Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Part 7-9) (5/17/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Part 7-9) (5/17/26) · 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
where he left off with the alex Acosta transcript from
0:09
his trip to DC. Once again, alex Acosta answering the
0:14
questions and multiple people mainly redacted, doing the questioning question. Now, sir,
0:21
what you have in front of you is the New
0:23
York Magazine article dated October twenty eighth, two thousand and two.
0:27
Title quote Jeffrey Epstein, international moneyman of Mystery. Quote terrific guy.
0:32
Donald Trump booms from a speakerphone. He's a lot of
0:35
fun to be with. And if I hadn't mentioned this,
0:38
this is dated October twenty eighth, two thousand and two.
0:41
And mister Acosta, I'm going to have you turn to
0:43
the fourth page of the document, to the top of
0:45
the page. There you'll see starts the wizard. Do you
0:48
see that answer? Yes? Question? And if you go three
0:52
paragraphs down, there's a paragraph that starts Epstein likes to
0:55
tell people, do you see that answer? Yes? Question? This
0:59
paragrap reads Epstein likes to tell people he's a loner,
1:03
a man who's never touched alcohol or drugs and whose
1:05
night life is far from energetic. And yet if you
1:08
talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. Quote I've
1:12
known jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. End quote, Trump
1:16
booms from a speakerphone. Quote. He's a lot of fun
1:18
to be with. It's even said that he likes beautiful
1:21
women as much as I do, and many of them
1:24
are on the younger side. No doubt about it. Jeffrey
1:26
enjoys his social life, mister Acosta. This article was published
1:31
in two thousand and two, before the US Attorney's Office
1:34
launched its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Was Donald Trump ever
1:38
questioned about this article or this quote that he gave
1:41
to the reporter? Answer? So, first he gets interrupted by
1:46
whoever's doing the questioning question. It's a yes or no
1:49
answer answer, not to my knowledge question. Thank you, sir.
1:54
I'm going to hand you another exhibit, which will mark
1:57
as minority exhibit be BIGS, just so you know we'd
2:01
like copies. Question. So, mister Acosta, what you have in
2:05
front of you is a page six article dated October fifteenth,
2:08
two thousand and seven. It's titled sex case Victims Lining Up.
2:12
And I'll note for the record that Page six is
2:15
owned and operated by the New York Post. Now I
2:18
will read the first paragraph to you. It starts lawyers.
2:21
It says, lawyers for Manhattan billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein, who's
2:24
agreed to plead guilty to soliciting underage hookers. Underage hookers, imagine,
2:30
are bracing for a slew of lawsuits from as many
2:33
as forty young women who came to his Palm Beach
2:35
mansion for a massage session. Page six is learned. And
2:39
then I'll have you flip the page and we'll go
2:41
to the very last paragraph. Here. It reads, Meanwhile, the
2:44
mar al Lago club in Palm Beach last night confirmed
2:47
the website report that Epstein has been banned there. Quote.
2:51
He would use the spa to try and procure girls,
2:54
but one of them a messus about eighteen years old.
2:57
He tried to get her to do things. End quote.
2:59
A source told us. Quote her father found out about
3:02
it and went absolutely ape shit. Epstein's not allowed back
3:06
end quote. Epstein denies he's banned from mar A Lago
3:10
and says, in fact, he was recently invited to an
3:12
event there. Now, mister Acosta, as it says in this article.
3:17
This was published in October of two thousand and seven,
3:20
after your office had executed the non prosecution agreement with
3:23
Jeffrey Epstein, but before he pleaded guilty to the charges
3:27
to the US Attorney's Office asked Donald Trump about any
3:30
women at mar A Lago. Answer, so, I'm going to
3:34
again cut off question, sir. It's a yes or no answer. Answer, no, no,
3:39
no question. It's a very simple, sir. It's a yes
3:42
or no question. Answer with respect, with respect. You're asking
3:46
questions based on headlines that are pretty explosive, and I
3:50
think to that he's getting cut off again question, and
3:53
I'm asking about your knowledge. Are you aware of anyone
3:56
in the US Attorney's Office asking Donald Trump about the article? Answer?
