Listen Notes: Den bedste podcast-søgemaskine
Mega Edition: Transcripts From The Alex Acosta Deposition (Part 13-15) (11/12/26)

Fuld transskription af Mega Edition: Transcripts From The Alex Acosta Deposition (Part 13-15) (11/12/26)

Download transcripts: SRT VTT TXT

UDSKRIFT 🔗

WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.030 --> 00:00:02.710 What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the 2 00:00:02.810 --> 00:00:05.889 Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to dive right 3 00:00:05.919 --> 00:00:10.000 back in to the Alex Acosta deposition that was given 4 00:00:10.039 --> 00:00:14.480 to Congress. Once again, Alex Acosta doing the answering and 5 00:00:14.539 --> 00:00:19.160 various people are asking the questions. Question. I understand that 6 00:00:19.179 --> 00:00:23.949 in December of 2008, you recused yourself from the Epstein investigation. Answer. 7 00:00:23.960 --> 00:00:27.760 I did. Question. Is that right? And that was at 8 00:00:27.800 --> 00:00:30.260 a time when you were engaged in discussions with Kirkland 9 00:00:30.600 --> 00:00:33.780 about returning there as an attorney. Is that right? Answer. 10 00:00:34.100 --> 00:00:36.939 I was not engaged in discussions with Kirkland about returning 11 00:00:37.000 --> 00:00:40.979 as an attorney. Question. Okay. Answer. This was after he 12 00:00:41.009 --> 00:00:43.750 had gone to jail and after he pled. The election 13 00:00:43.789 --> 00:00:46.530 had just taken place. I was considering whether to apply 14 00:00:46.570 --> 00:00:49.810 to private practice, whether at Kirkland or any other law office. 15 00:00:50.770 --> 00:00:52.750 I had a general conversation at the time with Mr. 16 00:00:52.789 --> 00:00:56.420 Lefkowitz about what private practice was like. I hadn't practiced 17 00:00:56.450 --> 00:00:59.210 since the mid-90s and thought it best to have, and 18 00:00:59.270 --> 00:01:01.829 I also had a general conversation with several other folks 19 00:01:01.869 --> 00:01:05.230 in Miami about private practice. I thought it best to 20 00:01:05.250 --> 00:01:08.129 recuse because it's at the same time that our office 21 00:01:08.150 --> 00:01:11.129 started objecting to the Palm Beach Sheriff's decision to put 22 00:01:11.150 --> 00:01:13.810 him on work release. Given the number of attorneys that 23 00:01:13.829 --> 00:01:15.950 they had on the case, I did not think that 24 00:01:15.989 --> 00:01:18.230 it made sense to enter a job market when I 25 00:01:18.250 --> 00:01:22.359 was in charge of this case, and so I recused myself. Question, 26 00:01:22.659 --> 00:01:24.730 so if I can unpack that a bit, At what 27 00:01:24.810 --> 00:01:27.290 point in time did you begin to consider returning to 28 00:01:27.329 --> 00:01:32.189 private practice? Answer, most likely after the election. Before the election, 29 00:01:32.689 --> 00:01:35.780 I had been looking into and ended up rejecting private 30 00:01:35.819 --> 00:01:39.379 practice and going into the legal academy. I considered applying 31 00:01:39.420 --> 00:01:42.739 to my old law school for a practitioner position for 32 00:01:42.780 --> 00:01:45.239 a period of time. At the time, I believe I 33 00:01:45.280 --> 00:01:48.760 had a conversation with our ethics counsel about whether I 34 00:01:48.799 --> 00:01:51.400 had to recuse because Mr. Dershowitz was one of the 35 00:01:51.439 --> 00:01:56.000 defense attorneys. Either he decided or consulted with the department 36 00:01:56.060 --> 00:01:58.780 and decided I did not have to recuse because Mr. 37 00:01:58.819 --> 00:02:01.799 Dershowitz would not be involved in my being hired, whether 38 00:02:01.840 --> 00:02:04.670 at the Kennedy School or the law school. I believe 39 00:02:04.719 --> 00:02:07.230 I also applied right around the time to the University 40 00:02:07.250 --> 00:02:12.009 of Miami and then ultimately went to FIU. Question. When 41 00:02:12.030 --> 00:02:16.189 did you have your conversation with Mr. Lefkowitz? Answer. Sometime 42 00:02:16.210 --> 00:02:23.370 around Thanksgiving. Question. Thanksgiving of? Answer. 08 post-election. Question. And 43 00:02:23.430 --> 00:02:27.669 was this an in-person conversation or over the phone? Answer, 44 00:02:27.750 --> 00:02:31.030 it was in person. Question, it was in person where? Answer, 45 00:02:31.289 --> 00:02:34.590 it was over dinner. I don't recall. Question, what did 46 00:02:34.610 --> 00:02:37.650 you discuss to the extent you recall? Answer, so it 47 00:02:37.729 --> 00:02:40.759 was 20 years ago. What I can infer was on 48 00:02:40.780 --> 00:02:43.539 my mind is how does one transition from being a 49 00:02:43.580 --> 00:02:47.580 government lawyer for eight years into private practice? He having 50 00:02:47.620 --> 00:02:51.139 been a government lawyer and then having returned to private practice. 51 00:02:51.599 --> 00:02:55.330 and what private practice is like. But again, it was 52 00:02:55.330 --> 00:02:57.870 20 years ago. And to be clear, I did not 53 00:02:57.909 --> 00:03:00.349 seek a position. I did not apply for a position. 54 00:03:00.810 --> 00:03:05.840 I ultimately determined not to pursue private practice. Question, Thanksgiving 55 00:03:05.900 --> 00:03:08.979 of 08 is roughly by my calculation, five months after 56 00:03:09.080 --> 00:03:12.900 Epstein entered his plea. Did you discuss Mr. Epstein with Mr. 57 00:03:12.939 --> 00:03:16.360 Lefkowitz at all? Answer, not to my recollection. And there's 58 00:03:16.379 --> 00:03:19.620 no reason because it was far after the plea. Question, 59 00:03:19.639 --> 00:03:22.039 thank you. I'm going to now shift back to the 60 00:03:22.080 --> 00:03:26.580 conduct of your office investigation into Mr. Epstein. And just 61 00:03:26.659 --> 00:03:29.259 as an initial matter, when you first became aware of 62 00:03:29.300 --> 00:03:32.180 the investigation, did you perceive that there was a federal 63 00:03:32.280 --> 00:03:36.219 interest in investigating Mr. Epstein? Answer, so it was 20 64 00:03:36.219 --> 00:03:39.039 years ago. I honestly perceived that there was an interest 65 00:03:39.360 --> 00:03:41.300 in having him go to jail. And I think my 66 00:03:41.340 --> 00:03:44.599 initial reaction would have been, where is the federal interest, 67 00:03:44.879 -->
Load full transcript
00:03:46.469 but how can we get him to go to jail? 68 00:03:46.759 --> 00:03:48.990 Because it was brought up in the context of look 69 00:03:49.189 --> 00:03:51.919 at what the state is doing. but I would say 70 00:03:51.960 --> 00:03:54.919 that yes, there is a federal interest, and I felt 71 00:03:55.000 --> 00:03:57.879 as an ethical matter, if the question is an ethical matter, 72 00:03:58.189 --> 00:04:00.909 did I feel comfortable bringing a case, I believe there's 73 00:04:00.949 --> 00:04:03.990 sufficient federal nexus to bring a case, with the caveat 74 00:04:04.310 --> 00:04:08.030 of all the issues we've already discussed. Ms. Stansbury, given 75 00:04:08.050 --> 00:04:10.990 what you just said about there being significant federal interest 76 00:04:11.009 --> 00:04:14.009 to bring a case, and an interest in his potential prosecution, 77 00:04:14.050 --> 00:04:16.769 you know, you said in the first hour, that we 78 00:04:16.810 --> 00:04:19.170 talked to you, that you felt, or was it on 79 00:04:19.189 --> 00:04:22.420 the recommendation, or you said your team said that some 80 00:04:22.439 --> 00:04:26.220 of the witnesses may have lacked credibility. Let me finish 81 00:04:26.259 --> 00:04:28.860 my question very quickly. Let me just say, if you 82 00:04:28.879 --> 00:04:30.899 felt there was a federal interest in the case and 83 00:04:30.939 --> 00:04:34.269 the evidence was pointing in the direction of a potential prosecution, 84 00:04:34.769 --> 00:04:38.769 why did you not pursue additional witnesses, additional evidence, and potentially, 85 00:04:39.110 --> 00:04:43.850 instead of giving a non-prosecution agreement to co-conspirators, actually questioning 86 00:04:43.870 --> 00:04:49.480 them and collecting further evidence and their cooperation to prosecute them? Mr. Acosta? 87 00:04:49.850 --> 00:04:52.069 Let me unpack that, if I could, and let me 88 00:04:52.110 --> 00:04:54.769 start off with the word credibility, because I've heard that 89 00:04:54.850 --> 00:04:57.829 some of my comments have been mischaracterized to say that 90 00:04:57.870 --> 00:05:01.350 I thought that the witnesses lacked credibility. I believe what 91 00:05:01.389 --> 00:05:04.120 I had said, and if that's not what I said, then, 92 00:05:04.149 --> 00:05:06.879 you know, I want to correct the record. I believe 93 00:05:06.920 --> 00:05:10.199 that I said that was every prosecutor in our office 94 00:05:10.240 --> 00:05:13.699 believed what had happened and believed the witnesses, but we 95 00:05:13.759 --> 00:05:17.620 also understood the defense would have withering impeachment, and at 96 00:05:17.639 --> 00:05:19.899 the end of some, They didn't want to talk and 97 00:05:19.939 --> 00:05:22.060 wouldn't talk to us. And at the end of the day, 98 00:05:22.360 --> 00:05:25.560 that affected the viability of a federal case. It affected 99 00:05:25.879 --> 00:05:29.120 what the outcome would have been. Ms. Stansbury, so why 100 00:05:29.139 --> 00:05:34.040 did you not pursue other witnesses or cooperation with co-conspirators? Mr. Acosta. 101 00:05:34.899 --> 00:05:37.379 And so the office opened the file, I believe sometime 102 00:05:37.399 --> 00:05:40.500 around May 2006. It could have been June 2006 and 103 00:05:41.319 --> 00:05:45.569 investigated it for an entire year. The prosecuting attorney, the 104 00:05:45.589 --> 00:05:49.829 case agents pursued leads as they saw fit. investigated as 105 00:05:49.850 --> 00:05:53.069 they saw fit, spoke with the individuals as they saw fit, 106 00:05:53.730 --> 00:05:55.850 do what they're trained, did what they're trained to do, 107 00:05:56.209 --> 00:05:58.990 which is to pursue the case. At some point, as 108 00:05:59.009 --> 00:06:01.389 they're doing the investigation, they felt that it was time 109 00:06:01.449 --> 00:06:04.100 to move to the next stage, which is to proceed 110 00:06:04.129 --> 00:06:07.240 to bring charges so he can go to jail. And 111 00:06:07.319 --> 00:06:09.199 it's at this point that the case came up to 112 00:06:09.259 --> 00:06:12.800 our office, to my personal office, for discussions about how 113 00:06:12.819 --> 00:06:15.420 to resolve it. And so to think or to say 114 00:06:15.439 --> 00:06:19.870 we did not pursue is mischaracterizing what took place. Ms. Stansbury, 115 00:06:20.310 --> 00:06:22.730 I'm asking after it was elevated to your office for 116 00:06:22.769 --> 00:06:25.850 a decision about whether or not to proceed with a prosecution. 