Mega Edition: Transcripts From The Alex Acosta Deposition (Part 16-20) (11/13/26)의 전체 녹취록

tactics. To the best that you 66 00:03:37.430 --> 00:03:40.050 can recall, and this is a lot to recall, did 67 00:03:40.110 --> 00:03:42.990 the draft NPA that your office put together change a 68 00:03:43.030 --> 00:03:46.069 lot between your drafting and the final signature? Answer, I 69 00:03:46.110 --> 00:03:49.129 think it changed. Of the three court terms, it went 70 00:03:49.150 --> 00:03:52.509 from 24 to 18, but we still got registration. And 71 00:03:52.550 --> 00:03:55.129 we still got recovery for the victims. To the best 72 00:03:55.150 --> 00:03:59.009 of your recollection, did Epstein, defense counsel suggest significant changes 73 00:03:59.090 --> 00:04:02.960 to the agreement? Answer, Epstein's defense counsel were asking for 74 00:04:03.000 --> 00:04:05.560 home confinement. They were asking for no real jail time. 75 00:04:05.879 --> 00:04:09.080 They were asking us to drop the case entirely. Epstein's 76 00:04:09.120 --> 00:04:13.360 defense counsel wanted everything. And again, and again, we told 77 00:04:13.400 --> 00:04:16.100 them no. Question, I think you've touched on this a 78 00:04:16.139 --> 00:04:19.550 little bit. When I asked you if you interviewed Ms. Maxwell, 79 00:04:19.769 --> 00:04:22.480 do you recall if your prosecutorial team Of course he doesn't. 80 00:04:22.579 --> 00:04:24.839 Are you guys catching on yet? And the ridiculous questions 81 00:04:24.860 --> 00:04:26.199 that he's being asked, it's obviously somebody in the GOP 82 00:04:26.220 --> 00:04:29.019 at this point asking these questions, trying to massage Acosta 83 00:04:29.050 --> 00:04:49.879 for whatever reason. Question, were you contacted at all when 84 00:04:49.920 --> 00:04:53.360 she was subsequently arrested, I think, in 2019? Answer, I 85 00:04:53.379 --> 00:04:57.230 was not. Question, were you contacted at all during her trial? Answer, 86 00:04:57.290 --> 00:05:00.149 I was not. Question, we've talked a lot about the 87 00:05:00.189 --> 00:05:04.610 original proposed draft, 60-count indictment, that Ms. Villafana drafted, and 88 00:05:04.629 --> 00:05:07.990 then there's been mention of the lengthy prosecution memo. What's 89 00:05:08.050 --> 00:05:12.350 the purpose of a prosecution memo versus an indictment? Answer, 90 00:05:12.410 --> 00:05:15.600 so the prosecution memo has two purposes. One, to go forward, 91 00:05:15.639 --> 00:05:18.319 but two, to test, to write a draft, so you 92 00:05:18.360 --> 00:05:20.819 can test your theories, so that other people can review 93 00:05:20.879 --> 00:05:23.740 and say, I agree or disagree, so you can pressure 94 00:05:23.779 --> 00:05:27.470 test what an eventual indictment might look like. Question, I'm 95 00:05:27.490 --> 00:05:29.509 going to use a term, and if you don't recognize it, 96 00:05:29.509 --> 00:05:32.290 I'll try to explain. But on high profile cases like this, 97 00:05:32.810 --> 00:05:35.810 would you have a red team, someone that wasn't read in, 98 00:05:36.149 --> 00:05:40.410 that could review the prosecution memo and indictment? Answer, we might. 99 00:05:40.709 --> 00:05:42.949 In this case, we did not. But we did later 100 00:05:42.990 --> 00:05:47.870 have individuals review the case just to get independent assessments. Mr. Redacted? 101 00:05:48.470 --> 00:05:52.129 Such cowards. Put your name to it, Mr. Redacted. And 102 00:05:52.269 --> 00:05:55.709 are those the prosecution memos? The prosecution memo and the 103 00:05:55.750 --> 00:05:58.540 draft indictment, are those kept in the case file? Like, 104 00:05:58.800 --> 00:06:01.740 through perpetuity? Is it remaining in the case file to 105 00:06:01.779 --> 00:06:04.720 this day? Acosta, I can't speak to that. I don't 106 00:06:04.740 --> 00:06:06.759 know how. I think your definition of a case file 107 00:06:07.060 --> 00:06:11.850 is more specific than reality. Redacted, okay. I'm sure that 108 00:06:11.889 --> 00:06:13.750 this has been touched on, but I'm going to ask again. 109 00:06:14.110 --> 00:06:17.089 Did you ever personally review the memo or the draft indictment? 110 00:06:17.970 --> 00:06:21.120 Answer again, it was 20 years ago. Sometimes I'd review 111 00:06:21.129 --> 00:06:23.579 the memo. Sometimes I'd sit around the table and say, 112 00:06:23.860 --> 00:06:28.259 let's go over this. Sometimes I'd say, what do y'all think? Question, 113 00:06:29.100 --> 00:06:31.199 would that have been the situation of checking with main 114 00:06:31.220 --> 00:06:34.279 justice if that was the way that they would want 115 00:06:34.300 --> 00:06:38.519 to proceed versus a non-prosecution agreement? Answer, we had authority 116 00:06:38.550 --> 00:06:40.810 to proceed as we saw fit. We didn't check with 117 00:06:40.829 --> 00:06:44.470 main justice, as I remember it. Question, ballpark, how many 118 00:06:44.610 --> 00:06:49.189 AUSAs are in that office? Answer, 300. Question, understanding it's 119 00:06:49.269 --> 00:06:51.620 one case out of, what I'm sure, at least 100 120 00:06:51.620 --> 00:06:54.939 at any given time. In that office, how would you 121 00:06:55.000 --> 00:06:57.120 meet with the attorneys on this case to discuss it 122 00:06:57.319 --> 00:07:00.660 to the best of your recollection? Answer, so that would vary. 123 00:07:01.060 --> 00:07:04.129 Before the MPA, before the agreement was signed. other than 124 00:07:04.180 --> 00:07:06.959 the decision to go forward with the state resolution, and 125 00:07:07.180 --> 00:07:10.199 other than giving defense counsel their hearing, very, very little. 126 00:07:10.980 --> 00:07:13.139 I thought it was important that Ms. Villafana have the 127 00:07:13.160 --> 00:07:17.000 authority to negotiate. After it was signed, when it was 128 00:07:17.040 --> 00:07:19.939 being appealed to Washington, and when they were challenging whether 129 00:07:19.980 --> 00:07:23.560 or not the office had the authority to seek monetary recovery, first, 130 00:07:23.860 --> 00:07:27.139 those were

policy decisions in which I would more naturally 131 00:07:27.180 --> 00:07:30.899 get involved. Secondly, there were appeals to Washington in which 132 00:07:30.939 --> 00:07:33.759 I'd more naturally get involved. And thirdly, they're where you 133 00:07:33.800 --> 00:07:36.560 know about whether the office is acting correctly or not. 134 00:07:37.199 --> 00:07:40.060 And so at that point, the first assistant was supervising 135 00:07:40.100 --> 00:07:43.220 the case with Ms. Villafana directly, and I probably spoke 136 00:07:43.240 --> 00:07:47.060 to him about it often. Question, we've talked about kind 137 00:07:47.160 --> 00:07:50.139 of the overarching theme is that the prosecutors in your 138 00:07:50.180 --> 00:07:53.959 office favored a negotiated agreement with the kind of sub-themes 139 00:07:54.040 --> 00:07:57.959 of favored, federal charges more than state, and some favored state, 140 00:07:58.250 --> 00:08:01.240 and some just favored a negotiated agreement. At any point 141 00:08:01.259 --> 00:08:05.050 did DC express concerns about a negotiated agreement versus going 142 00:08:05.079 --> 00:08:08.430 to trial? Answer, they did not. They were aware of 143 00:08:08.490 --> 00:08:11.310 when it was presented. When defense counsel came in, the 144 00:08:11.329 --> 00:08:15.009 head of CEOs was present at the meeting. He understood 145 00:08:15.050 --> 00:08:17.269 how we were proceeding. I don't recall him taking a 146 00:08:17.290 --> 00:08:20.689 side and saying DC disagrees with you. Question, and of course, 147 00:08:20.970 --> 00:08:24.300 during Epstein's defense counsel's petition to DC, they sided with 148 00:08:24.319 --> 00:08:27.600 you throughout that. Answer, they supported our authority to go forward. 149 00:08:28.180 --> 00:08:30.129 He didn't answer the question there, you hear that? They 150 00:08:30.149 --> 00:08:33.789 supported our authority to go forward, whatever that means. Question. 151 00:08:34.019 --> 00:08:37.519 You spoke a little bit about State Attorney Krischer. Answer. Krischer. 152 00:08:38.220 --> 00:08:42.139 Do you recall any discussion with him regarding the Epstein case? Answer. 153 00:08:42.200 --> 00:08:44.480 I don't recall any discussions. We may have had them. 154 00:08:44.919 --> 00:08:48.470 I think they'd be fairly brief. Question. Would he have 155 00:08:48.590 --> 00:08:51.909 any involvement in the post-please situation with Epstein? Answer. To 156 00:08:51.929 --> 00:08:55.230 the extent his office was involved in victim notification, he 157 00:08:55.250 --> 00:08:58.090 would have had involvement in some of those discussions. I 158 00:08:58.129 --> 00:09:01.500 believe the OPR report states... And you can confirm that 159 00:09:01.519 --> 00:09:04.000 the decision to go from 18, that one of the 160 00:09:04.039 --> 00:09:07.259 key parts of the decision to go from 24 to 18, 161 00:09:07.259 --> 00:09:10.049 took place in a discussion between him and our trial 162 00:09:10.110 --> 00:09:14.370 attorneys in his office. Question, but you don't know, or 163 00:09:14.409 --> 00:09:17.250 maybe he just wouldn't have been involved in any discussion 164 00:09:17.309 --> 00:09:20.690 regarding the work release program or anything like that? Answer, 165 00:09:20.750 --> 00:09:24.490 so his office was consulted about work release. My understanding 166 00:09:24.529 --> 00:09:27.090 was that they were supposed to notify us, and his 167 00:09:27.149 --> 00:09:30.919 office did not notify us. My understanding was that they 168 00:09:30.960 --> 00:09:34.279 came out of the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office. Question, and again, 169 00:09:34.659 --> 00:09:37.279 you never, to the best of your recollection, received any 170 00:09:37.340 --> 00:09:43.379 communication from DOJ leadership advising caution in prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein? Answer, no, 171 00:09:43.440 --> 00:09:46.500 I did not. Question, were you aware of a letter 172 00:09:46.539 --> 00:09:49.259 that the Epstein Defense Council sent in support of him, 173 00:09:49.659 --> 00:09:53.399 citing that and referencing his political connections in regards to 174 00:09:53.419 --> 00:09:56.629 the non-prosecution agreement? Answer, I have since read it. I 175 00:09:56.659 --> 00:09:59.440 don't recall any details. and whoever it was sent to, 176 00:09:59.470 --> 00:10:02.840 I don't think had any influence on them. Question, and 177 00:10:02.860 --> 00:10:05.940 you don't recall any high-profile individuals making a call to 178 00:10:05.980 --> 00:10:09.470 your office saying, we've got to go easy on this guy. Answer, 179 00:10:09.570 --> 00:10:12.629 I do not. Question, the minority touched on it a 180 00:10:12.669 --> 00:10:15.769 little bit, the former criminal chief, Menchel, and his relationship 181 00:10:15.809 --> 00:10:19.059 with Lily Sanchez. who became one of Epstein's counsels, and 182 00:10:19.080 --> 00:10:21.220 you said you were aware of that after the fact, 183 00:10:21.500 --> 00:10:24.399 not concurrently, yo, I really want to find out who 184 00:10:24.450 --> 00:10:29.110 this senator is, or congressman, asking these stupid-ass questions. Holy cow, 185 00:10:29.169 --> 00:10:31.190 what a waste of our time and our tax dollars. 186 00:10:31.769 --> 00:10:33.009 And I guarantee you it's going to be one of 187 00:10:33.049 --> 00:10:35.809 these guys that runs around yapping about how they care 188 00:10:35.850 --> 00:10:40.970 about the kids. Shut your ass up. Answer, I became 189 00:10:41.029 --> 00:10:42.850 aware of that when I was asked about it by 190 00:10:42.889 --> 00:10:46.529 the Office of Professional Responsibility. My first assistant became aware 191 00:10:46.549 --> 00:10:48.720 of it when he was asked about it at the 192 00:10:48.860 --> 00:10:53.659 Office of Professional Responsibility. Question. And, just pardon me for 193 00:10:53.700 --> 00:10:56.539 not remembering, it was already touched on. Did Mr. Menschel 194 00:10:56.559 --> 00:11:01.100 recuse

himself because of that relationship? Answer. He did not. Question. 195 00:11:01.419 --> 00:11:04.110 Should he have? Answer. I should have known about it, 196 00:11:04.399 --> 00:11:06.620 or my first assistant should have known about it, and 197 00:11:06.659 --> 00:11:09.419 we should have had a fulsome discussion. How long ago 198 00:11:09.460 --> 00:11:12.299 was that relationship? What was the nature of the relationship? 199 00:11:12.840 --> 00:11:15.350 I wish I would have been informed. I was not informed. 200 00:11:16.210 --> 00:11:19.570 I still don't know the details and what they are. Question. 201 00:11:20.169 --> 00:11:22.490 Were you aware then of the photographs of Menschel with 202 00:11:22.570 --> 00:11:26.929 Epstein and Aspen, Colorado skiing? Answer. I was not. And 203 00:11:26.970 --> 00:11:29.409 I was not aware of it until this moment. Question. 204 00:11:29.809 --> 00:11:33.330 If you were aware of it, would that raise your concerns? Answer. Yes, 205 00:11:33.409 --> 00:11:39.100 it would. When were the pictures? Redacted. Do you know when? Redacted. 206 00:11:39.139 --> 00:11:42.320 I think it was early 2000s. Question. We're working on 207 00:11:42.379 --> 00:11:45.250 finding it. And then maybe, last bucket, and maybe the 208 00:11:45.289 --> 00:11:48.570 fastest one, maybe the slowest one, we'll find out. Steve 209 00:11:48.610 --> 00:11:52.049 Bannon has publicly stated that you told him Epstein, quote, 210 00:11:52.169 --> 00:11:55.179 belonged to intelligence. Do you ever recall speaking to Steve 211 00:11:55.220 --> 00:11:59.639 Bannon about Jeffrey Epstein? Answer, I don't recall ever speaking 212 00:11:59.659 --> 00:12:02.580 to Steve Bannon about Jeffrey Epstein. Question, have you ever 213 00:12:02.639 --> 00:12:05.559 spoken to Steve Bannon? Answer, I've spoken to Steve Bannon. 214 00:12:05.879 --> 00:12:08.450 I have no recollection of speaking to Steve Bannon about 215 00:12:08.470 --> 00:12:11.970 Jeffrey Epstein. I've been asked up until now. I did 216 00:12:12.009 --> 00:12:14.330 not know what the source was of the anonymous White 217 00:12:14.370 --> 00:12:17.110 House quote. I've been asked about that. I didn't know 218 00:12:17.129 --> 00:12:19.009 where it came from. I'll take your word for it 219 00:12:19.350 --> 00:12:21.570 that Mr. Bannon, but I don't know where it came from. 220 00:12:21.970 --> 00:12:24.529 I never made that assertion. I was asked about it 221 00:12:24.580 --> 00:12:27.279 at my press conference. I said, that's not truthful. I 222 00:12:27.299 --> 00:12:30.220 was asked about it in the office of professional responsibility interview. 223 00:12:30.659 --> 00:12:33.080 I said, I have no knowledge as to whether he 224 00:12:33.139 --> 00:12:37.120 was or was not a member of the intelligence community question. 225 00:12:37.200 --> 00:12:39.899 So that gets to some of my next ones. You've 226 00:12:39.940 --> 00:12:43.730 never made a statement. Similar to Epstein belonging to intelligence? Answer, 227 00:12:43.769 --> 00:12:46.629 I have not. Question, during the course of your investigation, 228 00:12:47.389 --> 00:12:52.750 did anyone from the intelligence community approach you regarding Mr. Epstein? Answer, no. Question, 229 00:12:52.809 --> 00:12:55.830 no one from the CIA? Answer, no. Question, no one 230 00:12:55.850 --> 00:12:59.769 from the State Department or NSA? Answer, no. Question, well, 231 00:12:59.960 --> 00:13:06.220 FBI would have. No one from the FBI? Answer, yes. Question, division? Answer, no. Question, 232 00:13:06.320 --> 00:13:10.470 any foreign intelligence services like the Mossad? Answer, no. Again, 233 00:13:10.490 --> 00:13:12.429 I do not know if he did or did not. 234 00:13:12.830 --> 00:13:14.129 If you want to know that, you need to ask 235 00:13:14.169 --> 00:13:17.259 the intelligence community. I have not been approached by any 236 00:13:17.320 --> 00:13:19.940 member of the intelligence community, and I have no knowledge 237 00:13:19.980 --> 00:13:23.840 of his membership in the intelligence community. Question, and on that, 238 00:13:23.899 --> 00:13:25.980 my last question, do you have any reason to believe 239 00:13:26.000 --> 00:13:29.019 that Jeffrey Epstein was an asset for a domestic or 240 00:13:29.139 --> 00:13:33.279 foreign intelligence operation? Answer, I have no reason to believe that, 241 00:13:33.659 --> 00:13:36.779 and if there was any secure information, procedures would have 242 00:13:36.799 --> 00:13:40.110 been triggered that were never triggered. Question. And no one 243 00:13:40.129 --> 00:13:42.450 approached you and said you can't prosecute this guy. He's 244 00:13:42.490 --> 00:13:46.480 an asset. Answer. No one approached me and said that. Question. Thanks. 245 00:13:46.500 --> 00:13:48.519 All right, we're going to wrap up right here. And 246 00:13:48.559 --> 00:13:50.200 in the next episode, we're going to pick up where 247 00:13:50.240 --> 00:13:52.919 we left off. All of the information that goes with 248 00:13:52.980 --> 00:13:56.899 this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone? 249 00:13:56.970 --> 00:14:00.649 And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In 250 00:14:00.690 --> 00:14:02.409 this episode, we're going to dive right back into the 251 00:14:02.570 --> 00:14:07.750 Alex Acosta deposition. Once again, Alex Acosta doing the answering. 252 00:14:08.440 --> 00:14:13.220 and various people doing the questioning. Question, Mr. Acosta, I 253 00:14:13.259 --> 00:14:16.110 just wanted to return to our conversation earlier about the 254 00:14:16.149 --> 00:14:21.190 investigative steps that your office undertook. Going back to the NPA, 255 00:14:21.490 --> 00:14:26.309 that document identifies four women as potential co-conspirators, correct? Answer, 256 00:14:26.350 --> 00:14:28.639 yes it does. I don't want to give them a 257 00:14:28.659 --> 00:14:32.799 status that identifies four women, yes. Question,

I'll represent. That's 258 00:14:32.840 --> 00:14:36.860 how the language in the agreement identifies them. Answer, okay. Question, 259 00:14:36.919 --> 00:14:39.799 all right, did your office ever interview any of them? Answer, 260 00:14:39.870 --> 00:14:42.590 I do not know. As I said previously, I would 261 00:14:42.649 --> 00:14:45.330 not have directed who was interviewed or not interviewed in 262 00:14:45.370 --> 00:14:49.179 these types of investigations. Question, well, it's typical, isn't it, 263 00:14:49.529 --> 00:14:53.250 in criminal investigations for potential co-conspirators to be interviewed and 264 00:14:53.289 --> 00:14:57.990 hopefully cooperated up the chain of command, isn't that so? Answer, 265 00:14:58.009 --> 00:15:01.669 I would say it's typical. Question, okay, would you have 266 00:15:01.710 --> 00:15:04.899 expected it to happen in this case? Answer, I don't 267 00:15:04.919 --> 00:15:06.820 know if they were, and if they were not, I 268 00:15:06.840 --> 00:15:10.460 don't know why. Question, to your knowledge, it did not. Answer, 269 00:15:10.519 --> 00:15:14.799 to my knowledge, I don't know. Question, okay. Answer, which 270 00:15:14.860 --> 00:15:18.110 is different than it did not. Question, okay. And I 271 00:15:18.139 --> 00:15:20.870 think the question of whether any of Mr. Epstein's employees 272 00:15:20.909 --> 00:15:24.190 were interviewed was also raised earlier, and I understood your 273 00:15:24.230 --> 00:15:28.970 testimony to be, you also didn't know if that happened. Answer, again, 274 00:15:29.450 --> 00:15:33.389 I did not direct how, how a matter was investigated. Question, okay. 275 00:15:33.850 --> 00:15:36.450 Would you expect that in order to perform a thorough 276 00:15:36.490 --> 00:15:39.629 investigation concerning sex crimes, you would need to talk to 277 00:15:39.649 --> 00:15:42.269 the employees who worked at the premises where the crimes 278 00:15:42.350 --> 00:15:46.820 potentially occurred? Answer, I will accept that. Question, okay. We 279 00:15:46.860 --> 00:15:49.899 spoke earlier about the removal of computer equipment from Mr. 280 00:15:49.940 --> 00:15:52.700 Epstein's home prior to the execution of a search warrant 281 00:15:52.980 --> 00:15:55.940 by the Palm Beach Police Department and your office's attempt 282 00:15:55.960 --> 00:15:59.830 to attain those materials from Mr. Epstein's attorneys. To your knowledge, 283 00:15:59.870 --> 00:16:02.830 did they ever succeed in doing so? Answer, I do 284 00:16:02.870 --> 00:16:06.740 not know. Question, would those materials in your view potentially 285 00:16:06.779 --> 00:16:09.960 have shed more light on the scope and magnitude? Answer, 286 00:16:10.019 --> 00:16:13.379 let me revise my prior question. Question, can I just 287 00:16:13.399 --> 00:16:16.669 get this one out first? Answer, yes. Question, would those 288 00:16:16.710 --> 00:16:19.470 materials in your view potentially have shed more light on 289 00:16:19.509 -->

