary system is the greatest engine for the discovery of truth ever devised. The reality is the adversary system is the greatest engine for discovering who has the better lawyer ever devised.
The much-vaunted U.S. Attorneys’ 95+% conviction rate is because they only take to trial those cases they’re pretty damn sure they’re going to win. You can bet that nobody in Acosta’s office thought it would be a good idea to go up against Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr, and the rest of Epstein’s legal team. Remember the OJ case? So Acosta made the best deal he could without going to trial.
Is that right? Is that good for society? Hell, no! But that’s the way it is, and that’s why I never, ever, got involved in criminal law.
(Sorry about the rant — it’s something I’ve been wanting to get off my chest for 42 years.)
Richard Saunders:
Most non-lawyers don’t understand plea deals at all.