Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. Alex Acosta recently appeared before Congress and gave
Speaker 1: his version of events when it comes to his role
Speaker 1: in Jeffrey Epstein's non prosecution agreement, and according to reports,
Speaker 1: alex Acosta didn't show any kind of empathy, any kind
Speaker 1: of regret that this Plea deal was initiated in the
Speaker 1: first place. And that's because alex Acosta is and always
Speaker 1: will be an absolute coward. You want to talk about
Speaker 1: somebody that was built to be a yes man, to
Speaker 1: be the fall guy, you're looking at him. Because as
Speaker 1: much as I find alex Acosta to be reprehensible, I
Speaker 1: don't hold him directly responsible for that Plea deal. And look,
Speaker 1: I know that goes against the narrative that Julie K.
Speaker 1: Brown pitched, but I don't agree as far as alex
Speaker 1: Acosta's role, Like I always say, he was middle management, right,
Speaker 1: he wasn't the guy really pull in the strings. He
Speaker 1: wasn't the guy behind the curtain. And what's the best
Speaker 1: evidence for that. Well, now we're talking about alex Acosta,
Speaker 1: and we're not talking about Mukasey and Phelipe because when
Speaker 1: you cut away all the fat of the bureaucracy. Those
Speaker 1: were the two people who were in charge. There was
Speaker 1: nothing like this happening without those dudes signing off, especially
Speaker 1: considering who we're talking about here, when we're talking about
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein. We've already seen the proof, don't you remember
Speaker 1: in the OIG report itself, where they talked about how
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers reached out to Maine Justice to get
Speaker 1: a deal and to get things worked out. What do
Speaker 1: you think they're talking about. They most certainly weren't talking
Speaker 1: about the weather. They were figuring out how to make
Speaker 1: the best deal possible to keep everything quiet and make
Speaker 1: sure that their boy and their asset, Jeffrey Epstein, was
Speaker 1: able to keep it moving. And please make no mistake,
Speaker 1: alex Acosta didn't have that kind of power. He couldn't
Speaker 1: pull those kinds of strings now in his local little
Speaker 1: district there with regular people. Yeah, the brass on the
Speaker 1: seventh floor isn't going to worry about a case that
Speaker 1: alex Acosta brings against a regular person. But once you
Speaker 1: flip that script and they start getting calls from the
Speaker 1: kind of lawyers that they were getting calls from Well,
Speaker 1: things change, and that's not speculation, that's fact. Today's article
Speaker 1: is from CNN and the headline former US attorney defends
Speaker 1: Epstein's two thousand and eight plea deal in hours long
Speaker 1: appearance on Capitol Hill. I cannot wait to get my
Speaker 1: hands on these transcripts, and of course, the same way
Speaker 1: we're going through the Bill Barr transcripts, we're going to
Speaker 1: go through these ones as well, because I can only
Speaker 1: imagine what this slinky spine son of a bitch had
Speaker 1: to say. This article was authored by Annie Grayer, the
Speaker 1: former US attorney who negotiated a controversial two thousand and
Speaker 1: eight plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein. Defended that agreement in
Speaker 1: a closed door meeting with House investigators on Friday. According
Speaker 1: to democrats in the room, I cannot even imagine how
Speaker 1: you could defend that non prosecution agreement. And furthermore, the
Speaker 1: DOJ CO get rid of that thing tomorrow if they
Speaker 1: really wanted to. They don't want to. They have no
Speaker 1: desire to remove the MPa because if they did, that
Speaker 1: is the quickest way to unravel everything that happened here.
Speaker 1: You start bringing in people like Sarah Kellen Leslie Groff
Speaker 1: and putting the screws to him. Watch how quickly everything
Speaker 1: starts to tumble, And watch how quickly that amnesia leaves people.
Speaker 1: Nobody's trying to go away for forty to fifty sixty
Speaker 1: years on a rico charge. Certainly not these people. It's
Speaker 1: very clear that alex Acosta ran a deeply flawed investigation
Speaker 1: of the Epstein case. Representative Robert Garcia, the top Democrat
Speaker 1: on the panel, told reporters during a break in the
Speaker 1: meeting he also would not admit that mister Epstein received
Speaker 1: a sweetheart deal, which has been widely reported and agreed upon. Now,
Speaker 1: if you can't even admit that fact, then I don't
Speaker 1: even know what to tell you. Because it's relatively apparent
Speaker 1: to anyone who is in blind and moronic that this
Speaker 1: was the deal of a century, the deal of a lifetime,
Speaker 1: the deal of one hundred lifetimes. Nobody else has ever
Speaker 1: gotten a deal like this, But all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: this degenerate fuck comes storming in and gets this great deal.
Speaker 1: We're gonna need more from you, alex Acosta. Starting with
Speaker 1: an explanation. According to a readout from the panel, Acosta
Speaker 1: expressed concern over the hours long testimony to the House
Speaker 1: Oversight Committee that had prosecutors lost a trial, it could
Speaker 1: have sent a message that the late convicted sex offenders'
Speaker 1: crimes could continue. Imagine that bullshit. Meanwhile, the sentence he
Speaker 1: did catch he was still molesting girls while he was
Speaker 1: supposedly locked up. So Alex Acosta up here talking this
Speaker 1: bullshit is something else. This is a man that really
Speaker 1: has a lot of audacity, a lot of gall to
Speaker 1: get up here and say this kind of shit. A
Speaker 1: key issue in the US Southern District of Florida's handling
Speaker 1: of the case was we whether it should be prosecuted
Speaker 1: federally or locally? He said, per the readout, I mean,
Speaker 1: why would you want to prosecute it locally when you
Speaker 1: can do it on a federal level and really hammer
Speaker 1: this son of a bitch. And for all the morons
Speaker 1: in the back, these were little fourteen fifteen year old girls,
Speaker 1: so they're not adults. They can't even consent. But according
Speaker 1: to Alex LaCosta, that shouldn't be a federal case. And again,
Speaker 1: we're not talking about one or two. We're talking about
Speaker 1: over one thousand, according to the DOJ's own report, and
Speaker 1: we're also talking about numerous financial crimes. I'm talking about numerous,
Speaker 1: but sure, let's kick it down to the state level,
Speaker 1: where Jeffrey Epstein has some pull and where he can
Speaker 1: make things move in a direction he wants them to move.
