1 00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:03,040 Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the 2 00:00:03,040 --> 00:00:06,440 Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up 3 00:00:06,599 --> 00:00:11,320 where we left off with the Alex Acosta OIG interview. Question. 4 00:00:11,640 --> 00:00:14,279 This is where there is a mention of computer equipment. 5 00:00:14,679 --> 00:00:17,359 There is a provision later in that in that same 6 00:00:17,399 --> 00:00:21,280 paragraph that provides that the federal grand jury investigation will 7 00:00:21,320 --> 00:00:25,039 be suspended and all pending federal grand jury subpoenas will 8 00:00:25,079 --> 00:00:29,160 be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates 9 00:00:29,199 --> 00:00:32,560 any term of this agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to 10 00:00:32,600 --> 00:00:36,119 withdraw his pending motion to intervene and quash certain grand 11 00:00:36,200 --> 00:00:40,960 jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically 12 00:00:40,960 --> 00:00:44,560 evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury 13 00:00:44,600 --> 00:00:48,840 subpoenas that have been issued and including certain computer equipment 14 00:00:49,240 --> 00:00:52,560 in violate, until all the terms of the agreement have 15 00:00:52,679 --> 00:00:57,799 been satisfied. Do you view that disagreement to suspect at 16 00:00:57,880 --> 00:01:01,039 least certain aspects of the federal investigation to have been 17 00:01:01,399 --> 00:01:05,560 an appropriate concession? Answer? You know, again, my focus was 18 00:01:05,599 --> 00:01:08,599 on certain points. I would have assumed reading this that 19 00:01:08,640 --> 00:01:13,640 this was thought through. Question. Okay, question, all right, there 20 00:01:13,920 --> 00:01:18,239 is what's been criticized as a confidentiality provision. Answer, yes, 21 00:01:18,560 --> 00:01:21,560 question right, and that's on the same page, page five, 22 00:01:21,879 --> 00:01:26,799 paragraph number thirteen, which provides that the parties anticipate that 23 00:01:26,879 --> 00:01:30,200 this agreement will not be made part of any public record, 24 00:01:30,560 --> 00:01:33,840 and then there is an exception for a foyer or 25 00:01:33,840 --> 00:01:36,719 a compulsory process from a court in which the government 26 00:01:36,760 --> 00:01:40,120 will provide notice to epstein. That seems to be limited 27 00:01:40,120 --> 00:01:42,640 to the placing of this document on the public record 28 00:01:42,719 --> 00:01:45,719 right as opposed to sharing it or disclosing it for 29 00:01:45,799 --> 00:01:51,079 whatever purpose to individuals. Is that a distinction that makes sense? Answer, 30 00:01:51,879 --> 00:01:54,719 that's a fair distinction. Upon reading this, I'm not sure 31 00:01:54,959 --> 00:01:58,560 that it's a distinction that was I mean, I'm basing 32 00:01:58,599 --> 00:02:03,040 that on my reading currently and not as a recollection question. 33 00:02:03,400 --> 00:02:06,280 And in fact, the party's both Defense Council and even 34 00:02:06,319 --> 00:02:09,639 the US Attorney's Office took the position that this should 35 00:02:09,680 --> 00:02:12,439 have never been or seen the light of day, even 36 00:02:12,439 --> 00:02:15,400 to be disclosed to you know, victims or other parties 37 00:02:15,639 --> 00:02:19,560 and interest except for filing it or accept for sharing 38 00:02:19,599 --> 00:02:23,199 it on a limited basis with law enforcement. I think 39 00:02:23,199 --> 00:02:25,599 there were emails that talk about if we share it, 40 00:02:25,800 --> 00:02:30,199 we'll tell them not to disclose it. Answer mm hmmm. 41 00:02:30,560 --> 00:02:36,479 Question is that the sort of overstating what this paragraph requires? Answer? Possibly, 42 00:02:37,039 --> 00:02:39,479 I can, you know, we can get into that and 43 00:02:39,560 --> 00:02:41,840 we can discuss it. I would need to understand a 44 00:02:41,840 --> 00:02:45,280 little bit more. I know there was litigation around disclosure 45 00:02:45,520 --> 00:02:48,199 on this, and I need to understand much more the 46 00:02:48,240 --> 00:02:53,159 position that we took and the why before commenting on them. Question. 47 00:02:53,680 --> 00:02:57,120 In Exhibit twenty three, there's a discussion of whether the 48 00:02:57,240 --> 00:03:00,560 NPA is after it has been signed, could be revealed, 49 00:03:00,919 --> 00:03:03,159 the existence of it could be revealed to the police 50 00:03:03,199 --> 00:03:07,120 chief or even the FBI or the girls and redacted 51 00:03:07,520 --> 00:03:09,759 in the middle of the page one or two thirds 52 00:03:09,800 --> 00:03:12,240 of the way down on page one of Exhibit twenty 53 00:03:12,280 --> 00:03:15,879 three proposes that if we tell anybody about the NPA, 54 00:03:16,680 --> 00:03:19,879 you just asked that the recipient of that information not 55 00:03:19,960 --> 00:03:23,000 disclose it. And you then at the top of the 56 00:03:23,000 --> 00:03:26,159 page to Laurie and to redacted and redacted who is 57 00:03:26,199 --> 00:03:28,960 going to take over Lurie's position as a managing a 58 00:03:29,120 --> 00:03:32,960 USA and West Palm Beach should talk with you about 59 00:03:33,000 --> 00:03:36,560 it on Wednesday. You should talk about who will tell 60 00:03:36,719 --> 00:03:39,960 and how much do you remember that conversation? Answer? I 61 00:03:40,039 --> 00:03:43,080 don't I know that there were several concerns about leaks 62 00:03:43,240 --> 00:03:47,000 and media, and I imagine that we had a conversation 63 00:03:47,159 --> 00:03:50,680 quite literally about who to tell and how much? Question 64 00:03:51,360 --> 00:03:55,080 and how did you feel that this at the time, 65 00:03:55,360 --> 00:03:57,400 as best as you recall, did you feel that this 66 00:03:57,479 --> 00:04:01,039 clause bound you to not tell anyone? Answer? So my 67 00:04:01,120 --> 00:04:04,319 recollection of the clause, whether it was whether it was 68 00:04:04,319 --> 00:04:08,159 this clause or whether there was a discussion, I was 69 00:04:08,199 --> 00:04:11,639 aware of this provision, and my recollection of this provision 70 00:04:11,879 --> 00:04:15,159 is at some point it was raised as something that 71 00:04:15,319 --> 00:04:21,399 was the subject of negotiation. Question okay, answer that the 72 00:04:21,439 --> 00:04:25,639 office policy was that these types of deferred prosecution agreement 73 00:04:25,720 --> 00:04:28,800 is not just made part of the public record. Therefore, 74 00:04:29,240 --> 00:04:32,480 this is not a substantial concession because in the typical 75 00:04:32,480 --> 00:04:35,439 course of business, this would not be part of the 76 00:04:35,439 --> 00:04:40,120 public record. Question and that's because its non prosecution as 77 00:04:40,120 --> 00:04:45,000 opposed agreement as opposed to a deferred prosecution agreement. Answer, So, 78 00:04:45,120 --> 00:04:49,199 deferred prosecution is not you know, if the non prosecution 79 00:04:49,399 --> 00:04:52,839 is not typically part of the public record, the deferred prosecution, 80 00:04:53,560 --> 00:04:56,759 it makes sense that it follows the same. And so 81 00:04:56,839 --> 00:04:59,839 it seemed that it seemed a concession. I understand how 82 00:05:00,120 --> 00:05:02,959 was perceived publicly after the fact. At the time, it 83 00:05:03,040 --> 00:05:06,000 seemed that we weren't giving up much because the typical 84 00:05:06,040 --> 00:05:09,199 policy is this is not part of the public record, 85 00:05:09,560 --> 00:05:13,120 and individuals need to file a FOYA. And so by 86 00:05:13,160 --> 00:05:16,079 saying it's not part of the public record and individuals 87 00:05:16,120 --> 00:05:19,600 need to follow FOYA, if that is viewed as a concession, 88 00:05:19,800 --> 00:05:24,160 it really isn't question. So how would I mean? Did 89 00:05:24,519 --> 00:05:27,560 is it? Is it understandable that Epstein would not want 90 00:05:27,560 --> 00:05:29,720 this document to see the light of day because it 91 00:05:29,759 --> 00:05:33,360 describes the existence and nature and scope of the federal 92 00:05:33,360 --> 00:05:37,439 investigation and also his concession to liability under twenty two 93 00:05:37,480 --> 00:05:41,079 to fifty five answer, it's understandable. It was also my 94 00:05:41,120 --> 00:05:43,639 impression at the time that it would see the light 95 00:05:43,680 --> 00:05:46,399 of day because if victims have twenty two to fifty 96 00:05:46,399 --> 00:05:48,879 five the ability to get twenty two to fifty five, 97 00:05:49,319 --> 00:05:52,040 they obviously have to hear about it from somewhere, and 98 00:05:52,120 --> 00:05:56,000 given the press interest, eventually this would be FOYA. And 99 00:05:56,079 --> 00:05:58,360 so from my thinking at the time, rightly or wrongly, 100 00:05:58,720 --> 00:06:01,720 this is a concession that's basically saying we'll follow off 101 00:06:01,720 --> 00:06:04,879 his policy and we're likely going to be foyed on 102 00:06:04,920 --> 00:06:07,360 this anyhow, and it can play out in the FOYA 103 00:06:07,720 --> 00:06:12,240 and so is this really a concession question? All right? 104 00:06:12,800 --> 00:06:15,920 Another piece of the agreement is something that is absent 105 00:06:16,319 --> 00:06:18,639 and that sort of typical language that you find, I 106 00:06:18,720 --> 00:06:21,879 think in pretty much any federal plea agreement, which is 107 00:06:21,920 --> 00:06:26,040 this agreement only the defendant understands that this agreement only 108 00:06:26,079 --> 00:06:29,279 binds the US Attorney's office for whatever district he or 109 00:06:29,319 --> 00:06:34,120 she is in answer right, you know? And that and 110 00:06:34,160 --> 00:06:38,040 that truly what you would call global dispositions are unusual 111 00:06:38,160 --> 00:06:42,639 answer right for the federal government answer and I would note, 112 00:06:42,800 --> 00:06:45,160 you know, and this is after the fact that it 113 00:06:45,240 --> 00:06:49,800 does say this district agrees question okay, understood, And it's 114 00:06:49,839 --> 00:06:52,600 also has you as a party, not the Department of 115 00:06:52,720 --> 00:06:57,279 Justice answer right, question. But it does omit that standard language. 116 00:06:57,519 --> 00:06:59,560 And you know whether that was done sort of by 117 00:06:59,600 --> 00:07:04,199 mistake or consciously answer. I can't speak to that question, 118 00:07:04,240 --> 00:07:07,199 all right. Another piece is phrasing that you injected when 119 00:07:07,199 --> 00:07:09,680 you addressed the first where was it was towards the 120 00:07:09,800 --> 00:07:13,639 end where you talked about injecting the best effort language 121 00:07:14,439 --> 00:07:19,360 answer yes, question, okay? Does it what I believe you 122 00:07:19,399 --> 00:07:22,600 made clear why you did that? That is to avoid 123 00:07:22,639 --> 00:07:25,879 the appearance of having the federal government be dictating anything. 124 00:07:26,439 --> 00:07:28,879 But why rely on the best efforts and to what 125 00:07:29,000 --> 00:07:33,079 extent is that even enforceable? Answer? So, first, let me 126 00:07:33,279 --> 00:07:35,920 let me say that it was not to avoid the appearance. 127 00:07:36,319 --> 00:07:39,759 It was to avoid the actual legal discovery dictating. But 128 00:07:40,079 --> 00:07:43,879 so Epstein understands that he has no authority to require 129 00:07:44,160 --> 00:07:47,959 to undertake discussions and to use if he did not plead, 130 00:07:48,399 --> 00:07:52,560 then there was no agreement. Question No, no, no, no, no, sorry, 131 00:07:53,000 --> 00:07:56,120 I don't mean to. It appears in paragraph number eleven, 132 00:07:56,279 --> 00:07:58,759 Epstein shall use his best effort to enter his guilty 133 00:07:58,800 --> 00:08:02,240 plea and be sentenced later than the set date. And 134 00:08:02,279 --> 00:08:05,399 then in the first paragraph after numbered clause eleven, he 135 00:08:05,439 --> 00:08:08,439 will use his best efforts to ensure compliance with certain 136 00:08:08,480 --> 00:08:11,560 procedures and best efforts to convince the Judge of the 137 00:08:11,600 --> 00:08:16,519 Florida Court to accept as binding recommendation. So best efforts 138 00:08:16,600 --> 00:08:19,480 kind of become a sticking point an enforcement, didn't it, 139 00:08:20,120 --> 00:08:24,800 Because what does it mean? What does best effort mean? Answer? So, 140 00:08:25,000 --> 00:08:26,680 I think it's fair to say that one of the 141 00:08:26,720 --> 00:08:29,720 issues that came up after this was entered into the 142 00:08:29,839 --> 00:08:33,600 US Attorney's office at least from My perspective was in 143 00:08:33,639 --> 00:08:36,200 a little bit of a bind because we had agreed 144 00:08:36,200 --> 00:08:39,240 to this, yet he wasn't turning himself in, and so 145 00:08:39,279 --> 00:08:41,879 how do we deal with that? And so that's not 146 00:08:41,919 --> 00:08:43,960 a phrase that I focused on at the time. But 147 00:08:44,039 --> 00:08:47,360 I understand your point. All right, I'm going to move 148 00:08:47,399 --> 00:08:50,879 on from those question. Is there anything else on those 149 00:08:51,000 --> 00:08:54,879 NPA clauses? Answer? Finally, let me let me just say, 150 00:08:55,000 --> 00:08:58,639 you didn't ask. We had an incredibly experienced attorney in 151 00:08:58,639 --> 00:09:02,440 the office assumed, rightly or wrongly, that the language had 152 00:09:02,480 --> 00:09:05,000 been thought through and vetted. And you know, sitting here 153 00:09:05,039 --> 00:09:08,159 twelve years later, I understand the issues that have arisen 154 00:09:08,240 --> 00:09:10,960 from it, but at the time these were not issues 155 00:09:11,000 --> 00:09:13,720 that were folk that we were focused on. Question, to 156 00:09:13,799 --> 00:09:16,639 your knowledge, who was involved in the drafting other than 157 00:09:16,759 --> 00:09:21,080 redacted and redacted on your side? Answer right, question and 158 00:09:21,440 --> 00:09:25,080 LORI and you to some extent answer So I can't 159 00:09:25,080 --> 00:09:28,240 say twelve years after the fact, but again, redacted, LORII, 160 00:09:28,600 --> 00:09:32,279 very experienced head of the Palm Beach Office, has prosecuted 161 00:09:32,399 --> 00:09:37,399 any number of cases. Question. Again, just to keep respective 162 00:09:37,440 --> 00:09:40,360 and context. The final week that this was being negotiated, 163 00:09:40,919 --> 00:09:44,120 redacted LORI was in Washington, and bouncing back and forth 164 00:09:44,159 --> 00:09:47,240 on the weekends because he was in transition to the 165 00:09:47,279 --> 00:09:50,440 front office there in the criminal division in this building. 166 00:09:50,879 --> 00:09:53,080 And that's a factor in terms of being able to 167 00:09:53,080 --> 00:09:55,519 give attention to some detail. Would you agree with that 168 00:09:55,919 --> 00:09:58,559 it could be a factor? Answer, So, it could be 169 00:09:58,559 --> 00:10:01,799 a factor. On the other hand, I'd say that Redacted 170 00:10:02,080 --> 00:10:05,720 wasn't leaving the department. He is professional. He knows his stuff, 171 00:10:06,279 --> 00:10:09,159 and you would expect a professional if they're reviewing a document, 172 00:10:09,360 --> 00:10:12,559 whether they're on vacation, whether they're looking to move from 173 00:10:12,600 --> 00:10:15,120 one part of the department to another, that you would 174 00:10:15,120 --> 00:10:18,559 expect them to review it, you know, fulfilling their responsibility 175 00:10:18,759 --> 00:10:21,720 to sort of focus in and make sure that that 176 00:10:21,840 --> 00:10:24,279 is that it encompasses what it should. And that's not 177 00:10:24,320 --> 00:10:28,039 a criticism of Redacted that saying, well, that might be 178 00:10:28,080 --> 00:10:31,519 a factor. That doesn't lessen, from my perspective, reliance on 179 00:10:31,559 --> 00:10:37,720 his expertise. Question understood. After the MPa was signed and 180 00:10:37,879 --> 00:10:42,440 Redacted came back answer, yeah, question right about that same time, 181 00:10:43,000 --> 00:10:46,240 he quite quickly identified a potential problem, and that was 182 00:10:46,320 --> 00:10:49,120 about the commitment for or the agreement that the US 183 00:10:49,159 --> 00:10:53,039 Attorney's Office would identify the representative for the victims. Do 184 00:10:53,120 --> 00:10:56,039 you recall him raising that? Answer? I don't recall him 185 00:10:56,120 --> 00:10:58,559 raising that as an issue, but I know it was 186 00:10:58,600 --> 00:11:02,399 an issue. Question all right. It was an issue, and 187 00:11:02,440 --> 00:11:04,679 it was one that was raised as soon as he 188 00:11:04,720 --> 00:11:07,840 came back. So there was an effort which he conducted 189 00:11:07,879 --> 00:11:11,919 then in Redacted's absence, to craft an NPA addendum to 190 00:11:11,960 --> 00:11:15,720 address that issue. Are you aware that Redacted received a 191 00:11:15,759 --> 00:11:18,759 copy of the NPA in November when ken Starr wrote 192 00:11:18,759 --> 00:11:21,559 a letter to Redacted asking her to review the twenty 193 00:11:21,600 --> 00:11:24,279 two to fifty five portion of it. Do you remember 194 00:11:24,320 --> 00:11:27,320 the issue? Answer? I remember that the issue was appealed 195 00:11:27,320 --> 00:11:32,200 to CEOs. Question. Well, it was. It was appealed initially 196 00:11:32,240 --> 00:11:35,639 by the letter to redacted, raising an issue that was 197 00:11:35,720 --> 00:11:38,080 new to Redacted that had not been raised with you, 198 00:11:38,879 --> 00:11:40,679 and that is what led to your letter to ken 199 00:11:40,840 --> 00:11:46,600 Starr on December fourth. Answer. I'll accept that timeline. Question, okay. 200 00:11:47,279 --> 00:11:50,159 And at that time Redacted saw the NPA. He sent 201 00:11:50,200 --> 00:11:54,039 a message to Redacted about about his view of the NPA, 202 00:11:54,320 --> 00:11:56,360 and you didn't see it. But I just wanted to 203 00:11:56,440 --> 00:12:00,080 name some problems that he identified with the disposition and 204 00:12:00,279 --> 00:12:04,159 get your reaction. So first, he says, I'm not thrilled 205 00:12:04,159 --> 00:12:07,559 about the agreement, but he acknowledges that's out of his hands. 