"[Alan] Dershowitz, then a Harvard law professor, had famously defended O.J. Simpson. [Ken] Starr, of course, was the independent counsel who investigated the Clinton Whitewater case, leading into the Monica Lewinsky cliffhanger. In a 2011 letter trying to defend himself after the cushy plea deal, Acosta wrote that he faced 'year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors' by 'an army of legal superstars.' He also asserted that defense lawyers 'investigated individual prosecutors and their families, looking for personal peccadilloes that may provide a basis for disqualification.'... Pending further revelations, one thing is clear: Acosta should step down from his Cabinet position for dereliction of duty in his prior role — and because he has the spine of a mollusk. In deciding not to fully prosecute Epstein in 2007 — and then agreeing to bury the proceedings without advising the victims — he violated the law, betrayed the victims’ trust and displayed rare cowardice before justice. Finally, nobody likes a whiner."
From "One thing is clear from the Jeffrey Epstein revelations: Acosta must step down" by Kathleen Parker (WaPo).
I don't like the ugliness of "dereliction of duty" and "spine of a mollusk" and "whiner," but I do think Acosta should resign. When it mattered most, the cries of a wealthy man overwhelmed those of ordinary people. That's not what belongs in the Labor Department.
२२५ टिप्पण्या:
225 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»If were going by what helps ordinary people maybe he doesn’t beat a ham sandwich in the role but he beats whatever SJW dingbat the left would have there.
Somewhere I read that Acosta was told to leave Epstein alone because he was an intelligence asset. I need to find that article. It may be total bunk, but someone wrote it and it was published.
Prosecutors make plea deals everyday. Acosta was a federal prosecutor, and the plea deal was Epstien pleading to state crimes. For a non-lawyer this is all confusing. My go to conclusion is this is the left is still lying to go after Trump. Of the 100's of govt types involved in the Epstien soap opera, Acosta is getting all the attention. Playing whataboutism is not fruitful, but lawyer types need to give some context on the evil of Acosta vs. all the other plea deals.
Also. What about the Judge that approved the plea deal? Does he get his reputation ruined too?
She willing worked with Client no 9, but she is such an easy mark
It was in the daily basilisk,
I think her husband having liked the huntress once, permanently deranged her.
"Somewhere I read that Acosta was told to leave Epstein alone because he was an intelligence asset. I need to find that article. It may be total bunk, but someone wrote it and it was published."
If he was ordered to treat Epstein the way he did and what you're trying to say is he had no choice, that doesn't let him off the hook. He should have resigned.
These efforts to get Acosta off the hook are not helping Trump.
Quick aside from literature:
Who demanded punishment first, trial after?
Does Althouse realize that giving over Acosta's scalp moves nothing toward cosmic-justice?
The whole purpose of demanding Acosta's ouster is to stop any real investigation beneath the surface.
I want Acosta out at Labor because he has not fired 80% of that "work" force.
And they would have found another patsy, Coulter (not every body's cup of tea admittedly) worked with the attorneys who challenged the plea deal
Again I go back to this: The entire Epstein case was known by everyone and pushed under the rug by everyone when Hillary was supposed to be our next President. How would that have looked, her standing up for all women, while her husband takes 24 or so plane trips to a private island to have sex with underage girls. It's not a good look for a First Spouse.
The Clintons are now expendable. No more protection for Bill. He will be a necessary side cost of getting Trump. And if this thing has any touching to Trump, it will now have the spotlight shone on it that was not allowed to shine previously.
The story is not Acosta. The story is the guys and gals who took part in this. Where was Schumer's outrage a few years ago?
I want to know why the people in NY are getting no heat for pressing NO charges against him. Or New Mexico. It's weird the one person who got anything from him is the one in trouble.
Just what does the "Labor" Dept. do?
Found it:
The Daily Beast reports: “Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?” Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he’d had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He’d 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,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)”
Cy Vance passed on it, against the advice of his sex crimes prosecutor, does he step down?
Yeah I'm not trying to get Acosta "off the hook", but he's a small part of the Epstein story. Part of the game was given away yesterday when people were trying to get Barr to recuse himself, right? Acosta may need to step down (I don't care about him) but is someone going after him to try to tie Trump to Epstein?
(Audible has James Patterson's "Filthy Rich" and it's engrossing so far)
The story is the guys and gals who took part in this. Where was Schumer's outrage a few years ago?
Yes. But by all means let’s focus on how bad Trump is.
If he was ordered to treat Epstein the way he did and what you're trying to say is he had no choice, that doesn't let him off the hook. He should have resigned.
In my perfect world, Epstien would have been casterated in the town square, then hung. He is slime.
But why is Acosta the fall guy out of dozens of government agents involved in this plea deal, including the person in a black robe?
All of the attention is on President Trump and his administration, President Trump and his people had nothing to do with it. The media flooding the zone tells me this is a scalp to help democrats gain power. Nothing to do with righting a wrong. Something Acosta resigning will do nothing to correct.
And yes, Althouse, these attempts to get Acosta off the hook don't work for me either. Just reporting what I read.
Personally, I think he should resign and Trump should appoint Scott Walker as Labor Secretary.
Whataboutism as a defense is all those in his corner have. Talking about Clinton does not change Acosta's role here.
Trump should have fired Acosta long ago because he’s a terrible Secretary of Labor. His primary goal has been to appease the unions and their allies in Congress, rather than pushing Trump’s deregulatory agenda. Fat lot of good that will do him now.
Getting rid of Shinseki didnt solve the va problem, it just buried it,
Trump should have fired Acosta long ago because he’s a terrible Secretary of Labor. His primary goal has been to appease the unions and their allies in Congress, rather than pushing Trump’s deregulatory agenda. Fat lot of good that will do him now.
Problem is Acosta gets ousted and the real story disappears behind the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner.
Mitt Romney, supported by epsteins man wexner will vote for him, right?
Acosta needs to go for a number of reasons. Apparently Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse pressured the DOJ to investigate Epstein.
The way the game works is to focus all the attention on one hand while the other hand performs the magic.
Althouse plays the dupe.
If the press was going after Menendez and Clinton.... hahaha.... That is too far a stretch!
