Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. Ever since we first got the OIG report
detailing their investigation into not only Jeffrey Epstein's death, but
into the non prosecution agreement, I have been very, very
interested in seeing the interview that was conducted with alex
Acosta that was administered by the Inspector General's Office, And
after exhaustively searching through the new unsealed files, I was
able to put together this whole entire interview, all three
hundred pages, and obviously we're going to get it added
to the catalog and then you can listen to this
interview and then go back to the deposition that alex
Acosta gave to Congress recently and see how it all
lines up. So with that said, let's dive in examination
by misredacted question, So would you tell us your name?
Please answer Renee Alexander Acosta. Question and mister Acosta, you're
accompanied by your attorney, Gordon Todt. Is that correct answer? Yes?
It is? Question and mister Todd would you identify the
associate you have with you? Yes? TJ. Hauran misredacted h
E r RN. Mister Heran correct misredacted. Thank you, mister Acosta.
I'm redacted. I'm a council with the Office of Professional
Responsibility here at the Department of Justice, and with me
are my fellow OPR council redacted, redacted and redacted. And
we are in a conference room at the Department of
Justice main building on today, October eighteenth, twenty nineteen, and
we're starting at about nine thirty in the morning. Before
we start, I just want to put on the record
that mister redacted worked in the Civil Rights Division at
the time that you were the AAG heading that division,
and I believe had an occasion to briefly meet you
in connection with the matter the witness. Could I ask
what section, mister redacted, I was in the special litigation section? Oh, okay,
mister adacted, And I provided mister Acosta some talking points
for a press situation that we had in that case.
The witness one four one four to one, mister adacted, Yes,
the witness probably by misredacted question. All right, thank you,
mister Acosta. OPR is investigating two things, as you know. One,
whether one or more federal prosecutors in the Southern District
of Florida, US Attorney's office may have committed professional misconduct
by entering into the non Prosecution Agreement or MPa in
two thousand and seven with Jeffrey Epstein, who at the
time was under investigation by that office and the FBI
for engaging in widespread sexual misconduct involving underage females. The
second thing we're investigating is Judge Mara's finding in February
of this year, twenty nineteen, that the government may have
violated or actually found the government did violate the CVRA
or Crime's Victims Rights Act when it entered into the
NPA without first providing the victims with notice and a
reasonable right to confer with the government. You are subject
of the OPR investigation, that is, one of somebody whose
conduct is being reviewed and evaluated by OPR, and specifically,
as US attorney at the time for the Southern District
of Florida, you had the ultimate authority over the Epstein
for a period of two and a half years, as
we understand it, from the time the line Ausa Redacted
first brief you and then Criminal Chief Redacted in July
of two thousand and six, and until you were formally
recused from the case on or about the eighth of
December two thousand and eight, after notifying the Executive Office
of the US Attorneys that you are seeking employment with
Kirkland and Ellis, a firm of which two attorneys, Ken
Starr and Jay Lefkowitz had been representing Jeffrey Epstein. Is
that correct? Answer? We may we may get into it
a little bit later, but I think the character is
ation of my seeking employment is not accurate. We can
talk about that a little bit later. Question all right,
we have the documents that relate to that, So that's
what we're basing that on. Answer correct, question. And I
believe the term that I used is seeking employment. Answer.
That is the term used in the email. I think
I address that, and I believe mister Todd addressed that
in the letter that was sent. Question all right, thank you.
So we recognize that you're no longer with the Department
of Justice. Answer right, question, and that it's your choice
to come and talk to us, and that we very
much appreciate your willingness to voluntarily do so and help
figure this case out. OPR provided you with a few
thousand pages of records, emails and correspondence and some other
documents that reflect your involvement in the Epstein matter over
that two and a half year period. Now that you've
had a chance to review, I hope those emails and
other documents, we hope that you can be specific in
helping us understand what happened. Have you in fact been
able to review those documents? Answer? Yes, I have question.
Thank you. O PR asked you for a written response
to certain questions, and we've reviewed and received a written
response prepared and submitted not by you, but by your attorney,
mister Todd on your behalf. Have you reviewed his response? Answer? Yes?
Question yeut? You answer? Yes, I have question? And will
you now under oath subscribe to that response as if
you had submitted it yourself. Answer? So, mister Todd spoke
to me and conveyed the investigation that I provide him.
