Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Part 1-3) (5/17/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Part 1-3) (5/17/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
0:03
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get started
0:06
with the alex Acosta deposition that was given to the
0:10
Congressional Oversight Committee just a couple of weeks ago. And
0:14
we're going to skip the whole swearing in portion and
0:17
just get right down to the examination. And it looks
0:20
like Congressman Rajah Krishna Morphy from Illinois is doing the
0:26
questioning here. Question. Thank you again for being here voluntarily,
0:30
and we appreciate your testimony. I want to start briefly
0:33
with your background and a couple of questions surrounding that.
0:36
Where did you attend to undergrad and what year did
0:38
you graduate? Answer? I attended Harvard College and I graduated
0:43
in nineteen ninety What was your degree in? Answer? Economics? Question?
0:49
And then you went to Harvard for law school? Is
0:51
that correct? Answer? That is correct? Question? In what year
0:55
did you graduate? Answer? Nineteen ninety four? I believe. Question
0:58
while in law school? Did you ever have mister Dershowitz
1:01
as a professor? Answer? I did not. Question he taught
1:05
at Harvard during your time there? Answer? He did teach
1:08
at Harvard during my time. Question? But did not teach
1:11
you directly? Answer, he did not teach me directly. Question
1:15
did you ever have any interactions with mister Dershowitz while
1:18
in law school? Answer not that I recall. I may have,
1:21
but I don't recall them. If I did. Question and then,
1:25
did you have any interactions with mister Dershowitz prior to
1:28
him being retained by mister Epstein? Answer not that I recall.
1:32
Question after law school? I believe right after law school
1:35
you became an associate at Kirkland and Ellis. Is that correct? Answer?
1:39
That is incorrect? Question? Okay? Answer I clerk for a year.
1:44
Question who did you clerk for? Answer sam Alito? Then
1:47
the third circuit question and then went to Kirkland Ellis.
1:51
Answer and then I went to Kirkland Ellis. Question did
1:54
you ever work directly for Jay Lefkowitz while they're Answer
1:58
I don't recall if I worked directly for j Lef Kuwitz.
2:01
I did work directly for mister Starr in one case.
2:05
Question did you ever have any interaction with mister Lef
2:07
Kowitz while at Kirkland and Ellis? Answer I did. Question
2:11
what were the nature of those interactions? Answer? He was
2:15
a partner I was an associate relatively small office back then,
2:18
you know, in terms of partners. Answer, all right, but
2:21
he was never like your supervising partner on a case
2:24
or anything. Answer not that I recall. At some point,
2:27
I may have had a small assignment that I don't
2:29
recall for him, But I don't recall him being my
2:32
supervising partner on a case. I don't he was not
2:35
my mentor. I don't recall any of those. Question all right.
2:39
You then proceeded to serve multiple government positions, beginning with
2:43
the principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division.
2:47
Is that correct? Answer? In between that I spent some
2:50
years at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and sometime
2:54
teaching at George Mason question, and then after the Civil
2:57
Rights Division went to the National Laborations Board. Answer that's
3:01
correct question, and then came back to be the Assistant
3:05
Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division. Answer that is correct. Question.
3:10
By that point, had you ever tried a criminal case? Answer?
3:13
I had not. Question. And then you were appointed to
3:16
be the US Attorney of the Southern District of Florida.
3:19
Answer that's correct. Question. Do you recall about when you
3:23
were appointed. Answer early in the second term of President
3:27
Bush's presidency two thousand and five, two thousand and six,
3:29
something like that. Answer two thousand and five. Answer okay,
3:35
at some point it could be two thousand and six,
3:37
but I believe it was two thousand and five, middle
3:39
or late two thousand and five. Question and when did
3:42
you leave that post? Answer? I believe it would have
3:45
been the summer of two thousand and nine. Question and
3:47
then in twenty seventeen, you were appointed as a US
3:50
Secretary of Labor. Answer that's correct. Question and subsequently resigned
3:55
from that position in the summer of twenty nineteen. Answer
3:58
that is correct. Question did you resign over the Epstein case? Answer?
4:04
I chose to resign because of the concern that the
4:06
Epstein case would distract from what I was doing as
4:09
the Secretary of Labor. Question were you instructed to resign? Answer?
4:13
I was not instructed to resign. Question have you ever
4:17
met mister Epstein? Answer? I have not met mister Epstein.
4:21
Can I go back one minute? Question yes? Answer, I
4:25
was neither instructed to resign. It wasn't suggested that I resigned.
4:29
It was entirely my choice, my decision. I remember calling
4:32
a little bit after breakfast, asking to speak to the president,
4:35
seeing him and then telling them that I thought it
4:37
would be best for his administration if I stepped aside.
4:41
A trial at that point was pending, and I come
4:43
from the school that these jobs are temporary. You step
4:46
into them, you leave, and if you become a distraction,
4:49
it's time to go. So it was entirely my choice.
4:52
Question and your resignation was post arrest, but pre death
4:56
while in custody. Correct answer, That is correct. Question. Have
4:59
you ever I met Gallaine Maxwell? Answer? I have not.
