Transcription
Quote, reviewing the possible mismanagement of the federal government's investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Max. The House Oversight Committee today announced that they will be interviewing former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta on September 12th. Acosta, as you might remember, is the former Trump labor secretary who, way back in 2007, 2008, negotiated that sweetheart plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein.
The committee is also issuing a subpoena for the Epstein estate, demanding to see NDAs, nondisclosure agreements, and Epstein's last will and testament, and that alleged birthday book, and any potential list of clients involved in sex acts or sex trafficking. All of this follows the Friday afternoon release by the Justice Department of a transcript and audio of its interview with Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted sex trafficker and Epstein associate.
In her interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd, she denied there being any sort of Epstein client, and she said she never heard all that President Trump acted inappropriately. Maxwell also denied that Epstein paid her millions to recruit young women, or lured a masseuse from Trump's Mar-A-Lago resort.
"Do you have recollection? You ever recruiting a masseuse from Mar-A-Lago Spa to give to go give a private massage?"
"I have never recruited a masseuse from Mar-A-Lago for that. As far as I remember, I can't ever recommend doing that."
It's a notable claim, perhaps false, because Virginia Giuffre, the outspoken Epstein victim who died by suicide earlier this year, claimed that Mar-a-Lago is specifically where Ghislaine Maxwell recruited her.
Then, in the second day of her conversation with Todd, Ghislaine Maxwell said this: "I realized that, I was the allegation at least, I met him on August. I still I needed to address that, and I didn't want to leave that because that seems weird. No, no, I is and also. But I couldn't remember anyone. And maybe there's a long period. So the issue is not that I'm trying to not say, but I just don't I don't remember anybody that I would have, but it's not impossible that I might have asked someone. I don't I don't know exactly what you said yesterday, but I don't think what you said yesterday is different than what you just said."
Of course, the first glaring question here: why should anyone believe anything that Ghislaine Maxwell has to say? Even in Trump's first term, the Justice Department labeled Maxwell a brazen liar. A key reminder is that the people who matter most in all of this are the victims, the survivors, people whose words should matter more than a convicted sex trafficker. In just a moment, I'm going to ask one of those victims her thoughts on all of this. But first, let's bring in CNN senior justice correspondent Eva Perez. Evan, what exactly does the House Oversight Committee want from the Epstein estate?
Well, they were out there asking for a number of documents, chiefly among them. They're asking for financial documents. They're looking for anything that could be construed as a client list. Obviously, you know that the Justice Department says there is no such thing as a client list, so they're looking for other ways to sort of get to that, perhaps a list of people who may have been involved in some of Epstein's crimes. They're also looking for any nondisclosure agreements that he may have ordered people to sign, as a result. And also, importantly, they're asking about that book, that book that The Wall Street Journal reported on, it was a birthday book that Ghislaine Maxwell says that she put together. If you remember, in her interview, she doesn't remember whether Trump, Donald Trump was one of the people who provided a letter for that book. That's what The Wall Street Journal has reported. The president himself has has denied this, and he is suing the Journal and, of course, Rupert Murdoch over that allegation.
And the committee, the House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman James Comer, also wants to hear from Alex Acosta, the former Trump labor secretary, who way back in 2007, 2008 was the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida. And he negotiated that sweetheart deal for Epstein. Why do they think it's so critical to hear from him?
Well, you know what, Jake? Because we really haven't heard Alex Acosta ever since he left the Trump administration. When this story first kicked in, right, exactly when he resigned, we haven't heard much from him. And so I think it's actually one of the more important interviews that that that the committee is asking for, which is for him to explain why he entered into that very sweetheart deal that allowed Epstein to plead guilty to local charges in Palm Beach County and not really bring down the hammer from the federal government, which is eventually what happened with the Southern District of New York. Yeah. And he also got work release. And he also they the very good they used a victim who was like 17 instead of 14. A whole bunch of fishy stuff. And the other glaring question, of course, why is the deputy attorney general doing this? Todd Blanch? And also, if you read the transcript, it's very frustrating. As a journalist, I'm sure you experience this too. He did not push back at all on some things she said that were clearly lies or at least deserved some follow-up. Right? I mean, this is partly why a lot of the criticism of this is that is that, you know, was Todd Blanch there as a deputy attorney general trying to get to the bottom of this? Was he there essentially helping Donald Trump find exculpatory information from Ghislaine Maxwell? That's what comes away.
Listen to this exchange between the two of them. "If you met Epstein, there is no way that this cast of characters of which it's extraordinary, some in your cabinet who you value as your coworkers and you know, would be with him if he was a creep or because they wanted sexual favors. A man wants sexual favors, he will find that. They didn't have to come to Epstein for that. Now, did some..."
"Okay, I don't know. I wasn't there, I didn't see it. So."
"When's the last time you think you were with Mr. Epstein when he got a massage?"
"I want to say 2007."
And, you know, there was a lot of the interview that goes like this over two days. And what you repeatedly see is the purpose that Ghislaine Maxwell is going after. She's trying to get out of prison. She is hoping for a pardon, which is why it goes on. The transcript goes on for so long, back and forth about the birthday book and whether she remembers Trump contributing anything to it, and also that, you know, she never saw President Trump do anything untoward or anything wrong in her presence. And then, of course, the second part, which is that "I did nothing wrong. I saw nothing, no crimes committed." And so this was her effort, really, better than anyone else's, right, to to try to set the table for her.
All right, Evan Perez, thank you. And joining us now is Liz Stein. She is a survivor of the Epstein and trafficking ring. She now works as a survivor mentor and policy associate at the Support Center for Child Victims in Philadelphia. Liz, thank you so much for coming. I'm really interested to learn what your reaction is to the contents of the Maxwell transcript, the very fact of her being interviewed by the deputy attorney general, her prison transfer, and the overall treatment of Maxwell.
I think that it's pretty obvious that she's not being truthful in this interview. And I think that something that the public might not be aware of, you know, if you're someone who isn't following this case really closely, is that in her federal indictment, there were perjury charges stemming from a deposition that was held in a civil suit involving Virginia Giuffre. And when it came time for Maxwell's trial, those charges were severed because the prosecutors did not want the testimony from those charges to unduly influence the jury. And when she was ultimately convicted of the other counts, those charges were dropped. So we're already talking about someone who has been less than truthful previously. And I think that it's really difficult for us as survivors to have the government speaking to someone who's been convicted of this crime and giving her any weight whatsoever in terms of leniency. I mean, the move to a federal prison camp is really an unprecedented move for someone who's been charged with these crimes. And so I'm just curious why the government is putting so much stock in what Maxwell is saying, but they're not talking to the actual victims of this crime.