1 00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:02,960 Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the 2 00:00:03,000 --> 00:00:07,200 Epstein Chronicles. Ever since we first got the OIG report 3 00:00:07,519 --> 00:00:11,880 detailing their investigation into not only Jeffrey Epstein's death, but 4 00:00:12,320 --> 00:00:16,039 into the non prosecution agreement, I have been very, very 5 00:00:16,039 --> 00:00:20,239 interested in seeing the interview that was conducted with alex 6 00:00:20,280 --> 00:00:24,280 Acosta that was administered by the Inspector General's Office, And 7 00:00:24,359 --> 00:00:28,839 after exhaustively searching through the new unsealed files, I was 8 00:00:28,879 --> 00:00:31,960 able to put together this whole entire interview, all three 9 00:00:32,039 --> 00:00:34,520 hundred pages, and obviously we're going to get it added 10 00:00:34,520 --> 00:00:36,840 to the catalog and then you can listen to this 11 00:00:36,960 --> 00:00:40,359 interview and then go back to the deposition that alex 12 00:00:40,359 --> 00:00:43,560 Acosta gave to Congress recently and see how it all 13 00:00:43,600 --> 00:00:48,560 lines up. So with that said, let's dive in examination 14 00:00:48,759 --> 00:00:52,799 by misredacted question, So would you tell us your name? 15 00:00:52,840 --> 00:00:58,039 Please answer Renee Alexander Acosta. Question and mister Acosta, you're 16 00:00:58,039 --> 00:01:01,840 accompanied by your attorney, Gordon Todt. Is that correct answer? Yes? 17 00:01:01,880 --> 00:01:05,640 It is? Question and mister Todd would you identify the 18 00:01:05,680 --> 00:01:11,799 associate you have with you? Yes? TJ. Hauran misredacted h 19 00:01:11,879 --> 00:01:18,040 E r RN. Mister Heran correct misredacted. Thank you, mister Acosta. 20 00:01:18,400 --> 00:01:21,159 I'm redacted. I'm a council with the Office of Professional 21 00:01:21,159 --> 00:01:24,560 Responsibility here at the Department of Justice, and with me 22 00:01:24,920 --> 00:01:30,000 are my fellow OPR council redacted, redacted and redacted. And 23 00:01:30,040 --> 00:01:31,959 we are in a conference room at the Department of 24 00:01:32,079 --> 00:01:36,239 Justice main building on today, October eighteenth, twenty nineteen, and 25 00:01:36,280 --> 00:01:39,480 we're starting at about nine thirty in the morning. Before 26 00:01:39,519 --> 00:01:42,000 we start, I just want to put on the record 27 00:01:42,000 --> 00:01:45,200 that mister redacted worked in the Civil Rights Division at 28 00:01:45,239 --> 00:01:48,840 the time that you were the AAG heading that division, 29 00:01:49,040 --> 00:01:51,760 and I believe had an occasion to briefly meet you 30 00:01:52,040 --> 00:01:55,120 in connection with the matter the witness. Could I ask 31 00:01:55,159 --> 00:02:00,719 what section, mister redacted, I was in the special litigation section? Oh, okay, 32 00:02:01,239 --> 00:02:05,040 mister adacted, And I provided mister Acosta some talking points 33 00:02:05,359 --> 00:02:08,199 for a press situation that we had in that case. 34 00:02:09,000 --> 00:02:13,199 The witness one four one four to one, mister adacted, Yes, 35 00:02:14,360 --> 00:02:18,400 the witness probably by misredacted question. All right, thank you, 36 00:02:18,439 --> 00:02:23,400 mister Acosta. OPR is investigating two things, as you know. One, 37 00:02:23,560 --> 00:02:26,639 whether one or more federal prosecutors in the Southern District 38 00:02:26,719 --> 00:02:30,800 of Florida, US Attorney's office may have committed professional misconduct 39 00:02:31,080 --> 00:02:34,759 by entering into the non Prosecution Agreement or MPa in 40 00:02:34,759 --> 00:02:37,680 two thousand and seven with Jeffrey Epstein, who at the 41 00:02:37,719 --> 00:02:41,080 time was under investigation by that office and the FBI 42 00:02:41,479 --> 00:02:46,560 for engaging in widespread sexual misconduct involving underage females. The 43 00:02:46,639 --> 00:02:50,120 second thing we're investigating is Judge Mara's finding in February 44 00:02:50,159 --> 00:02:53,199 of this year, twenty nineteen, that the government may have 45 00:02:53,280 --> 00:02:57,800 violated or actually found the government did violate the CVRA 46 00:02:58,520 --> 00:03:01,599 or Crime's Victims Rights Act when it entered into the 47 00:03:01,680 --> 00:03:05,039 NPA without first providing the victims with notice and a 48 00:03:05,080 --> 00:03:08,719 reasonable right to confer with the government. You are subject 49 00:03:08,840 --> 00:03:12,680 of the OPR investigation, that is, one of somebody whose 50 00:03:12,719 --> 00:03:16,680 conduct is being reviewed and evaluated by OPR, and specifically, 51 00:03:16,759 --> 00:03:19,479 as US attorney at the time for the Southern District 52 00:03:19,479 --> 00:03:22,439 of Florida, you had the ultimate authority over the Epstein 53 00:03:23,400 --> 00:03:25,800 for a period of two and a half years, as 54 00:03:25,840 --> 00:03:29,919 we understand it, from the time the line Ausa Redacted 55 00:03:30,000 --> 00:03:32,960 first brief you and then Criminal Chief Redacted in July 56 00:03:33,080 --> 00:03:35,719 of two thousand and six, and until you were formally 57 00:03:35,759 --> 00:03:38,759 recused from the case on or about the eighth of 58 00:03:38,759 --> 00:03:42,680 December two thousand and eight, after notifying the Executive Office 59 00:03:42,879 --> 00:03:45,719 of the US Attorneys that you are seeking employment with 60 00:03:45,800 --> 00:03:49,319 Kirkland and Ellis, a firm of which two attorneys, Ken 61 00:03:49,319 --> 00:03:53,360 Starr and Jay Lefkowitz had been representing Jeffrey Epstein. Is 62 00:03:53,400 --> 00:03:57,400 that correct? Answer? We may we may get into it 63 00:03:57,439 --> 00:03:59,800 a little bit later, but I think the character is 64 00:03:59,800 --> 00:04:02,719 ation of my seeking employment is not accurate. We can 65 00:04:02,759 --> 00:04:05,520 talk about that a little bit later. Question all right, 66 00:04:05,560 --> 00:04:08,280 we have the documents that relate to that, So that's 67 00:04:08,360 --> 00:04:12,159 what we're basing that on. Answer correct, question. And I 68 00:04:12,199 --> 00:04:15,840 believe the term that I used is seeking employment. Answer. 69 00:04:16,279 --> 00:04:18,920 That is the term used in the email. I think 70 00:04:18,959 --> 00:04:22,079 I address that, and I believe mister Todd addressed that 71 00:04:22,120 --> 00:04:26,480 in the letter that was sent. Question all right, thank you. 72 00:04:26,639 --> 00:04:28,920 So we recognize that you're no longer with the Department 73 00:04:28,959 --> 00:04:32,839 of Justice. Answer right, question, and that it's your choice 74 00:04:32,839 --> 00:04:34,560 to come and talk to us, and that we very 75 00:04:34,639 --> 00:04:38,079 much appreciate your willingness to voluntarily do so and help 76 00:04:38,120 --> 00:04:41,439 figure this case out. OPR provided you with a few 77 00:04:41,519 --> 00:04:45,399 thousand pages of records, emails and correspondence and some other 78 00:04:45,480 --> 00:04:49,279 documents that reflect your involvement in the Epstein matter over 79 00:04:49,279 --> 00:04:51,800 that two and a half year period. Now that you've 80 00:04:51,800 --> 00:04:54,319 had a chance to review, I hope those emails and 81 00:04:54,399 --> 00:04:57,160 other documents, we hope that you can be specific in 82 00:04:57,199 --> 00:05:01,360 helping us understand what happened. Have you in fact been 83 00:05:01,399 --> 00:05:05,279 able to review those documents? Answer? Yes, I have question. 