206 00:12:07,879 --> 00:12:10,480 He says, in terms of the charging and sentencing provision 207 00:12:10,559 --> 00:12:13,679 he's getting, Epstein is getting a much better deal than 208 00:12:13,720 --> 00:12:17,039 the average defendant. With the exception of defendants who have 209 00:12:17,120 --> 00:12:20,679 done physical harm to their victims or abused very young children, 210 00:12:21,240 --> 00:12:24,480 we haven't seen more egregious conduct because of its serial nature. 211 00:12:25,279 --> 00:12:27,960 The area we need to be more careful about relates 212 00:12:28,000 --> 00:12:31,080 to the victims. The US should seek to ensure that 213 00:12:31,159 --> 00:12:33,759 the plea, which is not giving them serious jail time, 214 00:12:34,000 --> 00:12:37,159 provides the best means possible to address the harm. He 215 00:12:37,279 --> 00:12:41,559 calls to the victims. That generally means restitution and or therapy. 216 00:12:42,360 --> 00:12:46,120 While the agreement provides facility for the victims, the irrelevant 217 00:12:46,200 --> 00:12:49,320 terms still seem pretty advantageous for the defendant and not 218 00:12:49,399 --> 00:12:52,120 all that helpful for the victims. They get an attorney 219 00:12:52,159 --> 00:12:54,679 who will be paid by the defendant, which involves at 220 00:12:54,759 --> 00:12:57,360 least some conflict of interest, or they could hire their 221 00:12:57,360 --> 00:13:00,840 own attorney on a contingency basis, and they get waivers 222 00:13:00,840 --> 00:13:04,720 from the defendant when his plea would facilitate their civil cases. 223 00:13:04,919 --> 00:13:08,000 In any event, then they still have to sue them 224 00:13:08,000 --> 00:13:11,960 to get anything. Most times with wealthy defendants we make 225 00:13:12,000 --> 00:13:14,960 them agreed to restitution fund and then still provide the 226 00:13:15,039 --> 00:13:19,600 victims can sue the defendant independently if they choose. We 227 00:13:19,679 --> 00:13:23,440 always make them clearly admit their guilt. No nolo, please, 228 00:13:24,559 --> 00:13:27,279 this is incredibly important to the victim. If I would 229 00:13:27,279 --> 00:13:29,759 have taken the guid to trial unless the victims were 230 00:13:29,799 --> 00:13:32,120 clearly against it, and I don't think most of them 231 00:13:32,159 --> 00:13:35,440 are here. He then says to Redacted, who by this 232 00:13:35,559 --> 00:13:39,519 time is working for redacted, so there is context in 233 00:13:39,559 --> 00:13:43,960 which he's addressing it. Redacted specifies that Redacted wouldn't and 234 00:13:44,039 --> 00:13:48,759 shouldn't address the agreement, so that the issue that was 235 00:13:48,799 --> 00:13:52,279 then before Redacted put there by ken Starr was whether 236 00:13:52,320 --> 00:13:55,000 the twenty two to fifty five scheme or scenario set 237 00:13:55,039 --> 00:13:58,159 out and the NPA was appropriate. It appears that she 238 00:13:58,360 --> 00:14:02,240 then sent that back you at the address. But as 239 00:14:02,279 --> 00:14:04,840 far as commentary on the NPA, if you had been 240 00:14:04,879 --> 00:14:08,480 aware of this perspective at the time you were that 241 00:14:08,559 --> 00:14:11,639 you and your people were fashioning the NPA, would you 242 00:14:11,639 --> 00:14:15,720 have been helpful to you in deciding how to proceed? Answer? So, 243 00:14:15,879 --> 00:14:21,080 may I question, yes? Answer, Okay, I assume you've read 244 00:14:21,080 --> 00:14:24,480 the whole thing, but let me just take well, I 245 00:14:24,480 --> 00:14:26,559 have a few comments. First, let me say he was 246 00:14:26,639 --> 00:14:30,840 part of the September meeting, and to my recollection, these perspectives, 247 00:14:32,080 --> 00:14:34,919 so at least the outline of the agreement were disclosed 248 00:14:34,919 --> 00:14:37,120 at the meeting, and I don't recall this type of 249 00:14:37,120 --> 00:14:41,279 communication at this time. Question okay, answer. I also recall 250 00:14:41,360 --> 00:14:43,200 that there was a lot of back and forth around 251 00:14:43,240 --> 00:14:47,279 this restitution fund concept, and our perspective was that the 252 00:14:47,360 --> 00:14:51,200 restitution fund puts the victim at a disadvantage. Because let 253 00:14:51,279 --> 00:14:54,039 me try to recreate I don't recall the details, but 254 00:14:54,120 --> 00:14:57,279 I recall that there was a perspective that the restitution 255 00:14:57,399 --> 00:15:00,480 fund put the victims at a disadvantage. And there's some 256 00:15:00,519 --> 00:15:04,919 reference to was it an Alaska case question, it's called 257 00:15:04,919 --> 00:15:09,320 the redacted case witness. I'm sorry. Then the whole bunch 258 00:15:09,320 --> 00:15:13,039 of redacted parts here back to Acosta. And so to 259 00:15:13,120 --> 00:15:15,879 the extent that there were better ways of crafting this, 260 00:15:16,440 --> 00:15:19,320 that certainly would have been been highly relevant, because to 261 00:15:19,360 --> 00:15:22,320 my recollection, we were not wed to any particular way 262 00:15:22,519 --> 00:15:25,440 of crafting it. The intent of twenty two to fifty 263 00:15:25,480 --> 00:15:28,080 five was to come as close as possible to putting 264 00:15:28,120 --> 00:15:32,039 the victims in the position they would have been had 265 00:15:32,039 --> 00:15:35,279 they tried and convicted federally. And so to answer your 266 00:15:35,360 --> 00:15:41,399 question is yes, answer it would have been helpful. All right, folks, 267 00:15:41,440 --> 00:15:43,320 We're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next 268 00:15:43,320 --> 00:15:45,759 episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where 269 00:15:45,759 --> 00:15:48,720 we left off. All of the information that goes with 270 00:15:48,759 --> 00:15:52,600 this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, 271 00:15:52,639 --> 00:15:56,480 and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In 272 00:15:56,519 --> 00:15:58,559 this episode, we're going to dive right back in to 273 00:15:58,679 --> 00:16:04,360 the alex Acosta interview with the OIG inspectors. Question, Okay, 274 00:16:04,919 --> 00:16:07,519 as you said about addressing twenty two dot five to five, 275 00:16:07,879 --> 00:16:11,399 you consulted with redacted? Do you recall that answer? I 276 00:16:11,440 --> 00:16:15,279 recall consultations. I don't recall that it was specifically with redacted. 277 00:16:15,840 --> 00:16:20,360 But question, did you know her answer? Yes? Question okay, 278 00:16:20,360 --> 00:16:23,320 And do you recall the nature of your interaction with her? Answer? 279 00:16:23,360 --> 00:16:26,919 I don't. I know from contemporary review of the record 280 00:16:27,120 --> 00:16:30,799 that there is an email from her. Question it's forty 281 00:16:30,840 --> 00:16:35,039 one A answer, forty one A question, And what I 282 00:16:35,080 --> 00:16:37,360 want to ask you is simply forty one A is 283 00:16:37,399 --> 00:16:40,639 an email in which you ask you note to redacted 284 00:16:40,879 --> 00:16:45,360 who was redacted one of her deputies and she oversaw CEOs. 285 00:16:45,639 --> 00:16:49,279 She Redacted mentioned to you that Redacted was looking at this, 286 00:16:49,600 --> 00:16:52,360 which is the twenty two dot five to five. She 287 00:16:52,519 --> 00:16:56,440 contacts her counterpart in the civil Division, Redacted, and there's 288 00:16:56,480 --> 00:16:58,919 an email from him, which is the second page of 289 00:16:58,919 --> 00:17:02,360 this exhibit, which which copies you on. So my question 290 00:17:02,480 --> 00:17:05,720 is is this the extent of your interaction with redacted 291 00:17:05,960 --> 00:17:12,200 on this issue? Answer? I am twelve years after the fact. 292 00:17:12,559 --> 00:17:16,599 I don't remember. Question Okay, all right. The exhibit thirty 293 00:17:16,599 --> 00:17:19,799 five there is a letter from Jay Lefkowitz in which 294 00:17:19,799 --> 00:17:24,400 I'm sorry, it's an email from j. Lef Kuwitz answer 295 00:17:24,440 --> 00:17:28,079 exhibit question Exhibit thirty five to you. And this is 296 00:17:28,119 --> 00:17:31,319 substantially later, but it has a sentence that or a 297 00:17:31,359 --> 00:17:34,559 phrase that we'd like to ask you about. And all right. 298 00:17:34,599 --> 00:17:37,480 It's highlighted at the top. It says, back in the beginning, 299 00:17:37,799 --> 00:17:40,440 back at the beginning of January, when you both agree 300 00:17:40,480 --> 00:17:44,519 that there was significant irregularities with a deferred prosecution agreement, 301 00:17:45,039 --> 00:17:48,279 you call the timeout. Is that accurate? Do you and 302 00:17:48,359 --> 00:17:53,359 he agree that? Answer? No question? There was significant irregularities. 303 00:17:53,640 --> 00:17:57,839 Answer no question, okay, answer, and if I could. There 304 00:17:57,839 --> 00:18:01,440 are several instances where not just to me, but to 305 00:18:01,480 --> 00:18:07,160 other people as well, Jay recharacterizes conversations question, recharacterizes them 306 00:18:07,319 --> 00:18:14,920 inaccurately answer, inaccurately question or misleadingly answer or misleadingly question 307 00:18:15,000 --> 00:18:17,759 all right. Answer. What I recall agreeing to at some 308 00:18:17,839 --> 00:18:20,599 point is there was an appeal to the DAG or 309 00:18:20,640 --> 00:18:23,160 there was an appeal in place. And I basically said, 310 00:18:23,440 --> 00:18:25,839 I think there was a letter that I sent saying 311 00:18:25,880 --> 00:18:28,160 if you want to appeal, go ahead. We're not concerned 312 00:18:28,160 --> 00:18:31,400 about this. But that doesn't mean that I agree that 313 00:18:31,440 --> 00:18:34,480 there were irregularities or that there was a time out 314 00:18:34,920 --> 00:18:37,680 on part of that department, on part of a hierarchy. 