Labor Secretary Alex Acosta defended at length his handling of a 2008 plea deal with wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein and insisted his relationship with President Trump is “outstanding.”
During a news conference, Acosta said he is “pleased” that federal prosecutors in New York City are bringing sex-trafficking charges against Epstein and said “facts are certainly be overlooked” in criticism of the deal he struck.
“Times have changed and coverage of this case has certainly changed,” he told reporters.
……..
“We believe that we proceeded appropriately,” he said. “There was value to getting a guilty plea and having him register. Look, no regrets is a very hard question.”
- Discussion
-
Acosta defends Epstein deal, says "facts are certainly being overlooked" https://t.co/qD3vBp00NW pic.twitter.com/TEFUfLpjYg
— The Hill (@thehill) July 10, 2019
His argument, as far as I can tell, is that the justice system didn't work fully here because the victims weren't brave enough to come forward, not because the prosecutors fell down on the job.
— Quinta Jurecic (@qjurecic) July 10, 2019
Acosta had a chance to refute @VickyPJWard's report…he sure didn't.
When we're talking about "intelligence" in the Epstein case we're not talking the US IC.
Jeffy was surely passing stuff to the FBI, that's Shitbag CYA 101, but that wasn't who he was really working with.
— John Schindler (@20committee) July 10, 2019
Dear @SecretaryAcosta:
I do not believe we have spoken since graduation. I regret encountering you under these circumstances.
I was not able to attend your press conference, but I do have some questions.
/1
— RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019
/3 And, in fact, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Epstein's attorneys were vigorously demanding a non-prosecution deal that would cover any federal prosecution in any federal district in the United States, correct?
— RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019
/5 So you knew, when you approved this non-prosecution agreement, that someday Mr. Epstein's lawyers might be arguing that it barred prosecution in another district, correct?
In light of that, let's look at the agreement, shall we?https://t.co/ysbMYypk67
— RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019
/7 Do you view this non-prosecution agreement as specific and not ambiguous, Mr. Secretary?
— RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019
/9 For instance, the agreement says that Epstein is seeking to "resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability" without defining that, and speaks generally about the "interests of the United States" without limitation. pic.twitter.com/RblKfgko1T
— RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019
/11 But on the other hand, the agreement says that the U.S. Attorney's office and the FBI have investigated "any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States," without limitation by district. pic.twitter.com/CvyEvOlkA6
— RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019
/13 Mr. Secretary, why doesn't the agreement have standard language specifically stating that it only binds the office offering it?
Why doesn't it have other language limiting what "global" means and specifying that it does not bind other districts?
— RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019
/15 You'd agree with me that you did not take any of the steps required by the U.S. Attorney's Manual to secure the approval of other districts to bind them, correct?
So you did not have the right to offer an agreement that bound other districts to non-prosecution, right?
— RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019
/17 I will return, sir, with further questions.
— RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019
NEW – The Former State Attorney Barry Krischer responds to Acosta: "I can emphatically state that Mr. Acosta’s recollection of this matter is completely wrong." pic.twitter.com/1lfULeb3CT
— Michael Del Moro (@MikeDelMoro) July 10, 2019
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.