1 00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:02,799 Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the 2 00:00:02,799 --> 00:00:06,639 Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, or again right back to 3 00:00:06,960 --> 00:00:12,400 Alex Acosta and his interview with the OIG inspectors, turning 4 00:00:12,439 --> 00:00:15,279 to exhibit to This is an email that was forwarded 5 00:00:15,279 --> 00:00:18,679 to you by redacted. The original forwarded email is from 6 00:00:18,760 --> 00:00:22,399 redacted copying redacted, and it essentially relates to a dust 7 00:00:22,480 --> 00:00:25,760 up between redacted and redacted over the chain of command 8 00:00:26,039 --> 00:00:29,559 and her workload. But in the first paragraph, she specifies 9 00:00:29,640 --> 00:00:32,880 that when I first heard about the Epstein investigation, I 10 00:00:32,920 --> 00:00:37,000 spoke with redacted about it. Redacted was not here. Redacted 11 00:00:37,079 --> 00:00:39,359 said that she would back me up on the case. 12 00:00:39,640 --> 00:00:43,000 But I knew what happened to the state prosecution and 13 00:00:43,079 --> 00:00:45,719 can happen to the federal prosecution if the US Attorney's 14 00:00:45,759 --> 00:00:48,880 Office isn't on board. So I spoke with redacted about 15 00:00:48,920 --> 00:00:51,280 the case, and he spoke with Alex, and they gave 16 00:00:51,280 --> 00:00:54,280 me the green light. So that actually appears to be 17 00:00:54,560 --> 00:00:57,920 initial contact with Redacted that she's talking about prior to 18 00:00:57,960 --> 00:01:01,280 the briefing with you, so way early when the case 19 00:01:01,320 --> 00:01:03,759 first came in in May of two thousand and six, 20 00:01:04,120 --> 00:01:08,159 do you recall being contacted or having a conversation with 21 00:01:08,239 --> 00:01:12,280 redacted about the case. So early answer again, the early 22 00:01:12,400 --> 00:01:16,120 recollection whenever, whenever it might have taken place, was I 23 00:01:16,159 --> 00:01:18,840 was made aware of the matter. It seemed a reasonable 24 00:01:18,879 --> 00:01:21,560 matter to pursue. And that's the level of detail that 25 00:01:21,640 --> 00:01:24,879 I recall. Questions. So, if Redacted said back in the 26 00:01:24,959 --> 00:01:29,239 day that she got from you the green light, did 27 00:01:29,280 --> 00:01:33,599 you understand her to be being authorized to authorize? Maybe 28 00:01:33,640 --> 00:01:39,560 too strong of a word, but answer to pursue question Yeah, 29 00:01:39,680 --> 00:01:42,959 answer to someone. You know, I'm speculating here, but there's 30 00:01:43,000 --> 00:01:46,000 a case and they want to know should we spend 31 00:01:46,120 --> 00:01:48,879 our time on this? And the answer is that it 32 00:01:48,920 --> 00:01:52,959 seems reasonable? Sure? Question? Okay, And do you recall making 33 00:01:53,000 --> 00:01:57,159 that explicit to her? Answer? I don't, and it wouldn't 34 00:01:57,159 --> 00:02:00,599 have been my practice to sort of make it explicit. Yeah, 35 00:02:00,599 --> 00:02:03,000 go spend your time, as opposed to thank you for 36 00:02:03,079 --> 00:02:07,159 letting me know. That sounds reasonable? Question? All right? Answer 37 00:02:07,400 --> 00:02:09,800 and whatever you know details It looks like based on 38 00:02:09,840 --> 00:02:13,439 Exhibit one, there was subsequent follow up between her and 39 00:02:13,560 --> 00:02:17,719 redacted or with her and the management teams, and they said, 40 00:02:17,759 --> 00:02:21,000 you know, go back work on a B and C question. 41 00:02:21,080 --> 00:02:23,400 Do you know what redacted was talking about when she 42 00:02:23,520 --> 00:02:26,680 referred to something happening to a federal prosecution if the 43 00:02:26,759 --> 00:02:29,639 US Attorney is not on board. Had there been a 44 00:02:29,680 --> 00:02:32,319 case in which you were not supportive of a particular 45 00:02:32,400 --> 00:02:37,360 prosecution that was being proposed? Answer? None, None that I recall, 46 00:02:38,000 --> 00:02:40,520 and I knew what had happened to the state prosecution 47 00:02:40,800 --> 00:02:43,639 can happen to a federal prosecution if the US Attorney 48 00:02:43,680 --> 00:02:46,560 is not on board. I don't recall any federal prosecution 49 00:02:46,919 --> 00:02:50,319 that I wasn't supportive of, at least in this context. 50 00:02:51,080 --> 00:02:54,919 Question what do you mean by this context? Answer? It 51 00:02:55,000 --> 00:02:57,080 was my way of narrowing an answer, So I didn't 52 00:02:57,120 --> 00:02:59,719 spend the time to go through every office and every 53 00:02:59,759 --> 00:03:02,840 divis for the most part, as I sit here, I'm 54 00:03:02,879 --> 00:03:05,840 sort of running through each office. I don't recall any 55 00:03:06,080 --> 00:03:08,599 And if I could use this based on exhibit too, 56 00:03:08,960 --> 00:03:11,240 I'm not sure that she's referring to a specific case 57 00:03:11,479 --> 00:03:15,159 as opposed to concerns that the state prosecution started at point, 58 00:03:15,400 --> 00:03:18,520 you know, with charges that require jail time and ended 59 00:03:18,599 --> 00:03:25,159 up somewhere else. It may have been because management wasn't question, 60 00:03:25,960 --> 00:03:30,360 but that's current reading of They get interrupted by Acosta. Yeah, 61 00:03:30,479 --> 00:03:33,439 an interruption again. But this time by the person asking 62 00:03:33,520 --> 00:03:38,840 the questions this rather than recollection. Answer that's my reading. 63 00:03:39,639 --> 00:03:42,639 Question all right, Based on the early description you got 64 00:03:42,680 --> 00:03:45,199 of the case, did you have any idea how many 65 00:03:45,280 --> 00:03:49,039 victims were involved? Answer? I did not. Did you know 66 00:03:49,319 --> 00:03:51,960 what the name of the case was? Was the investigation 67 00:03:52,120 --> 00:03:55,800 name was? You know, cases get names? Answer so I 68 00:03:55,840 --> 00:03:58,919 know based on the review of the correspondence, I may 69 00:03:58,960 --> 00:04:01,639 have known that. Then I did not independently recall it. 70 00:04:02,759 --> 00:04:07,520 Question that being Operation Leapier Answer correct? Question all right, 71 00:04:07,840 --> 00:04:10,680 and do you know where that came from? Answer? Well, 72 00:04:10,680 --> 00:04:13,400 I mean other than February twentieth, Yeah, I don't know. 73 00:04:14,039 --> 00:04:18,160 Question Well, the original allegations that came in involved twenty 74 00:04:18,160 --> 00:04:21,879 eight victims, and then subsequently redacted advised that she was 75 00:04:22,000 --> 00:04:26,800 uncovering more victims, so there were over thirty. Question well 76 00:04:26,800 --> 00:04:30,959 over thirty. Answer I don't recall knowing that. Question But 77 00:04:31,240 --> 00:04:33,879 is it reasonable that the number of victims would be 78 00:04:33,920 --> 00:04:36,279 one of the factors that you would have been informed 79 00:04:36,279 --> 00:04:40,360 about at the time? Answer I don't know. It all 80 00:04:40,399 --> 00:04:44,199 depends how detailed that briefing was. Again, as a typical matter, 81 00:04:44,319 --> 00:04:47,319 early on, this is what is being done. I would 82 00:04:47,319 --> 00:04:51,839 trust my ausas and my management staff to pursue it. 83 00:04:51,839 --> 00:04:54,240 It wouldn't be here are all the facts associated with 84 00:04:54,279 --> 00:04:57,279 the case. Just to heads up, there's a high profile 85 00:04:57,319 --> 00:05:00,279 case involving a very wealthy man abusing young wa women. 