84 00:05:05,399 --> 00:05:08,360 Thank you. O PR asked you for a written response 85 00:05:08,399 --> 00:05:12,079 to certain questions, and we've reviewed and received a written 86 00:05:12,120 --> 00:05:16,040 response prepared and submitted not by you, but by your attorney, 87 00:05:16,120 --> 00:05:20,959 mister Todd on your behalf. Have you reviewed his response? Answer? Yes? 88 00:05:21,720 --> 00:05:26,120 Question yeut? You answer? Yes, I have question? And will 89 00:05:26,120 --> 00:05:29,560 you now under oath subscribe to that response as if 90 00:05:29,560 --> 00:05:33,000 you had submitted it yourself. Answer? So, mister Todd spoke 91 00:05:33,079 --> 00:05:35,920 to me and conveyed the investigation that I provide him. 92 00:05:36,360 --> 00:05:39,439 I believe he conveyed that the information accurately, and the 93 00:05:39,480 --> 00:05:42,680 statements that he ascribes to me in that letter, I 94 00:05:42,800 --> 00:05:46,000 believe or accurate. Question all right, do you have any 95 00:05:46,079 --> 00:05:49,879 changes or corrections to the written response? Answer? No, I don't. 96 00:05:50,639 --> 00:05:53,160 Question is there anything in it that you do not 97 00:05:53,279 --> 00:05:56,720 agree with? Answer? Again, I think that the statement that 98 00:05:56,800 --> 00:05:59,720 he ascribes to me are accurate, and I agree with them. 99 00:06:00,040 --> 00:06:02,560 Question all right, so we're going to accept that statement 100 00:06:02,839 --> 00:06:07,360 as representing accurately your What would you have responded if 101 00:06:07,360 --> 00:06:11,879 you had responded to us directly? Is that correct? Answer? Yes, 102 00:06:12,000 --> 00:06:15,160 the statements he basically gives me positions, and I believe 103 00:06:15,199 --> 00:06:20,399 that he gave my positions accurately. Question perfect, Thank you. So, 104 00:06:20,639 --> 00:06:23,879 as we ask questions and refer to documents, we would 105 00:06:23,920 --> 00:06:27,000 like you to correct any misstatements in our questions or 106 00:06:27,120 --> 00:06:31,079 any misstatements or errors that are in the documents themselves, 107 00:06:31,319 --> 00:06:35,279 because we want to make the entire record correct. Also, 108 00:06:35,439 --> 00:06:38,439 there's been an enormous amount of publicity about the Epstein case, 109 00:06:38,680 --> 00:06:42,720 particularly this year, including about the events and decisions made 110 00:06:42,759 --> 00:06:46,199 back in two thousand and six to twenty ten that 111 00:06:46,319 --> 00:06:49,319 are the subject of our investigation, and so as best 112 00:06:49,360 --> 00:06:51,720 you can, we ask you to try to answer today 113 00:06:52,040 --> 00:06:57,680 from your knowledge, understanding, and recollections as of that time period. However, 114 00:06:57,759 --> 00:07:00,560 to the extent you are asked or do speak retro actively. 115 00:07:00,759 --> 00:07:04,959 Retrospectively will just make it clear that that's what you're doing. 116 00:07:06,160 --> 00:07:09,879 Answer all right, question, okay, answer, And if I could 117 00:07:09,920 --> 00:07:12,639 just say, one of the difficulties is with everything that, 118 00:07:12,800 --> 00:07:15,279 all the publicity and all the documents that have made 119 00:07:15,319 --> 00:07:19,360 it to the press, and in litigation, distinguishing between recollection 120 00:07:19,879 --> 00:07:25,639 versus the fact. Question right, Acosta interjects speculation, and I 121 00:07:25,680 --> 00:07:28,600 will try, but I would appreciate reminders along the way, 122 00:07:28,920 --> 00:07:32,639 because it's an important distinction. But it's kind of hard sometimes. 123 00:07:33,639 --> 00:07:38,000 Question we recognize, particularly the importance of it. Answer right, 124 00:07:38,399 --> 00:07:43,000 question that that's precisely the heart of the matter. So, 125 00:07:43,120 --> 00:07:46,759 mister Acosta, your professional background is a matter of public record. 126 00:07:47,000 --> 00:07:50,000 I have a couple of questions. By what state bar 127 00:07:50,319 --> 00:07:54,160 are you currently licensed? Answer, so, I'm an active I 128 00:07:54,199 --> 00:07:58,000 believe in active in Pennsylvania and also in DC. Question 129 00:07:58,079 --> 00:08:02,040 all right, and not in Florida. Answer not in Florida. Question, 130 00:08:02,199 --> 00:08:04,920 so is it do I understand that you are not 131 00:08:05,000 --> 00:08:08,040 currently an active member of any bar? Answer? I would 132 00:08:08,079 --> 00:08:10,800 have to confirm with DC. I said not inactive in 133 00:08:10,839 --> 00:08:14,279 Pennsylvania and in DC, because I'm not certain whether I'm 134 00:08:14,279 --> 00:08:18,240 currently active or inactive. In DC, I'm not currently practicing, 135 00:08:18,639 --> 00:08:22,040 and so I would have renewed under either active or inactive. 136 00:08:22,519 --> 00:08:25,639 Question all right, answer, we can verify that and get 137 00:08:25,680 --> 00:08:28,600 that question. We would appreciate that if mister Todd, could 138 00:08:28,680 --> 00:08:31,279 let us know your current status. I would also like 139 00:08:31,319 --> 00:08:33,879 to know the status your bar status in the period 140 00:08:34,159 --> 00:08:36,480 of two thousand and six through two thousand and eight. 141 00:08:36,720 --> 00:08:39,759 Do you know what that was? Answer? Most likely, I 142 00:08:39,799 --> 00:08:42,519 can speculate. I don't know for a fact. Most likely 143 00:08:42,559 --> 00:08:46,600 it was active in DC. Question uh huh answer and 144 00:08:46,679 --> 00:08:52,039 an active in Pennsylvania. Question okay, but likely active somewhere right? Answer, yes, yes, 145 00:08:52,120 --> 00:08:56,519 I think that's a requirement answer, so it would be DC. 146 00:08:56,919 --> 00:08:59,679 The distinction between active and an active in DC is 147 00:08:59,720 --> 00:09:03,120 more as I recall, then Pennsylvania, where there's a large 148 00:09:03,120 --> 00:09:06,159 fee difference. Question All right, thank you, and we look 149 00:09:06,200 --> 00:09:10,200 forward to hearing confirmation of that from you, mister Todd. So, 150 00:09:10,360 --> 00:09:13,360 after serving nearly two years as the Assistant Attorney General 151 00:09:13,600 --> 00:09:16,519 in charge of the Department's Civil Rights Division, you were 152 00:09:16,600 --> 00:09:20,360 presidentially appointed the interim US Attorney for the Southern District 153 00:09:20,360 --> 00:09:23,519 of Florida in June of two thousand and five, and then, 154 00:09:23,559 --> 00:09:26,600 as we understand it, you were formally nominated as US 155 00:09:26,679 --> 00:09:29,559 Attorney in June of two thousand and six, and after 156 00:09:29,639 --> 00:09:32,360 being confirmed by the United States Senate, you were sworn 157 00:09:32,360 --> 00:09:36,000 in by the US Attorney as US Attorney in late 158 00:09:36,039 --> 00:09:39,600 October two thousand and six. Answer. I think that may 159 00:09:39,639 --> 00:09:42,720 be inaccurate. I would have to confirm when you say 160 00:09:42,759 --> 00:09:45,919 presidentially appointed. I believe it may have been appointed by 161 00:09:45,919 --> 00:09:48,759 the Chief Judge at the request of the Attorney General. 162 00:09:48,960 --> 00:09:53,879 The Chief Judge has appointing authority. Question okay, answer, and 163 00:09:53,960 --> 00:09:56,399 you'd have to go back and confirm whether it was 164 00:09:56,440 --> 00:10:00,440 either an ag designation or the Chief Judge. Answer, all right, 165 00:10:01,320 --> 00:10:04,320 question and I understand. And again I would appreciate if 166 00:10:04,320 --> 00:10:08,840 you could follow up on that question, mister Todd. Answer. 