00:16:24.090 the scope and magnitude of Mr. Epstein's crimes? Answer, they 290 00:16:24.110 --> 00:16:27.139 may have, and I do want to revise my prior answer. 291 00:16:27.759 --> 00:16:30.820 I do not know based on my personal recollection. I'm aware, 292 00:16:30.840 --> 00:16:34.070 I believe from the OPR report, that they were not obtained, 293 00:16:34.450 --> 00:16:36.889 but I don't have any personal recollection of the computer 294 00:16:36.929 --> 00:16:39.710 material issue or what may or may not have been 295 00:16:39.789 --> 00:16:43.700 on them, and I just wanted to make that clear. Question, okay, understood. 296 00:16:44.000 --> 00:16:48.120 To your knowledge, did your office obtain Mr. Epstein's flight records? Answer, 297 00:16:48.220 --> 00:16:51.580 once again, I did not direct how the office proceeded 298 00:16:51.860 --> 00:16:55.750 with the investigation. I don't know 20 years later what 299 00:16:55.779 --> 00:16:59.870 may or may not have been part of a factual briefing. Question, 300 00:16:59.909 --> 00:17:01.929 so I'm going to ask the same question with respect 301 00:17:01.950 --> 00:17:04.700 to Mr. Epstein's financial records. If you want to give 302 00:17:04.720 --> 00:17:10.720 the same answer, answer again. Question, that's fine. Answer, same answer. 303 00:17:11.099 --> 00:17:13.490 So my question, in light of all of that, would it, 304 00:17:13.539 --> 00:17:15.579 in your view, have been possible at the time the 305 00:17:15.660 --> 00:17:18.769 NPA was entered into to make a reliable assessment regarding 306 00:17:18.829 --> 00:17:22.829 the strength of the case against Mr. Epstein without cooperating witnesses, 307 00:17:23.109 --> 00:17:26.230 without having spoken to employees, without flight logs, without the 308 00:17:26.269 --> 00:17:29.609 contents of Mr. Epstein's computers or his financial records, to 309 00:17:29.650 --> 00:17:33.900 the extent that evidence existed? Answer, so the matter came 310 00:17:33.920 --> 00:17:37.200 to our office in 2006. The prosecutor on the case 311 00:17:37.519 --> 00:17:40.680 was an experienced prosecutor. She had discretion to proceed as 312 00:17:40.720 --> 00:17:44.279 she saw fit. At some point, she said, it's now 313 00:17:44.339 --> 00:17:46.640 time to move to the next stage. And it's time 314 00:17:46.660 --> 00:17:50.170 to bring this matter to resolution. That, again, was within 315 00:17:50.250 --> 00:17:54.769 her discretion. Hindsight's 20-20. In retrospect, maybe she should have 316 00:17:54.789 --> 00:17:57.430 done more. Maybe she should not have done more. It's 317 00:17:57.470 --> 00:18:00.269 very difficult sitting here 20 years later to second guess 318 00:18:00.289 --> 00:18:05.069 her decisions. Question, Hindsight is 20-20, but that information was 319 00:18:05.170 --> 00:18:09.329 ascertainable at the time, wasn't it? Answer again, I think 320 00:18:09.349 --> 00:18:11.829 it's very difficult to second guess her decisions. She's an 321 00:18:11.869 --> 00:18:14.970 outstanding prosecutor. She worked on this case. She wanted to 322 00:18:15.009 --> 00:18:17.710 put him in jail. And I have to trust that 323 00:18:17.769 --> 00:18:20.690 she would have pursued the types of evidence, whether flight 324 00:18:20.710 --> 00:18:23.329 logs or other matters, that would have contributed to her 325 00:18:23.369 --> 00:18:25.630 theory of how you can put this man in jail, 326 00:18:26.019 --> 00:18:29.660 because that was her focus. Question, and again, it was you, 327 00:18:30.079 --> 00:18:32.410 as I think you said earlier this morning, who approved 328 00:18:32.430 --> 00:18:36.450 the execution of the NPA? Answer, yes. Question, on the 329 00:18:36.509 --> 00:18:40.029 basis of the evidentiary record as it existed at the time? Answer, 330 00:18:40.109 --> 00:18:43.539 that is correct. Question, we have spoken on and off 331 00:18:43.579 --> 00:18:47.720 today about the involvement of the DOJ's Child Exploitation and 332 00:18:47.779 --> 00:18:53.279 Obscenity Section, or CEOS, in your office's investigation. I just 333 00:18:53.299 --> 00:18:55.720 wanted to note for the record that the OPR report 334 00:18:56.059 --> 00:19:00.329 at page 47 notes that Mr. Osterbaughn who, as I understand, 335 00:19:00.569 --> 00:19:03.869 was the chief of that section, answer, yeah, reviewed Ms. 336 00:19:03.890 --> 00:19:07.819 Villafana's charging memo, and in an email to Mr. Sloman, Mr. Menschel, 337 00:19:08.180 --> 00:19:11.559 and Mr. Lurie stated that Ms. Villafana, quote, did a 338 00:19:11.579 --> 00:19:16.019 terrific job, unquote, and that CEOs, quote, agrees with their 339 00:19:16.059 --> 00:19:20.490 legal analysis. Her charging decisions are legally sound, end quote. 340 00:19:21.250 --> 00:19:24.950 Answer on page, question 47. Were you ever made aware 341 00:19:24.990 --> 00:19:29.400 of Mr. Osterbaum's views? Answer, I was not. and I 342 00:19:29.460 --> 00:19:32.220 note that Mr. Sloman, Menchel, and Laurie, at various points, 343 00:19:32.480 --> 00:19:36.039 have stated counter views to that. Mr. Osterbond was invited 344 00:19:36.059 --> 00:19:38.400 to the meeting that we had in September. He was 345 00:19:38.460 --> 00:19:41.410 present for that meeting. He understood our approach. I have 346 00:19:41.450 --> 00:19:44.490 no recollection of him taking me aside and saying Alex 347 00:19:44.549 --> 00:19:47.049 or Mr. Acosta. I would have been Alex to him 348 00:19:47.390 --> 00:19:49.890 because I didn't have that level of formality, just so 349 00:19:49.910 --> 00:19:53.740 you know, dot, dot, dot, question. And am I correct 350 00:19:53.779 --> 00:19:57.849 that CEOS is the component of the DOJ that's charged 351 00:19:58.119 --> 00:20:02.710 with specific expertise in sex cases, child exploitation cases? Answer. 352 00:20:02.730 --> 00:20:06.849 And CEOS was the one who then sent an expert 353 00:20:06.890 --> 00:20:09.609 to review not just the memo, but the entire file.

354 00:20:09.970 --> 00:20:12.470 and that expert was the one who said, quote-unquote, it's 355 00:20:12.509 --> 00:20:17.809 a crapshoot. Question, and that person was a subordinate of Mr. Osterbon. Answer, 356 00:20:17.849 --> 00:20:20.970 that person was a subordinate, but very experienced. I think 357 00:20:21.049 --> 00:20:25.089 OPR notes that. A highly experienced prosecutor. Are you guys 358 00:20:25.130 --> 00:20:27.430 getting the sense here yet that all they do is 359 00:20:27.559 --> 00:20:30.579 use the OPR report as a shield? Because that's what 360 00:20:30.619 --> 00:20:36.099 it's for. They investigated themselves, and nobody was held accountable? Okay, 361 00:20:36.140 --> 00:20:39.599 I guess, if that's how you want to roll. Ms. Stansberry, 362 00:20:39.920 --> 00:20:43.920 Can I just ask a quick follow-up on that? Mr. Acosta, yeah. Ms. Stansberry, 363 00:20:44.240 --> 00:20:47.000 so earlier when you said that part of the discussion 364 00:20:47.200 --> 00:20:50.539 with the team about prosecution, you did mention the quote, 365 00:20:50.579 --> 00:20:53.829 a crapshoot, that was just with respect to the CEO's 366 00:20:54.109 --> 00:20:58.829 investigation then, correct? Mr. Acosta, that was with respect if 367 00:20:58.849 --> 00:21:01.730 we were going to go to trial. Stansberry, but based 368 00:21:01.769 --> 00:21:06.210 on the evidence around the investigation into these particular materials, Acosta, 369 00:21:06.730 --> 00:21:09.690 I don't know what you reviewed or didn't review. She 370 00:21:09.710 --> 00:21:12.069 had access to the full file and whatever was in 371 00:21:12.109 --> 00:21:17.079 the file. Ms. Stansbury, okay. Question. The OPR report, as 372 00:21:17.160 --> 00:21:19.619 I read it, concluded that your decision to defer to 373 00:21:19.640 --> 00:21:22.299 the state was based, at least in part, on your 374 00:21:22.339 --> 00:21:27.220 interpretation of the DOJ's Petit policy. Is that correct? Answer. 375 00:21:27.579 --> 00:21:30.099 I think it was influenced by the Petit policy, and 376 00:21:30.140 --> 00:21:32.640 it was influenced by the idea that there were two 377 00:21:32.720 --> 00:21:36.420 sovereigns and this was a state case. Question. The report 378 00:21:36.440 --> 00:21:40.059 concluded that that, or noted rather, that the policy applies 379 00:21:40.160 --> 00:21:44.680 only to federal prosecution, that follow completed state prosecutions, not 380 00:21:44.720 --> 00:21:48.700 when a state investigation or prosecution remains pending. Is that correct? 381 00:21:49.079 --> 00:21:51.819 I think that I said earlier that as a technical matter, 382 00:21:51.920 --> 00:21:54.680 the Petit policy did not apply because it was not inked. 383 00:21:54.960 --> 00:21:57.509 The agreement was not inked at the state level, but 384 00:21:57.569 --> 00:21:59.990 that the fact that it came in through the analysis 385 00:22:00.029 --> 00:22:03.750 continued to influence how we looked at the case. Question again, 386 00:22:04.029 --> 00:22:06.859 per the OPR report, It was your decision, as I 387 00:22:06.920 --> 00:22:09.750 understand it, that the U.S. Attorney's Office should offer Mr. 388 00:22:09.829 --> 00:22:13.670 Epstein a two-year term of imprisonment. Is that correct? Answer, 389 00:22:13.710 --> 00:22:17.029 that is correct. Question, okay, how did you arrive at 390 00:22:17.049 --> 00:22:21.140 the two years? Answer, so my recollection was that he 391 00:22:21.220 --> 00:22:23.539 would have received if he had gone to jail on 392 00:22:23.559 --> 00:22:26.240 the original state charges. I would not have had the 393 00:22:26.299 --> 00:22:29.099 expertise to guess that because I do not know the 394 00:22:29.119 --> 00:22:31.779 state system as well as the federal system. So I 395 00:22:31.819 --> 00:22:35.140 would infer that at some point, I asked our supervisory 396 00:22:35.160 --> 00:22:37.509 team if this had gone right from the beginning, if 397 00:22:37.549 --> 00:22:39.750 the state attorney had not dropped the ball, what would 398 00:22:39.769 --> 00:22:43.769 he be serving? And someone told me two years. Question, okay. 399 00:22:44.069 --> 00:22:46.269 So that brings me back to the question of, why 400 00:22:46.309 --> 00:22:50.170 not follow Ms. Villafana's recommendation under the federal sentencing guideline 401 00:22:50.619 --> 00:22:53.819 of substantially higher sentence in the range of 160 to 402 00:22:53.819 --> 00:23:00.049 210 months with an upward departure? Answer once again, I 403 00:23:00.069 --> 00:23:02.809 don't think Ms. Villafana's guidelines were on the table, not 404 00:23:02.849 --> 00:23:05.490 because of me, but because everyone in the office favored 405 00:23:05.539 --> 00:23:08.680 a negotiated resolution. I think the alternative would have been 406 00:23:09.859 --> 00:23:13.539 a 371. Stansberry, could you clarify what that means? Acosta, 407 00:23:13.539 --> 00:23:17.190 371 is a federal charge of conspiracy, and it's used 408 00:23:17.210 --> 00:23:20.089 when you're trying to obtain a negotiated plea. It's not 409 00:23:20.170 --> 00:23:23.950 used exclusively, but it's often used by federal prosecutors. because 410 00:23:24.009 --> 00:23:27.349 a negotiated plea of a 371 with a Rule 11 411 00:23:27.349 --> 00:23:29.990 provides a mechanism for having a term of years that 412 00:23:30.069 --> 00:23:33.710 someone may agree to. I don't think anyone, something that 413 00:23:33.750 --> 00:23:35.910 I think is being lost in this, no one in 414 00:23:35.950 --> 00:23:38.490 the office thought that, oh, two years is enough. No 415 00:23:38.549 --> 00:23:41.210 one thought that, oh, two years is full justice. The 416 00:23:41.230 --> 00:23:43.390 question was, do you go to trial and risk them 417 00:23:43.410 --> 00:23:46.359 getting off entirely, or do you take a certainty of 418 00:23:46.400 --> 00:23:48.759 a sentence? And how do you, how do you get there? 419 00:23:49.519 --> 00:23:52.460

