IT IS TIME FOR ACOSTA TO RESIGN

With the ruling of Judge Kenneth A. Marra of Federal District Court in West Palm Beach on the obscene plea deal with Jeffrey E. Epstein, it is time for Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta to resign. Marra found, as many of us have long argued, that the deal cut by Acosta violated federal law and allowed the infamous financier to get a disgracefully low sentence. Many of us objected to his nomination by President Donald Trump and condemned the Senate for confirming him. It is now time for him to resign.

I have previously written about the disgraceful sweetheart deal given to accused serial pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The deal was struck by Acosta not only succeeded in protecting Epstein from serious jail time but protected a host of high-profile friends including Bill Clinton who were regulars at his infamous island resort. Epstein ran the notorious “Lolita Express” where he took friends like Bill Clinton by plane to his private estate on the Caribbean island of Little Saint James with young girls who allegedly were used as prostitutes.  Epstein was known for his preference for young women and powerful figures like Clinton were repeat guests.

Despite a strong case for prosecution, Epstein’s lawyers, including Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr, were able to secure a ridiculous deal with prosecutors. He was accused of abusing more than forty minor girls (with many between the ages of 13 and 17).  Instead of being held accountable, he was allowed to plead guilty to a Florida state charge of felony solicitation of underage girls in 2008 and served a 13-month jail sentence.  Moreover, to my lasting surprise, the Senate approved the man who cut that disgraceful deal, former Miami U.S. attorney Alexander Acosta, as labor secretary.  The Senate did not seem to care that Acosta betrayed these victims and protected a serial abuser.  In other words, everyone was protected–-The powerful Johns, Epstein, the prosecutors–just not the victims who were never consulted before Epstein got his sweetheart deal.

The secret agreement cut by Acosta violated the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Theoretically, that could undo the deal but it is unlikely. Acosta fixed it to guarantee that neither Epstein nor his powerful friends would face true justice.

Or course, after cutting this ridiculous plea deal, Acosta’s career did not suffer. To the contrary, he flourished and even ended up with a cabinet position.

I am usually inclined to treat bad decisions as lapses in judgment that can be overcome. However, this deal is different. From the start, it was highly suspicious and secret. Acosta hid the details from the victims as well as the public. It made a lot of powerful people breathe easier but did great injustice to the victims. It was not just a bad decision. It was a mockery of justice.

It is now time for Acosta to be held accountable for guaranteeing that Acosta and his powerful friends were not held accountable. It is time for him to resign.

Here is the opinion.

If Acosta does not do the right thing, it should be attached to a note from President Trump asking for Acosta’s resignation.

221 thoughts on “IT IS TIME FOR ACOSTA TO RESIGN”

  1. Are girls being held there against their will? Were they kidnapped and taken to the island? I haven’t heard those details……….maybe I wasn’t paying attention.

    1. The allegation is they were of minority age used for sex. WTF difference does it make if they were kidnapped or traveled of their own free will?

      1. Olly……….The difference is you have a choice if it is of your own free will. Thirteen year old girls know the difference between right and wrong. But if they were forced against their will, that’s another matter. That’s the F*** difference, Olly.

        1. Your opinion is rejected by anyone concerned with human trafficking. On the bright side, the traffickers appreciate your passionate support.

          Sex trafficking is a form of modern-day slavery in which individuals perform commercial sex through the use of force, fraud, or coercion. Minors under the age of 18 engaging in commercial sex are considered to be victims of human trafficking, regardless of the use of force, fraud, or coercion.

          Sex traffickers frequently target victims and then use violence, threats, lies, false promises, debt bondage, or other forms of control and manipulation to keep victims involved in the sex industry for their own profit.

          Sex trafficking exists within diverse and unique sets of venues and businesses including fake massage businesses, escort services, residential brothels, in public on city streets and in truck stops, strip clubs, hostess clubs, hotels and motels, and elsewhere.
          https://humantraffickinghotline.org/type-trafficking/sex-trafficking

          https://sharedhope.org/the-problem/what-is-sex-trafficking/

          Sex traffickers use threats, manipulation, lies, debt bondage, and other forms of coercion to compel adults and children to engage in commercial sex acts against their will. Under U.S. law, any minor under the age of 18 years induced into commercial sex is a victim of sex trafficking — regardless of whether or not the trafficker used force, fraud, or coercion.

          The situations that sex trafficking victims face vary dramatically. Many victims become romantically involved with someone who then forces or manipulates them into prostitution. Others are lured in with false promises of a job, such as modeling or dancing. Some are forced to sell sex by their parents or other family members. They may be involved in a trafficking situation for a few days or weeks, or may remain in the same trafficking situation for years.
          https://polarisproject.org/human-trafficking/sex-trafficking

          1. observe that in the recent case of the massage shops in Florida that were monitored leading to charges against Robert Kraft, the prosecutors keep talking about “human trafficking” on TV but they have not filed a single “human trafficking” charge, just solicitation, and perhaps, they will file, prostitution charges, and you can be sure they are threatening them.

            Why no HT charges?
            Because no evidence that’s why.
            They need cooperating witnesses and they won’t have any. So they blab about the problem and it’s all innuendo and at the end of the day just another bust of some foreigners that provides cover for a multi million dollar asset forfeiture.

            But compare to the old case against Epstein. Cooperating witnesses and victims, and yet a weak sentence. And I don’t know– did they ever seize and forfeit his airplane or private island?

            “Human trafficking” is a real problem and Epstein proves it. But, the ongoing nationwide cat and mouse game against massage parlors with 40 and 50 some year olds possibly, sometimes, giving handjobs, happily so for decent tips, is not “human trafficking” whatsoever. The persecution of free and willing sex workers- a not serious problem if a problem at all– obscures solutions to the serious problem of pimps that compel underage girls into sex.

        2. Your opinion is rejected by anyone concerned with human trafficking. On the bright side, the traffickers appreciate your passionate support.

          Sex trafficking is a form of modern-day slavery in which individuals perform commercial sex through the use of force, fraud, or coercion. Minors under the age of 18 engaging in commercial sex are considered to be victims of human trafficking, regardless of the use of force, fraud, or coercion.

          Sex traffickers frequently target victims and then use violence, threats, lies, false promises, debt bondage, or other forms of control and manipulation to keep victims involved in the sex industry for their own profit.

