Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 19-21) (6/23/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 19-21) (6/23/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

0:04
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
0:07
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
0:10
where we left off with Alex Acosta and his interview
0:14
with the OIG Inspectors. Question, Okay, what is your view
0:19
of whether the Criminal Division's review encompassed the NPA itself. Answer? So,
0:24
the Criminal Division, by its terms, did not encompass the NPA.
0:29
I would say that's different than the Deputy's review that
0:32
encompassed the totality of the circumstances. Question Okay, did you
0:37
discuss did you have conversations with DAG with Mark Phillip
0:41
about the case? Answer not to my recollection. Question okay,
0:45
and we've already talked about submission that Redacted made on
0:48
behalf of your office. Answer which yes, which I thought
0:53
was a fulsome submission and included the draft indictment the NPA.
0:57
I believe it included the term sheet and the other
0:59
docors documents. Question did you or anyone else, to your
1:03
knowledge asked DAG to review or assess the NPA or
1:07
approve it. Answer not to before signature, Not to my recollection,
1:12
but it was part of the ultimate review when Redacted
1:14
submitted the matter to the deputy He included the agreement question.
1:18
It was included their very first brief letter. You remember
1:22
the letter that authored that he authored addressed really only
1:26
the issues of the appropriateness of the case for prosecution
1:30
in your office. It did not in any way reference
1:33
the disposition, the plea agreement, or the NPA answer. So
1:37
it was the brief letter based on redacted submission. I
1:40
would have read that letter as they had all the
1:43
material in front of them, and they were saying that
1:45
there was no misconduct or abuse of discretion question. That's correct,
1:49
But they did not say that they contacted, that they
1:53
had addressed or assessed, reviewed even they didn't say that
1:56
they reviewed or approved the NPA answer. Again, and you know,
2:00
if the letter is here, I don't know gets cut
2:03
off question. Yeah, I have it right here. It's not
2:06
marked as an exhibit. But this is redacted's letter to
2:09
Jay Lefkowitz and Ken Starr, dated June twenty three, two
2:12
thousand and eight. It states that this office, meaning the
2:15
Office of the Deputy Attorney General, has completed a thorough
2:19
review of the US Attorney's handling of the matter involving
2:22
your client and addresses or states that they've received and
2:27
reviewed submission from both parties, and then states that the
2:30
Deputy Attorney General will intervene only in the most unusual
2:34
of circumstances in a US attorney matter, and we do
2:38
not believe such intervention is warranted here. Even if we
2:42
were to substitute our judgment for that of the US Attorney,
2:46
we believe the federal prosecution of the case is appropriate. Moreover,
2:50
having reviewed your allegation of prosecutorial misconduct and the facts
2:54
underlying them, we see nothing in the conduct of the
2:57
US Attorney's office that gives us any reason to alter
3:01
our opinion answer. And so, if I could point out,
3:04
this office has completed a thorough review of the US
3:07
Attorney's handling of the matter, and so handling is a
3:10
broad a broad term, and in reference to we believe
3:14
that federal prosecution of the case is appropriate. The way
3:18
I recalled reading that is, the federal prosecution of this case.
3:22
The argument that was the agreement was inappropriate because this
3:26
case should not have been prosecuted, and therefore that's the disposition.
3:31
The federal prosecution of the case was appropriate, and so
3:35
the handling of the matter. We reviewed, the handling of
3:37
the matter, not the agreement, but the handling of the matter,
3:40
and that the ultimate disposition you know, is at least
3:43
not an abusive discretion or is appropriate? Question That's how
3:48
you read it? Answer, That's how I read it. Question.
3:51
And did you ever discuss that Did you ever discuss
3:53
with anyone in ODAG what the scope of their review was? Answer?
3:59
Not to my recollection. It was a fulsome submission question. Correct,
4:03
But the issue presented by the defense were essentially federalism issues, right. Answer.
4:08
So again this is based on you know, as much
4:12
recollection as contemporaneous record. The issue presented by the defense were,
4:17
in essence, it was the heart of the non prosecution agreement,
4:20
which was it an abusive discretion to proceed in this
4:24
case in the way that we did on the grounds
4:27
that there may not or there should not have been
4:29
a federal prosecution in the first place, or that we
4:33
are using federal criminal law to elicit a civil outcome.
4:37
And so I don't think it's fair to sort of
4:39
narrow You can't say that our handling was you know
4:42
that their handling was revised without reviewing the non prosecution agreement. Question,
4:47
do you have any reason to believe that either ODAG
4:50
or a criminal division. Well that the ODAG, let's stick
4:54
with that, did in fact review the NPA, other than
4:57
that it was where it existed, whatever it's as might
5:00
have been. Answer. So it was clearly submitted, it was
5:03
clearly referenced, and it was clearly part of the complaint.
5:07
The complaint. The heart of the complaint about our office
5:10
was that we were using this agreement to impose civil liability.
5:14
And so I think it's fair to infer if the
5:16
complaint implicates the agreement, that the agreement would have been reviewed. Question,
5:21
but that's your inference. You don't have any specific communication
5:26
with ODAG to that effect. Answer, I don't recall any
5:30
specific communication. Question all right, I would like to take
5:34
a short break. We're getting there. Answer. I hear you redacted.
5:39
We appreciate your time that you've put into this. You've
5:42
been here for quite a long time. Acosta, Yeah, redacted.
5:46
The area that I want to discuss after the break
5:48
has to do with the ultimate notification of the victims
5:51
about the resolution of the case, the state plea and
5:54
the result of the federal investigation. And there is going
5:58
to be we have documents that are that are already
6:01
marked that might be helpful if you take a look
6:03
at a couple of them so we don't have to
6:05
go through maybe during the break, so you don't have
6:07
to go through them one by one, or I can
6:09
just give you a very quick overview of sort of
6:12
where we're going. I want to find out basically how
6:15
we're getting from there. That would be the state asking
6:18
for the US Attorney's Office to make the notification to
6:21
the victims about the upcoming state plea that happens in
6:24
November of two thousand and seven. That would be document
6:27
thirty two B to the defense. Then finding out that
6:31
the government want to notify the victims by letter, and
6:33
then demanding that they see the letter and have some
6:36
kind of comment on it. That would be document thirty three,
6:39
an email from lef Quwitz. Then we have an exchange
6:42
of letters. But the one I'd like to look at
6:45
is at document thirty seven, which is a letter coming
6:47
from redacted to the defense. And now, but you know,
6:50
during the break, so I want to find out how
6:53
we got from that Document thirty six where redacted is
6:57
writing as letters saying that citing the CVRA regulation saying
7:02
that the government is obligated to notify the victims about
7:05
the resolution of the case, and attaching a draft letter
7:08
to the victims telling them the time and date of
7:11
the state resolution and plea, inviting them to come to
7:15
ultimately a letter from you coming on nineteenth of December
7:19
two thousand and seven, which is number forty one B
7:22
agreeing to notify the victims of the state plea and
7:25
agreeing with the defense to have the state be responsible
7:29
for putting out that notification. And then we end ultimately
7:33
with a letter or draft letter that we have that
7:35
goes out to the victims in the case hon or
7:38
after the plea in July. Well, we have the draft
7:41
I'm going to show you which comes in June, showing
7:44
that the letter was clearly meant to be sent after
7:47
the plea as per the agreement. And that's document number
7:50
fifty one. So that's a lot to unpack there. Answer.
