Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Part 4-6) (5/18/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Part 4-6) (5/18/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
0:02
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get right
0:05
back to that alex Acosta deposition that he gave to
0:09
Congress a couple of weeks ago, and once again alex
0:12
Acosta is doing the answering question. And then you had
0:17
mentioned that the state's attorney was worried that these are
0:21
my words, so correct me if I'm wrong, that it
0:23
was a possibility that it had happened before that victims
0:26
in these situations had been prosecuted for I'm assuming prostitution. Answer,
0:32
So those are his words? Question, yes, answer, And I
0:35
read that in the OPR report. No one told me
0:38
that at the time. Question, Okay, answer. What I understood
0:42
at the time was that the state attorney had looked
0:44
at the case, had looked at the evidence, and had
0:47
evaluated how to proceed, and had decided that he didn't
0:50
have the evidence to proceed with the charges that the
0:52
police wanted, and so he offered a lesser charge that
0:57
would have been probation. Mister Epstein turned that down, and
1:00
then he offered and then he's like, Okay, we'll take
1:03
it to the grand jury. We'll let the people of
1:05
Palm Beach decide. I have subsequently read. The three victims
1:09
were invited to testify to the grand jury. Two of
1:11
the victims did not show. Only one victim showed. The
1:14
grand jury heard from that victim. The grand jury made
1:17
the decision a charge they had from the highest to
1:20
the lowest. And that's what the grand jury decided. And
1:24
something that I think is important to say. The state
1:26
attorney could have made the charging decision. He didn't have
1:29
to go to the grand jury, but he asked the
1:31
people upon beach what should we do? And the only
1:34
reason that's relevant to my mind, well two reasons. One
1:37
it's relevant because he should, I mean he should go
1:40
to jail. And early on in the case when it
1:43
was first when mister Slowman and I were first briefed,
1:46
the record shows and OPR discussed how the line attorney
1:50
was preparing a petite waiver and a petite waiver, just
1:54
to explain it briefly, Typically someone isn't prosecuted twice for
1:57
a crime, but when a state prosecution is Matt fstlely inadequate,
2:01
then the federal authorities can ask for a petite waiver,
2:04
which means they can prosecute again, and when it was
2:07
first brought to the office, it was brought in the
2:09
context of a possible petite waiver because there was an
2:12
agreement for a pre trial diversion, no jail time, no registration,
2:17
and so it always came in the context of a
2:19
petite And so to go back to the US Attorney,
2:22
I'm sorry, the state attorney took it to the grand jury,
2:25
and the grand jury made the decision and that was
2:28
just not okay question, But at the time, like my
2:31
kind of understanding of one of the one of the
2:34
concerns that the state attorney said after the fact was
2:37
that it was possible that there would be criminal liability
2:41
for the victims for what occurred. Is that fairer answer? Yes, look,
2:47
question not that a case would actually be brought, but
2:50
answer I'm hesitating here because that's not what this was.
2:55
But that's what the state attorney is saying. And maybe
2:57
that's why the state attorney wasn't unrelied partner, as we
3:01
can talk about later on. But that's a reflection of
3:04
at least an opinion of some people in the Palm
3:06
Beach County at the time, and something like that. It
3:11
is what it is question, and I just wanted to
3:13
make sure that I was understanding that that was not
3:17
brought to you at the time. It was something that
3:20
you read answer yes, question after the fact, and that
3:24
my understanding of what his statements were is accurate. That
3:27
there was a they're cut off there by Acosta answer
3:31
yes question, possible criminal liability answer. And again, I want
3:36
to be crystal clear lest I be taken out of context.
3:38
None of us thought that the case was question yeah,
3:42
mister Niemann at the US Attorney's office, mister Acosta at
3:46
the US Attorney's office. And that's why we thought it
3:48
was important that he go to jail a question by
3:52
somebody who's redacted. Question yes, answer, And all of us
3:57
thought that the victims were victims. Question no. I appreciate that,
4:01
and we all agree to question. And that's why I
4:05
was surprised, Thank you. Going back to the letter, the
4:08
last paragraph on the first page begins what followed was
4:12
a year long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors.
4:15
I use the word assault intentionally, as the defense in
4:18
this case was more aggressive than any which I or
4:21
the prosecution in my office had previously encountered. And then
4:25
you talk about the army of lawyers that mister Epstein hired.
4:28
And later on, I'm trying to find the right page
4:31
on what is the second to the last page or
4:33
the last page, the first full paragraph that some may
4:38
also believe the prosecution should have been tougher in retaliation
4:42
for the defense's tactics. You write it here, but can
4:45
you explain some of Epstein's defense tactics in the case answer? So,
4:50
they would agree and then say they didn't agree, and
4:53
we'd have to, you know, the prosecuting attorneys would start
4:55
negotiations again. They would sometimes say that we agreed to
4:59
something that we did not agree to, and then we'd
5:02
spend time on that. They at one point tried to
5:05
recuse the prosecuting attorney. This was a little bit later,
5:08
but they tried to recuse a prosecuting attorney. At one
5:11
point they tried to recuse my first assistant. They found
5:15
what I referred to as peccadillo and tried to recuse
5:18
the first assistant. And then I think, perhaps the most
5:21
egregious of all, he signed an agreement. And he signed
5:24
that agreement, I believe in September, and in my experience,
5:28
once counsel and defendant signed the agreement, it's done, and
5:31
you follow through and then you started relitigating everything again.
5:36
And then they started saying, you can't do this because
5:39
of federalism concerns and because you're impinging on a local matter.
5:44
And they charged our office with being unethical or I
5:47
don't want to say unethical. They charged the office within
5:50
properly interpreting the law. And this is when I became
5:54
more involved, because it was more of a policy issue
5:57
and it was more of an attack on the office.
6:00
And then they appealed to the Criminal Division in Washington,
6:03
and then after that they ultimately appealed to the US
6:05
Deputy Attorney General's office. And so from the time that
6:10
he signed the agreement to the ultimate plea was a
6:12
span of about eight months or something. Question uh huh answer,
6:17
and that is unheard of. I'll provide another example. We
6:20
had assurance from the state attorney and we had assurance
6:23
from his council that he would be in continuous confinement.
