1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:02,879
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the

2
00:00:02,879 --> 00:00:05,960
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to dive right

3
00:00:06,040 --> 00:00:12,640
back in to the Alex Acosta interview with the OIG Inspectors. Question, Okay,

4
00:00:13,160 --> 00:00:15,800
as you said about addressing twenty two dot five to five,

5
00:00:16,120 --> 00:00:19,640
you consulted with redacted? Do you recall that answer? I

6
00:00:19,719 --> 00:00:23,519
recall consultations. I don't recall that it was specifically with redacted.

7
00:00:24,079 --> 00:00:28,600
But question did you know her answer? Yes? Question okay?

8
00:00:28,600 --> 00:00:31,559
And do you recall the nature of your interaction with her? Answer?

9
00:00:31,600 --> 00:00:35,159
I don't. I know from contemporary review of the record

10
00:00:35,359 --> 00:00:39,079
that there is an email from her. Question it's forty

11
00:00:39,079 --> 00:00:43,280
one A answer, forty one A question, And what I

12
00:00:43,320 --> 00:00:45,640
want to ask you is simply forty one A is

13
00:00:45,640 --> 00:00:48,920
an email in which you ask you note to redacted

14
00:00:49,119 --> 00:00:53,600
who was redacted one of her deputies and she oversaw CEOs.

15
00:00:53,920 --> 00:00:57,520
She Redacted mentioned to you that Redacted was looking at this,

16
00:00:57,840 --> 00:01:00,600
which is the twenty two dot five five if she

17
00:01:00,759 --> 00:01:04,719
contacts her counterpart in the Civil Division, redacted, and there's

18
00:01:04,760 --> 00:01:07,159
an email from him, which is the second page of

19
00:01:07,200 --> 00:01:10,640
this exhibit, which he copies you on. So my question

20
00:01:10,760 --> 00:01:14,000
is is this the extent of your interaction with redacted

21
00:01:14,200 --> 00:01:20,400
on this issue. Answer I twelve years after the fact,

22
00:01:20,799 --> 00:01:24,840
I don't remember. Question okay, all right. The exhibit thirty

23
00:01:24,879 --> 00:01:27,760
five there is a letter from Jay left Kowitz in

24
00:01:27,799 --> 00:01:30,799
which I'm sorry. It's an email from J. Lef Kuwitz

25
00:01:32,280 --> 00:01:35,920
answer exhibit question Exhibit thirty five to you. And this

26
00:01:36,239 --> 00:01:39,439
is substantially later, but it has a sentence that or

27
00:01:39,480 --> 00:01:42,400
a phrase that we'd like to ask you about. And

28
00:01:42,480 --> 00:01:45,040
all right. It's highlighted at the top. It says, back

29
00:01:45,079 --> 00:01:47,959
in the beginning, back at the beginning of January, when

30
00:01:48,040 --> 00:01:51,280
we both agree that there was significant irregularities with a

31
00:01:51,280 --> 00:01:55,640
deferred prosecution agreement you called a timeout. Is that accurate?

32
00:01:55,920 --> 00:01:59,799
Do you and he agree that? Answer? No question, the

33
00:02:00,120 --> 00:02:05,359
significant irregularities? Answer no question? Okay, answer, and if I could.

34
00:02:05,920 --> 00:02:09,479
There are several instances where not just to me, but

35
00:02:09,599 --> 00:02:14,360
to other people as well, Jay recharacterizes conversations question, re

36
00:02:14,479 --> 00:02:21,639
characterizes them inaccurately answer, inaccurately question or misleadingly answer or

37
00:02:21,680 --> 00:02:25,719
misleadingly question? All right? Answer. What I recall agreeing to

38
00:02:25,759 --> 00:02:27,719
at some point is there was an appeal to the

39
00:02:27,800 --> 00:02:30,520
DAG or there was an appeal in place, and I

40
00:02:30,560 --> 00:02:33,240
basically said, I think there was a letter that I

41
00:02:33,319 --> 00:02:35,879
sent saying if you want to appeal, go ahead. We're

