← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Part 1-3) (5/17/26)
00:40:38
When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal...
Loading summary
Transcript10 lines
- [00:01]
A
I'm here with spinquest, where you can play and win from the comfort of your own home with hundreds of slot games and all of the table games you love with real cash prizes. Right now, $30 coin packs are on sale for $10. For new users, it's all@spinquest.com that's s p I n q U-E-T.com SpinQuest is
- [00:24]
B
a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. Shop the Sherwin Williams Memorial Day sale and get 30% off paints and stains. May 15th through the 28th. Whether you're refreshing your interior or exterior, we've got the colors to bring your vision to life. And with delivery, getting everything to your door is easier than ever. Shop online to have it delivered or visit your neighborhood Sherwin Williams store. Click the banner to learn more. Retail sales, only some exclusions apply. See store for details. Delivery available on qualifying orders. What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get started with the Alex Acosta deposition that was given to the Congressional Oversight Committee just a couple of weeks ago. And we're going to skip the whole swearing in portion and just get right down to the examination. And it looks like Congressman Raja Krishna Murthy from Illinois is doing the questioning here. Question thank you again for being here voluntarily and we appreciate your testimony. I want to start briefly with your background and a couple of questions surrounding that. Where did you attend undergrad and what year did you graduate? Answer I attended Harvard College and I graduated in 1990. What was your degree in? Economics. And then you went to Harvard for law school. Is that correct? That is correct. In what year did you graduate? 1994, I believe. Question While in law school, did you ever have Mr. Dershowitz as a professor? I did not. He taught at Harvard during your time there? He did teach at Harvard during my time, but did not teach you directly? He did not teach me directly. Did you ever have any interactions with Mr. Dershowitz while in law school? Not that I recall. I may have, but I don't recall them if I did. And then did you have any interactions with Mr. Dershowitz prior to him being retained by Mr. Epstein? Not that I recall. After law school? I believe right after law school, you became an associate at Kirkland and Ellis. Is. Is that correct? Answer that is incorrect. Question okay, Answer I clerked for a year. Question who did you clerk for? Answer Sam Alito. Then the Third Circuit. Question and then went to Kirkland Ellis. Answer. And then I went to Kirkland Ellis. Question. Did you ever work directly for Jay Lefkowitz while there? Answer. I don't recall if I worked directly for Jay Lefkowitz. I did work directly for Mr. Star. And in one case, did you ever have any interaction with Mr. Lefkowitz while at Kirkland and Ellis? I did. What were the nature of those interactions? He was a partner. I was an associate. Relatively small office back then, you know, in terms of partners. All right. But he was never like your supervising partner on a case or anything? Not that I recall. At some point, I may have had a small assignment that I don't recall. Forum. But I don't recall him being my supervising partner on a case. I don't. He was not my mentor. I don't recall any of those. Question. All right. You then proceeded to serve multiple government positions, beginning with a principal deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division. Is that correct? Answer. In between that, I spent some years at the Ethics and Public Policy center and sometime teaching at George Mason. And then after the Civil Rights Division, went to the National Labor Relations Board. That's correct. And then came back to be the Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division. That is correct. By that point, had you ever tried a criminal case? I had not. And then you were appointed to be the U.S. attorney of the Southern District of Florida? That's correct. Do you recall about when you were appointed early in the second term of President Bush's presidency? 2005. 2006, something like that. 2005. Okay. At some point it could be 2006, but I believe it was 2005. Middle or late 2005? Question. And when did you leave that post? Answer. I believe it would have been the summer of 2009. And then in 2017, you were appointed as the US Secretary of Labor. That's correct. And subsequently resigned from that position in the summer of 2019? That is correct. Did you resign over the Epstein case? I chose to resign because of the concern that the Epstein case would distract from what I was doing as the Secretary of Labor. Were you instructed to resign? I was not instructed to resign. Have you ever met Mr. Epstein? I have not met Mr. Epstein. Can I go back one minute? Yes. I was neither instructed to resign. It wasn't suggested that I resign. It was entirely my choice, my decision. I remember calling a little bit after breakfast, asking to speak to the president, seeing him, and then telling him that I thought it would be best for his administration if I stepped aside. A trial at that Point was pending and I come from the school that these jobs are temporary. You step into them, you leave. And if you become a distraction, it's time to go. So it was entirely my choice. Question. And your resignation was post arrest but pre death while in custody, correct? That is correct. Have you ever