1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,839
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the

2
00:00:02,839 --> 00:00:06,000
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up

3
00:00:06,040 --> 00:00:09,119
right where we left off with alex Acosta and his

4
00:00:09,240 --> 00:00:13,439
interview with the OIG inspectors. Question, do you think she

5
00:00:13,519 --> 00:00:17,440
misunderstood the priorities that she thought you wanted to get

6
00:00:17,480 --> 00:00:20,879
a resolution and so the two years could be undercut

7
00:00:21,000 --> 00:00:24,320
versus taking your words literally and saying this is the

8
00:00:24,359 --> 00:00:27,079
line in the sand beyond which you should not go,

9
00:00:27,719 --> 00:00:31,440
even if it means killing the resolution. Answer, So, if

10
00:00:31,480 --> 00:00:33,479
I had to speculate, I don't think it was a

11
00:00:33,520 --> 00:00:38,439
misunderstanding of priorities as opposed to opposing council was exhausting,

12
00:00:38,679 --> 00:00:40,799
and if you go through the full record, it really

13
00:00:40,960 --> 00:00:44,439
was an exhausting opposing council in this case was very

14
00:00:44,479 --> 00:00:48,759
good at taking any slight millimeter and turning it into oh,

15
00:00:48,840 --> 00:00:51,079
so you said we could do this, And in that

16
00:00:51,119 --> 00:00:55,320
back and forth sometimes there is can't we just agree

17
00:00:55,320 --> 00:00:59,079
in the middle question? And I understand what you're saying,

18
00:00:59,320 --> 00:01:02,719
but weren't exhausting because the US Attorney's Office would not

19
00:01:02,799 --> 00:01:05,760
say no to them, and so they always believe from

20
00:01:05,760 --> 00:01:08,159
the get go because they have a two year minimum

21
00:01:08,280 --> 00:01:11,159
that the office is willing to then say, oh, we

22
00:01:11,239 --> 00:01:13,959
can go down from there, and that they could continually

23
00:01:14,040 --> 00:01:17,640
chip away at you virtually every single term that came about.

24
00:01:18,239 --> 00:01:21,319
So yeah, they were exhausting, But isn't that because the

25
00:01:21,400 --> 00:01:24,959
US Attorney's office would not tell them no answer? So

26
00:01:25,159 --> 00:01:27,799
I would push back because after the agreement was signed,

27
00:01:28,040 --> 00:01:30,480
I would argue that they did not chip away. They

28
00:01:30,599 --> 00:01:34,200
certainly kept appealing collaterally, and we can talk about that

29
00:01:34,519 --> 00:01:37,519
because there were other concerns raised there. But once we

30
00:01:37,599 --> 00:01:41,079
had that September meeting. Between the September meeting and the

31
00:01:41,120 --> 00:01:43,840
signing of the deferment in favor of the state, that

32
00:01:43,920 --> 00:01:47,000
was all negotiated by the trial team. That wasn't a

33
00:01:47,079 --> 00:01:50,000
comeback to the US Attorney or come to the first assistant.

34
00:01:50,400 --> 00:01:53,879
That really, to my recollection, was negotiate with the state

35
00:01:54,319 --> 00:01:57,000
with the line question. Well, there were a number of

36
00:01:57,040 --> 00:01:59,840
things that came about later on. I mean, they can

37
00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:03,200
annually griped about the twenty two fifty five and that

38
00:02:03,239 --> 00:02:06,719
got you know, that got modified answer later on. I

39
00:02:06,760 --> 00:02:09,240
think later ons are different for some reason. We can

40
00:02:09,280 --> 00:02:11,919
talk about now or later. But there was an attempt

41
00:02:12,039 --> 00:02:14,919
to work this out later and that was clearly there.

42
00:02:15,400 --> 00:02:18,599
But I think that's very different than how the agreement

43
00:02:18,800 --> 00:02:23,400
was negotiated, and I think that's very different kind of timeline. Question.

44
00:02:23,520 --> 00:02:27,080
So in your mind, was she prepared to walk away

45
00:02:27,080 --> 00:02:31,120
from the deal? If need be? Answer after it was signed?

46
00:02:31,319 --> 00:02:34,360
Question before it was signed, answer before it was signed.

47
00:02:34,639 --> 00:02:37,840
It honestly was get a deal? Or ultimately, if we

48
00:02:37,879 --> 00:02:40,639
have to indict, we indict. And that's what I said,

49
00:02:41,400 --> 00:02:43,599
And look at it this way. After having said that,

50
00:02:43,960 --> 00:02:46,479
if that really was a bluff, what would I look like, right,

51
00:02:46,680 --> 00:02:49,439
I would look awful. And so for that reason, that

52
00:02:49,599 --> 00:02:52,560
was not a bluff. That was a thought through. This

53
00:02:52,800 --> 00:02:54,960
is what we will do, and if you don't agree

54
00:02:54,960 --> 00:02:58,120
to this, then we indict. You can't make those kinds

55
00:02:58,120 --> 00:03:01,439
of statements and not follow through. The office loses credibility

56
00:03:01,479 --> 00:03:05,479
if you do question right, but you can keep giving

57
00:03:05,759 --> 00:03:10,240
on certain terms. Answer And my point is we did

58
00:03:10,240 --> 00:03:13,560
not give with the exception of that twenty four to eighteen,

59
00:03:13,840 --> 00:03:17,199
we did not give question, Well, you also gave up

60
00:03:17,199 --> 00:03:22,560
two charges. Answer again, I'm thinking of two years registration restitution.

61
00:03:23,039 --> 00:03:25,800
And so with the exception of that twenty four to eighteen,

62
00:03:26,240 --> 00:03:30,240
we didn't give question. I want to go back this morning.

63
00:03:30,439 --> 00:03:33,199
We were talking about our tracks, and we talked about

64
00:03:33,240 --> 00:03:36,000
the legal track and a little bit about the evidence track.

65
00:03:36,360 --> 00:03:38,960
There's another aspect of the evidence track that is in

66
00:03:39,000 --> 00:03:42,319
play here, because there was a substantial type of evidence,

67
00:03:42,520 --> 00:03:45,199
and the question is to what extent were you aware

68
00:03:45,199 --> 00:03:47,919
of this? In October of two thousand and five, the

69
00:03:48,000 --> 00:03:51,599
local police executed a search warrant on Epstein's residence, and

70
00:03:51,639 --> 00:03:54,439
among things that they found there were cables and cords

71
00:03:54,879 --> 00:03:59,120
where there had been computers, computer equipment, video surveillance cameras

72
00:03:59,159 --> 00:04:02,599
and CPUs. All of that that computer based stuff. It

73
00:04:02,639 --> 00:04:06,280
had been removed forgetting why necessarily, if you look at

74
00:04:06,319 --> 00:04:09,120
Exhibit twenty nine, were you aware of that by the

75
00:04:09,120 --> 00:04:12,240
way that that had occurred. Answer? I was aware that

76
00:04:12,280 --> 00:04:15,960
the state had gathered evidence, but not much more. Question

77
00:04:16,079 --> 00:04:18,680
beyond that, Wait a minute, this is not the one

78
00:04:18,720 --> 00:04:22,160
I'm looking for. Seventy three do you know what? Okay,

79
00:04:22,560 --> 00:04:24,839
this is not the exhibit I'm looking for, and the

80
00:04:24,920 --> 00:04:27,879
numbers are a little bit messed up. There's an email

81
00:04:28,040 --> 00:04:30,040
which I may or may not be able to put

82
00:04:30,040 --> 00:04:33,160
my hands on, in which redacted informs you that she

83
00:04:33,319 --> 00:04:36,360
really wants to get her hands on important potential on

84
00:04:36,439 --> 00:04:40,040
computer evidence and its important potential evidence, and she has

85
00:04:40,040 --> 00:04:43,000
a plan to get it. So the question is whether

86
00:04:43,040 --> 00:04:45,879
you knew at the time that there was the investigators