86 00:05:00,480 --> 00:05:04,240 A state attorney is prosecuting, but you know there's dissatisfaction. 87 00:05:04,879 --> 00:05:06,639 I wanted to give you the heads up, both to 88 00:05:06,720 --> 00:05:09,759 inform me but also so that I'm aware in my 89 00:05:09,839 --> 00:05:14,519 interactions with other pombage officials. Question, Okay, based on whatever 90 00:05:14,560 --> 00:05:17,160 information you got at the time, did you think that 91 00:05:17,199 --> 00:05:19,800 there was a federal interest to be served by pursuing 92 00:05:19,959 --> 00:05:25,439 a federal prosecution potentially? Answer? Yes, question and what was 93 00:05:25,480 --> 00:05:30,519 that answer? So the exploitation of young women? He gets 94 00:05:30,560 --> 00:05:35,480 corrected now by the investigator. Girls, He corrects himself. Girls, 95 00:05:36,399 --> 00:05:39,519 the investigator, I want to be all right, Look, I 96 00:05:39,560 --> 00:05:42,879 know for the sort of glossary convention that we are 97 00:05:42,959 --> 00:05:45,879 using is we can use this in the interview as 98 00:05:45,920 --> 00:05:48,079 girls for the victims who at the time of the 99 00:05:48,120 --> 00:05:50,959 conduct were miners, and women for those who were not, 100 00:05:51,319 --> 00:05:54,759 even though the girls at a later date became age 101 00:05:54,759 --> 00:05:59,600 of majority. A. Costa responds, fair, question, Okay, so here 102 00:05:59,759 --> 00:06:04,040 we're really talking about girls. Answer okay. Question who are 103 00:06:04,040 --> 00:06:11,279 the victims? Acosta? Yeah, yeah, question okay, Acosta, girls, minor females. 104 00:06:11,639 --> 00:06:17,759 I just don't sometimes that term is viewed differently. Question right, answer, So, yeah, 105 00:06:17,800 --> 00:06:21,199 the exploitation of girls or minor females, and that certainly 106 00:06:21,240 --> 00:06:24,720 is an important federal interest. Question well, and is the 107 00:06:24,800 --> 00:06:27,240 number and the breadth of the scheme the scope of 108 00:06:27,240 --> 00:06:30,519 the activity also a factor there? In other words, it 109 00:06:30,600 --> 00:06:35,240 wasn't one or two women on two occasions. Answer, So, 110 00:06:35,399 --> 00:06:39,319 there's several factors that probably go into what's the federal interest. 111 00:06:39,680 --> 00:06:43,079 The acts, the sordidness of the acts, the number, the 112 00:06:43,199 --> 00:06:46,519 likelihood or the importance of the registration was important to 113 00:06:46,560 --> 00:06:50,040 my mind because that goes to future prevention, to putting 114 00:06:50,079 --> 00:06:53,759 the community on notice. Question and were you aware that 115 00:06:53,839 --> 00:06:56,680 the individual in this case, Epstein also at homes and 116 00:06:56,759 --> 00:07:00,439 other districts that were it was an interstate activity on 117 00:07:00,480 --> 00:07:03,959 his part, the interstate travel and so on to that. 118 00:07:04,279 --> 00:07:07,839 Acosta's lawyer pipes in, I'm sorry, let me just we're 119 00:07:07,839 --> 00:07:13,720 still in the original intake timeframe misredacted. Yes, Acosta, yeah, 120 00:07:13,800 --> 00:07:16,360 again for the intake time I can I can't speak 121 00:07:16,399 --> 00:07:19,879 to the details because I don't remember what the extent 122 00:07:19,920 --> 00:07:24,360 of that that intake briefing was? Acosta asked, if he 123 00:07:24,399 --> 00:07:28,040 can ask a question, was there was there a clear 124 00:07:28,120 --> 00:07:32,480 briefing as opposed to a heads up based on the record? Question? Yes, 125 00:07:32,680 --> 00:07:35,199 that redacted came to Miami to conduct a briefing of 126 00:07:35,279 --> 00:07:39,879 you and they get cut off by a redacted question 127 00:07:39,959 --> 00:07:42,560 her again redacted, in order to tell you about this 128 00:07:42,680 --> 00:07:45,639 case and get from you a green light so that 129 00:07:45,680 --> 00:07:48,879 they could proceed with it. Answer, I asked, because I 130 00:07:48,920 --> 00:07:51,079 were calling an email and I don't know what the 131 00:07:51,160 --> 00:07:54,680 time would have been where she's coming to Miami, And 132 00:07:54,720 --> 00:07:59,120 redacted says, why don't you stop by my office? First? Question? Right? 133 00:07:59,720 --> 00:08:02,040 And and I keep I would I would speculate that 134 00:08:02,360 --> 00:08:04,639 why don't you stop by my office first? Is why 135 00:08:04,639 --> 00:08:07,120 don't you give me a bunch of details? And then 136 00:08:07,240 --> 00:08:10,000 we will walk across to the US attorney and fill 137 00:08:10,079 --> 00:08:12,399 him in. And so that would have been almost a 138 00:08:12,399 --> 00:08:16,279 two tiered discussion. And I don't know if that if 139 00:08:16,319 --> 00:08:19,600 that timeline on that email is when you say briefing, 140 00:08:19,959 --> 00:08:23,519 Acousta continues, I'm speaking just based on a review of 141 00:08:23,560 --> 00:08:27,600 the record, not based on recollection here. Question all right, 142 00:08:27,680 --> 00:08:30,800 so you have to be clear you have no recollection 143 00:08:30,879 --> 00:08:34,399 of any specific briefing in two thousand and six. Answer, 144 00:08:34,639 --> 00:08:36,440 I accept that I was made aware of the matter. 145 00:08:37,320 --> 00:08:41,159 Question Okay, Answer, I can't say how or in what 146 00:08:41,279 --> 00:08:44,519 context or to what degree of detail question or by 147 00:08:44,519 --> 00:08:47,559 whom answer, or by whom I knew the matter. It's 148 00:08:47,600 --> 00:08:50,639 easier to recollect, at least for me what I knew, 149 00:08:50,639 --> 00:08:53,679 as opposed to who told me what? Question? All right? 150 00:08:53,720 --> 00:08:56,639 All right? At this point did you have if you 151 00:08:56,799 --> 00:08:59,919 at any point did you have any reservation about investigating 152 00:09:00,159 --> 00:09:04,000 and potentially prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein a reservation stemming from his 153 00:09:04,080 --> 00:09:08,759 wealth and reported standing in the community at all and influence? 