Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
right where we left off with alex Acosta and his
interview with the OIG inspectors. Question, do you think she
misunderstood the priorities that she thought you wanted to get
a resolution and so the two years could be undercut
versus taking your words literally and saying this is the
line in the sand beyond which you should not go,
even if it means killing the resolution. Answer, So, if
I had to speculate, I don't think it was a
misunderstanding of priorities as opposed to opposing council was exhausting,
and if you go through the full record, it really
was an exhausting opposing council in this case was very
good at taking any slight millimeter and turning it into oh,
so you said we could do this, And in that
back and forth sometimes there is can't we just agree
in the middle question? And I understand what you're saying,
but weren't exhausting because the US Attorney's Office would not
say no to them, and so they always believe from
the get go because they have a two year minimum
that the office is willing to then say, oh, we
can go down from there, and that they could continually
chip away at you virtually every single term that came about.
So yeah, they were exhausting, But isn't that because the
US Attorney's office would not tell them no answer? So
I would push back because after the agreement was signed,
I would argue that they did not chip away. They
certainly kept appealing collaterally, and we can talk about that
because there were other concerns raised there. But once we
had that September meeting. Between the September meeting and the
signing of the deferment in favor of the state, that
was all negotiated by the trial team. That wasn't a
comeback to the US Attorney or come to the first assistant.
That really, to my recollection, was negotiate with the state
with the line question. Well, there were a number of
things that came about later on. I mean, they can
annually griped about the twenty two fifty five and that
got you know, that got modified answer later on. I
think later ons are different for some reason. We can
talk about now or later. But there was an attempt
to work this out later and that was clearly there.
But I think that's very different than how the agreement
was negotiated, and I think that's very different kind of timeline. Question.
So in your mind, was she prepared to walk away
from the deal? If need be? Answer after it was signed?
Question before it was signed, answer before it was signed.
It honestly was get a deal? Or ultimately, if we
have to indict, we indict. And that's what I said,
And look at it this way. After having said that,
if that really was a bluff, what would I look like, right,
I would look awful. And so for that reason, that
was not a bluff. That was a thought through. This
is what we will do, and if you don't agree
to this, then we indict. You can't make those kinds
of statements and not follow through. The office loses credibility
if you do question right, but you can keep giving
on certain terms. Answer And my point is we did
not give with the exception of that twenty four to eighteen,
we did not give question, Well, you also gave up
two charges. Answer again, I'm thinking of two years registration restitution.
And so with the exception of that twenty four to eighteen,
we didn't give question. I want to go back this morning.
We were talking about our tracks, and we talked about
the legal track and a little bit about the evidence track.
There's another aspect of the evidence track that is in
play here, because there was a substantial type of evidence,
and the question is to what extent were you aware
of this? In October of two thousand and five, the
local police executed a search warrant on Epstein's residence, and
among things that they found there were cables and cords
where there had been computers, computer equipment, video surveillance cameras
and CPUs. All of that that computer based stuff. It
had been removed forgetting why necessarily, if you look at
Exhibit twenty nine, were you aware of that by the
way that that had occurred. Answer? I was aware that
the state had gathered evidence, but not much more. Question
beyond that, Wait a minute, this is not the one
I'm looking for. Seventy three do you know what? Okay,
this is not the exhibit I'm looking for, and the
numbers are a little bit messed up. There's an email
which I may or may not be able to put
my hands on, in which redacted informs you that she
really wants to get her hands on important potential on
computer evidence and its important potential evidence, and she has
a plan to get it. So the question is whether
you knew at the time that there was the investigators
had identified this computer evidence as being out there and
what they believed it contained a potentially very significant evidence
against Epstein computers, surveillance cameras given the activity in his home. Answer,
he's not on it. Question all right. She did not
inform you. She informed someone else that we informed Slowman
and Menchel on July third, and Laurie, my apologies, you're
not on this where she advises them that she wants
we want to get the computer equipment that was removed
from Epstein's home prior to the state search warrant as
soon as possible. So there was this stuff out there,
and as of July there was an abiding, keen interest
in getting it, and the defense team was resisting the
prosecutor's efforts to get it. Were you aware of that
at all? Answer? I think you asked about that in
your questions to me. Question right, I did answer, I
have no recollection of this computer evidence. A question all right?