7:55
That's a lot to unpack. We should probably take it
7:57
a step at a time. Answer. Yes, I just wanted
8:00
to give you an overview because I think that's some
8:03
of what you had mentioned earlier. I know it's been
8:06
a long time, so I'll try to orient you from
8:09
the timeline. So if you I have highlighted the section
8:13
of those letters that we want to talk about, and
8:16
if you have a chance while we're taking a break
8:18
to look through them, that may be helpful to orient
8:21
you so that we're not spinning our wills on this.
8:24
I don't want to waste any of your time. Answer
8:26
a fair question, all right, off the record. Back on
8:29
the record now, questions begin again. Question Okay, great, So,
8:33
I know I gave you a lot to unpack over
8:35
the short break. We just had one. Basically, what we're
8:38
trying to get to find out is how your decision
8:42
making process regarding the victim notification issue. So maybe if
8:46
you could just give anything with your December nineteenth decision,
8:51
could you give us an explanation about how you got there? Answer? So,
8:55
I think we should probably take this in stages. Question okay. Answer.
8:59
As a general matter, I recall that there was back
9:02
and forth regarding after the agreement regarding how to notify
9:05
the victims, and there was back and forth between redacted
9:08
and Jay Lefkowitz and redacted around all that. Sorry I'm
9:12
losing my voice. I recall that there was an issue
9:15
in particular that was raised that I tried to address
9:18
in the letter and I recall at the end of
9:20
the day, it was my impression that once there was
9:22
an agreement for him to plead, that there was an
9:25
attempt I redacted to provide notice to the victims. But
9:28
it was a very It was I think on a Friday,
9:31
and he was pleading on a Monday morning or something
9:34
along those lines. And finally, I recall that the view
9:37
of the office was that the CVRA did not apply,
9:41
and so that this was a discretionary balancing that included
9:45
consideration of what impact notification of the twenty two dot
9:49
fifty five s would have at a trial the twenty
9:52
two to fifty five provision if we had to go
9:54
to trial. So we can unpack that. But those are
9:57
my general recollections. Question, okay, answer, and look, let me
10:02
add I think it's important. So I came in and
10:05
out of the case that stages, and I was involved
10:08
in certain aspects more than others. And while we had
10:10
a long discussion about the term sheet and matters like that,
10:14
while I was clearly involved in at least one dispute
10:17
around the twenty two to fifty five, the nuts and
10:20
bolts of how victims were notified is not something that
10:23
I have a recollection about Okay, fair answer, but we
10:26
can unpack it. Answer or question? I mean, okay, let's
10:30
start with the exhibit thirty three. So there we have.
10:33
As you can see, it's an email from left Qwitz
10:36
to you and to redacted, objecting to a letter being
10:39
sent to the victims unless the defense gets to review it.
10:42
And later on in some of your other correspondents, you
10:45
discussed that you you extended to the defense the courtesy
10:49
of allowing them to review these letters. Is this the
10:53
genesis of that courtesy? Answer? I don't have a recollection
10:57
as to what the genesis might be. I know that
10:59
there are well us back and forth between our office
11:02
and the defense about the letter. Question. Okay, but as
11:05
you can see on thirty three that you're not the
11:08
response from redacted, but redacted instructs redacted to send the
11:12
proposed letter to left Quitz, and I assume that redacted
11:15
would have done that had you objected to it. Answer again,
11:18
I don't recall any specific conversation. As general matter, this
11:23
is not something I was getting into the weeds unless
11:26
I had to. There was a lot of back and forth.
11:29
Question uh huh. Answer, Redacted is someone that I trusted
11:33
he was handling this matter. He's incredibly experienced. I know
11:36
that there were concerns and issues around the impact that
11:39
notification would have on the witnesses. I know that there
11:43
were issues around the language, and I trusted that folks
11:46
were working those out. Question Uh huh. One of the
11:50
criticisms that's compost. You know the CVRA litigation, that's been
11:54
the government allowing the defense to have review of these
11:57
letters or potential victim notification letters coming out of the government,
12:02
and that's very unusual. Have you had any other cases
12:05
where you let the defense review such documents. Answer? I've
12:09
had no other cases where I'm even aware of the
12:11
victims being notified, because I assume it all operates without
12:15
it rising to the management level. Question mm hmm. Answer,
12:19
and so this is the first and only time that
12:22
how individuals are notified to my recollection was even in
12:26
the executive suite. Question isn't that usually done or accomplished
12:30
by almost a computerized task? Answer? I would assume so, yes. Question,
12:36
given that the unusual way the notifications are made by
12:39
victim witness specialist, who is usually that person? Answer yes,
12:43
question do I have that right? So the FBI has
12:46
their victim witness specialist. Answer yes, question, and your office,
12:50
the US Attorney's Office has dedicated people who do that
12:53
job as well. Answer correct question. So why in this
12:58
case not direct the notification to that person to be
13:02
done in the usual course? Why elevate to something that
13:05
the defense is going to be able to review? So
13:09
I can't address the second half of that, but the
13:11
first half of the question, why why was it elevated?
13:14
You know, I think Redacted address some of that in
13:17
her was it twenty seventeen? Avia David and so on?
13:21
So we had an agreement that had been signed, and
13:24
we also had substantial questions as to whether that agreement,
13:27
whether ultimately Jeffrey Epstein would plead in court or not.
13:31
And so one of the questions is how do you
13:33
deal with notification of a possibility where the possibility could
13:37
be used to impeach potential future witnesses who are also
13:41
the victims. And that's a matter that was being worked
13:44
out by the ausas in the office question and the
13:48
impeachment is what answer? So impeachment I would believe Redacted
13:53
went into some detail, is you stand miss victims stand
13:57
to gain quite a bit of money if there's a conviction, correct,
14:01
weren't you aware of this agreement? If we have to
14:03
go to trial? Weren't you aware of this agreement? And
14:06
this isn't based on my recollection. This is based on
14:08
redacted Zaffid David, where she says that she had concerns
14:13
that the impeachment go along somewhere along the lines of
14:16
were you aware that if mister Epstein's convicted you stand
14:19
to receive substantial sums? Yes? Were you influenced by this?
