← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Part 13-15) (5/17/26)
00:49:37
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
Transcript8 lines
- [00:00]
Narrator
This is a paid message from GoFundMe. Meet Juan Naula. When his son was hospitalized for a viral infection, Juan started a GoFundMe to pay for medical expenses.
- [00:11]
Juan Naula
It was 5k to pay the bill for my son and I needed only 22 hours. It was amazing. People really trust on GoFundMe.
- [00:19]
Narrator
How did Juan raise $5,000 in less than a day? He posted a short video on GoFundMe telling his story in 30 seconds.
- [00:27]
Juan Naula
30 seconds. Be specific, be quick and tell. What are you going to be using the funds for? I was nervous to do it because it doesn't feel okay to ask money. But you shouldn't be nervous. Sometimes you just have to do it and see the results. We were able to save my son's life thanks to gofundme that we still have my son with us.
- [00:50]
Narrator
Start your GoFundMe today at gofundme.com that's gofundme.com gofundme.com this message reflects one person's experience.
- [01:00]
TikTok Promoter
If you're into tech, you will love this. TikTok is a live lab where users
- [01:05]
Juan Naula
post instant reviews of the latest trends. Download TikTok and check it out.
- [01:12]
TikTok Promoter
What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to dive right back in to the Alex Acosta deposition that was given to Congress. Once again, Alex Acosta doing the answering and various people are asking the questions. I understand that In December of 2008, you recused yourself from the Epstein investigation. I did. Is that right? And that was at a time when you were engaged in discussions with Kirkland about returning there as an attorney, is that right? I was not engaged in discussions with Kirkland about returning as an attorney. Question. Okay, answer. This was after he had gone to jail and after he pled. The election had just taken place. I was considering whether to apply to private practice, whether at Kirkland or any other law office. I had a general conversation at the time with Mr. Lefkowitz about what private practice was like. I hadn't practiced since the mid-90s and thought it best to have. And I also had a general conversation with several other folks in Miami a about private practice. I thought it best to recuse because it's at the same time that our office started objecting to the Palm Beach Sheriff's decision to put him on work release. Given the number of attorneys that they had on the case. I did not think that it made sense to enter a job market when I was in charge of this case. And so I recused myself. Question. So if I can unpack that a bit, at what point in time did you begin to consider returning to private practice? Answer. Most likely after the election. Before the election, I had been looking into and ended up rejecting private practice and going into the legal academy. I considered applying to my old law school for a practitioner position for a period of time. At the time, I believe I had a conversation with our ethics counsel about whether I had to recuse because Mr. Dershowitz was one of the defense attorneys. Either he decided or consulted with the department and decided I did not have to recuse because. Because Mr. Dershowitz would not be involved in my being hired, whether at the Kennedy School or the law school. I believe I also applied right around the time to the University of Miami and then ultimately went to FIU. Question. When did you have your conversation with Mr. Lefkowitz? Sometime around Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving of 08, post election. And was this an in person conversation or over the phone? It was in person. It was in person. Where? It was over dinner. I don't recall. What did you discuss to the extent you recall? So it was 20 years ago. What I can infer was on my mind is how does one transition from being a government lawyer for eight years into private practice, he having been a government lawyer and then having returned to private practice and what private practice is like. But again, it was 20 years ago, and to be clear, I did not seek a position. I did not apply for a position. I ultimately determined not to pursue private practice. Thanksgiving of 08 is roughly, by my calculation, five months after Epstein entered his plea. Did you discuss Mr. Epstein with Mr. Lefkowitz at all? Not to my recollection. And there's no reason, because it was far after the plea. Question. Thank you. I'm going to now shift back to the conduct of your office investigation into Mr. Epstein. And just as an initial matter, when you first became aware of the investigation, did you perceive that there was a federal interest in investigating Mr. Epstein? Answer. So it was 20 years ago. I honestly perceive that there was an interest in having him go to jail. And I think my initial reaction would have been, where is the federal interest? But how can we get him to go to jail? Because it was brought up in the context of look at what the state is doing. But I would say that yes, there is a federal interest. And I felt, as an ethical matter, if the question is an ethical matter, did I feel comfortable bringing a case? I believe there's sufficient federal nexus to bring a case with A caveat of all the issues we've already discussed. Ms. Stansberry, given what you just said about there being significant federal interest to bring a case and, and an interest in his potential prosecution. You know, you said in the first hour that we talked to you that you felt or was it on the recommendation or you said your team said that some of the witnesses may have lacked credibility. Let me finish my question very quickly. Let me just say if you felt there was a federal interest in the case and the evidence was pointing in the direction of a potential prosecution, why did you not pursue additional witnesses, additional evidence, additional and potentially instead of giving a non prosecution agreement to co conspirators actually questioning them and collecting further evidence and their cooperation to prosecute him. Mr. Acosta, let me unpack that if I could and let me start off with the word credibility because I've heard that some of my comments have been mischaracterized to say that I thought that the witnesses lack credibility. I believe what I had said and if that's not what I said then you