87
00:04:46,040 --> 00:04:49,560
had identified this computer evidence as being out there and

88
00:04:49,680 --> 00:04:53,319
what they believed it contained a potentially very significant evidence

89
00:04:53,480 --> 00:05:01,160
against Epstein computers, surveillance cameras given the activity in his home. Answer,

90
00:05:01,639 --> 00:05:05,000
he's not on it. Question all right. She did not

91
00:05:05,120 --> 00:05:08,480
inform you. She informed someone else that we informed Slowman

92
00:05:08,720 --> 00:05:12,600
and Menchel on July third, and Laurie, my apologies, you're

93
00:05:12,600 --> 00:05:16,639
not on this where she advises them that she wants

94
00:05:17,000 --> 00:05:20,560
we want to get the computer equipment that was removed

95
00:05:20,680 --> 00:05:23,800
from Epstein's home prior to the state search warrant as

96
00:05:23,839 --> 00:05:27,079
soon as possible. So there was this stuff out there,

97
00:05:27,279 --> 00:05:30,000
and as of July there was an abiding, keen interest

98
00:05:30,040 --> 00:05:33,079
in getting it, and the defense team was resisting the

99
00:05:33,120 --> 00:05:35,839
prosecutor's efforts to get it. Were you aware of that

100
00:05:35,920 --> 00:05:39,160
at all? Answer? I think you asked about that in

101
00:05:39,240 --> 00:05:43,319
your questions to me. Question right, I did answer, I

102
00:05:43,319 --> 00:05:47,600
have no recollection of this computer evidence. A question all right?

103
00:05:48,079 --> 00:05:51,759
Answer did the question say, without getting into specifics, that

104
00:05:51,800 --> 00:05:54,839
there was a grand jury issue around this question. It does.

105
00:05:56,319 --> 00:05:59,319
It is addressed in the non prosecution agreement. If you

106
00:05:59,360 --> 00:06:03,920
look at the fine prosecution agreement, it's referred to. The

107
00:06:04,000 --> 00:06:07,120
question was whether you were aware that there was something

108
00:06:07,319 --> 00:06:10,959
that the prosecutors wanted to get. Answer, I don't have

109
00:06:11,040 --> 00:06:16,759
recollection of some computer evidence. Question are you aware that

110
00:06:16,839 --> 00:06:19,839
redacted was instructed by our managers to delay our efforts

111
00:06:20,040 --> 00:06:23,160
to get this computer evidence because the defense was resisting

112
00:06:23,240 --> 00:06:26,360
those efforts and it became an issue, an issue that

113
00:06:26,519 --> 00:06:29,959
was in play in the negotiation. Answer I have no

114
00:06:30,040 --> 00:06:35,399
recollection of that question. Okay, Answer pending federal and so

115
00:06:35,519 --> 00:06:38,720
your question said that there was litigation pending in federal

116
00:06:38,759 --> 00:06:42,959
court relating to the US attorney's efforts to obtain computer evidence.

117
00:06:43,519 --> 00:06:46,959
Question without going into further detail, Answer I have no

118
00:06:47,040 --> 00:06:52,079
recollection of any litigation pending in federal court regarding that question.

119
00:06:52,160 --> 00:06:54,720
All right, And did anyone suggest to you and your

120
00:06:54,800 --> 00:06:59,079
team that or getting to a plead deal was premature

121
00:06:59,319 --> 00:07:02,000
because you need to get this evidence first, so that

122
00:07:02,079 --> 00:07:05,319
you knew whether you had potentially some very important evidence

123
00:07:05,480 --> 00:07:09,800
against Epstein. Answer I have no recollection, and if anything,

124
00:07:10,120 --> 00:07:12,439
I think there was a desire to move quickly as

125
00:07:12,480 --> 00:07:16,879
opposed to slowly question on the plea answer yes, question

126
00:07:17,319 --> 00:07:19,639
do you know where that energy came from? Who was

127
00:07:19,680 --> 00:07:24,079
wanting to move quickly? Answer? As I recall, So for example,

128
00:07:24,519 --> 00:07:27,560
when we were meeting or setting up the meeting in September,

129
00:07:27,639 --> 00:07:30,120
there was a request to set it up in August

130
00:07:30,160 --> 00:07:33,000
as opposed to September, and we had to push back

131
00:07:33,040 --> 00:07:36,319
to September because of vacation or something. Question all right,

132
00:07:36,399 --> 00:07:39,439
So in addition to not getting the computer evidence, the

133
00:07:39,480 --> 00:07:43,519
government curtailed the investigation to a large extent. Despite finding

134
00:07:43,519 --> 00:07:47,279
more victims, there were witnesses who were not interviewed, things

135
00:07:47,319 --> 00:07:50,759
that were not searched, property that wasn't searched, target letters

136
00:07:50,839 --> 00:07:54,920
not served. So these all would have been stages or

137
00:07:54,959 --> 00:07:58,600
steps taken by the FBI to enhance the federal investigation.

138
00:07:58,759 --> 00:08:02,079
Right as opposed to back to the state case that

139
00:08:02,160 --> 00:08:06,560
this was sort of being returned to, was this were

140
00:08:06,600 --> 00:08:09,120
you aware of all of those steps that were being

141
00:08:09,519 --> 00:08:14,399
foregone or foreclosed? Answer? My assumption would have been, we

142
00:08:14,439 --> 00:08:16,319
may have to go to trial, and so we could

143
00:08:16,319 --> 00:08:20,279
continue to develop the basis for trial. So if I could,

144
00:08:20,360 --> 00:08:23,040
for example, I think that Drew came down I said,

145
00:08:23,040 --> 00:08:24,839
if we go to trial. Can you be on the

146
00:08:24,879 --> 00:08:27,920
trial team? I cite that because I'm thinking we may

147
00:08:27,959 --> 00:08:31,600
have to go to trial? Question right? Answer, why not

148
00:08:31,680 --> 00:08:35,080
get Drew who's from Miami on the trial team. Question

149
00:08:35,519 --> 00:08:39,039
so is it your understanding that the federal investigation, notwithstanding

150
00:08:39,120 --> 00:08:45,080
the drafting of the NPA, was still continuing. Answer? You know.

151
00:08:45,240 --> 00:08:48,600
My understanding is you run these on parallel tracks. And

152
00:08:48,679 --> 00:08:51,679
again I'm sitting here inviting the head of CEOs to

153
00:08:51,720 --> 00:08:54,240
be part of the trial team and talking about how

154
00:08:54,240 --> 00:08:58,799
to formulate the trial team. Question okay. Answer that implies

155
00:08:58,840 --> 00:09:01,279
that I was clearly thinking we might go to trial.

156
00:09:02,159 --> 00:09:04,600
Question all right, when you first received the draft of

157
00:09:04,600 --> 00:09:08,519
the non prosecution agreement, and this is sixteen A, it's

158
00:09:08,559 --> 00:09:10,919
a draft by redacted? Do you know who came up

159
00:09:11,240 --> 00:09:13,840
with what? It sounds like you didn't, but who came

160
00:09:13,919 --> 00:09:17,519
up with the name or the Moniker non prosecution Agreement? Answer?

