Trump's new Sec. of Labor has some baggage...

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-03-2018, 05:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: I "got that" all along...and it didn't change my doubts about him nor the baggage he brings.

But I also "got" that somehow it's now about Hillary who is not in office/

Weird.

Also weird that "everyone" in the every admin doesn't have this kind of baggage.

The only reason I brought Hillary into it, was because of the ethical side.

Hillary, Acosta or any other political person's baggage, what difference, at this point, does it make??

[GMDino]

(12-03-2018, 05:30 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The only reason I brought Hillary into it, was because of the ethical side.

Hillary, Acosta or any other political person's baggage, what difference, at this point, does it make??

Well one isn't in office.

But aside from that....

I'd argue that your premise that "everyone" has baggage while possibly accurate doesn't leave room for a sliding scale.

Obama had "baggage" because of the church he went to.

Trump had "baggage" because of all the lawsuits he lost for defrauding people.

Are they equal?

Acosta has baggage that surpasses a lot of other "baggage".

But I get people defending him...I'm sure they were all defending Hillary and all the others too.   

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-03-2018, 05:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well one isn't in office.

But aside from that....

I'd argue that your premise that "everyone" has baggage while possibly accurate doesn't leave room for a sliding scale.

Obama had "baggage" because of the church he went to.

Trump had "baggage" because of all the lawsuits he lost for defrauding people.

Are they equal?

Acosta has baggage that surpasses a lot of other "baggage".

But I get people defending him...I'm sure they were all defending Hillary and all the others too.   

My initial responses are to Dill about calling this an Ehics matter.
Morality and ethics are absolute. There is no room for grey.

So to answer your question, yes they are all violations with different levels of punishment.

(11-30-2018, 03:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Mike, do you think that respect for and adherence to ethics in office is just another thing like taking shoes on or off the right way, when it comes to determining who is fit for office?  I have never heard of a prosecutor who lost his job for refusing to take off his shoes, but they can be prosecuted for corruption--for ethics violations. 

[Dill]

(12-03-2018, 05:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes, I'm glad you're getting it finally, his superiors had a big role in this case.

But it was also said he should have removed himself from the case and not done as directed by his superiors.

My point is that Hillary could have requested to be withdrawn from as well, but didn't so it's still an ethical dilemma.

My point is everyone has some thing in their past that they might regret or could have handled differently.

One Case/action shouldn't define a person's entire career should it?

I still don't see the ethical dilemma for Hillary. Acting as a court appointed attorney was the ethical thing to do in her case.  She was upholding the law, not breaking it or covering dirt for superiors.  So why would she request to be withdrawn?  (Remember, I am not talking about Fox Hillary.) 

Whether one case should define an entire career depends on the case, doesn't it?  There are some mishandled cases which, if brought to light, may simply hurt a lawyer's business for two or three years. Others may bring formal censure. Still others may lead to disbarment.  All a "baggage" to some degree, but some are more "baggagey" than others.

If the public wants honest public servants, then some past behavior will be unacceptable. If some politicians want "fixers," then a shady past may be a recommendation.  

[Dill]

(12-03-2018, 05:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: Acosta has baggage that surpasses a lot of other "baggage".

But I get people defending him...I'm sure they were all defending Hillary and all the others too.   

We may be learning more about what went on behind the closed doors. The Miami Herald is still going through all the documents they've acquired. 

I am curious now about the Senate vote to confirm him: 60-38. The Epstein case was at least mentioned at the time, but in articles like the following it is embedded in more laudable and "normal" work.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2017/02/17/five-things-you-should-know-about-alexander-acosta-trumps-new-pick-for-labor-secretary/?utm_term=.eb7b0a29c182

4. He worked on some high-profile cases as U.S. attorney.

As a top federal prosecutor in Miami, Acosta led the case against Washington GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was charged with five counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy related to the purchase of gambling boats. Abramoff pleaded guilty to conspiracy, fraud and tax charges in 2006. Acosta was also involved in the prosecution of accused terrorist Jose Padilla, who was allegedly part of an al-Qaeda support cell in South Florida that was raising money for terrorists.