I believe he conveyed that the information accurately, and the
statements that he ascribes to me in that letter, I
believe or accurate. Question all right, do you have any
changes or corrections to the written response? Answer? No, I don't.
Question is there anything in it that you do not
agree with? Answer? Again, I think that the statement that
he ascribes to me are accurate, and I agree with them.
Question all right, so we're going to accept that statement
as representing accurately your What would you have responded if
you had responded to us directly? Is that correct? Answer? Yes,
the statements he basically gives me positions, and I believe
that he gave my positions accurately. Question perfect, Thank you. So,
as we ask questions and refer to documents, we would
like you to correct any misstatements in our questions or
any misstatements or errors that are in the documents themselves,
because we want to make the entire record correct. Also,
there's been an enormous amount of publicity about the Epstein case,
particularly this year, including about the events and decisions made
back in two thousand and six to twenty ten that
are the subject of our investigation, and so as best
you can, we ask you to try to answer today
from your knowledge, understanding, and recollections as of that time period. However,
to the extent you are asked or do speak retro actively.
Retrospectively will just make it clear that that's what you're doing.
Answer all right, question, okay, answer, And if I could
just say, one of the difficulties is with everything that,
all the publicity and all the documents that have made
it to the press, and in litigation, distinguishing between recollection
versus the fact. Question right, Acosta interjects speculation, and I
will try, but I would appreciate reminders along the way,
because it's an important distinction. But it's kind of hard sometimes.
Question we recognize, particularly the importance of it. Answer right,
question that that's precisely the heart of the matter. So,
mister Acosta, your professional background is a matter of public record.
I have a couple of questions. By what state bar
are you currently licensed? Answer, so, I'm an active I
believe in active in Pennsylvania and also in DC. Question
all right, and not in Florida. Answer not in Florida. Question,
so is it do I understand that you are not
currently an active member of any bar? Answer? I would
have to confirm with DC. I said not inactive in
Pennsylvania and in DC, because I'm not certain whether I'm
currently active or inactive. In DC, I'm not currently practicing,
and so I would have renewed under either active or inactive.
Question all right, answer, we can verify that and get
that question. We would appreciate that if mister Todd, could
let us know your current status. I would also like
to know the status your bar status in the period
of two thousand and six through two thousand and eight.
Do you know what that was? Answer? Most likely, I
can speculate. I don't know for a fact. Most likely
it was active in DC. Question uh huh answer and
an active in Pennsylvania. Question okay, but likely active somewhere right? Answer, yes, yes,
I think that's a requirement answer, so it would be DC.
The distinction between active and an active in DC is
more as I recall, then Pennsylvania, where there's a large
fee difference. Question All right, thank you, and we look
forward to hearing confirmation of that from you, mister Todd. So,
after serving nearly two years as the Assistant Attorney General
in charge of the Department's Civil Rights Division, you were
presidentially appointed the interim US Attorney for the Southern District
of Florida in June of two thousand and five, and then,
as we understand it, you were formally nominated as US
Attorney in June of two thousand and six, and after
being confirmed by the United States Senate, you were sworn
in by the US Attorney as US Attorney in late
October two thousand and six. Answer. I think that may
be inaccurate. I would have to confirm when you say
presidentially appointed. I believe it may have been appointed by
the Chief Judge at the request of the Attorney General.
The Chief Judge has appointing authority. Question okay, answer, and
you'd have to go back and confirm whether it was
either an ag designation or the Chief Judge. Answer, all right,
question and I understand. And again I would appreciate if
you could follow up on that question, mister Todd. Answer.
I'm not certain how to confirm that that's something that
in all candor the department would know. Question all right,
then we will pursue it. My point is that there
was a change in your status from an interim to you,
you know, the US Attorney with the full confirmation, How,
if at all, did the change in status affect your
view of and your exercise of your authority as US attorney? Answer?
So it's difficult to recall now you're asking that just
ten years back, but even further back, I was interim
for a sufficiently long period of time, and by the
time change and status took place, I would speculate that
I was, in my mind the you know, acting as
US attorney, whether you have adjunctive interim or acting in
front of your name or not. You know, I had
great people. I don't recall when I came on board
as a first assistant, but he was my crim chief,
and I thought for the continuity of the office it
was important to promote him to first assistant. Question. He
was promoted actually effective October of two thousand and six.
