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

2
00:00:02,919 --> 00:00:05,919
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up

3
00:00:05,919 --> 00:00:08,919
where we left off with the alex Acosta interview with

4
00:00:09,000 --> 00:00:12,880
the OIG inspectors. Question, what do you think about the

5
00:00:12,919 --> 00:00:17,640
media's treatment of line assistant redacted answer? I think I

6
00:00:17,719 --> 00:00:19,879
wish your name wouldn't be in the media. You know,

7
00:00:19,960 --> 00:00:22,480
to some extent, US attorneys when they take the job,

8
00:00:22,879 --> 00:00:25,519
realize that part of their job is to take the

9
00:00:25,559 --> 00:00:29,280
slings and arrows, and you know, there are instances when

10
00:00:29,320 --> 00:00:32,679
ausas were accused of misconduct and I have always sort

11
00:00:32,719 --> 00:00:34,960
of felt that was I don't want to stay below

12
00:00:35,039 --> 00:00:37,560
the belt, but that's not what they take. Pay cuts

13
00:00:37,960 --> 00:00:40,799
that they take to go into federal service, and you know, know,

14
00:00:40,960 --> 00:00:43,079
I think the media coverage of this case has been

15
00:00:43,159 --> 00:00:47,039
unfair and has lost a lot of the complexities. It's

16
00:00:47,039 --> 00:00:50,320
not surprising because I mean, here we're talking about a

17
00:00:50,320 --> 00:00:54,000
lot of those complexities, and it takes a fairly sophisticated discussion,

18
00:00:54,320 --> 00:00:58,719
but I think it's particularly unfair. Unredacted. Question. In your

19
00:00:58,759 --> 00:01:03,560
attorney's written response, use the term relentless to characterize the

20
00:01:03,600 --> 00:01:06,439
team of lawyers, the defense lawyers and in the Daily

21
00:01:06,480 --> 00:01:09,400
Beast article that you wrote, you referred to the year

22
00:01:09,439 --> 00:01:13,840
long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors. You noted

23
00:01:13,879 --> 00:01:17,159
that the defense was more aggressive than any of which

24
00:01:17,480 --> 00:01:20,879
I or the prosecutors in my office had previously encountered.

25
00:01:21,680 --> 00:01:25,159
You noted that the defense investigated prosecutors and tried to

26
00:01:25,200 --> 00:01:28,599
disqualify too, and I believe that those two are redacted

27
00:01:28,599 --> 00:01:34,879
and redacted. Is that correct answer? That's correct question? And

28
00:01:34,959 --> 00:01:38,359
you also raised or noted or asserted that there were

29
00:01:38,439 --> 00:01:43,319
investigations into the family lives of individual prosecutors, accusations of

30
00:01:43,359 --> 00:01:47,359
bias and misconduct against individual prosecutors, and even the threat

31
00:01:47,359 --> 00:01:51,000
of a book on prosecutorial zeal. Do you still regard

32
00:01:51,040 --> 00:01:56,239
that characterization as accurate? Answer? I do you know whether

33
00:01:56,280 --> 00:01:58,760
I would use those same words. Now. We can spend

34
00:01:58,799 --> 00:02:01,120
a lot of time talking about it, and I'd want

35
00:02:01,159 --> 00:02:03,519
to think about it. But I do think that that's accurate.

36
00:02:04,200 --> 00:02:06,680
I think this really was a raised Earth type of matter.

37
00:02:06,879 --> 00:02:10,039
And in the office typical interactions, the prosecutor is no,

38
00:02:10,719 --> 00:02:12,840
they have to come back to the office, and so

39
00:02:12,960 --> 00:02:15,759
they would not sorry, not the prosecutors. It's getting late,

40
00:02:15,960 --> 00:02:19,199
the defense council, and so they would not. It's not

41
00:02:19,400 --> 00:02:23,599
just the accusations against the attorneys, but the mischaracterization. I

42
00:02:23,639 --> 00:02:26,120
could go through the record and there are several instances

43
00:02:26,159 --> 00:02:30,400
where my words or other USA words were being mischaracterized.

44
00:02:30,639 --> 00:02:33,080
Or we're going back to one of the redacted emails.

45
00:02:33,360 --> 00:02:36,120
People walk out of the meeting believing they have an agreement,

46
00:02:36,639 --> 00:02:40,319
and then that's unwound. That is not I don't know

47
00:02:40,319 --> 00:02:43,120
if that's the typical in Washington, but that's certainly not

48
00:02:43,199 --> 00:02:46,919
typical in the Miami office. Question all right, in the

49
00:02:47,000 --> 00:02:51,479
Daily Beast article, I think you also use the term pacadillos. Answer, yes,

50
00:02:51,879 --> 00:02:55,639
question what did you mean by that? In particular? Answer?

51
00:02:56,000 --> 00:02:59,960
Could I see? Could I question? I was afraid you'd ask.

