Acosta blames Florida prosecutors for Epstein’s 2008 plea deal

Acosta blames Florida prosecutors for Epstein’s 2008 plea deal

Articles, Blog , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments


>>THE PALM BEACH STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IS READY TO LET EPSTEIN WALK FREE, NO JAIL TIME, NOTHING. PROSECUTORS IN MY FORMER OFFICE FOUND THIS TO BE COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE AND THEY BECAME INVOLVED, OUR OFFICE BECAME INVOLVED. ARTHEL: OUTGOING LABOR SECRETARY ALEX ACOSTA DEFENDING HIS ROLE IN 2008 PLEA DEAL FOR ACCUSED SEX TRAFFICKER JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ACOSTA BLAMING FLORIDA PROSECUTORS FOR APPARENTLY LETTING EPSTEIN OFF THE HOOK PROMPTING QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THOSE ATTORNEYS COULD FACE CONSEQUENCES MORE THAN A DECADE LATER, AS FEDERAL PROSECUTORS PURSUE NEW CHARGES AGAINST EPSTEIN, LET’S BRING IN LEGAL PANEL, DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND MEMBER OF THE REPUBLICAN TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, MISTY IS HERE AND TRIAL ATTORNEY AND WE ARE GOING TO GET TO THE BLAME GAME IN A SECOND BUT RICHARD, I START WITH YOU HERE, DID ALEX ACOSTA WHO WAS U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN FLORIDA AT THE TIME GIVE JEFFREY EPSTEIN A PASS IN 2018 BY SHELVING HIS 53-PAGE INDICTMENT THAT COULD HAVE SEN EPSTEIN TO PRISON FOR LIFE?>>FIRST, LOOK, CERTAINLY LOOKS LIKE A 53-PAGE INDICTMENT WOULD SEND SOMEBODY TO JAIL FOR A VERY LONG TIME IF NOT THEIR LIFE AND INSTEAD EPSTEIN ENDS UP WITH 18 MONTHS, ACOSTA SAYS THIS, LOOKS, IF WE WENT TO TRIAL IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A ROLL OF THE DICE, SO WE DID THE PLEA DEAL WHICH GUARANTIED EPSTEIN 18 MONTHS IN JAIL, WE STILL NEED ALL THE FACTS ON WHETHER THAT’S TRUE OR NOT AND CERTAINLY WHEN YOU HEAR THE INVOLVEMENT OF EVERYBODY FROM STATE — THE STATE’S ATTORNEY OFFICE TO FEDERAL PROSECUTORS, THE POTENTIAL FOR WITNESS TAMPERING AND WITNESS INTIMIDATION TAKING PLACE IN THE CASE, A LOT OF FACT THAT IS NEED TO COME OUT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT ACOSTA’S BEHAVIOR WAS THAT OF A PROSECUTOR TRYING TO THE THEIR JOB AND GET JUSTICE OR SOMEBODY WHO CAVED IN SO EPSTEIN’S DEFENSE TEAM. ARTHEL: SO MISTY, WE PLAYED THE SOUND BITE ALEX ACOSTA BLAMED THE PALM BEACH STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, IS HE RIGHT?>>WELL, ESSENTIALLY WHAT HE WAS SAYING IS THAT THE STATE’S ATTORNEY OFFICE WAS GOING TO CHARGE EPSTEIN WITH A CRIME THAT WOULD HAVE CARRIED NO JAIL TIME AND THAT’S WHEN FEDERAL PROSECUTORS, THAT’S WHEN HIS OFFICE INTERVENED AND NEGOTIATED THIS PLEA DEAL THAT DID, IN FACT, CARRY JAIL TIME, HIS ARGUMENT IS THAT THE FEDERAL PROSECUTORS ACTUALLY SECURED A MORE SEVERE PENALTY THAN WHAT THE STATE WAS EVEN GOING TO GO FOR, NOW, WHETHER OR NOT HE’S RIGHT, LOOK, I BELIEVE THE STATE’S DECISION TO BE A FACTOR IN HOW THE FEDERAL PROSECUTORS DECIDED TO HANDLE THIS CASE. IT’S NOT A DETERMINATIVE FACTOR, IT’S ONE OF MANY FACTORS, RICHARD POINTED OUT, THE QUESTION HERE, ONCE WE HAVE ALL OF THE FACTS IS WHETHER THIS WAS PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, EVIDENTIARY ISSUES THAT WOULD HAVE PUT VERDICT AT RISK OR PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. ARTHEL: MISTY, WASN’T THAT SO-CALLED JAIL TIMES 3 MONTHS WITH CONDITIONS THAT HE COULD HAVE A PASS TO GO TO WORK.>>YES. ARTHEL: 6 DAYS A WEEK. THAT MEANS ONE DAY A WEEK, 13 DAYS TOTAL IN JAIL.