Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, or again right back to
Alex Acosta and his interview with the OIG inspectors, turning
to exhibit to This is an email that was forwarded
to you by redacted. The original forwarded email is from
redacted copying redacted, and it essentially relates to a dust
up between redacted and redacted over the chain of command
and her workload. But in the first paragraph, she specifies
that when I first heard about the Epstein investigation, I
spoke with redacted about it. Redacted was not here. Redacted
said that she would back me up on the case.
But I knew what happened to the state prosecution and
can happen to the federal prosecution if the US Attorney's
Office isn't on board. So I spoke with redacted about
the case, and he spoke with Alex, and they gave
me the green light. So that actually appears to be
initial contact with Redacted that she's talking about prior to
the briefing with you, so way early when the case
first came in in May of two thousand and six,
do you recall being contacted or having a conversation with
redacted about the case. So early answer again, the early
recollection whenever, whenever it might have taken place, was I
was made aware of the matter. It seemed a reasonable
matter to pursue. And that's the level of detail that
I recall. Questions. So, if Redacted said back in the
day that she got from you the green light, did
you understand her to be being authorized to authorize? Maybe
too strong of a word, but answer to pursue question Yeah,
answer to someone. You know, I'm speculating here, but there's
a case and they want to know should we spend
our time on this? And the answer is that it
seems reasonable? Sure? Question? Okay, And do you recall making
that explicit to her? Answer? I don't, and it wouldn't
have been my practice to sort of make it explicit. Yeah,
go spend your time, as opposed to thank you for
letting me know. That sounds reasonable? Question? All right? Answer
and whatever you know details It looks like based on
Exhibit one, there was subsequent follow up between her and
redacted or with her and the management teams, and they said,
you know, go back work on a B and C question.
Do you know what redacted was talking about when she
referred to something happening to a federal prosecution if the
US Attorney is not on board. Had there been a
case in which you were not supportive of a particular
prosecution that was being proposed? Answer? None, None that I recall,
and I knew what had happened to the state prosecution
can happen to a federal prosecution if the US Attorney
is not on board. I don't recall any federal prosecution
that I wasn't supportive of, at least in this context.
Question what do you mean by this context? Answer? It
was my way of narrowing an answer, So I didn't
spend the time to go through every office and every
divis for the most part, as I sit here, I'm
sort of running through each office. I don't recall any
And if I could use this based on exhibit too,
I'm not sure that she's referring to a specific case
as opposed to concerns that the state prosecution started at point,
you know, with charges that require jail time and ended
up somewhere else. It may have been because management wasn't question,
but that's current reading of They get interrupted by Acosta. Yeah,
an interruption again. But this time by the person asking
the questions this rather than recollection. Answer that's my reading.
Question all right, Based on the early description you got
of the case, did you have any idea how many
victims were involved? Answer? I did not. Did you know
what the name of the case was? Was the investigation
name was? You know, cases get names? Answer so I
know based on the review of the correspondence, I may
have known that. Then I did not independently recall it.
Question that being Operation Leapier Answer correct? Question all right,
and do you know where that came from? Answer? Well,
I mean other than February twentieth, Yeah, I don't know.
Question Well, the original allegations that came in involved twenty
eight victims, and then subsequently redacted advised that she was
uncovering more victims, so there were over thirty. Question well
over thirty. Answer I don't recall knowing that. Question But
is it reasonable that the number of victims would be
one of the factors that you would have been informed
about at the time? Answer I don't know. It all
depends how detailed that briefing was. Again, as a typical matter,
early on, this is what is being done. I would
trust my ausas and my management staff to pursue it.
It wouldn't be here are all the facts associated with
the case. Just to heads up, there's a high profile
case involving a very wealthy man abusing young wa women.
A state attorney is prosecuting, but you know there's dissatisfaction.
