Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Part 16-20) (5/17/26)

Summary

The Epstein Chronicles: Mega Edition

Alex Acosta And His Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Parts 16–20)

Date: May 18, 2026
Host: Bobby Capucci

---

Episode Overview

This multi-part "Mega Edition" episode of The Epstein Chronicles continues the deep dive into former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta’s congressional deposition regarding his office's handling of Jeffrey Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Host Bobby Capucci breaks down and reacts to Acosta’s sworn responses, exposing evasions, bureaucratic cover, and profound frustration over the justice system’s treatment of Epstein’s victims.

Acosta is questioned—at length—by members of Congress about everything from prosecutorial tactics and evidentiary decisions, to DOJ oversight and alleged external pressures. The deposition is revealed as a masterclass in non-answers, deflection, and repeated reliance on the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report. Capucci’s unfiltered commentary underscores the cynicism and collective anger at a system seemingly designed to protect the powerful.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Authority and Negotiation Structure

• Delegation and Supervision:
  • Line prosecutors like Ann Marie Vilafana typically had authority to negotiate with defense (§[01:32]), checking in with supervisors as needed.
  • Acosta insists Vilafana was “trusted” and “experienced,” negotiating but checking for buy-in—a ‘normal’ process that happens in most cases.

2. Defense Tactics and External Pressures

• No Calls from High-Profile Individuals:

  • Acosta repeatedly denies receiving calls or interventions from Clinton, Woody Allen, the Queen of England, or others to back off the case (§[03:00]).
  • “President Clinton never [called] me.” – Alex Acosta (§[03:13]).

• Pressure From Defense Counsel:

  • Acosta admits defense pushed for no jail time or dismissal: “Epstein’s defense counsel wanted everything. And again and again we told them no.” (§[05:10]).

3. Handling of Evidence (or Lack Thereof)

• Interviews of Co-Conspirators:
  • Acosta claims ignorance on whether four identified women (potential co-conspirators) were ever interviewed: “To my knowledge, I don’t know.” (§[17:15]).
• Epstein’s Computers & Flight Logs:
  • Acosta “does not recall” if computer equipment or flight logs were retrieved, though admits “they may have” shed more light on Epstein’s crimes (§[18:20]).
• Financial Crimes:
  • Investigation “focused on sex crimes,” with Acosta saying he can’t recall discussions on financial crimes, even when directly pressed (§[51:00]).

4. Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) Origins and Process

• Negotiation Details:

  • The sentence moved from an initial 24 months, to 18, with Acosta blaming the outcome on negotiation needs and prosecutorial discretion (§[27:32]).
  • Prosecutors were “shocked and upset” by the work release outcome and had “assurances” it would be continuous confinement (§[29:30]).

• Why Not the Federal Plea?

  • Despite Vilafana’s “substantially higher sentence” recommendation, Acosta chose the plea due to risk: “Do you go to trial and risk him getting off entirely, or do you take a certainty of a sentence?” (§[27:02]).

5. The Federal Nexus: Crossing State Lines

• Transportation of Minors:
  • Acosta claims no evidence at the time showing Epstein transported minors for sexual purposes across state lines, despite DOJ email evidence suggesting otherwise (§[37:50] to §[41:50]).
  • Robust internal debates existed on charging strategies and jurisdiction, with Acosta apparently deferring to line attorneys and DOJ policy interpretations.

6. Use of the OPR Report as a Shield

• Reliance on OPR:
  • Acosta constantly refers back to the Office of Professional Responsibility, frustrating congressional examiners and Capucci alike.
  • “The idea of this OPR report was…to give people like Acosta cover so when they finally get called on the carpet, they can refer back to the report and wrap themselves in it like armor.” – Bobby Capucci (§[54:40]).

7. Bureaucratic Obfuscation and Accountability

• Capucci’s Take:
  • Acosta displayed a systematic evasiveness, avoiding direct answers and accountability.
  • Capucci’s final editorial: “A masterclass in cowardice, deception and bureaucratic rot...Nothing was learned because nothing was meant to be learned, the powerful were never in danger, only inconvenienced.” (§[59:30])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On High-Profile Interventions:

  • “President Clinton never call me.” – Alex Acosta (§[03:13])
  • “The Queen of England ever call you? Not yet.” – (Congressional Question & Acosta, §[03:38])

• On Defense Tactics:

  • “Epstein’s defense counsel wanted everything. And again and again we told them no.” – Acosta (§[05:10])
  • “Yo, I really want to find out who this senator is or a congressman asking these stupid ass questions. Holy cow, what a waste of our time and our tax dollars.” – Bobby Capucci commentary (§[09:41])

• On Prosecutorial Choices:

  • “No one in the office thought that oh, two years is enough. No one thought that, oh, two years is full justice. The question was, do you go to trial and risk him getting off entirely or do you take a certainty of a sentence?” – Acosta (§[27:02])

• On the OPR Report:

  • “Are you guys getting the sense here yet that all they do is use the OPR report as a shield?...They investigated themselves and nobody was held accountable.” – Capucci commentary (§[21:01])

• On Work Release:

  • “We were upset. More than upset. We were—what’s the polite word for ‘ticked off’?...If we had known he’d be out on work release, we would have never gone through with this.” – Acosta (§[34:10])

• On Systemic Rot:

  • “A masterclass in cowardice, deception and bureaucratic rot. A man who handed a predator the deal of a lifetime...Every answer was a dodge. Every pause, a calculation, every word a smirk aimed squarely at the people who still believe justice means something in this country.” – Bobby Capucci (§[59:57])

• On Public Trust:

  • “They call it a deposition. I call it a burial. Because that’s what they’re doing. Burying the truth, burying accountability, burying the last flicker of faith the public might still have in this disease ass system...the predators once again get peace of mind...the rest of us get the same old parting gift from the system. A middle finger and a pat on the ass just to remind us who really runs the show.” – Capucci (§[61:02])

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• Authority & Defense Tactics: §[01:32] – §[06:00]
• High Profile Non-Interference: §[03:00] – §[04:00]
• Evidence & Investigation Failures: §[17:15] – §[21:30]
• Negotiation of NPA, Plea Choices: §[24:00] – §[31:30]
• Work Release and Sentencing Outcome: §[29:30] – §[34:30]
• Federal/State Charging Decisions: §[37:50] – §[41:50]
• Financial Crimes Ignored: §[51:00] – §[55:00]
• Capucci Editorial on Deposition: §[59:30] – §[61:30]

---

Host’s Closing Thoughts

Capucci ends with a scathing critique of the entire system and the deposition, labeling Acosta’s testimony a “burial” not just of the truth but of the public’s trust in the justice system. He reiterates the show’s mission to “swim through all this disgusting muck looking for clarity,” teasing the next deposition (Nadia Marcinkova) as must-listen material.

---

Summary

This jam-packed episode meticulously exposes the deep flaws—and possibly deliberate derailments—of the federal government’s pursuit of Epstein, as witnessed in the Acosta deposition. Through it all, the host’s passionate, unsparing tone drives home just how little accountability has been achieved, why survivors have been failed, and why public rage remains justified.