5:02
Did I answer the question about meeting mister Epstein? I
5:05
don't remember? Question? Yes you said no, I believe. Answer
5:09
I have not met mister Epstein. I have never met.
5:12
Is it Gislaine or Glaine? Answer Gallaine Maxwell? Question do
5:16
you recall if anyone in your US Attorney's office met
5:19
with mister Epstein? Answer not to my knowledge? Question? How
5:22
about with miss Maxwell? Answer not to my knowledge? Question?
5:26
And throughout this I'm going to say the US Attorney's
5:28
office will just say I'm referencing the Southern District of Florida.
5:32
Answer yeah, no, I understand that question. Okay, perfect? Have
5:36
you ever met Sarah Kellen. Answer not to my knowledge.
5:39
Question do you recall if anyone in the US Attorney's
5:42
office met with her? Answer? I wouldn't. I wouldn't have
5:45
that information. It's possible that one of our trial attorneys did,
5:49
but I would not know. Question what about have you
5:51
ever met with Nadia Marsenkova? Answer? I have not. Question
5:57
and same question, do you recall if anyone in your
5:59
office met with Answer? I'm sorry, can I back up?
6:02
There was He's cut off. Then he continues again, there
6:06
was a woman that we consider it a victim, but
6:09
that the state attorney did not necessarily consider a victim,
6:12
and that that was my pause. I don't know if
6:14
at some point, I don't know if that was miss
6:16
Kellen or someone else. I don't know if at some
6:18
point one of her trial team or case agent or
6:21
someone met with that person they're talking about Haley Robson.
6:25
Question Uh huh. Answer and I can't speak to that.
6:28
I did not meet with her. Question Okay, then I'll
6:31
re ask the best of your recollection. Did anyone in
6:33
your office meet with miss marson Kova? Answer not that
6:36
I'm aware of. But again, question, but she could have
6:40
been one of the people that your office characterized as
6:43
a victim, and the States didn't answer, there was some
6:47
subgroup of victims that we thought we characterized as victim.
6:50
The State's attorney office did not. Based on my recollection
6:53
or based on what I've read, I don't know if
6:55
those individuals were interviewed or not by my attorneys. I
6:58
simply can't speak to it. It answer, Okay, I've got two
7:02
more answer sure. Question. If it's the same answer, it's
7:06
the same answer. Did you ever personally meet with Leslie Groff?
7:10
Answer the same answer question, the same answer for anyone
7:14
in your office? Answer same answer, yes, question and then
7:18
personally meet with Adriana Ross answer same answer question and
7:22
answer on both question on both. Thank you just kind
7:27
of like laying the foundation for what the US Attorney's
7:30
job is versus what the office does overall in general
7:34
or your experience in the Southern District of Florida. Are
7:36
you made aware of every federal criminal investigation going on
7:40
in the district? Answer is certainly not. The Southern District
7:45
of Florida, depending on how it's measured, one of the
7:48
three or four largest, depending if you're measuring it by caseload,
7:51
by number of assistant United States Attorneys. We have several hundred.
7:55
We you know, while I was US attorney, had the
7:58
most active caseload in terms of ongoing trials in the country,
8:02
and so as a US attorney, my focus was much
8:04
more at the policy level than at the managing a
8:07
particular case level. Question and then what sorts of cases
8:11
would raise to your level? Answer issues that involve policy issues,
8:15
that were particularly high profile issues that were some type
8:19
of dispute among ausas or among my supervisory staff. Question Ken,
8:25
I'll let him sit, I'll ask a follow up question,
8:27
and then I'll move to him. Can you explain what
8:29
an issue involving policy would be? I can guess on
8:32
the high profile and dispute, but what would be a
8:35
policy issue? Answer an issue that would affect an interpretation
8:39
of law, an issue where it might be a novel approach,
8:43
an issue where there might be an emphasis coming from
8:46
Maine Justice in Washington, DC where they wanted us to
8:49
focus on that particular issue. And then the question is
8:52
how do we focus on that issue? Question? All right,
8:56
mister Lynch, would you mind identifying yourself for the record.
9:00
Now we have another congressman that's doing the questioning mister Lynch,
9:05
Congressman Stephen Lynch, eighth Congressional District of Massachusetts and member
9:09
of the Oversight Committee. Question, you brought up issues that
9:14
Maine Justice might have had more of a focus on advancing,
9:18
like prioritizing. Would align USA be able to communicate with
9:22
DC on a case or would they need to go
9:24
through a supervisor or through you? Answer? I think that
9:28
would depend on the case. In the issues, there are
9:30
several cases where aligne aasua's we're talking with Washington because
9:35
it was their issue and they had the back and
9:37
forth with Criminal Division on a regular basis. I would
9:41
characterize the Southern District of Florida as much more much
9:44
more permissive of communications with Maine Justice as opposed to
9:48
Main Justice might want more control between communications between divisions.
9:53
Question and then what was the did the was the
9:56
Epstein case high profile that it came across your desk
9:59
prior to the non prosecution agreement? Answer? So, I have
10:03
no recollection that I came across my desk prior to that.
