Lawmakers and legal analysts were taken aback as former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta stumbled facing a withering congressional spotlight as he defended a 2008 plea deal that allowed convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to serve minimal jail time.
Acosta spoke to the House Oversight and Reform Committee, where he defended his “sweetheart plea deal” he offered to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Legal analyst Lisa Rubin pinpointed a specific exchange he had with Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), who hammered him about why he considered Epstein’s victims unreliable.
Speaking to MSNBC on Monday, legal analyst Lisa Rubin and host Nicolle Wallace both took issue with Acosta’s claim that “there were evidentiary issues” and problems with the witnesses in the Florida Epstein case, and that he couldn’t win a prosecution.
Wallace described it as “the final slander of these women.”
“The witnesses are victims of sexual assault from some of the most powerful men the planet has ever known,” she noted.
How is this even legal…
Dont forget that just a few years after this, he was given a cushy cabinet position in tne first Trump administration.
Some people are just above the law I guess
To me it just makes it seem like further proof that it was never just Epstein being protected by his friends. It was always if Epstein talked too many powerful people would go down with him.
When his case got so much public attention during Trump’s first term he had to be killed. They probably would have just given him another deal, but too many people would have noticed.
I kind of vaguely remember Trump being kind of shell shocked after he was killed. Trump was one of the people protected by killing him, but he definitely wasn’t the only one. The bank records (in particular the ones JP Morgan won’t release) seem like the most damning evidence that remains without Epstein’s own testimony
Epstein died in 2019 during Trump’s first term.
Sorry meant to type first, fixed it
Because it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.