Answer did the question say, without getting into specifics, that
there was a grand jury issue around this question. It does.
It is addressed in the non prosecution agreement. If you
look at the fine prosecution agreement, it's referred to. The
question was whether you were aware that there was something
that the prosecutors wanted to get. Answer, I don't have
recollection of some computer evidence. Question are you aware that
redacted was instructed by our managers to delay our efforts
to get this computer evidence because the defense was resisting
those efforts and it became an issue, an issue that
was in play in the negotiation. Answer I have no
recollection of that question. Okay, Answer pending federal and so
your question said that there was litigation pending in federal
court relating to the US attorney's efforts to obtain computer evidence.
Question without going into further detail, Answer I have no
recollection of any litigation pending in federal court regarding that question.
All right, And did anyone suggest to you and your
team that or getting to a plead deal was premature
because you need to get this evidence first, so that
you knew whether you had potentially some very important evidence
against Epstein. Answer I have no recollection, and if anything,
I think there was a desire to move quickly as
opposed to slowly question on the plea answer yes, question
do you know where that energy came from? Who was
wanting to move quickly? Answer? As I recall, So for example,
when we were meeting or setting up the meeting in September,
there was a request to set it up in August
as opposed to September, and we had to push back
to September because of vacation or something. Question all right,
So in addition to not getting the computer evidence, the
government curtailed the investigation to a large extent. Despite finding
more victims, there were witnesses who were not interviewed, things
that were not searched, property that wasn't searched, target letters
not served. So these all would have been stages or
steps taken by the FBI to enhance the federal investigation.
Right as opposed to back to the state case that
this was sort of being returned to, was this were
you aware of all of those steps that were being
foregone or foreclosed? Answer? My assumption would have been, we
may have to go to trial, and so we could
continue to develop the basis for trial. So if I could,
for example, I think that Drew came down I said,
if we go to trial. Can you be on the
trial team? I cite that because I'm thinking we may
have to go to trial? Question right? Answer, why not
get Drew who's from Miami on the trial team. Question
so is it your understanding that the federal investigation, notwithstanding
the drafting of the NPA, was still continuing. Answer? You know.
My understanding is you run these on parallel tracks. And
again I'm sitting here inviting the head of CEOs to
be part of the trial team and talking about how
to formulate the trial team. Question okay. Answer that implies
that I was clearly thinking we might go to trial.
Question all right, when you first received the draft of
the non prosecution agreement, and this is sixteen A, it's
a draft by redacted? Do you know who came up
with what? It sounds like you didn't, but who came
up with the name or the Moniker non prosecution Agreement? Answer?
I do not. Question do you know what this was
modeled on, if anything, where the genesis was Answer I
do not. I noticed from the contemporaneous emails that initially
it was done differently, and I think it was redacted
LORI who said write it as a contract or. I
think there is an email to that effect. Someone may
recall it better than I. Question this version of September tenth,
which is the first business day after that September seventh
meeting from redacted, and redacted goes to her management up
through you, and you do a rewrite almost right away,
adding original state charges, which at that point we're all
still in play. And you also added this is exact
Dihibit sixteen B A statement that it would be Epstein's
job to move the state to add additional charges, and
that latter piece is on page three, just below paragraph eight. Answer,
So can I back up a second question? Sure? Answer?
When you say I did a rewrite, is there some
indication of what I did or rewrite of question? Yes?
If you compare the two, there are things that are
bracketed in yellow and Exhibit sixteen B which represent the
changes from sixteen A answer right, question, Okay, So those
are the two things that are different, and they're referenced
in your message at the beginning. We bracketed them just
to make it easier for you to recognize that. So
my point is that right from the beginning, you are
participating in the process, in the drafting process. Answer, So,
I would characterize that as not participating in the drafting process,
but approving a draft. There is a slight difference. Answer yeah,
and so something comes. Here's how I would distinguish someone
that's participating in the drafting process is sitting at the
table with two or three people drafting it as they go. First.
