Vollständiges Transkript von Mega Edition: Transcripts From The Alex Acosta Deposition (Part 4-6) (11/12/26)

case was... Question, yeah. Mr. Neiman, 69 00:03:43.030 --> 00:03:46.400 at the U.S. Attorney's Office. Mr. Acosta... At the U.S. 70 00:03:46.439 --> 00:03:49.479 Attorney's Office. And that's why we thought it was important 71 00:03:49.500 --> 00:03:56.389 that he go to jail. A question by somebody who's redacted. Question. Yes. Answer. 72 00:03:56.789 --> 00:03:59.909 And all of us thought that the victims were victims. Question. No, 73 00:03:59.930 --> 00:04:05.189 I appreciate that. And we all agree too. Question. And 74 00:04:05.229 --> 00:04:07.729 that's why I was surprised. Thank you. Going back to 75 00:04:07.770 --> 00:04:10.689 the letter. The last paragraph on the first page begins. 76 00:04:11.370 --> 00:04:14.550 What followed was a year-long assault on the prosecution and 77 00:04:14.569 --> 00:04:17.790 the prosecutors. I use the word assault intentionally as the 78 00:04:17.829 --> 00:04:20.689 defense in this case was more aggressive than any which 79 00:04:20.970 --> 00:04:24.350 I or the prosecution in my office had previously encountered. 80 00:04:25.250 --> 00:04:27.730 And then you talk about the army of lawyers that Mr. 81 00:04:27.810 --> 00:04:30.430 Epstein hired and later on, I'm trying to find the 82 00:04:30.470 --> 00:04:32.970 right page, on what is the second to the last 83 00:04:33.009 --> 00:04:37.550 page or the last page, the first full paragraph. That 84 00:04:37.670 --> 00:04:40.870 some may also believe the prosecution should have been tougher 85 00:04:40.889 --> 00:04:44.540 in retaliation for the defense's tactics. You write it here. 86 00:04:44.920 --> 00:04:47.680 but can you explain some of Epstein's defense tactics in 87 00:04:47.720 --> 00:04:51.939 the case? Answer, so they would agree and then say 88 00:04:52.000 --> 00:04:54.139 they didn't agree and we'd have to, you know, the 89 00:04:54.180 --> 00:04:58.600 prosecuting attorneys would start negotiations again. They would sometimes say 90 00:04:58.639 --> 00:05:00.959 that we agreed to something that we did not agree 91 00:05:01.000 --> 00:05:04.459 to and then we'd spend time on that. They, at 92 00:05:04.579 --> 00:05:07.730 one point, tried to recuse the prosecuting attorney. This was 93 00:05:07.769 --> 00:05:10.170 a little bit later, but they tried to recuse the 94 00:05:10.230 --> 00:05:13.209 prosecuting attorney. At one point, they tried to recuse my 95 00:05:13.250 --> 00:05:16.800 first assistant. They found what I refer to as peccadillo 96 00:05:17.160 --> 00:05:20.279 and tried to recuse the first assistant. And then, I 97 00:05:20.790 --> 00:05:23.910 think perhaps the most egregious of all, he signed an agreement, 98 00:05:24.329 --> 00:05:27.310 and he signed that agreement, I believe, in September. And 99 00:05:27.370 --> 00:05:30.170 in my experience, once counsel and defendant sign the agreement, 100 00:05:30.589 --> 00:05:34.529 it's done and you follow through. And then you started 101 00:05:34.569 --> 00:05:38.550 relitigating everything again. And then they started saying, you can't 102 00:05:38.589 --> 00:05:42.050 do this because of federalism concerns and because you're impinging 103 00:05:42.110 --> 00:05:45.360 on a local matter. And they charged our office with 104 00:05:45.389 --> 00:05:49.100 being unethical, or I don't want to say unethical. They 105 00:05:49.160 --> 00:05:53.100 charged the office with improperly interpreting the law. And this 106 00:05:53.160 --> 00:05:55.759 is when I became more involved because it was more 107 00:05:55.779 --> 00:05:57.759 of a policy issue and it was more of an 108 00:05:57.800 --> 00:06:01.560 attack on the office. And then they appealed to the 109 00:06:01.579 --> 00:06:04.709 criminal division in Washington. And then after that, they ultimately 110 00:06:04.769 --> 00:06:08.769 appealed to the U.S. Deputy Attorney General's office. And so 111 00:06:08.870 --> 00:06:11.189 from the time that he signed the agreement to the 112 00:06:11.250 --> 00:06:14.209 ultimate plea was a span of of about eight months 113 00:06:14.250 --> 00:06:18.069 or something. Question, uh-huh, answer, and that is unheard of. 114 00:06:18.490 --> 00:06:21.649 I'll provide another example. We had assurance from the state 115 00:06:21.680 --> 00:06:24.680 attorney and we had assurance from his counsel that he 116 00:06:24.720 --> 00:06:27.819 would be in continuous confinement. And then after he goes 117 00:06:27.860 --> 00:06:30.579 to jail, he applied for work release and the Palm 118 00:06:30.600 --> 00:06:33.699 Beach gives him work release. And we're not even notified 119 00:06:33.740 --> 00:06:37.100 that he gets work release. And our office objects to it, 120 00:06:37.459 --> 00:06:40.300 but we had assurances that it would not happen. And 121 00:06:40.399 --> 00:06:45.279 OPR talks about those assurances as well. Question, uh-huh. Answer, 122 00:06:45.660 --> 00:06:48.689 so at multiple levels, you know, their tactic is something 123 00:06:48.730 --> 00:06:51.110 that you can only do once because, you know, if 124 00:06:51.149 --> 00:06:53.829 you're a South Florida lawyer that had to interact with 125 00:06:53.870 --> 00:06:58.569 the office multiple times, that could not happen. Question by 126 00:06:58.629 --> 00:07:03.310 somebody who's redacted. The paragraph also mentions, like, I'm going 127 00:07:03.350 --> 00:07:09.180 to characterize it as stalking assistant U.S. attorneys, investigating assistant U.S. attorneys, 128 00:07:09.519 --> 00:07:13.740 and investigating their families. Answer, it does. Question, did you 129 00:07:13.800 --> 00:07:17.449 experience that? Like, did you personally experience that? Answer, I 130 00:07:17.490 --> 00:07:21.209 did not. My first assistant did. Question, and that's a 131 00:07:21.250 --> 00:07:24.550 fair characterization for me. I mean, you can correct me 132 00:07:24.629 --> 00:07:27.920 if I'm wrong, but hiring private investigators to follow them, 133 00:07:28.139 -->

00:07:31.720 go through their trash, kind of like that kind of stuff? Answer, 134 00:07:32.160 --> 00:07:35.279 so let me see how to characterize this, and then 135 00:07:35.319 --> 00:07:37.319 if you want details, you can ask me for details. 136 00:07:38.490 --> 00:07:41.680 They uncovered something involving his daughter. So I don't want 137 00:07:41.720 --> 00:07:44.199 to say that they hired private investigators to stalk him. 138 00:07:44.560 --> 00:07:47.920 I think that would be a mischaracterization. But yes, they 139 00:07:47.959 --> 00:07:50.819 uncovered something regarding his daughter to try to recuse him. 140 00:07:51.579 --> 00:07:54.980 Question and then answer. Actually, that sounds. I want to 141 00:07:55.079 --> 00:07:58.189 answer that more fully, lest there be look back on her. 142 00:07:58.990 --> 00:08:01.410 There was an incident that involved someone peeping at his 143 00:08:01.449 --> 00:08:03.589 daughter at the time, and he called the police and 144 00:08:03.610 --> 00:08:06.189 he followed up, as I think any father would and should. 145 00:08:06.850 --> 00:08:09.500 And they said that because of that, he could not 146 00:08:09.560 --> 00:08:13.240 be a fair and impartial and tried to recuse him. Question, 147 00:08:13.279 --> 00:08:18.740 thank you. Answer, which let me just add, is just outrageous. Question, yes. 148 00:08:18.959 --> 00:08:22.079 The accusation being that because someone stalked his daughter, he 149 00:08:22.120 --> 00:08:26.060 would be impartial into someone that committed similar crimes, I 150 00:08:26.100 --> 00:08:28.579 guess is what they were going for. Answer, that's what 151 00:08:28.620 --> 00:08:32.750 the argument was, yes. Question, just a couple minutes late, 152 00:08:33.000 --> 00:08:35.169 a lot of people come in, so I'm going to 153 00:08:35.210 --> 00:08:37.970 go through and announce them at the end of the hour. 154 00:08:38.429 --> 00:08:41.720 But you say, and I think it's a bedrock American principle, 155 00:08:42.059 --> 00:08:45.200 that everyone's entitled to an aggressive defense. Is there a line? 156 00:08:45.600 --> 00:08:49.919 And was it crossed? So unfortunately, or fortunately maybe, I 157 00:08:50.200 --> 00:08:54.789 don't know. Let me restart. Everyone's entitled to an aggressive defense. 158 00:08:55.429 --> 00:08:57.690 I don't think the line was crossed. I don't think that. 159 00:08:58.029 --> 00:09:00.509 It's not the way I would want to litigate. It's 160 00:09:00.529 --> 00:09:03.110 not the way I would teach lawyers to litigate. But 161 00:09:03.149 --> 00:09:06.039 it's allowed within the legal profession. And I don't think 162 00:09:06.120 --> 00:09:09.370 that there was misconduct. and misconduct is the line. But 163 00:09:09.389 --> 00:09:13.250 it was distasteful. It did frustrate our attorneys. And one 164 00:09:13.269 --> 00:09:16.210 of my challenges as a manager was that various times, 165 00:09:16.590 --> 00:09:19.129 all of us, including myself,

