Ranking Member Robert Garcia’s Statement on Bombshell News Former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta Failed to Pursue Epstein Financial Crimes
Washington, D.C. — Today, Rep. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, released the following statement on the bombshell expose from Bloomberg which revealed shocking evidence on Former U.S Attorney and Trump Labor Secretary Alex Acosta’s mishandling of the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. New documents suggest that Acosta’s investigation of Epstein, which resulted in a sweetheart deal and non-prosecution agreement, uncovered far more evidence than previously known regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s financial crimes. In the Committee’s closed door deposition with Alex Acosta in October, he said he looked at “all of the evidence,” and claimed he had no memory of an investigation of Epstein’s financial crimes.
“It is now clear that former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta may have misled Congress in his testimony to the Oversight Committee. Acosta never admitted that his office was intimately involved with an investigation into Epstein’s financial network.
Attorney General Bondi is now actively concealing details of an investigation into Epstein’s finances, and is defying a subpoena to turn those records over to Congress. We have made a major breakthrough in our investigation and we won’t stop until we get justice for Epstein’s survivors. The files must be released immediately, and it’s time to end this White House cover-up,” said Ranking Member Robert Garcia.
Copied below find key moments from the deposition where Alex Acosta’s testimony was false and now brings his entire sworn testimony into question:
Acosta states that prosecutors looked at “all of the evidence,” but omits financial records as part of the evidence and asserts that ultimately, the Epstein case was weak (47:11-25 by Ranking Member Garcia).
Mr. Garcia: So you would disagree that calling it a sweetheart deal, you would disagree with that assessment?
Mr. Acosta: I disagree with that. And I think it's really easy, with respect
Mr. Garcia: And you're also aware, sir, that he, of course, went on to abuse other women?
Mr. Acosta: So what I was saying is I think it's really easy in this era to sort of label something with an easy sound bite. We talked about, and I can talk again, about our and I need to go back to your question.
Democratic Counsel: I was going to ask you, you answered the question
Mr. Acosta: Yeah. I need to go back to your question. I'm sorry, but I was interrupted. I'm trying. But we talked about the assessment of the first assistant was that this would be a very difficult case. The assessment of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity prosecutor that came down from Washington, D.C., that looked at all the evidence, looked at all the evidence and said, quote/unquote, this case would be a crap shoot. That wasn't my those weren't my words; those were her words. The assessment of the Criminal chief, who used to be the head of Major Crimes, was that this would be a difficult case.
Acosta states that he doesn’t recall collecting financial records as part of the investigation into Epstein (151:5-24 by Democratic Counsel)
Democratic Counsel: To your knowledge, did your office obtain Mr. Epstein's flight records?
Mr. Acosta: Once again, I did not direct how the office proceeded with the investigation. I don't know 20 years later what may or may not have been part of a factual briefing.
Democratic Counsel: So I'm going to ask the same question with respect to Mr. Epstein's financial records. If you want to give the same answer.
Mr. Acosta: Again
Democratic Counsel: That's fine.
Mr. Acosta: Same answer.
Democratic Counsel: Okay. So my question, in light of all of that: Would it, in your view, have been possible at the time the NPA was entered into to make a reliable assessment regarding the strength of the case against Mr. Epstein without cooperating witnesses, without having spoken to employees, without flight logs, without the contents of Mr. Epstein's computers or his financial records, to the extent that evidence existed?
Mr. Acosta: So the matter came to our office in 2006. The prosecutor on the case was an experienced prosecutor. She had discretion to proceed as she saw fit. At some point, she said, “It's now time to move to the next stage, and it's time to bring this matter to resolution.” That, again, was within her discretion. Hindsight's 20/20. In retrospect, maybe she should have done more; maybe she should not have done more. It's very difficult, sitting here 20 years later, to second guess her decisions.
Acosta states for a second time that he doesn’t recall collecting financial records as part of the investigation into Epstein (169:3-13 by Rep. Stansbury).
Ms. Stansbury: You were the prosecutor, not me. I'm asking you questions to understand what you investigated. So what I am trying to understand is, did you look at potential financial crimes and discuss that as part of the decision as to whether or not to pursue Federal charges?
Mr. Acosta: To my recollection, the discussion was focused on the sex crimes.
Ms. Stansbury: And why not on the financial crimes?
Mr. Acosta: Again, this was 20 years ago, I can't speak to that.
Ms. Stansbury: Was that not a part of what was recommended through the line prosecutor?
Mr. Acosta: Again, I can't speak to that. I do not recall a discussion over financial ‑‑ if there had been, you know, a Federal nexus on financial crimes, again, we wouldn't have had these long discussions about a Federal nexus.
###