Is something that goes through the management chain, and someone
in the supervisory chain says, can you change a beer
or c question? All right? Answer I clearly you know
here and in other places it looks like I'm inserting
the same themes, which is deferring to the state. Let's mention,
the state charges and we can't force the state to
do anything, And so I'm adding to this. I'm clearly
aware of it and approving it. But I wouldn't say
that I was drafting. Question fair enough? Did you read it? Answer?
I would assume that I read it, or else I
wouldn't have edited it. All right, So we're gonna wrap
this episode up right here, and in the next episode,
we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of
the information that goes with this episode can be found
in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to
another episode of the Epstein Chronicle. In this episode, we're
going to dive right back in and pick up where
we left off with alex Acosta's interview with the OIG inspectors. Question.
All right, so we have a draft from redacted, a
working draft on September tenth, with a small rewrite from you.
There is an Exhibit seventeen series indication that of the
kind of activity that redacted was going through to come
up with the federal plea. But eventually she and the
defense attorney who is most actively working on this, Jay Lefkowitz,
turned back to the NPA, and if you look at
seventeen D, just to make the sort of staffing clear,
you know, of course redacted as left redacted is going
on vacation as of September fifteenth, and so redacted Lorie
has helped finalize. So the finalizing of the NPA, the
final version of which is in Exhibit twenty two, falls
to redacted with redacted right answer yes, question okay, And
redacted puts you on notice in eighteen B. In that
processes this email in eighteen B is sort of a
follow on to eighteen A. Do you see it comes
one minute after your email in eighteen A. It's a
response from her to you only, in which she makes
note that the defense tried to reopen all the loopholes
that I had sown shut. Answer yes, question, so it's
fair to say that you're kind of you're on notice
that they're being difficult. Answer that's fair question, okay, in
the course of that being difficult. Nineteen A is an
email to you from redacted on September eighteenth, in which
he represents that or explains that the defense is that
things are kind of falling apart with the negotiations, and
she fears the deal is going to fall apart completely.
Mister Todd, should we take a quick break here? You're
losing your voice? Redacted. I'm fine, mister Todd. You could
probably use a minute. Redact it all right, We'll take
a break. They come back from their break, and the
questions are back on question. Back on the rect Looking
at Exhibit nineteen C, you say you write to redacted
regarding whether you're available to at the time when she's
going to be hashing out language. You advise her that
I don't think I should be part of negotiations. I'd
rather leave that to you. If that's Okay, answer yes.
Question why did you say that to her? Answer because
she was the line lawyer involved, and I thought, I
think it's important for US attorneys to absent truly exceptional
circumstances to not get involved in those sort of negotiations.
You can meet like I did in September, reaffirm the
position of the office back your AUSA, but ultimately, I
think your trial lawyer needs discretion to do their job.
Question At this point of course, we know redacted is
on vacation and you were aware, were you not? That
redacted LORI was about to DeCamp for Washington. In other words,
he left at the end of September to become the
chief of staff and principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for
who headed the Criminal Division. Okay, so it was really
just the two of them at this point and with
nobody apparently involved between them, And you answer so fair.
But when you say just the two of them, redacted
is an incredibly experienced lawyer. So to say just the
two of them is not the take not should not
imply that there was experience on the table. Question. I
certainly in no way intended to suggest that answer fair
enough question looking at nineteen d in which Redacted is
on page two looking at the latest draft from redacted
meaning redacted, and this is in the throes of negotiating
the NPA. Redacted is essentially telling you that he agrees
with Redacted's observations that the Defense are just up to
all kinds of nonsense in the deal and constantly changing
their terms and just not apparently negotiating or dealing with
these warring drafts with the drafting process in good faith. Again,
that's my characterization, but Redacted says that to you in
this email. I suggest we simply tell him Redacted that
his counter offer is rejected and that we intend to
move forward with our case. Right. And then your response
is interesting. You say to them, why don't we just
why don't we just call them? Tell them one, you
agree and then change things. Answer you, being redacted agrees
and changes things. Question correct. Tell him you agree, meaning
redacted agree. Answer no, question I see. Tell him she
gets cut off or he gets cut off by Acosta.