know, I, I want to correct the record. I believe that I said that was every prosecutor in our office believed what had happened and believe the witnesses. But we also understood the defense would have withering impeachment and at the end of some they didn't want to talk and wouldn't talk to us. And at the end of the day that affected the viability of a federal case. It affected what the outcome would have been. Ms. Stansbury. So why did you not pursue other witnesses or cooperation when with co conspirators, Mr. Acosta and so the office opened the file I believe sometime around May 2006, it could have been June 2006 and investigated it for an entire year. The prosecuting attorney, the case agents pursued leads as they saw fit, investigated as they saw fit, spoke with the individuals as they saw fit, do what they're trained did what they're trained to do, which is to pursue the case at some point as they're doing the investigation, they felt that it was time to move to the next stage, which is to proceed to bring charges so he can go to jail. And it's at this point that the case came up to our office, to my personal office for discussions about how to resolve it. And so to think or to say we did not pursue is mischaracterizing what took place. Ms. Stansbury, I'm asking after it was elevated to your office for a decision about whether or not to proceed with a prosecution, if you will. Let me ask this, this is just a yes or no question. Did you personally come to the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute? Just a yes or no. Mr. Acosta so I can't answer that yes or no with respect because it's not a there sufficient evidence to prosecute. Is there not sufficient evidence to prosecute then as an ethical matter, if you don't think there's sufficient evidence, you can't go forward. Ms. Stansbury but you could have, you could have decided at that point the case was not ready, we should collect additional evidence, statements and cooperation, correct? ACOSTA in theory, despite the fact that my career experts in the field were saying the case is ready, I could have said no, I don't think the case is ready, we should collect additional information. STANSBERRY so just pausing it right there, you could have said yes, let the case is not ready, let's not proceed yet. But but instead you decided to pursue a non prosecution agreement. Mr. Acosta so again, I think this is a mischaracterization of the process. The career attorneys had decided that the case was ready to proceed to that he's cut off by Stansberry and which of the career attorneys? ACOSTA in this case, I suspect that would have been Ms. Vilafana because I don't as a general course, I don't get involved in how evidence is gathered. I believe that would have been Ms. Vilafana, the supervising attorney in consultation with the Palm beach managing attorney and perhaps the criminal chief, Ms. Stansbury so Andrew Laurie and Matt Menshell and Jeff Sloman, is that correct? Those were the supervisors. Acosta yeah, I doubt this would have gotten to Jeff Sloman's level. At some point when they thought they had the case was ready to go forward, then we would have had a discussion about resolutions and I will own the resolution of I will readily admit that I approved the term sheet, but when that was approved, it came up in the context of a case that was ready to go. It did not come up in the context of we need additional time. If anything, there was an interest on the part of the prosecuting attorney to move the case more quickly. Ms. Dansberry okay, so let's follow up very quickly there. So you know, in communication with your office, it was discussed that you had prosecutorial discretion of about whether or not to move forward with the case and you chose instead that was your decision to move a non prosecution agreement, correct? Acosta I approved the negotiation of the non prosecution agreement. STANSBERRY and so can you tell me, was there anyone in the chain of command between Marie Villefana and you who recommended it not be prosecuted or that you move a non prosecution? ACOSTA I don't recommend I don't recall anyone that recommended that we not proceed with the case. STANSBERRY so everyone in the chain of command, from the line prosecutor up to you was recommending prosecuting? ACOSTA no. If I could, your question was proceeded with the case. STANSBERRY well, let me ask the question I'm asking, not the one you want to answer. The question I'm asking is is there anyone in the chain of command between the line prosecutor Vilafana and you, when the recommendation came up, who recommended to you to pursue a non prosecution agreement? ACOSTA so this was 20 years ago. Everyone in the chain of command was recommending that we proceed with a negotiated resolution. There was a discussion about whether that should be. STANSBERRY Cuts him off I don't think that's correct. Right, because we know that the line prosecutor provided a memo and an indictment. So you're saying every single person in the chain of command for the line prosecutor to you was recommending that you don't prosecute? ACOSTA no, that's not that's not what I said. STANSBERRY Let me have an affirmative statement. Acosta Right. So what I said, and I don't have the declaration in front of me, I wish I did. Stan SANSBERRY Let me ask the question in a different way because I don't want to parse words. You said you had a discussion with your senior team and as I understand it, based on the documentation, there was Marie Vilafana, she had two field supervisors, then Jeff Sloman and then you, you signed off on proceeding with a non prosecution agreement. So going back to what you stated earlier today, I'm trying to understand what informed your thinking when you decided to proceed with a non prosecution agreement rather than telling the field prosecutors to continue to pursue the evidence and build a stronger case? ACOSTA okay, so Ms. Villafana, the line prosecutor, the the prosecuting attorney in sworn statement said the STANSBERRY no, I'm asking about your own thought process. Acosta But I'm trying to answer your question, if I could. Some have alleged that Epstein would have easily been convicted and all the 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. She then goes on to say that the favored and negotiated resolution that she thought it was in the interest of the victims and the office and it was her