167 00:10:09,080 --> 00:10:11,559 I'm not certain how to confirm that that's something that 168 00:10:11,679 --> 00:10:14,879 in all candor the department would know. Question all right, 169 00:10:16,039 --> 00:10:18,519 then we will pursue it. My point is that there 170 00:10:18,600 --> 00:10:22,360 was a change in your status from an interim to you, 171 00:10:22,360 --> 00:10:27,080 you know, the US Attorney with the full confirmation, How, 172 00:10:27,120 --> 00:10:29,639 if at all, did the change in status affect your 173 00:10:29,759 --> 00:10:34,919 view of and your exercise of your authority as US attorney? Answer? 174 00:10:35,039 --> 00:10:38,639 So it's difficult to recall now you're asking that just 175 00:10:38,720 --> 00:10:41,559 ten years back, but even further back, I was interim 176 00:10:41,679 --> 00:10:45,159 for a sufficiently long period of time, and by the 177 00:10:45,240 --> 00:10:48,039 time change and status took place, I would speculate that 178 00:10:48,120 --> 00:10:51,720 I was, in my mind the you know, acting as 179 00:10:51,840 --> 00:10:55,960 US attorney, whether you have adjunctive interim or acting in 180 00:10:55,960 --> 00:10:58,440 front of your name or not. You know, I had 181 00:10:58,480 --> 00:11:01,279 great people. I don't recall when I came on board 182 00:11:01,320 --> 00:11:04,799 as a first assistant, but he was my crim chief, 183 00:11:04,960 --> 00:11:07,200 and I thought for the continuity of the office it 184 00:11:07,279 --> 00:11:10,960 was important to promote him to first assistant. Question. He 185 00:11:11,159 --> 00:11:14,720 was promoted actually effective October of two thousand and six. 186 00:11:14,799 --> 00:11:17,759 You made a series, according to emails, the announcement, the 187 00:11:17,840 --> 00:11:21,240 personnel announcement was made to be effective in October two 188 00:11:21,279 --> 00:11:25,559 thousand and six, naming redacted as criminal chief and redacted 189 00:11:25,639 --> 00:11:29,000 as first assistant. Answer, right, and they they were both 190 00:11:29,080 --> 00:11:33,200 long serving professionals within the office, and basically, as my recollection, 191 00:11:33,679 --> 00:11:38,360 everyone just moved up one wrung question. Okay, answer, you 192 00:11:38,360 --> 00:11:40,679 would know better than I because you have those records, 193 00:11:40,879 --> 00:11:43,799 and so, sitting here today, I don't recall any specific 194 00:11:43,799 --> 00:11:47,919 way in which that shift would have impacted question. All right, 195 00:11:48,120 --> 00:11:51,600 answer my thinking question. You had not served as a 196 00:11:51,639 --> 00:11:56,879 prosecutor before and didn't have direct criminal experience, is my understanding. Answer? 197 00:11:57,360 --> 00:12:00,399 That's correct. I had supervised civil rights for a example, 198 00:12:00,799 --> 00:12:04,000 had supervised criminal prosecutions, but I had not been a 199 00:12:04,039 --> 00:12:08,080 line prosecutor previously. Questions, So, as the US attorney supervising 200 00:12:08,080 --> 00:12:12,279 a couple one hundred answer right, question, line prosecutors most 201 00:12:12,320 --> 00:12:16,720 involved in criminal work? What interested you most or appealed 202 00:12:16,720 --> 00:12:19,279 to you most as you undertook and carried out your 203 00:12:19,360 --> 00:12:23,639 duties as US attorney? Answer? What interested me and appealed 204 00:12:23,639 --> 00:12:26,080 to me? So the work of the office. I mean, 205 00:12:26,360 --> 00:12:29,399 it's a broad question, but the work that office, in 206 00:12:29,480 --> 00:12:32,720 any US Attorney office, I think is incredibly impactful to 207 00:12:32,759 --> 00:12:35,840 any local community. And I very much enjoyed being part 208 00:12:35,879 --> 00:12:38,600 of the effort to bring folks to justice, to move 209 00:12:38,639 --> 00:12:42,639 policy initiatives. You know, I recall early on we identified 210 00:12:42,679 --> 00:12:46,000 health care fraud as one big, one big area, and 211 00:12:46,039 --> 00:12:48,519 we had one of the largest, one of the largest 212 00:12:48,519 --> 00:12:51,720 health care fraud initiatives. You know, we focus quite a 213 00:12:51,720 --> 00:12:54,080 bit on gun violence and we did a great job 214 00:12:54,080 --> 00:12:57,000 on that. And it's one of those jobs where people 215 00:12:57,000 --> 00:12:59,440 feel very good about what they do, and it's great 216 00:12:59,480 --> 00:13:05,080 to be a part of. Question that's helpful, It just 217 00:13:05,120 --> 00:13:10,279 gives us answer. Yeah, question some perspective question, Was there 218 00:13:10,279 --> 00:13:13,799 any aspect of it that you particularly disliked answer to 219 00:13:13,840 --> 00:13:17,120 the extent you're dealing with personnel issues. I think personnel 220 00:13:17,159 --> 00:13:21,679 issues are rarely the preferred part of any executive function. 221 00:13:22,799 --> 00:13:25,840 Question you mean the conflicts among attorneys things like that, 222 00:13:26,120 --> 00:13:31,919 or performance issues? Answer performance issues question? All right, answer, 223 00:13:32,120 --> 00:13:34,679 And you know, when you've got in any large office, 224 00:13:34,720 --> 00:13:38,759 you got personal issues, disciplinary issues, and those are never 225 00:13:39,159 --> 00:13:42,200 those are never fun. All right. We're gonna wrap up 226 00:13:42,200 --> 00:13:45,159 this episode right here, and in the next episode dealing 227 00:13:45,200 --> 00:13:47,679 with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off. 228 00:13:48,200 --> 00:13:50,639 All of the information that goes with this episode can 229 00:13:50,679 --> 00:13:54,080 be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and 230 00:13:54,200 --> 00:13:58,200 welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, 231 00:13:58,200 --> 00:14:00,200 we're going to pick up where we left off the 232 00:14:00,240 --> 00:14:06,080 alex Acosta interview with the OIG investigators question. So we 233 00:14:06,159 --> 00:14:09,759 talked about the personnel, high level personnel changes you made 234 00:14:09,799 --> 00:14:13,639 sort of after your first year there. Redacted had, we understand, 235 00:14:13,879 --> 00:14:16,679 been functioning the fact though as a first assistant while 236 00:14:16,679 --> 00:14:21,639 redacted was not. He we understand redacted had been first assistant, 237 00:14:21,840 --> 00:14:24,720 but he stepped away and Redacted came in to essentially 238 00:14:24,759 --> 00:14:28,919 take over his brief until he was formally appointed first assistant. 239 00:14:29,320 --> 00:14:32,559 Is that consistent with your memory? Answer, so you might 240 00:14:32,600 --> 00:14:36,200 have characterized that more strongly than I would have. Question okay, 241 00:14:36,639 --> 00:14:40,039 answer again, it's difficult to recreate from back then, but 242 00:14:40,200 --> 00:14:43,720 there was certainly a transition period for mister adapted to 243 00:14:43,879 --> 00:14:47,240 mister adacted. And if I could, because when you said 244 00:14:47,320 --> 00:14:50,320 high level changes, my intent it was a great office, 245 00:14:50,519 --> 00:14:55,039 great professionals. My intent in elevating mister adacted was just 246 00:14:55,360 --> 00:14:58,320 you go from criminal chief the first assistant. And I 247 00:14:58,320 --> 00:15:01,600 don't recall mister adacted prior position, but I know that 248 00:15:01,679 --> 00:15:04,759 he was also elevated. I think he might have been 249 00:15:05,120 --> 00:15:11,919 major crimes. But question, that's correct answer, I could guess it. Question, 250 00:15:12,120 --> 00:15:16,200 we can verify that answer. Okay, question Yes, what was 251 00:15:16,240 --> 00:15:19,799 your assistant of redacted? His capabilities, his judgment, and his 252 00:15:19,879 --> 00:15:22,639 working relationship with you on a day to day basis. 