10:06
I have read in the OPR report, and I have
10:09
no reason to discredit what the OPR report said that
10:12
the prosecuting AUSA briefed the first assistant and myself on
10:16
the case. Early on when the decision, the pomp Beach
10:19
police were very upset about the state attorney had done.
10:22
The state attorneys was charging. The police wanted the state
10:25
attorney to charge felony accounts that would have resulted in imprisonment.
10:29
The state attorney looked at the facts, didn't think that
10:32
the facts justified the counts the police wanted. Offered initially,
10:35
I believe, an offer that would have resulted in probation.
10:39
I believe mister Epstein rejected that offer. The state attorney
10:43
then decided to take it to a grand jury to
10:45
let the people upon Beach in essence decide, and presented
10:48
all the charges from the highest to the lowest to
10:51
the grand jury. The grand jury returned to charge that
10:54
would have required the state equivalent of pre trial diversion,
10:57
not even probation, I believe. So then the police came
11:01
to us somewhere around that point. My understanding is that
11:04
the first assistant, then criminal Chief, and I were briefed.
11:07
I don't recall, I don't know. I suspect it was
11:10
a very brief heads up question. Generally, how would you
11:14
putting aside the Epstein case, but generally, how would you
11:17
monitor high profile cases? Answer? I had an excellent management staff.
11:21
My first assistant had been criminal chief before that, had
11:25
been an executive in the Fort Lauderdale office before that,
11:28
I had a criminal chief that had been the head
11:30
of major crimes, and in Palm Beach cases, we had
11:33
a managing attorney, a managing AUSA that before that had
11:38
been acting head of Public Integrity at one point and
11:41
had been an AUSA for any number of years. And
11:44
so typically I would sit down with my management staff
11:47
and we talk about the high profile cases that were pending.
11:51
We talk about what I needed to focus on, and
11:53
they would bring the issues to me that they thought
11:55
were pertinent. Question do you recall who the team was
11:58
that was handling the Epstein case at the time. Answer,
12:02
so when it first came into the office. Again, I
12:04
don't recall when it first came into the office, the
12:06
prosecuting attorney, according to OPR, briefed the then criminal chief,
12:10
subsequent first assistant on myself, and then there's a lot
12:15
of communication for several months. Her chain of command would
12:18
have been deputy chief in Palm Beach that based on
12:20
the OPR report, wasn't heavily involved. I don't know why.
12:25
The managing attorney in pom Beach County, then the criminal chief,
12:29
and then the first assistant. Question, All right, okay, folks,
12:33
we're going to wrap up right here, and in the
12:35
next episode, we're going to pick up where we left off.
12:38
All of the information that goes with this episode can
12:40
be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
12:43
welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
12:48
we're picking up where we left off with the alex
12:50
Acosta testimony given to Congress. Question, do you recall who
12:55
the team was handling the Epstein case at the time? Answer?
12:58
So when I first came into the office. This again,
13:00
I don't recall when it first came into the office,
13:03
the prosecuting attorney according to OPR brief, the then criminal chief,
13:07
subsequent first assistant, and myself, and then there's a lot
13:11
of communication for several months. Her chain of command would
13:15
have been deputy chief in Palm Beach that, based on
13:18
the OPR report, wasn't heavily involved. I don't know why.
13:21
The managing attorney in Palm Beach County, then the criminal chief,
13:24
and then the first assistant. Question all right, did your
13:27
office have a sex crimes division? Answer? We did not
13:31
have a sex crime division per se. No question, per se,
13:35
what does Acosta cut them off? We had some individuals
13:39
that specialized or chose to do those types of cases.
13:42
Question do you recall anyone recommending to you more involvement
13:45
in the Epstein matter? Answer? It was twenty years ago.
13:48
I do not. Question. Okay, do you recall any direct
13:51
interaction between yourself and Main Justice in DC regarding the
13:55
Epstein matter? Answer? I can either answer that or you
13:59
can rephrase it by time periods, because it varied heavily
14:02
over time. Question well, start in answer would you like
14:06
me to try? Question Well, I'll go like year by
14:10
year because I imagine it. But our understanding is that
14:14
the case originally came to the US Attorney's office in
14:16
two thousand and six. Do you recall any conversations with
14:19
Main Justice at the onset of the FBI and US
14:22
Attorney case? Answer? I do not. Question. And then the
14:25
non prosecution agreement was being negotiated and signed in mid
14:29
to late two thousand and seven. Do you recall any
14:31
conversations with DC around then? Answer? Yes, there would have
14:36
been some and I can try and break it down
14:38
if you'd like. Question yeah, answer so to my knowledge
14:42
or at least to my recollection, the first communication with
14:45
DC took place after, so I'm sure we'll be able
14:48
to take talk about this. I'll put it to one
14:50
side for now. But after we had told defense counsel
14:53
that we were proceeding with requirement of two years imprisonment,
14:56
registration and a right for victims to recover monetary damag images,
15:00
also known as restitution, we made a decision and I
15:04
approved that decision that we you know, state attorney had
15:07
let him off entirely, that was wrong, and we want
15:09
an imprisonment, registration and restitution. At that point, perhaps a
15:13
week or some number of days later, council came in.
