Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Part 16-20) (5/19/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Part 16-20) (5/19/26) · 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 he gave
0:09
to Congress. Once again, alex Acosta is answering the questions
0:14
and various other people are doing the questioning question moving
0:19
forward in the timeline, and kind of there's the normal
0:22
state of play, and then there is the Defense council
0:24
state of play in this case. Normally, woodline prosecutors like Ms.
0:28
Villa Fauna have the authority to negotiate with defense counsel
0:31
on their own and then come to you or come
0:33
up the chain for approval or would they have to
0:36
bring a more senior attorney In answer, normally they would
0:39
have the authority to proceed on their own. Question in
0:42
this case, was that authority curtailed because of Defense Council tactics? Answer?
0:47
In this case, I think actually, and we saw it
0:49
where we talked about previously, where I read it from
0:52
the OPR report on that clause that you asked about
0:55
question uh huh. Answer, she negotiated that. She sent an
0:58
email to her supervisor saying, I don't see any problem
1:01
with this, do you and that's how it would typically proceed.
1:04
And I think that's pretty normal. Question, Okay, there weren't.
1:08
What's the I mean, I don't know how I'm not
1:10
asking you how old she was? What's kind of the
1:13
average age of aligned prosecutor in the US Attorney's Office.
1:16
Answer I don't even want to begin to speculate about
1:18
that question. Okay, younger than Alan Dershowitz. Answer. Younger than
1:22
Alan Dershowitz. But she was experienced and we trusted her,
1:26
and I think the record that's a good example where
1:29
she negotiated, she was checking with her supervisor. Question uh huh. Answer,
1:34
but she was conducting the negotiations. Question all right, do
1:38
you recall any two thousand and six meeting between yourself
1:40
and miss Villa Fauna and mister Sloman regarding Epstein. Answer
1:44
two thousand and six question Yeah, July two thousand and six. Answer.
1:49
I believe that was the initial meeting where she just said,
1:52
can I pursue this? And we said yes. Question Okay,
1:55
were there any limitations placed on her in this case? Answer?
1:59
Not that I remember. I'd be highly surprised. I'm going
2:02
to guess that it was a very short meeting. She
2:04
gave a summary and said can I pursue this? And
2:07
the answer was yes. Question do you recall outside of
2:10
Epstein's defense counsels who were high profile in their own right?
2:14
Do you recall getting any phone calls or communications from
2:17
other high profile individuals suggesting that you back off the
2:20
Epstein case? Answer? No. Question he flew around the world
2:25
with President Clinton? Did President Clinton never call you? Answer?
2:28
President Clinton never called me? Question he flew around the
2:30
world with Woody Allen and others? Did you ever answer?
2:34
Had no question? Get a phone call from Woody Allen? Answer?
2:37
No communication with any high level or a mid profile individual.
2:41
Question the Queen of England ever call you? Answer? Not yet?
2:44
Question all right, thank you. You said that you hadn't
2:47
heard mister Epstein's name prior to them coming to you
2:49
for approval to take the case, so not aware of
2:52
any reputation prior to them. Answer no question. We've talked
2:56
a lot about the kind of defense tactics, the various
2:58
types of pressure and methods that they employed too. I'll say,
3:02
advocate for their client, but get awfully close to the
3:05
line of unethical. Answer and that we resisted at all points.
3:10
Question did the State Attorney's office or the Palm Beach
3:12
PD ever brief you about similar tactics that Epstein I'd
3:16
used against them. Answer not that I remember. Question did
3:20
you ever become aware of Epstein using similar tactics against them? Answer?
3:24
I have since then read that mister Dershowitz met with
3:27
the state Attorney, and I imagine the meetings were similar.
3:30
Question you've said today and then the letter from twenty
3:33
eleven to that you resisted the defense tactics to the
3:36
best that you can recall, and this is a lot
3:39
to recall. Did the draft NPA that your office put
3:42
together change a lot between your drafting and the final signature? Answer?
3:46
I think it changed. Of the three core terms, it
3:48
went from twenty four to eighteen. But we still got
3:51
registration and we still got recovery for the victims. To
3:54
the best of your recollection, did epstein defense counsel suggest
3:58
significant changes to the agreement? Answer? Epstein's defense counsel were
4:02
asking for home confinement, they were asking for no real
4:05
jail time. They were asking us to drop the case entirely.
4:08
Epstein's defense counsel wanted everything, and again and again we
4:13
told them no. Question. I think you've touched on this
4:16
a little bit when I asked you if you interviewed
4:18
Miss Maxwell, do you recall if your prosecutorial team was
4:21
aware of Miss Maxwell at the time? Answer? I don't
4:24
recall the name whatsoever? Back then? Question she was mentioned
4:27
in the original Palm Beach police report, Do you have
4:30
any recollection of that? Answer? I do not. Of course
4:33
he doesn't. Are you guys catching on yet? And the
4:36
ridiculous questions that he's being asked, it's obviously somebody in
4:39
the GOP at this point asking these questions, trying to
4:42
massage Acosta for whatever reason. Question were you contacted at
4:49
all when she was subsequently arrested? I think in twenty
4:52
nineteen answer I was not. Question Were you contacted at
4:55
all during her trial? Answer? I was not question. We've
4:59
talked a lot about the original proposed draft sixty count
5:02
indictment that Miss Villa Fanna drafted, and then there's been
5:05
mentioned of the lengthy prosecution memo. What's the purpose of
5:08
a prosecution memo versus an indictment? Answer? So the prosecution
5:13
memo has two purposes, one to go forward, but two
5:16
to test to write a draft so you can test
5:18
your theories. So that other people can review and say
5:21
I agree or disagree, so you can pressure test what
5:24
an eventual indictment might look like. Question. I'm going to
5:27
use the term, and if you don't recognize it, I'll
5:29
try to explain. But on high profile cases like this,
5:32
would you have a red team someone that wasn't reading
5:36
that could review the prosecution memo and indictment? Answer? We might.
5:40
In this case, we did not, but we did later
5:43
have individuals review the case just to get independent assessments.
5:47
Mister redacted, such cowards put your name to it, mister redacted.
5:51
And are those the prosecution memos? The prosecution memo and
5:55
the draft indictment? Are those kept in the case file?
5:58
Like through perpetuity? Is it remaining in the case file
6:01
to this day? A costa? I can't speak to that.
6:04
I don't know how. I think your definition of a
6:06
case file is more specific than reality. Redacted. Okay, I'm
6:11
sure that this has been touched on, but I'm going
6:13
to ask again, did you ever personally review the memo
6:16
or the draft indictment? Answer? Again, it was twenty years ago.
6:20
Sometimes I'd review the memo. Sometimes I'd sit around the
6:22
table and say, let's go over this sometimes I'd say,
6:26
what do you all think? Question would that have been
6:29
the situation of checking with Maine Justice if that was
6:32
the way that they would want to proceed versus a
6:35
non prosecution agreement? Answer? We had authority to proceed as
6:39
we saw fit. We didn't check with Maine Justice, as
6:41
I remember it. Question Ballpark, How many ausas are in
6:45
that office? Answer three hundred. Question understanding, it's one case
6:49
out of what I'm sure at least one hundred at
6:52
any given time in that office. How would you meet
6:55
with the attorneys on this case to discuss it to
6:57
the best of your recollection? Answer? So that would vary
7:01
before the NPA, before the agreement was signed. Other than
7:04
the decision to go forward with the state resolution, and
7:07
other than giving defense counsel, they're hearing very very little.