315 00:18:38,000 --> 00:18:40,599 If someone wants to overrule me, that's okay by me. 316 00:18:41,240 --> 00:18:44,599 Question all right. So the NPA addendum was worked out, 317 00:18:44,880 --> 00:18:47,759 and the defense team continued its sort of multi pronged assault. 318 00:18:48,160 --> 00:18:51,200 In the middle of the negotiation between redacted and left 319 00:18:51,240 --> 00:18:55,000 Kuwitz about the NPA addendum, that's when you had the 320 00:18:55,240 --> 00:18:59,680 much commented on breakfast on October twelfth and have stated 321 00:18:59,680 --> 00:19:03,759 public that at perfectly accurately that the NPA was signed, 322 00:19:04,039 --> 00:19:08,160 and that was a done deal. And so this was 323 00:19:08,200 --> 00:19:11,000 not tied in any way to any effort to influence 324 00:19:11,079 --> 00:19:15,119 the terms of the NPA. Fair answer, fair, because the 325 00:19:15,160 --> 00:19:18,559 way this was reported was that I negotiated it over breakfast, 326 00:19:18,759 --> 00:19:22,680 it was signed, that's really important question. Of course, there 327 00:19:22,720 --> 00:19:25,799 were however, a number of open issues, right And an 328 00:19:25,839 --> 00:19:28,759 exhibit twenty eight Jay lef quoits on page two, this 329 00:19:28,839 --> 00:19:32,200 is an email to you acknowledges your breakfast on Friday. 330 00:19:32,680 --> 00:19:36,720 This is dated October eighteenth, and following up your conversation 331 00:19:36,839 --> 00:19:40,200 with them about a date for Epstein's plea. So he 332 00:19:40,319 --> 00:19:42,599 notes that you said you didn't want to dictate a 333 00:19:42,640 --> 00:19:45,359 schedule to the state. So all I want to note 334 00:19:45,680 --> 00:19:48,799 is that when you had the breakfast, there was there 335 00:19:48,880 --> 00:19:52,079 were issues still open that were the subject of discussion 336 00:19:52,119 --> 00:19:55,519 between the defense and the US Attorney's office. And so 337 00:19:55,640 --> 00:19:57,839 I guess my question is, while that was a meeting, 338 00:19:57,839 --> 00:20:00,799 a convenience in a public place in a low where 339 00:20:00,799 --> 00:20:03,079 you had a business later that day, a speech, I 340 00:20:03,119 --> 00:20:06,880 believe optically, do you understand the public concern that this 341 00:20:07,079 --> 00:20:11,960 was sort of a one on one negotiation on pending issues? Answer? 342 00:20:12,240 --> 00:20:15,160 I understand how there can be concerned this. You know, 343 00:20:15,519 --> 00:20:18,720 it was not unusual in this case. I actually very 344 00:20:18,720 --> 00:20:22,319 intentionally waited and tried not to have one on one meetings. 345 00:20:22,519 --> 00:20:24,759 But there are other instances where I might from time 346 00:20:24,799 --> 00:20:28,160 to time have one on one conversations with the opposing council. 347 00:20:28,839 --> 00:20:31,720 I don't remember the breakfast. I can speculate that one 348 00:20:31,759 --> 00:20:35,160 of the issues was informing this was somewhere around this time, 349 00:20:35,440 --> 00:20:38,319 and I can't say with certainty that this was what 350 00:20:38,440 --> 00:20:41,000 it was, but somewhere around this time there are a 351 00:20:41,039 --> 00:20:45,240 rose allegations that redacted had directed the designation to her 352 00:20:45,279 --> 00:20:49,839 boyfriend's partner or something along those lines. Question I believe 353 00:20:49,839 --> 00:20:52,599 it was a former law school classmate of her former 354 00:20:52,839 --> 00:20:56,720 of her then boyfriend. Answer. Yeah, so I don't know 355 00:20:57,039 --> 00:20:59,799 the details or what they were, but I do know 356 00:20:59,880 --> 00:21:02,000 that there was a topic that they wanted to raise 357 00:21:02,160 --> 00:21:05,960 with me. Question did he have the breakfast? Answer? Honestly, 358 00:21:06,279 --> 00:21:10,160 I don't recall the breakfast. Question Okay, answer, you asked 359 00:21:10,160 --> 00:21:13,359 me about one characterization of what I said in the record, 360 00:21:13,400 --> 00:21:16,519 you know of the breakfast, I think, I responded, or 361 00:21:16,599 --> 00:21:19,599 my council responded that they're pointing out that I seem 362 00:21:19,640 --> 00:21:23,440 fairly perturbed at how inaccurately characterized something that I said, 363 00:21:23,720 --> 00:21:27,039 and so we don't need to revisit that. But he 364 00:21:27,079 --> 00:21:29,599 gets cut off, all right. If you look at Exhibit 365 00:21:29,680 --> 00:21:32,839 twenty seven, another sort of point, just a kind of 366 00:21:33,440 --> 00:21:36,799 they get cut off with questions about breakfast and they 367 00:21:36,839 --> 00:21:41,039 decide to keep going question and that's Exhibit twenty seven. 368 00:21:41,799 --> 00:21:46,000 It's the second email down is from redacted to Jay Lefkowitz. 369 00:21:46,160 --> 00:21:48,759 The date is October twelfth, so that's the same day 370 00:21:49,000 --> 00:21:53,319 as your breakfast. Answer right question, and the date of 371 00:21:53,359 --> 00:21:55,880 it is not I'm sorry. The time is nine forty eight. 372 00:21:56,079 --> 00:21:59,160 Your breakfast was at seven, so this would have been 373 00:21:59,160 --> 00:22:02,400 pretty shortly after your breakfast. And redacted writes to Jay 374 00:22:02,480 --> 00:22:06,240 Lefquitz with a copy to you and redacted stating that 375 00:22:06,319 --> 00:22:08,880 he just got off the phone with you. That is, 376 00:22:08,920 --> 00:22:11,079 redacted just got off the phone with you, and then 377 00:22:11,079 --> 00:22:14,319 he furnishes or revised paragraph one, which suggests, I mean, 378 00:22:14,559 --> 00:22:18,319 I infer from that shortly after the breakfast, you had 379 00:22:18,319 --> 00:22:22,519 a phone conversation with redacted about a revision to this paragraph, 380 00:22:22,559 --> 00:22:25,480 and that was likely something that you talk to him about. Again, 381 00:22:25,519 --> 00:22:29,319 I'm not suggesting that this they get cut off by Acosta. Again, 382 00:22:29,640 --> 00:22:31,880 I don't recall the breakfast, so I can't say one 383 00:22:31,880 --> 00:22:34,359 way or the other. I take your point, but I 384 00:22:34,359 --> 00:22:38,359 don't recall seeing this question. All right, well it was 385 00:22:38,799 --> 00:22:42,440 you were copied on it. Okay, all right, you wanted 386 00:22:43,000 --> 00:22:46,440 I just wanted to point out Exhibit thirty answer. Can 387 00:22:46,480 --> 00:22:48,960 we back up a second? I'm not sure whether your 388 00:22:49,000 --> 00:22:51,640 concerns are so I would I would only raise the 389 00:22:51,720 --> 00:22:54,839 question where or the point where based on this And 390 00:22:54,920 --> 00:22:57,599 I don't recall, so I can't speak but redacted as 391 00:22:57,640 --> 00:23:01,480 saying Jay suggests revision has been rejected. Here is our 392 00:23:01,559 --> 00:23:05,279 latest redacted and so too. There are multiple ways to 393 00:23:05,319 --> 00:23:10,000 read this. One is that this was raised. Another is 394 00:23:10,000 --> 00:23:15,119 that we're rejecting something that Jay had proposed, and because 395 00:23:15,319 --> 00:23:18,119 I was at the meeting with Jay, I asked that 396 00:23:18,240 --> 00:23:21,559 redacted not rejected until after I met with him. I'm 397 00:23:21,599 --> 00:23:24,200 speculating because I don't recall the topic, but it does 398 00:23:24,200 --> 00:23:28,319 appear that it says Jay suggested revision has been rejected. 399 00:23:28,640 --> 00:23:33,039 Here is our latest redacted. All right, thank you question. 400 00:23:33,359 --> 00:23:36,160 Can we just go to Exhibit thirty quickly? There are 401 00:23:36,200 --> 00:23:39,119 some highlighted language. This is a letter from Lefkwitz to 402 00:23:39,160 --> 00:23:42,000 you on October twenty third, two thousand and seven, where 403 00:23:42,039 --> 00:23:45,000 he recounts again the things that happened or his version 404 00:23:45,279 --> 00:23:48,839 of the October twelfth breakfast meeting. Question are you at 405 00:23:48,880 --> 00:23:52,200 that point right there Exhibit thirty? Answer? Yeah, I'm there. 406 00:23:52,440 --> 00:23:55,160 Question Okay, So in the highlighted language, if you could 407 00:23:55,200 --> 00:23:58,400 just take a look at that quickly? Answer yes. Question 408 00:23:58,759 --> 00:24:02,319 So he's recounting that you had assured them that the 409 00:24:02,440 --> 00:24:05,400 office would not intervene with the State Attorney's office and 410 00:24:05,640 --> 00:24:09,279 or contact the civil claimants or intervene regarding the sentence 411 00:24:09,319 --> 00:24:13,119 that Epstein receives pursuant to a plea agreement. Answer yeah. 412 00:24:13,400 --> 00:24:17,000 Question so is he correct and is recounting that? Answer? 