4:01
I think to that, cut off again, mister Neieman, let
4:04
him answer, Acosta. I understand, but I want to provide
4:08
a full someme answer if I can. First, these are
4:10
the words of the prosecuting attorney in the case. Cut
4:14
off once again, sir, that's not my question. I'm asking
4:17
if you're aware to that a Costa cuts him off.
4:21
I'm providing you cut off again by the person asking
4:24
the question. If Donald Trump was interviewed about women at
4:27
mar a Lago. Answer. I'm not aware of who was
4:30
interviewed and not interviewed in the case, generally because US
4:33
attorneys do not become involved in deciding who gets interviewed
4:37
and who does not get interviewed. Question, I do believe
4:41
you said in this hour the decisions are mine. You
4:43
are the US attorney. Is that right? Answer? So when
4:47
I said the decisions are mine, you're taking my comments
4:49
out of context because I said I am ultimately responsible
4:53
for what my office does. I'm not pushing away blame.
4:56
I'm not pushing away responsibility. That doesn't mean that the
4:59
US et TA jorney of a district with several hundred attorneys,
5:03
even in high profile cases, directs who is interviewed and
5:06
not interviewed. And so as a US attorney, I do
5:10
not have knowledge who was interviewed in the case. As
5:12
US attorney, I do not have knowledge who was interviewed
5:16
in the Abramof case, which we did as well. As
5:19
US attorney, I do not have knowledge and who was
5:22
interviewed in the UBS case, which was a major case.
5:25
So as a US attorney, my job was to allow
5:27
my line prosecutors, our line prosecutors, line prosecutors that have
5:32
great experience, one of whom, one of the supervisory attorneys
5:36
of whom used to be the head of public corruption
5:38
public integrity here in Washington, to determine how to proceed
5:42
with investigations. Question, thank you. You have relied frequently on
5:46
the OPR report, and you'd with me that the OPR
5:50
report outlines that you negotiated the non prosecution agreement? Is
5:54
that correct? Answer? That is not correct. Question that's not correct. Answer,
5:59
not what the OPR says. Question did you have any
6:02
role in negotiating the non prosecution agreement? Answer? The OPR
6:06
report says that I ultimately approved the term sheet that
6:09
required two years, that required registration, and that required a
6:13
mechanism for individuals to recover monetary and so I approved
6:17
that question understood answer. It was then negotiated after that
6:23
by the ausas. The report also says, question did you
6:27
meet with Epstein's defense attorney? Answer? Let me finish. If
6:31
I could finish my answer, please. The report, as I
6:34
was saying that, also says that Epstein's defense attorneys then
6:37
requested a meeting. It says that it went to our
6:40
first assistant and I said, I bet you this case
6:43
ends up in Washington because they had done was hire
6:47
mister Starr question and mister lef Kowitz answer, and mister
6:50
left Kuwitz question and mister Dershowitz answer and Professor Dershowitz.
6:57
And when they hired them, I predicted. I got a
6:59
phone call asking for a meeting. I predicted my career
7:01
first assistant that the case would end up in Washington.
7:05
I said we should meet with them so that the
7:07
first time Washington hears about this is not the South
7:09
Florida office refused a meeting. I then asked him to
7:12
call the Criminal Division in DC and invite the head
7:15
of Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, who are the experts
7:19
in this from Washington, DC down to the meeting, so
7:22
that the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section would be fully
7:26
briefed on the case, fully briefed on how we were
7:29
proceeding on the case, and they would know what we
7:33
were doing because my prediction was that it would end
7:35
up in Washington. Mister Garcia, thank you, mister Acosta. I
7:38
think we're going to move on, mister Garcia. I'm going
7:42
to move on to mister Submaranean real quick. But before
7:45
I do that really quick. I just wanted to be clear. Also,
7:49
when you were during your time as US attorney, did
7:52
you ever speak to Donald Trump generally, mister Acosta, I
7:55
did not, mister Garcia, So you never the entire time
7:59
you were a US attorney, you never once spoke to
8:01
Donald Trump, mister Acosta, the entire time. Let me be
8:04
more clear, I did not speak with President Trump. With
8:07
Donald Trump before I was considered for Secretary of Labor,
8:11
mister Garcia, thank you, mister Submaranian. I was going to
8:16
ask you that, but had you met with him before? Acosta?