Why is Acosta hung for doing what is done all the time.
The judicial system has a huge problem and covering that flaw over with Acosta's scalp does not address the systemic flaw in the justice branch of government.
Acosta never should have been appointed Secretary of Labor. Trump’s first choice was Andy Pudzer, but ancient allegations from a divorce file (subsequently recanted, I think) did him in.
Acosta’s handling of Epstein was like everyone’s handling of Epstein—kid glove treatment. He was a major, major Dem donor. Who was yelling for the government to go Medieval on Epstein until last week? No one. He was a friend of Bill. Alan D was his lawyer. Ken Starr was his lawyer. Prince Andrew was his buddy. Ron Buerkle was his buddy. He was the godfather of the Clinton Global Initiative. Remember that? Think about that. Epstein’s dark lady is Ghislaine Maxwell. She’s the daughter of the late Robert Maxwell, who jumped or fell off his yacht as the walls were closing in for his looting of the pension funds of one of London’s largest tabloids. No one wanted to see justice done to Epstein until last week.
Acosta was the chump, but it is chumps all the way down.
rehajm is absolutely correct at 7:05AM.
He repeated what I already said but more succinctly than did I.
And the "kids" at the border are now alleging sexual assault.
Coordinated stories?
Of course!!
If he does have the spine of a mollusc (aren't they hard-shelled?), then he won't last too long in his role as designated fall guy. He will name names.
Funny how that works, the same way Obama ended up with no opposition, after Blair hull and Jack Ryan gave up their candidacies
To be fair, Amadeus 48, Ann Coulter and Mike Cernovich we're going after Epstein. So many conservatives were aware and sickened by the whole coverup. We wanted Menendez punished. We wanted Clinton (dealer's choice) prosecuted.
It just wasn't in the MSM.
The labor department came in the FDR administration right, as the union redoubt.
One depressing thing about this aspect of the Epstein story is that none of it is news. Acosta's octopussian performance was already well known when he was nominated and confirmed as Secretary of Labor.
That said, he does have his defenders.
The Wikipedia entry is quite detailed and includes a surprisingly vigorous defense of his actions.
However, one fact that comes clear is that Acosta has not been candid about the extent of his involvement in the plea deal. That should be sufficient grounds for Trump to fire him.
The allegations of sexual assault at the border are similar to a TSA pat down.
The immigrants cannot get that treatment until they get an approved license from a US state.
That right of strip search belongs solely to citizens.
Coordination of messages in the press.
Acosta reporting --> border reporting on MSNBC
"Quick aside from literature:
Who demanded punishment first, trial after?"
No one is proposing accusing Acosta of a crime. The question is whether he should continue to serve in a position of great power which he holds at the pleasure of the President of the United States.
Acosta needs to name names. Who told him.
There are two phases to a criminal prosecution. The first one determines the guilt . Then he second one determines length of sentence and probation and fines. Prosecutors practise phase One until they get good at it. But only once in a blue moon does a prosecutor face a determined assault run by by an experienced and high powered Defense Attorney team.
This time Acosta learned on the job training that sentence guidelines are a shell game too.This case was Nolle Prossed in State Court by State Prosecutors. Then the Miami herald ran accusing stories that these were not "underage Prostitutes" but innocent 14 Year old Teens recruited at Malls. Then the Federal Prosecutor stepped in and prosecuted the case on Federal charges. The Federal guidelines were very tough, so Dershowitz and team insisted the case now go back to State Court and State charges to get a favorable Phase Two. Acosta never stopped them. And he wants everyone to believe the CIA ordered this done to protect a valuable CIA Operation.
Who wants Acosta to be its scapegoat for everything and stop the investigation with him?
NB: The Federal Justice system is primarily a Cover-up tool. It usually takes over the State charges and makes them disappear for the benefit of the DC power structure. That is nearly its sole raison d'etre. Bad Acosta played along.
Its called "flooding the zone"
He should take his lead from the UK Ambassador who did nothing wrong but was placed in an untenable position. Of course difference that Johnson undermined ambassador and Trump has not signaled lack of support for Labor Secretary.
SDaly said...
Althouse is looking for a scapegoat without knowing the full story, or even a small part of the story. Why is that?
Cruel neutrality?
No, Althouse.
You are suggesting complicity in the MSM coverup and counter-offensive against Trump.
You just don't acknowledge the fact in your writing.
Kinda makes one wonder if Epstein was involved in grooming gangs.
Acosta can pull the shade up a little. Time for sunlight.
I get the feeling that we have no idea what really happened here.
Watching the evening news last night, it was obvious that the networks were deliberately confusing the timelines and muddying the waters as much as they could to try to tie Trump into this mess, which is a tell and makes me suspicious of the whole thing.
And I do not think it is news to anyone that the "intelligence community" tells the civil authorities to lay off someone because "national security," and no, you must not ask.
Ordinary people after a payday.
A sponge is best able to resist its oppressor. Its ignoble labor enfranchises it.
As Kathleen Parker ever been right about anything?
Perhaps Acosta should resign by virtue of the lame actions he did take, and the lack of proper actions he did not take. But what happens then? And if we're now holding US Attorneys to a standard of proper legal behavior, then let's have this standard across the board for all US Attorneys. Let's start with Andrew Weissman and work from there.
Again- we cannot pick and choose when to hold ourselves to standards. They either exist for all, or they don't exist at all.
"Prosecuting Alex Acosta" is the heading of a Wall St. Journal article today. Worth reading (I have a dead-tree subscription but still can't get past the paywall for some reason) if you happen upon it.
These efforts to get Acosta off the hook are not helping Trump.
Trump has nothing to do with the Epstein prosecution.
No one here is defending Acosta, or trying to minimize what he did.
It’s the left that wants Trump to fire him so they can stop looking into the Epstein plea deal as “old news”.
So no, helping the left put this all on Acosta if there were others involved is not helping Trump.
It’s protecting the swamp.
As an automatic condition, a wealthy evil-doer and a poor woman is ripe for deep pocket gold-digging, if you can alert the woman to the fact that she was victimized. It may not have been apparent to her. It might have seemed like a good deal, all things considered.