---

For all referenced documents, deposition transcripts, and further reading, check the episode’s description box.

Transcript

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

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 [e-mail] that's s p I n q U-E-T.com SpinQuest is

[SpinQuest Legal/GoFundMe Sponsor Announcer]

a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Mackenzie (GoFundMe Organizer)]

My name is Mackenzie and I started a GoFundMe for the adoptive mother of a non verbal autistic child. The mother had lost her job because she wasn't able to find adequate care for this autistic child. So she really needed some help with living expenses, paying some back bills. So I launched a GoFundMe to help support them during this crisis and we raised about $10,000 within just a couple of months. I think that the surprising thing was by telling a clear story and just like really being very clear about what we needed, we had some really generous donations from people who were really moved by the situation that this family was struggling with.

[SpinQuest Legal/GoFundMe Sponsor Announcer]

GoFundMe is the world's number one fundraising platform, trusted by over 200 million people. Start. Start your GoFundMe today at gofundme.com that's gofundme.com gofundme.com this podcast is supported by GoFundMe. 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 he gave to Congress. Once again, Alex Acosta is answering the questions and various other people are doing the questioning. Question moving forward in the timeline. And kind of there's the normal state of play and then there is the defense counsel state of play in this case, normally would line prosecutors like Ms. Vilafana have the authority to negotiate with defense counsel on their own and then come to you or come up the chain for approval or would they have to bring a more senior attorney in? Answer Normally they would have the authority to proceed on their own. Question in this case, was that authority curtailed because of defense counsel tactics? Answer in this case, I think actually, and we saw it where we talked about previously, where I read it from the OPR report on that clause that you asked about. Question. Huh? Answer she negotiated that. She sent an email to her supervisor saying, I don't see any problem with this, do you? And that's how it would typically proceed. And I think that's pretty normal. Question okay, there a warrant? What's the. I mean I don't know how. I'm not asking you how old she was. What's kind of the average age of a line prosecutor in the U. S. Attorney's office? Answer I don't even want to begin to speculate about that. Question. Okay. Younger than Alan Dershowitz. Answer. Younger than Alan Dershowitz. But she was experienced and we trusted her and I think the record that's a good example where she negotiated, she was checking with her supervisor. Question huh? Answer but she was conducting the negotiations. Question. All right. Do you recall any 2006 meeting between yourself and Ms. Vilafana and and Mr. Sloman regarding Epstein? Answer. 2006 question yeah, July 2006. Answer I believe that was the initial meeting where she just said can I pursue this? And we said yes. Question okay, were there any limitations placed on her in this case? Answer not that I remember. I'd be highly surprised. I'm going to guess that it was a very short meeting. She gave a summary and said can I pursue this? And the answer was yes. Question. Do you recall outside of Epstein's defense counsels who were high profile in their own right, do you recall getting any phone calls or communications from other high profile individuals suggesting that you back off the Epstein case? No. Question. He flew around the world with President Clinton. Did President Clinton ever call you? Answer. President Clinton never call me. Question. He flew around the world with Woody Allen and others. Did you ever. Answer. Had no. Get a phone call from Woody Allen? No. Communication with any high level or mid profile individual. The Queen of England ever call you? Not yet. Alright, thank you. You said that you hadn't heard Mr. Epstein's name prior to them coming to you for approval to take the case. So not aware of any reputation prior to then? No. We've talked a lot about the kind of defense tactics, the various types of pressure and methods that they employed to, I'll say, advocate for their client but get awfully close to the line of unethical. Answer. And that we resisted at all points. Question. Did the state attorney's office or the Palm Beach PD ever brief you about similar tactics that Epstein had used against them? Answer not that I remember. Question. Did you ever become aware of Epstein using similar tactics against them? Answer I have since then read that Mr. Dershowitz met with the state attorney. And? And I imagine the meetings were similar. Question. You've said today and in the letter from 2011 too that you resisted the defense tactics to the best that you can recall and this is a lot to recall, did the draft NPA that your office put together change a lot between your drafting and the final signature? Answer I think it changed. Of the three core terms, it went from 24 to 18, but we still got registration and we still got recovery for the victims. To the best of your recollection, did Epstein defense counsel suggest significant changes to the agreement? Answer Epstein's defense counsel were asking for home confinement. They were asking for no real jail time. They were asking us to drop the case entirely. Epstein's defense counsel wanted everything. And again and again we told them no. Question I think you've touched on this a little bit. When I asked you if you interviewed Ms. Maxwell, do you recall if your prosecutorial team was was aware of Ms. Maxwell at the time? Answer I don't recall the name whatsoever back then. Question she was mentioned in the original Palm beach police report. Do you have any recollection of that? Answer I do not. Of course he doesn't. Are you guys catching on yet? And the ridiculous questions that he's being asked. It's obviously somebody in the GOP at this point asking these questions, trying to massage Acosta for whatever reason. Were you contacted at all when she was subsequently arrested? I think in 2019 I was not. Were you contacted at all during her trial? I was not. We've talked a lot about the original proposed draft 60 count indictment that Ms. Vilafana drafted. And then there's been mention of the lengthy prosecution memo. What's the purpose of a prosecution memo versus an indictment? Answer so the prosecution memo has two purposes, one to go forward, but two to test, to write a draft so you can test your theories so that other people can review and say I agree or disagree, so you can pressure test what an eventual indictment might look like. Question I'm going to use a term and if you don't recognize it, I'll try to explain. But on high profile cases like this, would you have a red team, someone that wasn't read in that could review the prosecution memo and indictment? Answer we might is in this case we did not. But we did later have individuals review the case just to get independent assessments. Mr. Redacted. Such cowards. Put your name to it. Mr. Redacted. And are those the prosecution memos? The prosecution memo and the draft indictment, are those kept in the case file, like through perpetuity? Is it remaining in the case file to this day? Acosta I can't speak to that. I don't know how I think your definition of a case File is, is more specific than reality. Redacted. Okay. I'm sure that this has been touched on but I'm going to ask again. Did you ever personally review the memo or the draft indictment? Answer again, it was 20 years ago. Sometimes I'd review the memo. Sometimes I'd sit around the table and say let's go over this. Sometimes I'd say what do you all think? Question would that have been the situation of checking with man justice if that was the way that that they would want to proceed versus a non prosecution agreement? We had authority to proceed as we saw fit. We didn't check with Main justice as I remember it. Ballpark, how many a USAS are in that office? 300. Understanding it's one case out of what I'm sure at least 100 at any given time in that office. How would you meet with the attorneys on this case to discuss it to the best of your recollection and answer. So that would vary before the npa, before the agreement was signed, other than the decision to go forward with the state resolution and other than giving defense counsel their hearing, very, very little. I thought it was important that Ms. Vilafana have the authority to negotiate after it was signed, when it was being appealed to Washington and when they were challenging whether or not the office had the authority to seek monetary recovery. First, those were policy decisions in which I would more naturally get involved. Second. Secondly, there were appeals to Washington in which I'd more naturally get involved. And thirdly, there were, you know about whether the office is acting correctly or not. And so at that point the first assistant was supervising the case with Ms. Vilafana directly and I probably spoke to him about it often. Question we've talked about kind of the overarching theme is that the prosecutors in your office favored a negotiated agreement with the kind of sub themes of favored federal charges more than state and some favored state and some just favored a negotiated agreement. At any point did DC expressed concerns about a negotiated agreement versus going to trial? Answer. They did not. They were aware of when it was presented. When defense counsel came in, the head of CEOs was present at the meeting. He understood how we were proceeding. I don't recall him taking aside and saying D.C. disagrees with you. Question. And of course trust during Epstein's defense counsel's petition to D.C. they sided with you throughout that Answer they supported our authority to go forward. He didn't answer the question. There you hear that they supported our authority to go forward, whatever that means. Question. You spoke a little bit about State Attorney Krisher. Answer Krisher, do you recall any discussion with him regarding the Epstein case? Answer I don't recall any discussions. We may have had them. I think they'd be fairly brief. Would he have any involvement in the post police situation with Epstein? To the extent his office was involved in victim notification, he would have had involvement in some of those discussions. I believe the OPR report states. And you can confirm that the decision to go from 18 that one of the key parts of the decision to go from 24 to 18 took place in a discussion between him and our trial attorneys in his office? Question but you don't know. Or maybe he just wouldn't have been involved in any discussion regarding the work release program or anything like that. Answer so his office was consulted about work release. My understanding was that they were supposed to notify us and his office did not notify us. My understanding was that they came out of the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office. Question and again, you never, to the best of your recollection, received any communication from DOJ leadership advising caution in prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein? Answer no I did not. Question Were you aware of a letter that the Epstein defense counsel sent in support of him, citing that and referencing his political connections in regards to the non prosecution agreement? Answer I have since read it. I don't recall any details and whoever it was sent to I don't think had any influence on them. Question and you don't recall any high profile individuals making a call to your office saying we've got to go easy on this guy? Answer I do not. Question the minority touched on it a little bit. The former criminal Chief Menchel and his relationship with Lily Sanchez who became one of Epstein's counsels. And you said you were aware of that after the fact, not concurrently. Yo, I really want to find out who this senator is or a congressman asking these stupid ass questions. Holy cow, what a waste of our time and our tax dollars. And I guarantee you it's going to be one of these guys that runs around yapping about about how they care about the kids. Shut your ass up. Answer I became aware of that when I was asked about it by the Office of Professional Responsibility. My first assistant became aware of it when he was asked about it at the Office of Professional Responsibility. Question and just pardon me for not remembering it was already touched on. Did Mr. Menshell recuse himself because of that relationship? Answer he did not. Question should he have? Answer I should have known about it or my first assistant should have known about it and we should have had a fulsome discussion. How long ago was that relationship? What was the nature of the relationship? I wish I would have been informed. I was not informed. I still don't know the details and what they are. Question Were you aware then of the photographs of Menshel with Epstein and Aspen, Colorado skiing? Answer I was not. And I was not aware of it until this moment. Question if you were aware of it, would that raise your concerns? Answer yes it would. When were the pictures redacted? Do you know when redacted? I think it was early 2000s. Question we're working on finding it and then maybe last bucket and maybe the fastest one, maybe the slowest one. We'll find out. Steve Bannon has publicly stated that you told him Epstein quote belonged to Intelligence. Do you ever recall speaking to Steve Bannon about Jeffrey Epstein? Answer I don't recall ever speaking to Steve Bannon about Jeffrey Epstein. Question have you ever spoken to Steve Bannon? Answer I've spoken to Steve Bannon. I have no recollection of speaking to Steve Bannon about Jeffrey Epstein. I've been asked up until now I did not know what the source was of the anonymous White House quote.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

