Allied Progress: “If Acosta Did Nothing Unethical or Illegal in Letting Epstein Off Easy, He Should Welcome a DOJ Inspector General Investigation”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta’s “second in command” during his time as a U.S. Attorney General is offering a desperate defense of his former boss’ negotiation of a lenient plea deal in the Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse case involving more than 100 underage girls — a deal shrouded in secrecy at the time that many of the politically-connected billionaire’s victims are still fighting to overturn more than a decade later. Jeffrey Sloman’sop-edto the Miami Herald comes on the heels of a new investigation into Acosta’s prosecutorial misconduct in the Epstein case by the DoJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).
Allied Progress – a consumer advocacy group that issued letters to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week stressing that an investigation by the DoJ Inspector General would be far more meaningful, transparent and accountable than an OPR investigation – responded today to Sloman’s assertion that Acosta “always acted with integrity” throughout the Epstein case with a simple question: If Secretary Acosta’s handling of the Epstein case was completely above board, why hasn’t he welcomed an investigation by the Inspector General to clear his name?”
“It’s hard to take seriously the argument that there’s ‘nothing to see here folks’ from an Acosta ally who conveniently fails to address the secrecy with which the wrist-slap Epstein plea deal was reached, with little or no input from the victims,” said Kyle Herrig, Senior Advisor to Allied Progress. “It’s clear this public relations effort is being waged in response to the new DoJ investigation, which one might think Acosta would welcome if he had nothing to hide. After all, Acosta apparently has no regrets, having remarked to the Senate during his confirmation hearings that his handling in the case was a ‘point of pride’ and later called the outcome a ‘good thing.’ Why wouldn’t Acosta want the DOJ to examine the facts and perhaps reach the same conclusion?”
Added Herrig:“Now is the time for transparency, not more secrecy. Given the Office of Professional Responsibility’s lack of subpoena power, inability to issue binding disciplinary recommendations and its reputation of secrecy with regard to its probes, it’s critical that Congress gives the DoJ Inspector General the authority he has asked for to conduct a more serious and transparent investigation by passing the bipartisan Inspector General Access Act. It is the most effective way to get to the bottom of why Secretary Acosta allowed a wealthy and well-connected man to escape a punishment that reflected the gravity of his alleged sex crimes involving more than 100 children.”
Earlier this month, Allied Progress launched a digital ad campaignasking the more than 130,000 activists on its email lists to share a video, “Point of Pride”, on social media networks. Over 1,400 constituents have signed Allied Progress’ petitiondemanding their Senators hold Acosta accountable by moving forward on H.R. 202, the Inspector General Access Act.
What You Need To Know:
Alex Acosta’s Former Second In Command Defended His Old Boss Just Weeks After The Department Of Justice Opened An Investigation Of Acosta’s Handling Of Jeffrey Epstein’s Plea Deal
Alex Acosta’s “Second In Command” On The Jeffrey Epstein Case Wrote An Op-Ed Defending Epstein’s Plea Deal, Dismissing Criticisms Of It As “Politically Driven.”
Jeffrey H. Sloman, Alex Acosta’s Former “Second In Command,” Defended Epstein’s Plea Deal In A “Lengthy Opinion Piece” Just Two Weeks After The Justice Department Opened A New Investigation Of The Case.
In February 2019, Jeffrey H. Sloman, Alex Acosta’s Former “Second In Command” And A “Former Top Prosecutor Involved In The Jeffrey Epstein Sex Case” Defended Alex Acosta’s Secret Plea Deal The Billionaire In A “Lengthy Opinion Piece” In The Miami Herald. “A former top prosecutor involved in the Jeffrey Epstein sex case is defending his old boss, Alexander Acosta, whose decision to craft a secret plea deal with the wealthy New York hedge fund manager has come under federal scrutiny.” [Julie K. Brown, “Top aide of Jeffrey Epstein prosecutor Acosta: We acted with integrity,” Miami Herald, 02/15/19]
- Sloman Claimed That The Criticisms Against Acosta Were “Politically Driven.” “In a lengthy opinion piece submitted to the Miami Herald Editorial Board, Sloman alleges that the attacks on Acosta’s role in the controversial case are politically driven by critics who failed to raise significant issues when Acosta was nominated and confirmed as the U.S. secretary of labor in 2017.” [Julie K. Brown, “Top aide of Jeffrey Epstein prosecutor Acosta: We acted with integrity,” Miami Herald, 02/15/19]
Alex Acosta’s “Second In Command” Claimed That Criticisms Of Acosta Were Just “Politically Driven” And That Calls For An Investigation Were Just “‘Washington’s Latest Polarized Conflagration.’”
Jeffrey H. Sloman Wrote His Opinion Piece Just Two Weeks After The Justice Department Began Investigating Alex Acosta’s Potential “Prosecutorial Misconduct.” “Sloman’s comments come two weeks after the Justice Department announced it had opened an investigation over whether there was prosecutorial misconduct in the case involving Epstein, who ran a sex pyramid scheme from his Palm Beach estate that targeted scores of underage girls from 2001 to 2006.” [Julie K. Brown, “Top aide of Jeffrey Epstein prosecutor Acosta: We acted with integrity,” Miami Herald, 02/15/19]
- Sloman Claimed Acosta Is “’An Outstanding Public Servant,’” And That Scrutiny Over The Epstein Case Was Just “’Washington’s Latest Polarized Conflagration.’” “In his op-ed, Sloman called Acosta ‘an outstanding public servant … at risk of becoming collateral damage in Washington’s latest polarized conflagration,’ adding, ‘I won’t let it happen without first being heard.’” [Julie K. Brown, “Top aide of Jeffrey Epstein prosecutor Acosta: We acted with integrity,” Miami Herald, 02/15/19]
Alex Acosta’s “Second In Command” Admitted That They Should Have “Pushed For Much Harsher Terms” In The Plea Deal, But Claimed That Epstein’s Victims Were Too “Terrified” To Help The Case Anyway.