Speaker 1: Oh what he could do that federally as well. Yeah, true,
Speaker 1: but not without the same level of scrutiny. And that,
Speaker 1: of course, is all part of it. They wanted to
Speaker 1: keep it quiet, so keep it contained locally, as opposed
Speaker 1: to making it a federal case where it's nationwide. And
Speaker 1: it worked out great, right. They were able to keep
Speaker 1: it quiet for how long? And then eventually when the
Speaker 1: floodgates opened, everybody just pointed to everybody else and to
Speaker 1: the system itself and said, look, everything failed, but not me. Meanwhile, us,
Speaker 1: the citizens, the taxpayers, and the survivors are left holding
Speaker 1: the bag. So anyone who thinks we should move on,
Speaker 1: and I mean this as respectfully as possible, can go
Speaker 1: fuck themselves because we're not moving on zero chance. It
Speaker 1: is time for some accountability. It's time for some answers.
Speaker 1: I testified for six hours. I'll let the record speak
Speaker 1: for itself. Acosta, the former US attorney in Miami, said
Speaker 1: when he left Capitol Hill. Oh yeah, we'll let the
Speaker 1: record speak for itself. Huh. Well, if that's the case,
Speaker 1: then not only are you a coward, but you're a
Speaker 1: gigantic failure as well, because you didn't stop any crimes,
Speaker 1: did you. You didn't stop Jeffrey Epstein from hurting anybody,
Speaker 1: did you. Instead, he continued to hurt people, He continued
Speaker 1: to abuse people, and he continued to commit all kinds
Speaker 1: of other crimes that we have no idea about. So
Speaker 1: I have zero idea what mister Charminhart over here is
Speaker 1: even talking about, because he played a gigantic part and
Speaker 1: all these other women who got abused after this first sentencing, right,
Speaker 1: because if he did the right thing and he manned up,
Speaker 1: no matter what justice said, then things could have been different.
Speaker 1: But that's not what he did. Instead, he got along
Speaker 1: to get along, and he just went with the program.
Speaker 1: Emerging from the room part way through the transcribed testimony,
Speaker 1: Democrats on the panel dismissed Acosta as not credible and
Speaker 1: said they left the first round of questioning with more
Speaker 1: questions than answers. Well that's always nice, huh. You have
Speaker 1: this whole panel wasting tax payer dollars wasting all kinds
Speaker 1: of time and you're not even getting the answers you're
Speaker 1: looking for. And that's because you're not talking to the
Speaker 1: right people. I've said it once and I'll say it again.
Speaker 1: Bring in Villa Fauna, bring in Lily Sanchez, bring in Mukhesy,
Speaker 1: bring in Philippe, bring in all the lawyers, everybody involved, Menchel, everybody.
Speaker 1: But no, you want to bring in Alberto Gonzalez. Now
Speaker 1: I know they got rid of that subpoena, but come on,
Speaker 1: that dude had zero to do with any of this.
Speaker 1: And again, that's why I call it political theater. All
Speaker 1: of this is meant to give us the illusion that
Speaker 1: they're doing something that they care. But all that really
Speaker 1: matters is results, and so far, like usual, we've had none. Acosta,
Speaker 1: they said, told investigators he didn't see sufficient evidence to
Speaker 1: move forward with the case, even though approximately forty women
Speaker 1: had come forward to share their accounts of sexual assault.
Speaker 1: How does this man look at himself in the mirror
Speaker 1: and not get ill? Can you imagine being this big
Speaker 1: of a coward, this big of a punk ass bitch.
Speaker 1: I can't even imagine, Like, bro, have a little bit
Speaker 1: of courage in your life? It's okay, we're gonna get
Speaker 1: knocked down every now and then, but life samash Pit,
Speaker 1: get back up and get back to it. If he
Speaker 1: would have done the right thing and stepped up and
Speaker 1: told his bosses at Justice Department to go get screwed
Speaker 1: and he was going to prosecute this case the way
Speaker 1: he saw fit, bro would be a hero. But instead
Speaker 1: he's just another villain and there is no amount of
Speaker 1: testimony or deposition that's ever going to change that. He
Speaker 1: seems to be pretty dug into the decisions that he made.
Speaker 1: Democratic Representative Jasmin Crockett said of Acosta, well, I agree
Speaker 1: with that. He's not going to admit to anything. And
Speaker 1: that's why I said from the jump, no point even
Speaker 1: bringing him down and putting him under oath, because he's
Speaker 1: just going to be evasive. He's just going to avoid
Speaker 1: any serious questions and he's not going to give us
Speaker 1: any kind of measurable information with his answers. So what's
Speaker 1: the point. The point is to make you think that
Speaker 1: they're doing something. That is the whole point, and I
Speaker 1: want you to keep that in mind as this process
Speaker 1: continues to play out. Epstein, a well connected multimillionaire, avoided
Speaker 1: a federal trial at the time of the plea deal
Speaker 1: and served just thirteen months in prison for stay prostitution
Speaker 1: charges over his involvement with underage girls, prostitution and underage girls. Huh,
Speaker 1: how do you square that fucking circle? Considering underage girls
Speaker 1: can't consent? A Miami Herald investigation described the plea deal
Speaker 1: negotiated by Acosta as the deal of a lifetime. No,
Speaker 1: not negotiated by Acosta, negotiated by Mukhesie, by Philippe, by
Speaker 1: the bosses at the DOJ. In July twenty nineteen, the
Speaker 1: financier Pedophile was arrested and charged in connection with having
Speaker 1: operated a sex trafficking ring. The next month, Epstein died
Speaker 1: by suicide, allegedly at a New York Metropolitan Correctional Center,
Speaker 1: the federal detention facility where he was being held. The
Speaker 1: committee's chairman, Representative James Comer of Kentucky, however, described Acosta
Speaker 1: as cooperative and helpful throughout his appearance. Oh, I'm sure
Speaker 1: he did. Does anyone really think that the GOP wants
Speaker 1: to go any further? I mean, come on, they have
Speaker 1: all the power at their fingertips. They're stalling that's what
Speaker 1: they're doing. And the Democrats they're no better. They're trying
Speaker 1: to use this as a political football now and they're
Speaker 1: trying to nuke the Republicans with it, and it's going
Speaker 1: to backfire because what we do is we lose support
Speaker 1: then right people are like, Oh, it's a political hit job,
Speaker 1: it's a hoax, it's this, it's that, when anybody who's
Speaker 1: paying attention knows it's something much deeper and something much
Speaker 1: more dangerous. So as disgusted as I am by the
Speaker 1: GOP and their cowardice when it comes to this issue
Speaker 1: and their hypocrisy, I'm equally disgusted with the Democrats and
Speaker 1: the way they're trying to politicize this after not caring
Speaker 1: about it for all these years. Now, Look, if these
Speaker 1: Democrats were in the trenches for all these years and
Speaker 1: they were fighting for justice and truth, I'd be right
Speaker 1: there with them, shoulder to shoulder. But they've shown up
Speaker 1: recently like some Johnny com latelies, and now they're acting
Speaker 1: like they've cared this whole entire time. I'm here to
Speaker 1: tell you they haven't. And when we used to reach
Speaker 1: out to them, when we tried to get their help,
Speaker 1: they ignored us, but now all of a sudden they've
Speaker 1: had this big revelation. Don't fall for it. Folks, do
Speaker 1: not fall for it. If they really wanted the truth,
Speaker 1: that truth would have been out a long time ago.
