The Dictatorship
What Congress should ask Alex Acosta about Jeffrey Epstein
Alex Acosta, a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and Trump’s first labor secretary, testified Friday before the House Oversight Committee about his role in the first federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.
That investigation, of course, ended in 2007 with the infamous “non-prosecution agreement” in which the Justice Department promised not to charge Epstein for any crimes investigated by the DOJ and the FBI in exchange for his pleading guilty to a single state count of solicitation of prostitution and registering as a sex offender. Through that deal, Epstein ultimately served only 13 months in a county jailwhich allowed him to spend up to 12 hours a day, six days a week at his West Palm Beach office via a work-release program. Meanwhile, Epstein’s victims, as well as the general public, were left in the dark about the deal’s very existence until roughly July 2008.

Eighteen years after that deal was signed, many people — from the survivors of Epstein’s trafficking to members of Congress — understandably still have a lot of questions for Acosta. And while I have no insight into House Oversight’s plans, I do have some pressing questions of my own, based on a review of court documents and other public records related to the Epstein investigations.
To start, this is not Acosta’s first rodeo, so to speak. In February 2019, the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility opened an investigation into possible misconduct by the five Florida federal prosecutors, including Acosta, who were involved in the Epstein deal. During that investigation, which culminated in a November 2020 report that ran to more than 300 pages, Acosta furnished OPR with written responses about his “involvement in the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the non-prosecution agreement, and decisions relating to victim notification and consultation” and participated in what the report describes as “extensive interviews of each subject under oath and before a court reporter.”
I’d ask Acosta why the feds played a role in negotiating victims’ ability to seek compensation.
So to ensure the veracity of his testimony, I’d first ask Acosta whether he will voluntarily provide Congress with a transcript of those prior interviews, especially given that the House Oversight Committee has received limited information that was not already in the public domain.
Second, the so-called deal of a lifetime contained terms beyond the specific charge that Epstein would plead to and how much jail time he would serve. In particular, it obligated federal prosecutors to provide Epstein with a list of his own victims to facilitate the recovery of damages by those who were minors at the time of their trafficking or abuse. In exchange, Epstein agreed to pay for victims’ lawyers, who were to be jointly selected by him and federal prosecutors, and not to contest liability to those listed victims — but only as long as their claims were limited under a particular federal statute. I’d ask Acosta why the feds played a role in negotiating victims’ ability to seek compensation, especially when they never involved the victims or their lawyers in negotiating the deal. And does Acosta understand now, in retrospect, that by identifying individuals known to the U.S. Attorney’s Office as victims, the Justice Department only further enabled Epstein to manipulate, control and even threaten those who survived his heinous crimes?
Third, the nonprosecution agreement also bound the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida not to prosecute any of Epstein’s co-conspirators, including four specifically named women who have been described as recruiters, “massage” schedulers and/or direct participants in the abuse of others. A lawyer for one of those women, Nadia Marcinkova, recently told Bloomberg that the public depiction of their client itself reflects the extent of Epstein’s depravity. “He physically, sexually, and emotionally abused, dehumanized, and completely controlled [Nadia] for years,” she said.
So I’d ask Acosta whether it occurred to him and his colleagues whether some of the girls and women accused by Epstein’s victims might themselves have been subject to his coercion and control. I’d ask whether he and his team — given the dubious credibility of Epstein’s account of events — sought to interview the women Epstein’s lawyers identified as his accomplices. Or did prosecutors see the women as, at best, willing participants — or at worst, people who, like Epstein, had serious criminal exposure?

And finally, in the hope that with time and age comes some humility and a willingness to accept responsibility, I’d ask Acosta a series of more open-ended questions:
- The nonprosecution agreement specifically committed to the abrupt and premature end of the Florida-based investigation, and, in any event, it obligated the feds to lay off any potential co-conspirators. In retrospect, does Acosta regret not widening the aperture?
- At any point since 2009, has Acosta met with any of Epstein’s survivors and/or their counsel to consider his role in their ongoing trauma and pain? Does he want to say anything to them now?
- Does he know how many girls or women were sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein after his release from jail, including during his year of house arrest, when he nonetheless traveled to New York and to his private island?
- Having apparently testified to DOJ that he had no information to indicate that Epstein was an intelligence asset, can Acosta provide any information as to why a redacted September 2008 FBI memo states Epstein has “provided information to the FBI, as agreed upon” and what that process entailed?
But perhaps the most significant question is the one we are now asking again, as President Donald Trump places unqualified loyalists throughout the DOJ and prepares to fire veteran prosecutors: When Acosta was first named by then-President George W. Bush as a 36-year-old U.S. attorney, lacking prior experience as a criminal lawyer, much less a federal prosecutor, does Acosta believe he was sufficiently prepared to do justice without fear or favor?
Lisa Rubin is an BLN legal correspondent and a former litigator. Previously, she was the off-air legal analyst for “The Rachel Maddow Show” and “Alex Wagner Tonight.”
The Dictatorship
Justice Jackson keeps calling out what she sees as needless Supreme Court interventions
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson continues to speak out when she believes her colleagues are misusing their power. The latest example came Monday, when the Biden appointee dissented from a Supreme Court ruling in favor of law enforcement in a Fourth Amendment case.
In District of Columbia v. R.W.the high court majority disagreed with a ruling from D.C.’s appeals court that said a police officer violated the amendment by stopping a person without reasonable suspicion. In an unsigned through the court opinion, the justices said the D.C. court failed to properly consider the “totality of the circumstances.” The justices summarily reversed the lower court.
Jackson, however, saw the maneuver by her colleagues as heavy-handed.