161
00:09:17,639 --> 00:09:21,600
I do not. Question do you know what this was

162
00:09:21,679 --> 00:09:25,480
modeled on, if anything, where the genesis was Answer I

163
00:09:25,519 --> 00:09:29,320
do not. I noticed from the contemporaneous emails that initially

164
00:09:29,440 --> 00:09:32,679
it was done differently, and I think it was redacted

165
00:09:32,720 --> 00:09:35,679
LORI who said write it as a contract or. I

166
00:09:35,720 --> 00:09:38,840
think there is an email to that effect. Someone may

167
00:09:38,879 --> 00:09:43,320
recall it better than I. Question this version of September tenth,

168
00:09:43,480 --> 00:09:46,840
which is the first business day after that September seventh

169
00:09:46,840 --> 00:09:50,240
meeting from redacted, and redacted goes to her management up

170
00:09:50,240 --> 00:09:53,279
through you, and you do a rewrite almost right away,

171
00:09:53,480 --> 00:09:56,480
adding original state charges, which at that point we're all

172
00:09:56,480 --> 00:10:00,000
still in play. And you also added this is exact

173
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:02,919
Dihibit sixteen B A statement that it would be Epstein's

174
00:10:03,000 --> 00:10:06,519
job to move the state to add additional charges, and

175
00:10:06,600 --> 00:10:11,200
that latter piece is on page three, just below paragraph eight. Answer,

176
00:10:11,279 --> 00:10:14,320
So can I back up a second question? Sure? Answer?

177
00:10:14,519 --> 00:10:16,519
When you say I did a rewrite, is there some

178
00:10:16,639 --> 00:10:20,039
indication of what I did or rewrite of question? Yes?

179
00:10:20,320 --> 00:10:23,200
If you compare the two, there are things that are

180
00:10:23,240 --> 00:10:27,000
bracketed in yellow and Exhibit sixteen B which represent the

181
00:10:27,080 --> 00:10:32,200
changes from sixteen A answer right, question, Okay, So those

182
00:10:32,240 --> 00:10:35,639
are the two things that are different, and they're referenced

183
00:10:35,679 --> 00:10:39,039
in your message at the beginning. We bracketed them just

184
00:10:39,080 --> 00:10:42,600
to make it easier for you to recognize that. So

185
00:10:42,720 --> 00:10:44,960
my point is that right from the beginning, you are

186
00:10:45,000 --> 00:10:49,600
participating in the process, in the drafting process. Answer, So,

187
00:10:49,840 --> 00:10:53,440
I would characterize that as not participating in the drafting process,

188
00:10:53,480 --> 00:10:58,759
but approving a draft. There is a slight difference. Answer yeah,

189
00:10:58,799 --> 00:11:02,919
and so something comes. Here's how I would distinguish someone

190
00:11:03,080 --> 00:11:05,759
that's participating in the drafting process is sitting at the

191
00:11:05,799 --> 00:11:09,679
table with two or three people drafting it as they go. First.

192
00:11:09,799 --> 00:11:12,679
Is something that goes through the management chain, and someone

193
00:11:12,720 --> 00:11:15,799
in the supervisory chain says, can you change a beer

194
00:11:15,840 --> 00:11:20,440
or c question? All right? Answer I clearly you know

195
00:11:20,600 --> 00:11:24,159
here and in other places it looks like I'm inserting

196
00:11:24,200 --> 00:11:28,080
the same themes, which is deferring to the state. Let's mention,

197
00:11:28,159 --> 00:11:30,639
the state charges and we can't force the state to

198
00:11:30,679 --> 00:11:33,919
do anything, And so I'm adding to this. I'm clearly

199
00:11:33,960 --> 00:11:36,960
aware of it and approving it. But I wouldn't say

200
00:11:37,000 --> 00:11:40,960
that I was drafting. Question fair enough? Did you read it? Answer?

201
00:11:41,159 --> 00:11:42,919
I would assume that I read it, or else I

202
00:11:42,919 --> 00:11:45,480
wouldn't have edited it. All right, So we're gonna wrap

203
00:11:45,519 --> 00:11:48,200
this episode up right here, and in the next episode,

204
00:11:48,200 --> 00:11:51,240
we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of

205
00:11:51,279 --> 00:11:54,080
the information that goes with this episode can be found

206
00:11:54,360 --> 00:11:57,600
in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to

207
00:11:57,639 --> 00:12:01,440
another episode of the Epstein Chronicle. In this episode, we're

208
00:12:01,480 --> 00:12:04,000
going to dive right back in and pick up where

209
00:12:04,000 --> 00:12:09,840
we left off with alex Acosta's interview with the OIG inspectors. Question.

210
00:12:10,000 --> 00:12:12,159
All right, so we have a draft from redacted, a

211
00:12:12,279 --> 00:12:15,679
working draft on September tenth, with a small rewrite from you.

212
00:12:16,840 --> 00:12:21,360
There is an Exhibit seventeen series indication that of the

213
00:12:21,519 --> 00:12:24,240
kind of activity that redacted was going through to come

214
00:12:24,320 --> 00:12:26,840
up with the federal plea. But eventually she and the

215
00:12:26,879 --> 00:12:30,840
defense attorney who is most actively working on this, Jay Lefkowitz,

216
00:12:31,279 --> 00:12:33,440
turned back to the NPA, and if you look at

217
00:12:33,440 --> 00:12:36,080
seventeen D, just to make the sort of staffing clear,

218
00:12:36,679 --> 00:12:39,519
you know, of course redacted as left redacted is going

219
00:12:39,559 --> 00:12:43,639
on vacation as of September fifteenth, and so redacted Lorie

220
00:12:43,799 --> 00:12:47,159
has helped finalize. So the finalizing of the NPA, the

221
00:12:47,200 --> 00:12:50,559
final version of which is in Exhibit twenty two, falls

222
00:12:50,559 --> 00:12:55,519
to redacted with redacted right answer yes, question okay, And

223
00:12:55,639 --> 00:12:59,519
redacted puts you on notice in eighteen B. In that

224
00:12:59,559 --> 00:13:03,000
processes this email in eighteen B is sort of a

225
00:13:03,039 --> 00:13:06,240
follow on to eighteen A. Do you see it comes

226
00:13:06,279 --> 00:13:09,039
one minute after your email in eighteen A. It's a

227
00:13:09,080 --> 00:13:12,039
response from her to you only, in which she makes

228
00:13:12,080 --> 00:13:14,919
note that the defense tried to reopen all the loopholes

229
00:13:15,120 --> 00:13:18,960
that I had sown shut. Answer yes, question, so it's

230
00:13:18,960 --> 00:13:21,879
fair to say that you're kind of you're on notice

231
00:13:22,039 --> 00:13:27,279
that they're being difficult. Answer that's fair question, okay, in

232
00:13:27,320 --> 00:13:29,799
the course of that being difficult. Nineteen A is an

233
00:13:29,799 --> 00:13:33,440
email to you from redacted on September eighteenth, in which

234
00:13:33,480 --> 00:13:37,159
he represents that or explains that the defense is that

235
00:13:37,240 --> 00:13:40,360
things are kind of falling apart with the negotiations, and

236
00:13:40,440 --> 00:13:43,279
she fears the deal is going to fall apart completely.

237
00:13:44,440 --> 00:13:47,000
Mister Todd, should we take a quick break here? You're

238
00:13:47,000 --> 00:13:50,399
losing your voice? Redacted. I'm fine, mister Todd. You could

239
00:13:50,440 --> 00:13:52,919
probably use a minute. Redact it all right, We'll take

240
00:13:52,960 --> 00:13:56,240
a break. They come back from their break, and the

241
00:13:56,320 --> 00:14:01,080
questions are back on question. Back on the rect Looking

242
00:14:01,080 --> 00:14:04,159
at Exhibit nineteen C, you say you write to redacted

243
00:14:04,279 --> 00:14:07,720
regarding whether you're available to at the time when she's

244
00:14:07,799 --> 00:14:10,360
going to be hashing out language. You advise her that

245
00:14:10,919 --> 00:14:14,120
I don't think I should be part of negotiations. I'd

246
00:14:14,200 --> 00:14:17,639
rather leave that to you. If that's Okay, answer yes.

247
00:14:18,000 --> 00:14:21,559
Question why did you say that to her? Answer because

248
00:14:21,559 --> 00:14:24,279
she was the line lawyer involved, and I thought, I

249
00:14:24,360 --> 00:14:28,639
think it's important for US attorneys to absent truly exceptional

250
00:14:28,639 --> 00:14:32,360
circumstances to not get involved in those sort of negotiations.

