Speaker 1: 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 OIG interview. Question.
This is where there is a mention of computer equipment.
There is a provision later in that in that same
paragraph that provides that the federal grand jury investigation will
be suspended and all pending federal grand jury subpoenas will
be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates
any term of this agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to
withdraw his pending motion to intervene and quash certain grand
jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically
evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury
subpoenas that have been issued and including certain computer equipment
in violate, until all the terms of the agreement have
been satisfied. Do you view that disagreement to suspect at
least certain aspects of the federal investigation to have been
an appropriate concession? Answer? You know, again, my focus was
on certain points. I would have assumed reading this that
this was thought through. Question. Okay, question, all right, there
is what's been criticized as a confidentiality provision. Answer, yes,
question right, and that's on the same page, page five,
paragraph number thirteen, which provides that the parties anticipate that
this agreement will not be made part of any public record,
and then there is an exception for a foyer or
a compulsory process from a court in which the government
will provide notice to epstein. That seems to be limited
to the placing of this document on the public record
right as opposed to sharing it or disclosing it for
whatever purpose to individuals. Is that a distinction that makes sense? Answer,
that's a fair distinction. Upon reading this, I'm not sure
that it's a distinction that was I mean, I'm basing
that on my reading currently and not as a recollection question.
And in fact, the party's both Defense Council and even
the US Attorney's Office took the position that this should
have never been or seen the light of day, even
to be disclosed to you know, victims or other parties
and interest except for filing it or accept for sharing
it on a limited basis with law enforcement. I think
there were emails that talk about if we share it,
we'll tell them not to disclose it. Answer mm hmmm.
Question is that the sort of overstating what this paragraph requires? Answer? Possibly,
I can, you know, we can get into that and
we can discuss it. I would need to understand a
little bit more. I know there was litigation around disclosure
on this, and I need to understand much more the
position that we took and the why before commenting on them. Question.
In Exhibit twenty three, there's a discussion of whether the
NPA is after it has been signed, could be revealed,
the existence of it could be revealed to the police
chief or even the FBI or the girls and redacted
in the middle of the page one or two thirds
of the way down on page one of Exhibit twenty
three proposes that if we tell anybody about the NPA,
you just asked that the recipient of that information not
disclose it. And you then at the top of the
page to Laurie and to redacted and redacted who is
going to take over Lurie's position as a managing a
USA and West Palm Beach should talk with you about
it on Wednesday. You should talk about who will tell
and how much do you remember that conversation? Answer? I
don't I know that there were several concerns about leaks
and media, and I imagine that we had a conversation
quite literally about who to tell and how much? Question
and how did you feel that this at the time,
as best as you recall, did you feel that this
clause bound you to not tell anyone? Answer? So my
recollection of the clause, whether it was whether it was
this clause or whether there was a discussion, I was
aware of this provision, and my recollection of this provision
is at some point it was raised as something that
was the subject of negotiation. Question okay, answer that the
office policy was that these types of deferred prosecution agreement
is not just made part of the public record. Therefore,
this is not a substantial concession because in the typical
course of business, this would not be part of the
public record. Question and that's because its non prosecution as
opposed agreement as opposed to a deferred prosecution agreement. Answer, So,
deferred prosecution is not you know, if the non prosecution
is not typically part of the public record, the deferred prosecution,
it makes sense that it follows the same. And so
it seemed that it seemed a concession. I understand how
was perceived publicly after the fact. At the time, it
seemed that we weren't giving up much because the typical
policy is this is not part of the public record,
and individuals need to file a FOYA. And so by
saying it's not part of the public record and individuals
need to follow FOYA, if that is viewed as a concession,
it really isn't question. So how would I mean? Did
is it? Is it understandable that Epstein would not want
this document to see the light of day because it
describes the existence and nature and scope of the federal
investigation and also his concession to liability under twenty two
to fifty five answer, it's understandable. It was also my
impression at the time that it would see the light
of day because if victims have twenty two to fifty
five the ability to get twenty two to fifty five,
they obviously have to hear about it from somewhere, and
given the press interest, eventually this would be FOYA. And
so from my thinking at the time, rightly or wrongly,
this is a concession that's basically saying we'll follow off
his policy and we're likely going to be foyed on
this anyhow, and it can play out in the FOYA
and so is this really a concession question? All right?
