Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 1-4) (6/20/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 1-4) (6/20/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
0:03
Epstein Chronicles. Ever since we first got the OIG report
0:07
detailing their investigation into not only Jeffrey Epstein's death, but
0:12
into the non prosecution agreement, I have been very, very
0:16
interested in seeing the interview that was conducted with alex
0:20
Acosta that was administered by the Inspector General's Office, And
0:24
after exhaustively searching through the new unsealed files, I was
0:28
able to put together this whole entire interview, all three
0:32
hundred pages, and obviously we're going to get it added
0:34
to the catalog and then you can listen to this
0:36
interview and then go back to the deposition that alex
0:40
Acosta gave to Congress recently and see how it all
0:43
lines up. So with that said, let's dive in examination
0:48
by misredacted question, So would you tell us your name?
0:52
Please answer Renee Alexander Acosta. Question and mister Acosta, you're
0:58
accompanied by your attorney, Gordon Todt. Is that correct answer? Yes?
1:01
It is? Question and mister Todd would you identify the
1:05
associate you have with you? Yes? TJ. Hauran misredacted h
1:11
E r RN. Mister Heran correct misredacted. Thank you, mister Acosta.
1:18
I'm redacted. I'm a council with the Office of Professional
1:21
Responsibility here at the Department of Justice, and with me
1:24
are my fellow OPR council redacted, redacted and redacted. And
1:30
we are in a conference room at the Department of
1:32
Justice main building on today, October eighteenth, twenty nineteen, and
1:36
we're starting at about nine thirty in the morning. Before
1:39
we start, I just want to put on the record
1:42
that mister redacted worked in the Civil Rights Division at
1:45
the time that you were the AAG heading that division,
1:49
and I believe had an occasion to briefly meet you
1:52
in connection with the matter the witness. Could I ask
1:55
what section, mister redacted, I was in the special litigation section? Oh, okay,
2:01
mister adacted, And I provided mister Acosta some talking points
2:05
for a press situation that we had in that case.
2:09
The witness one four one four to one, mister adacted, Yes,
2:14
the witness probably by misredacted question. All right, thank you,
2:18
mister Acosta. OPR is investigating two things, as you know. One,
2:23
whether one or more federal prosecutors in the Southern District
2:26
of Florida, US Attorney's office may have committed professional misconduct
2:31
by entering into the non Prosecution Agreement or MPa in
2:34
two thousand and seven with Jeffrey Epstein, who at the
2:37
time was under investigation by that office and the FBI
2:41
for engaging in widespread sexual misconduct involving underage females. The
2:46
second thing we're investigating is Judge Mara's finding in February
2:50
of this year, twenty nineteen, that the government may have
2:53
violated or actually found the government did violate the CVRA
2:58
or Crime's Victims Rights Act when it entered into the
3:01
NPA without first providing the victims with notice and a
3:05
reasonable right to confer with the government. You are subject
3:08
of the OPR investigation, that is, one of somebody whose
3:12
conduct is being reviewed and evaluated by OPR, and specifically,
3:16
as US attorney at the time for the Southern District
3:19
of Florida, you had the ultimate authority over the Epstein
3:23
for a period of two and a half years, as
3:25
we understand it, from the time the line Ausa Redacted
3:30
first brief you and then Criminal Chief Redacted in July
3:33
of two thousand and six, and until you were formally
3:35
recused from the case on or about the eighth of
3:38
December two thousand and eight, after notifying the Executive Office
3:42
of the US Attorneys that you are seeking employment with
3:45
Kirkland and Ellis, a firm of which two attorneys, Ken
3:49
Starr and Jay Lefkowitz had been representing Jeffrey Epstein. Is
3:53
that correct? Answer? We may we may get into it
3:57
a little bit later, but I think the character is
3:59
ation of my seeking employment is not accurate. We can
4:02
talk about that a little bit later. Question all right,
4:05
we have the documents that relate to that, So that's
4:08
what we're basing that on. Answer correct, question. And I
4:12
believe the term that I used is seeking employment. Answer.
4:16
That is the term used in the email. I think
4:18
I address that, and I believe mister Todd addressed that
4:22
in the letter that was sent. Question all right, thank you.
4:26
So we recognize that you're no longer with the Department
4:28
of Justice. Answer right, question, and that it's your choice
4:32
to come and talk to us, and that we very
4:34
much appreciate your willingness to voluntarily do so and help
4:38
figure this case out. OPR provided you with a few
4:41
thousand pages of records, emails and correspondence and some other
4:45
documents that reflect your involvement in the Epstein matter over
4:49
that two and a half year period. Now that you've
4:51
had a chance to review, I hope those emails and
4:54
other documents, we hope that you can be specific in
4:57
helping us understand what happened. Have you in fact been
5:01
able to review those documents? Answer? Yes, I have question.
5:05
Thank you. O PR asked you for a written response
5:08
to certain questions, and we've reviewed and received a written
5:12
response prepared and submitted not by you, but by your attorney,
5:16
mister Todd on your behalf. Have you reviewed his response? Answer? Yes?
5:21
Question yeut? You answer? Yes, I have question? And will
5:26
you now under oath subscribe to that response as if
5:29
you had submitted it yourself. Answer? So, mister Todd spoke
5:33
to me and conveyed the investigation that I provide him.
5:36
I believe he conveyed that the information accurately, and the
5:39
statements that he ascribes to me in that letter, I
5:42
believe or accurate. Question all right, do you have any
5:46
changes or corrections to the written response? Answer? No, I don't.
5:50
Question is there anything in it that you do not
5:53
agree with? Answer? Again, I think that the statement that
5:56
he ascribes to me are accurate, and I agree with them.
