Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Part 13-15) (5/18/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Part 13-15) (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 dive right
0:05
back in to the alex Acosta deposition that was given
0:10
to Congress. Once again, alex Acosta doing the answering, and
0:14
various people are asking the questions. Question, I understand that
0:19
in December of two thousand and eight you accused yourself
0:21
from the Epstein investigation. Answer I did. Question Is that right?
0:27
And that was at a time when you were engaged
0:28
in discussions with Kirkland about returning there as an attorney.
0:32
Is that right? Answer? I was not engaged in discussions
0:35
with Kirkland about returning as an attorney. Question, okay. Answer.
0:40
This was after he had gone to jail and after
0:42
he pled the election had just taken place. I was
0:45
considering whether to apply to private practice, whether at Kirkland
0:48
or any other law office. I had a general conversation
0:51
at the time with mister Lefkowitz about what private practice
0:54
was like. I had in practice since the mid nineties
0:57
and thought it best to have And I also had
0:59
a general conversation with several other folks in Miami about
1:02
private practice. I thought it best to accuse because it's
1:06
at the same time that our office started objecting to
1:09
the Pombeux Sheriff's decision to put him on work release.
1:12
Given the number of attorneys that they had on the case.
1:15
I did not think that it made sense to enter
1:17
a job market when I was in charge of this case,
1:20
and so I accused myself. Question, so, if I can
1:23
unpack that a bit, At what point in time did
1:25
you begin to consider returning to private practice? Answer? Most
1:29
likely after the election. Before the election, I had been
1:33
looking into and ended up rejecting private practice and going
1:36
into the legal academy. I consider applying to my old
1:39
law school for a practitioner position for a period of time.
1:44
At the time, I believe I had a conversation with
1:46
our ethics council about whether I had to recuse because
1:49
mister Dershowitz was one of the defense attorneys. Either he
1:53
decided or consulted with the department and decided I did
1:57
not have to recuse because mister Dershowitz would not be
1:59
in my being hired, whether at the Kennedy School or
2:03
the law school. I believe I also applied right around
2:06
the time to the University of Miami, and then ultimately
2:09
went to FIU. Question when did you have your conversation
2:13
with mister Lefkowitz. Answer sometime around Thanksgiving? Question Thanksgiving of
2:19
answer wait post election question? And was this an in
2:24
person conversation over or over the phone? Answer? It was
2:27
in person? Question, it was in person where answer it
2:31
was over dinner. I don't recall question. What did you
2:34
discuss to the extent you recall answer? So it was
2:38
twenty years ago. What I can infer was on my
2:40
mind is how does one transition from being a government
2:43
lawyer for eight years into private practice? He having been
2:47
a government lawyer and then having returned to private practice,
2:51
and what private practice is like. But again, it was
2:55
twenty years ago. And to be clear, I did not
2:57
seek a position. I did not apply for a busy.
3:00
I ultimately determined not to pursue private practice. Question Thanksgiving
3:05
of A Wait is roughly, by my calculation, five months
3:08
after Epstein entered his plea, did you discuss mister Epstein
3:12
with mister Lefkowitz at all? Answer? Not to my recollection,
3:15
And there's no reason because it was far after the plea.
3:19
Question Thank you. I'm going to now shift back to
3:22
the conduct of your Office investigation into mister Epstein, And
3:26
just as an initial matter, when you first became aware
3:29
of the investigation, did you perceive that there was a
3:31
federal interest in investigating mister Epstein? Answer? So it was
3:35
twenty years ago. I honestly perceived that there was an
3:38
interest in having him go to jail. And I think
3:41
my initial reaction would have been, where is the federal interest?
3:44
But how can we get them to go to jail?
3:46
Because it was brought up in the context of look
3:49
at what the state is doing. But I would say that, yes,
3:52
there is a federal interest, and I felt as an
3:55
ethical matter, If the question is an ethical matter, did
3:58
I feel comfortable bringing a case? I believe they're sufficient
4:01
federal nexus to bring a case with the caveat of
4:04
all the issues we've already discussed, Miss Stansbury, given what
4:08
you just said about their being significant federal interests to
4:11
bring a case and an interest in his potential prosecution.
4:14
You know you said in the first hour that we
4:16
talked to you that you felt or was it on
4:19
the recommendation or you said your team said that some
4:22
of the witnesses may have lack credibility. Let me finish
4:26
my question very quickly. Let me just say, if you
4:28
felt there was a federal interest in the case and
4:30
the evidence was pointing in the direction of a potential prosecution,
4:34
why did you not pursue additional witnesses, additional evidence, and
4:38
potentially instead of giving a non prosecution agreement to co conspirators,
4:42
actually questioning them and collecting further evidence and their cooperation
4:47
to prosecute them. Mister Acosta, let me unpack that if
4:50
I could, and let me start off with the word credibility,
4:53
because I've heard that some of my comments have been
4:56
mischaracterized to say that I thought that the witnesses lack credibility.
5:00
I believe what I had said, and if that's not
5:03
what I said, then you know, I want to correct
5:05
the record. I believe that I said. That was every
5:08
prosecutor in our office believed what had happened and believed
5:12
the witnesses, but we also understood the defense would have
5:15
withering impeachment, and at the end of some they didn't
5:19
want to talk and wouldn't talk to us, and at
5:21
the end of the day, that affected the viability of
5:23
a federal case. It affected what the outcome would have been.
5:27
Miss Stansbury so why did you not pursue other witnesses
5:30
or cooperation with co conspirators, mister Acosta. And so the
5:35
office opened the file I believe sometime around May two
5:38
thousand and six, it could have been June two thousand
5:40
and six, and investigated it for an entire year. The
5:44
prosecuting attorney, the case agents, pursued leads as they saw fit,
5:48
investigated as they saw fit, spoke with the individuals as
5:52
they saw fit, do what they're trained, did what they're
5:55
trained to do, which is to pursue the case. At
5:58
some point, as they're doing the investigation, they felt that
6:00
it was time to move to the next stage, which
6:03
is to proceed to bring charges so he can go
6:05
to jail. And it's at this point that the case
6:08
came up to our office, to my personal office, for
6:11
discussions about how to resolve it. And so to think
6:14
or to say we did not pursue is mischaracterizing what
6:17
took place, Miss Stansbury. I'm asking after it was elevated
6:22
to your office for a decision about whether or not
6:24
to proceed with a prosecution, if you will let me
6:27
ask this. This is just a yes or no question.