7:10
I thought it was important that MSS Villa Fauna had
7:13
the authority to negotiate after it was signed, when it
7:16
was being appealed to Washington, and when they were challenging
7:19
whether or not the office had the authority to seek
7:21
monetary recovery. First, those were policy decisions in which I
7:26
would more naturally get involved. Secondly, there were appeals to Washington,
7:30
in which i'd more naturally get involved. And thirdly, there
7:33
were you know, about whether the office is acting correctly
7:36
or not. And so at that point, the first assistant
7:39
was supervising the case with Miss Villa Fauna directly, and
7:42
I probably spoke to him about it often. Question we've
7:46
talked about kind of the overarching theme is that the
7:49
prosecutors in your office favored a negotiated agreement with the
7:52
kind of sub themes of favored federal charges more than state,
7:56
and some favored state, and some just favored a negotiated agreement.
8:00
At any point, did d C express concerns about a
8:03
negotiated agreement versus going to trial? Answer? They did not.
8:07
They were aware of when it was presented. When Defense
8:10
counsel came in, the head of CEOs was present at
8:13
the meeting. He understood how we were proceeding. I don't
8:16
recall him taking a side and saying DC disagrees with
8:19
you question. And of course during Epstein's Defense Council's petition
8:22
to DC, they sided with you. Throughout that answer they
8:26
supported our authority to go forward. He didn't answer the question.
8:29
There you hear that they supported our authority to go
8:31
forward whatever that means. Question you spoke a little bit
8:34
about State Attorney Krisher. Answer Krisher, do you recall any
8:39
discussion with him regarding the Epstein case. I don't recall
8:42
any discussions we may have had them. I think they'd
8:45
be fairly brief. Question, we have any involvement in the
8:49
post police situation with Epstein? Answer? To the extent his
8:52
office was involved in victim notification, he would have had
8:55
involvement in some of those discussions. I believe the OPR
8:59
report states, and you can confirm that the decision to
9:02
go from eighteen, that one of the key parts of
9:04
the decision to go from twenty four to eighteen took
9:07
place in a discussion between him and our trial attorneys
9:10
in his office. Question, but you don't know, or maybe
9:14
he just wouldn't have been involved in any discussion or
9:17
regarding the work release program or anything like that. Answer,
9:20
So his office was consulted about work release. My understanding
9:24
was that they were supposed to notify us, and his
9:27
office did not notify us. My understanding was that they
9:30
came out of the Pombech Sheriff's office. Question and again,
9:34
you never, to the best of your recollection, received any
9:37
communication from DOJ leadership advising caution and prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein.
9:42
Answer no, I did not. Question were you aware of
9:46
a letter that the Epstein defense counsel sent in support
9:49
of him, citing that and referencing his political connections in
9:52
regards to the non prosecution agreement? Answer I have since
9:56
read it. I don't recall any details, and whoever it
9:59
was sent to don't I think had any influence on them? Question?
10:02
And you don't recall any high profile individuals making a
10:05
call to your office saying we've got to go easy
10:08
on this guy. Answer? I do not question the minority
10:12
touched on it a little bit, the former criminal chief
10:14
Menchell and his relationship with Lily Sanchez, who became one
10:17
of Epstein's counsels. And you said you were aware of
10:20
that after the fact. Not concurrently, Yo, I really want
10:23
to find out who this senator is or a congressman
10:26
asking these stupid ask questions. Holy cal what a waste
10:29
of our time and our tax dollars. And I guarantee
10:32
you it's going to be one of these guys that
10:33
runs around yappin about how they care about the kids.
10:36
Shut your ass. Up. Answer, I became aware of that
10:41
when I was asked about it by the Office of
10:43
Professional Responsibility. My first assistant became aware of it when
10:47
he was asked about it at the Office of Professional Responsibility.
10:50
Question and just pardon me for not remembering it was
10:54
already touched on. Did mister Menchell recuse himself because of
10:57
that relationship? Answer? He did not. Question should he have? Answer?
11:03
I should have known about it, or my first assistant
11:05
should have known about it, and we should have had
11:07
a fulsome discussion. How long ago was that relationship? What
11:10
was the nature of the relationship. I wish I would
11:13
have been informed. I was not informed. I still don't
11:16
know the details and what they are. Question were you
11:20
aware then of the photographs of Menchell with Epstein and
11:23
Aspen Colorado skiing? Answer? I was not, and I was
11:27
not aware of it until this moment. Question if you
11:30
were aware of it, would that raise your concerns? Answer? Yes,
11:33
it would. When were the pictures redacted? Do you know
11:37
when redacted? I think it was early two thousands. Question
11:41
We're working on finding it and then maybe last bucket
11:44
and maybe the fastest one, maybe the slowest one. We'll
11:47
find out Steve Bannon has publicly stated that you told
11:51
them Epstein quote belong to intelligence. Do you ever recall
11:54
speaking to Steve Bannon about Jeffrey Epstein. Answer, I don't
11:58
recall ever speaking to Steve about Jeffrey Epstein. Question have
12:02
you ever spoken to Steve Bannon? Answer I've spoken to
12:05
Steve Bannon. I have no recollection of speaking to Steve
12:07
Bannon about Jeffrey Epstein. I've been asked up until now,
12:11
I did not know what the source was of the
12:13
anonymous White House quote. I've been asked about that. I
12:16
didn't know where it came from. I'll take your word
12:18
for it that, mister Bannon, but I don't know where
12:21
it came from. I never made that assertion. I was
12:24
asked about it at my press conference. I said that's
12:26
not truthful. I was asked about it in the Office
12:28
of Professional Responsibility interview. I said, I have no knowledge
12:32
as to whether he was or was not a member
12:34
of the intelligence community. Question so that gets to some
12:38
of my next ones. You've never made a statement similar
12:41
to Epstein belonging to intelligence? Answer? I have not. Question
12:45
during the course of your investigation, did anyone from the
12:48
intelligence community approach you regarding mister Epstein. Answer no question.
12:52
No one from the CIA answer no question. No one
12:55
from the State Department or NSA answer no question. Well,
13:00
I would have no one from the FBI answer yes,
13:03
question division answer no question. Any foreign intelligence services like
13:07
the MASAD Answer no. Again, I do not know if
13:11
he did or did not. If you want to know that,
13:13
you need to ask the intelligence community. I have not
13:16
been approached by any member of the intelligence community, and
13:19
I have no knowledge of his membership in the intelligence community.
13:23
Question and on that my last question, do you have
13:25
any reason to believe that Jeffrey Epstein was an asset
13:28
for a domestic or a foreign intelligence operation? Answer? I
13:32
have no reason to believe that. And if there was
13:34
any secure information, procedures would have been triggered that were
13:37
never triggered. Question And no one approached you and said,
13:41
you can't prosecute this guy, he's an asset. Answer No
13:44
one approached me and said that question. Thanks. All right,
13:47
We're going to wrap up right here, and in the
13:48
next episode we're gonna pick up where we left off.