>>RIGHT, THAT’S WHAT WE CALL A SLAP ON THE WRIST SENTENCE OF COURSE GIVEN THE ALLEGATIONS BUT FACTORS THAT GO INTO THE ANALYSIS OF WHAT A PROSECUTOR IS GOING TO DO AND WHAT A PROSECUTOR BRINGS TO TRIAL, LISTEN, ARTHEL, THE RESPONSIBILITY REMAINED WITH THE FEDERAL PROSECUTORS TO CHARGE EPSTEIN AND TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION SO HOW DOES THAT PLEA DEAL PLAYED OUT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH STATE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE AND DECISIONS THAT THE STATE PROSECUTORS MADE. ARTHEL: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE OF THE GREAT WORK OF MIAMI HERALD.>>EPSTEIN’S LAWYERS WERE ALAN DERSHOWITZ, LEWIS AND JAY, DEMANDED THAT THE DEAL BE SEALED AND KEPT SECRET FROM EPSTEIN’S VICTIM, ACOSTA, E-MAIL NOTIFICATION WAS REQUIRED UNDER FEDERAL LAW, SO, RICHARD, HOW MUCH COLLATERAL DAMAGE WILL BE DONE AS PROSECUTORS GO AFTER JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND ATTEMPT TO BRING JUSTICE TO HIS ALLEGED VICTIMS?>>LOOK, I THINK THAT LINE DID IT, THE LOW-LYING FRUIT AS MISTY MENTIONED PROSECUTORRARY MISCONDUCT. IF THE FEDERAL LAW SAY THAT IS THE WITNESSES NEED TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CASE AND THEY DIDN’T FOLLOW THAT, THEY BETTER HAVE A VERY GOOD REASON WHY THEY DIDN’T FOLLOW THAT. THE POWER HOUSE TEAM HAS INCLUDED PART OF ITS CLIENT, OTHERS, THAT’S A VERY SERIOUS LEGAL TEAM THAT BASICALLY HAD JUST AS MUCH RESOURCES AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND I THINK THAT’S SOMETHING THAT’S GOING TO BE LOOKED INTO IN TERMS OF WHAT ALSO THE LEGAL TEAM HAD TO DO WITH CREATING PRESSURE AND WITNESS INTIMIDATION POTENTIAL WITNESS INTIMIDATION AND PAYING OFF WITNESSES TO WEAKEN THE PROSECUTOR’S CASE, I THINK THAT’S ANOTHER ASPECT THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT MIGHT COME INTO WHAT THE FALLOUT MIGHT BE, IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER FALLOUT, EPSTEIN HAS KNOWN A LOT OF PEOPLE, WE ARE TALKING CELEBRITIES, WE ARE TALKING PRESIDENTS, THEIR FAMILIES, THE ROYAL FAMILY, ANYBODY WHO HAS BEEN A WITNESS TO HIS MISCONDUCT IS GOING TO BE POTENTIAL WITNESS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. ARTHEL: SO MISTY, IF JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S MONEY AND HIS POWER BOUGHT HIM A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD, CAN ANYONE BE HELD LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE RETROACTIVELY?>>ABSOLUTELY COULD BE CONSEQUENCES, WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS THIS DUAL PATH, THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INVESTIGATING THE SITUATION NOW, THE REPERCUSSIONS FROM THAT RESPECT THAT’S JUST GOING TO BE IDENTIFYING WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY MISCONDUCT BECAUSE MANY OF THE PLAYERS ARE NO LONGER EMPLOYEES SO REALLY NO TEETH THERE BUT WHAT’S MORE INTERESTING IS PUBLIC CORRUPTION’S DIVISION IS INVESTIGATING THIS CASE, THAT TELLS ME THAT THERE’S SOMETHING MORE TO THIS INVESTIGATION THAN JUST THE SEXUAL TRAFFICKING ALLEGATIONS, THE CONSPIRACY ALLEGATIONS, THAT USUALLY GOES TO A PERSON IN POSITION OF PUBLIC TRUST, SO THAT COULD EXTEND TO PROSECUTORS, THAT COULD EXTEND TO THE STATE PROSECUTORS, THAT COULD ALSO EXTEND TO MY MISCONDUCT BY THE DEFENSE LEGAL TEAM, IT’S GOING TO BE SOMETHING WHEN WE FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, MY BIGGEST ISSUE WITH THIS IS THAT VIOLATION OF THE VICTIM’S PROTECTION ACT AS RICHARD SAID,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *