Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And The OIG Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 13-15) (6/21/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And The OIG Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 13-15) (6/21/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
0:02
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
0:06
right where we left off with alex Acosta and his
0:09
interview with the OIG inspectors. Question, do you think she
0:13
misunderstood the priorities that she thought you wanted to get
0:17
a resolution and so the two years could be undercut
0:21
versus taking your words literally and saying this is the
0:24
line in the sand beyond which you should not go,
0:27
even if it means killing the resolution. Answer, So, if
0:31
I had to speculate, I don't think it was a
0:33
misunderstanding of priorities as opposed to opposing council was exhausting,
0:38
and if you go through the full record, it really
0:40
was an exhausting opposing council in this case was very
0:44
good at taking any slight millimeter and turning it into oh,
0:48
so you said we could do this, And in that
0:51
back and forth sometimes there is can't we just agree
0:55
in the middle question? And I understand what you're saying,
0:59
but weren't exhausting because the US Attorney's Office would not
1:02
say no to them, and so they always believe from
1:05
the get go because they have a two year minimum
1:08
that the office is willing to then say, oh, we
1:11
can go down from there, and that they could continually
1:14
chip away at you virtually every single term that came about.
1:18
So yeah, they were exhausting, But isn't that because the
1:21
US Attorney's office would not tell them no answer? So
1:25
I would push back because after the agreement was signed,
1:28
I would argue that they did not chip away. They
1:30
certainly kept appealing collaterally, and we can talk about that
1:34
because there were other concerns raised there. But once we
1:37
had that September meeting. Between the September meeting and the
1:41
signing of the deferment in favor of the state, that
1:43
was all negotiated by the trial team. That wasn't a
1:47
comeback to the US Attorney or come to the first assistant.
1:50
That really, to my recollection, was negotiate with the state
1:54
with the line question. Well, there were a number of
1:57
things that came about later on. I mean, they can
2:00
annually griped about the twenty two fifty five and that
2:03
got you know, that got modified answer later on. I
2:06
think later ons are different for some reason. We can
2:09
talk about now or later. But there was an attempt
2:12
to work this out later and that was clearly there.
2:15
But I think that's very different than how the agreement
2:18
was negotiated, and I think that's very different kind of timeline. Question.
2:23
So in your mind, was she prepared to walk away
2:27
from the deal? If need be? Answer after it was signed?
2:31
Question before it was signed, answer before it was signed.
2:34
It honestly was get a deal? Or ultimately, if we
2:37
have to indict, we indict. And that's what I said,
2:41
And look at it this way. After having said that,
2:43
if that really was a bluff, what would I look like, right,
2:46
I would look awful. And so for that reason, that
2:49
was not a bluff. That was a thought through. This
2:52
is what we will do, and if you don't agree
2:54
to this, then we indict. You can't make those kinds
2:58
of statements and not follow through. The office loses credibility
3:01
if you do question right, but you can keep giving
3:05
on certain terms. Answer And my point is we did
3:10
not give with the exception of that twenty four to eighteen,
3:13
we did not give question, Well, you also gave up
3:17
two charges. Answer again, I'm thinking of two years registration restitution.
3:23
And so with the exception of that twenty four to eighteen,
3:26
we didn't give question. I want to go back this morning.
3:30
We were talking about our tracks, and we talked about
3:33
the legal track and a little bit about the evidence track.
3:36
There's another aspect of the evidence track that is in
3:39
play here, because there was a substantial type of evidence,
3:42
and the question is to what extent were you aware
3:45
of this? In October of two thousand and five, the
3:48
local police executed a search warrant on Epstein's residence, and
3:51
among things that they found there were cables and cords
3:54
where there had been computers, computer equipment, video surveillance cameras
3:59
and CPUs. All of that that computer based stuff. It
4:02
had been removed forgetting why necessarily, if you look at
4:06
Exhibit twenty nine, were you aware of that by the
4:09
way that that had occurred. Answer? I was aware that
4:12
the state had gathered evidence, but not much more. Question
4:16
beyond that, Wait a minute, this is not the one
4:18
I'm looking for. Seventy three do you know what? Okay,
4:22
this is not the exhibit I'm looking for, and the
4:24
numbers are a little bit messed up. There's an email
4:28
which I may or may not be able to put
4:30
my hands on, in which redacted informs you that she
4:33
really wants to get her hands on important potential on
4:36
computer evidence and its important potential evidence, and she has
4:40
a plan to get it. So the question is whether
4:43
you knew at the time that there was the investigators
4:46
had identified this computer evidence as being out there and
4:49
what they believed it contained a potentially very significant evidence
4:53
against Epstein computers, surveillance cameras given the activity in his home. Answer,
5:01
he's not on it. Question all right. She did not
5:05
inform you. She informed someone else that we informed Slowman
5:08
and Menchel on July third, and Laurie, my apologies, you're
5:12
not on this where she advises them that she wants
5:17
we want to get the computer equipment that was removed
5:20
from Epstein's home prior to the state search warrant as
5:23
soon as possible. So there was this stuff out there,
5:27
and as of July there was an abiding, keen interest
5:30
in getting it, and the defense team was resisting the
5:33
prosecutor's efforts to get it. Were you aware of that
5:35
at all? Answer? I think you asked about that in
5:39
your questions to me. Question right, I did answer, I
5:43
have no recollection of this computer evidence. A question all right?