13:51
All of the information that goes with this episode can
13:53
be found in the description box. What's up everyone, and
13:57
welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
14:01
we're going to dive right back into the alex Acosta
14:03
deposition once again, alex Acosta doing the answering and various
14:09
people doing the questioning. Question mister Acosta, I just wanted
14:13
to return to our conversation earlier about the investigative steps
14:17
that your office undertook. Going back to the NPA, that
14:21
document identifies for women as potential co conspirators. Correct answer,
14:26
yes it does. I don't want to give them a
14:28
status that identifies for women. Yes, question I'll represent that's
14:32
how the language in the agreement identifies them. Answer okay,
14:36
Question all right, did your office ever interview any of them? Answer?
14:39
I do not know. As I said previously, I would
14:42
not have directed who was interviewed or not interviewed in
14:45
these types of investigations. Question well, it's typical, isn't it
14:49
in criminal investigations for potential co conspirators to be interviewed
14:53
and hopefully cooperated up the chain of command? Isn't that so?
14:57
Answer I would say it's typical. Question Okay, would you
15:01
have expected it to happen in this case? Answer? I
15:04
don't know if they were, and if they were not,
15:06
I don't know why. Question to your knowledge, it did
15:09
not answer to my knowledge, I don't know. Question okay,
15:13
answer which is different than it did not? Question okay?
15:17
And I think the question of whether any of mister
15:19
Epstein's employees were interviewed was also raised earlier, and I
15:23
understood your testimony to be you also didn't know if
15:26
that happened. Answer again, I did not direct how how
15:30
a matter was investigated. Question okay, would you expect that
15:34
in order to perform a thorough investigation concerning sex crimes
15:38
you would need to talk to the employees who worked
15:40
at the premises where the crimes potentially occurred. Answer I
15:44
will accept that question okay. We spoke earlier about the
15:47
removal of computer equipment from mister Epstein's home prior to
15:51
the execution of a search warrant by the Palm Beach
15:53
Police Department, and your office's attempt to attain those materials
15:57
from mister Epstein's attorneys. To your knowledge, did they ever
16:00
succeed in doing so? Answer? I do not know. Question,
16:04
with those materials in your review potentially have shed more
16:07
light on the scope and magnitude. Answer, let me revise
16:10
my prior question. Question, can I just get this one
16:13
out first? Answer? Yes, question, with those materials in your
16:17
review potentially have shed more light on the scope and
16:20
magnitude of mister Epstein's crimes. Answer, they may have, and
16:25
I do want to revise my prior answer. I do
16:27
not know based on my personal recollection. I'm aware I
16:31
believe from the OPR report that they were not obtained,
16:34
but I don't have any personal recollection of the computer
16:36
material issue or what may or may not have been
16:39
on them. And I just wanted to make that clear. Question, Okay, understood,
16:43
to your knowledge, did your office obtained mister Epstein's flight records? Answer?
16:48
Once again, I did not direct how the office proceeded
16:51
with the investigation. I don't know twenty years later, what
16:55
may or may not have been part of a factual
16:58
briefing questions. So I'm going to ask the same question
17:01
with respect to mister Epstein's financial records. If you want
17:04
to give the same answer. Answer again, question, that's fine, answer,
17:10
same answer. So my question, in light of all of that,
17:13
would it, in your view, have been possible at the
17:15
time the NPA was entered into to make a reliable
17:17
assessment regarding the strength of the case against mister Epstein,
17:21
without cooperating witnesses, without having spoken to employees, without flight logs,
17:25
without the contents of mister Epstein's computers, or as financial records,
17:29
to the extent that evidence existed. Answer. So the matter
17:33
came to our office in two thousand and six. The
17:36
prosecutor on the case was an experienced prosecutor. She had
17:39
discretion to proceed as she saw fit. At some point
17:43
she said it's now time to move to the next stage,
17:46
and it's time to bring this matter to resolution. That
17:48
it's again, was within her discretion. Hindsight's twenty twenty. In retrospect,
17:54
maybe she should have done more. Maybe she should not
17:56
have done more. It's very difficult sitting here twenty years later.
17:59
The second guess her decisions. Question hindsight is twenty twenty.
18:04
But that information was ascertainable at the time, wasn't it.
18:08
Answer again, I think it's very difficult to second guess
18:10
her decisions. She's an outstanding prosecutor. She worked on this case.
18:14
She wanted to put him in jail, and I have
18:17
to trust that she would have pursued the types of evidence,
18:20
whether flight logs or other matters that would have contributed
18:23
to her theory of how you can put this man
18:25
in jail, because that was her focus. Question And again
18:29
it was you, as I think you said earlier this morning,
18:31
who approved the execution of the NPA. Answer yes, question
18:36
on the basis of the evidentiary record as it existed
18:38
at the time. Answer that is correct. Question. We have
18:42
spoken on and off today about the involvement of the
18:45
DOJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section or CEOs in your
18:51
office's investigation. I just wanted to note for the record
18:54
that the OPR report at page forty seven notes that
18:57
mister Osterbond, who as I understand stand, was the chief
19:01
of that section. Answer yeah, reviewed Miss Villafana's charging memo
19:05
and then an email to mister Slowman, mister Minchell, and
19:08
mister Lori stated that Miss Villafana quote did a terrific
19:12
job unquote and that CEO's quote agrees with their legal analysis,
19:17
her charging decisions are legally sound end quote. Answer on
19:21
page question forty seven, were you ever made aware of
19:25
mister Osterbond's views? Answer I was not, And I note
19:29
that mister Sloman, Menchell, and Laurie at various points have
19:32
stated counterviews to that. Mister Osterbond was invited to the
19:36
meeting that we had in September. He was present for
19:38
that meeting. He understood our approach. I have no recollection
19:42
of him taking me aside and saying Alex or mister Acosta.
19:45
I would have been Alex to him because I didn't
19:48
have that level of formality. Just so you know, dot
19:50
dot dot question, and am I correct that CEOs is
19:55
the component of the DOJ that's charged with specific expertise
19:59
in cases child exploitation cases? Answer? And CEOs was the
20:05
one who then sent an expert to review not just
20:08
the memo but the entire file. And that expert was
20:10
the one who said, quote unquote, it's a crapshoot question.
20:14
And that person was a subordinate of mister ostra Bond answer.
20:17
That person was a subordinate but very experienced. I think
20:20
OPR notes that a highly experienced prosecutor. Are you guys
20:25
getting the sense here yet that all they do is
20:27
use the OPR report as a shield because that's what
20:30
it's for. They investigated themselves and nobody was held accountable. Okay,
20:36
I guess if that's how you want to roll, Miss Stansbury.
