Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
where we left off with Alex Acosta and his interview
with the OIG Inspectors. Question, Okay, what is your view
of whether the Criminal Division's review encompassed the NPA itself. Answer? So,
the Criminal Division, by its terms, did not encompass the NPA.
I would say that's different than the Deputy's review that
encompassed the totality of the circumstances. Question Okay, did you
discuss did you have conversations with DAG with Mark Phillip
about the case? Answer not to my recollection. Question okay,
and we've already talked about submission that Redacted made on
behalf of your office. Answer which yes, which I thought
was a fulsome submission and included the draft indictment the NPA.
I believe it included the term sheet and the other
docors documents. Question did you or anyone else, to your
knowledge asked DAG to review or assess the NPA or
approve it. Answer not to before signature, Not to my recollection,
but it was part of the ultimate review when Redacted
submitted the matter to the deputy He included the agreement question.
It was included their very first brief letter. You remember
the letter that authored that he authored addressed really only
the issues of the appropriateness of the case for prosecution
in your office. It did not in any way reference
the disposition, the plea agreement, or the NPA answer. So
it was the brief letter based on redacted submission. I
would have read that letter as they had all the
material in front of them, and they were saying that
there was no misconduct or abuse of discretion question. That's correct,
But they did not say that they contacted, that they
had addressed or assessed, reviewed even they didn't say that
they reviewed or approved the NPA answer. Again, and you know,
if the letter is here, I don't know gets cut
off question. Yeah, I have it right here. It's not
marked as an exhibit. But this is redacted's letter to
Jay Lefkowitz and Ken Starr, dated June twenty three, two
thousand and eight. It states that this office, meaning the
Office of the Deputy Attorney General, has completed a thorough
review of the US Attorney's handling of the matter involving
your client and addresses or states that they've received and
reviewed submission from both parties, and then states that the
Deputy Attorney General will intervene only in the most unusual
of circumstances in a US attorney matter, and we do
not believe such intervention is warranted here. Even if we
were to substitute our judgment for that of the US Attorney,
we believe the federal prosecution of the case is appropriate. Moreover,
having reviewed your allegation of prosecutorial misconduct and the facts
underlying them, we see nothing in the conduct of the
US Attorney's office that gives us any reason to alter
our opinion answer. And so, if I could point out,
this office has completed a thorough review of the US
Attorney's handling of the matter, and so handling is a
broad a broad term, and in reference to we believe
that federal prosecution of the case is appropriate. The way
I recalled reading that is, the federal prosecution of this case.
The argument that was the agreement was inappropriate because this
case should not have been prosecuted, and therefore that's the disposition.
The federal prosecution of the case was appropriate, and so
the handling of the matter. We reviewed, the handling of
the matter, not the agreement, but the handling of the matter,
and that the ultimate disposition you know, is at least
not an abusive discretion or is appropriate? Question That's how
you read it? Answer, That's how I read it. Question.
And did you ever discuss that Did you ever discuss
with anyone in ODAG what the scope of their review was? Answer?
Not to my recollection. It was a fulsome submission question. Correct,
But the issue presented by the defense were essentially federalism issues, right. Answer.
So again this is based on you know, as much
recollection as contemporaneous record. The issue presented by the defense were,
in essence, it was the heart of the non prosecution agreement,
which was it an abusive discretion to proceed in this
case in the way that we did on the grounds
that there may not or there should not have been
a federal prosecution in the first place, or that we
are using federal criminal law to elicit a civil outcome.
And so I don't think it's fair to sort of
narrow You can't say that our handling was you know
that their handling was revised without reviewing the non prosecution agreement. Question,
do you have any reason to believe that either ODAG
or a criminal division. Well that the ODAG, let's stick
with that, did in fact review the NPA, other than
that it was where it existed, whatever it's as might
have been. Answer. So it was clearly submitted, it was
clearly referenced, and it was clearly part of the complaint.
The complaint. The heart of the complaint about our office
was that we were using this agreement to impose civil liability.
And so I think it's fair to infer if the
complaint implicates the agreement, that the agreement would have been reviewed. Question,
but that's your inference. You don't have any specific communication
with ODAG to that effect. Answer, I don't recall any
specific communication. Question all right, I would like to take
a short break. We're getting there. Answer. I hear you redacted.
We appreciate your time that you've put into this. You've
been here for quite a long time. Acosta, Yeah, redacted.
The area that I want to discuss after the break
has to do with the ultimate notification of the victims
about the resolution of the case, the state plea and
the result of the federal investigation. And there is going
to be we have documents that are that are already
marked that might be helpful if you take a look
at a couple of them so we don't have to
go through maybe during the break, so you don't have
to go through them one by one, or I can
just give you a very quick overview of sort of
where we're going. I want to find out basically how
we're getting from there. That would be the state asking
for the US Attorney's Office to make the notification to
the victims about the upcoming state plea that happens in
November of two thousand and seven. That would be document
thirty two B to the defense. Then finding out that
the government want to notify the victims by letter, and
then demanding that they see the letter and have some
kind of comment on it. That would be document thirty three,
an email from lef Quwitz. Then we have an exchange
of letters. But the one I'd like to look at
is at document thirty seven, which is a letter coming
from redacted to the defense. And now, but you know,
during the break, so I want to find out how
we got from that Document thirty six where redacted is
writing as letters saying that citing the CVRA regulation saying
that the government is obligated to notify the victims about
the resolution of the case, and attaching a draft letter
to the victims telling them the time and date of
the state resolution and plea, inviting them to come to
ultimately a letter from you coming on nineteenth of December
two thousand and seven, which is number forty one B
agreeing to notify the victims of the state plea and
agreeing with the defense to have the state be responsible
for putting out that notification. And then we end ultimately
with a letter or draft letter that we have that
goes out to the victims in the case hon or
after the plea in July. Well, we have the draft
I'm going to show you which comes in June, showing
that the letter was clearly meant to be sent after
the plea as per the agreement. And that's document number
fifty one. So that's a lot to unpack there. Answer.