14:23
And there were some according to Araffid David. This isn't
14:27
my independent recollection, This is according to Affid David, there
14:30
had already been dispositions of the victims, of at least
14:33
some of the victims that raise these issues. And so
14:36
I do think that it was a valid concern by
14:38
the ausas how the notifications took place. Question Okay, but
14:43
isn't that the type of line of cross examination the
14:46
same for any case where they're super wealthy defendant? Answer?
14:52
It may be the twenty two fifty five may make
14:55
it a little different because it's automatic, But ultimately these
14:58
are the judgments that line attorneys make, and a US attorney,
15:01
I think it's appropriate to back up their judgment unless
15:04
there was some reason for me to believe it was
15:06
incorrect question, Was there any thought ever to just giving
15:11
the victim notification that there will be a proceeding that
15:14
will end the federal case, just separating that in maybe
15:18
a later notification about the twenty two to fifty five answer.
15:23
I can't speak to what we thought there was or
15:26
was not. I can say around this timeframe, it was
15:29
far from clear that there would ever be that Epstein
15:31
would ever go into court, and we were thinking we
15:34
may have to just go to trial because these collateral
15:36
attacks keep going. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up
15:40
right here, and in the next episode, we're gonna pick
15:43
up where we left off. All of the information that
15:45
goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
15:49
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
15:52
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're gonna pick up where
15:56
we left off with alex Acosta and his interview with
15:59
the OIG inspectors. Question. Okay, let's get back on track.
16:05
The question that I asked earlier about allowing the defense
16:08
the courtesy to look at these letters. Can you just
16:11
remind us again what was the reasoning that you're allowed
16:15
to look at the victim notification letter. Answer, I can't
16:18
speak to that that something that redacted and redacted would
16:22
have handled. I think that you know, I'm responsible for
16:25
the office. I'm not shirking. I'm just saying that this
16:28
that this for the most part, is within their willhouse
16:31
and not something that I was involved in. I can
16:34
speculate question, sure, answer, the agreement was notifying them. The
16:39
letter was notifying them of certain rights in the agreement,
16:42
and therefore this is the time we weren't sure what
16:46
was happening with the agreement, and so perhaps this is
16:49
a way to address some of the concerns around the
16:51
twenty two to fifty five. I don't know. I'm just speculating. Question. Okay,
16:56
let's move on to Exhibit thirty six. This is a
16:59
letter that goes out to left Kowitz under a redacted signature.
17:03
You are c seed on the letter. Answer, all right, question,
17:07
And what he's doing is sending a draft victim notification letter,
17:10
which is attached as the attachment there dated December sixth,
17:13
two thousand and seven. And I wanted to get your impression.
17:16
If you go to page three of the letter, please
17:19
the first little paragraph there when it refers to the
17:23
Victims Rights and Restitution Act and the ultimate for the CBRA.
17:27
If you could just read the paragraph to yourself. Please answer,
17:30
are you referring to paragraph ten? Question? I'm sorry, I'm
17:35
on the letter left the letter left Kwitz, not the
17:38
draft letter, this one right here? Answer the additionally question, yes,
17:43
additionally pursuing too the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of
17:47
nineteen ninety. Our office is obligated, et cetera. Answer okay.
17:52
Question do you agree with the language that interpretation of
17:56
the victims rights as far as the notification? Answer? So, so,
18:00
let's sort of take this, this one sentence out of
18:02
time with respect to the notification of other information that
18:06
we were supposed to disclose. The statute requires that we
18:09
provide victims with the earliest possible notice. I will assume
18:13
that this is a restatement of the statute. I don't
18:17
have it in front of me, but let's assume that
18:19
that's a restatement of the statute. Just as in eighteen,
18:22
these sections are not limited to the victim through. The
18:25
Federal should be appropriately informed that a non pros does
18:30
not require to forego its legal obligation on a sentence
18:33
by sentence basis. I mean, do I agree sitting here, sure,
18:37
but I would want to sort of sit down before
18:39
I gave a legal opinion and spend more time with it.
18:42
He gets cut off. Question, Okay, because coming out of
18:45
your office sort of this. Well, let's go to the
18:48
next page, page four. There's a citation to the right
18:51
to confer in the first paragraph there, citing the CVR
18:54
a's reasonable right to confer with the attorneys of the
18:57
government in the case. Answer, okay, question, so you know,
19:01
it looks like to me, I mean, well, it appears
19:05
that there's two references to the CVRA obligation that the
19:08
government has that ultimately the government argues that it did
19:12
not have. Can you explain why that is a correct interpretation? Answer? So,
19:17
what I can say is I recall, so it looks
19:19
like at least some of the victims were notified. I
19:23
recall a discussion and a view that the CVRA did
19:26
not require it, and it was discretionary because it wasn't
19:30
The case had not indicted, so it did not attach
19:32
to its terms. Now that doesn't mean that it's not
19:35
something to aspire to. That just means it wasn't legally
19:39
binding question. And in the same manner though, while the
19:42
CVRA isn't legally binding, it's also doesn't prevent you from
19:46
notifying the victims, does it answer? It does not know question?
19:51
And you have the discretion to notify should you choose
19:54
to answer? Correct question? Okay? And so if you look
19:58
at the letter that's attached this, this is a draft
20:01
that goes out. We're on page one, page three of
20:04
the letter, and the second to last paragraph. The letter
20:07
is giving notice of mister Epstein's change of plea and
20:10
sentencing that will occur well at this time it was
20:13
December fourteenth of two thousand and seven, and it gives
20:16
the address and it says underneath there you are entitled
20:19
to be present and make a statement under oath. If
20:22
you choose, you can submit a written statement under oath,
20:25
et cetera, et cetera. So this is a letter that's
20:28
actively inviting victims to come to the state. Would you
20:32
agree that that's inviting victims to come to the state?
20:35
Plea answer? I think that's fair question. And with the
20:39
letter is reasoning that the government is sending would like
20:43
to send this letter because it believes it's obligated to
20:45
because it resolves a federal case. Answer. So I don't
20:49
want to speak to the reasoning, but it's clearly a
20:52
draft that the government is saying it intends to send.