20:39
Can I just ask a quick follow up on that,
20:41
mister Acosta. Yeah, Miss Stansbury. So earlier when you said
20:45
that part of the discussion with the team about prosecution,
20:49
you did mention the quote a crapshoot. That was just
20:52
with respect to the CEO's investigation, then, correct, mister Acosta,
20:57
that was with respect if we were going to go
20:59
to trial. Stansbury, But based on the evidence around the
21:02
investigation into these particular materials, Acosta, I don't know what
21:08
she reviewed or didn't review. She had access to the
21:10
full file and whatever was in the file, Miss Stansbury. Okay. Question.
21:15
The OPR report, as I read it, concluded that your
21:18
decision to defer to the state was based at least
21:21
in part on your interpretation of the DOJ's PETIT policy.
21:25
Is that correct answer? I think it was influenced by
21:28
the petit policy, and it was influenced by the idea
21:31
that there were two sovereigns and this was the state
21:34
case question. The report concluded that or noted rather that
21:39
the policy applies only to federal prosecution that follow completed
21:43
state prosecutions, not when a state investigation or a prosecution
21:46
remains pending. Is that correct? I think that I said
21:49
earlier that as a technical matter, the petit policy did
21:53
not apply because it was not inked, the agreement was
21:55
not InCD at the state level, but that the fact
21:58
that it came in through the analysis continue to influence
22:01
how we looked at the case. Question again, per the
22:04
OPR report, it was your decision, as I understand it,
22:07
that the US Attorney's office should offer mister Epstein a
22:10
two year term of imprisonment. Is that correct? Answer? That
22:13
is correct? Question? Okay? How did you arrive at the
22:17
two years answer? So my recollection was that he would
22:21
have received if he had gone to jail on the
22:23
original state charges. I would not have had the expertise
22:26
to guess that because I do not know the state
22:29
system as well as the federal system. So I would
22:32
infer that At some point I asked our supervisory team
22:35
if this had gone right from the beginning, if the
22:37
state attorney had not dropped the ball, what would he
22:39
be serving? And someone told me two years? Question? Okay,
22:44
So that brings me back to the question of why
22:46
not follow Miss Villafana's recommendation under the federal sentencing guideline
22:50
of substantially higher sentence in the range of one hundred
22:54
and sixty to two hundred and ten months with an
22:56
upward departure. Answer once again, I don't think Miss Villa
23:00
Fanna's guidelines were on the table, not because of me,
23:03
but because everyone in the office favored a negotiated resolution.
23:07
I think the alternative would have been a three seventy one. Stansbury,
23:11
could you clarify what that means? Acosta. Three seventy one's
23:14
a federal charge of conspiracy, and it's used when you're
23:17
trying to obtain a negotiated plea. It's not used exclusively,
23:21
but it's often used by federal prosecutors because the negotiated
23:24
plea of a three seventy one with a rule eleven
23:27
provides a mechanism for having a term of years that
23:30
someone may agree to. I don't think anyone something that
23:33
I think is being lost in this. No one in
23:35
the office thought that, oh, two years is enough. No
23:38
one thought that, oh, two years is full justice. The
23:41
question was do you go to trial and risk them
23:43
getting off entirely or do you take a certainty of
23:46
a sentence and how do you how do you get there,
23:49
and so the idea of what the police were originally
23:51
seeking is where I sort of ended up. But no one,
23:55
no one said, oh, two years is enough. It was
23:57
negotiated plea or a risk going to trial, and that's
24:00
what motivated this three p. Seventy one with a rule
24:05
eleven was the alternative that we talked about. To return
24:08
to our discussion this morning, the decision to proceed via
24:11
state plea rather than federal charges was a choice, right answer.
24:15
It was a choice, and my ultimate decision was to
24:17
do that. I don't think i've implied otherwise. Question just again,
24:21
The two year proposed sentence was negotiated down over time,
24:25
initially twenty months and then ultimately to eighteen months, of
24:28
which mister Epstein, as we spoke about, only served thirteen.
24:32
Why the reduction over the course of your negotiations? Answer?
24:37
So two parts to it. First, in the negotiations, the
24:39
prosecuting attorney needs some discretion to proceed. She wanted Epstein
24:43
to go to jail just like everyone else, and she
24:46
had that discretion. I believe there was a meeting at
24:49
the state Attorney's office. This wasn't my recollection. This is
24:52
the report where it went from twenty four to eighteen,
24:55
and I would support if she thought or her supervising
24:58
attorney thought that that was right outcome, I would support
25:01
their discretion. That separate and apart from how it was
25:05
finally served, because the idea of work release was something
25:08
that none of us contemplated. We had assurances that it
25:11
would not get that. All of us were shocked and
25:13
upset about that. And had we known that he was
25:16
going to get work release, this would not have gone
25:18
forward because what we contemplated was continuous confinement. Question and
25:22
in terms of the decision to reduce the sentence by
25:25
a substantial amount, what was mister Epstein's leverage in your view?
25:29
Why did the government agree to it, and what did
25:31
it gain from that concession. I can't speculate, twenty years
25:35
after the fact, what the leverage was, what the government gained.
25:38
What the government gained is to have mister Epstein, To
25:40
have mister Epstein go to jail, and I understand the
25:43
eighteen to twenty four, but to have him actually plead
25:46
guilty and say abuse these victims and go to jail
25:49
and send a signal to Palm Beach where these prosecutions
25:53
hadn't happened that you can't get away with. This was
25:55
and our view, a substantial interest and a substantial win.
25:59
And I understand it's viewed very differently now, and have
26:01
we known back then what we know now, it would
26:04
have proceeded along a different route. And I understand along
26:07
the way that the victims weren't fully informed for reasons
26:10
that our office acted in the best motive, but that
26:13
left them feeling that we weren't forthright. I get all that,
26:17
but having him go to jail was a big deal,
26:19
and having him register and tell the world, look, he
26:21
is a sex offender. That matters. Question. So, if I'm
26:25
understanding your testimony correctly, the truncated length of his prison
26:28
sentence was the result of the state based regime that
26:32
you opted to pursue over the federal course. Answer. What
26:36
I was testifying to is the move from I don't
26:38
know why we move from twenty four to eighteen that
26:40
happened in a negotiation. What I'm trying to convey, and
26:43
maybe doing so poorly, is that we can't undervalue the
26:47
importance of his going to jail. Question. I think we
26:50
all agree on that point, but I think the question
26:52
remains when mister Epstein not effaced potentially substantially greater exposure
26:57
in terms of sentencing under federal charges as opposed to
27:01
the state charges to which a sentence apparently was conformed
27:04
in the process of negotiating the NPA answer, so to
27:08
pass on the table were the three seventy one that
27:11
might have been with the rule eleven, They might or
27:14
might not have been higher if they had gone to
27:16
trial and won. He certainly would have faced a higher charge.
