Labor Secretary Alex Acosta is resigning

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1149675087433359363

[Nyvin]

No surprise,  giving a perv billionaire a free pass doesn't exactly make for a good public image.

[Inmate Trump]

But I thought he only hires the best people.

Surely this would have come up when Trump vetted him.

[GP270watch]

THE BEST PEOPLE!

[The Mikado]

With Acosta's departure, we're down to just seven members of the original Trump Cabinet left:

Mnuchin (Treasury)
Perdue (Agriculture)
Ross (Commerce)
Carson (HUD)
Chao (Transportation)
Perry (Energy)
DeVos (Education)

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Thoughts and prayers.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Joining the Trump cabinet is the least prospective career choice ever.

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

"Another one bites the dust..."

[The Dowager Mod]

When Rick Perry is the best one in your cabinet, there may be a problem lol.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

With Acosta's departure, we're down to just seven members of the original Trump Cabinet left:

Mnuchin (Treasury)
Perdue (Agriculture)
Ross (Commerce)
Carson (HUD)
Chao (Transportation)
Perry (Energy)
DeVos (Education)

More troubling is that with Acosta's (absolutely justified) departure, the United States government now has one more empty or temporarily filled senior position, adding to the many that were already missing permanent appointees.

The Secretary of Defense was never confirmed to that position (and legally does not need to be).
Acting White House Chief of Staff,
Acting Secretary of Labor
Acting Secretary of the Army
Acting Secretary of the Air Force
Acting Administrator of the SBA
Acting FDA Commissioner
Acting Administrator of the SBA

Acting Homeland Security Secretary
  Acting US Citizen and Immigration Service Director
  Acting CBP Commissioner,
  Acting ICE Director,
  two vacant DHS Under Secretaries
  Acting FEMA director (at the start of hurricane season),


The Director of OMB is also Acting White House Chief of Staff, so his Deputy Director is Acting as OMB Director

Acting UN Ambassador

two vacant seats on the Federal Reserve Board,

and a National Security Advisor who was recently exiled to Outer Mongolia and unofficially replaced with a FOX News host. 

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Trump sums up his Labor Secretary's career (or life, not sure which he was aiming for) on FOX News,

“He’s a Hispanic man. He went to Harvard, a great student.”

His resignation letter:

[brucejoel99]

From Acosta's statement:

"It would be selfish for me to stay in this position and continue talking about a case that's 12 years old."

Evidently the first time he has shown concern for anything that was 12 years old.

[Dr. Arch]

From Acosta's statement:

"It would be selfish for me to stay in this position and continue talking about a case that's 12 years old."

Evidently the first time he has shown concern for anything that was 12 years old.

[John Dule]

Trump's cabinet goons have the job security of a B-tier Game of Thrones cast member.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/1149679202611990528

[Joe Republic]

With Acosta's departure, we're down to just seven members of the original Trump Cabinet left:

Mnuchin (Treasury)
Perdue (Agriculture)
Ross (Commerce)
Carson (HUD)
Chao (Transportation)
Perry (Energy)
DeVos (Education)

And the least incompetent or corrupt member of that list is... *checks notes*... Rick Perry?!?  Jeeeeesus.

Though I guess it can’t be too difficult heading up the Department of Oops.

[GP270watch]

Three cheers for Ben Carson outlasting yet another Cabinet member.

Ben Carson is like "all I did was buy some expensive ass plates and cut programs for poor people."

[Progressive Pessimist]

From Acosta's statement:

"It would be selfish for me to stay in this position and continue talking about a case that's 12 years old."

Evidently the first time he has shown concern for anything that was 12 years old.

Daaayyum!

Anyway, this has been a surprisingly pleasant week (by Trump era standards). Accountability and consequences can still exist!

[pbrower2a]

Trump's cabinet goons have the job security of a B-tier Game of Thrones cast member.

...or like wearing a red uniform in the original Star Trek -- long enough to make a blood-curdling scream (unless the role is recycled).