Tell him you, Redacted agree and you change things. Question
I see. Answer that is not acceptable to us and
is in bad faith. Stop it, or we'll just indict
and then try to work it out. Question, So is
the try to work it out? If the numbers one
and two are what you should tell what redacted should
tell redacted? Is number three something redacted should tell redacted?
Or what you're telling redacted? Try to work it out? Answer,
it's what I'm talking and telling. Question Okay, so just
to be clear, you say tell them, meaning you redacted
tell Jay number one and number two. But number three
is then what you're instructing redacted to do? I'm just
trying to understand. Answer yes, So my understanding of this
is there being difficult. Hey, this isn't the first time
that an attorney agrees to something and then goes back
and tries to pull a fast one. So tell them
you're onto this that they need to stop it or
will indict. But then what we'll try, you know, redacted
should try to work it out. Question Okay, answer, but
they need to stop this tactic. Question did you really
think that was going to be effective with this defense? Answer?
I don't know. You know, I think one of the
hard things with this is if it was right on
September sixth, it remains right, irrespective of really I think
I say, sorry, I know it's a pain, this negotiation
was a pain, But if it was the right position,
the fact that you've got annoying counsel on the other
side doesn't make it any less of a right position.
You tell them to stop being annoying, You try to
work it out, and if not, then you indict. Question
is that is that consistent with your sort of view
of doing business, being even and working it out? Answer? Yeah,
that's our position. It's not a bluff. It's what we want.
You work it out. People yell and scream on the
other side, you work it out. If not with them,
then we indict. Question what would have been the tipping
point for you? What would have caused you to say, Okay,
I agree with you redacted, I agree with you. Let's
indict answer. So it's really difficult to speculate, but I
think the tipping point would have been a failure to
reach it was pretty clear jail time registration restitution. Once
we move from twenty four to eighteen months. That was
a give and take. But ultimately, if they came back
and said we can agree to these terms, then we indict. Question.
All right, question, it seemed like your troops were telling
you we've reached the end of our rope. We really
just want to go forward and indict answer right question,
and you are coming back with tell them again that
the defense is being difficult, but I want you to
work it out. Does that tell your troops basically, that's
where your priority is. You want them to go out
get this resolution. And if they have to give up stuff,
it's okay, it's really okay, but you want this resolution answer,
So it's not if you have to give up stuff.
I'm not telling them to give up stuff. I'm not
telling them to negotiate things away. But I think the dynamic,
from my perspective, is incredibly So there's a tactic that
council sometimes take where they negotiate and when they try
to come back and renegotiate, and that is, to my thinking,
one of the most annoying tactics that you can have,
and it creates a lot of frustration. And what I'm
trying to say is, look, they might be frustrating folks,
but if this had been worked out. Looking at this,
we thought we had an agreement, and then they change things.
And I'm saying, look, if you thought you had an agreement,
tell them you had an agreement. Don't let them change things.
I understand it's frustrating to you, but if it was
right two weeks ago, the fact that they're frustrating attorneys
doesn't change the underlying legal analysis. The attorney's behavior doesn't
inform the rightness or wrongness of a certain disposition to
a point question. What's the point answer? So I think
after and now I'm calling it an NPA, I was
personally very frustrated with the failure to report on October twentieth,
and I had envisioned that entire collateral attack, I think
I would have looked at this very differently. Question in
what respect answer to the extent that this was going
back to, for example, the public corruption prosecution that we had.
One of the values of it was to have public
figures stand up and say I did this and plead.
One of the values was, you know, avoiding a long
and messy legal process. And so when you put all
of that together, you know, this is why I say
it's not quite This was the factor that we'd consider
that it's all of this put together and in something
that could have been very positive for the victims and
for sending a signal. As it dragged on became exhausting,
and negative for the victims. It put us in a
position of what do we do with notification? It put
us in a position of a lot of appeals to Washington.