117 00:06:26.649 --> 00:06:28.990 If you will let me ask this, this is just 118 00:06:29.029 --> 00:06:31.490 a yes or no question. Did you personally come to 119 00:06:31.509 --> 00:06:34.769 the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute? 120 00:06:35.050 --> 00:06:38.350 Just a yes or no. Mr. Acosta, so I can't 121 00:06:38.449 --> 00:06:40.949 answer that yes or no with respect because it's not 122 00:06:40.990 --> 00:06:45.069 a there sufficient evidence to prosecute. Is there not sufficient 123 00:06:45.110 --> 00:06:48.189 evidence to prosecute then as an ethical matter? If you 124 00:06:48.209 --> 00:06:51.870 don't think there's sufficient evidence, you can't go forward. Ms. Stansberry, 125 00:06:52.230 --> 00:06:54.879 but you could have. You could have decided at that 126 00:06:54.939 --> 00:06:58.500 point the case was not ready. We should collect additional evidence, statements, 127 00:06:58.839 --> 00:07:03.079 and cooperation, correct? Acosta, in theory, despite the fact that 128 00:07:03.100 --> 00:07:05.670 my career experts in the field were saying the case 129 00:07:05.709 --> 00:07:08.410 is ready, I could have said no. I don't think 130 00:07:08.449 --> 00:07:12.370 the case is ready. We should collect additional information. Stansberry, 131 00:07:12.709 --> 00:07:15.920 so just pausing it right there. You could have said, yes, let, 132 00:07:16.100 --> 00:07:18.839 the case is not ready, let's not proceed yet. But
instead, 133 00:07:19.259 --> 00:07:23.839 you decided to pursue a non-prosecution agreement. Mr. Acosta, so again, 134 00:07:23.860 --> 00:07:27.160 I think this is a mischaracterization of the process. The 135 00:07:27.180 --> 00:07:30.759 career attorneys had decided that the case was ready to proceed. 136 00:07:31.420 --> 00:07:34.110 To that, he's cut off by Stansberry. And which of 137 00:07:34.120 --> 00:07:37.389 the career attorneys? Acosta, in this case, I suspect that 138 00:07:37.410 --> 00:07:40.089 would have been Ms. Villafana, because I don't, as a 139 00:07:40.149 --> 00:07:43.290 general course, I don't get involved in how evidence is gathered. 140 00:07:44.029 --> 00:07:46.949 I believe that would have been Ms. Villafana, the supervising attorney, 141 00:07:47.269 --> 00:07:50.420 in consultation with the Palm Beach managing attorney, and perhaps 142 00:07:50.459 --> 00:07:54.279 the criminal chief. Ms. Dansbury, so Andrew Lurie and Matt 143 00:07:54.300 --> 00:07:59.040 Menchel and Jeff Sloman, is that correct? Those were the supervisors? Acosta, yeah. 144 00:07:59.500 --> 00:08:01.540 I doubt this would have gotten to Jeff Sloman's level 145 00:08:01.959 --> 00:08:04.290 at some point. When they thought they had the case 146 00:08:04.319 --> 00:08:06.709 was ready to go forward, then we would have had 147 00:08:06.750 --> 00:08:10.230 a discussion about resolutions. And I will own the resolution. 148 00:08:10.550 --> 00:08:12.930 I will readily admit that I approve the term sheet. 149 00:08:13.410 --> 00:08:15.730 But when that was approved, it came up in the 150 00:08:15.769 --> 00:08:18.040 context of a case that was ready to go. It 151 00:08:18.060 --> 00:08:19.920 did not come up in the context of we need 152 00:08:20.199 --> 00:08:23.319 additional time. If anything, there was an interest on the 153 00:08:23.360 --> 00:08:28.439 part of the prosecuting attorney to move the case more quickly. Ms. Dansbury, okay, 154 00:08:28.459 --> 00:08:31.209 so let's follow up very quickly there. So, you know, 155 00:08:31.589 --> 00:08:34.230 in communication with your office, it was discussed that you 156 00:08:34.269 --> 00:08:37.509 had prosecutorial discretion about whether or not to move forward 157 00:08:37.529 --> 00:08:40.580 with the case, and you chose instead, that was your decision, 158 00:08:41.269 --> 00:08:45.840 To move a non-prosecution agreement, correct? Acosta. I approve the 159 00:08:45.860 --> 00:08:50.080 negotiation of the non-prosecution agreement. Stansberry. And so can you 160 00:08:50.100 --> 00:08:51.980 tell me, was there anyone in the chain of command 161 00:08:52.240 --> 00:08:55.779 between Marie Villafana and you who recommended it not be 162 00:08:55.820 --> 00:09:00.870 prosecuted or that you move a non-prosecution? Acosta. I don't recommend, 163 00:09:00.889 --> 00:09:04.250 I don't recall anyone that recommended that we not proceed 164 00:09:04.289 --> 00:09:07.779 with the case. Stansberry. So everyone in the chain of 165 00:09:07.799 --> 00:09:13.500 command from the line prosecutor up to you was recommending prosecuting? Acosta, no, 166 00:09:13.639 --> 00:09:17.830 if I could, your question was proceed with the case. Stansberry, well, 167 00:09:17.889 --> 00:09:20.250 let me ask the question I'm asking, not the one 168 00:09:20.269 --> 00:09:23.029 you want to answer. The question I'm asking is, is 169 00:09:23.049 --> 00:09:25.350 there anyone in the chain of command between the line 170 00:09:25.389 --> 00:09:29.690 prosecutor Villafana and you when the recommendation came up who 171 00:09:29.769 --> 00:09:34.429 recommended to you to pursue a non-prosecution agreement? Acosta, so 172 00:09:34.490 --> 00:09:36.740 this was 20 years ago. Everyone in the chain of 173 00:09:36.759 --> 00:09:40.659 command was recommending that we proceed with a negotiated resolution. 174 00:09:41.379 --> 00:09:45.230 There was a discussion about whether that should be. Stansberry 175 00:09:45.250 --> 00:09:47.950 cuts him off. I don't think that's correct, right? Because 176 00:09:47.990 --> 00:09:50.669 we know that the line prosecutor provided a memo and 177 00:09:50.730 --> 00:09:53.830 an indictment. So you're saying every single person in the 178 00:09:53.850 --> 00:09:57.129 chain of command from the line prosecutor to you was 179 00:09:57.210 --> 00:10:01.679 recommending that you don't prosecute? Okay. no, that's not what 180 00:10:01.720 --> 00:10:05.899 I said. Stansberry, let me have an affirmative statement. Acosta, right. 181 00:10:06.100 --> 00:10:08.620 So what I said, and I don't have the declaration 182 00:10:08.659 --> 00:10:11.779 in front of me, I wish I did. Stansberry, let 183 00:10:11.799 --> 00:10:13.700 me ask the question in a different way because I 184 00:10:13.720 --> 00:10:16.179 don't want to parse words. You said you had a 185 00:10:16.230 --> 00:10:19.070 discussion with your senior team, and as I understand it, 186 00:10:19.399 --> 00:10:23.580 Based on the documentation, there was Marie Villafana, she had 187 00:10:23.639 --> 00:10:27.399 two field supervisors, then Jeff Sloman, and then you. You 188 00:10:27.419 --> 00:10:31.259 signed off on proceeding with the non-prosecution agreement. So going 189 00:10:31.299 --> 00:10:33.559 back to what you stated earlier today, I'm trying to 190 00:10:33.600 --> 00:10:37.090 understand what informed your thinking when you decided to proceed 191 00:10:37.330 --> 00:10:41.070 with a non-prosecution agreement rather than telling the field prosecutors 192 00:10:41.090 --> 00:10:46.210 to continue to pursue the evidence and build a stronger case. Acosta, okay, 193 00:10:46.250 --> 00:10:50.190 so Ms. Villafana, the line prosecutor, The prosecuting attorney, in 194 00:10:50.230 --> 00:10:54.149 sworn statement, said the following, Stansbury, no, I'm asking about 195 00:10:54.200 --> 00:10:57.759 your own thought process. Acosta, but I'm trying to answer 196 00:10:57.799 -->
00:11:00.779 your question if I could. Some have alleged that Epstein 197 00:11:00.799 --> 00:11:03.379 would have easily been convicted and all the victims were 198 00:11:03.460 --> 00:11:07.379 eager to participate in a full-fledged federal prosecution. As the 199 00:11:07.419 --> 00:11:10.399 prosecutor who handled the investigation, I can say that these 200 00:11:10.440 --> 00:11:14.759 contentions overlook the facts that existed at the time. She 201 00:11:14.799 --> 00:11:17.080 then goes on to say that the favored and negotiated 202 00:11:17.120 --> 00:11:19.980 resolution that she thought it was in the interest of 203 00:11:20.019 --> 00:11:22.980 the victims and the office, and it was her understanding 204 00:11:23.019 --> 00:11:27.659 that the office, as a whole, favored a negotiated resolution. Ms. Stansberry, 205 00:11:27.919 --> 00:11:31.070 did you read her memo and the indictment? Mr. Acosta, 206 00:11:31.169 --> 00:11:34.210 if you... Stansberry cuts him off again. And do you 207 00:11:34.230 --> 00:11:36.809 have copies of the documents? Acosta, if I can finish 208 00:11:36.850 --> 00:11:40.929 my statement. Stansberry, but can you answer the question? Acosta, 209 00:11:41.149 --> 00:11:44.980 can I please finish my sentence? Then I'll answer your question. Stansberry, 210 00:11:45.220 --> 00:11:48.830 can you answer that question, please? Acosta... If you go 211 00:11:48.850 --> 00:11:51.129 to the OPR report, the managing attorney of the Palm 212 00:11:51.149 --> 00:11:55.470 Beach office favored a negotiated resolution. The criminal chief favored 213 00:11:55.710 --> 00:12:01.429 a negotiated resolution. The first assistant favored a negotiated resolution. Ms. Stansbury, 214 00:12:02.070 --> 00:12:06.470 we're asking about people that were in your chain of command. Acosta, 215 00:12:06.730 --> 00:12:08.970 these were all in my chain of command. They were 216 00:12:09.009 --> 00:12:12.190 my supervisory staff and also the entire chain favored a 217 00:12:12.210 --> 00:12:16.649 negotiated resolution. Ms. Stansbury, was that before or after you 218 00:12:16.669 --> 00:12:21.309 made the decision to proceed? to a non-prosecution. Mr. Acosta, 219 00:12:21.330 --> 00:12:24.950 that