Miami Herald investigative reporter Julia Brown told MSNBC on Wednesday that after originally treating the victims of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein “shabbily”, the Department of Justice was now considering throwing out the illegal sweetheart deal concocted by then federal prosecutor Alexander Acosta — an “unprecedented” move with unpredictable consequences.
“Talk a little bit about how the Justice Department has defended its handling of this sex abuse case and where that stands now,” prompted host Hallie Jackson.
“These girls were never told about the deal when it happened,” replied Brown. The DOJ “hid the deal from them, and it was in violation of the Crime Victims Rights Act. But up until very recently, they have basically defended everything they have done.”
“They were treated pretty shabbily,” she went on. “Now the Justice Department is reviewing it, because a federal judge ruled that the deal that was negotiated with Epstein was illegal.”
“This has never happened before. It would set a precedent if they threw the deal out,” Brown continued. “And if they do throw the deal out, what does that mean? Do they now investigate Epstein all over again? It’s just new grounds here.”
Watch the video below.
Donald Trump sounds like a complete lunatic because he’s isolated himself in a far-right media bubble
Welcome to another edition of What Fresh Hell?, Raw Story’s roundup of news items that might have become controversies under another regime, but got buried – or were at least under-appreciated – due to the daily firehose of political pratfalls, unhinged tweet storms and other sundry embarrassments coming out of the current White House.
If you have an older relative who spends way too much time stewing in the conservative media, you may have experienced a moment when you not only disagreed with him, but you realized that you had no earthly clue what he was going on about. Perhaps it was when he started talking about the UN plot to eliminate golf courses and replace paved roads with bicycle paths. Maybe he stopped you in your tracks with a discourse on why flies were attracted to Barack Obama, or complained about the government insisting on referring to Christians as "Easter-worshippers" or expressed outrage over 9/11 hijackers being given leniency by Muslim jurists.
Trump’s claim impeachment ‘nullifies’ 2016 election blown up in new House Judiciary Committee report
On Saturday, the House Judiciary Committee released their report outlining the offenses committed by President Donald Trump, and the legal framework for impeachment — which clears the way for Congress to write and approve articles of impeachment against him.
One of the key issues examined by the report is the claim, repeatedly made by the president and his supporters, that impeachment would "nullify" the 2016 presidential election and the popular will — which is already a weak claim given that Trump never won the popular vote, and that impeaching Trump would still install Mike Pence as president. But the report more broadly rejects the entire claim that an election result immunizes a president from punishment for official misconduct.
READ IT: House Judiciary Committee releases report defining Trump impeachable offenses
On Saturday, the House Judiciary Committee released a report outlining the impeachable acts committed by President Donald Trump.
"Our President holds the ultimate public trust," said the report, titled "Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment," in its introduction. "A President faithful only to himself—who will sell out democracy and national security for his own personal advantage—is a danger to every American. Indeed, he threatens America itself."
The report clarifies the procedures for impeachment, analyzes whether president can be "impeached for abuse of executive powers," and "whether it is preferable to await the next election when a President has sought to corrupt that very same election."