File 030983

Images

Text

From: Steve Bannon
Sent: 12/6/2018 10:17:57 PM
To: jeffrey E. [jeevacation@gmail.com]
Subject: Fwd: Alex Acosta update I Power Line
Importance: High
Begin forwarded message:
From: Robert Grusky
Date: December 6, 2018 at 3:52:15 PM EST
To: Steve Bannon
Subject: Alex Acosta update I Power Line
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/12/alex-acosta-update.php
Alex Acosta update
Earlier this week, pedophile Jeffrey Epstein bought his way out of a lawsuit that would have
given some of his victims the opportunity to testify about his predatory and criminal
conduct. Victims never got that opportunity when Epstein faced criminal charges, because
Alex Acosta___then the lead prosecutor, now the Secretary of Labor___let Epstein off with
a ridiculously lenient sentence. Despite having committed hideous sex offenses with dozens
of minors, Epstein received a sentence of 13 months in jail, during which he was often free
during 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 frequent
references to the sweetheart deal Acosta gave him. As Randy Schultz puts it, the trial would
have been the occasion for a long overdue public shaming of Acosta. Now, he avoids this
consequence.
But this doesn't mean Acosta is out of the woods. He faces calls for his ouster from the
Trump cabinet.
Some calls are from the usual suspects. Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times has
written 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 for
America is a stalwart conservative organization. It describes itself, accurately, as "focus[ed]
on seven core issues: the family, the sanctity of human life, religious liberty, education,
sexual exploitation, national sovereignty, and support for Israel." (Emphasis added)
>
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 030983
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 says
that President Trump would not have nominated Acosta if reports fully describing Acosta's
conduct in the Epstein case had emerged earlier.
Sen. Ben Sasse has also weighed in. He sent a letter to the Justice Department asking it to
investigate its treatment of Epstein, including the fact that the plea deal ensured that victims
of the pervert would be denied the ability to comment on or object to the leniency of his
sentence. 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" if
political influence led to a light sentence for Epstein. In Rubio's view, and that of every
rational 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 that
this is old news.
Previously, Acosta had a different defense. He cited "a year-long assault on the prosecution
and the prosecutors" by "an army of legal superstars" who represented Epstein. This
allegedly included "defense counsel investigat[ing] individual prosecutors and their families,
looking for personal peccadilloes that may provide a basis for disqualification." In this
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 a
cabinet 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 a
scorched earth defense. Ask Ken Starr about this.
I don't doubt that Acosta regarded escaping the wrath of the defense team as a benefit of
reaching 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 same
incentive that explains much of his conduct in public life___Acosta's desire to accommodate
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 former colleague,
at a meeting in a location far away from the prosecutor's office.
The location of the meeting is itself suspicious. Prosecutors and other law enforcement
officials normally demand that those seeking a deal come to them.
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 030984
The fact that Acosta didn't is another sign___if one were needed___that this was a
capitulation. It also casts further doubt on the claim that Acosta was capitulating for the
purpose 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 in
Washington___men who might help Acosta down the road.
Readers will be quite familiar with Starr's background. Lefkowitz was director of cabinet
affairs and deputy executive secretary to the domestic policy council under President George
H.W. Bush. Under President George W. Bush, Lefkowitz served as general counsel in the
Office of Management and Budget and later as deputy director of domestic policy at the
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 cabinet appointment, or
a high-paying job back at Kirkland and Ellis.
I'm speculating, of course. But my speculation finds support in Acosta's practice of
accommodating the powerful.
Much of that accommodation is of Democrats. Indeed, at the time Acosta was working in
Miami as a U.S. Attorney, he had alienated some Republicans by such accommodation
while at the Department of Justice. Some say he was on the verge of being fired when
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez parachuted him to Miami. The Epstein settlement was a
way 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 to
believe (if he doesn't now) that it's disadvantageous to have a cabinet member who sold out
teenage victims of sexual abuse, especially when the sell-out benefited an ultra-wealthy
serial offender.
* Some on the left are trying to make something or the fact that Starr, who had investigated
Bill Clinton in connection with sexual misconduct, later defended Epstein, a pervert. This is
silly.
In both instances, Starr was doing his job as a lawyer. Perverts are entitled to a defense and
there is nothing hypocritical about investigating Bill Clinton's misconduct when that was
Starr'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. He gave
up this quest for reasons that can't be defended.
Sent from my iPad
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 030985