20:55
Question Okay, Now, ultimately, just this is not a question
21:00
some information that will help to move us along. Obviously,
21:04
this letter is never sent misredacted drafts. We have them,
21:08
and I'm not going to show them to you. Thirty letters,
21:11
copies of the letters to different victims, addresses them, puts
21:14
them in envelopes, and is then told not to send
21:17
the letters. Answer, all right, well the plea it's scheduled
21:21
for December fourteenth, So yeah, question yes. But one of
21:25
the issues that's still percolating until the end of December
21:28
is who is going to make this notification, because, as
21:31
you can expect, the defense pushes back on the letter.
21:34
And so now we go to the number thirty nine please,
21:37
And this is a December eleventh, two thousand and seven
21:40
letter from ken Star to you. And if you look
21:42
on page two at the front at the top, at
21:45
the top of the page, there this letter is complaining
21:48
about an oral notification that misredacted gave to one of
21:51
the defense one of the victims attorneys that a letter
21:54
would be coming, and so mister Starr is writing you
21:57
to complain about it. And he mentions in later paragraphs
22:01
that we have thought that the notification process had been
22:04
an abeyance until completion of our ongoing discussions with respect
22:08
to that process. So were you having discussions with mister
22:13
Starr about the process at this time? Answer? I don't
22:16
recall discussions. I think there were at least correspondents. I'm sorry,
22:20
Where are you? I was reading the letter. I'm sorry,
22:23
where are you? What paragraph? Question? Let's take a look.
22:27
I know it's been a long day. Let's slow down here.
22:29
We're on the second page of the Star letter. Answer yes, question,
22:34
and it would be this the language in there in
22:37
the second sentence, which goes towards the bottom, answer this notification.
22:42
But quite apart from our substantive concerns, which we had
22:45
thought the notification process had been an abeyance until the completion,
22:50
that appears not to be. So this is respectably. So,
22:54
where does it imply that I was having I don't
22:56
recall communication with mister Starr. That's why I'm curious, at
23:00
least verbal communications. I'm curious where you're reading that from question,
23:06
he's saying, we had thought that the notification process had
23:09
been held in abeyance until completion of our ongoing discussions.
23:13
Are you saying that he gets cut off there by
23:15
a star? Answer? So, I don't know where that may
23:18
have come from, and I don't recall I recall at
23:21
one point I think I sent a letter saying we'll
23:23
hold off for a week. I don't recall the date
23:25
of the letter. While your review some matters where the
23:28
abeyance came from, I can't speak to question. Okay, let's
23:31
go to Exhibit forty one B. This is your December
23:34
nineteenth letter, and what I'd like you to draw your
23:37
attention to is page two, the second to last paragraph there.
23:41
Answer yes, question, so could you tell us how your
23:45
decision making around this paragraph? How you got to this decision? Answer,
23:49
so you're asking me to recreate at some point the
23:52
issues clearly move from redacted interacting with defense counsel to
23:57
my desk and my recollection twelve years after the fact.
23:59
Is so you're saying we should notify them about the
24:03
state proceeding and sure the state this was negotiated between
24:07
Epstein and the State attorney, We did not direct the
24:10
state proceeding, So whatever state process is appropriate for the
24:14
state process will be given. But with respect to the
24:16
federal resolution, we intend to provide victims with notice of
24:20
the federal resolution as required by law. And your question
24:24
is if we thought it was discretionary. I recall our
24:28
believing it was discretionary, but you could also it doesn't
24:31
hurt to when a letter say, we're kind of required
24:34
to do this, and I think it was the right
24:36
thing to do, and to provide them with notice of
24:38
federal resolution. And once that resolution was reached, and part
24:42
of the key word is what the resolution is, my
24:45
understanding is that redacted made efforts to notify victims of
24:49
that resolution and let them know that there would be
24:52
a hearing the following Monday, and that they should attend
24:55
because it would bring an end to the case. Question, well,
25:00
let's just back up real quick, as far as the
25:03
state attorney notifying people victims of the state resolution, did
25:07
you have any concern with any particular part of it? Answer? So,
25:11
it's difficult to recreate the thought process twelve years later,
25:14
But ultimately you've got federal and you've got state, and
25:18
the state attorney will do what the state attorney thinks
25:20
is appropriate. It's not for me to direct the state attorney.
25:24
I'm inferring based on this language, it's not for me
25:27
to direct the state attorney or for our office to
25:30
direct the State Attorney's office on its obligation with respect
25:33
to the state outcome. Question Okay, I'm just asking because
25:37
you know, the whole case came to the office because
25:41
of some issue with the state attorney's resolution of the case.
25:44
So now it's going back and they're going to be
25:46
in charge of the notification. Did that raise any red
25:49
flags with you or did you have any concern about
25:51
whether it would be done correctly or done at all? Answer? So, again,
25:56
this has come up in different contexts, and I think
25:59
there was obviously concern about how he was being charged.
26:02
But that doesn't mean that they will not fulfill whatever
26:04
obligations they have. Let's not assume that the State Attorney's
26:09
office is full of bad actors. Question. Okay, but even
26:13
if I'm not assuming that they're full of bad actors,
26:17
it's going to be difficult for them to notify the victims.
26:19
Wasn't it that they didn't even necessarily know the same
26:22
list as the federal victims, because you had found more
26:25
victims answers, so we could certainly have shared the list
26:29
with them. I mean, there are ways that this could
26:31
have happened. I don't know how what the communications were,
26:35
but as a conceptual matter, having the state notify them
26:38
of the state hearing and having the federal government say
26:41
that this is the federal resolution is consistent with the law. Question,
26:46
but since the federal resolution is tied to the state plea,
26:50
why not just combine the two of them in the notification.
26:53
Here's the federal resolution, we're tying it to the state plea,
26:57
and here's the date of the state plea. Answer. I
27:00
can't speak to why or why not? I can you know.
27:02
I can speak to my belief that this would be
27:04
consistent with the law. That could also be one approach.
27:08
I can't speak as to why a versus B question.
27:13
Did somebody instruct you that or did you have a
27:15
conversation consulting with somebody about whether this was a better approach?