52
00:03:00,400 --> 00:03:02,159
I'd have it right in front of me, and I

53
00:03:02,280 --> 00:03:06,479
don't at the moment, misredacted, Are you talking about to

54
00:03:06,560 --> 00:03:11,719
whom it may concern? Letter mister redacted, Yes, Acosta, Yeah, question,

55
00:03:12,080 --> 00:03:14,840
thank you, And it's in reference on the second number

56
00:03:14,879 --> 00:03:18,639
page of this copy to personal peccadillos in the middle

57
00:03:18,680 --> 00:03:23,080
of the page. Answer also individual prosecutors and their families

58
00:03:23,400 --> 00:03:27,879
looking for personal peccadillos that provide a so redacted was

59
00:03:27,919 --> 00:03:32,960
my recollection? She wasn't investigated redacted, and I haven't encountered

60
00:03:33,120 --> 00:03:36,080
that in other cases. I recall at one point they

61
00:03:36,159 --> 00:03:39,840
looked in redacted and redacted his family and his background,

62
00:03:39,960 --> 00:03:41,639
and I thought that was a little bit out of line.

63
00:03:42,080 --> 00:03:47,000
Now the next like, I don't know, seventeen or eighteen

64
00:03:47,039 --> 00:03:50,879
lines are all redacted. At that point I was trying

65
00:03:50,919 --> 00:03:53,639
to convey is that this is not a typical behavior

66
00:03:53,800 --> 00:03:56,520
by the defense counsel. And despite all of this, My

67
00:03:56,599 --> 00:03:59,960
point was, despite all of this, we did not budge.

68
00:04:00,319 --> 00:04:04,840
And again that's not the focus of the question. Like redacted.

69
00:04:04,879 --> 00:04:08,120
Once again, the whole answer question, all right, are there

70
00:04:08,120 --> 00:04:10,919
any other examples where a defense counsel came to you

71
00:04:11,360 --> 00:04:15,719
that you have not otherwise addressed with allegations about someone?

72
00:04:15,960 --> 00:04:19,040
Did they ever raise or imply that there were that

73
00:04:19,079 --> 00:04:23,000
there was information regarding you or whatever respect that was

74
00:04:23,040 --> 00:04:25,199
in the nature of a sort of a threat or

75
00:04:25,199 --> 00:04:28,279
a veiled warning. Answer. So the book reference was that

76
00:04:28,360 --> 00:04:32,120
I might be personally embarrassed by pursuing this matter because

77
00:04:32,199 --> 00:04:34,920
I would be subject of the chapter in a book

78
00:04:35,120 --> 00:04:38,879
on prosecutorial overreach. Answer, and who is going to write

79
00:04:38,879 --> 00:04:43,480
that book? Do you know? Answer? Professor Dershowitz. Question, Okay,

80
00:04:43,480 --> 00:04:46,680
did you consider him a professional friend at all? Answer?

81
00:04:46,759 --> 00:04:49,800
I had not, to my recollection, met him. I understand

82
00:04:49,839 --> 00:04:52,439
in this letter I sort of grouped him in, But

83
00:04:53,000 --> 00:04:55,120
I'd say for the record that it's hard to know

84
00:04:55,480 --> 00:04:59,079
what my intent was in twenty eleven. But that's for

85
00:04:59,160 --> 00:05:02,439
simplicity of grow individuals. Because I did go to Harvard.

86
00:05:02,720 --> 00:05:04,680
I may have run into him at Harvard, but he

87
00:05:04,759 --> 00:05:07,360
was not my professor. I didn't work for him as

88
00:05:07,399 --> 00:05:10,319
a teaching assistant. I had some interest in criminal law,

89
00:05:10,519 --> 00:05:12,920
so I may have chatted with him, but that would

90
00:05:12,920 --> 00:05:16,720
have been it. Question and did you consult with them

91
00:05:17,120 --> 00:05:20,199
at all in connection with your efforts, your interest and

92
00:05:20,279 --> 00:05:23,360
potentially teaching or being involved in the sort of law

93
00:05:23,360 --> 00:05:27,120
school world, either at Harvard or at Florida International or

94
00:05:27,160 --> 00:05:31,120
anywhere else. Answer not, to my recollection. At some point

95
00:05:31,160 --> 00:05:34,160
when I applied for the deanship, I wasn't aware of

96
00:05:34,160 --> 00:05:37,079
the dean ship until so let's take this. Let's take

97
00:05:37,120 --> 00:05:40,160
this in part. I thought about taking or looking at

98
00:05:40,199 --> 00:05:43,680
Harvard for a teaching position. To my recollection, I never

99
00:05:43,759 --> 00:05:48,079
followed through on that question. Uh huh. Answer. I knew

100
00:05:48,079 --> 00:05:50,959
Alina Kagan and may have had a conversation with her

101
00:05:51,319 --> 00:05:55,079
about what would have been preliminary how does this process work.

102
00:05:55,319 --> 00:05:58,000
But I don't recall talking if I took it that far,

103
00:05:58,279 --> 00:06:00,399
and I'm not saying that I did. This was a

104
00:06:00,399 --> 00:06:03,399
long time ago. I never sort of went through the

105
00:06:03,519 --> 00:06:06,600
way law schools hires very They call it a meat market.

106
00:06:07,639 --> 00:06:10,240
Take that for what it's worth. It's something that happens

107
00:06:10,279 --> 00:06:14,199
at the hotels here at the Marriott Hotel on Connecticut,

108
00:06:14,480 --> 00:06:18,160
and its very formalized process. I never went through that.

109
00:06:18,360 --> 00:06:21,279
I don't recall any conversation with Professor Dershowitz about that.

