1
00:00:04,519 --> 00:00:07,400
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the

2
00:00:07,400 --> 00:00:10,640
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up

3
00:00:10,679 --> 00:00:14,320
where we left off with Alex Acosta and his interview

4
00:00:14,480 --> 00:00:19,160
with the OIG Inspectors. Question, Okay, what is your view

5
00:00:19,199 --> 00:00:24,160
of whether the Criminal Division's review encompassed the NPA itself. Answer? So,

6
00:00:24,320 --> 00:00:28,359
the Criminal Division, by its terms, did not encompass the NPA.

7
00:00:29,000 --> 00:00:32,039
I would say that's different than the Deputy's review that

8
00:00:32,200 --> 00:00:36,920
encompassed the totality of the circumstances. Question Okay, did you

9
00:00:37,000 --> 00:00:41,359
discuss did you have conversations with DAG with Mark Phillip

10
00:00:41,600 --> 00:00:45,200
about the case? Answer not to my recollection. Question okay,

11
00:00:45,359 --> 00:00:48,719
and we've already talked about submission that Redacted made on

12
00:00:48,759 --> 00:00:53,399
behalf of your office. Answer which yes, which I thought

13
00:00:53,439 --> 00:00:57,280
was a fulsome submission and included the draft indictment the NPA.

14
00:00:57,640 --> 00:00:59,719
I believe it included the term sheet and the other

15
00:00:59,719 --> 00:01:03,200
docors documents. Question did you or anyone else, to your

16
00:01:03,240 --> 00:01:06,959
knowledge asked DAG to review or assess the NPA or

17
00:01:07,000 --> 00:01:12,000
approve it. Answer not to before signature, Not to my recollection,

18
00:01:12,319 --> 00:01:14,599
but it was part of the ultimate review when Redacted

19
00:01:14,640 --> 00:01:18,799
submitted the matter to the deputy He included the agreement question.

20
00:01:18,879 --> 00:01:22,280
It was included their very first brief letter. You remember

21
00:01:22,519 --> 00:01:26,560
the letter that authored that he authored addressed really only

22
00:01:26,599 --> 00:01:29,640
the issues of the appropriateness of the case for prosecution

23
00:01:30,000 --> 00:01:33,519
in your office. It did not in any way reference

24
00:01:33,560 --> 00:01:37,519
the disposition, the plea agreement, or the NPA answer. So

25
00:01:37,920 --> 00:01:40,920
it was the brief letter based on redacted submission. I

26
00:01:40,959 --> 00:01:43,159
would have read that letter as they had all the

27
00:01:43,200 --> 00:01:45,319
material in front of them, and they were saying that

28
00:01:45,359 --> 00:01:49,719
there was no misconduct or abuse of discretion question. That's correct,

29
00:01:49,959 --> 00:01:53,400
But they did not say that they contacted, that they

30
00:01:53,480 --> 00:01:56,480
had addressed or assessed, reviewed even they didn't say that

31
00:01:56,519 --> 00:02:00,359
they reviewed or approved the NPA answer. Again, and you know,

32
00:02:00,640 --> 00:02:03,400
if the letter is here, I don't know gets cut

33
00:02:03,439 --> 00:02:06,599
off question. Yeah, I have it right here. It's not

34
00:02:06,719 --> 00:02:09,479
marked as an exhibit. But this is redacted's letter to

35
00:02:09,560 --> 00:02:12,719
Jay Lefkowitz and Ken Starr, dated June twenty three, two

36
00:02:12,759 --> 00:02:15,879
thousand and eight. It states that this office, meaning the

37
00:02:15,919 --> 00:02:19,039
Office of the Deputy Attorney General, has completed a thorough

38
00:02:19,080 --> 00:02:22,520
review of the US Attorney's handling of the matter involving

39
00:02:22,520 --> 00:02:27,280
your client and addresses or states that they've received and

40
00:02:27,360 --> 00:02:30,560
reviewed submission from both parties, and then states that the

41
00:02:30,599 --> 00:02:34,599
Deputy Attorney General will intervene only in the most unusual

42
00:02:34,639 --> 00:02:37,960
of circumstances in a US attorney matter, and we do

43
00:02:38,039 --> 00:02:42,199
not believe such intervention is warranted here. Even if we

44
00:02:42,199 --> 00:02:45,879
were to substitute our judgment for that of the US Attorney,

45
00:02:46,039 --> 00:02:50,240
we believe the federal prosecution of the case is appropriate. Moreover,

46
00:02:50,520 --> 00:02:54,439
having reviewed your allegation of prosecutorial misconduct and the facts

47
00:02:54,479 --> 00:02:57,000
underlying them, we see nothing in the conduct of the

48
00:02:57,080 --> 00:03:00,639
US Attorney's office that gives us any reason to alter

49
00:03:01,000 --> 00:03:04,400
our opinion answer. And so, if I could point out,

50
00:03:04,599 --> 00:03:07,520
this office has completed a thorough review of the US

51
00:03:07,599 --> 00:03:10,840
Attorney's handling of the matter, and so handling is a

52
00:03:10,840 --> 00:03:14,000
broad a broad term, and in reference to we believe

53
00:03:14,080 --> 00:03:18,039
that federal prosecution of the case is appropriate. The way

54
00:03:18,120 --> 00:03:21,680
I recalled reading that is, the federal prosecution of this case.

55
00:03:22,159 --> 00:03:26,439
The argument that was the agreement was inappropriate because this

56
00:03:26,520 --> 00:03:30,840
case should not have been prosecuted, and therefore that's the disposition.

57
00:03:31,159 --> 00:03:35,000
The federal prosecution of the case was appropriate, and so

58
00:03:35,120 --> 00:03:37,360
the handling of the matter. We reviewed, the handling of

59
00:03:37,400 --> 00:03:40,280
the matter, not the agreement, but the handling of the matter,

60
00:03:40,840 --> 00:03:43,680
and that the ultimate disposition you know, is at least

61
00:03:43,879 --> 00:03:48,039
not an abusive discretion or is appropriate? Question That's how

62
00:03:48,080 --> 00:03:50,919
you read it? Answer, That's how I read it. Question.

63
00:03:51,159 --> 00:03:53,599
And did you ever discuss that Did you ever discuss

64
00:03:53,639 --> 00:03:58,919
with anyone in ODAG what the scope of their review was? Answer?

65
00:03:59,000 --> 00:04:03,080
Not to my recollection. It was a fulsome submission question. Correct,

66
00:04:03,520 --> 00:04:08,639
But the issue presented by the defense were essentially federalism issues, right. Answer.

67
00:04:08,800 --> 00:04:12,159
So again this is based on you know, as much

68
00:04:12,199 --> 00:04:17,279
recollection as contemporaneous record. The issue presented by the defense were,

69
00:04:17,279 --> 00:04:20,519
in essence, it was the heart of the non prosecution agreement,

70
00:04:20,759 --> 00:04:24,360
which was it an abusive discretion to proceed in this

71
00:04:24,480 --> 00:04:27,360
case in the way that we did on the grounds

72
00:04:27,519 --> 00:04:29,720
that there may not or there should not have been

73
00:04:29,759 --> 00:04:33,279
a federal prosecution in the first place, or that we

74
00:04:33,360 --> 00:04:36,399
are using federal criminal law to elicit a civil outcome.

75
00:04:37,319 --> 00:04:39,399
And so I don't think it's fair to sort of

76
00:04:39,480 --> 00:04:42,079
narrow You can't say that our handling was you know

77
00:04:42,319 --> 00:04:47,199
that their handling was revised without reviewing the non prosecution agreement. Question,

78
00:04:47,279 --> 00:04:50,360
do you have any reason to believe that either ODAG

79
00:04:50,720 --> 00:04:54,319
or a criminal division. Well that the ODAG, let's stick

80
00:04:54,360 --> 00:04:57,439
with that, did in fact review the NPA, other than

81
00:04:57,480 --> 00:05:00,480
that it was where it existed, whatever it's as might

82
00:05:00,519 --> 00:05:03,639
have been. Answer. So it was clearly submitted, it was

83
00:05:03,720 --> 00:05:07,560
clearly referenced, and it was clearly part of the complaint.

84
00:05:07,720 --> 00:05:10,120
The complaint. The heart of the complaint about our office

85
00:05:10,480 --> 00:05:13,560
was that we were using this agreement to impose civil liability.

86
00:05:14,040 --> 00:05:16,319
And so I think it's fair to infer if the

87
00:05:16,319 --> 00:05:21,639
complaint implicates the agreement, that the agreement would have been reviewed. Question,

88
00:05:21,959 --> 00:05:26,720
but that's your inference. You don't have any specific communication

89
00:05:26,879 --> 00:05:30,399
with ODAG to that effect. Answer, I don't recall any

90
00:05:30,439 --> 00:05:34,240
specific communication. Question all right, I would like to take

91
00:05:34,240 --> 00:05:39,279
a short break. We're getting there. Answer. I hear you redacted.

92
00:05:39,319 --> 00:05:42,120
We appreciate your time that you've put into this. You've

93
00:05:42,120 --> 00:05:45,680
been here for quite a long time. Acosta, Yeah, redacted.

94
00:05:46,000 --> 00:05:48,279
The area that I want to discuss after the break

95
00:05:48,480 --> 00:05:50,920
has to do with the ultimate notification of the victims

96
00:05:51,120 --> 00:05:54,560
about the resolution of the case, the state plea and

97
00:05:54,600 --> 00:05:57,959
the result of the federal investigation. And there is going

98
00:05:58,000 --> 00:06:01,000
to be we have documents that are that are already

99
00:06:01,040 --> 00:06:03,319
marked that might be helpful if you take a look

100
00:06:03,439 --> 00:06:05,240
at a couple of them so we don't have to

101
00:06:05,279 --> 00:06:07,680
go through maybe during the break, so you don't have

102
00:06:07,720 --> 00:06:09,720
to go through them one by one, or I can

103
00:06:09,800 --> 00:06:12,639
just give you a very quick overview of sort of

104
00:06:12,680 --> 00:06:15,680
where we're going. I want to find out basically how

105
00:06:15,680 --> 00:06:18,480
we're getting from there. That would be the state asking

106
00:06:18,519 --> 00:06:21,519
for the US Attorney's Office to make the notification to

107
00:06:21,560 --> 00:06:24,759
the victims about the upcoming state plea that happens in

108
00:06:24,800 --> 00:06:27,879
November of two thousand and seven. That would be document

109
00:06:27,920 --> 00:06:31,000
thirty two B to the defense. Then finding out that

110
00:06:31,040 --> 00:06:33,879
the government want to notify the victims by letter, and

111
00:06:33,920 --> 00:06:36,160
then demanding that they see the letter and have some

112
00:06:36,279 --> 00:06:39,240
kind of comment on it. That would be document thirty three,

113
00:06:39,480 --> 00:06:42,720
an email from lef Quwitz. Then we have an exchange

114
00:06:42,759 --> 00:06:44,920
of letters. But the one I'd like to look at

115
00:06:45,199 --> 00:06:47,879
is at document thirty seven, which is a letter coming

116
00:06:47,879 --> 00:06:50,800
from redacted to the defense. And now, but you know,

117
00:06:50,879 --> 00:06:53,920
during the break, so I want to find out how

118
00:06:53,920 --> 00:06:57,079
we got from that Document thirty six where redacted is

119
00:06:57,120 --> 00:07:02,439
writing as letters saying that citing the CVRA regulation saying

120
00:07:02,439 --> 00:07:05,439
that the government is obligated to notify the victims about

121
00:07:05,480 --> 00:07:08,720
the resolution of the case, and attaching a draft letter

122
00:07:08,759 --> 00:07:11,399
to the victims telling them the time and date of

123
00:07:11,399 --> 00:07:15,199
the state resolution and plea, inviting them to come to

124
00:07:15,360 --> 00:07:19,279
ultimately a letter from you coming on nineteenth of December

125
00:07:19,279 --> 00:07:21,920
two thousand and seven, which is number forty one B

126
00:07:22,360 --> 00:07:25,560
agreeing to notify the victims of the state plea and

127
00:07:25,680 --> 00:07:29,079
agreeing with the defense to have the state be responsible

128
00:07:29,160 --> 00:07:33,279
for putting out that notification. And then we end ultimately

129
00:07:33,360 --> 00:07:35,720
with a letter or draft letter that we have that

130
00:07:35,759 --> 00:07:38,160
goes out to the victims in the case hon or

131
00:07:38,199 --> 00:07:41,639
after the plea in July. Well, we have the draft

132
00:07:41,720 --> 00:07:44,160
I'm going to show you which comes in June, showing

133
00:07:44,199 --> 00:07:47,160
that the letter was clearly meant to be sent after

134
00:07:47,240 --> 00:07:50,360
the plea as per the agreement. And that's document number

135
00:07:50,360 --> 00:07:55,040
fifty one. So that's a lot to unpack there. Answer.