Speaker 1: Alex Acosta cooperated with our questions and today provided information
Speaker 1: that will help advance our investigation into the federal government's
Speaker 1: handling of the Epstein and Maxwell cases. Comer said in
Speaker 1: a statement. This information will guide our next steps as
Speaker 1: we work to bring accountability, and we expect to announce
Speaker 1: new actions soon. Oh okay, great new action. So what
Speaker 1: does that mean? More subpoenas, more arguing, more calling at
Speaker 1: a hoax because so far all we've had is a
Speaker 1: bunch of words, right, and words are wind. There's been
Speaker 1: zero action Acosta. Comer said told the committee he never
Speaker 1: met Epstein nor Glenn Maxwell, and testified that he never
Speaker 1: saw President Donald Trump's name on any document related to
Speaker 1: the late financier. Comer knocked Democrats line of questioning related
Speaker 1: to Trump during the interview, saying they were batting around
Speaker 1: so many questions about Trump. The members were talking over
Speaker 1: each other. It was all about Trump, and that's not
Speaker 1: what it should be about. Here Acosta's about the Plea
Speaker 1: deal that's before Trump. Now, if you want to get
Speaker 1: to the bottom of the cover up that is underway
Speaker 1: right now, we have to get rid of this Plea deal.
Speaker 1: So we have to eat the elephant one bite at
Speaker 1: a time. Right But if the Democrats on the committee
Speaker 1: aren't even interested in that, and all they want to
Speaker 1: do is find some you know, dynamite to blow Trump
Speaker 1: up with, then we're not going to get anywhere. Then again,
Speaker 1: maybe that's the whole last Dawn point. Acosta, who also
Speaker 1: served as Trumps Secretary of the Department of Labor during
Speaker 1: his first term, resigned in twenty nineteen amid renewed scrutiny
Speaker 1: over the plea deal he had negotiated with Epstein a
Speaker 1: decade before. On Friday, he reiterated that it was his
Speaker 1: decision alone to resign, According to a readout from the
Speaker 1: House Committee, Oh, I'm sure there was no pressure whatsoever.
Speaker 1: I mean, you almost have to admire the blind loyalty
Speaker 1: that Alex Acosta has to people who really don't give
Speaker 1: a fuck about him. It's truly my numbing to see
Speaker 1: because if I got thrown over the side of the
Speaker 1: boat like Alex Acosta did, Yo, it would be fire
Speaker 1: and motherfucking brimstone for everybody involved. Your boy can be
Speaker 1: petty as fuck when he wants to be. The two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight Plea deal has come under scrutiny yet
Speaker 1: again amid the House Oversight Committee's ongoing investigation into the
Speaker 1: Epstein case. Earlier this week, testimony from FBI Director Cash
Speaker 1: Valhalla Patel underscored how some of the Trump administration appear
Speaker 1: to be pointing the blame at Acosta, as the President
Speaker 1: and his team are being pushed by members of their
Speaker 1: own party to be more transparent and release all of
Speaker 1: the Epstein case files. During his Tuesday hearing on Capitol Hill,
Speaker 1: Patel twice brought up Acosta on prompt, including in his
Speaker 1: opening statement, Yo, he's looking to do anything he can
Speaker 1: to get the spotlight off of him. But Cash Betel's
Speaker 1: the one who opened his own mouth, right. Nobody told
Speaker 1: him to talk about this, Nobody told him to make
Speaker 1: things up and act like this was bigger than it
Speaker 1: is according to him anyway. So every bit of criticism
Speaker 1: coming Cash Betel's way, he's earned every last bit of it,
Speaker 1: at least when it comes to Epstein. The Oversight Panel, meanwhile,
Speaker 1: has been plowing ahead with its investigation into the so
Speaker 1: called Epstein files. The panel subpoenaed a group of high
Speaker 1: profile Democratic and Republican figures for information and interviews between
Speaker 1: August and mid October, including Acosta, and have so far
Speaker 1: released former Attorney General Bill Barr's deposition on the matter.
Speaker 1: The Republican led committee has also received two batches of
Speaker 1: documents from Epstein's estate as a result of a subpoena,
Speaker 1: including a collection of letters gifted to Epstein for his
Speaker 1: fiteth birthday. The panel has subpoenaed the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: for all of its Epstein related files and made public
Speaker 1: the documents it's received so far, most of which were
Speaker 1: already public in recent days. The committee also met with
Speaker 1: Epstein abuse survivors and is working with the Treasury Department
Speaker 1: to turn over certain bank activity reports. The lawmakers have
Speaker 1: with john subpoenas for former Attorney Generals Alberto Gonzalez and
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions. A committee a told CNN after both men
Speaker 1: stated and sworn letters that neither possessed any information related
Speaker 1: to the Committee's investigation into Epstein. So I had no
Speaker 1: idea why those two guys were being brought in anyway
Speaker 1: seem like some window dressing or people that had no
Speaker 1: idea what they were doing making these decisions. But if
Speaker 1: they really want to get down to it, bring in
Speaker 1: Lily Sanchez, bring in Marie Villafauna, bring in a Philippe,
Speaker 1: bring in Mukhesy, bring in everybody that was involved, everybody
Speaker 1: we've talked about at nauseum for the last six years.
