e's decisions were approved by departmental leadership and followed departmental procedures." Acosta told CNN earlier this month that he "welcomes" the Office of Professional Responsibility's probe into his handling of Epstein's plea agreement. "I welcome OPR's review of this," Acosta said, noting that it's not the first time the decisio

e's decisions were approved by departmental leadership and followed departmental procedures." Acosta told CNN earlier this month that he "welcomes" the Office of Professional Responsibility's probe into his handling of Epstein's plea agreement. "I welcome OPR's review of this," Acosta said, noting that it's not the first time the decisio

n was still a possibility." The court's decision prompted several Members of Congress, including on this Committee, to "request that the results of the Office of Professional Responsibility's (OPR) review of Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta's decision to grant Epstein a non-prosecution agreement be made publicly available and provided

al Dear M: As I mentioned in m earlier emails to you and to Deputy Associate Attorney General David Margolis, I represent AUSA in connection with the Office of Professional Responsibility's investigation of her in the matter of United States v. Adam McDaniel. My understanding is that, on October 5, 2010, United States Attorney Wifredo

n Government Oversight. The study identified hundred= of ethics violations by DOJ attorneys and was critical of the lack of tra=sparency surrounding the Office of Professional Responsibility's i=vestigations. A Justice Department representative could not immedia=ely be reached for comment. The inspector general's report =dentified seven