was before. Stansberry, okay, have you read Ms. Villafana's 220 00:12:24.990 --> 00:12:28.389 memo and indictment? Acosta, so that was 20 years ago. 221 00:12:28.730 --> 00:12:31.470 I don't recall if I read it or not. Ms. Stansberry, 222 00:12:31.730 --> 00:12:33.649 you don't know if your own line, you made a 223 00:12:33.649 --> 00:12:37.549 decision on a case about non-prosecuting a high-profile case without 224 00:12:37.629 --> 00:12:42.289 reading the memo of the line prosecutor? Mr. Acosta, so 225 00:12:42.370 --> 00:12:44.529 let me answer fully because I was cut off. It 226 00:12:44.570 --> 00:12:46.950 was 20 years ago. I don't remember any document that 227 00:12:46.970 --> 00:12:49.120 I read 20 years ago It was a long time. 228 00:12:49.860 --> 00:12:51.500 What I do know is that there was a fulsome 229 00:12:51.519 --> 00:12:54.879 discussion that we would have talked about this. I may 230 00:12:54.919 --> 00:12:57.139 have read it. I may have sat around the table 231 00:12:57.179 --> 00:12:59.340 and said, let's go over the document and you flip 232 00:12:59.360 --> 00:13:02.659 through it. We have had conversations among senior staff about it. 233 00:13:03.120 --> 00:13:06.000 You know, this is no different than legislation where sometimes 234 00:13:06.059 --> 00:13:08.679 it's read. Sometimes you rely on your staff for summaries 235 00:13:09.190 --> 00:13:11.330 and you empower your staff to do it correctly, which 236 00:13:11.389 --> 00:13:16.720 I did. Stansberry, can I ask you a follow-up question? Acosta, yes. Stansberry, 237 00:13:17.100 --> 00:13:19.580 is the memo and draft indictment in the files at 238 00:13:19.600 --> 00:13:22.759 the DOJ for this case? Mr. Acosta, I don't know 239 00:13:22.799 --> 00:13:24.759 if it's in the files. I would presume it's in 240 00:13:24.779 --> 00:13:29.659 the files, but that's a question for the Department of Justice. Ms. Stansberry, 241 00:13:29.950 --> 00:13:32.049 but it would be reasonable to presume that it's in 242 00:13:32.070 --> 00:13:36.169 the files, the DOJ files? Mr. Acosta, I have no 243 00:13:36.210 --> 00:13:39.889 reason to think otherwise. Ms. Stansberry, and then my second question, 244 00:13:39.909 --> 00:13:42.559 just going back, I think we're really trying to understand 245 00:13:42.600 --> 00:13:45.740 the motivation to pursue non-prosecution. Can you lay it out 246 00:13:45.779 --> 00:13:48.779 to us very clearly and simply what evidence and your 247 00:13:48.850 --> 00:13:51.509 own thought process that led you to decide, rather than 248 00:13:51.549 --> 00:13:54.889 continuing to prosecute the case, you decided to move to 249 00:13:54.929 --> 00:13:59.470 a non-prosecution agreement? Mr. Acosta, so I think maybe part 250 00:13:59.509 --> 00:14:03.049 of the difficulty here is terminology, because the non-prosecution agreement 251 00:14:03.429 --> 00:14:07.529 was not prosecution. The non-prosecution agreement was backstopping the state 252 00:14:07.840 --> 00:14:11.580 to obtain a guilty plea through the state system. Ms. Stansberry, 253 00:14:12.269 --> 00:14:15.440 but you, well, actually, yeah, that is terminology thing. You 254 00:14:15.460 --> 00:14:18.580 chose not to pursue a federal case. That's a non-prosecution 255 00:14:18.600 --> 00:14:21.299 of a federal case. So I understand where you're headed 256 00:14:21.580 --> 00:14:23.879 with that line, but let's go back. I want to 257 00:14:23.899 --> 00:14:27.470 hear your line of thinking as U.S. attorney as to 258 00:14:27.509 --> 00:14:30.389 why you decided to not pursue a federal case based 259 00:14:30.450 --> 00:14:34.090 on the evidence. Mr. Acosta, okay, so if you're willing 260 00:14:34.129 --> 00:14:36.370 to indulge me to allow me to finish
the question, 261 00:14:36.750 --> 00:14:38.879 I think I understand what you're asking. I will try 262 00:14:38.889 --> 00:14:41.389 to answer the question. This case came to the U.S. 263 00:14:41.429 --> 00:14:44.240 Attorney's Office on a referral from the Palm Beach Police, 264 00:14:44.620 --> 00:14:47.679 which is unusual. Usually we get our cases from the FBI. 265 00:14:48.179 --> 00:14:50.259 It came from the Palm Beach Police because the Palm 266 00:14:50.279 --> 00:14:52.980 Beach State Attorney, they wanted the Palm Beach State Attorney 267 00:14:53.019 --> 00:14:55.279 to bring charges and they wanted the Palm Beach State 268 00:14:55.320 --> 00:14:58.320 Attorney to bring three charges that would have resulted in 269 00:14:58.340 --> 00:15:00.740 what I understood at the time to be about two 270 00:15:00.759 --> 00:15:04.299 years imprisonment. The Palm Beach State Attorney initially then offered, 271 00:15:04.460 --> 00:15:06.820 they said, we have looked at the evidence. We don't 272 00:15:06.840 --> 00:15:09.360 feel comfortable with the evidence. We don't think the case 273 00:15:09.419 --> 00:15:13.190 is viable. and they offered a resolution of probation. My 274 00:15:13.230 --> 00:15:16.690 understanding is that Epstein rejected the state attorney's probation resolution, 275 00:15:17.070 --> 00:15:19.320 at which point the state attorney, even though he could 276 00:15:19.340 --> 00:15:21.820 have indicted, took it to a grand jury and asked 277 00:15:21.840 --> 00:15:24.299 the grand jury to decide how to proceed. And the 278 00:15:24.320 --> 00:15:26.480 grand jury took a look from the highest to the 279 00:15:26.500 --> 00:15:28.919 lowest charge, and they took a look at this, the 280 00:15:28.960 --> 00:15:31.440 grand jury returned a charge that would have allowed for 281 00:15:31.480 --> 00:15:34.450 pretrial diversion. And that's how the case first came to us. 282 00:15:35.279 --> 00:15:38.190 In that context, the first assistant, at some point early 283 00:15:38.210 --> 00:15:41.769 in 2006, Ask the then prosecuting attorney to start what's 284 00:15:41.789 --> 00:15:45.129 called a petite waiver. A petite waiver is a case 285 00:15:45.149 --> 00:15:48.470 that allows for double prosecution. If a state prosecution is 286 00:15:48.490 --> 00:15:51.870 so manifestly unjust, then the federal government can prosecute it 287 00:15:51.929 --> 00:15:54.889 as well. And so it came into our office in 288 00:15:54.909 --> 00:15:57.460 the context of a state case where we might be 289 00:15:57.509 --> 00:16:01.519 doing a double prosecution. So fast forward one year, give 290 00:16:01.539 --> 00:16:04.500 or take. The case is investigated further by our office, 291 00:16:04.899 --> 00:16:07.100 and it's time to proceed to a resolution, and there 292 00:16:07.139 --> 00:16:10.350 are two paths on which we can proceed. One would 293 00:16:10.379 --> 00:16:13.610 be a federal resolution, and the federal resolution was the 294 00:16:13.649 --> 00:16:16.850 most talked about, was a 371. And the other path, 295 00:16:16.909 --> 00:16:19.009 which would have been, which would have been capped at 296 00:16:19.049 --> 00:16:22.070 much less than the guideline range, that would have been 297 00:16:22.090 --> 00:16:25.429 the negotiated plea. And the other path is a state resolution. 298 00:16:27.220 --> 00:16:29.639 Everyone in the office felt the negotiated outcome was the 299 00:16:29.679 --> 00:16:33.039 best choice. Everyone. Ms. Stansbury, did they all feel that 300 00:16:33.080 --> 00:16:36.279 a non-federal prosecution was correct? Acosta, if you'll allow me 301 00:16:36.299 --> 00:16:39.570 to answer, I'm trying to. Stansberry, I'm going to come 302 00:16:39.590 --> 00:16:41.820 back to it, but I want you to finish this story, 303 00:16:42.200 --> 00:16:45.559 but just pin right in this moment. Acosta, right. I'm 304 00:16:45.600 --> 00:16:47.419 going to go where you'd like to go. Just let 305 00:16:47.460 --> 00:16:51.750 me finish. Stansberry, okay. Acosta, everyone in the office felt 306 00:16:51.759 --> 00:16:57.629 the negotiated resolution was the best outcome. Stansberry, understay charges. Acosta, no. 307 00:16:58.019 --> 00:17:01.460 A negotiated resolution was the best. Stansberry, I just want 308 00:17:01.500 --> 00:17:06.240 an answer to that question. Acosta, it was the best outcome. Stansberry, 309 00:17:06.500 --> 00:17:10.940 did you agree? State versus federal in your office? Acosta, 310 00:17:11.420 --> 00:17:13.640 on the continuum of state versus federal, I believe the 311 00:17:13.700 --> 00:17:17.869 line attorney probably had concerns about preceding state. I think 312 00:17:17.880 --> 00:17:21.940 the statutory or supervisor attorneys were in between and did 313 00:17:21.980 --> 00:17:24.630 not feel strongly one way or the other. I think 314 00:17:24.670 --> 00:17:27.289 a fair way to characterize Acosta was that the federal 315 00:17:27.369 --> 00:17:30.869 versus state was more my concern than their concern, although 316 00:17:30.910 --> 00:17:34.809 they felt comfortable proceeding with the non-state charges. And at 317 00:17:34.849 --> 00:17:37.730 no point do I recall a supervisory attorney saying we 318 00:17:37.759 --> 00:17:42.099 should not do this. Ms. Stansbury, but the ultimate call 319 00:17:42.140 --> 00:17:46.259 to proceed federally was yours? Mr. Acosta, the ultimate call 320 00:17:46.299 --> 00:17:49.140 was mine. As I've said, as I've said previously, it 321 00:17:49.180 --> 00:17:52.680 was my decision. Stansbury, and why? That's what we're trying 322 00:17:52.700 --> 00:17:55.950 to understand. I want to know why. Acosta, well, the 323 00:17:55.970 --> 00:17:59.890 why is it had come up as a state case. Stansbury, no. 324 00:18:00.309 --> 00:18:03.460 What's your thought process? Like, why were you like, okay, 325 00:18:03.500 --> 00:18:06.200 we've got 40 witness statements, a child sex abuse, these 326 00:18:06.240 -->