110
00:06:21,720 --> 00:06:24,199
To the extent I was thinking about it, it'd be

111
00:06:24,319 --> 00:06:26,680
natural for me to talk to or redacted, But I

112
00:06:26,759 --> 00:06:30,519
don't recall talking to him. With respect to a Professor Dershowitz.

113
00:06:30,800 --> 00:06:34,879
With respect to FIU, the dean process is very decentralized.

114
00:06:35,360 --> 00:06:38,160
To the extent a faculty members spoke to him, I

115
00:06:38,199 --> 00:06:41,480
don't know to my recollection. And again, this is a

116
00:06:41,480 --> 00:06:44,000
long time ago. I did not ask for a reference

117
00:06:44,079 --> 00:06:46,800
or a letter or something to that regard, although I

118
00:06:46,839 --> 00:06:50,079
may have, it was a very long time ago. I

119
00:06:50,160 --> 00:06:52,639
was also no longer active in this case at the time.

120
00:06:53,000 --> 00:06:55,920
Question all right, and what about with respect to that

121
00:06:56,000 --> 00:06:59,600
same process on your part, Ken Starr, who actually was

122
00:06:59,639 --> 00:07:01,839
a dean of the law school at the time, did

123
00:07:01,879 --> 00:07:05,600
he provide you with reference or advice? Answer not to

124
00:07:05,680 --> 00:07:10,560
my recollection question? All right, answer as the letter from

125
00:07:10,600 --> 00:07:13,160
Ken at the end, there was by that time this

126
00:07:13,319 --> 00:07:16,079
was over, there was some degree of tension between us

127
00:07:16,240 --> 00:07:19,759
on my resolution of this matter. Question, but it also

128
00:07:19,839 --> 00:07:22,920
appeared to be tension that both of you were eager

129
00:07:22,959 --> 00:07:26,279
to leave a side answer. I'm a big believer and

130
00:07:26,319 --> 00:07:29,279
I had good relationships with the defense team. I think

131
00:07:29,360 --> 00:07:33,120
lawyers can disagree and not be disagreeable, and we would

132
00:07:33,160 --> 00:07:35,199
be in a better profession if we all learned to

133
00:07:35,240 --> 00:07:40,480
do that. Question, so would the world. There is a

134
00:07:40,560 --> 00:07:45,120
sort of investigative journalist author name or dacted Answer yes question,

135
00:07:45,160 --> 00:07:48,639
do you know that name? Answer? Yes question. Did you

136
00:07:48,680 --> 00:07:51,959
ever speak with her? Answer? So she was the recipient

137
00:07:52,319 --> 00:07:54,399
of the to whom it may concern letter at the

138
00:07:54,439 --> 00:07:59,439
Daily Beast? Question? Oh really? Answer yes question? All right,

139
00:07:59,560 --> 00:08:02,120
all right, thank you. We didn't know that. Did she

140
00:08:02,199 --> 00:08:04,319
comment back to you on it? Answer? It was a

141
00:08:04,360 --> 00:08:08,040
long time ago. I don't recall. Question. So she wrote

142
00:08:08,040 --> 00:08:11,480
a book called Trafficking. Have you read that about this case.

143
00:08:11,839 --> 00:08:14,759
Answer she did, I haven't read it recently, but I

144
00:08:14,800 --> 00:08:17,600
read it a while ago. Question. And she says in

145
00:08:17,639 --> 00:08:20,160
that book that you told her a few years after

146
00:08:20,199 --> 00:08:23,959
the NPA was signed, as she writes, he felt incapable

147
00:08:24,199 --> 00:08:28,120
of going up against those eight powerful attorneys. He felt

148
00:08:28,160 --> 00:08:31,720
his career was at stake. Did you say that to her? Answer?

149
00:08:31,959 --> 00:08:34,879
Not to my recollection. What I tried to do was

150
00:08:34,919 --> 00:08:37,759
for the record, provide this letter to her. And the

151
00:08:37,799 --> 00:08:40,799
purpose of this letter was to say the exact opposite,

152
00:08:40,919 --> 00:08:43,720
which is, and you know, we have this, you know,

153
00:08:44,080 --> 00:08:46,200
and she had in this New York Times and I

154
00:08:46,200 --> 00:08:50,320
think the New York Times called it. What's the word like, apologia?

155
00:08:51,159 --> 00:08:55,200
Does anyone know? Yeah? Apologia apology. It's a fancy way

156
00:08:55,200 --> 00:08:59,320
of saying you're explaining yourself. Answer yeah, I looked it up,

157
00:09:00,039 --> 00:09:03,200
and it's a little more derogatory than explaining myself, because

158
00:09:03,200 --> 00:09:05,080
I felt the need to look it up. But the

159
00:09:05,120 --> 00:09:09,919
New York Times called this letter an apologia. Question mm hmm. Answer.

160
00:09:10,360 --> 00:09:13,159
And this was recently. And I say this because then

161
00:09:13,200 --> 00:09:16,080
folks read the letter, they read it as this is

162
00:09:16,120 --> 00:09:19,879
why you know, I think sometimes they selectively read language.