And so the idea of what the police were originally seeking... 420 00:23:52.599 --> 00:23:54.859 is where I sort of ended up. But no one, 421 00:23:54.880 --> 00:23:57.660 no one said, oh, two years is enough. It was 422 00:23:57.720 --> 00:24:00.900 negotiated plea or risk going to trial. And that's what 423 00:24:00.940 --> 00:24:06.029 motivated this. A 371 with a rule 11 was the 424 00:24:06.069 --> 00:24:09.250 alternative that we talked about. To return to our discussion 425 00:24:09.289 --> 00:24:12.089 this morning, the decision to proceed via a state plea 426 00:24:12.369 --> 00:24:15.299 rather than federal charges was a choice, right? Answer, it 427 00:24:15.339 --> 00:24:18.160 was a choice. And my ultimate decision was to do that. 428 00:24:18.619 --> 00:24:21.809 I don't think I've implied otherwise. Question, just again, the 429 00:24:21.849 --> 00:24:26.119 two-year proposed sentence was negotiated down over time, initially 20 months, 430 00:24:26.359 --> 00:24:29.319 and then ultimately to 18 months, of which Mr. Epstein, 431 00:24:29.559 --> 00:24:33.859 as we spoke about, only served 13. Why the reduction 432 00:24:33.920 --> 00:24:37.720 over the course of your negotiations? Answer, so two parts 433 00:24:37.740 --> 00:24:41.289 to it. First, in the negotiations, the prosecuting attorney needs 434 00:24:41.309 --> 00:24:43.890 some discretion to proceed. She wanted Epstein to go to 435 00:24:43.930 --> 00:24:47.069 jail just like everyone else, and she had that discretion. 436 00:24:48.109 --> 00:24:50.450 I believe there was a meeting at the state attorney's office. 437 00:24:50.869 --> 00:24:53.549 This wasn't my recollection. This is the report where it 438 00:24:53.589 --> 00:24:56.819 went from 24 to 18. And I would support if 439 00:24:56.880 --> 00:24:59.970 she thought or her supervising attorney thought that that was 440 00:24:59.990 --> 00:25:04.000 the right outcome. I would support their discretion. That's separate 441 00:25:04.119 --> 00:25:06.740 and apart from how it was finally served because the 442 00:25:06.799 --> 00:25:09.519 idea of work release was something that none of us contemplated. 443 00:25:09.859 --> 00:25:12.599 We had assurances that it would not get that. All 444 00:25:12.619 --> 00:25:15.200 of us were shocked and upset about that. And had 445 00:25:15.240 --> 00:25:17.039 we known that he was going to get work release, 446 00:25:17.339 --> 00:25:20.319 this would not have gone forward, because what we contemplated 447 00:25:20.599 --> 00:25:23.960 was continuous confinement. Question, and in terms of the decision 448 00:25:24.259 --> 00:25:27.549 to reduce the sentence by a substantial amount, what was Mr. 449 00:25:27.609 --> 00:25:30.890 Epstein's leverage in your view? Why did the government agree 450 00:25:30.910 --> 00:25:33.109 to it, and what did it gain from that concession? 451 00:25:34.170 --> 00:25:36.529 I can't speculate, 20 years after the fact, what the 452 00:25:36.569 --> 00:25:39.430 leverage was, what the government gained. What the government gained 453 00:25:39.509 --> 00:25:42.829 is to have Mr. Epstein go to jail. And I 454 00:25:42.849 --> 00:25:46.150 understand the 18 to 24, but to have them actually 455 00:25:46.190 --> 00:25:49.109 plead guilty and say abuse these victims and go to 456 00:25:49.150 --> 00:25:52.599 jail and send a signal to Palm Beach where these 457 00:25:52.650 --> 00:25:55.859 prosecutions hadn't happened, that you can't get away with this was, 458 00:25:55.940 --> 00:25:58.759 in our view, a substantial interest and a substantial win. 459 00:25:59.319 --> 00:26:01.960 And I understand it's viewed very differently now. And had 460 00:26:02.000 --> 00:26:04.079 we known back then what we know now, it would 461 00:26:04.099 --> 00:26:07.480 have proceeded along a different route. And I understand along 462 00:26:07.519 --> 00:26:10.730 the way that the victims weren't fully informed. for reasons 463 00:26:10.769 --> 00:26:13.329 that our office acted in the best motive, but that 464 00:26:13.390 --> 00:26:16.589 left them feeling that we weren't forthright. I get all that. 465 00:26:17.049 --> 00:26:18.829 But having him go to jail was a big deal. 466 00:26:19.309 --> 00:26:21.890 And having him register and tell the world, look, he 467 00:26:21.950 --> 00:26:25.190 is a sex offender, that matters. Question, so if I'm 468 00:26:25.269 --> 00:26:28.809 understanding your testimony correctly, the truncated length of his prison 469 00:26:28.829 --> 00:26:32.190 sentence was the result of the state-based regime that you 470 00:26:32.369 --> 00:26:36.119 opted to pursue over the federal course? Answer, no. What 471 00:26:36.160 --> 00:26:38.380 I was testifying to is the move from, I don't 472 00:26:38.420 --> 00:26:41.240 know why we moved from 24 to 18. That happened 473 00:26:41.259 --> 00:26:44.079 in a negotiation. What I'm trying to convey, and maybe 474 00:26:44.119 --> 00:26:47.730 doing so poorly, is that we can't undervalue the importance 475 00:26:47.829 --> 00:26:50.630 of his going to jail. Question, I think we all 476 00:26:50.690 --> 00:26:53.230 agree on that point. But I think the question remains, 477 00:26:53.549 --> 00:26:57.309 would Mr. Epstein not have faced potentially substantially greater exposure 478 00:26:57.690 --> 00:27:01.170 in terms of sentencing under federal charges, as opposed to 479 00:27:01.210 --> 00:27:04.349 the state charges to which his sentence apparently was conformed? 480 00:27:04.779 --> 00:27:08.480 in the process of negotiating the NPA? Answer, so two 481 00:27:08.539 --> 00:27:11.500 paths on the table were the 371 that might have 482 00:27:11.539 --> 00:27:14.619 been with the Rule 11. They might or might not 483 00:27:14.660 --> 00:27:17.380 have been higher. If they had gone to trial and won, 484 00:27:17.660 --> 00:27:20.089 he certainly would have faced a higher charge. But the 485 00:27:20.130 --> 00:27:22.450 question is, do we go to

trial, or do we 486 00:27:22.490 --> 00:27:25.890 risk losing everything, right? At some point, I forget which attorney, 487 00:27:26.150 --> 00:27:29.630 which of my supervisors said, Question, Mr. Acosta, I think 488 00:27:29.650 --> 00:27:32.339 we agreed this morning that going to trial would was 489 00:27:32.400 --> 00:27:35.119 not your only option. A federal plea was also an option, 490 00:27:35.180 --> 00:27:38.650 wasn't it? Answer a federal plea under 371 with a 491 00:27:38.670 --> 00:27:42.150 Rule 11. Stansbury, and what would the sentence for that 492 00:27:42.190 --> 00:27:45.710 have been? Mr. Acosta, so under Rule 11, you recommend 493 00:27:45.769 --> 00:27:49.119 a plea. The maximum under a 371 would be five years. 494 00:27:49.730 --> 00:27:52.339 I think there was a consensus in the office that 495 00:27:52.440 --> 00:27:55.140 there would not have been pled to five years, and 496 00:27:55.200 --> 00:27:58.259 so we were possibly, may have ended up, putting aside 497 00:27:58.299 --> 00:28:01.359 the whole work release. And I will own that the 498 00:28:01.400 --> 00:28:04.180 state was, that I should have expected the state to 499 00:28:04.220 --> 00:28:06.299 sort of drop the ball on that, and the OPR 500 00:28:06.319 --> 00:28:09.319 is correct. But under 371, the sentence would have been, 501 00:28:09.700 --> 00:28:13.180 it depended what we negotiated. Alright folks, we're going to 502 00:28:13.200 --> 00:28:15.599 wrap up right here, and in the next episode, dealing 503 00:28:15.619 --> 00:28:17.299 with the topic we're going to pick up where we 504 00:28:17.339 --> 00:28:19.910 left off. All of the information that goes with this 505 00:28:19.970 --> 00:28:23.970 episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone, 506 00:28:24.069 --> 00:28:27.660 and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In 507 00:28:27.680 --> 00:28:29.339 this episode, we're going to pick up where we left 508 00:28:29.480 --> 00:28:33.920 off with the deposition of Alex Acosta. Once again, Alex 509 00:28:33.980 --> 00:28:36.759 Acosta is doing the answering and a whole host of 510 00:28:36.779 --> 00:28:41.470 people are doing the questioning. Question. I'm just going to 511 00:28:41.549 --> 00:28:45.250 note another one of the CEO's Chief Osterbond's express views 512 00:28:45.609 --> 00:28:47.970 as set forth in the OPR report. This is at 513 00:28:47.990 --> 00:28:51.650 page 95, which notes that Mr. Osterbond reviewed the NPA 514 00:28:51.970 --> 00:28:54.700 and told Mr. Lurie that he is, quote, not thrilled 515 00:28:54.740 --> 00:29:00.059 about the NPA. described Epstein's conduct as unusually, quote-unquote, egregious, 516 00:29:00.640 --> 00:29:03.579 particularly because of its serious nature, and observed that the 517 00:29:03.680 --> 00:29:07.549 NPA was, quote, pretty advantageous for the defendant and not 518 00:29:07.609 --> 00:29:11.150 at all that helpful for the victims, unquote. Were you 519 00:29:11.230 --> 00:29:15.750 aware of Mr. Osterbaum's view in that respect? Answer two points. First, 520 00:29:15.869 --> 00:29:18.170 I was not aware of that. But secondly, I would 521 00:29:18.230 --> 00:29:21.150 note that took place after the agreement had been signed, 522 00:29:21.569 --> 00:29:23.650 and Mr. Osterbaum was in our office for the meeting, 523 00:29:24.029 --> 00:29:26.970 where the terms were talked about and presented and had 524 00:29:27.029 --> 00:29:29.519 opportunity to speak up at the time. He didn't have 525 00:29:29.559 --> 00:29:31.819 to speak up. He may have assumed that he had 526 00:29:31.859 --> 00:29:37.450 previously communicated his views, but that was an after-the-fact email. Question, 527 00:29:37.849 --> 00:29:40.380 briefly with respect to the review that took place both 528 00:29:40.420 --> 00:29:45.519 in your office and at Maine Justice, Robert Sr., quote, 529 00:29:45.740 --> 00:29:48.559 concluded that the proposed charges were sound and he told 530 00:29:48.599 --> 00:29:51.940 Acosta that he would approve proceeding with the federal case, unquote. 531 00:29:52.380 --> 00:29:55.849 Do you recall Mr. Sr. communicating that to you? Answer, 532 00:29:55.930 --> 00:29:58.650 so that took place when we thought after the NPA 533 00:29:58.690 --> 00:30:01.670 had been signed. after we had already agreed. We thought, 534 00:30:02.029 --> 00:30:04.750 he may never follow through. It's been a while since 535 00:30:04.769 --> 00:30:08.569 we've looked at the case afresh. And so investigation may 536 00:30:08.630 --> 00:30:11.150 take place in the interim. So let's have the new 537 00:30:11.190 --> 00:30:13.569 criminal chief review it soup to nuts. And if we 538 00:30:13.589 --> 00:30:15.549 have to go to trial, are we ready to go 539 00:30:15.569 --> 00:30:17.769 to trial? And he said, yes, if you have to 540 00:30:17.789 --> 00:30:20.349 go to trial, you're ready to go to trial. The 541 00:30:20.390 --> 00:30:22.970 question was not how you proceed or would you favor 542 00:30:23.029 --> 00:30:25.930 a negotiated plea. The question would be, if we have 543 00:30:25.950 --> 00:30:28.170 to go to trial, can we drop it? Can we 544 00:30:28.230 --> 00:30:31.890 drop an indictment? Question, and is that an accurate account 545 00:30:31.950 --> 00:30:35.259 of what Mr. Senior communicated to you? Answer, I believe 546 00:30:35.299 --> 00:30:37.920 that's what he said. If we have to go to trial, 547 00:30:38.059 --> 00:30:41.819 we can be ready. That wasn't how we should proceed. 548 00:30:42.240 --> 00:30:45.240 This wasn't about viability of a case or a balance 549 00:30:45.279 --> 00:30:48.710 between a negotiated plea and going to trial. That is, 550 00:30:49.230 --> 00:30:50.910 if we have to go to trial, do we have 551 00:30:50.970 --> 00:30:53.589 enough or do we have to do more? Question, let 552 00:30:53.609 --> 00:30:56.450 me try it a different way. Any reason to believe 553 00:30:56.470 -->