6:00
Question all right, so we're going to accept that statement
6:02
as representing accurately your What would you have responded if
6:07
you had responded to us directly? Is that correct? Answer? Yes,
6:12
the statements he basically gives me positions, and I believe
6:15
that he gave my positions accurately. Question perfect, Thank you. So,
6:20
as we ask questions and refer to documents, we would
6:23
like you to correct any misstatements in our questions or
6:27
any misstatements or errors that are in the documents themselves,
6:31
because we want to make the entire record correct. Also,
6:35
there's been an enormous amount of publicity about the Epstein case,
6:38
particularly this year, including about the events and decisions made
6:42
back in two thousand and six to twenty ten that
6:46
are the subject of our investigation, and so as best
6:49
you can, we ask you to try to answer today
6:52
from your knowledge, understanding, and recollections as of that time period. However,
6:57
to the extent you are asked or do speak retro actively.
7:00
Retrospectively will just make it clear that that's what you're doing.
7:06
Answer all right, question, okay, answer, And if I could
7:09
just say, one of the difficulties is with everything that,
7:12
all the publicity and all the documents that have made
7:15
it to the press, and in litigation, distinguishing between recollection
7:19
versus the fact. Question right, Acosta interjects speculation, and I
7:25
will try, but I would appreciate reminders along the way,
7:28
because it's an important distinction. But it's kind of hard sometimes.
7:33
Question we recognize, particularly the importance of it. Answer right,
7:38
question that that's precisely the heart of the matter. So,
7:43
mister Acosta, your professional background is a matter of public record.
7:47
I have a couple of questions. By what state bar
7:50
are you currently licensed? Answer, so, I'm an active I
7:54
believe in active in Pennsylvania and also in DC. Question
7:58
all right, and not in Florida. Answer not in Florida. Question,
8:02
so is it do I understand that you are not
8:05
currently an active member of any bar? Answer? I would
8:08
have to confirm with DC. I said not inactive in
8:10
Pennsylvania and in DC, because I'm not certain whether I'm
8:14
currently active or inactive. In DC, I'm not currently practicing,
8:18
and so I would have renewed under either active or inactive.
8:22
Question all right, answer, we can verify that and get
8:25
that question. We would appreciate that if mister Todd, could
8:28
let us know your current status. I would also like
8:31
to know the status your bar status in the period
8:34
of two thousand and six through two thousand and eight.
8:36
Do you know what that was? Answer? Most likely, I
8:39
can speculate. I don't know for a fact. Most likely
8:42
it was active in DC. Question uh huh answer and
8:46
an active in Pennsylvania. Question okay, but likely active somewhere right? Answer, yes, yes,
8:52
I think that's a requirement answer, so it would be DC.
8:56
The distinction between active and an active in DC is
8:59
more as I recall, then Pennsylvania, where there's a large
9:03
fee difference. Question All right, thank you, and we look
9:06
forward to hearing confirmation of that from you, mister Todd. So,
9:10
after serving nearly two years as the Assistant Attorney General
9:13
in charge of the Department's Civil Rights Division, you were
9:16
presidentially appointed the interim US Attorney for the Southern District
9:20
of Florida in June of two thousand and five, and then,
9:23
as we understand it, you were formally nominated as US
9:26
Attorney in June of two thousand and six, and after
9:29
being confirmed by the United States Senate, you were sworn
9:32
in by the US Attorney as US Attorney in late
9:36
October two thousand and six. Answer. I think that may
9:39
be inaccurate. I would have to confirm when you say
9:42
presidentially appointed. I believe it may have been appointed by
9:45
the Chief Judge at the request of the Attorney General.
9:48
The Chief Judge has appointing authority. Question okay, answer, and
9:53
you'd have to go back and confirm whether it was
9:56
either an ag designation or the Chief Judge. Answer, all right,
10:01
question and I understand. And again I would appreciate if
10:04
you could follow up on that question, mister Todd. Answer.
10:09
I'm not certain how to confirm that that's something that
10:11
in all candor the department would know. Question all right,
10:16
then we will pursue it. My point is that there
10:18
was a change in your status from an interim to you,
10:22
you know, the US Attorney with the full confirmation, How,
10:27
if at all, did the change in status affect your
10:29
view of and your exercise of your authority as US attorney? Answer?
10:35
So it's difficult to recall now you're asking that just
10:38
ten years back, but even further back, I was interim
10:41
for a sufficiently long period of time, and by the
10:45
time change and status took place, I would speculate that
10:48
I was, in my mind the you know, acting as
10:51
US attorney, whether you have adjunctive interim or acting in
10:55
front of your name or not. You know, I had
10:58
great people. I don't recall when I came on board
11:01
as a first assistant, but he was my crim chief,
11:04
and I thought for the continuity of the office it
11:07
was important to promote him to first assistant. Question. He
11:11
was promoted actually effective October of two thousand and six.
11:14
You made a series, according to emails, the announcement, the
11:17
personnel announcement was made to be effective in October two
11:21
thousand and six, naming redacted as criminal chief and redacted
11:25
as first assistant. Answer, right, and they they were both
11:29
long serving professionals within the office, and basically, as my recollection,
11:33
everyone just moved up one wrung question. Okay, answer, you
11:38
would know better than I because you have those records,
11:40
and so, sitting here today, I don't recall any specific
11:43
way in which that shift would have impacted question. All right,
11:48
answer my thinking question. You had not served as a
11:51
prosecutor before and didn't have direct criminal experience, is my understanding. Answer?
11:57
That's correct. I had supervised civil rights for a example,
12:00
had supervised criminal prosecutions, but I had not been a
12:04
line prosecutor previously. Questions, So, as the US attorney supervising
12:08
a couple one hundred answer right, question, line prosecutors most
12:12
involved in criminal work? What interested you most or appealed
12:16
to you most as you undertook and carried out your
12:19
duties as US attorney? Answer? What interested me and appealed
12:23
to me? So the work of the office. I mean,
12:26
it's a broad question, but the work that office, in
12:29
any US Attorney office, I think is incredibly impactful to
12:32
any local community. And I very much enjoyed being part
12:35
of the effort to bring folks to justice, to move
12:38
policy initiatives. You know, I recall early on we identified
12:42
health care fraud as one big, one big area, and
12:46
we had one of the largest, one of the largest
12:48
health care fraud initiatives. You know, we focus quite a
12:51
bit on gun violence and we did a great job
12:54
on that. And it's one of those jobs where people
12:57
feel very good about what they do, and it's great
12:59
to be a part of. Question that's helpful, It just
13:05
gives us answer. Yeah, question some perspective question, Was there
13:10
any aspect of it that you particularly disliked answer to
13:13
the extent you're dealing with personnel issues. I think personnel
13:17
issues are rarely the preferred part of any executive function.
13:22
Question you mean the conflicts among attorneys things like that,
13:26
or performance issues? Answer performance issues question? All right, answer,
13:32
And you know, when you've got in any large office,
13:34
you got personal issues, disciplinary issues, and those are never
13:39
those are never fun. All right. We're gonna wrap up
13:42
this episode right here, and in the next episode dealing
13:45
with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off.
13:48
All of the information that goes with this episode can
13:50
be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
13:54
welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
13:58
we're going to pick up where we left off the
14:00
alex Acosta interview with the OIG investigators question. So we
14:06
talked about the personnel, high level personnel changes you made
14:09
sort of after your first year there. Redacted had, we understand,
14:13
been functioning the fact though as a first assistant while
14:16
redacted was not. He we understand redacted had been first assistant,
14:21
but he stepped away and Redacted came in to essentially
14:24
take over his brief until he was formally appointed first assistant.
14:29
Is that consistent with your memory? Answer, so you might
14:32
have characterized that more strongly than I would have. Question okay,
14:36
answer again, it's difficult to recreate from back then, but
14:40
there was certainly a transition period for mister adapted to
14:43
mister adacted. And if I could, because when you said
14:47
high level changes, my intent it was a great office,
14:50
great professionals. My intent in elevating mister adacted was just
14:55
you go from criminal chief the first assistant. And I
14:58
don't recall mister adacted prior position, but I know that
15:01
he was also elevated. I think he might have been
15:05
major crimes. But question, that's correct answer, I could guess it. Question,
15:12
we can verify that answer. Okay, question Yes, what was
15:16
your assistant of redacted? His capabilities, his judgment, and his
15:19
working relationship with you on a day to day basis.
15:23
Answer outstanding. He had been in the office for decades.
15:26
He was respected by everyone. He had a very good
15:29
tone to him. He was someone, you know, I wanted
15:32
individuals around me that were respected within the office and
15:36
that were trusted and that had been there for a
15:38
long time. And then I think I was very lucky
15:41
to have that in my management team. Question, as we
15:45
understand it, your office, as US attorney was sort of
15:49
on the one side of the reception area and the
15:52
first assistant's office is on the other side. Is that correct? Answer?
15:56
That's correct? Question? So, did did you and redacted have
16:01
any sort of easy back and forth question, open door
16:05
answer into each other's offices multiple times a day? Question?
16:09
All right? Answer? All right? And given that he had
16:13
experienced throughout his career at the department in the criminal
16:16
arena and you had not, to what extent would you
16:19
rely on him among others for guidance, perspective, information, and
16:23
so on. Answer? I named the first assistant because I
16:27
valued his guidance and his perspectives, and I thought those
16:30
were valuable. Question. Okay. You also, as we pointed out,
16:34
appointed redacted to succeed redacted as criminal chief effect of
16:38
October of two thousand and six, and he served for
16:41
about ten months before he left for private practice. He
16:45
left at the beginning of August two thousand and seven.
16:49
What did you you said you didn't recall as we
16:52
sit here today, what section he come from? Answer right,
16:56
I guessed it was major crimes. Question all right? Were
17:00
you what was the assessment of redacted answer outstanding as well.
17:05
And if I could say when I say, I don't recall,
17:08
but I guess when you're going back twelve years, sometimes
17:11
you get an impression. But you can't say it's a recollection,
17:14
and that's going to come up multiple times today just
17:17
because it's a while ago question. As long as we
17:20
make that distinction, both are helpful answer, right, And so
17:25
whether it's a recollection or a construction after the fact,
17:29
I can't say that, but you know, I thought that
17:32
one of the helpful factors with redacted is he had
17:34
spent a lot of time and major Crimes is the
17:37
most active active unit. I assume you all know that
17:40
the structure in the office, but major crime is not
17:45
major crimes, it's sort of the entry level crimes. And
17:47
I value the fact that he had trained and you know,
17:50
so many ausas and really spent a lot of time
17:54
reviewing the major crimes chief as opposed to the other
17:57
chiefs who spend a lot of time reviewing the work
18:00
of ausa's And so he would be someone who is
18:03
very experienced and able to get into the weeds question.
18:07
And he in fact was around during that time period,
18:10
had gone back in the courtroom. If you recall to
18:13
actually try a major case, do you recall that? Answer?
18:17
I didn't until you just said so. Question major fraud. Answer,
18:22
I didn't until you mentioned it. And now there's something
18:25
in the back of my head that's saying that sounds right,
18:27
but I can't give you more detail. Question all right?
18:30
What was your assessment of redacted and sort of working
18:33
style and particularly working with you? Answer? You know again, positive?
18:39
You know, we didn't. I didn't see him as often
18:41
as mister redacted. Question was he located on the same floor.
18:45
Answer he was located on the same floor, but not
18:48
within the same suite. Question mm hmm. Answer, and that
18:52
affects interaction, but a positive working relationship. Question all right?
18:57
And to what extent would you as criminal chief? Was
19:02
he relied on by you as distinguished from redacted with
19:05
regard to the criminal matters pending? Answer? Also relied on
19:10
depending that would depend almost on the matter. Question okay,
19:15
As in a typical situation, Acosta answers, he would bring
19:19
things to redacted, who would then bring them to me
19:22
along and so he would bring things to redacted, and then,
19:25
depending on their discussion, they might both walk into my
19:28
office but he would typically run things through redacted before
19:32
coming to me. Question were there occasions when he would
19:36
come to you directly? Answer? Sure, that's why I said,
19:39
and typical answer. It's difficult to sort of recreate the interactions,
19:45
but he certainly could come by and come to me directly,
19:49
and in some cases I would say probably would Question again,
19:53
it's being a large office with several physical locations, and
19:56
we understand it's a very high volume of cases, and
20:00
particularly in the criminal context. Is it fair to say
20:03
you didn't review every prosecution as it was brought Answer?