6:26
And then after he goes to jail, he applied for
6:29
work release and the Palm Beach gives him work release
6:32
and we're not even notified that he gets work release,
6:35
and our office objects to it, but we had assurances
6:38
that it would not happen, and OPR talks about those
6:42
assurances as well. Question uh huh. Answer so at multiple levels,
6:46
you know their tactic is something that you can only
6:49
do once, because you know, if you're a South Flora
6:52
lawyer that had to interact with the office multiple times,
6:55
that could not happen. Question by somebody who's redacted. The
7:01
paragraph also mentions like, I'm going to characterize it as
7:05
stalking assistant US attorneys, investigating assistant US attorneys, and investigating
7:10
their families. Answer it does. Question did you experience that?
7:14
Like did you personally experience that? Answer? I did not.
7:18
My first assistant did. Question and that's a fair characterization
7:22
for me. I mean, you can correct me if I'm wrong,
7:25
But hiring private investigators to follow them go through their
7:28
trash kind of like that kind of stuff. Answer, So,
7:32
let me see how to characterize this, and then if
7:35
you want details, you can ask me for details. They
7:38
uncovered something involving involving his daughter. So I don't want
7:41
to say that they hired private investigators to stalk them.
7:44
I think that would be a mischaracterization. But yes, they
7:47
uncovered something regarding his daughter to try to recuse him
7:51
question and then answer, actually, that sounds I want to
7:55
answer that more fully lest there be look back on her.
7:58
There was an incident involved someone peeping at his daughter
8:01
at the time, and he called the police and he
8:03
followed up as I think any father would and should,
8:06
and they said that because of that he could not
8:09
be a fair and impartial and tried to recuse him. Question.
8:13
Thank you answer, which, let me just add, is just outrageous. Question. Yes,
8:18
the accusation being that because someone stalked his daughter, he
8:22
would be impartialed into someone that committed similar crimes. I
8:26
guess is what they were going for. Answered, that's what
8:28
the argument was. Yes, question just a couple minutes late.
8:32
A lot of people come in, so I'm going to
8:35
go through and announce them at the end of the hour.
8:38
But you say, and I think it's a bedrock American
8:41
principle that everyone's entitled to an aggressive defense. Is there
8:44
a line and was it crossed? So unfortunately or fortunately
8:49
maybe I don't know, let me restart, everyone's entitled to
8:53
an aggressive defense. I don't think the line was crossed.
8:56
I don't think that It's not the way I would
8:59
want to litigate. It's not the way I would teach
9:01
lawyers to litigate, but it's allowed within the legal profession.
9:05
And I don't think that there was misconduct, and misconduct
9:08
is the line. But it was distasteful. It did frustrate
9:11
our attorneys, and one of my challenges as a manager
9:15
was at various times all of us, including myself, would
9:18
be like, yeah, we're sick of this, but if something
9:21
is right initially, you can't sort of let defense counsel
9:23
get under your skin. If it's right initially, then it's
9:27
right then, and you just keep going. Question based off
9:30
of that, was there any discussion about filing sanctions against
9:34
any of the defense council? Answer? Not that I recall question.
9:39
That is a good stopping point for our hour. But
9:42
before we go off the record, a number of members
9:45
have come in, so I will we'll start back here
9:48
if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself for the record. So
9:51
they introduced a bunch of people, a lot of adacted people.
9:54
But before they go, a cost ask can I just
9:57
finish the answer to the prior question before we stop.
10:00
He's given the okay and he goes on to say,
10:02
I don't recall any conversations about sanctions, and if I'm
10:05
being fair, I do think Defense counsel have a right
10:08
to challenge whether or not someone should be accused and
10:11
distasteful as it is to look up someone, to look
10:13
up someone of the matters that we just talked about.
10:16
Defense Council has a right to do that, and I
10:18
don't think that that should be sanctioned. Mister Daktad, all right,
10:22
I appreciate it. Mister Min, could you announce yourself sure?
10:27
Congressman Dave Min in California forty seven, Congressman James Wilkinshaw Virginia.
10:34
All right, we'll go on the record. The time is
10:36
eleven sixteen. So they go through announcing all of the
10:40
different people that are going to be asking questions that
10:43
are present. And we have mister Garcia, we have Miss Crockett,
10:49
we have mister Kazar, we have mister Min, we have
10:52
mister Frost, mister Submerannium, mister Wilkinshaw, Miss Lee, mister Biggs,
11:01
Tim Bershett, and we have Jasmine Crockett. All right, so
11:06
right back to the examination. Question by we don't know
11:10
it's redacted and answering once again alex Acosta. Question mister Acosta,
11:17
Good morning answer, Good morning question. We're going to delve
11:21
into the greater depths into some of the issues that
11:24
my majority colleagues raised with you during the previous round.
11:27
But at the outset, I'd like to just establish some
11:29
of the facts that I think lie at the core
11:32
of today's proceeding. And to begin with, it's my understanding
11:35
that the line prosecutor in your office who handled the
11:38
Epstein investigation, Miss Villa Fauna, concluded that there was enough
11:42
evidence in her view to support a sixty count federal
11:45
indictment against mister Epstein. Is that accurate answer? The prosecuting attorney,
11:50
Miss Villa Fauna sent a draft indictment up her supervisory
11:54
chain that was never fully reviewed by the supervisory chain.
11:58
That was a first draft that was written byer, and
12:01
in the usual course of the office, it would then
12:04
go to the managing attorney in the pom Beach County
12:06
and the criminal Chief. And earlier we had talked about,
12:09
for example, the interstate statutes, and the managing attorney in
12:13
the pom Beach office that supervised her express concerns about,
12:17
for example, whether or not the federal nexus existed. So
12:21
she did draft that that wasn't that had not gone
12:25
through the supervisory chain. Question that I understand, But would
12:30
you agree with me that it reflected her view of
12:32
the evidence and the charges that the evidence supported at
12:35
the time. Answer, it reflected her view of what the
12:39
case could have looked like if it went to trial.
