The former US attorney who negotiated a controversial 2008 plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein defended that agreement in a closed-door interview with House investigators last month, according to a transcript of the interview released by lawmakers.
Alex Acosta, the former US attorney from the Southern District of Florida who later served as labor secretary during President Donald Trump’s first term, disagreed with the assessment that he gave Epstein a “sweetheart deal” and argued that it would have been a “crapshoot” to take the case to federal trial at the time.
In an extensive interview with the House Oversight Committee, Acosta reflected on what he viewed as his constraints as the US attorney on the case and why he felt he did the best he could with the circumstances he was navigating.
The interview was part of the committee’s bipartisan investigation into Epstein, the late convicted sex offender, which has included subpoenas for documents and closed-door testimony. The congressional investigation comes amid growing calls for more transparency over the case.
Acosta resigned from the post of Secretary of Labor in 2019 after he faced furor over the plea deal. Epstein avoided a federal trial at the time and served only 13 months in prison for state prostitution charges over his involvement with underage girls. A Miami Herald investigation published in 2018 described the plea deal, negotiated by Acosta, as the “deal of a lifetime.”
In his testimony to Congress, Acosta said that a Washington-based attorney from the Justice Department’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section who reviewed the case said going to trial would be a “crapshoot” – a judgement he apparently agreed with.
“Ultimately, the trial was a crapshoot, and we just wanted the guy to go to jail,” Acosta told the House Oversight panel.
“If we go to trial and we roll the dice and we do the crapshoot and we lose, what kind of signal does that send? That says that he got away with it, that you can do that more. And so we thought it was very, very important to send that signal, and that’s why – that’s one reason we favored the negotiated plea,” he later added.
Acosta laid out why he thought the victims’ statements and issues of jurisdiction would have posed challenges to the case if it had gone to trial in 2008.
“Every attorney that looked at the case, from the prosecuting attorney, again, through the entire chain, looked at the evidence, and there were evidentiary issues with the victims,” Acosta stated. “Many victims refused to testify. Many victims had changing stories. All of us understood why they had changing stories, but they did. And defense counsel would have – cross-examination would have been withering.”
Acosta also said investigators did not have evidence that Epstein traveled with any victims across state lines, which would have supported a federal charge, or that there were other individuals involved.
“At the time, one of the major questions in the case was, is this a Federal case or is it a local case?” Acosta said.
While Acosta acknowledged that in the political climate today, “there’s a greater desire for ‘just go for it’” among the public,” he claimed that was not the case in the early 2000s when he was making the decision.
“Myself, the prosecuting attorney, the managing attorney of the Palm Beach office, the Criminal chief, and the first assistant all favored a pre-trial resolution. It was across-the-board,” Acosta said.
Acosta has previously defended his handling of the plea deal, but the release of the closed-door interview transcript offers extensive insight into the former US attorney’s decision-making in the highly scrutinized, and criticized, case.
And even though Acosta stood firm behind his actions, he acknowledged that others have had strong criticisms of his work.
“Looking back in hindsight, there are a number of issues that I will, you know, that I will say caused the community and the victims to feel – to feel that this was not a good resolution, and I get that,” Acosta said. “But from the perspective of our prosecutors at the time, based on the evidence we had at the time, you know, everyone in our office wanted to put him in jail, and that’s what we did.”
Acosta placed blame on his state counterparts for allowing Epstein to participate in a work release program that enabled him to be outside of the jail during the business day.
“The work release was granted by the Palm Beach sheriff. Our office opposed it. Our office had every expectation that he would have continuous confinement. We were upset – more than upset. We were – what’s the polite word for ticked off? I’ll say ticked off. We were ticked off that he didn’t do so,” Acosta testified.
“When we found out about it we objected. We objected in writing. We objected fully,” Acosta detailed.
Acosta says it was ‘entirely’ his choice to resign as labor secretary amid Epstein furor
Acosta repeatedly said he did not know if Trump was interviewed as part of his case and said the decision of who was interviewed was not up to him.
“Not to my knowledge,” Acosta said when pressed by investigators. “It would not have been my practice to get involved in who was and who wasn’t interviewed.” He added he had no recollection of ever seeing documents where Trump’s name surfaced during the investigation into Epstein.
Acosta said he never spoke to Trump until he was under consideration to be his Labor Secretary. Acosta said there were only two times the Epstein matter could have come up in discussion with Trump or anyone in his administration, but was not certain or specific on the details.
The first was during his vetting process.
“I may have had a communication – I don’t recall if I did or if it was simply – or if there was some written question or otherwise. But at some point in the vetting process, a question may have arisen,” Acosta said. “I honestly don’t remember.”
Acosta also said he had a conversation with Trump’s then- communications team, but did not give an exact date and was vague on specifics.
I know in The Washington Post there was a story above the fold at one point,” he said, “And so I talked to the communications team, because the communications team needed to be briefed.”
Acosta was also asked about rumors that Epstein had ties to the intelligence community., He said during the investigation no one from the intelligence community reached out to the office about Epstein and that he had no reason to believe Epstein was an asset to a foreign or domestic intelligence agency. “If there was any secure information, procedures would have been triggered that were never triggered,” Acosta said.
On his eventual decision to resign in 2019, Acosta said, “I was neither instructed to resign, it wasn’t suggested that I resign. It was entirely my choice, my decision.”
During the interview, Acosta was shown at least two news articles that connected Trump to Epstein.
One was a New York Magazine article from 2002 prior to Acosta’s term as US attorney, where Trump is quoted saying he knows Epstein for 15 years and calls him a “terrific guy.”
“He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life,” Trump is quoted saying the 2002 article.
The second article Acosta was shown was from October 2007 –– after Acosta’s office had executed the non-prosecution agreement but before Epstein had plead guilty—that alleged Epstein would try and “procure girls” at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club and was banned as a result.
Acosta was then asked if he is aware if Trump was interviewed about women at Mar-a-Lago.
“I am not aware of who was interviewed and not interviewed in the case generally because U.S. attorneys do not become involved in deciding who gets interviewed and who does not get interviewed,” he said.
For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com