413 00:24:17,200 --> 00:24:20,839 Can you find that for me? Question? Yeah? Answer so again, 414 00:24:21,079 --> 00:24:25,640 I don't have an independent recollection. I'm looking for something. 415 00:24:25,680 --> 00:24:28,599 I don't have an independent recollection of that breakfast. But 416 00:24:28,759 --> 00:24:32,720 in the contemporaneous emails and the contemporaneous record, there is 417 00:24:32,799 --> 00:24:36,519 correspondence between redacted and I and you all ask for this, 418 00:24:36,839 --> 00:24:40,200 and I spoke with my counsel who then responded, and 419 00:24:40,279 --> 00:24:43,960 there's an email exchange where there's in October twentieth, this 420 00:24:44,119 --> 00:24:47,799 wasn't October twenty third email October twenty third letter, and 421 00:24:47,839 --> 00:24:50,880 then there's a response that's drafted on October twenty fifth. 422 00:24:51,519 --> 00:24:53,920 I don't know if we can find that from redacted 423 00:24:53,960 --> 00:24:57,799 to Jay that specifically addresses the point. And then I respond, 424 00:24:57,880 --> 00:25:01,000 redacted runs that by me, and I respawn, I edit 425 00:25:01,039 --> 00:25:03,559 the letter, and I move it sort of emphasized, like 426 00:25:03,640 --> 00:25:06,799 I make it firmer, and my edit says our office 427 00:25:06,839 --> 00:25:09,839 cannot and will not agree to this. And then my 428 00:25:10,079 --> 00:25:12,839 comment to redact it is, what do you think of 429 00:25:12,880 --> 00:25:17,240 this rewrite? Is it too strong? Question? What day was that? Answer? 430 00:25:17,519 --> 00:25:19,599 That was two days after this? I don't know if 431 00:25:19,599 --> 00:25:22,480 we can find that in the chronological record that was 432 00:25:22,480 --> 00:25:25,759 October twenty fifth. Let's just take a minute. Is that 433 00:25:25,799 --> 00:25:31,359 what you have redacted? Sorry, apparently my ability to separate 434 00:25:31,400 --> 00:25:36,759 paper is felled. Okay, sorry, go ahead, Acosta. So October 435 00:25:36,799 --> 00:25:39,599 twenty fifth, I'm writing to redacted, what do you think 436 00:25:39,640 --> 00:25:42,000 of this rewrite? Is it too strong? And it says, 437 00:25:42,039 --> 00:25:45,279 dear Jay, I'd like to take this opportunity to document 438 00:25:45,559 --> 00:25:48,920 our conversation of October twenty fourth, which clarified some of 439 00:25:48,920 --> 00:25:52,720 the representations in your October twenty third letter. I write, 440 00:25:52,759 --> 00:25:55,759 in particular because you indicated that your intent in writing 441 00:25:55,799 --> 00:26:01,000 the letter was to memorialize our conversationsreen is limited to 442 00:26:01,119 --> 00:26:04,920 blank blank blank dot dot dot. I specifically want to 443 00:26:04,960 --> 00:26:08,160 clarify one of the items that I believe was inaccurate 444 00:26:08,319 --> 00:26:11,160 in the October twenty third letter. Your office claims that 445 00:26:11,240 --> 00:26:14,400 this office would not intervene with the State Attorney's office 446 00:26:14,400 --> 00:26:16,799 for regarding this matter or a contact any of the 447 00:26:16,799 --> 00:26:21,519 individual's potential witnesses or potential civil claimants and their respective 448 00:26:21,519 --> 00:26:24,279 counsel in the matter, and neither your office nor the 449 00:26:24,359 --> 00:26:28,799 FBI would intervene regarding the sentence mister Epstein received I 450 00:26:29,000 --> 00:26:32,960 quoting Jay's letter. As we discussed and hopefully clarified, and 451 00:26:33,000 --> 00:26:36,519 as the US Attorney previously explained in an earlier conference call, 452 00:26:36,920 --> 00:26:40,240 such promises equate to the imposition of a gag order. 453 00:26:40,880 --> 00:26:44,079 Our office cannot and will not agree to this. It 454 00:26:44,160 --> 00:26:46,319 is the intent of this office to treat this matter 455 00:26:46,640 --> 00:26:49,880 like any other case. Thus, as is typical, we do 456 00:26:49,960 --> 00:26:53,440 not desire or intend to intervene in the State Attorney's office. 457 00:26:53,559 --> 00:26:57,279 The non prosecution agreement provides sufficient mechanisms to achieve the 458 00:26:57,279 --> 00:27:01,960 goals of the Federal investigation. You should understand, however, that 459 00:27:02,000 --> 00:27:05,319 there are some communication that are typical in these matters, 460 00:27:05,839 --> 00:27:08,599 and so I go on, and so my point is 461 00:27:08,680 --> 00:27:11,599 this was pretty based on if you reviewed my emails 462 00:27:11,599 --> 00:27:14,160 and my language for me to write something up saying 463 00:27:14,759 --> 00:27:17,039 what do you think of this rewrite? Is it too strong? 464 00:27:18,039 --> 00:27:22,039 And to my edit redacted language too Our office cannot 465 00:27:22,079 --> 00:27:24,759 and will not agree to This is not my agreeing 466 00:27:24,799 --> 00:27:27,680 with this characterization, but my polite way of saying this 467 00:27:27,720 --> 00:27:31,440 ain't what I said. Let me be clear again, no 468 00:27:31,559 --> 00:27:34,960 independent recollection. This is just based on inferring from the 469 00:27:35,000 --> 00:27:40,440 contemporaneous emails. Question. Okay, all right, folks, we're gonna wrap 470 00:27:40,519 --> 00:27:42,480 up right here, and then the next episode dealing with 471 00:27:42,519 --> 00:27:45,240 the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off. 472 00:27:46,039 --> 00:27:48,319 All of the information that goes with this episode can 473 00:27:48,359 --> 00:27:51,599 be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and 474 00:27:51,680 --> 00:27:55,839 welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, 475 00:27:55,839 --> 00:27:58,400 we're gonna get right back to the Alex LaCosta interview 476 00:27:58,640 --> 00:28:03,920 with the OIG and question. What I would like to 477 00:28:03,920 --> 00:28:06,240 do is ask a couple of questions in a couple 478 00:28:06,240 --> 00:28:11,119 of areas about the main justice review. Answer. Okay, question 479 00:28:11,559 --> 00:28:14,039 then take a short break and then redact. It has 480 00:28:14,039 --> 00:28:17,240 some questions that are CVR related, and then we have 481 00:28:17,359 --> 00:28:22,960 some summary questions. Answer, okay, question is that all right? Answer? Well, 482 00:28:23,000 --> 00:28:25,440 before you move on, can I address something that redacted 483 00:28:25,519 --> 00:28:27,920 was getting at? But it's getting late, so I'm going 484 00:28:27,920 --> 00:28:31,000 to circle back something that I thought you would bring up. 485 00:28:32,039 --> 00:28:34,720 So I think something to talk about is pre agreement 486 00:28:34,880 --> 00:28:37,920 and post agreement, I think are different. And one concern 487 00:28:37,960 --> 00:28:40,799 that I had and I certainly shared with mister redacted, 488 00:28:41,240 --> 00:28:43,640 was once it was signed. So we had the initial 489 00:28:43,640 --> 00:28:46,920 issues with the case. Once the agreement was signed, we 490 00:28:47,039 --> 00:28:50,440 now have an overlying issue of is there is the 491 00:28:50,480 --> 00:28:54,240 agreement binding and to what extent it's binding? And so 492 00:28:54,400 --> 00:28:57,160 your question was why this level of process after the 493 00:28:57,200 --> 00:28:59,960 agreement was signed, and I said, I think you'll get 494 00:29:00,079 --> 00:29:02,359 back to that. And I think to some extent there 495 00:29:02,359 --> 00:29:05,160 are two parts to that. One is the office shouldn't 496 00:29:05,200 --> 00:29:07,839 be afraid of review. We're part of the Department of Justice, 497 00:29:07,880 --> 00:29:11,279 and review, whether by main Justice or now you all, 498 00:29:11,599 --> 00:29:14,480 is part of the process. And so to the extent 499 00:29:14,519 --> 00:29:16,480 that they want to appeal to Maine, it would be 500 00:29:16,559 --> 00:29:19,599 unseemly sort of to say, don't review us, and I 501 00:29:19,599 --> 00:29:22,119 don't think it would help reviewing this. But the second 502 00:29:22,160 --> 00:29:24,319 part of it is we if we were to walk 503 00:29:24,319 --> 00:29:28,039 away from the agreement, that not only are we litigating 504 00:29:28,079 --> 00:29:31,400 the underlying criminal case, but we're litigating a civil criminal 505 00:29:31,400 --> 00:29:35,440 issue on top of that, which is did the agreement bind? 506 00:29:35,920 --> 00:29:39,160 And that's something that did inform the exhausting amount of 507 00:29:39,319 --> 00:29:43,559 process that they received, which didn't change any of the outcome. 508 00:29:44,519 --> 00:29:47,839 Question didn't bind? What answer? So if we were to 509 00:29:47,880 --> 00:29:52,920 walk away, could we still prosecute question? I see answer right? 