I don’t know anything about Acosta, but at very first blush he looks a helluva lot better than Puzder every did. I am cautious about letting Trump set the bar so low that I’m grateful for anything he does; at the same time, if he starts nominating people who aren’t dumpster fires, merely people who are politically opposed to me, I want to recognize that.
What are the arguments for, or against him? How does he compare to Puzder?
Did you read this Politico story:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/alexander-acosta-trump-jeffrey-epstein-plea-235096
Of course this fits right in with Donald “Grab that pussy” Trump.
Looks like the media is already out to get him for being a friendly prosecutor in the criminal trial of Jeffrey Epstein (serial pedophile billionaire and friend of Trump). The article I read quoted Acosta as saying that Epstein’s lawyers were (to paraphrase) “just so big and powerful, they scared the hell out of me, and I crumpled underneath their weight”. And while that’s not the actual quote, it didn’t read much different than that.
I’m not smelling greatness on him, for certain. Either he looked the other way for a billionaire or is a wimp. Though, I’ll grant, the article was making no pretense at being anything other than a negative op-ed piece. Still, it didn’t read like they were having to stretch too far to smear him.
EDIT: That was the article (the POLITICO one).
He’ll probably try to eliminate child labor laws.
We don’t want then to grow up to be a bunch of bad hombres, do we?
Mr. Epstein was not only a dear good friend of a future president, but also of a past one in 2008, and claims to have helped co-found the Clinton Foundation. And has many other political and scientific pals.
'In September 2002, Epstein flew Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker to Africa in his private Boeing 727.’
I have never heard of Chris Tucker.
Still, although an unpleasant fellow, I would take the paedophile stuff with a grain of salt. He likes them young, and procures women. If some are under 18, that is not uncommon in many cultures.
And some of the allegations are flimsy:
**The woman (now using the pseudonym “Jane Doe”) filed a new lawsuit in June 2016, this time in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and without some of the accusations made in the initial lawsuit, including claims by the plaintiff that Trump threw money for an abortion at Johnson and that he called Epstein a “Jew bastard”.
**
However, journalist Jon Swaine reported in The Guardian in July 2016 that the “Katie Johnson” lawsuits appeared to be orchestrated by Norm Lubow, a former producer on the The Jerry Springer Show, whom he described as “an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities”
One day Jerry Springer. Oprah and Judge Judy will be recognised as having the same gravitas and finality as the Supreme Court — but not yet, not yet.
What the fucking fuck? Are you serious?
Oh. Wait. I’m sorry. I forgot. I was still operating under the impression that “Character Matters.” Then I remember who our president is and it all comes rushing back to me … and then I curl up into a fetal position and rock back and forth for a few hours.
Well, paedophile implies he likes 6-yr-olds. And whatever Epstein, Clinton and Trump got up to together, a lot of this stuff is media hype to sell news.
I’m looking at you, Daily Mail.
Epstein, Clinton and Trump.
A powerful legal firm or crime-fighting trio ? You make the choice.
Lucky you. Loudmouthed black guy from the Rush Hour films (with Jackie Chan) and The Fifth Element.
And while under-18 is “not uncommon in many cultures”, it’s still kinda creepy for a middle-aged dude.
There was no such quote in the article or nothing close. He said that his office was assaulted by the defense attorneys but they held fast and did not change positions.
He didn’t change his position on the facts of the case, true. But the question that was, presumably, being asked of him and to which his quote was pertaining wasn’t whether he’d changed his opinion on the facts of the case, rather it was what provoked him to accept a sweet deal on the behalf of the victims, without consulting those victims. And his answer to that was:
“I use the word assault intentionally, as the defense in this case was more aggressive than any which I, or the prosecutors in my office, had previously encountered”
If you can think of way to take the later statement that his “position never changed” correspond to an accusation that he succumbed to some unknown force and offered a sweet deal to the defense and failed to talk with the victims, then I’ll happily detract my paraphrase. But I’m not seeing how his orange corresponds to that apple. “My position never changed” just isn’t a defense for that particular accusation.
This is correct.
Sage Rat, you are usually better than this, and I generally respect you as a poster. But there is no reasonable interpretation that could make your “paraphrase” anything like true. Don’t do shit like that. Please.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t see that that question was asked of him at all. Since presuming it was asked of him is the only reason to think he’s contradicting himself, the simplest explanation was that he wasn’t responding to that question.