42
00:02:35,879 --> 00:02:38,800
not concerned about this. But that doesn't mean that I

43
00:02:38,879 --> 00:02:42,159
agree that there were irregularities or that there was a

44
00:02:42,199 --> 00:02:45,280
time out on part of that department. I'm part of

45
00:02:45,319 --> 00:02:48,520
a hierarchy. If someone wants to overrule me, that's okay

46
00:02:48,560 --> 00:02:52,280
by me. Question all right, So the NPA addendum was

47
00:02:52,319 --> 00:02:54,919
worked out, and the defense team continued its sort of

48
00:02:55,000 --> 00:02:58,360
multi pronged assault in the middle of the negotiation between

49
00:02:58,400 --> 00:03:02,680
redacted and left Kuwitz about the NPA addendum, that's when

50
00:03:02,719 --> 00:03:06,560
you had the much commented on breakfast on October twelfth,

51
00:03:07,080 --> 00:03:11,000
and have stated publicly that at perfectly accurately that the

52
00:03:11,080 --> 00:03:14,919
NPA was signed and that was a done deal, and

53
00:03:15,039 --> 00:03:18,039
so this was not tied in any way to any

54
00:03:18,039 --> 00:03:22,719
effort to influence the terms of the NPA. Fair answer, Fair,

55
00:03:22,960 --> 00:03:25,719
because the way this was reported was that I negotiated

56
00:03:25,759 --> 00:03:29,960
it over breakfast. It was signed, that's really important question.

57
00:03:30,080 --> 00:03:33,159
Of course. There were, however, a number of open issues,

58
00:03:33,240 --> 00:03:35,879
right and an exhibit twenty eight, Jay lef quoits on

59
00:03:35,919 --> 00:03:39,360
page two, this is an email to you acknowledges your

60
00:03:39,400 --> 00:03:43,800
breakfast on Friday. This is dated October eighteenth, and following

61
00:03:43,879 --> 00:03:47,360
up your conversation with them about a date for Epstein's plea.

62
00:03:48,159 --> 00:03:50,360
So he notes that you said you didn't want to

63
00:03:50,400 --> 00:03:53,159
dictate a schedule to the state. So all I want

64
00:03:53,199 --> 00:03:56,120
to note is that when you had the breakfast, there

65
00:03:56,319 --> 00:03:59,680
was there were issues still open that were the subject

66
00:03:59,719 --> 00:04:02,680
of this between the defense and the US Attorney's office.

67
00:04:03,520 --> 00:04:05,639
And so I guess my question is, while that was

68
00:04:05,680 --> 00:04:08,080
a meeting, a convenience in a public place, in a

69
00:04:08,120 --> 00:04:11,199
location where you had a business later that day a speech,

70
00:04:11,240 --> 00:04:15,000
I believe optically, do you understand the public concern that

71
00:04:15,039 --> 00:04:17,759
this was sort of a one on one negotiation on

72
00:04:17,959 --> 00:04:22,959
pending issues? Answer? I understand how there can be concerned this.

73
00:04:23,160 --> 00:04:26,120
You know, it was not unusual in this case. I

74
00:04:26,199 --> 00:04:29,720
actually very intentionally waited and tried not to have one

75
00:04:29,759 --> 00:04:32,319
on one meetings. But there are other instances where I

76
00:04:32,399 --> 00:04:35,319
might from time to time have one on one conversations

77
00:04:35,360 --> 00:04:38,800
with the opposing council. I don't remember the breakfast. I

78
00:04:38,839 --> 00:04:41,959
can speculate that one of the issues was informing this

79
00:04:42,120 --> 00:04:44,560
was somewhere around this time, and I can't say with

80
00:04:44,639 --> 00:04:48,399
certainty that this was what it was. But somewhere around

81
00:04:48,399 --> 00:04:51,439
this time there are a rose allegations that redacted had

82
00:04:51,879 --> 00:04:55,439
directed the designation to a boyfriend's partner or something along

83
00:04:55,439 --> 00:04:59,040
those lines. Question, I believe it was a former law

