Editorial: Feds still stonewalling on Jeffrey Epstein deal
Perhaps the Department of Justice will take the Jeffrey Epstein case more seriously when President Joe Biden takes office. Under President Donald Trump, the whitewash continues.
The latest outrage came last month. The department’s Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, showed only “poor judgment” and not misconduct in 2008 when he approved an absurdly light deal for sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.
That deal, known as a non-prosecution agreement, allowed Epstein to avoid federal charges that could have resulted in a life sentence. Instead, he pleaded guilty to a pair of minor state charges in return for an 18-month jail sentence that turned out to be 13 months in the Palm Beach County stockade with much time outside.
In a statement, the Department of Justice said, “Acosta failed to consider the difficulties inherent in a resolution that relied heavily on action by numerous state officials over whom he had no authority; he resolved the federal investigation before significant investigative steps were completed; and he agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the (agreement) without the consideration required under the circumstances.”
What an understatement. Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., cut through the bureaucratese. Acosta’s action, Sasse said, was “a disgusting failure.”
More than a decade later, and with Epstein dead, the Department of Justice still resists a full accounting. The department released the summary and issued a statement but withheld the full, 350-page report.
Fortunately, the Miami Herald obtained a copy. Two years ago, the Herald’s riveting series “Perversion of Justice” renewed interest in the Epstein case. It led to his arrest in New York 17 months ago and federal charges of sex trafficking.
Based on the full report, the Herald said that a prosecutor in West Palm Beach, Ann Marie Villafana, wanted to arrest Epstein. Instead, her superiors — all men, like Epstein’s legal team — overruled her and essentially dismissed his victims — all troubled teenage girls from low-income families who were recruited and taken to Epstein’s mansion in Palm Beach.
Ty Kelly was Villafana’s attorney during the Office of Professional Responsibility review. In a statement to the Herald, Kelly said, “Ms. Villafana believes the injustice in this case is a direct result of implicit biases based on gender and socioeconomic status — biases that allowed Mr. Epstein’s defense team unparalleled access to the decision-makers at the Justice Department, while the victims, Ms. Villafana, and the FBI agents working the case were silenced.”
As for Acosta, he appears to be suffering from selective memory. One key moment came in 2007, when he met — not in his Miami office, but in West Palm Beach — with one of Epstein’s attorneys, Jay Lefkowitz.
After the meeting, Lefkowitz emailed to thank Acosta for agreeing to bring “finality” to the case. When questioned about the meeting, the Herald reported, Acosta said that he couldn’t recall it.
After the summary came out, five members of Congress asked for a briefing on the full report. All are Democrats. Two are from South Florida — Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Lois Frankel.
In a Nov. 18 letter to Attorney General William Barr, the House Oversight and Reform Committee noted that members had asked the Department of Justice three times in 2019 for updates and documents related to the Acosta-Epstein investigation. The committee got nothing from the Office of Professional Responsibility
The letter added, “Despite our committee’s repeated requests for information relating to this investigation spanning more than 16 months, (the office) never notified the committee that it had completed its work, never informed the committee of its findings, and never provided any briefing or other information regarding these matters.”
Only after news of the report leaked did the committee get it. The committee now wants a briefing from the office, “as well as all documents relating to the investigation” by Wednesday.
Developments continue. Last July, the FBI arrested Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein’s former girlfriend is accused of recruiting the girls whom he allegedly abused. In a deposition, she dodged questions about whether Epstein had sex with the girls.
In a separate deposition, Epstein’s house manager said Maxwell took photographs of the girls while they were topless. Maxwell, the man said, kept the photos in an album. Maxwell has denied the allegations.
For Epstein’s victims and the public, the frustration has been not knowing how and why the plea deal went down. We might learn something from Epstein’s 2006 grand jury records, but Palm Beach County’s chief judge has opposed their release.
In October, however, State Attorney Dave Aronberg dropped his objection to release of the records. He was not in office at the time. Then-State Attorney Barry Krischer was Epstein’s partner in this travesty. A judge now will decide whether making the records public would lead to “furtherance of justice,” a condition for their release.
A federal judge found that Acosta’s office violated the law by not telling victims about the impending deal with Epstein. A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, but in August the victims won a rehearing before the full court.
After Epstein took the deal, the Herald reported, colleagues congratulated Villafana. She responded by saying that Epstein should be facing 18 years, not 18 months.
“We salute the courage of survivors as they again are confronted with these horrible crimes and their aftermath,” says the Department of Justice statement.
The report only raises more questions. It should at last, confront the truth.
———
©2020 Sun Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, Fla.)
Visit the Sun Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, Fla.) at www.sun-sentinel.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.