12:41
But again in her sworn deposition, she said that a
12:44
negotiated plea would have been a better outcome, and that
12:48
did reflect her assessment as to the viability of the case.
12:52
And so just because you draft an indictment doesn't mean
12:55
you think it's a slam dunk. And she went to say,
13:01
and if I could, because it's an important point. This
13:03
is her talking, not me, and this is her sworn statement.
13:07
Some have alleged that Epstein would have easily been convicted
13:10
and that all the victims were eager to participate in
13:12
a full fledged federal prosecution. As a prosecutor who handled
13:16
the investigation, I can say that these contentions overlook the
13:20
facts at the time. So her sworn statement is that
13:23
it would not have been an easy case and that
13:26
there were issues. Question sure, and you're talking about litigation risk,
13:31
which of course is inherent in every prosecution. But her
13:34
draft indictment was accompanied by an eighty some odd page
13:38
charging memo. Isn't that correct? Answer? I can't speak to
13:41
the pages, but it was accompanied by a charging memo that, again,
13:46
the supervisory chain in the office had a different assessment
13:49
than she did. Question, But it's fair to say that
13:52
she wouldn't have sent it up, the draft indictment and
13:54
the eighty page charging memo if she didn't have faith
13:57
in the allegations that she was outlining and the maria
14:00
on the prosecution. Isn't that a fair characterization? Answer? So
14:04
you wouldn't send up something that he didn't believe was
14:07
factual and accurate. Again, I don't think it's fair to
14:10
characterize her position as saying, this is what we need
14:12
to do, because in a nur sworn statement she herself
14:15
said that she favored a negotiated outcome. Question, And wasn't
14:21
it also her judgment that the appropriate sentence for mister
14:24
Epstein under federal sentencing guidelines was at a minimum one
14:28
hundred and sixty eight to two hundred and ten months. Answer,
14:32
it was her judgment that if it would have gone
14:33
to trial on the charges in the memo, again, charges
14:36
that the supervisory chain in the office had concerns over
14:40
that if it would have gone to trial, that would
14:42
have been the guideline range question. And it's my understanding,
14:46
having read the OPR report, that Miss Villafana repeatedly oppressed
14:50
her supervisors to authorize an indictment of mister Epstein, and
14:54
that authorization was repeatedly denied. Isn't that accurate answer? I
15:00
think it would be fair to say that she pressed them.
15:03
I don't know how you define repeatedly, but she did
15:05
press them. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up
15:07
right here, and in the next episode, we're going to
15:09
pick up where we left off. All of the information
15:13
that goes with this episode can be found in the
15:15
description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode
15:19
of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to
15:22
pick up where we left off with the alex Acosta
15:25
deposition once again, alex Acosta doing the answering and various
15:30
members of Congress doing the questioning. Question. Despite Miss Villafana's views,
15:35
you ultimately decided that a resolution of the case on
15:38
stage charges was appropriate. Is that correct answer? So there
15:42
was a discussion within the office, and I think I
15:44
think It's an important in between is that if we
15:48
were to go forward on federal there was the discussion
15:51
ended up landing on what called a three seventy one,
15:54
which is a different charge, which would be a five
15:56
year charge with a what's called a Rule eleven CAB.
16:00
But ultimately there was a discussion within the office. I
16:03
talked to my supervisory staff and I approved a three
16:06
pronged term sheet or approach. The first required that he
16:10
served twenty four months imprisonment, and my understanding at the time,
16:14
as I recall it was that is what the Palm
16:17
Beach Police initially sought. Right and again the Palm Beach
16:20
Police went to the State Attorney's office. The State Attorney's
16:23
office was willing to they're willing to file the charges
16:27
the Palm Beach Police sought. They offered a probation, then
16:30
they took it to the grand jury, offered pre trial diversion.
16:34
What I ultimately approved and I approved it was two years,
16:37
which is what the Palm Beach Police sought, registration as
16:41
a sexual offender, and then we also added in a
16:44
mechanism for a monetary recovery for the victims question and
16:49
looking at the terms of the Non Prosecution Agreement, which
16:52
I'll refer to for brevity's sake, as the NPA. If
16:55
that's okay with you? Answer, yes, question, So, the NPA
16:59
permitted mister Epstein to plead to a single charge. Is
17:01
that right? Answer? Yes, that is correct? Question? Okay, So
17:06
as opposed to the fifty three federal accounts that Miss
17:09
Villa Fauna had initially proposed in her charging memo. Answer again,
17:13
I take issue with your characterization of the charging memo,
17:16
but yes, question. And the NPA also allowed mister Ebstein.
17:21
I'm sorry, Pursuing to the NPA, your office agreed to
17:24
a sentence for mister Ebstein of only eighteen months in
17:27
the Palm Beach County jail. Is that accurate? Answer? That
17:32
is ultimately accurate after I approve, though, we'll call it
17:35
term sheet for simplicity, because that's how it was labeled.
17:38
The prosecution team entered into a negotiation. In the process
17:42
of that negotiation it went from twenty four to eighteen.
17:46
My perspective on that was the prosecuting attorney, Miss Villa
17:49
Fauna wanted them to go to jail, perhaps more than
17:52
any of us, and I think the record makes that clear.
17:55
So if in the process of that give and go
17:57
and give and take it ends up eighteen it's appropriate
18:00
to defer to that process question. So, just to clarify,
18:05
the initial proposal from your office as to the NPA
18:08
was a two year sentence that was further reduced eighteen months,
18:11
and of that eighteen months, mister Epstein only served thirteen.
18:15
Is that correct? Answer? That is factually correct, But I
18:19
want to clarify my prior answer if I could. When
18:22
I said that she, more than anyone, wanted him to
18:24
go to jail, I don't think that's accurate. I said
18:27
that all of us, every single person. The whole reason
18:29
we took this case is because we wanted him to
18:32
go to jail because the state attorney said pre trial diversion,
18:36
Like how could the state attorney say that? But on
18:39
the continuum of how the case was assessed and the
18:42
viability of the case as you went up the experience chain,
18:47
there were more concerns about viability, and so I trusted
18:50
her to negotiate that agreement. And I think she did
18:53
a really really good job under a very difficult circumstance,
18:57
given the way the defense treated her and approached the case. Question.