27:19
Answer I would have said, you know, based on practice,
27:22
not recollection, but based on practice. I would have sat
27:25
down with redacted, most likely since he was handling this matter,
27:29
and we would have talked about it. I would not
27:31
have sent this without running it by at least redacted,
27:34
if not other individuals in the office. I don't know
27:37
if based on your record there are emails with drafts,
27:40
but you know, every document that I'm aware of was
27:42
sort of shared within the management team, and this would
27:45
have been one of those. Question with respect to the
27:48
one specific decision about this should be at the discretion
27:52
of the State's attorney. Did you consult with anybody in
27:54
DC about the issue? Answer? I don't recall consulting with
27:58
someone in DC about the issue. I recall general perspective
28:02
that the CVRA as a technical matter did not attach
28:05
because ultimately this was not an indictment. Question. Oh, can
28:11
we before we leave? This letter gets cut off again
28:14
by a costa if I could. I understand your questions,
28:18
but I feel some obligation to erase the tension between
28:21
did you consult in DC versus should you allow DC
28:24
to review? And so, just so you know, we certainly
28:28
were allowing review, but US Attorney's Office don't consult on
28:31
every matter, especially offices that have the kind of experience
28:36
that MIAMI does. Question. Before we finish with the letter
28:40
from the nineteenth. Can we look at page three please,
28:44
if you could read the first paragraph on page three
28:46
to yourself, please answer, okay question. Could you in that
28:50
section you mentioned that prosecutors that ask you to declare
28:53
a breach and you resisted. Can you discuss that answer? Sure,
28:58
that's referencing I think increasing frustration by the prosecutors, and
29:02
I think that's reflected in contemporaneous emails saying why don't
29:06
we just rip this up? And I recall conversations with redacted,
29:10
And that goes a little bit to what we talked
29:12
about earlier, which is concerned that a unilateral breach would
29:16
overlay not just the initial issues that we had and
29:19
not just the fact that the victims are getting older
29:21
and the case isn't getting better. But then we have
29:25
was the unilateral breach of valid breach or was it
29:28
not a valid breach? And is the delay justified or
29:32
not justified? And ultimately that additional liability, well not liability,
29:37
that additional legal uncertainty would have made the case even
29:40
harder because they were very careful to always say there
29:44
is no breach. Let me address because I went on
29:48
to read the next paragraph as well, and so let
29:50
me circle back to an earlier issue, because I at
29:53
least want to address it. Because the next paragraph then says,
29:56
and it's clearer that I'm increasingly frustrated that my frustration
30:01
with it appears to be an eleventh hour appeal weeks
30:04
before then now schedule July eleventh plea date. That said,
30:08
the issues raised are important and must be fully vetted,
30:11
irrespective of timeline concerns. We hope to preserve the July
30:15
fourth date. I understand Defense counsel with this in mind,
30:19
and in the event the Defense Counsel may wish to
30:21
seek review of our determination in Washington. I spoke this
30:25
past Monday with Attorney General redacted, confirming if it's possible,
30:29
appearing to ask her to grant the potential request for
30:32
review and to the fact review this case in an
30:36
expedited manner, in an attempt to preserve the July fourth date.
30:40
He gets corrected January fourth. The address that address January Acosta,
30:46
I'm sorry the January fourth plea date question, and that
30:51
addressed the question I was asking answer, and that goes
30:54
to the question you're asking, and again I'm recreating and
30:57
I'm speculating having that following another eleventh hour appeal here
31:02
I would say, I wouldn't say, let's appeal to this again.
31:06
I think I'm saying pretty clearly it's against my frustration
31:09
with what appears to be an eleventh hour appeal weeks
31:12
before the now scheduled January fourth plea date. And this
31:16
is not an invitation to do another appeal, because the
31:19
appeal is already in DC. But my if we're going
31:24
to do this appeal, let's get it over and done with.
31:26
Then I'm sort of speculating based on the language, so
31:29
that we can get this pled on January fourth, and
31:32
let's not put it off until after the holidays. Question.
31:36
But you did say to ask her to grant the
31:38
potential request for review. Answer, which is why I wanted
31:41
to on my own raise it Because is that saying
31:44
please appeal me, or is that saying this is an
31:47
eleventh hour appeal that you have now taken to DC.
31:51
It's December nineteenth, we're about to go into the holidays.
31:54
There's a January fourth plea date. This should not be
31:57
another way to put it off. And so if you're
31:59
going to do this, I'm going to try to expedite
32:01
it so we can get this done. Question. In fact,
32:05
it took until may answer. Yeah, answer it did and apologies,
32:10
I just realized my voice question all right, rising So
32:14
I don't know if that's my frustration at reading this
32:16
again or it's getting late, but it was a frustrating matter. Apologies.
32:21
All right, folks. We're gonna wrap up right here and
32:23
in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna
32:26
pick up where we left off. All of the information
32:28
that goes with this episode can be found in the
32:31
description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode
32:35
of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're gonna pick
32:38
up where we left off with the Alexacosta interview with
32:41
the OIG inspectors question. Let's just move to Exhibit forty six.
32:47
This is an email from misredacted to you and redacted
32:50
discussing how she has interviewed some victims that day. There
32:54
is a mention that one of the victims said that
32:56
you would rather not get any money and she'd have
32:59
she would rather have Epstein spend a significant time in jail.
33:02
Did that piece of information go into your character list
33:05
at all about how the case should be resolved? Answer? So, again,
33:10
not based on recollection because this is maybe, if not
33:13
twelve eleven years ago. Question. Okay, but at this point
33:17
there had been an agreement, the agreement was signed, it
33:20
was being reviewed. Based on this email, we're trying to
33:23
get and expedite the criminal Division because I see it
33:26
says please reach to redacted to a maker decision. And
33:30
I think at this point, as I've said, if we
33:32
knew earlier, if we knew that this was going to
33:35
go this long and take all of this, I think
33:38
we may have approached the case differently. But we were
33:40
so far along on this, there was a signed agreement.
33:43
The United States can unwind an agreement just because it's
33:46
frustrated or just because some victim indicates that they don't
33:50
like it. That's not you know, if the agreement is
33:53
not legally valid, if there are some other concerns. But
33:56
I don't think that this in and of itself would
33:58
have been grounds for unwinding agreement. Question. Do you think
34:02
it's misleading for the government to have been interviewing these
34:05
witnesses and preparing them for a trial when there's already
34:08
assigned NPA That resolves the issue. Answer? So that was
34:13
part of the judgment that there is assigned agreement, but
34:16
based on the course of conduct, is that agreement really
34:19
an agreement that will be honored? And so there was
34:22
an ongoing investigation as well, because we didn't know if
34:25
we'd go to trial, and I know that not. I know.
34:29
My recollection is that the judgment was until we know
34:33
that this agreement is really going to be performed fully,
34:36
that to inform the victims of a possibility of civil
34:39
recovery is problematic. And I can't say that judgment's incorrect.
34:43
I think that's a valid judgment. Question fair enough. And
34:47
then the last question on this email is at the
34:49
bottom misredacted invites you to attend an interview with four
34:53
of the girls that would be coming the following day.