It put us in the position of having to deal
with complicated legal issues that actually got more messy in
terms of how a federal twenty two fifty five relate
to a state charge. And had all of that been known,
I do think this would have proceeded differently. Question differently
in what way? Answer? So if I had factored all
of that, Like, I can't predict it what I would
have done, but I think if I had known all
of that, this could have proceeded very differently. I was
very frustrated with the October to June time period. Question So,
if you had been back in the timeframe in early
September looking at this with I don't know what Harry
Potter character is it, but whoever can see in the
future and anticipated or foresaw what would happen, would you
have simply said, look, we're not going to go the
state route, We'll go to the federal route. Answer quite possibly.
Question all right, answer, and let me sort of say
we'll probably get into it. But at some point I
do think the post versus the pre signature time period
was different for any number of reasons, and we'll probably
want to talk about that question, all right, we will,
But now I'd like to turn to some of the
terms of the NPA because you did make Let me
make sure that this is correct. Somebody pipes in you
skip this one question? Oh yeah, before that, thank you.
My colleague reminds me, nineteen e is an exhibit that
has an exchange between you and redacted life worry about
at the time when the Plea Agreement, the Federal Plea
Agreement was still in play, and the issue is whether
you should sign it, and you didn't want to because
you never do. But you say at the bottom, we
should only go forward if the trial team supports and
signs this agreement. What did you mean by that? The
first part of that answer. So what I meant by
that was I got something that is the document was unusual.
So my signature appearing on this document is not in
and of itself unusual. Question and this would have been
the Plea Agreement, not the Federal Plea Agreement not or
was I thinking about the NPA? Answer? This was about
the NPA question? Okay, answer right, and so the NPA
had my signature. Now, the NPA is almost too generous,
so that in and of itself is not indicative of something,
but it does raise my concern. Is this something that
ultimately the trial team does not feel comfortable with? And
if it's something they don't feel comfortable with, then they
should speak up and let me know, because we shouldn't
go forward with it. Question and did you ever have
a conversation or a discussion about that issue other than
mentioning it? Answer no, not to my recollection, I would
assume based on this that Redacted would read it and
would take my word for it and say, look, if
you think you're going in the wrong direction, Alex, you
know I think you're going in the wrong direction, or
I'm uncomfortable with it. Question did you ever have a
direct conversation with redacted about wanting her to sign the
agreement as opposed to yourself? Answer? I did not. This
was my first communication with redacted, and I really meant
that if at the end of the day my team
is uncomfortable, then you shouldn't go forward. Question you never
recall hearing from redacted that she was not comfortable moving
forward with the plea agreement question the NPA answer, I
did not hear. I don't recall hearing from redacted that
she was not comfortable. I know that at various points
she became frustrated. At various points she became frustrated. But
they were negotiating this. If at some point they did
not they thought that this was a mistake or wrong
or unjust, I would think that they would have told me, question,
what would if you have done? Answer? Sit down and
really have a serious conversation about where this is going,
and sit down and hear them out again, even at
this late phase, I would I would think that that's
what I would have done. All right, folks, we're going
to wrap up right here, and in the next episode,
we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of
the information that goes with this episode can be found
in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to
another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're
going to pick up where we left off with the
alex Acosta interview with the OIG inspectors question. All right,
let's turn to the NPA. What is it Exhibit twenty two?
Did you read it? We know that you made some
final tweaks to it. Answer, And so I would again,
I don't have independent recollection of reading it. I would
not have made tweaks to it without reading it. Question okay, answer,
and so I think you can infer that I read it.
Question all right. And let me say you were a
clerk to an appellate, a very eminent appellate judge, and
you did appellate work yourself. So you were somebody who's
an appellate lawyer who has the experience at a high level.
It's often more sensitive to words and phrasings and to
documents contents than might be again to characterize a little
bit but more of a shoot from the hit trial
attorney who spends his days, you know, in a rough
and tumble court room. And it's fair to say that
you were more of the former here. They get cut
off here by Acosta. So I would push back. I
think that's not respecting the talent of the trial lawyer,
and particularly on these types of agreements or documents. These
are folks that sort of have expertise, because even if
this was sui generis, they have seen a lot of
this question. I'm not suggesting that redacted and redacted LORI
were not up to this answer right question, because certainly
she also had a lot of appellate experience. I'm simply
noting that this seems to be sort of in your
wheelhouse answer. Look, I apologize whether I'm not sure what
is in my willelhouse means, you know, I appear to
have read this. I suggested some medits. As I would
have approached this document, my assumption would have been, I'm
looking at it from my earlier concerns that the policy
level concerns, does it capture what we're deferring to the state,
going back to put this in the petit policy versus not,
does it capture the policy concerns of appropriately understanding that
we can't force the state to do something, And does
it capture the essential elements of the terms that we
had looked for, you know, the imprisonment, registration and restitution question.