253 00:15:23,120 --> 00:15:26,279 Answer outstanding. He had been in the office for decades. 254 00:15:26,399 --> 00:15:29,519 He was respected by everyone. He had a very good 255 00:15:29,559 --> 00:15:32,159 tone to him. He was someone, you know, I wanted 256 00:15:32,240 --> 00:15:35,919 individuals around me that were respected within the office and 257 00:15:36,000 --> 00:15:38,240 that were trusted and that had been there for a 258 00:15:38,279 --> 00:15:41,159 long time. And then I think I was very lucky 259 00:15:41,399 --> 00:15:45,600 to have that in my management team. Question, as we 260 00:15:45,720 --> 00:15:49,519 understand it, your office, as US attorney was sort of 261 00:15:49,600 --> 00:15:52,440 on the one side of the reception area and the 262 00:15:52,480 --> 00:15:56,440 first assistant's office is on the other side. Is that correct? Answer? 263 00:15:56,559 --> 00:16:01,559 That's correct? Question? So, did did you and redacted have 264 00:16:01,679 --> 00:16:05,200 any sort of easy back and forth question, open door 265 00:16:05,639 --> 00:16:09,559 answer into each other's offices multiple times a day? Question? 266 00:16:09,720 --> 00:16:13,399 All right? Answer? All right? And given that he had 267 00:16:13,559 --> 00:16:16,840 experienced throughout his career at the department in the criminal 268 00:16:16,840 --> 00:16:19,759 arena and you had not, to what extent would you 269 00:16:19,799 --> 00:16:23,720 rely on him among others for guidance, perspective, information, and 270 00:16:23,840 --> 00:16:27,200 so on. Answer? I named the first assistant because I 271 00:16:27,279 --> 00:16:30,279 valued his guidance and his perspectives, and I thought those 272 00:16:30,320 --> 00:16:34,480 were valuable. Question. Okay. You also, as we pointed out, 273 00:16:34,519 --> 00:16:38,480 appointed redacted to succeed redacted as criminal chief effect of 274 00:16:38,559 --> 00:16:41,480 October of two thousand and six, and he served for 275 00:16:41,480 --> 00:16:45,159 about ten months before he left for private practice. He 276 00:16:45,240 --> 00:16:48,080 left at the beginning of August two thousand and seven. 277 00:16:49,759 --> 00:16:52,159 What did you you said you didn't recall as we 278 00:16:52,200 --> 00:16:55,559 sit here today, what section he come from? Answer right, 279 00:16:56,000 --> 00:17:00,279 I guessed it was major crimes. Question all right? Were 280 00:17:00,320 --> 00:17:04,920 you what was the assessment of redacted answer outstanding as well. 281 00:17:05,359 --> 00:17:08,039 And if I could say when I say, I don't recall, 282 00:17:08,240 --> 00:17:11,680 but I guess when you're going back twelve years, sometimes 283 00:17:11,720 --> 00:17:14,400 you get an impression. But you can't say it's a recollection, 284 00:17:14,839 --> 00:17:17,680 and that's going to come up multiple times today just 285 00:17:17,720 --> 00:17:20,400 because it's a while ago question. As long as we 286 00:17:20,480 --> 00:17:24,559 make that distinction, both are helpful answer, right, And so 287 00:17:25,319 --> 00:17:29,400 whether it's a recollection or a construction after the fact, 288 00:17:29,680 --> 00:17:32,039 I can't say that, but you know, I thought that 289 00:17:32,200 --> 00:17:34,920 one of the helpful factors with redacted is he had 290 00:17:34,960 --> 00:17:37,400 spent a lot of time and major Crimes is the 291 00:17:37,400 --> 00:17:40,799 most active active unit. I assume you all know that 292 00:17:40,920 --> 00:17:44,839 the structure in the office, but major crime is not 293 00:17:45,039 --> 00:17:47,880 major crimes, it's sort of the entry level crimes. And 294 00:17:47,960 --> 00:17:50,640 I value the fact that he had trained and you know, 295 00:17:50,960 --> 00:17:54,240 so many ausas and really spent a lot of time 296 00:17:54,279 --> 00:17:57,440 reviewing the major crimes chief as opposed to the other 297 00:17:57,559 --> 00:17:59,960 chiefs who spend a lot of time reviewing the work 298 00:18:00,319 --> 00:18:03,519 of ausa's And so he would be someone who is 299 00:18:03,680 --> 00:18:07,240 very experienced and able to get into the weeds question. 300 00:18:07,599 --> 00:18:10,400 And he in fact was around during that time period, 301 00:18:10,640 --> 00:18:13,279 had gone back in the courtroom. If you recall to 302 00:18:13,319 --> 00:18:17,400 actually try a major case, do you recall that? Answer? 303 00:18:17,519 --> 00:18:22,000 I didn't until you just said so. Question major fraud. Answer, 304 00:18:22,279 --> 00:18:24,960 I didn't until you mentioned it. And now there's something 305 00:18:25,000 --> 00:18:27,200 in the back of my head that's saying that sounds right, 306 00:18:27,480 --> 00:18:30,640 but I can't give you more detail. Question all right? 307 00:18:30,839 --> 00:18:33,920 What was your assessment of redacted and sort of working 308 00:18:33,920 --> 00:18:38,519 style and particularly working with you? Answer? You know again, positive? 309 00:18:39,039 --> 00:18:41,000 You know, we didn't. I didn't see him as often 310 00:18:41,000 --> 00:18:44,880 as mister redacted. Question was he located on the same floor. 311 00:18:45,640 --> 00:18:48,039 Answer he was located on the same floor, but not 312 00:18:48,119 --> 00:18:52,440 within the same suite. Question mm hmm. Answer, and that 313 00:18:52,519 --> 00:18:57,839 affects interaction, but a positive working relationship. Question all right? 314 00:18:57,960 --> 00:19:01,599 And to what extent would you as criminal chief? Was 315 00:19:02,119 --> 00:19:05,519 he relied on by you as distinguished from redacted with 316 00:19:05,599 --> 00:19:09,799 regard to the criminal matters pending? Answer? Also relied on 317 00:19:10,839 --> 00:19:15,039 depending that would depend almost on the matter. Question okay, 318 00:19:15,480 --> 00:19:19,200 As in a typical situation, Acosta answers, he would bring 319 00:19:19,240 --> 00:19:21,599 things to redacted, who would then bring them to me 320 00:19:22,039 --> 00:19:25,400 along and so he would bring things to redacted, and then, 321 00:19:25,440 --> 00:19:28,599 depending on their discussion, they might both walk into my 322 00:19:28,680 --> 00:19:32,200 office but he would typically run things through redacted before 323 00:19:32,240 --> 00:19:36,279 coming to me. Question were there occasions when he would 324 00:19:36,319 --> 00:19:39,880 come to you directly? Answer? Sure, that's why I said, 325 00:19:39,880 --> 00:19:44,960 and typical answer. It's difficult to sort of recreate the interactions, 326 00:19:45,240 --> 00:19:48,799 but he certainly could come by and come to me directly, 327 00:19:49,119 --> 00:19:53,400 and in some cases I would say probably would Question again, 328 00:19:53,640 --> 00:19:56,640 it's being a large office with several physical locations, and 329 00:19:56,720 --> 00:20:00,359 we understand it's a very high volume of cases, and 330 00:20:00,400 --> 00:20:03,640 particularly in the criminal context. Is it fair to say 331 00:20:03,759 --> 00:20:08,400 you didn't review every prosecution as it was brought Answer? 332 00:20:08,680 --> 00:20:11,599 It's not just fair, but accurate. I recall a conversation 333 00:20:11,680 --> 00:20:14,279 with the US attorney from a small district early on 334 00:20:14,759 --> 00:20:18,119 at one US Attorney's conference where we compared notes, and 335 00:20:18,200 --> 00:20:21,400 the interaction of an office with thirty prosecutors is very 336 00:20:21,440 --> 00:20:26,359 different than one with a few hundred questions. So, when 337 00:20:26,440 --> 00:20:29,839 you did engage on a criminal case, would you, whether 338 00:20:29,880 --> 00:20:32,519 it was planned prosecution or a case heading to trial, 339 00:20:32,839 --> 00:20:36,240 would you generally rely on written submissions or would you 340 00:20:36,720 --> 00:20:40,200 this is really an inquiry into your style, or would 341 00:20:40,240 --> 00:20:43,440 you have everybody together and talk about it, or would 342 00:20:43,440 --> 00:20:47,400 you rely on your most immediate subordinate to be briefing you. 343 00:20:48,079 --> 00:20:51,839 Which one of those kinds of approaches did you take? Answer? 