8:19
There was one instance where I saw him in the
8:21
lobby across the way, and I remember thinking, oh, that's
8:24
Donald Trump. If you define that as a meeting, we
8:27
didn't have a conversation. I just saw him, kind of
8:30
like seeing people in the room. Mister Garcia, you never
8:33
had a phone conversation also, not just a meeting, never
8:36
a phone conversation of any kind with Donald Trump. Acosta.
8:40
I did not have an in person conversation. I did
8:42
not have a phone conversation, mister min Email Acosta, we
8:47
hadn't shaken hands, Submaranium. What about with any of his associates?
8:53
Mister min email, text any of them. Acosta, no email
8:56
to my recollection, no text to my recollection, no associates
9:00
to my recollection. He moved in circles that I did
9:04
not move in. To be honest, mister Frost, can I
9:07
ask real quick, during the time that you were considering
9:10
this case, did anybody reach out to you, you know,
9:13
any form of communication inquiring about it, mister Acosta. So
9:17
the office got any number of communications I assume you
9:20
mean from the media, mister Frost, you personally, mister Acosta,
9:24
and those have gone through. So it was twenty years ago.
9:27
I don't know if a reporter at some point cornered
9:30
me and asked me a question, mister Frost. Anybody from DC, Acosta. So,
9:35
at some point the case was appealed to Washington, and
9:38
at that point then there were conversations, primarily letters that
9:42
were provided Washington, but not specifically around the NPA and
9:46
considerations over it. Did anyone reach out to you from Washington?
9:49
Anyone from local government in Florida, anyone in South Florida,
9:53
mister Acosta. So is your question before the non prosecution
9:56
agreement was signed, mister Frost, Yes, before it was signed Costa.
10:00
Were there any communications by government officials, Frost, government officials, donors,
10:06
anyone that would reach out to you asking questions about
10:08
this case or to provide they're to that cut off
10:11
by Acosta, I don't recall any communication from what you
10:14
would term as donors. I'll just call them wealthy people,
10:17
mister Frost, wealthy people, Acosta. I don't recall any communications.
10:22
So I reached out to Washington to ask the head
10:24
of Child's Exploitation and Obscenity Section to come to our
10:27
meeting because I wanted Washington to be fully briefed, because
10:31
I thought Washington would be brought into this. That was
10:34
my reaching out, and so in that process, I'm sure
10:36
that there was some back and forth so that the
10:38
person could come to this meeting where to be clear,
10:41
I rejected every asked the defense made of me, and
10:44
I said, we're going with the original decision that I made.
10:48
All right, folks, We're gonna wrap up right there, and
10:50
in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna
10:52
pick up where we left off. All of the information
10:55
that goes with this episode can be found in the
10:57
description box. What's up everyone, and we'll come to another
11:00
episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking
11:04
up with the alex Acosta deposition that was given to Congress.
11:08
Once again, alex Acosta's answering the questions, and a whole
11:11
host of people are doing the questioning Acosta. Now going forward,
11:17
your question was, mister Frost, when you were being considered
11:21
to be the Secretary of Labor Acosta. Yes, Frost, in
11:24
your conversations with Donald Trump or anyone in his administration,
11:28
did you talk about the Epstein investigation? Acosta the first
11:32
time Frost before confirmation, Acosta the first time that I
11:36
recall Nieman before confirmation, Acosta talking about this from the
11:41
first time I was being considered for a position in
11:44
the Trump administration to confirmation, the first time I recall
11:47
talking about this. There may I don't know. There are
11:51
two points at which I may have at one point
11:53
at which I did, and one point at which I
11:55
may have. The point at which I did. I was.
11:58
I believe there were some I forget where I know
12:01
in the Washington Post there was a story above the
12:04
fold at one point, but I think that was later.
12:06
And so I talked to the communications team because the
12:09
communications team needed to be briefed about it, obviously, and
12:13
so I had a conversation with the communications team, mister Frost,
12:17
and then you said there was another Acosta and the
12:20
other instance where I may have had communication, I don't
12:23
recall if I did, or if it was simply or
12:25
if there was some written question or otherwise, But at
12:28
some point in the vetting process a question may have arisen.
12:32
And if the question arose, Frost, and you don't remember, Acosta,
12:36
I honestly don't remember. But if the question arose in
12:39
the vetting process where the FBI does its background, Frost, okay, Acosta.
