File 030962
Email Chain on Alex Acosta and Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal (File 030962)
PowerLine blog article forwarded among Trump administration figures discussing Alex Acosta's lenient prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and calls for his resignation from the Cabinet.
Summary
Steve Bannon forwards Robert Grusky's PowerLine blog post criticizing Alex Acosta's handling of the Epstein case as Secretary of Labor. The article details how Epstein received a 13-month sentence despite serious crimes, argues Acosta was unduly influenced by high-profile defense attorneys Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz from Kirkland and Ellis law firm, and documents calls for Acosta's ouster from conservative figures including Sen. Ben Sasse, Sen. Marco Rubio, and Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America. The analysis suggests Acosta's leniency was motivated by career advancement through accommodating powerful Washington figures.
From: J [jeevacation@gmail.com]Sent: 12/6/2018 10:26:10 PMTo: Steve BannonSubject: Re: Alex Acosta update I Power Linedo you know bill barr. CIA.On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 5:17 PM Steve Bannon < wrote:Begin forwarded message:From: Robert Grusky <Date: December 6, 2018 at 3:52:15 PM ESTTo: Steve Bannon <Subject: Alex Acosta update I Power Linehttps://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/12/alex-acosta-update.phpAlex Acosta updateEarlier this week, pedophile Jeffrey Epstein bought his way out of a lawsuit that wouldhave given some of his victims the opportunity to testify about his predatory and criminalconduct. Victims never got that opportunity when Epstein faced criminal charges, becauseAlex Acosta___then the lead prosecutor, now the Secretary of Labor___let Epstein off witha ridiculously lenient sentence. Despite having committed hideous sex offenses with dozensof minors, Epstein received a sentence of 13 months in jail, during which he was often freeduring the day.Epstein's decision to buy his out of the civil lawsuit, one that he had the nerve to initiate,benefits Acosta. The trial would have provided non-stop headlines, coupled with frequentreferences to the sweetheart deal Acosta gave him. As Randy Schultz puts it, the trial wouldhave been the occasion for a long overdue public shaming of Acosta. Now, he avoids thisconsequence.But this doesn't mean Acosta is out of the woods. He faces calls for his ouster from theTrump cabinet.Some calls are from the usual suspects. Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times haswritten a piece so obnoxious that it almost makes me want to see Acosta ride out the storm.But some conservatives are also advocating Acosta's departure. Concerned Women forAmerica is a stalwart conservative organization. It describes itself, accurately, as "focus[ed]HOUSE OVERSIGHT 030962on seven core issues: the family, the sanctity of human life, religious liberty, education,sexual exploitation, national sovereignty, and support for Israel." (Emphasis added)Its leader, Penny Nance, has called for Acosta's resignation. Noting that labor trafficking,which the Labor Department combats, is often conjoined with sex trafficking, Nance saysthat President Trump would not have nominated Acosta if reports fully describing Acosta'sconduct in the Epstein case had emerged earlier.Sen. Ben Sasse has also weighed in. He sent a letter to the Justice Department asking it toinvestigate its treatment of Epstein, including the fact that the plea deal ensured that victimsof the pervert would be denied the ability to comment on or object to the leniency of hissentence. Sasse is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Oversight,Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts.Sen. Marco Rubio, a longtime supporter of Acosta, says it would be "very troubling" ifpolitical influence led to a light sentence for Epstein. In Rubio's view, and that of everyrational person, Epstein "should have been in jail for a long time." Rubio added, however,that he will reserve judgment until he hears Acosta's side.That's fair. But so far, Acosta has provided no real defense for letting Epstein off so lightly.In public, at least, he is standing by his argument that the deal was a reasonable one and thatthis is old news.Previously, Acosta had a different defense. He cited "a year-long assault on the prosecutionand the prosecutors" by "an army of legal superstars" who represented Epstein. Thisallegedly included "defense counsel investigat[ing] individual prosecutors and theirfamilies, looking for personal peccadilloes that may provide a basis for disqualification." Inthis account, the deal was made to relieve the pressure, while still getting a conviction.Acosta could hardly assert this explanation____i.e., that he wimped out___while seeking acabinet position with the expectation of being appointed to more exalted jobs in the future.Nor is the explanation particularly plausible. Acosta isn't the first prosecutor to face ascorched earth defense. Ask Ken Starr about this.I don't doubt that Acosta regarded escaping the wrath of the defense team as a benefit ofreaching the plea deal. But I don't believe this was incentive enough to cause him, in effect,to throw the case.What was the true incentive? As I wrote when this story broke, I think it was the sameincentive that explains much of his conduct in public life___Acosta's desire toaccommodate people he thinks can help him down the road.Which people? Probably the lawyers at Kirkland and Ellis, where Acosta had once worked.Epstein enlisted Ken Starr* and Jay Lefkowitz, both of Kirkland, for his defense team.Acosta reportedly worked out the terms of his surrender with Lefkowitz, a formercolleague, at a meeting in a location far away from the prosecutor's office.HOUSE OVERSIGHT 030963The location of the meeting is itself suspicious. Prosecutors and other law enforcementofficials normally demand that those seeking a deal come to them.The fact that Acosta didn't is another sign___if one were needed___that this was acapitulation. It also casts further doubt on the claim that Acosta was capitulating for thepurpose of sparing the folks who worked with him in the prosecutor's office.The key point, though, is that Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz were power players inWashington___men who might help Acosta down the road.Readers will be quite familiar with Starr's background. Lefkowitz was director of cabinetaffairs and deputy executive secretary to the domestic policy council under PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush. Under President George W. Bush, Lefkowitz served as general counselin the Office of Management and Budget and later as deputy director of domestic policy atthe White House.Accommodating such influential figures must have seemed like a good career move.Having Starr and Lefkowitz on his side might help Acosta get a judgeship, a cabinetappointment, or a high-paying job back at Kirkland and Ellis.I'm speculating, of course. But my speculation finds support in Acosta's practice ofaccommodating the powerful.Much of that accommodation is of Democrats. Indeed, at the time Acosta was working inMiami as a U.S. Attorney, he had alienated some Republicans by such accommodationwhile at the Department of Justice. Some say he was on the verge of being fired whenAttorney General Alberto Gonzalez parachuted him to Miami. The Epstein settlement was away for Acosta to shore up his standing with some influential Republicans.Will Acosta be able to survive the current scandal? I don't have a clear sense about this yet.But President Trump, who isn't bashful about sacking cabinet members, may come tobelieve (if he doesn't now) that it's disadvantageous to have a cabinet member who sold outteenage victims of sexual abuse, especially when the sell-out benefited an ultra-wealthyserial offender.* Some on the left are trying to make something or the fact that Starr, who had investigatedBill Clinton in connection with sexual misconduct, later defended Epstein, a pervert. This issilly.In both instances, Starr was doing his job as a lawyer. Perverts are entitled to a defense andthere is nothing hypocritical about investigating Bill Clinton's misconduct when that wasStarr's job and later joining the team that was defending Jeffrey Epstein.Acosta, by contrast, was on the team seeking justice for Epstein and for his victims. Hegave up this quest for reasons that can't be defended.HOUSE OVERSIGHT 030964Sent from my iPadplease noteThe information contained in this communication isconfidential, may be attorney-client privileged, mayconstitute inside information, and is intended only forthe use of the addressee. It is the property ofJEEUnauthorized use, disclosure or copying of thiscommunication or any part thereof is strictly prohibitedand may be unlawful. If you have received thiscommunication in error, please notify us immediately byreturn e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, anddestroy this communication and all copies thereof,including all attachments. copyright -all rights reservedHOUSE OVERSIGHT 030965