154 00:09:09,320 --> 00:09:12,360 Answer No, And we had prosecuted lots of influential folks 155 00:09:12,399 --> 00:09:15,600 in this office. So while he had wealth, it's not 156 00:09:15,720 --> 00:09:19,080 unusual ubs was in the office at the time I 157 00:09:19,200 --> 00:09:23,279 mentioned several high profile Palm Beach public corruption cases. Questions, 158 00:09:23,360 --> 00:09:26,399 So there was no concern about possible negative blowback in 159 00:09:26,440 --> 00:09:29,639 the press or the community or even at Main Justice 160 00:09:29,799 --> 00:09:33,120 if he went if he went after someone like Epstein. Answer, 161 00:09:33,240 --> 00:09:36,120 there was no concern stemming from his wealth or his status. 162 00:09:36,799 --> 00:09:39,879 Question what would have it stem from? Answer? At some 163 00:09:39,960 --> 00:09:43,000 point I think there was concern regarding the law, and 164 00:09:43,080 --> 00:09:45,799 we'll probably get into that. I alluded to that earlier 165 00:09:45,840 --> 00:09:48,200 in the overview. I don't know if that would have 166 00:09:48,240 --> 00:09:51,279 been developed this early on. But that's not a function 167 00:09:51,320 --> 00:09:55,919 of his wealth. That's a function of the fact pattern question. Right. Okay, So, 168 00:09:56,039 --> 00:09:59,720 as you mentioned petite policy concern petit policy, could you 169 00:09:59,799 --> 00:10:02,679 tell tell us what your position was on the policy 170 00:10:02,720 --> 00:10:05,399 as it applied in this case, as you understood it 171 00:10:05,600 --> 00:10:08,919 from the beginning. Answer? So the policy you know on 172 00:10:09,000 --> 00:10:13,360 its face doesn't specifically apply. Based on exhibit one, I'm 173 00:10:13,399 --> 00:10:16,360 now inferring, not recalling, it looks like either redacted on 174 00:10:16,399 --> 00:10:21,000 our own or redacted as for a or mister redacted 175 00:10:21,399 --> 00:10:24,120 as for a petite policy waiverm memo to be prepared 176 00:10:24,519 --> 00:10:27,720 in part on the assumption that the state prosecution may 177 00:10:27,799 --> 00:10:31,320 or may not have gone for it. I don't know, 178 00:10:31,440 --> 00:10:34,240 but I do recall that early on this was unusual 179 00:10:34,559 --> 00:10:38,159 because it had been had been arrested or arraigned. It 180 00:10:38,200 --> 00:10:40,440 was going forward on the part of the state. And 181 00:10:40,519 --> 00:10:43,360 so here's the big bad federal government stepping in and 182 00:10:43,519 --> 00:10:46,840 on sovereign you know, state, saying you're not doing enough 183 00:10:47,120 --> 00:10:49,240 and to my mind, when you know, the whole idea 184 00:10:49,279 --> 00:10:52,480 of the petit policy is to recognize that the estate 185 00:10:52,960 --> 00:10:56,879 has you know, has independent entity, and that we should 186 00:10:56,960 --> 00:11:00,840 presume that what we're doing is correct even if we 187 00:11:00,919 --> 00:11:03,840 don't like the outcome, except in the most unusual of 188 00:11:03,919 --> 00:11:09,240 circumstances question and what kinds of Well, so the petit 189 00:11:09,320 --> 00:11:12,799 policy exists because there's a recognition that there are cases 190 00:11:13,240 --> 00:11:16,120 that are appropriately pursued. I mean, you are the head 191 00:11:16,120 --> 00:11:19,240 of the Civil Rights Division, after all. Answer correct, Which 192 00:11:19,320 --> 00:11:21,639 is why I say, except in the most appropriate of 193 00:11:21,720 --> 00:11:26,240 circumstance question right, answer. But let me add that, based 194 00:11:26,240 --> 00:11:28,559 on this I was comfortable, you know, saying let's go 195 00:11:28,639 --> 00:11:31,080 forward because the lack of jail time, you know, to 196 00:11:31,200 --> 00:11:34,559 use to use petit policy language, a plea that did 197 00:11:34,559 --> 00:11:37,559 not include jail time or registration would seem like a 198 00:11:37,600 --> 00:11:40,240 manifest injustice. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up 199 00:11:40,240 --> 00:11:42,720 this episode right here, and in the next episode dealing 200 00:11:42,759 --> 00:11:45,159 with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off. 201 00:11:45,799 --> 00:11:48,240 All the information that goes with this episode can be 202 00:11:48,320 --> 00:11:52,039 found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome 203 00:11:52,080 --> 00:11:55,799 to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, 204 00:11:55,799 --> 00:11:58,440 We're going to get right back to the alex Acosta 205 00:11:58,440 --> 00:12:03,799 interview with the OIG investigators. Question, all right, so did 206 00:12:03,799 --> 00:12:05,720 you have any doubt that you'd get a waiver if 207 00:12:05,759 --> 00:12:10,000 you applied for one? Answer? So I'm now speculating. I 208 00:12:10,039 --> 00:12:12,559 don't recall, but I'm not sure I would have said, 209 00:12:12,720 --> 00:12:14,679 is there a doubt that I'd get a waiver? As 210 00:12:14,679 --> 00:12:19,120 opposed to is this something I feel comfortable doing or not? Question? 211 00:12:19,440 --> 00:12:23,200 And this being the prosecution or this being the applying 212 00:12:23,240 --> 00:12:26,320 for a waiver? Answer applying for a waiver. And so 213 00:12:26,399 --> 00:12:29,159 you know, either Main Justice gives it or doesn't give it, 214 00:12:29,720 --> 00:12:31,840 that doesn't mean you don't apply for it if you 215 00:12:31,879 --> 00:12:34,519 think that it's the right thing to do. So for example, 216 00:12:34,559 --> 00:12:37,159 in the UBS case, which was one of our big 217 00:12:37,240 --> 00:12:40,279 tax you know, prosecutions, we asked for a Bank of 218 00:12:40,279 --> 00:12:44,840 Nova Scotia authorization to the Bank of Nova Scotia, and 219 00:12:44,919 --> 00:12:47,159 I didn't think Maine Justice would, you know. I push 220 00:12:47,240 --> 00:12:49,440 really hard and I got into the weeds in that 221 00:12:49,519 --> 00:12:52,720 case for that purpose, but I still thought, let's go 222 00:12:52,840 --> 00:12:55,639 for it, and we did and Main Justice didn't give 223 00:12:55,639 --> 00:12:59,240 into it. And that's okay, That's how it works. Question. Okay, 224 00:12:59,279 --> 00:13:02,919 So they denied that request. Answer, they denied that request. 225 00:13:03,639 --> 00:13:06,840 And I say that as an example as a typical matter. 226 00:13:07,159 --> 00:13:09,720 I don't think that's what Main Justice is going to say. 227 00:13:09,759 --> 00:13:13,240 As opposed to how should we approach this matter? Question? 228 00:13:13,519 --> 00:13:16,360 I don't understand about what you mean by how should 229 00:13:16,360 --> 00:13:20,039 we approach this matter? Answer? So, honestly, how do I 230 00:13:20,080 --> 00:13:22,919 explain this? So I think there's a difference in saying, 231 00:13:23,279 --> 00:13:25,879 let me predict how Maine Justice will come out and 232 00:13:26,000 --> 00:13:29,799 follow that prediction, versus folks, what do you all think? Okay, 233 00:13:29,840 --> 00:13:32,440 if we're comfortable with this, let's write it up and 234 00:13:32,519 --> 00:13:35,480 let's see what Main Justice does. One is trying to 235 00:13:35,519 --> 00:13:37,879 predict what folks in this building are going to think. 