You know what? It sucks to be bored. But when I get on my phone and play real casino games on spinquest.com the time flies by. That two hour wait at the DMV seems like 10 minutes. Play your favorite spots live blackjack, live craps with a live dealer. New players $30 coin packs are on sale for 10 bucks. Play spinquest.com and you'll never be bored again.

[SpinQuest Legal/GoFundMe Sponsor Announcer]

Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Mackenzie (GoFundMe Organizer)]

My name's Mackenzie and I started a GoFundMe for the adoptive mother of a nonverbal autistic child. The mother had lost her job because she wasn't able to find adequate care for this autistic child. So she really needed some help with living expenses, paying some back bills. So I launched a GoFundMe to help support them during this crisis and we raised about $10,000 within just a couple of months. I think that the surprising thing was by telling a clear story and just like really being very clear about what we needed, we had some really generous donations from people who were really moved by the situation that this family was struggling with.

[SpinQuest Legal/GoFundMe Sponsor Announcer]

GoFundMe is the world's number one fundraising platform trusted by over 200 million people. Start your GoFundMe today at gofundme.com that's gofundme.com gofundme.com this podcast is supported by GoFundMe. If the world were like a Sleep Number mattress, everything would adapt for your comfort. Because as your life change changes and your body changes, Sleep number mattresses adapt and shift to give you personalized comfort night after night. And now everything's on sale during our Memorial Day event. Save up to $1,200 on mattresses for a limited time to experience a whole new world of comfort. Visit a Sleep Number store or go to sleepnumber.com sleep number to a good life Sleep I've been asked about that. I didn't know where it came from. I'll take your word for it that Mr. Bannon, but I don't know where it came from. I never made that assertion. I was asked about it at my press conference. I said, that's not truthful. I was asked about it in the Office of Professional Responsibility interview. I said, I have no knowledge as to whether he was or was not a member of the intelligence community. Question so that gets to some of my next ones. You've never made a statement similar to Epstein belonging to intelligence? Answer I have not. Question during the course of your investigation, did anyone from the intelligence community approach you regarding Mr. Epstein? Answer no question no one from the CIA? Answer no. Question no one from the State Department or NSA? Answer no question well, FBI would have no one from the FBI. Answer yes Question Division? Answer no Question Any foreign intelligence services like the Mossad? Answer no Question Again, I do not know if he did or did not. If you want to know that, you need to ask the intelligence community. I have not been approached by any member of the intelligence community, and I have no knowledge of his membership in the intelligence community. Question on that, My last question do you have any reason to believe that Jeffrey Epstein was an asset for a domestic or foreign intelligence operation? Answer I have no reason to believe that. And if there was any secure information procedures or would have been triggered that were never triggered. Question and no one approached you and said, you can't prosecute this guy. He's an asset? Answer no one approached me and said that. Question thanks. 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. 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 dive right back into the Alex Acosta deposition. Once again, Alex Acosta doing The answering and various people doing the questioning. Question Mr. Acosta, I just wanted to return to our conversation earlier about the investigative steps that your office undertook going back to the npa. That document identifies four women as potential co conspirators, correct? Answer yes, it does. I don't want to give them a status that identifies for women. Yes. Question I'll represent. That's how the language in the agreement identifies them. Okay. Question all right. Did your office ever interview any of them? Answer I do not know. As I said previously, I would not have directed who was interviewed or not interviewed in these types of investigations. Question well, it's typical, isn't it, in criminal investigations for potential co conspirators to be interviewed and hopefully cooperated up the chain of command, Isn't that so? Answer I would say it's typical. Question okay. Would you have expected it to happen in this case? Answer I don't know if they were and if they were not, I don't know why. Question to your knowledge it did not. Answer to my knowledge, I don't know. Question okay. Answer which is different than it did not. Question okay, and I think the question of whether any of Mr. Epstein's employees were interviewed was also raised earlier. And I understood your testimony to be. You also didn't know if that happened? Answer Again, I did not direct how how a matter was investigated. Question okay. Would you expect that in order to perform a thorough investigation concerning sex crimes, you would need to talk to the employees who worked at the premises where the crimes potentially occurred? Answer I will accept that. Question okay. We spoke earlier about the removal of computer equipment for from Mr. Epstein's home prior to the execution of a search warrant by the Palm Beach Police Department and your office's attempt to attain those materials from Mr. Epstein's attorneys. To your knowledge, did they ever succeed in doing so? I do not know. Question Would those materials in your review potentially have shed more light on the scope and magnitude? Answer Let me revise my prior question. Question Can I just get this one out first? Answer yes. Question with those materials, in your view, potentially have shed more light on the scope and magnitude of Mr. Epstein's crimes? Answer they may have, and I do want to revise my prior. Answer I do not know. Based on my personal recollection, I'm aware, I believe, from the OPR report that they were not obtained, but I don't have any personal recollection of the computer material issue or what may or may not have been on them. And I just wanted to make that clear. Question okay. Understood. To your knowledge, did your office obtain Mr. Epstein's flight records? Answer. Once again, I did not direct how the office proceeded with the investigation. I don't know 20 years later what may or may not have been part of a factual briefing question. So I'm going to ask the same question with respect to Mr. Epstein's financial records. If you want to give the same answer. Answer again. Question. That's fine. Answer, Same answer. So my question, in light of all of that, would it, in your review have been possible, at the time the NPA was entered into, to make a reliable assessment regarding the strength of the case against Mr. Epstein without cooperating witnesses, without having spoken to employees, without flight logs, without the contents of Mr. Epstein's computers or his financial records to the extent that evidence existed? Answer. So the matter came to our office in 2006. The prosecutor on the case was an experienced prosecutor. She had discretion to proceed as she saw fit. At some point, she said, it's now time to move to the next stage and it's time to bring this matter to resolution. That, again, was within her discretion. Hindsight's 20 20. In retrospect, maybe she should have done more, maybe she should not have done more. It's very difficult sitting here 20 years later to second guess her decisions. Question, hindsight is 20 20, but that information was ascertainable at the time, wasn't it? Answer again, I think it's very difficult to second guess her decisions. She's an outstanding prosecutor. She worked on this case. She wanted to put him in jail. And I have to trust that she would have pursued the types of evidence, whether flight logs or other matters that would have contributed to her theory of how you can put this man in jail. Because that was her focus. And again, it