So it's an "especially" case that shows up with a bias. Man-hater confirmation bias.
Still need more info.
Info from the hack-D press is not accurate, responsible or permissible in court.
Hey lady, did you know there's automatic outrage against sexual deal-making by men? You can get lots of money from juries, if you want to sign up.
Sure. Where to I sign.
But somehow - it was NOT ok to fire Comey - who serves at the pleasure of the president.
No prostitutes with a heart of gold, these days.
What stand are sex workers taking on this matter?
When do we fire the MSM for their coverage of the story?
Nah, let’s have Trump fire Acosta so the matter can be closed.
For perspective:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-sex-offender-11562713152
(Apologies for those who cannot access the article behind the Journal's paywall.)
It does take a village.
I want the names of those people in that village.
Then destroy it, salt the earth and nuke it from the sky to be sure.
The Impeachment files should be opened. Who knows what’s in them? We don’t.
Excerpts from WSJ Editorial..."There is nothing in the Epstein indictment to indicate that Mr. Acosta abused his power or violated his Oath as a U.S. Attorney."
"President Trump shouldn't throw Mr. Acosta to the same mob that has indicted him without evidence of colluding with the Russians."
There's a good article in the WSJ, pretty much refuting everything Prof. Althouse says here.
Willie’s Winkie just might be taking him down. Finally.
That’s what you voted to put back in the WH.
Anyone with a brain knew what he was in 1990 and you didn’t care.
How long until Dershowitz is no longer allowed to teach at Harvard because he defended Epstein?
It’s the left that wants Trump to fire him so they can stop looking into the Epstein plea deal as “old news”.
So no, helping the left put this all on Acosta if there were others involved is not helping Trump.
It’s protecting the swamp.
Only in the Bizarro world that Trump fandom has come could forcing the resignation of a man who gave a sweetheart (and illegal) deal to a powerful, well connected, total scumbag be considered "protecting the swamp".
Ann - didn't you also buy, hook line an sinker, Blasey Ford's testimony? I recall you did.
Sometimes it is better to wait for the facts.
Collusion, Covington, Kavanaugh, and on and on and on. When the press is hysterically pushing a narrative, it's because they desperately want you to believe it, not because they themselves actually believe it. If you don't know that by now, you're a very poor news consumer.
This is why the liberal agenda marches forward, unabated.
The Democratics never play defense.
Huge democrat donor that ran an international sex trafficking ring with some of the most powerful men on Earth as clients, directly tied to the Clintons and Harvey Weinstein you say?
HA!
Try this...
Epstein was a big time buddy with Trump. The sex trafficking ring was ran out of Trump properties, Trump's buddy got Epstein a sweetheart plea deal and rewarded him with a cabinet post in the White House, while Trump's hand picked Attorney General runs interference and refuses to recuse himself.
Oh, and those Russian prostitutes on the pee-pee tape? You know they were supplied to Putin by Epstein.
Did Acosta give a sweet heart deal? Him alone? Who gave the deal? Who was the judge? Don't we need more accurate information first?
Althouse joins the mob toward the rear.
That makes it easier to peel away, honor intact.
Also, I think she understands this is meant to hurt Trump.
She just doesn't acknowledge the goal.
How long until Dershowitz is no longer allowed to teach at Harvard because he defended Epstein?
Considering he retired from Harvard in 2013, this is a moot point.
Freder Frederson has a hard time distinguishing the federal deal (leave it to the state prosecutors) and the state prosecution (didn't inform the victims) and doesn't want to get it right.
The play is obvious.
I loathe Hillary. She always knew and protected him for peer and money. She set feminism back at least 50 years and if you asked me that when he was prez, I could have articulated why back then.
And some still can’t figure out why you got Trump.
Did Acosta give a sweet heart deal? Him alone? Who gave the deal? Who was the judge? Don't we need more accurate information first?
I doubt it was Acosta alone. But other people being equally complicit does not excuse him.
If Hillary were president, would this be a thing? Would the Southern District of New York care?
I doubt it.
Epstein had a lot of resources but nobody has more resources than the federal government. Somebody above Acosta made the call. Mukasey? He had to have known. What did W know about this?
Whataboutism as a defense is all those in his corner have. Talking about Clinton does not change Acosta's role here
True. But talking about Acosta does not change Clinton's role here either.
Blogger Tank said...
I get the feeling that we have no idea what really happened here.
7/10/19, 7:40 AM
Exactly right - and the problem with 'the media' editorializing facts: 'he must resign or be removed from office because he has the spine of a mollusk'. One would infer that the facts in the article may very well not be any kind of fact but simply an (as others have said) attempt to bring down trump - again.
It doesn't fit in the cue card,
Althouse is correct here. Acosta is the chump, and the chump has to take his lumps. Trump should give Acosta a hearing and then decide, but keeping Acosta will be additional freight weighing down the Trump 2020 Express. I assume that Trump knows and likes Acosta from Palm Beach. Acosta probably did him a favour.
This is all coming up now to change the subject from the Dems horrible Independence Day bomb. They managed to come out against the flag that led the way to independence from Britain at exactly the time that the current incumbent ambassador demonstrated why that was a good idea. Such an air of superiority combined with such stupidity! Her Majesty’s government could have saved money by getting a subscription to WaPoop and getting the gossip directly rather than having Ambassador Nincompoop transcribe it for them.
Then there is the US Woman’s soccer team. They won (yea) while their aged purple haired star managed to confuse her personal pay gripe with the national interest, while showing disrespect for the national anthem and our flag. What a bunch of Queens! It wasn’t a good look. President Trump: be big. Some of these ladies are small.
Anyway, the Dems also swore their allegiance to open borders and medicare for illegal aliens. That wasn’t a good look either.
So, we’ll have the ritual slaying of Acosta, and those 26 trips that WJC took on the Lolita Express will disappear just the way they have on Epstein’s wikipedia page.
By the way, Kathleen Parker knows all about having one’s head turned by the attention of celebrities. She lived it when she savaged Sarah Palin.
This doesn't seem like the kind of thing W would sweep under the rug, but then his family did get really close to Bill Clinton.
Emeritus and still teaching.
Freder Frederson is a fuck up.
Blogger Temujin said...
Again- we cannot pick and choose when to hold ourselves to standards. They either exist for all, or they don't exist at all.
This comment sounds good coming from my hot 22-yo Kindergarten teacher, but in the reality, standards and laws are just guidelines. Enforcement is based on a combination of experience, bias and judgement. The rough way of the world is it's inherent unfairness. This was one of the first lessons to hammer home to children: life's not fair, quit your bitching.
Besides, that's what I thought you people loved about Trump: his ability to blow up standards. It doesn't matter how immune you think Acosta is from the Epstein-Barr virus, normal people are hypochondriacs for pedophilia. It's so not fair!
I want to know how Epstein got away with such a good deal. If it's all on Acosta, then lets hear about it.
I do not trust the KNOWN Maddow-liars and hacks on team-D in the media and the silly
editorialists to give us accurate information.
More from WSJ..."But Mr. Acosta pushed back against Mr. Epstein's lawyers. ""The U.S. attorneys who have been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team, Mr. Acosta wrote to Mr. Starr. "It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally."
I love how the left has made Acosta the ultimate villain and it's all "Epstein who?"
If it was such an obvious outrage and subversion of the law, there's been 12 years for another DOJ to do something about it.
What ties to Epstein's Lawyers have with Bill Clinton?
Was Marc Rich on the list?
Amadeus 48 said...
Althouse is correct here. Acosta is the chump, and the chump has to take his lumps. Trump should give Acosta a hearing and then decide, but keeping Acosta will be additional freight weighing down the Trump 2020 Express.
I disagree. Would it be ok if "we" dug into this more? Firing Acosta now would just be what Epstein's lawyers would want. Not to mention the MSM. I want more facts, and am willing to wait for them.
Acosta is just one of many appetizers, sweetie. The main course will be served later
Still need more info.
Info from the hack-D press is not accurate, responsible or permissible in court.
CNN thinks it’s illegal for us to see it!
Richard: I had a friend who was generous with her time.
Gwen: Richard's being modest. He worked for three years with homeless prostitutes in Bengal.
Pincus: You still in the sex trade or...
Gwen: That's inappropriate.
Ghost Town (2008)
Freder Frederson has a hard time distinguishing the federal deal (leave it to the state prosecutors) and the state prosecution (didn't inform the victims) and doesn't want to get it right.
This statement is simply incorrect.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
These efforts to get Acosta off the hook are not helping Trump.
7/10/19, 6:52 AM
So, should this have a 'Trump Troubles' tag? Is this about Epstein, Acosta or Trump?
The sec apparently wasnt interested in Epstein, then again as markapoulos pointed out they werent interested in madoff either
No WSJ subscription, so I don't know if they address the issues of Acosta's story about his own involvement changing over time. He appears to have been pretty deceptive on that point.
Like Freder, I'm pretty mystified by the back-to-the-wall defense of Acosta by Trump's supporters. Has Acosta done anything to deserve Trump's support? I guess this falls into "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" territory, but that concept is about clinical calculation, not blood brotherhood.
Firing Acosta now would just be what Epstein's lawyers would want.
Please explain this statement. Because to me, it makes no sense at all. Why would firing Acosta (basically confirming that he seriously screwed up the prosecution) benefit Epstein (or his lawyers) in the least.
Unless your point is that Epstein's lawyers stand to make a shitload of money, and gain fame, from defending Epstein, I cannot follow your logic.
This doesn't seem like the kind of thing W would sweep under the rug
Unless it was an intelligence matter. It was 2007 wasn't it? The war on terror and all that.
No, Freder Frederson.
My statement fits the facts.
Your narrative notwithstanding.
Like Freder, I'm pretty mystified by the back-to-the-wall defense of Acosta by Trump's supporters.
I guess I'm wondering where you are seeing this.
Bob Boyd- that's true.
No, Henry, you are not confused.
We want a full accounting to take down the pimp and the johns.
The Leftist Collectivist effort to make this about Acosta gets in the way of justice.
Althouse is on one of her hot buttons, the casting couch victim meme. The woman is always a victim and the man is always an oppressor.
It's outrage-driven. That's why it's a hot button.
Try thinking of illegal without the outrage and see what seems right in the situation.
Welcome to the world of man-thinking.
Acosta didnt do this on his own, so one would have investigate all the way up to main justice, this doesn't happen in more serious matters like the va scandal
Parker is up on her high horse here, but the media give people a pass all the time for political reasons.
Let's have the whole story.
The WSJ article would be nice to read but I haven't been able to trick google into giving it to me. The WSJ hosted Dorothy Rabinowitz too. Maybe it's good in the same way. I.e., what the fuck is with this hysterical outrage?
AllenS— I get your point, and further to it, the fact that Pelosi demanded Acosta’s head should slow all of this down. Pelosi is not Trump’s friend.
Further, this is the same old play to get the Dem’s disastrous debate performance and subjects out of the public’s mind.
The woman is always a victim and the man is always an oppressor.
Epstein was having sex with 14 year old girls. Can we at least agree that is bad?
I was told Trump backs Acosta 100% and refuses to fire him.
Then, late last night, I saw the actual video clip of Trump talking about it. Guess who got snookered by fake news once again?
Me.
Paraphrasing Trump{
-It was our understanding the decisions surrounding Epstein were beyond Acosta's control.
-All I know is, he's a very good Labor Secretary.
-We're going to look at it. Very closely. We're going to get to the bottom of it, then make a decision.
Birkel said...
The Leftist Collectivist effort to make this about Acosta gets in the way of justice.
Acosta is a sideshow. Justice is a process.
A lot of conservatives questioned why Epstein wasn't fully prosecuted. Acosta is part of that story.
No, Henry, you are not confused.
We want a full accounting to take down the pimp and the johns.
And yet you are willing to give Acosta a pass on not pursuing the case. Bizarre.
The media and the ninnies who get their News from late-night comedians are desperate to make this about Trump/Acosta rather than Epstein/Clinton. Twenty six times in two years, Bill Clinton flew on the "Lolita Express". Raise your hand if you DON'T believe he was raping children on those "vacations".