          Sex trafficking exists within diverse and unique sets of venues and businesses including fake massage businesses, escort services, residential brothels, in public on city streets and in truck stops, strip clubs, hostess clubs, hotels and motels, and elsewhere.
          https://humantraffickinghotline.org/type-trafficking/sex-trafficking

          Sex traffickers use threats, manipulation, lies, debt bondage, and other forms of coercion to compel adults and children to engage in commercial sex acts against their will. Under U.S. law, any minor under the age of 18 years induced into commercial sex is a victim of sex trafficking — regardless of whether or not the trafficker used force, fraud, or coercion.

          The situations that sex trafficking victims face vary dramatically. Many victims become romantically involved with someone who then forces or manipulates them into prostitution. Others are lured in with false promises of a job, such as modeling or dancing. Some are forced to sell sex by their parents or other family members. They may be involved in a trafficking situation for a few days or weeks, or may remain in the same trafficking situation for years.
          https://polarisproject.org/human-trafficking/sex-trafficking

        3. Your opinion is rejected by anyone concerned with human trafficking. On the bright side, the traffickers appreciate your passionate support.

          Sex trafficking is a form of modern-day slavery in which individuals perform commercial sex through the use of force, fraud, or coercion. Minors under the age of 18 engaging in commercial sex are considered to be victims of human trafficking, regardless of the use of force, fraud, or coercion.

          Sex traffickers frequently target victims and then use violence, threats, lies, false promises, debt bondage, or other forms of control and manipulation to keep victims involved in the sex industry for their own profit.

          Sex trafficking exists within diverse and unique sets of venues and businesses including fake massage businesses, escort services, residential brothels, in public on city streets and in truck stops, strip clubs, hostess clubs, hotels and motels, and elsewhere.
          https://humantraffickinghotline.org/type-trafficking/sex-trafficking

          1. Olly…….no need to be mean-spirited. That’s unnecessary. And I won’t be mean and ask about sailors and the ages of prostitutes in every port.
            If Epstein’s case was true sex trafficking then that answers my question about the girls being forced against their wills. That was all I was asking. As far as their ages…….teenage girls are known to be less than honest about how old they are.
            Thank you for your time.

        4. Sex traffickers use threats, manipulation, lies, debt bondage, and other forms of coercion to compel adults and children to engage in commercial sex acts against their will. Under U.S. law, any minor under the age of 18 years induced into commercial sex is a victim of sex trafficking — regardless of whether or not the trafficker used force, fraud, or coercion.

          The situations that sex trafficking victims face vary dramatically. Many victims become romantically involved with someone who then forces or manipulates them into prostitution. Others are lured in with false promises of a job, such as modeling or dancing. Some are forced to sell sex by their parents or other family members. They may be involved in a trafficking situation for a few days or weeks, or may remain in the same trafficking situation for years.
          https://polarisproject.org/human-trafficking/sex-trafficking

          1. Olly I have to tell you. I have studied this specific subject for years. It sounds horrible what Epstein did! and nobody can defend pimping out minors. And it surely happens.

            But the Robert Kraft arrest brings to light a different aspect of the HT issue. The fact that a lot of it is just hype and government propaganda to gloss over the ongoing persecution of sex work.

            that Polaris project report especially is BULL. It is mostly aimed at 2 things. 1) online advertising of massage and potentially sex related escort services via Craigslist and others, which don’t allow it anymore due to FOSTA and SESTA, which is to say, that Polaris report won that objective, so now it’s on to the next thing, going after 2) the phenomenon of the Chinese massage parlor, a business model that has existed here since the 50s when a lot of Koreans came after the war and opened them, but having been mostly taken over and expanded by the current influx of Chinese migrants the past decades, spread around the US in huge numbers.

            It is rumored that these are often places where people can get manual sexual stimulation ie handjobs and surely that is often true. Not always. Sometimes. Who knows. They are almost always licensed workers. When arrests come they usually end up, after all the tv cameras clear out, with some misdemeanor prostitution charges and hardly ever any HT charges.

            A lot of people use these shops for lawful massage. Most customers are men but most men get their hair cut in the same barber shops too. Some businesses do cater to different genders. …. but feminsts don’t like it! Nor do extreme religious.

            So there must be something nefarious! And the myth of a national plague of sex trafficking in middle aged women was born. The notion is that middle aged Chinese women have to be “tricked” or “Enslaved” to take jobs in the US, once they have come here, making like 10 times what they could ever expect to make in China, doing work that is pretty safe and not really all that hard. …. don’t believe the hype.

            https://reason.com/blog/2018/08/31/national-john-stings-net-no-sex-traffick

            “National Sex Trafficking Crackdown’ Nets Zero Sex Traffickers: Reason Roundup
            Plus: Another one of NYU professor Avital Ronell’s teaching assistants talks, and Tucker Carlson goes after Amazon.
            Elizabeth Nolan Brown|Aug. 31, 2018 9:33 am

            Last week concluded the latest “National Johns Suppression Initiative,” an appropriately draconian name for a coordinated cross-country targeting of sex workers and their customers. This year’s stings netted “hundreds of would-be sex buyers,” the Chicago Tribune reports, “as well as a half-dozen alleged pimps.”

            The Tribune headline describes it a “national sex trafficking crackdown.” But let’s do the math from the figures it gives us:

            473 people arrested for attempting to pay for sexual activity
            6 people arrested for pimping (i.e., profiting off of prostitution)
            0 people arrested for sex trafficking
            This “national sex trafficking operation” has a zero percent success rate if the goal is, you know, actually catching sex traffickers. Even counting the six alleged pimps, these arrests make up less than 1.3 percent of the total arrests reported (and that’s without including sex workers arrested in the course of these stings).

            The focus for police here is allegedly on “rescuing children.” But either there’s drastically fewer minors in need of rescuing than they say or they’ve barely bothered to make a dent in the problem, instead squandering resources, attention, and action on shaming adults who seek consensual commercial exchanges with other adults.

            In stings that spanned cities across the country for an entire month (July 25 to August 26), [just!] 11 teenagers were found to be working in prostitution….”

          1. Jay S, I see you posting but I note earlier you asked a question that seemed sincere but to answer that question required you to add additional information.

            Your question was: “What spending would you curtail, and why?”

            It was suggested that in order to answer it one had to first know “how much productivity and comfort of American citizens are you willing to give away?”

            You didn’t respond making your question disingenuous or perhaps you forgot. This is an essential part of critical thinking, **tradeoffs**, something you must consider every time you advance a plan of action.