would be like, yeah, we're 166 00:09:19.190 --> 00:09:22.250 sick of this. But if something is right initially, you 167 00:09:22.289 --> 00:09:24.600 can't sort of let defense counsel get under your skin. 168 00:09:25.120 --> 00:09:28.299 If it's right initially, then it's right then, and you 169 00:09:28.340 --> 00:09:32.019 just keep going. Question, based off of that, was there 170 00:09:32.100 --> 00:09:36.830 any discussion about filing sanctions against any of the defense counsel? Answer, 171 00:09:36.909 --> 00:09:40.990 not that I recall. Question, that is a good stopping 172 00:09:41.029 --> 00:09:44.009 point for our hour. But before we go off the record, 173 00:09:44.340 --> 00:09:47.080 a number of members have come in. So I will, 174 00:09:47.129 --> 00:09:50.120 we'll start back here, if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself 175 00:09:50.159 --> 00:09:53.059 for the record. So they introduce a bunch of people, 176 00:09:53.080 --> 00:09:56.340 a lot of redacted people. But before they go, Acosta asks, 177 00:09:56.639 --> 00:09:58.960 can I just finish the answer to the prior question 178 00:09:59.000 --> 00:10:01.820 before we stop? He's given the okay, and he goes 179 00:10:01.899 --> 00:10:04.879 on to say, I don't recall any conversations about sanctions, 180 00:10:05.100 --> 00:10:07.440 and if I'm being fair, I do think defense counsel 181 00:10:08.000 --> 00:10:10.190 have a right to challenge whether or not someone should 182 00:10:10.210 --> 00:10:13.190 be accused, and distasteful as it is to look up someone, 183 00:10:13.450 --> 00:10:15.629 to look up someone of the matters that we just 184 00:10:15.669 --> 00:10:18.129 talked about, defense counsel has a right to do that, 185 00:10:18.570 --> 00:10:22.330 And I don't think that that should be sanctioned. Mr. Redacted, 186 00:10:22.350 --> 00:10:26.740 all right. I appreciate it. Mr. Min, could you announce yourself? Sure. 187 00:10:27.100 --> 00:10:34.840 Congressman Dave Min, California, 47. Congressman James Wokenshaw, Virginia. All right, 188 00:10:34.860 --> 00:10:38.039 we'll go on the record. The time is 1116. So 189 00:10:38.059 --> 00:10:41.240 they go through announcing all of the different people that 190 00:10:41.259 --> 00:10:44.419 are going to be asking questions that are present. And 191 00:10:44.460 --> 00:10:50.970 we have Mr... Garcia. We have Ms. Crockett. We have Mr. Kazar. 192 00:10:51.370 --> 00:10:59.710 We have Mr. Min. We have Mr. Frost. Mr. Submaranium. Mr. Wilkinshaw. Ms. Lee. Mr. Biggs. 193 00:11:01.710 --> 00:11:06.809 Tim Burchette. And we have Jasmine Crockett. All right, so 194 00:11:06.889 --> 00:11:10.490 right back to the examination. Question by, we don't know, 195 00:11:10.570 --> 00:11:17.539 it's redacted. And answering once again, Alex Acosta. Question, Mr. Acosta, 196 00:11:17.580 --> 00:11:21.470 good morning. Answer, good morning. Question, we're going to delve 197 00:11:21.509 --> 00:11:24.169 into the greater depths into some of the issues that 198 00:11:24.210 --> 00:11:27.070 my majority colleagues raised with you during the previous round. 199 00:11:27.409 --> 00:11:29.610 But at the outset, I'd like to just establish some 200 00:11:29.629 --> 00:11:32.049 of the facts that I think lie at the core 201 00:11:32.090 --> 00:11:35.590 of today's proceeding. And to begin with, it's my understanding 202 00:11:35.870 --> 00:11:38.210 that the line prosecutor in your office who handled the 203 00:11:38.269 --> 00:11:42.450 Epstein investigation, Ms. Villafana, concluded that there was enough evidence, 204 00:11:42.490 --> 00:11:46.789 in her view, to support a 60-count federal indictment against Mr. Epstein. 205 00:11:47.169 --> 00:11:52.190 Is that accurate? Answer, the prosecuting attorney, Ms. Villafana, sent 206 00:11:52.269 --> 00:11:55.470 a draft indictment of her supervisory chain that was never 207 00:11:55.529 --> 00:11:59.029 fully reviewed by the supervisory chain. That was a first 208 00:11:59.049 --> 00:12:02.080 draft that was written by her. And in the usual 209 00:12:02.139 --> 00:12:04.500 course of the office, it would then go to the 210 00:12:04.559 --> 00:12:07.320 managing attorney in the Palm Beach County and the criminal chief. 211 00:12:07.960 --> 00:12:11.639 And earlier we had talked about, for example, the interstate statutes. 212 00:12:12.740 --> 00:12:14.899 And the managing attorney in the Palm Beach office said, 213 00:12:15.429 --> 00:12:18.990 that supervised her expressed concerns about, for example, whether or 214 00:12:19.049 --> 00:12:22.570 not the federal nexus existed. So she did draft that. 215 00:12:22.909 --> 00:12:28.679 That wasn't. That had not gone through the supervisory chain. Question. 216 00:12:28.879 --> 00:12:31.259 That I understand. But would you agree with me that 217 00:12:31.320 --> 00:12:34.139 it reflected her view of the evidence and the charges 218 00:12:34.480 --> 00:12:38.659 that the evidence supported at the time? Answer. It reflected 219 00:12:38.799 --> 00:12:40.690 her view of what the case could have looked like 220 00:12:40.830 --> 00:12:44.350 if it went to trial. But again, in her sworn deposition... 221 00:12:44.240 --> 00:12:46.659 She said that a negotiated plea would have been a 222 00:12:46.679 --> 00:12:49.929 better outcome, and that did reflect her assessment as to 223 00:12:49.950 --> 00:12:53.570 the viability of the case. And so just because you 224 00:12:53.590 --> 00:12:56.370 draft an indictment doesn't mean you think it's a slam dunk. 225 00:12:59.529 --> 00:13:01.860 And she went on to say, and if I could, 226 00:13:01.919 --> 00:13:04.860 because it's an important point, this is her talking, not me. 227 00:13:05.440 --> 00:13:08.149 And this is her sworn statement. Some have alleged that 228 00:13:08.230 --> 00:13:11.330 Epstein would have easily been convicted and that all the 229 00:13:11.389 --> 00:13:14.759 victims were eager to participate in a full-fledged federal

prosecution. 230 00:13:15.460 --> 00:13:18.820 As a prosecutor who handled the investigation, I can say 231 00:13:18.860 --> 00:13:21.960 that these contentions overlooked the facts at the time. So 232 00:13:21.980 --> 00:13:24.820 her sworn statement is that it would not have been 233 00:13:24.840 --> 00:13:28.919 an easy case and that there were issues. Question sure, 234 00:13:29.179 --> 00:13:32.539 and you're talking about litigation risk, which of course is 235 00:13:32.610 --> 00:13:36.659 inherent in every prosecution, but her draft indictment was accompanied 236 00:13:36.720 --> 00:13:41.279 by an 80-some-odd-page charging memo, isn't that correct? Answer, I 237 00:13:41.330 --> 00:13:44.610 can't speak to the pages, but it was accompanied by 238 00:13:44.649 --> 00:13:47.610 a charging memo that, again, the supervisory chain in the 239 00:13:47.710 --> 00:13:50.870 office had a different assessment than she did. Question, but 240 00:13:50.909 --> 00:13:52.950 it's fair to say that she wouldn't have sent it 241 00:13:53.029 --> 00:13:56.759 up the draft indictment and the 80-page charging memo if 242 00:13:56.799 --> 00:13:58.799 she didn't have faith in the allegations that she was 243 00:13:58.879 --> 00:14:01.879 outlining and the merits on the prosecution. Isn't that a 244 00:14:01.940 --> 00:14:06.330 fair characterization? Answer, so you wouldn't send up something that 245 00:14:06.350 --> 00:14:09.409 he didn't believe was factual and accurate. Again, I don't 246 00:14:09.429 --> 00:14:12.230 think it's fair to characterize her position as saying this 247 00:14:12.289 --> 00:14:14.980 is what we need to do, because in her sworn statement, 248 00:14:15.240 --> 00:14:19.820 she herself said that she favored a negotiated outcome. Question, 249 00:14:20.440 --> 00:14:24.539 and wasn't it also her judgment that the appropriate sentence 250 00:14:24.580 --> 00:14:27.620 for Mr. Epstein under federal sentencing guidelines was at a 251 00:14:27.639 --> 00:14:32.789 minimum 168 to 210 months? Answer, it was her judgment 252 00:14:33.029 --> 00:14:34.370 that if it would have gone to trial on the 253 00:14:34.409 --> 00:14:37.929 charges in the memo, again, charges that the supervisory chain 254 00:14:37.970 --> 00:14:41.210 in the office had concerns over, that if it would 255 00:14:41.230 --> 00:14:43.169 have gone to trial, that that would have been the 256 00:14:43.200 --> 00:14:47.159 guideline range. Question, and it's my understanding, having read the 257 00:14:47.259 --> 00:14:51.500 OPR report, that Ms. Villafano repeatedly pressed her supervisors to 258 00:14:51.720 --> 00:14:55.620 authorize an indictment of Mr. Epstein, and that authorization was 259 00:14:55.700 --> 00:15:00.429 repeatedly denied. Isn't that accurate? Answer, I think it would 260 00:15:00.450 --> 00:15:03.289 be fair to say that she pressed them. I don't 261 00:15:03.330 --> 00:15:05.789 know how you define repeatedly, but she did press them. 262 00:15:06.750 --> 00:15:08.169 All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here. 263 00:15:08.470 --> 00:15:10.200 And in the next episode, we're going to pick up 264 00:15:10.480 --> 00:15:13.460 where we left off. All of the information that goes 265 00:15:13.500 --> 00:15:16.659 with this episode can be found in the description box. 266 00:15:17.019 --> 00:15:19.740 What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the 267 00:15:19.820 --> 00:15:22.960 Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up 268 00:15:22.980 --> 00:15:27.450 where we left off with the Alex Acosta deposition. Once again, 269 00:15:27.470 --> 00:15:31.370 Alex Acosta doing the answering. and various members of Congress 270 00:15:31.710 --> 00:15:36.179 doing the questioning. Question. Despite Ms. Villafana's views, you ultimately 271 00:15:36.220 --> 00:15:39.220 decided that a resolution of the case on state charges 272 00:15:39.279 --> 00:15:42.639 was appropriate. Is that correct? Answer. So there was a 273 00:15:42.700 --> 00:15:45.200 discussion within the office, and I think, I think it's 274 00:15:45.220 --> 00:15:48.480 an important in-between, is that if we were to go 275 00:15:48.519 --> 00:15:52.110 forward on federal, there was the discussion ended up landing 276 00:15:52.210 --> 00:15:55.509 on what called a 371, which is a different charge, 277 00:15:55.870 --> 00:15:59.340 which would be a five-year charge. with a what's called 278 00:15:59.399 --> 00:16:02.500 a Rule 11 cap, but ultimately there was a discussion 279 00:16:02.539 --> 00:16:05.960 within the office. I talked to my supervisory staff, and 280 00:16:06.019 --> 00:16:09.610 I approved a three-pronged term sheet or approach. The first 281 00:16:09.669 --> 00:16:13.330 required that he serve 24 months imprisonment, and my understanding, 282 00:16:13.669 --> 00:16:16.450 at the time, as I recall it, was that is 283 00:16:16.509 --> 00:16:19.759 what the Palm Beach police initially sought, right? And again, 284 00:16:20.059 --> 00:16:22.559 the Palm Beach police went to the state attorney's office... 