15:17
Mister Epstein hired let's just call him Epstein. Epstein hired
15:20
additional counsel. I thought at that point that the case
15:24
would be appealed to Washington. I communicated with my first
15:27
assistant that they wanted a meeting. We should give them
15:30
the meeting because I didn't want the case to jump
15:32
to Washington because I refused to hear them out, and
15:36
so we granted the meeting. At the time, at my request,
15:39
the head of the Criminal Division Child Exploitation and Obscenity
15:43
Section called CEOs, Drew Osterbond. Question that sounds right. Answer.
15:49
I asked my first assistant to invite him down so
15:52
that he became aware of the case, so that he
15:54
became aware of how we were approaching the case, and
15:57
so that he'd be present when we heard defense pushback,
16:01
because I had a suspicion that it would end up
16:03
in Washington and thought it better to give them the
16:06
process in South Florida so they can't say that we
16:09
didn't give them a hearing and didn't give them their due.
16:13
He in fact did come down, we had the meeting.
16:15
He was present for the meeting. I heard out defense
16:17
counsel I rejected. They wanted us to drop the case.
16:20
Their theory was it was a local case, that it
16:23
was not a federal case because at the time we
16:26
didn't have evidence that he traveled with any victims. We
16:28
didn't have evidence of that and maybe we'll talk about this,
16:32
but we didn't have evidence that there were other individuals involved.
16:35
We didn't have evidence that he traveled interstate or internationally
16:38
with any victims, and so they wanted us to drop it.
16:42
I said, no, they wanted us to do something similar
16:45
to the State. I said, no, we're going to stick
16:48
to our guns. We're going to stick to our initial
16:50
offer and go negotiate. Question you said that Epstein hired
16:54
more counsel. Was that when he brought in Dershowitz, Leftquwitz
16:57
and Star. Answer. I don't know when he brought in Dershowitz,
17:01
but that's when he brought in left Kowitz and Star.
17:04
Question all right, and was that the concern that they were,
17:07
I mean, both of them had worked in the White
17:09
House before. Was that the concern that they would elevate
17:12
straight to DC because of who they are? Answer? Yes,
17:16
I mean I mean Dershowitz. You know, we can put
17:19
to one side. But you know, left Kowitz was a
17:21
Washington lawyer. Star was a Washington lawyer. And you know
17:25
I recall very clearly going to my first assistant and saying,
17:28
Epstein just hired these folks. It's going to go to Washington.
17:31
So let's give them they want a meeting, Let's give
17:34
them the process down here to try to head it
17:36
off going to Washington. And that's exactly what it ended
17:39
up doing. Just to interject here, it went to Mukesy
17:42
and Philip, this is what I've told you, folks from
17:44
the very beginning. Don't fall for the shiny object. Acosta
17:48
is just the middleman with no heart and no backbone.
17:53
Question and then, just who was your first assistant in
17:56
your office? Answer? So at the time it was mister slowman.
17:59
Question Okay, answer, he was previously criminal chief. At some
18:03
point in the process that shifted. I believe at the
18:05
time he was first assistant. But when we were first notified,
18:09
I believe he was criminal chief. Question all right, and
18:14
then what's kind of you said the phrase appealed to Washington?
18:17
What's kind of the process for you made an offer
18:20
to Epstein's counsel. How would they appeal to Washington? Answer? So,
18:24
at the time, one of the major questions in the
18:26
case was is this a federal case or is it
18:29
a local case? Again? And you know, well, I'm sure
18:32
we'll talk about the evidence at some point, but our
18:35
evidence was that there was no other individuals involved, that
18:37
there was no travel involved, that the victims went to
18:40
his home. What happened and unless we really need to,
18:44
let's not get into the details. What happened in his
18:46
home and they left and some of the victims didn't
18:49
come back. Other victims came back on other days and
18:52
the same thing happened. And other victims suggested that their
18:55
friends that they come back, and those things happened. But
18:59
it was all within Palm Beach County. It was all local.
19:02
And one of the issues was where is the federal connection,
19:05
where is the interstate travel? I have a vague recollection,
19:09
but the OPR report talks about it with sufficient detail
19:13
that I think my recollection is refreshed. I'm not using
19:15
that as a technical term. So question, yeah, answer what
19:20
it means technically that One of the theories was whether
19:22
or not we can say that he traveled for the
19:25
purpose of engaging in these acts with these victims. And
19:28
at the time, the question of law was whether travel
19:31
needs whether purpose simply needs to be a purpose or
19:34
the dominant purpose or a predominant purpose, or something along
19:38
those lines. And those were the kinds of policy questions
19:42
that I would typically talk about, and also the kinds
19:44
of policy questions that I could see being appealed through
19:47
the entire you know, And I think it's difficult today
19:50
to put ourselves back in two thousand and six because
19:52
federalism was viewed very differently in two thousand and six
19:56
than it is today. Congress was having major debates about
19:59
federalismation of crime. Congress was having major debates about whether
20:03
the Department of Justice is impinging on local authority. And
20:07
as a result, those are the sorts of debates that
20:09
this local crime or federal crime that could see being
20:14
appealed to DC. Question and that would be as much
20:18
as you know, or remember the vague hypothetical of defense
20:22
counsel would call someone and in this case in the
20:24
criminal Division and be like, I need a ruling on
20:27
whether or not the Southern District of Florida is interpreting
20:30
the law correctly something along those lines. Answer yes, or
20:34
I mean, ultimately, the US attorney works for the Department
20:37
of Justice and the Department of Justice and entirely you know,
20:40
authorized and in their right mind to overrule a US
20:43
attorney or say that this is an appropriate and that
20:47
that's their prerogative. Question, thank you, I want to I'm
20:51
going to go ahead and introduce it as exhibit one. Question.
