← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Part 4-6) (5/17/26)
00:49:06
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
Transcript17 lines
- [00:00]
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 slots, 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.
- [00:24]
SpinQuest Disclaimer
Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
- [00:31]
Alex Acosta
Yes you can. A five minute quick and easy calorie burning workout. Give it a try. Come join our sweat sesh on Tick Tock. What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get right back to that Alex Acosta deposition that he gave to Congress a couple of weeks ago. And once again, Alex Acosta is doing the answering question. And then you had mentioned that the state's attorney was worried that these are my words, so correct me if I'm wrong, that it was a possibility that it had happened before, that victims in these situations had been prosecuted for, I'm assuming prostitution. Answer. So those are his words. Question yes, answer. And I read that in the OPR report. No one told me that at the time, but. Question. Okay, answer. What I understood at the time was that the state attorney had looked at the case, had looked at the evidence and had evaluated how to proceed and had decided that he didn't have the evidence to proceed with the charges that the police wanted. And so he offered a lesser charge that would have been probation. Mr. Epstein turned that down. And then he offered. And then he's like, okay, we'll take it to the grand jury. We'll let the people of Palm beach decide. I have subsequently read the three victims were invited to testify to the grand jury. Two of the victims did not show. Only one victim showed. The grand jury heard from that victim. The grand jury made the decision, a charge they had from the highest to the lowest. And that's what the grand jury decided. And something that I think's important to say, the state attorney could have made the charging decision. He didn't have to go to the grand jury, but he asked the people of Palm beach, what should we do? And the only reason that's relevant to my mind, well, two reasons. One, it's relevant because he should, I mean, he should go to jail. And early on in the case, when it was first, when Mr. Sloman and I were first briefed, the record shows, and OPR discussed how the line attorney was preparing a petite waiver. And a petite waiver, just to explain it briefly, typically someone isn't prosecuted twice for a crime, but when a state prosecution is manifestly inadequate, then the federal authorities can ask for a petite waiver, which means they can prosecute again. And when it was first brought to the office, it was brought in the context of a possible petite waiver because there was an agreement for pretrial diversion, no jail time, no registration. And so it always came in the context of a petite. And so to go Back to the U.S. attorney. I'm sorry, the state attorney took it to the grand jury and the grand jury made the decision. And, and that was just not. Okay. Question but at the time, like my kind of understanding of one of the, one of the concerns that the state attorney said after the fact was that it was possible that there would be criminal liability for the victims for what occurred. Is that fair? Yes, Look. QUESTION not that a case would actually be brought, but I'm hesitating here because that's not what this was. But that's what the state attorney is saying. And maybe that's why the state attorney was an unreliable partner, as we can talk about later on. But that's a reflection of at least an opinion of some people in the Palm beach county at the time and something like that. It is what it is. Question and I just wanted to make sure that I was understanding that that was not brought to you at the time. It was something that you read. ANSWER yes. Question after the fact. And that my understanding of what his statements were is accurate, that there was a. They're cut off there by Acosta. Yes. Question Possible criminal liability. And again, I want to be crystal clear, lest I be taken out of context, none of us thought that the case was. Question yeah. Mr. Nieman at the US Attorney's office, Mr. Acosta at the US Attorney's office. And that's why we thought it was important that he go to jail. A question by somebody who's redacted. Question yes. ANSWER and all of us thought that the victims were victims. QUESTION no, I appreciate that and we all agree too. Question and that's why I was surprised. Thank you. Going back to the letter, the last paragraph on the first page begins what followed was a year long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors. I use the word assault intentionally as the defense in this case was more aggressive than any which I or the prosecution in my office had previously encountered. And then you talk about the army of lawyers that Mr. Epstein hired. And later on, I'm trying to find the right page on what is the second to the last page or the last page, the first full paragraph. That some may also believe the prosecution should have been tougher in retaliation for the defense's tactics. You write it here, but can you explain some of Epstein's defense tactics in the case? So they would agree and then say they didn't agree, and we'd have to, you know, the prosecuting attorneys would start negotiations again. They would sometimes say that we agreed to something that we did not agree to, and then we'd spend time on that. They at one point tried to recuse the prosecuting attorney. This was a little bit later, but they tried to recuse the prosecuting attorney. At one point, they tried to recuse my first assistant. They found what I refer to as peccadillo and tried to recuse the first assistant. And then I think perhaps the most egregious of all, he signed an agreement. And he signed that agreement, I believe, in September. And in my experience, once counsel and defendant signed the agreement and it's done and you follow through, and then you started relitigating everything again. And then they started saying, you can't do this because of federalism concerns and because you're impinging on a local matter. And they charged our office with being unethical, or I don't want to say unethical. They charged the office with improperly interpreting the law. And this is when I became more involved because it was more of a policy issue and it was more of an attack on the office. And then they appealed to the Criminal Division in Washington. And then after that, they ultimately appealed to the US Deputy Attorney General's office. And so from the time that he signed the agreement to the ultimate plea was a span of about 8 months or something. Question, huh? Answer. And that is unheard of. I'll provide another