5:48
Answer did the question say, without getting into specifics, that
5:51
there was a grand jury issue around this question. It does.
5:56
It is addressed in the non prosecution agreement. If you
5:59
look at the fine prosecution agreement, it's referred to. The
6:04
question was whether you were aware that there was something
6:07
that the prosecutors wanted to get. Answer, I don't have
6:11
recollection of some computer evidence. Question are you aware that
6:16
redacted was instructed by our managers to delay our efforts
6:20
to get this computer evidence because the defense was resisting
6:23
those efforts and it became an issue, an issue that
6:26
was in play in the negotiation. Answer I have no
6:30
recollection of that question. Okay, Answer pending federal and so
6:35
your question said that there was litigation pending in federal
6:38
court relating to the US attorney's efforts to obtain computer evidence.
6:43
Question without going into further detail, Answer I have no
6:47
recollection of any litigation pending in federal court regarding that question.
6:52
All right, And did anyone suggest to you and your
6:54
team that or getting to a plead deal was premature
6:59
because you need to get this evidence first, so that
7:02
you knew whether you had potentially some very important evidence
7:05
against Epstein. Answer I have no recollection, and if anything,
7:10
I think there was a desire to move quickly as
7:12
opposed to slowly question on the plea answer yes, question
7:17
do you know where that energy came from? Who was
7:19
wanting to move quickly? Answer? As I recall, So for example,
7:24
when we were meeting or setting up the meeting in September,
7:27
there was a request to set it up in August
7:30
as opposed to September, and we had to push back
7:33
to September because of vacation or something. Question all right,
7:36
So in addition to not getting the computer evidence, the
7:39
government curtailed the investigation to a large extent. Despite finding
7:43
more victims, there were witnesses who were not interviewed, things
7:47
that were not searched, property that wasn't searched, target letters
7:50
not served. So these all would have been stages or
7:54
steps taken by the FBI to enhance the federal investigation.
7:58
Right as opposed to back to the state case that
8:02
this was sort of being returned to, was this were
8:06
you aware of all of those steps that were being
8:09
foregone or foreclosed? Answer? My assumption would have been, we
8:14
may have to go to trial, and so we could
8:16
continue to develop the basis for trial. So if I could,
8:20
for example, I think that Drew came down I said,
8:23
if we go to trial. Can you be on the
8:24
trial team? I cite that because I'm thinking we may
8:27
have to go to trial? Question right? Answer, why not
8:31
get Drew who's from Miami on the trial team. Question
8:35
so is it your understanding that the federal investigation, notwithstanding
8:39
the drafting of the NPA, was still continuing. Answer? You know.
8:45
My understanding is you run these on parallel tracks. And
8:48
again I'm sitting here inviting the head of CEOs to
8:51
be part of the trial team and talking about how
8:54
to formulate the trial team. Question okay. Answer that implies
8:58
that I was clearly thinking we might go to trial.
9:02
Question all right, when you first received the draft of
9:04
the non prosecution agreement, and this is sixteen A, it's
9:08
a draft by redacted? Do you know who came up
9:11
with what? It sounds like you didn't, but who came
9:13
up with the name or the Moniker non prosecution Agreement? Answer?