344 00:20:52,160 --> 00:20:55,400 I would say that really depended and probably varied based 345 00:20:55,440 --> 00:20:58,799 on individual needs. For the most part, I would most 346 00:20:58,960 --> 00:21:01,799 likely just speak with my first assistant and or criminal 347 00:21:01,839 --> 00:21:05,319 chief and assess what else needed to be done. In 348 00:21:05,359 --> 00:21:08,039 other words, you would sort of do it on a 349 00:21:08,119 --> 00:21:12,200 sort of verbal or based on oral interaction and presentation 350 00:21:12,680 --> 00:21:15,799 as opposed to going through stacks of paper. For the 351 00:21:15,839 --> 00:21:18,759 most part, I would say that that was typical. I 352 00:21:18,759 --> 00:21:21,640 don't want to say that that case was every single time, 353 00:21:21,880 --> 00:21:26,079 but that was typical. Question all right? And to that extent, 354 00:21:26,119 --> 00:21:28,680 did you go out and about to encounter the line 355 00:21:28,680 --> 00:21:31,920 attorneys or for example, was that something that you were 356 00:21:32,000 --> 00:21:35,319 able to do and wanted to do? Answer? Yes and yes, 357 00:21:36,039 --> 00:21:38,519 And you know, when I started, I made it a 358 00:21:38,559 --> 00:21:42,880 point of walking every floor and meeting everyone, and towards 359 00:21:42,920 --> 00:21:44,720 the end of the day, I would also if I 360 00:21:44,720 --> 00:21:47,880 could make it a point, particularly of major crime, of 361 00:21:47,960 --> 00:21:50,279 just walking down to the floor and seeing who was 362 00:21:50,319 --> 00:21:52,799 there and what they were doing and sort of popping 363 00:21:52,839 --> 00:21:55,400 my head in and just saying hi, because I think 364 00:21:55,440 --> 00:21:59,680 that's the right thing to do. Question, Okay, was that 365 00:22:00,160 --> 00:22:02,480 way to support the troops or was it more of 366 00:22:02,519 --> 00:22:04,920 a way for you to find to become informed about 367 00:22:04,920 --> 00:22:08,079 what was going on. Answer? Probably a little bit of both, 368 00:22:08,480 --> 00:22:11,039 to support the troops, but also to get the temperature 369 00:22:11,039 --> 00:22:15,119 of the office and see how matters are progressing. Question 370 00:22:15,799 --> 00:22:18,480 you at the Criminal or rather the Civil Rights Division, 371 00:22:18,640 --> 00:22:22,279 had experience with human trafficking and child sex trafficking cases. 372 00:22:23,880 --> 00:22:28,640 Answer correct, under your supervision. We understand that you brought 373 00:22:28,680 --> 00:22:31,880 that concern or your concerns about those issues with you 374 00:22:31,960 --> 00:22:35,480 to the US Attorney's Office, and that we know that 375 00:22:35,720 --> 00:22:39,319 under your tenure, the US Attorney's Office had many successful 376 00:22:39,400 --> 00:22:44,599 prosecutions involving conduct ranging from internet child pornography to international 377 00:22:44,640 --> 00:22:49,160 sex tourism to victimizing children. In particular, in mid two 378 00:22:49,200 --> 00:22:52,359 thousand and seven, you, according to press reports, you set 379 00:22:52,440 --> 00:22:55,680 up a new special prosecution unit to focus on, among 380 00:22:55,759 --> 00:22:58,960 other things, sex crimes against children. Could you tell us 381 00:22:59,160 --> 00:23:01,440 what importance though those kinds of cases hell for you 382 00:23:01,799 --> 00:23:06,119 as US attorney? Answer? Sure, if I could. If I 383 00:23:06,119 --> 00:23:08,519 could just back up a little bit, because the question 384 00:23:08,599 --> 00:23:12,039 goes the Special Prosecutions Unit, and let me address that 385 00:23:12,079 --> 00:23:14,160 part of it. There are a few things that are 386 00:23:14,200 --> 00:23:19,519 embedded there answer, there's the special prosecution unit that was 387 00:23:19,559 --> 00:23:22,599 set up because there was some issue that I thought 388 00:23:23,039 --> 00:23:26,119 was important to pursue in particular, and one of those 389 00:23:26,319 --> 00:23:30,359 was sort of trafficking issues. Another one was the gun violence. 390 00:23:30,559 --> 00:23:33,160 And the intent of special prosecutions was to have a 391 00:23:33,160 --> 00:23:36,240 group of individuals that would sort of be dedicated and 392 00:23:36,319 --> 00:23:39,759 not part of the usual major crimes group. So it 393 00:23:39,799 --> 00:23:43,079 wasn't exclusively I your question may have implied it was 394 00:23:43,160 --> 00:23:46,720 exclusively for sex crimes. Question. They cut them off. Oh, 395 00:23:46,759 --> 00:23:51,079 no question, No, I understand it was not answer and 396 00:23:51,119 --> 00:23:54,599 so I thought it was sufficiently important, and so it 397 00:23:54,720 --> 00:23:56,640 was one of the one of the initiatives that we 398 00:23:56,640 --> 00:24:01,119 were certainly pursuing. Question and was that something that you 399 00:24:01,200 --> 00:24:04,160 can to which you brought your experience as head of 400 00:24:04,200 --> 00:24:08,359 Civil Rights Division as well? Answer? It was not. I 401 00:24:08,359 --> 00:24:10,880 think I know when I was head of Civil Rights 402 00:24:11,079 --> 00:24:14,039 that that's something that I'd put particular emphasis on, and 403 00:24:14,079 --> 00:24:16,480 I thought Civil Rights really stepped up and did a 404 00:24:16,480 --> 00:24:21,160 great job on that question. Did you yourself recognize you 405 00:24:21,160 --> 00:24:24,720 were never a prosecutor as such? Answer right, question, But 406 00:24:24,799 --> 00:24:27,839 did you ever have experience being involved in a prosecution. 407 00:24:28,279 --> 00:24:31,119 That's sort of the nitty gritty of the prosecution of 408 00:24:31,200 --> 00:24:34,119 that kind of case, sort of seconding yourself to a 409 00:24:34,160 --> 00:24:38,480 trial team, for example, or an investigation. Answer. So, if 410 00:24:38,519 --> 00:24:41,720 by nitty gritty you mean seconding myself to a trial team, 411 00:24:41,920 --> 00:24:45,880 the answer would be no question, all right. Answer. There 412 00:24:45,880 --> 00:24:48,079 are a number of cases that I recall being briefed 413 00:24:48,160 --> 00:24:52,400 on and talked about. Interrupted question, but at that high 414 00:24:52,480 --> 00:24:56,559 level answer, correct question, all right. The department set up 415 00:24:56,759 --> 00:25:00,720 in two thousand and six a PSC program, a Project 416 00:25:00,799 --> 00:25:05,480 Safe Childhood program focused on Internet child pornography, and appointed 417 00:25:05,519 --> 00:25:09,279 you as the first coordinator, and she was also course 418 00:25:09,359 --> 00:25:12,359 the line attorney on the Epstein case. How well did 419 00:25:12,359 --> 00:25:15,240 you know redacted? And can you can you give us 420 00:25:15,359 --> 00:25:20,279 your assessment of her capabilities, judgment and her interaction with you? Answer, 421 00:25:20,559 --> 00:25:22,519 so a few things in there. How well did I 422 00:25:22,559 --> 00:25:25,359 know her prior to appointment? I don't recall. I'm not 423 00:25:25,480 --> 00:25:28,559 I don't think I knew her particularly well prior to appointment. 