136
00:07:55,240 --> 00:07:57,439
That's a lot to unpack. We should probably take it

137
00:07:57,480 --> 00:08:00,519
a step at a time. Answer. Yes, I just wanted

138
00:08:00,560 --> 00:08:03,240
to give you an overview because I think that's some

139
00:08:03,399 --> 00:08:06,439
of what you had mentioned earlier. I know it's been

140
00:08:06,480 --> 00:08:09,639
a long time, so I'll try to orient you from

141
00:08:09,680 --> 00:08:13,360
the timeline. So if you I have highlighted the section

142
00:08:13,680 --> 00:08:15,959
of those letters that we want to talk about, and

143
00:08:16,000 --> 00:08:18,160
if you have a chance while we're taking a break

144
00:08:18,199 --> 00:08:21,040
to look through them, that may be helpful to orient

145
00:08:21,120 --> 00:08:23,560
you so that we're not spinning our wills on this.

146
00:08:24,040 --> 00:08:26,360
I don't want to waste any of your time. Answer

147
00:08:26,399 --> 00:08:29,639
a fair question, all right, off the record. Back on

148
00:08:29,680 --> 00:08:33,759
the record now, questions begin again. Question Okay, great, So,

149
00:08:33,879 --> 00:08:35,720
I know I gave you a lot to unpack over

150
00:08:35,720 --> 00:08:38,879
the short break. We just had one. Basically, what we're

151
00:08:38,919 --> 00:08:42,320
trying to get to find out is how your decision

152
00:08:42,600 --> 00:08:46,759
making process regarding the victim notification issue. So maybe if

153
00:08:46,759 --> 00:08:50,720
you could just give anything with your December nineteenth decision,

154
00:08:51,000 --> 00:08:54,919
could you give us an explanation about how you got there? Answer? So,

155
00:08:55,320 --> 00:08:59,360
I think we should probably take this in stages. Question okay. Answer.

156
00:08:59,519 --> 00:09:02,120
As a general matter, I recall that there was back

157
00:09:02,159 --> 00:09:05,759
and forth regarding after the agreement regarding how to notify

158
00:09:05,840 --> 00:09:08,639
the victims, and there was back and forth between redacted

159
00:09:08,840 --> 00:09:12,360
and Jay Lefkowitz and redacted around all that. Sorry I'm

160
00:09:12,360 --> 00:09:15,159
losing my voice. I recall that there was an issue

161
00:09:15,159 --> 00:09:18,600
in particular that was raised that I tried to address

162
00:09:18,600 --> 00:09:20,320
in the letter and I recall at the end of

163
00:09:20,399 --> 00:09:22,879
the day, it was my impression that once there was

164
00:09:22,919 --> 00:09:25,320
an agreement for him to plead, that there was an

165
00:09:25,320 --> 00:09:28,559
attempt I redacted to provide notice to the victims. But

166
00:09:28,639 --> 00:09:31,240
it was a very It was I think on a Friday,

167
00:09:31,679 --> 00:09:34,200
and he was pleading on a Monday morning or something

168
00:09:34,240 --> 00:09:37,759
along those lines. And finally, I recall that the view

169
00:09:37,879 --> 00:09:40,519
of the office was that the CVRA did not apply,

170
00:09:41,080 --> 00:09:45,080
and so that this was a discretionary balancing that included

171
00:09:45,120 --> 00:09:49,159
consideration of what impact notification of the twenty two dot

172
00:09:49,279 --> 00:09:52,279
fifty five s would have at a trial the twenty

173
00:09:52,360 --> 00:09:54,639
two to fifty five provision if we had to go

174
00:09:54,679 --> 00:09:57,600
to trial. So we can unpack that. But those are

175
00:09:57,600 --> 00:10:02,799
my general recollections. Question, okay, answer, and look, let me

176
00:10:02,879 --> 00:10:05,759
add I think it's important. So I came in and

177
00:10:05,799 --> 00:10:08,480
out of the case that stages, and I was involved

178
00:10:08,480 --> 00:10:10,960
in certain aspects more than others. And while we had

179
00:10:10,960 --> 00:10:13,879
a long discussion about the term sheet and matters like that,

180
00:10:14,200 --> 00:10:17,080
while I was clearly involved in at least one dispute

181
00:10:17,320 --> 00:10:19,960
around the twenty two to fifty five, the nuts and

182
00:10:20,000 --> 00:10:23,000
bolts of how victims were notified is not something that

183
00:10:23,080 --> 00:10:26,679
I have a recollection about Okay, fair answer, but we

184
00:10:26,720 --> 00:10:30,200
can unpack it. Answer or question? I mean, okay, let's

185
00:10:30,240 --> 00:10:33,080
start with the exhibit thirty three. So there we have.

186
00:10:33,159 --> 00:10:35,519
As you can see, it's an email from left Qwitz

187
00:10:36,000 --> 00:10:39,720
to you and to redacted, objecting to a letter being

188
00:10:39,759 --> 00:10:42,639
sent to the victims unless the defense gets to review it.

189
00:10:42,960 --> 00:10:45,519
And later on in some of your other correspondents, you

190
00:10:45,600 --> 00:10:49,159
discussed that you you extended to the defense the courtesy

191
00:10:49,399 --> 00:10:52,960
of allowing them to review these letters. Is this the

192
00:10:53,000 --> 00:10:57,000
genesis of that courtesy? Answer? I don't have a recollection

193
00:10:57,080 --> 00:10:59,639
as to what the genesis might be. I know that

194
00:10:59,679 --> 00:11:01,799
there are well us back and forth between our office

195
00:11:02,039 --> 00:11:05,879
and the defense about the letter. Question. Okay, but as

196
00:11:05,879 --> 00:11:08,080
you can see on thirty three that you're not the

197
00:11:08,120 --> 00:11:12,080
response from redacted, but redacted instructs redacted to send the

198
00:11:12,120 --> 00:11:15,080
proposed letter to left Quitz, and I assume that redacted

199
00:11:15,200 --> 00:11:18,279
would have done that had you objected to it. Answer again,

200
00:11:18,840 --> 00:11:22,879
I don't recall any specific conversation. As general matter, this

201
00:11:23,039 --> 00:11:26,279
is not something I was getting into the weeds unless

202
00:11:26,320 --> 00:11:28,480
I had to. There was a lot of back and forth.

203
00:11:29,240 --> 00:11:32,879
Question uh huh. Answer, Redacted is someone that I trusted

204
00:11:33,200 --> 00:11:36,639
he was handling this matter. He's incredibly experienced. I know

205
00:11:36,720 --> 00:11:39,519
that there were concerns and issues around the impact that

206
00:11:39,600 --> 00:11:43,519
notification would have on the witnesses. I know that there

207
00:11:43,559 --> 00:11:46,480
were issues around the language, and I trusted that folks

208
00:11:46,639 --> 00:11:50,480
were working those out. Question Uh huh. One of the

209
00:11:50,519 --> 00:11:54,639
criticisms that's compost. You know the CVRA litigation, that's been

210
00:11:54,679 --> 00:11:57,720
the government allowing the defense to have review of these

211
00:11:57,840 --> 00:12:01,879
letters or potential victim notification letters coming out of the government,

212
00:12:02,240 --> 00:12:05,759
and that's very unusual. Have you had any other cases

213
00:12:05,919 --> 00:12:09,679
where you let the defense review such documents. Answer? I've

214
00:12:09,679 --> 00:12:11,799
had no other cases where I'm even aware of the

215
00:12:11,879 --> 00:12:15,000
victims being notified, because I assume it all operates without

216
00:12:15,320 --> 00:12:19,360
it rising to the management level. Question mm hmm. Answer,

217
00:12:19,720 --> 00:12:22,639
and so this is the first and only time that

218
00:12:22,720 --> 00:12:26,039
how individuals are notified to my recollection was even in

219
00:12:26,080 --> 00:12:30,399
the executive suite. Question isn't that usually done or accomplished

220
00:12:30,399 --> 00:12:35,320
by almost a computerized task? Answer? I would assume so, yes. Question,

221
00:12:36,000 --> 00:12:39,039
given that the unusual way the notifications are made by

222
00:12:39,200 --> 00:12:43,039
victim witness specialist, who is usually that person? Answer yes,

223
00:12:43,440 --> 00:12:46,159
question do I have that right? So the FBI has

224
00:12:46,200 --> 00:12:50,480
their victim witness specialist. Answer yes, question, and your office,

225
00:12:50,600 --> 00:12:53,679
the US Attorney's Office has dedicated people who do that

226
00:12:53,799 --> 00:12:57,879
job as well. Answer correct question. So why in this

227
00:12:58,000 --> 00:13:02,200
case not direct the notification to that person to be

228
00:13:02,279 --> 00:13:05,720
done in the usual course? Why elevate to something that

229
00:13:05,759 --> 00:13:08,840
the defense is going to be able to review? So

230
00:13:09,600 --> 00:13:11,639
I can't address the second half of that, but the

231
00:13:11,639 --> 00:13:14,639
first half of the question, why why was it elevated?

232
00:13:14,840 --> 00:13:17,600
You know, I think Redacted address some of that in

233
00:13:17,679 --> 00:13:20,919
her was it twenty seventeen? Avia David and so on?

234
00:13:21,200 --> 00:13:24,080
So we had an agreement that had been signed, and

235
00:13:24,120 --> 00:13:27,360
we also had substantial questions as to whether that agreement,

236
00:13:27,559 --> 00:13:30,840
whether ultimately Jeffrey Epstein would plead in court or not.

237
00:13:31,440 --> 00:13:33,559
And so one of the questions is how do you

238
00:13:33,679 --> 00:13:37,759
deal with notification of a possibility where the possibility could

239
00:13:37,759 --> 00:13:40,919
be used to impeach potential future witnesses who are also

240
00:13:41,000 --> 00:13:44,399
the victims. And that's a matter that was being worked

241
00:13:44,399 --> 00:13:48,480
out by the ausas in the office question and the

242
00:13:48,519 --> 00:13:53,039
impeachment is what answer? So impeachment I would believe Redacted

243
00:13:53,279 --> 00:13:57,279
went into some detail, is you stand miss victims stand

244
00:13:57,279 --> 00:14:00,480
to gain quite a bit of money if there's a conviction, correct,

245
00:14:01,000 --> 00:14:03,159
weren't you aware of this agreement? If we have to

246
00:14:03,159 --> 00:14:06,159
go to trial? Weren't you aware of this agreement? And

247
00:14:06,240 --> 00:14:08,519
this isn't based on my recollection. This is based on

248
00:14:08,600 --> 00:14:12,639
redacted Zaffid David, where she says that she had concerns

249
00:14:13,000 --> 00:14:16,240
that the impeachment go along somewhere along the lines of

250
00:14:16,440 --> 00:14:19,600
were you aware that if mister Epstein's convicted you stand

251
00:14:19,639 --> 00:14:23,120
to receive substantial sums? Yes? Were you influenced by this?