510 00:29:53,160 --> 00:29:55,799 Because having signed that, we were now parties to an 511 00:29:55,839 --> 00:29:59,680 agreement and that would overlay any sort of prosecution. And 512 00:29:59,759 --> 00:30:04,519 so you had these collateral issues coming question. Just to 513 00:30:04,559 --> 00:30:07,640 make sure that we're clear, are you saying that there 514 00:30:07,720 --> 00:30:10,920 would have been difficulty in declaring a breach so that 515 00:30:11,000 --> 00:30:14,119 you could then indict. Answer correct, And so we'd have 516 00:30:14,160 --> 00:30:17,640 to litigate over a breach because as much as they 517 00:30:17,640 --> 00:30:21,200 had collateral challenges, they are very careful in saying this 518 00:30:21,319 --> 00:30:24,400 is not a breach. We would just like review. And 519 00:30:24,480 --> 00:30:27,039 so one of the issues that overlaid the post the 520 00:30:27,079 --> 00:30:30,400 October going forward time period is on top of this, 521 00:30:30,759 --> 00:30:34,000 do we now want litigation over a breach, and so 522 00:30:34,160 --> 00:30:36,400 I think that is why the post agreement time period 523 00:30:36,480 --> 00:30:40,079 is different than the pre agreement time period question, but 524 00:30:40,359 --> 00:30:42,920 was part of the problem. The result of the change 525 00:30:42,920 --> 00:30:45,599 from here is the date that you must comply to. 526 00:30:45,880 --> 00:30:50,440 You must use best efforts to comply. Answer. Possibly I 527 00:30:50,519 --> 00:30:53,480 would whether it was or others or other parts of 528 00:30:53,480 --> 00:30:56,400 the agreement we can talk about. But once the agreement 529 00:30:56,480 --> 00:30:59,240 was signed and they do not and they start pushing 530 00:30:59,319 --> 00:31:02,160 the date, there becomes a legal issue over are they 531 00:31:02,200 --> 00:31:06,920 really in breach or not. I understand your perspective. I'm 532 00:31:07,000 --> 00:31:09,359 just saying, you know, earlier I said that there was 533 00:31:09,400 --> 00:31:12,119 a difference. You asked about the process, and I said, 534 00:31:12,160 --> 00:31:14,799 from my perspective, there is a difference between the pre 535 00:31:14,880 --> 00:31:18,400 agreement and the post agreement time period, and much of 536 00:31:18,440 --> 00:31:22,160 that difference is informed by if we declare a unilateral breach, 537 00:31:22,599 --> 00:31:25,200 how does this hold up in court? Because now there's 538 00:31:25,200 --> 00:31:28,680 a signed agreement that the United States is party to. Question. 539 00:31:29,119 --> 00:31:31,359 Are you saying that part of the reason or maybe 540 00:31:31,440 --> 00:31:34,039 all of the reason that you continue to give accommodations 541 00:31:34,079 --> 00:31:37,480 and process and delay was because of the concern that 542 00:31:37,519 --> 00:31:41,960 you couldn't actually win a breach argument. Answer. I think 543 00:31:42,000 --> 00:31:46,079 that was a consideration. Another part of this consideration if 544 00:31:46,119 --> 00:31:48,599 a party wants to take I mean, Main Justice gave 545 00:31:48,640 --> 00:31:51,839 a lot of process. It wasn't you know, it wasn't 546 00:31:51,960 --> 00:31:54,680 just too redacted, but it was up to it was 547 00:31:54,759 --> 00:31:57,880 up to the Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Division to 548 00:31:57,960 --> 00:32:00,920 be polite, but it was up to the dag bingo. 549 00:32:01,119 --> 00:32:03,480 This is what I've told you, folks, from the very beginning, 550 00:32:03,640 --> 00:32:06,680 Maine Justice was the one who put this deal together. 551 00:32:06,920 --> 00:32:11,240 I don't care what a Costa says, and so if 552 00:32:11,279 --> 00:32:14,160 Maine Justice is going to give this degree of process, 553 00:32:14,599 --> 00:32:16,720 we should be in the position of saying go forward, 554 00:32:16,880 --> 00:32:19,519 as opposed to I don't think it looks positive for 555 00:32:19,680 --> 00:32:23,319 the office to be viewed as fearing department review question. 556 00:32:23,799 --> 00:32:26,400 But were you giving the impression to the Department of 557 00:32:26,559 --> 00:32:29,039 Justice that you were the one who wanted this review 558 00:32:29,440 --> 00:32:31,519 so that they felt like, well, it's not just these 559 00:32:31,599 --> 00:32:34,440 defense attorneys who we can blow off. It's a United 560 00:32:34,440 --> 00:32:37,279 States attorney who was asking for this review, and so 561 00:32:37,400 --> 00:32:41,160 therefore we need to give the courtesy of reviewing this answer, 562 00:32:41,559 --> 00:32:43,359 I don't think I asked for it, as opposed to 563 00:32:43,400 --> 00:32:46,839 saying so from the very beginning they said that they're 564 00:32:46,839 --> 00:32:49,279 going to take this to the Deputy Attorney General and 565 00:32:49,319 --> 00:32:53,039 the Attorney General, and I said, if you want to, fine, 566 00:32:53,079 --> 00:32:56,000 They just finally did. But that was not that was 567 00:32:56,039 --> 00:32:59,240 not I think they raised that as early as August 568 00:32:59,319 --> 00:33:01,880 or September, and so I'm not surprised that it ended 569 00:33:01,960 --> 00:33:05,799 up there. I also thought it was important to not 570 00:33:05,880 --> 00:33:08,519 be in the position of fearing review. I think if 571 00:33:08,599 --> 00:33:11,519 you look at the contemporaneous record, there's an effort on 572 00:33:11,720 --> 00:33:16,880 our part to expedite the review redacted question. But there's 573 00:33:16,880 --> 00:33:19,680 a difference between have at it, go do what you 574 00:33:19,799 --> 00:33:23,400 want up at Maine and getting that non opposition and 575 00:33:23,440 --> 00:33:26,759 actually sending a signal in the case of the Criminal Division, 576 00:33:27,400 --> 00:33:30,559 the Assistant Attorney General in the case of the Dag's office, 577 00:33:30,799 --> 00:33:34,920 Mark Philippe or his assignee that you supported their review 578 00:33:35,440 --> 00:33:38,400 and this appeal process. You could have said, look, we're 579 00:33:38,400 --> 00:33:41,160 going to go ahead and get on with our business 580 00:33:41,799 --> 00:33:43,759 if you could have not so much to posed a 581 00:33:43,759 --> 00:33:47,039 review but not second, did their request for the defense 582 00:33:47,119 --> 00:33:51,400 request for review or not in fact invited the reviews answer. 583 00:33:51,559 --> 00:33:54,279 So I'd be curious as to the timeline I would 584 00:33:54,279 --> 00:33:57,039 take issues with. I invited the reviews, And I questioned 585 00:33:57,079 --> 00:34:00,160 whether did they initiate the reviews on their own? And 586 00:34:00,200 --> 00:34:03,440 then I have said, have at it? Or based on 587 00:34:03,559 --> 00:34:05,880 I mean, you've got more than the record than I do. 588 00:34:06,240 --> 00:34:08,880 Or did I invite? I would say I did not 589 00:34:09,000 --> 00:34:13,639 invite the reviews? Question, Well, bad terminology. Perhaps. Let me 590 00:34:13,639 --> 00:34:17,280 ask you this, did you convey to the Criminal Division 591 00:34:17,440 --> 00:34:20,079 that you wanted them to review the matter as requested 592 00:34:20,119 --> 00:34:24,400 by the defense attorneys? Answer? So, from my perspective, I'm 593 00:34:24,400 --> 00:34:27,400 thinking back twelve years now. The very reason that we 594 00:34:27,480 --> 00:34:30,480 invited redacted to come down to Miami back in August 595 00:34:30,719 --> 00:34:33,119 was a sense that it would end up here. And 596 00:34:33,239 --> 00:34:35,760 so if it's going to end up here, let's bring 597 00:34:35,880 --> 00:34:38,679 redacted down, let's make them part of the initial meeting. 598 00:34:39,079 --> 00:34:41,519 You know. If there are some concerns, let's raise these, 599 00:34:41,760 --> 00:34:44,360 let's address them, let's get them out so we don't 600 00:34:44,440 --> 00:34:46,519 end up after we go forward with all of this 601 00:34:46,679 --> 00:34:50,679 back in front of redacted and redacted, and it's much 602 00:34:50,679 --> 00:34:53,719 better to involve Maine Justice earlier. And so I would 603 00:34:53,760 --> 00:34:56,679 say I was trying, if anything, to involve Main Justice 604 00:34:56,920 --> 00:34:59,599 so that we didn't end up where we were, And 605 00:34:59,639 --> 00:35:02,679 it had been my expectation that October date would have 606 00:35:02,719 --> 00:35:08,159 been met the collateral review. Afterwards, the collateral appeals obviously 607 00:35:08,239 --> 00:35:11,000 did not go as we planned, and it was my 608 00:35:11,159 --> 00:35:13,800 sense we were going to end up at Maine Justice 609 00:35:13,800 --> 00:35:17,719 one way or the other. So my question is, in December, 610 00:35:18,280 --> 00:35:20,760 after the December meeting that you had with the Defense 611 00:35:20,800 --> 00:35:23,239 Council and they told you that they were going to 612 00:35:23,280 --> 00:35:26,480 Maine Justice to the Criminal Division, did you convey the 613 00:35:26,519 --> 00:35:29,599 Main Justice Criminal Division that you wanted them to conduct 614 00:35:29,639 --> 00:35:33,719 the review that Defense Council were seeking. Answer? So, I 615 00:35:33,760 --> 00:35:35,880 don't recall what I may or may not have conveyed. 