[President Johnson]

He hires only the best people. How long does it take now to get another senate confirmed secretary? We're going to have so much acting department heads, you gonna be sick and tired of acting.

[T'Chenka]

Trump's cabinet goons have the job security of a B-tier Game of Thrones cast member.

...or like wearing a red uniform in the original Star Trek -- long enough to make a blood-curdling scream (unless the role is recycled).

Donald Trump = Kirk
Mike Pence = Spock
Roger Stone = Bones
Kellyanne Conway = Uhura
Steve Bannon = Scotty
Felix Sater = Chekov

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I have no idea as to what kind of Labor Secretary Alex Acosta is.  I couldn't tell you if he's a good one or a crappy one.  But to demand (and get) his resignation for factors that were known at the time of his confirmation is sheer political opportunism, and not what I would consider fair for any pubic official, regardless of party.

Firstly, Mr. Acosta's record in that regard is no different now than it was when he was confirmed.  Was this issue not raised when he was confirmed?  I'm told that Republicans, as well as Democrats, are bent out of shape about this.  If that is the case, why are they bent out of shape now?  What facts surrounding Mr. ACOSTA'S conduct (not Mr. Epstein's conduct) have come to light since then that would cause someone to think that this man "must go" when, not too long ago, when all of the facts of his conduct of the Epstein case were available, his nomination was approved without hue and cry?

If something in the way Mr. Acosta conducted his prosecution of Mr. Epstein has come to light that reveals impropriety or negligence in carrying out his official duties, that is one thing.  But this isn't the case, at least as far as I can see.  So what are "people" unhappy about?

One thing people are unhappy about is the fact that Epstein received a plea deal that seems rather lenient.  (And it was, indeed, lenient for a man of Eptstein's means.)  I can understand this, but the other side of the coin is the difficulty of proving sex cases.  I am acquainted with a former attorney (now a Judge) who had, in a previous career, prosecuted sex crimes.  She has told me of the difficulties of these cases, of the unreliability of the victims and witnesses (for all sorts of reasons), of the desirability of reaching plea agreements that result in the defendant having to register for life as a Sexual Offender or a Sexual Predator.  That sanction goes with Epstein for life, and it will go with him if he somehow beats the new charges against him.  These cases are not "slam dunks" and that's with ordinary witnesses that have modest means, or whom are indigent and are being represented by a public defender.  Ratchet those problems up when you have the 2008 Unconvicted Epstein going to court with virtually unlimited resources at his disposal.  

Epstein has been subject to all of these laws since his conviction, and is subject for life.  

Here are the registration requirements Epstein must observe.  They're pretty daunting; much more extensive than people think.  I think it may well be the case that some of the new indiscretions that Mr. Epstein has been charged with have been uncovered, in part, because since 2008 he has been subject to these daunting requirements.

If subsequent information shows that, somehow, Acosta was "bought off" by Epstein, that is a different story.  If Epstein was guilty of gross negligence in his prosecution of the case, that, too, is a different story, but there's not some kind of "new case" being made about this now.  The argument against Acosta now is no different than the argument made in 2008, or the argument made during Acosta's confirmation.  Absent new evidence of Mr. Acosta's being corrupt or negligent, there is no reason existing now to demand Acosta's resignation now than there was to not confirm him in the first place.

[brucejoel99]

I have no idea as to what kind of Labor Secretary Alex Acosta is.  I couldn't tell you if he's a good one or a crappy one.  But to demand (and get) his resignation for factors that were known at the time of his confirmation is sheer political opportunism, and not what I would consider fair for any pubic official, regardless of party.

Firstly, Mr. Acosta's record in that regard is no different now than it was when he was confirmed.  Was this issue not raised when he was confirmed?  I'm told that Republicans, as well as Democrats, are bent out of shape about this.  If that is the case, why are they bent out of shape now?  What facts surrounding Mr. ACOSTA'S conduct (not Mr. Epstein's conduct) have come to light since then that would cause someone to think that this man "must go" when, not too long ago, when all of the facts of his conduct of the Epstein case were available, his nomination was approved without hue and cry?