example. We had assurance from the state attorney, and we had assurance from his counsel that. That he would be in continuous confinement. And then after he goes to jail, he applies for work release, and the Palm beach gives him work release. And we're not even notified that he gets work release. And our office objects to it, but we had assurances that it would not happen. And OPR talks about those assurances as well. Question, huh? Answer. So at multiple levels, you know, their tactic is something that you can only do once because, you know, if you're a South Florida lawyer that had to interact with the office multiple times, that could not happen. Questioned by somebody who's Redacted. The paragraph also mentions like, I'm going to characterize it as stalking. Assistant U.S. attorneys investigating Assistant U.S. attorneys and investigating their families. Answer it does. Question did you experience that? Like, did you personally experience that? I did not. My first assistant did, and that's a fair characterization for me. I mean, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but hiring private investigators to follow them, go through their trash, kind of like that kind of stuff. So let me see how to characterize this. And then if you want details, you can ask me for details. They uncovered something involving his daughter. So I don't want to say that they hired private investigators to stalk him. I. I think that would be a mischaracterization. But yes, they uncovered something regarding his daughter to try to recuse him. Question and then Answer actually, that sounds. I want to answer that more fully, lest there be look back on her. There was an incident that involved someone peeping at his daughter at the time, and he called the police and he followed up, as I think any father would and should. And they said that because of that he could not be a fair and impartial and tried to recuse him. Question thank you. Answer which, let me just add, is just outrageous. Question yes, the accusation being that because someone stalked his daughter, he would be impartial into someone that committed similar crimes, I guess, is what they were going for. Answer that's what the argument was, yes. Question Just a couple minutes late, a lot of people come in, so I'm going to go through and announce them at the end of the hour. But you say, and I think it's a bedrock American principle, that everyone's entitled to an aggressive defense. Is there a line and was it crossed? So unfortunately, or fortunately, maybe. I don't know. Let me restart. Everyone's entitled to an aggressive defense. I don't think the line was crossed. I don't think that it's not the way I would want to litigate. It's not the way I would teach lawyers to litigate, but it's allowed within the legal profession. And I don't think that there was misconduct and misconduct is the line. But it was distasteful. It did frustrate our attorneys. And one of my challenges as a manager was at various times, all of us, including myself, would be like, yeah, we're sick of this. But if something is right initially, you can't sort of let defense counsel get under your skin. If it's right initially, then it's right then, and you just keep going. Question Based off Of that, was there any discussion about filing sanctions against any of the defense counsel? ANSWER not that I recall. Question that is a good stopping point for our hour. But before we go off the record, a number of members have come in, so I will we'll start back here if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself for the record. So they introduce a bunch of people, a lot of redacted people. But before they go, Acosta asks, can I just finish the answer to the prior question before we stop here? He's given the okay and he goes on to say, I don't recall any conversations about sanctions. And if I'm being fair, I do think defense counsel have a right to challenge whether or not someone should be accused. And distasteful as it is, to look up someone to look up someone of the matters that we just talked about, defense counsel has a right to do that. And I don't think that that should be sanctioned. Mr. Redacted. All right, I appreciate it. Mr. Min, could you announce yourself? Sure. Congressman Dave Min, CA 47 Congressman James Wolkenshaw, VA. All right, we'll go on the record. The time is 11:16. So they go through announcing all of the different people that are going to be asking questions that are present. And we have Mr. Garcia, we have Ms. Crockett, we have Mr. Kazar, we have Mr. Min, we have Mr. Frost, Mr. Submaranium, Mr. Wilkinshaw, Ms. Lee, Mr. Biggs, Tim Burchette, and we have Jasmine Crockett. All right, so right back to the examination. Question by we don't know, it's redacted. And answering once again, Alex Acosta. Question Mr. Acosta, good morning. Answer Good morning. Question we're going to delve into the greater depths into some of the issues that my majority colleagues raised with you during the previous round. But at the outset, I'd like to just establish some of the facts that I think lie at the core of today's proceeding. And to begin with, it's my understanding that the Lyon prosecutor in your office who handled The Epstein investigation, Ms. Vilafana, concluded that there was enough evidence in her view to support a 60 count federal indictment of against Mr. Epstein.
- [12:29]
SpinQuest Advertiser
Whether it's slots or live dealers, Spinquest.com has the fun and action you're looking for with Spinquest exclusives. Blackjack, roulette, baccarat, and even live dice with craps and bubble craps. The games never stop so you don't have to. And right now, new users get $30 coin packs for just 10 bucks. Play now@Spinquest.com SpinQuest is a free to
- [12:54]
SpinQuest Disclaimer
play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spin benquest.com for more details.
- [13:00]
Dish Network Advertiser
Tired of overpaying with DirecTV? Dish offers a reliable low price every month without surprises. Get the TV you love and start watching live sports news and the latest movies, plus your favorite streaming apps all in one place. Switch to Dish today and lock in the lowest price in satellite TV starting at 89.99amonth with our two year price guarantee. Call 888 add dish or visit dish.com
- [13:29]
Road Safety Advocate
today I drive my bus in a busy city. That's why road safety is so important to me. I know that I must slow down and be extra careful when I make a wide turn. Buses need more room than cars. Everyone can help keep our roads safe. Next time you're driving, remember to give buses plenty of plenty of time and space to finish turning before driving ahead. Let's all plan to share the road safely. Learn how at www.sharetherodesafely.gov is that accurate?
