At a press conference on Wednesday, Labor Secretary Alex Acosta told reporters that new sex crime charges against hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein were a "very, very good thing" and defended the manner in which his office had handled a case against the financier back in 2008.
He also showed no signs of relenting to Democrats' calls for his resignation.
Outrage has been growing, since the Miami Herald recently resurfaced the sweetheart, non-prosecution deal Epstein received when Acosta was a U.S. attorney in Miami.
In 2008, Epstein had been accused of abusing dozens of women and girls, but ultimately pled guilty to prostitution charges. Thanks to the deal, instead of facing a possible life sentence, he served just 13 months of an 18 month sentence in a county jail, during which he was allowed to leave for work.
Epstein was arrested again in New Jersey last weekend and pleaded not guilty Monday to new child sex-trafficking charges for allegations dating back to the early 2000's.
"They've brought these charges based on new evidence against Jeffrey Epstein, who is now a registered sex offender. And this is a very very good thing. His acts are discpable," said Acosta Wednesday. "Epstein's actions absolutely deserve a stricter sentence."
As to the original case, Acosta said it was not clear that the original case would have succeeded at trial because some of the victims were reluctant to testify. "The acts that they had faced were horrible, and they didn't want people to know about them."
The labor secretary said he would release documents that reveal more context of the case.
The chair of the House Oversight Committee has called for Acosta to testify on the subject later this month.
During the press conference, the labor secretary defended his standing in Trump's administration.
"My relationship with the President is outstanding," said Acosta. He also eschewed reports that he had lost the support of the Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney.
Emily Hoeven, newsletter editor at CalMatters, joins Cheddar News to discuss California Governor Gavin Newsom's gun law modeled after Texas's abortion law.
Chuck Rocha, host of 'Nuestro' podcast and opinion contributor at The New York Times, joins Cheddar News to discuss why Democrats are losing Hispanic voters.
More businesses are requiring workers to return to the office, but there is concern that many employees in the middle class, especially women and people of color, need remote work options for reasons including childcare and financial security. Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California, joined Cheddar to discuss why office mandates could be detrimental to the middle class. She noted that while companies claim a return to offices would help foster more collaboration and efficiency, reports show that they are successfully able to do their jobs from home.
The U.S. postal service has confirmed that it secretly developed and tested a blockchain-based mobile voting system ahead of the 2020 election. Susan Greenhalgh, senior advisor on election security, Free Speech for People, joins Cheddar News to discuss the cybersecurity complications of a mobile voting system.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled to allow the controversial Texas abortion law to remain in effect, banning abortion at six weeks and allowing any private citizen to sue a person or doctor aiding or abetting someone seeking an abortion. Outraged at this decision, California Governor Gavin Newsom is working to draft a proposal in line with the law as it relates to guns. Shawn Hubler, California correspondent at the New York Times, joins Cheddar News to discuss.
Even as tech giant Google implements a vaccination mandate, charging its employees to declare their vaccine status within a time frame or risk dismissal, the federal government is tangled up in the court system trying to impose one of its own. Cindy Cohn, the executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Harry Nelson, founder and managing partner of Nelson Hardiman LLP, joined Cheddar to debate the ethics, efficacy, and legality surrounding the issue. While Cohn noted that she thinks the federal mandate might be legally sound, her organization is also concerned with a separate question of privacy. "At EFF what we're most interested in is the digital surveillance that's going along with some of these attempts to try to track and confirm whether people are vaccinated or not," she said.
