2/17/17 This could be a problem OR this could be the result of a typical selection process OR it might turn out to be an unusually interesting pick by President Trump.
The Epstein case centered around child sex trafficking and pedophillia involving dozens of teen agers. In some quarters the plea bargain Acosta offered was reported as a sweetheart deal because Federal charges were dropped.
The bargain guaranteed Epstein's plea of guilty to Florida state charges of soliciting for prostitution and soliciting of a minor for prostitution, his serving jail time, his registry as a sex offender and compensation to the victims.
There are those who questioned the reasoning behind letting Jeffery Epstein, and by association with the details of the case, Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and even the "House of Bush" off the hook.
Politico reports:
"As the U.S. attorney for Southern Florida, Acosta agreed not to file any federal charges against the wealthy financier, Jeffrey Epstein, if he pled guilty to state charges involving soliciting prostitution and soliciting a minor for prostitution."
Epstein ultimately received an 18-month sentence in county jail and served about 13 months — treatment that provoked outrage from alleged victims in the case.
Soon after the deal was cut in 2008, two women filed suit claiming that the decision to forgo federal prosecution violated a federal law — the Crime Victims Rights Act — because they and other teenagers Epstein paid for sex were never adequately consulted about the plea deal or given an opportunity to object to it.
Acosta acknowledged to the media in 2011 that he came under extreme pressure from Epstein's high-powered defense team, which included legal heavyweights such as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, former Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr and Florida criminal defense attorney Roy Black.
Acosta said Epstein's defense mounted "a yearlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors." "I use the word assault intentionally, as the defense in this case was more aggressive than any which I, or the prosecutors in my office, had previously encountered," the former U.S. attorney wrote. He said his office stuck to its opening position in the case, but he also acknowledged that the ultimate punishment in the case may have been more lenient than Epstein deserved.
Acosta indicated he did not approve of cushy treatment Epstein appeared to have received during his jail stint. "The treatment that he received while in state custody undermined the purpose of a jail sentence," the former prosecutor wrote.
Acosta’s involvement in the saga could be personally or politically awkward for Trump, drawing fresh attention to his ties to Epstein — including the financier’s tenure as a member at Trump’s Palm Beach club, Mar-a-Lago
(How interesting that they managed to write an entire article about this and never once mention the fact that Bill Clinton's name was found on the plane passenger list over twenty times.)
In March of 2011 The Guardian reported:
"Alexander Acosta has written an extraordinary letter in which he claims that there was a “a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors”.
He says: “One member of the defence team warned me that the office’s excess zeal in forcing a good man to serve time in jail might be the subject of a book if we continued.”
Acosta alleges that Epstein’s lawyers “investigated individual prosecutors and their families”."
(I can only imagine the pressure coming from a case where the names Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton are implicated. )
Is Acosta Good or bad for the Labor Dept?
Washington Post reports:
"Acosta served as an assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s civil rights division under President George W. Bush and is a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida. He also previously served on the National Labor Relations Board and is now the dean of the law school at Florida International University. Acosta also served as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., when he was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
“He has had a tremendous career,” Trump said Thursday, adding that Acosta had “been through Senate confirmation three times.”
Acosta earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard College and received a law degree from Harvard Law School. He previously worked at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis and taught at the George Mason University Law School.
If confirmed, the Cuban American would be the first Hispanic member of Trump’s Cabinet.
Acosta received early support from some top Republicans. “He has an impressive work and academic background,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said in statement.
However, some of Acosta’s views may be at odds with Trump’s push to reduce regulations and rulemaking by agencies. In 2010, Acosta wrote an article for the Florida International University Law Review advocating that the National Labor Relations Board shift from a “pre-World War II quasi-judicial administrative agency model” to one in which it would issue rules. “Rulemaking is a better, more democratic, more stable, more transparent, and more modern path for quasi-legislative enactments,” he wrote.
Unlike Puzder, Acosta would come to the role with some public service experience. Unions and labor groups, who had been concerned that Puzder would put corporate interest before those of workers, cautiously applauded Trump’s move Thursday.
“Working people changed the game on this nomination,” Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, said in a statement. “In one day, we’ve gone from a fast-food CEO who routinely violates labor law to a public servant with experience enforcing it.”
But Trumka, consumer advocates and Democrats said that they still plan to vet Acosta thoroughly."
Recently, there have been multiple arrests of child sex traffickers nationwide and the Congressional appearance by Ashton Kutcher discussing his NPOs new application that helps locate kidnapped children has given considerable attention to the problem of child sex trafficking.
It makes me wonder. Is Trump sending a signal even if it is a secondary consideration? Or?
Excerpted articles and related items attached below->
Copyright 2017 aka Safari Woman all rights not otherwise assigned are reserved other copyrights may apply.
'It makes me wonder. Is Trump sending a signal even if it is a secondary consideration? Or?'
No doubt like you I hope it is a signal that Trump will be going after these child abusers. But until we here from him that's where we are..... left to wonder.
I sent you a link this morning that deals with this. No source so I didn't post it but it made sense to me.