12:44
Then Frost cuts them off, very good, thank you. Jasmin
12:49
Crockett pipes up. Okay. So I've just got two questions,
12:52
and you may be able to finish answering them before
12:55
the end of this part. I still want them to
12:57
get on the record because I'm going to have to go.
13:00
You talked about how weak the case was, and there
13:02
was a number of follow up questions on that from
13:04
Dave Men. I'm trying to figure out are you aware
13:07
as to whether or not any of Jeffrey Epstein's employees
13:11
were ever interviewed as part of the investigation. Mister Acosta.
13:15
So again, as US attorney, I don't get involved in
13:18
who was to that cut off by Crockett Okay Acosta interviewed.
13:23
They may have been interviewed, they may not have been.
13:26
Crockett Okay Acosta that that was not the role that
13:29
I played in this. Crockett Okay, I understand. And the
13:33
only reason I ask is because you talked about basically
13:36
how you all came together, and I'm aware that a
13:39
lot of times there's basically like conferences that you pulled
13:42
together your entire team and you talk about these things, right,
13:47
But it doesn't sound like you asked those questions in
13:49
those meetings either to know whether or not, well, did
13:53
you go and do this, that, or whatever the things
13:56
to better the case and make the case stronger. But
14:00
I'm going to hold that there, and if you have
14:02
anything to provide as it relates to testimony of the
14:04
things that you did to try to make the case
14:07
better or try to make sure that you had everything
14:10
that you could to make sure that it was the
14:11
best case, then please let us know on the record later.
14:16
But the final question, because I want to kind of
14:18
get to the end, is it sounds like you had
14:20
a lot of meetings with lots of people, but it
14:22
seems like the victims were left out of this, and
14:25
ultimately we know that there was a problem with you, potentially,
14:29
I don't know the exact language violating statute that requires
14:32
victims to be made aware. So while there are all
14:36
these other conversations taking place, and I'm used to prosecution
14:39
offices talking to victims and explaining to victims why they
14:43
are going to have weaknesses in their cases, and explaining
14:47
prior to making an offer, because there have been victims
14:50
that have been told prosecutors, yes, I hear you saying
14:53
that the case is weak, but I want to testify.
14:56
I want my day in court. I want to go forward.
14:58
And I've heard prosecutor years go forward simply because victims
15:02
are saying we want to go forward. It doesn't sound
15:05
like that was done. If it was done, please let
15:08
us know. But it's my understanding that Sarah Kellen, Nadia
15:11
marson Kova, and Adriana Musinska messing that up, that they
15:15
were being investigated as co conspirators or that they were
15:18
being included in the NPA, either before or after it
15:22
was signed. But is that common practice in the Southern
15:26
District of Florida, number one, And how can you explain
15:29
including young women in a non prosecution agreement without their
15:32
knowledge at the request of a clear serial sexual predator,
15:37
mister Acosta. Okay, So that was a lot of questions.
15:41
Let me try to take the gist of this. I'm
15:44
reading from the case agent's Warren's statement. I believe you
15:47
cited litigation where they filed suit under the CVR, Miss Crockett, Yes,
15:52
Acosta so first at the time, and it's all since changed,
15:55
But at the time it was Department of Justice position
15:58
that the CVRA did not attach until indictment, and that
16:02
was the written position under an Office of Legal Council decision,
16:06
and so things have changed. But I want to be
16:08
very clear upfront. The Office of Professional Responsibility reviewed this
16:12
matter fully and there are some things I agreed with
16:14
the question earlier where I agreed with the criticism of OPR,
16:19
but OPR found out that we did not violate any law,
16:22
we did not violate any department policy, and there was
16:25
no misconduct with respect to victim notification. Reading from the
16:29
case agent's worn declaration, many of the victims were troubled
16:32
about the existence of the investigation some victims who were
16:36
identified through the investigation refused to even speak to us
16:40
during interviews conducted from two thousand and six to two
16:43
thousand and eight, continuing after the agreement was signed, no
16:47
victim expressed a strong opinion that Epstein be prosecuted. And
16:51
so that was actually filed in a response to the
16:53
claims that you made in that that you quoted from
16:56
that litigation, that is the litigation that preceded and the
16:59
decks de gclaration was filed as a response to the
17:02
claims that you made. Now the respect to victim notification.