met Ghislaine Maxwell? I have not. Did I answer the question about meeting Mr. Epstein? I don't remember. Yes, you said no, I believe. I have not met Mr. Epstein. I have never met. Is it Ghislaine or Ghislaine? Ghislaine Maxwell. Do you recall if anyone in your U.S. attorney's office met with Mr. Epstein? Not to my knowledge. How about with Ms. Maxwell? Not to my knowledge. And throughout this I'm going to say the U.S. attorney's office will just say I'm referencing the Southern District of Florida. Yeah, no, I understand that. Okay, perfect. Have you ever met Sarah Kellen? Not to my knowledge. Question. Do you recall if anyone in the U.S. attorney's office met with her? I wouldn't. I wouldn't have that information. It's possible that one of our trial attorneys did, but I would not know. Question. What about have you ever met with Nadia Marcinkova? Answer. I have not. Question. And same question. Do you recall if anyone your office met with? Answer. I'm sorry, can I back up? There was. He's cut off. Then he continues again. There was a woman that we considered a victim, but the state that the State Attorney did not necessarily consider a victim. And that. That was my pause. I don't know if at some point, I don't know if that was Ms. Kellen or someone else. I don't know if at some point one of her trial team or case agent or someone met with that person. They're talking about Haley Robson. Uh huh. And I can't speak to that. I did not meet with her. Okay, then I'll re ask the best of your recollection. Did anyone in your office meet with Ms. Marcinkova? Not that I'm aware of. But again. But she could have been one of the people that your office characterized as a victim and the states didn't. There was some subgroup of victims that we thought we characterized as victim. The State's Attorney office did not. Based on my recollection or based on what I've read, I don't know if those individuals were interviewed or not by my attorneys. I simply can't speak to it. Okay, I've got two more. Sure. If it's the same answer, it's the same Answer did you ever personally meet with Leslie Groff? Same answer the same answer for anyone in your office. Answer same answer yes Question and then personally meet with Adriana Ross. Answer same answer question end answer on both. Question on both. Thank you. Just kind of like laying the foundation for what the U.S. attorney's job is versus what the office does overall in general or your experience in the Southern District of Florida. Are you made aware of every federal criminal investigation going on in the District? Answer is certainly not the Southern District of Florida. Depending on how it's measured, one of the three or four largest, depending if you're measuring it by caseload, by number of Assistant United States Attorneys, we have several hundred. We, you know, while I was U.S. attorney, had the most active caseload in terms of ongoing trials in the country. And so as a U.S. attorney, my focus was much more at the policy level than at the managing a particular case level. And then what sorts of cases would raise to your level issues that involve policy issues that were particularly high profile issues that were some type of dispute among AUSAs or among my supervisory staff? Question, Ken. I'll let him sit. I'll ask a follow up question and then I'll move to him. Can you explain what an issue involving policy would be? I can guess on the high profile in dispute, but. But what would be a policy issue? Answer. An issue that would, you know, affect an interpretation of law. An issue where it might be a novel approach, an issue where there might be an emphasis coming from Main justice in Washington D.C. where they wanted us to focus on that particular issue. And then the question is how do we focus on that issue? Question. All right, Mr. Lynch, would you mind identifying yourself for the record? Now we have another congressman that's doing the questioning, Mr. Lynch. Congressman Stephen Lynch, 8th congressional district of Massachusetts and member of the Oversight Committee. Question. You brought up issues that Main justice might have had more of a focus on advancing, like prioritizing. Would Align USA be able to communicate with DC on a case or would they need to go through a supervisor or through you? I think that would depend on the case and the issues. There are several cases where line ASUAs were talking with Washington because it was their issue and they had the back and forth with criminal division on a regular basis. I would characterize the Southern District of Florida as much more, much more permissive of communications with Main justice as opposed to Main justice. Might want more control between communications between divisions. And then what was the, did the, was the Epstein case high profile that it came across your desk prior to the non prosecution agreement. So I have no recollection that it came across my desk prior to that. I have read in the OPR report and I have no reason to discredit what the OPR report said that the prosecuting AUSA briefed the first Assistant and myself on the case early on when the decision the Palm beach police were very upset about the state attorney had done the state attorneys with charging. The police wanted the state attorney to charge felony counts that would have resulted in imprisonment. The state attorney looked at the facts, didn't think that the facts justified the counts. The police wanted offered initially, I believe an offer that would have resulted in probation. I believe Mr. Epstein rejected that offer.