was you, as I think you said earlier this morning, who approved the execution of the npa. Yes. On the basis of the evidentiary record, as it existed at the time. That is correct. We have spoken on and off today about the involvement of the DOJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity section, or CEOs, in your office's investigation. I just wanted to note for the record that the OPR report at page 47 notes that Mr. Osterbahn, who, as I understand, was the chief of that section. Answer. Yeah. Reviewed Ms. Vilafana's charging memo and in an email to Mr. Sloman, Mr. Menshel and Mr. Lori, stated that Ms. Vilafana, quote, did a terrific job, unquote, and that CEOs, quote, agrees with their legal analysis. Her charging decisions are legally sound and end quote. Answer on page Question 47 Were you ever made aware of Mr. Osterbond's views? Answer I was not. And I note that Mr. Sloman, Menel and Lori at various points have stated counter views to that. Mr. Osterbahn was invited to the meeting that we had in September. He was present for that meeting. He understood our approach. I have no recollection of him taking me aside and saying Alex or Mr. Acosta, I would have been Alex to him because I didn't have that level of formality, just so you know. Question and am I correct that CEOs is the component of the DOJ that's charged with specific expertise in sex cases, child exploitation cases? Answer and CEOs was the one who then sent an expert to review not just the memo, but the entire file, and that expert was the one who said, quote, unquote, it's a crapshoot. Question and that person was a subordinate of Mr. Osterbahn. Answer that person was a subordinate, but very experienced. I think OPR notes that a highly experienced prosecutor. Are you guys getting the sense here yet that all they do is use the OPR report as a shield? Because that's what it's for. They investigated themselves and nobody was held accountable. Okay, I guess if that's how you want to roll. Ms. Stansberry can I just ask a quick follow up on that? Mr. Acosta yeah. Ms. Stansberry so earlier when you said that part of the discussion with the team about prosecution, you did mention the, quote, a crapshoot. That was just with respect to the CEO's investigation then, correct? Mr. Acosta that was with respect if we were going to go to trial. Stansberry. But based on the evidence around the investigation into these particular materials, Acosta I don't know what she reviewed or didn't review. She had access to the full file and whatever was in the file. Ms. Stansberry okay, question. The OPR report, as I read it, concluded that your decision to defer to the state was based, at least in part, on your interpretation of the DOJ's petite policy. Is that correct? Answer I think it was influenced by the petite policy and it was influenced by the idea that there were two sovereigns and this was a state case. Question. The report concluded that, or noted rather, that the policy applies only to federal prosecution that follow completed state prosecutions, not when a state investigation or prosecution remains pending. Is that correct? I think that I said earlier that as a technical matter, the petite policy did not apply because it was not inked the agreement was not inked at the state level, but that the fact that it came in through the analysis continued to influence how we looked at the case. Question Again, per the OPR report, it was your decision, as I understand it, that the U S Attorney's Office should offer Mr. Epstein a two year term of imprisonment. Is that correct? Answer that is correct. Question okay, how did you arrive at the 2 years? Answer so my recollection was that he would have received if he had gone to jail on the original state charges. I would not have had the expertise to guess that because I do not know the state system as well as the federal system. So I would infer that at some point I asked our supervisory team if this had gone right from the beginning, if the state attorney had not dropped the ball, what would he be serving? And someone told me two years. Okay, so that brings me back to the question of why not follow Ms. Vilafana's recommendation under the federal sentencing guidelines of substantially higher sentence in the range of 160 to 210 months with an upward departure? Answer Once again, I don't think Ms. Vilafana's guidelines were on the table not because of me, but because everyone in the office favored a negotiated resolution. I think the alternative would have been a 371. Stansberry, could you clarify what that means? Acosta371 is a federal charge of conspiracy and it's used when you're trying to obtain a negotiated plea. It's not used exclusively, but it's often used by federal prosecutors because a negotiated plea of a 371 with a Rule 11 provides a mechanism for having a term of years that someone may agree to. I don't think anyone, something that I think is being lost in this. No one in the office thought that oh, two years is enough. No one thought that, oh, two years is full justice. The question was, do you go to trial and risk him getting off entirely or do you take a certainty of a sentence and how do you, how do you get there? And so the idea of what the police were originally seeking is where I sort of ended up. But no one, no one said, oh, two years is enough. It was negotiated plea or risk going to trial. And that's what motivated this 371 with a rule. Rule 11 was the alternative that we talked about. To return to our discussion this morning, the decision to proceed via a state plea rather than federal charges was a choice, right? Answer it was a choice and my ultimate decision was to do that. I don't think I've implied otherwise. Question just again, the two year proposed sentence was negotiated down over time. Initially 20 months and then ultimately to 18 months, of which Mr. Epstein, as we spoke about, only served 13. Why the reduction over the course of of your negotiations? Answer. So two parts to it. First, in the negotiations, the prosecuting attorney needs some discretion to proceed. She wanted Epstein to go to jail just like everyone else, and she had that discretion. I believe there was a meeting at the state attorney's office. This wasn't my recollection. This is the report where it went from 24 to 18. And I would support, if she thought, or her supervising attorney thought that that was the right outcome, I. I would support their discretion. That's separate and apart from how it was finally served. Because the idea of work release was something that none of us contemplated. We had assurances that it would not get that. All of us were shocked and upset about that. And had we known that he was going to get work release, this would not have gone forward because what we contemplated was continuous confinement. Question. And in terms of the decision to reduce the sentence by a substantial amount, what was Mr. Epstein's leverage, in your view? Why did the government agree to it and what did it gain from that concession? I can't speculate 20 years after the fact, what the leverage was, what the government gained. What the government gained is to have Mr. Epstein, to have Mr. Epstein go to jail, and I understand the 18 to 24, but to have him actually plead guilty and say, abuse these victims and go to jail and send a signal to Palm beach where these prosecutions hadn't happened, that, that you can't get away with this was, in our view, a substantial interest and a substantial win. And I understand it's viewed very differently now. And had we known back then what we know now, it would have proceeded along a different route. And I understand along the way that the victims weren't fully informed for reasons that our office acted in the best motive. But that left them feeling that we weren't forthright. I get all that. But having them go to jail was a big deal. And having them register and tell the world, look, he is a sex offender. That matters. Question. So if I'm understanding your testimony correctly, the truncated length of his prison sentence was the result of the state based regime that you opted to pursue over the federal course.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