Another piece of the agreement is something that is absent
and that sort of typical language that you find, I
think in pretty much any federal plea agreement, which is
this agreement only the defendant understands that this agreement only
binds the US Attorney's office for whatever district he or
she is in answer right, you know? And that and
that truly what you would call global dispositions are unusual
answer right for the federal government answer and I would note,
you know, and this is after the fact that it
does say this district agrees question okay, understood, And it's
also has you as a party, not the Department of
Justice answer right, question. But it does omit that standard language.
And you know whether that was done sort of by
mistake or consciously answer. I can't speak to that question,
all right. Another piece is phrasing that you injected when
you addressed the first where was it was towards the
end where you talked about injecting the best effort language
answer yes, question, okay? Does it what I believe you
made clear why you did that? That is to avoid
the appearance of having the federal government be dictating anything.
But why rely on the best efforts and to what
extent is that even enforceable? Answer? So, first, let me
let me say that it was not to avoid the appearance.
It was to avoid the actual legal discovery dictating. But
so Epstein understands that he has no authority to require
to undertake discussions and to use if he did not plead,
then there was no agreement. Question No, no, no, no, no, sorry,
I don't mean to. It appears in paragraph number eleven,
Epstein shall use his best effort to enter his guilty
plea and be sentenced later than the set date. And
then in the first paragraph after numbered clause eleven, he
will use his best efforts to ensure compliance with certain
procedures and best efforts to convince the Judge of the
Florida Court to accept as binding recommendation. So best efforts
kind of become a sticking point an enforcement, didn't it,
Because what does it mean? What does best effort mean? Answer? So,
I think it's fair to say that one of the
issues that came up after this was entered into the
US Attorney's office at least from My perspective was in
a little bit of a bind because we had agreed
to this, yet he wasn't turning himself in, and so
how do we deal with that? And so that's not
a phrase that I focused on at the time. But
I understand your point. All right, I'm going to move
on from those question. Is there anything else on those
NPA clauses? Answer? Finally, let me let me just say,
you didn't ask. We had an incredibly experienced attorney in
the office assumed, rightly or wrongly, that the language had
been thought through and vetted. And you know, sitting here
twelve years later, I understand the issues that have arisen
from it, but at the time these were not issues
that were folk that we were focused on. Question, to
your knowledge, who was involved in the drafting other than
redacted and redacted on your side? Answer right, question and
LORI and you to some extent answer So I can't
say twelve years after the fact, but again, redacted, LORII,
very experienced head of the Palm Beach Office, has prosecuted
any number of cases. Question. Again, just to keep respective
and context. The final week that this was being negotiated,
redacted LORI was in Washington, and bouncing back and forth
on the weekends because he was in transition to the
front office there in the criminal division in this building.
And that's a factor in terms of being able to
give attention to some detail. Would you agree with that
it could be a factor? Answer, So, it could be
a factor. On the other hand, I'd say that Redacted
wasn't leaving the department. He is professional. He knows his stuff,
and you would expect a professional if they're reviewing a document,
whether they're on vacation, whether they're looking to move from
one part of the department to another, that you would
expect them to review it, you know, fulfilling their responsibility
to sort of focus in and make sure that that
is that it encompasses what it should. And that's not
a criticism of Redacted that saying, well, that might be
a factor. That doesn't lessen, from my perspective, reliance on
his expertise. Question understood. After the MPa was signed and
Redacted came back answer, yeah, question right about that same time,
he quite quickly identified a potential problem, and that was
about the commitment for or the agreement that the US
Attorney's Office would identify the representative for the victims. Do
you recall him raising that? Answer? I don't recall him
raising that as an issue, but I know it was
an issue. Question all right. It was an issue, and
it was one that was raised as soon as he
came back. So there was an effort which he conducted
then in Redacted's absence, to craft an NPA addendum to
address that issue. Are you aware that Redacted received a
copy of the NPA in November when ken Starr wrote
a letter to Redacted asking her to review the twenty
two to fifty five portion of it. Do you remember
the issue? Answer? I remember that the issue was appealed
to CEOs. Question. Well, it was. It was appealed initially
by the letter to redacted, raising an issue that was
new to Redacted that had not been raised with you,
and that is what led to your letter to ken
Starr on December fourth. Answer. I'll accept that timeline. Question, okay.
And at that time Redacted saw the NPA. He sent
a message to Redacted about about his view of the NPA,
and you didn't see it. But I just wanted to
name some problems that he identified with the disposition and
get your reaction. So first, he says, I'm not thrilled
about the agreement, but he acknowledges that's out of his hands.
He says, in terms of the charging and sentencing provision
he's getting, Epstein is getting a much better deal than
the average defendant. With the exception of defendants who have
done physical harm to their victims or abused very young children,
we haven't seen more egregious conduct because of its serial nature.
