The former U.S. attorney who helped engineer what has been described as a “sweetheart deal” for Jeffrey Epstein in 2008, which allowed him to walk away from sex crime accusations with a slap on the wrist, has agreed to talk to Congress.

That led a former Florida prosecutor to point out to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle that they have an obligation to question him on several major points that could clear up what legal maneuvering was agreed to that allowed Epstein to commit more crimes until his later arrest and eventual death in a prison cell

As NBC News reported, “[Alex] Acosta was the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida in 2008 when the office reached a secret non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, who wound up pleading guilty to state charges involving a single underage victim, protecting him from federal prosecution.”

Speaking with the hosts on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,“ former Palm Beach state attorney Dave Aronberg recalled, “Acosta was the U.S attorney for the Southern District of Florida and what happened was this was a state investigation, my old office. I came to the office about five years after this was over, but my old office was investigating this and then took it to a grand jury, and then they had state charges against Jeffrey Epstein.”

“The feds were dissatisfied,” he added. “They came in. Alex Acosta was U.S. Attorney, and they essentially took the case away and then they entered into their own plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein, which was very unusual.”

“Because the plea deal required Jeffrey Epstein to plead guilty to state charges, not federal charges, state charges,” he continued. “I don't know if I've ever heard of a federal prosecution that ends up with state charges, and so that is one of the questions that people will have for him when he testifies.”

“There are other questions, too,” he added. “Why did his office give an immunity deal, not just to any co-conspirators known at the time, but any unknown co-conspirators in the future? And that's what Ghislaine Maxwell is basing her entire appeal on, right? She's appealing to the Supreme Court, saying that she should never have been prosecuted because she got immunity from the deal that Alex Acosta entered into, and the reason why she was prosecuted was that the Southern District of New York said they're not bound by the deal signed by the Southern District of Florida. So she really does have a chance to get a new trial if the Supreme Court agrees with her.”

"There's a final major question that people want to know, this goes to Joe's point: Why weren't the victims notified at the time of this deal?” he suggested. “Under federal law they're required to be a part of this, to be notified and they weren't, so there are a lot of unanswered questions for Alex Acosta.”


You can watch below or at the link.

- YouTube youtu.be