You made a series, according to emails, the announcement, the
personnel announcement was made to be effective in October two
thousand and six, naming redacted as criminal chief and redacted
as first assistant. Answer, right, and they they were both
long serving professionals within the office, and basically, as my recollection,
everyone just moved up one wrung question. Okay, answer, you
would know better than I because you have those records,
and so, sitting here today, I don't recall any specific
way in which that shift would have impacted question. All right,
answer my thinking question. You had not served as a
prosecutor before and didn't have direct criminal experience, is my understanding. Answer?
That's correct. I had supervised civil rights for a example,
had supervised criminal prosecutions, but I had not been a
line prosecutor previously. Questions, So, as the US attorney supervising
a couple one hundred answer right, question, line prosecutors most
involved in criminal work? What interested you most or appealed
to you most as you undertook and carried out your
duties as US attorney? Answer? What interested me and appealed
to me? So the work of the office. I mean,
it's a broad question, but the work that office, in
any US Attorney office, I think is incredibly impactful to
any local community. And I very much enjoyed being part
of the effort to bring folks to justice, to move
policy initiatives. You know, I recall early on we identified
health care fraud as one big, one big area, and
we had one of the largest, one of the largest
health care fraud initiatives. You know, we focus quite a
bit on gun violence and we did a great job
on that. And it's one of those jobs where people
feel very good about what they do, and it's great
to be a part of. Question that's helpful, It just
gives us answer. Yeah, question some perspective question, Was there
any aspect of it that you particularly disliked answer to
the extent you're dealing with personnel issues. I think personnel
issues are rarely the preferred part of any executive function.
Question you mean the conflicts among attorneys things like that,
or performance issues? Answer performance issues question? All right, answer,
And you know, when you've got in any large office,
you got personal issues, disciplinary issues, and those are never
those are never fun. All right. We're gonna wrap up
this episode right here, and in the next episode dealing
with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off.
All of the information that goes with this episode can
be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
we're going to pick up where we left off the
alex Acosta interview with the OIG investigators question. So we
talked about the personnel, high level personnel changes you made
sort of after your first year there. Redacted had, we understand,
been functioning the fact though as a first assistant while
redacted was not. He we understand redacted had been first assistant,
but he stepped away and Redacted came in to essentially
take over his brief until he was formally appointed first assistant.
Is that consistent with your memory? Answer, so you might
have characterized that more strongly than I would have. Question okay,
answer again, it's difficult to recreate from back then, but
there was certainly a transition period for mister adapted to
mister adacted. And if I could, because when you said
high level changes, my intent it was a great office,
great professionals. My intent in elevating mister adacted was just
you go from criminal chief the first assistant. And I
don't recall mister adacted prior position, but I know that
he was also elevated. I think he might have been
major crimes. But question, that's correct answer, I could guess it. Question,
we can verify that answer. Okay, question Yes, what was
your assistant of redacted? His capabilities, his judgment, and his
working relationship with you on a day to day basis.
Answer outstanding. He had been in the office for decades.
He was respected by everyone. He had a very good
tone to him. He was someone, you know, I wanted
individuals around me that were respected within the office and
that were trusted and that had been there for a
long time. And then I think I was very lucky
to have that in my management team. Question, as we
understand it, your office, as US attorney was sort of
on the one side of the reception area and the
first assistant's office is on the other side. Is that correct? Answer?
That's correct? Question? So, did did you and redacted have
any sort of easy back and forth question, open door
answer into each other's offices multiple times a day? Question?
All right? Answer? All right? And given that he had
experienced throughout his career at the department in the criminal
arena and you had not, to what extent would you
rely on him among others for guidance, perspective, information, and
so on. Answer? I named the first assistant because I
valued his guidance and his perspectives, and I thought those
were valuable. Question. Okay. You also, as we pointed out,
appointed redacted to succeed redacted as criminal chief effect of
October of two thousand and six, and he served for
about ten months before he left for private practice. He
left at the beginning of August two thousand and seven.
What did you you said you didn't recall as we
sit here today, what section he come from? Answer right,
I guessed it was major crimes. Question all right? Were
you what was the assessment of redacted answer outstanding as well.