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 Spin Quest, where you can play hundreds of slot games or all the table games you love. And you could even win real cash prizes. New users $30 coin packs are on sale for [e-mail] SpinQuest is a free

[SpinQuest Legal/GoFundMe Sponsor Announcer]

to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[Mackenzie (GoFundMe Organizer)]

My name is Mackenzie and I started a GoFundMe for the adoptive mother of a nonverbal autistic child. The mother had lost her job because she wasn't able to find adequate care for this autistic child. So she really needed some help with living expenses, paying some back bills. So I launched a GoFundMe to help support them during this crisis. And we raised about $10,000 within just a couple of months. I think that the surprising thing was by telling a clear story and just like really being very clear about what we needed, we had some really generous donations from people who were really moved by the situation that this family was struggling with.

[SpinQuest Legal/GoFundMe Sponsor Announcer]

GoFundMe is the world's number one fundraising platform, trusted by over 200 million people. Start your GoFundMe today at gofundme.com that's gofundme.com gofundme.com this podcast is supported by GoFundMe. What I was testifying to is the move from. I don't know why we move from 24 to 18. That happened in a negotiation. What I'm trying to convey, and maybe doing so poorly, is that we can't undervalue the importance of his going to jail question. I think we all agree on that point, but I think the question remains, would Mr. Epstein not have faced potentially substantially greater exposure in terms of sentencing under federal charges as opposed to the state charges to. To which his sentence apparently was conformed in the process of negotiating the NPA answers. So to pass on the table were the 371 that might have been with Rule 11, they might or might not have been higher. If they had gone to trial and won, he certainly would have faced a higher charge. But the question is, do we go to trial or do we risk losing everything? Right. At some point, I forget which attorney, which of my Supervisors said question, Mr. Acosta, I think we agreed this morning that going to trial was not your only option. A federal plea was also an option, wasn't it? A federal plea under 371 with a Rule 11 Stansbury. And what would the sentence for that have been, Mr. Acosta? So under Rule 11 you recommend a plea. The maximum under a 371 would be five years. I think there was a consensus in the office that there would not have been pled to five years. And so we were possibly may have ended up putting aside the whole work release. And I will own that the state was that I should have expected the state to sort of drop the ball on that. And the OPR is correct, but under 371 the sentence would have been it depended what we negotiated. 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 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 he left off with the deposition of Alex Acosta. Once again, Alex Acosta is doing the answering and a whole host of people are doing the questioning. Question I'm just going to note another one of the CEO's chief Oster bonds Express views as set forth in the OPR report that this is at page 95, which notes that Mr. Osterbond reviewed the NPA and told Mr. Lurie that he is, quote, not thrilled about the NPA, described Epstein's conduct as unusually, quote, unquote, egregious, particularly because of its serious nature, and observed that the NPA was, quote, pretty advantageous for the defendant and not at all that helpful for the victims. Unquote. Were you aware of Mr. Osterbond's view in that respect? Answer two points. First, I was not aware of that, but secondly, I would note that took place after the agreement had been signed and Mr. Osterbahn was in our office for the meeting where the terms were talked about and presented and had opportunity to speak up. At the time he didn't have to speak up. He may have assumed that he had previously communicated his views, but that was an after the fact email. Question briefly, with respect to the review that took place both in your office and and at Main Justice Robert Sr. Quote, concluded that the proposed charges were sound and he told Acosta that he would approve proceeding with a federal case, unquote. Do you recall Mr. Sr. Communicating that to you? Answer. So that took place when we thought after the NPA had been signed, after we had already agreed, we thought he may never follow through. It's been a while since we've looked at the case afresh and so investigation may take place in the interim. So let's have the new criminal chief review its soup to nuts and if we have to go to trial Are we ready to go to trial? And he said, yes, if you have to go to trial, you're ready to go to trial. The question was not how you proceed or would you favor a negotiated plea. The question would be if we have to go to trial, can we drop it? Can we drop an indictment? Question and is that an accurate account of what Mr. Senior communicated to you? Answer I believe that's what he said. If we have to go to trial, we can be ready. That wasn't how we should proceed. This wasn't about viability of a case or a balance between a negotiated plea and going to trial. That is, if we have to go to trial, do we have enough or do we have to do more? Question Let me try it a different way. Any reason to believe that the quote I just read into the record is inaccurate? Answer I believe that it's taken out of context. Given the time that the review took place and why the review took place, the defense counsel at the time was charging that we had insufficient grounds for going to trial. This was during the debate. Question Mr. Acosta, I understand the context as you've just laid out, but my question is simply are the quoted words accurate? Did Mr. Senior say that? Answer and my response is that is taken out of context because the question was not, as you're implying, with respect, how should we proceed? The question is we are being told that we're acting unethically because we do not have a federal case. And so Mr. Senior, you haven't been involved. Take a look and tell us if you believe that this is an ethical case to bring, if the arguments are strong enough that if we have to go to trial we can do it in an ethical manner. Not Hearing you disputing Mr. Senor's words, I'll move on. The report goes on to note that upon additional review by CEOs which concluded in May of 2008, the section concluded that, quote, federal prosecution in this case would not be improper or inappropriate. Unquote. Again, is that consistent with your recollection? Answer Again, the context of that is that there was an appeal to Washington saying that federal prosecution was would be improper. Period, full stop, negotiated plea going to trial, that we did not have a case even to obtain a two year sentence, that we had to drop the case. Question and in that context Answer and In that context CEOs concluded that we could go forward as we had been doing. Question and just with respect to the question in general of review both at senior levels within your office and at main justice, how common in your experience Is it for the target of a federal criminal investigation to obtain that amount of attention and review as Mr. Epstein did? Answer in my experience, I've never had a case that has been elevated to that level. That said, several high profile cases have been done like Jack Abramoff was done in conjunction with others, were done in conjunction with Man Justice. But that is the only case where multiple levels of of review were granted by main Justice. Question Would you agree that the notoriety of Mr. Epstein's counsel, along with their multiple connections to senior personnel at the DOJ helped him secure that level of attention? Answer I'm not going to speculate why DOJ granted the reviews. They did and people have a right to request a review by Main Justice. Question so without speculating in the specific case, would you agree that as a general matter, criminal targets with prominent, highly placed, well connected counsel are more likely to receive that type of attention at doj? Answer Again, I'm not going to speculate. He received the reviews and our office was reviewed and we received permission to go forward. The argument that they presented at the meeting in Miami was that this wasn't a federal case, that it was a state case and that we should drop the case. I refused to drop the case. They went to the Criminal Division, they asked the same question. The Criminal Division said I had the authority to go forward. They went to the Deputy Attorney General's office, they asked the same question. The Deputy Attorney General said I had the authority to go forward. Mr. Acosta, question. FBI Director Cash Patel testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. And during his testimony he stated, quote, the original sin on the Epstein case was how it was handled by Mr. Acosta when he first brought the case in 2006, 2007 and 2008. And Dr. Patel continued, quote, Mr. Acosta allowed Mr. Epstein to enter into a plea agreement where he served weeks in jail for trafficking minor women. Do you have a response to that? Answer Mr. Patel is entitled to say what he wants. I think I've been very clear. The work release was granted by the Palm Beach Sheriff. Our office opposed it. Our office had every expectation that he would have continuous confinement. We were upset. More than upset. We were. What's the polite word for ticked off? I'll say ticked off. We were ticked off that he didn't do so. Our office transmitted an objection to the Correctional Department of Palm Beach. Our office was upset over the manner in which he obtained this because the place where he was doing work release was shady at best. And so it was what it was. We weren't Happy, you know, if we had known that he'd be out on work release, we would have never gone through with this. We insisted and actually at multiple points obtained assurances that it would be continuous confinement. But clearly somehow Palm beach gave it to him. QUESTION Fair to say you disagree with Director Patel I'm not here to create a clash between one person or another. I'm here to give my views. And I'm not about the quick headline. That's not who I am. Ms. Stansbury I'm just so perplexed. You know, this is one of those cases where the more you learn about it, the the more and more it becomes perplexing. I want to just dig in a little bit about he get she gets cut off by Acosta yeah. STANSBERRY the federal nexus piece of this. And I know you had some things you wanted to say about transportation. ACOSTA yeah. STANSBERRY and at the time of which the investigation occurred, prior to the recommendation that you gave for a non prosecution agreement, there had already been victim witness statements taken that indicated that Jeffrey Epstein had taken young women and children on his plane, transported them across state lines, correct? ACOSTA not to my knowledge. Stansberry. Virginia ROBERT Statement had not yet been in the record. ACOSTA Again, I don't know what statement that was. Not to my knowledge. Here it goes to your point the managing attorney for he gets cut off by Stansberry did you just before you go into that though, again perplexing to me. So I know you said that you did not review the investigatory interviews yourself, so you're relying then on secondary information. ACOSTA so if I could simply the managing attorney, Mr. Laurie Laurie, believed the defense argument that Epstein did not travel to Florida, quote, with the purpose of engaging in illicit sex with a minor, was more persuasive. So he believed the defense argument that Epstein did not travel to Florida was a purpose was more persuasive. Ms. Stansberry but that's not the question I asked. Mr. Acosta it's the question and here's why, because we wouldn't have had this internal debate over whether the purpose of his flying to New York, to Florida was to have sex and whether that had to be the purpose or the dominant purpose if we had evidence that he actually transported a minor to engage in sex trafficking. So if we had the evidence that you talked about, the supervisory chain would not have been engaging in this secondary discussion or finding a workaround. Ms. Stansberry I do want to press on that just a little bit. I mean, the committing of crimes across the state border, regardless of intent to commit the crime across the state border is still a federal crime if it happens across the state. ACOSTA so to my recollection, we did not based on this, we did not have evidence that he was transporting minors across state lines for purposes of sex. STANSBERRY okay, so this is where I would like to follow up. So in the negotiation of the non prosecution agreement as the plea agreement that was at the heart of the non prosecution agreement, as I'm understanding it, Ms. Vilafana engaged in direct negotiations with Jay Lefkowitz. Neiman Lefkowitz. LEFKOWITZ thank you.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

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 Spin Quest 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 [e-mail] SpinQuest is a free

[SpinQuest Legal/GoFundMe Sponsor Announcer]