Alex Acosta’s “Second In Command” Argued That Full Prosecution Against Epstein Was Hindered By How “‘Terrified’’ His Victims Were.
Jeffrey H. Sloman Claimed That “’Legal Impediments’” Hindered Full Prosecution Of Jeffrey Epstein, Including The “Belief That Many Of Epstein’s Teenage Victims Were Too ‘Terrified’ To Cooperate In The Case.” “In his first public comments on the 10-year-old case, Jeffrey H. Sloman — who at the time was second in command under Acosta at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami — said prosecutors resolved the case based on the facts and evidence, and what he called ‘legal impediments,’ including the belief that many of Epstein’s teenage victims were too ‘terrified’ to cooperate in the case.” [Julie K. Brown, “Top aide of Jeffrey Epstein prosecutor Acosta: We acted with integrity,” Miami Herald, 02/15/19]
Alex Acosta’s “Second In Command” Admitted That “‘We Should Have Pushed For Much Harsher Terms’” Against Epstein.
Jeffrey H. Sloman Admitted That “’We Should Have Pushed For Much Harsher Terms,” But Dismissed Allegations That Alex Acosta’s Office “’Kowtowed’ To Epstein’s High-Priced Defense Lawyers.’” “As additional details about Epstein’s crimes have emerged, it is clear to me that we should have pushed for much harsher terms,’ Sloman wrote. ‘That said, some have mistakenly suggested that our office kowtowed to Epstein’s high-priced defense lawyers or, worse, that his lawyers corrupted or intimidated us into submission. … Nothing could be further from the truth.’” [Julie K. Brown, “Top aide of Jeffrey Epstein prosecutor Acosta: We acted with integrity,” Miami Herald, 02/15/19]
In His Op-Ed, Alex Acosta’s “Second In Command” Glossed Over The Secrecy Of The Plea Deal.
Alex Acosta’s “Second In Command” Didn’t Mention The Secrecy Of The Epstein Deal, Which Was “The Chief Complaint Brought By Epstein’s Victims.”
Jeffrey H. Sloman’s Opinion Piece Did Not Directly Discuss “The Chief Complaint Brought By Epstein’s Victims,” That They And The Public Were Denied Access To Alex Acosta’s Non-Prosecution Agreement With Epstein. “Sloman did not directly address the chief complaint brought by Epstein’s victims, who are now in their late 20s and early 30s. Those who spoke to the Herald said they felt betrayed by federal prosecutors, who sealed the non-prosecution agreement from public view so that they wouldn’t find out about it before he was sentenced. It would be almost a year before they were successful in having it unsealed. By then, it was too late to try to derail it.” [Julie K. Brown, “Top aide of Jeffrey Epstein prosecutor Acosta: We acted with integrity,” Miami Herald, 02/15/19]
Alex Acosta’s “Second In Command” Denied Cooperation Between Federal Prosecutors And Epstein’s Lawyers–But The Miami Herald Offered Proof That Epstein’s Lawyers Influenced The Terms Of The Plea Deal…And Tried To Hide It.
Alex Acosta’s “Second In Command” Claimed That Reporting On The Epstein Case Did Not Substantiate Claims That Federal Prosecutors Were Inappropriately Cooperating With Epstein’s Lawyers…
Jeffrey H. Sloman Claimed That The Miami Herald’s Previous Reporting On The Epstein Case Did Not Substantiate Its Claims About Alex Acosta’s Office Cooperating With Epstein’s Lawyers, But The Herald Had Quoted Communications Demonstrating That “Epstein’s Lawyers Were Allowed To Dictate The Terms Of Each Deal They Drew Up.” “Wrote Sloman: ‘The Herald’s ‘Perversion of Justice’ series presented a heartrending portrait of Epstein’s victims and made a strong case that he should have gone to jail much longer, but never explained or substantiated its accusation that we schemed with Epstein’s lawyers.’” [Julie K. Brown, “Top aide of Jeffrey Epstein prosecutor Acosta: We acted with integrity,” Miami Herald, 02/15/19]
…But TheMiami Herald Offered Proof That Epstein’s Lawyers Influenced The Plea Deal And That Both Legal Teams Worked To Hide A “Paper Trail.”
The Herald Cited Letters And Emails Between Acosta’s Team And Epstein’s Lawyers Showing That “Epstein’s Lawyers Were Allowed To Dictate The Terms Of Each Deal They Drew Up.” “The Herald’s series quoted a trove of letters and emails between prosecutors and Epstein’s defense team that showed that Epstein’s lawyers were allowed to dictate the terms of each deal that they drew up, and prosecutors repeatedly backed down on deadlines.” [Julie K. Brown, “Top aide of Jeffrey Epstein prosecutor Acosta: We acted with integrity,” Miami Herald, 02/15/19]
- The Herald Also Showed That The Lawyers Referred To Efforts To Have Personal Or Phone Conversations So “There Would Be No Paper Trail.” “The email chain also shows that prosecutors sometimes communicated with the defense team using private emails, and that their correspondence referenced discussions that they wanted to have by phone or in person so that there would be no paper trail, the Herald found.” [Julie K. Brown, “Top aide of Jeffrey Epstein prosecutor Acosta: We acted with integrity,” Miami Herald, 02/15/19]
# # #