19:02
The eighteen month sentence was ultimately approved by you? Correct answer? Yes.
19:06
Let me be clear on something else. I'm not pushing away.
19:09
Ultimately was you know I was the US attorney. The
19:12
decisions are mine. I told that to the Office of
19:15
Professional Responsibility. I'm not pushing that away. The decisions were mine.
19:21
Question understood and pursu into the NPA, Mister Epstein was
19:24
permitted work release while serving a sentence? Is that correct answer?
19:29
So I would not say that pursuing too the NPA,
19:32
and we had assurance on multiple levels that would be
19:35
quote unquote continuous confinement on the issues that you may
19:39
you may want to talk about or not. Is I
19:42
think the state turned out to be an unreliable partner.
19:45
And OPR did a three hundred page report and there
19:48
are some conclusions that quite honestly are critical of me
19:51
that I will agree with, and one of those was
19:54
I relied on that, you know, by approving a state resolution,
19:57
I partnered with the state attorney and a Pond Beach chair.
20:00
If that was an unreliable partner. We had assurances that
20:04
he would be in continuous confinement. We were told multiple
20:07
times that he would be. He obtained work release from
20:10
the pom Beach Sheriff under a factual situation that sketchy
20:13
at best. I don't remember all the details, but I
20:16
think his work release was at an institution that had
20:19
just been incorporated, or something along those lines. That was
20:23
the Pombat Sheriff's decision. When we found out about that,
20:26
we objected. We objected in writing, we objected fully, and
20:30
so that was under the authority of the state. Mister
20:33
min Do you have questions, mister Minh, Yeah, I just
20:36
want to follow up on this line of questioning. Do
20:38
you feel like the investigation was complete at the time
20:41
you decided to profer the twenty four month sentence the proposal? Acosta,
20:46
So I would have I would have deferred to the
20:48
trial team at the time, mister min So following up
20:52
on that go ahead? Acosta, No, no, but I think
20:54
the timeline's important. The case was brought into the office
20:57
in late spring of two thousand and six, mister min Sure, Acosta.
21:02
About a year later, we I approved the term sheet.
21:06
There had been a year during that year, victims had
21:08
been interviewed, the prosecuting team had done whatever they thought
21:12
they needed to be done, and I don't recall any
21:14
discussion of theirs more than we need. If anything, I recall,
21:19
you know, let's put let's proceed now, because it's important.
21:23
You know, one of the concerns is that the victims
21:25
is to get older, mister min cuts them off. So
21:28
I just want to turn because Maria Villafauna repeatedly has
21:31
said that she at the time and after the fact,
21:34
believed that the computer evidence, the files, the surveillance videos,
21:38
all of that, I think she said would have put
21:41
this case completely to bed. And the defense attorneys and
21:45
I think he'll go into that, repeatedly pushed that particular
21:48
request off. They did not respond to it. I know
21:51
there's a long record of her going to her superiors,
21:54
including you, and asking for a permission to be more
21:56
persistent in trying to get these records. And then at
21:59
some point ken st Are and left Qwitz became the
22:01
attorneys of record. And then at that point, about two
22:05
weeks later, I think, is when you entered into the NPA,
22:08
And so I'm interested in that timeline. But I guess
22:11
my question right now is if there's a big pile
22:14
of evidence that would have corroborated the witness testimony and
22:18
their claims that they were visiting Epstein's house, you might
22:21
have had child pornography, You might have had videos, a
22:24
known video of his New York residence. And I think
22:26
a number of people have noted that it was shocking
22:29
that he wouldn't have had similar surveillance system in Palm Beach.
22:33
Why would you not get that information before, which might
22:36
have had everything you needed to get rid of the
22:38
litigation risk in the case Acosta. So there was a
22:44
number of I mean, there were a number of statements
22:46
in that some of which I think confused the timeline
22:48
and some of which I think are inaccurate. But so
22:51
I can take those one out of time. So first
22:54
I approve the terms. I approved the term sheet before
22:57
mister Starr was brought into the matter. When mister Starr
23:00
was brought into the matter, I believe a week or
23:02
two after that, the term she was approved. And at
23:04
that point we didn't have a meeting with the defense.
23:07
Everyone was present at the meeting with the defense, And
23:10
at that meeting, I rejected everything that was asked. They
23:13
asked that we not proceed because it's a local case.
23:16
They asked that we dropped the two year demand. I
23:19
rejected all those I said you've been heard. And the
23:22
reason that we had that meeting is because it was
23:25
my assessment and it ended up being true, for better
23:27
or worse, that the case would be appealed to Washington,
23:30
and I didn't want it to be appealed on the
23:32
grounds that we had not heard defense arguments. I thought
23:35
it's better that we hear them in Miami first, so
23:39
that he's just giving you the clue right here that
23:41
they went above his head, like I've been telling you
23:43
from the beginning, and I invited the head of the
23:45
child Exploitation Section from Washington down to the meeting in
23:48
South Florida, so that Washington was fully aware of what
23:51
we were doing, and so that Washington understood the case
23:55
and understood the matter. And so I just want to
23:57
clarify that timeline first. Garcia, Let's move on really quick,
24:01
mister Acosta, before I go back to the attorneys. On
24:04
the eighteen month final sentence, do you stand by that?
24:07
Do you stand by the decision that you made and
24:09
the office made, mister Acosta on the eighteen months mister Garcia, Yes, Acosta,
24:15
So let me say this, we put him in jail.
24:18
Mister Garcia, do you stand by the eighteen months, Acosta, No,
24:23
I understand, but allow me to give you a false answer.
24:25
If I could. We put him in jail, he registered
24:28
as a sex offender, and the victims had an opportunity
24:31
to recover, and that was a win. Looking back in hindsight,
24:35
there are a number of issues that I will you
24:37
know that I will say cause the community and victims
24:39
to feel to feel that this was not a good resolution.