understanding that the office as a whole favored a negotiated resolution. Ms. Stansberry did you read her memo and the indictment? Mr. Acosta if you STANSBERRY cuts him off again and do you have copies of the documents? ACOSTA if I can finish my statement. STANSBERRY but can you answer the question? ACOSTA Can I please finish my sentence? Then I'll answer your question. STANSBERRY can you answer that question please? If you go to the OPR report, the managing attorney of the Palm beach office favored a negotiated resolution. The criminal chief favored a negotiated resolution. The first assistant favored a negotiated resolution. Ms. Stansberry we're asking about people that were in your chain of command. ACOSTA these were all in my chain of command. They were my supervisory staff and also the entire chain favored a negotiated resolution. Ms. Stansberry was that before or after you made the decision to proceed to a non prosecution? Mr. Acosta that was before. Okay. Have you read Ms. Villefana's memo and indictment? Acosta so that was 20 years ago. I don't recall if I read it or not. Ms. Stansbury you, you don't know if you're online. You made a decision on a case about non prosecuting, a high profile case without reading the memo of the line prosecutor. Mr. Acosta so let me answer fully because I was cut off. It was 20 years ago. I don't remember any document that I read 20 years ago. It was a long time. What I do know is that there was a fulsome discussion that we would have talked about this. I may have read it. I may have sat around the table and said let's go over the document and and you flip through it. We have had conversations among senior staff about it. You know, this is no different than legislation where sometimes it's red. Sometimes you rely on your staff for summaries and you empower your staff to do it correctly, which I did. STANSBERRY Can I ask you a follow up question? ACOSTA yes. STANSBERRY Is the memo and draft indictment in the files at the DOJ for this case? Mr. Acosta I don't know if it's in the files. I would presume it's in the files but, but that's a question for the Department of Justice. Ms. Stansberry but it would be reasonable to presume that it's in the files, the DOJ files? Mr. Acosta I have no reason to think otherwise. Ms. Stansberry and then my second question, just going back, I think we're really trying to understand the motivation to pursue non prosecution, can you lay it out to us very clearly and simply what evidence and your own thought process that led you to decide, rather than continuing to prosecute the case, you decided to move to a non prosecution agreement. Mr. Acosta. So I think maybe part of the difficulty here is terminology, because the non prosecution agreement was not prosecution. The non prosecution agreement was backstopping the state to obtain a guilty plea through the state system. Ms. Stansbury. But you. Well, actually, yeah, that is terminology thing. You chose not to pursue a federal case. That's a non prosecution of a federal case. So I understand where you're headed with that line, but let's go back. I want to hear your line of thinking as U.S. attorney as to why you decided to not pursue a federal case based on the evidence. Mr. Acosta. Okay, so if you're willing to indulge me to allow me to finish the question, I think I understand what you're asking. I will try to answer the question. This case came to the U.S. attorney's office on a referral from the Palm beach police, which is unusual. Usually we get our cases from the FBI. It came from the Palm beach police because the Palm beach state attorney, they wanted the Palm beach state attorney to bring charges, and they wanted the Palm beach state attorney to bring three charges that would have resulted in what I understood at the time to be about two years imprisonment. The Palm beach state attorney initially then offered, they said, we have looked at the evidence. We don't feel comfortable with the evidence. We don't think the case is viable. And they offered a resolution of probation. My understanding is that Epstein rejected the state attorney's probation resolution, at which point the state attorney, even though he could have indicted, took it to a grand jury and asked the grand jury to decide how to proceed. And the grand jury took a look from the highest to the lowest charge, and they took a look at this. The grand jury returned a charge that would have allowed for pretrial diversion. And that's how the case first came to us. In that context, the first assistant and at some point early in 2006, asked the then prosecuting attorney to start what's called a petite waiver. A petite waiver is a case that allows for double prosecution. If a state prosecution is so manifestly unjust, then the federal government can prosecute it as well. And so it came into our office in the context of a state case where we might be doing a double prosecution. So fast forward one year, give or take, the case is investigated further by our office and it's time to proceed to a resolution and and there are two paths on which we can proceed. One would be a federal resolution and the federal resolution was the most talked about was a 371 and the other path, which would have been which would have been capped at much less than the guideline range that would have been the negotiated plea and the other path is the state resolution. Everyone in the office felt the negotiated outcome was the best choice. Everyone. Ms. Stansbury did they all feel that a non federal prosecution was correct? ACOSTA if you'll allow me to answer, I'm trying to STANSBERRY I'm going to come back to it, but I want you to finish this story, but just pin right in this moment. ACOSTA Right, I'm going to go where you'd like to go. Just let me finish. STANSBERRY okay. ACOSTA Everyone in the office felt the negotiated resolution was the best outcome. STANSBERRY Understated charges. ACOSTA A negotiated resolution was the best. STANSBURY I just want an answer to that question. ACOSTA it was the best outcome. STANSBERRY did you agree state versus federal in your office? ACOSTA on the continuum of state versus Federal, I believe the line attorney probably had concerns about proceeding state. I think the statutory or supervisor attorneys were in between and did not feel strongly one way or the other. I think a fair way to characterize was that the federal versus state was was more my