I wanted to give you the heads up, both to
inform me but also so that I'm aware in my
interactions with other pombage officials. Question, Okay, based on whatever
information you got at the time, did you think that
there was a federal interest to be served by pursuing
a federal prosecution potentially? Answer? Yes, question and what was
that answer? So the exploitation of young women? He gets
corrected now by the investigator. Girls, He corrects himself. Girls,
the investigator, I want to be all right, Look, I
know for the sort of glossary convention that we are
using is we can use this in the interview as
girls for the victims who at the time of the
conduct were miners, and women for those who were not,
even though the girls at a later date became age
of majority. A. Costa responds, fair, question, Okay, so here
we're really talking about girls. Answer okay. Question who are
the victims? Acosta? Yeah, yeah, question okay, Acosta, girls, minor females.
I just don't sometimes that term is viewed differently. Question right, answer, So, yeah,
the exploitation of girls or minor females, and that certainly
is an important federal interest. Question well, and is the
number and the breadth of the scheme the scope of
the activity also a factor there? In other words, it
wasn't one or two women on two occasions. Answer, So,
there's several factors that probably go into what's the federal interest.
The acts, the sordidness of the acts, the number, the
likelihood or the importance of the registration was important to
my mind because that goes to future prevention, to putting
the community on notice. Question and were you aware that
the individual in this case, Epstein also at homes and
other districts that were it was an interstate activity on
his part, the interstate travel and so on to that.
Acosta's lawyer pipes in, I'm sorry, let me just we're
still in the original intake timeframe misredacted. Yes, Acosta, yeah,
again for the intake time I can I can't speak
to the details because I don't remember what the extent
of that that intake briefing was? Acosta asked, if he
can ask a question, was there was there a clear
briefing as opposed to a heads up based on the record? Question? Yes,
that redacted came to Miami to conduct a briefing of
you and they get cut off by a redacted question
her again redacted, in order to tell you about this
case and get from you a green light so that
they could proceed with it. Answer, I asked, because I
were calling an email and I don't know what the
time would have been where she's coming to Miami, And
redacted says, why don't you stop by my office? First? Question? Right?
And and I keep I would I would speculate that
why don't you stop by my office first? Is why
don't you give me a bunch of details? And then
we will walk across to the US attorney and fill
him in. And so that would have been almost a
two tiered discussion. And I don't know if that if
that timeline on that email is when you say briefing,
Acousta continues, I'm speaking just based on a review of
the record, not based on recollection here. Question all right,
so you have to be clear you have no recollection
of any specific briefing in two thousand and six. Answer,
I accept that I was made aware of the matter.
Question Okay, Answer, I can't say how or in what
context or to what degree of detail question or by
whom answer, or by whom I knew the matter. It's
easier to recollect, at least for me what I knew,
as opposed to who told me what? Question? All right?
All right? At this point did you have if you
at any point did you have any reservation about investigating
and potentially prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein a reservation stemming from his
wealth and reported standing in the community at all and influence?
Answer No, And we had prosecuted lots of influential folks
in this office. So while he had wealth, it's not
unusual ubs was in the office at the time I
mentioned several high profile Palm Beach public corruption cases. Questions,
So there was no concern about possible negative blowback in
the press or the community or even at Main Justice
if he went if he went after someone like Epstein. Answer,
there was no concern stemming from his wealth or his status.