The area we need to be more careful about relates
to the victims. The US should seek to ensure that
the plea, which is not giving them serious jail time,
provides the best means possible to address the harm. He
calls to the victims. That generally means restitution and or therapy.
While the agreement provides facility for the victims, the irrelevant
terms still seem pretty advantageous for the defendant and not
all that helpful for the victims. They get an attorney
who will be paid by the defendant, which involves at
least some conflict of interest, or they could hire their
own attorney on a contingency basis, and they get waivers
from the defendant when his plea would facilitate their civil cases.
In any event, then they still have to sue them
to get anything. Most times with wealthy defendants we make
them agreed to restitution fund and then still provide the
victims can sue the defendant independently if they choose. We
always make them clearly admit their guilt. No nolo, please,
this is incredibly important to the victim. If I would
have taken the guid to trial unless the victims were
clearly against it, and I don't think most of them
are here. He then says to Redacted, who by this
time is working for redacted, so there is context in
which he's addressing it. Redacted specifies that Redacted wouldn't and
shouldn't address the agreement, so that the issue that was
then before Redacted put there by ken Starr was whether
the twenty two to fifty five scheme or scenario set
out and the NPA was appropriate. It appears that she
then sent that back you at the address. But as
far as commentary on the NPA, if you had been
aware of this perspective at the time you were that
you and your people were fashioning the NPA, would you
have been helpful to you in deciding how to proceed? Answer? So,
may I question, yes? Answer, Okay, I assume you've read
the whole thing, but let me just take well, I
have a few comments. First, let me say he was
part of the September meeting, and to my recollection, these perspectives,
so at least the outline of the agreement were disclosed
at the meeting, and I don't recall this type of
communication at this time. Question okay, answer. I also recall
that there was a lot of back and forth around
this restitution fund concept, and our perspective was that the
restitution fund puts the victim at a disadvantage. Because let
me try to recreate I don't recall the details, but
I recall that there was a perspective that the restitution
fund put the victims at a disadvantage. And there's some
reference to was it an Alaska case question, it's called
the redacted case witness. I'm sorry. Then the whole bunch
of redacted parts here back to Acosta. And so to
the extent that there were better ways of crafting this,
that certainly would have been been highly relevant, because to
my recollection, we were not wed to any particular way
of crafting it. The intent of twenty two to fifty
five was to come as close as possible to putting
the victims in the position they would have been had
they tried and convicted federally. And so to answer your
question is yes, answer it would have been helpful. All right, folks,
We're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next
episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna 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 dive right back in to
the alex Acosta interview with the OIG inspectors. Question, Okay,
as you said about addressing twenty two dot five to five,
you consulted with redacted? Do you recall that answer? I
recall consultations. I don't recall that it was specifically with redacted.
But question, did you know her answer? Yes? Question okay,
And do you recall the nature of your interaction with her? Answer?
I don't. I know from contemporary review of the record
that there is an email from her. Question it's forty
one A answer, forty one A question, And what I
want to ask you is simply forty one A is
an email in which you ask you note to redacted
who was redacted one of her deputies and she oversaw CEOs.
She Redacted mentioned to you that Redacted was looking at this,
which is the twenty two dot five to five. She
contacts her counterpart in the civil Division, Redacted, and there's
an email from him, which is the second page of
this exhibit, which which copies you on. So my question
is is this the extent of your interaction with redacted
on this issue? Answer? I am twelve years after the fact.
I don't remember. Question Okay, all right. The exhibit thirty
five there is a letter from Jay Lefkowitz in which
I'm sorry, it's an email from j. Lef Kuwitz answer
exhibit question Exhibit thirty five to you. And this is
substantially later, but it has a sentence that or a
phrase that we'd like to ask you about. And all right.
It's highlighted at the top. It says, back in the beginning,
back at the beginning of January, when you both agree
that there was significant irregularities with a deferred prosecution agreement,
you call the timeout. Is that accurate? Do you and
he agree that? Answer? No question? There was significant irregularities.
Answer no question, okay, answer, and if I could. There
are several instances where not just to me, but to
other people as well, Jay recharacterizes conversations question, recharacterizes them
inaccurately answer, inaccurately question or misleadingly answer or misleadingly question
all right. Answer. What I recall agreeing to at some
point is there was an appeal to the DAG or
there was an appeal in place. And I basically said,
I think there was a letter that I sent saying
if you want to appeal, go ahead. We're not concerned
about this. But that doesn't mean that I agree that
there were irregularities or that there was a time out
on part of that department, on part of a hierarchy.