285 00:16:22.980 --> 00:16:26.340 The state attorney's office was willing to. They're willing to 286 00:16:26.419 --> 00:16:29.500 file the charges the Palm Beach police sought. They offered 287 00:16:29.519 --> 00:16:32.120 him probation. Then they took it to the grand jury, 288 00:16:32.590 --> 00:16:36.419 offered pretrial diversion. What I ultimately approved, and I approved it, 289 00:16:36.690 --> 00:16:39.590 was two years, which is what the Palm Beach police sought. 290 00:16:39.970 --> 00:16:43.750 Registration as a sexual offender. And then we also added 291 00:16:43.889 --> 00:16:48.809 in a mechanism for monetary recovery for the victims. Question. Question. 292 00:16:49.250 --> 00:16:52.080 And looking at the terms of the non-prosecution agreement, which 293 00:16:52.120 --> 00:16:55.019 I'll refer to for brevity's sake as the MPA, if 294 00:16:55.059 --> 00:16:58.919 that's okay

with you, answer yes. Question. So the MPA 295 00:16:59.080 --> 00:17:01.759 permitted Mr. Epstein to plead to a single charge, is 296 00:17:01.799 --> 00:17:06.099 that right? Answer. Yes, that is correct. Question. Okay, so 297 00:17:06.220 --> 00:17:09.920 as opposed to the 53 federal counts that Ms. Villafana 298 00:17:10.200 --> 00:17:13.579 had initially proposed in her charging memo? Answer again. I 299 00:17:14.099 --> 00:17:18.599 take issue with your characterization of the charging memo, but yes. Question. 300 00:17:19.099 --> 00:17:22.569 And the NPA also allowed Mr. Epstein, I'm sorry, pursuant 301 00:17:22.609 --> 00:17:25.630 to the NPA, your office agreed to a sentence for Mr. 302 00:17:25.710 --> 00:17:28.650 Epstein of only 18 months in the Palm Beach County Jail. 303 00:17:29.289 --> 00:17:33.970 Is that accurate? Answer, that is ultimately accurate. After I 304 00:17:33.990 --> 00:17:37.529 approved the, we'll call it term sheet, for simplicity, because 305 00:17:37.569 --> 00:17:40.589 that's how it was labeled, the prosecution team entered into 306 00:17:40.630 --> 00:17:43.990 a negotiation. In the process of that negotiation, it went 307 00:17:44.049 --> 00:17:47.970 from 24 to 18. My perspective on that, was the 308 00:17:48.009 --> 00:17:51.049 prosecuting attorney, Ms. Villafana, wanted him to go to jail, 309 00:17:51.430 --> 00:17:53.730 perhaps more than any of us, and I think the 310 00:17:53.769 --> 00:17:56.539 record makes that clear. So if in the process of 311 00:17:56.579 --> 00:18:00.779 that give-and-go and give-and-take, it ends up 18, it's appropriate 312 00:18:00.819 --> 00:18:05.059 to defer to that process. Question? So just to clarify 313 00:18:05.099 --> 00:18:08.160 the initial proposal from your office as to the MPA 314 00:18:08.220 --> 00:18:11.240 was a two-year sentence that was further reduced 18 months, 315 00:18:12.019 --> 00:18:15.359 and of that 18 months, Mr. Epstein only served 13. 316 00:18:15.359 --> 00:18:19.309 Is that correct? Answer? That is factually correct, but I 317 00:18:19.329 --> 00:18:22.250 want to clarify my prior answer if I could. When 318 00:18:22.269 --> 00:18:24.349 I said that she, more than anyone, wanted him to 319 00:18:24.369 --> 00:18:27.099 go to jail, I don't think that's accurate. I said 320 00:18:27.130 --> 00:18:29.839 that all of us, every single person, the whole reason 321 00:18:29.880 --> 00:18:32.339 we took this case is because we wanted him to 322 00:18:32.380 --> 00:18:36.579 go to jail. Because the state attorney said pre-trial diversion, like, 323 00:18:36.980 --> 00:18:40.089 how could the state attorney say that? But on the 324 00:18:40.109 --> 00:18:43.089 continuum of how the case was assessed and the viability 325 00:18:43.109 --> 00:18:46.349 of the case, as you went up the experience chain, 326 00:18:47.049 --> 00:18:50.210 There were more concerns about viability, and so I trusted 327 00:18:50.250 --> 00:18:53.789 her to negotiate that agreement. And I think she did 328 00:18:53.849 --> 00:18:57.230 a really, really good job under a very difficult circumstance, 329 00:18:57.650 --> 00:19:01.950 given the way the defense treated her and approached the case. Question, 330 00:19:02.049 --> 00:19:06.230 the 18-month sentence was ultimately approved by you, correct? Answer, yes. 331 00:19:06.390 --> 00:19:10.029 Let me be clear on something else. I'm not pushing away. Ultimately, 332 00:19:10.069 --> 00:19:12.190 it was, you know, I was the U.S. Attorney. The 333 00:19:12.230 --> 00:19:15.369 decisions are mine. I told that to the Office of 334 00:19:15.589 --> 00:19:20.200 Professional Responsibility. I'm not pushing that away. The decisions were mine. 335 00:19:21.019 --> 00:19:24.259 Question understood. And pursuant to the NPA, Mr. Epstein was 336 00:19:24.299 --> 00:19:29.500 permitted work release while serving his sentence. Is that correct? Answer, 337 00:19:29.579 --> 00:19:32.059 so I would not say that pursuant to the NPA. 338 00:19:32.880 --> 00:19:35.920 And we had assurance on multiple levels that would be 339 00:19:36.000 --> 00:19:39.680 quote unquote continuous confinement. On the issues that you may, 340 00:19:39.980 --> 00:19:42.619 you may want to talk about or not, is I 341 00:19:42.680 --> 00:19:45.049 think the state turned out to be an unreliable partner. 342 00:19:45.650 --> 00:19:48.380 and OPR did a 300-page report, and there are some 343 00:19:48.420 --> 00:19:51.880 conclusions that, quite honestly... are critical of me that I 344 00:19:51.900 --> 00:19:54.559 will agree with. And one of those was I relied 345 00:19:54.680 --> 00:19:57.529 on the, you know, by approving a state resolution, I 346 00:19:57.609 --> 00:20:00.170 partnered with a state attorney and a Palm Beach sheriff 347 00:20:00.210 --> 00:20:04.450 that was an unreliable partner. We had assurances that he 348 00:20:04.490 --> 00:20:07.650 would be in continuous confinement. We were told multiple times 349 00:20:07.690 --> 00:20:10.380 that he would be. He obtained work release from the 350 00:20:10.420 --> 00:20:14.420 Palm Beach Sheriff under a factual situation that's sketchy at best. 351 00:20:15.059 --> 00:20:16.900 I don't remember all the details, but I think his 352 00:20:16.940 --> 00:20:19.509 work release was at an institution that had just been 353 00:20:19.549 --> 00:20:23.470 incorporated or something along those lines. That was the Palm 354 00:20:23.490 --> 00:20:27.009 Beach Sheriff's decision. When we found out about that, we objected. 355 00:20:27.269 --> 00:20:30.950 We objected in writing. We objected fully. And so that 356 00:20:30.990 --> 00:20:33.960 was under the authority of the state. Mr. Min, do 357 00:20:33.980 --> 00:20:36.599 you have questions? Mr. Min, yeah. I just want to 358 00:20:36.640 --> 00:20:38.970 follow up on this line of questioning. Do you feel 359 00:20:38.990 --> 00:20:42.089 like the investigation was complete at the time you decided 360

00:20:42.109 --> 00:20:46.509 to proffer the 24-month sentence to the proposal? Acosta, so 361 00:20:46.609 --> 00:20:48.750 I would have. I would have deferred to the trial 362 00:20:48.789 --> 00:20:52.549 team at the time. Mr. Min, so following up on that, 363 00:20:52.589 --> 00:20:55.650 go ahead. Acosta, no, no, but I think the timeline's important. 364 00:20:56.069 --> 00:20:58.369 The case was brought into the office in late spring 365 00:20:58.809 --> 00:21:04.730 of 2006. Mr. Min, sure. Acosta, about a year later. We, I, 366 00:21:04.799 --> 00:21:07.670 approved the term sheet. There had been a year. During 367 00:21:07.690 --> 00:21:11.170 that year, victims had been interviewed, the prosecuting team had 368 00:21:11.190 --> 00:21:13.990 done whatever they thought they needed to be done, and 369 00:21:14.039 --> 00:21:17.359 I don't recall any discussion of there is more than 370 00:21:17.400 --> 00:21:20.319 we need. If anything, I recall, you know, let's put, 371 00:21:20.460 --> 00:21:23.900 let's proceed, now, because it's important, you know, one of 372 00:21:23.940 --> 00:21:26.980 the concerns is that the victims, as they get older, Mr. 373 00:21:27.039 --> 00:21:29.640 Min cuts them off, so I just want to turn, 374 00:21:29.680 --> 00:21:33.380 because Maria Villafana repeatedly has said that she, at the time, 375 00:21:33.759 --> 00:21:36.740 and after the fact, believed that that the computer evidence, 376 00:21:36.779 --> 00:21:40.390 the files, the surveillance videos, all of that, I think 377 00:21:40.430 --> 00:21:42.990 she said would have put this case completely to bed. 378 00:21:44.190 --> 00:21:46.950 And the defense attorneys, and I think he'll go into that, 379 00:21:47.029 --> 00:21:50.730 repeatedly pushed that particular request off. They did not respond 380 00:21:50.779 --> 00:21:52.799 to it. I know there's a long record of her 381 00:21:52.859 --> 00:21:56.079 going to her superiors, including you, and asking for permission 382 00:21:56.119 --> 00:21:58.500 to be more persistent in trying to get these records. 