424 00:25:28,839 --> 00:25:32,079 She was clearly respected within the office, and I don't recall, 425 00:25:32,359 --> 00:25:35,559 but I can't speculate that she was appointed based on 426 00:25:35,640 --> 00:25:39,599 recommendations of management and her interest in some combination and 427 00:25:39,640 --> 00:25:46,119 prior work, and some combination thereof you asked me to characterize, 428 00:25:46,240 --> 00:25:51,440 and I think she was good, strong, professional AUSA. Question 429 00:25:51,680 --> 00:25:54,039 do you have any did you have any negative, you know, 430 00:25:54,119 --> 00:25:57,880 anything less than fully positive in your assessment of her? Answer? 431 00:25:58,160 --> 00:26:01,559 No question. I think she was good, strong, and a 432 00:26:01,640 --> 00:26:05,359 dedicated a USA. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up 433 00:26:05,400 --> 00:26:08,279 episode two right here. In the next episode dealing with 434 00:26:08,319 --> 00:26:10,640 the topic, We're gonna pick up where we left off. 435 00:26:11,319 --> 00:26:14,160 All of the information that goes with this episode can 436 00:26:14,200 --> 00:26:17,440 be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and 437 00:26:17,519 --> 00:26:21,440 welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, 438 00:26:21,440 --> 00:26:23,880 we're gonna pick up where we left off with alex 439 00:26:23,920 --> 00:26:29,000 Acosta's interview with the inspector. General question, do you have 440 00:26:29,079 --> 00:26:31,920 any did you have any negative, you know, anything less 441 00:26:31,960 --> 00:26:37,359 than fully positive in your assessment of her? Answer? No question? Okay, answer, 442 00:26:37,880 --> 00:26:41,599 I think she was a good, strong, dedicated AUSA. Answer 443 00:26:41,680 --> 00:26:47,559 all right. Question was the managing USA at West Palm 444 00:26:47,640 --> 00:26:53,920 Beach Office? Answer? Correct question at least? And would redacted 445 00:26:53,920 --> 00:26:56,680 work there? How closely did you work with redacted? And 446 00:26:56,799 --> 00:27:00,400 again that's an assessment question. What was your assessment of them? 447 00:27:00,960 --> 00:27:04,839 Answer so less so only because of geographic distance? Question? 448 00:27:05,079 --> 00:27:07,759 Uh huh? Answer I would also say he was a 449 00:27:07,759 --> 00:27:11,359 respected professional. He had a good reputation. He went on 450 00:27:11,480 --> 00:27:13,839 to be chief of staff here at the Criminal Division, 451 00:27:14,039 --> 00:27:16,920 which I think speaks to how he was viewed within 452 00:27:16,960 --> 00:27:21,119 the department, and so I would say positive question. Okay, 453 00:27:21,160 --> 00:27:25,039 So turning to the Epstein case. Answer, yeah, question, Now 454 00:27:25,039 --> 00:27:27,319 that your recall has been refreshed by virtue of the 455 00:27:27,359 --> 00:27:30,319 documents that we provided, Before we get into the actual 456 00:27:30,359 --> 00:27:33,240 sort of documents and some of the details of the events, 457 00:27:33,400 --> 00:27:35,839 would you please give us a general overview of what 458 00:27:35,920 --> 00:27:39,640 you currently remember refreshed about how the case came into 459 00:27:39,680 --> 00:27:42,759 the US Attorney's office, how it was assessed for prosecution, 460 00:27:43,720 --> 00:27:46,160 and how and why the decision was made to resolve 461 00:27:46,200 --> 00:27:49,480 it with a two year stage plea that ultimately became 462 00:27:50,759 --> 00:27:56,960 an eighteen month sentence. Answer okay, And to that, mister Haran, 463 00:27:57,200 --> 00:28:01,759 who is the lawyer for alex Acosta, pipes up before 464 00:28:01,759 --> 00:28:04,400 you answer the question, let me just jump in on 465 00:28:04,480 --> 00:28:08,400 the notion of refresher recollection, which is of course has 466 00:28:08,440 --> 00:28:11,119 a very specific legal meaning, and I think to assert 467 00:28:11,200 --> 00:28:16,359 that mister Acosta's recollection has been refreshed generally probably overstates it. 468 00:28:16,359 --> 00:28:19,119 It's really a document by document issue by issue thing. 469 00:28:19,400 --> 00:28:23,200 So I push back on that. He gets interrupted, but 470 00:28:23,279 --> 00:28:25,680 he keeps going a little bit. But the question is 471 00:28:25,720 --> 00:28:30,440 fair and accurate, misredacted. If you're talking about handing him 472 00:28:30,480 --> 00:28:33,880 a document or refresh an exhausted recollection, that's not the 473 00:28:33,920 --> 00:28:37,079 process we're talking about. We're using it more in a 474 00:28:37,160 --> 00:28:39,599 lay term. That you know, if we ask you this 475 00:28:39,680 --> 00:28:42,920 before giving you all these documents, you'd probably would have 476 00:28:43,079 --> 00:28:46,079 not been able to be as full in your responses. 477 00:28:46,519 --> 00:28:50,079 So we're asking for your full response, mister Haran. We 478 00:28:50,160 --> 00:28:53,559 appreciate the opportunity to review the documents, and Alex in 479 00:28:53,599 --> 00:28:57,640 your answers, try to distinguish what you actually recall in 480 00:28:57,680 --> 00:28:59,920 your own head versus what you saw in the document, 481 00:29:01,200 --> 00:29:06,880 and that would make four. He gets interrupted, the cleanest record. Acosta. Okay, 482 00:29:06,920 --> 00:29:10,839 So three parts. How did it come to my office? Question? 483 00:29:11,319 --> 00:29:15,160 How was had it come in? Answer? Right question? How 484 00:29:15,240 --> 00:29:19,759 was it assessed for prosecution? Answer? Write question? And then 485 00:29:20,079 --> 00:29:23,880 how and how and why the decision was made to 486 00:29:23,960 --> 00:29:27,160 resolve it the way it was answer. So let's begin 487 00:29:27,240 --> 00:29:29,799 with how it came into the office. Putting all the 488 00:29:29,880 --> 00:29:33,079 documents aside, I can't say with certainty how it came in. 489 00:29:33,440 --> 00:29:35,720 I can speculate how it came in and the way 490 00:29:35,759 --> 00:29:37,759 it would have come into the office is I can 491 00:29:37,759 --> 00:29:41,400 speculate that the chief the chief writer from Palm Beach 492 00:29:41,440 --> 00:29:44,240 County would have brought it to either the FBI or 493 00:29:44,240 --> 00:29:47,359 the Palm Beach office. I'm not certain that I would 494 00:29:47,400 --> 00:29:49,880 have asked who brought this case to the office, as 495 00:29:49,880 --> 00:29:52,720 opposed to the case is now in the office. Let's 496 00:29:52,759 --> 00:29:55,799 discuss it right. The format or the mode in which 497 00:29:55,799 --> 00:29:58,880 it came in, I think is important because my recollection 498 00:29:59,079 --> 00:30:01,480 is it arrived to us us in the position that 499 00:30:01,519 --> 00:30:04,279 the state attorney had negotiated a plea, and that the 500 00:30:04,319 --> 00:30:07,160 reason that we looked at it was that the plea 501 00:30:07,519 --> 00:30:09,720 was going to be that there had been an initial 502 00:30:09,839 --> 00:30:14,160 charge that wasn't pursued and that required jail time and registration, 503 00:30:15,200 --> 00:30:17,680 and that the plea was going to be taken was 504 00:30:17,839 --> 00:30:21,880 a charge that didn't require jail time and didn't require registration, 505 00:30:22,200 --> 00:30:24,799 and based on the preliminary assessment of the facts, that 506 00:30:24,920 --> 00:30:29,440 seemed that seems wrong. So that's how it arrived. The 507 00:30:29,480 --> 00:30:35,240 next question was question how was it assessed for federal prosecution? Answer? 