252
00:14:23,759 --> 00:14:26,960
And there were some according to Araffid David. This isn't

253
00:14:27,000 --> 00:14:30,440
my independent recollection, This is according to Affid David, there

254
00:14:30,440 --> 00:14:33,679
had already been dispositions of the victims, of at least

255
00:14:33,679 --> 00:14:36,519
some of the victims that raise these issues. And so

256
00:14:36,679 --> 00:14:38,879
I do think that it was a valid concern by

257
00:14:38,919 --> 00:14:43,240
the ausas how the notifications took place. Question Okay, but

258
00:14:43,519 --> 00:14:46,320
isn't that the type of line of cross examination the

259
00:14:46,399 --> 00:14:51,279
same for any case where they're super wealthy defendant? Answer?

260
00:14:52,240 --> 00:14:55,120
It may be the twenty two fifty five may make

261
00:14:55,120 --> 00:14:58,200
it a little different because it's automatic, But ultimately these

262
00:14:58,200 --> 00:15:01,480
are the judgments that line attorneys make, and a US attorney,

263
00:15:01,519 --> 00:15:04,480
I think it's appropriate to back up their judgment unless

264
00:15:04,480 --> 00:15:06,440
there was some reason for me to believe it was

265
00:15:06,519 --> 00:15:11,559
incorrect question, Was there any thought ever to just giving

266
00:15:11,559 --> 00:15:14,399
the victim notification that there will be a proceeding that

267
00:15:14,519 --> 00:15:18,679
will end the federal case, just separating that in maybe

268
00:15:18,679 --> 00:15:22,639
a later notification about the twenty two to fifty five answer.

269
00:15:23,080 --> 00:15:26,399
I can't speak to what we thought there was or

270
00:15:26,559 --> 00:15:29,360
was not. I can say around this timeframe, it was

271
00:15:29,399 --> 00:15:31,960
far from clear that there would ever be that Epstein

272
00:15:31,960 --> 00:15:34,399
would ever go into court, and we were thinking we

273
00:15:34,480 --> 00:15:36,960
may have to just go to trial because these collateral

274
00:15:36,960 --> 00:15:40,399
attacks keep going. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up

275
00:15:40,440 --> 00:15:42,919
right here, and in the next episode, we're gonna pick

276
00:15:43,000 --> 00:15:45,720
up where we left off. All of the information that

277
00:15:45,759 --> 00:15:48,919
goes with this episode can be found in the description box.

278
00:15:49,159 --> 00:15:52,039
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the

279
00:15:52,080 --> 00:15:56,360
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're gonna pick up where

280
00:15:56,360 --> 00:15:59,720
we left off with alex Acosta and his interview with

281
00:15:59,799 --> 00:16:04,840
the OIG inspectors. Question. Okay, let's get back on track.

282
00:16:05,320 --> 00:16:08,039
The question that I asked earlier about allowing the defense

283
00:16:08,080 --> 00:16:10,919
the courtesy to look at these letters. Can you just

284
00:16:11,000 --> 00:16:15,279
remind us again what was the reasoning that you're allowed

285
00:16:15,279 --> 00:16:18,840
to look at the victim notification letter. Answer, I can't

286
00:16:18,840 --> 00:16:22,519
speak to that that something that redacted and redacted would

287
00:16:22,519 --> 00:16:25,320
have handled. I think that you know, I'm responsible for

288
00:16:25,360 --> 00:16:28,120
the office. I'm not shirking. I'm just saying that this

289
00:16:28,639 --> 00:16:31,440
that this for the most part, is within their willhouse

290
00:16:31,639 --> 00:16:34,000
and not something that I was involved in. I can

291
00:16:34,039 --> 00:16:39,159
speculate question, sure, answer, the agreement was notifying them. The

292
00:16:39,240 --> 00:16:42,240
letter was notifying them of certain rights in the agreement,

293
00:16:42,519 --> 00:16:46,000
and therefore this is the time we weren't sure what

294
00:16:46,279 --> 00:16:49,039
was happening with the agreement, and so perhaps this is

295
00:16:49,080 --> 00:16:51,759
a way to address some of the concerns around the

296
00:16:51,799 --> 00:16:56,519
twenty two to fifty five. I don't know. I'm just speculating. Question. Okay,

297
00:16:56,799 --> 00:16:59,440
let's move on to Exhibit thirty six. This is a

298
00:16:59,519 --> 00:17:02,600
letter that goes out to left Kowitz under a redacted signature.

299
00:17:03,200 --> 00:17:06,799
You are c seed on the letter. Answer, all right, question,

300
00:17:07,240 --> 00:17:10,160
And what he's doing is sending a draft victim notification letter,

301
00:17:10,319 --> 00:17:13,559
which is attached as the attachment there dated December sixth,

302
00:17:13,599 --> 00:17:16,559
two thousand and seven. And I wanted to get your impression.

303
00:17:16,839 --> 00:17:19,039
If you go to page three of the letter, please

304
00:17:19,920 --> 00:17:23,279
the first little paragraph there when it refers to the

305
00:17:23,319 --> 00:17:26,960
Victims Rights and Restitution Act and the ultimate for the CBRA.

306
00:17:27,480 --> 00:17:30,640
If you could just read the paragraph to yourself. Please answer,

307
00:17:30,839 --> 00:17:35,200
are you referring to paragraph ten? Question? I'm sorry, I'm

308
00:17:35,240 --> 00:17:38,720
on the letter left the letter left Kwitz, not the

309
00:17:38,799 --> 00:17:43,519
draft letter, this one right here? Answer the additionally question, yes,

310
00:17:43,599 --> 00:17:47,400
additionally pursuing too the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of

311
00:17:47,480 --> 00:17:52,279
nineteen ninety. Our office is obligated, et cetera. Answer okay.

312
00:17:52,839 --> 00:17:56,119
Question do you agree with the language that interpretation of

313
00:17:56,160 --> 00:18:00,079
the victims rights as far as the notification? Answer? So, so,

314
00:18:00,200 --> 00:18:02,519
let's sort of take this, this one sentence out of

315
00:18:02,519 --> 00:18:06,160
time with respect to the notification of other information that

316
00:18:06,200 --> 00:18:09,119
we were supposed to disclose. The statute requires that we

317
00:18:09,160 --> 00:18:12,960
provide victims with the earliest possible notice. I will assume

318
00:18:13,319 --> 00:18:17,279
that this is a restatement of the statute. I don't

319
00:18:17,319 --> 00:18:19,839
have it in front of me, but let's assume that

320
00:18:19,839 --> 00:18:22,680
that's a restatement of the statute. Just as in eighteen,

321
00:18:22,759 --> 00:18:25,759
these sections are not limited to the victim through. The

322
00:18:25,799 --> 00:18:29,920
Federal should be appropriately informed that a non pros does

323
00:18:30,000 --> 00:18:33,559
not require to forego its legal obligation on a sentence

324
00:18:33,599 --> 00:18:36,839
by sentence basis. I mean, do I agree sitting here, sure,

325
00:18:37,480 --> 00:18:39,599
but I would want to sort of sit down before

326
00:18:39,599 --> 00:18:42,119
I gave a legal opinion and spend more time with it.

327
00:18:42,400 --> 00:18:45,119
He gets cut off. Question, Okay, because coming out of

328
00:18:45,160 --> 00:18:48,079
your office sort of this. Well, let's go to the

329
00:18:48,119 --> 00:18:51,359
next page, page four. There's a citation to the right

330
00:18:51,599 --> 00:18:54,480
to confer in the first paragraph there, citing the CVR

331
00:18:54,599 --> 00:18:57,599
a's reasonable right to confer with the attorneys of the

332
00:18:57,640 --> 00:19:01,599
government in the case. Answer, okay, question, so you know,

333
00:19:01,720 --> 00:19:05,319
it looks like to me, I mean, well, it appears

334
00:19:05,440 --> 00:19:08,680
that there's two references to the CVRA obligation that the

335
00:19:08,720 --> 00:19:12,000
government has that ultimately the government argues that it did

336
00:19:12,000 --> 00:19:17,240
not have. Can you explain why that is a correct interpretation? Answer? So,

337
00:19:17,359 --> 00:19:19,799
what I can say is I recall, so it looks

338
00:19:19,880 --> 00:19:23,119
like at least some of the victims were notified. I

339
00:19:23,200 --> 00:19:26,279
recall a discussion and a view that the CVRA did

340
00:19:26,359 --> 00:19:29,759
not require it, and it was discretionary because it wasn't

341
00:19:30,000 --> 00:19:32,559
The case had not indicted, so it did not attach

342
00:19:32,599 --> 00:19:35,480
to its terms. Now that doesn't mean that it's not

343
00:19:35,599 --> 00:19:39,000
something to aspire to. That just means it wasn't legally

344
00:19:39,000 --> 00:19:42,799
binding question. And in the same manner though, while the

345
00:19:42,839 --> 00:19:46,799
CVRA isn't legally binding, it's also doesn't prevent you from

346
00:19:46,799 --> 00:19:51,240
notifying the victims, does it answer? It does not know question?

347
00:19:51,599 --> 00:19:54,359
And you have the discretion to notify should you choose

348
00:19:54,400 --> 00:19:58,400
to answer? Correct question? Okay? And so if you look

349
00:19:58,440 --> 00:20:01,559
at the letter that's attached this, this is a draft

350
00:20:01,599 --> 00:20:04,759
that goes out. We're on page one, page three of

351
00:20:04,799 --> 00:20:07,519
the letter, and the second to last paragraph. The letter

352
00:20:07,559 --> 00:20:10,559
is giving notice of mister Epstein's change of plea and

353
00:20:10,640 --> 00:20:13,799
sentencing that will occur well at this time it was

354
00:20:13,799 --> 00:20:16,920
December fourteenth of two thousand and seven, and it gives

355
00:20:16,920 --> 00:20:19,720
the address and it says underneath there you are entitled

356
00:20:19,720 --> 00:20:22,920
to be present and make a statement under oath. If

357
00:20:22,920 --> 00:20:25,480
you choose, you can submit a written statement under oath,

358
00:20:25,640 --> 00:20:28,720
et cetera, et cetera. So this is a letter that's

359
00:20:28,759 --> 00:20:32,279
actively inviting victims to come to the state. Would you

360
00:20:32,359 --> 00:20:35,759
agree that that's inviting victims to come to the state?

361
00:20:35,799 --> 00:20:39,720
Plea answer? I think that's fair question. And with the

362
00:20:39,799 --> 00:20:43,039
letter is reasoning that the government is sending would like

363
00:20:43,079 --> 00:20:45,599
to send this letter because it believes it's obligated to

364
00:20:45,960 --> 00:20:49,519
because it resolves a federal case. Answer. So I don't

365
00:20:49,559 --> 00:20:52,759
want to speak to the reasoning, but it's clearly a

366
00:20:52,920 --> 00:20:55,519
draft that the government is saying it intends to send.

367
00:20:55,960 --> 00:20:59,559
Question Okay, Now, ultimately, just this is not a question

368
00:21:00,119 --> 00:21:04,880
some information that will help to move us along. Obviously,

369
00:21:04,960 --> 00:21:08,119
this letter is never sent misredacted drafts. We have them,

370
00:21:08,319 --> 00:21:10,880
and I'm not going to show them to you. Thirty letters,

371
00:21:11,079 --> 00:21:14,680
copies of the letters to different victims, addresses them, puts

372
00:21:14,680 --> 00:21:17,160
them in envelopes, and is then told not to send

373
00:21:17,160 --> 00:21:21,160
the letters. Answer, all right, well the plea it's scheduled

374
00:21:21,160 --> 00:21:25,200
for December fourteenth, So yeah, question yes. But one of

375
00:21:25,200 --> 00:21:28,119
the issues that's still percolating until the end of December

376
00:21:28,480 --> 00:21:31,559
is who is going to make this notification, because, as

377
00:21:31,559 --> 00:21:34,279
you can expect, the defense pushes back on the letter.