383 00:21:58.880 --> 00:22:01.640 And then at some point, Ken Starr and Lefkowitz became 384 00:22:01.680 --> 00:22:05.279 the attorneys of record. And then at that point, about 385 00:22:05.299 --> 00:22:07.539 two weeks later, I think is when you entered into 386 00:22:07.579 --> 00:22:11.069 the NPA. And so I'm interested in that timeline. But 387 00:22:11.119 --> 00:22:13.990 I guess my question right now is, if there's a 388 00:22:14.009 --> 00:22:16.930 big pile of evidence that would have corroborated the witness 389 00:22:16.970 --> 00:22:20.269 testimony and their claims that they were visiting Epstein's house, 390 00:22:20.910 --> 00:22:23.609 you might have had child pornography, you might have had videos, 391 00:22:24.049 --> 00:22:26.589 a known video of his New York residence. And I 392 00:22:26.630 --> 00:22:28.930 think a number of people have noted that it was 393 00:22:28.970 --> 00:22:32.299 shocking that he wouldn't have had similar surveillance system in 394 00:22:32.319 --> 00:22:35.809 Palm Beach. Why would you not get that information before, 395 00:22:36.190 --> 00:22:38.390 which might have had everything you needed to get rid 396 00:22:38.430 --> 00:22:43.930 of the litigation risk in the case? Acosta, so there 397 00:22:43.950 --> 00:22:45.619 was a number of, I mean there were a number 398 00:22:45.650 --> 00:22:47.900 of statements in that, some of which I think confuse 399 00:22:47.940 --> 00:22:50.819 the timeline, and some of which I think are inaccurate, but, 400 00:22:51.240 --> 00:22:54.299 so I can take those one at a time. So first, 401 00:22:54.420 --> 00:22:57.259 I approve the terms. I approve the term sheet before Mr. 402 00:22:57.319 --> 00:23:00.200 Starr was brought into the matter. When Mr. Starr was 403 00:23:00.240 --> 00:23:02.380 brought into the matter... I believe a week or two 404 00:23:02.480 --> 00:23:05.180 after that, the term sheet was approved. And at that point, 405 00:23:05.440 --> 00:23:08.240 we didn't have a meeting with the defense. Everyone was 406 00:23:08.279 --> 00:23:11.180 present at the meeting with the defense, and at that meeting, 407 00:23:11.220 --> 00:23:14.400 I rejected everything that was asked. They asked that we 408 00:23:14.440 --> 00:23:17.460 not proceed because it's a local case. They asked that 409 00:23:17.500 --> 00:23:21.490 we drop the two-year demand. I rejected all those. I said, 410 00:23:21.529 --> 00:23:24.069 you've been heard. And the reason that we had that 411 00:23:24.109 --> 00:23:26.730 meeting is because it was my assessment, and it ended 412 00:23:26.769 --> 00:23:29.089 up being true, for better or worse, that the case 413 00:23:29.130 --> 00:23:31.559 would be appealed to Washington and And I didn't want 414 00:23:31.599 --> 00:23:33.920 it to be appealed on the grounds that we had 415 00:23:33.960 --> 00:23:36.779 not heard defense arguments. I thought it's better that we 416 00:23:36.819 --> 00:23:40.500 hear them in Miami first. So he's just giving you 417 00:23:40.519 --> 00:23:42.119 the clue right here that they went above his head, 418 00:23:42.339 --> 00:23:44.700 like I've been telling you from the beginning. And I 419 00:23:44.759 --> 00:23:47.839 invited the head of the child exploitation section from Washington 420 00:23:47.880 --> 00:23:50.660 down to the meeting in South Florida so that Washington 421 00:23:50.700 --> 00:23:53.240 was fully aware of what we were doing and so 422 00:23:53.279 --> 00:23:56.819 that Washington understood the case and understood the matter. And 423 00:23:56.839 --> 00:24:00.480 so I just want to clarify that timeline first. Mr. Garcia, 424 00:24:00.640 --> 00:24:02.920 let's move on really quick, Mr. Acosta, before I go 425 00:24:02.980 --> 00:24:05.839 back to the attorneys. On the 18-month final sentence, do 426 00:24:05.880 --> 00:24:08.200 you stand by that? Do you stand by the decision

427 00:24:08.220 --> 00:24:12.059 that you made and the office made? Mr. Acosta, on 428 00:24:12.079 --> 00:24:16.519 the 18 months? Mr. Garcia, yes. Acosta, so let me 429 00:24:16.579 --> 00:24:19.829 say this. We put him in jail. Mr. Garcia, do 430 00:24:19.869 --> 00:24:23.910 you stand by the 18 months? Acosta, no. I understand, 431 00:24:23.950 --> 00:24:25.829 but allow me to give you a fulsome answer if 432 00:24:25.910 --> 00:24:28.940 I could. We put him in jail. He registered as 433 00:24:28.980 --> 00:24:31.960 a sex offender and the victims had an opportunity to recover. 434 00:24:32.660 --> 00:24:35.440 And that was a win. Looking back in hindsight, there 435 00:24:35.480 --> 00:24:37.119 are a number of issues that I will, you know, 436 00:24:37.420 --> 00:24:40.299 that I will say caused the community and victims to feel, 437 00:24:40.619 --> 00:24:42.940 to feel that this was not a good resolution. And 438 00:24:42.980 --> 00:24:46.460 I get that. But from the perspective of our prosecutors 439 00:24:46.519 --> 00:24:48.740 at the time, based on the evidence we had at 440 00:24:48.779 --> 00:24:51.000 the time, you know, everyone in the office wanted to 441 00:24:51.039 --> 00:24:53.680 put him in jail and that's what we did. And 442 00:24:53.700 --> 00:24:58.009 it wasn't just me. These are experienced career prosecutors. Our 443 00:24:58.069 --> 00:25:01.049 first assistant had been with the office for years. He 444 00:25:01.089 --> 00:25:04.609 had been the criminal chief before. Mr. Garcia, so you 445 00:25:04.630 --> 00:25:07.319 would disagree with that calling it a sweetheart deal? You 446 00:25:07.339 --> 00:25:11.140 would disagree with that assessment? Mr. Acosta, I disagree with that. 447 00:25:11.519 --> 00:25:15.059 And I think it's really easy with respect, Garcia. And 448 00:25:15.099 --> 00:25:17.680 you're also aware, sir, that he, of course, went on 449 00:25:17.700 --> 00:25:21.190 to abuse other women? Acosta, so what I was saying, 450 00:25:21.569 --> 00:25:23.470 I think it's really easy in this era to sort 451 00:25:23.490 --> 00:25:26.849 of label something with an easy soundbite. We talked about, 452 00:25:26.910 --> 00:25:30.250 and I can go back again, about our, I need 453 00:25:30.269 --> 00:25:33.150 to go back to your question. Min, I was going 454 00:25:33.170 --> 00:25:36.319 to ask you, you answered the question. Acosta, yeah, I 455 00:25:36.359 --> 00:25:38.480 need to go back to your question. I'm sorry, but 456 00:25:38.500 --> 00:25:41.559 I was interrupted. I'm trying, but we talked about the 457 00:25:41.619 --> 00:25:45.000 assessment of the first assistant was that this could be 458 00:25:45.039 --> 00:25:48.640 a very difficult case. The assessment of the child exploitation 459 00:25:48.960 --> 00:25:52.480 and obscenity prosecutor that came down from D.C. that looked 460 00:25:52.500 --> 00:25:55.960 at all the evidence, looked at all the evidence and said, quote, unquote, 461 00:25:56.230 --> 00:25:59.509 this case would be a crapshoot. Those weren't my words, 462 00:25:59.549 --> 00:26:02.609 those were her words. The assessment of the criminal chief, 463 00:26:02.930 --> 00:26:05.359 who used to be the head of major crimes, was 464 00:26:05.390 --> 00:26:09.880 that this would be a difficult case. The assessment from 465 00:26:09.920 --> 00:26:13.279 the managing attorney of the Palm Beach office, and more 466 00:26:13.339 --> 00:26:16.299 than a difficult case, a highly difficult case, where they 467 00:26:16.339 --> 00:26:19.200 were sure that the outcome would be. And so looking 468 00:26:19.240 --> 00:26:21.650 at all of this, the ultimate judgment was, do you 469 00:26:21.690 --> 00:26:23.619 roll the dice? And if he gets away with it, 470 00:26:23.650 --> 00:26:26.109 you're sending a signal to the community saying, that he 471 00:26:26.130 --> 00:26:29.329 can get away with it. And given the state attorney, 472 00:26:29.390 --> 00:26:31.769 you know, approach where the state attorney was, in essence, 473 00:26:32.089 --> 00:26:34.990 letting him get away with it, what would that say? 474 00:26:35.410 --> 00:26:37.710 Or do you proceed with a sure prosecution where he 475 00:26:37.759 --> 00:26:40.450 goes to jail? And none of us, none of us 476 00:26:40.490 --> 00:26:42.960 thought that 18 months or 24 months was the right 477 00:26:43.019 --> 00:26:46.579 outcome in terms of this, of what we wanted, but 478 00:26:46.619 --> 00:26:50.279 based on the facts that we had, Garcia, I understand that. 479 00:26:51.259 --> 00:26:53.740 And sir, you, so you don't agree that it was 480 00:26:53.799 --> 00:26:57.230 a sweetheart deal. That's clear. And you do recognize that 481 00:26:57.250 --> 00:27:00.849 he went on to abuse other women. You recognize that. Mr. Acosta, 482 00:27:01.170 --> 00:27:03.289 if there's evidence that he went on to abuse other women, 483 00:27:03.589 --> 00:27:07.500 that evidence should be brought forward and... Garcia, you're not aware? 484 00:27:07.779 --> 00:27:10.019 You can't say with certainty that he abused other women 485 00:27:10.420 --> 00:27:14.160 after he was in his jurying sentence? Acosta, I have 486 00:27:14.180 --> 00:27:18.029 not reviewed facts after the prosecution. Garcia, I mean, it's 487 00:27:18.049 --> 00:27:21.730 been widely reported, so that's surprising. Acosta, so you know, 488 00:27:21.779 --> 00:27:25.240 my understanding of our criminal justice system is what's reported 489 00:27:25.579 --> 00:27:27.859 and what is proven in court are two different things. 490 00:27:29.000 --> 00:27:31.460 You know, I read reports. I understand reports. Let me 491 00:27:31.500 --> 00:27:33.839 say I saw. I saw the press conference given by 492 00:27:33.859 --> 00:27:37.559 the victims. I thought their statements were courageous. They were confident. 493 00:27:37.599 --> 00:27:41.660 They were eloquent. We believe the victims back then, despite 494 00:27:41.700 -->