Speaker 1: Because if you're really looking for a roadmap to justice,
Speaker 1: if you're really looking for a roadmap to accountability, it
Speaker 1: starts and it ends with that NPA. All of the
Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
Speaker 1: the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to another
Speaker 1: episode of the Epstein Chronicles. Over the past few days,
Speaker 1: we've been taking a look at the alex Acosta interview
Speaker 1: with the OIG Inspectors and now that all of you
Speaker 1: have had a chance to listen to it or take
Speaker 1: a look at it, and in this episode, I'll let
Speaker 1: you know why I think that the whole entire thing
Speaker 1: was nothing more than a farce. The alex Acosta interview,
Speaker 1: conducted by the Department of Justice and the Inspector General,
Speaker 1: stands as one of the most glaring failures of internal
Speaker 1: oversight in modern prosecutorial history. It was billed as a
Speaker 1: serious examination of how Jeffrey Epstein secured one of them
Speaker 1: most grotesquely lenient plea deals ever granted to a serial
Speaker 1: sex trafficker. In practice, it functioned as a containment exercise
Speaker 1: designed to limit institutional exposure rather than uncover it. I mean,
Speaker 1: the tone of the questioning was deferential, cautious, and strategically
Speaker 1: incurious from the outset. Instead of treating a costa as
Speaker 1: a decision maker whose actions caused a men's harm, the
Speaker 1: OIG framed them as a passive participant trapped inside an
Speaker 1: unfortunate process. That framing alone doomed the inquiry. Oversight that
Speaker 1: begins by absolving authority figures cannot meaningfully interrogate abuse of power.
Speaker 1: The interview was less an investigation than a rehearsal of excuses.
Speaker 1: It reflected a system more concerned with preserving credibility than
Speaker 1: administering accountability. Anyone familiar with federal prosecutorial norms could see
Speaker 1: the failure immediately. The OIG did not miss the truth,
Speaker 1: actively stepped around it. Alex Acosta entered the interview armed
Speaker 1: with a narrative that had already been publicly rehearsed and
Speaker 1: politically sanitized. Bro claimed that the Epstein non prosecution agreement
Speaker 1: was imposed on him by circumstances beyond his control. He
Speaker 1: emphasized inherited cases, alleged evidentiary weaknesses, and pressure from higher authorities.
Speaker 1: The OIG allowed him to present these claims largely unchallenged.
Speaker 1: This was not ignorance, folks, It was accommodation. A competent
Speaker 1: investigative body understands that subjects will minimize agency and diffuse responsibility.
Speaker 1: The OIG's job was to dismantle that strategy not validated.
Speaker 1: Acosta was the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida,
Speaker 1: not a junior assistant bound by inertia. He had the
Speaker 1: authority to reject the deal, renegotiate it, or prosecute Epstein aggressively.
Speaker 1: The interview treated his authority as theoretical rather than real,
Speaker 1: and that choice was made in an attempt to rewrite
Speaker 1: history in real time. And One of the most offensive
Speaker 1: aspects of the interview was its casual acceptance of the
Speaker 1: word complexity. Complexity was repeatedly invoked to excuse extraordinary departures
Speaker 1: from prosecutorial norms. The Epstein deal was not complex in
Speaker 1: any meaningful legal sense. It was unprecedented, sweeping, and deliberately
Speaker 1: constructed to shield Epstein and unnamed co conspirators. The immunity
Speaker 1: provision alone should have triggered intense scrutiny. Instead, the OIG
Speaker 1: allowed a Costa to frame those provisions as pragmatic compromises.
Speaker 1: That framing is dishonest. Prosecutors don't accidentally grant blanket immunity
Speaker 1: to potential accomplices. Such decisions require intent, deliberation, and approval
Speaker 1: at the highest levels of an office. The interview never
Speaker 1: forced a Costa to explain why such extreme concessions were
Speaker 1: even considered. Complexity became a euphemism for corruption, and the
Speaker 1: OIG allowed the euphemism to stand. And the treatment of
Speaker 1: the survivors during the interview was nothing short of contemptuous.
Speaker 1: The Crime Victim's Rights Act was in full force at
Speaker 1: the time of Epstein's plea negotiation. It imposed clear obligations
Speaker 1: on prosecutors to notify victims and allow them to be heard.
Speaker 1: Acosta's office to the opposite, they concealed the deal, delayed notifications,
Speaker 1: and actively misled victims to prevent interference. We're not talking
Speaker 1: about clerical errors here, of folks, These were deliberate, tactical decisions.
Speaker 1: The OIG knew this, yet framed the issue as poor
Speaker 1: communication rather than intentional evasion, and that distinction matters legally
Speaker 1: and morally. The interviews language softened conduct that should have
Speaker 1: been condemned, and by doing so, the OIG perpetrated the
Speaker 1: same harm it was supposedly investigating. Survivors were it's sielined
Speaker 1: again in the name of institutional comfort. The interview also
Speaker 1: failed to grapple with Epstein's unique power profile. Epstein wasn't
Speaker 1: a typical defendant negotiating from a position of vulnerability. He
Speaker 1: was a wealthy financier with political, academic, and intelligence adjacent connections.
Speaker 1: Any serious inquiry would have examined how the power influence
Speaker 1: prosecutorial behavior. Instead, the OIG treated Epstein as an abstract
Speaker 1: case file rather than an active force exerting pressure. Acosta
Speaker 1: was never meaningfully questioned about external influence, reputational fear, or
Speaker 1: political calculation. The interview avoided probing whether Epstein's connections altered
Speaker 1: decision making, and believe me, that avoidance was not accidental.
Speaker 1: It reflects a long standing reluctance within the DOJ to
Speaker 1: confront elite influence directly. By refusing to name power, the
Speaker 1: OIG normalized its effects, and that normalization is the backbone
Speaker 1: of impunity. Equally disturbing was the OIG's handling of internal
Speaker 1: dissent within a Costa's office. Career. Prosecutors reportedly objected to
Speaker 1: the Epstein deal and raise concerns about its legality and morality.