6:30
Did you personally come to the conclusion that there was
6:33
not sufficient evidence to prosecute. Just a yes or no,
6:36
mister Acosta. So I can't answer that yes or no
6:39
with respect because it's not a their sufficient evidence to prosecute.
6:43
Is there not sufficient evidence to prosecute? Then, as an
6:46
ethical matter, if you don't think there's sufficient evidence, you
6:49
can't go forward, Miss Stansbury. But you could have. You
6:53
could have decided at that point the case was not ready.
6:56
We should collect additional evidence, statements and cooperation. Correct Acosta
7:01
in theory, despite the fact that my career experts in
7:04
the field were saying the case is ready, I could
7:06
have said, no, I don't think the case is ready.
7:09
We should collect additional information, Stansbury. So just pausing it
7:13
right there, you could have said, yes, let the case
7:16
is not ready, let's not proceed yet. But instead you
7:19
decided to pursue a non prosecution agreement, mister Acosta. So again,
7:24
I think this is a mischaracterization of the process. The
7:27
career attorneys had decided that the case was ready to
7:30
proceed to that he's cut off by Stansbury, and which
7:34
of the career attorneys Acosta in this case. I suspect
7:37
that would have been Miss Villa Fauna, because I don't
7:39
as a general course, I don't get involved in how
7:42
evidence is gathered. I believe that would have been Miss
7:45
Villa Fauna, the supervising attorney, in consultation with the Palm
7:48
Beach managing attorney, and perhaps the criminal chief, Miss Stansbury.
7:53
So Andrew Lorie and Matt Menchell and Jeff Slowman. Is
7:56
that correct? Those were the supervisors Acosta, Yeah, I doubt
7:59
this have gotten to Jeff Sloman's level at some point
8:03
when they thought they had the case was ready to
8:04
go forward. Then we would have had a discussion about resolutions,
8:08
and I will own the resolution. I will readily admit
8:11
that I approved the term sheet. But when that was approved,
8:15
it came up in the context of a case that
8:16
was ready to go. It did not come up in
8:18
the context if we need additional time. If anything, there
8:22
was an interest on the part of the prosecuting attorney
8:25
to move the case more quickly. Miss Stansbury, Okay, so
8:28
let's follow up very quickly there. So you know, in
8:31
communication with your office it was discussed that you had
8:34
prosecutorial discretion about whether or not to move forward with
8:37
the case, and you chose instead. That was your decision
8:41
to move a non prosecution agreement, correct, Acosta. I approved
8:45
the negotiation of the non prosecution agreement, Stansbury. And so
8:49
can you tell me was there anyone in the chain
8:51
of command between Marie Villafauna and you who recommended it
8:55
not be prosecuted or that you move a non prosecution Acosta.
9:00
I don't recommend. I don't recall anyone that recommended that
9:03
we not proceed with the case, Stansbury. So everyone in
9:07
the chain of command, from the line prosecutor up to
9:09
you was recommending prosecuting, Acosta. No, if I could your
9:14
question was proceed with the case? Stansbury. Well, let me
9:18
ask the question I'm asking, not the one you want
9:20
to answer. The question I'm asking is is there anyone
9:23
in the chain of command between the line prosecutor of
9:26
Villa Fauna and you when the recommendation came up, who
9:29
recommended to you to pursue a non prosecution agreement? Acosta.
9:34
So this was twenty years ago. Everyone in the chain
9:36
of command was recommending that we proceed with the negotiated resolution.
9:41
There was a discussion about whether that should be Stansbury
9:45
cuts them off. I don't think that's correct, right, because
9:48
we know that the line prosecutor provided a memo and
9:50
an indictment. So you're saying every single person in the
9:53
chain of command from the line prosecutor to you, was
9:57
recommending that you don't prosecute. No, that's not what I said, Stansbury.
10:03
Let me have an affirmative statement, Acosta. Right, so what
10:06
I said, and I don't have the declaration in front
10:08
of me. I wish I did. Stansbury, Let me ask
10:12
the question in a different way, because I don't want
10:14
to parse words. You said you had a discussion with
10:16
your senior team, and as I understand it based on
10:19
the documentation, there was Marie Villa Fauna, she had two
10:23
field supervisors, then Jeff Slowman, and then you you signed
10:27
off on proceeding with the non prosecution agreement. So, going
10:31
back to what you stated earlier today, I'm trying to
10:33
understand what inform your thinking when you decided to proceed
10:37
with a non prosecution agreement rather than telling the field
10:40
of prosecutors to continue to pursue the evidence and build
10:43
a stronger case. Acosta. Okay, So, miss Villa Fauna, the
10:47
line prosecutor, the prosecuting attorney in Swarren's statement said the
10:51
following Stansbury. No, I'm asking about your own thought process, Acosta.
10:56
But I'm trying to answer your question. If I could
10:59
some have a lie that Epstein would have easily been
11:01
convicted and all the victims were eager to participate in
11:04
a full fledged federal prosecution. As a prosecutor who handled
11:08
the investigation, I can say that these contentions overlook the
11:11
facts that existed at the time. She then goes on
11:15
to say that the favored and negotiated resolution, that she
11:18
thought it was in the interest of the victims and
11:20
the office, and it was her understanding that the office
11:23
as a whole favored a negotiated resolution. Miss Stansbury, did
11:28
you read her memo and the indictment? Mister Acosta? If you,
11:31
Stansbury cuts him off again, and do you have copies
11:34
of the documents? Acosta? If I can finish my statement, Stansbury,
11:38
But can you answer the question? Acosta? Can I please
11:41
finish my sentence, then I'll answer your question. Stansbury. Can
11:45
you answer that question please? Acosta. If you go to
11:48
the OPR report, the managing attorney of the Palm Beach
11:51
office favored a negotiated resolution, The criminal chief favored a
11:55
negotiated resolution, The first assistant favored a negotiated resolution. Miss Stansbury,
12:02
we're asking about people that were in your chain of command, Acosta.
12:06
These were all in my chain of command. They were
12:09
my supervisory staff, and also the entire chain favored and
12:12
negotiated resolution, Miss Stansbury. Was that before or after you
12:16
made the decision to proceed to a non prosecution, mister Acosta?
12:21
That was before Stansbury? Okay, have you read Miss Villafana's
12:25
memo and indictment? Acosta? So that was twenty years ago.