to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. STANSBERRY and so we do have copies of correspondence that was held by email between between Epstein's attorneys and and the line prosecutor that was instructed to pursue the plea agreement. And they went back and forth about what state crime Jeffrey Epstein would plead to, right? Acosta huh? STANSBERRY and in this correspondence specifically, there was a discussion about the possibility of maybe Mr. Epstein could plead guilty to some sort of assault on his plane. And in that correspondence it's literally said by the line prosecutor, no, we can't do that because it's illegal under US Code 49, but 46506 meaning it's a federal crime. So in fact, your online prosecutor was aware that there were women being transported across state lines and it was at the heart of the plea agreement that she was specifically talking to Epstein's attorney about negotiating a state plea rather than a federal plea. Mr. Acosta so with respect, and I'd have to see the full content of what you're quoting from, I don't interpret that as saying that she was aware that victims were being transported across state lines for the purpose of sex. And the assault charge was something that if it had come up, I think this went beyond assault. Assault would not have been a registrable. STANSBERRY it's an actual email between a federal prosecutor and the defendant's attorney and I'll just read it, quote hi Jay, I looked at some 11 circuit cases on simple assault and found some good language. I also learned that every moment. ACOSTA on simple assault, you said? STANSBERRY yeah, she's in the middle of negotiating. Acosta Right, but she looked at the 11th Circuit on what kind of simple assault. Ms. Stansberry this says simple assault. ACOSTA okay. STANSBERRY and then the next sentence says, I learned that every moment that one is aboard an enclosed civil airplane, they are in the quote, unquote, special aircraft jurisdiction on of the United States. So the assault charge is really a violation of US code 4946506, which doesn't change the penalty. And so the nature of this correspondence is that she actually is talking to Epstein's attorney to come up with a state plea. And so she's saying you can't use that plea because it makes this a federal crime. Do you see what I'm saying? Mr. Acosta so I'm not sure that again, I'm not sure that's what she's saying. And at some point, you know, in this negotiation process, she really focused on getting him in jail and was starting to get creative with some statutes. And ultimately that didn't go anywhere because you can't get that creative. Whatever he pled had to be registerable, in my opinion. And again, the office had extensive discussions about travel and about the travel to Florida statute. Those discussions, we would have not had the entire line of discussions if there was evidence that that he transported minors for purposes of sex. I can't recreate 20 years later what may have been in someone else's mind in an email. What I can talk to is it wouldn't have made sense to have those extensive discussions and debates about dominant or a purpose if there was an easier path to follow. Ms. Stansberry but let me ask you this. Was it normal for a federal prosecutor who was recommending federal charges to engage in back and forth email the defendant's attorney giving them ideas for potential lesser crimes that they could plead to? STANSBERRY did you explain that or experience that in other cases? STANSBERRY Just a yes or no. ACOSTA so STANSBERRY did that happen during your time as U.S. attorney in other cases? ACOSTA so first, I don't have the benefit of all these emails in all these cases because the case is fairly unique. SANSBERRY but just Acosta cuts her off. But Secondly, I think Ms. Vilafana was asked about that in the OPR and I do want to defend her for a minute. STANSBERRY I'm not impugning her character. ACOSTA you know, Stansberry cuts him off. I'm asking you about the prosecution of the case. ACOSTA but I think her answer to OPR was, you know, look, she believes it's really that's part of who she is as a prosecutor is to be friendly and to have these discussions and that no way should be led, should lead anyone to think she's anything but a tough prosecutor. That in no way should imply that she was anything less than fully, fully dedicated to putting putting him in jail. Ms. Stansberry but when you made the decision, because you said it multiple times today, that you were going to proceed to pursue federal prosecution and were going to go to the non prosecution agreement, did you director or someone in her chain of command to look for a less strict crime to under state jurisdiction for him to plead to? ACOSTA no. The decision was made to proceed. She went forward and then she negotiated this using her best judgment. STANSBERRY did you personally speak to Epstein's attorneys at any point during the negotiation? ACOSTA so as I've said previously, they asked for a meeting. I thought the case would go to Washington. I thought it was better to have the meeting in the office. We granted the meeting. I was there, she was there, the first assistant was there, the criminal chief was there, representatives of the FBI were there. The managing attorney of the Palm beach office was there. They came in, they asked us to drop the case. I think they said in the alternative do some kind of home confinement thing. Their argument was that it's a local crime, not a federal crime and that we don't have evidence to make it a federal crime. I said, I've heard you. Can you please leave the room? I looked around, I said does anyone disagree with our approach? No one spoke up. They came back in and said we've heard you, but we're proceeding as we see fit. And the meeting concluded. STANSBERRY did you socialize with them outside of the office? ACOSTA not during this time. I knew them before and we've talked about that. But during the negotiation. STANSBERRY at any point between the beginning of the DOJ FBI investigation and the execution of the non prosecution agreement, did you ever socialize with Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys? ACOSTA I did not socialize. There was a breakfast meeting that took place after the agreement was signed. We talked about that at the breakfast meeting. It was 20 years ago. I don't remember the content. My informed speculation is that when they were trying to accuse Ms. Vilafana from the case, the agreement had already been signed. She was recommending associate of her boyfriend as we'll call it the special master, the person that was going to help obtain monetary recoveries for the victims. I'm going to speculate it would have made sense for me to find out what they were trying to recuse her for and what the specifics were. We decided not to recuse her from the case. We thought that she did not act incorrectly. Other than that, I have no recollection of any social interaction with them. And I should add, I was in Miami, they were in Washington, so it was different cities as well. Alright, we're gonna wrap up right here and in the next episode, we're going to finish this bad boy 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 getting right back to that Alex Acosta deposition and we're going to finish it off. SANSBERRY Going back to the federal nexus, it's our understanding that there were financial records collected as part of the investigation