1 00:00:00,160 --> 00:00:03,120 Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the 2 00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:06,200 Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up 3 00:00:06,200 --> 00:00:09,839 where we left off with the alex Acosta interview with 4 00:00:09,960 --> 00:00:16,600 the OIG inspectors. Question, Okay, in Exhibit eight, you actually 5 00:00:16,920 --> 00:00:19,480 got the in Exhibit seven, you can see that in 6 00:00:19,519 --> 00:00:21,760 the bottom part of that that you received a copy 7 00:00:21,800 --> 00:00:24,239 of the prosecution memo. On the second page of the 8 00:00:24,320 --> 00:00:29,120 exhibit at the top, answer right, question redacted is forwarding 9 00:00:29,120 --> 00:00:34,320 to you the prosecution memo? Answer rite question. In Exhibit eight, 10 00:00:34,840 --> 00:00:37,560 you see that redacted as forwarding or sending that chain 11 00:00:37,920 --> 00:00:41,880 excluding redacted. That is redacted redacted or redacted redacted and 12 00:00:41,960 --> 00:00:46,000 you additional items in Operation Leap year and there's a 13 00:00:46,039 --> 00:00:50,799 summary of the indictment, the evidence regarding the individual victims. Okay, so, 14 00:00:50,880 --> 00:00:54,399 as of May eleventh, you had before you the prosecution memo, 15 00:00:54,600 --> 00:00:58,799 the proposed indictment, and the substantial amount of additional information. 16 00:00:59,159 --> 00:01:03,240 Did you read the prosecution memo? Answer right? So, I 17 00:01:03,240 --> 00:01:06,000 don't recall, and I don't know you are going to say, 18 00:01:06,159 --> 00:01:08,400 why don't I But this was a long time ago. 19 00:01:08,799 --> 00:01:10,680 I don't recall if I read it or if I 20 00:01:10,719 --> 00:01:12,920 went back to the office and sat down with redacted 21 00:01:12,959 --> 00:01:15,799 and redacted and went over it. I can't recall from 22 00:01:15,799 --> 00:01:18,480 this far, I can say that it looks, based on 23 00:01:18,519 --> 00:01:22,120 this that I was at the US Attorney's conference. The 24 00:01:22,200 --> 00:01:25,480 idea of printing this out on a hotel printer, I wouldn't. 25 00:01:25,640 --> 00:01:27,959 I can't believe I would have printed this out on 26 00:01:28,040 --> 00:01:32,120 a hotel printer. Question, let alone read it on an airplane? 27 00:01:32,120 --> 00:01:35,640 Correct answer, Let alone read it on an airplane. That 28 00:01:35,719 --> 00:01:38,840 would just not have been my practice. Question. But going 29 00:01:38,879 --> 00:01:42,200 back arriving back to your offices, was it your practice 30 00:01:42,480 --> 00:01:45,840 to take voluminous documents like this and go through them 31 00:01:45,879 --> 00:01:50,280 yourself or did you rely on your senior staff? Answer? 32 00:01:50,400 --> 00:01:53,480 I would typically rely on my senior staff. They're the 33 00:01:53,599 --> 00:01:57,079 experienced ones that have seen these matters before. They would 34 00:01:57,120 --> 00:01:59,879 go through it. We'd sit down, we'd talk about the issues. 35 00:02:00,200 --> 00:02:02,599 We might have it in front of us, almost like 36 00:02:02,719 --> 00:02:05,640 you've got all those binders there, but you know you're 37 00:02:05,640 --> 00:02:08,639 calling my attention to particular issues, and we'd sort of 38 00:02:08,680 --> 00:02:11,560 talk it through. Question and you recall doing that in 39 00:02:11,560 --> 00:02:15,280 this case? Answer? I recall having discussions with senior staff 40 00:02:15,319 --> 00:02:19,520 about the case. Question who answer is certainly redacted and 41 00:02:19,639 --> 00:02:23,080 redacted at various points. I can't say that I did 42 00:02:23,560 --> 00:02:26,599 that in May versus April versus June. I can't give 43 00:02:26,639 --> 00:02:31,680 you timelines. Question, Well, we're talking about May, because you've 44 00:02:31,719 --> 00:02:35,319 got the actual process. Answer. It would have been my 45 00:02:35,400 --> 00:02:38,199 practice based on this to go back and discuss it. 46 00:02:38,479 --> 00:02:41,439 And so based on my practice, I would have gone 47 00:02:41,479 --> 00:02:44,120 back and likely discussed it. I doubt I would have 48 00:02:44,199 --> 00:02:47,439 printed this out at whatever hotel I was at. Question 49 00:02:47,800 --> 00:02:50,759 but even when you go back to the office, would 50 00:02:50,800 --> 00:02:52,800 you have somebody printed out so you would have had 51 00:02:52,800 --> 00:02:56,280 it available? Answer? I may have had someone printed out 52 00:02:56,360 --> 00:02:59,280 so it's available. I may have focused on particular parts 53 00:02:59,280 --> 00:03:02,599 of it. Question what kind of issues would you have 54 00:03:02,639 --> 00:03:05,520 focused on? In other words, in other words, some might 55 00:03:05,560 --> 00:03:08,360 go straight to the facts, some might be interested in 56 00:03:08,360 --> 00:03:12,280 the legal theories. What was your approach? Answer? So I 57 00:03:12,319 --> 00:03:16,159 think it depended on the case question. Okay, answer here, 58 00:03:16,520 --> 00:03:19,560 you had legal questions and you also had witness issues, 59 00:03:19,840 --> 00:03:21,840 and I would think that those would have been the 60 00:03:21,840 --> 00:03:25,360 two primary areas. Question would you have gone through the 61 00:03:25,400 --> 00:03:28,759 indictment and the prosecution memo and all of those other 62 00:03:28,840 --> 00:03:32,680 materials or just relied on your experience seeing your people redacted? 63 00:03:32,680 --> 00:03:36,879 And redacted answer as a general practice, probably some combination 64 00:03:37,719 --> 00:03:41,280 as a general and general recollection. The concerns in this 65 00:03:41,360 --> 00:03:43,840 case weren't about the sort of details of what happened, 66 00:03:44,080 --> 00:03:47,599 because we believed he did what he did. The concerns 67 00:03:47,639 --> 00:03:50,199 were about some of the legal issues around it and 68 00:03:50,319 --> 00:03:54,199 some of the issues in terms of testimony. Question of victims, 69 00:03:54,680 --> 00:04:01,199 answer of victims, question all right. On page nine Exhibit 70 00:04:01,280 --> 00:04:03,800 nine is an email that you are not on, but 71 00:04:03,960 --> 00:04:07,800 that notes that redacted as advising redacted, that you as 72 00:04:07,879 --> 00:04:11,080 your memo and left Court's letter. Gerald left Court, new 73 00:04:11,159 --> 00:04:13,479 York attorney who was one of the members of Epstein's 74 00:04:13,479 --> 00:04:16,040 defense team. Did you know him? Answer? I did not. 75 00:04:17,120 --> 00:04:22,000 Question did you ever encounter him? As far as you recall, answer, 76 00:04:22,079 --> 00:04:24,879 I did not question, all right, he had according to 77 00:04:24,920 --> 00:04:29,759 the documents, we have made two substantial submissions in February 78 00:04:29,759 --> 00:04:32,800 of that year in an effort to dissuade them from 79 00:04:32,879 --> 00:04:36,399 pursuing a prosecution, and we have every reason to believe 80 00:04:36,639 --> 00:04:39,199 and no reason not to believe, that that's what it's 81 00:04:39,240 --> 00:04:42,920 being referred to. Do you recall reviewing substantial submission from 82 00:04:42,959 --> 00:04:47,600 Defense Council at this time attacking a very granular detail, 83 00:04:47,759 --> 00:04:50,959 the credibility of witnesses and so on. Answer, I don't 84 00:04:50,959 --> 00:04:54,240 recall reviewing those. Again, I recall discussions with my senior 85 00:04:54,279 --> 00:04:57,959 team about issues that included credibility, and I'm not sure 86 00:04:58,000 --> 00:05:00,360 if its credibility is the right word. But how the 87 00:05:00,439 --> 00:05:04,360 victims would do on the stand question okay, and who 88 00:05:04,399 --> 00:05:07,519 do you recall talking to about that? Answer? So some 89 00:05:07,680 --> 00:05:11,360 combination of redacted and redacted would have been the likely 90 00:05:11,439 --> 00:05:14,040 I recall the discussion. I don't recall whether it was 91 00:05:14,120 --> 00:05:17,800 redacted or whether it was redacted or redacted, but the 92 00:05:17,920 --> 00:05:20,639 logical inference would have been it would have been some 93 00:05:20,720 --> 00:05:25,639 combination of redacted and redacted. Question Okay, redacted has told 94 00:05:25,720 --> 00:05:29,319 us that during this period he was not actively involved 95 00:05:29,319 --> 00:05:32,800 in the case. Question, but that redacted was. Would that 96 00:05:32,839 --> 00:05:36,879 be consistent with your memory? Answer that sure, I mean 97 00:05:37,199 --> 00:05:39,839 they were a team. They became more or less involved 98 00:05:39,879 --> 00:05:44,279 based on needs. Question and was there any particular if 99 00:05:44,279 --> 00:05:48,439 redacted was working with you directly on reporting on his 100 00:05:48,480 --> 00:05:51,319 assessment of the case, was there any reason for redacted 101 00:05:51,360 --> 00:05:54,959 to be involved? Answer? I might bounce ideas off him. 102 00:05:55,160 --> 00:05:57,560 I mean he was he was the right across. So 103 00:05:57,680 --> 00:05:59,959 we work closely. But you know redacted was a crime 104 00:06:00,279 --> 00:06:04,360 chief and if he was in the weeds, Redacted and 105 00:06:04,360 --> 00:06:07,319 I would speculate would sort of much like me, defer 106 00:06:07,439 --> 00:06:10,800 to his judgment because they've known each other and they've 107 00:06:10,839 --> 00:06:14,920 worked together and they had a good working relationship. Question 108 00:06:15,839 --> 00:06:18,560 and is it do we understand correctly that as first 109 00:06:18,560 --> 00:06:24,480 assistant Redacted has a brief that really encompassed the entire office? Answer? 110 00:06:24,519 --> 00:06:28,120 He did, he supervised the civil, the criminal, the appellate, 111 00:06:28,279 --> 00:06:32,319 and the forfeiture. Question. All right, there is here in 112 00:06:32,319 --> 00:06:34,639 this email that you did not see back in the 113 00:06:34,720 --> 00:06:38,480 day Exhibit nine, a pushback from redacted regarding the rush 114 00:06:38,720 --> 00:06:42,199 that Redacted is in to pursue the case. And he says, 115 00:06:42,480 --> 00:06:45,920 this is obviously a very significant case and Alex wants 116 00:06:45,959 --> 00:06:48,319 to take his time in making sure he is comfortable 117 00:06:48,360 --> 00:06:51,519 before proceeding. Can you tell us what the basis would 118 00:06:51,560 --> 00:06:56,560 be for or was for that assertion by redacted? Answer? So, 119 00:06:57,279 --> 00:06:59,839 I can't tell you from the recollection what the basis 120 00:06:59,839 --> 00:07:02,720 is is. I can speculate that the material is being 121 00:07:02,800 --> 00:07:07,439 transmitted Friday morning. He gets cut off the eleventh answer 122 00:07:07,560 --> 00:07:11,800 by Acosta. Yeah, so Friday morning. It hasn't been reviewed 123 00:07:11,800 --> 00:07:14,439 by anyone in the management chain, much less approved and 124 00:07:14,639 --> 00:07:18,319 edited and redacted that Monday is saying, why don't I 125 00:07:18,399 --> 00:07:25,079 have a decision, and so truly extenuating circumstances, typically you'd 126 00:07:25,160 --> 00:07:27,319 give you know it, it'd have to go through the 127 00:07:27,319 --> 00:07:30,319 management chain up to the US attorney. And so he's 128 00:07:30,319 --> 00:07:33,519 pushing back saying, it's been a day or it's been 129 00:07:33,560 --> 00:07:37,399 a weekend. I'm just reading between the lines here. Question 130 00:07:37,800 --> 00:07:40,360 who had authority to sign off on the Epstein prosecution 131 00:07:40,959 --> 00:07:45,160 to say indict answer? So as a delegated matter, redacted 132 00:07:45,240 --> 00:07:50,160 had signature authority, as did as did it redacted? As 133 00:07:50,160 --> 00:07:53,480 did it redacted? And obviously I did. As a practice matter, 134 00:07:53,680 --> 00:07:55,560 this is something that would have gone through the chain 135 00:07:56,240 --> 00:07:59,720 and that we would have then discussed. Question, but why 136 00:07:59,720 --> 00:08:03,720 have level is it? Because, as redacted says, obviously a 137 00:08:03,800 --> 00:08:07,399 very significant case answers So at my level, not only 138 00:08:07,439 --> 00:08:10,120 because of the facts, because it's not about the facts, 139 00:08:10,360 --> 00:08:12,600 but I do think that there are legal issues that 140 00:08:12,800 --> 00:08:17,319 implicated policy that we were thinking through. Question and what 141 00:08:17,399 --> 00:08:21,000 were the legal issues and what were the policy issues? Answer? 142 00:08:21,120 --> 00:08:24,519 So the legal issues and also factual issues in terms 143 00:08:24,560 --> 00:08:27,920 of the witnesses. So the legal issue, so there's an 144 00:08:27,959 --> 00:08:31,560 email from redacted based on you know, the contemporaneous record 145 00:08:31,839 --> 00:08:34,759 that alludes to some of this. In my experience at 146 00:08:34,799 --> 00:08:38,639 the Civil Rights Division, trafficking cases involved, you know, I 147 00:08:38,720 --> 00:08:41,679 can describe some some horrific cases of girls being held 148 00:08:41,720 --> 00:08:45,279 against their will. You know, you add CP matters with 149 00:08:45,360 --> 00:08:50,240 young women, sometimes incredibly young, that the office prosecuted. As 150 00:08:50,279 --> 00:08:53,080 trafficking laws were being developed, there was a lot of 151 00:08:53,120 --> 00:08:57,559 discussion about what's the difference between trafficking and solicitation, And 152 00:08:57,600 --> 00:09:01,000 the discussion took place as the trafficking laws were being developed, 153 00:09:01,679 --> 00:09:05,159 and so this implicated that, and it implicated what the 154 00:09:05,240 --> 00:09:08,519 local and what is federal? Question? All right? So in 155 00:09:08,519 --> 00:09:11,360 the first you're talking in the first category, you're talking 156 00:09:11,399 --> 00:09:14,440 about the individual charges that had been that were proposed, 157 00:09:14,679 --> 00:09:19,759 which included both trafficking and coercion and enticement or enticement 158 00:09:20,000 --> 00:09:24,200 answer correct question, all right? And in the latter you 159 00:09:24,279 --> 00:09:27,360 felt that did you to what extent did the witness victim? 160 00:09:27,399 --> 00:09:32,240 Witness kind of credibility issues implicates policy answer, So I 161 00:09:32,240 --> 00:09:35,639 think I said that policy and victim in that In 162 00:09:35,679 --> 00:09:38,960 that there was certainly discussion between me and my management 163 00:09:39,159 --> 00:09:41,840 about concerns as to how the victims would sort of 164 00:09:41,840 --> 00:09:45,840 stand up in court. Question, so, what would make you 165 00:09:45,879 --> 00:09:49,559 comfortable before proceeding? What would you what at the point 166 00:09:49,720 --> 00:09:53,000 would have made you comfortable about proceeding? Answer? So I 167 00:09:53,080 --> 00:09:55,480 think that at this point, I don't think it's what 168 00:09:55,600 --> 00:09:59,159 would have or would not have made me comfortable? And 169 00:09:59,200 --> 00:10:02,360 I'm speculating. I think it came in on a Friday. 170 00:10:02,480 --> 00:10:06,600 Let's talk this through. Question, But you've just identified for 171 00:10:06,759 --> 00:10:11,639 us issues in your mind had to be resolved. Question 172 00:10:11,759 --> 00:10:15,360 all right, okay, at that point, does your recollection have 173 00:10:15,440 --> 00:10:18,360 any doubt that some form of indictment or charging instrument 174 00:10:18,600 --> 00:10:23,200 against Epstein was likely to become viable? Answer? So it 175 00:10:23,279 --> 00:10:26,279 was a case that I thought it very important that 176 00:10:26,320 --> 00:10:29,799 we do something. How that something played out, I think 177 00:10:29,919 --> 00:10:33,519 had all along been a matter of discussion. Question as 178 00:10:33,559 --> 00:10:36,240 something other than what the US Attorney's Office does, which 179 00:10:36,279 --> 00:10:40,039 is prosecute. Answer well, no, I mean what the US 180 00:10:40,120 --> 00:10:44,879 Attorney's Office does is ensure that justice is served. Question right, answer, 181 00:10:45,519 --> 00:10:48,440 and in partnership with state attorneys. And sometimes that means 182 00:10:48,440 --> 00:10:51,559 state attorneys take the lead. Sometimes that means that the 183 00:10:51,639 --> 00:10:54,559 US Attorney's Office takes the lead. And a lot of 184 00:10:54,559 --> 00:10:57,720 times we actually you know, we would share staff because 185 00:10:57,759 --> 00:11:00,600 sometimes it made sense, you know, for one part or 186 00:11:00,639 --> 00:11:04,519 the other to take the lead. So writ large, I 187 00:11:04,639 --> 00:11:07,399 thought throughout it was a very important that something happened. 