            Maybe your question was more of a gotcha. If so then this response is a gotcha in return that is based on the real world and critical thinking.

            https://jonathanturley.org/2019/02/20/is-the-warren-tax-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-1827549

  2. GIRL SUCKED INTO EPSTEIN’S SEX RING..

    HAD BEEN A LOCKER ROOM ATTENDANT AT MAR-A-LAGO

    A woman who claims in a lawsuit that she was lured into a sex-trafficking ring run by billionaire Jeffrey Epstein contends that the depravity began at a Florida resort now known as the winter White House: Mar-a-Lago.

    Virginia Giuffre’s civil suit, scheduled to go to trial here later this month, threatens to expose new details of a long-running saga tying together President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, and other prominent figures, including Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz.

    Epstein, a well-connected Manhattan money manager and philanthropist, was once a regular at Mar-a-Lago and an active supporter of the Clinton Foundation—repeatedly lending his 727 jet to Clinton for trips overseas. Dershowitz defended Epstein amid an investigation into his involvement with underage girls more than a decade ago, and it was Acosta—then the U.S. attorney overseeing south Florida—who allowed Epstein’s case to be resolved in state court in 2008.

    The scandal has spawned a series of drawn-out civil suits, including Giuffre’s.

    Giuffre, formerly Roberts, claims she was 15 and working as a towel girl at Trump’s posh Palm Beach club when she was recruited nearly two decades ago into sexual slavery by socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, then Epstein’s girlfriend.

    A lawyer for Trump says the president was unaware of any wrongdoing by Epstein.

    The case is scheduled for a May 15 trial, but a final pretrial conference was abruptly canceled Thursday. The development raised suspicions that some type of settlement could be in the works.

    In recent months, the suit attracted the attention of pro-Trump blogger Mike Cernovich, who intervened in the case in an unsuccessful push to release a large volume of blacked-out court filings.

    “I want to know what’s really going on and we can’t get it,” Cernovich told POLITICO. “This is a big story. My people care.”

    Epstein pleaded guilty to two charges: solicitation of prostitution and soliciting a minor for prostitution. He served 13 months in a county jail and paid financial settlements to many of the roughly 40 women the FBI deemed to be his victims, including Giuffre.

    Giuffre asserts in her complaint that Maxwell, the sole defendant in the suit and the daughter of late publishing magnate Robert Maxwell, routinely recruited underaged girls for Epstein and was doing so when she approached the $9-an-hour locker room attendant at Mar-a-Lago in 1999 about giving massages to the wealthy investment banker.

    Edited from: “The One Weird Court Case Linking Trump, Clinton, And A Billionaire Pedophile”.

    POLITICO, 5/14/17

  3. Bill Clinton is mentioned three times in this piece as traveling with Epstein, but Trump’s excursions to Lolita Island aren’t mentioned at all. When you click on the NY Times piece cited by Peter Hill, it says that Clinton accompanied Epstein on a trip to Africa. Yet, Turley seems surprised that Trump would nominate the ignoramus “public servant” who let this turd get off with only 13 months in the graybar hotel. That, to me, isn’t surprising, but where are all of the “family values” Republicans? Why aren’t they standing up against Acosta allowing someone who puts his penis in children get off with such a light sentence? Where’s Mikey Pence, Mr. Family Values? Hypocrites all. Don’t hold your breath that anything will be done about it, either.

      1. Absurd,..
        – You realize, do you not, the advantages that propagandists and liars have when they are not restrained by cumbersome trivia like facts and accuracy?
        There is, of course, a downside to that; every now and then, they get called on it.
        But they usually bounce back quickly, with a tried and true tactic like mentioning “Trumpers” or Fox News”, or using some equally devastating “logic”.

    1. I think I posted a least one link a couple of weeks ago about the flight logs documenting the number of Bill Clinton’s trips on the Lolita Express.
      His numerous trips were covered extensively in the media after Epstein was convicted.
      There was no corresponding documentation showing Trump as a passenger on any trips to Lolita Isaland, but I mentioned then, and again just about an hour ago, that Epstein’s brother stated that Trump flew the Lolita Express once.
      So there is a reason why “Bill Clinton’s is mentioned three times in this piece as traveling with Epstein, but Trump’s exxcursions to Lolita Island aren’t mentioned at all.”
      When there is a good deal of actual documentation in the case of Clinton, and the absence of that documentation in Trump’s case, Clinton’s “excursions to Lolita Island” obviously are going to be more promently mentioned.
      Duh!
      I don’t think it was because the New York Times has a pro-Trump bias.

      1. Bill Clinton is OLD news. He is not the POTUS. No one cares what he did years ago. The thrust of Turley’s piece is Trump allowing Acosta to serve as Labor Secretary despite his failure to secure justice for those children who were raped. And, yes, there is evidence that Trump did go to Lolita Island. Trump is the President and nominated Acosta, and that’s what’s relevant today, not Bill Clinton.

        1. Just trying to follow your logic train here.

          Epstein has Lolita Island where underage girls are used for sex by Epstein and his guests.

          Clinton is documented to have been one of those guests on more than one occasion.

          Acosta prosecutes the case but negotiates a plea deal for Epstein that is horrible for the victims.

          Acosta is nominated and confirmed as President Trump’s labor secretary.

          I believe I have the basic facts correct.

          So how is it that today, Acosta is toxic because of the Epstein deal. Epstein is toxic because of Lolita Island. And Clinton is old news? If Clinton was old news, then that would make Epstein equally old news, and then of course the same for Acosta. They are either all relevant or none of them are relevant.

          1. And 173 men in Florida are being charged with allowing or asking middle aged Chinese women in massage facilties, to possibly touch their privates for an extra tip. Which the Florida police say is a huge human trafficking bust. Which it really isnt even though they ALWAYS say this now whenever they bust a Chinese massage parlor.

            And the Democrats, do they have any concern for sex workers or migrants in such instances? HELL NO! Kamala Harris was a big promoter of FOSTA and SESTA laws that made it virtually impossible for them to advertise online.

            https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/10/how-sex-trafficking-panic-gets-made

            https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/cindy-mccains-false-human-trafficking-claim-shows-hysteria-on-issue-11198400

            it’s now entered into HYSTERIA mode.

          2. Olly,…
            The lawyer who just got the favorable decision from Judge Marra stated that other U.S. Attorneys, who are not bound by the plea bargain deal, can now bring charges against Epstein and associates.
            I don’t know for sure if that claim is accurate, or what the statute of limitations is for the alleged offenses.
            But the resson that Epstein and frequent visitors to Lolita Island should be concerned is that the resurrection of this issue now refocuses the spotlight on the “frequent flyers”, and documented passengers, of the Lolita express.