concern than their concern, although they felt comfortable proceeding with the non state charges. And at no point do I recall a supervisory attorney saying we should not do this. Ms. Stansberry but the ultimate call to proceed federally was yours. Mr. Acosta the ultimate call was mine. As I've said as I've said previously, it was my decision. STANSBERRY and why that's what we're trying to understand. I want to know why. ACOSTA well, the why is it had come up as a state case. STANSBERRY no. What's your thought process like, why were you like, okay, we've got 40 witness statements, a child sex abuse, these are federal crimes. Why were you like, no, we're going to just send it back to State who didn't think that it was going to handle it competently to begin with. Mr. Garcia and then I have a question. As soon as she's done with that one, I have a question. STANSBERRY this is the part that I don't understand, like even in your timeline, just there, where you're saying that part of why the feds got involved is because there was a feeling that the state wasn't going to fully prosecute the case. It's also child sex trafficking, a federal crime. Why did you what was going on in your head that made you decide to not pursue it federally? ACOSTA so you've labeled it a child sex trafficking. And one of the discussions we've had today has to do with federal nexus and fulsome conversations that we've had within the office because we didn't have any evidence that there was travel. STANSBERRY that there was what, a Costa travel? We didn't have any evidence that Epstein traveled across state lines with any of the victims. STANSBERRY what about the witness statements that they had been flown on his jet up to his private island? That's evidence to travel across state lines. ACOSTA so my recollection we did not have the evidence of travel and the reason that I'm willing, the reason that I say that is not based on independent recollection but based on the fact that the OPR report, which talks about the contemporaneous discussions in the office and interviews with the various attorneys in the office, has a long discussion about the viability of bringing a federal case based on transporting victims. But on Mr. Epstein's travel on his own to South Florida and whether or not or whether or not the purpose of travel was a purpose but predominant purpose, for example, on page I think 34. Stanberry okay. She interrupts I understand the point you're trying to make about travel, but let me go back to the thought process. ACOSTA but can I answer your question fully? STANBERRY But I think we're coming at here is like the evidence and witness statements, we're very clearly pointing in the direction of abuse of minors. ACOSTA yes. STANSBERRY yes. And it was the overwhelming consensus of the line prosecutor to pursue a federal prosecution. You stated a little while ago that it was viewed that the state might not fully prosecute the case or hold him accountable, that he could be incarcerated. So why did you say, okay, this guy has been involved in abusing minors. We have the statements, we know what's happening. Why did you not proceed with the case? GARCIA and then after this question, I have a question. STANSBERRY yeah. ACOSTA so two points. First, you know, we thought that the state would be from our perspective, we thought we hand the case back to the state, the state will say thank you, we can now put him away in jail and have him in continuous confinement for X number of months or two years. STANSBERRY but your non prosecution agreement said they couldn't. ACOSTA no, it actually said that they could and should. And we thought that if we went back to the state that the state would be a reliable partner. Should I have assumed that? No, I should not have assumed that. STANSBERRY you thought the state, based on your discussions, was going to fully investigate and prosecute after you engaged in the non prosecution agreement? Mr. Acosta that's not what I said. STANSBURY no, I'm asking the question. ACOSTA so I thought that the state would be a reliable partner and put him in jail for the period of time that he agreed to go in and put him and not put him on work release. STANSBERRY okay, so you did not believe that they were going to fully investigate and prosecute. ACOSTA can you allow me to finish? STANSBERRY it's actually not my point, it's yours. And I'm going to pass it back to the ranking member. Mr. Garcia let's move on. I appreciate it. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here. And in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with the 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. Once again, Alex Acosta answering questions and various members of the committee doing the questioning. Mr. Garcia let's move on. I appreciate it. Mr. Acosta. I'm going to pass it back. Just, just really briefly, just back to the line. Prosecutor Ms. Vilafana, I believe. Did you believe that she was a credible prosecutor? Mr. Acosta Yes, I did. GARCIA in your recollection of her work, you would have found her to have been a good prosecutor? Mr. Acosta Yes, I would have and I did. Mr. Garcia okay, great. I just wanted to make sure that we established that. And then. Mr. Redacted do you want to first have I know we've got 20 minutes. Do you want to take another 15? And then the last five minutes you want to go to? Ms. Ansari go ahead. Sure. Ms. Stansbury and I have one more set of questions before the end of the hour, if possible. Mr. Garcia One more question at the end of the hour. Stansberry yeah, before the end of the hour. GARCIA okay, let's go ahead and try and get through this next round of questions, then Ms. Ansari and then Ms. Stansberry can wrap it up. Ms. Stansberry I'll go after it because it's a slightly different topic. Mr. Just following up on the previous conversation, I did want to note for the record that according to the OPR report, and I'm quoting from page 40, Ms. Vilafana was opposed to the state based resolution. And the report states, in Vilafana's view, the proposed state resolution didn't make any sense, did not correspond to the department policy requiring that plea offer reflect, quote, the most serious readily provable offense. And that's quoting from the Ashcroft memo. Is that your consistent recollection? Answers, so my recollection, as I presented previously, which I would characterize her as being the most in favor