378
00:21:34,960 --> 00:21:37,759
And so now we go to the number thirty nine please,

379
00:21:37,960 --> 00:21:40,240
And this is a December eleventh, two thousand and seven

380
00:21:40,319 --> 00:21:42,559
letter from ken Star to you. And if you look

381
00:21:42,599 --> 00:21:45,400
on page two at the front at the top, at

382
00:21:45,400 --> 00:21:48,079
the top of the page, there this letter is complaining

383
00:21:48,119 --> 00:21:51,599
about an oral notification that misredacted gave to one of

384
00:21:51,599 --> 00:21:54,519
the defense one of the victims attorneys that a letter

385
00:21:54,559 --> 00:21:57,519
would be coming, and so mister Starr is writing you

386
00:21:57,799 --> 00:22:01,240
to complain about it. And he mentions in later paragraphs

387
00:22:01,519 --> 00:22:04,319
that we have thought that the notification process had been

388
00:22:04,400 --> 00:22:08,599
an abeyance until completion of our ongoing discussions with respect

389
00:22:08,720 --> 00:22:13,000
to that process. So were you having discussions with mister

390
00:22:13,119 --> 00:22:16,759
Starr about the process at this time? Answer? I don't

391
00:22:16,799 --> 00:22:20,839
recall discussions. I think there were at least correspondents. I'm sorry,

392
00:22:20,839 --> 00:22:23,759
Where are you? I was reading the letter. I'm sorry,

393
00:22:23,839 --> 00:22:27,000
where are you? What paragraph? Question? Let's take a look.

394
00:22:27,240 --> 00:22:29,200
I know it's been a long day. Let's slow down here.

395
00:22:29,359 --> 00:22:33,400
We're on the second page of the Star letter. Answer yes, question,

396
00:22:34,240 --> 00:22:37,200
and it would be this the language in there in

397
00:22:37,240 --> 00:22:42,200
the second sentence, which goes towards the bottom, answer this notification.

398
00:22:42,559 --> 00:22:45,880
But quite apart from our substantive concerns, which we had

399
00:22:45,880 --> 00:22:49,559
thought the notification process had been an abeyance until the completion,

400
00:22:50,200 --> 00:22:54,240
that appears not to be. So this is respectably. So,

401
00:22:54,480 --> 00:22:56,759
where does it imply that I was having I don't

402
00:22:56,759 --> 00:23:00,839
recall communication with mister Starr. That's why I'm curious, at

403
00:23:00,960 --> 00:23:05,680
least verbal communications. I'm curious where you're reading that from question,

404
00:23:06,359 --> 00:23:09,400
he's saying, we had thought that the notification process had

405
00:23:09,400 --> 00:23:13,039
been held in abeyance until completion of our ongoing discussions.

406
00:23:13,279 --> 00:23:15,920
Are you saying that he gets cut off there by

407
00:23:15,960 --> 00:23:18,680
a star? Answer? So, I don't know where that may

408
00:23:18,680 --> 00:23:21,160
have come from, and I don't recall I recall at

409
00:23:21,160 --> 00:23:23,119
one point I think I sent a letter saying we'll

410
00:23:23,160 --> 00:23:25,279
hold off for a week. I don't recall the date

411
00:23:25,319 --> 00:23:28,079
of the letter. While your review some matters where the

412
00:23:28,119 --> 00:23:31,799
abeyance came from, I can't speak to question. Okay, let's

413
00:23:31,799 --> 00:23:34,519
go to Exhibit forty one B. This is your December

414
00:23:34,599 --> 00:23:37,079
nineteenth letter, and what I'd like you to draw your

415
00:23:37,079 --> 00:23:41,319
attention to is page two, the second to last paragraph there.

416
00:23:41,559 --> 00:23:45,000
Answer yes, question, so could you tell us how your

417
00:23:45,000 --> 00:23:49,640
decision making around this paragraph? How you got to this decision? Answer,

418
00:23:49,759 --> 00:23:52,640
so you're asking me to recreate at some point the

419
00:23:52,680 --> 00:23:56,880
issues clearly move from redacted interacting with defense counsel to

420
00:23:57,000 --> 00:23:59,839
my desk and my recollection twelve years after the fact.

421
00:23:59,880 --> 00:24:03,400
Is so you're saying we should notify them about the

422
00:24:03,440 --> 00:24:07,000
state proceeding and sure the state this was negotiated between

423
00:24:07,039 --> 00:24:10,559
Epstein and the State attorney, We did not direct the

424
00:24:10,599 --> 00:24:14,000
state proceeding, So whatever state process is appropriate for the

425
00:24:14,039 --> 00:24:16,880
state process will be given. But with respect to the

426
00:24:16,920 --> 00:24:20,680
federal resolution, we intend to provide victims with notice of

427
00:24:20,759 --> 00:24:24,240
the federal resolution as required by law. And your question

428
00:24:24,400 --> 00:24:28,000
is if we thought it was discretionary. I recall our

429
00:24:28,000 --> 00:24:31,519
believing it was discretionary, but you could also it doesn't

430
00:24:31,559 --> 00:24:34,160
hurt to when a letter say, we're kind of required

431
00:24:34,200 --> 00:24:36,079
to do this, and I think it was the right

432
00:24:36,119 --> 00:24:38,599
thing to do, and to provide them with notice of

433
00:24:38,680 --> 00:24:42,720
federal resolution. And once that resolution was reached, and part

434
00:24:42,759 --> 00:24:45,559
of the key word is what the resolution is, my

435
00:24:45,720 --> 00:24:49,440
understanding is that redacted made efforts to notify victims of

436
00:24:49,480 --> 00:24:52,400
that resolution and let them know that there would be

437
00:24:52,440 --> 00:24:55,480
a hearing the following Monday, and that they should attend

438
00:24:55,839 --> 00:24:59,880
because it would bring an end to the case. Question, well,

439
00:25:00,119 --> 00:25:03,359
let's just back up real quick, as far as the

440
00:25:03,400 --> 00:25:07,640
state attorney notifying people victims of the state resolution, did

441
00:25:07,680 --> 00:25:11,119
you have any concern with any particular part of it? Answer? So,

442
00:25:11,680 --> 00:25:14,599
it's difficult to recreate the thought process twelve years later,

443
00:25:14,880 --> 00:25:18,279
But ultimately you've got federal and you've got state, and

444
00:25:18,319 --> 00:25:20,720
the state attorney will do what the state attorney thinks

445
00:25:20,799 --> 00:25:23,640
is appropriate. It's not for me to direct the state attorney.

446
00:25:24,200 --> 00:25:26,920
I'm inferring based on this language, it's not for me

447
00:25:27,000 --> 00:25:30,079
to direct the state attorney or for our office to

448
00:25:30,160 --> 00:25:33,640
direct the State Attorney's office on its obligation with respect

449
00:25:33,799 --> 00:25:37,920
to the state outcome. Question Okay, I'm just asking because

450
00:25:37,960 --> 00:25:41,000
you know, the whole case came to the office because

451
00:25:41,000 --> 00:25:43,680
of some issue with the state attorney's resolution of the case.

452
00:25:44,119 --> 00:25:46,079
So now it's going back and they're going to be

453
00:25:46,160 --> 00:25:49,559
in charge of the notification. Did that raise any red

454
00:25:49,559 --> 00:25:51,880
flags with you or did you have any concern about

455
00:25:51,880 --> 00:25:55,640
whether it would be done correctly or done at all? Answer? So, again,

456
00:25:56,519 --> 00:25:59,000
this has come up in different contexts, and I think

457
00:25:59,240 --> 00:26:02,440
there was obviously concern about how he was being charged.

458
00:26:02,599 --> 00:26:04,920
But that doesn't mean that they will not fulfill whatever

459
00:26:04,960 --> 00:26:09,039
obligations they have. Let's not assume that the State Attorney's

460
00:26:09,039 --> 00:26:13,640
office is full of bad actors. Question. Okay, but even

461
00:26:13,640 --> 00:26:16,839
if I'm not assuming that they're full of bad actors,

462
00:26:17,160 --> 00:26:19,759
it's going to be difficult for them to notify the victims.

463
00:26:19,839 --> 00:26:22,720
Wasn't it that they didn't even necessarily know the same

464
00:26:22,799 --> 00:26:25,519
list as the federal victims, because you had found more

465
00:26:25,599 --> 00:26:29,400
victims answers, so we could certainly have shared the list

466
00:26:29,440 --> 00:26:31,960
with them. I mean, there are ways that this could

467
00:26:31,960 --> 00:26:35,279
have happened. I don't know how what the communications were,

468
00:26:35,359 --> 00:26:38,680
but as a conceptual matter, having the state notify them

469
00:26:38,839 --> 00:26:41,519
of the state hearing and having the federal government say

470
00:26:41,559 --> 00:26:46,559
that this is the federal resolution is consistent with the law. Question,

471
00:26:46,839 --> 00:26:49,559
but since the federal resolution is tied to the state plea,

472
00:26:50,000 --> 00:26:52,599
why not just combine the two of them in the notification.

473
00:26:53,039 --> 00:26:56,480
Here's the federal resolution, we're tying it to the state plea,

474
00:26:57,200 --> 00:27:00,160
and here's the date of the state plea. Answer. I

475
00:27:00,160 --> 00:27:02,640
can't speak to why or why not? I can you know.

476
00:27:02,759 --> 00:27:04,920
I can speak to my belief that this would be

477
00:27:04,960 --> 00:27:08,200
consistent with the law. That could also be one approach.

478
00:27:08,599 --> 00:27:13,000
I can't speak as to why a versus B question.

479
00:27:13,200 --> 00:27:15,640
Did somebody instruct you that or did you have a

480
00:27:15,640 --> 00:27:19,319
conversation consulting with somebody about whether this was a better approach?

