Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Epstein Files Unsealed: Epstein's Lawyers Blast Acosta's Office In A Letter To DOJ Brass (Part 1)

Transcript

Epstein Files Unsealed: Epstein's Lawyers Blast Acosta's Office In A Letter To DOJ Brass (Part 1) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to take a
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: look at a letter that was sent to the Florida
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Assistant US Attorney by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team, and they're
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: basically bullying the Florida office because they won't play ball
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: with Epstein's attorneys and give Epstein what he wants. So
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: once again, it goes to show you that it wasn't
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: alex Acosta. Now, I know people want to keep blaming him,
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: and he did play his part. He didn't have the
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: courage to stand up to these people, But the truth is,
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: the real decision was made by DOJ Brass. So we're
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: going to continue to provide those receipts so that all
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: of you get a full hdview of how it all
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: went down. So let's dive in response letter to FAUSA
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: dated May nineteenth, two thousand and eight, and in May nineteenth,
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: two thousand and eight letter to Jay Lefkwitz SDFL First
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: Assistant US Attorney redacted, provided what purported to be a
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: summary of the events that have occurred during the investigation
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: of mister Epstein. Mister Adacted's letter is fraught with inconsistencies,
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: false and misleading characterizations, and outright falsehoods. The comparison below
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: between the false assertion in mister Redacted's letter and what
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: actually transpired is only the tip of the iceberg. We
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: respectfully submit that mister Redacted's letter alone demonstrates the degree
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: to which the record of facts have been distorted, and
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: these distortions have permeated this unprecedented investigation. Number one independent
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: and denovo review mister Adacted's letter, we obliged your request
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: for an independent de novo review of the investigation and
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: facilitated such a review at the highest levels of the
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: Department of Justice. The truth CEO's review concluded in May
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: of two thousand and eight, was neither independent nor denvo.
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: CEO's review was not independent. Redacted, who conducted the review
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: on behalf of CEO's, had already reviewed the prosecution memo
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: on this matter eight months earlier. During a meeting with
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: defense counsel at the US Attorney's Office in Miami in
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: September of two thousand and seven, he opined that he
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: believed the prosecution that he would try the case myself. Indeed,
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: mister adacted acknowledges that mister adacted had previously opined on
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: this matter, stating this particular attack on this statute US
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: Code eighteen, section twenty two forty two B had been
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: previously raised and thoroughly considered and rejected by CEOs prior
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: to the execution of the deferred prosecution agreement in September
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: of two thousand and seven. The statute mister adacted referred
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: to section twenty four to twenty two B lies at
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: the heart of the Epstein investigation. Thus, according to mister redacted,
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: mister adacted was tasked with reviewing his own prior decision
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: regarding a applying the key statute under which the SDFL
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: proposed prosecuting mister Epstein. The defense immediately raised concerns regarding
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: the non independence of the review when told that it
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: would be mister Redacted tasked with providing the review, but
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: was told that mister Redacted rendered his prior opinion he
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: was not really up to speed on the facts. CEO's
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: review was not the novo. By letter dated May fifteenth,
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, four days before mister Redacted's letter,
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: mister Adacted advised mister Lefkowitz that CEOs reviewed the matter
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: only for abuse of discretion. The question we sought to
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: answer was whether US Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: if authorization or if authorized prosecution in the case ce
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: TAP thirty eight May fifteenth, two thousand and eight letter
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: from d redacted. Mister Acosta would not be abusing his
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: discretion if he decided to pursue such a course of action,
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: and page five, mister Acosta would not be abusing as
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal prosecution of mister Epstein.
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: For the factual record of its abuse of discretion review,
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: CEOs relied on the very same prosecution memo that it
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: had already reviewed in rendering its prior opinion, stating, as
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: you know, our review of this case is limited, both
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: actually and legally. We have not looked at the entire
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: universe of facts in the case, nor did CEOs review
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: any facts related to the irregular provisions in the deferred
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: prosecution agreement or the numerous complaints of prosecutorial misconduct, both
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: of which are inextricably intertwined with impropriety of the investigation.
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: Two Notification of witnesses Mister Adacted's letter, Mister Addacted dismissed
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: the totality of the defense objections to the appropriate notification
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: the SDFL proposed to send to its witnesses, stating merely
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: that you objected to victims being notified of time and
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: place of Epstein's State Court sentencing hearing. The truth, The
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: defense engaged in days of negotiation and made fourteen separate
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: substantative objections to the unprecedented notification letter that mister Adacted
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: threatened to send to an undisclosed list of victims. The
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: eventual transmission of this highly misleading letter was only halted
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: by an appeal to AAG Fisher. Among those substantative objections,
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: which related to far more than the time and place
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: of the State sentencing hearing were sending, the letter would
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: contravene the government's commitment to take no position regarding potential
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: claims of government witnesses. So let me just stop right here.
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: And whoever this mister Fisher is, he should be on
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: the clock, why would he halt the appeal? This letter
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: cited to an inapplicable statute, the Justice for All Act
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: in two thousand and four as its justification for being sent.
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: A USA. Acosta later conceded that the citation to this
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: statute as a justification was wholly incorrect. The letter wrongly
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: advised all recipients that mister Epstein would be required to
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: register as a sexual predator for the remainder of his life.
