The executive summary of the report is here. Now I put absolutely *no* credence in anything OPR does because they literally *never* find misconduct, BUT they got this one right. In this old article at the Hill, I explain why OPR should have spent its time investigating real prosecutorial misconduct. And in this old Herald op-ed, I explain that Acosta was unfairly criticized for the Epstein case.
I wrote that two years ago, and additional facts have come out, but I still don't get it. With the amount of actual misconduct in the administration, I don't understand why a 10-year old decision regarding a plea agreement -- that everyone knew about when Acosta became Labor Secretary and where he was doing a good job with no scandals -- cost him his job. Even if you believe that Epstein should have received more time, as Acosta's then first-assistant Jeff Sloman wrote here, that does not mean that Acosta and others acted unethically.
OPR spent tons of time and resources investigating a really old plea-deal that was struct by lawyers who are no longer prosecutors where the defendant has died. Had they found any misconduct, what were they going to do? I'm wondering when they will look at actual prosecutors who have committed real prosecutorial misconduct that actually infringes on a defendant's rights. Sigh...