If something in the way Mr. Acosta conducted his prosecution of Mr. Epstein has come to light that reveals impropriety or negligence in carrying out his official duties, that is one thing.  But this isn't the case, at least as far as I can see.  So what are "people" unhappy about?

One thing people are unhappy about is the fact that Epstein received a plea deal that seems rather lenient.  (And it was, indeed, lenient for a man of Eptstein's means.)  I can understand this, but the other side of the coin is the difficulty of proving sex cases.  I am acquainted with a former attorney (now a Judge) who had, in a previous career, prosecuted sex crimes.  She has told me of the difficulties of these cases, of the unreliability of the victims and witnesses (for all sorts of reasons), of the desirability of reaching plea agreements that result in the defendant having to register for life as a Sexual Offender or a Sexual Predator.  That sanction goes with Epstein for life, and it will go with him if he somehow beats the new charges against him.  These cases are not "slam dunks" and that's with ordinary witnesses that have modest means, or whom are indigent and are being represented by a public defender.  Ratchet those problems up when you have the 2008 Unconvicted Epstein going to court with virtually unlimited resources at his disposal.  

Epstein has been subject to all of these laws since his conviction, and is subject for life.  

Here are the registration requirements Epstein must observe.  They're pretty daunting; much more extensive than people think.  I think it may well be the case that some of the new indiscretions that Mr. Epstein has been charged with have been uncovered, in part, because since 2008 he has been subject to these daunting requirements.

If subsequent information shows that, somehow, Acosta was "bought off" by Epstein, that is a different story.  If Epstein was guilty of gross negligence in his prosecution of the case, that, too, is a different story, but there's not some kind of "new case" being made about this now.  The argument against Acosta now is no different than the argument made in 2008, or the argument made during Acosta's confirmation.  Absent new evidence of Mr. Acosta's being corrupt or negligent, there is no reason existing now to demand Acosta's resignation now than there was to not confirm him in the first place.

*siiiiiiiiiiiigh*

It wasn't known until The Miami Herald's recent reporting (so, neither 11 years ago nor 2 years ago) that Acosta, as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, personally worked with Epstein's attorneys to give Epstein his sweetheart deal that consisted of just 13 months in county jail.

And that's saying nothing of the fact that Acosta intervening to defend Epstein against his charges & broker a sweetheart deal made his position in the Trump Administration nothing but an embarrassment to this country (not to mention that it reeks of suspicion considering Trump's ties to Epstein).

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I have no idea as to what kind of Labor Secretary Alex Acosta is.  I couldn't tell you if he's a good one or a crappy one.  But to demand (and get) his resignation for factors that were known at the time of his confirmation is sheer political opportunism, and not what I would consider fair for any pubic official, regardless of party.

Firstly, Mr. Acosta's record in that regard is no different now than it was when he was confirmed.  Was this issue not raised when he was confirmed?  I'm told that Republicans, as well as Democrats, are bent out of shape about this.  If that is the case, why are they bent out of shape now?  What facts surrounding Mr. ACOSTA'S conduct (not Mr. Epstein's conduct) have come to light since then that would cause someone to think that this man "must go" when, not too long ago, when all of the facts of his conduct of the Epstein case were available, his nomination was approved without hue and cry?

If something in the way Mr. Acosta conducted his prosecution of Mr. Epstein has come to light that reveals impropriety or negligence in carrying out his official duties, that is one thing.  But this isn't the case, at least as far as I can see.  So what are "people" unhappy about?