of a federal and at least in favor of a state, what she told OPR is much stronger. Then at no point do I recall her telling me I am opposed to this. And so what she told OPR is a much stronger characterization of her position than my recollection of what she told me. Question do you have any reason to believe she was being untruthful when she spoke with opr? Answer not at all. Question okay. ANSWER But I do think that over time people Question I'm sorry, he gets cut off on that. Ms. Vilafana, can we agree that this line prosecutor should she was the most closely acquainted with the evidence? Answer I think that's fair. But I also think that given the degree of involvement Mr. Mental had in this case, Mr. Menshell was very closely associated with the evidence and he had been a former sex crimes prosecutor, and so he received quite a bit of deference. I should say that the office has substantial disagreements with her analysis. For example, on page 34, Lori Sentimental, he gets cut off. Again, that's okay. I will get to those issues as we proceed. I just want to address an issue with respect to the victims and concerns you had described with respect to what certain people in your office viewed as the impeachability of them as witnesses at trial, The OPR report found that Your office identified 32 victims that the office was prepared to include in Federal charges against Mr. Epstein. Did you or anyone else in the office do any sort of quantitative analysis as to how many of those 32 were impeachable versus more credible on the spectrum? Answer I'm certain that the supervisory team sat down and went through that. That's what they do. That's what they do. Question but do you have any personal knowledge of that? Answer I don't have personal. I didn't ask them. Show me the chart where you went through this Memo. But this is what they do for a living. I wouldn't ask them in any case to show me the chart because this is what they do for a living every day. Question But 32 victims is a lot of potential victims. Does it seem plausible that all 32 were unreliable witnesses at trial? I do know one of the concerns that Ms. Vilafana had, and this again, going back to her declaration, was the interlocking nature of the victims and whether or not it could be portrayed that they were supporting one another and whether it was possible to bring the case with interlocking victims that had all. Not that all, many of whom had previously known each other. Question but again, do you have any personal knowledge that she took that view as to all 32? Answer I don't, I don't, and I wouldn't. And I don't think it's appropriate to sit down and ask your prosecutors to show me the chart with respect to all 32. Question and I'm just going to note that the Southern District of New York in 2019 charged Mr. Epstein on several federal counts on the basis of only two unnamed victims in its indictment. Are you aware of that? Answer I'm aware that they charged on the basis of a number. I didn't know it was two. I may have known that it was two. But again, question. I think you've answered my question, Mr. Acosta. Thank you. I appreciate that. Back to Mr. Ansari. Did you have some questions, Mr. Ansari? Sure. A very different topic. I'm curious about your resignation from the first Trump administration. First of all, you were offered a position in the Trump administration as it pertains to or because of your role in the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution. Acosta? Not in the least bit, no. Mr. Ansari. Okay. And why did you resign from your position in the administration, Mr. Acosta? The resignation was my choice. I resigned from the position. And let me just say, I was not asked to resign. It was not suggested by anyone at the White House that I resign. I resigned. You know, I think I said earlier, I'm old school. I think that you come into these jobs, you serve and you leave, and they're special and they're a privilege. And if you become a distraction, then it's not appropriate for you to serve in these jobs. So I made a decision. I called the White House shortly after breakfast, asked them to speak to the President. I told them that it was time for me to move on. I did not want to be a distraction to this administration, and I chose to resign. We stepped out onto the South Lawn. He did an impromptu press conference right there and that's why I resigned and that's what I wrote. And I actually mean what I write usually. So yes. Mr. Ansari and I think we touched on this a little bit earlier. But just to reemphasize, have you ever discussed the Epstein investigation or Jeffrey Epstein with Donald Trump prior to your confirmation? Mr. Acosta I had not. Mr. Ansari okay. Mr. Question how about anyone in the White House? ANSWER so as I said a little bit earlier, at some point in the confirmation process, the Epstein matter came up. And at that point I know, I don't recall who, but I do know I discussed it with the communication staff. I think it may have been in the context of a Washington Post article, but it may have been before that. I don't remember. I know that there was a Washington Post article above the fold at some point. QUESTION so to be clear. Acosta But I am finishing answering, I discussed it with other people, but gets cut off again. QUESTION let's back up a little bit. Acosta okay. Question when you were first approached about potentially serving in the Trump administration? So I wasn't approached. I approached the Trump administration about serving in the Trump administration. Question and when was that? Answer Sometime after the election. Question after the election and before the inauguration or after the inauguration? ANSWER probably sometime after the inauguration, but I want to complete my previous answer at some point in the vetting or confirmation process, I may have also discussed this with you, go through an FBI background check, and it may or may not have come up and, and I may have talked with folks about that during the vetting process. Mr. Ansari, do you remember who you spoke to? Mr. Acosta, whoever is involved in vetting? I didn't say I spoke to. I said I may have and whoever would have been involved in that. But that was after I was given the position. Not given the position. That would be an awful misnomer. That's after it was publicly announced that I would be nominated, while I was being vetted by Mr. So you mentioned