251
00:14:32,720 --> 00:14:35,679
You can meet like I did in September, reaffirm the

252
00:14:35,720 --> 00:14:39,480
position of the office back your AUSA, but ultimately, I

253
00:14:39,480 --> 00:14:42,320
think your trial lawyer needs discretion to do their job.

254
00:14:43,279 --> 00:14:46,000
Question At this point of course, we know redacted is

255
00:14:46,039 --> 00:14:49,399
on vacation and you were aware, were you not? That

256
00:14:49,559 --> 00:14:54,360
redacted LORI was about to DeCamp for Washington. In other words,

257
00:14:54,360 --> 00:14:56,360
he left at the end of September to become the

258
00:14:56,440 --> 00:15:01,240
chief of staff and principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for

259
00:15:01,519 --> 00:15:04,399
who headed the Criminal Division. Okay, so it was really

260
00:15:04,519 --> 00:15:06,320
just the two of them at this point and with

261
00:15:06,399 --> 00:15:11,960
nobody apparently involved between them, And you answer so fair.

262
00:15:12,480 --> 00:15:15,080
But when you say just the two of them, redacted

263
00:15:15,200 --> 00:15:18,440
is an incredibly experienced lawyer. So to say just the

264
00:15:18,480 --> 00:15:21,320
two of them is not the take not should not

265
00:15:21,440 --> 00:15:25,879
imply that there was experience on the table. Question. I

266
00:15:26,039 --> 00:15:29,879
certainly in no way intended to suggest that answer fair

267
00:15:29,960 --> 00:15:34,039
enough question looking at nineteen d in which Redacted is

268
00:15:34,080 --> 00:15:37,519
on page two looking at the latest draft from redacted

269
00:15:37,759 --> 00:15:42,840
meaning redacted, and this is in the throes of negotiating

270
00:15:42,840 --> 00:15:46,080
the NPA. Redacted is essentially telling you that he agrees

271
00:15:46,240 --> 00:15:50,080
with Redacted's observations that the Defense are just up to

272
00:15:50,159 --> 00:15:53,080
all kinds of nonsense in the deal and constantly changing

273
00:15:53,080 --> 00:15:57,120
their terms and just not apparently negotiating or dealing with

274
00:15:57,240 --> 00:16:01,519
these warring drafts with the drafting process in good faith. Again,

275
00:16:01,919 --> 00:16:05,840
that's my characterization, but Redacted says that to you in

276
00:16:05,879 --> 00:16:09,840
this email. I suggest we simply tell him Redacted that

277
00:16:09,960 --> 00:16:12,480
his counter offer is rejected and that we intend to

278
00:16:12,480 --> 00:16:16,120
move forward with our case. Right. And then your response

279
00:16:16,399 --> 00:16:19,440
is interesting. You say to them, why don't we just

280
00:16:19,679 --> 00:16:22,919
why don't we just call them? Tell them one, you

281
00:16:23,039 --> 00:16:27,440
agree and then change things. Answer you, being redacted agrees

282
00:16:27,480 --> 00:16:31,960
and changes things. Question correct. Tell him you agree, meaning

283
00:16:32,000 --> 00:16:38,639
redacted agree. Answer no, question I see. Tell him she

284
00:16:38,679 --> 00:16:41,120
gets cut off or he gets cut off by Acosta.

285
00:16:41,399 --> 00:16:44,840
Tell him you, Redacted agree and you change things. Question

286
00:16:45,039 --> 00:16:49,120
I see. Answer that is not acceptable to us and

287
00:16:49,279 --> 00:16:51,720
is in bad faith. Stop it, or we'll just indict

288
00:16:52,159 --> 00:16:55,960
and then try to work it out. Question, So is

289
00:16:56,000 --> 00:16:58,240
the try to work it out? If the numbers one

290
00:16:58,279 --> 00:17:01,480
and two are what you should tell what redacted should

291
00:17:01,480 --> 00:17:05,440
tell redacted? Is number three something redacted should tell redacted?

292
00:17:05,839 --> 00:17:09,440
Or what you're telling redacted? Try to work it out? Answer,

293
00:17:09,559 --> 00:17:13,160
it's what I'm talking and telling. Question Okay, so just

294
00:17:13,160 --> 00:17:15,759
to be clear, you say tell them, meaning you redacted

295
00:17:15,799 --> 00:17:19,200
tell Jay number one and number two. But number three

296
00:17:19,279 --> 00:17:22,839
is then what you're instructing redacted to do? I'm just

297
00:17:22,839 --> 00:17:26,519
trying to understand. Answer yes, So my understanding of this

298
00:17:27,039 --> 00:17:30,079
is there being difficult. Hey, this isn't the first time

299
00:17:30,119 --> 00:17:32,920
that an attorney agrees to something and then goes back

300
00:17:33,000 --> 00:17:35,440
and tries to pull a fast one. So tell them

301
00:17:35,519 --> 00:17:38,400
you're onto this that they need to stop it or

302
00:17:38,440 --> 00:17:42,799
will indict. But then what we'll try, you know, redacted

303
00:17:42,839 --> 00:17:46,559
should try to work it out. Question Okay, answer, but

304
00:17:46,680 --> 00:17:49,799
they need to stop this tactic. Question did you really

305
00:17:49,839 --> 00:17:53,000
think that was going to be effective with this defense? Answer?

306
00:17:53,160 --> 00:17:55,839
I don't know. You know, I think one of the

307
00:17:55,839 --> 00:17:58,519
hard things with this is if it was right on

308
00:17:58,519 --> 00:18:02,640
September sixth, it remains right, irrespective of really I think

309
00:18:02,680 --> 00:18:05,880
I say, sorry, I know it's a pain, this negotiation

310
00:18:06,039 --> 00:18:08,359
was a pain, But if it was the right position,

311
00:18:08,640 --> 00:18:11,160
the fact that you've got annoying counsel on the other

312
00:18:11,279 --> 00:18:14,000
side doesn't make it any less of a right position.

313
00:18:14,640 --> 00:18:16,599
You tell them to stop being annoying, You try to

314
00:18:16,640 --> 00:18:19,440
work it out, and if not, then you indict. Question

315
00:18:20,079 --> 00:18:22,319
is that is that consistent with your sort of view

316
00:18:22,599 --> 00:18:26,640
of doing business, being even and working it out? Answer? Yeah,

317
00:18:26,720 --> 00:18:29,720
that's our position. It's not a bluff. It's what we want.

318
00:18:30,039 --> 00:18:32,240
You work it out. People yell and scream on the

319
00:18:32,279 --> 00:18:34,279
other side, you work it out. If not with them,

320
00:18:34,279 --> 00:18:37,319
then we indict. Question what would have been the tipping

321
00:18:37,319 --> 00:18:39,960
point for you? What would have caused you to say, Okay,

322
00:18:40,200 --> 00:18:42,799
I agree with you redacted, I agree with you. Let's

323
00:18:42,839 --> 00:18:46,000
indict answer. So it's really difficult to speculate, but I

324
00:18:46,000 --> 00:18:48,119
think the tipping point would have been a failure to

325
00:18:48,160 --> 00:18:53,559
reach it was pretty clear jail time registration restitution. Once

326
00:18:53,599 --> 00:18:56,319
we move from twenty four to eighteen months. That was

327
00:18:56,319 --> 00:18:59,039
a give and take. But ultimately, if they came back

328
00:18:59,079 --> 00:19:02,599
and said we can agree to these terms, then we indict. Question.

