HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030963.jpg

on seven core issues: the family, the sanctity of human life, religious liberty, education, sexual exploitation, national sovereignty, and support for Israel.” (Emphasis added) Its leader, Penny Nance, has called for Acosta’s resignation. Noting that labor trafficking, which the Labor Department combats, is often conjoined with sex trafficking, Nance says that President Trump would not have nominated Acosta if reports fully describing Acosta’s conduct in the Epstein case had emerged earlier. Sen. Ben Sasse has also weighed in. He sent a letter to the Justice Department asking it to investigate its treatment of Epstein, including the fact that the plea deal ensured that victims of the pervert would be denied the ability to comment on or object to the leniency of his sentence. Sasse is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts. Sen. Marco Rubio, a longtime supporter of Acosta, says it would be “very troubling” if political influence led to a light sentence for Epstein. In Rubio’s view, and that of every rational person, Epstein “should have been in jail for a long time.” Rubio added, however, that he will reserve judgment until he hears Acosta’s side. That’s fair. But so far, Acosta has provided no real defense for letting Epstein off so lightly. In public, at least, he is standing by his argument that the deal was a reasonable one and that this is old news. Previously, Acosta had a different defense. He cited “a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors” by “an army of legal superstars” who represented Epstein. This allegedly included “defense counsel investigat|ing] individual prosecutors and their families, looking for personal peccadilloes that may provide a basis for disqualification.” In this account, the deal was made to relieve the pressure, while still getting a conviction. Acosta could hardly assert this explanation — 1.e., that he wimped out — while seeking a cabinet position with the expectation of being appointed to more exalted jobs in the future. Nor is the explanation particularly plausible. Acosta isn’t the first prosecutor to face a scorched earth defense. Ask Ken Starr about this. I don’t doubt that Acosta regarded escaping the wrath of the defense team as a benefit of reaching the plea deal. But I don’t believe this was incentive enough to cause him, in effect, to throw the case. What was the true incentive? As I wrote when this story broke, I think it was the same incentive that explains much of his conduct in public life — Acosta’s desire to accommodate people he thinks can help him down the road. Which people? Probably the lawyers at Kirkland and Ellis, where Acosta had once worked. Epstein enlisted Ken Starr* and Jay Lefkowitz, both of Kirkland, for his defense team. Acosta reportedly worked out the terms of his surrender with Lefkowitz, a former colleague, at a meeting in a location far away from the prosecutor’s office. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030963