188 00:11:08,320 --> 00:11:11,279 There were concerns all along. I can speculate that this 189 00:11:11,399 --> 00:11:15,919 is just a reflection of those continuing concerns. Question as 190 00:11:16,039 --> 00:11:20,879 expressed by you to redacted in the ordinary course, answer 191 00:11:21,159 --> 00:11:24,440 as developed as a group throughout this if we go 192 00:11:24,559 --> 00:11:30,879 back to what exhibit question June of two thousand and six, answer, 193 00:11:30,919 --> 00:11:34,600 so Exhibit three says in that meeting, I summarized the 194 00:11:34,639 --> 00:11:38,159 case in the state attorney's office handling it. I acknowledged 195 00:11:38,279 --> 00:11:41,000 that we needed to do work to collect evidence establishing 196 00:11:41,000 --> 00:11:43,840 a federal nexus, and I noted the time and money 197 00:11:44,080 --> 00:11:47,399 that would be required for an investigation. And so as 198 00:11:47,440 --> 00:11:50,279 far back as the initial meeting there is discussion about 199 00:11:50,320 --> 00:11:54,039 the federal nexus and whether this is a state or 200 00:11:54,120 --> 00:11:58,600 federal case. Question all right. Exhibit seven is an early 201 00:11:58,639 --> 00:12:02,440 email from redacted to you early meeting. It precedes the 202 00:12:02,440 --> 00:12:05,240 one we just looked at, and early in that it's 203 00:12:05,320 --> 00:12:09,679 right as you're receiving the prosecution memo and you ask 204 00:12:09,759 --> 00:12:13,360 him have you read the memo? And curious why you 205 00:12:13,399 --> 00:12:17,120 ask redacted rather than redacted. Answer, I don't recall. I 206 00:12:17,159 --> 00:12:19,799 can speculate, and I have two thoughts that I'll speculate. 207 00:12:20,519 --> 00:12:24,440 One is redacted to her direct supervisor, and I might 208 00:12:24,480 --> 00:12:28,039 be thinking her second line supervisor. So why is redacted 209 00:12:28,120 --> 00:12:31,320 sending me this? Redacted? Have you read this? Ie? Did 210 00:12:31,360 --> 00:12:34,240 you jump the chain? Secondly, I think I may have 211 00:12:34,279 --> 00:12:37,600 wanted to have multiple opinions on this. It's most likely 212 00:12:37,639 --> 00:12:40,840 that I had talked to redacted already because Redacted and 213 00:12:40,879 --> 00:12:43,679 I talked more often. And I'm asking another person in 214 00:12:43,720 --> 00:12:46,759 the management chain, Hey, what do you think let's have 215 00:12:46,840 --> 00:12:50,799 multiple opinions on the table here? Question? Well, is this 216 00:12:50,879 --> 00:12:53,720 the first time other than redacted that we see you 217 00:12:53,759 --> 00:12:58,320 getting a recommendation? Answer? Right? Question? When Redacted says he 218 00:12:58,360 --> 00:13:01,639 thinks that you should charge him, the office should charge Epstein. 219 00:13:02,519 --> 00:13:05,440 He has issues with a charging strategy proposed by redacted, 220 00:13:05,759 --> 00:13:08,039 but one he says, we all need to get on 221 00:13:08,080 --> 00:13:10,679 the same page as to whether the statute covered the 222 00:13:10,720 --> 00:13:14,000 conduct and whether the conduct is the type we should charge. 223 00:13:14,480 --> 00:13:17,279 I think the answer to both is yes, although there 224 00:13:17,320 --> 00:13:20,919 is some risk on some of the statutes. He proposes 225 00:13:20,960 --> 00:13:23,799 that the office start with a complaint, which is not unusual, 226 00:13:23,879 --> 00:13:28,440 is it? Answer? It happens yes, question all right, which 227 00:13:28,480 --> 00:13:32,000 allows the defendant to be arrested and ideally detained, and 228 00:13:32,039 --> 00:13:35,279 then the defendant is then highly motivated or incentivized to 229 00:13:35,360 --> 00:13:39,480 work a pre indictment resolution. That's what redacted is proposing. 230 00:13:40,360 --> 00:13:43,279 He also notes that it's important, in his view, to 231 00:13:43,480 --> 00:13:46,639 cap them with conspiracy accounts to make a plea attractive, 232 00:13:47,080 --> 00:13:49,399 and the court could give us a hard time with 233 00:13:49,559 --> 00:13:53,279 that if we had to dismiss indicted accounts. All right, folks, 234 00:13:53,320 --> 00:13:55,200 we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next 235 00:13:55,240 --> 00:13:57,799 episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where 236 00:13:57,799 --> 00:14:00,759 we left off. All of the information that goes with 237 00:14:00,879 --> 00:14:04,919 this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, 238 00:14:04,960 --> 00:14:08,600 and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In 239 00:14:08,639 --> 00:14:10,399 this episode, we're going to pick up where we left 240 00:14:10,440 --> 00:14:17,440 off with Alex LaCosta and his interview with the OIG inspectors. Question. Okay, 241 00:14:17,480 --> 00:14:21,639 the proposed indictment included one conspiracy, a conspiracy that has 242 00:14:21,639 --> 00:14:25,120 a five year statutory maximum, and this notion is that 243 00:14:25,159 --> 00:14:28,720 Epstein be charged with a five year conspiracy count and 244 00:14:28,799 --> 00:14:30,720 take it from there. Do you know what he was 245 00:14:30,759 --> 00:14:33,279 referring to when he noted that a court could give 246 00:14:33,320 --> 00:14:38,039 you a hard time in dismissing indicted counts in the case. Answer, So, 247 00:14:38,200 --> 00:14:42,480 as a typical matter, once there's an indictment, the pre indictment, well, 248 00:14:42,519 --> 00:14:45,879 by definition, a pre indictment resolution comes off the table. 249 00:14:46,200 --> 00:14:49,919 But in cases of this nature, the resolutions tend to 250 00:14:49,960 --> 00:14:53,440 happen before indictment because once the indictment is done, at 251 00:14:53,519 --> 00:14:56,879 least in South Florida, dismissal of charges, for example, you know, 252 00:14:57,279 --> 00:15:00,360 if saying, let's think about a three seventy one with 253 00:15:00,440 --> 00:15:03,240 a five year cap at rule eleven, that's something that's 254 00:15:03,240 --> 00:15:06,399 out Florida judges they tend not to you know, dismissing 255 00:15:06,440 --> 00:15:08,919 a number of accounts and then doing a rule eleven 256 00:15:09,200 --> 00:15:12,399 is not something that judges tend to do. Question all right, 257 00:15:12,639 --> 00:15:16,159 Two pieces to that. One is the issue of dismissing 258 00:15:16,200 --> 00:15:21,360 substantiative accounts substantative counts. Was that a particular concern in 259 00:15:21,399 --> 00:15:24,240 the case because of the nature of the conduct represented 260 00:15:24,600 --> 00:15:28,799 in the substantative accounts? Answer? So, your question, you asked 261 00:15:28,799 --> 00:15:32,519 a general question and then you're moving to a specific 262 00:15:33,080 --> 00:15:35,440 but as a general matter, not just in this case, 263 00:15:35,440 --> 00:15:38,799 but in other cases it was rare that the office 264 00:15:38,960 --> 00:15:42,159 after in cases like this, after a full charge was done, 265 00:15:42,639 --> 00:15:45,879 that the substantative counts were dismissed. So, for example, in 266 00:15:45,879 --> 00:15:48,840 the public corruption cases that I referenced earlier at U 267 00:15:48,879 --> 00:15:52,399 Palm Beach, those were all negotiated pre indictment and agreed to, 268 00:15:53,120 --> 00:15:56,360 and then by the time the case was indicted, it 269 00:15:56,399 --> 00:15:59,919 was all sort of set on autopilot. Questions. So typically, 270 00:16:00,279 --> 00:16:03,960 in my experience, a disposition like that results in a 271 00:16:03,960 --> 00:16:08,000 criminal information not an indictment. Question. Are you saying that 272 00:16:08,039 --> 00:16:11,519 you would go ahead and indict then? Answer? No, What 273 00:16:11,559 --> 00:16:14,600 I'm saying is that there were it was all negotiated 274 00:16:14,600 --> 00:16:18,320 in advance, and then there was information and the information 275 00:16:18,360 --> 00:16:22,279 would go forward, not an indictment question. All right, answer, 276 00:16:22,600 --> 00:16:24,600 And so that is how a member of a high 277 00:16:24,600 --> 00:16:30,039 profile case typically proceeded as opposed to indict and dismiss question. 278 00:16:30,159 --> 00:16:32,759 And that's the experience of the Southern District of Florida 279 00:16:32,799 --> 00:16:36,559 in general. Answer, it was in particularly in the Palm 280 00:16:36,639 --> 00:16:39,960 Beach office, with other high profile cases that were there 281 00:16:40,000 --> 00:16:42,679 at the time. Question, do you recall in any case 282 00:16:42,720 --> 00:16:45,480 in which a judge in an indicted case refused to 283 00:16:45,480 --> 00:16:50,960 dismisscounts when the government in an indictment under those circumstances. Answer. 