00:27:45.380 the reality that defense would have impeached these victims and 495 00:27:45.420 --> 00:27:48.069 the impeachment would have been withering. We believe them fully, 496 00:27:48.390 --> 00:27:51.670 but I don't take a press report. To this, Jasmine 497 00:27:51.690 --> 00:27:55.059 Crockett interjects, Can I stop you right there real quick? 498 00:27:55.259 --> 00:27:57.579 I'm sorry, because you actually answered a question that I 499 00:27:57.599 --> 00:28:00.119 was going to ask. What made you feel like this 500 00:28:00.160 --> 00:28:02.690 case is so weak? And it sounds like you were 501 00:28:02.730 --> 00:28:05.049 convinced that the case was weak because you felt like 502 00:28:05.069 --> 00:28:08.589 the victims, multiple victims, were going to be impeached, even 503 00:28:08.609 --> 00:28:11.650 though you believed them. What specifically did you believe was 504 00:28:11.690 --> 00:28:15.230 going to be detrimentally impeachable? Hold on one second. So 505 00:28:15.269 --> 00:28:17.390 I just want to know, number one, what did you 506 00:28:17.430 --> 00:28:21.109 believe was going to be detrimentally impeachable? Number two, as 507 00:28:21.170 --> 00:28:24.569 someone who has done criminal defense, these have always been 508 00:28:24.609 --> 00:28:27.940 the easiest cases in my experience for the prosecution because 509 00:28:28.000 --> 00:28:31.079 juries typically want to believe victims. They never want to 510 00:28:31.099 --> 00:28:34.000 get it wrong. And so typically from a defense standpoint, 511 00:28:34.339 --> 00:28:36.460 it has always been the most difficult case for me 512 00:28:36.480 --> 00:28:39.319 to defend against, even when there should have been saying, 513 00:28:39.750 --> 00:28:42.849 or say DNA, based upon the testimony or the statements 514 00:28:42.890 --> 00:28:45.369 of a victim, and there wasn't. There have been so 515 00:28:45.410 --> 00:28:47.630 many things that I have tried to get over. And 516 00:28:47.670 --> 00:28:50.619 when I say, like, trying these kinds of cases, I 517 00:28:50.660 --> 00:28:53.240 literally had a serial rapist as a defendant one time, 518 00:28:53.779 --> 00:28:56.740 and the evidence was, I mean, we're talking about prostitutes, 519 00:28:56.819 --> 00:28:59.980 we're talking about very impeachable witnesses, and they gave him life. 520 00:29:00.819 --> 00:29:03.240 I mean, like, it was their word against his, because 521 00:29:03.309 --> 00:29:05.930 as you know, that's enough. If a jury believes, the 522 00:29:06.029 --> 00:29:10.490 one witness rule. So, I'm curious to know, What is 523 00:29:10.549 --> 00:29:13.259 it that you felt was so impeachable about him? And 524 00:29:13.299 --> 00:29:15.960 then I'll go on to my next because I did 525 00:29:16.019 --> 00:29:18.400 want to know why you felt like these cases were 526 00:29:18.440 --> 00:29:23.000 so bad. Min, can I get an answer to my question? Garcia, 527 00:29:23.380 --> 00:29:26.759 what we're going to

do? And then to this, Neiman interjects, 528 00:29:27.440 --> 00:29:31.319 Costa finishes off. So I didn't finish. And so I'm aware, but, 529 00:29:31.640 --> 00:29:34.069 and you'll probably rephrase at some point and remind me. 530 00:29:34.349 --> 00:29:37.250 So let me first say, it wasn't solely my opinion. 531 00:29:38.009 --> 00:29:40.250 It was the opinion of the first assistant. It was 532 00:29:40.269 --> 00:29:43.509 the opinion of the criminal chief. It was the opinion 533 00:29:43.549 --> 00:29:46.309 of the managing attorney of the Palm Beach office, who 534 00:29:46.349 --> 00:29:48.289 had at one point been the head of public corruption 535 00:29:48.630 --> 00:29:51.130 in Washington, D.C., who went on to be the chief 536 00:29:51.450 --> 00:29:54.210 of staff in the criminal division. The first assistant went 537 00:29:54.250 --> 00:29:57.019 on to be the U.S. attorney under the following administration. 538 00:29:57.829 --> 00:30:00.170 and it was even the opinion of the career prosecutor 539 00:30:00.210 --> 00:30:03.230 that was prosecuting the case, where she said, you know, 540 00:30:03.470 --> 00:30:06.029 everyone that says this would be an easy case, you know, 541 00:30:06.109 --> 00:30:08.190 and again, let me read you her words in a 542 00:30:08.210 --> 00:30:12.009 sworn statement in the CVRA. Some have alleged that Epstein 543 00:30:12.029 --> 00:30:14.549 would easily have been convicted, and all the victims were 544 00:30:14.630 --> 00:30:18.930 eager to participate in a full-fledged prosecution. As the prosecutor 545 00:30:18.990 --> 00:30:22.049 who handled the investigation, I can say that these contentions 546 00:30:22.109 --> 00:30:25.029 overlooked the facts that existed at the time, and so... 547 00:30:26.210 --> 00:30:30.339 Jasmine Crockett interjects again. And I'm not contesting that. I 548 00:30:30.359 --> 00:30:33.079 want you to know that. I'm not contesting that representation. 549 00:30:33.619 --> 00:30:35.779 What I'm asking you to do is transport us into 550 00:30:35.819 --> 00:30:39.200 that room. If you're saying that there was an entire 551 00:30:39.240 --> 00:30:42.099 team of people that came to that conclusion, my question is, 552 00:30:42.549 --> 00:30:46.950 that's still not giving. You're saying that they were impeachable. Acosta, 553 00:30:47.250 --> 00:30:50.049 so I'm going to offer you, so you're looking for granularity. 554 00:30:50.549 --> 00:30:53.109 So if you look at the statements by her sworn 555 00:30:53.150 --> 00:30:56.079 declaration and the FBI case agent, We can start with 556 00:30:56.160 --> 00:30:59.000 several of the victims just refused to talk to investigators. 557 00:30:59.519 --> 00:31:02.779 They refused to talk to agents. Crockett, let me ask 558 00:31:02.799 --> 00:31:06.009 you this. So if a witness refuses to speak with 559 00:31:06.049 --> 00:31:10.369 law enforcement, you believe that makes them impeachable? Mr. Acosta, 560 00:31:10.690 --> 00:31:13.029 I don't believe that makes them impeachable. This is going 561 00:31:13.049 --> 00:31:16.269 to the viability of the case. Ms. Crockett, okay, so 562 00:31:16.309 --> 00:31:19.079 can we back up really quick? My question was, and 563 00:31:19.099 --> 00:31:21.740 the only reason I jumped in, because my ears perked up, 564 00:31:22.039 --> 00:31:24.000 because it seemed like one of the main reasons, if 565 00:31:24.039 --> 00:31:26.640 not the main reason, for deciding that there was an 566 00:31:26.700 --> 00:31:29.380 inherent weakness in the case had to do with multiple 567 00:31:29.420 --> 00:31:33.430 victims being impeachable. So I'm trying to understand, what is 568 00:31:33.509 --> 00:31:38.990 it that was impeachable about multiple victims? Acosta, and if 569 00:31:39.009 --> 00:31:42.269 you'll let me, so some victims just wouldn't talk, and 570 00:31:42.450 --> 00:31:47.400 obviously they couldn't be impeached if they didn't talk. Ms. Crockett, correct. Acosta, right. 571 00:31:48.079 --> 00:31:51.380 Some victims said he did nothing wrong, just outright. And look, 572 00:31:51.400 --> 00:31:54.619 you know, our prosecutors have been around the block and 573 00:31:54.660 --> 00:31:57.000 know just because a young woman says he did nothing wrong, 574 00:31:57.299 --> 00:32:01.519 that doesn't mean he did nothing wrong. Crockett, correct. Acosta, 575 00:32:01.880 --> 00:32:04.140 many were scared and didn't want to testify. You know, 576 00:32:04.180 --> 00:32:07.359 many had backgrounds. Multiple kept going back to his house 577 00:32:07.420 --> 00:32:10.269 again and again. And while nowadays that would be an issue, 578 00:32:10.619 --> 00:32:14.009 this was 2006. This was a time when Weinstein and 579 00:32:14.049 --> 00:32:16.509 Cosby and all these other folks were doing what they 580 00:32:16.529 --> 00:32:19.569 were doing. And something that we don't want to accept, 581 00:32:19.849 --> 00:32:22.690 let me rephrase that because that's something that's really hard 582 00:32:22.730 --> 00:32:25.509 for us to internalize, is how much harder these cases 583 00:32:25.549 --> 00:32:29.390 were back then. Victim shaming was more common. The support 584 00:32:29.430 --> 00:32:32.549 structures that we have for victims today, all the victims' rights, 585 00:32:32.670 --> 00:32:35.589 the victim support structures, didn't exist at the same extent 586 00:32:35.890 --> 00:32:38.519 at the time. They didn't want to talk about it. 587 00:32:38.849 --> 00:32:42.269 They said they did nothing wrong. Their stories changed. Over time, 588 00:32:43.000 --> 00:32:45.380 This was not me speaking. This is telling you what 589 00:32:45.420 --> 00:32:48.039 I was hearing from the prosecutors that did this again 590 00:32:48.079 --> 00:32:51.119 and again. The women who came down from the child 591 00:32:51.200 --> 00:32:55.529 exploitation section. And to that, Ms. Stansberry objects or interjects, 592 00:32:55.569 --> 00:32:57.910 I should say. I'm sorry,