Question what would have it stem from? Answer? At some
point I think there was concern regarding the law, and
we'll probably get into that. I alluded to that earlier
in the overview. I don't know if that would have
been developed this early on. But that's not a function
of his wealth. That's a function of the fact pattern question. Right. Okay, So,
as you mentioned petite policy concern petit policy, could you
tell tell us what your position was on the policy
as it applied in this case, as you understood it
from the beginning. Answer? So the policy you know on
its face doesn't specifically apply. Based on exhibit one, I'm
now inferring, not recalling, it looks like either redacted on
our own or redacted as for a or mister redacted
as for a petite policy waiverm memo to be prepared
in part on the assumption that the state prosecution may
or may not have gone for it. I don't know,
but I do recall that early on this was unusual
because it had been had been arrested or arraigned. It
was going forward on the part of the state. And
so here's the big bad federal government stepping in and
on sovereign you know, state, saying you're not doing enough
and to my mind, when you know, the whole idea
of the petit policy is to recognize that the estate
has you know, has independent entity, and that we should
presume that what we're doing is correct even if we
don't like the outcome, except in the most unusual of
circumstances question and what kinds of Well, so the petit
policy exists because there's a recognition that there are cases
that are appropriately pursued. I mean, you are the head
of the Civil Rights Division, after all. Answer correct, Which
is why I say, except in the most appropriate of
circumstance question right, answer. But let me add that, based
on this I was comfortable, you know, saying let's go
forward because the lack of jail time, you know, to
use to use petit policy language, a plea that did
not include jail time or registration would seem like a
manifest injustice. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up
this episode right here, and in the next episode dealing
with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off.
All the information that goes with this episode can be
found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome
to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
We're going to get right back to the alex Acosta
interview with the OIG investigators. Question, all right, so did
you have any doubt that you'd get a waiver if
you applied for one? Answer? So I'm now speculating. I
don't recall, but I'm not sure I would have said,
is there a doubt that I'd get a waiver? As
opposed to is this something I feel comfortable doing or not? Question?
And this being the prosecution or this being the applying
for a waiver? Answer applying for a waiver. And so
you know, either Main Justice gives it or doesn't give it,
that doesn't mean you don't apply for it if you
think that it's the right thing to do. So for example,
in the UBS case, which was one of our big
tax you know, prosecutions, we asked for a Bank of
Nova Scotia authorization to the Bank of Nova Scotia, and
I didn't think Maine Justice would, you know. I push
really hard and I got into the weeds in that
case for that purpose, but I still thought, let's go
for it, and we did and Main Justice didn't give
into it. And that's okay, That's how it works. Question. Okay,
So they denied that request. Answer, they denied that request.
And I say that as an example as a typical matter.
I don't think that's what Main Justice is going to say.
As opposed to how should we approach this matter? Question?
I don't understand about what you mean by how should
we approach this matter? Answer? So, honestly, how do I
explain this? So I think there's a difference in saying,
let me predict how Maine Justice will come out and
follow that prediction, versus folks, what do you all think? Okay,
if we're comfortable with this, let's write it up and
let's see what Main Justice does. One is trying to
predict what folks in this building are going to think.
Another one is trying to predict another one is just saying,
what do we do in Miami? What do we think?
And let Main Justice figure it out? Question? In which
is the approach you typically took? Answer? And my point
is the approach that I typically took is what do
we think? And let Maine Justice give it a thumbs
up or a thumbs down? Question? All right? And in
this case, did you do that with regard to the
batite policy? Answer? So, in this case, we didn't get
that far in that we didn't have to submit to DOJ,
but we were approaching it not based on what main
justice was going to think. But do we feel is
this the right outcome in this office? Question? So, as
I understand, the bottom line is that you didn't. As
I hear you, I believe you're saying that you didn't
stand down or in any way sees your limit pursuing
this case on batite policy grounds. Answer, So we went
forward with the matter although there were petit policy concerns
in the background. So you're setting this up as a
binary as a did was it as a binary? You
did not limit yourself on petite policy grounds? And I'm
pushing back a little bit because I don't think that
it's part as opposed to when you look at the case,
there are all sorts of factors, and it's a factor
in you know, how you think of a matter going forward?
Question if you had those petite policy concerns, you or
your members or staff? Answer? I would say a combination
of me and my management staff. Question who answer, I
can't recreate gets cut off by the person asking the questions?
But who are you dealing with on this case? Answer?
Primarily it would be my first assistant and criminal chief.
As I typically so there is, as you know, to
sort of put it in main justice terms, you know,
a line attorney and a deputy section chief, and a
DAG and an AAG, and the AAG usually deals with
the section chief or the DAG. And so I was
dealing with my first assistant and my crim chief. Question right,
and they were in Miami. Answer and they were in Miami.