Acosta achieved convictions against Colombian drug cartel members Miguel and Gilberto Rodriguez Orejuela. He led the case against Charles “Chuckie” Taylor Jr., who was convicted of torturing people who opposed his father, a former Liberian president. He also oversaw the case against Jeffrey Epstein, the wealthy financier accused of running a sex ring with underage girls. Epstein avoided federal charges when he pleaded guilty to state charges of soliciting prostitution, an agreement that was criticized by some of the alleged victims.

This looks like a good resume, as presented. Most of the iceberg is underwater. But Feinstein did suggest that Epstein's treatment of the girls suggested that he would not have the interests of workers in mind.

The impression I get from the Herald articles read thus far is that Epstein's own lawyers created most of the pressure on Epstein, but it didn't work with Joseph Recarey, the detective on the case, and Michael Reiter, the police chief.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article214210674.html

Acosta, in 2011, would explain that he was unduly pressured by Epstein’s heavy-hitting lawyers — Lefkowitz, Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, Jack Goldberger, Roy Black, former U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis, Gerald Lefcourt, and Kenneth Starr, the former Whitewater special prosecutor who investigated Bill Clinton’s sexual liaisons with Monica Lewinsky

Also it appears that Acosta was outright colluding with Epstein's lawyers to figure out how keep 90% of the iceberg out of sight.

[GMDino]

https://cbs2iowa.com/news/nation-world/judge-us-violated-victim-rights-in-jeffrey-epstein-sex-abuse-case

Quote:Judge: US violated victim rights in Epstein sex abuse case

---

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) — Federal prosecutors in Florida violated the rights of victims by secretly reaching a non-prosecution agreement with a wealthy financier accused of sexually abusing dozens of underage girls, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra said in a 33-page decision that victims of financier Jeffrey Epstein should have been consulted under federal law about the deal. Marra stopped short of invalidating the non-prosecution agreement but asked prosecutors and victims' lawyers to recommend in 15 days how to move forward.

Quote:"While the government spent untold hours negotiating the terms and implications of the (agreement) with Epstein's attorneys, scant information was shared with victims," Marra wrote. "Instead, the victims were told to be 'patient' while the investigation proceeded."

The law, Marra added, "lends itself to only one interpretation; namely, that victims should be notified of significant events resulting in resolution of their case without a trial."


Epstein, now 66, reached the deal in 2008 with then-Miami U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's office to end the federal probe that could have landed him in prison for life. Epstein instead pleaded guilty to lesser state charges, spent 13 months in jail, paid financial settlements to victims and is a registered sex offender.


Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta speaks during the daily briefing at the White House in Washington, Monday, June 12, 2017. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Acosta, now President Donald Trump's labor secretary, has defended the deal as appropriate given what prosecutors knew and could prove at the time, especially with many victims reluctant to testify. Marra said in his ruling he was not passing judgment on whether the deal should have been struck, only that victims' rights were violated.


Bradley Edwards, attorney for two victims who brought the lawsuit, said the decision should mean the non-prosecution agreement is thrown out — possibly exposing Epstein to federal charges once again. The agreement also granted immunity to anyone who assisted Epstein in finding the underage girls or concealing the abuse.


"Rather than work to correct the injustices done to the victims, the government spent 10 years defending its own improper conduct," Edwards said in an email. "It is time for the government to work with the victims, and not against them, to hold everyone who committed these crimes accountable."

The Miami U.S. attorney's office declined comment Thursday. The Justice Department, however, recently opened a separate investigation into the handling of the Epstein case to determine whether prosecutors committed professional misconduct.
U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Oversight Subcommittee, said in a prepared statement that the Justice Department should reopen its non-prosecution agreement so Epstein and anyone else who abused these children are held accountable.

FILE- In this July 30, 2008 file photo, Jeffrey Epstein is shown in custody in West Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Palm Beach Post, Uma Sanghvi, File)

"Jeffrey Epstein is a monster and his victims deserve justice," Sasse said. "I'm relieved that the court agrees that it was wrong to hide this child rapist's pathetically soft deal from his victims, in violation of federal law. The fact that it's taken this long to get this far is heartbreaking and infuriating."