00:18:09.299 are federal crimes. Why were you like, no, we're going 327 00:18:09.319 --> 00:18:11.440 to just send it back to state? Who didn't think 328 00:18:11.480 --> 00:18:15.329 that it was going to handle it competently to begin with? Mr. Garcia, 329 00:18:15.750 --> 00:18:17.609 and then I have a question. As soon as she's 330 00:18:17.650 --> 00:18:21.450 done with that one, I have a question. Stansbury, this 331 00:18:21.509 --> 00:18:23.710 is the part that I don't understand. Like, even in 332 00:18:23.750 --> 00:18:26.720 your timeline, Just there where you're saying that part of 333 00:18:26.849 --> 00:18:29.170 why the feds got involved is because there was a 334 00:18:29.210 --> 00:18:32.109 feeling that the state wasn't going to fully prosecute the case. 335 00:18:32.650 --> 00:18:36.329 It's also child sex trafficking, a federal crime. Why did you? 336 00:18:36.829 --> 00:18:38.910 What was going on in your head that made you 337 00:18:38.950 --> 00:18:42.200 decide to not pursue it federally? Acosta, so you've labeled 338 00:18:42.259 --> 00:18:44.920 it a child sex trafficking, and one of the discussions 339 00:18:44.940 --> 00:18:48.059 we've had today has to do with federal nexus and 340 00:18:48.099 --> 00:18:51.420 fulsome conversations that we've had within the office because we 341 00:18:51.440 --> 00:18:54.799 didn't have any evidence that there was travel. Stansberry, that 342 00:18:54.819 --> 00:18:57.940 there was what? Acosta travel. We didn't have any evidence 343 00:18:57.960 --> 00:19:02.119 that Epstein traveled across state lines with any of the victims. Stansberry, 344 00:19:02.369 --> 00:19:04.509 what about the witness statements that they had been flown 345 00:19:04.569 --> 00:19:07.250 on his jet up to his private island? That's evidence 346 00:19:07.289 --> 00:19:11.089 to travel across state lines. Acosta, so my recollection, we 347 00:19:11.109 --> 00:19:14.089 did not have the evidence of travel. And the reason 348 00:19:14.109 --> 00:19:16.730 that I'm willing... The reason that I say that is 349 00:19:16.769 --> 00:19:19.559 not based on independent recollection, but based on the fact 350 00:19:19.579 --> 00:19:23.740 that the OPR report, which talks about the contemporaneous discussions... 351 00:19:23.549 --> 00:19:26.269 in the office in interviews with the various attorneys in 352 00:19:26.289 --> 00:19:29.079 the office, has a long discussion about the viability of 353 00:19:29.150 --> 00:19:32.680 bringing a federal case based on transporting victims, but on Mr. 354 00:19:32.740 --> 00:19:36.059 Epstein's travel on his own to South Florida, and whether 355 00:19:36.099 --> 00:19:38.339 or not, or whether or not the purpose of travel 356 00:19:38.380 --> 00:19:44.990 was a purpose, predominant purpose, for example. On page, I think, 34, Stansbury, okay, 357 00:19:45.009 --> 00:19:47.390 she interrupts, I understand the point you're trying to make 358 00:19:47.410 --> 00:19:51.140 about travel, but let me go back to the thought process. Acosta, 359 00:19:51.900 --> 00:19:55.039 but can I answer your question fully Stansberry? But I 360 00:19:55.140 --> 00:19:57.859 think we're coming at here is like the evidence and 361 00:19:57.880 --> 00:20:00.740 witness statements were very clearly pointing in the direction of 362 00:20:00.779 --> 00:20:05.559 abuse of minors. Acosta. Yes. Stansberry. Yes. And it was 363 00:20:05.579 --> 00:20:08.420 the overwhelming consensus of the line prosecutor to pursue a 364 00:20:08.789 --> 00:20:12.160 federal prosecution. You stated a little while ago that it 365 00:20:12.200 --> 00:20:15.049 was viewed that the state might not fully prosecute the 366 00:20:15.210 --> 00:20:19.269 case or hold him accountable, that he could be incarcerated. 367 00:20:19.710 --> 00:20:21.789 So why did you say, okay, this guy has been 368 00:20:21.829 --> 00:20:24.569 involved in abusing minors. We have the statements. We know 369 00:20:24.589 --> 00:20:27.980 what's happening. Why did you not proceed with the case, Garcia? 370 00:20:28.359 --> 00:20:33.500 And then after this question, I have a question. Stansberry? Yeah, Acosta, 371 00:20:33.599 --> 00:20:35.859 so two points. First, you know, we thought that the 372 00:20:35.900 --> 00:20:39.170 state would be, from our perspective, we thought we hand 373 00:20:39.190 --> 00:20:41.029 the case back to the state The state will say, 374 00:20:41.049 --> 00:20:43.089 thank you. We can now put him away in jail 375 00:20:43.670 --> 00:20:46.809 and have him in continuous confinement for X number of 376 00:20:46.869 --> 00:20:51.210 months or two years. Stansberry, but your non-prosecution agreement said 377 00:20:51.230 --> 00:20:54.779 they couldn't. Acosta, no, it actually said that they could 378 00:20:55.039 --> 00:20:57.759 and should. And we thought that if we went back 379 00:20:57.799 --> 00:21:00.299 to the state, that the state would be a reliable partner. 380 00:21:00.799 --> 00:21:02.859 Should I have assumed that? No, I should not have 381 00:21:02.880 --> 00:21:06.519 assumed that. Stansberry, you thought the state, based on your discussions, 382 00:21:06.759 --> 00:21:09.579 was going to fully investigate and prosecute after you engaged 383 00:21:09.900 --> 00:21:14.660 in the non-prosecution agreement? Mr. Acosta, that's not what I said. Stansberry, no, 384 00:21:14.700 --> 00:21:17.859 I'm asking the question. Acosta, so I thought that the 385 00:21:17.900 --> 00:21:20.500 state would be a reliable partner and put him in 386 00:21:20.539 --> 00:21:22.680 jail for the period of time that he agreed to 387 00:21:22.720 --> 00:21:26.960 go in and not put him on work release. Stansberry, okay, 388 00:21:27.000 --> 00:21:28.549 so you did not believe that they were going to 389 00:21:28.569 --> 00:21:33.450 fully investigate and prosecute. Acosta, can you allow me to finish? Stansberry, 390 00:21:34.150 --> 00:21:36.609 It's actually not my point. It's yours. And
I'm going 391 00:21:36.630 --> 00:21:40.069 to pass it back to the ranking member. Mr. Garcia, 392 00:21:40.390 --> 00:21:43.430 let's move on. I appreciate it. All right, folks, we're 393 00:21:43.450 --> 00:21:45.089 going to wrap up right here. And in the next 394 00:21:45.150 --> 00:21:47.049 episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up 395 00:21:47.289 --> 00:21:49.630 where we left off. All of the information that goes 396 00:21:49.710 --> 00:21:53.079 with the episode can be found in the description box. 397 00:21:53.259 --> 00:21:56.000 What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the 398 00:21:56.079 --> 00:21:58.920 Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up 399 00:21:58.960 --> 00:22:02.799 where we left off with the Alex Acosta deposition. Once again, 400 00:22:02.900 --> 00:22:07.599 Alex Acosta answering questions and various members of the committee 401 00:22:08.079 --> 00:22:13.160 doing the questioning. Mr. Garcia, let's move on. I appreciate it. Mr. Acosta, 402 00:22:13.480 --> 00:22:16.440 I'm going to pass it back just really briefly. Just 403 00:22:16.480 --> 00:22:19.869 back to the line prosecutor, Ms. Villafana, I believe. Did 404 00:22:19.890 --> 00:22:23.529 you believe that she was a credible prosecutor? Mr. Acosta, yes, 405 00:22:23.589 --> 00:22:27.250 I did. Garcia, in your recollection of her work, you 406 00:22:27.269 --> 00:22:31.250 would have found her to have been a good prosecutor? Mr. Acosta, yes, 407 00:22:31.329 --> 00:22:34.480 I would have. And I did. Mr. Garcia, okay, great. 408 00:22:35.160 --> 00:22:37.079 I just wanted to make sure that we established that. 409 00:22:37.519 --> 00:22:40.559 And then, Mr. Redacted, do you want to first have? 410 00:22:40.920 --> 00:22:43.000 I know we've got 20 minutes. Do you want to 411 00:22:43.039 --> 00:22:45.900 take another 15? And then the last five minutes, you 412 00:22:45.940 --> 00:22:50.559 want to go to Ms. Ansari? Go ahead, sure, Ms. Stansbury. 413 00:22:50.980 --> 00:22:52.880 And I have one more set of questions before the 414 00:22:52.920 --> 00:22:56.119 end of the hour, if possible. Mr. Garcia, one more 415 00:22:56.160 --> 00:22:59.109 question at the end of the hour. Stansbury, yeah, before 416 00:22:59.140 --> 00:23:01.420 the end of the hour. Garcia, okay, let's go ahead 417 00:23:01.440 --> 00:23:05.319 and try and get through this next round of questions then. Ms. Ansari, 418 00:23:05.680 --> 00:23:08.680 and then Ms. Stansbury can wrap it up. Ms. Stansbury, 419 00:23:09.059 --> 00:23:12.980 I'll go after it because it's a slightly different topic. Mr. Redacted, 420 00:23:13.329 --> 00:23:16.450 just following up on the previous conversation, I did want 421 00:23:16.470 --> 00:23:19.069 to note for the record that according to the OPR report, 422 00:23:19.390 --> 00:23:22.430 and I'm quoting from page 40, Ms. Villafano was opposed 423 00:23:22.470 --> 00:23:26.390 to the state-based resolution. And the report states, quote, in 424 00:23:26.410 --> 00:23:30.769 Villafano's view, the proposed state resolution, quote, didn't make any sense. 425 00:23:31.750 --> 00:23:36.589 End quote. Did not correspond, unquote, to department policy requiring 426 00:23:36.630 --> 00:23:41.119 that plea offer reflect, quote, the most serious, readily provable offense. 427 00:23:41.900 --> 00:23:45.660 And that's quoting from the Ashcroft Memo. Is that your 428 00:23:45.720 --> 00:23:50.140 consistent recollection? Answer, so my recollection, as I presented previously, 429 00:23:50.480 --> 00:23:52.809 which I would characterize her as being the most in 430 00:23:52.869 --> 00:23:55.490 favor of a federal, and at least in favor of 431 00:23:55.509 --> 00:23:58.440 a state, What she told OPR is much stronger than, 432 00:23:58.839 --> 00:24:01.079 at no point do I recall her telling me, I 433 00:24:01.140 --> 00:24:04.230 am opposed to this. And so what she told OPR 434 00:24:04.650 --> 00:24:07.609 is a much stronger characterization of her position than my 435 00:24:07.650 --> 00:24:11.170 recollection of what she told me. Question, do you have 436 00:24:11.210 --> 00:24:13.549 any reason to believe she was being untruthful when she 437 00:24:13.609 --> 00:24:17.779 spoke with OPR? Answer, not at all. Question, okay. Answer, 438 00:24:18.339 --> 00:24:22.039 but I do think that over time people, question, I'm sorry, 439 00:24:22.339 --> 00:24:25.019 he gets cut off. On that, Ms. Villafana, can we 440 00:24:25.079 --> 00:24:27.880 agree that this line prosecutor, she was the most closely 441 00:24:27.940 --> 00:24:31.240 acquainted with the evidence? Answer, I think that's fair, but 442 00:24:31.259 --> 00:24:33.930 I also think that given the degree of involvement Mr. 443 00:24:33.990 --> 00:24:37.150 Menchel had in this case, Mr. Menchel was very closely 444 00:24:37.190 --> 00:24:40.450 associated with the evidence, and he had been a former 445 00:24:40.490 --> 00:24:43.630 sex crimes prosecutor, and so he received quite a bit 446 00:24:43.990 --> 00:24:47.440 of deference. I should say that the office has substantial 447 00:24:47.460 --> 00:24:51.059 disagreements with her analysis. For example, on page 34, Lori 448 00:24:51.119 --> 00:24:55.799 Sentimental He gets cut off again. That's okay. I will 449 00:24:55.839 --> 00:24:58.839 get to those issues as we proceed. I just want 450 00:24:58.859 --> 00:25:02.440 to address an issue with respect to the victims and 451 00:25:02.480 --> 00:25:05.509 concerns you had described with respect to what certain people 452 00:25:05.549 --> 00:25:08.670 in your office viewed as the impeachability of them as 453 00:25:08.710 --> 00:25:12.150 witnesses at trial. The OPR report found that your office 454 00:25:12.230 --> 00:25:16.829 identified 32 victims that the office was prepared to include 455 00:25:16.869 --> 00:25:20.230 in federal charges against Mr. Epstein. Did you or anyone 456 00:25:20.269 --> 00:25:23.089 else in