Question and by the way, redacted first line supervisor was redacted?
Answer correct? Question. Do you know why she was not
actively participating in the chain of command? Answer? I noticed
that correspondence, and I couldn't speak to that question all right,
But it goes to the point that if you look
at the she reported to or redacted, who are reported
to redacted? Who are reported or redacted, who are reported
to redacted? And so, as a typical matter, I tried
to empower my first assistant and my criminal chief and
my office heads and work through them, not bypass them.
Question in this particular case, with regard either to petite
policy or any other aspect, was there anyone other than
the group of five, if you will, in that chain
from you down to adacted through redacted and redacted that
you were dealing with. Answer I can't recall. I can say,
as a general matter, it would not be unusual for
me to walk down walk down the hall and talk
to someone that I trust and say, hey, I've got
this fact pattern. What do you think? Question? Do you
recall ever doing that in connection with this case? Answer?
I don't recall these specific briefings or who I talk to.
I'm just saying as a general that there are folks
on the eighth floor that were in management that I
would often just walk down the hall. Question, but do
you recall doing that in this case? Answer? I don't recall.
Question Okay, So we shared with you in Exhibit three
a pretty lively exchange between redacted and redacted. We have
no reason to believe you saw this before, but it
makes some representations about you, and that's why we brought
it to your attention. Question or answer? Okay, question do
you recall this EML ex change? Answer? I don't recall
the email ex change. Question I mean, didn't you see it? Then?
Do you recall having read it before today? Answer? I
recall reviewing it. Yes. Question all right, okay, So starting
from the end redacted using redacted to BlackBerry, which is
a little confusing to begin with, notifies redacted that a
particular conversation he had with one of the defense attorneys.
At this point, what I want to do is draw
your attention to the comment and his response. And we're
looking at page three. So in the third paragraph, it
was made clear to you by the US Attorney and
the first assistant from the time when you were first
authorized to investigate mister Epstein that the office had concerns
about taking the case because of batite policy and a
number of legal issues. And then later he says that
you were never given authority or authorization by anyone to
seek an indictment in the case. And then on the
first page, redacted presents her version of that original contact
with you, meeting with you at the bottom of the page.
Halfway through the last paragraph, she says, my recollection of
the original meeting with Alex and redacted is quite different
than your summary. In that meeting, I summarized the case
and the state Attorney's office handling of it. I acknowledged
that we needed to do work to collect the evidence
establishing a federal nexus, and I noted the time in
month that I'm sorry. I noted the time and money
that would be required for an investigation. I said, I
was willing to invest time, and the FBI was willing
to invest the money, but I didn't want to get
to the end of it, to the end and then
have the office be intimidated by the high powered lawyers.
I was assured that would not happen. Can you tell
us which version of that initial version is correct? Answer? So, again,
I don't remember the initial briefing, so I can't tell
you which version is correct. I would also say that
it's possible neither version is correct and that there's a
little bit of truth. Now I'm just speculating that there's
a little bit of truth in either one, because it's
certainly possible to say, I hear you righteous case, go
forward and investigate work on the federal nexus, which is
what Exhibit three is saying, go work on the federal
nexus and find evidence for the federal nexus. But we
have concerns about petite policy and legal matters, so there's
a lot of work to be done. Question So what
kind of direction does that amount to for the line AUSA?