That's a lot to unpack. We should probably take it
a step at a time. Answer. Yes, I just wanted
to give you an overview because I think that's some
of what you had mentioned earlier. I know it's been
a long time, so I'll try to orient you from
the timeline. So if you I have highlighted the section
of those letters that we want to talk about, and
if you have a chance while we're taking a break
to look through them, that may be helpful to orient
you so that we're not spinning our wills on this.
I don't want to waste any of your time. Answer
a fair question, all right, off the record. Back on
the record now, questions begin again. Question Okay, great, So,
I know I gave you a lot to unpack over
the short break. We just had one. Basically, what we're
trying to get to find out is how your decision
making process regarding the victim notification issue. So maybe if
you could just give anything with your December nineteenth decision,
could you give us an explanation about how you got there? Answer? So,
I think we should probably take this in stages. Question okay. Answer.
As a general matter, I recall that there was back
and forth regarding after the agreement regarding how to notify
the victims, and there was back and forth between redacted
and Jay Lefkowitz and redacted around all that. Sorry I'm
losing my voice. I recall that there was an issue
in particular that was raised that I tried to address
in the letter and I recall at the end of
the day, it was my impression that once there was
an agreement for him to plead, that there was an
attempt I redacted to provide notice to the victims. But
it was a very It was I think on a Friday,
and he was pleading on a Monday morning or something
along those lines. And finally, I recall that the view
of the office was that the CVRA did not apply,
and so that this was a discretionary balancing that included
consideration of what impact notification of the twenty two dot
fifty five s would have at a trial the twenty
two to fifty five provision if we had to go
to trial. So we can unpack that. But those are
my general recollections. Question, okay, answer, and look, let me
add I think it's important. So I came in and
out of the case that stages, and I was involved
in certain aspects more than others. And while we had
a long discussion about the term sheet and matters like that,
while I was clearly involved in at least one dispute
around the twenty two to fifty five, the nuts and
bolts of how victims were notified is not something that
I have a recollection about Okay, fair answer, but we
can unpack it. Answer or question? I mean, okay, let's
start with the exhibit thirty three. So there we have.
As you can see, it's an email from left Qwitz
to you and to redacted, objecting to a letter being
sent to the victims unless the defense gets to review it.
And later on in some of your other correspondents, you
discussed that you you extended to the defense the courtesy
of allowing them to review these letters. Is this the
genesis of that courtesy? Answer? I don't have a recollection
as to what the genesis might be. I know that
there are well us back and forth between our office
and the defense about the letter. Question. Okay, but as
you can see on thirty three that you're not the
response from redacted, but redacted instructs redacted to send the
proposed letter to left Quitz, and I assume that redacted
would have done that had you objected to it. Answer again,
I don't recall any specific conversation. As general matter, this
is not something I was getting into the weeds unless
I had to. There was a lot of back and forth.
Question uh huh. Answer, Redacted is someone that I trusted
he was handling this matter. He's incredibly experienced. I know
that there were concerns and issues around the impact that
notification would have on the witnesses. I know that there
were issues around the language, and I trusted that folks
were working those out. Question Uh huh. One of the
criticisms that's compost. You know the CVRA litigation, that's been
the government allowing the defense to have review of these
letters or potential victim notification letters coming out of the government,
and that's very unusual. Have you had any other cases
where you let the defense review such documents. Answer? I've
had no other cases where I'm even aware of the
victims being notified, because I assume it all operates without
it rising to the management level. Question mm hmm. Answer,
and so this is the first and only time that
how individuals are notified to my recollection was even in
the executive suite. Question isn't that usually done or accomplished
by almost a computerized task? Answer? I would assume so, yes. Question,
given that the unusual way the notifications are made by
victim witness specialist, who is usually that person? Answer yes,
question do I have that right? So the FBI has
their victim witness specialist. Answer yes, question, and your office,
the US Attorney's Office has dedicated people who do that
job as well. Answer correct question. So why in this
case not direct the notification to that person to be
done in the usual course? Why elevate to something that
the defense is going to be able to review? So
I can't address the second half of that, but the
first half of the question, why why was it elevated?
You know, I think Redacted address some of that in
her was it twenty seventeen? Avia David and so on?
So we had an agreement that had been signed, and
we also had substantial questions as to whether that agreement,
whether ultimately Jeffrey Epstein would plead in court or not.
And so one of the questions is how do you
deal with notification of a possibility where the possibility could
be used to impeach potential future witnesses who are also
the victims. And that's a matter that was being worked
out by the ausas in the office question and the
impeachment is what answer? So impeachment I would believe Redacted
went into some detail, is you stand miss victims stand
to gain quite a bit of money if there's a conviction, correct,
weren't you aware of this agreement? If we have to
go to trial? Weren't you aware of this agreement? And
this isn't based on my recollection. This is based on
redacted Zaffid David, where she says that she had concerns
that the impeachment go along somewhere along the lines of
were you aware that if mister Epstein's convicted you stand
to receive substantial sums? Yes? Were you influenced by this?
