Acosta must be fired for role in Epstein case

Jeffrey Epstein would be in prison today for abusing women as young as 14 — indeed, he faced possible life in prison from the allegations — if not for the 2007 plea deal provided by Mr. Acosta.

This is how Washington in the Donald Trump era works. The British ambassador representing a conservative government friendly to this U.S. president has selective dispatches home that are mildly critical of Mr. Trump leaked to the press, and he is forced to resign in the wake of the president’s outrage.

During the same week, the full breadth of R. Alexander Acosta’s folly in signing off on a remarkably lenient nonprosecution agreement to the benefit of Jeffrey E. Epstein is revealed as the New York financier is charged with sexually abusing dozens of underage girls (allegations remarkably similar to what he faced when Mr. Acosta was a federal prosecutor in Miami), and Mr. Trump’s labor secretary remains at his post — at least as of this writing.

What’s upsetting are not simply the horrific allegations against Mr. Eptstein. Nor even the multiple examples of how the hedge fund manager’s behavior was made possible by his considerable wealth (his holdings include an entire Caribbean island and a $56 million New York City mansion) and political influence (his circle of A-list friends has included Bill Clinton and Mr. Trump). It’s that federal prosecutors may have had him cold on these same charges more than a decade ago. He’d be in prison today for abusing women as young as 14 — indeed, he faced possible life in prison from the allegations — if not for the 2007 plea deal provided by Mr. Acosta. Instead, Mr. Epstein went to jail for a mere 13 months of an 18-month sentence on lesser state charges (during which time he was allowed to leave to go to work six days a week) and registered as a sex offender, an arrangement many former federal prosecutors have in recent days described as highly unusual under the circumstances.

The New York prosecution of the now-jailed Mr. Epstein on child sex-trafficking may yet correct that miscarriage of justice, but what of Mr. Acosta? He has admitted to no wrongdoing, not even a lapse in judgment when he decided not to even attempt to throw the legal book at someone when federal agents had extensive evidence showing he lured youngsters to his Palm Beach estate and paid them hundreds of dollars to give him and a parade of guests nude massages, with some pressured into further sexual relations. Nor could Mr. Acosta even be bothered to notify Mr. Epstein’s victims of the plea agreement. That cowardly failure alone should have put the labor secretary’s letter of resignation on the Resolute desk — along with a quick acceptance.

But what has President Trump’s reaction to all this been so far? He’s said he feels “very badly” for his labor secretary and has promised to look at what happened “very closely.” He said that on Tuesday. Mr. Acosta has defended his actions as reasonable under the circumstances and observed that New York prosecutors have more evidence (including lewd photos) than he did. “Now that new evidence and additional testimony is available, the NYprosecution offers an important opportunity to more fully bring him to justice,” Mr. Acosta posted on Twitter. But that implies Mr. Acosta had a lack of evidence to convict. While New York prosecutors may have new witnesses, investigators uncovered several dozen victims during the earlier inquiry. Shouldn’t that have been enough?

Now contrast that to the outrage (or perhaps faux-rage given The Donald’s taste for Brexit politics and desire to embarrass British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt) expressed by President Trump over the missives from British Ambassador Kim Darroch, who dared to tell his superiors, confidentially, that the Trump White House was a mess (which it is) and that the president is insecure (as if there’s some debate about that). Mr. Trump called him “wacky,” a “pompous fool” and “very stupid.” Mr. Darroch’s leak was revealed over the weekend. On Wednesday, the United Kingdom’s man in D.C. was officially out as authorities continue to investigate the circumstances of the leak.

Democrats are calling for Secretary Acosta to step down, but that should be a no-brainer. As Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer observed, it’s impossible to have confidence in Mr. Acosta’s ability to lead his department. It’s equally hard to believe Mr. Epstein’s considerable political influence isn’t still at work in the president’s reluctance to fire the labor secretary. That’s a lot more troubling than anything the British ambassador has to say about, well, anything.