Bah BS. This is old news. If you wanted a resignation he never should of been hired in the first place. This is nothing but the Dems looking at events and seeing how they can attack or demonize anyone on the other team. So much silence for so many years and no all the hand wringing and harping.
It is disgusting to think everyone ignored this for years and years and now they are not really after E they are looking to taint others. Sickening really.
Thank you, Browndog @ 8:30 AM
Let's say Acosta was told that Epstein was intelligence, foreign or domestic, and to lay off and work out some deal. What are the ethics of a US Attorney cooperating with, let's say, domestic intelligence to protect an important asset? Is that patriotic, or is it merely a dereliction of his constitutional duties as US Attorney? If it is both, should he still resign from a post to which he's been appointed by a president who apparently still supports him, over ethical violations in a prior position which could be ascribed to serving a "higher loyalty"? Or was Acosta's alleged protection of Epstein not only a dereliction of his duty, but also mere careerrism rather than patriotism?
Anyway, this story is one where questions make more sense than assertions. Rarely is there a story where buwaya's conventional warning more apt, that we are seeing but shadows on the wall of a cave.
Rhhardin at 8:24–Althouse has always dealt with the fact that the casting couch scenario involves a quid pro quo and the compliant starlet may well have gotten career advancement.
I would like to hear his side of it, but it really does look like he should step down.
Cyrus Vance should be radioactive too, at this point. But of course, as a Democrat fixer, he is not.
Trump isn’t exactly giving Acosta full throated support, either.
This is the third such matter, dsk, Weinstein and now Epstein, the first hired fmr?? Company men including thr God father of thr drone program
Twenty six times in two years, Bill Clinton flew on the "Lolita Express". Raise your hand if you DON'T believe he was raping children on those "vacations".
I do not see anyone defending Clinton. If this accusation is true, why are you defending the person who refused to prosecute and perhaps expose, in open court, even more powerful than Epstein?
Let's say Acosta was told that Epstein was intelligence, foreign or domestic, and to lay off and work out some deal.
So you believe being an "intelligence asset" allows someone to get away with child rape? At what point do you stop overlooking criminality?
Aren't you the same people who looked forward to Trump "draining the swamp"?
E Jean - now that's a person with credibility.
12 years ago, the establishments all around would have been horrified at the thought of having a former President of the United States tied to an affair like this.
Times have changed.
"I did not have sexual relations with that women, Mrs. Lewinski"
riiiiiight.
Let's say Acosta was told that Epstein was intelligence, foreign or domestic, and to lay off and work out some deal.
Then Acosta should be charged with obstructing justice if he went along with it, which he apparently did.
"Intelligence" is irrelevant unless you're a fan of, or part of, a deep and deeply dishonest state.
No one is proposing accusing Acosta of a crime.
I qualify for "no one".
Freder, no value judgment, just acknowledging that the "honeypot/spiderweb" theory of Epstein's operation is plausible, and that this type of operation is consistent with how intelligence agencies operate. It's an incredibly corrupt process because corrupting people is very easy and very effective at controlling them.
I haven't defended anyone. I am attacking the two most culpable, Epstein who is a known pedophile and Clinton who is a likely pedophile. I don't know Acosta from a hole in the wall, but I know an artificial feeding frenzy designed as a distraction when I see one.
“So you believe being an "intelligence asset" allows someone to get away with child rape? At what point do you stop overlooking criminality?”
Obviously the line is somewhere south of being an illegal alien. Just ask the families of the seven dead motorcyclists in Massachusetts last month.
But it’s not a matter of whether I believe it should, it’s more a question of “do I believe it does in practice.” and that answer is yes. We have seen it too many times. It’s like the old joke “Do you believe in baptism?” “Believe in it? I’ve seen it done!"
If you wanted a resignation he never should of been hired in the first place.
You'll find no argument from me on this point.
He should have never been confirmed. That is on the Senate.
Or maybe he should have never been nominated. That is on the president.
for a good defense of Acosta, see today's Wall Street Journal editorial page, and Holman Jenkins on the op-ed page.
the first question that has never been answered is, why is this being brought up now?
it seems there is not enough bad news about Trump, and so this will have to do.
I don’t mind going after govt officials with this sort of scandal. It’s just sad to me that it is so one sided when it happens. 3 decade conspiracy of silence, for one thing, on one guy. A forcible rapist whose main defense seems to be that nobody directly saw him rape Broaddrick.
And if you're wondering why the Obama DOJ did nothing about this supposed outrage for 8 years, there's a simple two-word answer: Kevin Jennings.
So you're telling me he gave Epstein the kind of deal (including immunizing co-conspirators) that's only ok when it's given to Hillary Clinton and her pals? He for sure should resign, then.
Just curious: did Acosta not have a boss back then? Did no one else have to sign off on this deal--a deal that's apparently so bad Acosta should resign his unrelated position a decade later and commit suicide or something? I guess it doesn't matter--Acosta is in his position because of Trump so the story angle is Trump Labor Sec was nice to a billionaire pedophile, see how bad Orange Man is!
When I Cntrl-F these articles for "Mike Cernovich" I keep getting no results. Baffling!
Still waiting to know what his real role was in the decision making.
hack D press not reputable.
In a similar way that Epstein's operation may have permitted powerful people to control other powerful people because of the threat of exposure, Acosta's complicity in the Epstein deal ensures his future cooperation as it dirties him up. It's all very dirty, but makes sense, and as a result it is difficult for me to summon moral outrage over Acosta's corruption. That's not a defense of Acosta, but his alleged villainy in this situation pales in comparison to what others appear to have done.
“If he was ordered to treat Epstein the way he did and what you're trying to say is he had no choice, that doesn't let him off the hook. He should have resigned.”
No offense but this is shockingly naive coming from an experienced and well-regarded attorney. Resigned? Really? And then what, gone to the press with his story of having been told by someone (who?) to cut a deal with Epstein because he had intelligence ties?
Also, US Attorneys are not the ones who cut these deals. In all likelihood what happened was the line assistants negotiated the deal with Epstein’s lawyers, and then the deal went up the chain for approvals. That’s how it works. Eventually it got to Acosta who was told why the deal was so lenient. It would be highly unusual and irregular for the US Attorney himself to insert himself in these negotiations and to reject a plea deal. By the time it comes to him it’s been approved or at least analyzed by several levels of bureaucracy.
I'm barely a 'Trump supporter' since I only support Trump compared to the Democrat/Media Party alternatives, and I am not an Acosta supporter. I'd be just as happy to see him fired. Whether it's for doing a crappy job at DOL or a previous crappy job in the Epstein case. But before I get too enthusiastic about firing Acosta I want to know if he really DID do a crappy job in the Epstein case. The Epstein case seems like a complete debacle, but I doubt that Acosta is the person mainly responsible for that outcome. Let's pull up all the rugs and find out what's underneath. If we learn than Acosta was a spineless mollusk who let a pedo off lightly due to wimpishness, then by all means make him walk the plank.
I strongly suspect the Acosta angle by itself is among the least important parts of this saga.
I'm open to the argument that as US Attorney he should have resigned if he felt signing off on the deal was wrong. I just don't expect that level of integrity from anyone who's risen in the political sphere to the heights which Accosta has achieved.
He became the dean of a law school subsequently
Jim Gust said...
the first question that has never been answered is, why is this being brought up now?
Uh, dude: This is being brought up now because Epstein was arrested on July 6, 2019 on sex-trafficking charges.
Judge Kenneth Marra is currently deciding whether the non-prosecution agreement that protected Epstein from the more serious charges [in 2008] should still stand.
This isn't complicated. Nor is it a conspiracy. It's an exercise in the slow legal process of justice.
Unfortunately for Acosta, questions about that 2008 plea deal come back to him.
Blogger BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
Still waiting to know what his real role was in the decision making.
hack D press not reputable.
Ask Acosta, he should be able to enlighten the situation
Acosta is "funny looking".
Blogger narciso said...
He became the dean of a law school subsequently
and chief Trump apologist and fervent defender.
Don't pretend to be retarded just because it's faster, Freder. Firing Acosta and making him the scapegoat means that Epstein doesn't have to drop dime on the many evil men who have used his services. That has a clear benefit to Epstein, and certainly for his clients. Assassinating a cabinet member is a lot harder than killing a former federal prosecutor: and for obvious reasons, the people involved in this are ready to kill everyone involved.
One massively irritating thing about the modern era is how many supposed professionals suddenly turn into naive schoolchildren when convenient. "How DARE a prosecutor take the side of the wealthy over the victims!" The Weinsteins and Epsteins of this world have showed a surprisingly complete ability to corrupt justice in New York and Washington, and merely flashing their Friend of Bill loyalty card has clearly been enough to silence many people. If federal prosecutors were as bound to the ethics of fiduciary duty as the average financial adviser, Acosta- and everyone approving his corrupt plea deal- would be doing time for conspiracy to obstruct justice, abuse of power, and misrepresentation. The alternative of turning up in Fort Macy Park with a self-inflicted gunshot wound is well understood by lawyers, and acknowledged by honest ones.
Personally, I'd be happy if the President took the opportunity to unilaterally throw Acosta into Guantanamo, and made clear that the people who think they've skated on the old statute of limitations for pedophilic sexual abuse are gravely mistaken. Doubtless there will be Republican pressure on him to scapegoat Acosta, and of course legal professionals will be baffled when major Bush Pioneers start showing up alongside Friends of Bill in the Epstein ledgers. But here we are.
The woman is always a victim and the man is always an oppressor.
Epstein was having sex with 14 year old girls. Can we at least agree that is bad?
It's illegal and not up to the modern age standards. Historically it's not unusual.
I'm anti-outrage and anti-mob though. Guggenbuhl-Craig says that the mob outrage is what does the psychological damage to the victim, by denying the victim her own responsibility as something that controls the matter. Which would explain why a lower age worked historically. No outrage.
My own moral inclination is to worry about age difference rather than age, so that there aren't misunderstandings. But any bright line is fine, legally. Just not as controlling outrage.
Acosta isn't the issue here -- or more precisely, is a secondary issue.
The issue is Epstein, his crimes, his victims, his enablers and his allies.
Once that is handled, we can take a look at the lenient plea deal.
On the list of crimes, by the way, there aren't many worse than pretending to represent child victims against a pedophile, and actually deceiving them with force of law to protect that pedophile. The only reason not to bury what's left of Acosta's acid-scarred body under the jail is the expectation of him naming the superiors in the FBI that not only refused to investigate and incarcerate him, but probably ordered him to make the deal. Once that ball starts rolling, a lot of people are frantically going to incriminate everyone they know, just to be given the chance to jump from a balcony. Far kinder and quicker than being tortured to death by inmates with more morality and sensitivity than the average Clinton ally, which is most inmates.
Cutting off the pedo supply should be done similarly to cutting off the drug supply. Jailing kingpins has not affected the supply of drugs one iota, because the lure of money will always attract scumbags ready to buy. Instead, cut off the demand: Singapore does this to all drug users, and by coincidence their drug problem is non-existent.
"Whataboutism as a defense is all those in his corner have. Talking about Clinton does not change Acosta's role here."
"Whataboutism" is actually a great defense. If you didn't care then, you don't really care now. Full stop.
Why is Barr supposed to recuse himself?
Somewhere I read that Acosta was told to leave Epstein alone because he was an intelligence asset. I need to find that article. It may be total bunk, but someone wrote it and it was published.
Inga announced that bit of nonsense here a couple of days ago.., Maybe TPM or some other authoritative source,
Today, the Democrats are perfectly willing to throw Clinton under the bus if they see a way to cause Trump some collateral damage.
Trump should have fired Acosta long ago because he’s a terrible Secretary of Labor. His primary goal has been to appease the unions and their allies in Congress, rather than pushing Trump’s deregulatory agenda.
Yes, Paul Miringoff, who has never Trump tendencies has been one this for the past year, Acosta seems to be courting the left for some reason. He should have been gone a year ago or never appointed.