And there were some according to Araffid David. This isn't
my independent recollection, This is according to Affid David, there
had already been dispositions of the victims, of at least
some of the victims that raise these issues. And so
I do think that it was a valid concern by
the ausas how the notifications took place. Question Okay, but
isn't that the type of line of cross examination the
same for any case where they're super wealthy defendant? Answer?
It may be the twenty two fifty five may make
it a little different because it's automatic, But ultimately these
are the judgments that line attorneys make, and a US attorney,
I think it's appropriate to back up their judgment unless
there was some reason for me to believe it was
incorrect question, Was there any thought ever to just giving
the victim notification that there will be a proceeding that
will end the federal case, just separating that in maybe
a later notification about the twenty two to fifty five answer.
I can't speak to what we thought there was or
was not. I can say around this timeframe, it was
far from clear that there would ever be that Epstein
would ever go into court, and we were thinking we
may have to just go to trial because these collateral
attacks keep going. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up
right here, and in the next episode, we're gonna pick
up where we left off. All of the information that
goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're gonna pick up where
we left off with alex Acosta and his interview with
the OIG inspectors. Question. Okay, let's get back on track.
The question that I asked earlier about allowing the defense
the courtesy to look at these letters. Can you just
remind us again what was the reasoning that you're allowed
to look at the victim notification letter. Answer, I can't
speak to that that something that redacted and redacted would
have handled. I think that you know, I'm responsible for
the office. I'm not shirking. I'm just saying that this
that this for the most part, is within their willhouse
and not something that I was involved in. I can
speculate question, sure, answer, the agreement was notifying them. The
letter was notifying them of certain rights in the agreement,
and therefore this is the time we weren't sure what
was happening with the agreement, and so perhaps this is
a way to address some of the concerns around the
twenty two to fifty five. I don't know. I'm just speculating. Question. Okay,
let's move on to Exhibit thirty six. This is a
letter that goes out to left Kowitz under a redacted signature.
You are c seed on the letter. Answer, all right, question,
And what he's doing is sending a draft victim notification letter,
which is attached as the attachment there dated December sixth,
two thousand and seven. And I wanted to get your impression.
If you go to page three of the letter, please
the first little paragraph there when it refers to the
Victims Rights and Restitution Act and the ultimate for the CBRA.
If you could just read the paragraph to yourself. Please answer,
are you referring to paragraph ten? Question? I'm sorry, I'm
on the letter left the letter left Kwitz, not the
draft letter, this one right here? Answer the additionally question, yes,
additionally pursuing too the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of
nineteen ninety. Our office is obligated, et cetera. Answer okay.
Question do you agree with the language that interpretation of
the victims rights as far as the notification? Answer? So, so,
let's sort of take this, this one sentence out of
time with respect to the notification of other information that
we were supposed to disclose. The statute requires that we
provide victims with the earliest possible notice. I will assume
that this is a restatement of the statute. I don't
have it in front of me, but let's assume that
that's a restatement of the statute. Just as in eighteen,
these sections are not limited to the victim through. The
Federal should be appropriately informed that a non pros does
not require to forego its legal obligation on a sentence
by sentence basis. I mean, do I agree sitting here, sure,
but I would want to sort of sit down before
I gave a legal opinion and spend more time with it.
He gets cut off. Question, Okay, because coming out of
your office sort of this. Well, let's go to the
next page, page four. There's a citation to the right
to confer in the first paragraph there, citing the CVR
a's reasonable right to confer with the attorneys of the
government in the case. Answer, okay, question, so you know,
it looks like to me, I mean, well, it appears
that there's two references to the CVRA obligation that the
government has that ultimately the government argues that it did
not have. Can you explain why that is a correct interpretation? Answer? So,
what I can say is I recall, so it looks
like at least some of the victims were notified. I
recall a discussion and a view that the CVRA did
not require it, and it was discretionary because it wasn't
The case had not indicted, so it did not attach
to its terms. Now that doesn't mean that it's not
something to aspire to. That just means it wasn't legally
binding question. And in the same manner though, while the
CVRA isn't legally binding, it's also doesn't prevent you from
notifying the victims, does it answer? It does not know question?
And you have the discretion to notify should you choose
to answer? Correct question? Okay? And so if you look
at the letter that's attached this, this is a draft
that goes out. We're on page one, page three of
the letter, and the second to last paragraph. The letter
is giving notice of mister Epstein's change of plea and
sentencing that will occur well at this time it was
December fourteenth of two thousand and seven, and it gives
the address and it says underneath there you are entitled
to be present and make a statement under oath. If
you choose, you can submit a written statement under oath,
et cetera, et cetera. So this is a letter that's
actively inviting victims to come to the state. Would you
agree that that's inviting victims to come to the state?
Plea answer? I think that's fair question. And with the
letter is reasoning that the government is sending would like
to send this letter because it believes it's obligated to
because it resolves a federal case. Answer. So I don't
want to speak to the reasoning, but it's clearly a
draft that the government is saying it intends to send.