24:42
And I get that. But from the perspective of our
24:45
prosecutors at the time, based on the evidence we had
24:48
at the time, you know, everyone in the office wanted
24:50
to put him in jail, and that's what we did.
24:53
And it wasn't just me. These are experienced career prosecutors.
24:57
Our first assistant had been with the office for you years,
25:00
he had been the criminal chief before, mister Garcia. So
25:04
you would disagree with that, calling it a sweetheart deal.
25:07
You would disagree with that assessment, mister Acosta. I disagree
25:10
with that, and I think it's really easy with respect Garcia.
25:14
And you're also aware, sir, that he of course went
25:17
on to abuse other women. Acosta, So what I was saying,
25:21
I think it's really easy in this era to sort
25:23
of label something with an easy sound bite. We talked
25:26
about and I can go back again about our I
25:30
need to go back to your question. Men, I was
25:32
going to ask you you answered the question. Acosta. Yeah,
25:36
I need to go back to your question. I'm sorry,
25:38
but I was interrupted. I'm trying. But we talked about
25:41
the assessment of the first assistant was that this could
25:44
be a very difficult case. The assessment of the child
25:47
exploitation an obscenity prosecutor that came down from DC, that
25:52
looked at all the evidence, looked at all the evidence
25:54
and said, quote unquote, this case would be a crapshoot.
25:58
Those weren't my words, those were hers. The assessment of
26:01
the criminal Chief who used to be the head of
26:03
Major Crimes was that this would be a difficult case.
26:09
The assessment from the managing attorney of the Palm Beach
26:11
office and more than a difficult case, a highly difficult
26:15
case where there were sure that the outcome would be
26:18
And so looking at all of this, the ultimate judgment
26:21
was do you roll the dice and if he gets
26:23
away with it, you're sending a signal to the community
26:25
that he can get away with it. And given the
26:28
state attorney you know, approach where the state attorney was,
26:31
in essence, letting him get away with it. What would
26:34
that say? Or do you proceed with a sure prosecution
26:37
where he goes to jail. And none of us, none
26:40
of us thought that eighteen months or twenty four months
26:42
was the right outcome in terms of this of what
26:45
we wanted, but based on the facts that we had, Garcia,
26:49
I understand that. And sir you so you don't agree
26:53
that it was a sweetheart deal, that's clear, and you
26:56
do recognize that he went on to abuse other women.
26:58
You recognize that, mister Acosta. If there's evidence that he
27:02
went on to abuse other women, that evidence should be
27:04
brought forward. And Garcia, you're not aware. You can't say
27:08
with certainty that he abused other women after he was
27:11
in his during sentence, Acosta, I have not reviewed facts
27:15
after the prosecution, Garcia. I mean, it's been widely reported,
27:19
so that's surprising. Acosta. So you know, my understanding of
27:22
our criminal justice system is what's reported and what is
27:26
proven in court are two different things. You know, I
27:29
read reports, I understand reports. Let me say I saw
27:32
I saw the press conference given by the victims. I
27:35
thought their statements were courageous, they were confident, they were eloquent.
27:38
We believe the victims back then, despite the reality that
27:42
defense would have impeached these victims and the impeachment would
27:46
have been withering. We believe them fully, But I don't
27:48
take a press report to this. Jasmin Crockett interjects, Can
27:53
I stop you right there real quick? I'm sorry because
27:56
you actually answered a question that I was going to ask.
27:59
What made you feel like this case is so weak?
28:01
And it sounds like you were convinced that the case
28:03
was weak because you felt like the victims, multiple victims,
28:07
were going to be impeached even though you believe them.
28:09
What specifically did you believe was going to be detrimentally impeachable?
28:13
Hold on one second, So I just want to know,
28:16
number one, what did you believe was going to be
28:18
detrimentally impeachable? Number two? As someone who has done criminal defense,
28:23
these have always been the easiest cases in my experience
28:26
for the prosecution because juries typically want to believe victims,
28:30
they never want to get it wrong, and so typically
28:32
from a defense downpoint, it has always been the most
28:35
difficult case for me to defend against, even when there
28:38
should have been saying or say DNA based upon the
28:41
testimony or the statements of a victim, and there wasn't.
28:44
There have been so many things that I have tried
28:46
to get over. And when I say like trying these
28:49
kinds of cases, I literally had a serial rapist as
28:52
a defendant one time, and the evidence was I mean,
28:55
we're talking about prostitutes, We're talking about very impeachable witnesses,
28:59
and they gave them life. I mean like it was
29:01
their word against his, because as you know, that's enough
29:04
if a jury believes the one witness rule. So I'm
29:08
curious to know what is it that you felt was
29:11
so impeachable about him? And then I'll go on to
29:14
my next because I did want to know why you
29:17
felt like these cases were so bad? Min Can I
29:20
get an answer to my question, Garcia, what we're going
29:24
to do? And then to this, Nieman interjects cost to
29:27
finishes off. So I didn't finish and so I'm aware,
29:31
but and you'll probably rephrase at some point or remind me,
29:34
so let me first say it wasn't solely my opinion.
29:37
Who was the opinion of the first assistant. It was
29:40
the opinion of the criminal chief it was the opinion
29:43
of the managing attorney of the Palm Beach office, who
29:46
had at one point been the head of public corruption
29:48
in Washington, DC, who went on to be the chief
29:51
of staff in the Criminal Division, the first assistant went
29:54
on to be the US Attorney under the following administration.
29:57
And it was even the opinion of the career prosecute
30:00
that was prosecuting the case, where she said, you know,
30:03
everyone that says this would be an easy case, you know,
30:06
and again, let me read you her words in a
30:08
sworn statement in the CVR. Some have alleged that Epstein
30:12
would easily have been convicted and all the victims were
30:14
eager to participate in a full fledged prosecution. As a
30:18
prosecutor who handled the investigation, I can say that these
30:21
contentions overlook the facts that existed at the time. And
30:24
so Jasmin Crockett interjects again, and I'm not contesting that.
30:30
I want you to know that I'm not contesting that representation.
