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...
5 comments:
I read with interest Acosta's justification that his actions were premised on "federalism
concerns." I wonder if anyone has the number of the state prosecutions that his office took federal during his time as U.S. Attorney.
Office of Professional Responsibility.
Our motto, since 1975:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Non nobis!
"Now I put absolutely *no* credence in anything OPR does because they literally *never* find misconduct, BUT they got this one right."
The OPR motto is "prosecutors can do no wrong." Your motto is "anything that gets lenient outcomes for defendants can't be wrong."
In virtually all cases, prosecutorial misconduct is done against the penal interest of a defendant and to inflict a harsher outcome upon defendants. But in this case, the misconduct was done to benefit a defendant's penal interest and provide that particular defendant with a more lenient outcome. And that's when you say it and the OPR were right, because you're a criminal defense attorney and support any and all leniency for defendants. But this kind of leniency that Epstein got was not, is not, and will never be available to regular defendants of the likes you represent. The kind of consideration and leniency that Jeffrey Epstein, Roger Stone, Harvey Weinstein, or Michael Flynn and company got will never "trickle down" to the indigent ranks of regular defendants, no matter how many sycophantic attorneys cheer such corruption as vindication of due process.
FYI Anonymous 9:50, the blogger David O. Markus is among the most expensive criminal defense attorneys around. So, Epstein is exactly the type financial profile defendant he represents. Otherwise, your comment is well taken.
"David O. Markus is among the most expensive criminal defense attorneys around. So, Epstein is exactly the type financial profile defendant he represents."
Oh, okay. But do Markus' typical moneyed clients have the same political connections and juice that Epstein and Stone had?
If that is the case, then Markus is not just a sycophant, but also an accomplice and beneficiary to the kind of corruption and backroom dealing that he defends, hiding behind a pretense of "due process" in his posts.
Post a Comment