Yes but there was the stampede about Puzder (must do something) he would have followed through with the maga agenda.
Why is Barr supposed to recuse himself?
Because he worked for one of the law firms that defended Epstein.
Mueller worked for the firm that represented Deutsch bank, that didnt stop him from investigating that matter.
9:07 BAQG
That makes sense. But the left want a scalp and they need to paint epsteisn crimes as if they are all on turmp.
Aren't you the same people who looked forward to Trump "draining the swamp"?<
Yup and Acosta needs to go along with 10,000 Labor DEpt employees,.
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
Why is Barr supposed to recuse himself?
Because he worked for one of the law firms that defended Epstein.
NO Because he is about to nail a whole conspiracy that tried a coup d'etat.
Half right, Freder. Agree about Acosta.
We want a full accounting to take down the pimp and the johns. The Leftist Collectivist effort to make this about Acosta gets in the way of justice.
Freder and Howard seem to be more focused on smearing Trump and obscuring bill Clinton's role than they are in taking down the guilty.
This lack of intellectual honesty has become the hallmark of the Left.
Firing Acosta and making him the scapegoat means that Epstein doesn't have to drop dime on the many evil men who have used his services.
What? That logic is ... murky.
Epstein was just arrested. If he talks it will be to those prosecutors and it will because of the charges they have against him. Acosta has nothing at all to do with Epstein's current predicament.
All of what is being said about Acosta's behavior in the Epstein case appears to be true. It does not reflect well on the man in his role in that case. Trump would be wise to boot him. It would make the distraction go away and he'd be able to appoint someone new, and presumably more effective, in Acosta's current position.
P.S. Proving I'm not a robot has been a lengthy exercise lately. Maybe I am a robot?
Trump being anti-union will win him no votes. He also needs to win Penn, Mich, Ohio, and WV. Being anti-union is a good way to lose those states. The rich lawyers at Powerline were all Anti_Trump in 2016. If IRC.
The one thing that is clear, is that Americans are progressively intolerant of warlock trials (e.g. trial by press). His boss deems him viable, so there will be due process. He is not a baby. He will not be planned.
Stevew - the captcha is a PITA on my iPad on Safari, and barely intrudes at all on my laptop on Chrome. Typical Silicon Valley harassment of users of competing products.
Blogger Henry said...
Acosta has nothing at all to do with Epstein's current predicament.
7/10/19, 9:32 AM
Your confidence is inspiring. More than a few people have noted that the Epstein arrest comes days after Mike Cernovich got a judge to order the Epstein case files unsealed. Nailing Epstein on child porn and sex-trafficking charges is very small beer: at minimum, he needs to testify to the corruption in the FBI that got him such a remarkably un-scrutinized deal. What I want is for him to testify to the real origins of his fortune, which probably involves a massive blackmail network, and expose the billionaires ensnared by it. It's too much to hope for that the men that originally set up network would face justice, but at that point you might be looking at thermonuclear war, so we'll have to see.
I can't stress enough that the blackpiller notion of the left being ready to throw Clinton over the side is entirely wrongheaded. First of all, Billy Boy is not known for his honorable self-sacrifice. I think he'd burn the world to avoid jail time. Even if others wanted to make a decision for him, I've met his Secret Service guards. Quite a few are fanatically loyal to him, but then killing an ex-President without declaring a war on him is EXTREMELY hard. On the off-hand chance Clinton is pushed, take the very minor example of Dan Wexner. Donated $250K to the Mitt Romney campaign, multi-millions to the Clintons- and gave Epstein a house in NYC, along with the privilege of managing Wexner's money. Owns L Brands, aka Victoria's Secret. If people start tugging too hard on that thread, the whole sweater will unravel.
The left is trying to scream about Trump in a last-ditch Hail Mary smear, but it's not going to work. Heads will be piked.
There seems to be a whole lotta newly minted moralists on the left that were AWOL on this issue for years. What's changed? All of this information has been public for over a decade.
I have no interest in defending Acosta, but feel that the media making him the focus takes heat off others. Why didn't the NY office prosecute years ago -why now. Why did the judge sign off on the plea deal. Which of Acosta's supervisors okayed this. Where are the calls for Manhattan DA Vance to step down after his office acted as Epstein's personal attorney advocating for his sex offender status to be reclassified to a category with less restrictions. Would like to hear from the Judge who denied Vance's request - was she subjected to any pressure or fallout.
Freder and Howard seem to be more focused on smearing Trump and obscuring bill Clinton's role than they are in taking down the guilty. This lack of intellectual honesty has become the hallmark of the Left.
Yup. AceOfSpades notes that Epstein's wiki profile has been edited dozens of times in a 4 hour window to memory hole any links between Epstein and Bill Clinton.
Blogger Original Mike said...
Why is Barr supposed to recuse himself?
Barr and his Daddy are known Epstein associates
“I’m recused from that matter because one of the law firms that represented Epstein long ago was a firm I subsequently joined for a period of time,” Barr told reporters Monday."
“Due to his prior association with Kirkland and Ellis, the Attorney General has and will remain recused from any retrospective review of the resolution of the earlier [Southern District of Florida] matter,” the Justice Department official told CNBC on Tuesday."
"Little noted was that William Barr's Justice Dept a week ago upheld Jeffrey Epstein's secret wrist-slap 2007 Florida plea deal, engineered by fellow Trump cabinet member Alex Acosta."
"Figliuzzi cited press reports that Barr’s father, while serving as headmaster of the exclusive Dalton private school in Manhattan in the 1970s, had hired a 20-something Epstein to teach math despite Epstein not having a college degree."
I've met his Secret Service guards. Quite a few are fanatically loyal to him
That's interesting. Why? Do you think it's his charisma or personality? Or (I've heard) that he treats his staff very well. Treats them like close friends. Bros.
Again, just curious, by why the fuck did FL not bring tons of felony charges against Epstein at the time? Why didn't NY, until now?
You want Acosta gone for not doing enough and making a shitty deal? Ok. Let's also hear some names of people in law enforcement in FL and NY who somehow did even less.