27:19
But the question is do we go to trial or
27:22
do we risk losing everything? Right? At some point, I
27:25
forget which attorney, which of my supervisors said question, mister Acosta,
27:29
I think we agreed this morning that going to trial
27:32
was not your only option. A federal plea was also
27:34
an option. Wasn't it answer a federal plea under three
27:37
seventy one with a rule eleven? Stansbury? And what would
27:41
the sentence for that have been, mister Acosta, So under
27:44
rule eleven you recommend a plea, the maximum under a
27:47
three seventy one would be five years. I think there
27:50
was a consensus in the office that there would not
27:53
have been pled to five years, and so we were
27:55
possibly may have ended up putting aside the whole work release,
27:59
and I will own that the state was that I
28:02
should have expected the state to sort of drop the
28:04
ball on that, and the OPR is correct, But under
28:07
three seventy one, the sentence would have been, it depended
28:10
what we negotiated. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up
28:13
right here and in the next episode dealing with the topic,
28:16
we're going to pick up where we left off. All
28:18
of the information that goes with this episode can be
28:21
found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome
28:24
to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
28:28
we're going to pick up where he left off with
28:30
the deposition of alex Acosta. Once again, alex Acosta is
28:34
doing the answering and a whole host of people are
28:37
doing the questioning question. I'm just going to note another
28:42
one of the CEO's chief oster Bond's express views as
28:45
set fourth in the OPR report. This is at page
28:48
ninety five, which notes that mister Osterbond reviewed the NPA
28:51
and told mister Lori that he is quote not thrilled
28:54
about the NPA described Epstein's conduct as unusually quote unquote egregious. Yes,
29:00
particularly because of its serious nature, and observed that the
29:03
NPA was quote pretty advantageous for the defendant and not
29:07
at all that helpful for the victims unquote. Were you
29:11
aware of mister Osterbond's view in that respect? Answer two points. First,
29:15
I was not aware of that, But secondly, I would
29:18
note that took place after the agreement had been signed,
29:21
and mister Osterbond was in our office for the meeting
29:23
where the terms were talked about and presented, and had
29:26
opportunity to speak up at the time, he didn't have
29:29
to speak up. He may have assumed that he had
29:31
previously communicated his views, but that was an after the
29:35
fact email question. Briefly, with respect to the review that
29:39
took place both in your office and at May and Justice,
29:44
Robert Senior quote concluded that the proposed charges were sound,
29:48
and he told Acosta that he would approve proceeding with
29:50
a federal case unquote. Do you recall mister Senior communicating
29:54
that to you? Answers, So that took place when we thought,
29:57
after the NPA had been signed, we I had already agreed.
30:01
We thought he may never follow through. It's been a
30:04
while since we've looked at the case afresh. And so
30:07
investigation may take place in the interim. So let's have
30:10
the new criminal chief review at soup to nuts. And
30:13
if we have to go to trial, are we ready
30:15
to go to trial? And he said, yes, if you
30:17
have to go to trial, you're ready to go to trial.
30:20
The question was not how you proceed or would you
30:22
favor a negotiated plea. The question would be, if we
30:25
have to go to trial, can we drop it? Can
30:28
we drop an indictment? Question? And is that an accurate
30:31
account of what mister senior communicated to you? Answer? I
30:34
believe that's what he said. If we have to go
30:37
to trial, we can be ready. That wasn't how we
30:41
should proceed. This wasn't about viability of a case or
30:44
a balance between a negotiated plea and going to trial.
30:48
That is, if we have to go to trial, do
30:50
we have enough or do we have to do more? Question?
30:53
Let me try it a different way. Any reason to
30:56
believe that the quote I just read into the record
30:58
is an accurate answer? I believe that it's taken out
31:01
of context. Given the time that the review took place
31:05
and why the review took place. The defense counsel at
31:07
the time was charging that we had insufficient grounds for
31:10
going to trial. This was during the debate. Question mister Acosta,
31:15
I understand the context as you've just laid out, but
31:18
my question is simply, are the quoted words accurate? Did
31:21
mister senior say that answer? And my response is that
31:26
it's taken out of context because the question was not
31:28
as you're implying with respect, how should we proceed? The
31:32
question is we are being told that we're acting unethically
31:36
because we do not have a federal case. And so,
31:38
mister Senior, you haven't been involved, take a look and
31:41
tell us if you believe that this is an ethical
31:44
case to bring, if the arguments are strong enough that
31:47
if we have to go to trial, we can do
31:49
it in an ethical manner. Not hearing you disputing mister
31:53
Signora's words, I'll move on. The report goes on to
31:56
note that upon additional review by CEOs which concluded me
32:00
of two thousand and eight, this section concluded that quote,
32:03
federal prosecution in this case would not be improper or
32:06
inappropriate unquote. Again, is that consistent with your recollection answer? Again,
32:12
the context of that is that there was an appeal
32:15
to Washington saying that federal prosecution would be improper period,
32:19
full stop, negotiated plea going to trial, that we did
32:23
not have a case even to obtain a two year sentence,
32:26
that we had to drop the case. Question and in
32:29
that context answer, and in that context CEOs concluded that
32:34
we could go forward as we had been doing. Question
32:37
and just with respect to the question in general of
32:39
review both at senior levels within your office and at
32:43
Main Justice, how common in your experience is it for
32:46
the target of a federal criminal investigation to obtain that
32:50
amount of attention and review as mister Epstein did. Answer?
32:54
In my experience, I've never had a case that has
32:57
been elevated to that level. That said, several high profile
33:00
cases have been done like Jack Abramoff was done in
33:03
conjunction with others were done in conjunction with Main Justice,
33:07
but that is the only case where multiple levels of
33:10
review were granted by Main Justice. Question would you agree
33:14
that the notoriety of mister Epstein's council, along with their
33:17
multiple connections to senior personnel at the DOJ, helped them
33:21
secure that level of attention. Answer? I'm not going to
33:24
speculate why DOJ granted the reviews they did, and people
33:28
have a right to request a review by main justice questions. So,
33:31
without speculating in the specific case, would you agree that
33:35
as a general matter, criminal targets with prominent, highly placed,
33:38
well connected council are more likely to receive that type
33:42
of attention at DOJ answer again, I'm not going to speculate.
33:46
He received the reviews and our office was reviewed and
33:49
we received permission to go forward. The argument that they
33:52
presented at the meeting in Miami was that this wasn't
33:55
a federal case, that it was a staycase, and that
33:58
we should drop the case. I refused to drop the case.
34:02
They went to the Criminal Division, they asked the same question.
34:05
The Criminal Division said, I had the authority to go forward.
34:07
They went to the Deputy Attorney General's office, they asked
34:10
the same question. The Deputy Attorney General said, I had
34:13
the authority to go forward. Mister Acosta question. FBI Director
34:18
Cash Battel testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday,
34:22
and during his testimony, he stated, quote, the original sin
34:25
on the Epstein case was how it was handled by
34:28
mister Acosta when he first brought the case in two
34:31
thousand and six, two thousand and seven and two thousand
34:34
and eight, and doctor Battel continued quote, mister Acosta allowed
34:38
mister Epstein to enter into a plea agreement where he
34:41
served weeks in jail for trafficking minor women. Do you
34:44
have a response to that answer? And mister Battell is
34:46
entitled to say what he wants. I think I've been
34:49
very clear. The work release was granted by the Pombach Sheriff.
34:52
Our office opposed it. Our office had every expectation that
34:56
he would have continuous confinement. We were upset. More than upset.