can I interrupt you just 593 00:32:57.950 --> 00:33:01.029 really quickly on this particular point? And to that, Acosta's 594 00:33:01.069 --> 00:33:04.930 lawyer pipes up. Well, if he could finish. Stansberry, I 595 00:33:04.950 --> 00:33:07.529 just want to clarify. Because as I understand it, the 596 00:33:07.569 --> 00:33:10.349 lead prosecutor in the case actually sent you a memo 597 00:33:10.650 --> 00:33:16.180 recommending prosecution and a drafted 53-page indictment, did they not? Mr. Acosta, 598 00:33:16.619 --> 00:33:18.720 so we talked about this, and I'm happy to circle 599 00:33:18.759 --> 00:33:22.140 back if I could. Ms. Stansbury, but you just asserted, 600 00:33:22.480 --> 00:33:24.890 just now, that the lead prosecutor in the case did 601 00:33:24.950 --> 00:33:32.029 not recommend prosecution and indictment. Didn't you just say that? Ms. Crockett, no, no, no. Mr. Acosta, 602 00:33:32.049 --> 00:33:34.589 what I did, and I can finish one question, and 603 00:33:34.609 --> 00:33:38.480 I'll get to yours and get back. Jasmine Crockett, I'll clarify. 604 00:33:39.019 --> 00:33:40.880 I don't think that's what because we're trying to figure 605 00:33:41.000 --> 00:33:44.019 out what they did not go. This is after they 606 00:33:44.039 --> 00:33:46.680 were actually pursuing charges of some sort and they were 607 00:33:46.700 --> 00:33:49.380 trying to figure out why it was that they weren't 608 00:33:49.420 --> 00:33:52.279 heading to a trial and why they decided to enter 609 00:33:52.680 --> 00:33:56.039 into what has been characterized as the sweetheart deal. And 610 00:33:56.099 --> 00:33:58.519 as I understood the testimony from the witness, it was 611 00:33:58.579 --> 00:34:01.900 because or partially because of impeachable issues with some of 612 00:34:01.920 --> 00:34:04.539 the witnesses. But it doesn't sound like, and you can 613 00:34:04.559 --> 00:34:07.369 finish for sure, I want you to finish, but everything 614 00:34:07.410 --> 00:34:10.190 that you've said, it doesn't sound like there was very 615 00:34:10.230 --> 00:34:14.329 much impeachment. It seems like we're going more so into territory, 616 00:34:14.389 --> 00:34:16.550 and please correct me if I'm wrong, that it was 617 00:34:16.590 --> 00:34:18.539 a matter of it was just going to be a 618 00:34:18.659 --> 00:34:22.719 difficult prosecution. which typically when dealing with child sex cases, 619 00:34:23.099 --> 00:34:25.559 which why I'm happy that you're talking about the person 620 00:34:25.880 --> 00:34:28.889 who actually had expertise in the area because there are 621 00:34:29.010 --> 00:34:32.190 experts that testify typically as it relates to children and 622 00:34:32.210 --> 00:34:34.349 their memories and why the trauma of a lot of 623 00:34:34.389 --> 00:34:38.250 times can cause them to have inconsistencies and judges have 624 00:34:38.289 --> 00:34:41.409 consistently found that those experts can take the stand so 625 00:34:41.449 --> 00:34:43.610 that juries can have a full picture of what's going on. 626 00:34:44.250 --> 00:34:46.590 And while I appreciate the time period, I do want 627 00:34:46.610 --> 00:34:49.139 to clarify that I was practicing law by this time 628 00:34:49.730 --> 00:34:51.719 and having to deal with some of these issues on 629 00:34:51.760 --> 00:34:56.219 the defense side. So please continue as you were talking, Mr. Acosta. 630 00:34:56.619 --> 00:34:59.119 And I appreciate that, and I think it's an important question. 631 00:34:59.579 --> 00:35:03.639 So where was I? Ms. Crockett, the child exploitation. Acosta, yes. 632 00:35:03.679 --> 00:35:06.610 So an expert in child exploitation from Washington came down. 633 00:35:07.010 --> 00:35:09.309 This was a bit later, but it sort of aligns. 634 00:35:09.650 --> 00:35:13.230 It confirms the opinions of my prosecutors, of our prosecutors 635 00:35:13.269 --> 00:35:16.150 from Washington, came down and she looked at the entire case. 636 00:35:16.659 --> 00:35:19.320 And this was, these were her words, these aren't mine. 637 00:35:19.519 --> 00:35:21.909 Where is it? I can find the exact quote right now. 638 00:35:22.760 --> 00:35:25.230 But she looked at the entire case, and she said, 639 00:35:25.510 --> 00:35:28.050 there are a number of evidentiary issues. And while there 640 00:35:28.090 --> 00:35:32.090 are not quote-unquote insurmountable in her opinion, it was quote-unquote 641 00:35:32.110 --> 00:35:36.570 a crapshoot. Mr. Min? Which gets right into my question, Acosta. 642 00:35:36.949 --> 00:35:38.989 And so we're looking at, we're looking at a case, 643 00:35:39.030 --> 00:35:41.590 so from our perspective, and I sit around the table 644 00:35:41.630 --> 00:35:44.369 with the managing attorney, and the criminal chief, and all 645 00:35:44.389 --> 00:35:46.130 of that, and talk about how do we do this. 646 00:35:47.340 --> 00:35:50.110 The state attorneys candidly dropped the ball, right? The state 647 00:35:50.130 --> 00:35:54.630 attorneys offered pretrial diversion. Epstein, the Palm Beach police, wanted 648 00:35:54.670 --> 00:35:57.449 what I understood to be two years. The state attorney 649 00:35:57.789 --> 00:36:02.260 offered probation. When Epstein rejected probation, he said, okay, let's 650 00:36:02.300 --> 00:36:04.719 take it to the grand jury. And the reason he 651 00:36:04.780 --> 00:36:07.380 wanted to take it to the grand jury is there 652 00:36:07.420 --> 00:36:10.599 was great consternation within his office about whether or not 653 00:36:10.639 --> 00:36:13.550 this case was the first place a viable case. So 654 00:36:13.590 --> 00:36:16.059 he took it to the grand jury. He presented the 655 00:36:16.099 --> 00:36:18.900 grand jury all the charges from the highest to the lowest, 656 00:36:19.260 --> 00:36:20.940 and he didn't have to do a grand jury, but 657 00:36:20.960 --> 00:36:23.460 he chose to. The grand jury came back with a 658 00:36:23.519 --> 00:36:27.059

relatively low charge that made him eligible for pretrial diversion. 659 00:36:28.099 --> 00:36:31.150 He entered into an agreement with Epstein to do pretrial diversion, 660 00:36:31.510 --> 00:36:34.489 and then, you know, then what do we do? The 661 00:36:34.510 --> 00:36:37.250 Palm Beach police get upset at the process, and this 662 00:36:37.289 --> 00:36:40.670 process comes to our office. And so again, the question is, 663 00:36:41.199 --> 00:36:43.619 What is the value of a sure thing where someone 664 00:36:43.639 --> 00:36:46.800 like him goes to jail and has to register and 665 00:36:46.820 --> 00:36:48.940 you send a signal to the community that he can't 666 00:36:48.960 --> 00:36:51.260 get away with all of this versus going to trial 667 00:36:51.579 --> 00:36:54.219 and doing a crapshoot, quote unquote, not my words, where 668 00:36:54.239 --> 00:36:57.050 he might get away with it again. All right, folks, 669 00:36:57.070 --> 00:36:58.750 we're going to wrap up right here. And in the 670 00:36:58.789 --> 00:37:00.829 next episode, dealing with the topic, we're going to pick 671 00:37:00.949 --> 00:37:03.510 up where we left off. All of the information that 672 00:37:03.550 --> 00:37:06.769 goes with this topic can be found in the description box. 673 00:37:07.170 --> 00:37:09.900 What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of of 674 00:37:09.920 --> 00:37:12.760 the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick 675 00:37:12.840 --> 00:37:19.940 up where he left off with the Alex Acosta deposition. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Acosta, 676 00:37:20.239 --> 00:37:22.059 let me do this. Do you have anything else to 677 00:37:22.199 --> 00:37:27.159 add to Ms. Crockett's questioning? Acosta, no, but he gets 678 00:37:27.199 --> 00:37:29.900 cut off by Garcia. I'm going to let you finish briefly. 679 00:37:30.119 --> 00:37:32.449 Hold on a second. I'm going to let you finish Mr. 680 00:37:32.510 --> 00:37:35.849 Min's question really briefly. And Mr. Frost has a question. 681 00:37:36.150 --> 00:37:38.489 And then we're going to go back to the attorney. Mr. Min. 682 00:37:39.590 --> 00:37:42.110 I want to rephrase the question and add a slight addendum. 683 00:37:42.750 --> 00:37:45.829 So basically, if you thought your case was weak based 684 00:37:45.889 --> 00:37:48.489 on the evidence and your chief prosecutor thought that the 685 00:37:48.530 --> 00:37:51.449 computer evidence, which was not being produced by the defense, 686 00:37:51.989 --> 00:37:54.429 and a series of notable back and forth, why would 687 00:37:54.449 --> 00:37:56.829 you not? And she thought, I don't want to say 688 00:37:57.369 --> 00:38:00.190 this would have put the case completely to bed. That 689 00:38:00.250 --> 00:38:02.469 was a quote from her. Why would you not support 690 00:38:02.510 --> 00:38:05.750 her efforts to obtain that information and instead enter into 691 00:38:05.829 --> 00:38:09.500 either a settlement or a non-prosecution agreement?