284 00:16:51,159 --> 00:16:53,960 I don't recall specific cases, but I can say that 285 00:16:54,039 --> 00:16:57,840 typically in the higher profile cases, you'd negotiated with opposing 286 00:16:57,840 --> 00:17:02,519 counsel presenting information, the information would have agreed to an 287 00:17:02,559 --> 00:17:07,319 agreed guideline and it would proceed in that way. Question understood. 288 00:17:07,519 --> 00:17:10,000 But in this case, I'm focusing on the assertion by 289 00:17:10,079 --> 00:17:13,039 redacted that the court could give us a hard time, 290 00:17:13,400 --> 00:17:16,160 and that's a little different from, you know, exercising discretion 291 00:17:16,519 --> 00:17:20,680 to negotiate and proceed by information. So is there any 292 00:17:20,759 --> 00:17:25,559 judge that was particularly concerning with regard to an unwillingness 293 00:17:25,559 --> 00:17:29,279 to dismiss answer? So, first, this is twelve years ago, 294 00:17:29,480 --> 00:17:32,480 and I don't recall any specific judge, but I can 295 00:17:32,559 --> 00:17:35,279 sort of say that was not the practice of the office. 296 00:17:35,799 --> 00:17:38,680 The practice of the office was to proceed by information 297 00:17:39,279 --> 00:17:43,480 rather than indictment with dismissal. Because there is more, you 298 00:17:43,599 --> 00:17:47,640 can lay out more what you negotiated. I think later 299 00:17:47,759 --> 00:17:51,000 there's a letter from redacted that sort of presents the 300 00:17:51,039 --> 00:17:54,880 same perspective. Question you said, in a case of this nature, 301 00:17:54,920 --> 00:17:58,559 the resolution happens before indicting. What is a case of 302 00:17:58,559 --> 00:18:04,000 this nature? Answer higher profile, higher profile cases. Questions So 303 00:18:04,079 --> 00:18:09,000 not necessarily a sex offense case. Answer not necessarily sex offenses. No, 304 00:18:09,000 --> 00:18:13,559 no higher profile cases. This was just a So I 305 00:18:13,559 --> 00:18:16,039 would say it's a combination of all of the above. 306 00:18:16,359 --> 00:18:18,519 And to my mind, one of the parts of this 307 00:18:18,680 --> 00:18:21,799 case is the legal theories were, if not novel, there 308 00:18:21,839 --> 00:18:25,039 were novel within the Southern District of Florida, at least 309 00:18:25,079 --> 00:18:28,240 some of the legal theories. And well, we'll probably get 310 00:18:28,240 --> 00:18:31,160 into that question. Did his wealth make it a high 311 00:18:31,200 --> 00:18:34,640 profile case? Answer? Well, it was clearly in the paper, 312 00:18:35,079 --> 00:18:37,480 and so that made it a high profile case. I 313 00:18:37,519 --> 00:18:39,920 don't think. I don't think it was his wealth. I 314 00:18:39,960 --> 00:18:42,279 think it was all of the above. This was a 315 00:18:42,319 --> 00:18:45,160 matter that the state attorney had been ready to charge 316 00:18:45,240 --> 00:18:48,200 that the federal government is now jumping into and saying 317 00:18:48,400 --> 00:18:51,200 by its presence that the state did not do enough. 318 00:18:52,519 --> 00:18:55,079 That in and of itself makes it a very high 319 00:18:55,119 --> 00:18:58,960 profile case. I can't remember any other instance, certainly during 320 00:18:59,000 --> 00:19:01,039 my time, when we jumped in and said, you know, 321 00:19:01,359 --> 00:19:04,119 the state drop charges, and so we're going to do more. 322 00:19:05,039 --> 00:19:08,480 Question as opposed to or as distinguished from when you 323 00:19:08,599 --> 00:19:11,720 described a few moments ago a situation in which the 324 00:19:11,720 --> 00:19:14,480 federal authorities and the state authorities kind of work together 325 00:19:14,920 --> 00:19:17,519 to sort out what would be charged where, and do 326 00:19:17,599 --> 00:19:23,559 it cooperatively? Answer? And that was more cooperative? I would 327 00:19:23,640 --> 00:19:25,880 you know, I do recollect that, and I think the 328 00:19:25,920 --> 00:19:28,799 record bears this out that this was not a particularly 329 00:19:28,920 --> 00:19:33,319 cooperative relationship between US and the state attorney. If I could, 330 00:19:33,440 --> 00:19:35,480 if I could return I think your question the way 331 00:19:35,519 --> 00:19:38,480 you posed your question, you set a recommendation from redacted 332 00:19:39,000 --> 00:19:41,160 and let me let me push back a little bit 333 00:19:41,200 --> 00:19:44,359 on that, saying what are your thoughts? Have you read it? 334 00:19:44,519 --> 00:19:46,759 What are your thoughts? And he says, yes, we can 335 00:19:46,799 --> 00:19:50,200 talk next week. My current thoughts are it's very different. 336 00:19:50,240 --> 00:19:53,519 Then we've sat down, we've discussed this. This is my 337 00:19:53,640 --> 00:19:59,039 now informed position. Question understood, And I should have been clearer. 338 00:19:59,200 --> 00:20:01,559 I was referring to to his recommendation that if you 339 00:20:01,599 --> 00:20:04,279 were going to proceed, you should start with a complaint. 340 00:20:04,880 --> 00:20:09,160 Just to be clear. Answer and I'm just saying initial 341 00:20:09,240 --> 00:20:12,559 thoughts gets cut off. Question all right, So were you 342 00:20:12,640 --> 00:20:15,519 aware that redacted bootleg the copy of the pro's memo 343 00:20:15,759 --> 00:20:19,240 to redact it at CEOs? Answer? I was not. Question 344 00:20:19,519 --> 00:20:23,039 he did at the time? Answer okay? Question and did 345 00:20:23,039 --> 00:20:25,839 you know redacted? Answer a little bit. I certainly knew 346 00:20:25,880 --> 00:20:29,640 of them. Had you encounter him when he was chief 347 00:20:29,680 --> 00:20:35,000 of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section? Answer right? Question 348 00:20:35,319 --> 00:20:38,359 in the criminal division here correct? Had you encountered them 349 00:20:38,400 --> 00:20:41,640 while you were in this building? Also? Answer? Most likely? 350 00:20:41,960 --> 00:20:44,599 I knew of him enough that I correspond and shose 351 00:20:44,799 --> 00:20:48,720 and I recall asking to involve him pretty early on question. 352 00:20:48,920 --> 00:20:51,680 So it does read as if you were acquainted with him. 353 00:20:52,200 --> 00:20:54,920 Answer yeah, question all right? And did you have any 354 00:20:55,000 --> 00:20:58,839 did his opinion his views as chief of CEOs and 355 00:20:58,920 --> 00:21:02,839 as redacted who had been in AUSA in Miami? Did 356 00:21:02,839 --> 00:21:07,319 his view's influence on your thinking about the case? Answer? 357 00:21:07,559 --> 00:21:09,480 I don't think at this time I was aware that 358 00:21:09,720 --> 00:21:13,240 redacted had been consulted? Answer all right? And in July, 359 00:21:13,680 --> 00:21:16,440 Just so you know and I have, this is not 360 00:21:16,519 --> 00:21:19,599 something you saw. He provided a fairly strong statement by 361 00:21:19,599 --> 00:21:23,240 emailt or redacted and redacted, which he advises that he 362 00:21:23,319 --> 00:21:28,319 reviewed the prosecution memo closely. It's terrific. He says, redacted 363 00:21:28,359 --> 00:21:30,960 did a terrific job, and he says we agree with 364 00:21:30,960 --> 00:21:34,680 her legal analysis her charging decisions are legally sound, and 365 00:21:34,720 --> 00:21:38,799 then Redacted goes through the different statutes and concludes that 366 00:21:38,839 --> 00:21:41,519 they are all properly charged and that although there are 367 00:21:41,519 --> 00:21:44,880 some issues legally, that in his view we should prevail, 368 00:21:45,519 --> 00:21:49,480 our position should prevail, and that he also reviewed the 369 00:21:49,559 --> 00:21:52,759 arguments contained in the letters from defense counsel and he 370 00:21:52,799 --> 00:21:55,920 found none of their arguments persuasive. So, at least as 371 00:21:55,920 --> 00:22:00,160 of July eighteenth, your three levels of supervisors down, y're 372 00:22:00,200 --> 00:22:03,119 on notice that CEOs was on board and wanted to 373 00:22:03,160 --> 00:22:06,519 see the case move forward. But is it am I 374 00:22:06,559 --> 00:22:09,440 correct an understanding that at the time you were unaware 375 00:22:09,480 --> 00:22:12,960 of that answer? I do not recall being aware of 376 00:22:12,960 --> 00:22:16,480 that question. All right, okay, if you had been aware 377 00:22:16,480 --> 00:22:19,160 of it, if they had sent this, I don't want 378 00:22:19,200 --> 00:22:21,920 to overstate it, but it's pretty strong endorsement for the 379 00:22:21,960 --> 00:22:26,440 proposed prosecution. Would you have been influenced by that answer? Sure? 380 00:22:26,480 --> 00:22:29,039 I would have. I mean I respected or redacted and 381 00:22:29,119 --> 00:22:31,559 clearly wanted him to be part of the team and 382 00:22:31,680 --> 00:22:35,480 later invited him down and so on. So yes, question, okay, 383 00:22:35,559 --> 00:22:37,759 all right, do you know why they wouldn't have shared 384 00:22:37,759 --> 00:22:40,839 your people wouldn't have shared this with you? Answer, I 385 00:22:40,880 --> 00:22:44,920 don't know, question all right. So, as far as based 386 00:22:44,960 --> 00:22:47,759 on the briefings that you got in this time period 387 00:22:48,200 --> 00:22:50,160 when there was an effort to try to figure out 388 00:22:50,400 --> 00:22:53,359 what you were going to do, were there any issues 389 00:22:53,359 --> 00:22:56,599 of concern of fact or evidence or the charges that 390 00:22:56,680 --> 00:22:59,680 were left unaddressed? In other words, if there were issues 391 00:22:59,720 --> 00:23:04,480 about victim credibility, were steps being taken to address those? Answer? 