17:06
Very briefly, one of the issues that arose, and this
17:09
went to a little bit of your question about some
17:11
of the difficulties that I will own with the proceeding
17:14
on the state, was that we included a provision that
17:17
allowed the victims to recover monetary damages, and our prosecuting
17:22
attorney in the FBI case agent started notifying the victims.
17:25
And this isn't my recollection. Let me be clear, this
17:28
is what the OPR discussed and found, because you know,
17:32
I was not as US attorneys supervising victim notification. This
17:36
was you know, left to the prosecuting attorneys and the
17:39
supervisory chained and this is what OPR found, and so
17:43
they became concerned that they were generating more impeachment evidence
17:47
because if victims became aware that they could recover monetarily,
17:51
they would have when they're put on the stand. Can
17:53
you imagine how the questioning would go. Is it true
17:56
that if this person is convicted, you stand to recover
17:58
one hundred thousand dollars one hundred and fifty thousand dollars
18:01
or whatever the amount was. And because of that, they
18:06
went to their professional responsibility officer, their ethics officer and said,
18:10
we feel uncomfortable continuing with the victim notifications, and the
18:14
ethics officer at the time said, if you feel uncomfortable,
18:17
then don't go forward. And so the notifications, based on
18:21
my understanding of the OPR report, proceeded by saying that
18:25
the investigation is ongoing because at the time the appeal
18:28
was pending in DC and we didn't know how it
18:30
would turn out. And so that is a decision that
18:34
was made. It was made with the best intention of
18:36
preserving the case, and it was made in conjunction with
18:39
the Professional responsibility officer of the office redacted. We're going
18:44
to end the democratic round there. But before we do,
18:47
Miss Stansbury, can you please introduce yourself on the record.
18:50
Miss Stansbury, I'm Melanie Stansbury from New Mexico. Thank you
18:54
for being here. Mister Acosta, how are you, mister Ann? Sorry?
18:58
Hi and sorry, Arizona's third Acosta? How are you great?
19:04
We'll go off the record. So they go off the record,
19:07
then they come back. Question So, just for a clean record,
19:10
the Epstein case in the Southern District of Florida was
19:13
resolved via non prosecution agreement? Correct answer, yes. Question I
19:19
want to differentiate a little bit. Did you approve the
19:21
terms of the NPA itself? You've been using term sheet.
19:24
I think that language that you've been using. Is there
19:27
a difference between the two? Answer? So, the term sheet
19:30
was the initial proposal that was presented to the defense.
19:33
I believe in late July. The ultimate agreement differed primarily
19:37
as we've already discussed, from twenty four to eighteen. Question.
19:40
Uh huh, answer and I approve both. Question okay, is
19:44
there a difference between the non prosecution agreement and the
19:47
kind of plea agreement? Answer? There is? Question what is it? Answer? So,
19:52
a non prosecution agreement is typically kept in the US
19:55
Attorney's office and its agreement not to prosecute, and in
19:58
this case, it was a different to the state that
20:01
would be prosecuting pursuant to these terms. Question, are plea
20:05
agreements traditionally more public than non prosecution agreements? Answer? Non
20:10
prosecution agreements traditionally or not public? Question? Okay? Answer? Or
20:14
at least were not public traditionally at the time. Question
20:18
at that time? So a non prosecution agreement like wouldn't
20:22
be I'm sure a pacer didn't exist in two thousand
20:24
and six, but wouldn't go online or wouldn't be available
20:27
at a courthouse for the public to view? Answer? It
20:29
would not. It would be kept at the US Attorney's office.
20:33
Question was that the part of the rationale to choose
20:36
a non prosecution agreement versus a plea agreement? Answer? It
20:40
was not. Question did defense counsel ever suggest that they
20:44
wanted it to remain private? Answer? So at some point
20:46
in the process that came up, and that came up
20:49
in the negotiation process. As a matter of fact US
20:52
attorney policy, it would remain within the US Attorney's office,
20:56
But it's always subject to freedom of Information Act question okay,
21:01
but from your side of the negotiating table, it being
21:04
private was not pivotal in the negotiation, Acosta, It being
21:08
private was not pivotal at all. Question. Was there ever
21:12
a discussion in forcing a plea agreement versus an NPA? Answer?