616 00:35:36,239 --> 00:35:38,880 I think my recollection was if they want a review, 617 00:35:39,119 --> 00:35:42,239 that's the right. We're not as a department. We're not 618 00:35:42,280 --> 00:35:45,039 in the business of telling individuals that they can't take 619 00:35:45,079 --> 00:35:49,400 something to your supervisor or your superior. Whether Main Justice 620 00:35:49,440 --> 00:35:53,960 takes this or not is ultimately at their discretion. Question, 621 00:35:54,159 --> 00:35:56,559 would it surprise you to learn that the Criminal Division 622 00:35:56,559 --> 00:36:00,480 Front office understood you to be requesting their review the 623 00:36:00,599 --> 00:36:04,960 review that was sought by Defense Counsel? Answer? Would it 624 00:36:05,000 --> 00:36:10,159 surprise me? Perhaps my understanding recollection is we shouldn't fear it. 625 00:36:10,440 --> 00:36:13,039 If they want it, that's their right. I thought by 626 00:36:13,079 --> 00:36:15,800 inviting Redacted down in the first place, that we had 627 00:36:15,840 --> 00:36:18,760 at least tried to address that early on, but I 628 00:36:18,880 --> 00:36:21,079 also thought that we might end up there in the 629 00:36:21,119 --> 00:36:24,679 first place. Question were you aware that a decision was 630 00:36:24,719 --> 00:36:27,519 made to grant the decision by your office to grant 631 00:36:27,559 --> 00:36:31,519 defense counsel's request their insistence that redacted's role in the 632 00:36:31,559 --> 00:36:35,280 Criminal Division review be limited to review only and that 633 00:36:35,360 --> 00:36:38,159 he not be permitted, or that the Criminal Division. I'm 634 00:36:38,199 --> 00:36:42,119 sorry I misspoke that because Redacted had already been involved 635 00:36:42,199 --> 00:36:45,119 in essentially being a prosecutor on the case the Criminal 636 00:36:45,159 --> 00:36:49,239 Division in CEO's role vis a vee, this review should 637 00:36:49,280 --> 00:36:52,480 be review only, that they should be taken off the 638 00:36:52,519 --> 00:36:55,880 case as a partner. Answer, so I sought emails to 639 00:36:55,920 --> 00:36:59,280 that effect in the record. I don't have independent recollection 640 00:36:59,360 --> 00:37:03,199 of twelve years. Question do you think you were involved 641 00:37:03,199 --> 00:37:06,880 in that decision? Answer to take them off? Question yes, 642 00:37:07,119 --> 00:37:10,400 answer to my recollection, I wanted them on as a partner, 643 00:37:10,800 --> 00:37:14,559 and I think the contemporaneous emails from redacted can you 644 00:37:14,639 --> 00:37:18,480 please come on board? Question but that was earlier before 645 00:37:18,519 --> 00:37:23,800 this review process. Answer no, no, even after review process. 646 00:37:23,840 --> 00:37:26,920 I think there are contemporaneous emails where we're saying, it's 647 00:37:26,960 --> 00:37:30,039 important that you be a part if we go to trial. 648 00:37:30,199 --> 00:37:33,440 It's important that you be part of the trial. As 649 00:37:33,440 --> 00:37:35,639 I went through the record, at least I remember an 650 00:37:35,679 --> 00:37:39,840 email perhaps from redacted to redacted that I'm copied on, saying, Hey, 651 00:37:40,039 --> 00:37:42,679 can you reconsider it's important that you be part of 652 00:37:42,719 --> 00:37:49,039 this question? Reconsider the review only limitation answer? No, reconsider 653 00:37:49,119 --> 00:37:52,039 being part of the trial? Question? All right, So to 654 00:37:52,079 --> 00:37:55,440 be clear, do I understand that you correct me that 655 00:37:55,519 --> 00:37:57,639 you don't have any recollection one way or the other, 656 00:37:57,880 --> 00:38:01,039 whether you requested the Criminal Division to conduct the review 657 00:38:01,519 --> 00:38:05,599 or could it have happened? He cuts her off. So 658 00:38:05,960 --> 00:38:08,519 to the extent again, I'm going back twelve years, To 659 00:38:08,559 --> 00:38:11,639 the extent there is a request to it would be 660 00:38:11,679 --> 00:38:14,679 in the context of this is going to Washington, We're 661 00:38:14,679 --> 00:38:17,559 not fearful of this, have at it question, and you 662 00:38:17,599 --> 00:38:20,719 would have conveyed that to Washington, not just the defense attorneys. 663 00:38:20,920 --> 00:38:25,079 Is that correct answer? I imagine in some way? Question? 664 00:38:25,280 --> 00:38:29,679 All right, Just one more point, this one. This one 665 00:38:29,760 --> 00:38:33,119 was a little bit of an odd posture, however, because 666 00:38:33,159 --> 00:38:35,719 you had signed the agreement and so you know, basically 667 00:38:35,800 --> 00:38:39,679 a contract between parties, and particularly on mister Epstein's side, 668 00:38:39,840 --> 00:38:43,360 a party who was extremely well represented. So is there 669 00:38:43,440 --> 00:38:47,199 any consideration on your part instead of saying, hey, everybody's 670 00:38:47,239 --> 00:38:49,920 got a right to review, knock yourself out, go to 671 00:38:50,000 --> 00:38:53,480 DC as opposed to saying something like that ship is sailed, 672 00:38:54,039 --> 00:38:57,440 you sign this agreement, We're going forward. You don't go forward, 673 00:38:57,599 --> 00:39:01,280 you're in breach. End of story. Answer, So as counsel 674 00:39:01,599 --> 00:39:04,239 are raising serious issues that go to ethics and go 675 00:39:04,280 --> 00:39:08,880 to fundamental relationships between sovereigns. In this twenty two fifty 676 00:39:08,880 --> 00:39:12,880 five appropriate as a matter of federal policy. Is what 677 00:39:12,920 --> 00:39:15,440 we're doing in overreach, you know, is what we're doing 678 00:39:15,480 --> 00:39:19,639 contrary to law? Are we extracting I'm characterizing this may 679 00:39:19,719 --> 00:39:23,639 or may not be accurate. Are we extracting unduly? Are 680 00:39:23,639 --> 00:39:26,920 we using criminal law to extract civil concessions in an 681 00:39:26,920 --> 00:39:30,920 ethically suspect way? Those are serious issues. That isn't just 682 00:39:31,360 --> 00:39:35,039 is this a good case? Those are genuine issues. I 683 00:39:35,119 --> 00:39:37,519 happen to think as I recall that we were in 684 00:39:37,559 --> 00:39:39,840 the right or we wouldn't have agreed to it. But 685 00:39:39,960 --> 00:39:43,760 by the same token, let's assume that Main Justice ultimately disagreed. 686 00:39:44,920 --> 00:39:47,719 Is that from main Justice perspective, and maybe I'm coming 687 00:39:47,760 --> 00:39:50,360 at this, you know, being informed by having been at 688 00:39:50,400 --> 00:39:54,239 Main Justice question mm hmm. Answer where there was talk 689 00:39:54,280 --> 00:39:58,119 about can you believe what this AUSA this AUSA may 690 00:39:58,119 --> 00:40:01,639 have done or may not have done without consulting that 691 00:40:01,679 --> 00:40:05,559 these are serious issues. They establish precedent, you know, maybe 692 00:40:05,559 --> 00:40:08,119 the DAG would have said this is not the kind 693 00:40:08,159 --> 00:40:10,719 of thing we'd support, and this is wrong, and so 694 00:40:10,800 --> 00:40:13,559 at the end of the day, let's move forward. But 695 00:40:13,840 --> 00:40:16,400 if once the issues are raised, I don't think a 696 00:40:16,519 --> 00:40:19,920 US attorney should say Main Justice should not review this. 697 00:40:20,400 --> 00:40:22,679 I think we're part of the department and these are 698 00:40:22,760 --> 00:40:26,039 valid issues. Maine Justice doesn't need to take months to 699 00:40:26,079 --> 00:40:30,079 review this. Main Justice can expedite their review. But those 700 00:40:30,119 --> 00:40:34,800 are valid issues for the Deputy and the AAG to review. Question. 701 00:40:35,159 --> 00:40:37,480 But one could look at it and say, well, those 702 00:40:37,519 --> 00:40:40,239 are all issues that the defense certainly knew about before 703 00:40:40,280 --> 00:40:43,519 they signed that agreement, and having signed that agreement, they're 704 00:40:43,599 --> 00:40:47,480 waiving all of that. That's what contracts are for. You've 705 00:40:47,519 --> 00:40:51,440 got all these issues. Don't sign the contract. Answer, And 706 00:40:51,519 --> 00:40:54,880 if I could, I think there's a December letter. I 707 00:40:54,920 --> 00:40:56,840 don't know if it's in the exhibits, but there's a 708 00:40:56,880 --> 00:41:01,000 December letter that I wrote. Maybe it's the nineteenth. The 709 00:41:01,119 --> 00:41:07,840 nineteenth is you sort of ill fated NPA A dendum effort? Acosta. No, 710 00:41:07,960 --> 00:41:10,679 the letter to ken Starr that I wrote, the fourth 711 00:41:10,760 --> 00:41:15,039 letter to ken Starr, Acosta, I'm sorry. Question, is it 712 00:41:15,119 --> 00:41:20,599 the December fourth letter? Acosta? Yeah, probably it's the December 713 00:41:20,639 --> 00:41:25,000 fourth letter redacted. Yeah, it didn't have a date. Question. 714 00:41:25,280 --> 00:41:29,840 All right, that's the one you wrote, Acosta. I think 715 00:41:29,880 --> 00:41:33,519 you know. I'm starting on page four. I have responded 716 00:41:33,559 --> 00:41:36,159 personally in some detail to your comments because I care 717 00:41:36,199 --> 00:41:39,199 deeply about both the law and the integrity of the office. 