236 00:13:38,200 --> 00:13:41,519 Another one is trying to predict another one is just saying, 237 00:13:41,960 --> 00:13:44,759 what do we do in Miami? What do we think? 238 00:13:45,039 --> 00:13:48,120 And let Main Justice figure it out? Question? In which 239 00:13:48,159 --> 00:13:51,360 is the approach you typically took? Answer? And my point 240 00:13:51,440 --> 00:13:54,279 is the approach that I typically took is what do 241 00:13:54,360 --> 00:13:56,679 we think? And let Maine Justice give it a thumbs 242 00:13:56,759 --> 00:14:00,279 up or a thumbs down? Question? All right? And in 243 00:14:00,320 --> 00:14:02,480 this case, did you do that with regard to the 244 00:14:02,480 --> 00:14:05,720 batite policy? Answer? So, in this case, we didn't get 245 00:14:05,720 --> 00:14:08,879 that far in that we didn't have to submit to DOJ, 246 00:14:09,639 --> 00:14:12,519 but we were approaching it not based on what main 247 00:14:12,720 --> 00:14:16,039 justice was going to think. But do we feel is 248 00:14:16,080 --> 00:14:19,679 this the right outcome in this office? Question? So, as 249 00:14:19,679 --> 00:14:22,360 I understand, the bottom line is that you didn't. As 250 00:14:22,399 --> 00:14:24,720 I hear you, I believe you're saying that you didn't 251 00:14:24,720 --> 00:14:28,159 stand down or in any way sees your limit pursuing 252 00:14:28,399 --> 00:14:33,679 this case on batite policy grounds. Answer, So we went 253 00:14:33,759 --> 00:14:37,039 forward with the matter although there were petit policy concerns 254 00:14:37,200 --> 00:14:40,159 in the background. So you're setting this up as a 255 00:14:40,159 --> 00:14:44,159 binary as a did was it as a binary? You 256 00:14:44,200 --> 00:14:47,360 did not limit yourself on petite policy grounds? And I'm 257 00:14:47,399 --> 00:14:49,720 pushing back a little bit because I don't think that 258 00:14:49,799 --> 00:14:53,000 it's part as opposed to when you look at the case, 259 00:14:53,679 --> 00:14:56,159 there are all sorts of factors, and it's a factor 260 00:14:56,200 --> 00:14:58,600 in you know, how you think of a matter going forward? 261 00:14:59,120 --> 00:15:02,759 Question if you had those petite policy concerns, you or 262 00:15:02,799 --> 00:15:06,440 your members or staff? Answer? I would say a combination 263 00:15:06,519 --> 00:15:12,919 of me and my management staff. Question who answer, I 264 00:15:13,080 --> 00:15:17,279 can't recreate gets cut off by the person asking the questions? 265 00:15:17,840 --> 00:15:20,879 But who are you dealing with on this case? Answer? 266 00:15:20,960 --> 00:15:24,039 Primarily it would be my first assistant and criminal chief. 267 00:15:24,159 --> 00:15:26,720 As I typically so there is, as you know, to 268 00:15:26,799 --> 00:15:28,919 sort of put it in main justice terms, you know, 269 00:15:28,960 --> 00:15:32,000 a line attorney and a deputy section chief, and a 270 00:15:32,120 --> 00:15:36,519 DAG and an AAG, and the AAG usually deals with 271 00:15:36,559 --> 00:15:39,360 the section chief or the DAG. And so I was 272 00:15:39,399 --> 00:15:43,679 dealing with my first assistant and my crim chief. Question right, 273 00:15:43,840 --> 00:15:47,360 and they were in Miami. Answer and they were in Miami. 274 00:15:47,759 --> 00:15:51,799 Question and by the way, redacted first line supervisor was redacted? 275 00:15:52,159 --> 00:15:55,480 Answer correct? Question. Do you know why she was not 276 00:15:55,559 --> 00:15:59,759 actively participating in the chain of command? Answer? I noticed 277 00:15:59,759 --> 00:16:03,919 that correspondence, and I couldn't speak to that question all right, 278 00:16:04,639 --> 00:16:07,039 But it goes to the point that if you look 279 00:16:08,360 --> 00:16:11,039 at the she reported to or redacted, who are reported 280 00:16:11,080 --> 00:16:13,879 to redacted? Who are reported or redacted, who are reported 281 00:16:13,879 --> 00:16:17,080 to redacted? And so, as a typical matter, I tried 282 00:16:17,120 --> 00:16:20,080 to empower my first assistant and my criminal chief and 283 00:16:20,159 --> 00:16:23,240 my office heads and work through them, not bypass them. 284 00:16:23,440 --> 00:16:27,000 Question in this particular case, with regard either to petite 285 00:16:27,039 --> 00:16:30,519 policy or any other aspect, was there anyone other than 286 00:16:30,559 --> 00:16:33,519 the group of five, if you will, in that chain 287 00:16:33,919 --> 00:16:37,559 from you down to adacted through redacted and redacted that 288 00:16:37,639 --> 00:16:41,399 you were dealing with. Answer I can't recall. I can say, 289 00:16:41,399 --> 00:16:44,240 as a general matter, it would not be unusual for 290 00:16:44,320 --> 00:16:46,519 me to walk down walk down the hall and talk 291 00:16:46,559 --> 00:16:49,000 to someone that I trust and say, hey, I've got 292 00:16:49,000 --> 00:16:52,080 this fact pattern. What do you think? Question? Do you 293 00:16:52,159 --> 00:16:55,240 recall ever doing that in connection with this case? Answer? 294 00:16:55,519 --> 00:16:58,279 I don't recall these specific briefings or who I talk to. 295 00:16:58,840 --> 00:17:01,279 I'm just saying as a general that there are folks 296 00:17:01,720 --> 00:17:04,079 on the eighth floor that were in management that I 297 00:17:04,079 --> 00:17:07,640 would often just walk down the hall. Question, but do 298 00:17:07,680 --> 00:17:11,559 you recall doing that in this case? Answer? I don't recall. 299 00:17:12,079 --> 00:17:14,759 Question Okay, So we shared with you in Exhibit three 300 00:17:15,039 --> 00:17:19,680 a pretty lively exchange between redacted and redacted. We have 301 00:17:19,799 --> 00:17:22,319 no reason to believe you saw this before, but it 302 00:17:22,359 --> 00:17:25,519 makes some representations about you, and that's why we brought 303 00:17:25,519 --> 00:17:29,480 it to your attention. Question or answer? Okay, question do 304 00:17:29,519 --> 00:17:32,599 you recall this EML ex change? Answer? I don't recall 305 00:17:32,640 --> 00:17:38,559 the email ex change. Question I mean, didn't you see it? Then? 306 00:17:38,680 --> 00:17:41,559 Do you recall having read it before today? Answer? I 307 00:17:41,640 --> 00:17:45,200 recall reviewing it. Yes. Question all right, okay, So starting 308 00:17:45,240 --> 00:17:48,480 from the end redacted using redacted to BlackBerry, which is 309 00:17:48,480 --> 00:17:52,759 a little confusing to begin with, notifies redacted that a 310 00:17:52,839 --> 00:17:56,119 particular conversation he had with one of the defense attorneys. 