And then as 692 00:38:09.539 --> 00:38:11.940 a follow-up, I just want to add that according to 693 00:38:11.980 --> 00:38:16.530 the OPR report, Villafana learned that the computer equipment was 694 00:38:16.570 --> 00:38:19.469 in the possession of a particular individual who is not 695 00:38:19.530 --> 00:38:22.510 identified in the OPR report. Are you able to share 696 00:38:22.550 --> 00:38:27.710 with us who that individual is? Mr. Acosta, so one, 697 00:38:27.989 --> 00:38:30.099 I am not able to share who that individual is 698 00:38:30.320 --> 00:38:34.119 because I have no idea. Mr. Min, okay. Acosta, second, 699 00:38:34.480 --> 00:38:36.800 in my usual course, I would sit around with my 700 00:38:36.840 --> 00:38:39.630 supervisory staff and we talk about some of the issues 701 00:38:39.989 --> 00:38:43.070 that we just talked about. We talk about policy issues, 702 00:38:43.530 --> 00:38:46.949 how the investigation proceeded, and what they sought and the 703 00:38:46.989 --> 00:38:49.719 types of evidence that they sought is not something that 704 00:38:49.780 --> 00:38:53.800 I typically became involved with. So I can't answer your question. 705 00:38:54.320 --> 00:38:56.920 What I can say is at some point, at some point, 706 00:38:57.260 --> 00:38:59.500 the team thought that it was appropriate to go forward 707 00:38:59.539 --> 00:39:03.590 with a plea negotiation, and we went forward with that. Mr. Minn, 708 00:39:04.329 --> 00:39:06.449 But you didn't think that it was appropriate to get 709 00:39:06.489 --> 00:39:10.690 the computer evidence, Mr. Acosta? I don't recall discussions about 710 00:39:10.710 --> 00:39:14.519 the computer evidence. U.S. Attorney, this is an office much like, 711 00:39:14.599 --> 00:39:17.900 I believe, you're from the L.A. area? This is an 712 00:39:18.039 --> 00:39:21.440 office very similar to, I'm sorry, are you from, Min, 713 00:39:21.760 --> 00:39:25.349 Orange County? Acosta, yeah, yeah, so an office the size 714 00:39:25.409 --> 00:39:28.190 of pretty much the L.A. office. There are multiple cases. 715 00:39:29.869 --> 00:39:32.599 As As U.S. Attorney, I would get involved in ultimate 716 00:39:32.639 --> 00:39:35.619 decisions such as, how do we plead this? Do we 717 00:39:35.739 --> 00:39:38.420 go state versus, you know, do we do a deferred 718 00:39:38.460 --> 00:39:41.659 prosecution to the state? What are the terms that we're 719 00:39:41.679 --> 00:39:45.320 looking at? I had amazing attorneys that are expert in this, 720 00:39:45.900 --> 00:39:48.179 and the gathering of evidence is something that I would 721 00:39:48.199 --> 00:39:51.639 leave to them. Mr. Minn, I'm not satisfied with that answer, 722 00:39:51.719 --> 00:39:55.519 but I will yield to my colleagues. Mr. Garcia, let's 723 00:39:55.559 --> 00:39:58.579 go to Mr. Frost. Mr. Frost, I want to chat 724 00:39:58.599 --> 00:40:01.579 really quick about the work release. You mentioned that you 725 00:40:01.619 --> 00:40:06.239

were righted objected to it. Mr. Acosta, yes. Frost, was 726 00:40:06.280 --> 00:40:09.599 that to the sheriff directly or someone in the office? 727 00:40:10.019 --> 00:40:13.019 Or who did you reach out to? Mr. Acosta, I 728 00:40:13.059 --> 00:40:16.909 don't recall, but our office reached out to whatever Palm 729 00:40:16.929 --> 00:40:20.079 Beach authority or Whatever Palm Beach Authority was responsible for 730 00:40:20.099 --> 00:40:23.500 the work release, I believe it was the sheriff. It 731 00:40:23.519 --> 00:40:25.880 may have been the state attorney's office, but I'm leaning 732 00:40:25.900 --> 00:40:28.260 in the direction of the sheriff because the sheriff is 733 00:40:28.280 --> 00:40:32.139 the office that authorized that. We had received assurances from 734 00:40:32.179 --> 00:40:35.289 both defense counsel and throughout the process that there would 735 00:40:35.329 --> 00:40:40.190 be quote-unquote continuous confinement. We understood that to be the case. 736 00:40:41.230 --> 00:40:44.409 When the work release happened, I believed we weren't even notified. 737 00:40:45.110 --> 00:40:47.530 When we found out about it, the office objected to 738 00:40:47.590 --> 00:40:52.199 it Mr. Frost, were these emails? Mr. Acosta, I think 739 00:40:52.239 --> 00:40:54.179 it was, I don't know if it was an email 740 00:40:54.239 --> 00:40:58.679 transmitting a letter, but I believe it was an actual letter. Frost, 741 00:40:59.019 --> 00:41:01.260 is the typical of your office to send letters in 742 00:41:01.300 --> 00:41:04.949 terms of objecting to work release or anything like that? Acosta, 743 00:41:05.409 --> 00:41:07.909 I don't know if that was typical, and I want 744 00:41:07.929 --> 00:41:10.630 to check the record, but Mr. Frost, do you have 745 00:41:10.690 --> 00:41:14.469 records on that? Acosta, well, I have the OPR report 746 00:41:14.489 --> 00:41:17.429 that goes into that and talks about that. I don't 747 00:41:17.449 --> 00:41:20.280 have independent records, but I do have the OPR report. 748 00:41:20.699 --> 00:41:24.000 And I believe there is a page, 113, talks about 749 00:41:24.039 --> 00:41:27.679 the assurances they received. And when it talks about, Sent 750 00:41:27.719 --> 00:41:30.000 a letter to his attorney, and I believe a letter 751 00:41:30.079 --> 00:41:33.380 was ultimately sent to the Palm Beach Sheriff. Our office, 752 00:41:33.619 --> 00:41:36.179 to that he's cut off by Mr. Frost. You're saying 753 00:41:36.199 --> 00:41:38.590 that you sent a letter to his attorney, objecting on 754 00:41:38.610 --> 00:41:41.809 the work release? Acosta, I believe the office sent a 755 00:41:41.829 --> 00:41:45.230 letter to his attorney. Frost, and you might have sent 756 00:41:45.269 --> 00:41:49.460 a letter to the sheriff? Acosta, I believe so the 757 00:41:49.539 --> 00:41:52.619 office fully objected. 20 years later, I do not know 758 00:41:52.889 --> 00:41:56.150 which letters went, but OPR found that the office fully 759 00:41:56.210 --> 00:41:59.309 objected to this work release. It was not what we thought. 760 00:41:59.949 --> 00:42:02.110 All of us were upset about it. If we thought 761 00:42:02.150 --> 00:42:03.989 that he would have been put out on work release, 762 00:42:04.510 --> 00:42:07.010 I would have looked really different because all of us 763 00:42:07.050 --> 00:42:09.730 thought very, you know, all of us. Caught off by 764 00:42:09.789 --> 00:42:12.809 Frost again. To your recollection, did you give the order 765 00:42:12.869 --> 00:42:15.409 to object to it, or did someone under you make 766 00:42:15.449 --> 00:42:18.440 that decision and object to it? You're saying the office 767 00:42:18.480 --> 00:42:21.980 objected to it? Mr. Acosta, to my recollection, I don't 768 00:42:22.000 --> 00:42:24.559 think I had to give the order because the entire 769 00:42:24.619 --> 00:42:27.960 office was upset over it, because our understanding was that 770 00:42:28.159 --> 00:42:31.460 he would be in jail. Throughout the entire time, what 771 00:42:31.500 --> 00:42:34.579 we were seeking is that he would be in jail. Mr. Frost, 772 00:42:35.260 --> 00:42:38.090 how often do these objections lead to anything in your 773 00:42:38.119 --> 00:42:41.730 tenure as an attorney? Mr. Acosta, as a general matter, 774 00:42:42.309 --> 00:42:45.090 if the U.S. Attorney objects to those types of things, 775 00:42:45.469 --> 00:42:48.750 often people do listen. And if the U.S. Attorney's Office objects, 776 00:42:49.210 --> 00:42:51.670 often people do listen. And if you look into the 777 00:42:51.730 --> 00:42:54.760 details of how we obtained the work release, the details 778 00:42:55.030 --> 00:42:57.969 are troubling at best. And so, you know, I can't 779 00:42:58.039 --> 00:43:00.139 speak to what the Palm Beach did, but I can 780 00:43:00.179 --> 00:43:02.719 speak to the fact that everyone in our office was 781 00:43:02.780 --> 00:43:07.550 upset because this was not what we contemplated. Mr. Garcia, 782 00:43:07.590 --> 00:43:09.949 thank you, Mr. Frost. We're going to go back to... 783 00:43:10.409 --> 00:43:14.610 And then we have that redacted. Question, Mr. Acosta, just 784 00:43:14.630 --> 00:43:17.869 to follow up on that answer. The OPR report took 785 00:43:17.949 --> 00:43:21.949 issue with your office's reliance on the state to ensure... 786 00:43:21.570 --> 00:43:24.409 To that, Acosta cuts him off. I'm sorry, can I 787 00:43:24.449 --> 00:43:27.449 just interrupt you? Question, let me finish my question, please. 788 00:43:27.769 --> 00:43:31.409 To ensure that Mr. Epstein was incarcerated for his full sentence... 789 00:43:31.820 --> 00:43:35.440 And it faulted your office for reposing that trust without 790 00:43:35.480 --> 00:43:38.449 the knowledge of how the state system would work or 791 00:43:38.469 --> 00:43:41.630 an understanding of the mechanisms of the state enforcement. Is 792 00:43:41.650 --> 00:43:45.289 that a conclusion

