As Twitchy reported Wednesday morning, Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta tweeted a short thread defending his past prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, who was arrested Saturday on charges of sex trafficking girls as young as 14. “Now that new evidence and additional testimony is available,” Acosta tweeted, “the New York prosecution offers an important opportunity to more fully bring him to justice.”

“More fully” bring him to justice? He’s been walking (and flying) around free all this time after serving just 13 months in jail thanks to a plea agreement more than a decade ago.

An unrepentant Acosta defends ‘sweetheart’ plea deal for accused child rapist Epstein @PamelaBrownCNN reports @TheLeadCNN https://t.co/77bAt8UMzL pic.twitter.com/JdeGePTELL — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) July 10, 2019

We’re going to assume this is Ken White tweeting as @Popehat, as he lays out the case against Acosta who gave Epstein that sweetheart deal in the first place.

Dear @SecretaryAcosta: I do not believe we have spoken since graduation. I regret encountering you under these circumstances. I was not able to attend your press conference, but I do have some questions. /1 — RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019

/2 You knew, in 2008, that Mr. Epstein had a residence in New York and traveled to other jurisdictions, correct? And you knew that it was conceivable that there could be an investigation of whether he committed federal crimes in other districts, correct? — RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019

/3 And, in fact, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Epstein's attorneys were vigorously demanding a non-prosecution deal that would cover any federal prosecution in any federal district in the United States, correct? — RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019

/4 They were elite, experienced lawyers, correct? And they knew — as any competent attorney would — that Mr. Epstein faced exposure in other districts if he conducted the alleged activities in those districts, right? — RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019

/5 So you knew, when you approved this non-prosecution agreement, that someday Mr. Epstein's lawyers might be arguing that it barred prosecution in another district, correct? In light of that, let's look at the agreement, shall we?https://t.co/ysbMYypk67 — RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019

/6 Now, you're very familiar with the sorts of agreements that the U.S. Attorney's Office makes with defendants, right? You'd agree with me that federal prosecutors take great pains to be very specific and explicit, and not ambiguous, in their agreements with defendants? — RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019

/7 Do you view this non-prosecution agreement as specific and not ambiguous, Mr. Secretary? — RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019

/8 I ask because of some of the terms of the agreement you approved seem to lend themselves to an argument by Mr. Epstein — perhaps not a strong one, but an argument — that the agreement is ambiguous about whether it applies outside your district. — RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019

/9 For instance, the agreement says that Epstein is seeking to "resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability" without defining that, and speaks generally about the "interests of the United States" without limitation. pic.twitter.com/RblKfgko1T — RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019

/10 Now, the agreement also says that "prosecution in this district" will be deferred, and elsewhere it says that the Southern District of Florida is deferring prosecution, which probably mean that SDNY will prevail on this argument. pic.twitter.com/UcxgcnxIdY — RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019

/11 But on the other hand, the agreement says that the U.S. Attorney's office and the FBI have investigated "any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States," without limitation by district. pic.twitter.com/CvyEvOlkA6 — RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019

/12 Moreover, Mr. Secretary, the agreement contains a general promise by the United States — not limited by district — not to prosecute Mr. Epstein's co-conspirators. pic.twitter.com/taxYXxHvMU — RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019

/13 Mr. Secretary, why doesn't the agreement have standard language specifically stating that it only binds the office offering it? Why doesn't it have other language limiting what "global" means and specifying that it does not bind other districts? — RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019

/14 You would agree, Mr. Secretary, that you were competent and knew what you were doing at the time, correct? And the defense was competent and knew what it was doing at the time? In light of that, this level of ambiguity was intentional, correct? — RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019

/15 You'd agree with me that you did not take any of the steps required by the U.S. Attorney's Manual to secure the approval of other districts to bind them, correct? So you did not have the right to offer an agreement that bound other districts to non-prosecution, right? — RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019

/16 Mr. Secretary, if you knew that Mr. Epstein's lawyers wanted a nationwide deal, and knew that he might use this agreement as a defense to prosecution elsewhere someday, why does this agreement have the ambiguities I've outlined above? — RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019

/17 I will return, sir, with further questions. — RammedTheRampartsHat (@Popehat) July 10, 2019

Nailed it! — Jerry kalin (@Jerrykalin1) July 10, 2019

I am so here for this thread — Amil (@amilh) July 10, 2019

OUTSTANDING Ken! This is why I follow you. Its the inside's like this where you can see where his office was worming around and you just nailed it to the wall. — ConsumingML (@Grant_Case) July 10, 2019

Exactly. Cross-examination 101. — Heather Burbach (@Burbachbacon) July 10, 2019

Been thinking Acosta might try to exculpate self by emphasizing NPA led Epstein to plead to state sex crimes, while remaining subject to prosecution in SDNY. But, apparently not necessarily so due to ambiguity. So, who did the crappier job, prosecution or defense counsel? TBD. — Mac (@PleaseNovember) July 10, 2019

He makes an excellent case … but Bob Menendez still really should sit this one out.

Related: