Former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta faced the House Oversight Committee members on Friday during a closed-door interview about his controversial 2008 plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein.

Acosta, who served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida when he negotiated the widely criticized non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, maintained his defense of the deal that allowed the convicted sex offender to serve only 13 months in county jail with extensive work release privileges. The agreement has been characterized by critics as a “sweetheart deal” that enabled Epstein to continue victimizing women and girls for years afterward.

Democratic Ranking Member Robert Garcia said, “It’s very clear that Alex Acosta ran a deeply flawed investigation of the Epstein case.” 

Garcia told reporters in a break from the interview, that when directly asked whether Acosta knew people were being abused during Epstein’s work release period, “he would not admit that he knew that information and actually refused to acknowledge the victims.”

According to New Mexica Representative Melanie Stansbury Acosta did not even read the interviews of victims. 

Stansbury reported, “It is our understanding from the victims’ attorneys that there were at least 40 minors who gave sworn statements to the FBI as part of the investigation before a decision was made in this case that they had been raped, abused and trafficked.”

She further disclosed that “the line prosecutor in this case wrote an 82-page memo to the leadership in the U.S. Attorney’s Office recommending a prosecution” and “was so convinced, based on the evidence and interviews that she had taken and reviewed, that she drafted a 53-page indictment in this case.”

Stansbury expressed incredulity that despite this extensive evidence, when asked whether Acosta had directly reviewed the victim statements, “he said that he had not actually read the statements of the victims.”

“Something doesn’t smell right here,” she concluded.

Representative Dave Min of California, who previously served as a law professor, offered perhaps the most direct assessment of Acosta’s testimony. “After the first hour of sitting with Alex Acosta, I found him to be completely non-credible as a witness,” Min stated. “His answers were evasive, they obfuscated, and they were just not believable.”

Min pointed to specific inconsistencies in Acosta’s testimony, noting that the lead prosecutor had identified computer evidence being withheld by Epstein’s defense team as “a smoking gun that would put this whole thing to bed.” When questioned about this crucial evidence, “his response was that he didn’t actually review the evidence on this case and would have no input on this, which is just impossible to believe given the high-profile nature of Jeffrey Epstein at the time.”

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer took a markedly different tone, praising Acosta’s participation in the investigation. “Alex Acosta cooperated with our questions today and provided information that will help advance our investigation into the federal government’s handling of the Epstein and Maxwell cases,” Comer stated.

The Chairman outlined the committee’s ongoing investigative efforts, including receipt of suspicious activity reports from Treasury (some redacted, with plans to review unredacted versions), and forthcoming unredacted documents from the Epstein estate including “cash ledgers, calendars, call logs, and message logs.”

According to the Republican committee summary, Acosta defended his decision by citing concerns about the strength of the case and potential consequences of losing at trial. He “expressed concern that if the case had gone to trial and prosecutors lost, it would have sent the message that Epstein had escaped accountability and could continue committing offenses.”

Texas Representative Jasmine Crockett who has experience as a trial attorney handling sex crime cases, delivered pointed criticism of Acosta’s justifications. “I heard things that disturbed me, such as, well, back in 2006, it was a different time,” Crockett said, characterizing Acosta’s comments as “victim shaming.”

Crockett challenged Acosta’s claim that the case was too weak to prosecute, noting his apparent suggestion that “nobody’s going to believe these girls or these women, so we’re not going to necessarily have a good case.” She explained that instead of pursuing full prosecution, Acosta’s office decided the plea deal “may guarantee that he actually spent some time in custody.”

One significant point of contention centered on Epstein’s controversial work release program, which allowed him to leave jail for up to 12 hours daily. Acosta claimed his office “received multiple assurances that Jeffrey Epstein would not be allowed on work release yet somehow Palm Beach County allowed it to happen.”

He stated that “had the U.S. Attorney’s Office known the state would allow Epstein to go on work release and fail to address or prosecute the case, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Mr. Acosta would not have agreed to returning it to the state level.” According to the Republican summary, “He expressed remorse and that the decision was on him.”

The hearing occurred just days after FBI Director Kash Patel criticized Acosta’s handling of the case during congressional testimony. Patel described the non-prosecution agreement as the “original sin” of the Epstein case, arguing that it “hamstrung investigators” and prevented more thorough investigation.

The investigation has been significantly influenced by testimony from Epstein survivors who met with committee members in early September. Representative Garcia noted that when the committee asked survivors what they could do to expedite the investigation and provide justice, “They said, follow the money. Follow the money. And that’s what we’re doing.”

Multiple survivors have publicly stated that they were abused by Epstein during his work release period, directly contradicting any suggestion that the plea deal effectively contained his criminal activity. One survivor specifically testified about being “abused and assaulted and raped by Jeffrey Epstein during his work release” during the 18-month period resulting from Acosta’s deal.

The committee has released over 33,000 pages of Epstein-related documents, though both Republicans and Democrats acknowledge these contained little new information. The ongoing investigation includes efforts to obtain unredacted materials and follows a bipartisan discharge petition led by Representative Thomas Massie seeking release of all Epstein files.

Comer announced that the committee transcript of Acosta’s interview will be released publicly “to ensure transparency for the American people.”