20:08
It's not just fair, but accurate. I recall a conversation
20:11
with the US attorney from a small district early on
20:14
at one US Attorney's conference where we compared notes, and
20:18
the interaction of an office with thirty prosecutors is very
20:21
different than one with a few hundred questions. So, when
20:26
you did engage on a criminal case, would you, whether
20:29
it was planned prosecution or a case heading to trial,
20:32
would you generally rely on written submissions or would you
20:36
this is really an inquiry into your style, or would
20:40
you have everybody together and talk about it, or would
20:43
you rely on your most immediate subordinate to be briefing you.
20:48
Which one of those kinds of approaches did you take? Answer?
20:52
I would say that really depended and probably varied based
20:55
on individual needs. For the most part, I would most
20:58
likely just speak with my first assistant and or criminal
21:01
chief and assess what else needed to be done. In
21:05
other words, you would sort of do it on a
21:08
sort of verbal or based on oral interaction and presentation
21:12
as opposed to going through stacks of paper. For the
21:15
most part, I would say that that was typical. I
21:18
don't want to say that that case was every single time,
21:21
but that was typical. Question all right? And to that extent,
21:26
did you go out and about to encounter the line
21:28
attorneys or for example, was that something that you were
21:32
able to do and wanted to do? Answer? Yes and yes,
21:36
And you know, when I started, I made it a
21:38
point of walking every floor and meeting everyone, and towards
21:42
the end of the day, I would also if I
21:44
could make it a point, particularly of major crime, of
21:47
just walking down to the floor and seeing who was
21:50
there and what they were doing and sort of popping
21:52
my head in and just saying hi, because I think
21:55
that's the right thing to do. Question, Okay, was that
22:00
way to support the troops or was it more of
22:02
a way for you to find to become informed about
22:04
what was going on. Answer? Probably a little bit of both,
22:08
to support the troops, but also to get the temperature
22:11
of the office and see how matters are progressing. Question
22:15
you at the Criminal or rather the Civil Rights Division,
22:18
had experience with human trafficking and child sex trafficking cases.
22:23
Answer correct, under your supervision. We understand that you brought
22:28
that concern or your concerns about those issues with you
22:31
to the US Attorney's Office, and that we know that
22:35
under your tenure, the US Attorney's Office had many successful
22:39
prosecutions involving conduct ranging from internet child pornography to international
22:44
sex tourism to victimizing children. In particular, in mid two
22:49
thousand and seven, you, according to press reports, you set
22:52
up a new special prosecution unit to focus on, among
22:55
other things, sex crimes against children. Could you tell us
22:59
what importance though those kinds of cases hell for you
23:01
as US attorney? Answer? Sure, if I could. If I
23:06
could just back up a little bit, because the question
23:08
goes the Special Prosecutions Unit, and let me address that
23:12
part of it. There are a few things that are
23:14
embedded there answer, there's the special prosecution unit that was
23:19
set up because there was some issue that I thought
23:23
was important to pursue in particular, and one of those
23:26
was sort of trafficking issues. Another one was the gun violence.
23:30
And the intent of special prosecutions was to have a
23:33
group of individuals that would sort of be dedicated and
23:36
not part of the usual major crimes group. So it
23:39
wasn't exclusively I your question may have implied it was
23:43
exclusively for sex crimes. Question. They cut them off. Oh,
23:46
no question, No, I understand it was not answer and
23:51
so I thought it was sufficiently important, and so it
23:54
was one of the one of the initiatives that we
23:56
were certainly pursuing. Question and was that something that you
24:01
can to which you brought your experience as head of
24:04
Civil Rights Division as well? Answer? It was not. I
24:08
think I know when I was head of Civil Rights
24:11
that that's something that I'd put particular emphasis on, and
24:14
I thought Civil Rights really stepped up and did a
24:16
great job on that question. Did you yourself recognize you
24:21
were never a prosecutor as such? Answer right, question, But
24:24
did you ever have experience being involved in a prosecution.
24:28
That's sort of the nitty gritty of the prosecution of
24:31
that kind of case, sort of seconding yourself to a
24:34
trial team, for example, or an investigation. Answer. So, if
24:38
by nitty gritty you mean seconding myself to a trial team,
24:41
the answer would be no question, all right. Answer. There
24:45
are a number of cases that I recall being briefed
24:48
on and talked about. Interrupted question, but at that high
24:52
level answer, correct question, all right. The department set up
24:56
in two thousand and six a PSC program, a Project
25:00
Safe Childhood program focused on Internet child pornography, and appointed
25:05
you as the first coordinator, and she was also course
25:09
the line attorney on the Epstein case. How well did
25:12
you know redacted? And can you can you give us
25:15
your assessment of her capabilities, judgment and her interaction with you? Answer,
25:20
so a few things in there. How well did I
25:22
know her prior to appointment? I don't recall. I'm not
25:25
I don't think I knew her particularly well prior to appointment.
25:28
She was clearly respected within the office, and I don't recall,
25:32
but I can't speculate that she was appointed based on
25:35
recommendations of management and her interest in some combination and
25:39
prior work, and some combination thereof you asked me to characterize,
25:46
and I think she was good, strong, professional AUSA. Question
25:51
do you have any did you have any negative, you know,
25:54
anything less than fully positive in your assessment of her? Answer?
25:58
No question. I think she was good, strong, and a
26:01
dedicated a USA. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up
26:05
episode two right here. In the next episode dealing with
26:08
the topic, We're gonna pick up where we left off.