    2. but where are all of the “family values” Republicans? Why aren’t they standing up against Acosta allowing someone who puts his penis in children get off with such a light sentence?

      Because unlike the Lefty charlatans pandering to their imbecilic constituents, they understand due process and won’t stoop to trying this in the court of public opinion.

      I’m certainly not surprised your ilk hasn’t learned that lesson yet.

      1. Records reveal 26 Trips for Bill Clinton to sex island and activity in a special room on the plane.

        I have read that part of the Acosta agreement included immunity for an unnamed co conspiritor. This case reeks of political interference.

        Anyone want place bets that Bill Clinton is or isn’t that co conspiritor pulling the strings?

  4. “Being that you are both morons”

    Fishwings, even with your deficient intellectual state you recognize that what you call a moron is far superior intellectually to you. That is OK. Even you have some abililty to use critical thinking skills even if done at a low level.

  5. So am I supposed to believe that Acosta did this all on his own and nobody at the DOJ knew what was happening? Seriously?

    1. IIRC, the Criminal Division handles only about 5% of the prosecutions in federal courts. The U.S. Attorneys handle the rest. The negotiations over the agreement were going on in September 2007 just as Alberto Gonzales was leaving office as Attorney-General. His successor was sworn into office in November. I’m wondering if an understanding of what Acosta and his minions were doing just fell through the cracks.

      1. Absurb,..
        I recently posted a link to an article that quoted a U.S. Attorney defending the prosecution and the “deal” with Epstein.
        I may retrieve that and post it again, along with the material dealing with the flight logs and documentation of the Bill Clinton trips.
        The thing is, that if it’s another week or two or three before there’s another column about Acosta/ Epstein, it’ll be as if I never presented those links, and we can start all over again as if this issue has never been covered.
        So we’ll have Hedda Hill’s all-cap headlines to rely on, and his stooges like Fishwing and LT anonymous nodding their heads in agreements.

      2. https://jonathanturley.org/2019/02/07/doj-agrees-to-investigate-epstein-deal-sort-of/
        Absurd,…
        I’m posting a link to JT’s earlier Feb.7 column on this topic.
        I’m not going to fish through all of the comments to find the most relevant points and links contained.
        But there is a link to the article on the U.S. Attorney’s comments on the Epstein prosecution/ plea deal.
        I also find that I’m rehashing some of the same issues with some of the same people who now seem to have absolutely no memory of the exchanges that they participated in about two weeks ago; that’s why I mentioned earlier that if JT writes a future follow-up column on this same issue in the near future, we can start this cycle of amnesia/ memory restoration all over again.

      3. You know in these cases the witnesses usually flake out and they go nowhere. Even the best cases are difficult. They may have wound it up for the usual proprietorial reasons. There’s an attempt to pin this on Trump which is preposterous.

        But he is constantly mentioning HT at the border, which is probably a misnomer. People smuggling and HT are different phenomena and different crimes. Related sometimes but not same thing. Nobody bothers much to sort that out. in this case Democrats are seizing on the HT hysteria and the perplexingly light sentence on Epstein to get after Trump. They are not really interested in any sort of supposed victims. For them expanding victim classes just means votes. It’s more of the same from them.

    2. Good point, RSA.

      If his bosses at DOJ weren’t on top of this, they should have been. Definitely worth investigating the settlement approval process, and figuring out how it failed. Or maybe it was approved?

      Of course the only way it will gain any traction if it can be used to discredit Trump, not Clinton.

  6. I’m not sure if after a plea that wouldn’t be double jeopardy. We all think the law is simple, but it really isn’t so I am not even sure which would be the correct interpretation.

  7. Too many factions had prominent members who raped children and slept with prostitutes and everyone is trying to keep this under wraps. Anybody who speaks out as to what happened likely will face persecution, including the child victims, and the major news outlets will probably be coerced into quashing the story.

    The entire affair is a major indictment of the political class of our country.

    1. When Bernie Sanders cant call Venezuela’s Ernesto Maduro a dictator, and Rep. Donna Shalala as a new Member of Congress serves as the pitbull to bite Bernie in the azz to state he will never be the nominee….. clearly they are in massive damage control mode and infighting is visceral.

      Good!

      “He is not going to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. He has demonstrated again that he does not understand this situation,” Rep. Donna Shalala,“
      https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/21/bernie-sanders-venezuela-maduro-1179636

      1. Estovir, what does this have to do with Jeffrey Epstein??????

        Again, your main role on this thread is to promptly change the subject.

        Are you incapable of ever sticking to one subject??

    2. https://www.yahoo.com/news/jeffrey-epsteins-society-friends-close-ranks-20110401-192956-548.html
      Darren,..
      – It isn’t just the political class; the linked article mentions just some of Epstein loyalists who stood by him even after his conviction.
      It’s not surprising that a billionare who throws lavish parties at his mansions would hobnob with a lot of famous, prominent people from different areas….e.g., entertainers, politicians, wealthy businessmen, etc.
      It’s a little surprising that Epstein was able to maintain at least some of those associations after he was disgraced.
      It reminded me of the support Roman Polanski got after committing a crime that involved drugging and raping a 13 year-old girl.
      But then, that was Hollywood, so the support for him was not as surprising.

      1. There was some sort of 10th planet influencing the disposition of this case. Someone needs to put Acosta and the line prosecutor under oath and make them answer some questions. The Criminal Division was at that time headed by a woman named Alice Fisher

    3. Please don’t conflate sexual abuse of children, with voluntary sex between adults. They are not the same thing.

  8. In 2002, Donald Trump Told New York Magazine:

    “I’VE KNOWN JEFF FOR FIFTEEN YEARS. TERRIFIC GUY”

    “HE LIKES BEAUTIFUL WOMEN AS MUCH AS I DO, AND MANY ARE ON THE YOUNGER SIDE”

    The following 6 paragraphs are from a ‘New York Magazine’ profile on Jeffrey Epstein that was published in 2002:

    Power on Wall Street has generally accrued to those who have made their open bids for it. Soros. Wasserstein. Kravis. Weill. The Sturm und Drang of their successes and failures has been played out in public. Epstein breaks the mold. Most everyone on the Street has heard of him, but nobody seems to know what the hell he is up to. Which is just the way he likes it.