481
00:27:19,839 --> 00:27:22,640
Answer I would have said, you know, based on practice,

482
00:27:22,680 --> 00:27:25,839
not recollection, but based on practice. I would have sat

483
00:27:25,880 --> 00:27:29,000
down with redacted, most likely since he was handling this matter,

484
00:27:29,480 --> 00:27:31,480
and we would have talked about it. I would not

485
00:27:31,559 --> 00:27:33,880
have sent this without running it by at least redacted,

486
00:27:34,200 --> 00:27:37,039
if not other individuals in the office. I don't know

487
00:27:37,039 --> 00:27:39,799
if based on your record there are emails with drafts,

488
00:27:40,000 --> 00:27:42,680
but you know, every document that I'm aware of was

489
00:27:42,720 --> 00:27:45,480
sort of shared within the management team, and this would

490
00:27:45,480 --> 00:27:48,559
have been one of those. Question with respect to the

491
00:27:48,559 --> 00:27:52,200
one specific decision about this should be at the discretion

492
00:27:52,279 --> 00:27:54,599
of the State's attorney. Did you consult with anybody in

493
00:27:54,680 --> 00:27:58,039
DC about the issue? Answer? I don't recall consulting with

494
00:27:58,079 --> 00:28:02,319
someone in DC about the issue. I recall general perspective

495
00:28:02,440 --> 00:28:05,680
that the CVRA as a technical matter did not attach

496
00:28:05,880 --> 00:28:11,839
because ultimately this was not an indictment. Question. Oh, can

497
00:28:11,880 --> 00:28:14,440
we before we leave? This letter gets cut off again

498
00:28:14,559 --> 00:28:18,240
by a costa if I could. I understand your questions,

499
00:28:18,240 --> 00:28:21,240
but I feel some obligation to erase the tension between

500
00:28:21,519 --> 00:28:24,759
did you consult in DC versus should you allow DC

501
00:28:24,880 --> 00:28:28,200
to review? And so, just so you know, we certainly

502
00:28:28,200 --> 00:28:31,759
were allowing review, but US Attorney's Office don't consult on

503
00:28:31,799 --> 00:28:35,279
every matter, especially offices that have the kind of experience

504
00:28:36,079 --> 00:28:40,799
that MIAMI does. Question. Before we finish with the letter

505
00:28:40,839 --> 00:28:43,400
from the nineteenth. Can we look at page three please,

506
00:28:44,000 --> 00:28:46,240
if you could read the first paragraph on page three

507
00:28:46,279 --> 00:28:50,920
to yourself, please answer, okay question. Could you in that

508
00:28:50,960 --> 00:28:53,920
section you mentioned that prosecutors that ask you to declare

509
00:28:53,960 --> 00:28:57,880
a breach and you resisted. Can you discuss that answer? Sure,

510
00:28:58,640 --> 00:29:02,759
that's referencing I think increasing frustration by the prosecutors, and

511
00:29:02,799 --> 00:29:06,400
I think that's reflected in contemporaneous emails saying why don't

512
00:29:06,440 --> 00:29:10,039
we just rip this up? And I recall conversations with redacted,

513
00:29:10,839 --> 00:29:12,720
And that goes a little bit to what we talked

514
00:29:12,759 --> 00:29:16,319
about earlier, which is concerned that a unilateral breach would

515
00:29:16,319 --> 00:29:19,079
overlay not just the initial issues that we had and

516
00:29:19,160 --> 00:29:21,559
not just the fact that the victims are getting older

517
00:29:21,720 --> 00:29:24,559
and the case isn't getting better. But then we have

518
00:29:25,480 --> 00:29:28,359
was the unilateral breach of valid breach or was it

519
00:29:28,440 --> 00:29:32,480
not a valid breach? And is the delay justified or

520
00:29:32,559 --> 00:29:37,519
not justified? And ultimately that additional liability, well not liability,

521
00:29:37,680 --> 00:29:40,799
that additional legal uncertainty would have made the case even

522
00:29:40,839 --> 00:29:44,359
harder because they were very careful to always say there

523
00:29:44,400 --> 00:29:47,960
is no breach. Let me address because I went on

524
00:29:48,000 --> 00:29:50,200
to read the next paragraph as well, and so let

525
00:29:50,240 --> 00:29:53,279
me circle back to an earlier issue, because I at

526
00:29:53,359 --> 00:29:56,359
least want to address it. Because the next paragraph then says,

527
00:29:56,680 --> 00:30:01,680
and it's clearer that I'm increasingly frustrated that my frustration

528
00:30:01,839 --> 00:30:04,799
with it appears to be an eleventh hour appeal weeks

529
00:30:04,839 --> 00:30:08,279
before then now schedule July eleventh plea date. That said,

530
00:30:08,480 --> 00:30:11,319
the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted,

531
00:30:11,519 --> 00:30:15,200
irrespective of timeline concerns. We hope to preserve the July

532
00:30:15,319 --> 00:30:19,200
fourth date. I understand Defense counsel with this in mind,

533
00:30:19,400 --> 00:30:21,559
and in the event the Defense Counsel may wish to

534
00:30:21,599 --> 00:30:25,720
seek review of our determination in Washington. I spoke this

535
00:30:25,759 --> 00:30:29,880
past Monday with Attorney General redacted, confirming if it's possible,

536
00:30:29,920 --> 00:30:32,319
appearing to ask her to grant the potential request for

537
00:30:32,400 --> 00:30:36,519
review and to the fact review this case in an

538
00:30:36,559 --> 00:30:40,079
expedited manner, in an attempt to preserve the July fourth date.

539
00:30:40,519 --> 00:30:46,599
He gets corrected January fourth. The address that address January Acosta,

540
00:30:46,640 --> 00:30:51,440
I'm sorry the January fourth plea date question, and that

541
00:30:51,480 --> 00:30:54,559
addressed the question I was asking answer, and that goes

542
00:30:54,599 --> 00:30:57,839
to the question you're asking, and again I'm recreating and

543
00:30:57,880 --> 00:31:02,599
I'm speculating having that following another eleventh hour appeal here

544
00:31:02,920 --> 00:31:05,319
I would say, I wouldn't say, let's appeal to this again.

545
00:31:06,079 --> 00:31:09,000
I think I'm saying pretty clearly it's against my frustration

546
00:31:09,319 --> 00:31:12,480
with what appears to be an eleventh hour appeal weeks

547
00:31:12,519 --> 00:31:16,440
before the now scheduled January fourth plea date. And this

548
00:31:16,519 --> 00:31:19,119
is not an invitation to do another appeal, because the

549
00:31:19,160 --> 00:31:24,039
appeal is already in DC. But my if we're going

550
00:31:24,039 --> 00:31:26,440
to do this appeal, let's get it over and done with.

551
00:31:26,920 --> 00:31:29,799
Then I'm sort of speculating based on the language, so

552
00:31:29,920 --> 00:31:32,559
that we can get this pled on January fourth, and

553
00:31:32,680 --> 00:31:35,759
let's not put it off until after the holidays. Question.

554
00:31:36,039 --> 00:31:38,200
But you did say to ask her to grant the

555
00:31:38,240 --> 00:31:41,799
potential request for review. Answer, which is why I wanted

556
00:31:41,839 --> 00:31:44,839
to on my own raise it Because is that saying

557
00:31:44,880 --> 00:31:47,839
please appeal me, or is that saying this is an

558
00:31:47,839 --> 00:31:50,480
eleventh hour appeal that you have now taken to DC.

559
00:31:51,319 --> 00:31:54,039
It's December nineteenth, we're about to go into the holidays.

560
00:31:54,319 --> 00:31:57,039
There's a January fourth plea date. This should not be

561
00:31:57,079 --> 00:31:59,200
another way to put it off. And so if you're

562
00:31:59,200 --> 00:32:01,599
going to do this, I'm going to try to expedite

563
00:32:01,640 --> 00:32:04,960
it so we can get this done. Question. In fact,

564
00:32:05,039 --> 00:32:10,160
it took until may answer. Yeah, answer it did and apologies,

565
00:32:10,200 --> 00:32:13,920
I just realized my voice question all right, rising So

566
00:32:14,000 --> 00:32:16,440
I don't know if that's my frustration at reading this

567
00:32:16,519 --> 00:32:21,400
again or it's getting late, but it was a frustrating matter. Apologies.

568
00:32:21,920 --> 00:32:23,880
All right, folks. We're gonna wrap up right here and

569
00:32:23,920 --> 00:32:26,119
in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna

570
00:32:26,119 --> 00:32:28,839
pick up where we left off. All of the information

571
00:32:28,880 --> 00:32:31,400
that goes with this episode can be found in the

572
00:32:31,440 --> 00:32:34,839
description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode

573
00:32:35,119 --> 00:32:38,319
of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're gonna pick

574
00:32:38,400 --> 00:32:41,599
up where we left off with the Alexacosta interview with

575
00:32:41,720 --> 00:32:46,559
the OIG inspectors question. Let's just move to Exhibit forty six.

576
00:32:47,200 --> 00:32:50,599
This is an email from misredacted to you and redacted

577
00:32:50,640 --> 00:32:54,200
discussing how she has interviewed some victims that day. There

578
00:32:54,240 --> 00:32:56,440
is a mention that one of the victims said that

579
00:32:56,480 --> 00:32:59,240
you would rather not get any money and she'd have

580
00:32:59,359 --> 00:33:02,400
she would rather have Epstein spend a significant time in jail.

581
00:33:02,799 --> 00:33:05,880
Did that piece of information go into your character list

582
00:33:05,920 --> 00:33:09,720
at all about how the case should be resolved? Answer? So, again,

583
00:33:10,039 --> 00:33:13,559
not based on recollection because this is maybe, if not

584
00:33:13,680 --> 00:33:17,160
twelve eleven years ago. Question. Okay, but at this point

585
00:33:17,200 --> 00:33:20,079
there had been an agreement, the agreement was signed, it

586
00:33:20,160 --> 00:33:23,039
was being reviewed. Based on this email, we're trying to

587
00:33:23,079 --> 00:33:26,759
get and expedite the criminal Division because I see it

588
00:33:26,799 --> 00:33:30,599
says please reach to redacted to a maker decision. And

589
00:33:30,640 --> 00:33:32,559
I think at this point, as I've said, if we

590
00:33:32,640 --> 00:33:35,000
knew earlier, if we knew that this was going to

591
00:33:35,039 --> 00:33:37,960
go this long and take all of this, I think

592
00:33:38,000 --> 00:33:40,640
we may have approached the case differently. But we were

593
00:33:40,680 --> 00:33:43,119
so far along on this, there was a signed agreement.

594
00:33:43,680 --> 00:33:46,680
The United States can unwind an agreement just because it's

595
00:33:46,680 --> 00:33:50,119
frustrated or just because some victim indicates that they don't

596
00:33:50,240 --> 00:33:53,119
like it. That's not you know, if the agreement is

597
00:33:53,119 --> 00:33:55,960
not legally valid, if there are some other concerns. But

598
00:33:56,039 --> 00:33:58,480
I don't think that this in and of itself would

599
00:33:58,480 --> 00:34:02,279
have been grounds for unwinding agreement. Question. Do you think

600
00:34:02,319 --> 00:34:05,119
it's misleading for the government to have been interviewing these

601
00:34:05,160 --> 00:34:08,719
witnesses and preparing them for a trial when there's already

602
00:34:08,760 --> 00:34:13,239
assigned NPA That resolves the issue. Answer? So that was

603
00:34:13,320 --> 00:34:16,360
part of the judgment that there is assigned agreement, but

604
00:34:16,519 --> 00:34:19,280
based on the course of conduct, is that agreement really

605
00:34:19,320 --> 00:34:22,000
an agreement that will be honored? And so there was

606
00:34:22,039 --> 00:34:25,440
an ongoing investigation as well, because we didn't know if

607
00:34:25,440 --> 00:34:29,320
we'd go to trial, and I know that not. I know.

608
00:34:29,639 --> 00:34:33,079
My recollection is that the judgment was until we know

609
00:34:33,320 --> 00:34:35,840
that this agreement is really going to be performed fully,

610
00:34:36,679 --> 00:34:39,559
that to inform the victims of a possibility of civil

611
00:34:39,599 --> 00:34:43,320
recovery is problematic. And I can't say that judgment's incorrect.

612
00:34:43,639 --> 00:34:47,159
I think that's a valid judgment. Question fair enough. And

613
00:34:47,199 --> 00:34:49,519
then the last question on this email is at the

614
00:34:49,559 --> 00:34:53,199
bottom misredacted invites you to attend an interview with four

615
00:34:53,199 --> 00:34:57,239
of the girls that would be coming the following day.