9:17
I do not. Question do you know what this was
9:21
modeled on, if anything, where the genesis was Answer I
9:25
do not. I noticed from the contemporaneous emails that initially
9:29
it was done differently, and I think it was redacted
9:32
LORI who said write it as a contract or. I
9:35
think there is an email to that effect. Someone may
9:38
recall it better than I. Question this version of September tenth,
9:43
which is the first business day after that September seventh
9:46
meeting from redacted, and redacted goes to her management up
9:50
through you, and you do a rewrite almost right away,
9:53
adding original state charges, which at that point we're all
9:56
still in play. And you also added this is exact
10:00
Dihibit sixteen B A statement that it would be Epstein's
10:03
job to move the state to add additional charges, and
10:06
that latter piece is on page three, just below paragraph eight. Answer,
10:11
So can I back up a second question? Sure? Answer?
10:14
When you say I did a rewrite, is there some
10:16
indication of what I did or rewrite of question? Yes?
10:20
If you compare the two, there are things that are
10:23
bracketed in yellow and Exhibit sixteen B which represent the
10:27
changes from sixteen A answer right, question, Okay, So those
10:32
are the two things that are different, and they're referenced
10:35
in your message at the beginning. We bracketed them just
10:39
to make it easier for you to recognize that. So
10:42
my point is that right from the beginning, you are
10:45
participating in the process, in the drafting process. Answer, So,
10:49
I would characterize that as not participating in the drafting process,
10:53
but approving a draft. There is a slight difference. Answer yeah,
10:58
and so something comes. Here's how I would distinguish someone
11:03
that's participating in the drafting process is sitting at the
11:05
table with two or three people drafting it as they go. First.
11:09
Is something that goes through the management chain, and someone
11:12
in the supervisory chain says, can you change a beer
11:15
or c question? All right? Answer I clearly you know
11:20
here and in other places it looks like I'm inserting
11:24
the same themes, which is deferring to the state. Let's mention,
11:28
the state charges and we can't force the state to
11:30
do anything, And so I'm adding to this. I'm clearly
11:33
aware of it and approving it. But I wouldn't say
11:37
that I was drafting. Question fair enough? Did you read it? Answer?
11:41
I would assume that I read it, or else I
11:42
wouldn't have edited it. All right, So we're gonna wrap
11:45
this episode up right here, and in the next episode,
11:48
we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of
11:51
the information that goes with this episode can be found
11:54
in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to
11:57
another episode of the Epstein Chronicle. In this episode, we're
12:01
going to dive right back in and pick up where
12:04
we left off with alex Acosta's interview with the OIG inspectors. Question.
12:10
All right, so we have a draft from redacted, a
12:12
working draft on September tenth, with a small rewrite from you.
12:16
There is an Exhibit seventeen series indication that of the
12:21
kind of activity that redacted was going through to come
12:24
up with the federal plea. But eventually she and the
12:26
defense attorney who is most actively working on this, Jay Lefkowitz,
12:31
turned back to the NPA, and if you look at
12:33
seventeen D, just to make the sort of staffing clear,
12:36
you know, of course redacted as left redacted is going
12:39
on vacation as of September fifteenth, and so redacted Lorie
12:43
has helped finalize. So the finalizing of the NPA, the
12:47
final version of which is in Exhibit twenty two, falls
12:50
to redacted with redacted right answer yes, question okay, And
12:55
redacted puts you on notice in eighteen B. In that
12:59
processes this email in eighteen B is sort of a
13:03
follow on to eighteen A. Do you see it comes
13:06
one minute after your email in eighteen A. It's a
13:09
response from her to you only, in which she makes
13:12
note that the defense tried to reopen all the loopholes
13:15
that I had sown shut. Answer yes, question, so it's
13:18
fair to say that you're kind of you're on notice
13:22
that they're being difficult. Answer that's fair question, okay, in
13:27
the course of that being difficult. Nineteen A is an
13:29
email to you from redacted on September eighteenth, in which
13:33
he represents that or explains that the defense is that
13:37
things are kind of falling apart with the negotiations, and
13:40
she fears the deal is going to fall apart completely.
13:44
Mister Todd, should we take a quick break here? You're
13:47
losing your voice? Redacted. I'm fine, mister Todd. You could
13:50
probably use a minute. Redact it all right, We'll take
13:52
a break. They come back from their break, and the
13:56
questions are back on question. Back on the rect Looking
14:01
at Exhibit nineteen C, you say you write to redacted
14:04
regarding whether you're available to at the time when she's
14:07
going to be hashing out language. You advise her that
14:10
I don't think I should be part of negotiations. I'd
14:14
rather leave that to you. If that's Okay, answer yes.
14:18
Question why did you say that to her? Answer because
14:21
she was the line lawyer involved, and I thought, I
14:24
think it's important for US attorneys to absent truly exceptional
14:28
circumstances to not get involved in those sort of negotiations.
14:32
You can meet like I did in September, reaffirm the
14:35
position of the office back your AUSA, but ultimately, I
14:39
think your trial lawyer needs discretion to do their job.
14:43
Question At this point of course, we know redacted is
14:46
on vacation and you were aware, were you not? That
14:49
redacted LORI was about to DeCamp for Washington. In other words,
14:54
he left at the end of September to become the
14:56
chief of staff and principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for
15:01
who headed the Criminal Division. Okay, so it was really
15:04
just the two of them at this point and with
15:06
nobody apparently involved between them, And you answer so fair.
15:12
But when you say just the two of them, redacted
15:15
is an incredibly experienced lawyer. So to say just the
15:18
two of them is not the take not should not
15:21
imply that there was experience on the table. Question. I
15:26
certainly in no way intended to suggest that answer fair
15:29
enough question looking at nineteen d in which Redacted is
15:34
on page two looking at the latest draft from redacted
15:37
meaning redacted, and this is in the throes of negotiating
15:42
the NPA. Redacted is essentially telling you that he agrees
15:46
with Redacted's observations that the Defense are just up to
15:50
all kinds of nonsense in the deal and constantly changing
15:53
their terms and just not apparently negotiating or dealing with
15:57
these warring drafts with the drafting process in good faith. Again,
16:01
that's my characterization, but Redacted says that to you in
16:05
this email. I suggest we simply tell him Redacted that
16:09
his counter offer is rejected and that we intend to
16:12
move forward with our case. Right. And then your response
16:16
is interesting. You say to them, why don't we just
16:19
why don't we just call them? Tell them one, you
16:23
agree and then change things. Answer you, being redacted agrees
16:27
and changes things. Question correct. Tell him you agree, meaning
16:32
redacted agree. Answer no, question I see. Tell him she
16:38
gets cut off or he gets cut off by Acosta.
16:41
Tell him you, Redacted agree and you change things. Question
16:45
I see. Answer that is not acceptable to us and
16:49
is in bad faith. Stop it, or we'll just indict
16:52
and then try to work it out. Question, So is
16:56
the try to work it out? If the numbers one
16:58
and two are what you should tell what redacted should
17:01
tell redacted? Is number three something redacted should tell redacted?
17:05
Or what you're telling redacted? Try to work it out? Answer,
17:09
it's what I'm talking and telling. Question Okay, so just
17:13
to be clear, you say tell them, meaning you redacted
17:15
tell Jay number one and number two. But number three
17:19
is then what you're instructing redacted to do? I'm just
17:22
trying to understand. Answer yes, So my understanding of this
17:27
is there being difficult. Hey, this isn't the first time
17:30
that an attorney agrees to something and then goes back
17:33
and tries to pull a fast one. So tell them
17:35
you're onto this that they need to stop it or
17:38
will indict. But then what we'll try, you know, redacted
17:42
should try to work it out. Question Okay, answer, but
17:46
they need to stop this tactic. Question did you really
17:49
think that was going to be effective with this defense? Answer?
17:53
I don't know. You know, I think one of the
17:55
hard things with this is if it was right on
17:58
September sixth, it remains right, irrespective of really I think
18:02
I say, sorry, I know it's a pain, this negotiation
18:06
was a pain, But if it was the right position,
18:08
the fact that you've got annoying counsel on the other
18:11
side doesn't make it any less of a right position.
18:14
You tell them to stop being annoying, You try to
18:16
work it out, and if not, then you indict. Question
18:20
is that is that consistent with your sort of view
18:22
of doing business, being even and working it out? Answer? Yeah,
18:26
that's our position. It's not a bluff. It's what we want.
18:30
You work it out. People yell and scream on the
18:32
other side, you work it out. If not with them,
18:34
then we indict. Question what would have been the tipping
18:37
point for you? What would have caused you to say, Okay,
18:40
I agree with you redacted, I agree with you. Let's
18:42
indict answer. So it's really difficult to speculate, but I
18:46
think the tipping point would have been a failure to
18:48
reach it was pretty clear jail time registration restitution. Once
18:53
we move from twenty four to eighteen months. That was
18:56
a give and take. But ultimately, if they came back
18:59
and said we can agree to these terms, then we indict. Question.