- [14:02]
Alex Acosta
Answer the prosecuting attorney, Ms. Vilafana, sent a draft indictment up her supervisory chain that was never fully reviewed by the supervisory chain. That was a first draft that was written by her and in the usual course of the office it would then go to the managing attorney in the Palm beach county and the criminal chief. And earlier we had talked about, for example, the interstate statutes and the managing attorney in the Palm beach office that supervised her express concerns about, for example, whether or not the federal nexus existed. So she did draft that. That wasn't that had not gone through the supervisory chain. That I understand. But would you agree with me that it reflected her view of the evidence and the charges that the evidence supported at the time? Answer it reflected her view of what the case could have looked like if it went to trial. But again, in her sworn deposition she said that a negotiated plea would have been a better outcome and that did reflect her assessment as to the viability of the case. And so just because you draft an indictment does doesn't mean you think it's a slam dunk. And she went on to say, and if I could, because it's an important point, this is her talking, not me. And this is her sworn statement. Some have alleged that Epstein would have easily been convicted and that all the victims were eager to participate in a full fledged federal prosecution. As a prosecutor who handled the investigation, I can say that these contentions overlook the facts at the time. Source warrant statement is that it would not have been an easy case and that there were issues Question sure and you're talking about litigation risk, which of course is inherent in every prosecution. But her draft indictment was accompanied by an 80 some odd page charging memo, isn't that correct? I can't speak to the pages, but it was accompanied by a charging memo that again, the supervisory chain in the office had a different assessment than she did. Question. But it's fair to say that she wouldn't have sent it up the draft indictment and the 80 page charging memo if she didn't have faith in the allegations that she was outlining and the merits on the prosecution. Isn't that a fair characterization? So you wouldn't send up something that he didn't believe was factual and accurate. Again, I don't think it's fair to characterize her position as saying this is what we need to do. Because in her sworn statement she herself said that she favored a negotiated outcome. Question. And wasn't it also her judgment that the appropriate sentence for Mr. Epstein under federal sentencing guidelines was at a minimum 168 to 210 months? Answer it was her judgment that if it would have gone to trial on the charges in the memo again, charges that the supervisory chain in the office had concerns over that if it would have gone to trial, that that would have been the guideline range question. And it's my understanding, having read the OPR report, that Ms. Vilafano repeatedly pressed her supervisors to authorize an indictment of Mr. Epstein and that authorization was repeatedly denied. Isn't that accurate? Answer I think it would be fair to say that she pressed them. I don't know how you define repeatedly, but she did press them. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here and in the next episode, we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. 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 doing the answering and various members of Congress doing the questioning. Question. Despite Ms. Vilafana's views, you ultimately decided that a resolution of the case on, on state charges was appropriate, Is that correct? Answer. So there was a discussion within the office, and I think, I think it's an important in between, is that if we were to go forward on federal, there was the discussion ended up landing on what called a 371, which is a different charge, which would be a five year charge with a, what's called a rule 11 cab. But ultimately there was a discussion within the office. I talked to my supervisory staff and I approved a three pronged term sheet or approach. The first required that he served 24 months imprisonment. And my understanding at the time, as I recall, it was that is what the Palm beach police initially sought. Right. And again, the Palm Beach Police went to the State Attorney's office. The state Attorney's office was willing to. They're willing to file the charges the Palm Beach Police sought. They offered him probation, and then they took it to the grand jury, offered pretrial diversion. What I ultimately approved, and I approved it was two years, which is what the Palm beach police sought. Registration as a sexual offender. And then we also added in a mechanism for monetary recovery for the victims. Question. And looking at the terms of the non prosecution agreement, which I'll refer to, for brevity's sake, as the MPA. If that's okay with you. Yes. So the MPA permitted Mr. Epstein to plead to a single charge, is that right? Yes, that is correct. Okay, so as opposed to the 53 federal accounts that Ms. Vilafana had initially proposed in her charging memo, I take issue with your characterization of the charging memo, but yes. And the NPA also allowed Mr. Epstein. I'm sorry, pursuant to the NPA, your office agreed to a sentence for Mr. Epstein of only 18 months in the Palm Beach County Jail. Is that accurate? Answer that is ultimately accurate. After I approved the, we'll call it term sheet for simplicity, because that's how it was labeled, the prosecution team entered into a negotiation. In the process of that negotiation, it went from 24 to 18. My perspective on that was the prosecuting attorney, Ms. Vilafana, wanted him to go to jail perhaps more than any of us. And I think the record makes that clear. So if in the process of that give and go and give and take, it ends up 18, it's appropriate to defer to that process. So just to clarify, the initial proposal from your office as to the MPA was a two year sentence that was further reduced 18 months. And of that 18 months, Mr. Epstein only served 13. Is that correct? That is factually correct. But I want to clarify my prior answer, if I could, when I said that she, more than anyone, wanted him to go to jail. I don't think that's accurate. I said that all of us, every single person, the whole reason we took this case is because we wanted him to go to jail. Because the state attorney said pre trial diversion. Like how could the state attorney say that? But on the continuum of how the case was assessed and the viability of the case. As you went up the experience chain, there were more concerns about viability. And so I trusted her to negotiate that agreement. And I think she did a really, really good job under a very difficult circumstance given the way the defense treated her and approached the case. The 18 month sentence was ultimately approved by you, correct? Yes. Let me be clear on something else. I'm not pushing away. Ultimately it was, you know, I was the U.S. attorney. The decisions are mine. I told that to the Office of Professional Responsibility. I'm