392 00:23:04,799 --> 00:23:09,200 Unaddressed is again it's a very binary. It's not about 393 00:23:09,200 --> 00:23:12,640 addressed versus unaddressed. And so let me sort of come 394 00:23:12,680 --> 00:23:15,079 at it if I can try to get there. There 395 00:23:15,079 --> 00:23:18,359 were concerns around some legal issues. There were concerns about 396 00:23:18,359 --> 00:23:20,720 how the victims would do when put on the stand. 397 00:23:21,119 --> 00:23:25,000 Question right answer. As a general matter, we thought there 398 00:23:25,119 --> 00:23:27,400 was enough if we had to go forward, we could, 399 00:23:27,599 --> 00:23:30,720 as an ethical matter go forward. That doesn't mean that 400 00:23:30,720 --> 00:23:33,960 there was not value in a pre indictment resolution. And 401 00:23:34,039 --> 00:23:37,680 so here you have redacted based on this exhibit saying 402 00:23:37,759 --> 00:23:39,880 we need to get on the same page as to 403 00:23:39,880 --> 00:23:43,440 what the charge pre indictment resolution cap them with conspiracy 404 00:23:43,559 --> 00:23:47,079 count to make up the attractive So a five year cap, 405 00:23:47,160 --> 00:23:50,119 something less than five years. You have redacted in Raffid 406 00:23:50,200 --> 00:23:52,799 David that was submitted to the court saying she favored 407 00:23:53,000 --> 00:23:56,480 a pre indictment resolution. And so it's not a have 408 00:23:56,599 --> 00:23:59,400 you addressed everything, yes or no, as opposed to putting 409 00:23:59,440 --> 00:24:02,880 all of this, how do we move forward? Question? Right? 410 00:24:03,160 --> 00:24:05,680 But there is a binary point here, and that is 411 00:24:05,960 --> 00:24:09,039 you either indict or you don't indict. You either present 412 00:24:09,079 --> 00:24:11,480 an indictment to the grand jury or you don't. Right, 413 00:24:11,759 --> 00:24:15,720 that's a decision, right answer, So I would actually push 414 00:24:15,759 --> 00:24:18,559 back in that many cases, it's not quite that binary. 415 00:24:19,039 --> 00:24:21,759 In many cases you sit down with the opposing counsel 416 00:24:21,839 --> 00:24:23,960 and say, look, we can go to a grand jury 417 00:24:24,119 --> 00:24:26,960 and we can present this indictment and indict or we 418 00:24:26,960 --> 00:24:30,400 can resolve this now. If we resolve this now, this 419 00:24:30,480 --> 00:24:33,400 is the path that we can go forward. Alternatively, we 420 00:24:33,440 --> 00:24:36,440 can go here. And so it's not an a versus 421 00:24:36,480 --> 00:24:41,160 B question. I understand that nuance. But the decision to indict, 422 00:24:41,359 --> 00:24:43,640 I mean you either indict or you don't. If you 423 00:24:43,680 --> 00:24:47,000 don't indict, it's for any number of reasons. If under 424 00:24:47,000 --> 00:24:51,079 the circumstances, the choices that are available are you have 425 00:24:51,160 --> 00:24:53,759 a case that's been brought, taking it from the state, 426 00:24:54,119 --> 00:24:56,359 you can decline it, send it back to the state, 427 00:24:56,440 --> 00:25:01,240 make it go away. Whatever. Answer right, we're not interested. 428 00:25:01,319 --> 00:25:04,000 You can indict, You can indict and go to trial. 429 00:25:04,920 --> 00:25:07,880 These are the subcategories. Or you can indict and have 430 00:25:07,960 --> 00:25:10,599 the defendant plead to the indictment. Or you can indict 431 00:25:10,839 --> 00:25:13,799 and work a post indictment pleed deal, which raises the 432 00:25:13,839 --> 00:25:16,759 issue you talked about, Or you can negotiate. Or you 433 00:25:16,759 --> 00:25:20,400 can charge, proceed by complaint and do as Redactive with 434 00:25:20,440 --> 00:25:24,279 suggesting work a pre indictment but post charge disposition, or 435 00:25:24,319 --> 00:25:27,640 you can work a precharge disposition. Right. I mean, that's 436 00:25:27,680 --> 00:25:33,079 really that's the parade of possibilities. Answer sure, that's more 437 00:25:33,119 --> 00:25:37,039 than indictment or don't indict. That's six or seven options. Question. 438 00:25:37,200 --> 00:25:39,960 I understand that that's how it'll play out. But the 439 00:25:40,000 --> 00:25:43,319 decision as to whether to indict is binary. You're either 440 00:25:43,319 --> 00:25:47,279 indicting or you're not indicting. The act of indicting is 441 00:25:47,319 --> 00:25:50,599 something that either happens or doesn't happen. That's all I'm saying. 442 00:25:51,880 --> 00:25:55,559 Answer sure, question. Okay, So that's what I'm getting at 443 00:25:55,680 --> 00:25:58,359 with respect to the indictment. So as you're looking at 444 00:25:58,359 --> 00:26:02,119 this case, it's as if you're doing sort of one 445 00:26:02,200 --> 00:26:05,200 analytical track, which is what do we do with the case. 446 00:26:05,599 --> 00:26:07,920 The other piece of that, and a track that could 447 00:26:07,960 --> 00:26:11,039 have been followed exclusively, is what do we need to 448 00:26:11,039 --> 00:26:14,440 do to get an indictment that is legally sound and evidentiary, 449 00:26:14,720 --> 00:26:18,559 evidentiary solid. I'd like to focus on that track because 450 00:26:18,599 --> 00:26:23,839 they're not unrelated. Answer sure question, if you never get 451 00:26:23,880 --> 00:26:27,640 down do we have a viable indictment road and you're 452 00:26:27,680 --> 00:26:29,880 not going to be able to do anything in the 453 00:26:29,920 --> 00:26:32,680 other road. So at this point you have identified, and 454 00:26:32,720 --> 00:26:36,519 you have collectively you and your people had identified some witnesses, 455 00:26:36,839 --> 00:26:40,759 victim witnesses issues, and some legal issues. My question is 456 00:26:40,839 --> 00:26:44,440 where steps being taken I use the term address Let 457 00:26:44,480 --> 00:26:47,240 me let me clarify with respect to the witness as 458 00:26:47,279 --> 00:26:50,079 the FBI and the line attorney, with the assistants perhaps 459 00:26:50,119 --> 00:26:53,599 of the grand jury, taking steps to corroborate shore up 460 00:26:53,680 --> 00:26:57,359 victim witness testimony, find new victims, find additional evidence, and 461 00:26:57,400 --> 00:27:02,559 so on. Answer so take in that in part is helpful. 462 00:27:02,759 --> 00:27:05,319 So with respect to the witness issues, I recall and 463 00:27:05,440 --> 00:27:08,319 redacted goes into much more detail in heraffid David, but 464 00:27:08,359 --> 00:27:12,000 I recall concerns that were communicated to me in essence 465 00:27:12,079 --> 00:27:15,319 in sort of a summary. My impression of recollection of 466 00:27:15,359 --> 00:27:18,799 these girls are young, they're impressionable, they're scared, will they 467 00:27:18,839 --> 00:27:21,720 stand up in court? There are any number of there's 468 00:27:21,759 --> 00:27:24,119 any number of things that could be used against them. 469 00:27:24,319 --> 00:27:26,839 Some of them are and this is uncomfortable, but some 470 00:27:26,920 --> 00:27:30,720 of them thought he actually cared for them, and that's 471 00:27:30,720 --> 00:27:33,519 not a typical in these cases. They were sort of 472 00:27:33,599 --> 00:27:36,759 to develop those thoughts and they're wrong, but they are 473 00:27:36,799 --> 00:27:39,559 what they are and were actually saying he did nothing wrong. 