311 00:17:56,599 --> 00:17:58,519 At this point, what I want to do is draw 312 00:17:58,559 --> 00:18:02,039 your attention to the comment and his response. And we're 313 00:18:02,039 --> 00:18:05,559 looking at page three. So in the third paragraph, it 314 00:18:05,640 --> 00:18:08,119 was made clear to you by the US Attorney and 315 00:18:08,160 --> 00:18:11,000 the first assistant from the time when you were first 316 00:18:11,079 --> 00:18:14,720 authorized to investigate mister Epstein that the office had concerns 317 00:18:15,000 --> 00:18:18,079 about taking the case because of batite policy and a 318 00:18:18,160 --> 00:18:20,920 number of legal issues. And then later he says that 319 00:18:20,960 --> 00:18:24,480 you were never given authority or authorization by anyone to 320 00:18:24,480 --> 00:18:27,599 seek an indictment in the case. And then on the 321 00:18:27,680 --> 00:18:31,400 first page, redacted presents her version of that original contact 322 00:18:31,400 --> 00:18:33,880 with you, meeting with you at the bottom of the page. 323 00:18:33,920 --> 00:18:37,680 Halfway through the last paragraph, she says, my recollection of 324 00:18:37,720 --> 00:18:40,960 the original meeting with Alex and redacted is quite different 325 00:18:41,160 --> 00:18:44,200 than your summary. In that meeting, I summarized the case 326 00:18:44,640 --> 00:18:47,920 and the state Attorney's office handling of it. I acknowledged 327 00:18:47,960 --> 00:18:50,160 that we needed to do work to collect the evidence 328 00:18:50,240 --> 00:18:53,119 establishing a federal nexus, and I noted the time in 329 00:18:53,240 --> 00:18:56,279 month that I'm sorry. I noted the time and money 330 00:18:56,519 --> 00:18:59,519 that would be required for an investigation. I said, I 331 00:18:59,599 --> 00:19:02,519 was willing to invest time, and the FBI was willing 332 00:19:02,559 --> 00:19:05,200 to invest the money, but I didn't want to get 333 00:19:05,319 --> 00:19:07,400 to the end of it, to the end and then 334 00:19:07,480 --> 00:19:10,599 have the office be intimidated by the high powered lawyers. 335 00:19:11,079 --> 00:19:13,319 I was assured that would not happen. Can you tell 336 00:19:13,400 --> 00:19:18,799 us which version of that initial version is correct? Answer? So, again, 337 00:19:19,039 --> 00:19:21,519 I don't remember the initial briefing, so I can't tell 338 00:19:21,559 --> 00:19:24,240 you which version is correct. I would also say that 339 00:19:24,319 --> 00:19:27,240 it's possible neither version is correct and that there's a 340 00:19:27,279 --> 00:19:30,519 little bit of truth. Now I'm just speculating that there's 341 00:19:30,559 --> 00:19:32,799 a little bit of truth in either one, because it's 342 00:19:32,799 --> 00:19:35,920 certainly possible to say, I hear you righteous case, go 343 00:19:36,000 --> 00:19:39,599 forward and investigate work on the federal nexus, which is 344 00:19:39,640 --> 00:19:42,279 what Exhibit three is saying, go work on the federal 345 00:19:42,319 --> 00:19:45,640 nexus and find evidence for the federal nexus. But we 346 00:19:45,720 --> 00:19:49,400 have concerns about petite policy and legal matters, so there's 347 00:19:49,400 --> 00:19:53,079 a lot of work to be done. Question So what 348 00:19:53,200 --> 00:19:56,519 kind of direction does that amount to for the line AUSA? 349 00:19:56,559 --> 00:19:59,680 What's her job? Then? Answer? So the job would then 350 00:19:59,680 --> 00:20:03,160 be a go back and investigate, develop facts and report 351 00:20:03,200 --> 00:20:06,880 back question and if she developed enough facts and support 352 00:20:06,920 --> 00:20:11,400 of law to present reposed prosecution. Answer right, and so 353 00:20:11,960 --> 00:20:15,039 a lot of times in this he said, she said, 354 00:20:15,240 --> 00:20:17,400 there's a little bit of truth on both sides of 355 00:20:17,440 --> 00:20:21,160 the discussion. I'm just saying, as a general matter, your 356 00:20:21,240 --> 00:20:24,279 questions are sometimes either or and sometimes it can be 357 00:20:24,359 --> 00:20:28,920 a combination of both. Answer, all right, but in fact 358 00:20:28,960 --> 00:20:32,599 you don't recall. Answer. I'm speculating, question, all right, is 359 00:20:32,640 --> 00:20:35,680 there anything in either of those that two accounts, two 360 00:20:35,799 --> 00:20:39,359 versions that you didn't say happened, couldn't happen? Answer? I can't, 361 00:20:39,400 --> 00:20:42,759 because I don't recall. I can't speak to that. I 362 00:20:42,759 --> 00:20:45,119 would speculate that there's probably a little bit of truth 363 00:20:45,160 --> 00:20:47,960 on both sides that if you read it closely, you'll 364 00:20:47,960 --> 00:20:51,119 see that redacted acknowledges the need to work on a 365 00:20:51,119 --> 00:20:54,720 federal nexus. So that goes to you know where or 366 00:20:54,880 --> 00:20:58,839 mister redacted. I'm sorry, I'm using first names. Question. It's 367 00:20:58,839 --> 00:21:03,440 all right question. This is an informal interview. Answer. I'm 368 00:21:03,480 --> 00:21:05,880 going to just start using first names. I don't mean 369 00:21:05,880 --> 00:21:09,240 that disrespectfully. Where you know redacted says you know because 370 00:21:09,240 --> 00:21:12,680 of petit policy and legal issues, and Redacted is acknowledging 371 00:21:12,680 --> 00:21:16,119 the legal issue because she's saying that they needed work 372 00:21:16,480 --> 00:21:20,160 to do to collect the evidence, establishing the federal nexus. Question. 373 00:21:20,359 --> 00:21:24,720 All right, Back in two thousand and six, in this 374 00:21:24,880 --> 00:21:28,960 exhibit number one, Redacted tells you in his email that 375 00:21:29,000 --> 00:21:31,799 the indictment target date is August twenty fifth, two thousand 376 00:21:31,839 --> 00:21:35,640 and six, In other words, very shortly thereafter, within a 377 00:21:35,640 --> 00:21:38,359 month or so. Do you know why the line ausa 378 00:21:38,480 --> 00:21:41,559 Redacted was keen on getting the federal case against Epstein 379 00:21:41,880 --> 00:21:45,160 brought on a fairly on a quick basis answer. So 380 00:21:45,599 --> 00:21:48,319 I can't speak to that, and I can I can 381 00:21:48,480 --> 00:21:52,680 ask based on your record, was that the state indictment 382 00:21:52,759 --> 00:21:59,240 target date answer? Epstein had already been indicted and arraigned 383 00:22:00,039 --> 00:22:04,440 on the indictment, So that's federal question. That's talking about 384 00:22:04,440 --> 00:22:09,400 a federal indictment answer. All right. The point is early 385 00:22:09,480 --> 00:22:13,279 on the investigative team, the FBI and Redacted were hot 386 00:22:13,279 --> 00:22:16,359 to trot to get this case moving from a federal standpoint. 387 00:22:17,240 --> 00:22:19,759 That may well have been quite unrealistic giving all the 388 00:22:19,799 --> 00:22:22,759 issues that we've been discussing. But the question is, do 389 00:22:22,839 --> 00:22:26,640 you know why there was some urgency. Answer, I haven't 390 00:22:26,640 --> 00:22:31,519 the slightest idea. When was it initially brought to the office? Question? 