30:33
What I'm asking you to do is transport us into
30:35
that room. If you're saying that there was an entire
30:39
team of people that came to that conclusion, my question
30:42
is that's still not giving you're saying that they were impeachable, Acosta.
30:47
So I'm going to offer you so you're looking for
30:49
a granularity, So if you look at the statements by
30:52
her sworn declaration and the FBI case agent, we can
30:55
start with several of the victims just refuse to talk
30:58
to investigators, to talk to agents. Crockett, let me ask
31:02
you this. So, if a witness refuses to speak with
31:06
law enforcement, you believe that makes them impeachable, Mister Acosta,
31:10
I don't believe that makes them impeachable. This is going
31:13
to the viability of the case, Miss Crockett. Okay, So
31:16
can we back up really quick? My question was and
31:19
the only reason I jumped in because my ears perked up,
31:22
because it seemed like one of the main reasons, if
31:24
not the main reason, for deciding that there was an
31:26
inherent weakness in the case had to do with multiple
31:29
victims being impeachable. So I'm trying to understand what is
31:33
it that was impeachable about multiple victims, Acosta. And if
31:39
you'll let me so, some victims just wouldn't talk, and
31:42
obviously they couldn't be impeached if they didn't talk, Miss Crockett, correct, Acosta, right.
31:48
Some victims said he did nothing wrong, just outright. And look,
31:51
you know, our prosecutors have been around the block, and no,
31:54
just because a young woman says he did nothing wrong,
31:57
that doesn't mean he did nothing wrong, Acosta. Many were
32:02
scared and didn't want to testify. You know, many had backgrounds.
32:05
Multiple kept going back to his house again and again.
32:08
And while nowadays that would be an issue, this was
32:11
two thousand and six. This was a time when Weinstein
32:13
and Cosby and all these other folks were doing what
32:16
they were doing. And something that we don't want to accept.
32:19
Let me rephrase that, because that's something that's really hard
32:22
for us to internalize is how much harder these cases
32:25
were back then. Victim shaming was more common. The support
32:29
structures that we have for victims today, all the victims rights,
32:32
the victims support structures didn't exist at the same extent
32:35
at the time. They didn't want to talk about it,
32:38
They said they did nothing wrong. Their stories changed over time.
32:42
This was not me speaking, This is telling you what
32:45
I was hearing from the prosecutors that did this again
32:48
and again. The women who came down from the child
32:51
exploitation section and to that Miss Stansbury objects or interjects
32:55
I should say, I'm sorry, Can I interrupt you just
32:57
really quickly on this particular point, And to that, Acosta's
33:01
lawyer pipes up, well, if he could finish Stansbury. I
33:04
just want to clarify because, as I understand it, the
33:07
lead prosecutor in the case actually sent you a memo
33:10
recommending prosecution and a drafted fifty three page indictment. Did
33:14
they not, mister Acosta. So we talked about this and
33:17
I'm happy to circle back if I could, miss Stansbury.
33:21
But you just asserted just now that the lead prosecutor
33:24
in the case did not recommend prosecution and indictment. Didn't
33:27
you just say that, Miss Crockett. No, no, no, mister Acosta,
33:32
what I did? And I can finish one question and
33:34
I'll get to years and get back Jasmin Crockett. I'll clarify.
33:38
I don't think that's what because we're trying to figure
33:40
out what they did not go. This is after they
33:44
were actually pursuing charges of some sort, and they were
33:46
trying to figure out why it was that they weren't
33:49
heading to a trial and why they decided to enter
33:52
into what has been characterized as the sweetheart deal, and
33:56
as I understood the testimony from the witness it was
33:58
because or partially because of impeachable issues with some of
34:01
the witnesses. But it doesn't sound like and you can finish,
34:04
for sure, I want you to finish. But everything that
34:07
you've said, it doesn't sound like there was very much impeachment.
34:11
It seems like we're going more so into territory. And
34:14
please correct me if I'm wrong that it was a
34:16
matter of it was just going to be a difficult prosecution,
34:20
which typically when dealing with child sex cases, which why
34:23
I'm happy that you're talking about the person who actually
34:26
had expertise in the area, because there are experts that
34:29
testify typically as it relates to children and their memories
34:33
and why the trauma of a lot of times can
34:34
cause them to have inconsistencies, and judges have consistently found
34:39
that those experts can take the stand so that juries
34:42
can have a full picture of what's going on. And
34:44
while I appreciate the time period, I do want to
34:46
clarify that I was practicing law by this time and
34:49
having to deal with some of these issues on the
34:51
defense side. So please continue. As you were talking, mister Acosta.
34:56
And I appreciate that, and I think it's an important question.
35:00
Was I miss Crockett the child exploitation Acosta? Yes, So
35:03
an expert in child's exploitation from Washington came down. This
35:07
was a bit later, but it sort of aligns. It
35:09
confirms the opinions of my prosecutors, of our prosecutors from
35:13
Washington came down, and she looked at the entire case
35:16
and this was these were her words. These aren't mine.
35:19
Where is it? I can find the exact quote right now,
35:22
But she looked at the entire case and she said,
35:25
there are a number of evidentiary issues and while there
35:28
are not quote unquote insurmountable, in her opinion, it was
35:31
quote unquote a crapshoot, mister mind which gets right into
35:35
my question, Acosta. And so we're looking at we're looking
35:38
at a case so from our perspective, and I sit
35:41
around the table with the managing attorney and the criminal
35:43
chief and all of that and talk about how do
35:45
we do this? The state attorneys candidly dropped the ball right.
35:49
The state attorneys offered pre trial diversion epstein. The Palm
35:53
Beach police wanted what I understood to be two years.
35:56
The state attorney offered probation. When Epstein reject to probation,
36:01
he said, okay, let's take it to the grand jury.
36:03
And the reason he wanted to take it to the
36:05
grand jury is there was great consternation within his office
36:09
about whether or not this case was the first place,
36:12
a viable case. So he took it to the grand jury.
36:15
He presented the grand jury all the charges from the
36:17
highest to the lowest, and he didn't have to do
36:20
a grand jury, but he chose to the grand jury
36:22
came back with a relatively low charge that made him
36:25
eligible for pre trial diversion. He entered into an agreement
36:29
with Epstein to do pre trial diversion. And then you know,
36:32
then what do we do. The Palm Beach police get
36:35
upset at the process, and this process comes to our office.