12:28
I don't recall if I read it or not. Miss Stansbury,
12:31
you don't know if your own line you made a
12:33
decision on a case about non prosecuting a high profile
12:36
case without reading the memo of the line prosecutor, mister Acosta.
12:42
So let me answer fully, because I was cut off.
12:44
It was twenty years ago. I don't remember any document
12:46
that I read twenty years ago. It was a long time.
12:49
What I do know is that there was a fullsome
12:51
discussion that we would have talked about this. I may
12:54
have read it. I may have sat around the table
12:57
and said, let's go over the document, and you flipped
12:59
through it. We have had conversations among senior staff about it.
13:03
You know, this is no different than legislation, where sometimes
13:06
it's read. Sometimes you rely on your staff for some reason,
13:09
and you empower your staff to do it correctly, which
13:11
I did. Stansbury. Can I ask you a follow up question, Acosta? Yes, Stansbury,
13:17
is the memo and draft indictment in the files at
13:19
the DOJ for this case? Mister Acosta, I don't know
13:22
if it's in the files. I would presume it's in
13:24
the files, but that's a question for the Department of Justice,
13:28
Miss Stansbury. But it would be reasonable to presume that
13:31
it's in the files, the DOJ files, Mister Acosta, I
13:35
have no reason to think otherwise, Miss Stansbury. And then
13:39
my second question, just going back, I think we're really
13:41
trying to understand the motivation to pursue non prosecution. Can
13:45
you lay it out to us very clearly and simply
13:47
what evidence and your own thought process that led you
13:50
to decide rather than continuing to prosecute the case, you
13:53
decided to move to a non prosecution agreement. Mister Acosta.
13:58
So I think maybe part of the difficult to hear
14:00
his terminology because the non prosecution agreement was not prosecution.
14:04
The non prosecution agreement was backstopping the state to obtain
14:08
a guilty plea through the state system. Mss Stansbury. But
14:12
you well, actually, yeah, that is terminology thing. You chose
14:15
not to pursue a federal case. That's a non prosecution
14:18
of a federal case. So I understand where you're headed
14:21
with that line, but let's go back. I want to
14:23
hear your line of thinking as US attorney as to
14:27
why you decided to not pursue a federal case based
14:30
on the evidence. Mister Acosta. Okay, So if you're willing
14:34
to indulge me to allow me to finish the question,
14:36
I think I understand what you're asking. I will try
14:38
to answer the question. This case came to the US
14:41
Attorney's office on a referral from the Palm Beach Police,
14:44
which is unusual. Usually we get our cases from the FBI.
14:48
It came from the Palm Beach Police because the Palm
14:50
Beach State Attorney. They wanted the Palm Beach State Attorney
14:53
to bring charges and they wanted the Palm Beach State
14:55
attorney to bring three charges that would have resulted in
14:58
what I understood at the time to be about two
15:00
years imprisonment. The Palm Beach State attorney initially then offered
15:04
they said, we have looked at the evidence, we don't
15:06
feel comfortable with the evidence. We don't think the case
15:09
is viable, and they offered a resolution of probation. My
15:13
understanding is that Epstein rejected the state attorney's probation resolution,
15:17
at which point the state attorney, even though he could
15:19
have indicted, took it to a grand jury and asked
15:21
the grand jury to decide how to proceed. And the
15:24
grand jury took a look from the highest to the
15:26
lowest charge, and they took a look at this. The
15:28
grand jury returned to charge that would have allowed for
15:31
pre trial diversion, and that's how the case first came
15:34
to us. In that context, the first assistant at some
15:37
point early in two thousand and six, asked the then
15:40
prosecuting attorney to start what's called appetite waiver. Upetite waiver
15:44
is a case that allows for double prosecution. If a
15:47
state prosecution is so manifestly unjust, then the federal government
15:51
can prosecute it as well, and so it came into
15:54
our office in the context of a state case where
15:56
we might be doing a double prosecution. So fast forward
16:00
one year, give or take. The case is investigated further
16:03
by our office, and it's time to proceed to a resolution.
16:06
And there are two paths on which we can proceed.
16:09
One would be a federal resolution, and the federal resolution
16:13
was the most talked about, was the three seventy one
16:16
and the other path, which would have been which would
16:18
have been capped at much less than the guideline range,
16:21
that would have been the negotiated plea, and the other
16:24
path is a state resolution. Everyone in the office felt
16:28
a negotiated outcome was the best choice. Everyone miss Stansbury did.
16:32
They all feel that a non federal prosecution was correct.
16:35
A cost If you'll allow me to answer, I'm trying
16:37
to Stansbury. I'm going to come back to it, but
16:40
I want you to finish the story. But just pin
16:43
right in this moment a COSTA right. I'm going to
16:45
go where you'd like to go. Just let me finish Stansbury, Okay, Acosta.
16:50
Everyone in the office felt the negotiated resolution was the
16:53
best outcome. Stansbury under state charges Acosta. A negotiated resolution
16:59
was the best Stansbury. I just want an answer to
17:02
that question, Acosta, it was the best outcome, Stansbury. Did
17:06
you agree state versus federal in your office? Acosta? On
17:11
the continuum of state versus federal, I believe the line
17:13
attorney probably had concerns about preceding state. I think the
17:17
statutory or supervisor attorneys were in between and did not
17:22
feel strongly one way or the other. I think a
17:24
fair way to characterize was that the federal versus state
17:28
was more my concern than their concern, although they felt
17:31
comfortable proceeding with the non state charges. And at no
17:35
point do I recall the supervisory attorney saying we should
17:37
not do this, Miss Stansbury. But the Uldiman call to
17:42
proceed federally was yours, mister Acosta. The ultimate call was mine,
17:46
as I've said, as I've said previously, it was my decision, Stansbury.
17:51
And why That's what we're trying to understand. I want
17:53
to know why, Acosta. Well, the why is it had
17:56
come up as a state case. Stansbury. No, what's your
18:00
thought process? Like? Why were you like, Okay, we've got
18:03
forty witness statements a child sex abuse. These are federal crimes.
18:07
Why were you like, no, we're going to just send
18:09
it back to state who didn't think that it was
18:11
going to handle it competently to begin with, mister Garcia.
18:15
And then I have a question. As soon as she's
18:17
done with that one, I have a question, Stansbury. This
18:21
is the part that I don't understand, Like even in
18:23
your timeline just there where you're saying that part of
18:26
why the Feds got involved is because there was a
18:29
feeling that the state wasn't going to fully prosecute the case.