not pushing that away. The decisions were mine. Question understood. And pursuant to the NPA, Mr. Epstein was permitted work release while serving his sentence, is that correct? Answer. So I would not say that pursuant to the npa. And we had assurance on multiple levels that would be, quote, unquote, continuous confinement. On the issues that you may, you may want to talk about or not is I think the state turned out to be an unreliable partner. And OPR did a 300 page report. And there are some conclusions that quite honestly are critical of me that I will agree with. And one of those was I relied on the, you know, by approving a state resolution, I partnered with the state attorney and a Palm beach sheriff that was an unreliable partner. We had assurances that he would be in continuous confinement with. We were told multiple times that he would be. He obtained work release from the Palm beach sheriff under a factual situation that's sketchy at best. I don't remember all the details, but I think his work release was at an institution that had just been incorporated or something along those lines. That was the Palm beach sheriff's decision. When we found out about that, we objected. We objected in writing. We objected fully. And so that was under the authority of the state. Mr. Min, do you have questions? Mr. Min. Yeah, I just want to follow up on this line of questioning. Do you feel like the investigation was complete at the time you decided to proffer the 24 month sentence? The proposal. Acosta. So I would have, I would have deferred to the trial team at the time. Mr. Min. So following up on that. Go ahead. Acosta. No, no, but I think the timeline's important. The case was brought into the office in late spring of 2006. Mr. Min. Sure. Acosta. About a year later, we. I approve the term sheet. There had been a year during that year, victims had been interviewed, the prosecuting team had done whatever they thought they needed to be done. And I don't recall any discussion of. There is more than we need if anything, I recall, you know, let's put, let's proceed now because it's important. You know, one of the concerns is that the victims, as they get older, Mr. Min cuts him off. So I just want to turn, because Maria Vilafana repeatedly has said that she, at the time and after the fact, believed that the computer evidence, the files, the surveillance videos, all of that I think she said, would have put this case completely to bed. And the defense attorneys, and I think he'll go into that, repeatedly pushed that particular request off. They did not respond to it. I know there's a long record of her going to her superiors, including you, and asking for permission to be more persistent in trying to get these records. And then at some point, Ken Starr and Lefkowitz became the attorneys of record. And then at that point, about two weeks later, I think, is when you entered into the npa. And so I'm interested in that timeline. But I guess my question right now is if there's a big pile of evidence that would have corroborated the witness testimony and their claims that they were visiting Epstein's house, you might have had child pornography, you might have had videos, a known video of his New York residence. And I think a number of people have noted that it was shocking that he wouldn't have had similar surveillance system in Palm Beach. Why would you not get that information before, which might have had everything you needed to get rid of the litigation risk in the case? Acosta. So there was a number of, I mean, there were a number of statements in that, some of which I think confused the timeline and, and some of which I think are inaccurate. But so I can take those one at a time. So first, I approve the terms. I approved the term sheet before Mr. Starr was brought into the matter, when Mr. Starr was brought into the matter, I believe a week or two after that, the term sheet was approved. And at that point we didn't have a meeting with the defense. Everyone was present at the meeting with the defense. And at that meeting I rejected everything that was asked. They asked that we not proceed because. Because it's a local case. They asked that we drop the two year demand. I rejected all those. I said, you've been heard. And the reason that we had that meeting is because it was my assessment and it ended up being true, for better or worse, that the case would be appealed to Washington. And I didn't want it to be appealed on the grounds that we had not heard defense arguments. I thought it's better that we hear them in Miami first. So that he's just giving you the clue right here that they went above his head, like I've been telling you from the beginning. And I invited the head of the child exploitation section from Washington down to the meeting in South Florida so that Washington was fully aware of what we were doing and so that Washington understood the case and understood the matter. And so I just want to clarify that timeline first. Mr. Garcia let's move on really quick, Mr. Acosta, before I go back to the attorneys on the 18 month final sentence. Do you stand by that? Do you stand by the decision that you made and the office made? Mr. Acosta on the 18 months? Mr. Garcia yes. Acosta so let me say this. We put him in jail. Mr. Garcia do you stand by the 18 months? Acosta no, I understand, but allow me to give you a fulsome answer if I could. We put him in jail, he registered as a sex offender and the victims had an opportunity to recover and that was a win. Looking back in hindsight, there are a number of issues that I will, you know, that I will say caused the community and victims to feel to feel that this was not a good resolution. And I get that. But from the perspective of our prosecutors at the time, based on the evidence we had at the time, you know, everyone in the office wanted to put him in jail and that's what we did. And it wasn't just me. These are experienced career prosecutors. Our first assistant had been with the office for years. He had been the criminal chief before Mr. Garcia. So you would disagree that calling it a sweetheart deal, you would disagree with that assessment? Mr. Acosta I disagree with that and I think it's really easy. With respect. GARCIA and you're also aware, sir, that he, of course went on to abuse other women. ACOSTA so what I was saying, I think it's really easy in this era to sort of label something with an easy sound bite. We talked about and I can go back again about our I need to go back to your question. Min I was going to ask you. You answered the question. Acosta yeah, I need to go back to your question. I'm sorry, but I was interrupted. I'm trying, but we talked about the assessment of the first assistant was that this could be a very difficult case. The assessment of the child exploitation and obscenity prosecutor that came down from D.C. that looked at all the evidence, looked at all the evidence and said, quote, unquote, this case would be a crapshoot. Those weren't my words. Those were her words. The assessment of the criminal chief who used to be the head of major crimes was that this would be a difficult case.