329
00:19:02,680 --> 00:19:06,279
All right, question, it seemed like your troops were telling

330
00:19:06,359 --> 00:19:08,799
you we've reached the end of our rope. We really

331
00:19:08,880 --> 00:19:12,400
just want to go forward and indict answer right question,

332
00:19:12,759 --> 00:19:15,119
and you are coming back with tell them again that

333
00:19:15,119 --> 00:19:17,359
the defense is being difficult, but I want you to

334
00:19:17,440 --> 00:19:21,160
work it out. Does that tell your troops basically, that's

335
00:19:21,200 --> 00:19:23,799
where your priority is. You want them to go out

336
00:19:23,920 --> 00:19:26,559
get this resolution. And if they have to give up stuff,

337
00:19:26,599 --> 00:19:31,400
it's okay, it's really okay, but you want this resolution answer,

338
00:19:31,480 --> 00:19:33,200
So it's not if you have to give up stuff.

339
00:19:33,359 --> 00:19:35,440
I'm not telling them to give up stuff. I'm not

340
00:19:35,519 --> 00:19:38,880
telling them to negotiate things away. But I think the dynamic,

341
00:19:39,119 --> 00:19:43,599
from my perspective, is incredibly So there's a tactic that

342
00:19:43,680 --> 00:19:47,440
council sometimes take where they negotiate and when they try

343
00:19:47,440 --> 00:19:50,559
to come back and renegotiate, and that is, to my thinking,

344
00:19:50,880 --> 00:19:53,400
one of the most annoying tactics that you can have,

345
00:19:54,319 --> 00:19:56,559
and it creates a lot of frustration. And what I'm

346
00:19:56,599 --> 00:19:59,240
trying to say is, look, they might be frustrating folks,

347
00:19:59,559 --> 00:20:03,359
but if this had been worked out. Looking at this,

348
00:20:03,680 --> 00:20:06,599
we thought we had an agreement, and then they change things.

349
00:20:06,759 --> 00:20:09,200
And I'm saying, look, if you thought you had an agreement,

350
00:20:09,440 --> 00:20:12,720
tell them you had an agreement. Don't let them change things.

351
00:20:12,960 --> 00:20:15,920
I understand it's frustrating to you, but if it was

352
00:20:16,000 --> 00:20:18,920
right two weeks ago, the fact that they're frustrating attorneys

353
00:20:18,960 --> 00:20:23,920
doesn't change the underlying legal analysis. The attorney's behavior doesn't

354
00:20:23,960 --> 00:20:27,559
inform the rightness or wrongness of a certain disposition to

355
00:20:27,640 --> 00:20:32,720
a point question. What's the point answer? So I think

356
00:20:32,759 --> 00:20:35,839
after and now I'm calling it an NPA, I was

357
00:20:35,880 --> 00:20:40,079
personally very frustrated with the failure to report on October twentieth,

358
00:20:40,559 --> 00:20:43,839
and I had envisioned that entire collateral attack, I think

359
00:20:43,880 --> 00:20:46,519
I would have looked at this very differently. Question in

360
00:20:46,519 --> 00:20:50,440
what respect answer to the extent that this was going

361
00:20:50,480 --> 00:20:54,680
back to, for example, the public corruption prosecution that we had.

362
00:20:55,000 --> 00:20:57,079
One of the values of it was to have public

363
00:20:57,119 --> 00:20:59,880
figures stand up and say I did this and plead.

364
00:21:00,920 --> 00:21:03,200
One of the values was, you know, avoiding a long

365
00:21:03,240 --> 00:21:06,119
and messy legal process. And so when you put all

366
00:21:06,160 --> 00:21:09,079
of that together, you know, this is why I say

367
00:21:09,119 --> 00:21:12,119
it's not quite This was the factor that we'd consider

368
00:21:12,440 --> 00:21:15,240
that it's all of this put together and in something

369
00:21:15,240 --> 00:21:18,000
that could have been very positive for the victims and

370
00:21:18,039 --> 00:21:21,680
for sending a signal. As it dragged on became exhausting,

371
00:21:21,680 --> 00:21:24,039
and negative for the victims. It put us in a

372
00:21:24,039 --> 00:21:28,000
position of what do we do with notification? It put

373
00:21:28,079 --> 00:21:30,759
us in a position of a lot of appeals to Washington.

374
00:21:31,160 --> 00:21:33,440
It put us in the position of having to deal

375
00:21:33,960 --> 00:21:37,079
with complicated legal issues that actually got more messy in

376
00:21:37,160 --> 00:21:40,440
terms of how a federal twenty two fifty five relate

377
00:21:40,759 --> 00:21:43,559
to a state charge. And had all of that been known,

378
00:21:43,880 --> 00:21:48,599
I do think this would have proceeded differently. Question differently

379
00:21:48,680 --> 00:21:52,160
in what way? Answer? So if I had factored all

380
00:21:52,200 --> 00:21:54,839
of that, Like, I can't predict it what I would

381
00:21:54,839 --> 00:21:56,720
have done, but I think if I had known all

382
00:21:56,759 --> 00:21:59,880
of that, this could have proceeded very differently. I was

383
00:22:00,160 --> 00:22:04,519
very frustrated with the October to June time period. Question So,

384
00:22:04,599 --> 00:22:06,799
if you had been back in the timeframe in early

385
00:22:06,839 --> 00:22:11,000
September looking at this with I don't know what Harry

386
00:22:11,039 --> 00:22:13,920
Potter character is it, but whoever can see in the

387
00:22:14,119 --> 00:22:17,880
future and anticipated or foresaw what would happen, would you

388
00:22:17,880 --> 00:22:20,240
have simply said, look, we're not going to go the

389
00:22:20,279 --> 00:22:23,680
state route, We'll go to the federal route. Answer quite possibly.

390
00:22:24,119 --> 00:22:27,240
Question all right, answer, and let me sort of say

391
00:22:27,519 --> 00:22:30,400
we'll probably get into it. But at some point I

392
00:22:30,480 --> 00:22:33,240
do think the post versus the pre signature time period

393
00:22:33,319 --> 00:22:36,759
was different for any number of reasons, and we'll probably

394
00:22:36,799 --> 00:22:40,240
want to talk about that question, all right, we will,

395
00:22:40,240 --> 00:22:42,039
But now I'd like to turn to some of the

396
00:22:42,119 --> 00:22:45,759
terms of the NPA because you did make Let me

397
00:22:45,880 --> 00:22:50,079
make sure that this is correct. Somebody pipes in you

398
00:22:50,119 --> 00:22:53,480
skip this one question? Oh yeah, before that, thank you.

399
00:22:53,759 --> 00:22:57,319
My colleague reminds me, nineteen e is an exhibit that

400
00:22:57,400 --> 00:23:00,640
has an exchange between you and redacted life worry about

401
00:23:00,960 --> 00:23:03,559
at the time when the Plea Agreement, the Federal Plea

402
00:23:03,599 --> 00:23:06,000
Agreement was still in play, and the issue is whether

403
00:23:06,119 --> 00:23:08,559
you should sign it, and you didn't want to because

404
00:23:08,559 --> 00:23:10,880
you never do. But you say at the bottom, we

405
00:23:10,880 --> 00:23:13,720
should only go forward if the trial team supports and

406
00:23:13,799 --> 00:23:18,240
signs this agreement. What did you mean by that? The

407
00:23:18,599 --> 00:23:21,440
first part of that answer. So what I meant by

408
00:23:21,440 --> 00:23:25,119
that was I got something that is the document was unusual.