20:56
It's being passed around. It's marked Exhibit sixty eight because
20:59
it's pulled from the civil litigation. But it's exhibit one
21:02
for our purposes. Answer okay. Question it's a letter that
21:07
you wrote to whom it may concern in twenty eleven.
21:10
Answer yes, question do you recall writing this letter? Answer?
21:14
I do. Question what was the purpose of the letter?
21:17
Answer so at the time, I believe there was some
21:19
media concerning this and some criticism of the office, and
21:22
I thought it important too. I didn't want to engage
21:25
with multiple reporters. That's just not my style, and so
21:29
I thought the best approach was to write an open
21:31
letter defending the office and what it did. Question and
21:35
how did you publish or disseminate it? Answer? I provided
21:39
it to one of the reporters that was engaged in
21:41
the story. Answer do you recall who? Answer? I believe
21:45
it was one of the reporters at the Daily Beast.
21:48
I believe. Question we're going to go through a little
21:51
bit of this because I actually think it kind of
21:53
lays the foundation nicely for going into more detail later.
21:57
Answer okay, question, but I want to go ahead and
22:00
at the page. I don't know who did the Bates marks,
22:03
but seventeen ninety six the second page. Answer yes, question
22:07
in the second to last paragraph about midway through, there
22:10
is a sentence that begins our judgment, answer our judgment, yes, question, yeah,
22:16
I'll read it. Our judgment in this case, based on
22:19
the evidence don't at the time, was it was better
22:22
to have a billionaire serve time in jail, register as
22:24
a sex offender, and pay his victims restitution than risk
22:28
a trial with a reduced likelihood of success. I supported
22:32
that judgment then, and based on the state of the
22:34
law as it then stood and evidence don't at the time,
22:38
I would support that judgment again. Do you we're now
22:41
fourteen years ahead of this, do you still support that judgment? Answer? So,
22:46
I think something that has There are a few parts
22:48
to this, and we can break it down. One question
22:51
is go a trial federal versus state, and we'll talk
22:54
about that because I do think that there were some
22:56
issues on the state resolution that we did not foresee
23:00
that became an issue. I think that today there's also
23:03
the public wants trials more than it did back then.
23:05
In some ways, there's a greater desire for just go
23:09
for it, and a US attorney, I think you've got
23:11
to be in touch with the public desire. All that said, myself,
23:15
the prosecuting attorney, the managing attorney of the Palm Beach office,
23:19
the criminal chief, and the first assistant all favored pre
23:22
trial resolution. It was across the board. I've got a statement.
23:28
This is the prosecuting attorney who was likely the most
23:31
pro prosecution. The higher up you go in management chain,
23:35
as a general rule, the more concerned there was about evidence.
23:38
Question was that Miss Villa Fauna Answer? Yes, it was question. Okay, answer,
23:44
But this is her giving a sworn declaration. I think
23:46
it was a civil case. I can't be certain. Some
23:49
have alleged that Epstein would have easily been convicted and
23:52
that all victims were eager to participate in a full
23:54
fledged federal prosecution. As the prosecutor who handled the investigation,
24:00
and say that these contentions overlook the facts that existed
24:03
at the time. We would meet with the victims. We
24:05
would ask them how they wanted the case to be resolved,
24:08
and most of them wanted it to be resolved via
24:10
a plea. Some of them wanted him not to be
24:13
prosecuted at all. Most of them did not want to
24:16
have to come to court to testify. And what they're
24:19
leaving out here is that Epstein paid a lot of
24:21
these girls off. A lot of these poor girls got
24:24
money from Epstein, and a lot of them didn't want
24:26
to talk because of it. And she goes on to
24:29
say how she favored a negotiated resolution and it was
24:32
her understanding that the office did as well. And so
24:35
now we had a little bit later in the case,
24:38
an attorney from CEOs, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
24:43
from Washington come down and look at the case. And
24:46
this attorney went through the entire file. She specializes in
24:50
these types of cases, and she went through the entire file,
24:53
and she looked at it and said there were serious
24:55
evidentiary issues. And while the evidentiary issues were not insurmountable,
25:00
and these are her words, going to trial would be
25:02
a quote unquote crapshoot. And so our thinking at the
25:05
time was, you know, the state attorney is letting him
25:08
get away with this, the state attorney is asking for
25:11
pre trial diversion. Unacceptable, entirely unacceptable. But a billionaire going
25:17
to jail sends a strong signal to the community that
25:19
this is not acceptable, that this is not right, that
25:22
this cannot happen. His registering as a sex offender puts
25:26
the world on notice. Whether the world listened or not,
25:29
we can put that on one side, but it puts
25:32
the world on notice that he was an offender and
25:34
a sexual offender. And on top of that, we included
25:37
a means for the victims to recover monetary damages, not
25:40
because we thought that makes them whole, but because we
25:43
wanted a mechanism for them to at least try to
25:46
restart their lives. And at the end of the day,
25:49
it was our judgment that and my judgment that the
25:51
signal this would send to the community was an important signal.