391 00:22:32,039 --> 00:22:34,240 It was brought to the office in May of two 392 00:22:34,240 --> 00:22:37,680 thousand and six. Answer. That would be a really really 393 00:22:37,680 --> 00:22:42,640 fast timeline question, right, So the question is aspirational though 394 00:22:42,680 --> 00:22:44,799 it may have been there was hope to get it 395 00:22:44,799 --> 00:22:47,839 done quickly. So the question is can you think of 396 00:22:47,880 --> 00:22:51,279 factors that would have led a prosecutor to a want 397 00:22:51,319 --> 00:22:55,079 to pursue this quickly? Answer? I don't recall. I can 398 00:22:55,119 --> 00:22:58,480 speculate that redacted was very hard charging and wanted to 399 00:22:58,480 --> 00:23:02,160 do a lot. Question what was your experience of her? Answer? 400 00:23:02,240 --> 00:23:04,680 So based on this, I see you know so exhibit 401 00:23:04,720 --> 00:23:10,400 too he gets interrupted? Excuse me? Would but just from 402 00:23:10,440 --> 00:23:13,720 your memory, is that your recollection of how redacted operated 403 00:23:14,000 --> 00:23:17,640 hard charging? Answer? Yeah, I'd say so. A lot of 404 00:23:17,720 --> 00:23:20,799 really good prosecutors are hard charging. That's part of the 405 00:23:20,839 --> 00:23:25,559 job description. Question Okay, did so in the child sex 406 00:23:25,559 --> 00:23:28,880 offender context? Are you familiar with the belief on the 407 00:23:28,920 --> 00:23:31,279 part of the people who do that kind of case, 408 00:23:31,480 --> 00:23:34,319 as did it redacted and redacted and others in your 409 00:23:34,359 --> 00:23:38,119 office that those offenders typically don't stop offending even after 410 00:23:38,160 --> 00:23:41,720 somebody's onto them, so that there was a concern that 411 00:23:41,799 --> 00:23:45,039 he that in this case, Jeffrey Epstein might be continuing 412 00:23:45,039 --> 00:23:48,240 to offend and therefore getting them off the streets was 413 00:23:48,279 --> 00:23:52,160 a priority. Answer. I have heard that discussed recently in 414 00:23:52,160 --> 00:23:55,720 the media. I don't recollect that back in well, part 415 00:23:55,720 --> 00:23:58,319 of the discussion back in two thousand and six. All right, folks, 416 00:23:58,359 --> 00:24:00,799 we're gonna wrap up right here, and then next episode 417 00:24:00,799 --> 00:24:03,000 dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where 418 00:24:03,039 --> 00:24:05,960 we left off. All of the information that goes with 419 00:24:06,000 --> 00:24:10,000 this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, 420 00:24:10,039 --> 00:24:13,680 and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In 421 00:24:13,720 --> 00:24:15,960 this episode, we're going to pick up where we left 422 00:24:15,960 --> 00:24:20,039 off with the alex Acosta interview with the OIG inspectors. 423 00:24:21,680 --> 00:24:25,759 Question do you recall that, and this is just do 424 00:24:25,799 --> 00:24:29,039 you recall that she periodically would give you in that 425 00:24:29,160 --> 00:24:32,880 early period of two thousand and six updates written updates? Answer? 426 00:24:33,000 --> 00:24:35,920 I don't. Question. Do you think that it was appropriate 427 00:24:35,960 --> 00:24:38,759 for a line USA to be shooting emails updating a 428 00:24:38,839 --> 00:24:42,079 case that was under investigation directly to you and your 429 00:24:42,079 --> 00:24:45,880 first assistant? Answer? It was unusual, and so did I 430 00:24:45,960 --> 00:24:49,519 think of Look, I can't reconstruct what I would have thought, 431 00:24:49,720 --> 00:24:52,079 but you know you're asking not just what did I know, 432 00:24:52,359 --> 00:24:54,680 but what I would have thought twelve years ago. But 433 00:24:54,759 --> 00:24:57,079 I can say, based on the general practice, it would 434 00:24:57,119 --> 00:25:00,200 have been unusual. And my best guess as to how 435 00:25:00,240 --> 00:25:03,000 I would have reacted would have been, Hey, redacted, this 436 00:25:03,079 --> 00:25:07,759 is unusual. Is the chain being fully informed? Are feathers 437 00:25:07,799 --> 00:25:10,960 being ruffled? Figure it out? Because you know you asked 438 00:25:11,000 --> 00:25:14,480 me early on to characterize Redacted's qualities. I think one 439 00:25:14,480 --> 00:25:16,240 of the things that I have said is that you 440 00:25:16,359 --> 00:25:19,839 was very good at smoothing things over and sort of 441 00:25:19,880 --> 00:25:23,839 the interaction because he was respected, And so I might say, 442 00:25:24,000 --> 00:25:27,400 that's kind of unusual. Go figure it out. Question, but 443 00:25:27,480 --> 00:25:30,200 you wouldn't necessarily jump on that chain yourself and be 444 00:25:30,279 --> 00:25:35,960 in direct communication. Answer. I tended not to question, would 445 00:25:36,000 --> 00:25:38,519 she have sent this to you something unusual if she 446 00:25:38,640 --> 00:25:40,720 thought that this was a case that you wanted to 447 00:25:40,759 --> 00:25:44,440 be involved in? Answer? Even in those I tried to be, 448 00:25:44,519 --> 00:25:47,640 as general matter, fairly sensitive to the chain, because I 449 00:25:47,680 --> 00:25:50,119 had found that if you start jumping the chain too much, 450 00:25:50,400 --> 00:25:53,480 even if you become informed, managers feel, you know, out 451 00:25:53,519 --> 00:25:56,240 of the loop, and that's not conducive to sort of 452 00:25:56,279 --> 00:25:59,240 allowing them to do their job of supervising. It's a 453 00:25:59,240 --> 00:26:02,079 big enough office. You have to empower your folks to 454 00:26:02,119 --> 00:26:05,720 do their jobs. Question So the concern on your part 455 00:26:05,839 --> 00:26:08,119 would not be that she was communicating directly to you, 456 00:26:08,759 --> 00:26:11,000 but that as long as all of the chain was 457 00:26:11,000 --> 00:26:15,160 informed as well. Answer yeah, I mean if you are redacted, 458 00:26:15,279 --> 00:26:17,319 or you know, if you're redacted, or you know, you 459 00:26:17,359 --> 00:26:20,240 don't want to talk to the line attorney before the 460 00:26:20,279 --> 00:26:22,680 line attorney talks to your boss, and so it's not 461 00:26:22,759 --> 00:26:26,319 just informed, but it's respecting your supervisor. And it's a 462 00:26:26,319 --> 00:26:31,000 difficult balance because often really good aussays are also the ones, 463 00:26:31,039 --> 00:26:33,799 you know, that just want to get things done. Question 464 00:26:34,119 --> 00:26:36,759 did you have any reason to believe during this investigative 465 00:26:36,799 --> 00:26:40,279 phase that redacted was not pursuing this case this investigation 466 00:26:40,480 --> 00:26:47,599 adequately appropriately and fully? Answer No, I did not. Question 467 00:26:48,240 --> 00:26:51,039 did you feel that she did not have appropriate oversight? 468 00:26:51,440 --> 00:26:56,519 Answer not to my recollection. Question Okay, did you feel 469 00:26:56,519 --> 00:26:59,400 that she had any resource problems? That is, did she have, 470 00:26:59,480 --> 00:27:02,920 as far as you no sufficient resources available to pursue 471 00:27:03,119 --> 00:27:07,799 her investigation? Answer to my recollection, Yes, I noted her early. 