One thing people are unhappy about is the fact that Epstein received a plea deal that seems rather lenient.  (And it was, indeed, lenient for a man of Eptstein's means.)  I can understand this, but the other side of the coin is the difficulty of proving sex cases.  I am acquainted with a former attorney (now a Judge) who had, in a previous career, prosecuted sex crimes.  She has told me of the difficulties of these cases, of the unreliability of the victims and witnesses (for all sorts of reasons), of the desirability of reaching plea agreements that result in the defendant having to register for life as a Sexual Offender or a Sexual Predator.  That sanction goes with Epstein for life, and it will go with him if he somehow beats the new charges against him.  These cases are not "slam dunks" and that's with ordinary witnesses that have modest means, or whom are indigent and are being represented by a public defender.  Ratchet those problems up when you have the 2008 Unconvicted Epstein going to court with virtually unlimited resources at his disposal.  

Epstein has been subject to all of these laws since his conviction, and is subject for life.  

Here are the registration requirements Epstein must observe.  They're pretty daunting; much more extensive than people think.  I think it may well be the case that some of the new indiscretions that Mr. Epstein has been charged with have been uncovered, in part, because since 2008 he has been subject to these daunting requirements.

If subsequent information shows that, somehow, Acosta was "bought off" by Epstein, that is a different story.  If Epstein was guilty of gross negligence in his prosecution of the case, that, too, is a different story, but there's not some kind of "new case" being made about this now.  The argument against Acosta now is no different than the argument made in 2008, or the argument made during Acosta's confirmation.  Absent new evidence of Mr. Acosta's being corrupt or negligent, there is no reason existing now to demand Acosta's resignation now than there was to not confirm him in the first place.

*siiiiiiiiiiiigh*

It wasn't known until The Miami Herald's recent reporting (so, neither 11 years ago nor 2 years ago) that Acosta, as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, personally worked with Epstein's attorneys to give Epstein his sweetheart deal that consisted of just 13 months in county jail.

And that's saying nothing of the fact that Acosta intervening to defend Epstein against his charges & broker a sweetheart deal made his position in the Trump Administration nothing but an embarrassment to this country (not to mention that it reeks of suspicion considering Trump's ties to Epstein).

That Acosta would "personally" work with Epstein's attorney in a case of this nature is far from unusual.  If Acosta were the AG of the US and he did so, THAT would raise eyebrows, but he was the Chief Prosecutor of a US Attorney's office for one particular district.

The mechanics of this plea deal didn't just come out.  It has been public knowledge for a while now.  The Miami Herald reported it because it was suddenly a hot item.

Everyone can Monday Morning QB the handling of a legal case.  The pain of Epstein's alleged victims (and I do believe that they are real victims) is compelling.  The belief that Epstein has never stopped this behavior is a reasonable belief.  But there is a major difference between what victims say on Facebook, to the media, or even in depositions, and what can actually be presented at trial.  To say nothing of how reliable the witnesses the prosecution had would be at trial.

If Acosta offered Epstein this deal when he had a slam dunk conviction, this is one thing, but no one has been able to conclusively show this.  I certainly hope that Epstein is convicted of the new charges.  But what would be the case if, in 2008, Epstein were acquitted at trial, or his case was overturned on appeal?  I don't know, but one thing that would have happened then is that Epstein would NOT be a Registered Sex Offender, and he would not have had to regularly register the array of things he has to disclose that may well have been key to the new prosecution.   

[SteveRogers]

I have no idea as to what kind of Labor Secretary Alex Acosta is.  I couldn't tell you if he's a good one or a crappy one.  But to demand (and get) his resignation for factors that were known at the time of his confirmation is sheer political opportunism, and not what I would consider fair for any pubic official, regardless of party.

Firstly, Mr. Acosta's record in that regard is no different now than it was when he was confirmed.  Was this issue not raised when he was confirmed?  I'm told that Republicans, as well as Democrats, are bent out of shape about this.  If that is the case, why are they bent out of shape now?  What facts surrounding Mr. ACOSTA'S conduct (not Mr. Epstein's conduct) have come to light since then that would cause someone to think that this man "must go" when, not too long ago, when all of the facts of his conduct of the Epstein case were available, his nomination was approved without hue and cry?

If something in the way Mr. Acosta conducted his prosecution of Mr. Epstein has come to light that reveals impropriety or negligence in carrying out his official duties, that is one thing.  But this isn't the case, at least as far as I can see.  So what are "people" unhappy about?