the office do any sort of quantitative analysis 457 00:25:23.170 --> 00:25:26.069 as to how many of those 32 were impeachable versus 458 00:25:26.109 --> 00:25:30.220 more credible on the spectrum? Answer, I'm certain that the 459 00:25:30.259 --> 00:25:32.980 supervisory team sat down and went through that. That's what 460 00:25:33.000 --> 00:25:36.039 they do. That's what they do. Question, but do you 461 00:25:36.059 --> 00:25:39.319 have any personal knowledge of that? Answer, I don't have personal. 462 00:25:39.619 --> 00:25:41.960 I didn't ask them. Show me the chart where you 463 00:25:42.000 --> 00:25:44.069 went through this memo, but this is what they do 464 00:25:44.109 --> 00:25:46.509 for a living. I wouldn't ask them in any case 465 00:25:46.549 --> 00:25:48.430 to show me the chart because this is what they 466 00:25:48.450 --> 00:25:51.890 do for a living every day. Question, but 32 victims 467 00:25:51.950 --> 00:25:54.410 is a lot of potential victims. Does it seem plausible 468 00:25:54.450 --> 00:25:59.500 that all 32 were unreliable witnesses at trial? Answer, I 469 00:25:59.579 --> 00:26:01.880 do know one of the concerns that Ms. Villafana had, 470 00:26:02.180 --> 00:26:04.940 and this again going back to her declaration, was the 471 00:26:05.019 --> 00:26:07.599 interlocking nature of the victims and whether or not it 472 00:26:07.640 --> 00:26:10.700 could be portrayed that they were supporting one another and 473 00:26:10.759 --> 00:26:13.559 whether it was possible to bring the case with interlocking 474 00:26:13.599 --> 00:26:16.559 victims that had all, not that all, many of whom 475 00:26:16.859 --> 00:26:20.279 had previously known each other. Question, but again, do you 476 00:26:20.319 --> 00:26:23.440 have any personal knowledge that she took that view as 477 00:26:23.460 --> 00:26:27.720 to all 32? Answer, I don't, and I wouldn't, and 478 00:26:27.759 --> 00:26:29.839 I don't think it's appropriate to sit down and ask 479 00:26:29.859 --> 00:26:32.410 your prosecutors to show me the chart with respect to 480 00:26:32.420 --> 00:26:36.019 all 32. Question, and I'm just going to note that 481 00:26:36.059 --> 00:26:39.319 the Southern District of New York in 2019 charged Mr. 482 00:26:39.420 --> 00:26:42.880 Epstein on several federal counts on the basis of only 483 00:26:42.940 --> 00:26:47.880 two unnamed victims in its indictment. Are you aware of that? Answer, 484 00:26:48.140 --> 00:26:50.299 I'm aware that they charged on the basis of a number. 485 00:26:50.640 --> 00:26:52.819 I didn't know it was two. I may have known 486 00:26:52.859 --> 00:26:56.099 that it was two, but again. Question, I think you've 487 00:26:56.160 --> 00:26:59.390 answered my question, Mr. Acosta. Thank you. I appreciate that. 488 00:27:00.670 --> 00:27:05.049 Back to Mr. Ansari. Did you have some questions? Mr. Ansari, sure, 489 00:27:05.329 --> 00:27:08.750 very different topic. I'm curious about your resignation from the 490 00:27:08.769 --> 00:27:11.670 first Trump administration. First of all, you were offered a 491 00:27:11.690 --> 00:27:15.210 position in the Trump administration as it pertains to or 492 00:27:15.259 --> 00:27:19.599 because of your role in the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution. Acosta, 493 00:27:19.859 --> 00:27:23.019 not in the least bit, no. Mr. Ansari, okay, and 494 00:27:23.079 --> 00:27:27.400 why did you resign from your position in the administration? Mr. Acosta, 495 00:27:27.740 --> 00:27:30.730 the resignation was my choice. I resigned from the position. 496 00:27:31.150 --> 00:27:33.250 And let me just say, I was not asked to resign. 497 00:27:34.099 --> 00:27:36.240 It was not suggested by anyone at the White House 498 00:27:36.289 --> 00:27:38.769 that I resign. I resigned, you know, I think I 499 00:27:38.789 --> 00:27:41.390 said earlier I'm old school. I think that you come 500 00:27:41.410 --> 00:27:44.210 into these jobs, you serve and you leave, and they're 501 00:27:44.250 --> 00:27:47.529 special and they're a privilege. And if you become a distraction, 502 00:27:47.829 --> 00:27:50.170 then it's not appropriate for you to serve in these jobs. 503 00:27:50.470 --> 00:27:52.700 So I made a decision. I called the White House 504 00:27:52.720 --> 00:27:55.359 shortly after breakfast, asked them to speak to the president. 505 00:27:55.799 --> 00:27:58.299 I told them that it was time for me to 506 00:27:58.339 --> 00:28:00.740 move on. I did not want to be a distraction 507 00:28:00.779 --> 00:28:04.089 to this administration, and I chose to resign. We stepped 508 00:28:04.190 --> 00:28:06.710 out onto the South Lawn. He did an impromptu press 509 00:28:06.730 --> 00:28:09.960 conference right there. And that's why I resigned. And that's 510 00:28:10.000 --> 00:28:12.720 what I wrote. And I actually mean what I write usually. 511 00:28:12.980 --> 00:28:16.220 So yes, Mr. Ansari. And I think we touched on 512 00:28:16.240 --> 00:28:19.359 this a little bit earlier, but just to re-emphasize. Have 513 00:28:19.380 --> 00:28:22.630 you ever discussed the Epstein investigation or Jeffrey Epstein with 514 00:28:22.650 --> 00:28:29.630 Donald Trump prior to your confirmation? Mr. Acosta, I had not. Mr. Ansari, okay. Mr. Redacted, 515 00:28:30.150 --> 00:28:32.970 question how about anyone in the White House? Answer, so 516 00:28:33.009 --> 00:28:35.069 as I said a little bit earlier, at some point 517 00:28:35.089 --> 00:28:38.309 in the confirmation process, the Epstein matter came up. And 518 00:28:38.349 --> 00:28:40.650 at that point, I know, I don't recall who, but 519 00:28:40.690 --> 00:28:43.059 I do know I discussed it with the communication staff. 520 00:28:43.779 --> 00:28:45.420 I think it may have been in the context of 521 00:28:45.480 --> 00:28:48.420 a Washington Post article, but it may have been before that. 522 00:28:48.660 --> 00:28:51.140 I don't remember. I know that there was a Washington 523 00:28:51.160 -->
00:28:54.680 Post article above the fold at some point. Question, so 524 00:28:54.700 --> 00:28:58.809 to be clear, Acosta, but I am finishing answering. I 525 00:28:58.849 --> 00:29:02.920 discussed it with other people, but gets cut off again. Question, 526 00:29:02.960 --> 00:29:06.640 let's back up a little bit. Acosta, okay. Question, when 527 00:29:06.660 --> 00:29:11.190 you were first approached about potentially serving in the Trump administration? Answer, 528 00:29:11.250 --> 00:29:14.470 so I wasn't approached. I approached the Trump administration about 529 00:29:14.509 --> 00:29:18.650 serving in the Trump administration. Question, and when was that? Answer, 530 00:29:18.710 --> 00:29:22.299 sometime after the election. Question, after the election and before 531 00:29:22.339 --> 00:29:27.740 the inauguration or after the inauguration? Answer, probably sometime after 532 00:29:27.779 --> 00:29:30.720 the inauguration, but I want to complete my previous answer. 533 00:29:31.549 --> 00:29:34.460 At some point in the vetting or confirmation process, I 534 00:29:34.500 --> 00:29:37.140 may have also discussed this with you go through an 535 00:29:37.220 --> 00:29:39.789 FBI background check and it may or may not have 536 00:29:39.809 --> 00:29:41.910 come up. up. And I may have talked with folks 537 00:29:41.990 --> 00:29:45.779 about that during the vetting process. Mr. Ansari, do you 538 00:29:45.839 --> 00:29:49.119 remember who you spoke to? Mr. Acosta, whoever is involved 539 00:29:49.160 --> 00:29:52.779 in vetting? I didn't say I spoke to. I said 540 00:29:52.880 --> 00:29:55.579 I may have and whoever would have been involved in that. 541 00:29:56.180 --> 00:29:58.339 But that was after I was given the position to 542 00:29:58.700 --> 00:30:01.160 Not given the position. That would be an awful misnomer. 543 00:30:01.500 --> 00:30:03.859 That's after it was publicly announced that I would be 544 00:30:03.920 --> 00:30:09.069 nominated while I was being vetted. Question. By Mr. Redacted. 545 00:30:09.619 --> 00:30:13.809 So you mentioned that you approached the Trump administration. Answer. Yes. Question. 546 00:30:14.329 --> 00:30:17.390 Who did you approach? Answer. I believe I approached the 547 00:30:17.430 --> 00:30:20.109 system had been set up that was operated at a 548 00:30:20.130 --> 00:30:23.670 Trump Tower and I submitted my name through that system. Question, 549 00:30:24.019 --> 00:30:27.539 and after you approached the Trump administration and before your confirmation, 550 00:30:27.819 --> 00:30:30.259 did you speak to Donald Trump at all? Answer, before 551 00:30:30.339 --> 00:30:33.720 my confirmation, yes. Before I was, before he selected me 552 00:30:34.140 --> 00:30:37.519 as Secretary of Labor, then I spoke to him. And 553 00:30:37.559 --> 00:30:40.339 what did you say during that conversation? Answer, so he 554 00:30:40.420 --> 00:30:42.819 asked me some questions. None of them related to Epstein 555 00:30:42.859 --> 00:30:45.240 in any way. They were all related to my background. 