Question Okay, Now, ultimately, just this is not a question
some information that will help to move us along. Obviously,
this letter is never sent misredacted drafts. We have them,
and I'm not going to show them to you. Thirty letters,
copies of the letters to different victims, addresses them, puts
them in envelopes, and is then told not to send
the letters. Answer, all right, well the plea it's scheduled
for December fourteenth, So yeah, question yes. But one of
the issues that's still percolating until the end of December
is who is going to make this notification, because, as
you can expect, the defense pushes back on the letter.
And so now we go to the number thirty nine please,
And this is a December eleventh, two thousand and seven
letter from ken Star to you. And if you look
on page two at the front at the top, at
the top of the page, there this letter is complaining
about an oral notification that misredacted gave to one of
the defense one of the victims attorneys that a letter
would be coming, and so mister Starr is writing you
to complain about it. And he mentions in later paragraphs
that we have thought that the notification process had been
an abeyance until completion of our ongoing discussions with respect
to that process. So were you having discussions with mister
Starr about the process at this time? Answer? I don't
recall discussions. I think there were at least correspondents. I'm sorry,
Where are you? I was reading the letter. I'm sorry,
where are you? What paragraph? Question? Let's take a look.
I know it's been a long day. Let's slow down here.
We're on the second page of the Star letter. Answer yes, question,
and it would be this the language in there in
the second sentence, which goes towards the bottom, answer this notification.
But quite apart from our substantive concerns, which we had
thought the notification process had been an abeyance until the completion,
that appears not to be. So this is respectably. So,
where does it imply that I was having I don't
recall communication with mister Starr. That's why I'm curious, at
least verbal communications. I'm curious where you're reading that from question,
he's saying, we had thought that the notification process had
been held in abeyance until completion of our ongoing discussions.
Are you saying that he gets cut off there by
a star? Answer? So, I don't know where that may
have come from, and I don't recall I recall at
one point I think I sent a letter saying we'll
hold off for a week. I don't recall the date
of the letter. While your review some matters where the
abeyance came from, I can't speak to question. Okay, let's
go to Exhibit forty one B. This is your December
nineteenth letter, and what I'd like you to draw your
attention to is page two, the second to last paragraph there.
Answer yes, question, so could you tell us how your
decision making around this paragraph? How you got to this decision? Answer,
so you're asking me to recreate at some point the
issues clearly move from redacted interacting with defense counsel to
my desk and my recollection twelve years after the fact.
Is so you're saying we should notify them about the
state proceeding and sure the state this was negotiated between
Epstein and the State attorney, We did not direct the
state proceeding, So whatever state process is appropriate for the
state process will be given. But with respect to the
federal resolution, we intend to provide victims with notice of
the federal resolution as required by law. And your question
is if we thought it was discretionary. I recall our
believing it was discretionary, but you could also it doesn't
hurt to when a letter say, we're kind of required
to do this, and I think it was the right
thing to do, and to provide them with notice of
federal resolution. And once that resolution was reached, and part
of the key word is what the resolution is, my
understanding is that redacted made efforts to notify victims of
that resolution and let them know that there would be
a hearing the following Monday, and that they should attend
because it would bring an end to the case. Question, well,
let's just back up real quick, as far as the
state attorney notifying people victims of the state resolution, did
you have any concern with any particular part of it? Answer? So,
it's difficult to recreate the thought process twelve years later,
But ultimately you've got federal and you've got state, and
the state attorney will do what the state attorney thinks
is appropriate. It's not for me to direct the state attorney.
I'm inferring based on this language, it's not for me
to direct the state attorney or for our office to
direct the State Attorney's office on its obligation with respect
to the state outcome. Question Okay, I'm just asking because
you know, the whole case came to the office because
of some issue with the state attorney's resolution of the case.
So now it's going back and they're going to be
in charge of the notification. Did that raise any red
flags with you or did you have any concern about
whether it would be done correctly or done at all? Answer? So, again,
this has come up in different contexts, and I think
there was obviously concern about how he was being charged.
But that doesn't mean that they will not fulfill whatever
obligations they have. Let's not assume that the State Attorney's
office is full of bad actors. Question. Okay, but even
if I'm not assuming that they're full of bad actors,
it's going to be difficult for them to notify the victims.
Wasn't it that they didn't even necessarily know the same
list as the federal victims, because you had found more
victims answers, so we could certainly have shared the list
with them. I mean, there are ways that this could
have happened. I don't know how what the communications were,
but as a conceptual matter, having the state notify them
of the state hearing and having the federal government say
that this is the federal resolution is consistent with the law. Question,
but since the federal resolution is tied to the state plea,
why not just combine the two of them in the notification.
Here's the federal resolution, we're tying it to the state plea,
and here's the date of the state plea. Answer. I
can't speak to why or why not? I can you know.
I can speak to my belief that this would be
consistent with the law. That could also be one approach.
I can't speak as to why a versus B question.
Did somebody instruct you that or did you have a
conversation consulting with somebody about whether this was a better approach?