26:11
All of the information that goes with this episode can
26:14
be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
26:17
welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
26:21
we're gonna pick up where we left off with alex
26:23
Acosta's interview with the inspector. General question, do you have
26:29
any did you have any negative, you know, anything less
26:31
than fully positive in your assessment of her? Answer? No question? Okay, answer,
26:37
I think she was a good, strong, dedicated AUSA. Answer
26:41
all right. Question was the managing USA at West Palm
26:47
Beach Office? Answer? Correct question at least? And would redacted
26:53
work there? How closely did you work with redacted? And
26:56
again that's an assessment question. What was your assessment of them?
27:00
Answer so less so only because of geographic distance? Question?
27:05
Uh huh? Answer I would also say he was a
27:07
respected professional. He had a good reputation. He went on
27:11
to be chief of staff here at the Criminal Division,
27:14
which I think speaks to how he was viewed within
27:16
the department, and so I would say positive question. Okay,
27:21
So turning to the Epstein case. Answer, yeah, question, Now
27:25
that your recall has been refreshed by virtue of the
27:27
documents that we provided, Before we get into the actual
27:30
sort of documents and some of the details of the events,
27:33
would you please give us a general overview of what
27:35
you currently remember refreshed about how the case came into
27:39
the US Attorney's office, how it was assessed for prosecution,
27:43
and how and why the decision was made to resolve
27:46
it with a two year stage plea that ultimately became
27:50
an eighteen month sentence. Answer okay, And to that, mister Haran,
27:57
who is the lawyer for alex Acosta, pipes up before
28:01
you answer the question, let me just jump in on
28:04
the notion of refresher recollection, which is of course has
28:08
a very specific legal meaning, and I think to assert
28:11
that mister Acosta's recollection has been refreshed generally probably overstates it.
28:16
It's really a document by document issue by issue thing.
28:19
So I push back on that. He gets interrupted, but
28:23
he keeps going a little bit. But the question is
28:25
fair and accurate, misredacted. If you're talking about handing him
28:30
a document or refresh an exhausted recollection, that's not the
28:33
process we're talking about. We're using it more in a
28:37
lay term. That you know, if we ask you this
28:39
before giving you all these documents, you'd probably would have
28:43
not been able to be as full in your responses.
28:46
So we're asking for your full response, mister Haran. We
28:50
appreciate the opportunity to review the documents, and Alex in
28:53
your answers, try to distinguish what you actually recall in
28:57
your own head versus what you saw in the document,
29:01
and that would make four. He gets interrupted, the cleanest record. Acosta. Okay,
29:06
So three parts. How did it come to my office? Question?
29:11
How was had it come in? Answer? Right question? How
29:15
was it assessed for prosecution? Answer? Write question? And then
29:20
how and how and why the decision was made to
29:23
resolve it the way it was answer. So let's begin
29:27
with how it came into the office. Putting all the
29:29
documents aside, I can't say with certainty how it came in.
29:33
I can speculate how it came in and the way
29:35
it would have come into the office is I can
29:37
speculate that the chief the chief writer from Palm Beach
29:41
County would have brought it to either the FBI or
29:44
the Palm Beach office. I'm not certain that I would
29:47
have asked who brought this case to the office, as
29:49
opposed to the case is now in the office. Let's
29:52
discuss it right. The format or the mode in which
29:55
it came in, I think is important because my recollection
29:59
is it arrived to us us in the position that
30:01
the state attorney had negotiated a plea, and that the
30:04
reason that we looked at it was that the plea
30:07
was going to be that there had been an initial
30:09
charge that wasn't pursued and that required jail time and registration,
30:15
and that the plea was going to be taken was
30:17
a charge that didn't require jail time and didn't require registration,
30:22
and based on the preliminary assessment of the facts, that
30:24
seemed that seems wrong. So that's how it arrived. The
30:29
next question was question how was it assessed for federal prosecution? Answer?
30:35
So it was assessed for federal prosecution. My recollection from
30:39
very early on, and I'm sure we'll talk about this
30:41
some more, is you have a case that, while technically
30:44
it wasn't final at the state level, but for federal
30:47
involvement would have been final. And so from the earliest
30:50
point we were thinking federal versus state and petite and
30:54
the contemporaneous record sort of shows at least the material
30:57
that I got the earliest communication mister redacted telling me
31:01
that redacted is preparing a petite policy waiver, that misredacted
31:06
is preparing a petite policy waiver. And that's consistent with
31:10
my recollection of how it was assessed and then brought
31:13
in assessed you know, doesn't make sense to go forward, yes,
31:16
investigate and circle back and then and then the third
31:19
part was question how and why the disposition answer. So
31:24
my general recollection is the view was that if the
31:27
state had followed through on the original charge I don't
31:30
recall which that call for jail time and that call
31:32
for registration, that the local police or whoever brought it
31:36
would not have seen the need to refer it. And
31:38
so that was, in terms of pre indictment resolution, a
31:42
logical and reasonable place given all the other sort of factors,
31:46
both the patitue concerns, the witness concerns, and the legal concerns.
31:50
And to that I would add a fourth concern, which
31:52
it had already been reviewed by a grand jury at
31:55
the state level, is my recollection. And so to some extent,
31:59
that's indication of how some individuals may sort of view
32:03
this matter. Question. Okay, we're going to pick that apart.
32:07
Answer I figured question, but thank you for that answer.
32:12
You asked for an overview, so I tried to be
32:14
very he gets interrupted. Yeah, answer general question. That doesn't.
32:18
That doesn't. The second part of that last prong was
32:21
why a two year state plea? In other words, you
32:24
talked about you talked about assessing the case and why
32:27
resolve it? But why with a two year state plea? Answer? So,
32:31
my general recollection is my understanding if I was asked,
32:35
what is the best understanding that I have of why
32:38
two years? Is that is what would have been obtained
32:41
in one of the original state charges. Question how do
32:44
you know that? Answer? We gets cut off question how
32:49
did you know that? Answer? That's why I say general recollection.