Speaker 1: Those objections were minimized or overridden. The interview treated internal
Speaker 1: disagreement as routine friction rather than a warning sign. In reality,
Speaker 1: internal resistance is often the clearest indicator that a decision
Speaker 1: has crossed ethical lines. The OIG failed to examine how
Speaker 1: a Costa responded to those objections. They did impress them
Speaker 1: on whether dissenting voices were marginalized or ignored. That omission
Speaker 1: protected management at the expense of truth. Oversight that refuses
Speaker 1: to listen to internal whistle signals is oversight and name only.
Speaker 1: The interview missed on the opportunity to expose how hierarchy
Speaker 1: suppresses accountability and that failure speaks volumes. The OIG also
Speaker 1: accepted Acosta's claims that the deal was driven by fear
Speaker 1: of losing a trial. This argument collapses under even minimal scrutiny.
Speaker 1: Epstein faced multiple victims, corroborating evidence, and a documented pattern
Speaker 1: of abuse. Federal prosecutors routinely take cases to trial with
Speaker 1: far less. The suggestion that this case was uniquely unwinnable
Speaker 1: is implausible. The interview never forced a Costa to reconcile
Speaker 1: that claim with prosecutorial reality. Instead, it allowed speculation to
Speaker 1: masquerade his judgment. Fear of loss is not justification for
Speaker 1: abandoning survivors. It's a choice, not a mandate, and the
Speaker 1: OIG treated it as a foregone conclusion that framing absolved
Speaker 1: decision makers of moral responsibility. Now, another glaring flaw was
Speaker 1: the interview's refusal to interrogate secrecy itself. The Epstein deal
Speaker 1: was negotiated in it extraordinary secrecy, even by DOJ standards.
Speaker 1: Transparency was not merely absent, it was actively resisted. Acosta's
Speaker 1: office thought disclosure, delayed responses, and crafted misleading communications. These
Speaker 1: actions were strategic, not accidental. The OIG acknowledged secrecy without
Speaker 1: examining motive. That omission is inexcusable. Secrecy in prosecutorial decision
Speaker 1: making often signals awareness of wrongdoing. The interview treated secrecy
Speaker 1: as procedural discomfort rather than an ethical red flag, and
Speaker 1: by doing so, it stripped the conduct of its significance.
Speaker 1: The interview also failed to address the broader institutional incentives
Speaker 1: at play. High profile cases involving powerful defendants carry career implications.
Speaker 1: Prosecutors know this, even if it's not explicitly stated. Acosta
Speaker 1: later ascended to a cabinet position, a fact impossible to
Speaker 1: ignore in retrospect. The OIG did not explore weather ambition
Speaker 1: influenced restraint. They avoided the uncomfortable reality that career calculus
Speaker 1: shapes prosecutorial behavior, and this avoidance preserves a myth of
Speaker 1: neutrality that benefits those in power. Honest oversight would confront
Speaker 1: how incentives destore justice. The interview chose comfort over candor,
Speaker 1: and that choice undermined its legitimacy. Now, the language use
Speaker 1: throughout the interview reveals its true purpose. Words like regrettable, unfortunate,
Speaker 1: and missteps were deployed repeatedly. These terms sanitize harm and
Speaker 1: obscure agency. They transformed deliberate actions into abstract errors. The
Speaker 1: OIG allowed a costa to speak in this register without correction.
Speaker 1: Precision matters in accountability proceedings. When language is softened, consequences
Speaker 1: are diluted. The interview's vocabulary signaled leniency before conclusions were drawn,
Speaker 1: and of course the results were predictably toothless. Perhaps one
Speaker 1: of the most infuriating things is how the interview treated
Speaker 1: a co conspirator immunity as an afterthought. The Epstein deal
Speaker 1: did not merely protect Epstein. It insulated unnamed individuals who
Speaker 1: may have participated in or facilitated abuse. That provision alone
Speaker 1: should have triggered alarms at the highest levels. The OIG
Speaker 1: failed to press a costa on why such immunity was granted.
Speaker 1: They didn't demand the justification proportional to the harm. Instead,
Speaker 1: they accepted vague references to legal strategy. There is no
Speaker 1: benign explanation for shielding unknown offenders. The interview silence on
Speaker 1: this point is deafening. It reflects a decision not to
Speaker 1: pursue lines of inquiry that would implicate others, and that
Speaker 1: decision preserved institutional peace at the cost of justice. What
Speaker 1: it did do, though, was ignore the chilling effect the
Speaker 1: deal had on future prosecutions. When powerful offenders receive extraordinary leniency.
Speaker 1: It sends a message to survivors and perpetrators alike. Victims
Speaker 1: learn that their suffering can be bargained away, and perpetrators
Speaker 1: learn that wealth and connections by insulation. The OIG didn't
Speaker 1: examine the systematic impact. They treated the Epstein deal as
Speaker 1: an isolated anomaly. That framing is false and it's also dangerous.
Speaker 1: Prosecutorial culture absorbed precedence, even disavowed ones. By refusing to
Speaker 1: confront this, the interview minimize long term harm. Oversight that
Speaker 1: ignores ripple effects is incomplete by design. There was also
Speaker 1: striking absence of adversarial rigor. Effective oversight requires controlled confrontation.
Speaker 1: Investigators must challenge inconsistencies, press evasions, and demand clarity. The
Speaker 1: Acosta interview did none of this with sufficient force. When
Speaker 1: a costa deflected, the interview moved on when a general
Speaker 1: specifics were not demanded. This is not how serious inquiry
Speaker 1: should operate. It's how public relations damage is minimized. The
Speaker 1: OIG appeared more concerned with decorum than truth, and my friends,
Speaker 1: that priority inversion is fatal to accountability. The interview read
Speaker 1: like a courtesy meeting, not an investigation, and The structure
Speaker 1: of the interview itself reinforced its limitations. Questions were framed broadly,
Speaker 1: allowing expansive, self serving answers. Follow Ups were rare and
Speaker 1: often gentle. This structure if favored narrative control by the subject.