18:32
It's also child sex trafficking a federal crime. Why did
18:36
you what was going on in your head that made
18:38
you decide to not pursue it federally? A costa so
18:41
you've labeled it a child sex trafficking And one of
18:44
the discussions we've had today has to do with federal
18:47
nexus and fulsome conversations that we've had within the office.
18:51
Because we didn't have any evidence that there was travel, Stansbury,
18:54
that there was what a costa travel? We didn't have
18:57
any evidence that Epstein traveled across state lines with any
19:00
of the victims. Stansbury, what about the witness statements that
19:03
they had been flown on his jet up to his
19:05
private island. That's evidence to travel across day lines. Acosta
19:09
saw my recollection, we did not have the evidence of travel.
19:13
And the reason that I'm willing, the reason that I
19:16
say that is not based on independent recollection, but based
19:19
on the fact that the OPR report, which talks about
19:21
the contemporaneous discussions in the office and interviews with the
19:25
various attorneys in the office, has a long discussion about
19:28
the viability of bringing a federal case based on transporting victims,
19:32
but on mister Epstein's travel on his own to South Florida,
19:35
and whether or not or whether or not the purpose
19:37
of travel was a purpose predominant purpose. For example, on
19:41
page I think thirty four Stansbury. Okay, she interrupts. I
19:46
understand the point you're trying to make about travel, but
19:48
let me go back to the thought process. Acosta. But
19:52
can I answer your question fully, Stansbury. But I think
19:55
we're coming at here is like the evidence and witness
19:58
statements were very clearly appointed to in the direction of
20:00
abuse of miners. Acosta, yes, Stansbury, Yes, And it was
20:05
the overwhelming consensus of the line prosecutor to pursue a
20:08
federal prosecution. You stated a little while ago that it
20:12
was viewed that the state might not fully prosecute the
20:15
case or hold him accountable, that he could be incarcerated.
20:19
So why did you say, Okay, this guy has been
20:21
involved in abusing miners, we have the statements, we know
20:24
what's happening. Why did you not proceed with the case? Garcia?
20:28
And then after this question, I have a question Stansbury. Yeah,
20:32
Acosta's so two points. First, you know, we thought that
20:35
the state would be from our perspective, we thought we
20:38
hand the case back to the state, the state will say,
20:41
thank you, we can now put him away in jail
20:43
and have him in continuous confinement for X number of
20:46
months or two years. Stansbury, But your non prosecution agreement
20:51
said they couldn't, Acosta. No, it actually said that they
20:54
could and should. And we thought that if we went
20:57
back to the state, that the state would be a
20:59
reliable partner. Should I have assumed that, No, I should
21:02
not have assumed that, Stansbury. You thought the state, based
21:05
on your discussions, was going to fully investigate and prosecute
21:08
after you engaged in the non prosecution agreement. Mister Acosta,
21:12
that's not what I said, stans Perry, No, I'm asking
21:15
the question, Acosta. So I thought that the state would
21:18
be a reliable partner and put him in jail for
21:21
the period of time that he agreed to go in
21:23
and put them and not put him on work release. Stansberry. Okay,
21:26
so you did not believe that they were going to
21:28
fully investigate and prosecute Acosta. Can you allow me to finish, Stansbury.
21:34
It's actually not my point, it's yours, and I'm going
21:36
to pass it back to the ranking member. Mister Garcia.
21:40
Let's move on. I appreciate it, all right, folks. We're
21:43
going to wrap up right here, and in the next
21:45
episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where
21:47
we left off. All of the information that goes with
21:49
the episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
21:54
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
21:57
this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
21:59
off with the alex Acosta deposition once again, alex Acosta
22:03
answering questions and various members of the committee doing the questioning.
22:09
Mister Garcia, let's move on. I appreciate it. Mister Acosta,
22:13
I'm going to pass it back, just really briefly, just
22:16
back to the line. Prosecutor, Miss Villa Fauna, I believe
22:19
did you believe that she was a credible prosecutor, mister Acosta, Yes,
22:23
I did. Garcia, in your recollection of her work, you
22:27
would have found her to have been a good prosecutor.
22:30
Mister Acosta, yes, I would have and I did. Mister Garcia, Okay, great,
22:35
I just wanted to make sure that we established that.
22:37
And then mister redacted, do you want to first have
22:40
I know we've got twenty minutes. Do you want to
22:43
take another fifteen and then the last five minutes you
22:45
want to go to miss and sorry, go ahead, sure,
22:49
Miss Stansbury, and I have one more set of questions
22:52
before the end of the hour, if possible, mister Garcia,
22:55
one more question at the end of the hour. Stansbury, Yeah,
22:58
before the end of the hour. Garcia, Okay, let's go
23:01
ahead and try and get through this next round of questions.
23:03
Then Miss Ansorry and then Miss Stansbury can wrap it up.
23:07
Miss Stansbury, I'll go after because it's a slightly different topic.
23:12
Mister adacted, just following up on the previous conversation, I
23:16
did want a note for the record that, according to
23:18
the OPR report, and I'm quoting from page forty, Miss
23:21
Villafana was opposed to the state based resolution, and the
23:24
report states, quote, in Villafana's view, the proposed state resolution
23:29
quote didn't make any sense end quote did not correspond
23:34
unquote to Department policy requiring that plea offer reflect quote
23:38
the most serious, readily approvable offense. And that's quoting from
23:42
the Ashcroft memo. Is that your consistent recollection answers. So
23:48
my recollection as I present it previously, which I would
23:51
characterize her as being the most in favor of a
23:53
federal and at least in favor of a state, what
23:56
she told OPR, is much stronger than at no point
23:59
do I recall her telling me I am opposed to this,
24:02
and so what she told OPR is a much stronger
24:05
characterization of her position than my recollection of what she
24:09
told me. Question, do you have any reasonab believe she
24:12
was being untruthful when she spoke with OPR? Answer? Not
24:15
at all. Question, okay, answer, but I do think that
24:19
over time people question I'm sorry, he gets cut off
24:23
on that, Miss Villa Fauna. Can we agree that this
24:25
line prosecutor, she was the most closely acquainted with the evidence? Answer?