616
00:34:58,079 --> 00:35:00,840
Did you attend? Answer? I did not, And as a

617
00:35:00,960 --> 00:35:04,519
US attorney, I don't think I attend. That wasn't typical

618
00:35:04,559 --> 00:35:09,480
for the office. Question would or was that ever? Had

619
00:35:09,519 --> 00:35:11,840
you ever had that type of request come from a

620
00:35:11,840 --> 00:35:15,199
line assistant? Answer? Not to my recollection, but I also

621
00:35:15,320 --> 00:35:18,079
tended not to have communication from the line assistance in

622
00:35:18,119 --> 00:35:22,119
the first place. Question were you at all curious, given

623
00:35:22,440 --> 00:35:25,519
you had discussed the issue with the witnesses in this case,

624
00:35:25,920 --> 00:35:29,480
that potential impeachment. You know that caused you two that

625
00:35:29,559 --> 00:35:32,639
went into the negotiation phase. Did you have any interest

626
00:35:32,719 --> 00:35:35,960
in seeing these people, even interacting with them personally so

627
00:35:36,039 --> 00:35:40,440
you can make your own assessment. Answer, So any interest

628
00:35:40,519 --> 00:35:43,280
is he gets cut off? Question? Would there be value

629
00:35:43,280 --> 00:35:47,280
in doing that? Answer? So, we had very experienced prosecutors.

630
00:35:47,480 --> 00:35:50,800
It's not just interacting with the victim that were in

631
00:35:50,840 --> 00:35:54,079
a really hard position. How I would draw a distinction

632
00:35:54,159 --> 00:35:56,599
between a victim being interviewed by an agent and how

633
00:35:56,639 --> 00:35:59,000
a victim holds up in court in a public setting

634
00:35:59,119 --> 00:36:02,199
under cross examine, and in that I don't think anyone

635
00:36:02,199 --> 00:36:05,199
in the office was questioning the pain or the suffering

636
00:36:05,519 --> 00:36:09,239
of the victims. I think that the issues were how

637
00:36:09,280 --> 00:36:13,519
they would hold up in court, which are uniquely trial issues. Question. Okay,

638
00:36:13,559 --> 00:36:17,599
so let's move on to what was your understanding that

639
00:36:17,639 --> 00:36:20,599
the federal government was going to do as far as

640
00:36:20,639 --> 00:36:24,440
the notification about the resolution of the case. Answer? So,

641
00:36:24,519 --> 00:36:26,960
my understanding was that at once we believed that the

642
00:36:26,960 --> 00:36:30,360
case was going, that the plea was going to go forward,

643
00:36:30,840 --> 00:36:33,800
that we would notify the victims of the resolution and

644
00:36:33,960 --> 00:36:37,920
of the agreement and basically how it played out. Question, Now,

645
00:36:38,000 --> 00:36:41,119
are you saying you had agreed to not notify. I

646
00:36:41,199 --> 00:36:45,000
mean one would read your December twelfth, nineteenth letter as

647
00:36:45,039 --> 00:36:47,400
an agreement that the federal government is not going to

648
00:36:47,440 --> 00:36:50,760
notify the victims of the state plea and that will

649
00:36:50,840 --> 00:36:53,920
end the part of the case. Is that correct answer?

650
00:36:54,079 --> 00:36:57,440
So I would parse my letter differently. And this is

651
00:36:57,480 --> 00:37:00,280
twelve years after the fact, and so this isn't based

652
00:37:00,320 --> 00:37:03,320
on recollection, but on my reading and my understanding of

653
00:37:03,320 --> 00:37:05,880
the course of conduct in the case sitting here now.

654
00:37:06,639 --> 00:37:10,039
My understanding was that our office was notified, was it

655
00:37:10,079 --> 00:37:13,119
on a Friday afternoon, that he would be pleading on Monday,

656
00:37:13,360 --> 00:37:16,000
and that at that time Redacted made efforts to notify

657
00:37:16,079 --> 00:37:18,679
victims that he would be pleading, and that he would

658
00:37:18,719 --> 00:37:21,239
terminate the federal resolution of this matter, and that the

659
00:37:21,320 --> 00:37:25,000
victims should attend the hearing, which wasn't the state resolution

660
00:37:25,119 --> 00:37:28,599
of the case. It was the federal resolution. And so

661
00:37:28,639 --> 00:37:31,280
you're saying that the state plea was also the federal

662
00:37:31,320 --> 00:37:34,719
resolution of the case. Answer based on my understanding of

663
00:37:34,719 --> 00:37:38,320
what happened. That's how my recollection, based on having reviewed

664
00:37:38,320 --> 00:37:41,280
the record, That's how I believed it proceeded. Although I

665
00:37:41,320 --> 00:37:44,719
think Redacted attempted to do so, couldn't reach some attorneys

666
00:37:44,920 --> 00:37:47,800
and exercise best efforts to let them know, but did

667
00:37:47,880 --> 00:37:51,599
not get a hold of all the victims over the weekend. Question.

668
00:37:51,960 --> 00:37:54,320
Before we get too deep into that, let's just take

669
00:37:54,360 --> 00:37:57,360
a quick look at Exhibit fifty one. So this is

670
00:37:57,400 --> 00:38:01,199
an email forwarded to you from redacted from January June

671
00:38:01,199 --> 00:38:03,960
twenty fifth, two thousand and eight, So that's five days

672
00:38:03,960 --> 00:38:06,760
prior to the plea in the case, or the state

673
00:38:06,840 --> 00:38:09,519
court plea. And the attachment there you'll notice is a

674
00:38:09,599 --> 00:38:13,119
letter with a notification of identified victims, and the letter

675
00:38:13,159 --> 00:38:16,920
is written, Would you disagree it's written with on June thirtieth,

676
00:38:17,039 --> 00:38:20,880
Epstein pled guilty. Do you see that? Answer? Yes? Question,

677
00:38:21,159 --> 00:38:23,719
So the inference it appears to be that this letter

678
00:38:24,079 --> 00:38:27,320
was to be sent after the plea. Answer. I see

679
00:38:27,320 --> 00:38:30,960
that also based on my review of the record, where

680
00:38:31,079 --> 00:38:33,880
I think I'm recalling the redacted affid David where she

681
00:38:34,000 --> 00:38:36,519
said that she made an attempt to notify the victim

682
00:38:36,559 --> 00:38:38,760
as soon as she was made aware that he would

683
00:38:38,800 --> 00:38:43,800
be pleading, that he would be pleading in state court. Question. Well,

684
00:38:44,320 --> 00:38:46,760
what it says in the Affid David I believe is

685
00:38:46,800 --> 00:38:50,480
that she made notification and the police department chief redacted.

686
00:38:50,519 --> 00:38:54,519
Police department made notifications. Is that correct? Does that ring

687
00:38:54,559 --> 00:38:57,760
a bell? Mister Todd? Do you have a copy of

688
00:38:57,760 --> 00:39:03,440
the affid David? It's right here, one copy Acosta on

689
00:39:03,480 --> 00:39:07,880
the back, Acosta so relevant to this paragraph thirty four

690
00:39:08,159 --> 00:39:11,760
and then another paragraph. These and other attacks and efforts

691
00:39:11,760 --> 00:39:15,679
to avoid the NPA's terms led the FBI investigative team,

692
00:39:15,880 --> 00:39:19,239
the office, and me to conclude that prosecution at trial

693
00:39:19,280 --> 00:39:23,559
remained a possibility and we should prepare as much. This

694
00:39:23,639 --> 00:39:26,920
meant that the victim notification letters had to cease, because

695
00:39:26,960 --> 00:39:30,199
one we no longer knew whether Epstein would perform under

696
00:39:30,239 --> 00:39:33,519
the NPA, and hence we did not know whether providing

697
00:39:33,559 --> 00:39:37,039
information about the NPA would be accurate until we believe

698
00:39:37,039 --> 00:39:40,079
that Epstein, through his council, would attempt to use victim

699
00:39:40,079 --> 00:39:43,880
notification concerning the NPA to suggest that victims had been

700
00:39:43,960 --> 00:39:47,159
encouraged by the FBI or the office to overstate the

701
00:39:47,280 --> 00:39:51,800
victimization for a monetary compensation, and then fast forwarding because

702
00:39:51,840 --> 00:39:54,320
you can read it on your own. On Friday, June

703
00:39:54,360 --> 00:39:57,239
twenty seventh, at approximately four to fifteen, I received a

704
00:39:57,280 --> 00:39:59,920
copy of Epstein's for post date plea agreement and learn

705
00:40:00,039 --> 00:40:02,960
that Epstein's state court change a plea was scheduled for

706
00:40:03,000 --> 00:40:06,159
eight thirty am on Monday the Palm Beach Police Department,

707
00:40:06,199 --> 00:40:09,039
and I attempted to notify the victims about the hearing

708
00:40:09,280 --> 00:40:12,880
in the short time available to us. I specifically called

709
00:40:12,880 --> 00:40:15,920
the attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding

710
00:40:15,960 --> 00:40:19,119
the hearing. I believe it was during this I never

711
00:40:19,159 --> 00:40:22,320
told that state charges involved other victims, and neither the

712
00:40:22,320 --> 00:40:26,039
state Court charging instrument nor the factual proffer limited the

713
00:40:26,079 --> 00:40:30,960
procurement of prostitution charges to a specific cell, so that

714
00:40:31,119 --> 00:40:33,880
was what I was referring to. Again, I'm basing this

715
00:40:33,920 --> 00:40:36,400
based on my review of the Affid David and not

716
00:40:36,480 --> 00:40:38,760
on recollection of how this may or may not have

717
00:40:38,840 --> 00:40:42,519
proceeded twelve years ago. Question, Okay, you know, would it

718
00:40:42,599 --> 00:40:46,280
surprised you to learn that misredacted only communicated with mister

719
00:40:46,400 --> 00:40:49,719
Edwards that day. That's because she was under direction from

720
00:40:49,760 --> 00:40:53,639
the manager to only contact Edwards regarding the potential plea

721
00:40:53,880 --> 00:40:57,360
for that Monday answer, the AFID David said she attempted

722
00:40:57,400 --> 00:41:01,119
to notify the victims, so I can't speak to that question. Okay.

723
00:41:01,599 --> 00:41:04,480
Answer and I don't have an independent recollection of this

724
00:41:04,599 --> 00:41:08,400
going back twelve years? Question were you aware that misredacted

725
00:41:08,480 --> 00:41:11,320
was directed to have no communication with the State Attorney's

726
00:41:11,360 --> 00:41:14,440
office and probably during the later period of the case

727
00:41:14,480 --> 00:41:17,079
in two thousand and eight? Answer not to my recollection

728
00:41:17,800 --> 00:41:21,239
question okay, So did you have would you not recall

729
00:41:21,400 --> 00:41:24,760
hearing anyone directing her to not communicate with the State's

730
00:41:24,760 --> 00:41:28,760
Attorney's office? Answer I can't speak twelve years later? What

731
00:41:28,920 --> 00:41:31,320
role I may or may not have had. I question,

732
00:41:31,440 --> 00:41:34,239
how if we need if there is an attempt to

733
00:41:34,280 --> 00:41:36,519
schedule a plea? In all of that, how can there

734
00:41:36,559 --> 00:41:39,679
not be communication? But I can't say whether I did

735
00:41:39,760 --> 00:41:42,599
or did not. When I say I have no recollection,

736
00:41:43,039 --> 00:41:45,519
I mean that in the broadest sense of the word.

737
00:41:46,360 --> 00:41:49,920
Question Okay. In your December nineteenth letter, you did agree

738
00:41:49,960 --> 00:41:52,840
that the State Attorney's Office would notify the state's victims.

739
00:41:52,960 --> 00:41:57,199
Right answer yes. Question and do you have any idea

740
00:41:57,400 --> 00:42:00,320
how that was supposed to be accomplished? Answer I can't

741
00:42:00,320 --> 00:42:03,320
speak to that. No question And would you have any

742
00:42:03,360 --> 00:42:06,760
knowledge of who the state victims are? Answer? I would

743
00:42:06,760 --> 00:42:09,880
infer that our office would have sufficient communication with the

744
00:42:09,880 --> 00:42:13,280
State Attorney's office to communicate who the victims were in

745
00:42:13,320 --> 00:42:16,400
the case because it was ongoing. It was an ongoing matter.