that that included an investigation into international wire transfers. Are you aware of that? Mr. Acosta I don't recall the financial aspect to this. We were focused on the inappropriate acts that took place in Palm Beach. Ms. Stansberry was it ever discussed as part of the federal investigation? ACOSTA this was 20 years ago. I don't remember. STANSBERRY you don't recall whether or not in the most high profile cases of your life that you that led to your resignation from the administration, whether or not the financial transactions were investigated? STANSBERRY as part of the investigation. ACOSTA with respect, with respect, at the time it was high profile. It was not the most high profile case of my life at the time. Ms. Stansberry okay, that's fine. Acosta but the focus. STANSBERRY but in any case. ACOSTA Right. STANSBERRY it's established fact, okay? You know, we've been working with the majority to get copies of the financial records. ACOSTA Could I ask a question? STANSBERRY yes. Acosta. Are there communications about a financial aspect of the case? Are there? You know, we've got a full OPR report here, 300 pages. I don't believe that there's references to a financial respect to the case in the OPR report, all by design. Like I've told you. The idea of this OPR report was, was to give people like Acosta cover so when they finally get called on the carpet they can refer back to the report and wrap themselves in it like armor. And that's exactly what we've seen Acosta do. STANSBERRY I'm asking you. ACOSTA But STANSBERRY if ACOSTA but you said it was an established fact. STANSBERRY well, let me ACOSTA, Gently questioning how much of an established fact STANSBERRY you were the prosecutor, not me. I'm asking you questions to understand what you investigated. So what I'm trying to understand is did you look at potential financial crimes and discuss that as part of the decision as to whether or not to pursue federal charges? ACOSTA to my recollection, the discussion was focused on the sex crimes. STANSBERRY and why not on the financial crimes? ACOSTA again, this was 20 years ago. I can't speak to that. Ms. Stansberry, was that not part of what was recommended through the line? Prosecutor ACOSTA Again, I can't speak to that. I do not recall the discussions over financial if there have been, you know, a federal nexus on financial crimes, again, we wouldn't have had these long discussions about a federal nexus. STANSBERRY okay, well, we'll see where the evidence leads us. I think I'm done with that line. If you have other things, Mr. Ansari, do you have anything else you want to ask? ANZARI no. STANSBURY Give me one moment here. I think the final set of questions that we had were around the FBI's recommendations to arrest Mr. Epstein. Based on communications that were transmitted to us, it looks like the FBI communicated that they had prepared to arrest Mr. Epstein in the case, but that the US Attorney's office had essentially interfered in the arrest. Mr. Acosta so let me ask that question then. I want to back up to your prior question about financial crimes. I believe what you're referring to is a request to go forward when he was in the Virgin Islands that was discussed a little bit earlier today. And what I pointed out at the time, what we had was a draft memo to go forward. That memo had not been vetted by the supervisory chain. In every case, not just this case, the prosecuting attorney writes a memo, they write a draft. That draft gets vetted, it gets changed. Not everyone in the office agrees the charges are changed. I believe at that point, her direct supervisor had already commented that he did not agree with her charging decisions, and that was the beginning of a conversation on how to charge. And so it would not be the case that a U.S. attorney's office would authorize an arrest on a draft document that hasn't been approved by the immediate supervisor and is still being drafted. STANSBERRY and why did you not sign off on it or why did the supervisor not sign off on it? ACOSTA so based on the OPR report, not a fucking thought of his own, huh? OPR this, OPR that. VA fangul to the OPR report and anyone involved in it, I believe that there was a difference of opinion as to the theory of the case and how to proceed and that was the beginning of the discussion within the office. Ms. Stansberry about the non prosecution agreement. ACOSTA that eventually led that eventually led that way and I want to back up, if I could, to the extent that there were financial crimes, those financial crimes would not have been covered by and could not have been proceeded in other districts or could have even proceeded in the Southern District because it's a different set of statutes. And so just like New York proceeded with this, you know, with Glenn Maxwell, if there were financial crimes that could have proceeded and so if that was being investigated, it could continue to have been investigated, the two matters unless they're heavily interlinked, but even if they were, you know, it's a separate set of matters to my mind and so one would not have precluded the other. STANSBERRY including the non prosecution agreement, would you apply to financial crimes? ACOSTA so my read on the non prosecution agreement is it would not apply to financial crimes, no. And the non prosecution agreement, I should also add, to be clear, by its terms was limited to the Southern District of Florida, but which is why the case in New York was able to be brought. STANSBERRY I have one more question with regards to any evidence that may have been collected by the FBI or doj. Does the President have the authority to unseal those documents if they were there is not otherwise a very specific court order regarding them. ACOSTA if the seal is placed by the court, then it would have to be the court that goes to that. STANSBERRY but any other document that's un that's not under court order, he can technically. ACOSTA Documents that aren't under court orders can be if there is no prohibition, then whoever is the custodian of the document can proceed as they see fit. STANSBERRY I think that's it. ACOSTA that's my opinion. I'm not speaking for the executive branch, but absent a prohibition, a custodian can proceed. STANSBERRY well, I'm sure the White House attorneys think the President has total power in this matter, but but that's my editorializing. ACOSTA off the record. We are now off the record. Thank you. All right, we're done Sir. So that is the completion of the Alex Acosta deposition. And as you can imagine, I find it to be disgusting, as the whole entire thing was just an evasion of real answers, an evasion of justice, and a master class as at how to avoid answering any questions with any sort of certainty. The fact that he kept relying on the OPR report time and time again is very disgusting and very disturbing. He shouldn't have been allowed to rely on that report. Now, you can refer to it, but that gives him the COVID right? Oh, well, the OPR said. The OPR said, and the OPR report itself, I have questions about that. I have questions about the veracity of it, and I certainly have questions about how honest people were when they were talking with the Inspector General. And that's why I've called from the very beginning to have all these people that we're talking about brought in, put under oath and talked to again.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