472 00:27:08,000 --> 00:27:10,640 You know, I noted more recently the email where you 473 00:27:10,680 --> 00:27:14,920 know that was shared with me by redacted about resource concerns, 474 00:27:15,240 --> 00:27:16,839 and I would just note that I would allow the 475 00:27:16,880 --> 00:27:20,519 management chain to figure that out. Question all right, did 476 00:27:20,559 --> 00:27:23,400 you at any point consider, based on what you then knew, 477 00:27:23,680 --> 00:27:27,240 expanding the scope of the investigation. Did you ever suggest 478 00:27:27,319 --> 00:27:30,440 or propose that, instead of simply looking at Epstein's conduct 479 00:27:30,480 --> 00:27:33,599 in West Palm Beach, this will be the girls that 480 00:27:33,640 --> 00:27:36,640 the federal authorities could use their resources to look at 481 00:27:36,720 --> 00:27:40,519 other aspects of Epstein's activity. Answer, so, I think it's 482 00:27:40,559 --> 00:27:43,319 important to take a step back. And I was aware 483 00:27:43,440 --> 00:27:46,200 of any number of cases going on in the office, 484 00:27:46,359 --> 00:27:49,039 and based on what that stage of case was at, 485 00:27:49,279 --> 00:27:51,880 I would get more involved. For a time, it wasn't 486 00:27:51,880 --> 00:27:54,640 my practice to direct a usays and how they should 487 00:27:54,640 --> 00:27:58,000 investigate or what the scope of a case investigation should be. 488 00:27:58,759 --> 00:28:01,680 The Miami office, before I got there and after I left, 489 00:28:01,880 --> 00:28:05,240 had a reputation for knowing their stuff. It's a large office, 490 00:28:05,359 --> 00:28:08,680 it's got good people. I would assume that the ausas 491 00:28:08,880 --> 00:28:12,720 and their management would follow their natural leads. Question all right, 492 00:28:12,920 --> 00:28:15,240 where you will wear that during this period? And by 493 00:28:15,279 --> 00:28:18,599 this period, I'm talking about the investigative period from the 494 00:28:18,680 --> 00:28:21,160 time that the case came in in mid two thousand 495 00:28:21,200 --> 00:28:25,519 and six up until May one, when Redacted put forth 496 00:28:25,559 --> 00:28:30,680 her prosecution memo and proposed indictment. During the sort of 497 00:28:30,720 --> 00:28:33,200 ten month period or almost a year, where you will 498 00:28:33,240 --> 00:28:35,880 wear that defense Council for Epstein were reaching out or 499 00:28:35,920 --> 00:28:39,119 Redacted and Redacted to pitch their view of how the 500 00:28:39,160 --> 00:28:43,279 case should proceed. Answer, So, I don't have a specific 501 00:28:43,319 --> 00:28:46,480 recollection of who reached out at what time. I would 502 00:28:46,480 --> 00:28:49,880 assume as a general matter that Defense Council Defense Council 503 00:28:50,119 --> 00:28:52,880 were clearly involved before the case came to the office, 504 00:28:53,279 --> 00:28:55,960 and so I would assume that Defense Council would remain 505 00:28:56,039 --> 00:28:59,880 involved while the office was investigating. I say that not 506 00:29:00,079 --> 00:29:04,519 based on independent recollection. But why would they stop being involved? Question? 507 00:29:04,880 --> 00:29:07,799 And is it your experience as a US attorney that 508 00:29:07,880 --> 00:29:11,279 it was common or uncommon for defense counsel to approach 509 00:29:11,319 --> 00:29:14,720 the line prosecutor and supervisor to make whatever pitch they 510 00:29:14,759 --> 00:29:20,599 want with respect to a prosecution Answer fairly common question, 511 00:29:20,720 --> 00:29:23,559 all right? And was it also common for those approaches 512 00:29:23,559 --> 00:29:26,480 to be entertained? In other words, for the line a 513 00:29:26,640 --> 00:29:31,559 USA and supervisor to meet with defense counsel, and did 514 00:29:31,599 --> 00:29:35,440 you view that as appropriate? Answer? As a general matter, 515 00:29:35,640 --> 00:29:38,000 it was typical. It happened before I got there, and 516 00:29:38,079 --> 00:29:41,640 it's probably happening now. Question, And you view it as 517 00:29:41,680 --> 00:29:44,839 an appropriate part of the process. Do you answer? I 518 00:29:44,880 --> 00:29:47,400 think a usays need to have discretion to meet with 519 00:29:47,440 --> 00:29:50,759 defense counsel, and defense counsel certainly should be able to 520 00:29:50,759 --> 00:29:55,640 present perspectives. Question. There's an outlook. This is Exhibit four, 521 00:29:56,000 --> 00:29:58,160 and this is something it's really sort of a point 522 00:29:58,319 --> 00:30:01,640 of information here. This is an outlook that shows you 523 00:30:02,680 --> 00:30:05,359 and redacted and redacted had a schedule a meeting with 524 00:30:05,440 --> 00:30:11,799 Roy Black. Question. Roy Black a prominent attorney, a local 525 00:30:11,799 --> 00:30:14,599 criminal defense attorney at the time in the Miami area. 526 00:30:14,720 --> 00:30:17,079 This was a meeting scheduled in your office for the 527 00:30:17,119 --> 00:30:19,839 twenty third of February two thousand and seven. Do you 528 00:30:19,880 --> 00:30:23,480 have any he was he at the time was one 529 00:30:23,480 --> 00:30:26,440 of Epstein's attorneys. Do you have any idea whether that 530 00:30:26,480 --> 00:30:29,720 this meeting related to Epstein or some other case? Answer? 531 00:30:29,799 --> 00:30:33,000 I don't. I noticed that. I don't know whether it 532 00:30:33,119 --> 00:30:35,920 was this or another matter. Oh, I'm sure, mister Acosta, 533 00:30:36,000 --> 00:30:38,160 you have no idea. Are you guys hipped to the 534 00:30:38,160 --> 00:30:41,400 bullshit yet and again not even my own words. These 535 00:30:41,400 --> 00:30:46,640 people are sinking themselves with their own bullshit. Question but 536 00:30:47,000 --> 00:30:50,000 you have not particular recollection of a meeting with him 537 00:30:50,039 --> 00:30:53,880 on Epstein and the Epstein matter. Answer, I don't question 538 00:30:53,960 --> 00:30:57,599 at this time. Answer, And let me note I think 539 00:30:57,680 --> 00:31:00,680 most of the correspondents was from other attorneys, not him. 540 00:31:01,039 --> 00:31:04,799 And so yeah, another lie. There's a ton of emails 541 00:31:04,799 --> 00:31:09,920 from Roy Black and to Roy Black. Question all right, 542 00:31:09,960 --> 00:31:14,119 are you okay? Do you want to take a short break? Answer? 543 00:31:14,640 --> 00:31:18,920 Let's what time is it? Oh? Eleven? Question five minutes? Answer, yeah, 544 00:31:19,000 --> 00:31:20,799 So they take a five minute break, then they come 545 00:31:20,839 --> 00:31:23,839 back all right, back on the record at eleven twelve. 