21:17
I don't understand the question of forcing a plea agreement? Question.
21:20
So it was obvious the defense team's interest for an NPA,
21:24
because one rationale I would think would be that it's
21:28
not a public document. Did it ever come up in
21:30
conversation of the US Attorney's Office that they would prefer
21:33
a public document versus the NPA. Answer? I wasn't part
21:38
of the team that negotiated this, and so I can't
21:41
speak as to what came up in conversation. The ultimate
21:44
plea was in state court question uh huh. Answer, so
21:47
we need to be well, let me separate out the terms.
21:50
The plea was in state court. It was a public
21:53
state plea. The federal resolution that we were going to
21:56
withhold prosecution pending the state plea and serving his term.
22:00
Question okay, answer as we envisioned it under continuous confinement
22:04
in the state court. Question okay, thank you, all right, folks,
22:08
we're going to wrap up right here and in the
22:10
next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up
22:12
where we left off. All of the information that goes
22:15
with this episode can be found in the description box.
22:18
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
22:21
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
22:24
where we left off with alex Acosta and his trip
22:27
to speak to the US Congress. Question I'm going to
22:33
introduce I think it's exhibit to the actual NPA. So
22:39
this non prosecution agreement in the Epstein matter, just for
22:41
the record, this looks like the non prosecution agreement that
22:44
you approved. Answer it does, and it has signatures. So yes,
22:48
question I believe from everybody. Answer yes, question, And it
22:52
was originally signed in September of two thousand and seven,
22:55
but he did not plead and stay court until the
22:57
summer of two thousand and eight. Is that your recollection
22:59
as well? Answer? That's my recollection question. Do you recall
23:03
as to why the large delay there? Answer? Yes, because
23:07
after he signed it, we expected him to plead right
23:09
away like defendants typically do, and then he started challenging
23:13
it collaterally. He started challenging the authority of the office
23:16
to enter into the agreement, and then he started appealing
23:19
to Washington d C. To the Criminal Division and then
23:23
subsequently the Deputy Attorney General. Question, and you have said before,
23:28
but in your experience, it's kind of strange for someone
23:31
to agree to an agreement and then attempt to backtrack. Answer.
23:35
In my experience, it hadn't happened previously. And let me
23:38
just add in the experience of I think I can
23:41
speak for our office, everyone was upset. Question is there
23:45
my own kind of intellectual curiosity? I mean, he signed it,
23:49
your office signed it. Was there any reason to go
23:51
through the delay? Could you not summon him to court
23:54
and say you have to follow the agreement? Answer? So
23:57
at various points in the delay process, I think everyone.
24:01
At some point everyone became frustrated and said, why don't
24:04
we just declare a breach? One thing, we did not
24:07
foresee all these appeals and all the collateral attacks. And
24:11
I will accept that criticism. But having signed this, if
24:14
we declare a breach, now we're litigating as to whether
24:17
or not it's a valid breach. If it's because it's
24:20
you an a lateral breach, and now we're putting off
24:22
the criminal trial and the criminal prosecution that much longer
24:26
as we go through the litigation of so once it signed,
24:30
do we have the grounds to withdraw? And we had
24:33
discussions at various points about whether we should or should not,
24:36
but ultimately, you know, he was appealing to Washington. We
24:40
were shocked, but Washington heard him out. I asked Washington
24:43
to expedite the appeals because I wanted it just done
24:46
and I wanted him in jail. But you know, Americans
24:49
do have a right to appeal decisions of US attorneys
24:51
to their bosses. Question, but you had said like he
24:55
was appealing after he would agree to it. Answer. Look question,
24:59
which is on pre answer. It's absurd. It is absurd
25:04
and unprecedented, but it is what it is. And if
25:07
we declared a unilateral breach, now something that's already been
25:10
delayed is going to be further delayed as we litigate
25:13
whether or not we had a right to breach. Question
25:16
and then the appeals process. You said the head of
25:19
criminal division in DC and the DAG. Is that correct answer?