All right. So one of the things that is a
little striking that's different from the original draft NPA, even
as amended by you. So let's pull out sixteen B,
is that what I would call the non admission of guilty.
So the first page of sixteen B, the first paragraph,
that's the first clause after the one through five statutes
listing in sixteen B reads it appearing that Epstein has
accepted a responsibility for his behavior by his signature on
this agreement. Answer I'm sorry you're on sixteen B question
sixteen B answer okay, It appearing yes question okay. So
this is not, I mean, this is not to be
fairly typical sort of plea agreement language right answer, right question.
And if you look at the top of the final
NPA twenty two to third it appearing clause sixteen B
it appearing he has that down at the bottom, it says,
it refers to at the second up answer yes question
exactly he'd accepted a responsibility answer right question, and then
above in the fourth it appearing it references the fact
that it appearing Epstein has committed offenses against the United States.
Answer yes question okay, So there's a sense of acceptance
of responsibility in the final NPA, which is twenty two
in your right hand. Third it appearing clause says nothing
about Epstein committing offenses. It simply references the US Attorney's
Office and the FBI having conducted their own investigation into
Epstein's background and any offenses that may have been committed
by Epstein, including the enumerated statutes, and then following the
enumerated Federal statutes, there's no reference at all to Epstein
accepting responsibility. Do you view that the removal of that
acceptance or responsibility to be something that was appropriate? Answer? So,
trying to reconstruct the focus was and I know I'm
repeating my self, but jail time, registration, restitution, whether he
accepted responsibility for a federal or a state. I think
my focus would have been on these were the terms?
Does this encompass those terms? Question? So as the concession
is not something material as far as I don't want
to use the legal term material, but it wasn't important
to your objectives? Is that right? Answer? First, I'm not sure.
So it wasn't a concession from that those four bullets, right,
It was a concession from an earlier draft question right answer?
And to say it's not important to us again, there
was an early draft. It changed. The focus was in
any give and take draft change, the focus was did
he go to jail? Did he have to register? Did
he have restitution? Question? All? Right? Do you remember noticing
that change and thinking it doesn't matter answer. I don't
in all candor, until right now, I was not aware
of that change. I doubt I would have taken two
documents and sort of put them side by side, as
opposed to does this capture what we're trying to get to? Question?
And you're aware of the twenty four to eighteen because
you noticed it in the NPA or because somebody told
you separately or do you know? Answer? I can't say
other than I was aware question in the final MPa
on page five. There's a series of things that are
included at the bottom of that page, in that long paragraph,
and the one that I want to focus on is
the immunity portion that was certainly not in the original
draft proposed by the US Attorney's Office. In this paragraph,
the US agrees that it will not institute any criminal
charges against any potential co conspirators of Epstein, including but
not limited to or redacted. Did you notice that provision? Answer?
I don't recall focusing on the co conspirator provision. To
the extent that I reviewed this co conspirator provision, I
can speculate that my thinking would have been the focus
is on Epstein. Epstein's going to jail, Whether some of
the employees go to jail or other lesser involved. Is
not the focus of this question, all right. This particular provision,
as you know, has been enormously criticized. Answer enormous, yes,
question for a number of reasons, one of which is
that it is a blanket transactional immunity. It gives blanket
immunity to unnamed, unidentified potential co conspirators, people who, even
in the future, if evidence is developed against them, as
long as they could be considered co conspirators of Epstein
in this conduct, they'd have a get out of jail
free card. Do you have any idea where that came from? Answer?
I don't, and I don't want to characterize it as giving.