34:58
Did you attend? Answer? I did not, And as a
35:00
US attorney, I don't think I attend. That wasn't typical
35:04
for the office. Question would or was that ever? Had
35:09
you ever had that type of request come from a
35:11
line assistant? Answer? Not to my recollection, but I also
35:15
tended not to have communication from the line assistance in
35:18
the first place. Question were you at all curious, given
35:22
you had discussed the issue with the witnesses in this case,
35:25
that potential impeachment. You know that caused you two that
35:29
went into the negotiation phase. Did you have any interest
35:32
in seeing these people, even interacting with them personally so
35:36
you can make your own assessment. Answer, So any interest
35:40
is he gets cut off? Question? Would there be value
35:43
in doing that? Answer? So, we had very experienced prosecutors.
35:47
It's not just interacting with the victim that were in
35:50
a really hard position. How I would draw a distinction
35:54
between a victim being interviewed by an agent and how
35:56
a victim holds up in court in a public setting
35:59
under cross examine, and in that I don't think anyone
36:02
in the office was questioning the pain or the suffering
36:05
of the victims. I think that the issues were how
36:09
they would hold up in court, which are uniquely trial issues. Question. Okay,
36:13
so let's move on to what was your understanding that
36:17
the federal government was going to do as far as
36:20
the notification about the resolution of the case. Answer? So,
36:24
my understanding was that at once we believed that the
36:26
case was going, that the plea was going to go forward,
36:30
that we would notify the victims of the resolution and
36:33
of the agreement and basically how it played out. Question, Now,
36:38
are you saying you had agreed to not notify. I
36:41
mean one would read your December twelfth, nineteenth letter as
36:45
an agreement that the federal government is not going to
36:47
notify the victims of the state plea and that will
36:50
end the part of the case. Is that correct answer?
36:54
So I would parse my letter differently. And this is
36:57
twelve years after the fact, and so this isn't based
37:00
on recollection, but on my reading and my understanding of
37:03
the course of conduct in the case sitting here now.
37:06
My understanding was that our office was notified, was it
37:10
on a Friday afternoon, that he would be pleading on Monday,
37:13
and that at that time Redacted made efforts to notify
37:16
victims that he would be pleading, and that he would
37:18
terminate the federal resolution of this matter, and that the
37:21
victims should attend the hearing, which wasn't the state resolution
37:25
of the case. It was the federal resolution. And so
37:28
you're saying that the state plea was also the federal
37:31
resolution of the case. Answer based on my understanding of
37:34
what happened. That's how my recollection, based on having reviewed
37:38
the record, That's how I believed it proceeded. Although I
37:41
think Redacted attempted to do so, couldn't reach some attorneys
37:44
and exercise best efforts to let them know, but did
37:47
not get a hold of all the victims over the weekend. Question.
37:51
Before we get too deep into that, let's just take
37:54
a quick look at Exhibit fifty one. So this is
37:57
an email forwarded to you from redacted from January June
38:01
twenty fifth, two thousand and eight, So that's five days
38:03
prior to the plea in the case, or the state
38:06
court plea. And the attachment there you'll notice is a
38:09
letter with a notification of identified victims, and the letter
38:13
is written, Would you disagree it's written with on June thirtieth,
38:17
Epstein pled guilty. Do you see that? Answer? Yes? Question,
38:21
So the inference it appears to be that this letter
38:24
was to be sent after the plea. Answer. I see
38:27
that also based on my review of the record, where
38:31
I think I'm recalling the redacted affid David where she
38:34
said that she made an attempt to notify the victim
38:36
as soon as she was made aware that he would
38:38
be pleading, that he would be pleading in state court. Question. Well,
38:44
what it says in the Affid David I believe is
38:46
that she made notification and the police department chief redacted.
38:50
Police department made notifications. Is that correct? Does that ring
38:54
a bell? Mister Todd? Do you have a copy of
38:57
the affid David? It's right here, one copy Acosta on
39:03
the back, Acosta so relevant to this paragraph thirty four
39:08
and then another paragraph. These and other attacks and efforts
39:11
to avoid the NPA's terms led the FBI investigative team,
39:15
the office, and me to conclude that prosecution at trial
39:19
remained a possibility and we should prepare as much. This
39:23
meant that the victim notification letters had to cease, because
39:26
one we no longer knew whether Epstein would perform under
39:30
the NPA, and hence we did not know whether providing
39:33
information about the NPA would be accurate until we believe
39:37
that Epstein, through his council, would attempt to use victim
39:40
notification concerning the NPA to suggest that victims had been
39:43
encouraged by the FBI or the office to overstate the
39:47
victimization for a monetary compensation, and then fast forwarding because
39:51
you can read it on your own. On Friday, June
39:54
twenty seventh, at approximately four to fifteen, I received a
39:57
copy of Epstein's for post date plea agreement and learn
40:00
that Epstein's state court change a plea was scheduled for
40:03
eight thirty am on Monday the Palm Beach Police Department,
40:06
and I attempted to notify the victims about the hearing
40:09
in the short time available to us. I specifically called
40:12
the attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding
40:15
the hearing. I believe it was during this I never
40:19
told that state charges involved other victims, and neither the
40:22
state Court charging instrument nor the factual proffer limited the
40:26
procurement of prostitution charges to a specific cell, so that
40:31
was what I was referring to. Again, I'm basing this
40:33
based on my review of the Affid David and not
40:36
on recollection of how this may or may not have
40:38
proceeded twelve years ago. Question, Okay, you know, would it
40:42
surprised you to learn that misredacted only communicated with mister
40:46
Edwards that day. That's because she was under direction from
40:49
the manager to only contact Edwards regarding the potential plea
40:53
for that Monday answer, the AFID David said she attempted
40:57
to notify the victims, so I can't speak to that question. Okay.
41:01
Answer and I don't have an independent recollection of this
41:04
going back twelve years? Question were you aware that misredacted
41:08
was directed to have no communication with the State Attorney's
41:11
office and probably during the later period of the case
41:14
in two thousand and eight? Answer not to my recollection
41:17
question okay, So did you have would you not recall
41:21
hearing anyone directing her to not communicate with the State's
41:24
Attorney's office? Answer I can't speak twelve years later? What
41:28
role I may or may not have had. I question,
41:31
how if we need if there is an attempt to
41:34
schedule a plea? In all of that, how can there
41:36
not be communication? But I can't say whether I did
41:39
or did not. When I say I have no recollection,
41:43
I mean that in the broadest sense of the word.
41:46
Question Okay. In your December nineteenth letter, you did agree
41:49
that the State Attorney's Office would notify the state's victims.
41:52
Right answer yes. Question and do you have any idea
41:57
how that was supposed to be accomplished? Answer I can't
42:00
speak to that. No question And would you have any
42:03
knowledge of who the state victims are? Answer? I would
42:06
infer that our office would have sufficient communication with the
42:09
State Attorney's office to communicate who the victims were in
42:13
the case because it was ongoing. It was an ongoing matter.