What's her job? Then? Answer? So the job would then
be a go back and investigate, develop facts and report
back question and if she developed enough facts and support
of law to present reposed prosecution. Answer right, and so
a lot of times in this he said, she said,
there's a little bit of truth on both sides of
the discussion. I'm just saying, as a general matter, your
questions are sometimes either or and sometimes it can be
a combination of both. Answer, all right, but in fact
you don't recall. Answer. I'm speculating, question, all right, is
there anything in either of those that two accounts, two
versions that you didn't say happened, couldn't happen? Answer? I can't,
because I don't recall. I can't speak to that. I
would speculate that there's probably a little bit of truth
on both sides that if you read it closely, you'll
see that redacted acknowledges the need to work on a
federal nexus. So that goes to you know where or
mister redacted. I'm sorry, I'm using first names. Question. It's
all right question. This is an informal interview. Answer. I'm
going to just start using first names. I don't mean
that disrespectfully. Where you know redacted says you know because
of petit policy and legal issues, and Redacted is acknowledging
the legal issue because she's saying that they needed work
to do to collect the evidence, establishing the federal nexus. Question.
All right, Back in two thousand and six, in this
exhibit number one, Redacted tells you in his email that
the indictment target date is August twenty fifth, two thousand
and six, In other words, very shortly thereafter, within a
month or so. Do you know why the line ausa
Redacted was keen on getting the federal case against Epstein
brought on a fairly on a quick basis answer. So
I can't speak to that, and I can I can
ask based on your record, was that the state indictment
target date answer? Epstein had already been indicted and arraigned
on the indictment, So that's federal question. That's talking about
a federal indictment answer. All right. The point is early
on the investigative team, the FBI and Redacted were hot
to trot to get this case moving from a federal standpoint.
That may well have been quite unrealistic giving all the
issues that we've been discussing. But the question is, do
you know why there was some urgency. Answer, I haven't
the slightest idea. When was it initially brought to the office? Question?
It was brought to the office in May of two
thousand and six. Answer. That would be a really really
fast timeline question, right, So the question is aspirational though
it may have been there was hope to get it
done quickly. So the question is can you think of
factors that would have led a prosecutor to a want
to pursue this quickly? Answer? I don't recall. I can
speculate that redacted was very hard charging and wanted to
do a lot. Question what was your experience of her? Answer?
So based on this, I see you know so exhibit
too he gets interrupted? Excuse me? Would but just from
your memory, is that your recollection of how redacted operated
hard charging? Answer? Yeah, I'd say so. A lot of
really good prosecutors are hard charging. That's part of the
job description. Question Okay, did so in the child sex
offender context? Are you familiar with the belief on the
part of the people who do that kind of case,
as did it redacted and redacted and others in your
office that those offenders typically don't stop offending even after
somebody's onto them, so that there was a concern that
he that in this case, Jeffrey Epstein might be continuing
to offend and therefore getting them off the streets was
a priority. Answer. I have heard that discussed recently in
the media. I don't recollect that back in well, part
of the discussion back in two thousand and six. All right, folks,
we're gonna wrap up right here, and then next episode
dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where
we left off. All of the information that goes with
this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
off with the alex Acosta interview with the OIG inspectors.
Question do you recall that, and this is just do
you recall that she periodically would give you in that
early period of two thousand and six updates written updates? Answer?
I don't. Question. Do you think that it was appropriate
for a line USA to be shooting emails updating a
case that was under investigation directly to you and your
first assistant? Answer? It was unusual, and so did I
think of Look, I can't reconstruct what I would have thought,
but you know you're asking not just what did I know,
but what I would have thought twelve years ago. But
I can say, based on the general practice, it would
have been unusual. And my best guess as to how
I would have reacted would have been, Hey, redacted, this
is unusual. Is the chain being fully informed? Are feathers
being ruffled? Figure it out? Because you know you asked
me early on to characterize Redacted's qualities. I think one
of the things that I have said is that you
was very good at smoothing things over and sort of
the interaction because he was respected, And so I might say,
that's kind of unusual. Go figure it out. Question, but
you wouldn't necessarily jump on that chain yourself and be
in direct communication. Answer. I tended not to question, would
she have sent this to you something unusual if she
thought that this was a case that you wanted to
be involved in? Answer? Even in those I tried to be,
as general matter, fairly sensitive to the chain, because I
had found that if you start jumping the chain too much,
even if you become informed, managers feel, you know, out
of the loop, and that's not conducive to sort of
allowing them to do their job of supervising. It's a
big enough office. You have to empower your folks to
do their jobs. Question So the concern on your part
would not be that she was communicating directly to you,
but that as long as all of the chain was
informed as well. Answer yeah, I mean if you are redacted,
or you know, if you're redacted, or you know, you
don't want to talk to the line attorney before the
line attorney talks to your boss, and so it's not
just informed, but it's respecting your supervisor. And it's a
difficult balance because often really good aussays are also the ones,
you know, that just want to get things done. Question
did you have any reason to believe during this investigative
phase that redacted was not pursuing this case this investigation
adequately appropriately and fully? Answer No, I did not. Question
did you feel that she did not have appropriate oversight?
