Why Does Alex Acosta Still Have a Job?

The cabinet official’s connection to a shady deal for an alleged child molester:

03goldberg superJumboIt is the perverse good fortune of Alexander Acosta, Donald Trump’s secretary of labor, to be part of an administration so spectacularly corrupt that it’s simply impossible to give all its scandals the attention they deserve.

Last Wednesday, The Miami Herald published a blockbuster multipart exposé about how the justice system failed the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, a rich, politically connected financier who appears to have abused underage girls on a near-industrial scale. The investigation, more than a year in the making, described Epstein as running a sort of child molestation pyramid scheme, in which girls — some in middle school — would be recruited to give Epstein “massages” at his Palm Beach mansion, pressured into sex acts, then coerced into bringing him yet more girls. The Herald reported that Epstein was also suspected of trafficking girls from overseas.

What’s shocking is not just the lurid details and human devastation of his alleged crimes, but the way he was able to use his money to escape serious consequences, thanks in part to Acosta, then Miami’s top federal prosecutor. For reasons that are not entirely clear, Acosta took extraordinary measures to let Epstein — and, crucially, other unnamed people — off the hook.

The labor secretary, whose purview includes combating human trafficking, has done nothing so far to rebut The Herald’s reporting. (A spokesman for his department has referred reporters to his previous statements about the case.) It should end his career.…’

Via The New York Times

4 thoughts on “Why Does Alex Acosta Still Have a Job?

  1. Of course.
    Then again the belated GHWBush’s perpetual Mean Marine Fighting Machine Robert Mueller carries the luggage of his own pedophile porn producer David Asimov to “have had” sweet plea dealt. Perhaps the latter had more to do with the parallel pleadings on behalf of his son by a famous daddy and “Rendezvous with Rama ” author Issac Asimov.


  2. Not exactly clear what your assertion is; hope you can be more specific. In any case, I highly doubt that the Asimov plea deal had anything to do with his celebrity father. I don’t know much about this case (you obviously have some interest in it) but even a casual examination casts doubt. For one thing, Isaac Asimov died in 1992, whereas the case came to light in 1998. For another thing, the aspersions cast on Mueller for his action all appear to be from right wing nuts rather than more thoughtful sources. Finally, even someone whose knowledge of the inner workings of the Law extends no further than watching the occasional episode of ‘Law & Order’ on TV will recognize that there are numerous technical factors behind the decisions about prosecuting vs taking a plea deal, or how lenient the deal will be. Do you know what obstacles the prosecutor had in being confident that he could make a case guaranteed to gain a conviction?


  3. A riddle: What was I?
    I provided some “mental health” care during my early career and quite well according to my advisor Richard Rahe.
    I received firsthand experience as an altar boy, age 10, to the Rev. Benjamin Pierce, established pedophile priest, child abuser and assailant of the Greensburg Diocese, Seward PA Parrish.. So, I also know firsthand just what confidences a prosecutor, congressman, bishop, parents, police and school teachers require before the criminals are exposed……46 years later. Let alone ever brought to justice. I’m also open to a certain kindness that the system of responsible adults also failed Fr. Pierce when they had the opportunity to stop him 40+ years ago at the request of a 10 year old boy and his 12 year old friend.
    Late in my career, I served in court as a character witness, expert witness, defense counsel, prosecutor, jury and judge. And I was responsible for the physical and mental health evaluation of the man I found guilty at trial before that man was taken to prison.
    So, perhaps my point wasn’t well made on this your blog. However, the NY Times article no better answers the questions you pose of me. My assertion, again inadequately expressed, is that Robert Mueller’s despicably fair treatment of David Asimov deserves mention alongside the description of Alexander Acosta’s despicably gentle treatment of Jeffrey Epstein in the Times article.

    Thank you for the chance to reply and thank you for the effort you put into your blog.


Comments are closed.