One thing people are unhappy about is the fact that Epstein received a plea deal that seems rather lenient.  (And it was, indeed, lenient for a man of Eptstein's means.)  I can understand this, but the other side of the coin is the difficulty of proving sex cases.  I am acquainted with a former attorney (now a Judge) who had, in a previous career, prosecuted sex crimes.  She has told me of the difficulties of these cases, of the unreliability of the victims and witnesses (for all sorts of reasons), of the desirability of reaching plea agreements that result in the defendant having to register for life as a Sexual Offender or a Sexual Predator.  That sanction goes with Epstein for life, and it will go with him if he somehow beats the new charges against him.  These cases are not "slam dunks" and that's with ordinary witnesses that have modest means, or whom are indigent and are being represented by a public defender.  Ratchet those problems up when you have the 2008 Unconvicted Epstein going to court with virtually unlimited resources at his disposal.  

Epstein has been subject to all of these laws since his conviction, and is subject for life.  

Here are the registration requirements Epstein must observe.  They're pretty daunting; much more extensive than people think.  I think it may well be the case that some of the new indiscretions that Mr. Epstein has been charged with have been uncovered, in part, because since 2008 he has been subject to these daunting requirements.

If subsequent information shows that, somehow, Acosta was "bought off" by Epstein, that is a different story.  If Epstein was guilty of gross negligence in his prosecution of the case, that, too, is a different story, but there's not some kind of "new case" being made about this now.  The argument against Acosta now is no different than the argument made in 2008, or the argument made during Acosta's confirmation.  Absent new evidence of Mr. Acosta's being corrupt or negligent, there is no reason existing now to demand Acosta's resignation now than there was to not confirm him in the first place.

*siiiiiiiiiiiigh*

It wasn't known until The Miami Herald's recent reporting (so, neither 11 years ago nor 2 years ago) that Acosta, as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, personally worked with Epstein's attorneys to give Epstein his sweetheart deal that consisted of just 13 months in county jail.

And that's saying nothing of the fact that Acosta intervening to defend Epstein against his charges & broker a sweetheart deal made his position in the Trump Administration nothing but an embarrassment to this country (not to mention that it reeks of suspicion considering Trump's ties to Epstein).

That Acosta would "personally" work with Epstein's attorney in a case of this nature is far from unusual.  If Acosta were the AG of the US and he did so, THAT would raise eyebrows, but he was the Chief Prosecutor of a US Attorney's office for one particular district.

The mechanics of this plea deal didn't just come out.  It has been public knowledge for a while now.  The Miami Herald reported it because it was suddenly a hot item.

Everyone can Monday Morning QB the handling of a legal case.  The pain of Epstein's alleged victims (and I do believe that they are real victims) is compelling.  The belief that Epstein has never stopped this behavior is a reasonable belief.  But there is a major difference between what victims say on Facebook, to the media, or even in depositions, and what can actually be presented at trial.  To say nothing of how reliable the witnesses the prosecution had would be at trial.

If Acosta offered Epstein this deal when he had a slam dunk conviction, this is one thing, but no one has been able to conclusively show this.  I certainly hope that Epstein is convicted of the new charges.  But what would be the case if, in 2008, Epstein were acquitted at trial, or his case was overturned on appeal?  I don't know, but one thing that would have happened then is that Epstein would NOT be a Registered Sex Offender, and he would not have had to regularly register the array of things he has to disclose that may well have been key to the new prosecution.   

Personally, I am sensitive to the fact that there can be a wide gap between what the media reports about a criminal case and what a prosecutor knows they can prove, so I am one to be skeptical when the media slams a plea deal as being too lenient. That being said, a big red flag here is the treatment of the victims. It wasn’t by some oversight that the victims were kept in the dark about what was being done with the case. We now know that the prosecutors and the defense attorneys explicitly agreed not to inform the victims about the progress of plea negotiations. That’s outside the realm of the normal plea bargaining process.