    “My belief is that Jeff maintains some sort of money-management firm, though you won’t get a straight answer from him,” says one well-known investor. “He once told me he had 300 people working for him, and I’ve also heard that he manages Rockefeller money. But one never knows. It’s like looking at the Wizard of Oz — there may be less there than meets the eye.”

    Says another prominent Wall Streeter: “He is this mysterious, Gatsbyesque figure. He likes people to think that he is very rich, and he cultivates this air of aloofness. The whole thing is weird.”

    The wizard that meets the eye is spare and fit; with a long jaw and a carefully coiffed head of silver hair, he looks like a taller, younger Ralph Lauren. A raspy Brooklyn accent betrays his Coney Island origins. He spends an hour and fifteen minutes every day doing advanced yoga with his personal instructor, who travels with him wherever he goes. He is an enthusiastic member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.

    He dresses casually — jeans, open-necked shirts, and sneakers — and is rarely seen in a tie. Indeed, those close to him say the reason he quit his board seat at the Rockefeller Institute was that he hated wearing a suit. “It feels like a dress,” he told one friend.

    Epstein likes to tell people that he’s a loner, a man who’s never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

    Edited from: “Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman Of Mystery”

    NEW YORK MAGAZINE, 2002
    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    The New York Magazine profile was rather extensive. Back then Epstein was already a very rich money manager to billionaires. But at the time Epstein’s name was not well-known to most New Yorkers. The ‘New York Magazine’ profile was essentially introducing Epstein to its readers. And ‘yes’, the article noted Epstein’s friendship with Bill Clinton; hinting that their enjoyment of women might be a common bond.

    1. In 2002,

      Brock needs to cut your rates. The New York profiler and Trump had one thing in common at the time. They didn’t know about this, because, unlike BC, Trump wasn’t hanging out on Pedo Island.

      1. Tabby, the New York Magazine profile speaks for itself. At that time Trump referred to Epstein as a “terrific guy” he had known for 15 years. And Trump even added that Jeff liked women on the “younger side”. That pretty much says it all and more than likely explains how Acosta got to be Secretary of Labor.

        1. That pretty much says it all

          It doesn’t say anything at all, but Brock’s not paying you to parse people’s words fairly.

          Epstein was one of a boatload of people Trump crossed paths with in Manhattan society, including the Clintons.

        1. We don’t know that ” anonymous” was not hanging out with Epstein as house mother/ pimp to the underage girls, either.
          If people commenting here want to play that stupid game…”how do you know that he wasn’t”….then let’s play the game with the Mother Pimp anonymous.
          This Epstein issue has been covered in these columns before.
          I don’t expect people like Hedda Hill and the pimp anonymous to remember what was in the columns, comments, or even what they themselves may have written.
          Flight logs showed that Bill Clinton had flown on Epstein’s “Lolita Express ” about 25 times, twice as many times as previously revealed.
          Some of those same log also do not mention the presence of any Secret Service agents who would normally accompany Clinton.
          Epstein’s brother stated that Trump flew once on the Lolita Express; I noted in a comment here earlier this month that I didn’t find any flight logs to confirm that single flight Trump allegedly took.

            1. I see why you are anonymous in a sea of anonymouses, bobblehead.
              You just keep working up to the limits of your capacity, and bowl us over by either regurgitating what someone else said, or nodding your head like an entanced groupie.

      2. Absurd,…
        You need to understand that the HHHNN tabloid sometimes might need to scavenge back 17 years for part of a quote in big, splashy CAPITAL LETTERS.
        Hollywood Hill may have ambitions of being the 21st Century version of Hedda Hopper or Louella Parsons.
        The quote in capital letters that Hedda Hill posted neglected to include Trump’s words “IT IS EVEN SAID THAT” before quoting “he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many are on the younger side”.
        RE the words “IT IS EVEN SAID THAT”, omitted from the quote, guess why a propagandist/ gossip columnist would do something like that.

        1. Tom, you only know that “it is even said” was there because I INCLUDED IT in the article.

          Had I really been deceptive, I would have omitted that and not posted the article.

          Trump’s quotes here, and Acosta’s appointment as Labor Secretary are obviously a huge coincidence. But rather than accepting that, Tabby and Nash feel compelled to attack me. Like somehow it was totally uncool of me to dredge up that old article. Because Donald Trump is really a God-fearing Christian opposed to abortion. Or so he claims.

          1. Pete da Shiller “Had I really been deceptive”

            Nahhhhh. You deceptive? Yeah… youre like The NYT….really deceptive

            e.g.

            “When Layoffs Are Immoral“
            https://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/when-layoffs-are-immoral/

            vs

            “New York Times Editors Decry “Humiliating Process” Of Layoffs“
            https://deadline.com/2017/06/new-york-times-editors-decry-humiliating-layoffs-1202121627/

            Keep at it, Peter. Maybe youll have a metanoia and like Jussie Mullet blame your rants and shilling behaviors due to a plea for an increase in salary from David Brock. How is the old queen post heart attack? 😉

          2. I saw what Peter Schill prominently capititalized, and noticed what he left out in his Hedda Hill Headline to fit in with the distortion he sought.
            Not an uncommon tactic for Hollywood Hill and his farcical HHHNN propaganda outlet.

        1. but that would mean Trump knew everything about him before appointing Acosta.

          Or it could mean he was in arrears on his bills, or it could mean the security staff had their suspicions. Quit stealing bases.

          1. I can’t vouch for the source which is why I clearly said it was a rumor. While it appeared in an article, it was definitely not about unpaid bills.
            “According to an investigation by Radar, Trump was among dozens of renowned New Yorkers who knew Epstein socially but ostracized him after Palm Beach police uncovered the financiers sleazy double life,” adding that Trump “once barred child molester Jeffrey Epstein from his famed Mar-a-lago club after the presidential candidate caught him hitting on a young girl.”

        2. Does anyone know if this issue was brought up at all in Acosta’s confirmation hearings?.
          I didn’t follow the hearings, and my guess is that it would have made news, at the time of those hearings, if it had been brought up back then.

            1. Thanks, Olly. That’s odd, considering that Acosta was confirmed early in the Trump Administration and the plea deal and the issues and headlines we are NOW discussing have been well know for years.
              I’m not claiming that Acosta’s role in this us not a valid issue; I’m questioning the “why now?” part of this, when there’s been ample opportunities to hash the out years ago.

          1. It came up, but this was before the year-long expose published by the Miami Herald which brought much to light that had been hidden.