556 00:30:45.579 --> 00:30:48.279 They were all related to labor. I answered the questions 557 00:30:48.519 --> 00:30:51.829 and the next day he selected me. Question, did you 558 00:30:51.869 --> 00:30:54.349 discuss your time? at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the 559 00:30:54.390 --> 00:30:59.470 Southern District of Florida? Answer, beyond an item on my resume, first, 560 00:30:59.789 --> 00:31:01.490 I don't know if I did or did not, but 561 00:31:01.509 --> 00:31:03.519 it was an item on my resume, and I'm certain 562 00:31:03.740 --> 00:31:07.119 he had my resume. Question, so just so I'm clear 563 00:31:07.160 --> 00:31:09.700 with the timeline, and please correct me if I'm wrong, 564 00:31:10.019 --> 00:31:12.220 did you say you received the nomination before you went 565 00:31:12.240 --> 00:31:16.289 through a vetting process? Answer, so I believe there's an announcement, 566 00:31:16.690 --> 00:31:20.069 and once the announcement's made, then the FBI vetting process begins. 567 00:31:20.650 --> 00:31:24.009 The nomination is transmitted immediately And then the typical confirmation process. 568 00:31:24.289 --> 00:31:28.450 That's not unusual. Question. Sure. Answer. Garcia. Could I ask 569 00:31:28.519 --> 00:31:34.039 a follow-up? Garcia. First parts inaudible. Then vetting. An interview 570 00:31:34.160 --> 00:31:38.059 or into a vetting process before the announcement was made. Mr. Acosta. 571 00:31:38.319 --> 00:31:40.380 So I had been vetted by the FBI for multiple 572 00:31:40.420 --> 00:31:44.109 positions before. I had been interviewed. I interviewed before the 573 00:31:44.150 --> 00:31:47.630 announcement was made with multiple members of the administration. And 574 00:31:47.650 --> 00:31:51.109 my final interview was with President Trump. I interviewed with him. 575 00:31:51.450 --> 00:31:56.170 Then the announcement was made. Question by redacted. And any 576 00:31:56.210 --> 00:32:00.789 time during these interviews before Donald Trump that you had mentioned? Answer, yes. 577 00:32:01.109 --> 00:32:05.769 Did Jeffrey Epstein's case come up? Answer, no. Question, not once. Answer, 578 00:32:05.890 --> 00:32:09.450 not to my recollection. Question, did your tenure at the U.S. 579 00:32:09.490 --> 00:32:11.900 Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida come up 580 00:32:12.259 --> 00:32:15.460 in any of these interviews prior? Answer, not with a 581 00:32:15.480 --> 00:32:19.680 degree of specificity. Question, so all right. So the nomination's announced. 582 00:32:20.029 --> 00:32:22.589 Then you go through a vetting process. Can you describe 583 00:32:22.630 --> 00:32:25.190 that vetting process for me? Answer. You fill out a 584 00:32:25.230 --> 00:32:28.079 lot of FBI forms. You answer questions at the office 585 00:32:28.140 --> 00:32:31.980 of presidential personnel. You have conversations and it's either presidential 586
00:32:32.019 --> 00:32:35.759 personnel or White House counsel or both. And then once 587 00:32:35.799 --> 00:32:39.799 you're formally nominated and you proceed to confirmation. Question. So 588 00:32:39.839 --> 00:32:42.609 at any point from your approach to the Trump administration 589 00:32:42.930 --> 00:32:46.029 to potentially serve as Secretary of Labor to your confirmation, 590 00:32:46.400 --> 00:32:49.089 Did you have any conversation or discussion with anyone in 591 00:32:49.130 --> 00:32:54.430 the Trump administration about political concerns regarding Jeffrey Epstein? Answer, again, 592 00:32:54.450 --> 00:32:57.029 I did not. It may have come up during the vetting. 593 00:32:57.650 --> 00:33:00.240 It came up after I was publicly announced, I believe 594 00:33:00.259 --> 00:33:03.180 while I was probably doing Hill visits. I think it 595 00:33:03.220 --> 00:33:05.779 was during Hill visits because it was while I was 596 00:33:05.839 --> 00:33:08.680 in D.C. And I had a conversation with the communication 597 00:33:08.700 --> 00:33:11.920 staff about it. Ms. Stansbury, can I ask a quick 598 00:33:12.049 --> 00:33:14.829 follow-up question, sort of a sideline, and then going back 599 00:33:14.869 --> 00:33:17.700 to you? Over the course of your engagement at the DOJ, 600 00:33:18.119 --> 00:33:20.240 did you ever see any documents in which Donald Trump's 601 00:33:20.279 --> 00:33:24.099 name appeared with regards to the Epstein case? Mr. Acosta, 602 00:33:24.359 --> 00:33:27.740 not to my recollection. Ms. Stansbury, were you aware that 603 00:33:27.779 --> 00:33:31.480 Donald Trump was friends with Jeffrey Epstein? Mr. Acosta, I 604 00:33:31.500 --> 00:33:34.819 have no recollection of Donald Trump associated with the investigation 605 00:33:35.119 --> 00:33:38.450 in any way, shape, or form. Ms. Stansbury, no, I'm 606 00:33:38.470 --> 00:33:40.890 just asking if they were friends. It's a well-known fact. 607 00:33:41.029 --> 00:33:43.490 It's okay, you can answer in the affirmative on things 608 00:33:43.529 --> 00:33:46.390 that are well. Acosta cuts her off Of course I 609 00:33:46.410 --> 00:33:49.099 can answer in the affirmative. If it's an affirmative answer, 610 00:33:49.410 --> 00:33:53.839 it's 20 years later. Stansberry, you read the newspaper, right? Acosta, 611 00:33:53.920 --> 00:33:58.579 I'm sorry. Stansberry, I said, you read the newspaper. Acosta, 612 00:33:58.980 --> 00:34:01.599 I read newspapers now, and I know what's talked about 613 00:34:01.619 --> 00:34:04.809 in newspapers now. In 2006, you know, I don't think 614 00:34:04.849 --> 00:34:08.889 this was talked about as a headline in 2006. Stansberry, 615 00:34:09.250 --> 00:34:12.309 did the FBI interview Donald Trump? Or speak to him 616 00:34:12.349 --> 00:34:16.280 with regards to this case? Acosta... I have again, did 617 00:34:16.320 --> 00:34:19.880 not direct the investigation. If our prosecutors thought they should 618 00:34:19.920 --> 00:34:24.179
pursue the lead, they were free to pursue that lead. Sandsbury, 619 00:34:24.460 --> 00:34:28.239 but is it possible that they did based on that relationship? Acosta, 620 00:34:28.579 --> 00:34:30.860 I have no knowledge that any person spoke to Donald 621 00:34:30.900 --> 00:34:33.659 Trump with respect to Epstein. I have no knowledge of 622 00:34:33.679 --> 00:34:36.900 Donald Trump's name appearing in any Epstein document. I have 623 00:34:36.920 --> 00:34:40.099 no knowledge of Donald Trump being associated with Epstein investigation 624 00:34:40.360 --> 00:34:43.280 in any way. I'm not saying that it wasn't. because 625 00:34:43.320 --> 00:34:45.590 I can't speak on behalf of the many, many attorneys 626 00:34:45.960 --> 00:34:49.159 and case agents involved, I can simply speak about what 627 00:34:49.199 --> 00:34:52.179 knowledge of it I have. And let me also say, 628 00:34:52.619 --> 00:34:55.519 I think that there was, I think it's pretty spectacular, 629 00:34:55.820 --> 00:35:00.000 it hasn't leaked by now, but that's just speculation. Stansberry, 630 00:35:00.360 --> 00:35:04.280 and then I just have one more quick follow-up. Garcia, 631 00:35:04.320 --> 00:35:08.780 how much time do we have left? Stansberry, please. Redacted, 632 00:35:08.820 --> 00:35:13.449 five minutes. Garcia, five minutes left. One question for Ms. Stansberry. Stansberry. 633 00:35:14.389 --> 00:35:16.230 I just want to ask, and I would love if 634 00:35:16.250 --> 00:35:17.949 you would just say yes or no, and I know 635 00:35:17.989 --> 00:35:20.780 you're an attorney, so you know how this works. So 636 00:35:20.860 --> 00:35:24.440 since January 20th of this year, 2025, have you spoken 637 00:35:24.480 --> 00:35:27.400 to or engaged in any form of communication with the 638 00:35:27.440 --> 00:35:34.730 following individuals? Acosta. Okay. Stansberry. Donald Trump. Acosta. No. Stansberry. 639 00:35:34.769 --> 00:35:39.320 Pam Bondi. Acosta. Um. Stansberry. No. It's just a yes 640 00:35:39.360 --> 00:35:43.070 or no. Acosta, yes, and I'm going to answer. Stansberry, okay. 641 00:35:44.070 --> 00:35:48.050 The question I have, Stansberry, Director Patel. Acosta, I have 642 00:35:48.090 --> 00:35:50.889 been cut off again by Stansberry. I've got a list. 643 00:35:50.909 --> 00:35:53.710 I've got a list. Acosta, but I need to answer 644 00:35:53.769 --> 00:35:58.250 the question. Stansberry, okay. Acosta, I've had the pleasantries with, 645 00:35:58.530 --> 00:36:03.039 I've had pleasantries, what you'd categorize as pleasantries with Pam Bondi. Hello, 646 00:36:03.099 --> 00:36:06.719 how are you? Stansberry, okay. Acosta, as part of a 647 00:36:06.760 --> 00:36:10.650 large Zoom conference. Stansberry, okay. Acosta, but I have not 648 00:36:10.690 --> 00:36:12.909 spoken to her in person, and I've not spoken to 649 00:36:12.949 --> 00:36:15.409 her in any way about anything having to do with 650 00:36:15.449 --> 00:36:22.860 Jeffrey Epstein. Stansberry, Director Patel, Acosta, no. Stansberry, any employee 651 00:36:23.139 --> 00:36:26.760 or political appointee of the White House? Acosta, that's a 652 00:36:26.780 --> 00:36:30.039 broad question. I'm sure I've had multiple conversations with employees 653 00:36:30.079 --> 00:36:32.539 of the White House. I've not spoken to anyone at 654 00:36:32.579 --> 00:36:35.349 the White House, to my recollection, about anything having to 655 00:36:35.409 --> 00:36:39.869 do with Jeffrey Epstein since January 20th. Stansberry, any employee 656 00:36:40.150 --> 00:36:43.469 or political appointee of the Department of Justice? Acosta, as 657 00:36:43.550 --> 00:36:45.809 I said, I was in a Zoom meeting with Attorney 658 00:36:45.829 --> 00:36:49.929 General Pam Bondi and several other individuals. We probably said hello, 659 00:36:49.969 --> 00:36:54.429 how are you, and had little pleasantries. Nothing beyond that. Stansberry, 660 00:36:54.869 --> 00:36:58.570 and any employee or appointee at the FBI? Acosta, no 661 00:36:58.630 --> 00:37:02.320 one from the FBI, no. Stansberry, okay, so DOJ and 662 00:37:02.340 --> 00:37:04.719 the White House, got it, okay. And then they take 663 00:37:04.739 --> 00:37:07.119 their little recess. So that's where we're going to break 664 00:37:07.159 --> 00:37:09.010 as well. And in the next episode, we're