Answer not to my recollection. Question Okay, did you feel
that she had any resource problems? That is, did she have,
as far as you no sufficient resources available to pursue
her investigation? Answer to my recollection, Yes, I noted her early.
You know, I noted more recently the email where you
know that was shared with me by redacted about resource concerns,
and I would just note that I would allow the
management chain to figure that out. Question all right, did
you at any point consider, based on what you then knew,
expanding the scope of the investigation. Did you ever suggest
or propose that, instead of simply looking at Epstein's conduct
in West Palm Beach, this will be the girls that
the federal authorities could use their resources to look at
other aspects of Epstein's activity. Answer, so, I think it's
important to take a step back. And I was aware
of any number of cases going on in the office,
and based on what that stage of case was at,
I would get more involved. For a time, it wasn't
my practice to direct a usays and how they should
investigate or what the scope of a case investigation should be.
The Miami office, before I got there and after I left,
had a reputation for knowing their stuff. It's a large office,
it's got good people. I would assume that the ausas
and their management would follow their natural leads. Question all right,
where you will wear that during this period? And by
this period, I'm talking about the investigative period from the
time that the case came in in mid two thousand
and six up until May one, when Redacted put forth
her prosecution memo and proposed indictment. During the sort of
ten month period or almost a year, where you will
wear that defense Council for Epstein were reaching out or
Redacted and Redacted to pitch their view of how the
case should proceed. Answer, So, I don't have a specific
recollection of who reached out at what time. I would
assume as a general matter that Defense Council Defense Council
were clearly involved before the case came to the office,
and so I would assume that Defense Council would remain
involved while the office was investigating. I say that not
based on independent recollection. But why would they stop being involved? Question?
And is it your experience as a US attorney that
it was common or uncommon for defense counsel to approach
the line prosecutor and supervisor to make whatever pitch they
want with respect to a prosecution Answer fairly common question,
all right? And was it also common for those approaches
to be entertained? In other words, for the line a
USA and supervisor to meet with defense counsel, and did
you view that as appropriate? Answer? As a general matter,
it was typical. It happened before I got there, and
it's probably happening now. Question, And you view it as
an appropriate part of the process. Do you answer? I
think a usays need to have discretion to meet with
defense counsel, and defense counsel certainly should be able to
present perspectives. Question. There's an outlook. This is Exhibit four,
and this is something it's really sort of a point
of information here. This is an outlook that shows you
and redacted and redacted had a schedule a meeting with
Roy Black. Question. Roy Black a prominent attorney, a local
criminal defense attorney at the time in the Miami area.
This was a meeting scheduled in your office for the
twenty third of February two thousand and seven. Do you
have any he was he at the time was one
of Epstein's attorneys. Do you have any idea whether that
this meeting related to Epstein or some other case? Answer?
I don't. I noticed that. I don't know whether it
was this or another matter. Oh, I'm sure, mister Acosta,
you have no idea. Are you guys hipped to the
bullshit yet and again not even my own words. These
people are sinking themselves with their own bullshit. Question but
you have not particular recollection of a meeting with him
on Epstein and the Epstein matter. Answer, I don't question
at this time. Answer, And let me note I think
most of the correspondents was from other attorneys, not him.