24:29
I think that's fair. But I also think that given
24:32
the degree of involvement mister Minchell had in this case,
24:35
mister Minchell was very closely associated with the evidence, and
24:39
he had been a former sex crimes prosecutor, and so
24:42
he received quite a bit of deference. I should say
24:46
that the office has substantial disagreements with her analysis. For example,
24:50
on page thirty four, Lorie sentimental he gets cut off again.
24:55
That's okay. I will get to those issues as we proceed.
24:58
I just want to address an issue with respect to
25:00
the victims and concerns you had described with respect to
25:04
what certain people in your office viewed as the impeachability
25:07
of them as witnesses at trial. The OPR report found
25:11
that your office identified thirty two victims that the office
25:15
was prepared to include in federal charges against mister Epstein.
25:19
Did you, or anyone else in the office do any
25:21
sort of quantitive analysis as to how many of those
25:24
thirty two were impeachable verses more credible on the spectrum? Answer?
25:29
I'm certain that the supervisory team sat down and went
25:31
through that. That's what they do. That's what they do. Question,
25:35
but do you have any personal knowledge of that? Answer?
25:38
I don't have personal I didn't ask them show me
25:41
the chart where you went through this memo. But this
25:43
is what they do for a living. I wouldn't ask
25:45
them in any case to show me the chart because
25:47
this is what they do for a living every day.
25:50
Question but thirty two victims is a lot of potential victims.
25:53
Does it seem plausible that all thirty two were unreliable
25:56
witnesses at trial? Answer? I do know. One of the
26:00
concerns that Miss Villafana had, and this again going back
26:03
to her declaration, was the interlocking nature of the victims
26:06
and whether or not it could be betrayed that they
26:08
were supporting one another, and whether it was possible to
26:11
bring the case with interlocking victims that had all not
26:15
at all, many of whom had previously known each other.
26:18
Question but again, do you have any personal knowledge that
26:22
she took that view to ask to all thirty two? Answer?
26:26
I don't and I wouldn't, and I don't think it's
26:28
appropriate to sit down and ask your prosecutors to show
26:31
me the chart with respect to all thirty two question,
26:34
and I'm just going to note that the Southern District
26:36
of New York in twenty nineteen charged mister Epstein on
26:40
several federal accounts on the basis of only two unnamed
26:43
victims in its indictment. Are you aware of that? Answer?
26:48
I'm aware that they charged on the basis of a number.
26:50
I didn't know it was two. I may have known
26:52
that it was two. But again, question, I think you've
26:56
answered my question, mister Acosta, Thank you, I appreciate that.
27:00
Back to mister An Sorry, did you have some questions?
27:03
Mister an sorry, sure, very different topic. I'm curious about
27:07
your resignation from the first Trump administration. First of all,
27:11
you were offered a position in the Trump administration as
27:14
it pertains to or because of your role in the
27:16
Jeffrey Epstein prosecution. Acosta not in the least bit, no,
27:21
mister an Sorry, okay. And why did you resign from
27:24
your position in the administration, mister Acosta, The resignation was
27:28
my choice. I resigned from the position. And let me
27:31
just say I was not asked to resign. It was
27:34
not suggested by anyone at the White House that I
27:36
resigned I resigned. You know, I think I said earlier
27:39
on old School. I think that you come into these jobs,
27:42
you serve, and you leave, and they're special and they're
27:45
a privilege. And if you become a distraction, then it's
27:48
not appropriate for you to serve in these jobs. So
27:50
I made a decision. I called the White House shortly
27:53
after breakfast, asked them to speak to the President. I
27:55
told them that it was time for me to move on.
27:59
I did not want to be a distraction to this administration,
28:02
and I chose to resign. We stepped out onto the
28:04
South lawn. He did an impromptu press conference right there,
28:08
and that's why I resigned. And that's what I wrote,
28:10
and I actually mean what I write usually, So yes,
28:13
mister ant sorry, and I think we touched on this
28:16
a little bit earlier, But just to reemphasize, have you
28:19
ever discussed the Epstein investigation or Jeffrey Epstein with Donald
28:22
Trump prior to your confirmation, mister Acosta, I had not,
28:26
mister an Sorry, okay, mister redacted question, how about anyone
28:31
in the White House? Answer? So, as I said a
28:33
little bit earlier, at some point in the confirmation process,
28:36
the Epstein matter came up, and at that point, I know,
28:39
I don't recall who, but I do know I discussed
28:41
it with the communication staff. I think it may have
28:44
been in the context of a Washington Post article, but
28:47
it may have been before that. I don't remember. I
28:50
know that there was a Washington Post article above the
28:52
fold at some point. Question, So to be clear, Acosta,
28:57
but I am finishing answering I discussed it with other people.
29:01
Gets cut off again. Question let's back up a little bit, Acosta. Okay,
29:05
question when you were first approached about it potentially serving
29:08
in the Trump administration? Answer? So I wasn't approached. I
29:12
approached the Trump administration about serving in the Trump administration.
29:16
Question and one was that answer sometime after the election.
29:20
Question after the election and before the inauguration or after
29:23
the inauguration. Answer? Probably sometime after the inauguration. But I
29:29
want to complete my previous answer. At some point in
29:32
the vetting or a confirmation process, I may have also
29:35
discussed this with you go through an FBI background check,
29:38
and it may or may not have come up, and
29:40
I may have talked with folks about that during the
29:43
vetting process. Mister ants, Sorry, do you remember who you
29:46
spoke to mister Acosta. Whoever is involved in vetting. I
29:51
didn't say I spoke to I said I may have
29:53
and whoever would have been involved in that. But that
29:56
was after I was given the position, not given the position,
29:59
that that would be an awful misnomer. That after it
30:02
was publicly announced that I would be nominated while I
30:05
was being vetted. Question by mister redacted. So you mentioned
30:10
that you approach the Trump administration? Answer? Yes, question who
30:14
did you approach? Answer? I believe I approached. The system
30:17
had been set up that was operated at a Trump tower,
30:21
and I submitted my name through that system. Question And
30:24
after you approach the Trump administration and before your confirmation?
30:27
Did you speak to Donald Trump at all? Answer? Before
30:30
my confirmation? Yes, before I was before he selected me
30:34
as Secretary of Labor. Then I spoke to him. And
30:37
what did you say during that conversation? Answer? So he
30:40
asked me some questions, none of them related to Epstein
30:42
in any way. They were all related to my background.