36:39
And so again the question is what is the value
36:42
of a sure thing where someone like him goes to
36:44
jail and has to register and you send a signal
36:47
to the community that he can't get away with all
36:49
of this versus going to trial and doing a crapshoot
36:52
quote unquote, not my words, or he might get away
36:54
with it again, all right, folks, we're gonna wrap up
36:57
right here and in the next episode dealing with the topic,
37:00
we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of
37:02
the information that goes with this topic can be found
37:05
in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to
37:08
another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're
37:12
gonna pick up where he left off with the Alex
37:14
Acosta deposition. Mister Garcia, mister Acosta, let me do this.
37:21
Do you have anything else to add to missus Crockett's
37:24
questioning Acosta? No, but he gets caught off by Garcia.
37:28
I'm going to let you finish briefly. Hold on a second,
37:31
I'm going to let you finish mister Min's question really briefly,
37:34
and mister Frost has a question, and then we're gonna
37:36
go back to the attorney. Mister Minn, I want to
37:39
rephrase the question and add a slight addendum. So, basically,
37:43
if you thought your case was weak based on the evidence,
37:46
and your chief prosecutor thought that the computer evidence, which
37:49
was not being produced by the defense, and a series
37:52
of notable back and forth, why would you not and
37:55
she thought, I don't want to say this would have
37:57
put the case completely to bed. That was a quote
38:00
from her. Why would you not support her efforts to
38:03
obtain that information and instead enter into either a settlement
38:06
or a non prosecution agreement? And then, as a follow up,
38:10
I just want to add that according to the OPR report,
38:13
Villafana learned that the computer equipment was in the possession
38:17
of a particular individual who was not identified in the
38:20
OPR report. Are you able to share with us who
38:23
that individual is, mister Acosta? So one, I am not
38:28
able to share who that individual is because I have
38:30
no idea, mister min Okay Acosta. Second, in my usual course,
38:35
I would sit around with my supervisory staff and we
38:38
talk about some of the issues that we just talked about.
38:41
We talk about policy issues. How the investigation proceeded, and
38:45
what they sought and the types of evidence that they sought.
38:48
Is not something that I typically became involved with. So
38:52
I can answer your question. What I can say is
38:55
at some point, at some point, the team thought that
38:58
it was appropriate to go forward with a plan of negotiation,
39:00
and we went forward with that, mister min. But you
39:04
didn't think that it was appropriate to get the computer evidence,
39:07
mister Acosta. I don't recall discussions about the computer evidence.
39:12
US attorney. This is an office much like I believe
39:15
you're from the LA area. This is an office very
39:18
similar to I'm sorry, are you from min Orange County? Acosta? Yeah, yeah,
39:23
so an office the size of pretty much the LA office.
39:27
There are multiple cases. As US attorney, I would get
39:31
involved in ultimate decisions such as, how do we plead this?
39:35
Do we go state versus? You know, do we do
39:38
a deferred prosecution to the state? What are the terms
39:41
that we're looking at. I had amazing attorneys that are
39:44
expert in this, and the gathering of evidence is something
39:47
that I would leave to them. Mister min I'm not
39:50
satisfied with that answer, but I will yield to my colleagues.
39:54
Mister Garcia, let's go to mister Frost. Mister Frost, I
39:58
want to chat really quick about the release. You mentioned
40:01
that you were writed objected to it, mister Acosta, Yes, Frost.
40:06
Was that to the sheriff directly or someone in the
40:09
office or who did you reach out to? Mister Acosta.
40:12
I don't recall, but our office reached out to whatever
40:16
upon beach authority, Whatever upon beach authority was responsible for
40:20
the work release. I believe it was the sheriff. It
40:23
may have been the State Attorney's office, but I'm leaning
40:25
in the direction of the sheriff because the sheriff is
40:28
the office that authorized that. We had received assurances from
40:32
both defense counsel and throughout the process that there would
40:35
be quote unquote continuous confinement. We understood that to be
40:39
the case. When the work release happened, I believed we
40:43
weren't even notified when we found out about it. The
40:46
office objected to it. Mister Frost, were these emails, mister Acosta,
40:51
I think it was. I don't know if it was
40:53
an email transmitting a letter, but I believe it was
40:56
an actual letter. Frost. Is the typical of your office
41:00
to send letters in terms of objecting to work release
41:03
or anything like that? Acosta? I don't know if that
41:06
was typical, and I want to check the record, But
41:09
mister Frost, do you have records on that? Acosta? Well,
41:13
I have the OPR report that goes into that and
41:15
talks about that. I don't have independent records, but I
41:19
do have the OPR report, and I believe there is
41:21
a page one hundred and thirteen talks about the assurances
41:24
they received and when it talks about sent a letter
41:28
to his attorney, and I believe a letter was ultimately
41:30
sent to the pom Beach Sheriff our office to that
41:33
he's cut off by mister Frost. You're saying that you
41:36
sent a letter to his attorney objecting on the work release. Acosta.
41:40
I believe the office sent a letter to his attorney, Frost,
41:44
and you might have sent a letter to the sheriff, Acosta.
41:48
I believe so the office fully objected. Twenty years later,
41:51
I do not know which letters went, but OPR found
41:55
that the office fully objected to this work release. It
41:58
was not what we thought. All of us were upset
42:00
about it. If we thought that he would have been
42:02
put out on work release, I would have looked really different,
42:06
because all of us thought very you know, all of
42:08
us caught off by Frost. Again. To your recollection, did
42:12
you give the order to object to it or did
42:14
someone under you make that decision and object to it.
42:17
You're saying the office objected to it, mister Acosta, to
42:20
my recollection, I don't think I had to give the
42:23
order because the entire office was upset over it, because
42:26
our understanding was that he would be in jail throughout
42:29
the entire time. What we were seeking is that he
42:32
would be in jail. Mister Frost, how often do these
42:36
objections lead to anything in your tenure as an attorney,
42:39
mister Acosta. As a general matter, if the US Attorney
42:43
objects to those types of things, often people do listen.