546 00:31:24,160 --> 00:31:26,960 Having broken at eleven, mister Acosto, we're going to move 547 00:31:26,960 --> 00:31:29,920 on in the timeframe. I mentioned a moment ago May 548 00:31:29,960 --> 00:31:33,440 of two thousand and seven when redacted submitted her prosecution 549 00:31:33,559 --> 00:31:36,880 memo of more than eighty pages and her proposed indictment, 550 00:31:37,200 --> 00:31:40,400 her initial proposed indictment, which was more than fifty pages. 551 00:31:41,160 --> 00:31:46,720 She submitted that by transmittal memo to her entire chain redacted, redacted, redacted, redacted, 552 00:31:46,720 --> 00:31:50,319 and redacted, and you was that a typical way for 553 00:31:50,359 --> 00:31:54,720 an indictment? And proposed prosecution the memo to come. Answer 554 00:31:54,759 --> 00:31:57,599 to my recollection, it was not, and I don't recall 555 00:31:57,640 --> 00:32:01,480 that happening in other cases. I'm trying. I'm hesitating just 556 00:32:01,519 --> 00:32:04,720 because I'm trying to think through if there's I don't 557 00:32:04,720 --> 00:32:08,480 have any recollection of it happening in another case. Question 558 00:32:08,759 --> 00:32:10,759 why do you think it happened in this case and 559 00:32:10,839 --> 00:32:14,359 who caused it to happen? Answer? I don't know. I 560 00:32:14,440 --> 00:32:18,960 don't know. Question all right? All right, So when you 561 00:32:19,240 --> 00:32:20,920 before you saw it, I don't know if you even 562 00:32:20,960 --> 00:32:24,200 knew about it. By reference to Exhibit six, you learned 563 00:32:24,279 --> 00:32:27,200 essentially from redacted that the FBI was planning to do 564 00:32:27,240 --> 00:32:31,279 a press conference two weeks after that, and Redacted told redacted, 565 00:32:31,640 --> 00:32:35,319 this office has not approved the indictment. Therefore, please do 566 00:32:35,359 --> 00:32:37,839 not commit us to anything in this time. Were you 567 00:32:37,920 --> 00:32:40,559 eventually in that email chain? And did it get to 568 00:32:40,599 --> 00:32:44,039 you apparently by blind carbon because there is no indication 569 00:32:44,119 --> 00:32:48,079 you actually get it. Answer right, question, but you advise 570 00:32:48,240 --> 00:32:51,920 Alicia Valley, who I think was your press person that 571 00:32:53,200 --> 00:32:56,680 redacted hasn't even finished recommendation to redact it. I e. 572 00:32:56,880 --> 00:32:59,039 We are a long way off. So did you have 573 00:32:59,119 --> 00:33:02,119 any idea why the FBI was planning a press conference 574 00:33:02,160 --> 00:33:06,160 on Epstein. Answer, I don't know if I did, I 575 00:33:06,160 --> 00:33:09,599 don't recall if I did. Question how typical was it 576 00:33:09,640 --> 00:33:11,920 for the FBI to plan a press conference on an 577 00:33:11,920 --> 00:33:14,440 indicted on a case that was being indicted at the 578 00:33:14,440 --> 00:33:18,079 time of an indictment or arrest without coordinating with you 579 00:33:18,559 --> 00:33:24,200 and your office? Answer under redacted, Highly atypical. Question was 580 00:33:24,240 --> 00:33:27,000 he the sack at the time? Answer? He was a sack. 581 00:33:27,319 --> 00:33:29,559 He was a sack. I know he was the sack 582 00:33:29,599 --> 00:33:32,480 at the time as of September, and I'm almost certain 583 00:33:32,480 --> 00:33:35,640 that he was a sack at the time. Question all right, 584 00:33:35,839 --> 00:33:37,960 and when you said that we are a long way 585 00:33:38,000 --> 00:33:41,839 off and redacted hasn't even finished a recommendation to redacted, 586 00:33:42,720 --> 00:33:44,720 do you know whether you had any idea what she 587 00:33:44,839 --> 00:33:47,920 was actually submitted in her prosecution memo and that she 588 00:33:48,000 --> 00:33:52,319 made a recommendation to redacted? Answer? I can't recollect, but 589 00:33:52,519 --> 00:33:56,079 I'll take my words as reflective of If I say 590 00:33:56,359 --> 00:33:59,319 she hasn't finished her recommendation, then I assume she hasn't 591 00:33:59,319 --> 00:34:04,079 finished her recommendation. Question does that mean, as you look 592 00:34:04,119 --> 00:34:06,559 at your own words, does that suggest to you that 593 00:34:06,640 --> 00:34:09,760 you were unaware as of that moment that she actually 594 00:34:09,840 --> 00:34:13,480 submitted her prosecution memo. Answer that suggests that I would 595 00:34:13,480 --> 00:34:16,480 not have been aware that she submitted it, if you know, 596 00:34:16,639 --> 00:34:19,119 because it sounds like I'm saying she hasn't even submitted 597 00:34:19,280 --> 00:34:23,920 her memo. Question all right, answer, we're a long way off. 598 00:34:24,159 --> 00:34:28,480 But again this is based on practice, not recollection. Question 599 00:34:28,679 --> 00:34:30,320 all right, And when you said that you're a long 600 00:34:30,360 --> 00:34:33,559 way off, did that reflect if you recall an assessment 601 00:34:33,800 --> 00:34:36,920 of the length of time to get a prosecution memo, 602 00:34:37,159 --> 00:34:41,480 a recommendation, and an assessment of that or your expectation 603 00:34:41,880 --> 00:34:45,000 that even when you saw a prosecution memo and an indictment, 604 00:34:45,239 --> 00:34:48,880 it would be a long process before it was approved. Answer, 605 00:34:49,000 --> 00:34:51,360 so I would assume, And again this is just based 606 00:34:51,400 --> 00:34:54,119 on speculating from the way that I write that, I'm 607 00:34:54,119 --> 00:34:58,360 thinking she hasn't submitted her recommendation to redacted and redacted 608 00:34:58,719 --> 00:35:02,199 needs to review it. He may you know, he'd probably 609 00:35:02,239 --> 00:35:04,920 want to talk to her say it needs to be scrubbed. 610 00:35:04,920 --> 00:35:07,039 You know, this could be this isn't happening next week, 611 00:35:07,079 --> 00:35:10,639 et cetera. Question all right, do you have any reason 612 00:35:10,679 --> 00:35:13,239 to believe that whatever that process is, that you were 613 00:35:13,239 --> 00:35:16,760 describing would be any different in particular measure in this 614 00:35:16,840 --> 00:35:21,440 case from an ordinary complex case. Answer. So, from my language, 615 00:35:21,519 --> 00:35:24,199 I would take it that it's the same process, but 616 00:35:24,559 --> 00:35:27,800 that there is a process and the process hasn't yet 617 00:35:27,840 --> 00:35:32,880 been followed. Question all right, okay, answer so it would 618 00:35:32,920 --> 00:35:36,639 be the typical process in a typical complex case. Question 619 00:35:36,719 --> 00:35:39,079 all right, and is it fair to characterize this as 620 00:35:39,159 --> 00:35:44,239 a relatively complex case given the legal issue? Answer? I 621 00:35:44,239 --> 00:35:46,760 think it is. Yes. All right, folks. We're going to 622 00:35:46,800 --> 00:35:48,800 wrap up right here, and in the next episode, we're 623 00:35:48,800 --> 00:35:51,400 going to pick up where we left off. All of 624 00:35:51,400 --> 00:35:54,039 the information that goes with this episode can be found 625 00:35:54,440 --> 00:35:55,599 in the description box.