30:45
They were all related to Labor. I answered the questions,
30:48
and the next day he selected me. Question did you
30:51
discuss your time at the US Attorney's Office for the
30:54
Southern District of Florida. Answer, beyond an item on my resume. First,
30:59
I don't know if I did or did not, but
31:01
it was an item on my resume, and I'm certain
31:03
he had my resume. Question So, just so I'm clear
31:07
with the timeline, and please correct me if I'm wrong,
31:09
did you say you received the nomination before you went
31:12
through a vetting process? Answer? So, I believe there's an announcement,
31:16
and once the announcement is made, then the FBI vetting
31:19
process begins, the nomination is transmitted, and then the typical
31:22
confirmation process. That's not unusual. Question sure answer Garcia could
31:28
ask a follow up, Garcia first parts in audible, then
31:32
vetting an interview or into a vetting process before the
31:35
announcement was made. Mister Acosta, So I had been vetted
31:39
by the FBI from multiple positions before I had been interviewed.
31:42
I interviewed before the announcement was made with multiple members
31:46
of the administration, and my final interview was with President Trump.
31:50
I interviewed with him then the announcement was made. Question
31:54
by redacted And anytime during these interviews before Donald Trump
31:59
that you had mentioned answer? Yes, did Jeffrey Epstein's case
32:02
come up. Answer no, question not once. Answer not to
32:06
my recollection question. Did your tenure at the US Attorney's
32:09
Office for the Southern District of Florida come up in
32:12
any of these interviews prior? Answer not with the degree
32:15
of specificity question So, all right, So the nominations announced,
32:19
then you go through a vetting process. Can you describe
32:22
that vetting process for me? Answer? You fill out a
32:25
lot of FBI forms, you answer questions at the Office
32:28
of Presidential Personnel, you have conversations, and it's either Presidential
32:32
Personnel or White House Council or both. And then once
32:35
you're formally nominated and you proceed to confirmation. Question So,
32:39
at any point from your approach to the Trump administration
32:42
to potentially serve as Secretary of Labor to your confirmation,
32:46
did you have any conversation or discussion with anyone in
32:49
the Trump administration about political concerns regarding Jeffrey Epstein. Answer again,
32:54
I did not. It may have come up during the vetting.
32:57
It came up after I was publicly announced, I believe
33:00
while I was probably doing Hill visits. I think it
33:03
was during Hill visits because it was while I was
33:05
in DC and I had a conversation with the communication
33:08
staff about it. Miss Stansbury, Can I ask a quick
33:12
follow up question, sort of a sideline and then going
33:14
back to you. Over the course of your engagement at
33:17
the DOJ, did you ever see any documents in which
33:19
Donald Trump's name appeared with regards to the Epstein case,
33:23
mister Acosta, not to my recollection, Miss Stansbury, were you
33:27
aware that Donald Trump was friends with Jeffrey Epstein? Mister Acosta,
33:31
I have no recollection of Donald Trump associated with the
33:34
investigation in any way, shape or form. Miss Stansbury. No,
33:38
I'm just asking if there were friends. It's a well
33:40
known fact. It's okay. You can answer in the affirmative
33:43
on things that are well. Acosta cuts her off. Of course,
33:46
I can answer in the affirmative if it's an affirmative answer.
33:49
It's twenty years later, Stansbury. You read the newspaper, right, Acosta.
33:53
I'm sorry, Stansbury, I said you read the newspaper. Acosta.
33:58
I read newspapers now, and I know what's talked about
34:01
in newspapers now in two thousand and six. You know,
34:04
I don't think this was talked about as a headline
34:06
in two thousand and six. Stansbury, did the FBI interview
34:10
Donald Trump or speak to him with regards to this case? Acosta?
34:15
I have again did not direct the investigation. If our
34:18
prosecutors thought they should pursue the lead, they were free
34:21
to pursue that lead, Stansbury. But is it possible that
34:25
they did based on that relationship? Acosta? I have no
34:29
knowledge that any person spoke to Donald Trump with respect
34:32
to Epstein. I have no knowledge of Donald Trump's name
34:34
appearing in any Epstein document. I have no knowledge of
34:37
Donald Trump being associated with Epstein investigation in any way.
34:41
I'm not saying that it wasn't because I can't speak
34:43
on behalf of the many many attorneys and case agents involved.
34:47
I can simply speak about what knowledge of it I have.
34:51
And let me also say I think that there was.
34:54
I think it's pretty spectacular. It hasn't leaked by now,
34:57
but that's just speculation. Stansbury. And then I just have
35:01
one more quick follow up, Garcia. How much time do
35:04
we have left, Stansbury? Please? Redacted? Five minutes Garcia five
35:10
minutes left one question for miss Stansbury. Stansbury, I just
35:14
want to ask, and I would love if you would
35:16
just say yes or no. And I know you're an attorney,
35:18
so you know how this works. So since January twentieth
35:21
of this year, twenty twenty five, have you spoken to
35:24
or engaged in any form of communication with the following individuals. Acosta, Okay, Stansbury,
35:31
Donald Trump, Acosta, No, Stansbury, Pam Bondi Acosta, Stansbury. It's
35:38
just a yes or no. Acosta, Yes, and I'm going
35:41
to answer Stansbury, Okay, the question I have Stansbury Director
35:46
Beateel Acosta. I have been caught off again by Stansbury.
35:50
I've got a list. I've got a list, Acosta, but
35:53
I need to answer the question. Stansbury. Okay, Acosta. I've
35:57
had the pleasantries with I've had pleasantries you'd categorize as
36:01
pleasantries with Pam Bondy. Hello, how are you Stansbury? Okay,
36:05
Acosta as part of a large zoom conference. Stansbury, Okay, Acosta.
36:10
But I have not spoken to her in person, and
36:12
I've not spoken to her in any way about anything
36:14
having to do with Jeffrey Epstein, Stansbury director Patel Acosta,
36:19
No Stansbury, any employee or political appointee of the White
36:24
House Acosta. That's a broad question. I'm sure I've had
36:28
multiple conversations with employees of the White House. I've not
36:31
spoken to anyone at the White House to my recollection
36:34
about anything having to do with Jeffrey Epstein since January twentieth. Stansbury,
36:39
any employee or a political appointee of the Department of
36:41
Justice Acosta. As I said, I was in a zoom
36:45
meeting with Attorney General Pambondi and several other individuals. We
36:49
probably set aloe, how are you and had little pleasantries.
36:52
Nothing beyond that. Stansbury and any employee or appointee at
36:56
the FBI. Acosta, no one from the FBI. No Stansbury, okay.
