Editorial Highlights DOJ and Former Officials’ Role in Jeffrey Epstein Non‑Prosecution Deal

Saturday, July 6, 2019 ‘Che Virgin Islands DAILY ® NEW A Pulitzer Prize-Winning Newspaper ST. CROIX ‘ST. JOHN ST. THOMAS Founded Aug. 1, 1930, by J. Antonio Jarvis and Ariel Melchior Sr. Published by Daily News Publishing Co., Inc. Archie Nahigian, Publisher — J. Lowe Davis, Editor Ken E. Ryan, Production Director —_Lisa Jamil, Advertising Director Onneka Challenger, Circulation Director = Juanita Young, Controller TORTOLA The week in cartoons OPINIONS The Virgin Islands Daily News 11 Government turns its back on Jeffrey Epstein's sex victims From the Sun Sentinel, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. Private lawyers allowed sexual predator Jef- frey Epstein to escape justice. Epstein’s new defense team works for the federal government. The US. attomey for the northem district of Georgia claimed last week that even though prosecutors in South Florida broke the law when they approved an outrageously light sen- tence for Epstein, the deal must stand. Byung Pak may not actually be on Epstein’s legal team, but he has placed the Department of Justice on Epstein’s side. To review, Epstein is a billionaire money manager whose friends include President Trump, former President Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew. Between 1998 and 2006, Ep- stein recruited roughly three dozen underage girls — generally from poor and troubled fami- lies — to his house in Palm Beach and sexually abused them. Epstein could have faced federal sex traffick- ing charges. He could have faced life in prison. Instead, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern Dis- trict of Florida — Alex Acosta, now Trump’ la- bor secretary — gave Epstein immunity on fed- eral charges and allowed him to plead guilty to minor state charges. Then-Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer went along. Ep- stein served 13 months in jail — he was allowed out about half the time — and had to register with the state as a sex offender. Prosecutors never told the victims about the agreement. Until the signing of that odious agreement in 2007, the girls believed the FBI was still investigating. Two victims challenged the deal, which ap- plied not just to Epstein, but also to those who recruited the girls and joined in the abuse. Last February, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that prosecutors had violated the Crime Victims Rights Act. In criticizing the govern- ment, Marra noted “Epstein worked in concert with others to obtain minors not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others.” Marra then asked attorneys for both sides how he should correct this violation. Pak got the case because Acosta’s old office had to re- cuse itself. Pak’s idea? The victims could “confer in pri- vate” with prosecutors about the deal. Prosecu- tors could get more training in how to consult with victims. But the deal stands. The victims don’t deserve even an apology. Pak argues that the Crime Victims Rights Act contains no provision for undoing the non- prosecution agreement, which is what the vic- tims want. Doing so, Pak claims, could violate separation of powers. That sounds like a warning to Marra — one he should ignore. Prosecutorial discretion doesn't matter when the action in question breaks the law. Even Pak acknowledges repeat- edly that it happened. The government, he writes, “should have communicated with the victims in a straight- forward and transparent way.” Pak “regrets that the manner in which (the government) com- municated the resolution of the Epstein case to The Daily News’ opinions are expressed only in its editorials. The opinions expressed in columns, letters, cartoons and guest editorials are those of the particular author or artist. the victims fell short.” Prosecutors could have communicated “more clearly and directly” with the victims.” None of that happened because Acosta, Krischer and Epstein’s lawyers didn’t want the deal to become public. The victims might have gone public with their complaints. Media cov- erage could have killed the deal. Indeed, the record reflects the lengths to which Acosta and Krischer sought secrecy. Acosta drove from Miami to West Palm Beach to meet with Epstein attorney Jay Lefkowitz. Krischer wrote to a federal prosecutor, “Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won't put in writing.” We acknowledge that Pak didn't create this mess. But his argument insults the public and reflects badly on the Department of Justice. “The resolution in this case,” Pak writes, “has led some to conclude that the govemment chose for improper reasons not to prosecute Epstein, a conclusion that remains unsubstanti- ated.” That's because the principals have been able to avoid talking about it for more than a decade. Acosta ducked the issue during his confir- mation hearings in April 2017. Last November, The Miami Herald ran a series on the case that featured interviews with victims who agreed to be identified. Acosta refused to comment. So did Krischer. Some might argue that the victims have re- ceived money from civil lawsuits and should move on. But can there be a price for what Ep- stein and his accomplices did to these women? How many other victims are there? Why should a man who once faced a 52-page indictment be able to resume a life of privilege? “While the court cannot unwind the past,” Pak argues, “the remedies proposed by the government would give the victims a mean- ingful opportunity to have their voices heard and to un- derstand, if not accept, the deci- sions made in this matter.” Unaccept- able is right. The victims” lawyers will file their re- sponses soon. They should ask Marra to void the agreement. — This edito- ria is the opin- ion of the Sun Sentinel Editorial Board. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030433 ___ (¢ Some might argue that the victims have received money from civil lawsuits and should move on. But can there be a price for what Jeffrey Epstein and his accomplices did to these women? How many other victims are there? Why should a man who once faced a 52-page indictment be able to resume a life of privilege?