84
00:04:59,040 --> 00:05:04,000
school classmate of her, reformer of her then boyfriend. Answer. Yeah,

85
00:05:04,079 --> 00:05:07,199
so I don't know the details or what they were,

86
00:05:07,439 --> 00:05:09,319
but I do know that there was a topic that

87
00:05:09,319 --> 00:05:12,120
they wanted to raise with me. Question did he have

88
00:05:12,199 --> 00:05:17,600
the breakfast? Answer? Honestly, I don't recall the breakfast. Question. Okay, answer,

89
00:05:18,000 --> 00:05:20,759
you asked me about one characterization of what I said

90
00:05:20,959 --> 00:05:23,639
in the record, you know, of the breakfast. I think

91
00:05:23,639 --> 00:05:26,959
I responded, or my counsel responded that they're pointing out

92
00:05:27,199 --> 00:05:31,120
that I seem fairly perturbed at how inaccurately characterized something

93
00:05:31,120 --> 00:05:33,959
that I said, and so we don't need to revisit that.

94
00:05:34,839 --> 00:05:37,360
But he gets cut off, all right. If you look

95
00:05:37,399 --> 00:05:40,560
at Exhibit twenty seven, another sort of point, just a

96
00:05:40,680 --> 00:05:44,160
kind of they get cut off with questions about breakfast,

97
00:05:44,600 --> 00:05:48,600
and they decide to keep going question. And that's exhibit

98
00:05:48,639 --> 00:05:53,040
twenty seven. It's the second email down is from redacted

99
00:05:53,079 --> 00:05:56,360
to Jay Lefkowitz. The date is October twelfth, so that's

100
00:05:56,399 --> 00:06:00,519
the same day as your breakfast. Answer right question, and

101
00:06:00,600 --> 00:06:03,040
the date of it is not I'm sorry. The time

102
00:06:03,279 --> 00:06:06,319
is nine forty eight. Your breakfast was at seven, so

103
00:06:06,519 --> 00:06:09,519
this would have been pretty shortly after your breakfast, and

104
00:06:09,639 --> 00:06:12,759
redacted writes to Jay Lefquitz with a copy to you

105
00:06:13,040 --> 00:06:15,759
and redacted, stating that he just got off the phone

106
00:06:15,759 --> 00:06:18,519
with you. That is, redacted just got off the phone

107
00:06:18,560 --> 00:06:21,360
with you, and then he furnishes or revised paragraph one,

108
00:06:21,519 --> 00:06:25,160
which suggests, I mean, I infer from that shortly after

109
00:06:25,160 --> 00:06:28,759
the breakfast, you had a phone conversation with redacted about

110
00:06:28,759 --> 00:06:31,959
a revision to this paragraph, and that was likely something

111
00:06:31,959 --> 00:06:34,600
that you talk to him about. Again, I'm not suggesting

112
00:06:34,639 --> 00:06:38,000
that this they get cut off by Acosta. Again, I

113
00:06:38,000 --> 00:06:40,279
don't recall the breakfast, so I can't say one way

114
00:06:40,360 --> 00:06:42,839
or the other. I take your point, but I don't

115
00:06:42,839 --> 00:06:47,160
recall seeing this question. All right, well it was you

116
00:06:47,160 --> 00:06:51,319
were copied on it. Okay, all right, you wanted I

117
00:06:51,480 --> 00:06:54,800
just wanted to point out Exhibit thirty answer. Can we

118
00:06:54,839 --> 00:06:57,720
back up a second. I'm not sure whether your concerns

119
00:06:57,720 --> 00:07:00,199
are so I would I would only raise the quotquestion

120
00:07:00,360 --> 00:07:03,240
where or the point where based on this and I

121
00:07:03,279 --> 00:07:06,079
don't recall, so I can't speak, but redacted as saying

122
00:07:06,199 --> 00:07:10,160
Jay suggests revision has been rejected. Here is our latest

123
00:07:10,199 --> 00:07:13,920
redacted and so too. There are multiple ways to read this.

