Where is Alex Acosta: Why House GOP Won't Demand He Testify About Epstein File

 

Alex Acosta is #1 on my list of loyalists

(In reference to "Creep" Epstein Case)

Trump's former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta (2017-2019) was not one of the former government officials subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee over the Jeffrey Epstein probe but he should have been as the #1 witness overall.

This very long and detailed article has a lot of information and facts and details thus far unknown. It is dated November 12, 2020 and is from THE AP (and as usual edited and formatted to fit blog).

Why does it matter: As a federal prosecutor in 2008, Acosta approved a highly controversial non-prosecution agreement that allowed Epstein to serve minimal time in prison and shut down the federal investigation into his alleged sex trafficking ring. The so-called sweetheart plea deal, which Acosta negotiated without consulting the victims, also shielded co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, at least according to her and her lawyers, for any future prosecution related to the sex crimes.

So, Maxwell has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn her sex trafficking conviction, citing that sweet heart deal in her court filing which she doesn't want the government to unseal grand jury testimony related to the Epstein case.

Driver of the news: House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-KY) announced that he had issued subpoenas to a number of prominent figures to appear for depositions in the following weeks and months. Those individuals included President Bill Clinton, his wife and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and former FBI directors James Comey and Robert Mueller.

A House panel approved a motion by Rep. Perry (R-PA) directing Comer to subpoena those very same individuals. Acosta wasn't among those subpoenaed, which raised eyebrows from those following the case re: What was Acosta's role in negotiating the Epstein deal at the heart of the scandal. 

Note: Former AG Alberto Gonzales, who was 

included in the subpoena list, was Acosta's boss during the time Acosta was was serving in South Florida.

BACKGROUND: Acosta gets "sweetheart deal" with Epstein avoiding a life prison sentence got a deal that saw him entirely freed from prison after 13 months. Because of the deal, Epstein had to make payments to victims and he was registered as a sex offender, but he was allowed to continue traveling and conducting business as usual.

Then a FL judge ruled in February 2019 that prosecutors broke the law in reaching the deal because they did not notify Epstein victims. Then Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) ordered an investigation into the plea agreement conduct days before Epstein died by suicide in his prison cell (which now is also questionable).

 

Acosta has defended his handling of the Epstein deal saying in 2019: "The goal was to put Epstein behind bars, ensure he registered as a sexual offender, provide victims with a means to seek restitution, and protect the public by putting them on notice that a sexual predator was within their midst and freed from jail."

Acosta resigned from his labor secretary position in 2019 after the backlash became a distraction for the Trump administration and then in 2020 the DOJ concluded in a report that Acosta demonstrated "poor judgment" when he signed off on the deal.

Where is Alex Acosta now? (Acosta was named to Newsmax Inc.'s board of directors in June 2025).

A DOJ report found Alex Acosta exercised “poor judgment” in handling the Epstein investigation, but that he did not engage in misconduct. The 350-page report marks the culmination of an investigation by the DOJ's OPR into Acosta’s handling of a secret plea deal with Epstein, who had been accused of sexually abusing dozens of underage girls. As stated above, though the report faulted Acosta for his judgment, it concluded that his actions in arranging the deal did not constitute misconduct, and none of the prosecutors involved committed misconduct in their interactions with the victims.

The victims have hoped the internal investigation would hold officials accountable for actions they say allowed Epstein to escape justice. In a statement, Acosta expressed vindication at the report’s conclusion that he had not committed misconduct saying it “fully debunks” allegations that he had cut a sweetheart deal for Epstein. He said the report confirmed that his decision to open an investigation into Epstein had resulted in a jail sentence and a sex offender registration for Epstein.

Acosta said: “OPR’s report and public records document that without federal involvement, Epstein would have walked free.”

NOTEWORTHY: The OPR probe also concluded that Acosta’s decision to resolve the federal investigation through the non-prosecution agreement constituted poor judgment. Investigators found that although it was within his broad discretion and did not result from “improper factors,” the agreement was nonetheless “a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest that

caused government to open an investigation of Epstein.”

Under the 2008 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) Epstein pleaded guilty to FL state soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution. That allowed him to avert a possible life sentence instead serving 13 months in a work release program. He was required to make payments to victims and register as a sex offender. Epstein was later charged by federal prosecutors in Manhattan for nearly identical allegations in 2019, but he took his own life while in federal custody as he awaited trial. 

Acosta said the “Epstein affair was vastly more lurid and sweeping” when he first found an allusion to some of the high-profile names referenced in media reports as friends or associates of Epstein, and the fact that more evidence has now been assembled as additional victims have come forward.

In a separate statement, Marie Villafana, who was a lead prosecutor in Florida said she was pleased OPR had completed the report but, “I am disappointed that it has not released the full report so the victims and the public can have a fuller accounting of the depth of interference that led to the patently unjust outcome in the Epstein case. That injustice, I believe, was the result of deep, implicit institutional biases that prevented me and the FBI agents who worked diligently on this case from holding Mr. Epstein accountable for his crimes.” 

Brad Edwards, attorney for several of Epstein’s victims said: “The report is a disappointing sidestep of the issue, and appears to have backed in to a desired result that is difficult to reconcile with the facts. We left still wondering why Epstein

got the sweetheart deal he did and who exactly made the decision to transform a lengthy sex trafficking indictment into a non-prosecution agreement.” 

The report was condemned by then Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) who at the time questioned DOJ officials about the plea deal repeatedly saying: “Letting a well-connected billionaire get away with child rape and international sex trafficking isn’t just ‘poor judgment’ – it is a disgusting failure. Americans ought to be enraged. Jeffrey Epstein should be rotting behind bars today, but the DOJ failed Epstein’s victims at every turn.”

The OPR investigation centered on two aspects (1) whether prosecutors committed misconduct by  resolving the allegations through a non-prosecution agreement, and (2) whether they failed to keep victims adequately in the loop on developments in the case. 

The report concluded that prosecutors did not commit misconduct in their interactions with the victims because there was no “clear and unambiguous duty” to consult with them before entering into the non-prosecution agreement. 

But it says the lack of consultation reflected poorly on the DOJ and “is contradictory to DOJ's mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure.”

Still, the report concluded that Acosta had the authority as U.S. attorney “To resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate, as long as his decision was not motivated or influenced by improper factors.”

The office found no evidence that Acosta was swayed by “impermissible considerations, such

as Epstein’s wealth, status, or associations and in fact had resisted efforts by defense lawyers to return the case to the state for whatever outcome the state wanted.”

The report also did not find that a well-publicized 2007 breakfast meeting with one of Epstein’s attorneys led to the non-prosecution agreement, signed weeks earlier, “nor to any other significant decision that benefited Epstein.” 

Records reviewed by the OPR show that prosecutors weighed concerns about witness 

credibility and the impact of a trial on victims, as well as Acosta’s concerns about the DOJ's proper role in prosecuting solicitation crimes. 

The report concluded: “OPR does not find that Acosta engaged in professional misconduct by

resolving the federal investigation of Epstein in the way he did or the other subjects committed professional misconduct through their implementation of Acosta’s decisions.”

_________________________________________

My 2 Cents: A lot to unload and absorb as seen above and in the documents available as we now wait for House Oversight Committee action and results. It's gonna be a barn-burner for sure, and that in my view is why Trump and those around him are nervous wrecks.

So, stay tuned.

Thanks for stopping by.