that you approached the Trump administration. Yes. Who did you approach? I believe I approached the system had been set up that was operated at a Trump Tower and I submitted my name through that system. And after you approached the Trump administration and before your confirmation, did you speak to Donald Trump at all? ANSWER before my confirmation, yes, before I was before he selected me as secretary of Labor. Then I spoke to him. And what did you say during that conversation? So he asked me some questions. None of them related to Epstein in any way they were all related to my background, they were all related to labor. I answered the questions and the next day he selected me. Question did you discuss your time at the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of Florida beyond an item on my resume first I don't know if I did or did not, but it was an item on my resume and I'm certain he had my resume. So just so I'm clear with the timeline, and please correct me if I'm wrong, did you say you received the nomination before you went through a vetting process? So I believe there's an announcement and once the announcement's made, then the FBI vetting process begins, the nomination is transmitted and then the typical confirmation process. The that's not unusual. Sure. Garcia, could I ask a follow up first parts inaudible then vetting an interview or into a vetting process before the announcement was made? Mr. Acosta? So I had been vetted by the FBI for multiple positions before I had been interviewed. I interviewed before the announcement was made with multiple members of the administration and my final interview was with President Trump. I interviewed with him, then the announcement was made. Question by redacted and anytime during these interviews before Donald Trump that you had mentioned? Yes. Did Jeffrey Epstein's case come up? No, not once. Not to my recollection. Did your tenure at the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of Florida come up in any of these interviews? Prior not with a degree of specificity question so, alright, so the nomination's announced, then you go through a vetting process. Can you describe that vetting process for me? You fill out a lot of FBI forms, you answer questions at the Office of Presidential Personnel, you have conversations and it's either Presidential personnel or White House Counsel or both. And then once you're formally nominated and you proceed to confirmation questions. So at any point, from your approach to the Trump administration to potentially serve as Secretary of Labor to your confirmation, did you have any conversation or discussion with anyone in the Trump administration about political concerns regarding Jeffrey Epstein? Again, I did not. It may have come up during the vetting. It came up after I was publicly announced, I believe while I was probably doing Hill visits. I think it was during Hill visits because it was while I was in D.C. and I had a conversation with the communications staff about it. Ms. Stansberry, can I ask a quick follow up question, sort of a sideline. And then going back to you, over the course of your engagement at the doj, did you ever see any documents in which Donald Trump's name appeared with regards to the Epstein case. Mr. Acosta not to my recollection. Ms. Stansberry Were you aware that Donald Trump was friends with Jeffrey Epstein? Mr. Acosta I have no recollection of Donald Trump associated with the investigation and in any way, shape or form. Ms. Stansbury no, I'm just asking if they were friends. It's a well known fact. It's okay. You can answer in the affirmative on things that are well, Acosta cuts her off of course I can answer in the affirmative. If it's an affirmative answer, it's 20 years later. Stansberry you read the newspaper, right? ACOSTA I'm sorry? I said you read the newspaper. I read newspapers now and I know what's talked about in newspapers now in 2006. You know, I don't think this was talked about as a headline in 2006. Stansberry did the FBI interview Donald Trump or speak to him with regards to this case? ACOSTA I have again did not direct the investigation. If our prosecutors thought they should pursue the lead, they were free to pursue that lead. SANSBERRY but is it possible that they did based on that relationship? ACOSTA I have no knowledge that any person spoke to Donald Trump with respect to Epstein. I have no knowledge of Donald Trump's name appearing in any Epstein document. I have no knowledge of Donald Trump being associated with Epstein investigation in any way. I'm not saying that it wasn't because I can't speak on behalf of the many, many attorneys and case agents involved. I can simply speak about what knowledge of it I have. And let me also say I think that there was a I think it's pretty spectacular. It hasn't leaked by now, but that's just speculation. STANSBERRY and then I just have one more quick follow up. GARCIA how much time do we have Left? Stansberry please redacted 5 minutes. Garcia 5 minutes left. One question for Ms. Stansberry. Stansberry I just want to ask and I would love if you would just say yes or no. And I know you're an attorney, so you know how this works. So since January 20th of this year, 2025, have you spoken to or engaged in any form of communication with the following individuals? ACOSTA okay. Stansberry Donald Trump. ACOSTA no. STANSBERRY Pam Bondi Acosta. STANSBERRY it's just a yes or no. ACOSTA yes, and I'm going to answer. STANSBERRY okay. The question I have. STANSBERRY Director Patel. ACOSTA I have been cut off again by Stansberry I've got a list. I've got a list, but I need to answer the question. STANSBERRY okay. ACOSTA I've had the pleasantries with I've had pleasantries what you'd categorize as pleasantries with Pam Bondi. Hello, how are you? STANSBERRY okay. Acosta as part of a large zoom conference. STANSBERRY okay. ACOSTA But I have not spoken to her in person and I've not spoken to her in any way about anything having to do with with Jeffrey Epstein. STANSBERRY Director Patel? ACOSTA no. STANSBERRY Any employee or political appointee of the White House. ACOSTA that's a broad question. I'm sure I've had multiple conversations with employees of the White House. I've not spoken to anyone at the White House, to my recollection, about anything having to do with Jeffrey Epstein since January 20th. Stansberry Any employee or political appointee of the Department of Justice. ACOSTA As I said, I was in a zoom meeting with Attorney General Pam Bondi and several other individuals. We probably said, hello, how are you? And had little pleasantries, nothing beyond that. STANSBERRY and any employee or appointee at the FBI. ACOSTA no one from the FBI, no. STANSBERRY okay, so DOJ and the White House got it, okay. And then they take their little recess. So that's where we're gonna break as well. 