163
00:09:20,960 --> 00:09:24,399
The prosecutors and agents in the case, and what followed

164
00:09:24,480 --> 00:09:27,399
was a year long assault. I used the word assault

165
00:09:28,000 --> 00:09:30,320
as it was more aggressive than anything in which I

166
00:09:30,720 --> 00:09:35,919
or the prosecutors in my office had previously encountered. Mister

167
00:09:35,960 --> 00:09:40,279
Epstein hired an army of legal superstars, Harvard professor Dershowitz,

168
00:09:40,399 --> 00:09:44,600
former judge, and then Pepperdine Lodging ken Starr, former Deputy

169
00:09:44,639 --> 00:09:48,039
assistant to the President, then Kirklin and Ellis law partner

170
00:09:48,120 --> 00:09:52,360
Jay Lefkowitz, and several others, including prosecutors that formerly worked

171
00:09:52,480 --> 00:09:56,440
in the US Attorney's Office. The child Exploitation section, I'm

172
00:09:56,440 --> 00:09:59,960
not sure who that was of the Department of Defense.

173
00:10:00,600 --> 00:10:04,360
Question Department of Defense answer no, No, in Child Exploitation

174
00:10:04,799 --> 00:10:08,919
and Obscenity section of the Justice Department. Defense attorneys next

175
00:10:08,960 --> 00:10:12,279
requested a meeting with me, and they read that as

176
00:10:12,320 --> 00:10:15,480
saying there were all these powerful lawyers in the case.

177
00:10:15,679 --> 00:10:18,159
But they then go on to talk about it. Despite

178
00:10:18,200 --> 00:10:20,679
this army of attorneys, the office held firm to the

179
00:10:20,759 --> 00:10:25,120
terms first presented to mister Black in the original meeting. Question, So,

180
00:10:25,200 --> 00:10:28,799
what I understand you saying is that the panopoly, this

181
00:10:28,919 --> 00:10:32,480
pantheon of attorneys did not have the influence on you.

182
00:10:32,679 --> 00:10:36,799
That's alleged answer, and the purpose of this letter as

183
00:10:36,840 --> 00:10:40,279
to despite all of that, we held firm, So how

184
00:10:40,320 --> 00:10:42,879
can you say that there's influence if we held firm?

185
00:10:45,240 --> 00:10:48,080
And I would also I'm sorry, gets cut off, no,

186
00:10:48,080 --> 00:10:51,320
no continues. I would also note I think we talked

187
00:10:51,320 --> 00:10:54,440
about this, and those terms were developed before many of

188
00:10:54,480 --> 00:10:57,480
these individuals came on board. So it's not like these

189
00:10:57,559 --> 00:11:00,720
terms were developed because oh now these indi visuals are

190
00:11:00,759 --> 00:11:04,320
on board. Question all right, And of course we haven't

191
00:11:04,360 --> 00:11:07,039
talked about the work release issue, but I think that speaks.

192
00:11:07,080 --> 00:11:11,240
The record speaks for itself on that. So I'm not sure.

193
00:11:11,360 --> 00:11:14,559
I'm clear. Did you have an interview or give have

194
00:11:14,639 --> 00:11:19,279
a conversation with misredacted or just center this letter answer.

195
00:11:19,360 --> 00:11:21,519
I spoke with her briefly saying I'm not going to

196
00:11:21,519 --> 00:11:24,080
speak on the record. I'm not going to address even

197
00:11:24,159 --> 00:11:26,440
off the record details of the case, but I will

198
00:11:26,440 --> 00:11:29,200
provide a letter to you. I've had a lot of

199
00:11:29,240 --> 00:11:32,080
requests over the years to talk about the case. There

200
00:11:32,120 --> 00:11:34,799
were enough requests coming that I thought it was important

201
00:11:35,039 --> 00:11:37,840
to provide a statement to defend the actions of the office.

202
00:11:38,240 --> 00:11:40,559
I didn't want it to be one reporter in particular,

203
00:11:40,759 --> 00:11:42,960
because I did not want to play favorites, and so

204
00:11:43,120 --> 00:11:46,039
I provided to whom it may concern letter that was

205
00:11:46,120 --> 00:11:48,240
a public letter, but then I gave it to her.

206
00:11:48,480 --> 00:11:50,440
All Right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here, and

207
00:11:50,519 --> 00:11:52,720
in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna

208
00:11:52,720 --> 00:11:55,679
pick up where we left off. All of the information

209
00:11:55,720 --> 00:11:58,600
that goes with this episode can be found in the

210
00:11:58,639 --> 00:12:02,320
description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode

211
00:12:02,519 --> 00:12:05,919
of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're diving right

212
00:12:06,039 --> 00:12:11,120
back in to the alex Acosta interview with the OIG investigators,

213
00:12:11,240 --> 00:12:15,159
and we're getting close to the end here. Question, and

214
00:12:15,360 --> 00:12:18,080
just one thing on work release issue. Did you tell

215
00:12:18,120 --> 00:12:21,240
the defense that the US Attorney's Office would not object

216
00:12:21,399 --> 00:12:24,080
if he got work release as long as he's treated

217
00:12:24,200 --> 00:12:28,000
like every other defendant. Answer. So, I don't recall what

218
00:12:28,039 --> 00:12:31,200
I may or may not have said specifically around work release.