35:00
We were what's the polite word for ticked off, I'll
35:02
say ticked off. We were ticked off that he didn't
35:05
do so. Our office transmitted an objection to the Correctional
35:09
Department upon Beach. Our office was upset over the manner
35:13
in which he obtained this, because the place where he
35:15
was doing work release was shady at best, and so
35:19
it was what it was. We weren't happy. You know,
35:21
if we had known that he'd be out on work release,
35:24
we would have never gone through with this. We insisted,
35:27
and actually had multiple points obtained assurances that it would
35:30
be continuous confinement. But clearly, somehow Palm Beach gave it
35:33
to him. Question fair to say you disagree with director Patel. Answer.
35:38
I'm not here to create a clash between one person
35:40
or another. I'm here to give my views and I'm
35:43
not about the quick headline. That's not who I am.
35:45
Miss Stansbury. I'm just so perplexed. You know, this is
35:49
one of those cases where the more you learn about it,
35:51
the more and more it becomes perplexing. I want to
35:54
just dig in a little bit about gets she gets
35:56
cut off by Acosta. Yeah, Stansbury, the felt nexus piece
36:00
of this, And I know you have some things you
36:02
wanted to say about transportation, Acosta. Yeah, Stansbury. And at
36:07
the time of which the investigation occurred, prior to the
36:10
recommendation that you gave for a non prosecution agreement, there
36:13
had already been victim witness statements taken that indicated that
36:16
Jeffrey Epstein had taken young women and children on his
36:20
plane transported them across state lines. Correct, Acosta, Not, to
36:24
my knowledge, Stansbury, Virginia, Robert's statement had not yet been
36:28
in the record. Acosta. Again, I don't know what statement
36:31
that was. Not to my knowledge. Here it goes to
36:35
your point. The managing attorney for he gets cut off
36:38
by Stansbury. Did you just before you go into that though,
36:42
again perplexing to me, So I know you said that
36:45
you did not review the investigatory interviews yourself. So you're
36:49
relying then on secondary information, Acosta. So if I could
36:54
simply the managing attorney, mister Lori Laurie believed the defense
36:57
argument that Epstein did not travel to Florida quote, with
37:01
the purpose of engaging and elicited sex with a minor
37:04
was more persuasive. So he believed the defense argument that
37:08
Epstein did not travel to Florida with the purpose was
37:11
more persuasive, Miss Stansbury. But that's not the question, I asked,
37:15
mister Acosta. It's the question, and here's why, because we
37:19
wouldn't have had this internal debate over whether the purpose
37:22
of his flying to New York to Florida was to
37:24
have sex and whether that had to be the purpose
37:27
or the dominant purpose if we had evidence that he
37:30
actually transported a minor to engage in sex trafficking. So
37:34
if we had the evidence that you talked about, the
37:37
supervisory chain would not have been engaging in this secondary
37:40
discussion or finding a workaround, Miss Stansbury, I do want
37:44
to press on that just a little bit. I mean,
37:47
the committing of crimes across the stay border, regardless of
37:50
intent to commit the crime across the stay of border,
37:52
is still a federal crime if it happens across the
37:55
state Acosta. So to my recollection, we did not based
37:58
on this, we did not have evidence that he was
38:00
transporting miners across day lines for purposes of sex. Stansbury. Okay,
38:06
So this is where I would like to follow up. So,
38:08
in the negotiation of the non prosecution agreement, as the
38:12
plea agreement, that was at the heart of the non
38:14
prosecution agreement, as I'm understanding it, Miss Villa Fauna engaged
38:18
in direct negotiations with Jay Lefkowitz Nieman left Kuwitz, left Quitz,
38:23
Thank you Stansbury. And so we do have copies of
38:28
correspondence that was held by email between between Epstein's attorneys
38:32
and the line prosecutor that was instructed to pursue the
38:34
plea agreement, and they went back and forth about what
38:37
state crime Jeffrey Epstein would plead to right Acosta uhuh Stansbury.
38:42
And in this correspondence specifically there was a discussion about
38:45
the possibility of maybe mister Epstein could plead guilty to
38:48
some sort of assault on his plane, And in that correspondence,
38:52
it's literally said by the line prosecutor, no, we can't
38:56
do that because it's illegal under US Code forty nine
38:59
forty six five, meaning it's a federal crime. So, in fact,
39:04
your online prosecutor was aware that there were women being
39:07
transported across state lines, and it was at the heart
39:11
of the plea agreement that she was specifically talking to
39:14
Epstein's attorney about negotiating a state plea rather than a
39:18
federal plea, mister Acosta, So with respect, and I'd have
39:22
to see the full content of what you are quoting from.
39:25
I don't interpret that as saying that she was aware
39:28
that victims were being transported across state lines for the
39:31
purpose of sex, and the assault charge was something that
39:34
if it had come up, I think this went beyond assault.
39:37
Assault would not have been a registrable Stansbury. It's an
39:41
actual email between a federal prosecutor and the defendant's attorney,
39:44
and I'll just read it quote, Hi, Jay, I looked
39:47
at some eleven circuit cases on simple assault and found
39:50
some good language. I also learned that every moment Acosta
39:54
on simple assault, you said, Stansbury. Yeah, she's in the
39:57
middle of negotiating, but she looked at the eleventh Circuit
40:01
on what kind of simple assault? Miss Stansbury. This says
40:06
simple assault, Acosta, Okay, Stansbury, And then the next sentence says,
40:11
I learned that every moment that one is a bored
40:14
and inclosed civil airplane, they are in the quote unquote
40:17
special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States. So the assault
40:21
charge is really a violation of US Code forty nine
40:25
four six five oh six, which doesn't change the penalty.
40:28
And so the nature of this correspondence is that she
40:30
actually is talking Depthsteine's attorney to come up with a
40:33
state plea, and so she's saying, you can't use that
40:36
plea because it makes this a federal crime. Do you
40:39
see what I'm saying, mister Acosta. So I'm not sure
40:42
that again, I'm not sure that's what she's saying. And
40:45
at some point, you know, in this negotiation process, she
40:48
really focused on getting them in jail and was starting
40:51
to get creative with some statutes, and ultimately that didn't
40:54
go anywhere, because you can't get that creative. Whatever you
40:57
pled had to be registrable. And my opinion, and again,
41:02
the office had extensive discussions about travel and about the
41:05
travel the Florida Statute, those discussions. We would have not
41:09
had the entire line of discussions if there was evidence
41:12
that he transported miners for purposes of sex. I can't
41:16
recreate twenty years later what may have been in someone
41:18
else's mind in an email. What I can talk to
41:22
is it wouldn't have made sense to have those extensive
41:25
discussions and debates about dominant or a purpose if there
41:28
was an easier path to follow, Miss Stansbury. But let
41:31
me ask you this, was it normal for a federal
41:34
prosecutor who was recommending federal charges to engage in back
41:37
and forth email with the defendant's attorney given them ideas
41:40
for potential lesser crimes that they could plead to Stansbury.
41:45
Did you explain that or experience that in other cases?
41:48
Stansbury just a yes or no? Acosta. So, Stansbury, did
41:53
that happen during your time as US attorney in other cases? Acosta? So, first,
41:58
I don't have the benefit of all these ema in
42:00
all these cases, because the case is fairly unique Stansbury.
42:04
But just a Costa cuts her off. But secondly, I
42:06
think Ms Villa Fauna was asked about that in the OPR,
42:10
and I do want to defend her for a minute, Stansbury.
42:13
I'm not impugning her character. Acosta. You know, Stansbury cuts
42:17
him off. I'm asking you about the prosecution of the case, Acosta.
42:22
But I think her answer to OPR was, you know, look,
42:25
she believes it's really that's part of who she is
42:27
as a prosecutor is to be friendly and to have
42:30
these discussions, and that no way should be led should
42:33
lead anyone to think she's anything but a tough prosecutor,
42:37
that in no way should imply that she was anything
42:39
less than fully fully dedicated to putting them in jail,
42:43
Miss Stansbury. But when you made the decision, because you
42:46
said it multiple times today that you are going to
42:48
proceed to pursue federal prosecution and we're going to go
42:52
to the non prosecution agreement, did you direct her or
42:54
someone in her chain of command to look for a
42:57
less strict crime under state jurisdiction for him to plead
43:00
to Acosta. No, the decision was made to proceed, she
43:05
went forward, and then she negotiated this using her best judgment. Stansbury,
43:09
did you personally speak to Epstein's attorneys at any point
43:12
during the negotiation? Acosta, So, as I've said previously, they
43:16
asked for a meeting. I thought the case would go
43:18
to Washington. I thought it was better to have the
43:20
meeting in the office. We granted the meeting. I was there,
43:23
She was there, the first assistant was there, the criminal
43:25
chief was there. Representatives of the FBI were there, The
43:28
managing attorney of the Palm Beach office was there. They
43:31
came in. They asked us to drop the case. I
43:33
think they said, in the alternative, do some kind of
43:36
home confinement thing. Their argument was that it's a local crime,
43:40
not a federal crime, and that we don't have evidence
43:43
to make it a federal crime. I said, I've heard you.
43:46
Can you please leave the room. I looked around, I said,
43:48
does anyone disagree with our approach? No one spoke up.
43:52
They came back in and said, we've heard you, but
43:54
we're proceeding as we see fit, and the meeting concluded. Stansbury,
44:01
did you socialize with them outside of the office, Acosta
44:03
not during this time. I knew them before, and we've
44:06
talked about that. But during the negotiation, Stansbury, at any
44:10
point between the beginning of the DOJ FBI investigation and
44:13
the execution of the non prosecution agreement, did you ever
44:16
socialize with Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys Acosta. I did not socialize.
44:21
There was a breakfast meeting that took place after the
44:23
agreement was signed. We talked about that at the breakfast meeting.
44:26
It was twenty years ago. I don't remember the content.
44:30
My informed speculation is that when they were trying to
44:33
recuse miss Villafana from the case, the agreement had already
44:37
been signed, she was recommending associate of her boyfriend, as
44:40
we'll call it, the special master of the person that
44:42
was going to help obtain monetary recoveries for the victims.
44:46
I'm willing to speculate it would have made sense for
44:48
me to find out what they were trying to recuse
44:50
her for and what the specifics were. We decided not
44:53
to recuse her from the case. We thought that she
44:55
did not act incorrectly. Other than that, I have no
44:59
recollection of any social interaction with them, and I should
45:03
add I was in Miami. They were in Washington, so
45:06
it was different cities as well. All right, we're going
45:09
to wrap up right here, and in the next episode,
45:11
we're going to finish this bad boy off. All of
45:13
the information that goes with this episode can be found
45:16
in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to
45:19
another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're
45:23
getting right back to that Alex Acosta deposition and we're
45:26
going to finish it off. Stansbury, going back to the
45:30
Federal nexus, it's our understanding that there were financial records
45:34
collected as part of the investigation that included an investigation
45:38
into international wire transfers. Are you aware of that, mister Acosta.
45:43
I don't recall a financial aspect to this. We were
45:46
focused on the inappropriate acts that took place in Palm Beach,
45:50
Miss Stansbury. Was it ever discussed as part of the
45:53
federal investigation? Acosta? This was twenty years ago. I don't remember, Stansbury.
45:58
You don't recall whether or not, in the most high
46:01
profile cases of your life that led to your resignation
46:04
from the administration, whether or not the financial transactions were
46:08
investigated Stansbury as part of the investigation, Acosta, with respect.
46:13
With respect at the time, it was high profile. It
46:16
was not the most high profile case of my life
46:18
at the time, Miss Stansbury. Okay, that's fine, Acosta. But
46:23
the focus Stansbury. But in any case, Acosta, right, Stansbury,
46:28
it's established fact. Okay, you know we've been working with
46:31
the majority to get copies of the financial records. Acosta.
46:35
Could I ask a question Stansbury. Yes, Acosta, are there
46:39
communications about a financial aspect of the case? Are there?
46:42
You know we've got a full OPR report here, three
46:45
hundred pages. I don't believe that there's references to a
46:48
financial respect to the case in the OPR report. All
46:51
by design, Like I've told you, the idea of this
46:55
OPR report was to give people like Acosta cover so
46:59
when they finally get called on the carpet, they can
47:01
refer back to the report and wrap themselves in it
47:03
like armor. And that's exactly what we've seen Acosta do. Stansbury.
47:08
I'm asking you, Acosta, but Stansbury. If Acosta, but you
47:12
said it was an established fact, Stansbury, Well, let me Acosta,
47:17
gently questioning how much of an established fact Stansbury, you
47:21
were the prosecutor, not me. I'm asking you questions to
47:24
understand what you investigated. So what I'm trying to understand is,
47:28
did you look at potential financial crimes and discuss that
47:31
as part of the decision as to whether or not
47:33
to pursue federal charges? Acosta? To my recollection, the discussion
47:38
was focused on the sex crimes, Stansbury, and why not
47:41
on the financial crimes? Acosta? Again, this was twenty years ago.
47:45
I can't speak to that, Miss Stansbury. Was that not
47:48
part of what was recommended through the line, prosecutor Acosta? Again,
47:52
I can't speak to that. I do not recall the
47:55
discussions over financial If there have been, you know, a
47:57
federal nexus on financial crimes, again, we wouldn't have had
48:01
these long discussions about a federal nexus. Stansbury. Okay, well,
48:06
we'll see where the evidence leads us. I think I'm
48:09
done with that line. If you have other things, mister Anzari,
48:13
do you have anything else you want to ask? Anzari? No, Stansbury,
48:17
give me one moment here. I think the final set
48:19
of questions that we had were around the FBI's recommendations
48:23
to arrest mister Epstein based on communications that were transmitted
48:26
to US. It looks like the FBI communicated that they
48:29
had prepared to arrest mister Epstein in the case, but
48:32
that the US Attorney's Office had essentially interfered in the
48:36
arrest mister Acosta. So let me ask that question. Then,
48:40
I want to back up to your prior question about
48:42
financial crimes. I believe what you're referring to is a
48:45
request to go forward when he was in the Virgin Islands.
48:48
That was discussed a little bit earlier today, and what
48:51
I pointed out at the time, what we had was
48:54
a draft memo to go forward. That memo had not
48:57
been vetted by the supervisory chain. In every case, not
49:00
just this case, the prosecuting attorney writes a memo, they
49:03
write a draft, that draft gets vetted, it gets changed,
49:07
not everyone in the office agrees the charges are changed.