In her dissent, she wrote that if the court’s intervention “reflects disapproval” of the D.C. court’s “assessment of which particular facts to weigh and to what extent, I cannot fathom why that kind of factbound determination warranted correction by this Court.” She deemed the move “not a worthy accomplishment for the unusual step of summary reversal.”
A notation at the end of the majority’s opinion said that Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have denied D.C.’s petition for high court review, but she didn’t join Jackson’s dissent or write her own to elaborate.
Jackson’s dissent follows a lecture she gave last week at Yale Law School in which she criticized what she saw as her colleagues’ disrespect of lower courts’ work.
Monday’s ruling appeared among several high court actions on a 25-page order lista routine document containing the latest action on pending appeals. The list is mostly unexplained denials of petitions for review, but sometimes it contains opinions and justices writing separately to explain themselves.
In another case on the list, Sotomayor, Jackson and the court’s third Democratic-appointed justice, Elena Kagan, all noted their dissent from the majority’s unexplained summary reversal in favor of law enforcement in a qualified immunity case.
It takes four justices to grant review of a petition. That simple math underscores the lack of power wielded by the three Democratic appointees, especially on the most contentious issues.
On that note, one of the new cases the court took up on Monday involves its latest foray into religion in public life, which the religious side has been winning at the court. The new case is an appeal from Catholic preschools in Colorado that want public funding while still admitting, as they wrote in their petition“only families who support Catholic beliefs, including on sex and gender.” The case will be heard in the next court term that starts in October.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
The Dictatorship
The White House’s personal, financial and diplomatic lines keep blurring
About a month ago, when Donald Trump spoke at a conference for Saudi Arabia’s sovereign investment fund, it was hard not to notice the complexities of the circumstances. On the one hand, Riyadh has helped steer the White House’s policy in Iran. On the other hand, the president’s son-in-law, having already received billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, recently turned to the Middle Eastern country for more money for his private investment firm.
All the while, Saudi officials remain focused on private dealings with Trump’s family business, as the Republican extended his public support to the sovereign investment fund, ignored Pentagon concerns about selling F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and designated Saudi Arabia a “major non-NATO ally” as part of a new security agreement.
The trouble is, it’s not just the Saudis.
The New York Times reported on wealthy interests in Syria with ambitions plans for the nation’s future who needed the U.S. to drop the economic sanctions that crippled the country during Bashar al-Assad’s reign. One Syrian-born businessman, Mohamad Al-Khayyat, secured a meeting with Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who recommended that plans for a luxury golf course carry the Trump Organization brand as a way of getting the American president’s attention.
The Times’ report, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, added that the businessman was way ahead of the congressman. He’d already planned to propose a Trump-branded resort. The same businessman’s brothers, who enjoy the backing of Thomas Barrack, the American president’s special envoy to Syria, were also negotiating a real estate partnership with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.
The Times summarized the broader context nicely:
Such a mixing of personal and diplomatic affairs has long been the norm in Middle Eastern nations, where a small set of players have historically run, and profited from, their dominant role in society. But it has become the way Washington operates in Mr. Trump’s second term, too.
Business discussions involving the president’s family … are consistently blurred with important policy decisions or consequential nation-to-nation negotiations.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but developments like these aren’t supposed to happen in the U.S. If a foreign country wants a change in federal economic sanctions, it’s supposed to go through proper diplomatic and economic channels as part of a formal process to prevent corruption and potential conflicts of interests.
In 2026, that model has been torn down — and replaced with what the Times described as “a warped system of executive patronage,” which is awfully tough to defend.
The article added:
Mohamad Al-Khayyat returned to Washington late last year toting a special stone celebrating the proposed golf course, carved with the Trump family emblem. He presented it to Mr. Wilson in his Capitol Hill office to deliver to the White House. Mr. Al-Khayyat then joined meetings with other lawmakers to push the sanctions repeal.
Weeks later, legislation for a permanent repeal won approval in Congress and was signed into law by Mr. Trump in late December.
This was no doubt noticed by officials and monied interests elsewhere, sending a clear signal about how to interact with the U.S. government (at least until January 2029).
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
The Dictatorship
Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 4.20.26: Obama makes one last pitch ahead of Virginia race
Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* This week’s biggest election is in Virginia, where voters will decide whether to advance a Democratic redistricting effort. Ahead of Tuesday’s balloting, Barack Obama filmed one last pitch to the electorate in the commonwealth.
* With former Rep. Eric Swalwell out of California’s gubernatorial race, billionaire Tom Steyer is spending heavily to claim the front-runner slot. The Associated Press reported“Data compiled by advertising tracker AdImpact show Steyer has spent or booked over $115 million in ads for broadcast TV, cable and radio — nearly 30 times the amount of his nearest Democratic rival.”
* On a related note, the California Teachers Association, which had backed Swalwell, threw its support behind Steyer’s bid last week.
* When Donald Trump held an event in Nevada last week, many watched to see whether Joe Lombardo, the state’s Republican governor who is facing a tough re-election fight in the fall, appeared at the gathering. He did notthough Lt. Gov. Stavros Anthony spoke at the event.
* In Pennsylvania, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman isn’t up for re-election until 2028, but Punchbowl News asked every other Democratic member of the state’s congressional delegation whether the incumbent senator should run for a second term as a Democrat. Not one said he should.
* Jack Daly, a political operative who pleaded guilty in 2023 to defrauding thousands of conservative political donors, has lost some Republican clients of late, but the National Republican Senatorial Committee has continued to use the services of Daly’s firm.
* And in Tennessee, Republican Rep. Andy Ogles appears to be running for re-election, though his fundraising is badly lacking: As of the end of March, the far-right incumbent only had around $85,000 cash on handwhich lags his GOP primary opponent, former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher, who has around $150,000 in his campaign account.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?