Speaker 1: Skilled investigators narrow questions to constrain evasion. The oig to
Speaker 1: the opposite. They seated control repeatedly, and that choice can't
Speaker 1: be attributed to an experience. It reflects an institutional decision
Speaker 1: about how far the inquiry would go. The interview was
Speaker 1: bounded before it began, and those bounds protected Acosta and
Speaker 1: the doj alike. Now, the final report that emerged from
Speaker 1: the interview reflected the deficiencies. Conclusions were cautious, equivocal, and
Speaker 1: carefully worded. Finding stopped short of assigning responsibility. Recommendations emphasized
Speaker 1: process improvements rather than accountability. This outcome was predictable given
Speaker 1: the interviews design. Oversight reports often reveal more through what
Speaker 1: they avoid than what they state. In this case, avoidance
Speaker 1: was a dominant feature. The report functioned as a closing mechanism,
Speaker 1: not a corrective one. It allowed the dog to claim
Speaker 1: introspection without consequence, and that is institutional theater and far
Speaker 1: far away from reform, and the rage that that inspires
Speaker 1: is not rhetorical. It's earned. The Epstein case represents one
Speaker 1: of the most profound betrayals of victims by the justice system.
Speaker 1: The OIG's interview was an opportunity to confront that betrayal honestly. Instead,
Speaker 1: it reproduced the same dynamics that enabled it, deference to power,
Speaker 1: avoidance of discomfort, and putting reputation overall truth that appeared.
Speaker 1: The interview didn't fail accidentally. It failed because success would
Speaker 1: a required institutional self indictment. The level of honesty was
Speaker 1: never on the table. The process was structured to fall safely,
Speaker 1: and that's why it enrages people. And I think that
Speaker 1: disgust is the appropriate response to oversight that shields rather
Speaker 1: than exposes. The OIG exists to investigate misconduct within the DOJ.
Speaker 1: In this instance, it protected the department from meaningful scrutiny.
Speaker 1: That inversion of purpose is corrosive. When watchdogs become guardians
Speaker 1: of the institution, accountability collapses, and the Acosta interview exemplifies
Speaker 1: that collapse. It demonstrates how internal review mechanisms can be
Speaker 1: neutralized through tone framing and omission. This is not a
Speaker 1: flaw of individuals alone. It's the systemic failure, and it
Speaker 1: demands recognition as such because the broader implication is chilling.
Speaker 1: If the case as egregious as Epstein cannot produce accountability,
Speaker 1: what message does that send. It signals that certain failures
Speaker 1: are too dangerous to examine honestly. It tells victims that
Speaker 1: oversight is conditional. It reassures power actors that consequences, well,
Speaker 1: they're negotiable. The OIG interview reinforced these messages. It closes
Speaker 1: ranks rather than open files, and that choice undermines public
Speaker 1: trust far more than any admission ever could. As you know,
Speaker 1: transparency is risky, but secrecy is fatal to legitimacy. As
Speaker 1: someone deeply familiar with federal prosecutorial standards, this interview is indefensible.
Speaker 1: It violates the basic principle of oversight, inquiry, and accountability.
Speaker 1: It confuses explanation with excuse. It mistakes politeness for rigor,
Speaker 1: It treats harm as abstraction, and power is neutral. These
Speaker 1: are not minor errors. There are foundational failures. The OIG
Speaker 1: had the authority and obligation to do better. It chose
Speaker 1: not to. That choice must be named and condemned. And
Speaker 1: so as we wrap this up, there's no doubt that
Speaker 1: the alex Acosta OIG interview will stand as a case
Speaker 1: study and how institutions investigate themselves without consequence. It demonstrates
Speaker 1: how process can be weaponized to avoid responsibility. It reveals
Speaker 1: how language, structure, and tone shape out comes long before
Speaker 1: conclusions are written. Most importantly, it shows how survivors are erased,
Speaker 1: not once, but repeatedly by systems claiming to protect them.
Speaker 1: Rage is justified because this was preventable. Disgust is warranted
Speaker 1: because it was deliberate. Accountability was possible, and it was refused.
Speaker 1: That refusal is the true scandal, and it remains unresolved.
Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
Speaker 1: be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
Speaker 1: welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. Ladies and gentlemen,
Speaker 1: Let's take a moment to appreciate the fine art of
Speaker 1: public cowardice. You know the type, the man who walks
Speaker 1: into a room with all the confidence of a damned dishrag,
Speaker 1: who mistakes compliance for wisdom and timidity for prudence. He
Speaker 1: doesn't stride, He shuffles. He doesn't speak, He mumbles and
Speaker 1: pre approved sound bites. He doesn't stand for anything. He
Speaker 1: leans in the direction of whoever is strongest at the moment.
Speaker 1: The kind of man who looks in the mirror every
Speaker 1: morning and congratulates himself not for what he's done, but
Speaker 1: for what he's managed to avoid. And that reflection staring
Speaker 1: back at him isn't a leader or even a servant
Speaker 1: of justice. It's a placeholder in a suit, a man
Speaker 1: shaped void where courage should be. Oh, he'll tell you
Speaker 1: that he's principled, but his principles are about as sturdy
Speaker 1: as a paper straw in a hurricane, bending, crumpling, dissolving
Speaker 1: the moment pressure is applied. These are not principles you
Speaker 1: can build on. These are not excuses dressed up in
Speaker 1: legal jargon, rationalizations wrapped in the language of responsibility. He's
Speaker 1: a bureaucratic ghost who drifts through history's corridors, never leaving fingerprints,
Speaker 1: never daring to push back, always content to shuffle papers
Speaker 1: while justice burns to ash. He is the specter of mediocrity,
Speaker 1: the silent accomplice to rot, the man who thinks survival
Speaker 1: is an achievement and obedience is a virtue. And yesterday,
Speaker 1: when he sat down before Congress, he reminded all of
Speaker 1: us exactly what happens when a man trades in his
Speaker 1: spine for a career. You don't get courage, he don't
Speaker 1: get accountability. You don't even get the bay decency of honesty.
Speaker 1: What you get instead is the performance of a lifetime.
Speaker 1: If the lifetime you're measuring is a worms, a man wriggling, twisting,
Speaker 1: trying to squirm free or responsibility, all while pretending he
Speaker 1: belongs in the same room as people who actually possess character.
Speaker 1: It was less testimony and more theater, a stage play
Speaker 1: where the main character is too cowardly to remember his
Speaker 1: lines but too desperate to leave the stage. And of
Speaker 1: course that man is alex Acosta, So let's talk about it.