219
00:12:31,879 --> 00:12:35,240
My recollection of our general position is you're pleading in

220
00:12:35,320 --> 00:12:39,519
state court to incarceration of eighteen Now it's eighteen months,

221
00:12:39,639 --> 00:12:43,360
it was twenty four. Whether it was eighteen or twenty four,

222
00:12:43,799 --> 00:12:46,200
this would have been any conversation I would have had

223
00:12:46,639 --> 00:12:49,919
would have been after the agreement was signed. It's our

224
00:12:50,000 --> 00:12:54,000
expectation that he be treated just like everyone else. If

225
00:12:54,039 --> 00:12:56,200
it was typical to provide that kind of work release

226
00:12:56,360 --> 00:12:58,559
in these cases, that would have been news to me.

227
00:12:59,200 --> 00:13:01,600
I certainly would not have expected that, and I think,

228
00:13:01,639 --> 00:13:05,200
based on our subsequent communication with the State Attorney's office,

229
00:13:05,799 --> 00:13:09,480
that was not what our office envisioned. By the same token,

230
00:13:09,639 --> 00:13:11,840
I don't want to think our office envisioned that he'd

231
00:13:11,879 --> 00:13:16,000
be treated worth that the typical offender. Question, Well, did

232
00:13:16,000 --> 00:13:18,600
you know that redacted was in fact trying to make

233
00:13:18,600 --> 00:13:23,279
sure that he didn't get work release? Answer? Yes, and

234
00:13:23,360 --> 00:13:25,320
so I don't see any reason why I would have

235
00:13:25,360 --> 00:13:29,799
contradicted that. That's my point. Question all right, you've mentioned

236
00:13:29,840 --> 00:13:33,240
a number of times that the sexual offender registration was

237
00:13:33,279 --> 00:13:36,279
one of the three important prongs for you and the office.

238
00:13:36,879 --> 00:13:40,360
Answer yes, question what was it that you saw the

239
00:13:40,360 --> 00:13:44,919
sex offender registration as accomplishing? Answer? So, to some extent,

240
00:13:45,039 --> 00:13:48,879
it's putting the community on notice that, irrespective of whether

241
00:13:48,919 --> 00:13:52,399
he's in Florida or elsewhere, he's a registered sex offender.

242
00:13:53,159 --> 00:13:55,759
To some extent, I don't know if this, but I'll

243
00:13:55,759 --> 00:13:58,759
say it anyhow, this was a serious crime, and there's

244
00:13:58,759 --> 00:14:02,000
a public sanction associate with this, and I thought, to

245
00:14:02,039 --> 00:14:04,879
the extent that he committed the types of acts that

246
00:14:04,960 --> 00:14:09,840
typically are associated with registration, that should go forward. But

247
00:14:10,000 --> 00:14:13,639
the primary motivation there was put the public on notice

248
00:14:13,759 --> 00:14:17,120
that he is a registered sex offender. Question and did

249
00:14:17,200 --> 00:14:19,759
you see any conflict with that as being the goal?

250
00:14:20,120 --> 00:14:23,000
With the provision in the NPA that the NPA was

251
00:14:23,039 --> 00:14:26,759
going to be kept confidential and the communication in which

252
00:14:26,799 --> 00:14:30,200
the US Attorney's Office was having with the defense about

253
00:14:30,200 --> 00:14:34,320
continuing to keep things confidential, do you see any inconsistency

254
00:14:34,360 --> 00:14:38,240
between those two? Answer? No, and that I genuinely was

255
00:14:38,240 --> 00:14:40,879
of the opinion that the NPA would go public, and

256
00:14:41,039 --> 00:14:44,519
certainly his public his state core plea would be public,

257
00:14:44,960 --> 00:14:48,480
and his registration would be public, and so what he

258
00:14:48,519 --> 00:14:52,159
did would be known. Question and given what you know

259
00:14:52,200 --> 00:14:55,519
about these offices back and forth on notifying the victims,

260
00:14:56,120 --> 00:14:58,480
do you think, looking at the entire course of conduct

261
00:14:58,559 --> 00:15:01,240
of the office, that the victims were treated fairly and

262
00:15:01,279 --> 00:15:05,279
with dignity and respect. Answer? So, I want to be careful,

263
00:15:05,720 --> 00:15:08,559
not because I'm fudging, but because it's a complex question.

264
00:15:09,360 --> 00:15:11,840
If looking back in hindsight, we knew that there would

265
00:15:11,879 --> 00:15:15,720
be what was it, two eight month periods? Do we

266
00:15:15,759 --> 00:15:18,080
have an agreement? Do we not have an agreement? Is

267
00:15:18,120 --> 00:15:21,799
this concluded? Is this not concluded? Is this an ongoing investigation?

268
00:15:22,480 --> 00:15:26,279
How do we deal with all these notification issues? If

269
00:15:26,279 --> 00:15:28,679
we had foreseen all of that, I think I've said

270
00:15:28,720 --> 00:15:32,000
before that something I certainly think should have been considered,

271
00:15:32,159 --> 00:15:35,080
and it's very possible we would have done something very different,

272
00:15:35,440 --> 00:15:38,399
But that was not foreseen. And so it's then a

273
00:15:38,519 --> 00:15:41,559
very difficult judgment to be made because there is an agreement,

274
00:15:41,960 --> 00:15:44,600
there is concern as to if we go to trial,

275
00:15:44,799 --> 00:15:47,279
how do you address this? There is you know, going

276
00:15:47,279 --> 00:15:50,080
to the AFID David at least one instant, and I'm

