Alexander Costa lets billionaire pedophile off the hook

[shunyadragon]

Alexander Acosta Trump's Labor Secretary illegally got a serial billionaire pedophile off the hock. What is Trump going to do?

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/us/politics/alexander-acosta-resign-calls.html

Labor Secretary Faces Heat Over Plea Deal for Financier

© Copyright Original Source

[Cow Poke]

Alexander Acosta Trump's Labor Secretary illegally got a serial billionaire pedophile off the hock. What is Trump going to do?

First of all, it would be "off the hook", not "off the hock".

Secondly, if this is true, it's bad, but why do you say he "illegally" did it. Apparently, he helped negotiate a deal, but there is nothing I saw (in the brief time I was allowed to look, since this is behind a paywall) that was "illegal".

[Cow Poke]

Here is some more detail on this situation, but I still can't see anything that Costa did that was ILLEGAL.





So, where is the illegality?

[Sparko]

I like how they keep trying to mentioning Trump with this guy, guilt by association I guess. If that is true, just think how guilty Hillary Clinton and most of Hollywood is because of their association with Harvey Weinstein.

[Cow Poke]

I like how they keep trying to mentioning Trump with this guy, guilt by association I guess. If that is true, just think how guilty Hillary Clinton and most of Hollywood is because of their association with Harvey Weinstein.

I'd still love to see Shuny defend his claim that Costa did anything illegal:

Alexander Acosta Trump's Labor Secretary illegally got a serial billionaire pedophile off the hock.

I think this is a classic case of "I hate Trump, so I'm gonna overshoot the runway by claiming....."

[shunyadragon]

Here is some more detail on this situation, but I still can't see anything that Costa did that was ILLEGAL.





So, where is the illegality?

I believe the judge described it as illegal considering the reduced sentences, ah . . . sweet deals for billionaire pedophiles. I will check for more details.

[Cow Poke]

I believe the judge described it as illegal considering the reduced sentences, ah . . . sweet deals for billionaire pedophiles. I will check for more details.

Thanks for responding, but I can't see any such claim of illegality, and that was your opening statement in the OP.

[Sparko]

I believe the judge described it as illegal considering the reduced sentences, ah . . . sweet deals for billionaire pedophiles. I will check for more details.

If it were illegal, the judge would have invalidated it.

[Cow Poke]

If it were illegal, the judge would have invalidated it.

And if the judge described it as illegal (and that was the opening statement of Shuny's post) it should not be difficult to cite the actual quote, rather than "I believe the judge described it as illegal considering the reduced sentences".

The article actually discusses negotiating, or "plea bargaining", which is certainly NOT implicitly illegal. And a plea bargain can be horrendously bad without being illegal.

[shunyadragon]

If it were illegal, the judge would have invalidated it.

This is a judge this year, and not at the time of the trial.

[Cow Poke]

This is a judge this year, and not at the time of the trial.

Thanks - I'll give you an A for effort! The actual case referred to in your link, however (Miami Herald), doesn't say that Costa actually broke the law, but that Federal prosecutors under him did.



Additionally, if you search the actual court document showing the judge's order, Costa's name doesn't even appear.

[shunyadragon]

Thanks - I'll give you an A for effort! The actual case referred to in your link, however (Miami Herald), doesn't say that Costa actually broke the law, but that Federal prosecutors under him did.



Additionally, if you search the actual court document showing the judge's order, Costa's name doesn't even appear.

Sounds like tRump. claiming not responsible for the actions of those that work for him. Basically he had to know and approve for it to go through, om a major controversial case.

[Cow Poke]

Sounds like tRump. claiming not responsible for the actions of those that work for him. Basically he had to know and approve for it to go through, om a major controversial case.

I'm just looking for proof of your claim that he acted illegally, that's all.

[shunyadragon]

I'm just looking for proof of your claim that he acted illegally, that's all.

Proof?!?!? At present the judge outlined how he acted illegally. Regardless of the legality it is a fact that he engineered a 'sweet deal for a pedophile billionaire.'

[Cow Poke]

Proof?!?!?

Yes, you might try Google for the definition if it's foreign to you.

At present the judge outlined how he acted illegally.

No, Shuny - that's the summary OPINION of Molly Olmstead, an "assistant social media editor" in a left-wing pinko commie rag. When you look at the actual legal documents, there is no such claim.

Don't fall for getting your legal information from a leftist assistant gossip columnist, Shuny - I believe you're smarter than that.

Regardless of the legality it is a fact that he engineered a 'sweet deal for a pedophile billionaire.'

Then that's what you should have started with.