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: The letter amounted to an invitation to civil litigation against
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: mister Epstein, advising recipients that they had the right to
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: seek civil damages from mister Epstein. In an underlined instruction,
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: stated that if they chose an attorney other than the
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: one chosen by the government, they would be required to
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: pay his fees, but if they chose the government's choice,
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: mister Epstein would be required to pay the fees. Three
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: mischaracterization of our arguments Mister adacted's letter. Mister Adapted's letter
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: misleadingly characterizes our substantative defense of the government's investigation as
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: the investigation merely produced evidence of relatively innocuous sexual conduct
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: with some miners who, unbeknownst mister Epstein, misrepresented their ages
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: the truth. We never made such a claim. To the contrary,
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: We argue that Swarren's statements we have taken of the
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: alleged victims demonstrate that law enforcement has presented versions of
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: their testimony that are necessarily sensationalized and fictionalized. We presented
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: evidence that mister Epstein routinely and daily received massages from adults.
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: Only a small percentage of the messuses turned out to
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: be miners. The majority of those miners interviewed by law
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: enforcement admitted to lying directly to Epstein about their ages,
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: not unbeknown to Epstein, and inventing further false details to
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: substantiate their lies. Indeed, the civil attorney for several of
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: these women admitted at his recent press conference that they
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: lied to mister Epstein about their ages. Numerous witnesses testify
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: that mister Epstein asked that all messuses be over the
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: age of eighteen. Further, the evidence is undisputed that mister
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: Epstein's assistant scheduled the massages, and mister Epstein did not
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: know which messuses his assistance had scheduled on aarticular day
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: until the massage took place. We admitted that there was
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: sexual conduct, and argued not that it was innocuous, as
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: mister redacted alleges, but that it was mostly mister Epstein's
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: own self pleasuring, which did not satisfy the requisite federal
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: element of criminal sexual conduct, which in turn defined by
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: state law. These are important distinctions and show that mister
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: Redacted has misrepresented the record about the most basic part
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: of our defense. Four. Redacted's demands an unrealistic deadline to
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: comply with an agreement he unilaterally modifies mister Adacted's letter.
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: Unless mister Epstein complies with all of the terms and
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: conditions of the deferred prosecution Agreement as modified by the
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: US Attorney December nineteenth, two thousand and seven letter to
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: miss Sanchez by close of business on Monday, June two
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: thousand and eight, the SDFL will elect to terminate the agreement.
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: The truth the deferred prosecution agreement was never mind by
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: the US Attorney Acosta December nineteenth, two thousand and seven letter. Oddly,
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: mister Acosta acknowledged this on page four of his May
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: nineteenth letter, where he writes that mister Acosta proposed this
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: modification and that mister Lefkowitz rejected these proposals. Thus, mister
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: Redacted is threatening to terminate the deferred prosecution agreement unless
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: mister Epstein complies with the unilateral modification that mister Redacted
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: concedes was never agreed to by defense counsel orchestrating the information,
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: plea and sentencing requirements of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement within
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: the extremely limited two week time frame imposed by mister
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: redacted June second, two thousand and eight deadline would have
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: been difficult enough. More importantly, as explained below, the SDFL
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: has refused to provide the defense with information it requires
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: to enable mister Epstein to comply with the additional plea
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: and sentencing requirements of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, let alone
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: by the June second deadline arbitrarily imposed by mister adacted.
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: The Deferred Prosecution Agreement requires mister Epstein to plead guilty
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: to and be sentenced for an additional offense which requires
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: that he register as a sex offender in different places.
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: In his May nineteenth, two thousand and eight letter, mister
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: adacted describe the additional charge to which mister Epstein required
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: to plead guilty under the Deferred Prosecution Agreement as procurement
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: of miners to engage in prostitution or solicitation of miners
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: to engage in prostitution. The former is an offense for
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: which mister Epstein would be required to register, but one
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: for which the state is no evidence to charge mister Epstein,
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: and the SDFL refuses or is unable to provide evidence
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: that it claims it has. The latter requires no registration,
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: but it is the offense which over and over again
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: Misredacted insisted upon including in the deferred prosecution agreement and
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: in one which the State believes is appropriate. The inconsistency
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: between the description of the offense required by the SDFL
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: and the elements of an offense that can be justified
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: on the facts of this case, and the sdfl's requirement
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: that the offense be a registrable one has created substantial confusion.
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: As a result of this confusion, in December of two
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: thousand and seven, both the defense and the State requested
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: that the SDFL provide the factual allegations to enable mister
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: Epstein and the State to create a truthful, factual recitation
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: of a registrable offense required by the deferred prosecution agreement,
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: but to date the SDFL has failed to do so.
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: Without any explanation, Mister adacted refuses to provide the requested
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: factual allegations, which the state cannot furnish, and now demands
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: a two week deadline to comply. Thus, mister adacted has
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: unreasonably imposed a deadline with which he himself has made
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: it impossible for mister Epstein to comply. Waiver of appeal
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: to assist in Attorney General Fisher. Mister Redacted's letter, the
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: SDFL provided you with thirty days to appeal the decision
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: to the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Alice Fisher,
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: and you chose to fore go on appeal to aag
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: Fisher the truth Mister Acosta told in August seventeenth deadline,
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: acknowledging that there were serious issues about the case that
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: needed to be discussed, and scheduled a meeting with the
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: defense four September seventh, two thousand and seven. At the
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: September seventh, two thousand and seven meeting with redacted in attendance,
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: the government dismissed the defense objections and said as September
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: twenty first, two thousand and seven, deadline to finalize a
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: non prosecution agreement or the defense would face and already
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: drafted fifty two page indictment purportedly identifying forty miners with
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: a guideline range of one hundred and eighty eight months
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: facing misredacted threatened draconian indictment without the claimed offer of
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: the right to raise objection in an appeal to aag fisher,
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: the defense chose to negotiate an agreement to defer prosecution
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: to the state, an agreement without precedent and fraud, with
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: substantial practical and legal hurdles to its implementation. All Right,
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here, folks, and in
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: the next episode, we're going to finish this bad boy off.
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box.