Prosecutors often accept horrible deals, for a variety of reasons. In the Epstein case, it avoided putting very young women on the stand to be persecuted by an aggressive defense attorney.

Violent crime also springs awful deals by prosecutors. There are laws on the books that direct harsh penalties for the use of firearms in a crime, but they're darn near useless, because prosecutors use the threat of those charges as a bargaining chip for a confession to a lesser charge.

Me dino does not like Acosta in the least. Nevertheless, no one whether you like him or not, can be held accountable for a criminal's act unless he/she is an accomplice to the said crime. For example, being the getaway driver for a bank robber. For another example, knowingly aiding a fugitive such as hiding him from law enforcement.
Furthermore, even scumbags like Epstein are to be due process in accordance to our Constitution legally presumed innocent as suspects and entitled to a lawyer until proven guilty and convicted even of sick as hell organized child sex trafficking.
My admittedly questionable credentials for my expertise would be for earning a degree in old-fashioned for really real journalism (with some law taught) and having been a police reporter (among other typewriter things) for 7 years during the Seventies and being taught all kinds of assorted legal stuff during a week of annual advanced training for 21 years as a state corrections officer, not to mention the academy I attended for five (six?) weeks to get the job.

I could be wrong here but I don't think Acosta represented Epstein but he was involved in the sentencing deals.

Not a fan of gossip or gossip journalism, I didn't understand what this story was all about until reading Ann Coulter's opinion on the matter this morning. How to become a billionaire? Get pretty, under age girls to have sex with the rich and powerful. Videotape the trysts and receive payments.
http://www.informationliberation.com/...

From the perspective of the libtards, reparations for slavery are perfectly fine. For reparations to make sense, then you (general you) have to believe that a "son" can be held accountable for the sins of his "father"; put another way, because some of my ancestors probably owned ancestors of people I know, I should be required to pay those people for that.

From the liberal perspective and all their white guilt, that position makes perfect sense. So it doesn't seem all that much of a stretch for them to believe an attorney should be liable for what his/her client does.

The only way I would have a drop of sympathy for Epstein is if he was 17/18 and messing around with younger girls. As an adult he is a bottom feeder and deserves to go down hard and I sure hope he takes a bunch of these other Pedos with him.

It all has to do with the leftists attacking anything related to or close to Trump in any way. It is about "impeachment" by any means, legit (not likely) or not legit.
Did the left care anything about Epstein and ergo Acosta before Trump?
No.
So there is your answer.

This rush to judgement is absurd. Wait until someone loos at the court records to react. Then ask why Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, each solo, both went to the island. Ask why the same Schumer, who is calling for rash decisions, has taken years to decide if he donemns the abuse of children in the Congressional run DC pdeophile ring, which has operated his entire career. Hillary reportedly oversaw it when in Congress. Bush Sr, Sununu, Barney Frank, Obama, all wre reported in an old news article to have been aware of how it worked. How long is long enough for ole Chuck to decide if that child sexual abuse is bad?

That's why I could never be a criminal lawyer, they get little respect for doing their job under the law. If they don't act in their clients interest, they can be disbarred. This is the what the left seems to be trying to do to our police too, make their job look like the gestapo (negative) in the eyes of the public. Again I speak as a returning Vietnam veteran that had to hide my service to get a job, so to be sure I understand the ramifications of these deceptions. Acosta will only be able to step down to satisfy half the population that doesn't believe in the rule of law anymore.

In ancient Rome, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, Dictator of Rome for two years, used proscription to refill the treasury of Rome. He confiscated property even belonging to families.

This sort of thing is a reinvention of that practice--even though forfeiture on the part of anyone other than a particular convict, even for treason, is unconstitutional.

I have an unusual viewpoint in that I don't know if Epstein is contemptible. He's accused of paying people as young as 14 for sex. People as young as 14 are sometimes held accountable for their criminal behavior. This suggests to me they have agency and should have the right to enter agreements, including freely agreeing to disgusting or dangerous jobs. To see them as victims depersonalizes them.

It's a different matter if the perpetrator uses force or if the victim really doesn't understand what she's agreeing to.

I have two kids who are tweens. They clearly lack mental capacity to understand and enter agreements. I'm not sure at what point they will. Our society says 18. But I have seen clear examples of people under 18 who have capacity and people who are middle aged who can't understand the basics of agreements they enter. I loath to think of them ever voluntarily entering into an agreement to do demeaning, dangerous, or disgusting work. I probably will recent out of emotion if that situation ever arises, but right now I believe it would be denying their basic human rights to cast them as victims for knowingly entering into an agreement that I find disgusting.