00:31:00.069 that the quote I just read into the record is inaccurate? Answer, 554 00:31:00.829 --> 00:31:03.029 I believe that it's taken out of context given the 555 00:31:03.069 --> 00:31:05.890 time that the review took place and why the review 556 00:31:05.930 --> 00:31:08.750 took place. The defense counsel at the time was charging 557 00:31:09.009 --> 00:31:12.089 that we had insufficient grounds for going to trial. This 558 00:31:12.150 --> 00:31:16.180 was during the debate. Question, Mr. Acosta, I understand the 559 00:31:16.200 --> 00:31:19.240 context as you've just laid out, but my question is simply, 560 00:31:19.599 --> 00:31:24.319 are the quoted words accurate? Did Mr. Senior say that? answer, 561 00:31:24.559 --> 00:31:27.279 and my response is that it's taken out of context 562 00:31:27.539 --> 00:31:30.359 because the question was not, as you're implying with respect, 563 00:31:30.640 --> 00:31:33.660 how should we proceed? The question is, we are being 564 00:31:33.720 --> 00:31:36.960 told that we're acting unethically because we do not have 565 00:31:36.980 --> 00:31:40.470 a federal case. And so, Mr. Senior, you haven't been involved. 566 00:31:40.710 --> 00:31:42.829 Take a look and tell us if you believe that 567 00:31:42.890 --> 00:31:45.829 this is an ethical case to bring, if the arguments 568 00:31:45.890 --> 00:31:48.529 are strong enough, that if we have to go to trial, 569 00:31:48.769 --> 00:31:52.039 we can do it in an ethical manner. Not hearing 570 00:31:52.079 --> 00:31:55.559 you disputing Mr. Senor's words, I'll move on. The report 571 00:31:55.599 --> 00:31:58.960 goes on to note that upon additional review by CEOS, 572 00:31:59.220 --> 00:32:02.900 which concluded in May of 2008, the section concluded that, quote, 573 00:32:03.240 --> 00:32:09.359 federal prosecution in this case would not be improper or inappropriate, unquote. Again, 574 00:32:09.619 --> 00:32:13.099 is that consistent with your recollection? Answer again, the context 575 00:32:13.539 --> 00:32:16.119 of that is that there was an appeal to Washington 576 00:32:16.160 --> 00:32:19.759 saying that federal prosecution would be improper, period, full stop. 577 00:32:20.140 --> 00:32:23.559 Negotiated plea. Going to trial. That we did not have 578 00:32:23.599 --> 00:32:26.859 a case even to obtain a two-year sentence. That we 579 00:32:26.900 --> 00:32:30.559 had to drop the case. Question. And in that context? Answer. 580 00:32:30.940 --> 00:32:34.440 And in that context, CEOS concluded that we could go 581 00:32:34.529 --> 00:32:37.970 forward as we had been doing. Question. And just with 582 00:32:38.029 --> 00:32:41.000 respect to the question in general of review, both at 583 00:32:41.039 --> 00:32:44.619 senior levels within your office and at main justice, how 584 00:32:44.720 --> 00:32:47.279 common in your experience is it for the target of 585 00:32:47.319 --> 00:32:50.819 a federal criminal investigation to obtain that amount of attention 586 00:32:51.059 --> 00:32:55.299 and review as Mr. Epstein did? Answer, in my experience, 587 00:32:55.700 --> 00:32:58.109 I've never had a case that has been elevated to 588 00:32:58.140 --> 00:33:01.710 that level. That said, several high-profile cases have been done, 589 00:33:02.089 --> 00:33:05.250 like Jack Abramoff was done in conjunction with others, were 590 00:33:05.289 --> 00:33:08.269 done in conjunction with main justice, but that is the 591 00:33:08.329 --> 00:33:11.609 only case where multiple levels of review were granted by 592 00:33:11.670 --> 00:33:15.990 Maine Justice. Question, would you agree that the notoriety of Mr. 593 00:33:16.069 --> 00:33:19.789 Epstein's counsel, along with their multiple connections to senior personnel 594 00:33:19.829 --> 00:33:23.549 at the DOJ, helped him secure that level of attention? Answer, 595 00:33:23.950 --> 00:33:26.710 I'm not going to speculate why DOJ granted the reviews. 596 00:33:26.970 --> 00:33:29.109 They did, and people have a right to request a 597 00:33:29.150 --> 00:33:33.170 review by Maine Justice. Question, so without speculating, in the 598 00:33:33.210 --> 00:33:36.049 specific case, would you agree that as a general matter, 599 00:33:36.109 --> 00:33:40.759 criminal targets with prominent highly placed, well-connected counsel, are more 600 00:33:40.819 --> 00:33:44.539 likely to receive that type of attention at DOJ? Answer again. 601 00:33:44.900 --> 00:33:47.660 I'm not going to speculate. He received the reviews and 602 00:33:47.720 --> 00:33:50.769 our office was reviewed and we received permission to go forward. 603 00:33:51.630 --> 00:33:54.390 The argument that they presented at the meeting in Miami 604 00:33:54.710 --> 00:33:57.470 was that this wasn't a federal case, that it was 605 00:33:57.529 --> 00:33:59.630 a state case, and that we should drop the case. 606 00:34:00.309 --> 00:34:02.549 I refused to drop the case. They went to the 607 00:34:02.569 --> 00:34:05.890 criminal division. They asked the same question. The criminal division 608 00:34:05.910 --> 00:34:08.320 said I had the authority to go forward. They went 609 00:34:08.340 --> 00:34:11.380 to the Deputy Attorney General's office. They asked the same question. 610 00:34:11.760 --> 00:34:14.019 The Deputy Attorney General said I had the authority to 611 00:34:14.059 --> 00:34:19.860 go forward. Mr. Acosta questioned FBI Director Kash Patel, testified 612 00:34:19.900 --> 00:34:23.699 before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. And during his testimony, 613 00:34:23.719 --> 00:34:26.599 he stated, quote, the original sin on the Epstein case 614 00:34:27.039 --> 00:34:30.159 was how it was handled by Mr. Acosta when he 615 00:34:30.199 --> 00:34:31.599 first brought the case in 2006, 2007, and 2008. And Dr. 616 00:34:31.619 --> 00:34:39.780 Patel continued, quote, Mr. Acosta allowed Mr. Epstein to enter 617 00:34:39.800 --> 00:34:42.119 into a plea agreement where he served weeks in