277
00:15:50,120 --> 00:15:53,120
merging my recollection here and my knowledge after the fact,

278
00:15:53,440 --> 00:15:56,120
because your question sort of calls for an after the

279
00:15:56,159 --> 00:16:00,240
fact assessment. So you've got their redacted after David, which

280
00:16:00,279 --> 00:16:03,039
points out the defense Council did all they could, but

281
00:16:03,320 --> 00:16:06,639
is using this to impeach and weaken witness credibility in

282
00:16:06,679 --> 00:16:11,600
a case where there's already questions around witness credibility. And

283
00:16:11,639 --> 00:16:15,600
so it's a very imperfect situation with discretionary judgments to

284
00:16:15,720 --> 00:16:18,559
do the best to sort of balance all of these factors,

285
00:16:19,000 --> 00:16:22,639
is that the best outcome Probably not, But that's where

286
00:16:22,679 --> 00:16:26,000
we were, and that's why I think this case would

287
00:16:26,039 --> 00:16:30,679
have been very different than it was October twenty fourth.

288
00:16:30,960 --> 00:16:33,399
He would have gone in and pled and taken his

289
00:16:33,480 --> 00:16:36,600
time and served his time like many other people have done,

290
00:16:36,679 --> 00:16:39,480
as opposed to mount all these legal challenges that we

291
00:16:39,600 --> 00:16:42,879
then had to work through. Question, and I'll preface my

292
00:16:42,960 --> 00:16:46,759
question with the fact that we're still investigating this. We've

293
00:16:46,759 --> 00:16:49,960
made no conclusions with respect to this. But if OPR

294
00:16:50,039 --> 00:16:53,600
determines that your office should be criticized for its handling

295
00:16:53,639 --> 00:16:56,919
of this, does the criticism fall on you? Or does

296
00:16:56,960 --> 00:17:00,240
it fall on your senior managers because a non prospcut

297
00:17:00,559 --> 00:17:03,120
you were relying on them to keep you informed and

298
00:17:03,200 --> 00:17:06,720
for their judgment. Answer. So, I was the US Attorney.

299
00:17:07,519 --> 00:17:10,920
I certainly relied on my staff, but ultimately I was

300
00:17:10,920 --> 00:17:14,000
the US Attorney, and I don't think it's justifiable or

301
00:17:14,119 --> 00:17:17,720
fair to sort of say this was on them. I

302
00:17:17,799 --> 00:17:20,759
was sufficiently aware of matters that it was my office.

303
00:17:21,039 --> 00:17:23,599
And while I'll say that it was, I might not

304
00:17:23,640 --> 00:17:26,000
recall this or I was relying on AB or C

305
00:17:26,400 --> 00:17:29,200
for guidance or to handle the matter. Ultimately, I think

306
00:17:29,240 --> 00:17:34,000
those judgments always sort of bubble up. Question in your

307
00:17:34,000 --> 00:17:37,920
press conference, you reference I think July tenth, twenty nineteen

308
00:17:37,960 --> 00:17:42,039
press conference, you reference victims. What they went through was horrific,

309
00:17:42,839 --> 00:17:45,440
you said, and then you said, I've seen the videos.

310
00:17:45,920 --> 00:17:48,240
I've seen the interviews. I have seen the interviews on

311
00:17:48,279 --> 00:17:52,240
television of the victims and their stories. Just to be clear,

312
00:17:52,519 --> 00:17:56,079
are you talking about interviews and television coverage and videos

313
00:17:56,119 --> 00:18:00,000
recently or back in two thousand and six? Answer recently?

314
00:18:01,359 --> 00:18:04,119
Question Okay, I just wanted to be very clear about that.

315
00:18:04,480 --> 00:18:08,039
The US Attorney Manual requires us all in the Department

316
00:18:08,240 --> 00:18:11,400
to conduct the fair, even handed administration of the federal

317
00:18:11,400 --> 00:18:14,559
criminal law. What's your view as to how the handling

318
00:18:14,559 --> 00:18:18,000
of this case comported with that principle? Answer? So, I

319
00:18:18,039 --> 00:18:20,920
don't think it was fair and even handed. You know,

320
00:18:21,119 --> 00:18:24,480
after the fact may look back and say that two

321
00:18:24,599 --> 00:18:26,920
years may not. You know, it shouldn't have been a

322
00:18:27,000 --> 00:18:30,920
manifest in justice standard. It should have been sort of denovo.

323
00:18:31,200 --> 00:18:34,480
Let's treat this like a new prosecution. That's a judgment

324
00:18:35,200 --> 00:18:38,440
you'll all make. But those judgments were made with the

325
00:18:38,440 --> 00:18:42,839
eye towards fairness and impartiality, and once those judgments were made,

326
00:18:42,960 --> 00:18:46,559
despite all the attorneys involved, and despite all the litigation

327
00:18:47,319 --> 00:18:51,240
and all the stuff, all the appeals to DC, you know,

328
00:18:51,400 --> 00:18:53,960
we stuck to that position, and I think that speaks

329
00:18:53,960 --> 00:18:57,039
to the way the office approached the matter. Question all right.