- [28:21]
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, thirty dollar coin packs are on sale for $10. For new users, it's all@spinquest.com that's S P I N Q U-E-S-T.com SpinQuest is
- [28:43]
SpinQuest Disclaimer
a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
- [28:51]
Lapsed Fan Podcast Host
Boss, what's the most dreaded question that you can get when you tell people you host a podcast called the Lapsed Fan? Ugh. It's. What is it about? And why is that, do you think? Because to like pro wrestling is to lose the respect of others. Now what if we told you there's a podcast that explains exactly why that is and why it's kind of deserved. For over a decade, we've taken fact finding missions through the thicket of half truths that is wrestling history. We watch old matches, call out carnies, laugh at our own jokes, and have so much fun doing it that some people actually can't handle it. Think wrestling is an escape from real life? Think again. Same power games, same office politics, same people lying to your face just with entrance music and absolutely no company health insurance under any circumstances. All I offer is opportunity, not benefits. As do we, Vince. The Lapsed Fan podcast. Come for the wrestling history. Stay for the uncomfortable truth about why it used to be better and why you still care.
- [29:52]
Alex Acosta
The assessment from the managing attorney of the Palm beach office. And more than a difficult case, a highly difficult case where there were sure that the outcome would be. And so looking at all of this, the ultimate judgment was do you roll the dice? And if he gets away with it, you're sending a signal to the community that he can get away with it. And given the state attorney, you know, approach where the state attorney was in essence letting him get away with it, what would that say? Or do you proceed with a sure prosecution where he goes to jail and none of us, none of us thought that 18 months or 24 months was the right outcome in terms of this, of what we wanted, but based on the facts that we had. Garcia, I understand that. And sir, you. So you don't agree that it was a sweetheart deal. That's clear. And you do recognize that he went on to abuse other women. You recognize that Mr. Acosta, if there is evidence that he went on to abuse other women. That evidence should be brought forward. And Garcia, you're not aware, you can't say with certainty that he abused other women after he was in his. During sentence. Acosta I have not reviewed facts after the prosecution. Garcia. I mean, it's been widely reported, so that's surprising. Acosta so, you know, my understanding of our criminal justice system is what's reported and what is proven in court are two different things. You know, I read reports. I understand reports. Let me say, I saw. I. I saw the press conference given by the victims. I thought their statements were courageous. They were confident. They were eloquent. We believed the victims back then, despite the reality that defense would have impeached these victims and the impeachment would have been withering. We believe them fully. But I don't take a press report to this. Jasmine Crockett interjects. Can I stop you right there real quick? I'm sorry, because you actually answered a question that I was going to ask. What made you feel like this case is so weak? And it sounds like you were convinced that the case was weak because you felt like the victims, multiple victims, were going to be impeached even though you believe them. What specifically did you believe was going to be detrimentally impeachable? Hold on one second. So I just want to know, One, what did you believe was going to be detrimentally impeachable? Two, as someone who has done criminal defense, these have always been the easiest cases, in my experience, for the prosecution. And because juries typically want to believe victims, they never want to get it wrong. And so, typically, from a defense standpoint, it has always been the most difficult case for me to defend against, even when there should have been saying or, say, DNA based upon the testimony or the statements of a victim. And there wasn't. There have been so many things that I have tried to get over, and when I say, like, trying these kinds of cases, I literally had a serial rapist as a defendant one time, and the evidence was. I mean, we're talking about prostitutes. We're talking about very impeachable witnesses, and they gave him life. I mean, like, it was their word against his, because, as you know, that's enough if a jury believes the one witness rule. So I'm curious to know, what is it that you felt was so impeachable about him? And then I'll go on to my next, because I did want to know why you felt like these cases were so bad. Can I get an answer to my question? Garcia? What we're going to do. And then to this, Neiman interjects Costa finishes off so I didn't finish. And so I'm aware. But. And you'll probably rephrase at some point and remind me. So let me first say it wasn't solely my opinion. It was the opinion of the First Assistant. It was the opinion of the criminal chief. It was the opinion of the managing attorney of the Palm beach office, who had at one point been the head of public corruption in Washington, D.C. who went on to be the chief of Staff in the criminal division. The first assistant went on to be the U.S. attorney under the following administration. And it was even the opinion of the career prosecutor that was prosecuting the case where she said, you know, everyone that says this would be an easy case, you know, and again, let me read you her words. In a sworn statement in the cvra. Some have alleged that Epstein would easily have been convicted and all the victims were eager to participate in a full fledged prosecution. As the prosecutor who handled the investigation, I can say that these contentions overlook the facts that existed at the time. And so Jasmine Crockett interjects again and I'm not contesting that. I want you to know that I'm not contesting that representation. What I'm asking you to do is transport us into that room. If you're saying that there was an entire team of people that, that came to that conclusion, my question is that's still not giving. You're saying that they were impeachable. Acosta. So