- [11:43]
A
Whether it's slots or live dealers, Spinquest.com has the fun and action you're looking for with Spinquest exclusives. Blackjack, roulette, Baccarat and even live dice with craps and bubble craps. The games never stop so you don't have to and right now new users get $30 coin packs for just 10 bucks. Play now@Spinquest.com SpinQuest is a free to
- [12:07]
B
play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. I drive my bus in a busy city. That's why road safety is so important to me. I know that I must slow down and be extra careful when I make a wide turn. Buses need more room than cars. Everyone can help keep our roads safe. Next time you're driving, remember to give buses plenty of time and space to finish turning before driving ahead. Let's all plan to share the road safely. Learn how at www.sharetheroadsafely.gov. the State Attorney then decided to take it to a grand jury to let the people of Palm beach in essence decide and presented all the charges from the highest to the lowest to the grand jury. The grand jury returned a charge that would have required the state equivalent of pre trial diversion. Not even probation I believe. And so then the police came to us. Somewhere around that point, my understanding is that the first assistant then criminal chief and I were briefed. I don't recall. I don't know. I suspect it was a very brief heads up question. Generally how would you putting aside the Epstein case, but generally how would you monitor high profile cases? Answer I had an excellent management staff. My first assistant had been criminal chief before that had been an executive in the Fort Lauderdale office. Before that I had a criminal chief that had been the head of major crimes. And in Palm beach cases we had a managing attorney, a managing a USA that before that had Been acting head of public Integrity and at one point and had been in a USA for any number of years. And so typically I would sit down with my management staff and we'd talk about the high profile cases that were pending. We'd talk about what I needed to focus on, and they would bring the issues to me that they thought were pertinent. Do you recall who the team was that was handling the Epstein case at the time? So when it first came into the office. Again, I don't recall when it first came into the office. The prosecuting attorney, according to opr, briefed the then criminal chief, subsequent first assistant on myself. And then there's a lot of communication for several months. Her chain of command would have been deputy chief in Palm beach that, based on the OPR report, wasn't heavily involved. I don't know why. The managing attorney in Palm beach county, then the criminal chief and then the first assistant. Question. All right, okay, folks, we're going to wrap up right here. And in the next episode, we're going to pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we left off with the Alex Acosta testimony given to Congress. Question. Do you recall who the team was handling the Epstein case at the time? So when I first came into the office, Again, I don't recall when it first came into the office. The prosecuting attorney, according to opr, briefed the then criminal chief, subsequent first assistant and myself. And then there's a lot of communication. For several months, her chain of command would have been deputy chief in Palm beach. That, based on the OPR report, wasn't heavily involved. I don't know why. The managing attorney in Palm beach county, then the criminal chief and then the first assistant. Question. All right. Did your office have a sex crimes division? Answer. We did not have a sex crime division per se. No question per se. What does Acosta cuts them off. We had some individuals that specialized or chose to do those types of cases. Question. Do you recall anyone recommending to you more involvement in the Epstein matter? It was 20 years ago. I do not. Okay. Do you recall any direct interaction between yourself and main justice in D.C. regarding the Epstein matter? I can either answer that or you can rephrase it by time periods because it varied heavily over time. We'll start in. Would you like me to try? Well, I'll go, like, year by year because I Imagine it. But our understanding is that the case originally came to the U.S. attorney's office in 2006. Do you recall any conversations with main justice at the onset of the FBI and U.S. attorney case? I do not question. And then the non prosecution agreement was being negotiated and signed in mid to late 2007. Do you recall any conversations with DC around then? Yes, there would have been some and I can try and break it down if you'd like. Yeah. So to my knowledge, or at least to my recollection, the first communication with DC took place after. So I'm sure we'll be able to take talk about this. I'll put it to one side for now. But after we had told defense counsel that we were proceeding with requirement of two years imprisonment, registration and a right for victims to recover monetary damages, also known as restitution, we made a decision and I approved that decision that we, you know, state Attorney had let him off entirely. That was wrong. And we wanted imprisonment, registration and restitution. At that point, perhaps a week or some number of days later, counsel came in. Mr. Epstein hired, let's just call him Epstein. Epstein hired additional counsel. I thought at that point that the case would be appealed to Washington. I communicated with my first assistant that they wanted a meeting. We should give them the meeting because I didn't want the case to jump to Washington because I refused to hear them out. And so we granted the