            ” When Trump nominated Acosta to become labor secretary in 2017, he was questioned about the Epstein case at the Senate confirmation hearing but argued that the plea deal had been necessary to ensure Epstein go to jail. “At the end of the day, based on the evidence, professionals within a prosecutor’s office decided that a plea that guarantees someone goes to jail, that guarantees he register [as a sex offender] generally, and guarantees other outcomes, is a good thing,’’ he said.”

            1. Enigma,..
              Given that Judge Marra just ruled that federal prosecutors broke the law in mishandling the Epstein prosecution….specifically by misleading and keeping alleged victims in the dark…we now have a wide open situation where those prosecutors will now find themselves as “defendants”…..even if they aren’t charged criminally, they’re going to be called upon to explain and defend the plea deal.
              The one prosecutor who I know defended the plea deal claimed that there were great difficulties in getting cooperating victims to come foreward and/ or testify.
              That is at odds with what Judge Marra just decided, so the impact of Marra’s decision, if it “sticks”, could be a lot more far-ranging than just involving Acosta.

              1. What will be unlikely to happen, is that all the rich clients will be exposed. I say re-open the investigation and let the cards fall publicly where they may, whether it be Clinton, Trump, Robert Kraft, Dershowitz, or whoever.

                1. enigma….Yeah, re-open that puppy . But first, re-open the Larry Sinclair/Barack Obama scandal of aught 8.
                  You know, the one that ended in Joe Biden being selected as Obama’s Vice Pres. because his son, Beau Biden, AG of Delaware, arrested Sinclair in DC on absolutely NO charges but hauled him to Delaware until the next news cycle????

                    1. Enigma…..Honeylamb, like it or not, that is the actual sequence of events.
                      Larry S was giving a speech at Natl Press Club, I believe………then Beau Biden(in Delaware) had him
                      arrested and held for several days in Delaware. Those were the days after Obama had won the primaries, and Hill had conceded.. and the media was in love with their new boy toy Barack. What did they care that Beau had no bona fide charges against Sinclair, and no jurisdiction? Then voila! His daddy Joe is chosen to be Obama’s running mate. Check it out for yourself.

                2. The problem with throwing the chips in the air and letting them land where they may is that in the process innocent persons reputations are destroyed, but what do you care?

                3. Kraft is accused of paying for massage and a handjob from a middle aged massage therapist, in a massage facility where the police had sneak and peak warrant to emplace video and audio recordings, and detained the workers, and yet have not filed a single HT charge.

                  Which suggests that in spite of their crowing about it in the press conferences, the prosecuters do not have any probably cause to file charges for HT with relationship to the workers who gave massages to Robert Kraft.

                  Will they admit it? of course not. they’re slandering all people who have ever worked in a Chinese owned or operated massage facility or visited one by implying they are all involved in HT.

                  Now if it was aimed at black Americans that would be a racist outrage.

                  But aim the slight at Chinese Americans, nobody complains. And people pile on!

                  1. Mr Kurtz – You keep saying the woman involved with Kraft was “middle aged.” This may be true, but where are you getting this? The two women arrested where their names were given were the owners. No information to my knowledge had been released about any of the ages of the other women. Do you have any information to support your claim? Repeating it over and over will not be considered documentation.

                    1. there are no charges filed against the workers that i am aware of. so we do not know the age of the workers. you are right about that. i do not know for sure.

                      I have studied hundreds of arrest stories about massage facilities over the years and never once have i seen a single story that alleged a chinese massage shop was employing a minor.

                      in those hundreds of stories over several years, i never recall seeing a 20 something charged, rarely 30 year olds, usually 40s and 50s, sometimes 60 year old workers.

                      i do suspect that if an underage worker was found, the prosecutors would be crowing about that loudly., i have read some instances of successful prosecutions of pimps for HT related to minors, and in those cases which involved minors not once have i ever seen a Chinese name.

                      I do not discount that there are horrible evil people out there pimping out minors. Sadly they seem to me, to usually have American names, and oftentimes they are pimping out their children. These stories abound. I see them in the paper regularly. And you can be sure many are never caught. This is a scourge but it is often just called “Child abuse.”

                      That is the sort of HT that needs to be treated more seriously not the phenomenon of consenting adult age workers doing something sexual yet fairly innocuous in private.

                      let me know if you find any proof to the contrary of what generalizations i have made.

                    2. no i didn’t make it up. i made a reasonable inference based on what was said and not said in the article.

                      there is an art to reading news articles and parsing them when it comes to reports of criminal allegations.

                      much like the subtleties involved in reporting “gossip” and “rumours” that you alluded to in one of your recent posts, to repeat gossip is not the same as asserting the matter to be true: it is just saying that someone said it.

                      as a lawyer you get a lot of exerience in reading newspapers carefully and learning to read between the lines.

                      another example is with respect to suicide. sometimes a person dies. the newspapers say, “no foul play is suspected by police.” that means it was either accident or suicide. as a matter of gentleness to the family, the paper will often leave out wether facts suggest it was a suicide or an accident as that can lead to certain hurtful consequences.

                      so you learn to read between the lines. i am confident the relevant person was not a minor. it would have been stated for sure.

                    3. “no i didn’t make it up. i made a reasonable inference based on what was said and not said in the article.”
                      If you want to infer it was not a minor because that would have been an important part of the story if any of the women were underage. I’ll buy that! Being a lawyer, or scientist, or mathematecian, or cab driver, can’t get you to the claim he was with a middle aged woman. You made it up, which doesn’t mean you don’t believe it, but statements without proof are in fact, made up!

                    4. Mr Enigma, do you have any proof it was a minor?

                      (no)

                      Has any news article suggested it was a minor?

                      (no)

                      Ok then why should I think it was a minor?
                      (no reason i guess)

                      Can we agree, that If it was a minor, it would have been a big bragging point for the prosecutor? and they definitely would have flogged that?

                      (yes)

                      And they did not.
                      (yes they did not.)

                      Ergo, it was not a minor.

                      You can call that making things up, I call it a reasonable inference.

                    5. I have never said it was a minor. If you actually read what I wrote, I agreed it was likely not a minor (I can infer as well). What you did, what byou made up, was that it was a middle aged woman. You may believe that, infer that, suspect that, whatever. You made it up, created a fact where none existed, and you insist on repeating it often and maybe others will believe it as well. No wonder you defend Trump so much, your relationship with facts is flexible.