And if I could say when I say, I don't recall,
but I guess when you're going back twelve years, sometimes
you get an impression. But you can't say it's a recollection,
and that's going to come up multiple times today just
because it's a while ago question. As long as we
make that distinction, both are helpful answer, right, And so
whether it's a recollection or a construction after the fact,
I can't say that, but you know, I thought that
one of the helpful factors with redacted is he had
spent a lot of time and major Crimes is the
most active active unit. I assume you all know that
the structure in the office, but major crime is not
major crimes, it's sort of the entry level crimes. And
I value the fact that he had trained and you know,
so many ausas and really spent a lot of time
reviewing the major crimes chief as opposed to the other
chiefs who spend a lot of time reviewing the work
of ausa's And so he would be someone who is
very experienced and able to get into the weeds question.
And he in fact was around during that time period,
had gone back in the courtroom. If you recall to
actually try a major case, do you recall that? Answer?
I didn't until you just said so. Question major fraud. Answer,
I didn't until you mentioned it. And now there's something
in the back of my head that's saying that sounds right,
but I can't give you more detail. Question all right?
What was your assessment of redacted and sort of working
style and particularly working with you? Answer? You know again, positive?
You know, we didn't. I didn't see him as often
as mister redacted. Question was he located on the same floor.
Answer he was located on the same floor, but not
within the same suite. Question mm hmm. Answer, and that
affects interaction, but a positive working relationship. Question all right?
And to what extent would you as criminal chief? Was
he relied on by you as distinguished from redacted with
regard to the criminal matters pending? Answer? Also relied on
depending that would depend almost on the matter. Question okay,
As in a typical situation, Acosta answers, he would bring
things to redacted, who would then bring them to me
along and so he would bring things to redacted, and then,
depending on their discussion, they might both walk into my
office but he would typically run things through redacted before
coming to me. Question were there occasions when he would
come to you directly? Answer? Sure, that's why I said,
and typical answer. It's difficult to sort of recreate the interactions,
but he certainly could come by and come to me directly,
and in some cases I would say probably would Question again,
it's being a large office with several physical locations, and
we understand it's a very high volume of cases, and
particularly in the criminal context. Is it fair to say
you didn't review every prosecution as it was brought Answer?
It's not just fair, but accurate. I recall a conversation
with the US attorney from a small district early on
at one US Attorney's conference where we compared notes, and
the interaction of an office with thirty prosecutors is very
different than one with a few hundred questions. So, when
you did engage on a criminal case, would you, whether
it was planned prosecution or a case heading to trial,
would you generally rely on written submissions or would you
this is really an inquiry into your style, or would
you have everybody together and talk about it, or would
you rely on your most immediate subordinate to be briefing you.
Which one of those kinds of approaches did you take? Answer?
I would say that really depended and probably varied based
on individual needs. For the most part, I would most
likely just speak with my first assistant and or criminal
chief and assess what else needed to be done. In
other words, you would sort of do it on a
sort of verbal or based on oral interaction and presentation
as opposed to going through stacks of paper. For the
most part, I would say that that was typical. I
don't want to say that that case was every single time,
but that was typical. Question all right? And to that extent,
did you go out and about to encounter the line
attorneys or for example, was that something that you were
able to do and wanted to do? Answer? Yes and yes,
And you know, when I started, I made it a
point of walking every floor and meeting everyone, and towards
the end of the day, I would also if I
could make it a point, particularly of major crime, of
just walking down to the floor and seeing who was
there and what they were doing and sort of popping
my head in and just saying hi, because I think
that's the right thing to do. Question, Okay, was that
way to support the troops or was it more of
a way for you to find to become informed about
what was going on. Answer? Probably a little bit of both,
to support the troops, but also to get the temperature
of the office and see how matters are progressing. Question
you at the Criminal or rather the Civil Rights Division,
had experience with human trafficking and child sex trafficking cases.
Answer correct, under your supervision. We understand that you brought
that concern or your concerns about those issues with you
to the US Attorney's Office, and that we know that
under your tenure, the US Attorney's Office had many successful
prosecutions involving conduct ranging from internet child pornography to international
sex tourism to victimizing children. In particular, in mid two
thousand and seven, you, according to press reports, you set
up a new special prosecution unit to focus on, among
other things, sex crimes against children. Could you tell us
what importance though those kinds of cases hell for you
as US attorney? Answer? Sure, if I could. If I
could just back up a little bit, because the question
goes the Special Prosecutions Unit, and let me address that
part of it. There are a few things that are
embedded there answer, there's the special prosecution unit that was
set up because there was some issue that I thought
was important to pursue in particular, and one of those
was sort of trafficking issues. Another one was the gun violence.