409
00:23:25,319 --> 00:23:27,920
So my signature appearing on this document is not in

410
00:23:28,279 --> 00:23:32,079
and of itself unusual. Question and this would have been

411
00:23:32,279 --> 00:23:35,720
the Plea Agreement, not the Federal Plea Agreement not or

412
00:23:35,799 --> 00:23:38,720
was I thinking about the NPA? Answer? This was about

413
00:23:38,759 --> 00:23:43,799
the NPA question? Okay, answer right, and so the NPA

414
00:23:44,000 --> 00:23:47,839
had my signature. Now, the NPA is almost too generous,

415
00:23:48,319 --> 00:23:51,680
so that in and of itself is not indicative of something,

416
00:23:51,920 --> 00:23:55,359
but it does raise my concern. Is this something that

417
00:23:55,480 --> 00:23:58,720
ultimately the trial team does not feel comfortable with? And

418
00:23:58,839 --> 00:24:02,000
if it's something they don't feel comfortable with, then they

419
00:24:02,039 --> 00:24:04,400
should speak up and let me know, because we shouldn't

420
00:24:04,440 --> 00:24:07,160
go forward with it. Question and did you ever have

421
00:24:07,200 --> 00:24:10,720
a conversation or a discussion about that issue other than

422
00:24:10,759 --> 00:24:14,759
mentioning it? Answer no, not to my recollection, I would

423
00:24:14,799 --> 00:24:18,160
assume based on this that Redacted would read it and

424
00:24:18,279 --> 00:24:21,160
would take my word for it and say, look, if

425
00:24:21,200 --> 00:24:23,680
you think you're going in the wrong direction, Alex, you

426
00:24:23,720 --> 00:24:25,920
know I think you're going in the wrong direction, or

427
00:24:25,960 --> 00:24:28,839
I'm uncomfortable with it. Question did you ever have a

428
00:24:28,839 --> 00:24:32,079
direct conversation with redacted about wanting her to sign the

429
00:24:32,119 --> 00:24:36,200
agreement as opposed to yourself? Answer? I did not. This

430
00:24:36,400 --> 00:24:39,400
was my first communication with redacted, and I really meant

431
00:24:39,400 --> 00:24:41,359
that if at the end of the day my team

432
00:24:41,400 --> 00:24:45,240
is uncomfortable, then you shouldn't go forward. Question you never

433
00:24:45,279 --> 00:24:48,359
recall hearing from redacted that she was not comfortable moving

434
00:24:48,400 --> 00:24:52,920
forward with the plea agreement question the NPA answer, I

435
00:24:52,960 --> 00:24:55,759
did not hear. I don't recall hearing from redacted that

436
00:24:55,799 --> 00:24:58,720
she was not comfortable. I know that at various points

437
00:24:58,799 --> 00:25:03,079
she became frustrated. At various points she became frustrated. But

438
00:25:03,400 --> 00:25:06,680
they were negotiating this. If at some point they did

439
00:25:06,720 --> 00:25:09,160
not they thought that this was a mistake or wrong

440
00:25:09,480 --> 00:25:12,680
or unjust, I would think that they would have told me, question,

441
00:25:12,960 --> 00:25:15,519
what would if you have done? Answer? Sit down and

442
00:25:15,559 --> 00:25:18,599
really have a serious conversation about where this is going,

443
00:25:19,079 --> 00:25:21,960
and sit down and hear them out again, even at

444
00:25:21,960 --> 00:25:25,400
this late phase, I would I would think that that's

445
00:25:25,440 --> 00:25:27,920
what I would have done. All right, folks, we're going

446
00:25:27,960 --> 00:25:30,000
to wrap up right here, and in the next episode,

447
00:25:30,000 --> 00:25:32,839
we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of

448
00:25:32,839 --> 00:25:35,559
the information that goes with this episode can be found

449
00:25:35,920 --> 00:25:38,960
in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to

450
00:25:39,000 --> 00:25:42,960
another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're

451
00:25:43,000 --> 00:25:45,079
going to pick up where we left off with the

452
00:25:45,119 --> 00:25:49,880
alex Acosta interview with the OIG inspectors question. All right,

453
00:25:49,960 --> 00:25:52,920
let's turn to the NPA. What is it Exhibit twenty two?

454
00:25:53,240 --> 00:25:56,079
Did you read it? We know that you made some

455
00:25:56,119 --> 00:25:59,279
final tweaks to it. Answer, And so I would again,

456
00:25:59,480 --> 00:26:02,559
I don't have independent recollection of reading it. I would

457
00:26:02,559 --> 00:26:06,880
not have made tweaks to it without reading it. Question okay, answer,

458
00:26:06,920 --> 00:26:09,359
and so I think you can infer that I read it.

459
00:26:09,799 --> 00:26:12,079
Question all right. And let me say you were a

460
00:26:12,079 --> 00:26:16,119
clerk to an appellate, a very eminent appellate judge, and

461
00:26:16,200 --> 00:26:20,079
you did appellate work yourself. So you were somebody who's

462
00:26:20,079 --> 00:26:23,400
an appellate lawyer who has the experience at a high level.

463
00:26:23,680 --> 00:26:26,559
It's often more sensitive to words and phrasings and to

464
00:26:26,680 --> 00:26:31,359
documents contents than might be again to characterize a little

465
00:26:31,400 --> 00:26:34,480
bit but more of a shoot from the hit trial

466
00:26:34,480 --> 00:26:37,359
attorney who spends his days, you know, in a rough

467
00:26:37,359 --> 00:26:39,640
and tumble court room. And it's fair to say that

468
00:26:39,759 --> 00:26:43,000
you were more of the former here. They get cut

469
00:26:43,039 --> 00:26:46,079
off here by Acosta. So I would push back. I

470
00:26:46,119 --> 00:26:48,519
think that's not respecting the talent of the trial lawyer,

471
00:26:48,680 --> 00:26:52,480
and particularly on these types of agreements or documents. These

472
00:26:52,480 --> 00:26:55,759
are folks that sort of have expertise, because even if

473
00:26:55,799 --> 00:26:59,599
this was sui generis, they have seen a lot of

474
00:26:59,640 --> 00:27:05,359
this question. I'm not suggesting that redacted and redacted LORI

475
00:27:05,759 --> 00:27:09,640
were not up to this answer right question, because certainly

476
00:27:10,079 --> 00:27:13,319
she also had a lot of appellate experience. I'm simply

477
00:27:13,359 --> 00:27:16,039
noting that this seems to be sort of in your

478
00:27:16,079 --> 00:27:22,119
wheelhouse answer. Look, I apologize whether I'm not sure what

479
00:27:22,200 --> 00:27:24,640
is in my willelhouse means, you know, I appear to

480
00:27:24,640 --> 00:27:27,640
have read this. I suggested some medits. As I would

481
00:27:27,680 --> 00:27:30,920
have approached this document, my assumption would have been, I'm

482
00:27:30,960 --> 00:27:33,839
looking at it from my earlier concerns that the policy

483
00:27:33,920 --> 00:27:37,599
level concerns, does it capture what we're deferring to the state,

484
00:27:38,039 --> 00:27:40,680
going back to put this in the petit policy versus not,

485
00:27:41,240 --> 00:27:45,759
does it capture the policy concerns of appropriately understanding that

486
00:27:45,799 --> 00:27:48,519
we can't force the state to do something, And does

487
00:27:48,519 --> 00:27:52,079
it capture the essential elements of the terms that we

488
00:27:52,200 --> 00:27:57,839
had looked for, you know, the imprisonment, registration and restitution question.

489
00:27:57,920 --> 00:28:00,480
All right. So one of the things that is a

490
00:28:00,519 --> 00:28:04,279
little striking that's different from the original draft NPA, even

491
00:28:04,319 --> 00:28:07,799
as amended by you. So let's pull out sixteen B,

492
00:28:08,839 --> 00:28:11,400
is that what I would call the non admission of guilty.

493
00:28:11,799 --> 00:28:15,559
So the first page of sixteen B, the first paragraph,

494
00:28:15,759 --> 00:28:18,519
that's the first clause after the one through five statutes

495
00:28:18,599 --> 00:28:22,640
listing in sixteen B reads it appearing that Epstein has

496
00:28:22,720 --> 00:28:26,240
accepted a responsibility for his behavior by his signature on

497
00:28:26,319 --> 00:28:31,279
this agreement. Answer I'm sorry you're on sixteen B question

498
00:28:31,400 --> 00:28:36,920
sixteen B answer okay, It appearing yes question okay. So

499
00:28:37,920 --> 00:28:39,640
this is not, I mean, this is not to be

500
00:28:39,720 --> 00:28:43,759
fairly typical sort of plea agreement language right answer, right question.