25:23
He appealed to criminal division. I think the head of
25:25
Criminal Division delegated that down and then he appealed to
25:29
the Deputy Attorney General. Question so well, I just I
25:33
won't testify for you. What did the Criminal Division? What
25:36
was their decision? Answer? The Criminal Division supported the office,
25:40
and then the Deputy Attorney General supported the office. Question
25:44
who was the DAG at the time? Answer I'm sorry,
25:48
I should remember, and I don't question. That's okay, that's
25:51
one we can figure out. But the Deputy Attorney General's
25:54
office supported your US Attorney's Office decision in the matter. Answered,
25:59
they authorized us to go forward? Bingo, what have I
26:02
been telling you? That's, mister Philippe, that I've been talking
26:06
about for how long? You just got to read in
26:08
between the lines, folks? Answer, they authorize us to go forward?
26:12
Question all right, was there any delay between the DAG
26:16
approval and the final plea in state court? Answer? Once
26:19
the Deputy Attorney General authorized it to go forward, then
26:23
the plea in state court proceeded. I don't want to
26:25
say expeditiously, but in relatively short order. Question were you
26:30
not aware of any appeals to the state attorney General? Answer?
26:33
I was not aware of any appeals to the attorney general.
26:36
Question In non prosecution agreements, generally, this one sounds pretty unprecedented.
26:41
In its number of appeals and steps. But does a
26:44
US attorney have the authority to enter into them without
26:47
Washington approval? Answer? Yes, Question what are they again a
26:52
general question? What kind of crimes are they normally used for? Answer? So,
26:56
non prosecution agreements are typically used more for the collar setting.
27:01
In this case, it was different because it's a non
27:03
prosecution on a federal crime. But it's a non prosecution
27:06
in deference to an alternative prosecution in the state where
27:10
the case began, so he could proceed as police initially
27:14
had thought appropriate questions, So not I mean, this is
27:18
kind of an untraditional non prosecution agreement generally, but they're
27:21
not traditionally used in sex crimes or answer that's correct question,
27:26
or other violent crimes. This is the kind of hot
27:30
button issue going into September twenty ninth. But are non
27:33
prosecution agreements binding on all US attorneys within the United States? Answer?
27:38
They are not. And I'm sure you're aware that matter
27:40
is pending in the Supreme Court. Question But a district
27:44
court has said that, and an appeals court has said. Answer,
27:48
A district court has said that, and an appeals court
27:51
has said that, And that is the position of the
27:53
Department of Justice. Question, while US attorney, had you used
27:58
non prosecution agreements prior to this one? Answer not to
28:01
my recollection question, did you use one after? Answer not
28:05
to my recollection question? And just you were there for
28:08
a number of years and this was the only case
28:11
that was a non prosecution answer, So non prosecution agreements
28:15
are typically are more typical in the types of cases
28:18
that are litigated in Washington or in other districts. Question. Okay,
28:23
you said white collar cases. Answer yes, question more common
28:27
financial or tax crimes, those kinds of things. Answer correct. Question.
28:31
All right, We've touched on this kind of around the
28:34
topic an awful lot today, and there was an awful
28:37
lot of back and forth in the last hour. But
28:39
just this is a broad question. So as briefly as
28:42
you can and to the best of your recollection, why
28:45
a non prosecution agreement in this case? Answer? So, ultimately,
28:49
the question was do we proceed federally or do we
28:52
defer to the state. It came from the state. The
28:55
state police wanted certain charges. I understood that would result
28:59
in two years. It entered the office in the context
29:02
of we may have to proceed with a double prosecution.
29:05
And the fact is I understood them were local facts.
29:09
We felt comfortable that we felt we had an agreement
29:12
or an argument for an interstate case, that is, if
29:15
we had to go to trial. We had no issue
29:17
going to trial, but everyone favored a resolution that was negotiated.
29:22
But because of all those issues, it seemed that a
29:24
state resolution at the time made sense. As I said before,
29:29
I note opr's comments, if we had I think what
29:33
I told the Office of Professional Responsibility was, if we
29:36
had foreseen all the issues that the state resolution raised,
29:39
we would not have gone down that path. And I
29:41
don't advise others to go down that path, but we
29:44
didn't foresee them at the time. And when I say
29:47
we again, that's on me. I will take responsibility for that.
29:51
And in the sense, I think OPR was generally correct question.
29:55
And prior to the execution of the NPA, it was
29:58
largely believed in the office that a negotiated agreement was
30:02
I'm going to use the phrase the like safer outcome.