meeting. At the time, at my request, the head of the Criminal Division Child Exploitation and obscenity section called CEOs Drew Osterbahn. Question. That sounds right. Answer. I asked my first assistant to invite him down so that he became aware of the case. So that he became aware of how we were approaching the case and so that he'd be present when we heard defense pushback. Because I had a suspicion that it would end up in Washington and thought it better to give them the process in South Florida to. So they can't say that we didn't give them a hearing and didn't give them their due. He in fact did come down. We had the meeting. He was present for the meeting. I heard out defense counsel. I rejected. They wanted us to drop the case. Their theory was it was a local case, that it was not a federal case. Because at the time we didn't have evidence that he traveled with any victims. We didn't have evidence of that. And maybe we'll talk about this, but we didn't have evidence that there were other individuals involved. We didn't have evidence that he traveled interstate or internationally. With any victims. And so they wanted us to drop it. I said no. They wanted us to do something similar to the state. I said, no, we're going to stick to our guns. We're going to stick to our initial offer and go negotiate. You said that Epstein hired more counsel. Was that when he brought in Dershowitz, Lefkowitz, and Starr? I don't know when he brought in Dershowitz, but that's when he brought in Lefkowitz and Star? Question. All right. And was that the concern that they were? I mean, both of them had worked in the White House before. Was that the concern that they would elevate straight to D.C. because of who they are? Answer Yes. I mean, I mean, Dershowitz, you know, we can put to one side, but, you know, Lefkowitz was a Washington lawyer, Star was a Washington lawyer. And, you know, I recall very clearly going to my first assistant and saying, epstein just hired these folks. It's going to go to Washington. So let's give them. They want a meeting, let's give them the process down here to try to head it off going to Washington. And that's exactly what it ended up doing. Just interject here. It went to Mukase and Philippe. This is what I've told you folks from the very beginning. Don't fall for the shiny object. Acosta is just the middleman with no heart and no backbone. Question. And then just who was your first assistant in your office? Answer. So at the time, it was Mr. Sloman. Question. Okay, answer. He was previously criminal chief. At some point in the process, that shifted. I believe at the time he was first assistant, but when we were first notified, I believe he was criminal chief. Question. All right, and then what's kind of. You said the phrase appealed to Washington. What's kind of the process for? You made an offer to Epstein's counsel. How would they appeal to Washington? Answer. So at the time, one of the major questions in the case was, is this a federal case or is it a local case again? And, you know, well, I'm sure we'll talk about the evidence at some point, but our evidence was that there was no other individuals involved, that there was no travel involved, that the victims went to his home. What happened? And unless we really need to, let's not get into the details. What happened in his home? And they left. And some of the victims didn't come back. Other victims came back on other days and the same thing happened. And other victims suggested that their friends that they come back and those things happened. But it was all within Palm Beach County. It was all local. And one of the issues was where is the federal connection? Where is the interstate travel? I have a vague recollection, but the OPR report talks about it with sufficient detail that I think my recollection is refreshed. I'm not using that as a technical term. So. Question yeah, answer what it means technically, that one of the theories was whether or not we can say that he traveled for the purpose of engaging in these acts with these victims. And at the time, the question of law was whether travel needs, whether purpose simply needs to be a purpose or the dominant purpose or a predominant purpose or something along those lines. And those were the kinds of policy questions that I would typically talk about and also the kinds of policy questions that I could see being appealed through the entire, you know, and I think it's difficult today to put ourselves back in 2006 because federalism was viewed very differently in 2006 than it is today. Congress was having major debates about federalization of crime. Congress was having major debates about whether the Department of Justice is impinging on local authority. And as a result, those are the sorts of debates that this local crime or federal crime that could see being appealed to D.C. question and that would be as much as, you know or remember the vague hypothetical of defense counsel would call someone and in this case in the Criminal Division and be like, I need a ruling on whether or not the Southern District of Florida is interpreting the law correctly, something along those lines. Answer yes or I mean, ultimately the U.S. attorney works for the Department of Justice and, and the Department of Justice in entirely, you know, authorized and in their right mind to overrule a U.S. attorney or say that this is inappropriate and that that's their prerogative. Question. Thank you. I want to, I'm going to go ahead and introduce it as Exhibit 1. Question it's being passed around. It's marked Exhibit 68 because it's pulled from the civil litigation, but it's exhibit one for our purposes. Answer.