that you would dispute? Answer. I think so. 793 00:43:45.349 --> 00:43:47.730 I'm sorry. But so the letter did go out to 794 00:43:47.769 --> 00:43:51.190 the correction division on the Palm Beach Sheriff's office. And 795 00:43:51.230 --> 00:43:53.670 I believe this was on December 11th from the office. 796 00:43:54.230 --> 00:43:58.050 And so I'm sorry. Could you restate? Question. Sure. My 797 00:43:58.090 --> 00:44:01.119 question is simply, would you disagree with the OPR's conclusion? 798 00:44:01.489 --> 00:44:04.500 That reposing trust in the state to ensure that Jeffrey 799 00:44:04.559 --> 00:44:07.519 Epstein served his full sentence in state prison was an 800 00:44:07.639 --> 00:44:11.780 error in judgment? Answer, I wouldn't. I would not disagree. 801 00:44:12.139 --> 00:44:14.639 I think the state turned out to be an unreliable 802 00:44:14.699 --> 00:44:19.000 partner on multiple levels. And had we known the way 803 00:44:19.019 --> 00:44:21.320 it would have gone, we would have not have done so. 804 00:44:21.639 --> 00:44:24.909 And so, yes, that is on me. Question, okay. I 805 00:44:24.969 --> 00:44:27.050 wanted to return to a point that you made earlier 806 00:44:27.329 --> 00:44:31.480 because I think it's pretty fundamental to our conversation. You've 807 00:44:31.519 --> 00:44:35.019 spoken a lot about your office assessment of the litigation risk, 808 00:44:35.480 --> 00:44:38.889 which informed the decision of whether to plead or to 809 00:44:38.949 --> 00:44:42.130 proceed to trial. That's an assessment that every U.S. attorney's 810 00:44:42.170 --> 00:44:46.230 office makes in every case. Would you agree with that? Answer, 811 00:44:46.710 --> 00:44:49.929 I think to call it litigation risk undervalues what it's 812 00:44:49.969 --> 00:44:52.829 about because it's not just about the risk of trial. 813 00:44:53.329 --> 00:44:56.489 It's about signals that are sent to the community. But 814 00:44:56.530 --> 00:44:59.130 that is certainly something that is part of every case. 815 00:44:59.610 --> 00:45:03.409 Question okay. And, you know, there were clearly different views 816 00:45:03.469 --> 00:45:06.289 within the office about whether it was advisable to go 817 00:45:06.329 --> 00:45:09.070 to trial or not. But it didn't follow from the 818 00:45:09.130 --> 00:45:12.690 existence of litigation risk or the other implication that you've 819 00:45:12.730 --> 00:45:16.969 described of potentially going to trial that the result should 820 00:45:17.010 --> 00:45:20.400 be a non-prosecution agreement to a single-state charge and an 821 00:45:20.420 --> 00:45:24.679 18-month sentence. That was not an inexorable resolution whether or 822 00:45:24.739 --> 00:45:29.340 not there was litigation risk. Is that correct? Answer, so 823 00:45:29.380 --> 00:45:32.659 the litigation, so I understand your question, but the litigation, 824 00:45:32.699 --> 00:45:35.480 because of the viability of the case, because of some 825 00:45:35.519 --> 00:45:38.619 legal issues that we've already discussed, and because of the 826 00:45:38.679 --> 00:45:42.139 importance to the community of putting him away and sending 827 00:45:42.179 --> 00:45:44.889 the signal that people like him can't get away with it, 828 00:45:45.340 --> 00:45:48.619 we made the assessment. And I ultimately approved two years 829 00:45:48.880 --> 00:45:55.659 registration and, question, two years incarceration? Answer, two years incarceration, registration, 830 00:45:56.099 --> 00:45:59.139 and a mechanism for victims to recover some monetary money, 831 00:45:59.579 --> 00:46:02.260 not because it makes them whole, but because it at 832 00:46:02.320 --> 00:46:07.079 least would help. Question, I understand that. Answer, in the 833 00:46:07.099 --> 00:46:10.760 process of negotiations, some of those terms change from 24 834 00:46:10.760 --> 00:46:15.840 months to 18 months. Question, sure. Answer, and the trial term, 835 00:46:16.239 --> 00:46:21.150 to that, Acosta is once again interrupted. Question, I understand 836 00:46:21.190 --> 00:46:24.010 all that, but my question is, the MPA wasn't the 837 00:46:24.070 --> 00:46:28.000 only possible resolution, right? You could have pled the federal charges. 838 00:46:28.579 --> 00:46:31.880 You had a line prosecutor who proposed 53 counts, so 839 00:46:31.900 --> 00:46:34.199 there clearly was a lot of middle ground in between 840 00:46:34.239 --> 00:46:37.599 your assessment of litigation risk and the outcome that you 841 00:46:37.719 --> 00:46:42.320 ultimately agreed to. Isn't that right? Answer, so if your question, 842 00:46:42.599 --> 00:46:45.559 if your question is, was the defense to the state 843 00:46:45.820 --> 00:46:49.440 the only possible outcome, my answer would be no. We 844 00:46:49.460 --> 00:46:52.079 could have proceeded federally with, for example, a 371 with 845 00:46:52.099 --> 00:46:57.920 a Rule 11. Question, thank you. Next person asking questions, 846 00:46:57.980 --> 00:47:02.030 again redacted. Question, Mr. Acosta, I'm going to change gears 847 00:47:02.070 --> 00:47:04.789 a bit. When did you first become aware that Donald 848 00:47:04.809 --> 00:47:09.599 Trump had a social relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? Answer, so 849 00:47:09.719 --> 00:47:12.639 I haven't the slightest idea, but I certainly not during 850 00:47:12.659 --> 00:47:16.969 the pendency of the case. Question. Question. And as part 851 00:47:17.010 --> 00:47:20.579 of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, while you were a U.S. attorney, 852 00:47:21.000 --> 00:47:24.280 was Donald Trump ever interviewed? Answer not to my knowledge, 853 00:47:24.679 --> 00:47:27.280 but also to be clear, I would know as a 854 00:47:27.320 --> 00:47:30.699 general matter who was interviewed or not interviewed because as 855 00:47:30.760 --> 00:47:34.119 I mentioned to the gentleman from, is it from California earlier? 856 00:47:34.139 --> 00:47:37.019 I was trying to remember the city, sorry, the gentleman 857 00:47:37.059 --> 00:47:39.559 from California. It would not have been my practice to 858 00:47:39.579 --> 00:47:43.070 get involved in who was and was not interviewed or 859 00:47:43.610 --> 00:47:47.389 the how the evidence was acquired. Question understood, but you? 860 00:47:47.949 --> 00:47:51.840 To that, Ms. Stansberry interjects. Can I follow up on 861 00:47:51.860 --> 00:47:56.800 that question, Acosta? But let me be clear. To my knowledge, Mr. Trump, 862 00:47:56.840 --> 00:48:00.400 President Trump, was not interviewed. Ms. Stansberry, I just want 863 00:48:00.420 --> 00:48:03.019 to follow up on that specific question. So it was 864 00:48:03.059 --> 00:48:06.059 not part of your practice in making decisions about whether 865 00:48:06.079 --> 00:48:09.659 to prosecute or not prosecute to actually review the 302s 866 00:48:09.980 --> 00:48:13.730 and evidentiary investigatory things that were collected as part of 867 00:48:13.789 --> 00:48:19.139 a case? Acosta, so, so. Stuttering a bit here. Stansberry 868 00:48:19.320 --> 00:48:23.519 interjects again. It's just a simple question. Acosta. And I'm 869 00:48:23.559 --> 00:48:26.380 going to give you a fulsome answer. So as general 870 00:48:26.420 --> 00:48:29.780 practice in a U.S. attorney's office, there are experienced prosecutors. 871 00:48:30.460 --> 00:48:33.090 And they look at the 302s. And they look at. 872 00:48:33.530 --> 00:48:36.150 To that cut off by Stansberry again. But did you 873 00:48:36.190 --> 00:48:38.510 in this case? It's just a yes or no. Did 874 00:48:38.530 --> 00:48:43.530 you review the 302s in this case? Acosta. As U.S. Attorney, 875 00:48:43.570 --> 00:48:47.710 it was not my practice to review 302s. Stansbury, but 876 00:48:47.789 --> 00:48:50.969 did you in this case? Acosta, in this case, I 877 00:48:51.010 --> 00:48:55.840 did not review the 302s. Redacted, thank you. All right, folks, 878 00:48:55.860 --> 00:48:57.420 we're going to wrap up right here. And in the 879 00:48:57.460 --> 00:48:59.719 next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick 880 00:48:59.820 --> 00:49:02.380 up where we left off. All of the information that 881 00:49:02.420 --> 00:49:05.599 goes with this episode can be found in the description box.