jail 618 00:34:42.340 --> 00:34:46.230 for trafficking minor women. Do you have a response to that? Answer, Mr. 619 00:34:46.269 --> 00:34:48.929 Patel is entitled to say what he wants. I think 620 00:34:48.969 --> 00:34:51.510 I've been very clear. The work release was granted by 621 00:34:51.550 --> 00:34:54.909 the Palm Beach Sheriff. Our office opposed it. Our office 622 00:34:54.929 --> 00:34:58.679 had every expectation that he would have continuous confinement. We 623 00:34:58.719 --> 00:35:01.579 were upset, more than upset. We were, what's the polite 624 00:35:01.619 --> 00:35:04.099 word for ticked off? I'll say ticked off. We were 625 00:35:04.159 --> 00:35:07.880 ticked off that he didn't do so. our office transmitted 626 00:35:07.900 --> 00:35:11.340 an objection to the correctional department of Palm Beach. Our 627 00:35:11.480 --> 00:35:14.179 office was upset over the manner in which he obtained this, 628 00:35:14.579 --> 00:35:16.800 because the place where he was doing work release was 629 00:35:16.840 --> 00:35:20.090 shady at best. And so, it was what it was. 630 00:35:20.449 --> 00:35:22.889 We weren't happy. You know, if we had known that 631 00:35:22.929 --> 00:35:24.989 he'd be out on work release, we would have never 632 00:35:25.050 --> 00:35:28.269 gone through with this. We insisted, and actually at multiple 633 00:35:28.309 --> 00:35:31.889 points obtained assurances, that it would be continuous confinement, but 634 00:35:31.969 --> 00:35:34.829 clearly somehow Palm Beach gave it to him. Question number 635 00:35:35.159 --> 00:35:38.599 Fair to say you disagree with Director Patel? Answer, I'm 636 00:35:38.619 --> 00:35:41.000 not here to create a clash between one person or another. 637 00:35:41.380 --> 00:35:43.599 I'm here to give my views. And I'm not about 638 00:35:43.619 --> 00:35:46.619 the quick headline. That's not who I am. Ms. Stansbury, 639 00:35:47.119 --> 00:35:49.610 I'm just so perplexed. You know, this is one of 640 00:35:49.650 --> 00:35:52.010 those cases where the more you learn about it, the 641 00:35:52.050 --> 00:35:54.809 more and more it becomes perplexing. I want to just 642 00:35:54.829 --> 00:35:57.230 dig in a little bit about... She gets cut off 643 00:35:57.269 --> 00:36:01.090 by Acosta, yeah. Stansbury, the federal nexus piece of this. 644 00:36:01.650 --> 00:36:03.500 And I know you had some things you wanted to say... 645 00:36:03.820 --> 00:36:08.079 about transportation. Acosta, yeah. Stansberry, and at the time of 646 00:36:08.139 --> 00:36:11.260 which the investigation occurred, prior to the recommendation that you 647 00:36:11.280 --> 00:36:14.460 gave for a non-prosecution agreement, there had already been victim 648 00:36:14.510 --> 00:36:18.429 witness statements taken that indicated that Jeffrey Epstein had taken 649 00:36:18.449 --> 00:36:21.750 young women and children on his plane, transported them across 650 00:36:21.769 --> 00:36:26.750 state lines, correct? Acosta, not to my knowledge. Stansberry, Virginia 651 00:36:26.789 --> 00:36:30.420 Roberts' statement had not yet been in the record. Acosta, again, 652 00:36:30.440 --> 00:36:33.590 I don't know what statement that was. not to my knowledge. 653 00:36:34.710 --> 00:36:37.510 Here it goes to your point. The managing attorney for, 654 00:36:38.070 --> 00:36:41.329 he gets cut off by Stansberry. Did you, just before 655 00:36:41.429 --> 00:36:44.550 you go into that though, again, perplexing to me. So 656 00:36:44.730 --> 00:36:46.989 I know you said that you did not review the 657 00:36:47.050 --> 00:36:53.179 investigatory interviews yourself. So you're relying then on secondary information. Acosta, 658 00:36:53.199 --> 00:36:56.039 so if I could, simply the managing attorney, Mr. Lurie, 659 00:36:56.820 --> 00:36:59.860 Lori believed the defense argument that Epstein did not travel 660 00:37:00.070 --> 00:37:03.170 to Florida, quote, with the purpose of engaging in illicit 661 00:37:03.190 --> 00:37:07.309 sex with a minor was more persuasive. So he believed 662 00:37:07.349 --> 00:37:09.769 the defense argument that Epstein did not travel to Florida 663 00:37:09.969 --> 00:37:14.010 with the purpose was more persuasive. Ms. Stansbury, but that's 664 00:37:14.030 --> 00:37:17.210 not the question I asked. Mr. Acosta, it's the question, 665 00:37:17.449 --> 00:37:20.449 and here's why. Because we wouldn't have had this internal 666 00:37:20.489 --> 00:37:23.659 debate over whether the purpose of his flying to New 667 00:37:23.699 --> 00:37:26.110 York to Florida was was to have sex and whether 668 00:37:26.190 --> 00:37:28.809 that had to be the purpose or the dominant purpose 669 00:37:29.190 --> 00:37:31.530 if we had evidence that he actually transported a minor 670 00:37:31.809 --> 00:37:35.179 to engage in sex trafficking. So if we had the 671 00:37:35.260 --> 00:37:38.579 evidence that you talked about, the supervisory chain would not 672 00:37:38.599 --> 00:37:43.550 have been engaging in this secondary discussion or finding a workaround. Ms. Stansbury, 673 00:37:43.929 --> 00:37:45.809 I do want to press on that just a little bit. 674 00:37:47.349 --> 00:37:49.610 I mean, the committing of crimes across the state border... 675 00:37:49.730 --> 00:37:52.530 regardless of intent to commit the crime across the state border, 676 00:37:52.789 --> 00:37:56.269 is still a federal crime if it happens across the state. Acosta, 677 00:37:56.730 --> 00:37:58.949 so to my recollection, we did not, based on this, 678 00:37:59.309 --> 00:38:01.780 we did not have evidence that he was transporting minors 679 00:38:02.099 --> 00:38:06.420 across state lines for purposes of sex. Stansberry, okay, so 680 00:38:06.480 --> 00:38:08.699 this is where I would like to follow up. So 681 00:38:08.739 --> 00:38:12.469 in the negotiation of the non-prosecution agreement, as the plea 682 00:38:12.489 --> 00:38:15.510 agreement that was at the heart of the non-prosecution

agreement, 683 00:38:16.070 --> 00:38:20.130 as I'm understanding it, Ms. Villafana engaged in direct negotiations 684 00:38:20.389 --> 00:38:26.079 with Jay Lefkowitz. Neiman, Lefkowitz, Lefkowitz, thank you. Stansberry, and 685 00:38:26.139 --> 00:38:29.599 so we do have copies of correspondence that was held 686 00:38:29.619 --> 00:38:33.300 by email between Epstein's attorneys and the line prosecutor that 687 00:38:33.320 --> 00:38:35.829 was instructed to pursue the plea agreement, and they went 688 00:38:35.869 --> 00:38:38.710 back and forth about what state crime Jeffrey Epstein would 689 00:38:38.750 --> 00:38:43.980 plea to, right? Acosta, uh-huh. Stansberry, And in this correspondence specifically, 690 00:38:44.199 --> 00:38:47.199 there was a discussion about the possibility of maybe Mr. 691 00:38:47.280 --> 00:38:50.449 Epstein could plead guilty to some sort of assault on 692 00:38:50.469 --> 00:38:53.989 his plane. And in that correspondence, it's literally said by 693 00:38:54.010 --> 00:38:56.829 the line prosecutor, no, we can't do that because it's 694 00:38:56.849 --> 00:39:03.449 illegal under U.S. Code 49-46-506, meaning it's a federal crime. So, 695 00:39:03.550 --> 00:39:06.440 in fact, your own line prosecutor was aware that there 696 00:39:06.480 --> 00:39:10.940 were women being transported across state lines. and it was 697 00:39:11.019 --> 00:39:13.059 at the heart of the plea agreement that she was 698 00:39:13.110 --> 00:39:16.909 specifically talking to Epstein's attorney about negotiating a state plea 699 00:39:17.250 --> 00:39:21.489 rather than a federal plea. Mr. Acosta, so with respect, 700 00:39:21.750 --> 00:39:24.110 and I'd have to see the full content of what 701 00:39:24.150 --> 00:39:27.349 you're quoting from, I don't interpret that as saying that 702 00:39:27.409 --> 00:39:30.579 she was aware that victims were being transported. across state 703 00:39:30.619 --> 00:39:33.280 lines for the purpose of sex, and the assault charge 704 00:39:33.300 --> 00:39:36.050 was something that, if it had come up, I think 705 00:39:36.090 --> 00:39:40.349 this went beyond assault. Assault would not have been a registrable, Stansberry. 706 00:39:40.949 --> 00:39:43.650 It's an actual email between a federal prosecutor and the 707 00:39:43.690 --> 00:39:46.389 defendant's attorney, and I'll just read it. Quote, Hi Jay. 708 00:39:46.719 --> 00:39:49.579 I looked at some 11th Circuit cases on simple assault 709 00:39:49.860 --> 00:39:54.599 and found some good language. I also learned that every moment, Acosta, 710 00:39:54.659 --> 00:39:57.619 on simple assault, you said? Stansberry, yeah. She's in the 711 00:39:57.639 --> 00:40:01.000 middle of negotiating. Acosta, right. But she looked at the 712 00:40:01.099 --> 00:40:05.360 11th Circuit on what kind of simple assault? Ms. Stansberry, 713 00:40:05.800 --> 00:40:10.230 this says simple assault. Acosta, okay. Stansberry. And then the 714 00:40:10.269 --> 00:40:13.429

next sentence says, I learned that every moment that one 715 00:40:13.489 --> 00:40:16.820 is aboard an enclosed civil aeroplane, They are in the 716 00:40:16.880 --> 00:40:20.920 quote-unquote special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States. So the 717 00:40:20.960 --> 00:40:25.619 assault charge is really a violation of U.S. Code 49-46-506, 718 00:40:26.519 --> 00:40:28.900 which doesn't change the penalty. And so the nature of 719 00:40:28.940 --> 00:40:31.980 this correspondence is that she actually is talking to Epstein's 720 00:40:32.039 --> 00:40:34.900 attorney to come up with a state plea. And so 721 00:40:34.940 --> 00:40:37.579 she's saying you can't use that plea because it makes 722 00:40:37.599 --> 00:40:41.579 this a federal crime. Do you see what I'm saying? Mr. Acosta, 723 00:40:41.860 --> 00:40:44.340 so I'm not sure that again, I'm not sure that's 724 00:40:44.380 --> 00:40:46.570 what she's saying. And at some point, you know, in 725 00:40:46.610 --> 00:40:49.829 this negotiation process, she really focused on getting him in 726 00:40:49.869 --> 00:40:52.650 jail and was starting to get creative with some statutes. 727 00:40:53.090 --> 00:40:55.929 And ultimately, that didn't go anywhere because you can't get 728 00:40:55.969 --> 00:40:59.949 that creative. Whatever he pled had to be registrable, in 729 00:40:59.989 --> 00:41:04.590 my opinion. And again, the office had extensive discussions about 730 00:41:04.630 --> 00:41:08.409 travel and about the travel to Florida statute. Those discussions, 731 00:41:08.610 --> 00:41:10.989 we would have not had the entire line of discussions 732 00:41:11.070 --> 00:41:13.949 if there was evidence that he transported minors for purposes 733 00:41:14.010 --> 00:41:18.079 of sex. I can't recreate 20 years later what may 734 00:41:18.119 --> 00:41:21.280 have been in someone else's mind in an email. What 735 00:41:21.400 --> 00:41:23.860 I can talk to is it wouldn't have made sense 736 00:41:23.920 --> 00:41:27.659 to have those extensive discussions and debates about dominant or 737 00:41:27.699 --> 00:41:31.360 a purpose if there was an easier path to follow. Ms. Stansbury, 738 00:41:31.639 --> 00:41:33.679 but let me ask you this. Was it normal for 739 00:41:33.719 --> 00:41:37.320 a federal prosecutor who was recommending federal charges to engage 740 00:41:37.340 --> 00:41:40.280 in back and forth email with the defendant's attorney, giving 741 00:41:40.300 --> 00:41:45.610 them ideas for potential lesser crimes that they could plead to? Stansberry, 742 00:41:45.780 --> 00:41:49.360 did you explain that or experience that in other cases? Stansberry, 743 00:41:49.619 --> 00:41:53.099 just a yes or no. Acosta, so? Stansberry, did that 744 00:41:53.179 --> 00:41:57.760 happen during your time as U.S. Attorney in other cases? Acosta, 745 00:41:57.840 --> 00:41:59.820 so first, I don't have the benefit of all these 746 00:41:59.920 --> 00:42:04.039 emails in all these cases because the case is fairly unique. Stansberry, 747 00:42:04.099 --> 00:42:07.400 but just. Acosta cuts her off. But secondly, I think Ms. 748 00:42:07.420 --> 00:42:10.739 Villafana was asked about that in the OPR, and I 749 00:42:10.780 --> 00:42:16.780 do want to defend her for a Acosta, you know, 750 00:42:17.159 --> 00:42:20.019 Stansberry cuts him off, I'm asking you about the prosecution 751 00:42:20.059 --> 00:42:23.500 of the case. Acosta, but I think her answer to 752 00:42:23.599 --> 00:42:26.769 OPR was, you know, look, she believes it's really, that's 753 00:42:26.829 --> 00:42:29.269 part of who she is as a prosecutor, is to 754 00:42:29.309 --> 00:42:32.289 be friendly and to have these discussions. And that in 755 00:42:32.369 --> 00:42:34.750 no way should be led, should lead anyone to think 756 00:42:34.769 --> 00:42:37.590 she's anything but a tough prosecutor. That in no way 757 00:42:37.630 --> 00:42:40.300 should imply that she was anything less than fully, fully 758 00:42:40.340 --> 00:42:44.610 dedicated to putting him in jail. Ms. Stansberry, but when 759 00:42:44.659 --> 00:42:47.579 you made the decision, because you said it multiple times today, 760 00:42:47.880 --> 00:42:50.880 that you were going to proceed to pursue federal prosecution 761 00:42:51.219 --> 00:42:53.820 and were going to go to the non-prosecution agreement, did 762 00:42:53.840 --> 00:42:56.420 you direct her or someone in her chain of command 763 00:42:56.739 --> 00:43:00.059 to look for a less strict crime under state jurisdiction 764 00:43:00.079 --> 00:43:04.000 for him to plead to? Acosta, no. The decision was 765 00:43:04.039 --> 00:43:07.139 made to proceed. She went forward and then she negotiated 766 00:43:07.179 --> 00:43:10.519 this using her best judgment. Stansberry, did you personally speak 767 00:43:10.539 --> 00:43:14.119 to Epstein's attorneys at any point during the negotiation? Acosta, 768 00:43:14.449 --> 00:43:16.710 so as I've said previously, they asked for a meeting. 769 00:43:17.369 --> 00:43:19.409 I thought the case would go to Washington. I thought 770 00:43:19.429 --> 00:43:21.130 it was better to have the meeting in the office. 771 00:43:21.510 --> 00:43:23.829 We granted the meeting. I was there. She was there. 772 00:43:24.070 --> 00:43:26.389 The first assistant was there. The criminal chief was there. 773 00:43:26.750 --> 00:43:29.570 Representatives of the FBI were there. The managing attorney of 774 00:43:29.610 --> 00:43:32.300 the Palm Beach office was there. They came in. They 775 00:43:32.380 --> 00:43:34.380 asked us to drop the case. I think they said 776 00:43:34.400 --> 00:43:37.059 in the alternative, do some kind of home confinement thing. 777 00:43:38.849 --> 00:43:41.110 Their argument was that it's a local crime, not a 778 00:43:41.130 --> 00:43:43.489 federal crime, and that we don't have evidence to make 779 00:43:43.530 --> 00:43:46.369 it a federal crime. I said, I've heard you. Can 780 00:43:46.389 -->