I'm going to offer you. So you're looking for a granularity. So if you look at the statements by her sworn declaration and the FBI case agent, we can start with several of the victims just refuse to talk to investigators. They refuse to talk to agents. Crockett let me ask you this. So if a witness refuses to speak with law enforcement, you. You believe that makes them impeachable? Mr. Acosta I don't believe that makes them impeachable. This is going to the viability of the case. Ms. Crockett. Okay, so can we back up really quick? My question was, and the only reason I jumped in because my ears perked up, because it seemed like one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, for deciding that there was an inherent weakness in the case had to do with multiple victims being impeachable. So I'm trying to understand what is it that was impeachable about multiple victims? Acosta and if you'll let me. So some victims just wouldn't talk and obviously they couldn't be impeached if they didn't talk. Ms. Crockett Correct. Acosta Right. Some victims said he did nothing wrong, just outright. And look, you know, our prosecutors have been around the block and no, just because a young woman says he did nothing wrong, that doesn't mean he did nothing wrong. CROCKETT Correct. ACOSTA Many were scared and didn't want to testify. You know, many had backgrounds. Multiple kept going back to his house again and again. And while nowadays that would be an issue, this was 2006. This was a time when Weinstein and Cosby and all these other folks were doing what they were doing. And something that we don't want to accept let me rephrase that because that's something that's really hard for us to internalize is how much harder these cases were back then. Victim shaming was more common. The support structures that we have for victims today, all the victims rights, the victim support structures didn't exist at the same extent at the time. They didn't want to talk about it. They said they did nothing wrong. Their stories changed over time. This was not me speaking. This is telling you what I was hearing from the prosecutors that did this again and again, the women who came down from the child exploitation section. And to that Ms. Stansbury objects or interjects, I should say. I'm sorry, can I interrupt you just really quickly on this particular point? And to that Acosta's lawyer pipes up, well, if he could finish. STANSBERRY I just want to clarify because as I understand it, the lead prosecutor in the case actually sent you a memo recommending prosecution and a drafted 53 page indictment, did they not? Mr. Acosta so we talked about this and I'm happy to circle back if I could. Ms. Stansberry, but you just asserted just now that the lead prosecutor in the case did not recommend prosecution and indictment. Didn't you just say that? Ms. Crockett no, no, no, Mr. Acosta, what I did and I can finish one question and I'll get to yours and get back. JASMINE CROCKETT I'll clarify. I don't think that's what because we're trying to figure out what they did not go this is after they were actually pursuing charges of some sort of and they were trying to figure out why it was that they weren't heading to a trial and why they decided to enter into what has been characterized as the sweetheart deal. And as I understood the testimony from the witness, it was because or partially because of impeachable issues with some of the witnesses. But it doesn't sound like. And you can finish for sure. I want you to finish. But everything that you've said, it doesn't sound like there was very much impeachment. It seems like we're going more so into territory and please correct me if I'm wrong, and that it was a matter of it was just going to be a difficult prosecution, which typically when dealing with child sex cases, which why I'm happy that you're talking about the person who actually had expertise in the area, because there are experts that testify, typically as it relates to children and their memories and why the trauma of a lot of times can cause them to have inconsistencies. And judges have consistently found that those experts can take the stand so that juries can have a full picture of what's going on. And while I appreciate the time period, I do want to clarify that I was practicing law by this time and having to deal with some of these issues on the defense side. So please continue as you were talking, Mr. Acosta. And I appreciate that, and I think it's an important question. So where was I, Ms. Crockett, the child exploitation Acosta. Yes. So an expert in child exploitation from Washington came down. This was a bit later, but it sort of aligns, it confirms the opinions of my prosecutors, of our prosecutors from Washington came down and she looked at the entire case. And this was. These were her words. These aren't mine. Where is it? I can find the exact quote right now. But she looked at the entire case and she said there are a number of evidentiary issues, and while there are not, quote, unquote, insurmountable, in her opinion, it was, quote, unquote, a crapshoot. Mr. Min. Which gets right into my question. Acosta. And, and so we're looking at. We're looking at a case. So from our perspective, and I sit around the table with the managing attorney and the criminal chief and all of that and talk about how do we do this. The state attorneys candidly dropped the ball, right? The state attorneys offered pretrial diversion. Epstein, the Palm beach police wanted what I understood to be two years. The state attorney offered probation. When Epstein rejected probation, he said, okay, let's take it to the grand jury. And the reason he wanted to take it to the grand jury is there was great consternation within his office about whether or not this case was the first place a viable case. So he took it to the grand jury. He presented the grand jury all the charges from the highest to the lowest. And he didn't have to do a grand jury, but he chose to. The grand jury came back with a relatively low charge that made him eligible for pretrial diversion. He entered into an agreement with Epstein to do pretrial diversion. And. And then, you know, then what do we do? The Palm beach police get upset at the process, and this process comes to our office. And so again, the question is, what is the value of a sure thing where someone like him goes to jail and has to register and you send a signal to the community that he can't get away with all of this versus going to trial and doing a crapshoot, quote, unquote, not my words, where he might get away with it again. 