Speaker 1: Alex Acosta, the man who proves that jellyfish really do
Speaker 1: walk among us, wearing suits, holding titles, and pretending that
Speaker 1: they're made of something more substantial than boneless goo. Now, look,
Speaker 1: he wasn't the architect of Epstein's non prosecution agreement. No,
Speaker 1: but he was the dutiful errand boy, the weak will
Speaker 1: functionary who carried out the orders like a hotel concierge
Speaker 1: hustling to fetch towels for a guest who smells like sulfur.
Speaker 1: And yesterday, when he slithered into Congress, he put on
Speaker 1: that same oily performance he always does, evasive, defensive, and
Speaker 1: every bit of spineless as the day he signed away
Speaker 1: the survivor's shot at justice. Watching him sit there, trying
Speaker 1: to look dignified while sweating through carefully rehearsed denials was
Speaker 1: probably like seeing a worm dressed in a tuxedo. Ridiculous, pitiful,
Speaker 1: and insulting all at once. The man has the backbone
Speaker 1: of a bendi straw and the courage of a feigning goat.
Speaker 1: Watching Acosta speak, you can almost hear the creak of
Speaker 1: his non existent moral compass, trying and failing to turn north. Look,
Speaker 1: he didn't invent the sweetheart deal, but boy did he
Speaker 1: kneel down and polish it until it gleamed like a
Speaker 1: trophy of cowardice. It takes a certain type of person
Speaker 1: to treat justice like a dirty dish, to scrub off
Speaker 1: the truth until nothing is left but a clean surface
Speaker 1: for the powerful to eat off again. Acosta, in that sense,
Speaker 1: wasn't just lawyer. He was a butler, a valet, a
Speaker 1: dorman to Epstein's empire of filth, holding the door open
Speaker 1: for predators while slamming it in the faces of the victims.
Speaker 1: And does anyone really surprise that his testimony yesterday reeked
Speaker 1: of half truths and evasions. Of course not. Acosta has
Speaker 1: always been allergic to candor. The man couldn't tell the
Speaker 1: truth if you injected it into his veins. His lives
Speaker 1: aren't even creative. They're the limb kind, the kind you
Speaker 1: deliver when you know you'll never be held accountable. He
Speaker 1: knows the game. He's not there to enlighten Congress or
Speaker 1: the public. He's there to fog up the glass, to
Speaker 1: keep the shadows intact, to make sure a power protects power.
Speaker 1: When he opens his mouth, if it is in speech,
Speaker 1: it's smoke, Smoke to blur, smoke to obscure, smoke to
Speaker 1: suffocate any hope of accountability. And yet he is so
Speaker 1: profoundly weak that one might mistake him for a potential whistleblower,
Speaker 1: a soft spot in the armor. Don't fall for it.
Speaker 1: Acosta is not a weak He's a loyal link. He's
Speaker 1: a link that bends twists and reshapes itself to fit
Speaker 1: the chain, and holds the cover up together. You don't
Speaker 1: get to where he's been by rebelling. You get there
Speaker 1: by bowing, nodding, and letting the powerful know you'll never
Speaker 1: ever defy them. He isn't the corporate rubber band stretched
Speaker 1: between power and public outrage, snapping back into shape every
Speaker 1: single time, because snapping off would require guts, and he's
Speaker 1: fresh out. In fact, spineless is a Costa's brand. It's
Speaker 1: not a flaw, it's his entire product line. He made
Speaker 1: a career out of being the quintessential yes man, the
Speaker 1: guy who never raises his voice, never rocks the boat,
Speaker 1: never questions the marching orders. If a devil walks into
Speaker 1: the room and says, carry this water, a Costa doesn't
Speaker 1: just carry it. He pours it into a crystal decanter
Speaker 1: bows and asks if the devil would like a lemon wedge.
Speaker 1: He's the kind of man whose only instinct in a
Speaker 1: crisis is to ask how high would you like me
Speaker 1: to jump? Sir? His coward is not accidental. It's cultivated, refined,
Speaker 1: weaponized into a career. Now, the Epstein deal wasn't just
Speaker 1: about corruption. It was about cowardice, and Acosta is the
Speaker 1: embodiment of that cowardice, the grinning bureaucrat who chose self
Speaker 1: preservation over justice. He didn't need to mastermind anything, he
Speaker 1: just needed to follow through. And follow through he did
Speaker 1: like a clerk, snapping paperwork without ever daring to read
Speaker 1: what was written in the margins. He wasn't playing chess
Speaker 1: with the powerful. He was vacuuming the board and making
Speaker 1: sure no one noticed the pieces had been stolen. That's
Speaker 1: the Costa's legacy, a bureaucratic mop that dutifully cleaned up
Speaker 1: the mess while the predators toasted champagne. When he sat
Speaker 1: before Congress yesterday, less than truthful, it wasn't shocking. It
Speaker 1: was muscle memory. A. Costa has been less than truthful
Speaker 1: his entire career, not because he's clever, but because the
Speaker 1: truth requires a spine, and spines are foreign to him.
Speaker 1: He's the political equivalent of a mirage, something that looks
Speaker 1: vaguely real from a distance, but up close vanishes into nothing,
Speaker 1: And in that vanishing act lies the secret of his survival.
Speaker 1: He's perfected the art of disappearing just enough to dodge
Speaker 1: consequences while always being present enough to reassure his masters
Speaker 1: that their secrets are safe with him. Just look at
Speaker 1: his mannerisms, the way he deflex, the way he hems
Speaker 1: and haws. This is not a man in control of
Speaker 1: a narrative. This is a man desperately holding together a
Speaker 1: cheap theaterre curtain while the actors behind it scramble. His
Speaker 1: whole presence screams one thing, I am a pawn, and
Speaker 1: pawns don't confess. Pawns get sacrificed. And yet he wasn't sacrificed,
Speaker 1: not really. He landed softly, as men like him always do.
Speaker 1: He resigned with just enough shame to make it look respectable,
Speaker 1: then faded into the swamp where the spineless thrive. His
Speaker 1: role was to absorb some public disgust, then slink away
Speaker 1: intact his rolodecks still worth something. And that's the beauty
Speaker 1: of cowardice in Washington. It's not punished, it's rewarded, because
Speaker 1: a man without a spine will always bend to serve
Speaker 1: another day. And of course, his congressional performance was more
Speaker 1: of the same, evasion masquerading his testimony. Cowardice packaged as humility,
Speaker 1: lies dressed up is legal nuance. It was a bureaucratic
Speaker 1: version of an interpretive dance, lots of movement, no actual meaning.