If someone wants to overrule me, that's okay by me.
Question all right. So the NPA addendum was worked out,
and the defense team continued its sort of multi pronged assault.
In the middle of the negotiation between redacted and left
Kuwitz about the NPA addendum, that's when you had the
much commented on breakfast on October twelfth and have stated
public that at perfectly accurately that the NPA was signed,
and that was a done deal. And so this was
not tied in any way to any effort to influence
the terms of the NPA. Fair answer, fair, because the
way this was reported was that I negotiated it over breakfast,
it was signed, that's really important question. Of course, there
were however, a number of open issues, right And an
exhibit twenty eight Jay lef quoits on page two, this
is an email to you acknowledges your breakfast on Friday.
This is dated October eighteenth, and following up your conversation
with them about a date for Epstein's plea. So he
notes that you said you didn't want to dictate a
schedule to the state. So all I want to note
is that when you had the breakfast, there was there
were issues still open that were the subject of discussion
between the defense and the US Attorney's office. And so
I guess my question is, while that was a meeting,
a convenience in a public place in a low where
you had a business later that day, a speech, I
believe optically, do you understand the public concern that this
was sort of a one on one negotiation on pending issues? Answer?
I understand how there can be concerned this. You know,
it was not unusual in this case. I actually very
intentionally waited and tried not to have one on one meetings.
But there are other instances where I might from time
to time have one on one conversations with the opposing council.
I don't remember the breakfast. I can speculate that one
of the issues was informing this was somewhere around this time,
and I can't say with certainty that this was what
it was, but somewhere around this time there are a
rose allegations that redacted had directed the designation to her
boyfriend's partner or something along those lines. Question I believe
it was a former law school classmate of her former
of her then boyfriend. Answer. Yeah, so I don't know
the details or what they were, but I do know
that there was a topic that they wanted to raise
with me. Question did he have the breakfast? Answer? Honestly,
I don't recall the breakfast. Question Okay, answer, you asked
me about one characterization of what I said in the record,
you know of the breakfast, I think, I responded, or
my council responded that they're pointing out that I seem
fairly perturbed at how inaccurately characterized something that I said,
and so we don't need to revisit that. But he
gets cut off, all right. If you look at Exhibit
twenty seven, another sort of point, just a kind of
they get cut off with questions about breakfast and they
decide to keep going question and that's Exhibit twenty seven.
It's the second email down is from redacted to Jay Lefkowitz.
The date is October twelfth, so that's the same day
as your breakfast. Answer right question, and the date of
it is not I'm sorry. The time is nine forty eight.
Your breakfast was at seven, so this would have been
pretty shortly after your breakfast. And redacted writes to Jay
Lefquitz with a copy to you and redacted stating that
he just got off the phone with you. That is,
redacted just got off the phone with you, and then
he furnishes or revised paragraph one, which suggests, I mean,
I infer from that shortly after the breakfast, you had
a phone conversation with redacted about a revision to this paragraph,
and that was likely something that you talk to him about. Again,
I'm not suggesting that this they get cut off by Acosta. Again,
I don't recall the breakfast, so I can't say one
way or the other. I take your point, but I
don't recall seeing this question. All right, well it was
you were copied on it. Okay, all right, you wanted
I just wanted to point out Exhibit thirty answer. Can
we back up a second? I'm not sure whether your
concerns are so I would I would only raise the
question where or the point where based on this And
I don't recall, so I can't speak but redacted as
saying Jay suggests revision has been rejected. Here is our
latest redacted and so too. There are multiple ways to
read this. One is that this was raised. Another is
that we're rejecting something that Jay had proposed, and because
I was at the meeting with Jay, I asked that
redacted not rejected until after I met with him. I'm
speculating because I don't recall the topic, but it does
appear that it says Jay suggested revision has been rejected.
Here is our latest redacted. All right, thank you question.
Can we just go to Exhibit thirty quickly? There are
some highlighted language. This is a letter from Lefkwitz to
you on October twenty third, two thousand and seven, where
he recounts again the things that happened or his version
of the October twelfth breakfast meeting. Question are you at
that point right there Exhibit thirty? Answer? Yeah, I'm there.
Question Okay, So in the highlighted language, if you could
just take a look at that quickly? Answer yes. Question
So he's recounting that you had assured them that the
office would not intervene with the State Attorney's office and
or contact the civil claimants or intervene regarding the sentence
that Epstein receives pursuant to a plea agreement. Answer yeah.