474 00:27:39,839 --> 00:27:42,039 And because many of them knew one another, how would 475 00:27:42,079 --> 00:27:44,960 that all play out? And so it would have been 476 00:27:44,960 --> 00:27:48,519 my assumption, particularly given you know how much work redacted 477 00:27:48,599 --> 00:27:51,920 was doing on this case. Misredacted was doing on the case, 478 00:27:52,440 --> 00:27:55,240 and she, in combination with the FBI, would be pursuing 479 00:27:55,279 --> 00:27:58,559 those matters and looking to develop the evidence and corroborate 480 00:27:58,799 --> 00:28:01,319 and throughout the process, it would have been my assumption 481 00:28:01,640 --> 00:28:04,400 and hope that she was continuing to develop the facts, 482 00:28:04,759 --> 00:28:08,400 because that can only help question. So, as US attorney, 483 00:28:08,480 --> 00:28:12,000 would it indeed have been your expectation? Answer yes, question, 484 00:28:13,039 --> 00:28:16,359 and the expectation that her that all those interim supervisors 485 00:28:16,480 --> 00:28:19,119 would have been supporting her and encouraging her and guiding 486 00:28:19,119 --> 00:28:22,200 her answer, it would have been, that's what happens in 487 00:28:22,240 --> 00:28:26,400 typical cases. Question right, answer, Just because we're having a 488 00:28:26,440 --> 00:28:29,640 legal discussion doesn't mean you stop pursuing leads. All right, folks, 489 00:28:29,680 --> 00:28:32,240 we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode, 490 00:28:32,279 --> 00:28:34,960 we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of 491 00:28:34,960 --> 00:28:37,640 the information that goes with this episode can be found 492 00:28:37,920 --> 00:28:40,880 in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to 493 00:28:40,920 --> 00:28:44,920 another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're 494 00:28:44,920 --> 00:28:47,680 gonna pick up where we left off with the OIG 495 00:28:47,880 --> 00:28:53,359 interview of alex Acosta. Question. Okay, I just want to 496 00:28:53,400 --> 00:28:56,519 sort of round out the little bit of this the 497 00:28:56,599 --> 00:28:59,759 state the state only resolution. You use the term a 498 00:28:59,799 --> 00:29:03,400 couple of times, backstopping. What do you mean by that? Answer? 499 00:29:03,599 --> 00:29:06,119 What I mean by that is a sense that the 500 00:29:06,160 --> 00:29:09,720 state wasn't doing enough, and perhaps backstopping is a polite 501 00:29:09,720 --> 00:29:12,559 way of saying encouraging the state to do a little 502 00:29:12,599 --> 00:29:16,319 bit more. Question all right, did you have any discussions 503 00:29:16,799 --> 00:29:21,000 about whether this disposition comported with the Ashcroft memo in 504 00:29:21,079 --> 00:29:24,240 that you were hunting to the state for a minor charge, 505 00:29:24,400 --> 00:29:27,640 for a fairly minor charge, what your office had already 506 00:29:27,720 --> 00:29:31,400 understood from the evidence was a quite wide ranging scheme 507 00:29:31,440 --> 00:29:36,240 of predatory my term behavior regarding minor victims. Answer, so, 508 00:29:36,640 --> 00:29:39,920 I don't recall a discussion around the Ashcroft memo. I 509 00:29:40,000 --> 00:29:43,319 would characterize that we did differently in that there are 510 00:29:43,480 --> 00:29:46,200 any number of instances where the federal government or the 511 00:29:46,200 --> 00:29:50,000 state government can proceed and state charges are substantially less 512 00:29:50,200 --> 00:29:53,640 and different, and on a fairly regular basis, the federal 513 00:29:53,680 --> 00:29:57,359 government allows the state, not allows, but stands aside and 514 00:29:57,480 --> 00:30:01,880 lets the state proceed. But in this case, you actually 515 00:30:01,960 --> 00:30:05,920 had an active investigation that had been proceeding for a year. Answer. So, 516 00:30:06,440 --> 00:30:09,640 let's take a drug context, where there might be any 517 00:30:09,680 --> 00:30:13,400 number of active investigations where the federal charges can be 518 00:30:13,519 --> 00:30:17,400 rather substantial, but ultimately the federal government says, just let 519 00:30:17,480 --> 00:30:20,640 the state proceed with this, or violent crime cases where 520 00:30:20,640 --> 00:30:23,880 the federal government could bring gun charges using a felon 521 00:30:23,920 --> 00:30:27,640 in possession or another mandatory minimum, but the state goes 522 00:30:27,680 --> 00:30:31,400 forward with So in that sense he gets cut off question, 523 00:30:31,480 --> 00:30:34,839 but the state goes forward with what answer forward with 524 00:30:34,880 --> 00:30:38,759 different charges that have a lesser term. And so I 525 00:30:38,759 --> 00:30:41,759 don't think it's unusual we can talk about, you know, 526 00:30:41,839 --> 00:30:44,680 whether this was the best disposition or not. But I 527 00:30:44,720 --> 00:30:47,480 don't think it's unusual to have a fact pattern that 528 00:30:47,640 --> 00:30:51,319 are under investigation that proceed in state court, where the 529 00:30:51,359 --> 00:30:54,880 disposition is different then and would have been if it 530 00:30:54,880 --> 00:30:57,960 had proceeded in federal court. Question, all right, do you 531 00:30:58,000 --> 00:31:02,119 have anything on that redacted on the two years or 532 00:31:02,160 --> 00:31:06,680 something else redacted? No, I'm going back the two years redacted? Okay? 533 00:31:07,359 --> 00:31:10,400 Question did you think did you believe at the time 534 00:31:10,759 --> 00:31:13,559 if this was part of your thinking that because it 535 00:31:13,640 --> 00:31:16,440 was so important to get sex offender registration and even 536 00:31:16,519 --> 00:31:20,480 later developed damages monetary damages for the victims under the 537 00:31:20,480 --> 00:31:24,079 state plea arrangement, that pretty much the only thing that 538 00:31:24,119 --> 00:31:27,319 the government had the federal government had to give in 539 00:31:27,359 --> 00:31:31,480 the negotiation was jail time. If you wanted three things 540 00:31:31,720 --> 00:31:35,160 you've said, jail time, sex offender status, and some kind 541 00:31:35,200 --> 00:31:40,920 of restitution or damages or mechanisms sex offender registration. There's 542 00:31:41,079 --> 00:31:43,839 really no give there. You either register or you don't. 543 00:31:44,720 --> 00:31:49,240 I'm being binary again. I'm sorry, it's binary. And likewise 544 00:31:49,319 --> 00:31:52,799 the monetary recovery provision. So really the only thing to 545 00:31:52,839 --> 00:31:57,200 negotiate is time, right answer, And so your question is 546 00:31:57,240 --> 00:31:59,640 why did we not start at three, so we ended 547 00:31:59,680 --> 00:32:04,000 up at two. Question, Well, that's a consequence of what 548 00:32:04,039 --> 00:32:07,880 I was asking. Answer, So again my recollection is I 549 00:32:07,960 --> 00:32:11,240 understood this to reflect what he would have received, as 550 00:32:11,279 --> 00:32:14,519 opposed to some arbitrary let's start at three, so we 551 00:32:14,640 --> 00:32:18,680 end up at two. I'm sorry, do you have a question? Question? No, 552 00:32:18,839 --> 00:32:23,759 go ahead? Answer? You know. I also from my perspective, was, 553 00:32:23,880 --> 00:32:26,039 you know, early on when we said firm on the 554 00:32:26,039 --> 00:32:28,519 two years, I thought two years would have been the 555 00:32:28,559 --> 00:32:31,680 right outcome. We ended up on eighteen months. I can't 556 00:32:31,720 --> 00:32:34,880 say how. There are some documents that might help, but 557 00:32:35,559 --> 00:32:39,920 I was least initially firm on those two years. Question right, 558 00:32:40,359 --> 00:32:42,519 when you say I thought the two years was the 559 00:32:42,599 --> 00:32:45,640 right amount, is that based on your understanding that that's 560 00:32:45,680 --> 00:32:48,799 what he would have gotten in the state? Answer? Correct. 561 00:32:49,839 --> 00:32:52,359 And the point I'm trying to convey there is that 562 00:32:52,400 --> 00:32:55,359 this wasn't, to my understanding, a random number, but it 563 00:32:55,440 --> 00:32:58,319 was informed by this is what he would have received, 564 00:32:58,519 --> 00:33:02,119 and therefore it's reasonable agree or disagree with the analysis. 