19:02
All right, question, it seemed like your troops were telling
19:06
you we've reached the end of our rope. We really
19:08
just want to go forward and indict answer right question,
19:12
and you are coming back with tell them again that
19:15
the defense is being difficult, but I want you to
19:17
work it out. Does that tell your troops basically, that's
19:21
where your priority is. You want them to go out
19:23
get this resolution. And if they have to give up stuff,
19:26
it's okay, it's really okay, but you want this resolution answer,
19:31
So it's not if you have to give up stuff.
19:33
I'm not telling them to give up stuff. I'm not
19:35
telling them to negotiate things away. But I think the dynamic,
19:39
from my perspective, is incredibly So there's a tactic that
19:43
council sometimes take where they negotiate and when they try
19:47
to come back and renegotiate, and that is, to my thinking,
19:50
one of the most annoying tactics that you can have,
19:54
and it creates a lot of frustration. And what I'm
19:56
trying to say is, look, they might be frustrating folks,
19:59
but if this had been worked out. Looking at this,
20:03
we thought we had an agreement, and then they change things.
20:06
And I'm saying, look, if you thought you had an agreement,
20:09
tell them you had an agreement. Don't let them change things.
20:12
I understand it's frustrating to you, but if it was
20:16
right two weeks ago, the fact that they're frustrating attorneys
20:18
doesn't change the underlying legal analysis. The attorney's behavior doesn't
20:23
inform the rightness or wrongness of a certain disposition to
20:27
a point question. What's the point answer? So I think
20:32
after and now I'm calling it an NPA, I was
20:35
personally very frustrated with the failure to report on October twentieth,
20:40
and I had envisioned that entire collateral attack, I think
20:43
I would have looked at this very differently. Question in
20:46
what respect answer to the extent that this was going
20:50
back to, for example, the public corruption prosecution that we had.
20:55
One of the values of it was to have public
20:57
figures stand up and say I did this and plead.
21:00
One of the values was, you know, avoiding a long
21:03
and messy legal process. And so when you put all
21:06
of that together, you know, this is why I say
21:09
it's not quite This was the factor that we'd consider
21:12
that it's all of this put together and in something
21:15
that could have been very positive for the victims and
21:18
for sending a signal. As it dragged on became exhausting,
21:21
and negative for the victims. It put us in a
21:24
position of what do we do with notification? It put
21:28
us in a position of a lot of appeals to Washington.
21:31
It put us in the position of having to deal
21:33
with complicated legal issues that actually got more messy in
21:37
terms of how a federal twenty two fifty five relate
21:40
to a state charge. And had all of that been known,
21:43
I do think this would have proceeded differently. Question differently
21:48
in what way? Answer? So if I had factored all
21:52
of that, Like, I can't predict it what I would
21:54
have done, but I think if I had known all
21:56
of that, this could have proceeded very differently. I was
22:00
very frustrated with the October to June time period. Question So,
22:04
if you had been back in the timeframe in early
22:06
September looking at this with I don't know what Harry
22:11
Potter character is it, but whoever can see in the
22:14
future and anticipated or foresaw what would happen, would you
22:17
have simply said, look, we're not going to go the
22:20
state route, We'll go to the federal route. Answer quite possibly.
22:24
Question all right, answer, and let me sort of say
22:27
we'll probably get into it. But at some point I
22:30
do think the post versus the pre signature time period
22:33
was different for any number of reasons, and we'll probably
22:36
want to talk about that question, all right, we will,
22:40
But now I'd like to turn to some of the
22:42
terms of the NPA because you did make Let me
22:45
make sure that this is correct. Somebody pipes in you
22:50
skip this one question? Oh yeah, before that, thank you.
22:53
My colleague reminds me, nineteen e is an exhibit that
22:57
has an exchange between you and redacted life worry about
23:00
at the time when the Plea Agreement, the Federal Plea
23:03
Agreement was still in play, and the issue is whether
23:06
you should sign it, and you didn't want to because
23:08
you never do. But you say at the bottom, we
23:10
should only go forward if the trial team supports and
23:13
signs this agreement. What did you mean by that? The
23:18
first part of that answer. So what I meant by
23:21
that was I got something that is the document was unusual.
23:25
So my signature appearing on this document is not in
23:28
and of itself unusual. Question and this would have been
23:32
the Plea Agreement, not the Federal Plea Agreement not or
23:35
was I thinking about the NPA? Answer? This was about
23:38
the NPA question? Okay, answer right, and so the NPA
23:44
had my signature. Now, the NPA is almost too generous,
23:48
so that in and of itself is not indicative of something,
23:51
but it does raise my concern. Is this something that
23:55
ultimately the trial team does not feel comfortable with? And
23:58
if it's something they don't feel comfortable with, then they
24:02
should speak up and let me know, because we shouldn't
24:04
go forward with it. Question and did you ever have
24:07
a conversation or a discussion about that issue other than
24:10
mentioning it? Answer no, not to my recollection, I would
24:14
assume based on this that Redacted would read it and
24:18
would take my word for it and say, look, if
24:21
you think you're going in the wrong direction, Alex, you
24:23
know I think you're going in the wrong direction, or
24:25
I'm uncomfortable with it. Question did you ever have a
24:28
direct conversation with redacted about wanting her to sign the
24:32
agreement as opposed to yourself? Answer? I did not. This
24:36
was my first communication with redacted, and I really meant
24:39
that if at the end of the day my team
24:41
is uncomfortable, then you shouldn't go forward. Question you never
24:45
recall hearing from redacted that she was not comfortable moving
24:48
forward with the plea agreement question the NPA answer, I
24:52
did not hear. I don't recall hearing from redacted that
24:55
she was not comfortable. I know that at various points
24:58
she became frustrated. At various points she became frustrated. But
25:03
they were negotiating this. If at some point they did
25:06
not they thought that this was a mistake or wrong
25:09
or unjust, I would think that they would have told me, question,
25:12
what would if you have done? Answer? Sit down and
25:15
really have a serious conversation about where this is going,
25:19
and sit down and hear them out again, even at
25:21
this late phase, I would I would think that that's
25:25
what I would have done. All right, folks, we're going
25:27
to wrap up right here, and in the next episode,
25:30
we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of
25:32
the information that goes with this episode can be found
25:35
in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to
25:39
another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're
25:43
going to pick up where we left off with the
25:45
alex Acosta interview with the OIG inspectors question. All right,
25:49
let's turn to the NPA. What is it Exhibit twenty two?
25:53
Did you read it? We know that you made some
25:56
final tweaks to it. Answer, And so I would again,
25:59
I don't have independent recollection of reading it. I would
26:02
not have made tweaks to it without reading it. Question okay, answer,
26:06
and so I think you can infer that I read it.
26:09
Question all right. And let me say you were a
26:12
clerk to an appellate, a very eminent appellate judge, and
26:16
you did appellate work yourself. So you were somebody who's
26:20
an appellate lawyer who has the experience at a high level.
26:23
It's often more sensitive to words and phrasings and to
26:26
documents contents than might be again to characterize a little
26:31
bit but more of a shoot from the hit trial
26:34
attorney who spends his days, you know, in a rough
26:37
and tumble court room. And it's fair to say that
26:39
you were more of the former here. They get cut
26:43
off here by Acosta. So I would push back. I
26:46
think that's not respecting the talent of the trial lawyer,
26:48
and particularly on these types of agreements or documents. These
26:52
are folks that sort of have expertise, because even if
26:55
this was sui generis, they have seen a lot of
26:59
this question. I'm not suggesting that redacted and redacted LORI
27:05
were not up to this answer right question, because certainly
27:10
she also had a lot of appellate experience. I'm simply
27:13
noting that this seems to be sort of in your
27:16
wheelhouse answer. Look, I apologize whether I'm not sure what
27:22
is in my willelhouse means, you know, I appear to
27:24
have read this. I suggested some medits. As I would
27:27
have approached this document, my assumption would have been, I'm
27:30
looking at it from my earlier concerns that the policy
27:33
level concerns, does it capture what we're deferring to the state,
27:38
going back to put this in the petit policy versus not,
27:41
does it capture the policy concerns of appropriately understanding that
27:45
we can't force the state to do something, And does
27:48
it capture the essential elements of the terms that we
27:52
had looked for, you know, the imprisonment, registration and restitution question.
27:57
All right. So one of the things that is a
28:00
little striking that's different from the original draft NPA, even
28:04
as amended by you. So let's pull out sixteen B,
28:08
is that what I would call the non admission of guilty.
28:11
So the first page of sixteen B, the first paragraph,
28:15
that's the first clause after the one through five statutes
28:18
listing in sixteen B reads it appearing that Epstein has
28:22
accepted a responsibility for his behavior by his signature on
28:26
this agreement. Answer I'm sorry you're on sixteen B question
28:31
sixteen B answer okay, It appearing yes question okay. So
28:37
this is not, I mean, this is not to be
28:39
fairly typical sort of plea agreement language right answer, right question.