And the intent of special prosecutions was to have a
group of individuals that would sort of be dedicated and
not part of the usual major crimes group. So it
wasn't exclusively I your question may have implied it was
exclusively for sex crimes. Question. They cut them off. Oh,
no question, No, I understand it was not answer and
so I thought it was sufficiently important, and so it
was one of the one of the initiatives that we
were certainly pursuing. Question and was that something that you
can to which you brought your experience as head of
Civil Rights Division as well? Answer? It was not. I
think I know when I was head of Civil Rights
that that's something that I'd put particular emphasis on, and
I thought Civil Rights really stepped up and did a
great job on that question. Did you yourself recognize you
were never a prosecutor as such? Answer right, question, But
did you ever have experience being involved in a prosecution.
That's sort of the nitty gritty of the prosecution of
that kind of case, sort of seconding yourself to a
trial team, for example, or an investigation. Answer. So, if
by nitty gritty you mean seconding myself to a trial team,
the answer would be no question, all right. Answer. There
are a number of cases that I recall being briefed
on and talked about. Interrupted question, but at that high
level answer, correct question, all right. The department set up
in two thousand and six a PSC program, a Project
Safe Childhood program focused on Internet child pornography, and appointed
you as the first coordinator, and she was also course
the line attorney on the Epstein case. How well did
you know redacted? And can you can you give us
your assessment of her capabilities, judgment and her interaction with you? Answer,
so a few things in there. How well did I
know her prior to appointment? I don't recall. I'm not
I don't think I knew her particularly well prior to appointment.
She was clearly respected within the office, and I don't recall,
but I can't speculate that she was appointed based on
recommendations of management and her interest in some combination and
prior work, and some combination thereof you asked me to characterize,
and I think she was good, strong, professional AUSA. Question
do you have any did you have any negative, you know,
anything less than fully positive in your assessment of her? Answer?
No question. I think she was good, strong, and a
dedicated a USA. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up
episode two right here. In the next episode dealing with
the topic, We're gonna pick up where we left off.
All of the information that goes with this episode can
be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
we're gonna pick up where we left off with alex
Acosta's interview with the inspector. General question, do you have
any did you have any negative, you know, anything less
than fully positive in your assessment of her? Answer? No question? Okay, answer,
I think she was a good, strong, dedicated AUSA. Answer
all right. Question was the managing USA at West Palm
Beach Office? Answer? Correct question at least? And would redacted
work there? How closely did you work with redacted? And
again that's an assessment question. What was your assessment of them?
Answer so less so only because of geographic distance? Question?
Uh huh? Answer I would also say he was a
respected professional. He had a good reputation. He went on
to be chief of staff here at the Criminal Division,
which I think speaks to how he was viewed within
the department, and so I would say positive question. Okay,
So turning to the Epstein case. Answer, yeah, question, Now
that your recall has been refreshed by virtue of the
documents that we provided, Before we get into the actual
sort of documents and some of the details of the events,
would you please give us a general overview of what
you currently remember refreshed about how the case came into
the US Attorney's office, how it was assessed for prosecution,
and how and why the decision was made to resolve
it with a two year stage plea that ultimately became
an eighteen month sentence. Answer okay, And to that, mister Haran,
who is the lawyer for alex Acosta, pipes up before
you answer the question, let me just jump in on
the notion of refresher recollection, which is of course has
a very specific legal meaning, and I think to assert
that mister Acosta's recollection has been refreshed generally probably overstates it.
It's really a document by document issue by issue thing.
So I push back on that. He gets interrupted, but
he keeps going a little bit. But the question is
fair and accurate, misredacted. If you're talking about handing him
a document or refresh an exhausted recollection, that's not the
process we're talking about. We're using it more in a
lay term. That you know, if we ask you this
before giving you all these documents, you'd probably would have
not been able to be as full in your responses.
So we're asking for your full response, mister Haran. We
appreciate the opportunity to review the documents, and Alex in
your answers, try to distinguish what you actually recall in
your own head versus what you saw in the document,
and that would make four. He gets interrupted, the cleanest record. Acosta. Okay,
So three parts. How did it come to my office? Question?
How was had it come in? Answer? Right question? How
was it assessed for prosecution? Answer? Write question? And then
how and how and why the decision was made to
resolve it the way it was answer. So let's begin
with how it came into the office. Putting all the
documents aside, I can't say with certainty how it came in.
I can speculate how it came in and the way
it would have come into the office is I can
speculate that the chief the chief writer from Palm Beach
County would have brought it to either the FBI or
the Palm Beach office. I'm not certain that I would
have asked who brought this case to the office, as
opposed to the case is now in the office. Let's
discuss it right. The format or the mode in which
it came in, I think is important because my recollection
is it arrived to us us in the position that
the state attorney had negotiated a plea, and that the
reason that we looked at it was that the plea
was going to be that there had been an initial
charge that wasn't pursued and that required jail time and registration,
and that the plea was going to be taken was
a charge that didn't require jail time and didn't require registration,
and based on the preliminary assessment of the facts, that
seemed that seems wrong. So that's how it arrived. The
next question was question how was it assessed for federal prosecution? Answer?
So it was assessed for federal prosecution. My recollection from
very early on, and I'm sure we'll talk about this
some more, is you have a case that, while technically
it wasn't final at the state level, but for federal
involvement would have been final. And so from the earliest
point we were thinking federal versus state and petite and
the contemporaneous record sort of shows at least the material
that I got the earliest communication mister redacted telling me
that redacted is preparing a petite policy waiver, that misredacted
is preparing a petite policy waiver. And that's consistent with
my recollection of how it was assessed and then brought
in assessed you know, doesn't make sense to go forward, yes,
investigate and circle back and then and then the third
part was question how and why the disposition answer. So
my general recollection is the view was that if the
state had followed through on the original charge I don't
recall which that call for jail time and that call
for registration, that the local police or whoever brought it
would not have seen the need to refer it. And
so that was, in terms of pre indictment resolution, a
logical and reasonable place given all the other sort of factors,
both the patitue concerns, the witness concerns, and the legal concerns.
And to that I would add a fourth concern, which
it had already been reviewed by a grand jury at
the state level, is my recollection. And so to some extent,
that's indication of how some individuals may sort of view
this matter. Question. Okay, we're going to pick that apart.
Answer I figured question, but thank you for that answer.
You asked for an overview, so I tried to be
very he gets interrupted. Yeah, answer general question. That doesn't.
That doesn't. The second part of that last prong was
why a two year state plea? In other words, you
talked about you talked about assessing the case and why
resolve it? But why with a two year state plea? Answer? So,
my general recollection is my understanding if I was asked,
what is the best understanding that I have of why
two years? Is that is what would have been obtained
in one of the original state charges. Question how do
you know that? Answer? We gets cut off question how
did you know that? Answer? That's why I say general recollection.
I'm reconstructing memories of that twelve years ago. I can
speculate that at some point the matter came up and
I or someone else said, if you know what would
the original what would the original plea have? You know
what would the original charges have likely brought? And someone
said this amount question? Who would have said that answer?
I'm speculating at this point. I don't have a recollection,
but that's that's my general understanding question. All right, Well,
now unpack some of that question. And by the way,
my colleague, we're all in this boat together, so they're
going to feel free answer, I know question, to chime
in as they see fit. So the first thing going
going to the intake of the case, we know from
the records that and by the way, we obviously have
done a great deal of other investigation and spoken to
many people. So redacted brief view and redacted pretty much
when the case first came in in the mid two
thousand and six, after the FBI, and indeed the office
the US Attorney's Office in West Palm Beach had opened
the case, but before Epstein was indicted. So this first exhibit,
exhibit number one, that you have in your binder before
you or in your folder before you, is that email
from redacted to you that you just referred to dated
July twenty fourth, two thousand and six, in which he's
sort of passing on the information that Epstein has by
now been arrested, been indicted, arrested and indicted by the state.
Do you recall anything about the original briefing from redacted? Answer?
I don't. Question, all right, did you know at the
time that the time she briefed you, which is prior
to Exhibit one? Did you know who Epstein was? Answer?
I did not. Question never heard of them to your knowledge?
Answer to my knowledge, I don't recall having heard of them.
Question and what did you understand at that early point
the case to be about? Answer? So I don't recall
the briefing, and so I can't give an independent recollection,
you know, based on this, I mean, he gets cut off.