124
00:07:14,800 --> 00:07:18,600
One is that this was raised. Another is that we're

125
00:07:18,639 --> 00:07:23,920
rejecting something that Jay had proposed, and because I was

126
00:07:24,000 --> 00:07:27,079
at the meeting with Jay, I asked that redacted not

127
00:07:27,160 --> 00:07:30,720
rejected until after I met with him. I'm speculating because

128
00:07:30,759 --> 00:07:32,920
I don't recall the topic, but it does appear that

129
00:07:32,959 --> 00:07:37,199
it says Jay suggested, revision has been rejected. Here is

130
00:07:37,240 --> 00:07:42,000
our latest redacted. All right, thank you. Question. Can we

131
00:07:42,120 --> 00:07:45,720
just go to Exhibit thirty quickly? There are some highlighted language.

132
00:07:45,800 --> 00:07:48,360
This is a letter from Lefkwitz to you on October

133
00:07:48,439 --> 00:07:51,160
twenty third, two thousand and seven, where he recounts again

134
00:07:51,399 --> 00:07:54,279
the things that happened, or his version of the October

135
00:07:54,319 --> 00:07:57,920
twelfth breakfast meeting. Question are you at that point right there?

136
00:07:57,959 --> 00:08:01,600
Exhibit thirty? Answer? Yeah, I'm there. Question Okay, So in

137
00:08:01,600 --> 00:08:04,160
the highlighted language, if you could just take a look

138
00:08:04,279 --> 00:08:08,439
at that quickly answer yes. Question. So he's recounting that

139
00:08:08,480 --> 00:08:11,920
you had assured him that the office would not intervene

140
00:08:11,920 --> 00:08:15,120
with the State Attorney's office and or contact the civil

141
00:08:15,160 --> 00:08:19,199
claimants or intervene regarding the sentence that Epstein receives pursue

142
00:08:19,240 --> 00:08:22,879
into a plea agreement. Answer yeah, Question so is he

143
00:08:22,959 --> 00:08:26,079
correct and is recounting that? Answer? Can you find that

144
00:08:26,160 --> 00:08:29,720
for me? Question? Yeah? Answer so again, I don't have

145
00:08:29,720 --> 00:08:34,279
an independent recollection. I'm looking for something. I don't have

146
00:08:34,320 --> 00:08:38,039
an independent recollection of that breakfast. But in the contemporaneous

147
00:08:38,039 --> 00:08:43,120
emails and the contemporaneous record, there is correspondence between redacted

148
00:08:43,159 --> 00:08:45,360
and I, and you all ask for this, and I

149
00:08:45,399 --> 00:08:48,879
spoke with my counsel, who then responded, and there's an

150
00:08:48,919 --> 00:08:53,200
email exchange where there's an October twentieth, This wasn't October

151
00:08:53,240 --> 00:08:56,480
twenty third email, October twenty third letter, and then there's

152
00:08:56,519 --> 00:09:00,200
a response that's drafted on October twenty fifth. I don't

153
00:09:00,200 --> 00:09:02,679
know if we can find that from redacted to Jay

154
00:09:02,879 --> 00:09:06,600
that specifically addresses the point. And then I respond, redacted

155
00:09:06,759 --> 00:09:09,320
runs that by me, and I respond, I edit the

156
00:09:09,399 --> 00:09:12,000
letter and I move it sort of emphasize like I

157
00:09:12,080 --> 00:09:15,480
make it firmer, and my edit says our office cannot

158
00:09:15,600 --> 00:09:18,679
and will not agree to this. And then my comment

159
00:09:18,759 --> 00:09:21,799
to redacted is what do you think of this rewrite?

160
00:09:21,840 --> 00:09:25,480
Is it too strong? Question? What day was that? Answer?