42:16
But I don't know. Question, do you want to go
42:19
on misredacted? Okay? Are you? Are you done with your
42:25
that portion at least for the moment redacted? Yes, thank you. Question.
42:31
I just want to clarify something you said a moment ago,
42:33
mister Acosta. You said that you referenced or referred to
42:36
the agreement the NPA as having been it was signed,
42:39
and it was being reviewed. Were you talking about Washington? Answer? Right,
42:44
question the Criminal Division? But we established earlier, did we
42:48
not that the NPA was not the subject of the
42:50
Criminal Division review? They expressly declined to review it. Answer,
42:55
I stand corrected. Question Okay, I just wanted to be
42:58
clear on the record. Thank you. So we've had a
43:01
lot of conversation about the facts. We're fortunate in this
43:04
case to have a plethora of documents upon which we
43:07
can rely, even after twelve years, and we've tried to
43:10
plumb the depths of your memory as to the events.
43:13
Are there any facts, any conversations, any incidents, anything, based
43:17
on the questions that you've heard here today that you recall,
43:21
have recalled that you want to tell us about, want
43:23
us to know answer, So give me a minute to
43:27
just sort of think this through. I think we've covered
43:30
most of the issues pretty clearly. I guess I would
43:33
have two general comments. The first is whether folks agree
43:36
or disagree with the initial two years, you know, registration
43:40
and restitution. The office's focus was on having mister Epstein
43:44
go to jail at the time, when from our perspective,
43:47
these cases were at least presented with the facts federally
43:51
at least unusual, and the most trafficking cases involve different
43:54
sort of nexus. It involved bringing individuals into the country,
43:58
or holding individuals against their will, or doing something like that.
44:02
And this will go to my second point, which is,
44:04
you know, sitting here we now see several high profile
44:07
individuals who abuse power and have now been prosecuted, who
44:12
are known at the time to who abused drugs, like
44:14
Bill Cosby. There were rumors at the time, and you know,
44:17
so looking back, maybe it was the right call, maybe
44:20
it wasn't the right call, But there is some degree
44:23
I'm not sure what the right adjective is frustration that
44:27
and certainly some of this goes to me. But I
44:30
think a lot of this goes to redacted and the
44:32
individuals involved, that the attempt to put someone in jail,
44:35
as opposed to decline the case and say this is
44:37
just a state case, that the federal issues are too tricky,
44:41
that ultimately this is the sort of novel interpretation that
44:45
the attempt to come up with an outcome has rebounded
44:48
in the way that it has. And I'm not saying, look,
44:51
that's life, and I understand that, but I do think
44:53
it's important to look back on this and try to
44:56
be in the shoes of the thought process in six
44:58
and seven, when picking prosecutions were fairly new, when you know,
45:03
more so than today, some jurors may have looked at
45:05
this as prostitution, perhaps more so than today. Judge's tolerance
45:10
for victim shaming may have both caused more hesitation on
45:13
part of the victims but also created more issues at trial.
45:16
And so I think we've touched on that, and I
45:18
think we've sort of wrapped up this portion of it,
45:20
and it's important just to restate that question and the addition,
45:25
are there any facts that you or the conversations or
45:28
anything that we have talked about that elicited from you
45:32
that you want us to know and to be clear,
45:35
you'll have an opportunity to supplement all of this. Answer
45:38
not at this time that I can think of. Question
45:40
all right, how do you respond to public criticism that
45:44
the defense attorneys, the Epstein defense team, we're getting extraordinary
45:48
access to an influence on prosecutors from the line level
45:52
all the way up through the department. Answer. So I
45:55
would point out early in the case. When I said early,
45:58
you push back, But from my perspective, early on in
46:01
the case, not when it was first investigated, but when
46:04
it was first bubbled up for a decision. Question and
46:07
that would be mid two thousand and seven answer mid
46:10
two thousand and seven juneish May to June two thousand
46:13
and seven, May June July. We determined here is what
46:17
we need for resolution. And I think we addressed some
46:19
of this in the letter because we were receiving criticism
46:22
back then, and I think the letter has been misconstrued
46:25
to some extent because it was not here influential people
46:29
were backing off. It was early on set three criteria
46:33
two years registration restitution, despite all these attorneys, despite all
46:38
these appeals, despite all these efforts. The Office did not
46:41
budge with the caveat of the twenty four to eighteen months,
46:45
which we've discussed, and from my perspective, despite all that,
46:49
I backed the Office in sticking by that resolution in
46:52
the various appeals in Washington, and so ultimately it was
46:56
a year long process, but we ended up in a
46:59
year later exactly where we started with the caveat of
47:02
twenty four to eighteen. And so to the extent that
47:05
there was influence, there was no change in position. Question, Well,
47:10
my question was access. That this team of defense attorneys
47:13
had extraordinary access, that they asked for meetings, they pressed
47:16
for with communications, and that they had access. Did that
47:19
seem extraordinary to you answer? So they asked for a
47:22
meeting with me before the agreement was signed. I granted
47:26
that that's not the first and only time that I
47:28
granted a meeting to defense attorneys. I don't think it's
47:31
a typical, particularly as a case coming to a resolution,
47:35
for US attorney to sit down and meet with the
47:37
opposing council. And I can think of several cases where
47:40
that happened. There was certainly a lot of access in Washington.
47:45
I would speak to you know, I think that's a
47:47
question to direct to this building because the process here
47:51
was lengthy and frustrating. But I think we successfully held
47:54
firm in our position despite all the process in this building. Question,
47:59
and again, my focus is not on your response, but
48:01
on the access based on the prominence and the prominence
48:05
of the defense attorneys. If these had been local, your
48:08
sort of average criminal defense attorneys from you know name,
48:11
where they hang out in Miami coming to you and
48:13
pressing you for this, you writ large the department. Do
48:17
you believe you would have had the same or comparable
48:20
level of access. Answer? Yes, so I guess i'd respond
48:23
this way if an attorney after meeting with my management
48:26
staff as for a meeting with me, I believe I
48:29
did and would have granted it. And I think of
48:31
several matters on which those types of meetings were granted,
48:35
and so that was not unusual with respect to the
48:38
back and forth after the agreement was signed, this was
48:41
an unusual agreement, and to some extent, as a result,
48:44
the back and forth quickly elevated, particularly because matters would
48:48
elevate in particular when they were being addressed at Main Justice.
48:52
That would be a natural way for matters to elevate
48:54
within the office, and so the fact that they were
48:57
being addressed and reviewed and letters were coming here would
49:00
naturally elevate the way the matter was treated in Miami.