565 00:33:02,440 --> 00:33:06,200 But it was an inform number to begin with. Question, 566 00:33:06,599 --> 00:33:09,319 but don't you recall how the analysis was done or 567 00:33:09,400 --> 00:33:14,279 conducted or that analysis? Answer? I don't recall that question 568 00:33:14,680 --> 00:33:17,799 or even whether it was accurate. Actually, answer again, I 569 00:33:17,799 --> 00:33:24,400 don't recall that question, and I understand that explanation. Answer right, 570 00:33:24,759 --> 00:33:28,640 question what it's tied to. But was there any consideration 571 00:33:28,759 --> 00:33:31,559 because this case was not about one or two victims. 572 00:33:31,880 --> 00:33:34,400 It was a very large scheme by this older, wealthy 573 00:33:34,440 --> 00:33:37,799 man to essentially turn miners into prostitutes, have sex with 574 00:33:37,880 --> 00:33:41,000 them or all sex, get other people involved. You've described 575 00:33:41,000 --> 00:33:44,079 it in prior statements as grotesque and deserving a punishment. 576 00:33:44,319 --> 00:33:47,279 What I'm not hearing through this process is anybody taking 577 00:33:47,319 --> 00:33:50,039 a look at this overall conduct and saying, what is 578 00:33:50,079 --> 00:33:53,880 the appropriate punishment for this man's conduct? Was there such 579 00:33:53,880 --> 00:33:56,960 a consideration and did you feel that two years adequately 580 00:33:57,000 --> 00:34:00,480 punished him for the scope of his conduct? Answer a 581 00:34:00,519 --> 00:34:03,359 fair question, and perhaps going back to where we started, 582 00:34:03,359 --> 00:34:06,200 which is petit. To my mind, at the time, there 583 00:34:06,359 --> 00:34:09,280 was a distinction between what would be the adequate punishment 584 00:34:09,639 --> 00:34:13,239 if this was a purely federal case versus what is 585 00:34:13,320 --> 00:34:16,679 necessary so that it's not, to put it in petit language, 586 00:34:16,960 --> 00:34:20,360 a manifest injustice, so that it would have had to 587 00:34:20,360 --> 00:34:23,920 come to the office in the first place, And that 588 00:34:24,079 --> 00:34:26,840 I think is the important distinction. Because if the two 589 00:34:26,920 --> 00:34:30,119 years is what he would have received, and therefore it 590 00:34:30,159 --> 00:34:33,119 would not have come into the office under Petit, then 591 00:34:33,280 --> 00:34:35,880 if there is a state disposition to that, that is 592 00:34:35,960 --> 00:34:39,000 one possible outcome. It would be a different outcome if 593 00:34:39,000 --> 00:34:42,400 this was truly a federal prosecution independent of the state, 594 00:34:42,639 --> 00:34:44,960 which goes back to the point I was making about 595 00:34:45,000 --> 00:34:48,320 concern about a federal precedent with this kind of sentence, 596 00:34:48,880 --> 00:34:52,599 because then when the next person comes along, they say, well, 597 00:34:52,920 --> 00:34:55,800 here is this precedent under three seventy one or whatnot. 598 00:34:56,239 --> 00:34:59,079 And so this was rightly or wrongly, And I understand 599 00:34:59,119 --> 00:35:03,519 the pushback an analysis that distinguished between what is necessary 600 00:35:03,559 --> 00:35:08,039 to prevent manifest injustice versus what is the appropriate federal 601 00:35:08,079 --> 00:35:11,440 outcome to that. Agree or disagree with that logic is 602 00:35:11,480 --> 00:35:15,840 one thing, But did I explain the logic question? You've 603 00:35:15,840 --> 00:35:19,000 explained the logic question. And I'm going to push back 604 00:35:19,000 --> 00:35:22,400 a little bit on that, because the Petite policy specifically 605 00:35:22,440 --> 00:35:25,239 says it does not apply where the state conduct is 606 00:35:25,280 --> 00:35:28,760 only a minor part, an insignificant part of the entire 607 00:35:28,840 --> 00:35:32,039 course of conduct, And they give examples about where you 608 00:35:32,119 --> 00:35:34,639 have some type of rico scheme and the state has 609 00:35:34,639 --> 00:35:38,519 indicted or convicted the perpetrator based on something that could 610 00:35:38,519 --> 00:35:42,679 be one single overt act in the government conspiracy. And 611 00:35:42,760 --> 00:35:46,440 doesn't that really show what is going on here that 612 00:35:46,519 --> 00:35:49,079 what the state had done was really just a small, 613 00:35:49,159 --> 00:35:52,440 minor part of the scheme, that the federal government had 614 00:35:52,480 --> 00:35:55,679 a real opportunity to punish them for this entire course 615 00:35:55,679 --> 00:35:59,719 of conduct. Answers. So possibly, But if I can circle 616 00:35:59,760 --> 00:36:03,320 back to your question previously, it's interesting that you characterize 617 00:36:03,320 --> 00:36:06,760 this as he's turning these girls into prostitutes. And then 618 00:36:07,119 --> 00:36:10,920 I think that's really interesting because in twenty nineteen, thirteen 619 00:36:11,000 --> 00:36:14,480 years afterward, despite all the changes in the law, there 620 00:36:14,519 --> 00:36:17,360 is still some element somewhere that says he's turning these 621 00:36:17,360 --> 00:36:21,239 girls into prostitutes. Whereas this was a typical trafficking case 622 00:36:21,480 --> 00:36:24,440 of the kind that you'd see in the lew Debacca days, 623 00:36:24,639 --> 00:36:27,639 where you know, I was called modern day slavery. That's 624 00:36:27,679 --> 00:36:30,760 a very different fact pattern. So you know, a girl 625 00:36:30,960 --> 00:36:33,880 who's held captive is forced to serve multiple men per day, 626 00:36:34,199 --> 00:36:37,480 where this part of an ongoing business arrangement. And so 627 00:36:37,920 --> 00:36:41,280 I hear what you're saying. But if they're at this table, 628 00:36:41,440 --> 00:36:45,840 at least some element of that characterization is live, what 629 00:36:45,880 --> 00:36:48,039 would it mean in two thousand and six when these 630 00:36:48,119 --> 00:36:51,719 laws are still being developed? And that consideration rightly or 631 00:36:51,719 --> 00:36:56,239 wrongly was part of this analysis. Question was it explicitly? 632 00:36:56,400 --> 00:37:00,679 In other words, was that aspect of it the perception 633 00:37:00,880 --> 00:37:03,880 that this case was perhaps activity that in which the 634 00:37:03,960 --> 00:37:08,960 victims cooperated? Was that part he gets interrupted here by 635 00:37:09,000 --> 00:37:11,800 a costa? No, No, let me let me distinguish. I 636 00:37:11,800 --> 00:37:15,519 didn't say the perception that this was activities in which 637 00:37:15,559 --> 00:37:19,280 the victims cooperated. What I was going to, what I've 638 00:37:19,320 --> 00:37:22,320 gone to before, is would jurors Is there at least 639 00:37:22,360 --> 00:37:25,679 one juror that might say, Look, we've got conflicting victim testimony. 640 00:37:26,800 --> 00:37:28,960 Some of them said he did nothing wrong. They all 641 00:37:29,000 --> 00:37:31,760 knew each other, They kept going back and taking payment. 642 00:37:32,079 --> 00:37:35,480 Is this trafficking or is this prostitution. I'm not saying 643 00:37:35,519 --> 00:37:39,039 I agree with that, and I don't think that prosecutors do. 644 00:37:39,519 --> 00:37:42,039 I'm saying, is there is there at least the possibility 645 00:37:42,039 --> 00:37:45,480 of that question? Was that articulated to you by the 646 00:37:45,519 --> 00:37:48,760 people who were listening to by redacted and redacted and 647 00:37:48,840 --> 00:37:52,760 redacted answer, So that certainly was part of the discussion. 648 00:37:53,000 --> 00:37:55,559 When I talk about the victim issues, would at least 649 00:37:55,559 --> 00:37:59,039 some jurors view it that way rightly or wrongly? Question? 