Question so is he correct and is recounting that? Answer?
Can you find that for me? Question? Yeah? Answer so again,
I don't have an independent recollection. I'm looking for something.
I don't have an independent recollection of that breakfast. But
in the contemporaneous emails and the contemporaneous record, there is
correspondence between redacted and I and you all ask for this,
and I spoke with my counsel who then responded, and
there's an email exchange where there's in October twentieth, this
wasn't October twenty third email October twenty third letter, and
then there's a response that's drafted on October twenty fifth.
I don't know if we can find that from redacted
to Jay that specifically addresses the point. And then I respond,
redacted runs that by me, and I respawn, I edit
the letter, and I move it sort of emphasized, like
I make it firmer, and my edit says our office
cannot and will not agree to this. And then my
comment to redact it is, what do you think of
this rewrite? Is it too strong? Question? What day was that? Answer?
That was two days after this? I don't know if
we can find that in the chronological record that was
October twenty fifth. Let's just take a minute. Is that
what you have redacted? Sorry, apparently my ability to separate
paper is felled. Okay, sorry, go ahead, Acosta. So October
twenty fifth, I'm writing to redacted, what do you think
of this rewrite? Is it too strong? And it says,
dear Jay, I'd like to take this opportunity to document
our conversation of October twenty fourth, which clarified some of
the representations in your October twenty third letter. I write,
in particular because you indicated that your intent in writing
the letter was to memorialize our conversationsreen is limited to
blank blank blank dot dot dot. I specifically want to
clarify one of the items that I believe was inaccurate
in the October twenty third letter. Your office claims that
this office would not intervene with the State Attorney's office
for regarding this matter or a contact any of the
individual's potential witnesses or potential civil claimants and their respective
counsel in the matter, and neither your office nor the
FBI would intervene regarding the sentence mister Epstein received I
quoting Jay's letter. As we discussed and hopefully clarified, and
as the US Attorney previously explained in an earlier conference call,
such promises equate to the imposition of a gag order.
Our office cannot and will not agree to this. It
is the intent of this office to treat this matter
like any other case. Thus, as is typical, we do
not desire or intend to intervene in the State Attorney's office.
The non prosecution agreement provides sufficient mechanisms to achieve the
goals of the Federal investigation. You should understand, however, that
there are some communication that are typical in these matters,
and so I go on, and so my point is
this was pretty based on if you reviewed my emails
and my language for me to write something up saying
what do you think of this rewrite? Is it too strong?
And to my edit redacted language too Our office cannot
and will not agree to This is not my agreeing
with this characterization, but my polite way of saying this
ain't what I said. Let me be clear again, no
independent recollection. This is just based on inferring from the
contemporaneous emails. Question. Okay, all right, folks, we're gonna wrap
up right here, and then the next episode dealing with
the topic, we're gonna 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 gonna get right back to the Alex LaCosta interview
with the OIG and question. What I would like to
do is ask a couple of questions in a couple
of areas about the main justice review. Answer. Okay, question
then take a short break and then redact. It has
some questions that are CVR related, and then we have
some summary questions. Answer, okay, question is that all right? Answer? Well,
before you move on, can I address something that redacted
was getting at? But it's getting late, so I'm going
to circle back something that I thought you would bring up.
So I think something to talk about is pre agreement
and post agreement, I think are different. And one concern
that I had and I certainly shared with mister redacted,
was once it was signed. So we had the initial
issues with the case. Once the agreement was signed, we
now have an overlying issue of is there is the
agreement binding and to what extent it's binding? And so
your question was why this level of process after the
agreement was signed, and I said, I think you'll get
back to that. And I think to some extent there
are two parts to that. One is the office shouldn't
be afraid of review. We're part of the Department of Justice,
and review, whether by main Justice or now you all,
is part of the process. And so to the extent
that they want to appeal to Maine, it would be
unseemly sort of to say, don't review us, and I
don't think it would help reviewing this. But the second
part of it is we if we were to walk
away from the agreement, that not only are we litigating
the underlying criminal case, but we're litigating a civil criminal
issue on top of that, which is did the agreement bind?
And that's something that did inform the exhausting amount of
process that they received, which didn't change any of the outcome.
Question didn't bind? What answer? So if we were to
walk away, could we still prosecute question? I see answer right?