- [23:06]
A
Okay, forget everything you had planned for this weekend because you are sitting on your couch and winning from the comfort of your own home. I'm here with spinquest where you can play hundreds of slot games, all the table games you love, and you could even win real cash prizes. New users $30 coin packs are on sale for 10 at spinquest.com SpinQuest is
- [23:30]
B
a free to play social casino. Void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. Question It's a letter that you wrote to whom it May concern in 2011 answer yes. Question do you recall writing this letter? Answer I do. Question what was the purpose of the letter? Answer so at the time I believe there was some media concerning this and some criticism of the office and I thought it important too. I didn't want to engage with multiple reporters. That's just not my style. And so I thought the best approach was to write an open letter defending the office and what it did and how did you publish or disseminate it? I provided it to one of the reporters that was engaged in the story. Do you recall who? I believe it was one of the reporters at the Daily Beast, I believe. Question we're going to go through a little bit of this because I actually think it kind of lays the foundation nicely for going into more detail later. Okay. But I want to go ahead and flip the page. I don't know who did the Bates marks, but 1796, the second page. Yes. In the second to last paragraph about midway through, there is a sentence that begins our judgment. Our judgment. Yes. Yeah, I'll read it. Our judgment in this case based on the evidence known at the time was it was better to have a billionaire serve time in jail or register as a sex offender and pay his victim's restitution, then risk a trial with a reduced likelihood of success. I supported that judgment then and based on the state of the law as it then stood and evidence known at the time, I would support that judgment again. Do you we're now 14 years ahead of this. Do you still support that judgment? Answer so I think something that has there are a few parts to this and we can break it down. One question is go to trial federal versus state and we'll talk about that because I do think that there were some issues on the state resolution that we did not foresee that became an issue. I think that today there's also the public wants trials more than it did back then. In some ways there's a greater desire for just go for it. And a U.S. attorney. I think you've got to be in touch with the public desire. All that said myself, the prosecuting attorney, the the managing attorney of the Palm beach office, the criminal chief and the first assistant all favored pre trial resolution. It was across the board. I've got a statement. This is the prosecuting attorney who was likely the most pro prosecution. The higher up you go in management chain as a general rule, the more concern there was about evidence. Question was that Ms. Vilafana? Answer yes, it was okay, but this is her giving a sworn declaration I think it was a civil case. I can't be certain. Some have alleged that Epstein would have easily been convicted and that all victims were eager to participate in a full fledged federal prosecution. As the prosecutor who handled the investigation, I can say that these contentions overlook the facts that existed at the time. We would meet with the victims, we would ask them how they wanted the case to be resolved. And most of them wanted it to be resolved via a plea. Some of them wanted him not to be prosecuted at all. Most of them did not want to have to come to court to testify. And what they're leaving out here is that Epstein paid a lot of these girls off. A lot of these poor girls got money from Epstein, and a lot of them didn't want to talk because of it. And she goes on to say how she favored a negotiated resolution, and it was her understanding that the office did as well. And so now we had a little bit later in the case and an attorney from CEOs, the child exploitation and obscenity section from Washington come down and look at the case. And this attorney went through the entire file. She specializes in these types of cases. And she went through the entire file, and she looked at it and said there were serious evidentiary issues. And while the evidentiary issues were not insurmountable, and these are her words, going to trial would be a quote, unquote, crapshoot. And so our thinking at the time was, you know, the state attorney is letting him get away with this. The state attorney is asking for pretrial diversion. Unacceptable. Entirely unacceptable. But a billionaire going to jail sends a strong signal to the community that this is not acceptable, that this is not right, that this cannot happen. His registering as a sex offender puts the world on notice, whether the world listened or not. We can put that on one side, but. But it puts the world on notice that he was an offender and a sexual offender. And on top of that, we included a means for the victims to recover monetary damages, not because we thought that makes them whole, but because we wanted a mechanism for them to at least try to restart their lives. And at the end of the day, it was our judgment that. And my