746
00:42:16,519 --> 00:42:19,079
But I don't know. Question, do you want to go

747
00:42:19,159 --> 00:42:24,920
on misredacted? Okay? Are you? Are you done with your

748
00:42:25,000 --> 00:42:30,599
that portion at least for the moment redacted? Yes, thank you. Question.

749
00:42:31,159 --> 00:42:33,719
I just want to clarify something you said a moment ago,

750
00:42:33,760 --> 00:42:36,639
mister Acosta. You said that you referenced or referred to

751
00:42:36,639 --> 00:42:39,599
the agreement the NPA as having been it was signed,

752
00:42:39,719 --> 00:42:44,199
and it was being reviewed. Were you talking about Washington? Answer? Right,

753
00:42:44,760 --> 00:42:48,119
question the Criminal Division? But we established earlier, did we

754
00:42:48,159 --> 00:42:50,639
not that the NPA was not the subject of the

755
00:42:50,679 --> 00:42:54,760
Criminal Division review? They expressly declined to review it. Answer,

756
00:42:55,039 --> 00:42:58,400
I stand corrected. Question Okay, I just wanted to be

757
00:42:58,440 --> 00:43:01,159
clear on the record. Thank you. So we've had a

758
00:43:01,199 --> 00:43:04,039
lot of conversation about the facts. We're fortunate in this

759
00:43:04,119 --> 00:43:06,960
case to have a plethora of documents upon which we

760
00:43:07,039 --> 00:43:10,679
can rely, even after twelve years, and we've tried to

761
00:43:10,760 --> 00:43:13,360
plumb the depths of your memory as to the events.

762
00:43:13,880 --> 00:43:17,840
Are there any facts, any conversations, any incidents, anything, based

763
00:43:17,840 --> 00:43:20,960
on the questions that you've heard here today that you recall,

764
00:43:21,239 --> 00:43:23,880
have recalled that you want to tell us about, want

765
00:43:23,960 --> 00:43:27,119
us to know answer, So give me a minute to

766
00:43:27,280 --> 00:43:30,599
just sort of think this through. I think we've covered

767
00:43:30,639 --> 00:43:33,039
most of the issues pretty clearly. I guess I would

768
00:43:33,079 --> 00:43:36,639
have two general comments. The first is whether folks agree

769
00:43:36,920 --> 00:43:40,000
or disagree with the initial two years, you know, registration

770
00:43:40,079 --> 00:43:44,320
and restitution. The office's focus was on having mister Epstein

771
00:43:44,360 --> 00:43:47,119
go to jail at the time, when from our perspective,

772
00:43:47,559 --> 00:43:51,239
these cases were at least presented with the facts federally

773
00:43:51,320 --> 00:43:54,639
at least unusual, and the most trafficking cases involve different

774
00:43:54,719 --> 00:43:58,719
sort of nexus. It involved bringing individuals into the country,

775
00:43:58,960 --> 00:44:02,079
or holding individuals against their will, or doing something like that.

776
00:44:02,400 --> 00:44:04,960
And this will go to my second point, which is,

777
00:44:04,960 --> 00:44:07,760
you know, sitting here we now see several high profile

778
00:44:07,760 --> 00:44:12,039
individuals who abuse power and have now been prosecuted, who

779
00:44:12,039 --> 00:44:14,280
are known at the time to who abused drugs, like

780
00:44:14,320 --> 00:44:17,480
Bill Cosby. There were rumors at the time, and you know,

781
00:44:17,559 --> 00:44:20,480
so looking back, maybe it was the right call, maybe

782
00:44:20,519 --> 00:44:23,159
it wasn't the right call, But there is some degree

783
00:44:23,360 --> 00:44:27,559
I'm not sure what the right adjective is frustration that

784
00:44:27,719 --> 00:44:30,039
and certainly some of this goes to me. But I

785
00:44:30,079 --> 00:44:32,039
think a lot of this goes to redacted and the

786
00:44:32,039 --> 00:44:35,000
individuals involved, that the attempt to put someone in jail,

787
00:44:35,199 --> 00:44:37,679
as opposed to decline the case and say this is

788
00:44:37,800 --> 00:44:41,360
just a state case, that the federal issues are too tricky,

789
00:44:41,559 --> 00:44:45,199
that ultimately this is the sort of novel interpretation that

790
00:44:45,239 --> 00:44:48,079
the attempt to come up with an outcome has rebounded

791
00:44:48,199 --> 00:44:50,840
in the way that it has. And I'm not saying, look,

792
00:44:51,079 --> 00:44:53,840
that's life, and I understand that, but I do think

793
00:44:53,840 --> 00:44:56,039
it's important to look back on this and try to

794
00:44:56,079 --> 00:44:58,599
be in the shoes of the thought process in six

795
00:44:58,599 --> 00:45:02,800
and seven, when picking prosecutions were fairly new, when you know,

796
00:45:03,440 --> 00:45:05,840
more so than today, some jurors may have looked at

797
00:45:05,840 --> 00:45:09,960
this as prostitution, perhaps more so than today. Judge's tolerance

798
00:45:10,000 --> 00:45:13,000
for victim shaming may have both caused more hesitation on

799
00:45:13,079 --> 00:45:16,239
part of the victims but also created more issues at trial.

800
00:45:16,920 --> 00:45:18,840
And so I think we've touched on that, and I

801
00:45:18,840 --> 00:45:20,800
think we've sort of wrapped up this portion of it,

802
00:45:20,960 --> 00:45:25,239
and it's important just to restate that question and the addition,

803
00:45:25,519 --> 00:45:28,320
are there any facts that you or the conversations or

804
00:45:28,360 --> 00:45:32,599
anything that we have talked about that elicited from you

805
00:45:32,920 --> 00:45:34,840
that you want us to know and to be clear,

806
00:45:35,000 --> 00:45:38,360
you'll have an opportunity to supplement all of this. Answer

807
00:45:38,639 --> 00:45:40,840
not at this time that I can think of. Question

808
00:45:40,920 --> 00:45:44,519
all right, how do you respond to public criticism that

809
00:45:44,559 --> 00:45:48,280
the defense attorneys, the Epstein defense team, we're getting extraordinary

810
00:45:48,320 --> 00:45:51,920
access to an influence on prosecutors from the line level

811
00:45:52,199 --> 00:45:55,599
all the way up through the department. Answer. So I

812
00:45:55,639 --> 00:45:58,000
would point out early in the case. When I said early,

813
00:45:58,280 --> 00:46:01,639
you push back, But from my perspective, early on in

814
00:46:01,679 --> 00:46:04,519
the case, not when it was first investigated, but when

815
00:46:04,559 --> 00:46:07,639
it was first bubbled up for a decision. Question and

816
00:46:07,679 --> 00:46:10,519
that would be mid two thousand and seven answer mid

817
00:46:10,559 --> 00:46:13,360
two thousand and seven juneish May to June two thousand

818
00:46:13,360 --> 00:46:17,320
and seven, May June July. We determined here is what

819
00:46:17,360 --> 00:46:19,840
we need for resolution. And I think we addressed some

820
00:46:19,880 --> 00:46:22,920
of this in the letter because we were receiving criticism

821
00:46:22,960 --> 00:46:25,599
back then, and I think the letter has been misconstrued

822
00:46:25,639 --> 00:46:29,639
to some extent because it was not here influential people

823
00:46:29,679 --> 00:46:33,480
were backing off. It was early on set three criteria

824
00:46:33,639 --> 00:46:38,679
two years registration restitution, despite all these attorneys, despite all

825
00:46:38,679 --> 00:46:41,800
these appeals, despite all these efforts. The Office did not

826
00:46:41,880 --> 00:46:44,920
budge with the caveat of the twenty four to eighteen months,

827
00:46:45,159 --> 00:46:49,079
which we've discussed, and from my perspective, despite all that,

828
00:46:49,639 --> 00:46:52,480
I backed the Office in sticking by that resolution in

829
00:46:52,559 --> 00:46:56,519
the various appeals in Washington, and so ultimately it was

830
00:46:56,559 --> 00:46:59,239
a year long process, but we ended up in a

831
00:46:59,320 --> 00:47:02,199
year later exactly where we started with the caveat of

832
00:47:02,280 --> 00:47:05,239
twenty four to eighteen. And so to the extent that

833
00:47:05,280 --> 00:47:10,000
there was influence, there was no change in position. Question, Well,

834
00:47:10,039 --> 00:47:12,880
my question was access. That this team of defense attorneys

835
00:47:13,079 --> 00:47:16,000
had extraordinary access, that they asked for meetings, they pressed

836
00:47:16,000 --> 00:47:19,440
for with communications, and that they had access. Did that

837
00:47:19,480 --> 00:47:22,880
seem extraordinary to you answer? So they asked for a

838
00:47:22,920 --> 00:47:26,199
meeting with me before the agreement was signed. I granted

839
00:47:26,199 --> 00:47:28,559
that that's not the first and only time that I

840
00:47:28,599 --> 00:47:31,679
granted a meeting to defense attorneys. I don't think it's

841
00:47:31,679 --> 00:47:35,000
a typical, particularly as a case coming to a resolution,

842
00:47:35,440 --> 00:47:37,400
for US attorney to sit down and meet with the

843
00:47:37,440 --> 00:47:40,719
opposing council. And I can think of several cases where

844
00:47:40,719 --> 00:47:44,119
that happened. There was certainly a lot of access in Washington.

845
00:47:45,280 --> 00:47:47,039
I would speak to you know, I think that's a

846
00:47:47,119 --> 00:47:51,519
question to direct to this building because the process here

847
00:47:51,599 --> 00:47:54,679
was lengthy and frustrating. But I think we successfully held

848
00:47:54,719 --> 00:47:59,000
firm in our position despite all the process in this building. Question,

849
00:47:59,079 --> 00:48:01,760
and again, my focus is not on your response, but

850
00:48:01,840 --> 00:48:04,960
on the access based on the prominence and the prominence

851
00:48:05,000 --> 00:48:07,960
of the defense attorneys. If these had been local, your

852
00:48:08,000 --> 00:48:11,199
sort of average criminal defense attorneys from you know name,

853
00:48:11,239 --> 00:48:13,639
where they hang out in Miami coming to you and

854
00:48:13,639 --> 00:48:17,159
pressing you for this, you writ large the department. Do

855
00:48:17,199 --> 00:48:20,079
you believe you would have had the same or comparable

856
00:48:20,159 --> 00:48:23,559
level of access. Answer? Yes, so I guess i'd respond

857
00:48:23,599 --> 00:48:26,599
this way if an attorney after meeting with my management

858
00:48:26,639 --> 00:48:29,440
staff as for a meeting with me, I believe I

859
00:48:29,519 --> 00:48:31,840
did and would have granted it. And I think of

860
00:48:31,880 --> 00:48:34,960
several matters on which those types of meetings were granted,

861
00:48:35,480 --> 00:48:38,480
and so that was not unusual with respect to the

862
00:48:38,519 --> 00:48:41,199
back and forth after the agreement was signed, this was

863
00:48:41,239 --> 00:48:44,280
an unusual agreement, and to some extent, as a result,

864
00:48:44,559 --> 00:48:48,480
the back and forth quickly elevated, particularly because matters would

865
00:48:48,480 --> 00:48:52,360
elevate in particular when they were being addressed at Main Justice.

866
00:48:52,559 --> 00:48:54,880
That would be a natural way for matters to elevate

867
00:48:54,920 --> 00:48:57,280
within the office, and so the fact that they were

868
00:48:57,280 --> 00:49:00,760
being addressed and reviewed and letters were coming here would

869
00:49:00,840 --> 00:49:04,199
naturally elevate the way the matter was treated in Miami.