32:53
I'm reconstructing memories of that twelve years ago. I can
32:57
speculate that at some point the matter came up and
33:00
I or someone else said, if you know what would
33:03
the original what would the original plea have? You know
33:06
what would the original charges have likely brought? And someone
33:09
said this amount question? Who would have said that answer?
33:13
I'm speculating at this point. I don't have a recollection,
33:16
but that's that's my general understanding question. All right, Well,
33:21
now unpack some of that question. And by the way,
33:25
my colleague, we're all in this boat together, so they're
33:28
going to feel free answer, I know question, to chime
33:31
in as they see fit. So the first thing going
33:35
going to the intake of the case, we know from
33:37
the records that and by the way, we obviously have
33:40
done a great deal of other investigation and spoken to
33:44
many people. So redacted brief view and redacted pretty much
33:48
when the case first came in in the mid two
33:50
thousand and six, after the FBI, and indeed the office
33:53
the US Attorney's Office in West Palm Beach had opened
33:56
the case, but before Epstein was indicted. So this first exhibit,
34:00
exhibit number one, that you have in your binder before
34:02
you or in your folder before you, is that email
34:05
from redacted to you that you just referred to dated
34:08
July twenty fourth, two thousand and six, in which he's
34:11
sort of passing on the information that Epstein has by
34:14
now been arrested, been indicted, arrested and indicted by the state.
34:19
Do you recall anything about the original briefing from redacted? Answer?
34:22
I don't. Question, all right, did you know at the
34:25
time that the time she briefed you, which is prior
34:28
to Exhibit one? Did you know who Epstein was? Answer?
34:32
I did not. Question never heard of them to your knowledge?
34:35
Answer to my knowledge, I don't recall having heard of them.
34:39
Question and what did you understand at that early point
34:42
the case to be about? Answer? So I don't recall
34:45
the briefing, and so I can't give an independent recollection,
34:48
you know, based on this, I mean, he gets cut off.
34:51
But you're talking about Exhibit one. Answer based on Exhibit one,
34:55
you know, I can infer that this would have been
34:58
my general understanding of the case. And you know, and
35:01
the key things that I point out here is pre
35:04
trial diversion, which is code for a jail time and
35:07
petit policy. The question, but this what exhibit number one
35:13
does not make it clear to you that this case
35:16
involved allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had been enticing, coercing, whatever
35:20
verb you want to use, young underage females. We will
35:23
for the record call them girls here as opposed to women.
35:26
And these underage females were being paid to provide him
35:29
essentially with sex or sexual activity or conduct of a
35:33
pretty salacious nature. Do you recall that as being essentially
35:37
what you were briefed on from the beginning? Answer? Again,
35:40
I don't recall the initial briefing. I take it, based
35:43
on your review that there was an initial briefing. I
35:46
can't say the degree of detail. I can't say what
35:49
it was about. As a typical matter, I wouldn't be
35:53
briefed when a case comes into the office other than
35:55
being made aware this is the case, this is what
35:58
we're looking at. So then if you or your understanding
36:02
you don't remember the briefing, is it fair to say
36:05
you did not have some understanding of the case that
36:08
was the West Palm Beach was pursuing as of mid
36:11
two thousand and six. Answer. I certainly had an understanding
36:15
of the general facts of the case early on. I
36:17
can't speak to whether it was mid two thousand and
36:19
six verses late two thousand and six versus two thousand
36:22
and seven. But early on, I certainly had an understanding
36:26
that it was a case that involved, you know, a
36:28
billionaire who was doing sordid things with young women or
36:31
girls who were minors. Question redacted, and the records indicate
36:35
that her concern in bringing this all the way to
36:38
you and her first at the time criminal chief but
36:42
sort of acting first assistant redacted, was because she was
36:45
afraid of political pressure that might be brought to bear
36:48
against the US Attorney's office in the case. Do you
36:51
have any recollection of that being a concern that was
36:54
laid before you answer? I don't. Again, I don't recall
36:57
the early that briefing. I've reviewed the email, and I
37:01
can you know I'd take it. It would have been
37:03
natural for me to say, should we approach the state
37:05
attorney because we had lots of ongoing matters with the
37:09
state attorney, And it seems that Redacted said no, for
37:13
fear it'll be leaked straight to Epstein, and I assumed
37:16
i'd let it be at that point. Question, and do
37:19
you know do you know what he meant by it
37:21
being leaked to Epstein by the state by Barry Krisher,
37:24
the state attorney. Answer, So, based on context, what I
37:28
would assume is that if the state attorney is cutting
37:30
this kind of deal, and it appears that things have
37:33
already leaked, because you know, there's clearly an article here
37:36
with leaked, so something has already leaked. Question are you
37:41
referring to exhibit one? Answer? Exhibit one? Other things would leak.
37:45
Question have you ever met Barry Krisher? Answer? Sure? Question
37:49
what was your relationship with him? Answer? So, there were
37:52
multiple state attorneys within the district he was. It was
37:55
a professional relationship question. It was an elected position. Correct answer,
38:00
It was an elected position question. And what was your
38:03
assessment of his aggressiveness as a prosecutor and his capabilities?
38:07
Answer on the public Most of my assessment with him
38:13
was on the public corruption front, and we had brought
38:16
several cases, and I was a little disappointed that these
38:19
were cases he could have brought that he chose not
38:21
to bring. Question rights, So can I am I accurate
38:25
in inferring from that you didn't regard him as a
38:28
particularly hard charging prosecutor. Answer, So with any state attorney,
38:33
I hesitate to sort of paint a broad brush stroke.
38:36
I don't think that's always fair. But my experience had
38:40
been in the public corruption space, and in that space,
38:43
I did not think whether it was him or whether
38:45
it was his office, I can't speak, but I did
38:48
not think they had done as much as they could
38:50
have done. Question, is there any area in which you
38:53
thought he in his office did pursue aggressively? Answer? So,
38:56
as a recall, we had we had emphasized gun crimes
38:59
quite a bit and really had a lot of success
39:03
moving the ball in the gun crime space and Palm Beach.