30:05
It was going to result in jail time. Answer, it
30:08
was a superior outcome because it would result in jail time,
30:11
it would result in registration, It would send a signal
30:14
to the community, and I you know, credited or cited
30:18
for multiple people. It was the sense that you didn't
30:21
have to put the victims that didn't want to go
30:23
through a trial through a trial, and there was a continuum.
30:27
We talk about the victims as if they had one view,
30:30
and you know, multiple victims with different views. Question were there,
30:35
I'll read you. It's page forty of the OPR report.
30:38
Phila Fauna, the lead line prosecutor on the case, told
30:41
OPR that she was angry when she received Menchel's July
30:45
email explaining that he had proposed to Sanchez revolving the
30:49
federal investigation through a state plea. In Villa Fauna's view,
30:53
the proposed state resolution didn't make any sense and didn't
30:56
correspond to Department policy requiring that a plea offer reflect
31:00
the most serious, readily approvable offense, and her view, a
31:03
plea to a state charge obviously would not satisfy this policy.
31:08
Did Miss Villa Fanna ever express to you your concerns
31:11
regarding the language of the NPA? Was the question answer.
31:15
Miss Villa Fauna ended up negotiating the language of the NPA.
31:19
I think it's fair to say that she would have
31:21
preferred a federal resolution I think my supervisory staff differed
31:26
from her in that they were comfortable with the state resolution,
31:29
although to some extent the federalism concerns, the deference to
31:33
the state, if I'm being fair in all of this,
31:35
primarily comes from me, and I think OPR found that.
31:39
And I think OPR was fair in that judgment. Question,
31:42
So it's miss Villafana's words, not yours, but just your
31:45
interaction with her and with others negotiating this agreement or
31:49
getting to this agreement. Would it be fair to characterize
31:52
her and you've said this as in favor of a
31:54
negotiated resolution, but not necessarily in favor of the state resolution. Answer?
32:00
I think that would be fair. Question. Okay, I just
32:03
wanted to kind of, you know, dissect that because it
32:06
was a little confusing. Do you ever recall who first
32:09
initiated the negotiations with Epstein's defense regarding the NPA? Answer?
32:14
I do not question. Were there ever any concerns regarding
32:17
using an NPA versus going to trial? Answer? Soever is
32:21
a very broad word, right, I think this is twenty
32:24
years ago. Thinking back, these conversations, sometimes they happen around
32:27
the table. Sometimes they also happened in the hallway. You know,
32:31
the first assistant had his office right next to mine.
32:33
We shared a suite. The criminal chief had his office
32:36
down the hall. You get together, you talk about things,
32:39
and the proposal formed, and ultimately I approved it. But
32:42
the proposal people come together, they generate a consensus. What
32:46
do you think? What do you think? How do we
32:48
go forward? But ultimately, look, I approved it, and so
32:52
I was a US attorney and I take responsibility. Question
32:57
would you characterize the processes like a rigorous debate that
33:00
led to this outcome versus trial? Answer? I think there
33:03
was a falsome and rigorous debate and that simply wasn't
33:07
one meeting that happened over a number of days, if
33:09
not weeks, where ideas would be discussed back and forth.
33:13
Question and then, while I'm going to have two different
33:15
time periods, while it was being negotiated prior to being
33:19
signed in September of two thousand and seven, do you
33:21
recall negotiations regarding the longer moving forward off of how
33:26
the Defense Council was acting or any new information? Answer?
33:31
There was some. I don't recall them, but I've read
33:33
the OPR report that there were some discussions about not
33:36
longer moving forward, no longer moving forward. And it was
33:40
based largely on Defense Council getting very close to the
33:42
line of what's proper and not proper for a defense
33:45
counsel to do. And my view on that is, I
33:48
understand defense counsel are who they are, I understand they're frustrating,
33:53
and I understand that they agree and then say they
33:56
didn't agree, But that's the decision that we had. We
33:59
should make a good faith effort to follow through on
34:02
what we thought was the right approach despite defense tactics
34:05
that were frustrating at best. And you asked earlier, I'd
34:09
say bordered on it's not frustrating and unprofessional, and it
34:12
came very close to the line. All right, folks, we're
34:14
gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode
34:17
dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we
34:19
left off. All of the information that goes with this
34:21
episode can be found in the description box.