870
00:49:04,960 --> 00:49:09,480
Question in particular, Jay Lefkowitz had ready access to Of course,

871
00:49:09,519 --> 00:49:13,360
he was involved in the negotiations with redacted directly in

872
00:49:13,480 --> 00:49:16,920
creating the NPA, But after that, it appears from the

873
00:49:16,960 --> 00:49:20,039
record that he was often contacting you and running or

874
00:49:20,079 --> 00:49:22,440
going above the people who work for you, and on

875
00:49:22,519 --> 00:49:27,599
numerous occasions you, again my characterization, reprimanded him or instructed

876
00:49:27,639 --> 00:49:29,800
him not to do that and to do direct his

877
00:49:29,880 --> 00:49:33,840
communications to a line attorney or supervisors. Is that a

878
00:49:33,880 --> 00:49:37,599
fair characterization? Answer? Yes, I think on several occasions I

879
00:49:37,599 --> 00:49:41,199
said direct them, And again that was after the agreement

880
00:49:41,239 --> 00:49:44,639
was signed. But yes, question, but there were many issues

881
00:49:44,679 --> 00:49:48,760
still pending correct answer, yes, question okay. And then was

882
00:49:48,800 --> 00:49:51,320
his ability to reach out to you as a function

883
00:49:51,400 --> 00:49:55,840
of your personal association? Is that fair answer? So I

884
00:49:55,840 --> 00:49:59,199
don't think that's a fair characterization. You could also say

885
00:49:59,239 --> 00:50:02,119
that it was the ability of a function of his

886
00:50:02,119 --> 00:50:05,320
his insistence is not doing what we asked And the

887
00:50:05,360 --> 00:50:08,519
fact that in a typical course a Miami attorney would

888
00:50:08,519 --> 00:50:10,840
not have done this because they would have to interact

889
00:50:10,840 --> 00:50:13,639
with the office on an ongoing basis, and so the

890
00:50:13,719 --> 00:50:18,079
repeat litigator behaves very differently than the one time raised

891
00:50:18,119 --> 00:50:26,599
Earth litigator. Question raised rzed answer correct. Question Is it

892
00:50:26,719 --> 00:50:29,679
reasonable for us to understand that had you followed the

893
00:50:29,719 --> 00:50:32,079
media coverage of what happened in the Epstein case over

894
00:50:32,119 --> 00:50:36,880
the years? Answer yes, question in your view overall and

895
00:50:36,920 --> 00:50:39,880
in whatever specific respect you wish to address it, has

896
00:50:39,920 --> 00:50:42,880
it been accurate or not so? Answer I think it's

897
00:50:42,920 --> 00:50:45,880
been accurate or inaccurate, I should say in several ways,

898
00:50:46,159 --> 00:50:49,000
and we can go through them cut off if you

899
00:50:49,000 --> 00:50:51,480
could just tick those off. Answer so, I think it's

900
00:50:51,480 --> 00:50:55,000
inaccurate in that it has been characterized as our approving

901
00:50:55,119 --> 00:50:57,960
estate plea, and the complexity of this case was a

902
00:50:58,000 --> 00:51:00,880
state plea and we were deferring in favor of a state.

903
00:51:00,960 --> 00:51:03,880
Prosecution has been lost and it's something that I have

904
00:51:03,920 --> 00:51:06,760
attempted to correct, but it's been very difficult to sort

905
00:51:06,760 --> 00:51:09,519
of explain that in the media. You know, this is

906
00:51:09,519 --> 00:51:11,519
a bad analogy, and so I haven't used it in

907
00:51:11,519 --> 00:51:14,079
the media, but I thought about it, and so I'll

908
00:51:14,079 --> 00:51:18,199
share it. So after the juicy smolet plea in Chicago,

909
00:51:18,559 --> 00:51:21,400
there were some discussion of whether the federal government should

910
00:51:21,440 --> 00:51:24,400
bring charges, and I remember the media saying that. And

911
00:51:24,480 --> 00:51:27,280
I haven't used this analogy because I don't want to compare,

912
00:51:27,559 --> 00:51:29,760
and I think it would be disrespectful to compare the

913
00:51:29,760 --> 00:51:32,519
facts of the case of to what happened to these victims.

914
00:51:32,760 --> 00:51:35,159
And I still I don't want the comparison to be drawn,

915
00:51:35,519 --> 00:51:38,559
but there is a legal comparison, right the US Attorney

916
00:51:38,599 --> 00:51:41,079
in Chicago could have stepped in and said, whether or

917
00:51:41,119 --> 00:51:43,639
not the state takes this plea, we may investigate this

918
00:51:43,679 --> 00:51:47,239
federally and sort of stop that plea from going forward,

919
00:51:47,440 --> 00:51:49,559
or at least put a wrench in those gears. Or

920
00:51:49,599 --> 00:51:52,719
the US attorney could have pursued that under petite policy

921
00:51:52,920 --> 00:51:56,519
and did not. And so our stepping into this sort

922
00:51:56,519 --> 00:51:59,320
of reminded me of how many times cases that are

923
00:51:59,400 --> 00:52:02,239
viewed as a manifest injustice to occur, and yet the

924
00:52:02,239 --> 00:52:05,199
federal government does not step in, and the fact that

925
00:52:05,239 --> 00:52:09,199
we stepped in has been construed as this became a

926
00:52:09,239 --> 00:52:14,440
federal prosecution and sort of going sort of question earlier

927
00:52:14,599 --> 00:52:18,440
the distinction between it was a manifest injustice versus this

928
00:52:18,639 --> 00:52:21,000
was the right outcome is something that I think has

929
00:52:21,039 --> 00:52:24,039
been lost on the coverage in this matter. I think

930
00:52:24,079 --> 00:52:26,559
a second issue that has been lost in the coverage

931
00:52:26,559 --> 00:52:29,039
of this matter is there is reference to Prince Andrew

932
00:52:29,679 --> 00:52:33,199
and Alan Dershowitz and Governor Richardson and Bill Clinton and

933
00:52:33,280 --> 00:52:35,920
the thing happening in London and the so called Lolita

934
00:52:35,960 --> 00:52:38,719
Express where things may have happened on airplanes, and so

935
00:52:38,880 --> 00:52:42,159
this is viewed from the public as this international matter

936
00:52:42,400 --> 00:52:45,079
where the victims were local. The actions, to my recollection

937
00:52:45,159 --> 00:52:48,440
were local. And so the distinction between this Pombeach incident

938
00:52:48,679 --> 00:52:50,760
and what the media likes to cover, which is, you know,

939
00:52:52,079 --> 00:52:54,719
did mister Epstein force a minor to have sexual relations

940
00:52:54,760 --> 00:52:57,719
with Prince Andrew is a very different fact pattern, both

941
00:52:57,760 --> 00:53:00,880
in terms of the public perception a minor to have

942
00:53:00,920 --> 00:53:03,880
sex with a third party that they you know, there

943
00:53:03,920 --> 00:53:08,760
is an outside solicitation in context, it's sort of traveling

944
00:53:08,760 --> 00:53:11,639
with these women and forcing them to have sex, versus

945
00:53:11,639 --> 00:53:14,239
a more local matter. I don't want to say solicitation

946
00:53:14,559 --> 00:53:17,159
because I think we've covered that, but some may view

947
00:53:17,199 --> 00:53:19,239
it as that, and I think those two are major

948
00:53:19,280 --> 00:53:23,239
elements that have been lost in coverage question. The case

949
00:53:23,280 --> 00:53:26,360
has been criticized as having involved in proper influence or

950
00:53:26,440 --> 00:53:29,920
favors or payments that affected decisions that were made within

951
00:53:30,000 --> 00:53:32,639
your office. Are you aware of all of those allegations

952
00:53:32,639 --> 00:53:36,079
as well in connection with this case? Were you yourself

953
00:53:36,119 --> 00:53:39,679
ever offered any payment or any favors or any promises

954
00:53:39,719 --> 00:53:43,000
of job assistance or anything like that in connection with

955
00:53:43,039 --> 00:53:46,599
the case? Answer no question. And to your knowledge, was

956
00:53:46,599 --> 00:53:49,320
there any offer to anyone associated with the case in

957
00:53:49,360 --> 00:53:53,679
your office? Answer not, to my knowledge. Question. It's been

958
00:53:53,719 --> 00:53:56,400
asserted also that the handling of the case in the

959
00:53:56,400 --> 00:53:59,719
office was affected by Epstein's wealth and influence in the

960
00:53:59,760 --> 00:54:04,400
pond each community. Do you what is your response to

961
00:54:04,440 --> 00:54:08,039
that criticism? Answer again, my response would be, you know,

962
00:54:08,119 --> 00:54:10,480
sometime in May or June, we came up with these

963
00:54:10,519 --> 00:54:12,960
three points and we stuck to them. And you know,

964
00:54:13,039 --> 00:54:16,480
I despite all of this, you know what, people make

965
00:54:16,519 --> 00:54:19,159
these assertions somewhere along the way, the fact that we

966
00:54:19,320 --> 00:54:22,400
stuck to those points is lost and not talked about.

967
00:54:23,360 --> 00:54:25,599
And so we did stick to those points, you know,

968
00:54:25,760 --> 00:54:28,079
and question whether the case would have come to us

969
00:54:28,119 --> 00:54:30,639
in the first place, and so, you know, I think

970
00:54:30,719 --> 00:54:34,039
that could go a long way the other way. Question

971
00:54:34,159 --> 00:54:37,800
I don't understand that. Answer that it's highly unusual for

972
00:54:37,880 --> 00:54:39,840
a case to be brought to the state, to the

973
00:54:39,880 --> 00:54:44,119
US Attorney's office after the state attorney declined, not declines,

974
00:54:44,199 --> 00:54:48,800
but questioned, fails to fully prosecute. Answer. Right, And so

975
00:54:48,960 --> 00:54:51,639
one question that also doesn't get asked. You know, to

976
00:54:51,679 --> 00:54:54,119
what extent was this case brought to us in the

977
00:54:54,119 --> 00:54:58,519
first place because of this because of its profile? Question?

978
00:54:58,599 --> 00:55:00,559
In other words, are you suggesting that is wealth and

979
00:55:00,599 --> 00:55:04,239
influence in the community affected the state's authorities? Answer? I'm

980
00:55:04,280 --> 00:55:07,079
not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is that the case

981
00:55:07,440 --> 00:55:10,280
came in, the case proceeded, and someone can make the

982
00:55:10,400 --> 00:55:12,960
argument that the only reason the chief redacted brought it

983
00:55:13,000 --> 00:55:15,519
to us was because it had such a high profile.

984
00:55:16,119 --> 00:55:18,360
Are there other matters that take place in Palm Beach

985
00:55:18,519 --> 00:55:20,880
that a state attorney declines in the first place, that

986
00:55:20,920 --> 00:55:23,639
isn't brought to the state attorney because it doesn't rise

987
00:55:24,519 --> 00:55:26,800
to the US attorney because it doesn't rise to the

988
00:55:26,800 --> 00:55:31,960
profile question? All right? Well, in fairness, he might have

989
00:55:32,000 --> 00:55:34,639
done it because the number of victims too. Right. Answer,

990
00:55:34,679 --> 00:55:37,719
he may have. I don't know. What I'm suggesting is

991
00:55:37,760 --> 00:55:40,360
we tried to treat it fairly not looking at hey,

992
00:55:40,480 --> 00:55:43,280
how wealthy is he, but also not saying we need

993
00:55:43,320 --> 00:55:45,880
to do this because he's so wealthy. All right, folks,

994
00:55:45,880 --> 00:55:47,639
we're going to wrap up right here, and then the

995
00:55:47,719 --> 00:55:49,800
next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick

996
00:55:49,880 --> 00:55:52,400
up where we left off. All of the information that

997
00:55:52,480 --> 00:55:55,800
goes with this episode can be found in the description box.