I understand how it could be read that way in
the record. I don't want to characterize it, but I
don't know where this could have come from. I would
have reviewed this for the policy concerns. Did it do
the sort of bullet point? And my assumption, rightly or wrongly,
would have been that redacted and redacted would have looked
at this and that this, while appropriate. I understand your point, question,
all right, and I believe the point you were referring
to is that when I use the term jail get
out of a jail free card, that you recognize this
is limited to your district. Answer, And that's an important point.
Question of course, answer or recognize, and right here and
there that kills Glenn Maxwell's argument. Folks, Remember she said
that this covered her everywhere. No, it doesn't, just in
the southern district of Florida, and that's already been determined
by the appellate courts as well, question of course. But nonetheless,
this does give blanket immunity to people. You have no
idea who they might be. Correct, If you had focused
on it, would that have raised some questions in your mind? Answer?
If there was a discussion like that we're having here,
then it very possibly could have been raised. It's difficult
to say it would have. But I understand your concern.
Question all right, And the named individuals redacted are all
individuals were described in the prosecution memo and so on.
And the prosecution memo does identify that at least one
of these women herself engage in sexual activity with a
minor with minor girls. Answer yeah, question, so that she
has liability in and of her own answer, So I
don't have an independent recollection of that. But when I
reviewed the prosecution memo, I did notice that. Question All right, now,
you have told us this morning that you have no
recollection of that actually having read the prosecution memo back
at the time. Answer, I think I said, I don't
have a recollection of whether I did or did not
read the prosecution memo. I have since when you provided it,
read it, and I note that it does reference her.
Question having read it now, does that change your view
of anything that we've talked about so far today? Answer?
So reading it twelve years later, knowing all of this, possibly,
and part of it is, I do think we approach
these cases differently, and I think these cases would play
out very differently in court today. I think it's very
difficult to sort of go back and recreate a thought
process from twelve years ago. Question, and if you were
relying back then on the characterization in summary and are
accounting of this case to you by your people, your
senior people redacted and in particular redacted, would you do
you do you have or did anyone in that ground,
including redacted LORI, in any way to your recollection characterize
the case as not serious or as trivial or involving
non important, unimportant victims in any way to try to
diminish either the conduct or the victims. Answer not to
my recollection. I do think there was a concern as
how the victims would present in court given impeachment and
given contradictory statements. But that's different than trivializing the case.
Question all right back to the immunity provision. Were you
aware that none of the four name co conspirators had cooperated? Answer?
I was not. Question And do you recall any other
case in which blanket immunity in the US Attorney's office,
in which blanket immunity really without virtually without limitation was granted.
Answer I don't recall discussion around this provision, and a
general matter, I did not discuss this in typical cases
that came that bubbled up to my level. The focus
was on who the prime you know, target is and
not on what we could do with the co conspirators.
And so I don't recall, But that doesn't mean it
didn't happen. That's just not typically something that I got
involved with. Question and likewise, non immunity being given to
non cooperating co conspirators or code defendants. Is that something
that was done in your office? Answer? Again, as a
typical matter, I did not get involved with these. But
let me let me also say that this wasn't a
federal prosecution in the first place, and so this whole
thing in suey generous to some extent. Question it is,
But the grant of a community is real, right answer.
I understand where you're coming from. Question all right, if
you had focused on that provision, would you have insisted
it come out? Answer? One question I would have had
is if we're naming as I sit here and sort
of focus as we are now, But this is with
the benefit of hindsight and criticism. If there are specific folks,
why do we have any potential language? Because that seems
quite broad question. It's without limitation as to people as
long as they are co conspirators. Right answer. But so
what is the need for that question? Okay? And I
would so if we had this kind of discussion, I
would be sending an email saying, what's the need for this?
What's up? Question? But to be clear, as we sit
here today, you have no recollection of having noticed that answer.
I don't have recollection of if I read over it.
My assumption would have been that redacted and redacted thought
this through and sort of addressed it for that reason. Question,
all right, and if and by did you have any
anyone ever come to you with the evidentiary issues and
say we need to track this down before we give
such blanket immunity. Answer, I don't recall any conversations around
co conspirators. All right, folks, we're going to wrap this
episode up right here, and then the next episode dealing
with the topic, we're going to pick up where we
left off. All of the information that goes with this
episode can be found in the description box.