Because having signed that, we were now parties to an
agreement and that would overlay any sort of prosecution. And
so you had these collateral issues coming question. Just to
make sure that we're clear, are you saying that there
would have been difficulty in declaring a breach so that
you could then indict. Answer correct, And so we'd have
to litigate over a breach because as much as they
had collateral challenges, they are very careful in saying this
is not a breach. We would just like review. And
so one of the issues that overlaid the post the
October going forward time period is on top of this,
do we now want litigation over a breach, and so
I think that is why the post agreement time period
is different than the pre agreement time period question, but
was part of the problem. The result of the change
from here is the date that you must comply to.
You must use best efforts to comply. Answer. Possibly I
would whether it was or others or other parts of
the agreement we can talk about. But once the agreement
was signed and they do not and they start pushing
the date, there becomes a legal issue over are they
really in breach or not. I understand your perspective. I'm
just saying, you know, earlier I said that there was
a difference. You asked about the process, and I said,
from my perspective, there is a difference between the pre
agreement and the post agreement time period, and much of
that difference is informed by if we declare a unilateral breach,
how does this hold up in court? Because now there's
a signed agreement that the United States is party to. Question.
Are you saying that part of the reason or maybe
all of the reason that you continue to give accommodations
and process and delay was because of the concern that
you couldn't actually win a breach argument. Answer. I think
that was a consideration. Another part of this consideration if
a party wants to take I mean, Main Justice gave
a lot of process. It wasn't you know, it wasn't
just too redacted, but it was up to it was
up to the Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Division to
be polite, but it was up to the dag bingo.
This is what I've told you, folks, from the very beginning,
Maine Justice was the one who put this deal together.
I don't care what a Costa says, and so if
Maine Justice is going to give this degree of process,
we should be in the position of saying go forward,
as opposed to I don't think it looks positive for
the office to be viewed as fearing department review question.
But were you giving the impression to the Department of
Justice that you were the one who wanted this review
so that they felt like, well, it's not just these
defense attorneys who we can blow off. It's a United
States attorney who was asking for this review, and so
therefore we need to give the courtesy of reviewing this answer,
I don't think I asked for it, as opposed to
saying so from the very beginning they said that they're
going to take this to the Deputy Attorney General and
the Attorney General, and I said, if you want to, fine,
They just finally did. But that was not that was
not I think they raised that as early as August
or September, and so I'm not surprised that it ended
up there. I also thought it was important to not
be in the position of fearing review. I think if
you look at the contemporaneous record, there's an effort on
our part to expedite the review redacted question. But there's
a difference between have at it, go do what you
want up at Maine and getting that non opposition and
actually sending a signal in the case of the Criminal Division,
the Assistant Attorney General in the case of the Dag's office,
Mark Philippe or his assignee that you supported their review
and this appeal process. You could have said, look, we're
going to go ahead and get on with our business
if you could have not so much to posed a
review but not second, did their request for the defense
request for review or not in fact invited the reviews answer.
So I'd be curious as to the timeline I would
take issues with. I invited the reviews, And I questioned
whether did they initiate the reviews on their own? And
then I have said, have at it? Or based on
I mean, you've got more than the record than I do.
Or did I invite? I would say I did not
invite the reviews? Question, Well, bad terminology. Perhaps. Let me
ask you this, did you convey to the Criminal Division
that you wanted them to review the matter as requested
by the defense attorneys? Answer? So, from my perspective, I'm
thinking back twelve years now. The very reason that we
invited redacted to come down to Miami back in August
was a sense that it would end up here. And
so if it's going to end up here, let's bring
redacted down, let's make them part of the initial meeting.
You know. If there are some concerns, let's raise these,
let's address them, let's get them out so we don't
end up after we go forward with all of this
back in front of redacted and redacted, and it's much
better to involve Maine Justice earlier. And so I would
say I was trying, if anything, to involve Main Justice
so that we didn't end up where we were, And
it had been my expectation that October date would have
been met the collateral review. Afterwards, the collateral appeals obviously
did not go as we planned, and it was my
sense we were going to end up at Maine Justice
one way or the other. So my question is, in December,
after the December meeting that you had with the Defense
Council and they told you that they were going to
Maine Justice to the Criminal Division, did you convey the
Main Justice Criminal Division that you wanted them to conduct
the review that Defense Council were seeking. Answer? So, I
don't recall what I may or may not have conveyed.
I think my recollection was if they want a review,
that's the right. We're not as a department. We're not
in the business of telling individuals that they can't take
something to your supervisor or your superior. Whether Main Justice
takes this or not is ultimately at their discretion. Question,
would it surprise you to learn that the Criminal Division
Front office understood you to be requesting their review the
review that was sought by Defense Counsel? Answer? Would it
surprise me? Perhaps my understanding recollection is we shouldn't fear it.