Answer I would have said, you know, based on practice,
not recollection, but based on practice. I would have sat
down with redacted, most likely since he was handling this matter,
and we would have talked about it. I would not
have sent this without running it by at least redacted,
if not other individuals in the office. I don't know
if based on your record there are emails with drafts,
but you know, every document that I'm aware of was
sort of shared within the management team, and this would
have been one of those. Question with respect to the
one specific decision about this should be at the discretion
of the State's attorney. Did you consult with anybody in
DC about the issue? Answer? I don't recall consulting with
someone in DC about the issue. I recall general perspective
that the CVRA as a technical matter did not attach
because ultimately this was not an indictment. Question. Oh, can
we before we leave? This letter gets cut off again
by a costa if I could. I understand your questions,
but I feel some obligation to erase the tension between
did you consult in DC versus should you allow DC
to review? And so, just so you know, we certainly
were allowing review, but US Attorney's Office don't consult on
every matter, especially offices that have the kind of experience
that MIAMI does. Question. Before we finish with the letter
from the nineteenth. Can we look at page three please,
if you could read the first paragraph on page three
to yourself, please answer, okay question. Could you in that
section you mentioned that prosecutors that ask you to declare
a breach and you resisted. Can you discuss that answer? Sure,
that's referencing I think increasing frustration by the prosecutors, and
I think that's reflected in contemporaneous emails saying why don't
we just rip this up? And I recall conversations with redacted,
And that goes a little bit to what we talked
about earlier, which is concerned that a unilateral breach would
overlay not just the initial issues that we had and
not just the fact that the victims are getting older
and the case isn't getting better. But then we have
was the unilateral breach of valid breach or was it
not a valid breach? And is the delay justified or
not justified? And ultimately that additional liability, well not liability,
that additional legal uncertainty would have made the case even
harder because they were very careful to always say there
is no breach. Let me address because I went on
to read the next paragraph as well, and so let
me circle back to an earlier issue, because I at
least want to address it. Because the next paragraph then says,
and it's clearer that I'm increasingly frustrated that my frustration
with it appears to be an eleventh hour appeal weeks
before then now schedule July eleventh plea date. That said,
the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted,
irrespective of timeline concerns. We hope to preserve the July
fourth date. I understand Defense counsel with this in mind,
and in the event the Defense Counsel may wish to
seek review of our determination in Washington. I spoke this
past Monday with Attorney General redacted, confirming if it's possible,
appearing to ask her to grant the potential request for
review and to the fact review this case in an
expedited manner, in an attempt to preserve the July fourth date.
He gets corrected January fourth. The address that address January Acosta,
I'm sorry the January fourth plea date question, and that
addressed the question I was asking answer, and that goes
to the question you're asking, and again I'm recreating and
I'm speculating having that following another eleventh hour appeal here
I would say, I wouldn't say, let's appeal to this again.
I think I'm saying pretty clearly it's against my frustration
with what appears to be an eleventh hour appeal weeks
before the now scheduled January fourth plea date. And this
is not an invitation to do another appeal, because the
appeal is already in DC. But my if we're going
to do this appeal, let's get it over and done with.
Then I'm sort of speculating based on the language, so
that we can get this pled on January fourth, and
let's not put it off until after the holidays. Question.
But you did say to ask her to grant the
potential request for review. Answer, which is why I wanted
to on my own raise it Because is that saying
please appeal me, or is that saying this is an
eleventh hour appeal that you have now taken to DC.
It's December nineteenth, we're about to go into the holidays.
There's a January fourth plea date. This should not be
another way to put it off. And so if you're
going to do this, I'm going to try to expedite
it so we can get this done. Question. In fact,
it took until may answer. Yeah, answer it did and apologies,
I just realized my voice question all right, rising So
I don't know if that's my frustration at reading this
again or it's getting late, but it was a frustrating matter. Apologies.
All right, folks. We're gonna wrap up right here and
in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna
pick up where we left off. All of the information
that goes with this episode can be found in the
description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode
of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're gonna pick
up where we left off with the Alexacosta interview with
the OIG inspectors question. Let's just move to Exhibit forty six.
This is an email from misredacted to you and redacted
discussing how she has interviewed some victims that day. There
is a mention that one of the victims said that
you would rather not get any money and she'd have
she would rather have Epstein spend a significant time in jail.
Did that piece of information go into your character list
at all about how the case should be resolved? Answer? So, again,
not based on recollection because this is maybe, if not
twelve eleven years ago. Question. Okay, but at this point
there had been an agreement, the agreement was signed, it
was being reviewed. Based on this email, we're trying to
get and expedite the criminal Division because I see it
says please reach to redacted to a maker decision. And
I think at this point, as I've said, if we
knew earlier, if we knew that this was going to
go this long and take all of this, I think
we may have approached the case differently. But we were
so far along on this, there was a signed agreement.
The United States can unwind an agreement just because it's
frustrated or just because some victim indicates that they don't
like it. That's not you know, if the agreement is
not legally valid, if there are some other concerns. But
I don't think that this in and of itself would
have been grounds for unwinding agreement. Question. Do you think
it's misleading for the government to have been interviewing these
witnesses and preparing them for a trial when there's already
assigned NPA That resolves the issue. Answer? So that was
part of the judgment that there is assigned agreement, but
based on the course of conduct, is that agreement really
an agreement that will be honored? And so there was
an ongoing investigation as well, because we didn't know if
we'd go to trial, and I know that not. I know.
My recollection is that the judgment was until we know
that this agreement is really going to be performed fully,
that to inform the victims of a possibility of civil
recovery is problematic. And I can't say that judgment's incorrect.
I think that's a valid judgment. Question fair enough. And
then the last question on this email is at the
bottom misredacted invites you to attend an interview with four
of the girls that would be coming the following day.