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. What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up right where we left off with the Alex Acosta deposition. Mr. Garcia, so I just want to go back quickly. You said at some point during the vetting process. ANSWER yeah. Question Jeffrey Epstein may have come up is that right? ANSWER I said it may have. I don't recall if it did or did not. QUESTION if it, in fact had come up, when would it have come up in your speculation? ANSWER in my speculation, it would have come up if the question may have arisen as part of your newspaper articles or something along those lines. Question and leading up in your preparation for the confirmation hearing with the Senate. Yes. QUESTION did you prepare for questions about Jeffrey Epstein? ANSWER so there were articles in the media about that. And so, yes, I did prepare, and I was asked by the Senate about this, and I answered consistent with my answers today. Question who did you prepare your questions with? Myself. Question no. 1 from the White House answer. I didn't prepare. These are questions that would be within my general knowledge, not the White House. And so no question, you didn't coordinate with the White House on your questions. They didn't review your questions in any respect. So I was given binders about the Department of Labor and preparatory documents having to do with the Department of Labor that is consistent with any transition. And as part of that, I certainly had discussions about labor policy and the Department of Labor with part of the transition team, which was then at the Department of Labor. Actually not at the White House, but at the Department of Labor. This would not have been within their purview. It wouldn't have been. These were materials or matters about me, not. Not about labor policy. And so I would not have. That would have not have been part of that particular so called prep question. I understand. Just so we're very clear, you did not discuss your answers, regardless of labor policy with the White House prior to your confirmation hearing answer. I'm sorry, when you say regardless question. Sure, I'll clarify. Labor policy aside, did you discuss your answers for the Senate confirmation hearing with anyone at the White House? So to be clear, I did not, to my recollection, discuss anything having to do with Epstein or my answers question. That wasn't my question, sir, you know, with anyone at the White House. And I recall very few instances. As a general matter, the conversations about preparing for hearings took place with transition staff at the department and not the White House. So I don't even know if we discussed the answers to any confirmation question with with anyone at the White House, including the labor policy question. I have a couple questions just to make sure that the record's clear. And then I've been crossing off questions as you've been answering them. You were asked at the very end by Ms. Stansberry if you had ever spoken with anyone about any subject from January 20, 2025 until present at the White House or DOJ. You said yes, but not about the Epstein case. Is that correct? That is correct. Those were either social or professional, but not Epstein, to my knowledge. I have spoken with no one in government about the Epstein matter. Thank you. It just felt that was fishing for a yes. That's going to end up on the cameras here in a second, so I appreciate the scoping clarification. You were also asked a lot about whether or not the FBI or anyone in the office interviewed Donald Trump during the 2006-2008 Epstein investigation and remind me of your answer again. I'm sorry, I became preoccupied because of the statement I said I wasn't limited in scope. For the time since January 20th, to my knowledge, I haven't spoken with anyone in government about the Epstein matter. Question thank you. So you were also asked about whether or not the FBI or your office interviewed Donald Trump in the 2006-2008 investigation into Epstein? Answer Yes. Question Based off a couple articles that they both live in Palm beach and Epstein went to Mar a Lago, do you know how many members there are at Mar a Lago? Answer I would assume hundreds, maybe more. Question did you interview all of them? Again, I don't know who we interviewed. I don't direct interviews. I have no knowledge of who was interviewed or not interviewed. I have no knowledge. To my knowledge, to my recollection, to my memory, Donald Trump's name did not appear in any document or any matter related to Jeffrey Epstein. Question what about do you know how many people lived on Palm beach island at the time? Answer I have no idea. Did you interview all those people too? Answer Again I don't think so. I'm pretty certain we did not. Question all right, and you are confident in your line attorneys that if they found a lead they they would follow it and they would interview that person? Answer they would yes. Question all right, thank you. Whoever's doing this questioning right here is obviously trying to help Acosta out and the fact that their name is redacted is straight up trash. We've talked a lot about the non prosecution agreement, the OPR report, a lot. I just want the OPR report I believe came to the conclusion nothing illegal against a regulation of unethical happened regarding the prosecution report, but that it showed poor judgment. I think that's what they said. Do you agree with the characterization of events? I agree with their findings with respect to events and I agree with their core finding that the state resolution was poor judgment. In hindsight it had any number of problems. Question and you've touched on this a little bit, but I think you testified today that you did not foresee or anticipate a lot of the state problems that that would follow the npa. Is that correct? Answer that is correct. Question and again, hindsight being 20 20, if you had known the state was going to be a not supportive