Why is Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta in trouble?
Acosta is under fire for his 2008 prosecution of alleged Florida sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, which resulted in a plea deal in which Epstein pleaded guilty to two counts of prostitution. Acosta, then U.S. Attorney for Miami, struck a deal that critics say was far too generous to Epstein, given the 53-count federal indictment he faced and the nature of the charges, which included victims as young as 14 years old.
Why is a 10-year-old case suddenly in the news again?
Epstein, 66, was indicted in New York Monday on two charges related to sex trafficking of minors based on new evidence. The charges allege that he created a “vast network of underage victims for him to sexually exploit” and that he “intentionally sought out minors and knew that many of his victims were in fact under the age of 18.”
Epstein’s crimes gained renewed attention after the Miami Herald published a lengthy investigative piece on it last year that focused on precisely how he was able to receive a light sentence despite his alleged crimes.
What exactly was in Acosta’s deal?
Acosta’s deal was a federal non-prosecution agreement, in which the government technically does not actually file the charges but the defendant acknowledges the facts in the case and agrees to the penalty. That allows prosecutors to follow up and easily go to trial again if the defendant violates the terms of the deal. The deals are sealed and contents are typically not made public, even to the defendant’s victims. Epstein ultimately agreed to plead guilty to two prostitution charges and serve 13 months in county jail. Acosta said Wednesday he had actually sought 18 months, but the state court didn’t go along with that.
What was the problem with the deal?
In addition to being a light sentence given his crimes, the deal may have violated the Crime Victim’s Rights Act, which requires victims be consulted. Several alleged victims told the Miami Herald that they were left in the dark by Acosta’s office and didn’t even know that a deal had been struck until it was reported on the news.
Why did Acosta strike a deal with such a light sentence?
It depends on who you ask. The Miami Herald portrayed Acosta as “buckling” under the pressure to secure a plea deal because Epstein’s aggressively lawyers fought the Justice Department on matters large and small. It quoted an email from Acosta to Kenneth Starr, the former Whitewater prosecutor who was part of Epstein’s defense team, saying that “Some in our office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions to the agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind.’’
Acosta has defended his actions in the case, saying he got a good deal at the time. “With the evidence available more than a decade ago, federal prosecutors insisted that Epstein go to jail, register as a sex offender and put the world on notice that he was a sexual predator,” he tweeted Tuesday.
He said Wednesday that he wanted to avoid a trial to spare the victims, arguing they could have been faced a rough crossexamination from Epstein’s lawyers. “Some of the victims didn’t want any public notoriety,” he said, though he conceded that that wasn’t the case with all of them.
Why give Epstein a break at all?
Acosta’s critics have noted that Epstein was a man with a lot of resources and had powerful friends. He was a multimillionaire hedge fund manager and connected political donor who was known to hang with politicians, including Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. He was wealthy enough to afford a defense team that included celebrity talent like Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz.
There may have been another reason. Epstein was a key federal witness at about the same time in a case against a pair of Bear Stearns executives who were being charges of securities fraud. “It is not known what role, if any, the case played in Epstein’s plea negotiations,” the Miami Herald reported.
In his press conference Wednesday, Acosta said there was no outside pressure on him regarding the case.
Is Acosta in legal trouble himself?
Potentially. The Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility opened a investigation in the case in February at the urging of Democratic lawmakers. A Justice Department spokesman told the Washington Examiner the investigation is ongoing. Acosta has said he will cooperate fully and has faith that the DOJ investigation will reveal he acted appropriately.
That same month, a federal court in Florida ruled that the deal violated the Crime Victim’s Rights Act because of the “decision to conceal the existence of the [agreement] and mislead the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility.”
How much political trouble is Acosta in?
Numerous lawmakers have called for him to resign, but so far, they have all been Democrats. Republicans haven’t been rushing to defend him, however. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy declined to comment when asked Wednesday if Acosta should resign. “I don’t know enough to say,” McCarthy said.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell similarly declined to defend Acosta, telling reporters Tuesday: “As to Secretary Acosta’s continued service — He serves at the pleasure of the president. I’m inclined to defer to the president on that decision.”
Trump expressed sympathy for Acosta on Tuesday but said the White House was still looking into the matter. “I feel very badly, actually for Secretary Acosta because I’ve known him as being someone who works so hard, done such a good job. I feel badly about that whole situation,” he said. “But we’re going to be looking at that and looking at it very closely.”
“Our relationship is excellent,” Acosta said Wednesday but added that he serves at the pleasure of the president and would step aside if asked. He said his press conference Wednesday was not meant to “send a message to the president.”