39:07
But let me let me just say, it's also very
39:09
difficult to reconstruct time frames. And so I hesitate because
39:12
I don't know if that was two thousand and six
39:15
or two thousand and seven. But you asked in another
39:17
area gets cut off question in this exhibit one, you
39:21
ask whether it's appropriate appropriate to approach Barry Krisher and
39:25
give him a heads up as to where the US
39:27
Attorney's Office might go with the case. Answer correct question.
39:31
Why would you want to extend that difference to him?
39:33
Why would it matter? Answer a colleague and law enforcement.
39:37
I thought it was important for the office to work
39:39
with with state attorneys as a general matter, and I
39:42
found that the office worked best when it had good
39:45
working relationships with state attorneys and with you know, for
39:49
that matter, the agency sacks and others. But again, you know,
39:53
rather than my asserting, I'm asking redacted and redacted with
39:56
saying no, And I don't know what the ultimate outcome was,
40:00
but what I would guess that we just defer and
40:02
let it be. All right, folks, We're going to wrap
40:04
up right here and in the next episode, we're going
40:07
to pick up where we left off. All of the
40:09
information that goes with this episode can be found in
40:12
the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to another
40:15
episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, or again
40:19
right back to alex Acosta and his interview with the
40:23
OIG inspectors. Turning to exhibit too. This is an email
40:28
that was forwarded to you by redacted. The original forwarded
40:31
email is from redacted copying redacted, and it essentially relates
40:35
to a dust up between redacted and redacted over the
40:38
chain of command and her workload. But in the first paragraph,
40:42
she specifies that when I first heard about the Epstein investigation,
40:46
I spoke with redacted about it. Redacted was not here.
40:50
Redacted said that she would back me up on the case.
40:53
But I knew what happened to the state prosecution and
40:56
can happen to the federal prosecution if the US Attorney's
40:59
Office is on board. So I spoke with Redacted about
41:02
the case, and he spoke with Alex and they gave
41:04
me the green light. So that actually appears to be
41:08
initial contact with Redacted that she's talking about prior to
41:11
the briefing with you, so way early, when the case
41:14
first came in in May of two thousand and six.
41:17
Do you recall being contacted or having a conversation with
41:21
Redacted about the case so early? Answer again, the early
41:26
recollection whenever, whenever it might have taken place, was I
41:29
was made aware of the matter. It seemed a reasonable
41:32
matter to pursue. And that's the level of detail that
41:35
I recall. Questions, So, if Redacted said back in the
41:38
day that she got from you the green light, did
41:42
you understand her to be being authorized to authorize Maybe
41:47
too strong of a word, but answer to pursue question, Yeah,
41:53
answer to someone. You know, I'm speculating here, but there's
41:56
a case and they want to know should we spend
41:59
our time on this? And the answer is that it
42:02
seems reasonable? Sure? Question? Okay, And do you recall making
42:06
that explicit to her? Answer? I don't, and it wouldn't
42:10
have been my practice to sort of make it explicit. Yeah,
42:14
go spend your time as opposed to thank you for
42:16
letting me know that sounds reasonable? Question? All right? Answer?
42:21
And whatever you know details It looks like based on
42:23
exhibit one, there was subsequent follow up between her and
42:27
redacted or with her and the management teams, and they said,
42:31
you know, go back work on a B and C question.
42:34
Do you know what redacted was talking about when she
42:37
referred to something happening to a federal prosecution if the
42:40
US attorney is not on board? Had there been a
42:43
case in which you were not supportive of a particular
42:46
prosecution that was being proposed? Answer? None, None that I recall,
42:51
and I knew what had happened to the state prosecution
42:54
can happen to a federal prosecution if the US attorney
42:57
is not on board. I don't recall any federal prosecute
43:00
that I wasn't supportive of, at least in this context.
43:04
Question what do you mean by this context? Answer? It
43:08
was my way of narrowing an answer, so I didn't
43:10
spend the time to go through every office and every division.
43:14
For the most part, as I sit here, I'm sort
43:16
of running through each office. I don't recall any And
43:19
if I could use this based on exhibit too, I'm
43:22
not sure that she's referring to a specific case as
43:25
opposed to concerns that the state prosecution started at point,
43:29
you know, with charges that require jail time and ended
43:32
up somewhere else. It may have been because management wasn't question,
43:39
but that's current reading of They get interrupted by Acosta. Yeah,
43:44
an interruption again, but this time by the person asking
43:47
the questions this rather than recollection. Answer, that's my reading.
43:53
Question all right, Based on the early description you got
43:56
of the case, did you have any idea how many
43:58
victims were involved? Answer? I did not. Question did you
44:02
know what the name of the case was? Was the
44:04
investigation name was? You know, cases get names? Answer so
44:09
I know based on the review of the correspondence, I
44:12
may have known that. Then I did not independently recall it.
44:16
Question that being Operation Leapier. Answer correct, question, all right?
44:21
And do you know where that came from? Answer? Well,
44:24
I mean other than February twentieth. Yeah, I don't know. Question. Well,
44:29
the original allegations that came in involved twenty eight victims,
44:32
and then subsequently redacted advised that she was uncovering more victims,
44:37
so there were over thirty. Question Well over thirty. Answer,
44:41
I don't recall knowing that question. But is it reasonable
44:45
that the number of victims would be one of the
44:47
factors that you would have been informed about at the time. Answer,
44:52
I don't know. It all depends how detailed that briefing was. Again,
44:56
as a typical matter, early on, this is what is
44:59
being done. I would trust my ausas and my management
45:03
staff to pursue it. It wouldn't be here are all
45:06
the facts associated with the case. Just a heads up.
45:09
There's a high profile case involving a very wealthy man
45:12
abusing young women. A state attorney is prosecuting, but you
45:16
know there's dissatisfaction. I wanted to give you the heads up,
45:19
both to inform me but also so that I'm aware
45:23
in my interactions with other pom Beach officials. Question Okay,
45:27
based on whatever information you got at the time, did
45:30
you think that there was a federal interest to be
45:32
served by pursuing a federal prosecution potentially? Answer? Yes, question
45:38
and what was that? Answer? So the exploitation of young women?