00:43:48.590 you please leave the room? I looked around. I said, 781 00:43:48.630 --> 00:43:51.269 does anyone disagree with our approach? No one spoke up. 782 00:43:52.150 --> 00:43:54.460 They came back in and said, we've heard you, but 783 00:43:54.500 --> 00:44:00.719 we're proceeding as we see fit. And the meeting concluded. Stansberry, 784 00:44:01.119 --> 00:44:03.800 did you socialize with them outside of the office? Acosta, 785 00:44:03.820 --> 00:44:06.139 not during this time. I knew them before, and we've 786 00:44:06.159 --> 00:44:10.039 talked about that, but during the negotiation... Stansberry, at any 787 00:44:10.139 --> 00:44:13.940 point between the beginning of the DOJ FBI investigation and 788 00:44:13.960 --> 00:44:17.280 the execution of the non-prosecution agreement, did you ever socialize 789 00:44:17.300 --> 00:44:21.280 with Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys? Acosta, I did not socialize. There 790 00:44:21.320 --> 00:44:23.760 was a breakfast meeting that took place after the agreement 791 00:44:23.780 --> 00:44:26.599 was signed. We talked about that at the breakfast meeting. 792 00:44:26.900 --> 00:44:29.139 It was 20 years ago. I don't remember the content. 793 00:44:30.260 --> 00:44:33.760 My informed speculation is that when they were trying to 794 00:44:33.780 --> 00:44:36.969 recuse Ms. Villafana from the case, the agreement had already 795 00:44:36.989 --> 00:44:40.530 been signed. She was recommending associate of her boyfriend, as 796 00:44:40.570 --> 00:44:42.969 we'll call it, the special master, the person that was 797 00:44:42.989 --> 00:44:46.269 going to help obtain monetary recoveries for the victims. I'm 798 00:44:46.289 --> 00:44:48.769 going to speculate it would have made sense for me 799 00:44:48.789 --> 00:44:50.610 to find out what they were trying to recuse her 800 00:44:50.659 --> 00:44:53.840 for and what the specifics were. We decided not to 801 00:44:53.860 --> 00:44:56.000 recuse her from the case. We thought that she did 802 00:44:56.059 --> 00:45:00.000 not act incorrectly. Other than that, I have no recollection 803 00:45:00.480 --> 00:45:04.119 of any social interaction with them. And I should add, 804 00:45:04.139 --> 00:45:06.760 I was in Miami, they were in Washington, so it 805 00:45:06.800 --> 00:45:09.320 was different cities as well. Alright, we're going to wrap 806 00:45:09.389 --> 00:45:11.730 up right here, and in the next episode, we're going 807 00:45:11.750 --> 00:45:14.429 to finish this bad boy off. All of the information 808 00:45:14.449 --> 00:45:16.909 that goes with this episode can be found in the 809 00:45:16.949 --> 00:45:20.210 description box. What's up everyone, and welcome to another episode 810 00:45:20.590 --> 00:45:23.389 of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right 811 00:45:23.409 --> 00:45:26.550 back to that Alex Acosta deposition, and we're going to 812 00:45:26.570 --> 00:45:31.719 finish it off. SANSBURY Going back to the federal nexus, 813 00:45:32.159 --> 00:45:35.099 it's our understanding that there were financial records collected as 814 00:45:35.139 --> 00:45:39.699 part of the investigation that included an investigation into international 815 00:45:39.800 --> 00:45:43.579 wire transfers. Are you aware of that? Mr. Acosta, I 816 00:45:43.619 --> 00:45:46.659 don't recall a financial aspect to this. We were focused 817 00:45:46.699 --> 00:45:51.510 on the inappropriate acts that took place in Palm Beach. Ms. Stansberry, 818 00:45:51.750 --> 00:45:55.269 was it ever discussed as part of the federal investigation? Acosta, 819 00:45:55.289 --> 00:45:58.869 this was 20 years ago. I don't remember. Stansberry, you 820 00:45:58.889 --> 00:46:02.110 don't recall whether or not In the most high-profile cases 821 00:46:02.159 --> 00:46:05.619 of your life that led to your resignation from the administration, 822 00:46:05.960 --> 00:46:10.440 whether or not the financial transactions were investigated? Stansberry, as 823 00:46:10.539 --> 00:46:14.519 part of the investigation? Acosta, with respect, with respect. At 824 00:46:14.559 --> 00:46:17.250 the time, it was high-profile. It was not the most 825 00:46:17.289 --> 00:46:21.469 high-profile case of my life at the time. Ms. Stansberry? Okay, 826 00:46:21.489 --> 00:46:27.869 that's fine. Acosta, but the focus. Stansberry, but in any case. Acosta, right. Stansberry, 827 00:46:28.170 --> 00:46:31.550 it's established fact. Okay, you know, we've been working with 828 00:46:31.610 --> 00:46:35.150 the majority to get copies of the financial records. Acosta, 829 00:46:35.289 --> 00:46:39.309 could I ask a question? Stansberry, yes. Acosta, are there 830 00:46:39.349 --> 00:46:42.550 communications about a financial aspect to the case? Are there, 831 00:46:42.590 --> 00:46:46.389 you know, we've got a full OPR report here, 300 pages. 832 00:46:46.789 --> 00:46:49.289 I don't believe that there's references to a financial respect 833 00:46:49.309 --> 00:46:52.510 to the case in the OPR report. All by design, 834 00:46:52.780 --> 00:46:56.280 like I've told you. The idea of this OPR report 835 00:46:56.500 --> 00:46:59.519 was to give people like Acosta cover. So when they 836 00:46:59.559 --> 00:47:01.840 finally get called on the carpet, they can refer back 837 00:47:01.880 --> 00:47:04.329 to the report and wrap themselves in it like armor. 838 00:47:04.849 --> 00:47:08.630 And that's exactly what we've seen Acosta do. Stansberry, I'm 839 00:47:08.769 --> 00:47:13.150 asking you, Acosta, but Stansberry, if Acosta, but you said 840 00:47:13.429 --> 00:47:17.030 it was an established fact. Stansberry, well, let me, Acosta, 841 00:47:17.349 --> 00:47:21.420 gently questioning how much of an established fact. Stansberry, you 842 00:47:21.440 --> 00:47:24.179 were the prosecutor, not me. I'm asking you questions to 843 00:47:24.219 --> 00:47:28.030 understand what you investigated. So, what I'm trying to understand is, 844 00:47:28.289 -->

00:47:31.150 did you look at potential financial crimes and discuss that 845 00:47:31.230 --> 00:47:33.429 as part of the decision as to whether or not 846 00:47:33.469 --> 00:47:37.869 to pursue federal charges? Acosta, to my recollection, the discussion 847 00:47:37.909 --> 00:47:41.409 was focused on the sex crimes. Stansberry, and why not 848 00:47:41.449 --> 00:47:44.809 on the financial crimes? Acosta, again, this was 20 years ago. 849 00:47:45.179 --> 00:47:48.500 I can't speak to that. Ms. Stansberry, was that not 850 00:47:48.559 --> 00:47:52.659 part of what was recommended through the line prosecutor? Acosta, again, 851 00:47:52.719 --> 00:47:55.230 I can't speak to that. I do not recall the 852 00:47:55.269 --> 00:47:57.920 discussions over financial. If there have been, you know, a 853 00:47:57.949 --> 00:48:01.420 federal nexus on financial crimes, again, we wouldn't have had 854 00:48:01.719 --> 00:48:06.400 these long discussions about a federal nexus. Stansbury, okay. Well, 855 00:48:06.699 --> 00:48:09.119 we'll see where the evidence leads us. I think I'm 856 00:48:09.139 --> 00:48:12.880 done with that line. If you have other things, Mr. Anzari, 857 00:48:13.280 --> 00:48:16.960 do you have anything else you want to ask? Anzari, no. Stansbury, 858 00:48:17.300 --> 00:48:19.610 give me one moment here. I think the final set 859 00:48:19.650 --> 00:48:22.969 of questions that we had were around the FBI's recommendations 860 00:48:23.010 --> 00:48:26.630 to arrest Mr. Epstein. Based on communications that were transmitted 861 00:48:26.650 --> 00:48:29.849 to us, it looks like the FBI communicated that they 862 00:48:29.889 --> 00:48:32.730 had prepared to arrest Mr. Epstein in the case, but 863 00:48:32.789 --> 00:48:37.969 that the U.S. Attorney's Office had essentially interfered in the arrest. Mr. Acosta, 864 00:48:38.269 --> 00:48:41.110 so let me ask that question. Then I want to 865 00:48:41.159 --> 00:48:44.119 back up to your prior question about financial crimes. I 866 00:48:44.159 --> 00:48:46.219 believe what you're referring to is a request to go 867 00:48:46.280 --> 00:48:48.800 forward when he was in the Virgin Islands. That was 868 00:48:48.840 --> 00:48:51.619 discussed a little bit earlier today. And what I pointed 869 00:48:51.739 --> 00:48:55.110 out at the time, What we had was a draft 870 00:48:55.150 --> 00:48:57.570 memo to go forward. That memo had not been vetted 871 00:48:57.630 --> 00:49:00.869 by the supervisory chain in every case, not just this case. 872 00:49:01.230 --> 00:49:04.050 The prosecuting attorney writes a memo. They write a draft. 873 00:49:05.110 --> 00:49:07.929 That draft gets vetted. It gets changed. Not everyone in 874 00:49:07.949 --> 00:49:11.510 the office agrees. The charges are changed. I believe at 875 00:49:11.530 --> 00:49:14.809 that point, her direct supervisor had already commented that he 876 00:49:14.849 --> 00:49:17.670 did not agree with her charging decisions, and that was 877 00:49:17.710 --> 00:49:20.980 the beginning of a conversation on how to charge. And 878 00:49:21.019 --> 00:49:22.579 so it would not be the case that a U.S. 879 00:49:22.619 --> 00:49:25.699 Attorney's Office would authorize an arrest on a draft document 880 00:49:26.079 --> 00:49:28.860 that hasn't been approved by the immediate supervisor and is 881 00:49:28.880 --> 00:49:32.280 still being drafted. Stansberry, and why did you not sign 882 00:49:32.340 --> 00:49:34.869 off on it, or why did the supervisor not sign 883 00:49:34.929 --> 00:49:38.170 off on it? Acosta, so based on the OPR report, 884 00:49:38.590 --> 00:49:40.949 Not a fucking thought of his own, huh? OPR this, 885 00:49:41.090 --> 00:49:44.639 OPR that. Vafangul to the OPR report and anyone involved 886 00:49:44.679 --> 00:49:47.599 in it. I believe that there was a difference of 887 00:49:47.679 --> 00:49:50.099 opinion as to the theory of the case and how 888 00:49:50.119 --> 00:49:53.219 to proceed. And that was the beginning of the discussion 889 00:49:53.480 --> 00:49:58.809 within the office. Ms. Stansbury, about the non-prosecution agreement. Acosta, 890 00:49:59.010 --> 00:50:02.230 that eventually led, that eventually led that way. And I 891 00:50:02.269 --> 00:50:04.670 want to back up, if I could, to the extent 892 00:50:04.690 --> 00:50:07.469 that there were financial crimes, those financial crimes would not 893 00:50:07.489 --> 00:50:10.349 have been covered by... and could not have been preceded 894 00:50:11.010 --> 00:50:13.829 in other districts, or could have even preceded in the 895 00:50:13.849 --> 00:50:17.050 Southern District, because it's a different set of statutes. And 896 00:50:17.110 --> 00:50:19.230 so just like New York preceded with this, you know, 897 00:50:19.289 --> 00:50:22.570 with Ghislaine Maxwell, if there were financial crimes, that could 898 00:50:22.610 --> 00:50:26.159 have preceded. And so if that was being investigated, it 899 00:50:26.199 --> 00:50:29.679 could continue to have been investigated. The two matters, unless 900 00:50:29.699 --> 00:50:32.440 they're heavily interlinked, but even if they were, you know, 901 00:50:32.760 --> 00:50:35.119 it's a separate set of matters to my mind. And 902 00:50:35.179 --> 00:50:39.269 so one would not have precluded the other. Stansberry, including 903 00:50:39.309 --> 00:50:43.570 the non-prosecution agreement, would you apply to financial crimes? Acosta, 904 00:50:43.590 --> 00:50:46.510 so my read on the non-prosecution agreement is it would 905 00:50:46.550 --> 00:50:50.269 not apply to financial crimes, no. And the non-prosecution agreement, 906 00:50:50.789 --> 00:50:54.469 I should also add, to be clear, by its terms, 907 00:50:54.769 --> 00:50:57.699 was limited to the Southern District of Florida, which is 908 00:50:57.760 --> 00:51:01.000 why the case in New York was able to be brought. Stansberry, 909 00:51:01.019 --> 00:51:04.019 I have one more question. With

