Monday, February 18, 2019

Jeff Sloman writes op-ed in support of Alex Acosta

The Herald published it here.

It starts this way:
By now, you have probably formed some views on the Jeffrey Epstein case. You are, like me, repulsed by Epstein’s conduct. You probably also believe, as I do now that more facts have emerged, that Epstein deserved harsher punishment than he ended up getting. No one will argue seriously against these views.

But based on the Miami Herald’s “Perversion of Justice” series and the ensuing news coverage, you may also believe that well-connected lawyers corrupted now-Secretary of Labor and then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta and his team into giving Epstein a sweetheart deal. They did not. I would know. I was there.


Unknown said...

Jeff Sloman is a class act.

Anonymous said...

The argument that the deal was made because witnesses were scared is an total and complete joke-

1) El Chapo
2) Terrorism cases
3) Pretty much any other RICO/Drug conspiracy with murders

All prove the fallacy.

Why in the world would the deal have included immunity/non-pros for third parties - what is the possible explanation for that?

There may be nothing improper about the deal, the offices have discretion to use as they see fit, but the notion that it was good or justified is nonsense. At the end of the day, the US Attorneys are appointed to use their discretion. Necessarily that will involve some mistakes. I don't see the resolution as out of bounds or criminal or anything of the sort, but lame excuses are ridic.

Anonymous said...

The bottom line is that Acosta was bought off by the wealthy Epstein and his well connected friends and attorneys. This case is a disgrace to the State and Federal prosecutors who were involved. Immunity for unidentified co-conspirators? Who ever heard of any such deal.

Anonymous said...

There are multiple aspects of this that the defender/apologists cannot overcome, including the secrecy of the deal from the victims (if the victims were scared or uncooperative, why not tell them the deal would be entered into because of the lack of cooperation or to avoid what they feared) and the immunity for others not involved (which favored Epstein by keeping them loyal to him and avoiding future prosecutions that would air the dirty facts). But I ask: can the prosecutors say that they investigated this before cutting the deal. I seriously doubt it. Had they investigated, they would have found more victims (and the pictures and cooperating witnesses) and any jurisdictional issues would have become non-issues because of the crossing of state lines. My conclusion, this was a sweetheart deal given by a scaredy cat Acosta to a connected criminal with connected lawyers. I bet Acosta has called on the defense attorney's for support when he was looking for his post USAO employment. FIU Law Dean is a good gig.