330
00:18:57,400 --> 00:19:00,519
I spoke sort of offline earlier about an issue that

331
00:19:00,680 --> 00:19:02,880
was raised in the press conference that was not clearly

332
00:19:02,960 --> 00:19:06,519
answered on your part in that context, and the question

333
00:19:06,839 --> 00:19:09,960
was is this? On page fifteen of the Internet transcript

334
00:19:10,240 --> 00:19:13,200
of that press conference, you were asked whether you ever

335
00:19:13,279 --> 00:19:16,079
made aware of mister Epstein as an intelligence asset of

336
00:19:16,160 --> 00:19:19,960
some sort, and you, in your response said you could

337
00:19:20,079 --> 00:19:23,799
answer it, couldn't address it directly because of guidelines. Can

338
00:19:23,880 --> 00:19:27,880
you clarify, first of all, were you ever made aware

339
00:19:27,920 --> 00:19:31,920
of that? Answer? If he was, I'm not aware of it. Question,

340
00:19:32,079 --> 00:19:34,119
all right? Did defense counsel ever say to you that

341
00:19:34,200 --> 00:19:38,799
Epstein had that status? Answer? Not to my recollection question,

342
00:19:39,039 --> 00:19:42,720
all right? Answer, and to clarify, I also don't know

343
00:19:42,799 --> 00:19:46,200
where the press reports from multiple sources, not from multiple sources,

344
00:19:46,480 --> 00:19:49,359
but from multiple media outlets that I told someone that

345
00:19:49,440 --> 00:19:51,720
he was an intelligence asset. I don't know where that

346
00:19:51,799 --> 00:19:55,440
came from. So there are questions that I may be

347
00:19:55,519 --> 00:19:58,119
asked publicly that I don't think it's right for me

348
00:19:58,240 --> 00:20:01,400
to comment as to what classify information I may or

349
00:20:01,519 --> 00:20:04,200
may not have, because that's not the kind of stuff

350
00:20:04,240 --> 00:20:06,960
you'd get into. But the answer is no and no.

351
00:20:08,240 --> 00:20:13,839
Question all right without reservation. Answer no and no. All right, excellent,

352
00:20:14,119 --> 00:20:18,519
Thank you. A couple of final questions. Answer can I

353
00:20:18,599 --> 00:20:21,559
address is a second issue that has come up at times?

354
00:20:22,359 --> 00:20:25,839
Question yes, answer. There are also media reports that this

355
00:20:26,079 --> 00:20:29,519
was because of cooperation in some financial matters. I don't

356
00:20:29,559 --> 00:20:31,319
know where that may have I don't know where that

357
00:20:31,400 --> 00:20:34,400
may have come from. Answer all right, thank you, and

358
00:20:34,519 --> 00:20:38,160
we are familiar with that what you're referring to. Answer

359
00:20:38,720 --> 00:20:42,480
was there cooperation related to financial matters? Question? We didn't

360
00:20:42,480 --> 00:20:46,400
ask you about it? Answer okay. Question. As you can tell,

361
00:20:46,839 --> 00:20:52,359
OPR obtained many electronic records, mainly emails, but other electronic

362
00:20:52,440 --> 00:20:56,680
holdings from the Department. The Department of Justice, however, has

363
00:20:56,799 --> 00:20:59,039
not been able to find or recover a portion of

364
00:20:59,119 --> 00:21:02,960
your email account as US attorney that contained emails received

365
00:21:03,000 --> 00:21:05,920
by you between May twenty six, two thousand and seven,

366
00:21:06,200 --> 00:21:11,240
and March two thousand and eight. Answer correct. Question A

367
00:21:11,359 --> 00:21:14,839
period of time rather relevant to this. We've obtained many records,

368
00:21:14,920 --> 00:21:18,279
of course from senders and from other people copied, so

369
00:21:18,759 --> 00:21:21,079
we have many of the records. But the fact is

370
00:21:21,680 --> 00:21:24,599
there's a gap in the holdings. And this is despite

371
00:21:24,640 --> 00:21:27,559
the fact that, as you no doubt no, the law

372
00:21:27,640 --> 00:21:32,440
requires that US Attorney records be maintained and archived indefinitely.

373
00:21:32,880 --> 00:21:35,519
Can you give us any insight, any idea how that

374
00:21:35,640 --> 00:21:39,519
might be the case? Answer? I can't, And my recollection

375
00:21:40,119 --> 00:21:42,759
was after several issues that took place in the department,

376
00:21:43,119 --> 00:21:46,720
had some sort of records retention software that automatically retained

377
00:21:46,759 --> 00:21:51,480
the emails. Is that not accurate? Question? There was there

378
00:21:51,599 --> 00:21:54,079
was a switchover from a period in which the record

379
00:21:54,160 --> 00:21:59,039
retention responsibility resided with each US Attorney office, and at

380
00:21:59,079 --> 00:22:04,519
the switchover became centralized. Answer right, question, And this appears

381
00:22:04,519 --> 00:22:07,440
to have sort of gotten lost in the he gets

382
00:22:08,000 --> 00:22:11,960
cut off here by Acosta. Answer been caught in the switchover.

383
00:22:12,599 --> 00:22:15,799
My recollection is that there was some automatic retention mechanism.