Did you attend? Answer? I did not, And as a
US attorney, I don't think I attend. That wasn't typical
for the office. Question would or was that ever? Had
you ever had that type of request come from a
line assistant? Answer? Not to my recollection, but I also
tended not to have communication from the line assistance in
the first place. Question were you at all curious, given
you had discussed the issue with the witnesses in this case,
that potential impeachment. You know that caused you two that
went into the negotiation phase. Did you have any interest
in seeing these people, even interacting with them personally so
you can make your own assessment. Answer, So any interest
is he gets cut off? Question? Would there be value
in doing that? Answer? So, we had very experienced prosecutors.
It's not just interacting with the victim that were in
a really hard position. How I would draw a distinction
between a victim being interviewed by an agent and how
a victim holds up in court in a public setting
under cross examine, and in that I don't think anyone
in the office was questioning the pain or the suffering
of the victims. I think that the issues were how
they would hold up in court, which are uniquely trial issues. Question. Okay,
so let's move on to what was your understanding that
the federal government was going to do as far as
the notification about the resolution of the case. Answer? So,
my understanding was that at once we believed that the
case was going, that the plea was going to go forward,
that we would notify the victims of the resolution and
of the agreement and basically how it played out. Question, Now,
are you saying you had agreed to not notify. I
mean one would read your December twelfth, nineteenth letter as
an agreement that the federal government is not going to
notify the victims of the state plea and that will
end the part of the case. Is that correct answer?
So I would parse my letter differently. And this is
twelve years after the fact, and so this isn't based
on recollection, but on my reading and my understanding of
the course of conduct in the case sitting here now.
My understanding was that our office was notified, was it
on a Friday afternoon, that he would be pleading on Monday,
and that at that time Redacted made efforts to notify
victims that he would be pleading, and that he would
terminate the federal resolution of this matter, and that the
victims should attend the hearing, which wasn't the state resolution
of the case. It was the federal resolution. And so
you're saying that the state plea was also the federal
resolution of the case. Answer based on my understanding of
what happened. That's how my recollection, based on having reviewed
the record, That's how I believed it proceeded. Although I
think Redacted attempted to do so, couldn't reach some attorneys
and exercise best efforts to let them know, but did
not get a hold of all the victims over the weekend. Question.
Before we get too deep into that, let's just take
a quick look at Exhibit fifty one. So this is
an email forwarded to you from redacted from January June
twenty fifth, two thousand and eight, So that's five days
prior to the plea in the case, or the state
court plea. And the attachment there you'll notice is a
letter with a notification of identified victims, and the letter
is written, Would you disagree it's written with on June thirtieth,
Epstein pled guilty. Do you see that? Answer? Yes? Question,
So the inference it appears to be that this letter
was to be sent after the plea. Answer. I see
that also based on my review of the record, where
I think I'm recalling the redacted affid David where she
said that she made an attempt to notify the victim
as soon as she was made aware that he would
be pleading, that he would be pleading in state court. Question. Well,
what it says in the Affid David I believe is
that she made notification and the police department chief redacted.
Police department made notifications. Is that correct? Does that ring
a bell? Mister Todd? Do you have a copy of
the affid David? It's right here, one copy Acosta on
the back, Acosta so relevant to this paragraph thirty four
and then another paragraph. These and other attacks and efforts
to avoid the NPA's terms led the FBI investigative team,
the office, and me to conclude that prosecution at trial
remained a possibility and we should prepare as much. This
meant that the victim notification letters had to cease, because
one we no longer knew whether Epstein would perform under
the NPA, and hence we did not know whether providing
information about the NPA would be accurate until we believe
that Epstein, through his council, would attempt to use victim
notification concerning the NPA to suggest that victims had been
encouraged by the FBI or the office to overstate the
victimization for a monetary compensation, and then fast forwarding because
you can read it on your own. On Friday, June
twenty seventh, at approximately four to fifteen, I received a
copy of Epstein's for post date plea agreement and learn
that Epstein's state court change a plea was scheduled for
eight thirty am on Monday the Palm Beach Police Department,
and I attempted to notify the victims about the hearing
in the short time available to us. I specifically called
the attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding
the hearing. I believe it was during this I never
told that state charges involved other victims, and neither the
state Court charging instrument nor the factual proffer limited the
procurement of prostitution charges to a specific cell, so that
was what I was referring to. Again, I'm basing this
based on my review of the Affid David and not
on recollection of how this may or may not have
proceeded twelve years ago. Question, Okay, you know, would it
surprised you to learn that misredacted only communicated with mister
Edwards that day. That's because she was under direction from
the manager to only contact Edwards regarding the potential plea
for that Monday answer, the AFID David said she attempted
to notify the victims, so I can't speak to that question. Okay.
Answer and I don't have an independent recollection of this
going back twelve years? Question were you aware that misredacted
was directed to have no communication with the State Attorney's
office and probably during the later period of the case
in two thousand and eight? Answer not to my recollection
question okay, So did you have would you not recall
hearing anyone directing her to not communicate with the State's
Attorney's office? Answer I can't speak twelve years later? What
role I may or may not have had. I question,
how if we need if there is an attempt to
schedule a plea? In all of that, how can there
not be communication? But I can't say whether I did
or did not. When I say I have no recollection,
I mean that in the broadest sense of the word.
Question Okay. In your December nineteenth letter, you did agree
that the State Attorney's Office would notify the state's victims.
Right answer yes. Question and do you have any idea
how that was supposed to be accomplished? Answer I can't
speak to that. No question And would you have any
knowledge of who the state victims are? Answer? I would
infer that our office would have sufficient communication with the
State Attorney's office to communicate who the victims were in
the case because it was ongoing. It was an ongoing matter.