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 topic 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. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Acosta, let me do this. Do you have anything else to add to Ms. Crockett's questioning Acosta? No butt. He gets cut off by Garcia. I'm going to let you finish briefly. Hold on a second. I'm going to let you finish Mr. Min's question really briefly. And Mr. Frost has a question. And then we're gonna go back to the attorney. Mr. Min, I want to rephrase the question and add a slight addendum. So basically, if you thought your case was weak based on the evidence, and your chief prosecutor thought that the computer evidence, which was not being produced by the defense, and a series of notable back and forth, why would you not. And she thought, I don't want to say this would have put the case completely to bed. That was a quote from her. Why would you not support her efforts to obtain that information and instead enter into either a settlement or a non prosecution agreement? And then as a follow up, I just want to add that according to the OPR report, Vilafano learned that the computer equipment was in the possession of a particular individual who was not identified in the OPR report. Are you able to share with us who that individual is? Mr. Acosta? So one, I am not able to share who that individual is because I have no idea. Mr. Min. Okay, Acosta. Second. In my usual course, I would sit around with my supervisory staff and we Talk about some of the issues that we just talked about. We talk about policy issues, how the investigation proceeded and what they sought and the types of evidence that they sought is not something that I typically became involved with. So I can't answer your question. What I can say is at some point, at some point, the team thought that it was appropriate to go forward with a plea negotiation, and we went forward with that. Mr. Min. But you didn't think that it was appropriate to get the computer evidence? Mr. Acosta I don't recall discussions about the computer evidence. U.S. attorney this is an office much like, I believe you're from the LA area. This is an office very similar to. I'm sorry, are you from Orange County? Acosta? Yeah. Yeah. So an office the size of pretty much the LA office. There are multiple cases.
- [43:13]
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 all@spinquest.com that's S-P-I-N Q U-S-T.com.
- [43:35]
SpinQuest Disclaimer
spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
- [43:43]
Alex Acosta
As U.S. attorney, I would get involved in ultimate decisions such as how do we plead this? Do we go state versus, you know, the. Do we do a deferred prosecution to the state? What are the terms that we're looking at? I had amazing attorneys that are expert in this, and the gathering of evidence is something that I would leave to them. Mr. Min, I'm not satisfied with that answer, but I will yield to my colleagues. Mr. Garcia, let's go to Mr. Frost. Mr. Frost, I want to chat really quick about the work release. You mentioned that you were righted, objected to it. Mr. Acosta? Yes. Frost. Was that to the sheriff directly or someone in the office or. Who did you reach out to? Mr. Acosta? I don't recall, but our office reached out to whatever Palm beach authority, whatever Palm beach authority was responsible for the work release. I believe it was the sheriff. It may have been the state attorney's office, but I'm leaning in the direction of the sheriff because the sheriff is the office the that authorized that. We had received assurances from both defense counsel and throughout the process that there would be quote, unquote, continuous confinement. We understood that to be the case when the work release happened. I believed we weren't even notified when we Found out about it. The office objected to it. Mr. Frost Were these emails? Mr. Acosta I think it was. I don't know if it was an email transmitting a letter, but. But I believe it was an actual letter. FROST is the typical of your office to send letters in terms of objecting to work release or anything like that? ACOSTA I don't know if that was typical and I want to check the record, but. Mr. Frost do you have records on that? Acosta well, I have the OPR report that goes into that and talks about that. I don't have independent records, but I do have the OPR report and I believe there is a page where 113 talks about the assurances they received and when it talks about sent a letter to his attorney, and I believe a letter was ultimately sent to the Palm beach sheriff, our office, to that he's cut off by. Mr. Frost you're saying that you sent a letter to his attorney objecting on the work release? I believe the office sent a letter to his attorney and you might have sent a letter to the sheriff. ACOSTA I believe so. The office fully objected. Twenty years later, I do not know which letters went, but OPR found that the office fully objected to this work release. It was not what we thought. All of us were upset about it. If we thought that he would have been put out on work release, I would have looked really different because all of us thought very, you know, all of us cut off by Frost. Again, to your recollection, did you give the order to object to it or. Or did someone under you make that decision and object to it? You're saying the office objected to it? Mr. Acosta to my recollection, I don't think I had to give the order because the entire office was upset over it, because our understanding was that he would be in jail throughout the entire time. What we were seeking is that he would be in jail. Mr. Frost how often do these objections lead to anything in your tenure as an attorney? Mr. Acosta As a general matter, if the U. S. Attorney objects to those types of things, often people do listen. And if the U. S. Attorney's office objects, often people do listen. And if you look into the details of how he obtained the work release, the details are troubling at best. And so, you