judgment that the signal this would send to the community was an important signal. On the other hand, if we go to trial and. And we roll the dice and we do the crapshoot and we lose, what kind of signal does that send? That sends that he got away with it, that you can do that more. And so we thought it was very, very important to send a signal, and that's why. That's one of the reasons we favored the negotiated plea. I think less so in my mind, but perhaps more so in the minds of others, was concerns about the victims. If you look at similar declaration from the case agent, the case agent on the case, and a similar declaration, and I'll tell you what she wrote. This is the case agent also sworn testimony or a sworn statement. Many of the victims were troubled about the existence of the investigation. Some victims who were identified through the investigation refused even to speak to us. During the interviews conducted from 2006 to 2008, no victim expressed a strong opinion that Epstein be prosecuted. That's OPR 2001. I'm sorry. 201. And so, in part, it was influenced by that, and in large part, it was also influenced by the viability and visibility of the case. Every attorney that looked at the case, from the prosecuting attorney, again through the entire chain, looked at the evidence, and there were evidentiary issues with the victims. Many victims refused to testify. Many victims had changing stories. All of us understood why they had changing stories, but they did. The defense counsel would have cross examination. It would have been withering. Many of them had issues in their background. They had MySpace pages. They had priors that would have been used against them by defense counsel. These are little girls. Stop it. And that was at a time when, in all candor, defense could be much, much tougher on victims on the stand. And then finally, I think another factor that went into it in 2006 that's very different than today. And. And I think it's really. It's almost impossible for us to understand how different the community viewed these crimes. The best way of explaining that. After the OPR report came out, I read what the state attorney told the Office of Professional Responsibility. And I want to read that because I think this is evidence of what the community thought, because this is what the state attorney's office thought. Question. And just for the record, I just want to be clear. The statements you're reading are from the OPR report. Answer from the OPR report quoting the state attorney. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here. And in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up where we left off with the Alex Acosta deposition given to Congress. And once again, Alex Acosta is Answering the questions, answer. And so the OPR report on page 15. Meanwhile, the state attorney's office took the unusual step of preparing to present the case to a grand jury. Krisher, who was the state attorney, told the OPR that under state law, as it existed until changed. Not until 2010 or whenever. This is my first interjection question. Uh huh. But in 2016, as it existed. Mr. Neiman. 2007. Mr. Acosta. As it existed until changed in 2016. Right. Ten years after the case, his office prosecuted minors as young as 14 for those actions. The possibility that Epstein's victims themselves could have been prosecuted caused great consternation within the office. His words caused a great consternation within his office and according to Krisher, RA resulted in the decision to put the case before a grand jury. Bella Hovlik, his lead attorney, told OPR that her office took the allegations against Epstein seriously because it was an organized scheme to involve young girls by offering the money. However, she said, although Epstein's behavior was reprehensible, I'm limited by the state statutes as to what I can charge. There were so many issues involving the victim witnesses that to my mind, in consultation with the prosecutors. And she goes on to say that there was an element of solicitation. And so I want to be crystal clear, lest I be taken out of context or lest I be clipped on this, no one in our office ever thought that the victims were anything less than victims. No one thought that they were. You know, the idea that they were involved as anything other than victims did not cross the mind of a soul. But the fact that the state attorney's office had, quote, unquote, great consternation because they prosecuted women in these situations at the time does reflect, at least somehow people in the Palm beach community thought and does reflect to some degree, at least, what some jurors would think and does reflect, at least to some degree, some of the issues that we would have faced with victims that had quite a bit of impeachment evidence and ultimately the trial was a crapshoot and we just wanted the guy to go to jail. Question? No. Thank you for all of that. Appreciate all the context that doesn't come across in the letter and doesn't always come across in everything else. I have a couple of other questions on what you said. So in the 2006-2008 time frame from when Palm Beach PD handed it over to the FBI to the non prosecution agreement, your office did interview victims.