Earlier this month, the Labor Department run by Acosta issued a statement saying the secretary welcomes the Justice Department probe.


"For more than a decade, this prosecution has been reviewed in great detail by newspaper articles, television reports, books, and congressional testimony," the statement said, adding that "the actions taken were in accordance with department practices, procedures, and the law."

Court documents show Epstein had a Palm Beach, Florida, mansion where at least 40 underage girls were brought for what turned into sexual encounters. Authorities say he had female fixers who would look for suitable girls, some local and others recruited from Eastern Europe and other parts of the world.


Before the scandal broke, Epstein was friends with Trump and had visited his Mar-a-Lago resort. Trump at the time told interviewers that Epstein was "a great guy." Records also show former President Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's jet more than two dozen times on various philanthropic trips. Neither Trump nor Clinton have been implicated in any wrongdoing.

Epstein also has a home in New York City, a ranch in New Mexico and a private Caribbean island.

[Dill]

(02-22-2019, 09:51 AM)GMDino Wrote: https://cbs2iowa.com/news/nation-world/judge-us-violated-victim-rights-in-jeffrey-epstein-sex-abuse-case


Before the scandal broke, Epstein was friends with Trump and had visited his Mar-a-Lago resort. Trump at the time told interviewers that Epstein was "a great guy." Records also show former President Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's jet more than two dozen times on various philanthropic trips. Neither Trump nor Clinton have been implicated in any wrongdoing.

LOL Both sides do it.

[GMDino]

(02-22-2019, 01:01 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Both sides do it.

Indeed.  This is much more a "rich and powerful" thing than a republican/democrat thing.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-22-2019, 01:01 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Both sides do it.

OFC they both do.
At the time of the Prosecution, Trump wasn't even really more than a name involved, where as Clinton was a big one who was most likely being protected.
Big difference between meeting Trump at Mars-A-Lago vs Bill flying in his private plane and sometimes visiting the ranch on multiple occasions.
I despise the Epstein, but it really has little to do with Trump and Acosta did what he could under the circumstances.

And I thought we were past this whole what happened in the past was the past, what the man does today is what matters, but I guess some still stuck in the old way of thinking.

[GMDino]

(02-22-2019, 02:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: OFC they both do.
At the time of the Prosecution, Trump wasn't even really more than a name involved, where as Clinton was a big one who was most likely being protected.

Oh, yeah. No one knew who Trump was way back then.

(02-22-2019, 02:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Big difference between meeting Trump at Mars-A-Lago vs Bill flying in his private plane and sometimes visiting the ranch on multiple occasions.
I despise the Epstein, but it really has little to do with Trump and Acosta did what he could under the circumstances.

Sure thing. Trump would never be accused of rape.

(02-22-2019, 02:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And I thought we were past this whole what happened in the past was the past, what the man does today is what matters, but I guess some still stuck in the old way of thinking.

The dude manipulated and raped teens. Some things are a little harder to forget.

[*bfine32*]

As I've been referenced a time or two I feel compelled to chime in.

Of course SSF is belittling Dino with many of his comments. However, go back and read the introduction to this thread and see where the belittling actually began. Don't bring a snake to the party and then complain when you get bit.

[GMDino]

(02-22-2019, 03:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I've been referenced a time or two I feel compelled to chime in.

Of course SSF is belittling Dino with many of his comments. However, go back and read the introduction to this thread and see where the belittling actually began. Don't bring a snake to the party and then complain when you get bit.

Found it!

[Dill]

(02-22-2019, 02:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: The dude manipulated and raped teens.  Some things are a little harder to forget.  

Sure, if you want to live in the past. 

I say we forget all this and let Epstein be Epstein and Acosta be Acosta.

But I know the haters will still hate.