And so yeah, another lie. There's a ton of emails
from Roy Black and to Roy Black. Question all right,
are you okay? Do you want to take a short break? Answer?
Let's what time is it? Oh? Eleven? Question five minutes? Answer, yeah,
So they take a five minute break, then they come
back all right, back on the record at eleven twelve.
Having broken at eleven, mister Acosto, we're going to move
on in the timeframe. I mentioned a moment ago May
of two thousand and seven when redacted submitted her prosecution
memo of more than eighty pages and her proposed indictment,
her initial proposed indictment, which was more than fifty pages.
She submitted that by transmittal memo to her entire chain redacted, redacted, redacted, redacted,
and redacted, and you was that a typical way for
an indictment? And proposed prosecution the memo to come. Answer
to my recollection, it was not, and I don't recall
that happening in other cases. I'm trying. I'm hesitating just
because I'm trying to think through if there's I don't
have any recollection of it happening in another case. Question
why do you think it happened in this case and
who caused it to happen? Answer? I don't know. I
don't know. Question all right? All right, So when you
before you saw it, I don't know if you even
knew about it. By reference to Exhibit six, you learned
essentially from redacted that the FBI was planning to do
a press conference two weeks after that, and Redacted told redacted,
this office has not approved the indictment. Therefore, please do
not commit us to anything in this time. Were you
eventually in that email chain? And did it get to
you apparently by blind carbon because there is no indication
you actually get it. Answer right, question, but you advise
Alicia Valley, who I think was your press person that
redacted hasn't even finished recommendation to redact it. I e.
We are a long way off. So did you have
any idea why the FBI was planning a press conference
on Epstein. Answer, I don't know if I did, I
don't recall if I did. Question how typical was it
for the FBI to plan a press conference on an
indicted on a case that was being indicted at the
time of an indictment or arrest without coordinating with you
and your office? Answer under redacted, Highly atypical. Question was
he the sack at the time? Answer? He was a sack.
He was a sack. I know he was the sack
at the time as of September, and I'm almost certain
that he was a sack at the time. Question all right,
and when you said that we are a long way
off and redacted hasn't even finished a recommendation to redacted,
do you know whether you had any idea what she
was actually submitted in her prosecution memo and that she
made a recommendation to redacted? Answer? I can't recollect, but
I'll take my words as reflective of If I say
she hasn't finished her recommendation, then I assume she hasn't
finished her recommendation. Question does that mean, as you look
at your own words, does that suggest to you that
you were unaware as of that moment that she actually
submitted her prosecution memo. Answer that suggests that I would
not have been aware that she submitted it, if you know,
because it sounds like I'm saying she hasn't even submitted
her memo. Question all right, answer, we're a long way off.
But again this is based on practice, not recollection. Question
all right, And when you said that you're a long
way off, did that reflect if you recall an assessment
of the length of time to get a prosecution memo,
a recommendation, and an assessment of that or your expectation
that even when you saw a prosecution memo and an indictment,
it would be a long process before it was approved. Answer,
so I would assume, And again this is just based
on speculating from the way that I write that, I'm
thinking she hasn't submitted her recommendation to redacted and redacted
needs to review it. He may you know, he'd probably
want to talk to her say it needs to be scrubbed.
You know, this could be this isn't happening next week,
et cetera. Question all right, do you have any reason
to believe that whatever that process is, that you were
describing would be any different in particular measure in this
case from an ordinary complex case. Answer. So, from my language,
I would take it that it's the same process, but
that there is a process and the process hasn't yet
been followed. Question all right, okay, answer so it would
be the typical process in a typical complex case. Question
all right, and is it fair to characterize this as
a relatively complex case given the legal issue? Answer? I
think it is. Yes. All right, folks. We're going to
wrap up right here, and in the next episode, we're
going to pick up where we left off. All of
the information that goes with this episode can be found
in the description box.