But I don't know. Question, do you want to go
on misredacted? Okay? Are you? Are you done with your
that portion at least for the moment redacted? Yes, thank you. Question.
I just want to clarify something you said a moment ago,
mister Acosta. You said that you referenced or referred to
the agreement the NPA as having been it was signed,
and it was being reviewed. Were you talking about Washington? Answer? Right,
question the Criminal Division? But we established earlier, did we
not that the NPA was not the subject of the
Criminal Division review? They expressly declined to review it. Answer,
I stand corrected. Question Okay, I just wanted to be
clear on the record. Thank you. So we've had a
lot of conversation about the facts. We're fortunate in this
case to have a plethora of documents upon which we
can rely, even after twelve years, and we've tried to
plumb the depths of your memory as to the events.
Are there any facts, any conversations, any incidents, anything, based
on the questions that you've heard here today that you recall,
have recalled that you want to tell us about, want
us to know answer, So give me a minute to
just sort of think this through. I think we've covered
most of the issues pretty clearly. I guess I would
have two general comments. The first is whether folks agree
or disagree with the initial two years, you know, registration
and restitution. The office's focus was on having mister Epstein
go to jail at the time, when from our perspective,
these cases were at least presented with the facts federally
at least unusual, and the most trafficking cases involve different
sort of nexus. It involved bringing individuals into the country,
or holding individuals against their will, or doing something like that.
And this will go to my second point, which is,
you know, sitting here we now see several high profile
individuals who abuse power and have now been prosecuted, who
are known at the time to who abused drugs, like
Bill Cosby. There were rumors at the time, and you know,
so looking back, maybe it was the right call, maybe
it wasn't the right call, But there is some degree
I'm not sure what the right adjective is frustration that
and certainly some of this goes to me. But I
think a lot of this goes to redacted and the
individuals involved, that the attempt to put someone in jail,
as opposed to decline the case and say this is
just a state case, that the federal issues are too tricky,
that ultimately this is the sort of novel interpretation that
the attempt to come up with an outcome has rebounded
in the way that it has. And I'm not saying, look,
that's life, and I understand that, but I do think
it's important to look back on this and try to
be in the shoes of the thought process in six
and seven, when picking prosecutions were fairly new, when you know,
more so than today, some jurors may have looked at
this as prostitution, perhaps more so than today. Judge's tolerance
for victim shaming may have both caused more hesitation on
part of the victims but also created more issues at trial.
And so I think we've touched on that, and I
think we've sort of wrapped up this portion of it,
and it's important just to restate that question and the addition,
are there any facts that you or the conversations or
anything that we have talked about that elicited from you
that you want us to know and to be clear,
you'll have an opportunity to supplement all of this. Answer
not at this time that I can think of. Question
all right, how do you respond to public criticism that
the defense attorneys, the Epstein defense team, we're getting extraordinary
access to an influence on prosecutors from the line level
all the way up through the department. Answer. So I
would point out early in the case. When I said early,
you push back, But from my perspective, early on in
the case, not when it was first investigated, but when
it was first bubbled up for a decision. Question and
that would be mid two thousand and seven answer mid
two thousand and seven juneish May to June two thousand
and seven, May June July. We determined here is what
we need for resolution. And I think we addressed some
of this in the letter because we were receiving criticism
back then, and I think the letter has been misconstrued
to some extent because it was not here influential people
were backing off. It was early on set three criteria
two years registration restitution, despite all these attorneys, despite all
these appeals, despite all these efforts. The Office did not
budge with the caveat of the twenty four to eighteen months,
which we've discussed, and from my perspective, despite all that,
I backed the Office in sticking by that resolution in
the various appeals in Washington, and so ultimately it was
a year long process, but we ended up in a
year later exactly where we started with the caveat of
twenty four to eighteen. And so to the extent that
there was influence, there was no change in position. Question, Well,
my question was access. That this team of defense attorneys
had extraordinary access, that they asked for meetings, they pressed
for with communications, and that they had access. Did that
seem extraordinary to you answer? So they asked for a
meeting with me before the agreement was signed. I granted
that that's not the first and only time that I
granted a meeting to defense attorneys. I don't think it's
a typical, particularly as a case coming to a resolution,
for US attorney to sit down and meet with the
opposing council. And I can think of several cases where
that happened. There was certainly a lot of access in Washington.
I would speak to you know, I think that's a
question to direct to this building because the process here
was lengthy and frustrating. But I think we successfully held
firm in our position despite all the process in this building. Question,
and again, my focus is not on your response, but
on the access based on the prominence and the prominence
of the defense attorneys. If these had been local, your
sort of average criminal defense attorneys from you know name,
where they hang out in Miami coming to you and
pressing you for this, you writ large the department. Do
you believe you would have had the same or comparable
level of access. Answer? Yes, so I guess i'd respond
this way if an attorney after meeting with my management
staff as for a meeting with me, I believe I
did and would have granted it. And I think of
several matters on which those types of meetings were granted,
and so that was not unusual with respect to the
back and forth after the agreement was signed, this was
an unusual agreement, and to some extent, as a result,
the back and forth quickly elevated, particularly because matters would
elevate in particular when they were being addressed at Main Justice.
That would be a natural way for matters to elevate
within the office, and so the fact that they were
being addressed and reviewed and letters were coming here would
naturally elevate the way the matter was treated in Miami.