              2. Tom, It’s amazing how quickly those on the left decide upon guilt when someone from the right is involved but how they forget the guilt of those on the left. I believe in reserving judgement until all the facts are known. Kavanaugh is the best example of the left’s mindset and how hypocritical those on the left are.

              1. I have read it, although JT suggests Clinton’s involvement twice (last column it was five times) and only mentions Trump as someone who should ask for Acosta’s resignation. Not someone who socialized with Epstein as well, also went on at least one of Epstein’s flights, and had a civil lawsuit for rape filed against him twice by a then 13-year-old who says Trump raped her 4-times at Epstein parties. Funny JT would leave that part out?

          2. Yes, Tom, Senator Diane Feinstein brought it up and concluded that Acosta had arranged a highly dubious deal. She therefore concluded that Acosta could not possibly be trusted as Secretary of Labor.

            1. Was this issue brought up by Feinstein covered in the media at all?
              Acosta was confirmed shortly after Trump was inaugurated.
              All but one GOP Senator and 8 Democratic Senators voted to confirm Acosta, so whatever Sen. Feinstein said at the time, it didn’t appear to actually damage Acosta’s reputation.

    2. “And ‘yes’, the article noted Epstein’s friendship with Bill Clinton; ”

      I just wonder if Clinton didn’t have a frequent visitor pass that let him enjoy a greater variety of treats.

  9. Below is from an article posted in April 2017 after Acosta was confirmed by the Senate. It doesn’t seem like anyone was aware of the details of this case. Hell, there were far more non-facts debated in the Kavanaugh hearing than there were facts in the Acosta hearing. Now that it has been exposed, he should be out the door.

    From the beginning, Acosta’s was a quiet march to confirmation that stood out because it didn’t attract the deep partisan battles faced by some of Trump’s other nominees, including Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s nomination provoked such a fight that majority Senate Republicans used the “nuclear option” to remove the 60-vote filibuster barrier for Supreme Court picks.
    http://fortune.com/2017/04/28/alex-acosta-labor-secretary-senate/

    1. Wait Christine Blasey Ford was an irrefutable liar, fraud and hoaxer and the Kavanaugh hearings were an hysterical and incoherent scam, sham, hoax and utterly false political show trail perpetrated by the Feminazi White Shirts and the highest ranks of the Feminazi Party. Now you know why the American Founders required citizens to be “…free white person(s)…” and voters to be Male, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres. How’s that nullified and voided “Constitution” and that “America” working for you now? You don’t suppose America is officially hysterical and incoherent do you?

      1. Now you know why the Greeks and Romans created representative governance as a severely limited, restricted-vote republic, not a wacky, free-for-all, one man, one vote democrazy of the “poor,” disloyal foreign hyphenates and various and sundry other agitators and anarchists.

    2. Olly,
      At the time, I think they’re was a group of people in Congress more focused on removing or kneecaping Jeff Sessions after he had been confirmed as AG.
      That probably dominated the media coverage.
      So there may have been very little coverage of whatever might have come up in the confirmation hearings of a Labor Secretary.

      1. https://act.myngp.com/forms/-5061756419025074432?midqs=-8898831388707389440
        OLLY,
        – I didn’t see a date on this, but it is likely from the March-April 2017 time frame, just after the sloppy exchange between Sen. Franken and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
        ( Ironically, Sessions lasted longer than Al Franken).
        Anyway, the call for Sessions’ head on a platter, from some members of Congress and elsewhere, was probably at a fever pitch during the Acosta confirmation hearings.
        So that would explain why the Acosta hearing and any controversy that might have surrounded it wasn’t widely reported.
        PS – Sign if you’d like to see Sessions voluntarily resign.😏😉

  10. You don’t mess around with the “Crown!”

    Prince Andrew was said by the press to have been involved with Jeffrey E. Epstein on “Orgy Island” and then the lights went completely out on the reporting.

    “According to a 2011 court filing by alleged Epstein victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre, she saw Clinton and Prince Andrew on the island but never saw the former president do anything improper. Giuffre has accused Prince Andrew of having sex with her when she was a minor, a charge Buckingham Palace denies.”

    – NY Post
    ________

    “You Don’t Mess Around With Jim”

    You don’t tug on superman’s cape
    You don’t spit into the wind
    You don’t pull the mask off that old lone ranger
    And you don’t mess around with Jim

    – Jim Croce

  11. I agree that Acosta should resign or be fired. That said, it should come later after re-opening the case under completely new, unbiased DOJ investigators and prosecutors.
    The priority for Judge Marra’s 15 day continuance should be building the strongest case
    for re-opening the federal criminal matter.

    A criminal pedophile was allowed to continue his criminality in NYC, in the US Virgin Islands, and on his personal airplane. This was a heinous failure of the DOJ.

    1. There’s no indication that Epstein is a paedophile nor is there that anyone in his social circle. He’s accused of offenses related to prostitution and to sexual conduct with underage adolescents, not to molesting prepubescent children.

  12. liability of the lifetime tenure article III judge? ha, Allan, good joke. They are immune from liability. They get reversed and in theory can be impeaced. which almost never happens

    and not only may they judge facts and law, but they can make it too, as we know from many famous cases. and never have to face election! it’s a very limited “democracy” we live in still, even after expansion of the franchise over the years.

  13. Why is JT asking for Acosta to resign? Why doesn’t Trump fire him? Oh, that’s right Trump only fires people on a TV show.

      1. 🙂 It’s her own personal Groundhog’s Day. But unlike Bill Murray, she hasn’t yet figured out why she’s reliving this nightmare.

  14. Interesting how much traction this gets among the elites and in the media when it is framed as “Trump Labor Secretary Acosta Approves Corrupt Plea Deal.”

    Frame it as “Corrupt Plea Deal Benefits Lolita Express Maven and Clinton Companion Jeffrey Epstein” and see how much traction it gets.

    Once Acosta is thrown to the wolves, the matter will die. One hopes that “everyday Americans” are starting to see this for what it is.

  15. What no mention of Bob Mueller who was using Epstein as a confidential informant. No doubt he was getting dirt on politicians to squeeze them on voting the correct way.

  16. Ordinary Americans are getting used to a dysfunctional and unjust “justice” system. It breeds cynicism and contempt for the system.

    As we ordinary Americans face a host of regulations and rules that bound our lives and see the “protected” getting away with felonies, we start looking for ways to evade those rules that irritate us. Unfortunately, we are the “unprotected”.

    We all know what kind of society we end with if we allow two systems of justice to exist.