508 00:30:35,640 --> 00:30:39,000 So it was assessed for federal prosecution. My recollection from 509 00:30:39,160 --> 00:30:41,440 very early on, and I'm sure we'll talk about this 510 00:30:41,480 --> 00:30:44,440 some more, is you have a case that, while technically 511 00:30:44,720 --> 00:30:47,440 it wasn't final at the state level, but for federal 512 00:30:47,480 --> 00:30:50,799 involvement would have been final. And so from the earliest 513 00:30:50,839 --> 00:30:54,359 point we were thinking federal versus state and petite and 514 00:30:54,400 --> 00:30:57,559 the contemporaneous record sort of shows at least the material 515 00:30:57,599 --> 00:31:01,680 that I got the earliest communication mister redacted telling me 516 00:31:01,880 --> 00:31:06,359 that redacted is preparing a petite policy waiver, that misredacted 517 00:31:06,599 --> 00:31:09,960 is preparing a petite policy waiver. And that's consistent with 518 00:31:10,000 --> 00:31:13,319 my recollection of how it was assessed and then brought 519 00:31:13,319 --> 00:31:16,160 in assessed you know, doesn't make sense to go forward, yes, 520 00:31:16,279 --> 00:31:19,880 investigate and circle back and then and then the third 521 00:31:19,880 --> 00:31:24,400 part was question how and why the disposition answer. So 522 00:31:24,559 --> 00:31:27,079 my general recollection is the view was that if the 523 00:31:27,119 --> 00:31:30,079 state had followed through on the original charge I don't 524 00:31:30,119 --> 00:31:32,759 recall which that call for jail time and that call 525 00:31:32,839 --> 00:31:36,240 for registration, that the local police or whoever brought it 526 00:31:36,400 --> 00:31:38,839 would not have seen the need to refer it. And 527 00:31:38,920 --> 00:31:42,039 so that was, in terms of pre indictment resolution, a 528 00:31:42,160 --> 00:31:45,920 logical and reasonable place given all the other sort of factors, 529 00:31:46,119 --> 00:31:49,680 both the patitue concerns, the witness concerns, and the legal concerns. 530 00:31:50,000 --> 00:31:52,599 And to that I would add a fourth concern, which 531 00:31:52,599 --> 00:31:55,119 it had already been reviewed by a grand jury at 532 00:31:55,119 --> 00:31:59,160 the state level, is my recollection. And so to some extent, 533 00:31:59,400 --> 00:32:03,079 that's indication of how some individuals may sort of view 534 00:32:03,359 --> 00:32:07,119 this matter. Question. Okay, we're going to pick that apart. 535 00:32:07,480 --> 00:32:11,440 Answer I figured question, but thank you for that answer. 536 00:32:12,160 --> 00:32:14,200 You asked for an overview, so I tried to be 537 00:32:14,400 --> 00:32:18,640 very he gets interrupted. Yeah, answer general question. That doesn't. 538 00:32:18,880 --> 00:32:21,440 That doesn't. The second part of that last prong was 539 00:32:21,480 --> 00:32:24,640 why a two year state plea? In other words, you 540 00:32:24,720 --> 00:32:27,400 talked about you talked about assessing the case and why 541 00:32:27,480 --> 00:32:31,599 resolve it? But why with a two year state plea? Answer? So, 542 00:32:31,720 --> 00:32:35,160 my general recollection is my understanding if I was asked, 543 00:32:35,359 --> 00:32:38,119 what is the best understanding that I have of why 544 00:32:38,200 --> 00:32:41,359 two years? Is that is what would have been obtained 545 00:32:41,599 --> 00:32:44,720 in one of the original state charges. Question how do 546 00:32:44,759 --> 00:32:49,759 you know that? Answer? We gets cut off question how 547 00:32:49,759 --> 00:32:53,519 did you know that? Answer? That's why I say general recollection. 548 00:32:53,880 --> 00:32:57,279 I'm reconstructing memories of that twelve years ago. I can 549 00:32:57,319 --> 00:32:59,880 speculate that at some point the matter came up and 550 00:33:00,160 --> 00:33:03,200 I or someone else said, if you know what would 551 00:33:03,240 --> 00:33:06,240 the original what would the original plea have? You know 552 00:33:06,319 --> 00:33:09,359 what would the original charges have likely brought? And someone 553 00:33:09,480 --> 00:33:13,160 said this amount question? Who would have said that answer? 554 00:33:13,200 --> 00:33:15,880 I'm speculating at this point. I don't have a recollection, 555 00:33:16,039 --> 00:33:21,319 but that's that's my general understanding question. All right, Well, 556 00:33:21,400 --> 00:33:25,240 now unpack some of that question. And by the way, 557 00:33:25,319 --> 00:33:28,000 my colleague, we're all in this boat together, so they're 558 00:33:28,039 --> 00:33:31,119 going to feel free answer, I know question, to chime 559 00:33:31,160 --> 00:33:34,880 in as they see fit. So the first thing going 560 00:33:35,119 --> 00:33:37,480 going to the intake of the case, we know from 561 00:33:37,480 --> 00:33:40,680 the records that and by the way, we obviously have 562 00:33:40,799 --> 00:33:43,920 done a great deal of other investigation and spoken to 563 00:33:44,000 --> 00:33:47,839 many people. So redacted brief view and redacted pretty much 564 00:33:48,119 --> 00:33:50,640 when the case first came in in the mid two 565 00:33:50,640 --> 00:33:53,480 thousand and six, after the FBI, and indeed the office 566 00:33:53,519 --> 00:33:56,160 the US Attorney's Office in West Palm Beach had opened 567 00:33:56,200 --> 00:34:00,000 the case, but before Epstein was indicted. So this first exhibit, 568 00:34:00,119 --> 00:34:02,759 exhibit number one, that you have in your binder before 569 00:34:02,759 --> 00:34:05,680 you or in your folder before you, is that email 570 00:34:05,720 --> 00:34:08,840 from redacted to you that you just referred to dated 571 00:34:08,920 --> 00:34:11,599 July twenty fourth, two thousand and six, in which he's 572 00:34:11,599 --> 00:34:14,679 sort of passing on the information that Epstein has by 573 00:34:14,719 --> 00:34:18,719 now been arrested, been indicted, arrested and indicted by the state. 574 00:34:19,320 --> 00:34:22,840 Do you recall anything about the original briefing from redacted? Answer? 575 00:34:22,880 --> 00:34:25,880 I don't. Question, all right, did you know at the 576 00:34:25,920 --> 00:34:28,880 time that the time she briefed you, which is prior 577 00:34:28,920 --> 00:34:32,079 to Exhibit one? Did you know who Epstein was? Answer? 578 00:34:32,159 --> 00:34:35,159 I did not. Question never heard of them to your knowledge? 579 00:34:35,320 --> 00:34:39,519 Answer to my knowledge, I don't recall having heard of them. 580 00:34:39,719 --> 00:34:42,280 Question and what did you understand at that early point 581 00:34:42,320 --> 00:34:45,000 the case to be about? Answer? So I don't recall 582 00:34:45,039 --> 00:34:48,039 the briefing, and so I can't give an independent recollection, 583 00:34:48,360 --> 00:34:51,480 you know, based on this, I mean, he gets cut off. 584 00:34:51,599 --> 00:34:55,760 But you're talking about Exhibit one. Answer based on Exhibit one, 585 00:34:55,800 --> 00:34:58,280 you know, I can infer that this would have been 586 00:34:58,280 --> 00:35:01,000 my general understanding of the case. And you know, and 587 00:35:01,039 --> 00:35:04,199 the key things that I point out here is pre 588 00:35:04,239 --> 00:35:07,119 trial diversion, which is code for a jail time and 589 00:35:07,199 --> 00:35:12,719 petit policy. The question, but this what exhibit number one 590 00:35:13,360 --> 00:35:16,280 does not make it clear to you that this case 591 00:35:16,320 --> 00:35:20,320 involved allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had been enticing, coercing, whatever 592 00:35:20,440 --> 00:35:23,760 verb you want to use, young underage females. We will 593 00:35:23,800 --> 00:35:26,400 for the record call them girls here as opposed to women. 