718 00:41:39,599 --> 00:41:42,840 I have responded personally and in detail as well, because 719 00:41:42,880 --> 00:41:45,679 your letter troubled me on a number of levels. Upon 720 00:41:45,719 --> 00:41:49,320 your understanding of the negotiations are the twenty two p. 721 00:41:49,480 --> 00:41:53,079 Fifty five was first discussed July thirty first, you know, 722 00:41:53,199 --> 00:41:55,360 and one of these four points. In the middle of 723 00:41:55,360 --> 00:41:58,519 two thousand and seven, your defense team decides asked to 724 00:41:58,559 --> 00:42:03,119 meet with me on September seventh. I met. After considering 725 00:42:03,159 --> 00:42:06,519 of the arguments, and after conferring with the FBI and redacted, 726 00:42:06,840 --> 00:42:10,880 our office decided to proceed with the indictment. At that time, 727 00:42:11,039 --> 00:42:15,039 I offered to delay our prosecutors to delay presentation to 728 00:42:15,119 --> 00:42:18,559 allow you to appeal our decision if you choose, You 729 00:42:18,679 --> 00:42:22,199 chose not to. Instead, you elected to enter into the NPA. 730 00:42:22,719 --> 00:42:25,360 Since the signing of the agreement, the Feds in our 731 00:42:25,360 --> 00:42:28,960 office have addressed several issues that have arisen, Although the 732 00:42:29,000 --> 00:42:33,239 exchanges at the time were a bit litigious question, Could 733 00:42:33,320 --> 00:42:36,920 I point out that this letter is in response to 734 00:42:37,199 --> 00:42:39,840 not at the request for a review by the Criminal 735 00:42:39,840 --> 00:42:42,960 Division that comes later. This is in response to ken 736 00:42:43,000 --> 00:42:46,119 Star's letter to redacted about raising twenty two to fifty 737 00:42:46,159 --> 00:42:49,159 five issues that had not been raised with you before. 738 00:42:49,840 --> 00:42:53,880 Answer right, which is in essence or review? I mean 739 00:42:53,920 --> 00:42:56,440 their coming to Main Justice, and you know it's against 740 00:42:56,480 --> 00:43:00,519 these many previous, foregone opportunities to object that I receive. 741 00:43:00,760 --> 00:43:04,199 Would surprise your letter requesting an eleventh hour after the 742 00:43:04,199 --> 00:43:07,760 fact review of our agreement, although it happens rarely. I 743 00:43:07,800 --> 00:43:11,440 don't mind this office decision being appealed to Washington, and 744 00:43:11,519 --> 00:43:15,639 have previously directed our prosecutors to delay. Indeed, I'm confident 745 00:43:15,800 --> 00:43:20,519 in our prosecutor's evidence and legal analysis. I nonetheless directed 746 00:43:20,519 --> 00:43:23,320 them to consult with subject matter experts in the Criminal 747 00:43:23,360 --> 00:43:27,599 CEO's Division. To confer to our interpretation of the law 748 00:43:27,840 --> 00:43:31,039 before proceeding with the indictment. So I guess you know 749 00:43:31,440 --> 00:43:35,119 we consulted CEOs. I'm thus surprised to read a letter 750 00:43:35,360 --> 00:43:38,960 addressed to the Department headquarters that raises issues that either 751 00:43:39,000 --> 00:43:41,960 have not been raised with this office previously, or have 752 00:43:42,039 --> 00:43:45,480 been raised and in fact resolved with your client's favor. 753 00:43:46,480 --> 00:43:49,559 I'm troubled likewise by the apparent lack of finality in 754 00:43:49,599 --> 00:43:53,559 the agreement. The Ausays have been negotiating with Defense Counsel 755 00:43:53,800 --> 00:43:56,599 and have for some time complained to me regarding the 756 00:43:56,639 --> 00:43:59,880 tactics used by the Defense team. It appears to them 757 00:44:00,119 --> 00:44:02,639 that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, 758 00:44:02,800 --> 00:44:08,239 Defense Counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. Question, 759 00:44:08,599 --> 00:44:12,079 so this is your protest? It sounds like Starr's effort 760 00:44:12,159 --> 00:44:18,559 to bypass you and go with new issues. Answer it is. 761 00:44:18,760 --> 00:44:21,280 And I'm pushing back in that, And I was inviting this, 762 00:44:21,679 --> 00:44:24,159 or I was sort of saying, you know that said 763 00:44:24,400 --> 00:44:27,639 there must be closure on the matter. Some in our 764 00:44:27,760 --> 00:44:31,199 office are deeply concerned that Defense Council will continue to 765 00:44:31,280 --> 00:44:35,599 mount collateral challenges to provision of the agreement, even after 766 00:44:35,719 --> 00:44:38,679 mister Epstein has entered as guilty plea and thus rendered 767 00:44:38,679 --> 00:44:42,880 the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind. In closing, 768 00:44:43,119 --> 00:44:46,039 I ask that you consult with co counsel. If after 769 00:44:46,119 --> 00:44:49,679 consultation with your defense team, you believe that our agreement 770 00:44:49,800 --> 00:44:55,360 is unethical, unlawful, or unconstitutional, I'd ask that you notify 771 00:44:55,440 --> 00:44:58,199 us immediately so we can discuss the matter by phone 772 00:44:58,480 --> 00:45:02,159 or in person. I've consulted the chief prosecutor in the case, 773 00:45:02,519 --> 00:45:05,719 who has advised that she's ready to unwind the agreement 774 00:45:06,159 --> 00:45:10,599 and proceed to trial if necessary or appropriate. Question. So 775 00:45:10,679 --> 00:45:14,800 are you suggesting that this represents your protest of their 776 00:45:14,840 --> 00:45:18,840 appeal to adacted? Answer? So, protest is a loaded word. 777 00:45:19,199 --> 00:45:22,280 What I'm suggesting is that this is not invitation to 778 00:45:22,360 --> 00:45:25,639 appeal tomand justice. This is sort of saying enough is enough? 779 00:45:25,679 --> 00:45:30,199 Is enough? Question? But mister Acosta, in fairness this to clarify, 780 00:45:30,559 --> 00:45:33,679 this is in response to a letter directed to or adacted, 781 00:45:33,960 --> 00:45:38,480 dated November twenty eighth, two thousand and seven, raising issues 782 00:45:38,519 --> 00:45:41,840 that had not been raised with you. The appeal subsequently 783 00:45:42,199 --> 00:45:45,400 that I was asking about was an appeal for dnovo review, 784 00:45:45,800 --> 00:45:50,880 a d'novo review of the whole case answer understood. And 785 00:45:50,920 --> 00:45:53,760 the reason that I read this, you know, is this 786 00:45:53,840 --> 00:45:56,280 is not On one hand, I'm saying we do not 787 00:45:56,280 --> 00:46:00,400 fear review, but this is not an invitation to defense 788 00:46:00,440 --> 00:46:03,199 counsel to do a di novo. I'm not inviting them. 789 00:46:03,320 --> 00:46:06,400 I'm not saying let's have some more review. I'm saying 790 00:46:06,480 --> 00:46:10,400 enough is enough. If they appeal, that's fine, But this 791 00:46:10,480 --> 00:46:14,199 is not an invitation to appeal. Question. But there was 792 00:46:14,239 --> 00:46:16,719 nothing you could do to stop their appeal right except 793 00:46:16,760 --> 00:46:19,880 indict answer, And so the Department shouldn't stop an appeal 794 00:46:19,960 --> 00:46:24,599 to main Justice, you know, by threatening question fair enough answer, 795 00:46:24,679 --> 00:46:28,199 because Main Justice has a right to review question. I 796 00:46:28,199 --> 00:46:31,159 should have said that that this this appeal process was 797 00:46:31,199 --> 00:46:37,119 stymying progress and resolving the Epstein case. Answer. It was question, 798 00:46:37,400 --> 00:46:39,840 and you had no way, You had no recourse other 799 00:46:40,280 --> 00:46:42,920 than at least theoretically, you could have just said, you know, 800 00:46:43,440 --> 00:46:45,880 we're going to tear it up and indict because you're 801 00:46:45,920 --> 00:46:49,360 in breach in effect answer, which would have raised the 802 00:46:49,440 --> 00:46:54,639 altigation answer overlays, which is the point that I thought 803 00:46:54,679 --> 00:46:58,719 merited at least flushing out question. So to be short 804 00:46:58,719 --> 00:47:01,440 of the Department itself getting a move on and getting 805 00:47:01,440 --> 00:47:04,480 this thing through expeditiously. Did you feel like you just 806 00:47:04,480 --> 00:47:07,960 had to sit there and wait for everything to get done? Answer? 807 00:47:07,960 --> 00:47:09,400 I'm not sure it was sit there and wait. But 808 00:47:09,639 --> 00:47:12,599 ultimately the case did not get better with time, and 809 00:47:12,639 --> 00:47:15,719 there was frustration on our part. You know, the witnesses 810 00:47:15,760 --> 00:47:20,079 are not getting better, you know time question, they're getting older? 811 00:47:20,599 --> 00:47:23,119 Answer they're getting which goes back to how a jurm 812 00:47:23,119 --> 00:47:28,199 may see them redacted? Right, Acosta and I do recall 813 00:47:28,199 --> 00:47:31,000 conversations of them getting older. You know, this case is 814 00:47:31,000 --> 00:47:33,880 not getting better, and now we have the civil overlay 815 00:47:34,079 --> 00:47:37,079 that we need to deal with. And so, yes, there 816 00:47:37,199 --> 00:47:40,079 was process, but while there was should we just call 817 00:47:40,119 --> 00:47:42,800 it a day? All of that factored into well, if 818 00:47:42,800 --> 00:47:46,400 the Department is reviewing, the Department is reviewing. All right, folks, 819 00:47:46,400 --> 00:47:48,559 we're gonna wrap up this episode right here, and then 820 00:47:48,599 --> 00:47:50,639 the next episode we're going to pick up where we 821 00:47:50,719 --> 00:47:53,800 left off. All of the information that goes with this 822 00:47:53,920 --> 00:47:56,559 episode can be found in the description box.