going to 665 00:37:09.030 --> 00:37:11.710 pick up where we left off. All of the information 666 00:37:11.750 --> 00:37:14.309 that goes with this episode can be found in the 667 00:37:14.349 --> 00:37:17.710 description box. What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode 668 00:37:18.050 --> 00:37:21.369 of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up 669 00:37:21.449 --> 00:37:26.280 right where we left off with the Alex Acosta deposition. Mr. Garcia, 670 00:37:27.000 --> 00:37:29.840 so I just want to go back quickly. You said 671 00:37:29.880 --> 00:37:32.940 at some point during the vetting process, answer, yeah. Question, 672 00:37:33.239 --> 00:37:35.900 Jeffrey Epstein may have come up. Is that right? Answer, 673 00:37:35.920 --> 00:37:38.010 I said it may have. I don't recall if it 674 00:37:38.030 --> 00:37:41.369 did or did not. Question, if it in fact had 675 00:37:41.409 --> 00:37:45.320 come up, when would it have come up in your speculation? Answer, 676 00:37:45.340 --> 00:37:47.619 in my speculation, it would have come up if the 677 00:37:47.659 --> 00:37:51.039 question may have arisen as part of your newspaper articles 678 00:37:51.440 --> 00:37:55.090 or something along those lines. Question, and leading up in 679 00:37:55.110 --> 00:37:59.829 your preparation for the confirmation hearing with the Senate, answer, yes. Question, 680 00:38:00.130 --> 00:38:04.179 did you prepare for questions about Jeffrey Epstein? Answer, so 681 00:38:04.199 --> 00:38:06.539 there were articles in the media about that, and so yes, 682 00:38:06.619 --> 00:38:08.800 I did prepare. And I was asked by the
Senate 683 00:38:08.820 --> 00:38:13.090 about this, and I answered consistent with my answers today. Question, 684 00:38:13.389 --> 00:38:17.230 who did you prepare your questions with? Answer, myself. Question, 685 00:38:17.650 --> 00:38:20.429 no one from the White House. Answer, I didn't prepare. 686 00:38:20.730 --> 00:38:23.190 These are questions that would be within my general knowledge. 687 00:38:24.329 --> 00:38:27.800 Not the White House, and so no. Question, you didn't 688 00:38:27.840 --> 00:38:30.039 coordinate with the White House on your questions? They didn't 689 00:38:30.079 --> 00:38:33.530 review your questions in any respect? answer, so I was 690 00:38:33.590 --> 00:38:37.269 given binders about the Department of Labor and preparatory documents 691 00:38:37.329 --> 00:38:39.650 having to do with the Department of Labor that is 692 00:38:39.690 --> 00:38:43.059 consistent with any transition, and as part of that, I 693 00:38:43.099 --> 00:38:46.039 certainly had discussions about labor policy and the Department of 694 00:38:46.079 --> 00:38:49.500 Labor with part of the transition team, which was then 695 00:38:49.820 --> 00:38:52.260 at the Department of Labor, actually not at the White House, 696 00:38:52.679 --> 00:38:55.440 but at the Department of Labor. This would not have 697 00:38:55.480 --> 00:38:58.929 been within their purview. It wouldn't have been. These were 698 00:38:58.989 --> 00:39:02.489 materials or matters about me, not about labor policy. And 699 00:39:02.530 --> 00:39:04.230 so I would not have. That would have not have 700 00:39:04.250 --> 00:39:07.920 been part of that particular so-called prep. Question, I understand. 701 00:39:08.280 --> 00:39:11.239 Just so we're very clear, you did not discuss your 702 00:39:11.300 --> 00:39:14.440 answers regardless of labor policy with the White House prior 703 00:39:14.760 --> 00:39:20.050 to your confirmation hearing? Answer, I'm sorry. When you say regardless, question, sure, 704 00:39:20.090 --> 00:39:24.369 I'll clarify. Labor policy aside, did you discuss your answers 705 00:39:24.909 --> 00:39:28.130 for the Senate confirmation hearing with anyone at the White House? Answer, 706 00:39:28.190 --> 00:39:29.969 so to be clear, I did not to my recollection. 707 00:39:30.820 --> 00:39:34.539 discuss anything having to do with Epstein or my answers. Question, 708 00:39:34.559 --> 00:39:38.059 that wasn't my question, sir. Answer, you know, with anyone 709 00:39:38.079 --> 00:39:41.150 at the White House. And I recall very few instances, 710 00:39:41.230 --> 00:39:44.349 as a general matter, the conversations about preparing for hearings 711 00:39:44.650 --> 00:39:48.030 took place with transition staff at the department and not 712 00:39:48.050 --> 00:39:50.469 the White House. So I don't even know if we 713 00:39:50.510 --> 00:39:53.829 discuss the answers to any confirmation question with anyone at 714 00:39:53.849 --> 00:39:57.710 the White House, including the labor policy. Question, I have 715 00:39:57.739 --> 00:40:00.260 a couple questions just to make sure that the record's clear. 716 00:40:00.519 --> 00:40:04.139 And then? I've been crossing off questions as you've been 717 00:40:04.199 --> 00:40:06.619 answering them. You were asked at the very end by Ms. 718 00:40:06.639 --> 00:40:09.780 Stansbury if you had ever spoken with anyone about any 719 00:40:09.840 --> 00:40:14.110 subject from January 20th, 2025 until present at the White 720 00:40:14.130 --> 00:40:17.230 House or DOJ. You said yes, but not about the 721 00:40:17.309 --> 00:40:21.139 Epstein case. Is that correct? Answer, that is correct. Question, 722 00:40:21.530 --> 00:40:24.909 those were either social or professional, but not Epstein. Answer, 723 00:40:24.969 --> 00:40:27.530 to my knowledge, I have spoken with no one in 724 00:40:27.590 --> 00:40:31.469 government about the Epstein matter. Question, thank you. It just 725 00:40:31.510 --> 00:40:34.110 felt that was fishing for a yes that's going to 726 00:40:34.190 --> 00:40:36.210 end up on the cameras here in a second, so 727 00:40:36.269 --> 00:40:39.789 I appreciate the scoping clarification. You were also asked a 728 00:40:39.829 --> 00:40:42.489 lot about whether or not the FBI or anyone in 729 00:40:42.510 --> 00:40:45.730 the office interviewed Donald Trump during the 2006-2008 Epstein investigation. 730 00:40:48.590 --> 00:40:51.650 And remind me of your answer again. Answer. I'm sorry. 731 00:40:52.050 --> 00:40:55.030 I became preoccupied because of the statement. I said I 732 00:40:55.090 --> 00:40:58.550 wasn't limited in scope for the time. Since January 20th, 733 00:40:58.909 --> 00:41:01.630 to my knowledge, I haven't spoken with anyone in government 734 00:41:02.010 --> 00:41:05.309 about the Epstein matter. Question. Thank you. So you were 735 00:41:05.409 --> 00:41:08.010 also asked about whether or not the FBI or your 736 00:41:08.070 --> 00:41:12.530 office interviewed Donald Trump in the 2006 to 2008 investigation 737 00:41:12.829 --> 00:41:16.820 into Epstein. Answer. Yes. Question. Based off a couple articles 738 00:41:17.360 --> 00:41:19.420 that they both live in Palm Beach and Epstein went 739 00:41:19.440 --> 00:41:21.800 to Mar-a-Lago. Do you know how many members there are 740 00:41:21.860 --> 00:41:25.840 at Mar-a-Lago? Answer. I would assume hundreds, maybe more. Question. 741 00:41:26.119 --> 00:41:29.000 Did you interview all of them? Again, I don't know 742 00:41:29.079 --> 00:41:32.530 who we interviewed. I don't direct interviews. I have no 743 00:41:32.570 --> 00:41:35.469 knowledge of who was interviewed or not interviewed. I have 744 00:41:35.510 --> 00:41:38.489 no knowledge to my knowledge, to my recollection, to my memory. 745 00:41:38.829 --> 00:41:41.869 Donald Trump's name did not appear in any document or 746 00:41:41.929 --> 00:41:45.849 any matter related to Jeffrey Epstein. Question. What about, do 747 00:41:45.889 -->
00:41:48.510 you know, how many people lived on Palm Beach Island 748 00:41:48.550 --> 00:41:51.469 at the time? Answer, I have no idea. Question, did 749 00:41:51.510 --> 00:41:54.760 you interview all those people too? Answer again, I don't 750 00:41:54.800 --> 00:41:58.559 think so. I'm pretty certain we did not. Question, all right. 751 00:41:59.000 --> 00:42:01.380 And you are confident in your line attorneys that if 752 00:42:01.400 --> 00:42:04.400 they found a lead, they would follow it and they 753 00:42:04.440 --> 00:42:08.559 would interview that person? Answer, they would, yes. Question, all right, 754 00:42:08.599 --> 00:42:11.679 thank you. Whoever is doing this questioning right here is 755 00:42:11.760 --> 00:42:14.719 obviously trying to help Acosta out. And the fact that 756 00:42:14.760 --> 00:42:17.800 their name is redacted is straight up trash. We've talked 757 00:42:17.860 --> 00:42:21.780 a lot about the non-prosecution agreement, the OPR report a lot. 758 00:42:22.139 --> 00:42:24.559 I just want the OPR report, I believe, came to 759 00:42:24.579 --> 00:42:29.340 the conclusion nothing illegal against a regulation unethical happened regarding 760 00:42:29.360 --> 00:42:32.530 the prosecution report, but that it showed poor judgment. I 761 00:42:32.570 --> 00:42:36.289 think that's what they said. Do you agree with the 762 00:42:36.409 --> 00:42:39.920 characterization of events? Answer. I agree with their findings with 763 00:42:39.980 --> 00:42:42.489 respect to events, and I agree with their core finding 764 00:42:42.750 --> 00:42:46.349 that the state resolution was poor judgment. In hindsight, it 765 00:42:46.389 --> 00:42:49.789 had any number of problems. Question, and you've touched on 766 00:42:49.829 --> 00:42:52.250 this a little bit, but I think you testified today 767 00:42:52.550 --> 00:42:54.760 that you did not foresee or anticipate a lot of 768 00:42:54.800 --> 00:42:58.719 the state problems that would follow the MPA. Is that correct? Answer, 769 00:42:58.780 --> 00:43:02.960 that is correct. Question, and again, hindsight being 20-20, if 770 00:43:02.980 --> 00:43:04.619 you had known the state was going to be a 771 00:43:04.760 --> 00:43:08.039 not-supportive actor in this endeavor... Would you have maybe addressed 772 00:43:08.059 --> 00:43:11.019 the case differently? Why would the state be an actor 773 00:43:11.059 --> 00:43:14.590 that could be relied upon? The whole entire point of 774 00:43:14.619 --> 00:43:17.309 going to the feds is because the state wasn't going 775 00:43:17.329 --> 00:43:23.150 to take action. So save the bullshit, bro. Answer. There 776 00:43:23.190 --> 00:43:25.010 is no way if we knew that the state was 777 00:43:25.050 --> 00:43:27.670 going to proceed as it did, that we would have 778 00:43:27.690 --> 00:43:30.550 addressed this case the way we did. Question. Thank you. 779 00:43:31.469 --> 00:43:33.449 I'm going to go back further in time. So again, 780 00:43:33.769 -->