regards to any evidence 910 00:51:04.260 --> 00:51:06.679 that may have been collected by the FBI or DOJ, 911 00:51:07.030 --> 00:51:09.630 does the president have the authority to unseal those documents 912 00:51:10.110 --> 00:51:13.309 if there is not otherwise a very specific court order 913 00:51:13.369 --> 00:51:17.110 regarding them? Acosta, if the seal is placed by the court, 914 00:51:17.369 --> 00:51:19.150 then it would have to be the court that goes 915 00:51:19.570 --> 00:51:23.869 to that. Stansbury, but any other document that's not under 916 00:51:23.909 --> 00:51:27.769 court order, he can technically, Acosta, documents that aren't under 917 00:51:27.809 --> 00:51:31.130 court orders can be, if there is no prohibition, then 918 00:51:31.170 --> 00:51:34.050 whoever is the custodian of the document can proceed as 919 00:51:34.090 --> 00:51:38.409 they see fit. Stansberry, I think that's it. Acosta, that's 920 00:51:38.449 --> 00:51:41.679 my opinion. I'm not speaking for the executive branch, but 921 00:51:41.760 --> 00:51:46.179 absent a prohibition, a custodian can proceed. Stansberry, well, I'm 922 00:51:46.199 --> 00:51:48.679 sure the White House attorneys think the president has total 923 00:51:48.719 --> 00:51:53.519 power in this matter, but that's my editorializing. Acosta, off 924 00:51:53.559 --> 00:51:57.070 the record. We are now off the record. Thank you. 925 00:51:57.179 --> 00:52:01.369 All right. We're done, sir. So that is the completion 926 00:52:01.789 --> 00:52:05.380 of the Alex Acosta deposition. And as you can imagine, 927 00:52:06.300 --> 00:52:08.820 I find it to be disgusting as fuck. The whole 928 00:52:08.860 --> 00:52:13.099 entire thing was just an evasion of real answers, an 929 00:52:13.119 --> 00:52:16.199 evasion of justice, and a master class at how to 930 00:52:16.260 --> 00:52:21.090 avoid answering any questions with any sort of certainty. The 931 00:52:21.130 --> 00:52:23.769 fact that he kept relying on the OPR report time 932 00:52:23.789 --> 00:52:28.099 and time again is very disgusting and very disturbing. he 933 00:52:28.139 --> 00:52:30.639 shouldn't have been allowed to rely on that report. Now, 934 00:52:30.679 --> 00:52:35.500 you can refer to it, but that gives him the cover, right? Oh, well, 935 00:52:35.539 --> 00:52:39.239 the OPR said, the OPR said, and the OPR report itself, 936 00:52:39.920 --> 00:52:43.380 I have questions about that. I have questions about the 937 00:52:43.420 --> 00:52:46.289 veracity of it, and I certainly have questions about how 938 00:52:46.369 --> 00:52:49.650 honest people were when they were talking with the Inspector General. 939 00:52:50.690 --> 00:52:52.690 And that's why I've called from the very beginning to 940 00:52:52.730 --> 00:52:55.289 have all these people that we're talking about brought in, 941 00:52:55.510 --> 00:52:59.230 put under oath, and talked to again. but not with 942 00:52:59.250 --> 00:53:03.469 the cameras off. The days of

this happening in secret 943 00:53:03.690 --> 00:53:07.750 behind closed doors and us just getting these transcripts should 944 00:53:07.789 --> 00:53:11.659 be long over. There's no national security here. There's nothing 945 00:53:11.679 --> 00:53:15.900 here that's going to, you know, damage anybody. Well, unless 946 00:53:15.920 --> 00:53:18.719 you're one of Epstein's friends. But besides that, the rest 947 00:53:18.760 --> 00:53:21.099 of us deserve to know what's going on. And I 948 00:53:21.139 --> 00:53:23.699 don't know about you folks, but I'm not exactly trusting 949 00:53:24.159 --> 00:53:28.579 of what the federal government's up to. especially considering what 950 00:53:28.619 --> 00:53:32.840 we're hearing about Maxwell, and, you know, commuting a sentence maybe, pardons, 951 00:53:33.039 --> 00:53:35.260 the whole thing. So forgive me if I have no 952 00:53:35.300 --> 00:53:39.019 confidence in the most transparent administration of all time. And 953 00:53:39.059 --> 00:53:42.409 that right there is the story of Alex Acosta's so-called deposition, 954 00:53:42.889 --> 00:53:47.309 a masterclass in cowardice, deception, and bureaucratic rot. A man 955 00:53:47.690 --> 00:53:49.730 who helped hand a predator the deal of a lifetime, 956 00:53:50.070 --> 00:53:52.789 sitting under oath pretending not to remember, not to know, 957 00:53:53.110 --> 00:53:56.610 not to be responsible. Every answer was a dodge, every 958 00:53:56.670 --> 00:54:00.750 pause a calculation, every word a smirk aimed squarely at 959 00:54:00.789 --> 00:54:04.070 the people who still believe justice means something in this country. 960 00:54:05.150 --> 00:54:07.949 Nothing was learned, because nothing was meant to be learned. 961 00:54:08.699 --> 00:54:12.559 The powerful were never in danger, only inconvenienced, the survivors 962 00:54:12.599 --> 00:54:15.900 got silenced, the public got spinned, and the predators, once again, 963 00:54:15.920 --> 00:54:20.800 get peace of mind. Another disgusting performance designed to bury 964 00:54:20.840 --> 00:54:23.489 the truth, one more time under a mountain, of I 965 00:54:23.510 --> 00:54:27.369 Can't Recall. And in the end, as always, the protected 966 00:54:27.429 --> 00:54:29.630 remain protected and the rest of us get the same 967 00:54:29.670 --> 00:54:32.449 old parting gift from the system. A middle finger and 968 00:54:32.489 --> 00:54:34.849 a pat on the ass just to remind us who 969 00:54:34.929 --> 00:54:38.110 really runs the show. And in my opinion, that's the 970 00:54:38.150 --> 00:54:40.619 part that should set every nerve on fire. The fact 971 00:54:40.639 --> 00:54:42.780 that these people can sit there under oath in front 972 00:54:42.800 --> 00:54:45.179 of cameras in front of the world and still lie 973 00:54:45.199 --> 00:54:47.780 through their teeth with total confidence that nothing will happen 974 00:54:47.800 --> 00:54:51.780 to them. They've built this machine that protects itself from consequence. 975 00:54:52.269 --> 00:54:56.119 The DOJ, the prosecutors, the so-called watchdogs, all of them 976 00:54:56.159 --> 00:54:59.519 circle in the wagons, pretending this is justice, when it's 977 00:54:59.539 --> 00:55:03.300 nothing more than a carefully choreographed pantomime. They call it 978 00:55:03.320 --> 00:55:06.139 a deposition, I call it a burial. Because that's what 979 00:55:06.179 --> 00:55:09.989 they're doing, burying the truth, burying accountability, burying the last 980 00:55:10.030 --> 00:55:12.570 flicker of faith the public might still have in this 981 00:55:12.650 --> 00:55:16.090 disease-ass system. And while they're at it, they're counting on 982 00:55:16.110 --> 00:55:19.119 your exhaustion, like I always tell you. They think they 983 00:55:19.159 --> 00:55:21.480 can drag this out long enough if they throw enough 984 00:55:21.559 --> 00:55:25.019 legal jargon and smirking non-answers at us. We're going to 985 00:55:25.039 --> 00:55:28.619 eventually look away. That's always been the strategy. Stall, spin, 986 00:55:28.659 --> 00:55:31.670 and suffocate the truth under the weight of apathy. But 987 00:55:31.710 --> 00:55:35.989 here's the thing. We're watching. People are paying attention. There's 988 00:55:36.010 --> 00:55:40.369 no more gaslighting the world about Jeffrey Epstein. Acosta's deposition 989 00:55:40.650 --> 00:55:43.010 wasn't just a sham. It was a warning shot from 990 00:55:43.050 --> 00:55:46.090 the establishment that they still think they can control the narrative. 991 00:55:46.510 --> 00:55:49.380 But the tide's turning. And when it finally crashes down, 992 00:55:49.619 --> 00:55:52.599 there is no amount of I don't recall that's going 993 00:55:52.639 --> 00:55:56.340 to save them from the reckoning they've spent decades trying 994 00:55:56.360 --> 00:55:59.469 to avoid. As for us, well, we're going to continue 995 00:55:59.710 --> 00:56:03.130 to swim through all this disgusting muck looking for that clarity. 996 00:56:04.389 --> 00:56:06.269 And the next deposition that we're going to dive into 997 00:56:06.869 --> 00:56:10.389 is Nadia Marcinkova's. And I promise you, you do not 998 00:56:10.429 --> 00:56:13.300 want to miss that one. All of the information that 999 00:56:13.340 --> 00:56:16.699 goes with this episode can be found in the description box.