594 00:35:26,639 --> 00:35:29,519 And these underage females were being paid to provide him 595 00:35:29,599 --> 00:35:33,360 essentially with sex or sexual activity or conduct of a 596 00:35:33,400 --> 00:35:37,159 pretty salacious nature. Do you recall that as being essentially 597 00:35:37,199 --> 00:35:40,239 what you were briefed on from the beginning? Answer? Again, 598 00:35:40,480 --> 00:35:43,119 I don't recall the initial briefing. I take it, based 599 00:35:43,159 --> 00:35:46,039 on your review that there was an initial briefing. I 600 00:35:46,119 --> 00:35:49,320 can't say the degree of detail. I can't say what 601 00:35:49,360 --> 00:35:53,000 it was about. As a typical matter, I wouldn't be 602 00:35:53,000 --> 00:35:55,360 briefed when a case comes into the office other than 603 00:35:55,400 --> 00:35:58,000 being made aware this is the case, this is what 604 00:35:58,039 --> 00:36:02,679 we're looking at. So then if you or your understanding 605 00:36:02,880 --> 00:36:05,719 you don't remember the briefing, is it fair to say 606 00:36:05,760 --> 00:36:08,360 you did not have some understanding of the case that 607 00:36:08,639 --> 00:36:11,280 was the West Palm Beach was pursuing as of mid 608 00:36:11,320 --> 00:36:15,079 two thousand and six. Answer. I certainly had an understanding 609 00:36:15,159 --> 00:36:17,400 of the general facts of the case early on. I 610 00:36:17,440 --> 00:36:19,679 can't speak to whether it was mid two thousand and 611 00:36:19,679 --> 00:36:22,840 six verses late two thousand and six versus two thousand 612 00:36:22,880 --> 00:36:26,119 and seven. But early on, I certainly had an understanding 613 00:36:26,119 --> 00:36:28,000 that it was a case that involved, you know, a 614 00:36:28,039 --> 00:36:31,440 billionaire who was doing sordid things with young women or 615 00:36:31,559 --> 00:36:35,920 girls who were minors. Question redacted, and the records indicate 616 00:36:35,960 --> 00:36:38,159 that her concern in bringing this all the way to 617 00:36:38,199 --> 00:36:41,800 you and her first at the time criminal chief but 618 00:36:42,039 --> 00:36:45,039 sort of acting first assistant redacted, was because she was 619 00:36:45,079 --> 00:36:48,239 afraid of political pressure that might be brought to bear 620 00:36:48,400 --> 00:36:51,400 against the US Attorney's office in the case. Do you 621 00:36:51,440 --> 00:36:54,079 have any recollection of that being a concern that was 622 00:36:54,159 --> 00:36:57,840 laid before you answer? I don't. Again, I don't recall 623 00:36:57,880 --> 00:37:01,000 the early that briefing. I've reviewed the email, and I 624 00:37:01,119 --> 00:37:03,440 can you know I'd take it. It would have been 625 00:37:03,519 --> 00:37:05,679 natural for me to say, should we approach the state 626 00:37:05,719 --> 00:37:09,119 attorney because we had lots of ongoing matters with the 627 00:37:09,119 --> 00:37:12,920 state attorney, And it seems that Redacted said no, for 628 00:37:13,000 --> 00:37:16,000 fear it'll be leaked straight to Epstein, and I assumed 629 00:37:16,039 --> 00:37:19,239 i'd let it be at that point. Question, and do 630 00:37:19,280 --> 00:37:21,280 you know do you know what he meant by it 631 00:37:21,320 --> 00:37:24,400 being leaked to Epstein by the state by Barry Krisher, 632 00:37:24,559 --> 00:37:28,480 the state attorney. Answer, So, based on context, what I 633 00:37:28,519 --> 00:37:30,960 would assume is that if the state attorney is cutting 634 00:37:30,960 --> 00:37:33,079 this kind of deal, and it appears that things have 635 00:37:33,119 --> 00:37:36,679 already leaked, because you know, there's clearly an article here 636 00:37:36,719 --> 00:37:40,920 with leaked, so something has already leaked. Question are you 637 00:37:41,000 --> 00:37:44,639 referring to exhibit one? Answer? Exhibit one? Other things would leak. 638 00:37:45,079 --> 00:37:49,239 Question have you ever met Barry Krisher? Answer? Sure? Question 639 00:37:49,519 --> 00:37:51,920 what was your relationship with him? Answer? So, there were 640 00:37:52,000 --> 00:37:55,360 multiple state attorneys within the district he was. It was 641 00:37:55,400 --> 00:37:59,840 a professional relationship question. It was an elected position. Correct answer, 642 00:38:00,199 --> 00:38:03,199 It was an elected position question. And what was your 643 00:38:03,239 --> 00:38:07,039 assessment of his aggressiveness as a prosecutor and his capabilities? 644 00:38:07,679 --> 00:38:12,880 Answer on the public Most of my assessment with him 645 00:38:13,360 --> 00:38:16,400 was on the public corruption front, and we had brought 646 00:38:16,400 --> 00:38:19,320 several cases, and I was a little disappointed that these 647 00:38:19,360 --> 00:38:21,800 were cases he could have brought that he chose not 648 00:38:21,880 --> 00:38:25,320 to bring. Question rights, So can I am I accurate 649 00:38:25,480 --> 00:38:28,119 in inferring from that you didn't regard him as a 650 00:38:28,119 --> 00:38:33,519 particularly hard charging prosecutor. Answer, So with any state attorney, 651 00:38:33,719 --> 00:38:36,199 I hesitate to sort of paint a broad brush stroke. 652 00:38:36,760 --> 00:38:40,000 I don't think that's always fair. But my experience had 653 00:38:40,000 --> 00:38:42,960 been in the public corruption space, and in that space, 654 00:38:43,000 --> 00:38:45,239 I did not think whether it was him or whether 655 00:38:45,320 --> 00:38:48,039 it was his office, I can't speak, but I did 656 00:38:48,039 --> 00:38:50,119 not think they had done as much as they could 657 00:38:50,159 --> 00:38:53,119 have done. Question, is there any area in which you 658 00:38:53,199 --> 00:38:56,599 thought he in his office did pursue aggressively? Answer? So, 659 00:38:56,880 --> 00:38:59,679 as a recall, we had we had emphasized gun crimes 660 00:38:59,719 --> 00:39:03,119 quite a bit and really had a lot of success 661 00:39:03,199 --> 00:39:06,000 moving the ball in the gun crime space and Palm Beach. 662 00:39:07,239 --> 00:39:09,360 But let me let me just say, it's also very 663 00:39:09,400 --> 00:39:12,920 difficult to reconstruct time frames. And so I hesitate because 664 00:39:12,920 --> 00:39:15,000 I don't know if that was two thousand and six 665 00:39:15,239 --> 00:39:17,719 or two thousand and seven. But you asked in another 666 00:39:17,760 --> 00:39:21,559 area gets cut off question in this exhibit one, you 667 00:39:21,639 --> 00:39:25,320 ask whether it's appropriate appropriate to approach Barry Krisher and 668 00:39:25,360 --> 00:39:27,360 give him a heads up as to where the US 669 00:39:27,400 --> 00:39:31,360 Attorney's Office might go with the case. Answer correct question. 670 00:39:31,599 --> 00:39:33,599 Why would you want to extend that difference to him? 671 00:39:33,679 --> 00:39:36,960 Why would it matter? Answer a colleague and law enforcement. 672 00:39:37,280 --> 00:39:39,800 I thought it was important for the office to work 673 00:39:39,840 --> 00:39:42,559 with with state attorneys as a general matter, and I 674 00:39:42,639 --> 00:39:45,719 found that the office worked best when it had good 675 00:39:45,719 --> 00:39:49,119 working relationships with state attorneys and with you know, for 676 00:39:49,159 --> 00:39:53,079 that matter, the agency sacks and others. But again, you know, 677 00:39:53,239 --> 00:39:56,440 rather than my asserting I'm asking redacted and redacted with 678 00:39:56,519 --> 00:39:59,440 saying no, and I don't know what the ultimate outcome was, 679 00:40:00,119 --> 00:40:02,719 what I would guess that we just deffer and let 680 00:40:02,760 --> 00:40:05,480 it be. All right, folks, We're gonna wrap up right here, 681 00:40:05,599 --> 00:40:07,800 and in the next episode we're gonna pick up where 682 00:40:07,800 --> 00:40:10,559 we left off. All of the information that goes with 683 00:40:10,639 --> 00:40:13,559 this episode can be found in the description box.