On Saturday the Wall Street Journal complained that Alexander Acosta had been drummed out of the Labor Department based on unsubstantiated charges about the deal he approved for Jeffrey Epstein. The Journal expressed dismay about the alleged injustice of the pressure placed on Acosta and expressed concern that President Trump would now have more difficulty in finding people willing to work in the White House.
In fact, as the Washington Post reported, some of the prosecutors in Acosta’s office supported the deal (though not the lead prosecutor) which makes the existence of corruption by Epstein less clear (or more widespread than previously thought).
But several other things are clear. First, when substantial and credible evidence exists that an accused is a serial pedophile, and the accused receives a sweetheart deal, it is natural that sustained criticism would inevitably follow (that it has taken so long is shocking). Second, the deal not only was extremely lenient with respect to Epstein, but it also inexplicably provided that co-conspirators would not be prosecuted. Third, efforts to find willing witnesses were not fully followed up. Fourth, the deal was contrary to clear federal law for failure to notify the victims. The failure of the Journal to mention the third and fourth points in its editorial is an instance of journalistic malpractice. If the Journal wants to be regarded as a respectable conservative voice, it would be well advised not to ignore the strongest and most obvious arguments against its position.
Comments