25:55
On the other hand, if we go to trial and
25:57
we roll the dice and we do the crapshooting, we lose.
26:00
What kind of signal does that send? That sends that
26:03
he got away with it, that you can do that more.
26:06
And so we thought it was very, very important to
26:08
send a signal, and that's why that's one of the
26:10
reasons we favored the negotiated plea. I think less so
26:14
in my mind, but perhaps more so in the minds
26:16
of others, was concerns about the victims. If you look
26:19
at similar declaration from the case agent, the case agent
26:22
on the case in a similar declaration, and I'll tell
26:25
you what she wrote. This is the case agent, also
26:28
a sworn testimony or a sworn statement. Many of the
26:31
victims were troubled about the existence of the investigation. Some
26:35
victims who were identified through the investigation refused even to
26:38
speak to us. During the interviews conducted from two thousand
26:42
and six to two thousand and eight, no victim expressed
26:44
a strong opinion that Epstein be prosecuted. That's opr. Two
26:48
thousand and one. I'm sorry, two hundred and one, and so,
26:52
in part it was influenced by that, and a large
26:54
part it was also influenced by the viability and visibility
26:58
of the case. Every turn ny that looked at the case,
27:01
from the prosecuting attorney again through the entire chain, looked
27:05
at the evidence, and there were evidentiary issues with the victims.
27:08
Many victims refused to testify. Many victims had changing stories.
27:13
All of us understood why they had changing stories, but
27:15
they did. The defense council would have cross examination. It
27:19
would have been withering. Many of them had issues in
27:23
their background. They had MySpace pages, they had priors that
27:26
would have been used against them by defense counsel. These
27:29
are little girls, stop it. And that was at a
27:32
time when in all candor defense could be much much
27:35
tougher on victims on the stand. And then finally, I
27:38
think another factor that went into it in two thousand
27:41
and six that's very different than today, And I think
27:44
it's really it's almost impossible for us to understand how
27:48
different the community viewed these crimes. The best way of
27:51
explaining that after the OPR report came out, I read
27:55
what the State Attorney told the Office of Professional Responsibility,
27:58
and I want to read that because I think this
28:00
is evidence of what the community thought, because this is
28:03
what the State Attorney's office thought question and just for
28:07
the record, I just want to be clear the statements
28:09
you're reading or from the OPR report. Answer from the
28:13
OPR report, quoting the state Attorney. All right, folks, we're
28:17
gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode
28:19
dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we
28:21
left off. All of the information that goes with this
28:24
episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
28:27
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
28:31
this episode, we're gonna pick up where we left off
28:33
with the alex Acosta deposition given to Congress and once
28:38
again alex Acosta is answering the questions. Answer and so
28:42
the OPR report on page fifteen. Meanwhile, the state attorney's
28:46
office took the unusual step of preparing to present the
28:49
case to a grand jury. Krisher, who was the state attorney,
28:52
told the OPR that understate law as it existed until changed,
28:56
not until twenty ten or whenever. This is my first
28:59
energy question, uh huh answer, but in twenty sixteen, as
29:04
it existed, mister Nieman, two thousand and seven, mister Acosta,
29:08
as it existed until changed in twenty sixteen, right ten
29:12
years after the case. His office prosecuted miners as young
29:16
as fourteen for those actions. The possibility of that Epstein's
29:20
victims themselves could have been prosecuted caused great consternation within
29:24
the office. His words caused a great consternation within his office, and,
29:28
according to Krisher, resulted in the decision to put the
29:31
case before a grand jury. Bellohovlik, his lead attorney, told
29:36
OPR that her office took the allegations against Epstein seriously
29:39
because it was an organized scheme to involve young girls
29:42
by offering the money. However, she said although Epstein's behavior
29:47
was reprehensible, unlimited by the state statutes as to what
29:50
I can charge. There were so many issues involving the
29:53
victim witnesses that to my mind in consultation with the prosecutors,
29:58
and she goes on to say that there was an
29:59
element of solicitation. And so I want to be crystal
30:02
clear lest I be taken out of context, or less
30:05
I be clipped on this. No one in our office
30:07
ever thought that the victims were anything less than victims.
