Alex Acosta, the man behind Jeffrey Epstein’s controversially soft 2008 plea deal, just faced a grilling that could’ve powered a small city.
The Daily Caller reported that the former U.S. attorney testified in a closed-door session with the House Oversight Committee on September 19, 2025, with the full transcript released on Friday, shedding light on persistent questions about Epstein’s alleged ties to intelligence agencies and the federal handling of his case.
Let’s rewind to 2008, when Acosta, as U.S. attorney, brokered a deal with Epstein that many still view as a slap on the wrist for a man accused of heinous crimes.
Critics have long whispered that Epstein’s lenient treatment hinted at deeper, shadowy connections. It’s a theory that refuses to die, even as hard evidence remains elusive.
Fast forward to September 2025, and Acosta found himself in the hot seat before Congress as part of a broader probe into how federal prosecutors managed the cases of Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Democratic Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico didn’t hold back, pressing Acosta on whether he believed Epstein had ties to U.S. or foreign intelligence operations. She even name-dropped Israel’s Mossad, but Acosta didn’t budge an inch.
“I do not know as to whether he was or was not a member of the intelligence community,” Acosta stated firmly during the testimony. Well, that’s a neat sidestep, but it hardly douses the flames of speculation that have burned for years. If anything, it’s like tossing dry kindling on a campfire.
Stansbury wasn’t done, bringing up a claim by Steve Bannon that Acosta once told him Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Acosta shot that down faster than a progressive policy at a conservative rally.
“I don’t recall ever speaking to Bannon about Epstein,” Acosta insisted. If true, that’s a direct contradiction of Bannon’s public narrative, and it leaves one wondering who’s spinning the taller tale. This exchange alone keeps the rumor mill churning.
Further probing saw Stansbury ask if Acosta had been contacted by heavyweights like the CIA, NSA, or the FBI’s intelligence division about Epstein. His answer? A flat “No” across the board, which either means there’s nothing to see here or the cloak-and-dagger crowd is exceptionally good at staying cloaked.
Acosta’s past role as Labor Secretary under the first Trump administration also came under scrutiny. Questions arose about whether his appointment or resignation had anything to do with the Epstein saga.
“Not in the least bit, no,” Acosta replied when asked if Trump appointed him because of Epstein. That’s a bold denial, but in a world where political favors are often suspected, it’s unlikely to silence all skeptics.
Regarding his resignation, Acosta maintained it was his own decision, not prompted by the White House. It’s a tidy narrative, but given the murky waters of this case, some might still smell a rat. After all, optics matter in politics as much as policy.
The transcript’s release on October 17, 2025, also revealed a redacted name and a moment where the discussion went off the record, which only adds fuel to the conspiracy fire. Why the secrecy if there’s nothing to hide? It’s the kind of detail that keeps armchair detectives up at night.