Question in particular, Jay Lefkowitz had ready access to Of course,
he was involved in the negotiations with redacted directly in
creating the NPA, But after that, it appears from the
record that he was often contacting you and running or
going above the people who work for you, and on
numerous occasions you, again my characterization, reprimanded him or instructed
him not to do that and to do direct his
communications to a line attorney or supervisors. Is that a
fair characterization? Answer? Yes, I think on several occasions I
said direct them, And again that was after the agreement
was signed. But yes, question, but there were many issues
still pending correct answer, yes, question okay. And then was
his ability to reach out to you as a function
of your personal association? Is that fair answer? So I
don't think that's a fair characterization. You could also say
that it was the ability of a function of his
his insistence is not doing what we asked And the
fact that in a typical course a Miami attorney would
not have done this because they would have to interact
with the office on an ongoing basis, and so the
repeat litigator behaves very differently than the one time raised
Earth litigator. Question raised rzed answer correct. Question Is it
reasonable for us to understand that had you followed the
media coverage of what happened in the Epstein case over
the years? Answer yes, question in your view overall and
in whatever specific respect you wish to address it, has
it been accurate or not so? Answer I think it's
been accurate or inaccurate, I should say in several ways,
and we can go through them cut off if you
could just tick those off. Answer so, I think it's
inaccurate in that it has been characterized as our approving
estate plea, and the complexity of this case was a
state plea and we were deferring in favor of a state.
Prosecution has been lost and it's something that I have
attempted to correct, but it's been very difficult to sort
of explain that in the media. You know, this is
a bad analogy, and so I haven't used it in
the media, but I thought about it, and so I'll
share it. So after the juicy smolet plea in Chicago,
there were some discussion of whether the federal government should
bring charges, and I remember the media saying that. And
I haven't used this analogy because I don't want to compare,
and I think it would be disrespectful to compare the
facts of the case of to what happened to these victims.
And I still I don't want the comparison to be drawn,
but there is a legal comparison, right the US Attorney
in Chicago could have stepped in and said, whether or
not the state takes this plea, we may investigate this
federally and sort of stop that plea from going forward,
or at least put a wrench in those gears. Or
the US attorney could have pursued that under petite policy
and did not. And so our stepping into this sort
of reminded me of how many times cases that are
viewed as a manifest injustice to occur, and yet the
federal government does not step in, and the fact that
we stepped in has been construed as this became a
federal prosecution and sort of going sort of question earlier
the distinction between it was a manifest injustice versus this
was the right outcome is something that I think has
been lost on the coverage in this matter. I think
a second issue that has been lost in the coverage
of this matter is there is reference to Prince Andrew
and Alan Dershowitz and Governor Richardson and Bill Clinton and
the thing happening in London and the so called Lolita
Express where things may have happened on airplanes, and so
this is viewed from the public as this international matter
where the victims were local. The actions, to my recollection
were local. And so the distinction between this Pombeach incident
and what the media likes to cover, which is, you know,
did mister Epstein force a minor to have sexual relations
with Prince Andrew is a very different fact pattern, both
in terms of the public perception a minor to have
sex with a third party that they you know, there
is an outside solicitation in context, it's sort of traveling
with these women and forcing them to have sex, versus
a more local matter. I don't want to say solicitation
because I think we've covered that, but some may view
it as that, and I think those two are major
elements that have been lost in coverage question. The case
has been criticized as having involved in proper influence or
favors or payments that affected decisions that were made within
your office. Are you aware of all of those allegations
as well in connection with this case? Were you yourself
ever offered any payment or any favors or any promises
of job assistance or anything like that in connection with
the case? Answer no question. And to your knowledge, was
there any offer to anyone associated with the case in
your office? Answer not, to my knowledge. Question. It's been
asserted also that the handling of the case in the
office was affected by Epstein's wealth and influence in the
pond each community. Do you what is your response to
that criticism? Answer again, my response would be, you know,
sometime in May or June, we came up with these
three points and we stuck to them. And you know,
I despite all of this, you know what, people make
these assertions somewhere along the way, the fact that we
stuck to those points is lost and not talked about.
And so we did stick to those points, you know,
and question whether the case would have come to us
in the first place, and so, you know, I think
that could go a long way the other way. Question
I don't understand that. Answer that it's highly unusual for
a case to be brought to the state, to the
US Attorney's office after the state attorney declined, not declines,
but questioned, fails to fully prosecute. Answer. Right, And so
one question that also doesn't get asked. You know, to
what extent was this case brought to us in the
first place because of this because of its profile? Question?
In other words, are you suggesting that is wealth and
influence in the community affected the state's authorities? Answer? I'm
not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is that the case
came in, the case proceeded, and someone can make the
argument that the only reason the chief redacted brought it
to us was because it had such a high profile.
Are there other matters that take place in Palm Beach
that a state attorney declines in the first place, that
isn't brought to the state attorney because it doesn't rise
to the US attorney because it doesn't rise to the
profile question? All right? Well, in fairness, he might have
done it because the number of victims too. Right. Answer,
he may have. I don't know. What I'm suggesting is
we tried to treat it fairly not looking at hey,
how wealthy is he, but also not saying we need
to do this because he's so wealthy. All right, folks,
we're going to wrap up right here, and then the
next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick
up where we left off. All of the information that
goes with this episode can be found in the description box.