49:04
Question in particular, Jay Lefkowitz had ready access to Of course,
49:09
he was involved in the negotiations with redacted directly in
49:13
creating the NPA, But after that, it appears from the
49:16
record that he was often contacting you and running or
49:20
going above the people who work for you, and on
49:22
numerous occasions you, again my characterization, reprimanded him or instructed
49:27
him not to do that and to do direct his
49:29
communications to a line attorney or supervisors. Is that a
49:33
fair characterization? Answer? Yes, I think on several occasions I
49:37
said direct them, And again that was after the agreement
49:41
was signed. But yes, question, but there were many issues
49:44
still pending correct answer, yes, question okay. And then was
49:48
his ability to reach out to you as a function
49:51
of your personal association? Is that fair answer? So I
49:55
don't think that's a fair characterization. You could also say
49:59
that it was the ability of a function of his
50:02
his insistence is not doing what we asked And the
50:05
fact that in a typical course a Miami attorney would
50:08
not have done this because they would have to interact
50:10
with the office on an ongoing basis, and so the
50:13
repeat litigator behaves very differently than the one time raised
50:18
Earth litigator. Question raised rzed answer correct. Question Is it
50:26
reasonable for us to understand that had you followed the
50:29
media coverage of what happened in the Epstein case over
50:32
the years? Answer yes, question in your view overall and
50:36
in whatever specific respect you wish to address it, has
50:39
it been accurate or not so? Answer I think it's
50:42
been accurate or inaccurate, I should say in several ways,
50:46
and we can go through them cut off if you
50:49
could just tick those off. Answer so, I think it's
50:51
inaccurate in that it has been characterized as our approving
50:55
estate plea, and the complexity of this case was a
50:58
state plea and we were deferring in favor of a state.
51:00
Prosecution has been lost and it's something that I have
51:03
attempted to correct, but it's been very difficult to sort
51:06
of explain that in the media. You know, this is
51:09
a bad analogy, and so I haven't used it in
51:11
the media, but I thought about it, and so I'll
51:14
share it. So after the juicy smolet plea in Chicago,
51:18
there were some discussion of whether the federal government should
51:21
bring charges, and I remember the media saying that. And
51:24
I haven't used this analogy because I don't want to compare,
51:27
and I think it would be disrespectful to compare the
51:29
facts of the case of to what happened to these victims.
51:32
And I still I don't want the comparison to be drawn,
51:35
but there is a legal comparison, right the US Attorney
51:38
in Chicago could have stepped in and said, whether or
51:41
not the state takes this plea, we may investigate this
51:43
federally and sort of stop that plea from going forward,
51:47
or at least put a wrench in those gears. Or
51:49
the US attorney could have pursued that under petite policy
51:52
and did not. And so our stepping into this sort
51:56
of reminded me of how many times cases that are
51:59
viewed as a manifest injustice to occur, and yet the
52:02
federal government does not step in, and the fact that
52:05
we stepped in has been construed as this became a
52:09
federal prosecution and sort of going sort of question earlier
52:14
the distinction between it was a manifest injustice versus this
52:18
was the right outcome is something that I think has
52:21
been lost on the coverage in this matter. I think
52:24
a second issue that has been lost in the coverage
52:26
of this matter is there is reference to Prince Andrew
52:29
and Alan Dershowitz and Governor Richardson and Bill Clinton and
52:33
the thing happening in London and the so called Lolita
52:35
Express where things may have happened on airplanes, and so
52:38
this is viewed from the public as this international matter
52:42
where the victims were local. The actions, to my recollection
52:45
were local. And so the distinction between this Pombeach incident
52:48
and what the media likes to cover, which is, you know,
52:52
did mister Epstein force a minor to have sexual relations
52:54
with Prince Andrew is a very different fact pattern, both
52:57
in terms of the public perception a minor to have
53:00
sex with a third party that they you know, there
53:03
is an outside solicitation in context, it's sort of traveling
53:08
with these women and forcing them to have sex, versus
53:11
a more local matter. I don't want to say solicitation
53:14
because I think we've covered that, but some may view
53:17
it as that, and I think those two are major
53:19
elements that have been lost in coverage question. The case
53:23
has been criticized as having involved in proper influence or
53:26
favors or payments that affected decisions that were made within
53:30
your office. Are you aware of all of those allegations
53:32
as well in connection with this case? Were you yourself
53:36
ever offered any payment or any favors or any promises
53:39
of job assistance or anything like that in connection with
53:43
the case? Answer no question. And to your knowledge, was
53:46
there any offer to anyone associated with the case in
53:49
your office? Answer not, to my knowledge. Question. It's been
53:53
asserted also that the handling of the case in the
53:56
office was affected by Epstein's wealth and influence in the
53:59
pond each community. Do you what is your response to
54:04
that criticism? Answer again, my response would be, you know,
54:08
sometime in May or June, we came up with these
54:10
three points and we stuck to them. And you know,
54:13
I despite all of this, you know what, people make
54:16
these assertions somewhere along the way, the fact that we
54:19
stuck to those points is lost and not talked about.
54:23
And so we did stick to those points, you know,
54:25
and question whether the case would have come to us
54:28
in the first place, and so, you know, I think
54:30
that could go a long way the other way. Question
54:34
I don't understand that. Answer that it's highly unusual for
54:37
a case to be brought to the state, to the
54:39
US Attorney's office after the state attorney declined, not declines,
54:44
but questioned, fails to fully prosecute. Answer. Right, And so
54:48
one question that also doesn't get asked. You know, to
54:51
what extent was this case brought to us in the
54:54
first place because of this because of its profile? Question?
54:58
In other words, are you suggesting that is wealth and
55:00
influence in the community affected the state's authorities? Answer? I'm
55:04
not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is that the case
55:07
came in, the case proceeded, and someone can make the
55:10
argument that the only reason the chief redacted brought it
55:13
to us was because it had such a high profile.
55:16
Are there other matters that take place in Palm Beach
55:18
that a state attorney declines in the first place, that
55:20
isn't brought to the state attorney because it doesn't rise
55:24
to the US attorney because it doesn't rise to the
55:26
profile question? All right? Well, in fairness, he might have
55:32
done it because the number of victims too. Right. Answer,
55:34
he may have. I don't know. What I'm suggesting is
55:37
we tried to treat it fairly not looking at hey,
55:40
how wealthy is he, but also not saying we need
55:43
to do this because he's so wealthy. All right, folks,
55:45
we're going to wrap up right here, and then the
55:47
next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick
55:49
up where we left off. All of the information that
55:52
goes with this episode can be found in the description box.