42:46
And if the US Attorney's office objects, often people do listen.
42:50
And if you look into the details of how we
42:52
obtain the work release, the details are troubling at best.
42:56
And so you know, I can't speak to what the
42:58
palm Beach did, but I can speak to the fact
43:01
that everyone in our office was upset because this was
43:04
not what we contemplated. Mister Garcia, Thank you, mister Frost.
43:08
We're going to go back to and then we have
43:11
that redacted question, mister Acosta. Just to follow up on
43:15
that answer, the OPR report took issue with your office
43:19
reliance on the state to ensure to that, Acosta cuts
43:23
them off. I'm sorry, Can I just interrupt you question?
43:26
Let me finish my question please. To ensure that mister
43:28
Epstein was incarcerated for his full sentence, and it faulted
43:32
your office for reposing that trust without the knowledge of
43:36
how the state system would work or an understanding of
43:39
the mechanisms of the state enforcement. Is that a conclusion
43:42
that you would dispute? Answer? I think so. I'm sorry,
43:45
But so the letter did go out to the question
43:48
division on the Pond Beach Sheriff's Office, and I believe
43:51
this was on December eleventh from the office, and so
43:54
I'm sorry, couljuris state question. Sure. My question is simply,
43:59
would you disagree with the opr's conclusion that reposing trust
44:02
in the state to ensure that Jeffrey Epstein served as
44:05
full sentence in state prison was an error in judgment? Answer?
44:09
I wouldn't. I would not disagree. I think the state
44:12
turned out to be an unreliable partner on multiple levels,
44:16
and had we known the way it would have gone,
44:20
we would have not have done so. And so yes,
44:22
that is on me question Okay. I wanted to return
44:25
to a point that you made earlier because I think
44:27
it's pretty fundamental to our conversation. You've spoken a lot
44:32
about your office assessment of the litigation risk, which informed
44:36
the decision of whether to plead or to precede the trial.
44:40
That's an assessment that every US attorney's office makes in
44:43
every case. Would you agree with that answer? I think
44:47
to call it litigation risk under values what it's about,
44:50
because it's not just about the risk of trial. It's
44:53
about signals that are sent to the community. But that
44:56
is certainly something that is part of every case. Question okay,
45:00
And you know there were clearly different views within the
45:03
office about whether it was advisable to go to trial
45:06
or not. But it didn't follow from the existence of
45:09
litigation risk or the other implication that you've described of
45:13
potentially going to trial that the result should be a
45:17
non prosecution agreement to a single stay charge and an
45:20
eighteen month sentence. That was not an inexorable resolution whether
45:24
or not there was litigation risk. Is that correct answer?
45:29
So the litigation, So I understand your question. But the
45:32
litigation because of the viability of the case, because of
45:35
some legal issues that we've already discussed, and because of
45:38
the importance to the community of putting them away and
45:41
sending the signal that people like him can't get away
45:44
with it. We made the assessment and I ultimately approved
45:48
two years registration and question two years incarceration. Answer, two
45:53
years incarceration registration and a mechanism for victims to recover
45:58
some monetary money, not because it makes them whole, but
46:01
because it at least would help. Question. I understand that. Answer.
46:06
In the process of negotiations, some of those terms change
46:10
from twenty four months to eighteen months. Question sure, answer,
46:14
and the trial term to that a costa is once
46:17
again interrupted. Question. I understand all that, But my question
46:22
is the NPA wasn't the only possible resolution? Right? You
46:26
could have pled the federal charges. You had a line
46:29
prosecutor who proposed fifty three counts, so there clearly was
46:32
a lot of middle ground in between your assessment of
46:35
litigation risk and the outcome that you ultimately agree to.
46:39
Isn't that right? Answer? So if your question, if your
46:42
question is was the defense to the state the only
46:46
possible outcome, my answer would be no. We could have
46:49
proceeded federally with, for example, a three seventy one with
46:53
a rule eleven. Question thank you, next person asking questions
46:57
again redacted, mister Acosta, I'm going to change gears a bit.
47:02
When did you first become aware that Donald Trump had
47:05
a social relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? Answer? So, I haven't
47:10
the slightest idea, but I certainly not during the pendency
47:13
of the case question and as part of the investigation
47:17
into Jeffrey Epstein while you were US attorney, was Donald
47:21
Trump ever interviewed? Answer? Not to my knowledge, but also
47:25
to be clear, I would know as a general matter
47:28
who was interviewed or not interviewed, because as I mentioned
47:31
to the gentleman from is it from California earlier? I
47:34
was trying to remember the city, sorry, the gentleman from California.
47:38
It would not have been my practice to get involved
47:40
in who was and was not interviewed or the how
47:44
the evidence was acquired. Question understood, But you to that,
47:48
Miss Stansbury interjects. Can I follow up on that question, Acosta,
47:54
But let me be clear, to my knowledge, mister Trump,
47:56
President Trump was not interviewed, Miss Stansbury, I just want
48:00
to follow up on that specific question. So it was
48:03
not part of your practice in making decisions about whether
48:06
to prosecute or not prosecute, to actually review the three
48:09
O twos and evidentiary investigatory things that were collected as
48:13
part of a case, Acosta, So so stuttering a bit here,
48:18
Stansbury interjects, again, it's just a simple question, Acosta, and
48:23
I'm going to give you a full some answer. So,
48:25
as general practice, in a US Attorney's office, there are
48:28
experienced prosecutors and they look at the three twos and
48:32
they look at to that cut off by Stansbury. Again,
48:35
But did you in this case, It's just a yes
48:37
or no. Did you review the three O twos in
48:39
this case? Acosta? As US attorney, it was not my
48:44
practice to review three O twos Stansbury, But did you
48:48
in this case? Acosta? In this case, I did not
48:51
review the three O twos redacted? Thank you. All right, folks,
48:55
We're going to wrap up right here, and in the
48:57
next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick
48:59
up where we left off. All of the information that
49:02
goes with this episode can be found in the description box.