37:01
So DOJ and the White House got it okay, and
37:04
then they take their little recess. So that's where we're
37:06
going to break as well. And in the next episode
37:08
we're going to pick up where we left off. All
37:11
of the information that goes with this episode can be
37:13
found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome
37:16
to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
37:20
we're picking up right where we left off with the
37:22
Alex Acosta deposition. Mister Garcia, So I just want to
37:27
go back quickly. You said at some point during the
37:30
vetting process. Answer yeah, question Jeffrey Epstein may have come up?
37:34
Is that right? Answer? I said it may have. I
37:37
don't recall if it did or did not. Question if
37:40
it in fact had come up, when would it have
37:42
come up in your speculation? Answer? In my speculation it
37:46
would have come up. If the question may have arisen
37:49
as part of your newspaper articles or something along those lines.
37:53
Question and leading up in your preparation for the confirmation
37:56
hearing with the Senate Answer yes, question did you prepare
38:00
for questions about Jeffrey Epstein? Answer so there were articles
38:05
in the media about that, and so yes, I did prepare,
38:07
and I was asked by the Senate about this, and
38:09
I answered consistent with my answers today. Question who did
38:13
you prepare your questions with? Answer myself? Question no one
38:17
from the White House? Answer I didn't prepare. These are
38:21
questions that would be within my general knowledge, not the
38:24
White House. And so no question. You didn't coordinate with
38:28
the White House on your questions. They didn't review your
38:30
questions in any respect. Answer So I was given binders
38:34
about the Department of Labor and preparatory documents having to
38:37
do with the Department of Labor. That is consistent with
38:40
any transition and as part of that, I certainly had
38:43
discussions about labor policy and the Department of Labor with
38:46
part of the transition team, which was then at the
38:50
Department of Labor, actually not at the White House, but
38:52
at the Department of Labor. This would not have been
38:55
within their purview. It wouldn't have been. These were materials
38:59
or matter about me, not about labor policy, and so
39:02
I would not have that would have not have been
39:04
part of that particular so called prep question. I understand.
39:08
Just so we're very clear, you did not discuss your
39:11
answers regardless of labor policy with the White House prior
39:14
to your confirmation hearing. Answer. I'm sorry when you say
39:18
regardless question. Sure, I'll clarify labor policy aside. Did you
39:23
discuss your answers for the Senate confirmation hearing with anyone
39:26
at the White House? Answer? So, to be clear, I
39:29
did not, to my recollection, discuss anything having to do
39:32
with Epstein or my answers. Question that wasn't my question, sir. Answer,
39:37
you know, with anyone at the White House, And I
39:39
recall very few instances. As a general matter, the conversations
39:43
about preparing for hearings took place with transition staff at
39:46
the Department and not the White House. So I don't
39:49
even know if we discuss the answers to any confirmation
39:52
question with anyone at the White House, including the labor
39:55
policy question. I have a couple questions just to make
39:59
sure that the records, and then I've been crossing off
40:03
questions as you've been answering them. You were asked at
40:05
the very end by Miss Stansbury if you had ever
40:08
spoken with anyone about any subject from January twentieth, twenty
40:11
twenty five until present at the White House or DOJ.
40:15
You said yes, but not about the Epstein case. Is
40:18
that correct answer? That is correct question? Those were either
40:22
social or professional, but not Epstein answer. To my knowledge,
40:25
I have spoken with no one in government about the
40:28
Epstein matter. Question, Thank you. It just felt that was
40:32
fishing for a yes that's going to end up on
40:34
the cameras here in a second, so I appreciate the
40:37
scoping clarification. You were also asked a lot about whether
40:40
or not the FBI or anyone in the office interviewed
40:43
Donald Trump during the two thousand and six to two
40:45
thousand and eight Epstein investigation and remind me of your
40:49
answer again. Answer, I'm sorry, I became preoccupied because of
40:53
the statement I said. I wasn't limited in scope for
40:56
the time. Since January twentieth, to my knowledge, I have
41:00
spoken with anyone in government about the Epstein matter. Question
41:04
Thank you. So you were also asked about whether or
41:06
not the FBI or your office interview Donald Trump in
41:10
the two thousand and six to two thousand and eight
41:11
investigation into Epstein. Answer yes. Question based off a couple
41:16
articles that they both live in Palm Beach and Epstein
41:19
went to Marrow Lago. Do you know how many members
41:21
there are at mar A Lago? Answer? I would assume hundreds,
41:24
maybe more. Question did you interview all of them? Again?
41:28
I don't know who we interviewed. I don't direct interviews.
41:32
I have no knowledge of who was interviewed or not interviewed.
41:35
I have no knowledge, to my knowledge, to my recollection,
41:37
to my memory, Donald Trump's name did not appear in
41:40
any document or any matter related to Jeffrey Epstein. Question
41:45
what about do you know how many people lived on
41:47
pom Beach Island at the time? Answer? I have no idea. Question.
41:51
Did you interview all those people too? Answer? Again, I
41:54
don't think so. I'm pretty certain we did not question
41:58
all right, And you were confident in your line attorneys
42:01
that if they found a lead, they would follow it
42:03
and they would interview that person. Answer, they would yes,
42:07
question all right, thank you. Whoever's doing this questioning right
42:11
here is obviously trying to help a Costa out, and
42:14
the fact that their name is redacted is straight up trash.
42:17
We've talked a lot about the non prosecution agreement, the
42:20
OPR report a lot. I just want the OPR report,
42:23
I believe came to the conclusion nothing illegal, against a regulation,
42:28
unethical happened regarding the prosecution report, but that it showed
42:31
poor judgment. I think that's what they said. Do you
42:34
agree with the characterization of events? Answer? I agree with
42:39
their findings with respect to events, and I agree with
42:41
their core finding that the state resolution was poor judgment.
42:45
In hindsight, it had any number of problems. Question, and
42:49
you've touched on this a little bit, but I think
42:51
you testified today that you did not foresee or anticipate
42:54
a lot of the state problems that would follow the
42:56
MPa is that correct? Answer? That is correct question, and again,
43:01
hindsight being twenty twenty, if you had known the state
43:03
was going to be a not supportive actor in this endeavor,
43:06
would you have maybe addressed the case differently? Why would
43:09
the state be an actor that could be relied upon?