If they want it, that's their right. I thought by
inviting Redacted down in the first place, that we had
at least tried to address that early on, but I
also thought that we might end up there in the
first place. Question were you aware that a decision was
made to grant the decision by your office to grant
defense counsel's request their insistence that redacted's role in the
Criminal Division review be limited to review only and that
he not be permitted, or that the Criminal Division. I'm
sorry I misspoke that because Redacted had already been involved
in essentially being a prosecutor on the case the Criminal
Division in CEO's role vis a vee, this review should
be review only, that they should be taken off the
case as a partner. Answer, so I sought emails to
that effect in the record. I don't have independent recollection
of twelve years. Question do you think you were involved
in that decision? Answer to take them off? Question yes,
answer to my recollection, I wanted them on as a partner,
and I think the contemporaneous emails from redacted can you
please come on board? Question but that was earlier before
this review process. Answer no, no, even after review process.
I think there are contemporaneous emails where we're saying, it's
important that you be a part if we go to trial.
It's important that you be part of the trial. As
I went through the record, at least I remember an
email perhaps from redacted to redacted that I'm copied on, saying, Hey,
can you reconsider it's important that you be part of
this question? Reconsider the review only limitation answer? No, reconsider
being part of the trial? Question? All right, So to
be clear, do I understand that you correct me that
you don't have any recollection one way or the other,
whether you requested the Criminal Division to conduct the review
or could it have happened? He cuts her off. So
to the extent again, I'm going back twelve years, To
the extent there is a request to it would be
in the context of this is going to Washington, We're
not fearful of this, have at it question, and you
would have conveyed that to Washington, not just the defense attorneys.
Is that correct answer? I imagine in some way? Question?
All right, Just one more point, this one. This one
was a little bit of an odd posture, however, because
you had signed the agreement and so you know, basically
a contract between parties, and particularly on mister Epstein's side,
a party who was extremely well represented. So is there
any consideration on your part instead of saying, hey, everybody's
got a right to review, knock yourself out, go to
DC as opposed to saying something like that ship is sailed,
you sign this agreement, We're going forward. You don't go forward,
you're in breach. End of story. Answer, So as counsel
are raising serious issues that go to ethics and go
to fundamental relationships between sovereigns. In this twenty two fifty
five appropriate as a matter of federal policy. Is what
we're doing in overreach, you know, is what we're doing
contrary to law? Are we extracting I'm characterizing this may
or may not be accurate. Are we extracting unduly? Are
we using criminal law to extract civil concessions in an
ethically suspect way? Those are serious issues. That isn't just
is this a good case? Those are genuine issues. I
happen to think as I recall that we were in
the right or we wouldn't have agreed to it. But
by the same token, let's assume that Main Justice ultimately disagreed.
Is that from main Justice perspective, and maybe I'm coming
at this, you know, being informed by having been at
Main Justice question mm hmm. Answer where there was talk
about can you believe what this AUSA this AUSA may
have done or may not have done without consulting that
these are serious issues. They establish precedent, you know, maybe
the DAG would have said this is not the kind
of thing we'd support, and this is wrong, and so
at the end of the day, let's move forward. But
if once the issues are raised, I don't think a
US attorney should say Main Justice should not review this.
I think we're part of the department and these are
valid issues. Maine Justice doesn't need to take months to
review this. Main Justice can expedite their review. But those
are valid issues for the Deputy and the AAG to review. Question.
But one could look at it and say, well, those
are all issues that the defense certainly knew about before
they signed that agreement, and having signed that agreement, they're
waiving all of that. That's what contracts are for. You've
got all these issues. Don't sign the contract. Answer, And
if I could, I think there's a December letter. I
don't know if it's in the exhibits, but there's a
December letter that I wrote. Maybe it's the nineteenth. The
nineteenth is you sort of ill fated NPA A dendum effort? Acosta. No,
the letter to ken Starr that I wrote, the fourth
letter to ken Starr, Acosta, I'm sorry. Question, is it
the December fourth letter? Acosta? Yeah, probably it's the December
fourth letter redacted. Yeah, it didn't have a date. Question.
All right, that's the one you wrote, Acosta. I think
you know. I'm starting on page four. I have responded
personally in some detail to your comments because I care
deeply about both the law and the integrity of the office.
I have responded personally and in detail as well, because
your letter troubled me on a number of levels. Upon
your understanding of the negotiations are the twenty two p.