161
00:09:25,759 --> 00:09:27,799
That was two days after this? I don't know if

162
00:09:27,840 --> 00:09:30,720
we can find that in the chronological record. That was

163
00:09:30,759 --> 00:09:34,000
October twenty fifth. Let's just take a minute. Is that

164
00:09:34,039 --> 00:09:39,600
what you have redacted? Sorry, apparently my ability to separate

165
00:09:39,679 --> 00:09:45,000
paper is felled. Okay, sorry, go ahead, Acosta. So October

166
00:09:45,039 --> 00:09:47,840
twenty fifth, I'm writing to redacted? What do you think

167
00:09:47,879 --> 00:09:50,279
of this rewrite? Is it too strong? And it says

168
00:09:50,279 --> 00:09:53,519
Dear Jay, I'd like to take this opportunity to document

169
00:09:53,799 --> 00:09:57,159
our conversation of October twenty fourth, which clarified some of

170
00:09:57,159 --> 00:10:01,000
the representations in your October twenty third letter. I write

171
00:10:01,000 --> 00:10:04,039
in particular because you indicated that your intent in writing

172
00:10:04,039 --> 00:10:08,720
the letter was to memorialize our conversations. Our agreement is

173
00:10:08,759 --> 00:10:12,879
limited to blank blank blank dot dot dot. I specifically

174
00:10:12,960 --> 00:10:15,600
want to clarify one of the items that I believe

175
00:10:15,720 --> 00:10:19,000
was inaccurate in the October twenty third letter. Your office

176
00:10:19,000 --> 00:10:21,840
claims that this office would not intervene with the State

177
00:10:21,879 --> 00:10:24,799
Attorney's Office for regarding this matter or a contact any

178
00:10:24,879 --> 00:10:29,000
of the individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants, and

179
00:10:29,039 --> 00:10:32,159
their respective counsel in the matter, and neither your office

180
00:10:32,240 --> 00:10:36,120
nor the FBI would intervene regarding the sentence mister Epstein

181
00:10:36,159 --> 00:10:40,799
received on quoting Jay's letter. As we discussed and hopefully clarified,

182
00:10:41,080 --> 00:10:44,039
and as the US Attorney previously explained in an earlier

183
00:10:44,080 --> 00:10:47,840
conference call, such promises equate to the imposition of a

184
00:10:47,879 --> 00:10:51,360
gag order. Our office cannot and will not agree to this.

185
00:10:52,240 --> 00:10:54,240
It is the intent of this office to treat this

186
00:10:54,320 --> 00:10:57,960
matter like any other case. Thus, as is typical, we

187
00:10:58,039 --> 00:11:00,679
do not desire or intend to intervene in the State

188
00:11:00,720 --> 00:11:05,039
Attorney's office. The non prosecution agreement provides sufficient mechanisms to

189
00:11:05,080 --> 00:11:09,720
achieve the goals of the federal investigation. You should understand, however,

190
00:11:10,080 --> 00:11:13,559
that there are some communication that are typical in these matters,

191
00:11:14,080 --> 00:11:16,879
and so I go on, and so my point is

192
00:11:16,919 --> 00:11:19,879
this was pretty based on if you reviewed my emails

193
00:11:19,879 --> 00:11:22,399
and my language for me to write something up saying

194
00:11:23,039 --> 00:11:25,360
what do you think of this rewrite? Is it too strong?

195
00:11:26,279 --> 00:11:30,320
And to my edit redacted language to our office cannot

196
00:11:30,320 --> 00:11:33,000
and will not agree to this is not my agreeing

197
00:11:33,080 --> 00:11:35,919
with this characterization but my polite way of saying, this

198
00:11:36,000 --> 00:11:39,679
ain't what I said. Let me be clear again, no

199
00:11:39,840 --> 00:11:43,200
independent recollection. This is just based on inferring from the

200
00:11:43,240 --> 00:11:48,480
contemporaneous emails. Question. Okay, all right, folks, we're going to

201
00:11:48,519 --> 00:11:50,600
wrap up right here, and in the next episode dealing

202
00:11:50,639 --> 00:11:52,840
with the topic, we're going to pick up where we

203
00:11:52,960 --> 00:11:55,840
left off. All of the information that goes with this

204
00:11:55,919 --> 00:11:58,639
episode can be found in the description box.