43:13
The whole entire point of going to the FEDS is
43:15
because the state wasn't going to take action, So save
43:19
the bullshit, bro. Answer, there is no way if we
43:24
knew that the state was going to proceed as it did,
43:26
that we would have addressed this case the way we did. Question.
43:30
Thank you. I'm going to go back further in time,
43:33
so again I understand that there is a lack of recollection.
43:35
Were you aware I'll back up, When did you become
43:38
US attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Answer sometime
43:42
in two thousand and five. Question were you aware of
43:44
Jeffrey Epstein prior to the investigation into him? Answer? I
43:48
was not. Question were you aware of that palm Beach
43:51
was investigating him prior to your office taking over? Answer?
43:54
The first recollection that I remember of Jeffrey Epstein was
43:57
shortly before I decided how to proceed on the term
44:00
sheet I know I was briefed in two thousand and six.
44:03
I don't even recall being briefed, and I don't even
44:05
recall recognizing his name when I was briefed. Question do
44:10
you recall any communication between yourself and Palm Beach Police
44:13
Chief Michael Ryder? Answer? We may have communicated. I don't know.
44:16
I don't remember. Question communications, I mean, he was the
44:20
chief of police in Palm Beach may not have been
44:23
specific to Ebstein. It could have been any number of
44:25
criminal matters in the jurisdiction. Answer that's correct. Question. But
44:30
do you recall any specific to Abstein? Answer? I do
44:33
not remember. No. Question what about the Palm Beach lead
44:36
Detective Joseph Roccari Do you recall any specific to Abstein? Answer?
44:41
I don't recall any communication specific to Abstein, and I
44:44
also think it would have been unusual for me to
44:46
communicate with the detective without his boss present. Question you've
44:51
talked about the batite Is that right? Answer? Yes, question
44:55
the batite motion that would allow concurrent federal and state investigations.
45:00
Answer correct. Question, When if you remember, did it shift
45:04
into like away from that? Answer? So one of the
45:07
difficulties is at the end of the day. The state
45:09
did not ink their deal. They had an agreement, but
45:12
they did not ink their deal. Question Uh huh. Answer,
45:16
and so the petite waiver does not technically apply, but
45:19
it informed the decision. The avenue of proceeding through the
45:22
state and looking at this as a state case informed
45:25
the outcome. Question did you review personally review the findings
45:30
of the Palm Beach investigation? Answer? Which investigation? When you
45:34
say Palm Beach investigation? Question the investigation that they handed
45:38
to your office? Answer at the time, I did not.
45:41
Question did you review it prior to the NPA? Answer
45:45
I would have been fully briefed on the evidence, whether
45:47
that was through my supervisory staff or by my reading
45:50
summaries of it. As a general course, US attorneys don't
45:54
sit with all the evidence files and the three zero
45:56
two s. Well, guess what, dumbass? Maybe they should be
46:00
in the boss and not knowing what your employees were
46:02
up to. Question have you ever do you know who
46:06
Sandy Berger is? Answer? I do not. Question so I'm
46:09
assuming you've never spoken to Sandy Berger if you don't
46:12
know who he is? Answer I would assume so. Question
46:16
all right, what about Doug Band? Have you ever spoken
46:18
a Doug Band Answer not to my knowledge, no question.
46:21
All right, do you recall reviewing the West pom Beach
46:24
police report regarding mister Epstein from two thousand and five?
46:27
Answer again, in the usual course, I would have been briefed.
46:31
I would have had some reason I wouldn't review the
46:33
police reports or the three zero two's question shifting to
46:37
when it became an FBI investigation after Palm Beach handed
46:41
it over, were you involved at all in the decision
46:43
making process of the FBI or the US Attorney's office
46:47
taking up the case? Answer? I was not. Question that's
46:50
something that someone on the supervisory staff can make on
46:52
their own. Answer. Let me revise the answer. I have
46:56
no recollection of being briefed. My understanding was based on
47:00
OPR report that when miss Villafana approached my then criminal
47:03
chief and myself it was before taking up the case,
47:07
to ask if the office wanted to pursue the case,
47:09
and I said, yes, this is the kind of thing
47:12
we should pursue, and we pursued it. So yes, I was.
47:16
It was unusual for me to say take up the case.
47:19
Typically she should have had the authority to do this,
47:22
but she thought she should check, and I said, go forward. Question.
47:26
Do you recall any conversation of why she thought she
47:29
should check on the case? Answer again, not my recollection,
47:32
but the report. Because the state had dropped the ball.
47:35
She wanted to check to see if we were willing
47:37
to proceed. Question because it might make the state look
47:40
a little bad. Answer, perhaps because it might make the
47:44
state bad for whatever other reasons she wanted to check.
47:47
And I said, go forward. Question all right? And then
47:50
I think you touched on it briefly, but don't recall
47:53
And would be odd for you to have communicated with
47:56
the FBI case agents, but possible communication with the SEC
48:00
agent in charge. Answer that's correct. Do you recall if
48:03
the FBI ever recommended bringing federal sex trafficking charges? Answer?
48:07
Not to my recollection question, and this may be in
48:11
the OPR report. In May of two thousand and seven,
48:13
Ms Villafana recommended indicting Epstein, and the FBI wanted to
48:17
arrest him while he was in the Virgin Islands. Were
48:19
you aware of that? Answer? In May of two thousand
48:22
and seven, I believe she submitted a draft recommendation that
48:25
had not gone through the supervisory chain. Her immediate supervisor
48:29
actually had concerns about it, and I believe the OPR
48:32
report talks about how he thinks it should proceed, that
48:35
there are different charging decisions that he would make, and
48:39
so she and he and others proceeded to have those discussions.
48:43
Question you're referencing the sixty count indictment. Answer correct, the
48:47
sixty count indictment that we've talked about. Answer yes. Question
48:52
just generally, is it common for line prosecutors to draft
48:54
indictments that then get negotiated with senior managers. Answer? You
48:59
start with something and you negotiate it. That's very typical.
49:02
It's been characterized that this was ready to go, it
49:05
was her draft or something that hadn't even been vetted
49:08
through the usual office process. Question in conjunction with that indictment,
49:12
do you recall any conversation about the FBI wishing to
49:15
take Epstein into custody in the Virgin Islands? Answer? It
49:19
was twenty years ago. I don't remember. All right, we're
49:23
gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode
49:26
we're gonna pick up where we left off with alex
49:28
Acosta and his amnesia. All of the information that goes
49:32
with this episode can be found in the description box