501
00:28:44,119 --> 00:28:46,000
And if you look at the top of the final

502
00:28:46,079 --> 00:28:50,880
NPA twenty two to third it appearing clause sixteen B

503
00:28:51,839 --> 00:28:54,880
it appearing he has that down at the bottom, it says,

504
00:28:54,880 --> 00:29:00,000
it refers to at the second up answer yes question

505
00:29:00,200 --> 00:29:04,920
exactly he'd accepted a responsibility answer right question, and then

506
00:29:04,960 --> 00:29:08,599
above in the fourth it appearing it references the fact

507
00:29:08,759 --> 00:29:12,720
that it appearing Epstein has committed offenses against the United States.

508
00:29:13,279 --> 00:29:17,359
Answer yes question okay, So there's a sense of acceptance

509
00:29:17,400 --> 00:29:20,960
of responsibility in the final NPA, which is twenty two

510
00:29:21,039 --> 00:29:25,799
in your right hand. Third it appearing clause says nothing

511
00:29:25,799 --> 00:29:29,640
about Epstein committing offenses. It simply references the US Attorney's

512
00:29:29,680 --> 00:29:33,839
Office and the FBI having conducted their own investigation into

513
00:29:33,839 --> 00:29:37,640
Epstein's background and any offenses that may have been committed

514
00:29:37,759 --> 00:29:42,000
by Epstein, including the enumerated statutes, and then following the

515
00:29:42,119 --> 00:29:45,759
enumerated Federal statutes, there's no reference at all to Epstein

516
00:29:45,799 --> 00:29:49,960
accepting responsibility. Do you view that the removal of that

517
00:29:50,039 --> 00:29:54,759
acceptance or responsibility to be something that was appropriate? Answer? So,

518
00:29:55,279 --> 00:29:59,480
trying to reconstruct the focus was and I know I'm

519
00:29:59,519 --> 00:30:05,160
repeating my self, but jail time, registration, restitution, whether he

520
00:30:05,200 --> 00:30:08,599
accepted responsibility for a federal or a state. I think

521
00:30:08,640 --> 00:30:11,160
my focus would have been on these were the terms?

522
00:30:11,400 --> 00:30:15,680
Does this encompass those terms? Question? So as the concession

523
00:30:15,720 --> 00:30:18,400
is not something material as far as I don't want

524
00:30:18,400 --> 00:30:21,200
to use the legal term material, but it wasn't important

525
00:30:21,319 --> 00:30:25,640
to your objectives? Is that right? Answer? First, I'm not sure.

526
00:30:25,880 --> 00:30:29,119
So it wasn't a concession from that those four bullets, right,

527
00:30:29,359 --> 00:30:33,480
It was a concession from an earlier draft question right answer?

528
00:30:33,799 --> 00:30:36,160
And to say it's not important to us again, there

529
00:30:36,200 --> 00:30:39,400
was an early draft. It changed. The focus was in

530
00:30:39,480 --> 00:30:42,559
any give and take draft change, the focus was did

531
00:30:42,640 --> 00:30:45,200
he go to jail? Did he have to register? Did

532
00:30:45,200 --> 00:30:50,119
he have restitution? Question? All? Right? Do you remember noticing

533
00:30:50,160 --> 00:30:53,519
that change and thinking it doesn't matter answer. I don't

534
00:30:54,079 --> 00:30:56,960
in all candor, until right now, I was not aware

535
00:30:57,200 --> 00:30:59,440
of that change. I doubt I would have taken two

536
00:30:59,440 --> 00:31:02,319
documents and sort of put them side by side, as

537
00:31:02,319 --> 00:31:05,640
opposed to does this capture what we're trying to get to? Question?

538
00:31:05,799 --> 00:31:08,559
And you're aware of the twenty four to eighteen because

539
00:31:08,559 --> 00:31:11,519
you noticed it in the NPA or because somebody told

540
00:31:11,559 --> 00:31:15,680
you separately or do you know? Answer? I can't say

541
00:31:16,000 --> 00:31:19,640
other than I was aware question in the final MPa

542
00:31:19,680 --> 00:31:22,599
on page five. There's a series of things that are

543
00:31:22,599 --> 00:31:26,160
included at the bottom of that page, in that long paragraph,

544
00:31:26,400 --> 00:31:28,480
and the one that I want to focus on is

545
00:31:28,519 --> 00:31:32,559
the immunity portion that was certainly not in the original

546
00:31:32,640 --> 00:31:36,119
draft proposed by the US Attorney's Office. In this paragraph,

547
00:31:36,200 --> 00:31:38,920
the US agrees that it will not institute any criminal

548
00:31:39,039 --> 00:31:43,440
charges against any potential co conspirators of Epstein, including but

549
00:31:43,519 --> 00:31:47,559
not limited to or redacted. Did you notice that provision? Answer?

550
00:31:47,759 --> 00:31:51,039
I don't recall focusing on the co conspirator provision. To

551
00:31:51,079 --> 00:31:53,839
the extent that I reviewed this co conspirator provision, I

552
00:31:53,880 --> 00:31:57,160
can speculate that my thinking would have been the focus

553
00:31:57,279 --> 00:32:00,559
is on Epstein. Epstein's going to jail, Whether some of

554
00:32:00,559 --> 00:32:03,680
the employees go to jail or other lesser involved. Is

555
00:32:03,720 --> 00:32:07,880
not the focus of this question, all right. This particular provision,

556
00:32:08,119 --> 00:32:12,839
as you know, has been enormously criticized. Answer enormous, yes,

557
00:32:13,200 --> 00:32:16,119
question for a number of reasons, one of which is

558
00:32:16,160 --> 00:32:19,799
that it is a blanket transactional immunity. It gives blanket

559
00:32:19,920 --> 00:32:25,440
immunity to unnamed, unidentified potential co conspirators, people who, even

560
00:32:25,480 --> 00:32:28,200
in the future, if evidence is developed against them, as

561
00:32:28,240 --> 00:32:31,119
long as they could be considered co conspirators of Epstein

562
00:32:31,440 --> 00:32:33,640
in this conduct, they'd have a get out of jail

563
00:32:33,680 --> 00:32:37,279
free card. Do you have any idea where that came from? Answer?

564
00:32:37,359 --> 00:32:40,240
I don't, and I don't want to characterize it as giving.

565
00:32:40,440 --> 00:32:42,839
I understand how it could be read that way in

566
00:32:42,960 --> 00:32:45,799
the record. I don't want to characterize it, but I

567
00:32:45,839 --> 00:32:48,960
don't know where this could have come from. I would

568
00:32:48,960 --> 00:32:52,119
have reviewed this for the policy concerns. Did it do

569
00:32:52,240 --> 00:32:55,359
the sort of bullet point? And my assumption, rightly or wrongly,

570
00:32:55,599 --> 00:32:58,039
would have been that redacted and redacted would have looked

571
00:32:58,079 --> 00:33:03,480
at this and that this, while appropriate. I understand your point, question,

572
00:33:03,599 --> 00:33:05,960
all right, and I believe the point you were referring

573
00:33:06,000 --> 00:33:08,440
to is that when I use the term jail get

574
00:33:08,440 --> 00:33:11,160
out of a jail free card, that you recognize this

575
00:33:11,319 --> 00:33:15,680
is limited to your district. Answer, And that's an important point.

576
00:33:15,960 --> 00:33:19,640
Question of course, answer or recognize, and right here and

577
00:33:19,680 --> 00:33:23,039
there that kills Glenn Maxwell's argument. Folks, Remember she said

578
00:33:23,039 --> 00:33:26,200
that this covered her everywhere. No, it doesn't, just in

579
00:33:26,240 --> 00:33:30,400
the southern district of Florida, and that's already been determined

580
00:33:30,640 --> 00:33:35,319
by the appellate courts as well, question of course. But nonetheless,

581
00:33:35,759 --> 00:33:38,480
this does give blanket immunity to people. You have no

582
00:33:38,559 --> 00:33:41,720
idea who they might be. Correct, If you had focused

583
00:33:41,720 --> 00:33:45,920
on it, would that have raised some questions in your mind? Answer?