28:44
And if you look at the top of the final
28:46
NPA twenty two to third it appearing clause sixteen B
28:51
it appearing he has that down at the bottom, it says,
28:54
it refers to at the second up answer yes question
29:00
exactly he'd accepted a responsibility answer right question, and then
29:04
above in the fourth it appearing it references the fact
29:08
that it appearing Epstein has committed offenses against the United States.
29:13
Answer yes question okay, So there's a sense of acceptance
29:17
of responsibility in the final NPA, which is twenty two
29:21
in your right hand. Third it appearing clause says nothing
29:25
about Epstein committing offenses. It simply references the US Attorney's
29:29
Office and the FBI having conducted their own investigation into
29:33
Epstein's background and any offenses that may have been committed
29:37
by Epstein, including the enumerated statutes, and then following the
29:42
enumerated Federal statutes, there's no reference at all to Epstein
29:45
accepting responsibility. Do you view that the removal of that
29:50
acceptance or responsibility to be something that was appropriate? Answer? So,
29:55
trying to reconstruct the focus was and I know I'm
29:59
repeating my self, but jail time, registration, restitution, whether he
30:05
accepted responsibility for a federal or a state. I think
30:08
my focus would have been on these were the terms?
30:11
Does this encompass those terms? Question? So as the concession
30:15
is not something material as far as I don't want
30:18
to use the legal term material, but it wasn't important
30:21
to your objectives? Is that right? Answer? First, I'm not sure.
30:25
So it wasn't a concession from that those four bullets, right,
30:29
It was a concession from an earlier draft question right answer?
30:33
And to say it's not important to us again, there
30:36
was an early draft. It changed. The focus was in
30:39
any give and take draft change, the focus was did
30:42
he go to jail? Did he have to register? Did
30:45
he have restitution? Question? All? Right? Do you remember noticing
30:50
that change and thinking it doesn't matter answer. I don't
30:54
in all candor, until right now, I was not aware
30:57
of that change. I doubt I would have taken two
30:59
documents and sort of put them side by side, as
31:02
opposed to does this capture what we're trying to get to? Question?
31:05
And you're aware of the twenty four to eighteen because
31:08
you noticed it in the NPA or because somebody told
31:11
you separately or do you know? Answer? I can't say
31:16
other than I was aware question in the final MPa
31:19
on page five. There's a series of things that are
31:22
included at the bottom of that page, in that long paragraph,
31:26
and the one that I want to focus on is
31:28
the immunity portion that was certainly not in the original
31:32
draft proposed by the US Attorney's Office. In this paragraph,
31:36
the US agrees that it will not institute any criminal
31:39
charges against any potential co conspirators of Epstein, including but
31:43
not limited to or redacted. Did you notice that provision? Answer?
31:47
I don't recall focusing on the co conspirator provision. To
31:51
the extent that I reviewed this co conspirator provision, I
31:53
can speculate that my thinking would have been the focus
31:57
is on Epstein. Epstein's going to jail, Whether some of
32:00
the employees go to jail or other lesser involved. Is
32:03
not the focus of this question, all right. This particular provision,
32:08
as you know, has been enormously criticized. Answer enormous, yes,
32:13
question for a number of reasons, one of which is
32:16
that it is a blanket transactional immunity. It gives blanket
32:19
immunity to unnamed, unidentified potential co conspirators, people who, even
32:25
in the future, if evidence is developed against them, as
32:28
long as they could be considered co conspirators of Epstein
32:31
in this conduct, they'd have a get out of jail
32:33
free card. Do you have any idea where that came from? Answer?
32:37
I don't, and I don't want to characterize it as giving.
32:40
I understand how it could be read that way in
32:42
the record. I don't want to characterize it, but I
32:45
don't know where this could have come from. I would
32:48
have reviewed this for the policy concerns. Did it do
32:52
the sort of bullet point? And my assumption, rightly or wrongly,
32:55
would have been that redacted and redacted would have looked
32:58
at this and that this, while appropriate. I understand your point, question,
33:03
all right, and I believe the point you were referring
33:06
to is that when I use the term jail get
33:08
out of a jail free card, that you recognize this
33:11
is limited to your district. Answer, And that's an important point.
33:15
Question of course, answer or recognize, and right here and
33:19
there that kills Glenn Maxwell's argument. Folks, Remember she said
33:23
that this covered her everywhere. No, it doesn't, just in
33:26
the southern district of Florida, and that's already been determined
33:30
by the appellate courts as well, question of course. But nonetheless,
33:35
this does give blanket immunity to people. You have no
33:38
idea who they might be. Correct, If you had focused
33:41
on it, would that have raised some questions in your mind? Answer?