45:43
He gets corrected now by the investigator. Girls, He corrects himself, girls,
45:50
the investigator. I want to be all right, look, I
45:53
know for the sort of glossary convention that we are
45:56
using is we can use this in the interview as
45:59
girls for the victims who at the time of the
46:01
conduct were minors, and women for those who were not,
46:04
even though the girls at a later date became age
46:08
of majority. A. Costa responds, fair. Question, Okay, so here
46:13
we're really talking about girls. Answer okay, question who are
46:17
the victims? Acosta? Yeah, yeah, question okay, Acosta girls, minor females.
46:25
I just don't sometimes that term is viewed differently. Question right. Answer, so, yeah,
46:31
the exploitation of girls or minor females. And that certainly
46:34
is an important federal interest. Question well, and is the
46:38
number and the breadth of the scheme, the scope of
46:40
the activity also a factor there? In other words, it
46:44
wasn't one or two women on two occasions? Answer? So,
46:49
there's several factors that probably go into what's the federal interest?
46:53
The acts, the sordidness of the acts, the number, the
46:56
likelihood or the importance of the registration was important to
47:00
my mind because that goes to future prevention, to putting
47:03
the community on notice. Question, and were you aware that
47:07
the individual in this case, Epstein also at homes and
47:10
other districts that were it was an interstate activity on
47:14
his part, the interstate travel and so on to that,
47:17
Acosta's lawyer pipes in, I'm sorry, let me just we're
47:21
still in the original intake timeframe misredacted. Yes, Acosta, yeah,
47:27
again for the intake time I can I can't speak
47:30
to the details because I don't remember what the extent
47:33
of that that intake briefing was. Acosta asked, if you
47:38
can ask a question, was there was there a clear
47:41
briefing as opposed to a heads up based on the record? Question, Yes,
47:46
that redacted came to Miami to conduct a briefing of
47:48
you and they get cut off by a redacted questioner
47:53
again redacted, in order to tell you about this case
47:56
and get from you a green light so that they
47:59
could proceed with it. Answer, I asked, because I were
48:02
calling an email and I don't know what the time
48:05
would have been where she's coming to Miami, And redacted says,
48:09
why don't you stop by my office first? Question? Right?
48:13
And I keep I would I would speculate that why
48:16
don't you stop by my office first? Is why don't
48:18
you give me a bunch of details? And then we
48:21
will walk across to the US attorney and fill him in.
48:24
And so that would have been almost a two tiered discussion.
48:27
And I don't know if that if that timeline on
48:31
that email is when you say briefing, Acousta continues, I'm
48:35
speaking just based on a review of the record, not
48:37
based on recollection here. Question all right, so you have
48:42
to be clear you have no recollection of any specific
48:45
briefing in two thousand and six. Answer, I accept that
48:48
I was made aware of the matter. Question okay, answer,
48:53
I can't say how or in what context or to
48:55
what degree of detail? Question or by whom? Answer, or
48:59
by whom I knew the matter? It's easier to recollect,
49:02
at least for me what I knew, as opposed to
49:04
who told me what? Question? All right? All right? At
49:08
this point did you have, if you, at any point,
49:11
did you have any reservation about investigating and potentially prosecuting
49:15
Jeffrey Epstein or reservation stemming from his wealth and reported
49:19
standing in the community at all and influence. Answer No,
49:23
And we had prosecuted lots of influential folks in this office.
49:27
So while he had wealth, it's not unusual ubs was
49:31
in the office at the time I mentioned several high
49:33
profile Palm Beach public corruption cases. Question, So there was
49:37
no concern about possible negative blowback in the press or
49:40
the community or even at main Justice if if you
49:44
went after someone like Epstein. Answer, there was no concern
49:47
stemming from his wealth or his status. Question what would
49:51
have it stemmed from? Answer? At some point, I think
49:54
there was concern regarding the law, and we'll probably get
49:57
into that. I alluded to that earlier in the overview.
50:00
I don't know if that would have been developed this
50:02
early on. But that's not a function of his wealth.
50:05
That's a function of the fact pattern. Question right, Okay, So,
50:09
as you mentioned petit policy concerned petit policy, could you
50:13
tell us what your position was on the policy as
50:16
it applied in this case, as you understood it from
50:19
the beginning. Answer? So the policy you know on its
50:22
face doesn't specifically apply. Based on Exhibit one, I'm now inferring,
50:27
not recalling it looks like either redacted on our own
50:30
or redacted as for a or mister redacted as for
50:35
a petit policy waver memo to be prepared in part
50:38
on the assumption that the state prosecution may or may
50:41
not have gone for it. I don't know, but I
50:45
do recall that early on this was unusual because it
50:48
had been had been arrested or arraigned. It was going
50:52
forward on the part of the state. And so here's
50:54
the big bad federal government stepping in and on sovereign
50:58
you know, state, saying you're not doing And to my mind,
51:01
when you know, the whole idea of the petit policy
51:04
is to recognize that the estate has you know, has
51:07
independent entity, and that we should presume that what we're
51:12
doing is correct, even if we don't like the outcome,
51:15
except in the most unusual of circumstances question and what
51:21
kinds of Well, so the petit policy exists because there's
51:24
a recognition that there are cases that are appropriately pursued.
51:28
I mean, you are the head of the Civil Rights Division,
51:30
after all, answer correct, Which is why I say, except
51:34
in the most appropriate of circumstance question right, answer. But
51:38
let me add that based on this, I was comfortable,
51:41
you know, saying let's go forward because the lack of
51:43
jail time, you know, to use to use petit policy language,
51:47
a plea that did not include jail time or registration
51:50
would seem like a manifest injustice. All right, folks, we're
51:53
going to wrap up this episode right here, and in
51:55
the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to
51:57
pick up where we left off. All the information that
52:00
goes with this episode can be found in the description box.