30:10
No one thought that they were you know, the idea
30:12
that they were involved as anything other than victims did
30:15
not cross the mind of a soul. But the fact
30:18
that the State Attorney's office had quote unquote great consternation
30:21
because they prosecuted women in these situations at the time,
30:25
does reflect at least somehow people in the Palm Beach
30:28
community thought, and does reflect to some degree at least
30:32
what some jurors would think, and does reflect at least
30:35
to some degree, some of the issues that we would
30:37
have faced with victims that had quite a bit of
30:40
impeachment evidence. And ultimately the trial was a crapshoot, and
30:44
we just wanted the guy to go to jail. Question. No,
30:48
thank you for all of that. Appreciate all the context
30:51
that doesn't come across in the letter and doesn't always
30:54
come across in everything else. I have a couple of
30:56
other questions on what you said. So in the two
30:58
thousand and six timeframe from when Palm BEACHPD handed it
31:02
over to the FBI to the non prosecution agreement, your
31:06
office did interview victims? Answer? Based on what I've read
31:09
the office did. I believe the office did. I did
31:12
not direct the investigation, so I can't personally speak to it,
31:16
but I believe that the office did question and some
31:19
of the evidentiary concerns would be that victims wouldn't be
31:22
able to go on didn't want to, or wouldn't be
31:25
able to go on the stand to back up their statement,
31:27
but also that some of their statements contradicted each other
31:30
or contradicted themselves. Is that a fair summary answer? Some
31:34
refused to talk whatsoever. Others said, he did nothing wrong
31:38
and we were just wrong, and again we knew what
31:41
we had. But if someone tells the FBI he did
31:43
nothing wrong, that's the evidence you have, right answer? Uh huh? Question,
31:48
Some change their story. Some had MySpace pages that would
31:51
be used on impeachment. Some had priors, and so you know,
31:55
this isn't my opinion. This is the opinion of every
31:58
you know, every individual in the office that looked at
32:00
the case. This is the managing the pom Beach managing attorney.
32:04
Everybody at the US Attorney's office working on the matter
32:07
had expressed concerns at various times about the long term
32:10
visibility of the federal prosecution of Epstein due to factual
32:13
and legal hurdles, as well as issues with the cooperation
32:17
and the desire of victims. And so every person that
32:20
looked at the case had serious and substantial concerns about
32:23
how the victims would I believe my first assistant described
32:27
it as withering impeachment by the defense question you've mentioned,
32:31
kind of the lack of evidence beyond victim's statements. I
32:34
believe the pom BEACHPD, or it might have been the FBI,
32:37
got you know, like message pads out of Epstein's home
32:40
and a couple of items of evidence, But after the
32:42
pom BEACHPD executed their search warrant on the house, they
32:46
described it as being cleaned up. Do you recall any
32:49
of that answer? I don't question um answer my recollection
32:54
based on the opinions given to me, so as US attorney.
32:57
In my background when I was litigating, wasn't a lawyer,
33:01
and my approach was, I'm the legal issues guy. I'm
33:04
the policy guy. The Miami office is known as one
33:07
of the best trial offices in the country. We have
33:09
a lot of great trial lawyers. I trust their judgment
33:12
on this, and I still trust their judgment on this
33:15
because they have been doing this for years. My criminal
33:18
chief at the time, mister Mentchell, had done sex crimes
33:21
cases before. Yeah, it was that before or after he
33:24
was skiing with Jeffrey Epstein and so those matters. I
33:29
would look to them for their judgment. But based on
33:31
what I know, I think their judgments were valid. Question.
33:35
Were there ever any discussions about a lack of digital evidence,
33:38
a lack of computer hard drives or videos or photos
33:41
or anything like that. Answer. I don't recall the discussions
33:45
with that degree of granularity. I believe the discussions would
33:49
have been We've looked at the evidence. There are a
33:51
lot of issues going to trial. Question. I want to
33:54
come back to the letter itself, and I'm going to
33:57
try to work down the letter. Answer. Yes, the third paragraph.
34:01
On the first page, you discussed how local police were
34:04
dissatisfied and then talk about how a case can become
34:07
a federal criminal prosecution as an interstate in nexus and
34:11
then as a backstop two state authorities. Answer yes. Question
34:15
do you recall your team ever uncovering potential witnesses in
34:18
New York? Answer I do not. Question do you recall
34:21
reading it since? Answer yes, I have read it since. Well,
34:24
let me be clear, I have not read that my
34:27
team discovered witnesses in New York. Since I have read
34:30
that there were witnesses in New York. Question Okay, do
34:33
you recall if your office ever got flight logs of
34:35
Epstein's private jet? Answer? I can't speak to what evidence
34:39
we had or didn't have. Question is that because you
34:42
don't remember the evidence or answer I don't remember the evidence.
34:47
Question at the time? Was your office aware that Epstein
34:49
had houses in New York, New Mexico, and an island
34:52
in the Virgin Islands. Answer? We were aware that he
34:55
had multiple houses. I don't know. I assume they would
34:58
have known exactly where those were. I don't know if
35:02
that was all his houses or what. But as a
35:04
general matter, yes, Question and when you had mentioned one
35:08
of the legal issues was kind of was there to
35:10
create a federal nexus? Was there a purpose of traveling
35:13
across state lines or internationally to commit the crime? And
35:16
then what kind of like amount of purpose the crime
35:20
had to be A good layman's explanation answer, that's a
35:24
good layman's explanation. And here's why this is important in
35:28
my mind. I don't recall it was twenty years ago,
35:31
but if there had been clear evidence that he traveled
35:33
from Florida to New York with a minor victim in
35:36
order to engage sexual activity in New York, then we
35:39
wouldn't have had to debate after debate after debate about
35:42
the degree of purpose on an entirely different statute that
35:45
involves traveling from one place to another by yourself in
35:49
order to engage in sexual activity at the second location.