He does later explain that later evidence leads to his regret in offering the plea deal. I don’t see this case as a reason to oppose him.
Well perhaps I should have found the article again and simply quoted as-is, but I will maintain that it is how the quote reads to me and continues to read to me, if one reconstructs the conversation that was presumably being had that lead to the statement being made. But I’m a cynic.
EDIT: It wasn’t from a conversation, but a letter that was written. I don’t know what in response to.
Excuse me, I was under the impression the OP was asking about qualifications for the position, not dreck the Democrats could drag up to try and get his nomination scuttled. 
He was on the NLRB for 2 years (2002 to 2003), nominated by President Bush the Younger. He was later nominated to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department by the same president, and served in that role for three years. After that, he was nominated by President Bush to be US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Eventually, he became dean of the law school at Florida International University, which position he still holds.
His most relevant experience would be with the NLRB. In addition, his job as the US Attorney in Florida would have resulted in prosecutions for labor law violations, presumably. He has been vetted three times by the Senate and approved by overwhelming majorities each time. It is likely that he will face relatively smooth sailing, though undoubtedly there will be some Democratic Senators who will troll the nomination with things like the Epstein trial, the letter in 2004 defending “vote caging” sent to a judge in Ohio, or the possibility that, in his role at Justice, he assigned cases and hired people in part on the basis of party affiliation (as determined by the Department’s inspector general in a 2008 report).
In his positive column, he testified in Congress in 2011 that Muslims should not be singled out, but treated the same as any other group of people.
Thanks. While I’m not opposed to politics being used to drag him down at this point (I figure Republicans have zero moral standing for any such objections after the Obama years, and no, I’m not interested in that conversation), I was mostly interested in his actual qualifications, which based on this sound pretty solid. IOW, he’s wrong within normal parameters :).
Here is a review of the letter and the context under which it was written.
He seems to have written it at the time that the victims opened their suit against him.
Acosta wrote his letter on the 20th. The Daily Kos article was written on the 25th. Looking at the 2011 calendar, “on Monday” would presumably mean the 21st. Granted, that means that Acosta wrote his letter a day previous to the suit being filed. But presumably it takes some time between lawyers being contacted and a suit getting underway, so that doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for him to have been unaware that a suit was pending.
Presumably, the suit was undertaken due to the “new evidence” being presented in newspapers, spurring the old victims to rethink what had happened, and check what had actually happened to Epstein in the interim - finding it to be unacceptable.
In Acosta’s letter, he refers only to the newspaper reports. He makes no indication of being aware of the pending suit. Does anyone have any idea of how likely it is that he would have been aware of it? Would the victims’ lawyers have contacted him previous to filing?
If they hadn’t, then my paraphrase is probably unfair. He was responding only to the accusation that Epstein’s sentence was light, not that he had failed to work with the victims to decide whether they were willing to accept a plea bargain. Sentences for sex crimes are (to my knowledge) usually a lot lighter than most people would expect, due to the challenge of proving something which has little-to-no physical evidence. And, with being wealthy, it is probably no large surprise that Epstein would get favorable treatment in jail.
Arguing that the Defense was doing an amazingly strong job at discrediting the evidence and the Prosecution seems like a reasonable defense against an accusation of light sentencing.
However, if one argues that the “Defense was just so powerful”, in response to an accusation that you didn’t work with the victims, I don’t find that to be a credible response. You might say, “Years had already passed by the point a plea-bargain was being hammered out and, as Federal officers, not local State attorneys, we simply didn’t have regular and personal dealings with the victims to make that sort of attempt. Our client was the state, not the girls who were victimized.” But you don’t say that the Defense was scary or overly-aggressive.
So unless someone believes that it is almost certain that Acosta would have been aware of the pending suit and so, probably, writing in response to that, I will retract my paraphrase.
Nothing in the article says anything remotely resembling “(Epstein’s attorneys were) just so big and powerful, they scared the hell out of me, and I crumpled underneath their weight”.
It says, in fact, just the opposite -
Acosta’s reaction was not based on how big and powerful Epstein’s attorneys were, but because they investigated prosecutors’ families to look for dirt, and failing to negotiate in good faith. And Acosta was not scared into crumpling.
Your allegation about what Acosta said is false.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re welcome. Some people around here get much to attentive to what I would consider red herring, and lose the plot in the process. I think he’s a much better pick for the job than that CKE CEO would have been. If only the Senate had shown as much spine on Secretary De Vos. <sigh>