33:46
If there was a discussion like that we're having here,
33:49
then it very possibly could have been raised. It's difficult
33:52
to say it would have. But I understand your concern.
33:55
Question all right, And the named individuals redacted are all
33:59
individuals were described in the prosecution memo and so on.
34:03
And the prosecution memo does identify that at least one
34:07
of these women herself engage in sexual activity with a
34:10
minor with minor girls. Answer yeah, question, so that she
34:15
has liability in and of her own answer, So I
34:19
don't have an independent recollection of that. But when I
34:21
reviewed the prosecution memo, I did notice that. Question All right, now,
34:26
you have told us this morning that you have no
34:28
recollection of that actually having read the prosecution memo back
34:32
at the time. Answer, I think I said, I don't
34:34
have a recollection of whether I did or did not
34:37
read the prosecution memo. I have since when you provided it,
34:41
read it, and I note that it does reference her.
34:44
Question having read it now, does that change your view
34:47
of anything that we've talked about so far today? Answer?
34:51
So reading it twelve years later, knowing all of this, possibly,
34:54
and part of it is, I do think we approach
34:56
these cases differently, and I think these cases would play
35:00
out very differently in court today. I think it's very
35:03
difficult to sort of go back and recreate a thought
35:05
process from twelve years ago. Question, and if you were
35:09
relying back then on the characterization in summary and are
35:13
accounting of this case to you by your people, your
35:16
senior people redacted and in particular redacted, would you do
35:20
you do you have or did anyone in that ground,
35:22
including redacted LORI, in any way to your recollection characterize
35:27
the case as not serious or as trivial or involving
35:31
non important, unimportant victims in any way to try to
35:35
diminish either the conduct or the victims. Answer not to
35:39
my recollection. I do think there was a concern as
35:42
how the victims would present in court given impeachment and
35:45
given contradictory statements. But that's different than trivializing the case.
35:50
Question all right back to the immunity provision. Were you
35:53
aware that none of the four name co conspirators had cooperated? Answer?
35:57
I was not. Question And do you recall any other
36:01
case in which blanket immunity in the US Attorney's office,
36:05
in which blanket immunity really without virtually without limitation was granted.
36:10
Answer I don't recall discussion around this provision, and a
36:14
general matter, I did not discuss this in typical cases
36:17
that came that bubbled up to my level. The focus
36:21
was on who the prime you know, target is and
36:24
not on what we could do with the co conspirators.
36:27
And so I don't recall, But that doesn't mean it
36:29
didn't happen. That's just not typically something that I got
36:32
involved with. Question and likewise, non immunity being given to
36:36
non cooperating co conspirators or code defendants. Is that something
36:40
that was done in your office? Answer? Again, as a
36:45
typical matter, I did not get involved with these. But
36:48
let me let me also say that this wasn't a
36:50
federal prosecution in the first place, and so this whole
36:53
thing in suey generous to some extent. Question it is,
36:58
But the grant of a community is real, right answer.
37:02
I understand where you're coming from. Question all right, if
37:05
you had focused on that provision, would you have insisted
37:09
it come out? Answer? One question I would have had
37:12
is if we're naming as I sit here and sort
37:14
of focus as we are now, But this is with
37:17
the benefit of hindsight and criticism. If there are specific folks,
37:21
why do we have any potential language? Because that seems
37:24
quite broad question. It's without limitation as to people as
37:29
long as they are co conspirators. Right answer. But so
37:33
what is the need for that question? Okay? And I
37:37
would so if we had this kind of discussion, I
37:40
would be sending an email saying, what's the need for this?
37:43
What's up? Question? But to be clear, as we sit
37:46
here today, you have no recollection of having noticed that answer.
37:50
I don't have recollection of if I read over it.
37:53
My assumption would have been that redacted and redacted thought
37:56
this through and sort of addressed it for that reason. Question,
38:00
all right, and if and by did you have any
38:05
anyone ever come to you with the evidentiary issues and
38:07
say we need to track this down before we give
38:10
such blanket immunity. Answer, I don't recall any conversations around
38:15
co conspirators. All right, folks, we're going to wrap this
38:18
episode up right here, and then the next episode dealing
38:20
with the topic, we're going to pick up where we
38:23
left off. All of the information that goes with this
38:26
episode can be found in the description box.