Fifty five was first discussed July thirty first, you know,
and one of these four points. In the middle of
two thousand and seven, your defense team decides asked to
meet with me on September seventh. I met. After considering
of the arguments, and after conferring with the FBI and redacted,
our office decided to proceed with the indictment. At that time,
I offered to delay our prosecutors to delay presentation to
allow you to appeal our decision if you choose, You
chose not to. Instead, you elected to enter into the NPA.
Since the signing of the agreement, the Feds in our
office have addressed several issues that have arisen, Although the
exchanges at the time were a bit litigious question, Could
I point out that this letter is in response to
not at the request for a review by the Criminal
Division that comes later. This is in response to ken
Star's letter to redacted about raising twenty two to fifty
five issues that had not been raised with you before.
Answer right, which is in essence or review? I mean
their coming to Main Justice, and you know it's against
these many previous, foregone opportunities to object that I receive.
Would surprise your letter requesting an eleventh hour after the
fact review of our agreement, although it happens rarely. I
don't mind this office decision being appealed to Washington, and
have previously directed our prosecutors to delay. Indeed, I'm confident
in our prosecutor's evidence and legal analysis. I nonetheless directed
them to consult with subject matter experts in the Criminal
CEO's Division. To confer to our interpretation of the law
before proceeding with the indictment. So I guess you know
we consulted CEOs. I'm thus surprised to read a letter
addressed to the Department headquarters that raises issues that either
have not been raised with this office previously, or have
been raised and in fact resolved with your client's favor.
I'm troubled likewise by the apparent lack of finality in
the agreement. The Ausays have been negotiating with Defense Counsel
and have for some time complained to me regarding the
tactics used by the Defense team. It appears to them
that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue,
Defense Counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. Question,
so this is your protest? It sounds like Starr's effort
to bypass you and go with new issues. Answer it is.
And I'm pushing back in that, And I was inviting this,
or I was sort of saying, you know that said
there must be closure on the matter. Some in our
office are deeply concerned that Defense Council will continue to
mount collateral challenges to provision of the agreement, even after
mister Epstein has entered as guilty plea and thus rendered
the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind. In closing,
I ask that you consult with co counsel. If after
consultation with your defense team, you believe that our agreement
is unethical, unlawful, or unconstitutional, I'd ask that you notify
us immediately so we can discuss the matter by phone
or in person. I've consulted the chief prosecutor in the case,
who has advised that she's ready to unwind the agreement
and proceed to trial if necessary or appropriate. Question. So
are you suggesting that this represents your protest of their
appeal to adacted? Answer? So, protest is a loaded word.
What I'm suggesting is that this is not invitation to
appeal tomand justice. This is sort of saying enough is enough?
Is enough? Question? But mister Acosta, in fairness this to clarify,
this is in response to a letter directed to or adacted,
dated November twenty eighth, two thousand and seven, raising issues
that had not been raised with you. The appeal subsequently
that I was asking about was an appeal for dnovo review,
a d'novo review of the whole case answer understood. And
the reason that I read this, you know, is this
is not On one hand, I'm saying we do not
fear review, but this is not an invitation to defense
counsel to do a di novo. I'm not inviting them.
I'm not saying let's have some more review. I'm saying
enough is enough. If they appeal, that's fine, But this
is not an invitation to appeal. Question. But there was
nothing you could do to stop their appeal right except
indict answer, And so the Department shouldn't stop an appeal
to main Justice, you know, by threatening question fair enough answer,
because Main Justice has a right to review question. I
should have said that that this this appeal process was
stymying progress and resolving the Epstein case. Answer. It was question,
and you had no way, You had no recourse other
than at least theoretically, you could have just said, you know,
we're going to tear it up and indict because you're
in breach in effect answer, which would have raised the
altigation answer overlays, which is the point that I thought
merited at least flushing out question. So to be short
of the Department itself getting a move on and getting
this thing through expeditiously. Did you feel like you just
had to sit there and wait for everything to get done? Answer?
I'm not sure it was sit there and wait. But
ultimately the case did not get better with time, and
there was frustration on our part. You know, the witnesses
are not getting better, you know time question, they're getting older?
Answer they're getting which goes back to how a jurm
may see them redacted? Right, Acosta and I do recall
conversations of them getting older. You know, this case is
not getting better, and now we have the civil overlay
that we need to deal with. And so, yes, there
was process, but while there was should we just call
it a day? All of that factored into well, if
the Department is reviewing, the Department is reviewing. All right, folks,
we're gonna wrap up this episode right here, and then
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.