650 00:37:59,519 --> 00:38:03,760 And you were call having those conversations. Answer, I recall 651 00:38:03,840 --> 00:38:06,719 having not only how would the witness stand up in court, 652 00:38:07,000 --> 00:38:09,800 but how would jurors view them? And then the second 653 00:38:09,880 --> 00:38:12,159 part of that is as it goes up in the 654 00:38:12,159 --> 00:38:16,519 appellate process with respect to the federal nexus and so 655 00:38:16,639 --> 00:38:19,119 I hear you, but you know it's the sort of 656 00:38:19,119 --> 00:38:24,840 one of the factors, and so yeah, question. What I'm 657 00:38:24,880 --> 00:38:28,159 getting at, though, is that there doesn't seem like there 658 00:38:28,280 --> 00:38:32,039 was consideration or a discussion about is this two years 659 00:38:32,079 --> 00:38:35,480 capturing the scope of his conduct versus we're just going 660 00:38:35,519 --> 00:38:37,960 to tie it to this potential state crime that could 661 00:38:37,960 --> 00:38:41,199 have been charged. Answer affair, and I would say that 662 00:38:41,239 --> 00:38:44,159 the two years was not meant. So the petit policy 663 00:38:44,199 --> 00:38:47,800 has several prongs. And to my recollection, the petita analysis 664 00:38:48,000 --> 00:38:50,280 was not based on and let's not even call it 665 00:38:50,400 --> 00:38:54,159 petita analysis. That overstates it. But it was much more 666 00:38:54,199 --> 00:38:57,239 of a is this a manifest injustice? And if the 667 00:38:57,280 --> 00:38:59,679 original and so you sort of see it in an 668 00:38:59,679 --> 00:39:02,760 exhibit three, this would not have been brought to the 669 00:39:02,800 --> 00:39:05,320 office in the first place. If you know if he 670 00:39:05,400 --> 00:39:08,960 had pled to jail time and registration, and rightly or wrongly, 671 00:39:09,639 --> 00:39:12,400 that was understood from the beginning of the case and 672 00:39:12,519 --> 00:39:15,760 was a factor in how the case was viewed. Question 673 00:39:16,159 --> 00:39:18,719 And how do you know that it wouldn't have that 674 00:39:18,840 --> 00:39:21,840 it wouldn't have been upset with a minimal jail time 675 00:39:22,119 --> 00:39:26,239 even if there was sex registration. Answer. So I can't, 676 00:39:26,320 --> 00:39:29,639 twelve years later say how we knew that. I can't 677 00:39:29,639 --> 00:39:32,960 say that. My general impression was that this was proceeding 678 00:39:33,000 --> 00:39:35,880 at the state, that there were certain charges, and that 679 00:39:35,920 --> 00:39:38,679 those charges changed when it went to the grand jury, 680 00:39:39,360 --> 00:39:42,000 and that it went from I think they even changed 681 00:39:42,239 --> 00:39:48,800 the ASA involved. Question they did. Answer. I can't speak 682 00:39:48,840 --> 00:39:51,320 for certain, but you probably have that from the record, 683 00:39:52,239 --> 00:39:55,480 and that when they changed the ASA involved and took 684 00:39:55,480 --> 00:39:58,039 it to the grand jury, the charges that came back 685 00:39:58,239 --> 00:40:03,840 were substantially less. Question do you remember the circumstances? Did 686 00:40:03,840 --> 00:40:07,760 you know the circumstances under which that ASA was changed? Answer? 687 00:40:07,800 --> 00:40:10,360 I don't know. Question all right. By the way, do 688 00:40:10,400 --> 00:40:12,880 you remember an occasion in which redacted came to your 689 00:40:12,880 --> 00:40:15,679 office in Miami to oppress you on what was going 690 00:40:15,719 --> 00:40:18,159 to be happening with the federal case. Answer, I don't 691 00:40:18,199 --> 00:40:24,199 recall question. You don't recall answer, I don't recall question. 692 00:40:24,320 --> 00:40:27,800 So before we leave this one little thing, So, if 693 00:40:27,840 --> 00:40:30,639 this case had come into the federal system as a 694 00:40:30,679 --> 00:40:35,039 part from the taken the digression through the state system, 695 00:40:35,280 --> 00:40:37,519 do you think that the two years was an appropriate 696 00:40:37,559 --> 00:40:41,079 punishment given the scope of his conduct? Answer? I think 697 00:40:41,119 --> 00:40:43,599 that if it had come into the federal system apart 698 00:40:43,639 --> 00:40:46,320 from the whole state and the petique consideration and all 699 00:40:46,360 --> 00:40:48,599 of that, we may have ended up in a different place. 700 00:40:49,679 --> 00:40:52,239 I viewed the two years, to my recollection, as a 701 00:40:52,280 --> 00:40:57,519 manifest injustice standard and not an appropriate punishment standard. Question 702 00:40:58,000 --> 00:41:00,960 meaning whether it was manifestly unjust that he got two years? 703 00:41:01,519 --> 00:41:05,440 Answer no, whether it was so let me let me rephrase, no, 704 00:41:05,559 --> 00:41:08,760 jail time was a manifest injustice if he had gone 705 00:41:08,800 --> 00:41:11,239 to jail for two years in the state system and 706 00:41:11,400 --> 00:41:14,679 registered the question of whether it would have come to 707 00:41:14,760 --> 00:41:17,679 the office at all, and to my recollection, the consensus 708 00:41:17,880 --> 00:41:22,239 was and redacted based on Exhibit three, agrees with that 709 00:41:22,239 --> 00:41:24,239 that it would have never come to the office in 710 00:41:24,280 --> 00:41:27,440 the first place, because we would not view that under 711 00:41:27,440 --> 00:41:31,480 petite as a manifest injustice. There are any number of 712 00:41:31,480 --> 00:41:34,559 cases that are prosecuted around the country where an individual 713 00:41:34,599 --> 00:41:37,199 gets a jail time that the federal government may not 714 00:41:37,280 --> 00:41:40,599 agree with, but that doesn't mean the federal government reprosecutes 715 00:41:40,639 --> 00:41:45,159 those cases. The instances where the federal government reprosecutes the 716 00:41:45,199 --> 00:41:48,360 state case are pretty rare to my knowledge, and so 717 00:41:48,639 --> 00:41:52,800 under the petite standard, the manifest injustice, it would have 718 00:41:52,800 --> 00:41:55,519 been a manifest injustice to have zero jail time and 719 00:41:55,639 --> 00:41:59,400 zero registration. But if the original charges had remained, that 720 00:41:59,440 --> 00:42:02,440 would have been different. Matter. That does not mean that 721 00:42:02,480 --> 00:42:05,440 this is the best outcome in the state system, and 722 00:42:05,519 --> 00:42:08,360 so perhaps beating a you know, an issue. But let 723 00:42:08,400 --> 00:42:11,400 me maybe give an example. One concern that I had 724 00:42:11,599 --> 00:42:14,519 was that in the violent crime side, the state brings 725 00:42:14,559 --> 00:42:17,199 a case the you know, there is a deferment, no 726 00:42:17,320 --> 00:42:20,760 jail time. The state when it brings a second case 727 00:42:20,960 --> 00:42:23,679 and there's minimal jail time, well, now the person has 728 00:42:23,719 --> 00:42:26,199 done three violent crimes, they have a gun. They go 729 00:42:26,239 --> 00:42:28,719 to federal and it's like, please don't do that, pretty 730 00:42:28,760 --> 00:42:31,039 please don't do that. You know, we're going to punish 731 00:42:31,039 --> 00:42:32,920 you a little bit. And then all of a sudden 732 00:42:33,239 --> 00:42:36,079 incomes the federal government with the big, big punch to 733 00:42:36,119 --> 00:42:39,360 the face because the federal sentences are so different than 734 00:42:39,400 --> 00:42:43,039 the state sentences, and that happens all the time and 735 00:42:43,119 --> 00:42:45,840 any number of context in Florida. That doesn't mean that 736 00:42:45,880 --> 00:42:49,679 all those cases get reprosecuted as gun cases in Florida. 737 00:42:50,519 --> 00:42:53,599 That means that we understand that Florida system is very 738 00:42:53,639 --> 00:42:56,360 different than the federal system. And so the way we 739 00:42:56,400 --> 00:42:59,239 looked at it, at least based on my recollection those 740 00:42:59,280 --> 00:43:02,079 two years, was not what we would have received if 741 00:43:02,119 --> 00:43:05,639 this was a purely federal case. But would this case 742 00:43:05,719 --> 00:43:08,719 have been prosecuted by the federal system additionally if he 743 00:43:08,760 --> 00:43:13,239 had received jail time and registration in the state system? Question, 744 00:43:14,360 --> 00:43:17,119 is it fair to say that this particular concern about, 745 00:43:17,480 --> 00:43:20,320 for lack of a better word, federalism or the petit 746 00:43:20,400 --> 00:43:24,199 policy was a primary concern of yours versus any of 747 00:43:24,239 --> 00:43:29,079 your employers in terms of redacted or redacted answer, I 748 00:43:29,119 --> 00:43:30,920 think it's fair to say that I focused more on 749 00:43:30,960 --> 00:43:33,280 the legal side of things, and my team focused more 750 00:43:33,320 --> 00:43:35,920 on the trial and how this would play out at trial, 751 00:43:36,599 --> 00:43:39,000 and both of them, both of them sort of informed 752 00:43:39,000 --> 00:43:43,159 the outcome. Question And are you including this petite policy 753 00:43:43,159 --> 00:43:47,599 and your consideration of the legal issue answer. Yes, yeah, 754 00:43:47,960 --> 00:43:50,840 I think that they're all tied together. All right, folks, 755 00:43:50,840 --> 00:43:52,440 we're going to wrap up right here, and in the 756 00:43:52,480 --> 00:43:54,880 next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up 757 00:43:54,920 --> 00:43:58,159 where we left off. All of the information that goes 758 00:43:58,199 --> 00:44:01,239 with this episode can be found in the description box.