00:43:36.159 I understand that there is a lack of recollection. Were 781 00:43:36.179 --> 00:43:38.659 you aware, I'll back up, when did you become U.S. 782 00:43:38.719 --> 00:43:43.949 Attorney for the Southern District of Florida? Answer, sometime in 2005. Question, 783 00:43:43.969 --> 00:43:46.949 were you aware of Jeffrey Epstein prior to the investigation 784 00:43:46.989 --> 00:43:50.329 into him? Answer, I was not. Question, were you aware 785 00:43:50.409 --> 00:43:53.090 that Palm Beach was investigating him prior to your office 786 00:43:53.110 --> 00:43:56.690 taking over? Answer, the first recollection that I remember of 787 00:43:56.730 --> 00:43:59.829 Jeffrey Epstein was shortly before I decided how to proceed 788 00:44:00.170 --> 00:44:02.889 on the term sheet. I know I was briefed in 2006. 789 00:44:02.889 --> 00:44:05.809 I don't even recall being briefed. And I don't even 790 00:44:05.869 --> 00:44:10.010 recall recognizing his name when I was briefed. Question. Do 791 00:44:10.030 --> 00:44:13.420 you recall any communication between yourself and Palm Beach Police 792 00:44:13.460 --> 00:44:16.840 Chief Michael Ryder? Answer. We may have communicated. I don't know. 793 00:44:16.880 --> 00:44:20.519 I don't remember. Question. Communications. I mean, he was the 794 00:44:20.559 --> 00:44:23.159 chief of police in Palm Beach. May not have been 795 00:44:23.199 --> 00:44:25.519 specific to Epstein. It could have been any number of 796 00:44:25.559 --> 00:44:30.170 criminal matters in the jurisdiction. Answer. That's correct. Question. But 797 00:44:30.510 --> 00:44:33.530 do you recall any specific to Epstein? Answer. I do 798 00:44:33.570 --> 00:44:37.010 not remember. No. Question, what about the Palm Beach lead detective, 799 00:44:37.050 --> 00:44:41.630 Joseph Ricari? Do you recall any specific to Epstein? Answer, 800 00:44:41.730 --> 00:44:44.679 I don't recall any communication specific to Epstein, and I 801 00:44:44.780 --> 00:44:46.980 also think it would have been unusual for me to 802 00:44:47.019 --> 00:44:51.780 communicate with the detective without his boss present. Question, you've 803 00:44:51.800 --> 00:44:55.300 talked about the petite, is that right? Answer, yes. Question, 804 00:44:55.579 --> 00:45:02.500 the petite motion that would allow concurrent federal and state investigations? Answer, correct. Question, When, 805 00:45:02.739 --> 00:45:06.760 if you remember, did it shift into, like, away from that? Answer. 806 00:45:06.820 --> 00:45:08.780 So one of the difficulties is, at the end of 807 00:45:08.820 --> 00:45:11.599 the day, the state did not ink their deal. They 808 00:45:11.639 --> 00:45:15.909 had an agreement, but they did not ink their deal. Question. Uh-huh. Answer. 809 00:45:16.280 --> 00:45:19.449 And so the petite waiver does not technically apply, but 810 00:45:19.489 --> 00:45:22.650 it informed the decision, the avenue of proceeding through the state, 811 00:45:22.989 --> 00:45:27.670 and looking at this as a state case, informed the outcome. Question. Uh-huh. 812 00:45:28.030 --> 00:45:30.690 Did you review, personally review, the findings of the Palm 813 00:45:30.710 --> 00:45:36.449 Beach investigation? Answer, which investigation? When you say Palm Beach investigation, question, 814 00:45:36.730 --> 00:45:40.050 the investigation that they handed to your office. Answer, at 815 00:45:40.070 --> 00:45:42.800 the time, I did not. Question, did you review it 816 00:45:42.860 --> 00:45:46.300 prior to the NPA? Answer, I would have been fully 817 00:45:46.360 --> 00:45:49.300 briefed on the evidence, whether that was through my supervisory 818 00:45:49.340 --> 00:45:52.199 staff or by my reading summaries of it. As a 819 00:45:52.239 --> 00:45:55.199 general course, U.S. attorneys don't sit with all the evidence 820 00:45:55.239 --> 00:45:59.059 files and the 302s. Well, guess what, dumbass? Maybe they should. 821 00:45:59.079 --> 00:46:02.059 Imagine being the boss and not knowing what your employees 822 00:46:02.099 --> 00:46:05.840 were up to. Question, have you ever, do you know 823 00:46:06.119 --> 00:46:09.539 who Sandy Berger is? Answer, I do not. Question, so 824 00:46:09.619 --> 00:46:12.260 I'm assuming you've never spoken to Sandy Berger if you 825 00:46:12.280 --> 00:46:16.139 don't know who he is. Answer, I would assume so. Question, 826 00:46:16.239 --> 00:46:18.590 all right. What about Doug Band? Have you ever spoken 827 00:46:18.610 --> 00:46:21.789 to Doug Band? Answer, not to my knowledge, no. Question, 828 00:46:21.829 --> 00:46:24.460 all right. Do you recall reviewing the West Palm Beach 829 00:46:24.500 --> 00:46:29.239 Police report regarding Mr. Epstein from 2005? Answer. Again, in 830 00:46:29.280 --> 00:46:31.739 the usual course, I would have been briefed. I would 831 00:46:31.760 --> 00:46:34.789 have had summaries. I wouldn't review the police reports or 832 00:46:34.829 --> 00:46:38.949 the 302s. Question. Shifting to when it became an FBI 833 00:46:38.969 --> 00:46:42.590 investigation after Palm Beach handed it over, were you involved 834 00:46:42.670 --> 00:46:46.010 at all in the decision-making process of the FBI or 835 00:46:46.050 --> 00:46:48.730 the U.S. Attorney's Office taking up the case? Answer. I 836 00:46:48.769 --> 00:46:52.059 was not. Question. That's something that someone on the supervisory 837 00:46:52.079 --> 00:46:55.500 staff can make on their own. Answer. Let me revise 838 00:46:55.519 --> 00:46:58.719 the answer. I have no recollection of being briefed. My 839 00:46:58.739 --> 00:47:01.969 understanding was, based on the OPR report, that when Ms. 840 00:47:01.989 --> 00:47:05.489 Villafana approached my then criminal chief and myself, it was 841 00:47:05.570 --> 00:47:08.550 before taking up the case, to ask if the office 842 00:47:08.610 --> 00:47:11.610 wanted to pursue the case. And I said yes. This 843 00:47:11.670 --> 00:47:13.969 is the kind of thing we should
pursue. And we 844 00:47:14.150 --> 00:47:18.599 pursued it. So yes, it was unusual for me to say, 845 00:47:18.679 --> 00:47:21.340 take up the case. Typically, she should have had the 846 00:47:21.360 --> 00:47:23.730 authority to do this, but she thought she should check, 847 00:47:24.010 --> 00:47:27.289 and I said go forward. Question, do you recall any 848 00:47:27.329 --> 00:47:31.409 conversation of why she thought she should check on the case? Answer, again, 849 00:47:31.469 --> 00:47:34.230 not my recollection, but the report, because the state had 850 00:47:34.250 --> 00:47:36.929 dropped the ball. She wanted to check to see if 851 00:47:36.969 --> 00:47:39.960 we were willing to proceed. Question, because it might make 852 00:47:40.000 --> 00:47:43.659 the state look a little bad. Answer, perhaps because it 853 00:47:43.699 --> 00:47:46.619 might make the state bad. For whatever other reason, she 854 00:47:46.659 --> 00:47:49.809 wanted to check, and I said go forward. Question, all right, 855 00:47:49.969 --> 00:47:52.010 and then I think you touched on it briefly, but 856 00:47:52.409 --> 00:47:55.760 don't recall and would be odd for you to have 857 00:47:55.800 --> 00:47:59.780 communicated with the FBI case agents, but possible communication with 858 00:47:59.800 --> 00:48:02.960 the special agent in charge? Answer, that's correct. Do you 859 00:48:03.019 --> 00:48:07.570 recall if the FBI ever recommended bringing federal sex trafficking charges? Answer, 860 00:48:07.630 --> 00:48:11.150 not to my recollection. Question, and this may be in 861 00:48:11.190 --> 00:48:15.170 the OPR report. In May of 2007, Ms. Villafano recommended 862 00:48:15.210 --> 00:48:17.840 indicting Epstein to and the FBI wanted to arrest him 863 00:48:18.159 --> 00:48:20.199 while he was in the Virgin Islands. Were you aware 864 00:48:20.239 --> 00:48:23.739 of that? Answer. In May of 2007, I believe she 865 00:48:23.780 --> 00:48:26.619 submitted a draft recommendation that had not gone through the 866 00:48:26.639 --> 00:48:30.679 supervisory chain. Her immediate supervisor actually had concerns about it. 867 00:48:31.329 --> 00:48:34.070 And I believe the OPR report talks about how he 868 00:48:34.130 --> 00:48:37.449 thinks it should proceed, that there are different charging decisions 869 00:48:37.769 --> 00:48:40.880 that he would make. And so she and he and 870 00:48:40.929 --> 00:48:45.230 others proceeded to have those discussions. Question. Are you referencing 871 00:48:45.269 --> 00:48:49.429 the 60-count indictment? Answer, correct. The 60-count indictment that we've 872 00:48:49.449 --> 00:48:53.590 talked about. Answer, yes. Question, just generally, is it common 873 00:48:53.610 --> 00:48:57.010 for line prosecutors to draft indictments that then get negotiated 874 00:48:57.050 --> 00:49:00.190 with senior managers? Answer, you start with something and you 875 00:49:00.230 --> 00:49:04.210 negotiate it. That's very typical. It's been characterized that this 876 00:49:04.250 --> 00:49:06.489 was ready to go. It was her draft or something 877 00:49:06.989 --> 00:49:10.750 that hadn't even been vetted through the usual office process. question, 878 00:49:11.050 --> 00:49:14.079 in conjunction with that indictment, do you recall any conversation 879 00:49:14.159 --> 00:49:17.179 about the FBI wishing to take Epstein into custody in 880 00:49:17.210 --> 00:49:21.360 the Virgin Islands? Answer, it was 28. ago. I don't remember. 881 00:49:21.380 --> 00:49:25.079 All right, we're going to wrap up right here. And 882 00:49:25.119 --> 00:49:27.239 in the next episode, we're going to pick up where 883 00:49:27.260 --> 00:49:31.860 we left off with Alex Acosta and his amnesia. All 884 00:49:31.880 --> 00:49:34.070 of the information that goes with this episode can be 885 00:49:34.110 --> 00:49:35.809 found in the description box.
Rediger udskrift