[Dill]

(02-22-2019, 02:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote:
OFC they both do.
At the time of the Prosecution, Trump wasn't even really more than a name involved, where as Clinton was a big one who was most likely being protected.
Big difference between meeting Trump at Mars-A-Lago vs Bill flying in his private plane and sometimes visiting the ranch on multiple occasions.
I despise the Epstein, but it really has little to do with Trump and Acosta did what he could under the circumstances.

And I thought we were past this whole what happened in the past was the past, what the man does today is what matters, but I guess some still stuck in the old way of thinking.

Er, I was joking when I said that. 

I don't think both sides do it.  Thought everyone knew that.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-22-2019, 02:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh, yeah.  No one knew who Trump was way back then.  


Sure thing.  Trump would never be accused of rape.  


The dude manipulated and raped teens.  Some things are a little harder to forget.  

You don't get it and probably never will,

Trump was not accused of doing anything wrong like the others that are close to Epstein. Trump has his own issues, but highly unlikely they are connected to Epstein.

Bush was POTUS when this happened, again, nothing to do with Trump.

I'm talking about Acosta's past (it is what the OP is all about), he did the best he could given the circumstances and we should move past that.

But apparently it's always TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP to you. When the only thing Trump did here was appoint Accosta to SCOTUS which he is well qualified for.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-22-2019, 04:16 PM)Dill Wrote: Er, I was joking when I said that. 

I don't think both sides do it.  Thought everyone knew that.

If that's so, then why didn't you quote both Dino's post and mine and say that?

I don't like being accused of putting words in other people's mouths.
If you aren't going to use the Sarcasm emoji then its on you for not making it clear what you mean. :andy:
I'm not gonna play the childish game some of the posters get into of "I know I said that, but that's not what I meant."

[GMDino]

(02-22-2019, 05:51 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You don't get it and probably never will,

Trump was not accused of doing anything wrong like the others that are close to Epstein. Trump has his own issues, but highly unlikely they are connected to Epstein.

Bush was POTUS when this happened, again, nothing to do with Trump.

I'm talking about Acosta's past (it is what the OP is all about), he did the best he could given the circumstances and we should move past that.

But apparently it's always TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP to you. When the only thing Trump did here was appoint Accosta to SCOTUS which he is well qualified for.

Actually I never said Trump was accused with Epstein (his rape accusations are separate from this) I was was just commenting on how YOU said Clinton was much closer even though he wasn't accused in this case either and Trump was "just a name" when this happened.

As I said in the OP he came with baggage.  Some want to exonerate him as just a pawn.  Seemed to me that if he was that weak of a pawn he shouldn't be qualified for the position Trump wanted him in even if he had "little" to do with the decision regarding Epstein. 

Seems it was indeed worth posting about now that that baggage is being investigated.

[Dill]

(02-22-2019, 06:01 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: If that's so, then why didn't you quote both Dino's post and mine and say that?

I don't like being accused of putting words in other people's mouths.
If you aren't going to use the Sarcasm emoji then its on you for not making it clear what you mean. :andy:
I'm not gonna play the childish game some of the posters get into of "I know I said that, but that's not what I meant."

Easy there OtherMike. It was a passing joke, and not aimed at you or anyone in particular.  There hasn't been a post on this thread for two months until Dino's update. I wasn't thinking of you at all.

Also, if you took me seriously, that is not a big deal. Wasn't a trick.  No one is accusing you of anything. 
If you haven't followed my comments on bothsidesism that it is an understandable mistake.

So sure, it's "on me".  And I am still unlikely ever to spoil irony with the sarcasm emoji.  

[GMDino]

I hope this brings them all down.

I hope this touches every political party and religion and multiple countries and all these people are brought to justice and suffer.

I hope the people who decided to let Epstein skat the first time get raked over the coals too.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/07/08/jeffrey-epstein-court-sex-trafficking-charges/1671254001/

But I know a bunch of rich and powerful men will probably get off easy (no pun intended).

[CJD]

(02-22-2019, 01:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: Indeed.  This is much more a "rich and powerful" thing than a republican/democrat thing.

I agree.

Rich people skirting the law (until they eventually don't in some cases) is a time honored tradition in America that knows no political party boundary.