35:52
And those discussions would not have happened if we had
35:55
evidence of clear interstate travel. And so while I don't
35:58
have clear recollection from twenty years ago, it follows that
36:02
given all those discussions, we didn't have evidence of interstate travel. Question,
36:07
so is there then to that a costa cuts in? Yeah? Question,
36:13
So this is kind of a crude question. But is
36:16
there a difference? And correct me if I'm wrong. This
36:18
is how I understand what you just said. A difference
36:21
in traveling with a miner to a second location for
36:23
the purpose of nefarious activity versus traveling alone to the
36:27
second location to meet someone for the purpose of nefarious activity.
36:31
Answer absolutely, question okay. Answer traveling with the miner across
36:35
state lines makes it a federal case. But traveling from
36:38
state to state in order to engage in activity with
36:42
a person at state two, then that that's the conversations
36:45
that we had, and those conversations would not have happened
36:48
if we had clear evidence of the first question. Okay,
36:52
So would that the second instance traveling to a second
36:55
location for the purpose of engaging in a farious activity.
36:58
That's the conversation of whether or not it's now a
37:01
Florida New Mexico like Florida case, New Mexico case, New
37:05
York case versus lumping it all together. Answer I don't understand.
37:09
I'm not with you question, so I'll be more specific.
37:13
The first kind of known tip is from Marie and
37:17
Annie Farmer in nineteen ninety seven, Maria Farmer alleging that
37:20
Epstein assaulted her in New York is a minor, and
37:23
Danny Farmer alleging that mister Epstein assaulted her in New
37:26
Mexico as a minor. So my understanding of those allegations,
37:30
and I apologize if I get it wrong, is that
37:32
they were flown to those locations, not with Epstein, but
37:36
met Epstein there answer. So I don't know those facts,
37:39
and I can't discuss those facts. I can discuss the
37:42
facts about South Florida, and I don't know to what
37:44
degree our office was aware of that information. Question. I'm sorry,
37:50
never mind, Okay, it's helpful to know. But like when
37:53
we hear those tips, we sound it sounds to us
37:56
like that's clear interstate answer, right, question noxis right? Like
38:01
you've got three states involved. I don't know if I
38:04
would be a prosecution in New Mexico, a prosecution in
38:07
New York, and a prosecution in Florida, or a Costa
38:11
cuts in. Again, I can only speak to our understanding
38:15
was that this was a South Florida matter, and that
38:17
there were multiple attorneys debating whether we had an interstate nexus,
38:21
debates which would have taken place, And OPR talks about
38:24
those debates and OPR talks about, you know, the legal issues.
38:28
I think at one point the managing attorney, let me
38:30
see if I can find this, because it seems relevant.
38:33
I can't find it now. But at some point the
38:35
managing attorney for Palm Beach said that he thought that
38:38
the argument about whether or not travel to Florida for
38:41
purposes of sex, whether we win or not, was a
38:44
closer call than our prosecuting attorney thought. So there was
38:48
a debate ongoing, and I don't see why we would
38:51
have had that debate if we had that scheme. And
38:54
I think that one of the important distinctions here is
38:57
that from a twenty twenty five perspective, this is a
38:59
big scheme, this is international. There are other individuals evolved,
39:04
you know, the way it's talked about in the media,
39:07
the way you know, given what the victims say now,
39:09
and those victims, let me just say, I thought they
39:11
were very confident. I thought they were courageous. I heard
39:15
their statements, and you know, wow, is enough, right? But
39:18
you know, back then again, the words of the prosecuting attorney,
39:21
none of the victims that we ever spoke to, these
39:23
are their words ever talked about any other men being
39:26
involved in abusing them. That's OPR. One sixty seven. We
39:30
already talked about the travel, and so from our perspective,
39:34
this was a local case as I understood it. They
39:38
went to his house, they left, some didn't come back,
39:40
some did, some came back with others. That's it question
39:45
and so the inner state nexus debate. What you're having,
39:47
just so I'm clear, is he would travel from New York,
39:50
Virgin Islands, Paris, New Mexico, wherever, to Florida for the
39:53
purpose of nefarious activity, and whether or not that was
39:57
sufficient enough to meet the federal nexus answer, correct question, Okay.
40:03
Answer our attorneys were trying to establish was whether we
40:06
could say, because he knew that these women were present
40:09
in pom Beach, that he would travel from New York
40:11
or Paris, or Virgin Islands or the places that you
40:14
mentioned to Palm Beach so that he can engage in
40:17
what he engaged in with these women, and whether or
40:19
not he had to be dominant or whether that simply
40:23
had to be a purpose question. Okay, thank you, Sorry
40:27
that took a while. All Right, We're going to wrap
40:29
up right here and in the next episode we're going
40:31
to pick up where we left off. All of the
40:33
information that goes with this episode can be found in
40:36
the description box