49:11
I believe at that point her direct supervisor had already
49:14
commented that he did not agree with her charging decisions,
49:17
and that was the beginning of a conversation on how
49:19
to charge. And so it would not be the case
49:22
that a US Attorney's office would authorize an arrest on
49:24
a draft document that hasn't been approved by the immediate
49:27
supervisor and is still being drafted Stansbury, And why did
49:31
you not sign off on it or why did the
49:33
supervisor not sign off on it? Acosta? So based on
49:37
the OPR report, not a fucking thought of his own,
49:39
huh OPR this OPR that La fungoul to the OPR
49:43
report and anyone involved in it. I believe that there
49:46
was a difference of opinion as to the theory of
49:49
the case and how to proceed. And that was the
49:52
beginning of the discussion within the office, Miss Stansbury about
49:56
the non prosecution agreement Acosta, that eventually led that eventually
50:00
led that way. And I want to back up if
50:03
I could, to the extent that there were financial crimes,
50:06
those financial crimes would not have been covered by and
50:09
could not have been preceded in other districts or could
50:12
have even proceeded in the Southern District because it's a
50:15
different set of statutes. And so just like New York
50:18
proceeded with this, you know, with Glenn Maxwell, if there
50:20
were financial crimes that could have proceeded, and so if
50:24
that was being investigated, it could continue to have been investigated.
50:28
The two matters unless they're heavily interlinked. But even if
50:31
they were, you know, it's a separate set of matters
50:33
to my mind, and so one would not have precluded
50:37
the other. Stansbury, including the non prosecution agreement, would you
50:41
apply to financial crimes Acosta? To my read on the
50:44
non prosecution agreement is it would not apply to financial crimes. No.
50:48
And the non prosecution agreement, I should also add, to
50:53
be clear, by its terms was limited to the Southern
50:56
District of Florida, which is why the case in New
50:58
York was able to be brought. Stansbury. I have one
51:01
more question with regards to any evidence that may have
51:04
been collected by the FBI or DJ. Does the President
51:07
have the authority to unseal those documents if they were
51:10
there is not otherwise a very specific court order regarding
51:13
them Acosta. If the seal is placed by the court,
51:17
then it would have to be the court that goes
51:19
to that Stansbury. But any other document that's not under
51:23
court order, he can technically Acosta. Documents that aren't under
51:27
court orders can be. If there is no prohibition, then
51:31
whoever is the custodian of the document can proceed as
51:34
they see fit. Stansbury, I think that's it, Acosta. That's
51:38
my opinion. I'm not speaking for the executive branch, but
51:41
apps in a prohibition, a custodian can proceed. Stansbury, Well,
51:46
I'm sure the White House attorneys think the president has
51:48
total power in this matter. But that's my editorializing Acosta
51:53
off the record. We are now off the record. Thank you,
51:57
all right, We're done, sir. So that is the completion
52:01
of the alex Acosta deposition, and as you can imagine,
52:06
I find it to be disgusting as fuck. The whole
52:08
entire thing was just an evasion of real answers, an
52:13
evasion of justice, and a master class at how to
52:16
avoid answering any questions with any sort of certainty. The
52:21
fact that he kept relying on the OPR report time
52:23
and time again is very disgusting and very disturbing. He
52:28
shouldn't have been allowed to rely on that report. Now
52:30
you can refer to it, but that gives him the cover. Right.
52:35
Oh well, the OPR said, the OPR said, and the
52:38
OPR report itself. I have questions about that, I have
52:42
questions about the veracity of it, and I certainly have
52:45
questions about how honest people were when they were talking
52:48
with the Inspector General. And that's why I've called from
52:51
the very beginning to have all these people that we're
52:53
talking about brought in put under oath and talk to again,
52:58
but not with the camera's off. The days of this
53:02
happening in secret, behind closed doors and us just getting
53:05
these transcripts should be long over. There's no national security here.
53:11
There's nothing here that's going to you know, damage anybody,
53:15
well unless you're one of Epstein's friends. But besides that,
53:18
the rest of us deserve to know what's going on.
53:20
And I don't know about you, folks, but I'm not
53:22
exactly trusting of what the federal government's up to, especially
53:28
considering what we're hearing about Maxwell, and you know, commuting
53:31
a sentence maybe pardons the whole thing. So forgive me
53:34
if I have no confidence in the most transparent administration
53:37
of all time. And that right there is the story
53:40
of alex Acosta's so called deposition, A masterclass in cowardice, deception,
53:45
and bureaucratic rot. A man who held tend a predator
53:48
the deal of a lifetime, sitting under oath, pretending not
53:51
to remember, not to know, not to be responsible. Every
53:55
answer was a dodge, every pause, a calculation, every word,
53:59
a smirk aim squarely at the people who still believe
54:02
justice means something. In this country. Nothing was learned because
54:06
nothing was meant to be learned. The powerful were never
54:09
in danger, only inconvenienced. The survivor has got silenced, the
54:13
public god spin, and the predators once again get peace
54:16
of mind. Another disgusting performance designed to bury the truth
54:21
one more time under a mountain of I can't recall.
54:24
And in the end, as always, the protected remain protected,
54:28
and the rest of us get the same old parting
54:30
gift from the system, a middle finger and a pat
54:32
on the ass, just to remind us who really runs
54:35
the show. And in my opinion, that's the part that
54:38
should set every nerve on fire, the fact that these
54:41
people can sit there under oath, in front of cameras,
54:43
in front of the world, and still lie through their
54:45
teeth with total confidence that nothing will happen to them.
54:48
They've built this machine that protects itself from consequence. The
54:52
doj the prosecutors, the so called watchdogs, all of them
54:56
circle in the wagons for attending this is justice when
54:59
it's nothing more than it carefully choreographed pantomime. They call
55:03
it a deposition. I call it a burial because that's
55:06
what they're doing, burying the truth, burying accountability, burying the
55:09
last flicker of faith the public might still have in
55:12
this disease ass system. And while they're at it, they're
55:15
counting on your exhaustion. Like I always tell you, they
55:18
think they can drag this out long enough. If they
55:20
throw enough legal jargon and smirking non answers at us,
55:24
we're gonna eventually look away. That's always been the strategy,
55:27
stall spin and suffocate the truth under the weight of apathy.
55:31
But here's the thing we're watching. People are paying attention.
55:35
There's no more gaslighting in the world about Jeffrey Epstein.
55:39
Acosta's deposition wasn't just a sham. It was a warning
55:42
shot from the establishment that they still think they can
55:45
control the narrative. But the tide's turning, and when it
55:48
finally crashes down, there is no amount of I don't
55:51
recall that's going to save them from the reckoning they've
55:54
spent decades trying to avoid. As for us, well, we're
55:58
going to continue to him through all this disgusting muck,
56:02
looking for that clarity and The next deposition that we're
56:05
going to dive into is Nadia Marsonkovi's, and I promise
56:09
you you do not want to miss that one. All
56:12
of the information that goes with this episode can be
56:15
found in the description box