384
00:22:16,279 --> 00:22:19,839
Question okay, answer, and I can't address that, although there's

385
00:22:19,880 --> 00:22:23,519
certainly a fulsome record question. But just to ask the

386
00:22:23,599 --> 00:22:28,319
inevitable question, did you take any action to discard destroy

387
00:22:28,720 --> 00:22:33,400
or dispense with any official records related to this matter. Answer,

388
00:22:33,640 --> 00:22:36,519
not to my recollection. I think there's a fullsome record,

389
00:22:36,759 --> 00:22:40,079
and not to my recollection. Question all right, And is

390
00:22:40,119 --> 00:22:42,960
there any particular gap that you've discerned in the records

391
00:22:43,559 --> 00:22:47,200
that we've provided to you? Answer not that I recall.

392
00:22:47,680 --> 00:22:50,480
Do you have the emails that I sent out of curiosity?

393
00:22:50,720 --> 00:22:53,279
Answer we do? Answer, okay, so you have the scent

394
00:22:53,400 --> 00:22:58,240
but not received question? Yes, answer just checking question. And likewise,

395
00:22:58,559 --> 00:23:01,759
we retrieved from the Federal Record Center records that were

396
00:23:01,799 --> 00:23:05,359
boxed up and sent there hard copy documents after your

397
00:23:05,480 --> 00:23:08,160
term ended, and there is nothing that relates to the

398
00:23:08,240 --> 00:23:11,599
Epstein case. There were records that were maintained that were

399
00:23:11,680 --> 00:23:14,359
kept in the main office after you left because it

400
00:23:14,440 --> 00:23:17,359
was an ongoing matter. But do you have any idea

401
00:23:17,599 --> 00:23:19,960
why there are not any in those records of yours

402
00:23:20,200 --> 00:23:23,480
that were sent? Answer? So I have a recollection that

403
00:23:23,599 --> 00:23:26,200
when I left, there were some binders that I passed

404
00:23:26,200 --> 00:23:29,000
along to redacted because it was an ongoing case, and

405
00:23:29,119 --> 00:23:32,039
we sort of had binders out of that sort of

406
00:23:32,240 --> 00:23:36,279
had correspondence back and forth. All right, and you've already

407
00:23:36,359 --> 00:23:39,160
made We've already asked you about the facts, but you

408
00:23:39,240 --> 00:23:42,119
addressed sort of a broader statement to us for the

409
00:23:42,200 --> 00:23:44,680
record about the case. Is there anything else you want

410
00:23:44,720 --> 00:23:47,359
to tell us at this point? Answer, give me a

411
00:23:47,440 --> 00:23:50,880
second to think this through. Question In fact, if you'd

412
00:23:50,920 --> 00:23:53,240
like to take a quick break and talk to your attorney,

413
00:23:54,000 --> 00:23:56,640
and that will be the last question. Answer, do we

414
00:23:56,720 --> 00:24:01,839
need a break? Mister redacted? No, misredacted? Our attorney says no, Acosta,

415
00:24:02,119 --> 00:24:05,160
I'll follow up on this. Nothing that I if something

416
00:24:05,200 --> 00:24:08,599
comes up. My understanding is that we're received the transcript

417
00:24:09,319 --> 00:24:11,359
and have enough time, given the length of this to

418
00:24:11,440 --> 00:24:15,920
review and comment. Question exactly yes, And for the record,

419
00:24:16,240 --> 00:24:18,880
when the transcript is prepared, which should be within a

420
00:24:18,920 --> 00:24:21,160
couple of weeks, will ship that off to you, and

421
00:24:21,279 --> 00:24:25,680
your attorney will ask you to review it, to make

422
00:24:25,759 --> 00:24:29,160
not only any corrections but clarifications, and to add to it.

423
00:24:29,480 --> 00:24:31,519
If you feel you have read something that it needs

424
00:24:31,559 --> 00:24:36,519
to be clarified or expanded upon, you're invited to do so. Answer,

425
00:24:36,759 --> 00:24:40,440
And if I could ask one other question, I'm not

426
00:24:40,559 --> 00:24:43,519
familiar enough with the way OPR operates, and this may

427
00:24:43,640 --> 00:24:46,799
be weird, so you may not be prepared to answer.

428
00:24:47,079 --> 00:24:49,720
If there's a report as opposed to a letter, which

429
00:24:49,839 --> 00:24:52,319
is what I typically am familiar with. Will that report

430
00:24:52,400 --> 00:24:57,440
be shared in advance for comment or is that determined misredacted.

431
00:24:57,720 --> 00:25:01,599
I'm going to defer to misredacted for that misredacted. That's

432
00:25:01,640 --> 00:25:03,400
a question that doesn't need to be on the record.

433
00:25:03,640 --> 00:25:05,319
Do you have anything else that you'd want to put

434
00:25:05,400 --> 00:25:09,039
on the record before we close out? Acosta? I do

435
00:25:09,200 --> 00:25:13,720
not misredacted? All right, thank you. I want to extend

436
00:25:13,759 --> 00:25:16,480
our great appreciation for your willingness to come in and

437
00:25:16,640 --> 00:25:20,079
help us with this case. All right, we're off the record,

438
00:25:20,880 --> 00:25:23,319
all right, folks. So there you have it. The complete

439
00:25:23,759 --> 00:25:29,480
and unabridged version of Alex Acosta's interview with the OIG Inspectors.

440
00:25:31,000 --> 00:25:33,359
All of the information that goes with this episode can

441
00:25:33,440 --> 00:25:35,440
be found in the description box.