- [33:40]
A
I'm here with spinquest, where you can play and win from the comfort of your own home with hundreds of slot games and all of the table games you love with real cash prizes. Right now, $30 coin packs are on sale for $10 for new users. It's all@spinquest.com that's s p I n
- [33:59]
B
q u e s t.com Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. Answer Based on what I've read the office did. I believe the office did. I did not direct the investigation, so I can't personally speak to it, but I believe that the office did. Question and some of the evidentiary concerns would be that victims wouldn't be able to go on, didn't want to, or wouldn't be able to go on the stand to back up their statement. But also that some of their statements contradicted each other or contradicted themselves. Is that a fair summary answer? Some refused to talk whatsoever. Others said he, he did nothing wrong and we were just wrong. And again, we knew what we had. But if someone tells the FBI he did nothing wrong, that's the evidence you have, right? Answer huh? Question Some changed their story. Some had MySpace pages that would be used on impeachment. Some had priors. And so, you know, this isn't my opinion. This is the opinion of every, you know, every individual in the office that looked at the case. This is the managing. The Palm beach managing attorney. Everybody at the U. S. Attorney's office working on the matter had expressed concerns at various times about the long term visibility of a federal prosecution of Epstein due to factual and legal hurdles as well as issues with the cooperation and the desire of victims. And so every person that looked at the case had serious and substantial concerns about how the victims would. I believe my first assistant described it as withering. Impeachment by the defense. Question. You've mentioned kind of the lack of evidence beyond victim statements. I believe the Palm beach pd, or it might have been the FBI, got, you know, like message pads out of Epstein's home and a couple of items of evidence. But after the Palm Beach PD executed their search warrant on the house, they described it as being cleaned up. Do you recall any of that? I don't question, um, my recollection based on the opinions given to me. So as U.S. attorney, my background when I was litigating was an appellate lawyer. And my approach was I'm the legal issues guy. I'm the policy guy. The Miami office is known as one of the best trial offices in the country. We have a lot of Great trial lawyers. I trust their judgment on this, and I still trust their judgment on this because they have been doing this for years. My criminal chief at the time, Mr. Menshel, had done sex crimes cases before. Yeah. Was that before or after he was skiing with Jeffrey Epstein? And so those matters, I would look to them for their judgment, but based on what I know, I think their judgments were valid. Question, Were there ever any discussions about a lack of digital evidence, a lack of computer hard drives or videos or photos or anything like that? Answer, I don't recall the discussions with that degree of granularity. I. I believe the discussions would have been, we've looked at the evidence. There are a lot of issues going to trial. I want to come back to the letter itself, and I'm going to try to work down the letter. Yes. The third paragraph on the first page, you discussed how local police were dissatisfied and then talk about how a case can become a federal criminal prosecution as an interstate nexus and then as a backstop to state authorities. Yes. Do you recall your team ever uncovering potential witnesses in New York? I do not. Do you recall reading it since. Yes, I have read it since. Well, let me be clear. I have not read that my team discovered witnesses in New York since. I have read that there are witnesses in New York. Question, okay, do you recall if your office ever got flight logs of Epstein's private jet? Answer, I can't speak to what evidence we had or didn't have. Is that because you don't remember the evidence or. Answer I don't remember the evidence. Question. At the time, was your office aware that Epstein had houses in New York, New Mexico and an island in the Virgin Islands? Answer, we were aware that he had multiple houses. I don't know. I assume they would have known exactly where those houses were. I don't know if that was all his houses or what. But as a general matter, yes, quite. Question. And when you had mentioned one of the legal issues was kind of was there to create a federal nexus, Was there a purpose of traveling across state lines or internationally to commit the crime? And then what kind of like, amount of purpose the crime had to be a good layman's explanation. Answer, that's a good layman's explanation, and here's why this is important in my mind. I don't recall. It was 20 years ago. But if there had been clear evidence that he traveled from Florida to New York with a minor victim and order to engage sexual activity in New York, then we wouldn't have had to debate after Debate after debate about the degree of purpose on an entirely different statute that involves traveling from one place to another by yourself in order to engage in sexual