    1. This is disturbing, but seems to occur all too frequently in our system especially where politics is involved and politics was involved based on the names of frequent visitors. I don’t have an in depth knowledge of this case but from what I understand the sentencing seems to have purposely been managed with the least amount of attention possible.

      I say that because I am under the impression that the decision was reached without the victims being notified in advance for potential additional statements as to the sentencing provided by the Crime Victims Rights Act.

        1. DSS, that is correct. He brought up the act but didn’t say exactly what the act entailed. Thus though my statement “the decision was reached without the victims being notified in advance for potential additional statements as to the sentencing provided by the Crime Victims Rights Act.” may be mostly correct it might not meet the exact legal definition. It is that legal definition that places Acosta in hot water not just any definition

          Thanks anyway even though I was aware of what you said.

        2. DSS to avoid having you post the law which is rather long for this blog I am doing so myself.

          18 U.S.C. § 3771. Crime victims’ rights

          (a) RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS.–A crime victim has the following rights:

          (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.

          (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.

          (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding.

          (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.

          (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case.

          (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.

          (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.

          (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy.

          (9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement.

          (10) The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the services described in section 503(c) of the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10607(c)) and provided contact information for the Office of the Victims’ Rights Ombudsman of the Department of Justice.

          (b) RIGHTS AFFORDED.–In any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a). Before making a determination described in subsection (a)(3), the court shall make every effort to permit the fullest attendance possible by the victim and shall consider reasonable alternatives to the exclusion of the victim from the criminal proceeding. The reasons for any decision denying relief under this chapter shall be clearly stated on the record.

          (c) BEST EFFORTS TO ACCORD RIGHTS.–

          (1) GOVERNMENT.–Officers and employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a).

          (2) ADVICE OF ATTORNEY.–The prosecutor shall advise the crime victim that the crime victim can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights described in subsection (a).

          (3) NOTICE.–Notice of release otherwise required pursuant to this chapter shall not be given if such notice may endanger the safety of any person.

          (d) ENFORCEMENT AND LIMITATIONS.–

          (1) RIGHTS.–The crime victim or the crime victim’s lawful representative, and the attorney for the Government may assert the rights described in subsection (a). A person accused of the crime may not obtain any form of relief under this chapter.

          (2) MULTIPLE CRIME VICTIMS.–In a case where the court finds that the number of crime victims makes it impracticable to accord all of the crime victims the rights described in subsection (a), the court shall fashion a reasonable procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings.

          (3) MOTION FOR RELIEF AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS.–The rights described in subsection (a) shall be asserted in the district court in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred. The district court shall take up and decide any motion asserting a victim’s right forthwith. If the district court denies the relief sought, the movant may petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus. The court of appeals may issue the writ on the order of a single judge pursuant to circuit rule or the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court of appeals shall take up and decide such application forthwith within 72 hours after the petition has been filed. In no event shall proceedings be stayed or subject to a continuance of more than five days for purposes of enforcing this chapter. If the court of appeals denies the relief sought, the reasons for the denial shall be clearly stated on the record in a written opinion.

          (4) ERROR.–In any appeal in a criminal case, the Government may assert as error the district court’s denial of any crime victim’s right in the proceeding to which the appeal relates.

          (5) LIMITATION ON RELIEF.–In no case shall a failure to afford a right under this chapter provide grounds for a 2263 new trial. A victim may make a motion to re-open a plea or sentence only if–

          (A) the victim has asserted the right to be heard before or during the proceeding at issue and such right was denied;

          (B) the victim petitions the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus within 10 days; and

          (C) in the case of a plea, the accused has not pled to the highest offense charged. This paragraph does not affect the victim’s right to restitution as provided in title 18, United States Code.

          (6) NO CAUSE OF ACTION.–Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize a cause of action for damages or to create, to enlarge, or to imply any duty or obligation to any victim or other person for the breach of which the United States or any of its officers or employees could be held liable in damages. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction.

          (e) DEFINITIONS.–For the purposes of this chapter, the term ‘crime victim’ means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia. In the case of a crime victim who is under 18 years of age, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardians of the crime victim or the representatives of the crime victim’s estate, family members, or any other persons appointed as suitable by the court, may assume the crime victim’s rights under this chapter, but in no event shall the defendant be named as such guardian or representative.

          (f) PROCEDURES TO PROMOTE COMPLIANCE.–

          (1) REGULATIONS.–Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this chapter, the Attorney General of the United States shall promulgate regulations to enforce the rights of crime victims and to ensure compliance by responsible officials with the obligations described in law respecting crime victims.

          (2) CONTENTS.–The regulations promulgated under paragraph (1) shall–

          (A) designate an administrative authority within the Department of Justice to receive and investigate complaints relating to the provision or violation of the rights of a crime victim;

          (B) require a course of training for employees and offices of the Department of Justice that fail to comply with provisions of Federal law pertaining to the treatment of crime victims, and otherwise assist such employees and offices in responding more effectively to the needs of crime victims;

          (C) contain disciplinary sanctions, including suspension or termination from employment, for employees of the Department of Justice who willfully or wantonly fail to comply with provisions of Federal law pertaining to the treatment of crime victims; and

          (D) provide that the Attorney General, or the designee of the Attorney General, shall be the final arbiter of the complaint, and that there shall be no judicial review of the final decision of the Attorney General by a complainant.”

          Updated July 22, 2016

            1. I’m getting the impression that in mundane life you’re awfully enamored of the sound of your own voice.

              1. TIA x 2 @ 12:33 pm to Allan: “I’m getting the impression that in mundane life you’re awfully enamored of the sound of your own voice.”

                TIA x 2:

                And you’re just now realizing this?

                1. And you’re just now realizing this?

                  No, it’s just that he’s been talking at me for puzzling reasons the last couple of days.

                  1. DSS, we have a disagreement as to how we each perceive Russia. I consider it an honest disagreement but somehow you sound offended.

              2. “enamored of the sound of your own voice.”

                DSS, that seems to be your problem. Am I inhibiting you from indecently exposing your vast store of knowledge? I wouldn’t have had the follow up voice had it not been for you exerting your own voice. Are you looking in a mirror?

                  1. Anonymous, it seems that your brain power can not handle more than one response at a time. Is that why you are repeating yourself?

          1. Section 5C – Epstein did not plea to the highest charge against him (human sex trafficking involving minors) , and that opens the door to re-opening the case.

Leave a Reply to Liberty2nd Cancel reply