The editorial barely bothers with the requisite “alleged,” and goes from there to assume every awful thing possible about Jeffrey Epstein, his unnamed conspirators and Alex Acosta.
Even in the relatively sterile language of the legal system, the accusations against Mr. Epstein are nauseating. From “at least in or about” 2002 through 2005, the defendant “sexually exploited and abused dozens of minor girls,” some as young as 14 and many “particularly vulnerable to exploitation.” The girls were “enticed and recruited” to visit Mr. Epstein’s various homes “to engage in sex acts with him, after which he would give the victims hundreds of dollars.” To “maintain and increase his supply of victims,” he paid some of the girls “to recruit additional girls to be similarly abused,” thus creating “a vast network of underage victims.”
The allegations in the New York indictment are a depressing echo of those that Mr. Epstein faced in Florida more than a decade ago, when his perversion first came to light. In 2008, federal prosecutors for the Southern District of Florida, at the time led by Alexander Acosta, who is now the nation’s secretary of labor, helped arrange a plea deal for Mr. Epstein that bent justice beyond its breaking point.
Stop. I know you desperately want to explain why Epstein is guilty, why the deal with Acosta stunk and how you’re entitled to believe his guilt because you’re not the jury and you are under no legal duty to either be neutral or await evidence before demanding execution.
Some will argue why an indictment, even though only an accusation, is still evidence, even though it’s not evidence no matter how hard you want to believe it is. Some will argue there’s no excuse for the NPA, relieving Epstein of federal culpability for a paltry state sentence, which could only be the product of corruption. Then come the conspiracy theories about the corruption, all the powerful pedos behind the scenes. Yeah, yeah, got it.
Epstein is the perfect storm for this peculiar moment in time:
- Politically connected
- Charged with a sex crime
- Charged with a sex crime against minors
- A convicted sex offender upon his prior conviction for soliciting prostitution from minors
If you can’t forsake all the niceties of due process, presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and just know he’s guilty and everything about him is literally awful and entirely well-deserved, who can you?
Who can you?
*Tuesday Talk rules apply.