activity at the second location. And those discussions would not have happened if we had evidence of clear interstate travel. And so while I don't have clear recollection from 20 years ago, it follows that given all those discussions, we didn't have evidence of interstate travel. Question so is there then to that A. Costa cuts in yeah. Question so this is kind of a crude question, but is there a difference and correct me if I'm wrong, this is how I understand what you just said. A difference in traveling with a minor to a second location for the purpose of nefarious activity versus traveling alone to the second location to meet someone for the purpose of. Of nefarious activity. Answer Absolutely. Question okay, Answer Traveling with a minor across state lines makes it a federal case, but traveling from state to state in order to engage in activity with a person@state2 then that, that's the conversations that we had. And those conversations would not have happened if we had clear evidence of the first Question okay, so would that the second instance traveling to a second location for the purpose of engaging in. In nefarious activity. That's the conversation of whether or not it's now a Florida, New Mexico like Florida case, New Mexico case, New York case versus lumping it all together Answer I don't understand. I'm not with you Question so I'll be more specific. The first kind of known tip is from Marie and Annie Farmer in 1997. Maria Farmer alleging that Epstein assaulted her in New York as a minor and Annie farmer alleging that Mr. Epstein assaulted her in. In New Mexico as a minor. So my understanding of those allegations, and I apologize if I get it wrong, is that they were flown to those locations not with Epstein, but met Epstein there. Answer so I don't know those facts and I can't discuss those facts. I can discuss the facts about South Florida and I don't know to what degree our, our office was aware of that information. Question I'm sorry. Nevermind. Okay. It's helpful to know but like when we hear those tips we sound, it sounds to us like that's clear interstate. Answer right. Question Nexus Right. Like you've got three states involved. I don't know if I would be a prosecution in New Mexico, a prosecution in New York and a prosecution in Florida or Acosta cuts in. Again, I can only speak to our understanding was that this was a South Florida matter and that there were multiple Attorneys debating whether we had an interstate nexus debates which would have taken place. And OPR talks about those debates, and OPR talks about, you know, the legal issues. I think at one point, the managing attorney. Let me see if I can find this, because it seems relevant. I can't find it now, but at some point, the managing attorney for Palm beach said that he thought that the argument about whether or not travel to Florida for purposes of sex, whether we win or not, was a closer call than our prosecuting attorney thought. So there was a debate ongoing. And I don't see why we would have had that debate if we had that scheme. And I think that one of the important distinctions here is that from a 2025 perspective, this is a big scheme. This is international. There are other individuals evolved. You know, the way it's talked about in the media, the way, you know, given what the victims say now, and those victims, let me just say, I thought they were very confident. I thought they were courageous. I heard their statements, and, you know, wow is enough, right? But, you know, back then, again, the words of the prosecuting attorney, none of the victims that we ever spoke to, these are their words, ever talked about any other men being involved in abusing them. That's OPR 167. We already talked about the travel. And so from our perspective, this was a local case. As I understood it. They went to his house, they left. Some didn't come back. Some did. Some came back with others. That's it. Question. And so the interstate nexus debate, what you're having, just so I'm clear, is he would travel from New York, Virgin Islands, Paris, New Mexico, wherever, to Florida for the purpose of nefarious activity and whether or not that was sufficient enough to meet the federal nexus. Answer. Correct question. Okay, answer. Our attorneys were trying to establish was whether we could say, because he knew that these women were present in Palm beach, that he would travel from New York or Paris or Virgin Islands or the places that you mentioned to Palm beach so that he can engage in what he engaged in with these women and whether or not he had to be dominant or whether that simply had to be a purpose. Question. Okay, thank you. Sorry, that took a while. All right, we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode, we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
- [43:39]
A
Whether it's slots or live dealers, Spinquest.com has the fun and action you're looking for with Spinquest exclusives. Blackjack roulette, baccarat, and even live dice with craps and bubble craps. The games never stop so you don't have to. And right now, new users get $30 coin packs for just 10 bucks. Play now@Spinquest.com SpinQuest is a free to
- [44:04]
B
play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.