584
00:33:46,559 --> 00:33:49,200
If there was a discussion like that we're having here,

585
00:33:49,480 --> 00:33:52,519
then it very possibly could have been raised. It's difficult

586
00:33:52,559 --> 00:33:54,799
to say it would have. But I understand your concern.

587
00:33:55,920 --> 00:33:59,279
Question all right, And the named individuals redacted are all

588
00:33:59,279 --> 00:34:02,880
individuals were described in the prosecution memo and so on.

589
00:34:03,799 --> 00:34:06,920
And the prosecution memo does identify that at least one

590
00:34:07,079 --> 00:34:10,320
of these women herself engage in sexual activity with a

591
00:34:10,360 --> 00:34:15,079
minor with minor girls. Answer yeah, question, so that she

592
00:34:15,239 --> 00:34:19,079
has liability in and of her own answer, So I

593
00:34:19,079 --> 00:34:21,639
don't have an independent recollection of that. But when I

594
00:34:21,679 --> 00:34:26,039
reviewed the prosecution memo, I did notice that. Question All right, now,

595
00:34:26,039 --> 00:34:27,880
you have told us this morning that you have no

596
00:34:28,000 --> 00:34:31,960
recollection of that actually having read the prosecution memo back

597
00:34:32,000 --> 00:34:34,599
at the time. Answer, I think I said, I don't

598
00:34:34,639 --> 00:34:37,000
have a recollection of whether I did or did not

599
00:34:37,119 --> 00:34:40,719
read the prosecution memo. I have since when you provided it,

600
00:34:41,039 --> 00:34:43,199
read it, and I note that it does reference her.

601
00:34:44,599 --> 00:34:47,639
Question having read it now, does that change your view

602
00:34:47,679 --> 00:34:51,000
of anything that we've talked about so far today? Answer?

603
00:34:51,119 --> 00:34:54,199
So reading it twelve years later, knowing all of this, possibly,

604
00:34:54,559 --> 00:34:56,840
and part of it is, I do think we approach

605
00:34:56,960 --> 00:34:59,920
these cases differently, and I think these cases would play

606
00:35:00,039 --> 00:35:03,360
out very differently in court today. I think it's very

607
00:35:03,360 --> 00:35:05,840
difficult to sort of go back and recreate a thought

608
00:35:05,840 --> 00:35:09,880
process from twelve years ago. Question, and if you were

609
00:35:09,920 --> 00:35:13,000
relying back then on the characterization in summary and are

610
00:35:13,000 --> 00:35:16,239
accounting of this case to you by your people, your

611
00:35:16,280 --> 00:35:20,159
senior people redacted and in particular redacted, would you do

612
00:35:20,280 --> 00:35:22,800
you do you have or did anyone in that ground,

613
00:35:22,840 --> 00:35:27,480
including redacted LORI, in any way to your recollection characterize

614
00:35:27,519 --> 00:35:31,519
the case as not serious or as trivial or involving

615
00:35:31,599 --> 00:35:34,960
non important, unimportant victims in any way to try to

616
00:35:35,000 --> 00:35:39,280
diminish either the conduct or the victims. Answer not to

617
00:35:39,320 --> 00:35:42,519
my recollection. I do think there was a concern as

618
00:35:42,559 --> 00:35:45,519
how the victims would present in court given impeachment and

619
00:35:45,559 --> 00:35:49,800
given contradictory statements. But that's different than trivializing the case.

620
00:35:50,360 --> 00:35:53,559
Question all right back to the immunity provision. Were you

621
00:35:53,639 --> 00:35:57,679
aware that none of the four name co conspirators had cooperated? Answer?

622
00:35:57,800 --> 00:36:01,119
I was not. Question And do you recall any other

623
00:36:01,199 --> 00:36:04,559
case in which blanket immunity in the US Attorney's office,

624
00:36:05,400 --> 00:36:10,079
in which blanket immunity really without virtually without limitation was granted.

625
00:36:10,559 --> 00:36:14,000
Answer I don't recall discussion around this provision, and a

626
00:36:14,039 --> 00:36:17,559
general matter, I did not discuss this in typical cases

627
00:36:17,599 --> 00:36:21,000
that came that bubbled up to my level. The focus

628
00:36:21,519 --> 00:36:24,159
was on who the prime you know, target is and

629
00:36:24,239 --> 00:36:26,679
not on what we could do with the co conspirators.

630
00:36:27,000 --> 00:36:29,199
And so I don't recall, But that doesn't mean it

631
00:36:29,199 --> 00:36:32,119
didn't happen. That's just not typically something that I got

632
00:36:32,159 --> 00:36:36,519
involved with. Question and likewise, non immunity being given to

633
00:36:36,599 --> 00:36:40,880
non cooperating co conspirators or code defendants. Is that something

634
00:36:40,920 --> 00:36:45,199
that was done in your office? Answer? Again, as a

635
00:36:45,239 --> 00:36:47,920
typical matter, I did not get involved with these. But

636
00:36:48,199 --> 00:36:50,679
let me let me also say that this wasn't a

637
00:36:50,679 --> 00:36:53,920
federal prosecution in the first place, and so this whole

638
00:36:53,960 --> 00:36:58,519
thing in suey generous to some extent. Question it is,

639
00:36:58,960 --> 00:37:02,280
But the grant of a community is real, right answer.

640
00:37:02,400 --> 00:37:05,519
I understand where you're coming from. Question all right, if

641
00:37:05,519 --> 00:37:08,960
you had focused on that provision, would you have insisted

642
00:37:09,320 --> 00:37:12,119
it come out? Answer? One question I would have had

643
00:37:12,199 --> 00:37:14,639
is if we're naming as I sit here and sort

644
00:37:14,639 --> 00:37:17,239
of focus as we are now, But this is with

645
00:37:17,320 --> 00:37:21,320
the benefit of hindsight and criticism. If there are specific folks,

646
00:37:21,480 --> 00:37:24,239
why do we have any potential language? Because that seems

647
00:37:24,320 --> 00:37:29,199
quite broad question. It's without limitation as to people as

648
00:37:29,239 --> 00:37:33,000
long as they are co conspirators. Right answer. But so

649
00:37:33,599 --> 00:37:37,480
what is the need for that question? Okay? And I

650
00:37:37,519 --> 00:37:40,480
would so if we had this kind of discussion, I

651
00:37:40,519 --> 00:37:43,760
would be sending an email saying, what's the need for this?

652
00:37:43,960 --> 00:37:46,880
What's up? Question? But to be clear, as we sit

653
00:37:46,920 --> 00:37:50,639
here today, you have no recollection of having noticed that answer.

654
00:37:50,880 --> 00:37:53,199
I don't have recollection of if I read over it.

655
00:37:53,639 --> 00:37:56,960
My assumption would have been that redacted and redacted thought

656
00:37:56,960 --> 00:38:00,480
this through and sort of addressed it for that reason. Question,

657
00:38:00,719 --> 00:38:05,000
all right, and if and by did you have any

658
00:38:05,280 --> 00:38:07,800
anyone ever come to you with the evidentiary issues and

659
00:38:07,840 --> 00:38:10,480
say we need to track this down before we give

660
00:38:10,559 --> 00:38:15,519
such blanket immunity. Answer, I don't recall any conversations around

661
00:38:15,559 --> 00:38:18,079
co conspirators. All right, folks, we're going to wrap this

662
00:38:18,159 --> 00:38:20,639
episode up right here, and then the next episode dealing

663
00:38:20,679 --> 00:38:22,920
with the topic, we're going to pick up where we

664
00:38:23,039 --> 00:38:26,000
left off. All of the information that goes with this

665
00:38:26,039 --> 00:38:28,719
episode can be found in the description box.