Forget whatever plans you have this weekend because you're staying at home and playing on spinquest. And there's never been a better time to sign up than right now. New users get $30 coin packs for just $10. All the table games you love, with hundreds of slot games and real cash Prizes. That's at spinquest.coms P I N Q

[SpinQuest Legal/GoFundMe Sponsor Announcer]

U S T.com SpinQuest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. But now, with the cameras off, the days of this happening in secret, behind closed doors, and us just getting these transcripts should be long over. There's no national security here. There's nothing here that's going to, you know, damage anybody. Well, unless you're one of Epstein's friends. But besides that, the rest of us deserve to know what's going on. And I don't know about you folks, but I'm not exactly trusting of what the federal government's up to. Especially considering what we're hearing about Maxwell and, you know, commuting a sentence maybe, but pardons the whole thing. So forgive me if I have no confidence in the most transparent administration of all time. And that right there, is the story of Alex Acosta's so called deposition. A masterclass in cowardice, deception and bureaucratic rot. A man who held tan to predator the deal of a lifetime. Sitting under oath, pretending not to remember, not to know, not to be responsible. Every answer was a dodge. Every pause, a calculation, every. Every word a smirk aimed squarely at the people who still believe justice means something in this country. Nothing was learned because nothing was Meant to be learned, the powerful were never in danger, only inconvenienced. The survivors got silenced, the public got spin. And the predators once again get peace of mind. Another disgusting performance designed to bury the truth one more time under a mountain of I can't recall. And in the end, as always, the protected remain protected. And the rest of us get the same old parting gift from the system. A middle finger and a pat on the ass just to remind us who really runs the show. And in my opinion, that's the part that should set every nerve on fire. The fact that these people can sit there under oath, in front of cameras, in front of the world and still lie through their teeth with total confidence that nothing will happen to them. They've built this machine that protects itself from consequence. The doj, the prosecutors, the so called watchdogs, all of them circling the wagons pretending this is justice, when it's nothing more than a carefully choreographed pantomime. They call it a deposition. I call it a burial. Because that's what they're doing. Burying the truth, burying accountability, burying the last flicker of faith the public might still have in this disease ass system. And while they're at it, they're counting on your exhaustion. Like I always tell you, they think they can drag this out long enough. If they throw enough legal jargon and smirking non answers at us, we're gonna eventually look away. That's always been the strategy. Stall, spin, and suffocate the truth under the weight of apathy. But here's the thing. We're watching. People are paying attention. There's no more gaslighting the world about Jeffrey Epstein. Acosta's deposition wasn't just a sham. It was a warning shot from the establishment. And that they still think they can control the narrative. But the tide's turning. And when it finally crashes down, there is no amount of I don't recall that's going to save them from the reckoning they've spent decades trying to avoid. As for us, well, we're going to continue to swim through all this disgusting muck looking for that clarity. And the next deposition that we're going to dive into is Nadia Marcinkova's. And I promise you, you do not want to miss that one. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

What's up, baby? It's Bretzky. And I'm here to tell you that spinquest.com is giving out free sweeps coins. All you got to do is purchase

[SpinQuest Legal/GoFundMe Sponsor Announcer]

a $10 coin pack and Guess what?

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

They're going to give you the coins from a $30 coin pack that lets

[SpinQuest Legal/GoFundMe Sponsor Announcer]

you play all your favorite games, like

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

Blackjack, Wanted to, Dead or Wild. And we're talking real cash prizes, baby.

[SpinQuest Legal/GoFundMe Sponsor Announcer]

Spin Quest.com Spin Quest is a free to play social casino, voidware prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.