But you're talking about Exhibit one. Answer based on Exhibit one,
you know, I can infer that this would have been
my general understanding of the case. And you know, and
the key things that I point out here is pre
trial diversion, which is code for a jail time and
petit policy. The question, but this what exhibit number one
does not make it clear to you that this case
involved allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had been enticing, coercing, whatever
verb you want to use, young underage females. We will
for the record call them girls here as opposed to women.
And these underage females were being paid to provide him
essentially with sex or sexual activity or conduct of a
pretty salacious nature. Do you recall that as being essentially
what you were briefed on from the beginning? Answer? Again,
I don't recall the initial briefing. I take it, based
on your review that there was an initial briefing. I
can't say the degree of detail. I can't say what
it was about. As a typical matter, I wouldn't be
briefed when a case comes into the office other than
being made aware this is the case, this is what
we're looking at. So then if you or your understanding
you don't remember the briefing, is it fair to say
you did not have some understanding of the case that
was the West Palm Beach was pursuing as of mid
two thousand and six. Answer. I certainly had an understanding
of the general facts of the case early on. I
can't speak to whether it was mid two thousand and
six verses late two thousand and six versus two thousand
and seven. But early on, I certainly had an understanding
that it was a case that involved, you know, a
billionaire who was doing sordid things with young women or
girls who were minors. Question redacted, and the records indicate
that her concern in bringing this all the way to
you and her first at the time criminal chief but
sort of acting first assistant redacted, was because she was
afraid of political pressure that might be brought to bear
against the US Attorney's office in the case. Do you
have any recollection of that being a concern that was
laid before you answer? I don't. Again, I don't recall
the early that briefing. I've reviewed the email, and I
can you know I'd take it. It would have been
natural for me to say, should we approach the state
attorney because we had lots of ongoing matters with the
state attorney, And it seems that Redacted said no, for
fear it'll be leaked straight to Epstein, and I assumed
i'd let it be at that point. Question, and do
you know do you know what he meant by it
being leaked to Epstein by the state by Barry Krisher,
the state attorney. Answer, So, based on context, what I
would assume is that if the state attorney is cutting
this kind of deal, and it appears that things have
already leaked, because you know, there's clearly an article here
with leaked, so something has already leaked. Question are you
referring to exhibit one? Answer? Exhibit one? Other things would leak.
Question have you ever met Barry Krisher? Answer? Sure? Question
what was your relationship with him? Answer? So, there were
multiple state attorneys within the district he was. It was
a professional relationship question. It was an elected position. Correct answer,
It was an elected position question. And what was your
assessment of his aggressiveness as a prosecutor and his capabilities?
Answer on the public Most of my assessment with him
was on the public corruption front, and we had brought
several cases, and I was a little disappointed that these
were cases he could have brought that he chose not
to bring. Question rights, So can I am I accurate
in inferring from that you didn't regard him as a
particularly hard charging prosecutor. Answer, So with any state attorney,
I hesitate to sort of paint a broad brush stroke.
I don't think that's always fair. But my experience had
been in the public corruption space, and in that space,
I did not think whether it was him or whether
it was his office, I can't speak, but I did
not think they had done as much as they could
have done. Question, is there any area in which you
thought he in his office did pursue aggressively? Answer? So,
as a recall, we had we had emphasized gun crimes
quite a bit and really had a lot of success
moving the ball in the gun crime space and Palm Beach.
But let me let me just say, it's also very
difficult to reconstruct time frames. And so I hesitate because
I don't know if that was two thousand and six
or two thousand and seven. But you asked in another
area gets cut off question in this exhibit one, you
ask whether it's appropriate appropriate to approach Barry Krisher and
give him a heads up as to where the US
Attorney's Office might go with the case. Answer correct question.
Why would you want to extend that difference to him?
Why would it matter? Answer a colleague and law enforcement.
I thought it was important for the office to work
with with state attorneys as a general matter, and I
found that the office worked best when it had good
working relationships with state attorneys and with you know, for
that matter, the agency sacks and others. But again, you know,
rather than my asserting I'm asking redacted and redacted with
saying no, and I don't know what the ultimate outcome was,
what I would guess that we just deffer and let
it be. All right, folks, We're gonna wrap up right here,
and in the next episode we're gonna pick up where
we left off. All of the information that goes with
this episode can be found in the description box.