know, I can't speak to what the Palm beach did, but I can speak to the fact that everyone in our office was upset because this was not what we contemplated. Mr. Garcia thank you, Mr. Frost. We're going to go back to and Then we have that redacted question. Mr. Acosta, just to follow up on that answer. The OPR report took issue with your office reliance on the state to ensure to that Acosta cuts him off. I'm sorry, can I just interrupt you question. Let me finish my question, please. To ensure that Mr. Epstein was incarcerated for his full sentence and it faulted your office for reposing that trust without the knowledge of how the state system would work or an understanding of the mechanisms of the state enforcement. Is that a conclusion that you would dispute? I think so. I'm sorry, but. So the letter did go out to the correction division on the Palm beach sheriff's office and I believe this was on December 11th from the office and so I'm sorry, could you restate question? Sure. My question is simply would you disagree with the OPR's conclusion that reposing trust in the state to ensure that Jeffrey Epstein served his full sentence in state prison was an error in judgment? Answer. I wouldn't. I would not disagree. I think the state turned out to be an unreliable partner on multiple levels and had we known the way it would have gone, we would not have done so. And so yes, that is on me. Question. Okay. I wanted to return to a point that you made earlier because I think it's pretty fundamental to our conversation. You've spoken a lot about your office assessment of the litigation risk which informed the decision of whether to plead or to proceed to trial. That's an assessment that every U. S. Attorney's office makes in every case. Would you agree with that answer? I think to call it litigation risk undervalues what it's about because it's not just about the risk of trial. It's about signals that are sent to the community. But that is certainly something that is part of every case. Question. Okay. And you know there were clearly different views within the office about whether it was advisable to go to trial or not. But it didn't follow from the existence of litigation risk or the other implication that you've described of potentially going to trial that the result is should be a non prosecution agreement to a single state charge and an 18 month sentence that was not an inexorable resolution whether or not there was litigation risk. Is that correct? Answer. So the litigation, so I understand your question, but the litigation, because of the viability of the case, because of some legal issues that we've already discussed and because of the importance to the community of putting them away and sending the signal that, that people like him can't get away with it we made the assessment and I ultimately approved two years registration and Question Two years incarceration? Answer Two years incarceration, registration and a mechanism for victims to recover some monetary money, not because it makes them whole, but because it at least would help. Question I understand that. Answer in the process of negotiations, some of those terms change from 24 months to 18 months. Question sure. Answer and the trial term to that. Acosta is once again interrupted. Question I understand all that, but my question is the NPA wasn't the only possible resolution, right? You could have pled to federal charges. You had a line prosecutor who proposed 53 counts. So there clearly was a lot of middle ground in between your assessment of litigation risk and the outcome that you ultimately agreed to, isn't that right? Answer so if your question if your question is was the defense to the state the only possible outcome, my answer would be no. We could have proceeded federally with, for example, a 371 with a Rule 11 question thank you. Next person asking questions Again, redacted question Mr. Acosta, I'm going to change gears a bit. When did you first become aware that Donald Trump had a social relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? So I haven't the slightest idea, but I certainly not during the pendency of the case. Question and as part of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, while you were U.S. attorney, was Donald Trump ever interviewed? Answer not to my knowledge, but also to be clear, I would know as a general matter who was interviewed or not interviewed, because as I mentioned to the gentleman from Is it from California? Earlier I was trying to remember the city sorry, the gentleman from California. It would not have been my practice to get involved in who was and was not interviewed or the how the evidence was acquired. Question Understood. But you to that Ms. Stansberry interjects can I follow up on that question? Acosta but let me be clear. To my knowledge, Mr. Trump, President Trump was not interviewed. Ms. Stansberry, I just want to follow up on that specific question. So it was not part of your practice in making decisions about whether to prosecute or not prosecute, to actually review the 302s and evidentiary investigatory things that were collected as part of a case? Acosta so so stuttering a bit here. Stansberry interjects Again, inter It's just a simple question, Acosta, and I'm going to give you a fulsome answer. So as general practice in a U.S. attorney's office, there are experienced prosecutors and they look at the 302s and they look at to that cut off by Stansberry again. But did you in this case, it's just a yes or no. Did you review the 302s in this case? Acosta as U.S. attorney, it was not my practice to review 302s. Stansberry but did you in this case? Acosta in this case, I did not review the 302s. Redacted. Thank you. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here. And in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
- [53:20]
Bretzky (SpinQuest Promoter)
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 gotta do is purchase a ten dollar coin pack and guess what? They're gonna give you the coins from a thirty dollar coin pack that lets you play all your favorite games like Blackjack, Wanted Dead or Wild. And we're talking real cash prizes, baby. Spinquest.com Spin Quest is a free to
- [53:45]
SpinQuest Disclaimer
play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.