actor in this endeavor, would you have maybe addressed the case differently? Why would the state be an actor that could be relied upon? The whole entire point of going to the feds is because the state wasn't going to take action. So save the bro. Answer There is no way if we knew that the state was going to proceed as it did, that we would have addressed this case the way we did. Question. Thank you. I'm going to go back further in time. So again, I understand that there is a lack of recollection. Were you aware. I'll back up. When did you become u. S. Attorney for the southern district of florida? Answer. Sometime in 2005. Question were you aware of Jeffrey Epstein prior to the investigation into him? Answer. I was not. Question. Were you aware that palm beach was investigating him prior to your office taking over? Answer. The first recollection that I remember of Jeffrey epstein was shortly before I decided how to proceed on the term sheet. I know I was briefed in 2006. I don't even recall being briefed. And I don't even recall recognizing his name when I was briefed. Question. Do you recall any communication between yourself and palm beach police chief Michael ryder? We may have communicated. I don't know. I don't remember communications. I mean, he was the chief of police in palm beach. May not have been specific to epstein. It could have been any number of criminal matters in the jurisdiction. That's correct. Question. But do you recall any specific to epstein? Answer. I do not remember. No. Question. What about the palm beach lead detective, Joseph ricari? Do you recall any specific to epstein? I don't recall any communication specific to epstein. And I also think it would have been unusual for me to communicate with a detective without his boss present. You've talked about the petite, is that right? Yes. The petite motion that would allow concurrent federal and state investigations. Correct. When, if you remember, did it shift into, like, away from that? So one of the difficulties is at the end of the day, the state did not ink their deal. They had an agreement, but they did not ink their deal. Uh huh. And so the petite waiver does not technically apply, but it informed the decision. The avenue of proceeding through the state and looking at this as a state case informed the outcome. Did you review, personally review the findings of the palm beach investigation? Answer which investigation? When you say palm beach investigation, Question. The investigation that they handed to your office. Answer. At the time. I did not. Question did you review it prior to the npa? Answer I would have been fully briefed on the evidence, whether that was through my supervisory staff or by my reading summaries of it as a general course. U.S. attorneys don't sit with all the evidence files and the 302s. Well, guess what, dumbass? Maybe they should imagine being the boss and not knowing what your employees were up to. Question. Have you ever. Do you know who Sandy Berger is? I do not. Question. So I'm assuming you've never spoken to Sandy Berger if you don't know who he is. I would assume so. All right. What about Doug Band? Have you ever spoken to Doug Band? Not to my knowledge, no. All right. Do you recall reviewing the West Palm beach police report regarding Mr. Epstein from 2005? Again in the usual course? I would have been briefed. I would have had summaries. I wouldn't review the police reports or the 302s. Shifting to when it became an FBI investigation after Palm beach handed it over. Were you involved at all in the decision making process of the FBI or the U.S. attorney's office taking up the case? I was not. That's something that someone on the supervisory staff can make on their own. Answer. Let me revise the answer. I have no recollection of being briefed. My understanding was based on the OPR report that when Ms. Vilafana approached my then criminal chief and myself, it was before taking up the case to ask if the office wanted to pursue the case. And I said, yes, this is the kind of thing we should pursue. And we pursued it. So, yes, I was. It was unusual for me to say take up the case. Typically she should have had the authority to do this, but she thought she should check. And I said, go forward. Question do you recall any conversation of why she thought she should check on the case? Answer Again, not my recollection, but the report. Because the state had dropped the ball, she wanted to check to see if we were willing to proceed. Question because it might make the state look a little bad? Answer Perhaps because it might make the state bad for whatever other reason she wanted to check. And I said go forward. Question all right. And then I think you touched on it briefly, but don't recall and would be odd for you to have communicated with the FBI case agents, but possible communication with the special agent in charge? Answer that's correct. Do you recall if the FBI ever recommended bringing federal sex trafficking charges? Answer not to my recollection. Question and this may be in the OPR report. In May of 2007, Ms. Vilafana recommended indicting Epstein and the FBI wanted to arrest him while he was in the Virgin Islands. Were you aware of that? Answer in May of 2007, I believe she submitted a draft recommendation that had not gone through the supervisory chain. Her immediate supervisor actually had concerns about it, and I believe the OPR report talks about how he thinks it should proceed, that there are different charging decisions that he would make. And so she and he and others proceeded to have those discussions. Are you're referencing the 60 count indictment, correct? The 60 count indictment that we've talked about? Yes. Just generally, is it common for line prosecutors to draft indictments that then get negotiated with senior managers? You start with something and you negotiate it. That's very typical. It's been characterized that this was ready to go and it was her draft or something that hadn't even been vetted through the usual office process. In conjunction with that indictment. Do you recall any conversation about the FBI wishing to take Epstein into custody in the Virgin islands? It was 20 years ago. I don't remember. All right, we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode we're going to pick up where we left off with Alex Acosta and his amnesia. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.