Speaker 1: Acosta doesn't speak in truth. He speaks and excuses, and
Speaker 1: he's been rehearsing them for decades. He doesn't testify, he filibusters,
Speaker 1: he doesn't clarify. He muddies. Every word is a calculated stall,
Speaker 1: another delay in the long running effort to smother the
Speaker 1: fire of justice under the web blanket of cowardice. Here's
Speaker 1: a man who presided over one of the most disgusting
Speaker 1: failures in justice in modern memory, and yet he still
Speaker 1: dares to come before Congress as though his opinion matters.
Speaker 1: He should have been booed off the stage, but instead
Speaker 1: he was given time in a microphone. That's the cover up,
Speaker 1: in action reward the coward. Let him keep talking and
Speaker 1: maybe the outrage will dull. But what they forgot is
Speaker 1: that every time Acosta opens his mouth, he reminds us
Speaker 1: of the rotten deal he delivered, and no matter how
Speaker 1: much he squirms, the stench follows him into every room.
Speaker 1: A Costa's not misunderstood. He's not tragic, and he's not
Speaker 1: some noble man caught in an impossible bind. He is
Speaker 1: and always has been, a coward. He is a definition
Speaker 1: of a man who knows what the right thing is
Speaker 1: and chooses the easy thing instead. He represents everything that's
Speaker 1: rotten in government. Service, ambition without principle, service without honor,
Speaker 1: authority without courage. He's a swamp distilled into a single individual,
Speaker 1: always ready to obey, never ready to fight, forever ready
Speaker 1: to betray justice if it means his career lives to
Speaker 1: see another sunrise, and the idea that he could ever
Speaker 1: be the weak link is laughable. Weak links break. A
Speaker 1: Costa doesn't break. He bends, He melts, he oozes into
Speaker 1: whatever shape he needs to to protect his masters. He
Speaker 1: is elastic, cowardice made flesh. It's not the kind of
Speaker 1: man who cracks under pressure. He's the kind of man
Speaker 1: who dissolves into the floor before pressure even arrives. Expecting
Speaker 1: a Costa to break ranks is like expecting a puddle
Speaker 1: to hold its shape. It's physically impossible. If you are
Speaker 1: waiting for alex Acosta to spill secrets, you were waiting
Speaker 1: for the easter bunny to deliver subpoenas. This man will
Speaker 1: carry the truth to his grave, not because he's strong,
Speaker 1: but because he's terrified, his entire being is consumed with fear.
Speaker 1: Fear of crossing the powerful, fear of losing his perch,
Speaker 1: fear of becoming a nobody. And that fear is the
Speaker 1: steel that keeps the cover up intact. Not bravery, not loyalty,
Speaker 1: not honor, just plain pathetic cowardly fear. A Costa is
Speaker 1: living proof that terra can be as effective as loyalty
Speaker 1: in maintaining silence. His heart, if you can call it,
Speaker 1: that beats with the rhythm of obedience. He doesn't rebel,
Speaker 1: he doesn't resist, he doesn't question. He performs, that's all.
Speaker 1: He's the office drone, elevated to history stage, a minor
Speaker 1: character who played his role in a major crime, and
Speaker 1: when asked to explain himself, he lies because telling the
Speaker 1: truth would require him to admit he was nothing more
Speaker 1: than a coward and a suit. And the truth is,
Speaker 1: we need to stop pretending like men like Acosta are anomalies.
Speaker 1: They're not. They're the infrastructure of corruption. They're the yes
Speaker 1: men who oil the gears, who make sure the powerful
Speaker 1: glide forward unchallenged. Acosta was never going to be the hero.
Speaker 1: He was always going to be the lap dog. And
Speaker 1: yesterday he barked on command. He will always bark on command,
Speaker 1: because that's his entire function in life, to nod, to
Speaker 1: agree to protect the people who could destroy him with
Speaker 1: a single phone call. So here we are looking at
Speaker 1: alex Acosta again and realizing nothing is changed. He's still spineless,
Speaker 1: still servile, still incapable of honesty. He's still the coward
Speaker 1: who signed away justice for survivors. He's still the errand
Speaker 1: boy of men more powerful than himself. He's still exactly
Speaker 1: what he's always been, a slinky for a spine, a
Speaker 1: charm bracelet where a conscience should be, and a symbol
Speaker 1: of how weak men make strong cover ups possible. He
Speaker 1: hasn't evolved, he hasn't grown. He's fossilized in cowardice, a
Speaker 1: permanent monument to failure. And the truth is this a
Speaker 1: costa will never shock us, never surprise us. He'll never
Speaker 1: redeem himself. He'll die as he lived, meek, cowardly, and
Speaker 1: remembered only as the man who bent the knee when
Speaker 1: justice demanded a spine, And in the story of Epstein,
Speaker 1: that may be his most accurate legacy of all. His
Speaker 1: name will never be etched in history as a titan
Speaker 1: or a leader. Instead, it's going to be muttered with contempt,
Speaker 1: spat out like something bitter recalled as a case study
Speaker 1: in what happens when cowardice is allowed to masquerade public service.
Speaker 1: And so we close the book at least for now,
Speaker 1: on this sorry ass spectacle. What did we learn That
Speaker 1: a man without a spine can still sit upright if
Speaker 1: the chair is cushioned enough, that a man without a
Speaker 1: conscience can still speak if the script is rehearsed enough,
Speaker 1: and that a man without courage can still be useful
Speaker 1: as long as someone more powerful is pulling the strings.
Speaker 1: Alex Acosta didn't stumble in Congress because he was overwhelmed
Speaker 1: by the weight of the truth. He stumbled because truth
Speaker 1: is a foreign language to him, and cowards never bother
Speaker 1: to learn it. His legacy isn't one of strength, sacrifice,
Speaker 1: her honor. It's a case study in how far a
Speaker 1: man can drift when cowardice is his compass and complicity
Speaker 1: is his map. Oh, he'll be remembered, but not in
Speaker 1: the way he once dreamed. His name's not going to
Speaker 1: be etched in stone, but whispered with scorn, as the
Speaker 1: perfect reminder that sometimes the most dangerous man in the
Speaker 1: room isn't the monster, it's the meek little servant who
Speaker 1: made sure the monster was never caged. All of the
Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
Speaker 1: the description box