Were these not mostly state crimes to begin with? Seems like part of the problem Acosta's team would have had was prosecuting these federally. Seems like a big part of the problem was getting cooperating witnesses--sounds like a lot of the girls involved understandably took pretty strong actions to avoid having to testify.
But hey, I'm sure that's all nuance and it sounds like nice centrist people like Professor Althouse have already made up their minds--Acosta bad, has to go. Case closed!
You people live inside your own cloistered world of fantasy supported by Dunning-Krueger.
I've repeatedly said Bill and Hillary should be locked up. I fervently hope this goes down sooner to help the Democrat Party get separation from these grifting scumballs responsible for the failed presidential abortion of Donald Trump
Acosta is definitely part of the scandal and to some extent culpable. But I don't see how he's the most scandalous or culpable player....This whole story stinks. Why now is it getting so much media attention, or rather why was the sweetheart deal not such a big story ten years ago? I wonder if we'll ever know the whole story. Didn't the FBI cover for some murders in Boston. That's not a big story. Is this a worse scandal?
Blogger stevew said... P.S. Proving I'm not a robot has been a lengthy exercise lately. Maybe I am a robot?
Just skip the step
He also needs to win Penn, Mich, Ohio, and WV. Being anti-union is a good way to lose those states.
I disagree. Recent legislation prohibiting unions from forcing workers to contribute dues lost them around 90% of those funds. Union support fades when it become voluntary.
The rich lawyers at Powerline were all Anti_Trump in 2016. If IRC.
They're part of the Establishment Wing. One step from being Never Trumpers. With the exception of Paul Mirengoff who already cucks with David French. He's constantly inserting his TDS into articles like soccer that have nothing to do with politics.
And they aren't really conservative. They will write 500 word essays lamenting the deplatforming of RINOs, but if you criticize Paul for basking in his NeverTrump syndrome, they will ban you in a heartbeat, as they did to me. They are hypocrites re free speech. And I've been a loyal reader from the day they picked up Buckhead's (at Free Republic) fisking of Dan Rather Memo.
Why is Barr supposed to recuse himself? Because he worked for one of the law firms that defended Epstein.
Freder,
Do you have timeline for that?
Do you know if Barr had ANY connection to the work done by other lawyers?
In a world with few degrees of separation, everyone would have to recuse themselves from every matter.
"Just skip the step"
I didn't think that was an option!
Rather than experiencing different levels of catcha olympics on different computers and browsers, as Phil mentioned, mine seems to vary based on the network I'm connecting through.
Barr and his Daddy are known Epstein associates
Howard,
You seem to relish the role of smear merchant. Was Joe Mccarthy your role model?
Tell. us how Barr Jr. is an "associate". Barr Sr. hired Epstein for a teaching job how many decades ago?
You seem pitifully desperate.
Why not shut down the Labor Department; problem solved.
Blogger Fen said...
That's interesting. Why? Do you think it's his charisma or personality? Or (I've heard) that he treats his staff very well. Treats them like close friends. Bros.
7/10/19, 10:01 AM
Charisma, personality, perks, and now the weight of two decades of history for some of them. Whatever his flaws, Bill Clinton has an eidetic capacity for names and a huge ability to engender loyalty. Some left the Secret Service entirely to become his personal bodyguards. Even if President Trump has Clinton's blackmail pictures, which I now think is quite likely, arresting him is going to require a declaration of war, and an army ready to serve.
Equally interesting is the fact the same agents were at best lukewarm about working for George W- and Hillary. Bill must give them chocolate MILK for agents to serve on her detail. Nonetheless, anyone thinking that Hillary can knock off Bill, in any capacity, are out of their minds. Her own guards will push her from a balcony like Jezebel first, and Bill Clinton is obviously smart enough not to sleep in her bed.
“The story is not Acosta. The story is the guys and gals who took part in this.”
Be careful, some of the guys and gals might be some of your own.
My first thought when I heard about Epstein being arrested?
It's finally over.
Hillary's definitely decided not to run.
THAT'S how much I think this is about Acosta.
There is zero evidence anybody on the Left cares about getting to the absolute bottom of this case.
The Acosta distraction is a tell.
Let's get after all of the johns - exact and every one.
One pump is in custody.
Let's get the others under the law.
Who are the worse criminals?
The Left: Give is Barabbas.
-- each and every one.
One pimp...
Inga...Allie Oop said...
Be careful, some of the guys and gals might be some of your own.
7/10/19, 10:23 AM
I assure you, they aren't. They are doubtless Republican, and I fully expect to see a considerable number of Bush/ Romney bots malfunctioning as they obviously fail to carry water for their billionaire masters. But that's not the same thing as being ours. We want those guys exposed: for that matter, I'd be quite find with Trump donors being caught in the crossfire. $1.2 billion versus $600 million? Hillary having as much money from large donors as Donald Trump's entire campaign committee.
Step right up. Many will enter, few will win.
“It’s the left that wants Trump to fire him so they can stop looking into the Epstein plea deal as “old news”.”
What a ridiculous notion. The left wants to know what the fuck happened and how did Acosta allow a known sex trafficker to practically walk free. The left wants to know who of the rich and powerful, be they on the left or the right, were involved and complicit. The left wants justice for the girls that were raped and abused and used in sex trafficking.
Royal ass Inga responds:
No! We want to know what happened with Acosta.
Deflection?
Stupidity?
Why choose?
“You people live inside your own cloistered world of fantasy supported by Dunning-Krueger.”
I blame it on Trump Cultism.
The Acosta distraction is a tell.
Exactly. The issue under investigation is pedophilia. Start with Epstein and progress from there to uncover the network. Epstein's fitness as prosecutor and head of labor can be judged separately. He should not be planned. The warlock trial (e.g. trial by press) should not serve to distract from the principal issue.
“One pimp...”
No. Sex trafficker and a sex trafficking network with possibly numerous co conspirators. The way some here try to minimize what happened to these girls is a tell. Yesterday Bruce Hayden tried to explain why old men prefer 14 year olds as if that excuses it.
What is wrong with you creeps?
Inga: I blame it on Trump Cultism.
Said the cultist in the Orange Man Bad robes...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा