Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 16-18) (6/20/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 16-18) (6/20/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
0:03
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
0:06
where we left off with the Alex Acosta OIG interview. Question.
0:11
This is where there is a mention of computer equipment.
0:14
There is a provision later in that in that same
0:17
paragraph that provides that the federal grand jury investigation will
0:21
be suspended and all pending federal grand jury subpoenas will
0:25
be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates
0:29
any term of this agreement. The defendant likewise agrees to
0:32
withdraw his pending motion to intervene and quash certain grand
0:36
jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically
0:40
evidence requested by or directly related to the grand jury
0:44
subpoenas that have been issued and including certain computer equipment
0:49
in violate, until all the terms of the agreement have
0:52
been satisfied. Do you view that disagreement to suspect at
0:57
least certain aspects of the federal investigation to have been
1:01
an appropriate concession? Answer? You know, again, my focus was
1:05
on certain points. I would have assumed reading this that
1:08
this was thought through. Question. Okay, question, all right, there
1:13
is what's been criticized as a confidentiality provision. Answer, yes,
1:18
question right, and that's on the same page, page five,
1:21
paragraph number thirteen, which provides that the parties anticipate that
1:26
this agreement will not be made part of any public record,
1:30
and then there is an exception for a foyer or
1:33
a compulsory process from a court in which the government
1:36
will provide notice to epstein. That seems to be limited
1:40
to the placing of this document on the public record
1:42
right as opposed to sharing it or disclosing it for
1:45
whatever purpose to individuals. Is that a distinction that makes sense? Answer,
1:51
that's a fair distinction. Upon reading this, I'm not sure
1:54
that it's a distinction that was I mean, I'm basing
1:58
that on my reading currently and not as a recollection question.
2:03
And in fact, the party's both Defense Council and even
2:06
the US Attorney's Office took the position that this should
2:09
have never been or seen the light of day, even
2:12
to be disclosed to you know, victims or other parties
2:15
and interest except for filing it or accept for sharing
2:19
it on a limited basis with law enforcement. I think
2:23
there were emails that talk about if we share it,
2:25
we'll tell them not to disclose it. Answer mm hmmm.
2:30
Question is that the sort of overstating what this paragraph requires? Answer? Possibly,
2:37
I can, you know, we can get into that and
2:39
we can discuss it. I would need to understand a
2:41
little bit more. I know there was litigation around disclosure
2:45
on this, and I need to understand much more the
2:48
position that we took and the why before commenting on them. Question.
2:53
In Exhibit twenty three, there's a discussion of whether the
2:57
NPA is after it has been signed, could be revealed,
3:00
the existence of it could be revealed to the police
3:03
chief or even the FBI or the girls and redacted
3:07
in the middle of the page one or two thirds
3:09
of the way down on page one of Exhibit twenty
3:12
three proposes that if we tell anybody about the NPA,
3:16
you just asked that the recipient of that information not
3:19
disclose it. And you then at the top of the
3:23
page to Laurie and to redacted and redacted who is
3:26
going to take over Lurie's position as a managing a
3:29
USA and West Palm Beach should talk with you about
3:33
it on Wednesday. You should talk about who will tell
3:36
and how much do you remember that conversation? Answer? I
3:40
don't I know that there were several concerns about leaks
3:43
and media, and I imagine that we had a conversation
3:47
quite literally about who to tell and how much? Question
3:51
and how did you feel that this at the time,
3:55
as best as you recall, did you feel that this
3:57
clause bound you to not tell anyone? Answer? So my
4:01
recollection of the clause, whether it was whether it was
4:04
this clause or whether there was a discussion, I was
4:08
aware of this provision, and my recollection of this provision
4:11
is at some point it was raised as something that
4:15
was the subject of negotiation. Question okay, answer that the
4:21
office policy was that these types of deferred prosecution agreement
4:25
is not just made part of the public record. Therefore,
4:29
this is not a substantial concession because in the typical
4:32
course of business, this would not be part of the
4:35
public record. Question and that's because its non prosecution as
4:40
opposed agreement as opposed to a deferred prosecution agreement. Answer, So,
4:45
deferred prosecution is not you know, if the non prosecution
4:49
is not typically part of the public record, the deferred prosecution,
4:53
it makes sense that it follows the same. And so
4:56
it seemed that it seemed a concession. I understand how
5:00
was perceived publicly after the fact. At the time, it
5:03
seemed that we weren't giving up much because the typical
5:06
policy is this is not part of the public record,
5:09
and individuals need to file a FOYA. And so by
5:13
saying it's not part of the public record and individuals
5:16
need to follow FOYA, if that is viewed as a concession,
5:19
it really isn't question. So how would I mean? Did
5:24
is it? Is it understandable that Epstein would not want
5:27
this document to see the light of day because it
5:29
describes the existence and nature and scope of the federal
5:33
investigation and also his concession to liability under twenty two
5:37
to fifty five answer, it's understandable. It was also my
5:41
impression at the time that it would see the light
5:43
of day because if victims have twenty two to fifty
5:46
five the ability to get twenty two to fifty five,
5:49
they obviously have to hear about it from somewhere, and
5:52
given the press interest, eventually this would be FOYA. And
5:56
so from my thinking at the time, rightly or wrongly,
5:58
this is a concession that's basically saying we'll follow off
6:01
his policy and we're likely going to be foyed on
6:04
this anyhow, and it can play out in the FOYA
6:07
and so is this really a concession question? All right?
6:12
Another piece of the agreement is something that is absent
6:16
and that sort of typical language that you find, I
6:18
think in pretty much any federal plea agreement, which is
6:21
this agreement only the defendant understands that this agreement only
6:26
binds the US Attorney's office for whatever district he or
6:29
she is in answer right, you know? And that and
6:34
that truly what you would call global dispositions are unusual
6:38
answer right for the federal government answer and I would note,
6:42
you know, and this is after the fact that it
6:45
does say this district agrees question okay, understood, And it's
6:49
also has you as a party, not the Department of
6:52
Justice answer right, question. But it does omit that standard language.
6:57
And you know whether that was done sort of by
6:59
mistake or consciously answer. I can't speak to that question,
7:04
all right. Another piece is phrasing that you injected when
7:07
you addressed the first where was it was towards the
7:09
end where you talked about injecting the best effort language
7:14
answer yes, question, okay? Does it what I believe you
7:19
made clear why you did that? That is to avoid
7:22
the appearance of having the federal government be dictating anything.
7:26
But why rely on the best efforts and to what
7:29
extent is that even enforceable? Answer? So, first, let me
7:33
let me say that it was not to avoid the appearance.
7:36
It was to avoid the actual legal discovery dictating. But
7:40
so Epstein understands that he has no authority to require
7:44
to undertake discussions and to use if he did not plead,
7:48
then there was no agreement. Question No, no, no, no, no, sorry,
7:53
I don't mean to. It appears in paragraph number eleven,
7:56
Epstein shall use his best effort to enter his guilty
7:58
plea and be sentenced later than the set date. And
8:02
then in the first paragraph after numbered clause eleven, he
8:05
will use his best efforts to ensure compliance with certain
8:08
procedures and best efforts to convince the Judge of the
8:11
Florida Court to accept as binding recommendation. So best efforts
8:16
kind of become a sticking point an enforcement, didn't it,
8:20
Because what does it mean? What does best effort mean? Answer? So,
8:25
I think it's fair to say that one of the
8:26
issues that came up after this was entered into the
8:29
US Attorney's office at least from My perspective was in
8:33
a little bit of a bind because we had agreed
8:36
to this, yet he wasn't turning himself in, and so
8:39
how do we deal with that? And so that's not
8:41
a phrase that I focused on at the time. But
8:44
I understand your point. All right, I'm going to move
8:47
on from those question. Is there anything else on those
8:51
NPA clauses? Answer? Finally, let me let me just say,
8:55
you didn't ask. We had an incredibly experienced attorney in
8:58
the office assumed, rightly or wrongly, that the language had
9:02
been thought through and vetted. And you know, sitting here
9:05
twelve years later, I understand the issues that have arisen
9:08
from it, but at the time these were not issues
9:11
that were folk that we were focused on. Question, to
9:13
your knowledge, who was involved in the drafting other than
9:16
redacted and redacted on your side? Answer right, question and
9:21
LORI and you to some extent answer So I can't
9:25
say twelve years after the fact, but again, redacted, LORII,
9:28
very experienced head of the Palm Beach Office, has prosecuted
9:32
any number of cases. Question. Again, just to keep respective
9:37
and context. The final week that this was being negotiated,
9:40
redacted LORI was in Washington, and bouncing back and forth
9:44
on the weekends because he was in transition to the
9:47
front office there in the criminal division in this building.
9:50
And that's a factor in terms of being able to
9:53
give attention to some detail. Would you agree with that
9:55
it could be a factor? Answer, So, it could be
9:58
a factor. On the other hand, I'd say that Redacted
10:02
wasn't leaving the department. He is professional. He knows his stuff,
10:06
and you would expect a professional if they're reviewing a document,
10:09
whether they're on vacation, whether they're looking to move from
10:12
one part of the department to another, that you would
10:15
expect them to review it, you know, fulfilling their responsibility
10:18
to sort of focus in and make sure that that
10:21
is that it encompasses what it should. And that's not
10:24
a criticism of Redacted that saying, well, that might be
10:28
a factor. That doesn't lessen, from my perspective, reliance on
10:31
his expertise. Question understood. After the MPa was signed and
10:37
Redacted came back answer, yeah, question right about that same time,
10:43
he quite quickly identified a potential problem, and that was
10:46
about the commitment for or the agreement that the US
10:49
Attorney's Office would identify the representative for the victims. Do
10:53
you recall him raising that? Answer? I don't recall him
10:56
raising that as an issue, but I know it was
10:58
an issue. Question all right. It was an issue, and
11:02
it was one that was raised as soon as he
11:04
came back. So there was an effort which he conducted
11:07
then in Redacted's absence, to craft an NPA addendum to
11:11
address that issue. Are you aware that Redacted received a
11:15
copy of the NPA in November when ken Starr wrote
11:18
a letter to Redacted asking her to review the twenty
11:21
two to fifty five portion of it. Do you remember
11:24
the issue? Answer? I remember that the issue was appealed
11:27
to CEOs. Question. Well, it was. It was appealed initially
11:32
by the letter to redacted, raising an issue that was
11:35
new to Redacted that had not been raised with you,
11:38
and that is what led to your letter to ken
11:40
Starr on December fourth. Answer. I'll accept that timeline. Question, okay.
11:47
And at that time Redacted saw the NPA. He sent
11:50
a message to Redacted about about his view of the NPA,
11:54
and you didn't see it. But I just wanted to
11:56
name some problems that he identified with the disposition and
12:00
get your reaction. So first, he says, I'm not thrilled
12:04
about the agreement, but he acknowledges that's out of his hands.
12:07
He says, in terms of the charging and sentencing provision
12:10
he's getting, Epstein is getting a much better deal than
12:13
the average defendant. With the exception of defendants who have
12:17
done physical harm to their victims or abused very young children,
12:21
we haven't seen more egregious conduct because of its serial nature.
12:25
The area we need to be more careful about relates
12:28
to the victims. The US should seek to ensure that
12:31
the plea, which is not giving them serious jail time,
12:34
provides the best means possible to address the harm. He
12:37
calls to the victims. That generally means restitution and or therapy.
12:42
While the agreement provides facility for the victims, the irrelevant
12:46
terms still seem pretty advantageous for the defendant and not
12:49
all that helpful for the victims. They get an attorney
12:52
who will be paid by the defendant, which involves at
12:54
least some conflict of interest, or they could hire their
12:57
own attorney on a contingency basis, and they get waivers
13:00
from the defendant when his plea would facilitate their civil cases.
13:04
In any event, then they still have to sue them
13:08
to get anything. Most times with wealthy defendants we make
13:12
them agreed to restitution fund and then still provide the
13:15
victims can sue the defendant independently if they choose. We
13:19
always make them clearly admit their guilt. No nolo, please,
13:24
this is incredibly important to the victim. If I would
13:27
have taken the guid to trial unless the victims were
13:29
clearly against it, and I don't think most of them
13:32
are here. He then says to Redacted, who by this
13:35
time is working for redacted, so there is context in
13:39
which he's addressing it. Redacted specifies that Redacted wouldn't and
13:44
shouldn't address the agreement, so that the issue that was
13:48
then before Redacted put there by ken Starr was whether
13:52
the twenty two to fifty five scheme or scenario set
13:55
out and the NPA was appropriate. It appears that she
13:58
then sent that back you at the address. But as
14:02
far as commentary on the NPA, if you had been
14:04
aware of this perspective at the time you were that
14:08
you and your people were fashioning the NPA, would you
14:11
have been helpful to you in deciding how to proceed? Answer? So,
14:15
may I question, yes? Answer, Okay, I assume you've read
14:21
the whole thing, but let me just take well, I
14:24
have a few comments. First, let me say he was
14:26
part of the September meeting, and to my recollection, these perspectives,
14:32
so at least the outline of the agreement were disclosed
14:34
at the meeting, and I don't recall this type of
14:37
communication at this time. Question okay, answer. I also recall
14:41
that there was a lot of back and forth around
14:43
this restitution fund concept, and our perspective was that the
14:47
restitution fund puts the victim at a disadvantage. Because let
14:51
me try to recreate I don't recall the details, but
14:54
I recall that there was a perspective that the restitution
14:57
fund put the victims at a disadvantage. And there's some
15:00
reference to was it an Alaska case question, it's called
15:04
the redacted case witness. I'm sorry. Then the whole bunch
15:09
of redacted parts here back to Acosta. And so to
15:13
the extent that there were better ways of crafting this,
15:16
that certainly would have been been highly relevant, because to
15:19
my recollection, we were not wed to any particular way
15:22
of crafting it. The intent of twenty two to fifty
15:25
five was to come as close as possible to putting
15:28
the victims in the position they would have been had
15:32
they tried and convicted federally. And so to answer your
15:35
question is yes, answer it would have been helpful. All right, folks,
15:41
We're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next
15:43
episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where
15:45
we left off. All of the information that goes with
15:48
this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
15:52
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
15:56
this episode, we're going to dive right back in to
15:58
the alex Acosta interview with the OIG inspectors. Question, Okay,
16:04
as you said about addressing twenty two dot five to five,
16:07
you consulted with redacted? Do you recall that answer? I
16:11
recall consultations. I don't recall that it was specifically with redacted.
16:15
But question, did you know her answer? Yes? Question okay,
16:20
And do you recall the nature of your interaction with her? Answer?
16:23
I don't. I know from contemporary review of the record
16:27
that there is an email from her. Question it's forty
16:30
one A answer, forty one A question, And what I
16:35
want to ask you is simply forty one A is
16:37
an email in which you ask you note to redacted
16:40
who was redacted one of her deputies and she oversaw CEOs.
16:45
She Redacted mentioned to you that Redacted was looking at this,
16:49
which is the twenty two dot five to five. She
16:52
contacts her counterpart in the civil Division, Redacted, and there's
16:56
an email from him, which is the second page of
16:58
this exhibit, which which copies you on. So my question
17:02
is is this the extent of your interaction with redacted
17:05
on this issue? Answer? I am twelve years after the fact.
17:12
I don't remember. Question Okay, all right. The exhibit thirty
17:16
five there is a letter from Jay Lefkowitz in which
17:19
I'm sorry, it's an email from j. Lef Kuwitz answer
17:24
exhibit question Exhibit thirty five to you. And this is
17:28
substantially later, but it has a sentence that or a
17:31
phrase that we'd like to ask you about. And all right.
17:34
It's highlighted at the top. It says, back in the beginning,
17:37
back at the beginning of January, when you both agree
17:40
that there was significant irregularities with a deferred prosecution agreement,
17:45
you call the timeout. Is that accurate? Do you and
17:48
he agree that? Answer? No question? There was significant irregularities.
17:53
Answer no question, okay, answer, and if I could. There
17:57
are several instances where not just to me, but to
18:01
other people as well, Jay recharacterizes conversations question, recharacterizes them
18:07
inaccurately answer, inaccurately question or misleadingly answer or misleadingly question
18:15
all right. Answer. What I recall agreeing to at some
18:17
point is there was an appeal to the DAG or
18:20
there was an appeal in place. And I basically said,
18:23
I think there was a letter that I sent saying
18:25
if you want to appeal, go ahead. We're not concerned
18:28
about this. But that doesn't mean that I agree that
18:31
there were irregularities or that there was a time out
18:34
on part of that department, on part of a hierarchy.
18:38
If someone wants to overrule me, that's okay by me.
18:41
Question all right. So the NPA addendum was worked out,
18:44
and the defense team continued its sort of multi pronged assault.
18:48
In the middle of the negotiation between redacted and left
18:51
Kuwitz about the NPA addendum, that's when you had the
18:55
much commented on breakfast on October twelfth and have stated
18:59
public that at perfectly accurately that the NPA was signed,
19:04
and that was a done deal. And so this was
19:08
not tied in any way to any effort to influence
19:11
the terms of the NPA. Fair answer, fair, because the
19:15
way this was reported was that I negotiated it over breakfast,
19:18
it was signed, that's really important question. Of course, there
19:22
were however, a number of open issues, right And an
19:25
exhibit twenty eight Jay lef quoits on page two, this
19:28
is an email to you acknowledges your breakfast on Friday.
19:32
This is dated October eighteenth, and following up your conversation
19:36
with them about a date for Epstein's plea. So he
19:40
notes that you said you didn't want to dictate a
19:42
schedule to the state. So all I want to note
19:45
is that when you had the breakfast, there was there
19:48
were issues still open that were the subject of discussion
19:52
between the defense and the US Attorney's office. And so
19:55
I guess my question is, while that was a meeting,
19:57
a convenience in a public place in a low where
20:00
you had a business later that day, a speech, I
20:03
believe optically, do you understand the public concern that this
20:07
was sort of a one on one negotiation on pending issues? Answer?
20:12
I understand how there can be concerned this. You know,
20:15
it was not unusual in this case. I actually very
20:18
intentionally waited and tried not to have one on one meetings.
20:22
But there are other instances where I might from time
20:24
to time have one on one conversations with the opposing council.
20:28
I don't remember the breakfast. I can speculate that one
20:31
of the issues was informing this was somewhere around this time,
20:35
and I can't say with certainty that this was what
20:38
it was, but somewhere around this time there are a
20:41
rose allegations that redacted had directed the designation to her
20:45
boyfriend's partner or something along those lines. Question I believe
20:49
it was a former law school classmate of her former
20:52
of her then boyfriend. Answer. Yeah, so I don't know
20:57
the details or what they were, but I do know
20:59
that there was a topic that they wanted to raise
21:02
with me. Question did he have the breakfast? Answer? Honestly,
21:06
I don't recall the breakfast. Question Okay, answer, you asked
21:10
me about one characterization of what I said in the record,
21:13
you know of the breakfast, I think, I responded, or
21:16
my council responded that they're pointing out that I seem
21:19
fairly perturbed at how inaccurately characterized something that I said,
21:23
and so we don't need to revisit that. But he
21:27
gets cut off, all right. If you look at Exhibit
21:29
twenty seven, another sort of point, just a kind of
21:33
they get cut off with questions about breakfast and they
21:36
decide to keep going question and that's Exhibit twenty seven.
21:41
It's the second email down is from redacted to Jay Lefkowitz.
21:46
The date is October twelfth, so that's the same day
21:49
as your breakfast. Answer right question, and the date of
21:53
it is not I'm sorry. The time is nine forty eight.
21:56
Your breakfast was at seven, so this would have been
21:59
pretty shortly after your breakfast. And redacted writes to Jay
22:02
Lefquitz with a copy to you and redacted stating that
22:06
he just got off the phone with you. That is,
22:08
redacted just got off the phone with you, and then
22:11
he furnishes or revised paragraph one, which suggests, I mean,
22:14
I infer from that shortly after the breakfast, you had
22:18
a phone conversation with redacted about a revision to this paragraph,
22:22
and that was likely something that you talk to him about. Again,
22:25
I'm not suggesting that this they get cut off by Acosta. Again,
22:29
I don't recall the breakfast, so I can't say one
22:31
way or the other. I take your point, but I
22:34
don't recall seeing this question. All right, well it was
22:38
you were copied on it. Okay, all right, you wanted
22:43
I just wanted to point out Exhibit thirty answer. Can
22:46
we back up a second? I'm not sure whether your
22:49
concerns are so I would I would only raise the
22:51
question where or the point where based on this And
22:54
I don't recall, so I can't speak but redacted as
22:57
saying Jay suggests revision has been rejected. Here is our
23:01
latest redacted and so too. There are multiple ways to
23:05
read this. One is that this was raised. Another is
23:10
that we're rejecting something that Jay had proposed, and because
23:15
I was at the meeting with Jay, I asked that
23:18
redacted not rejected until after I met with him. I'm
23:21
speculating because I don't recall the topic, but it does
23:24
appear that it says Jay suggested revision has been rejected.
23:28
Here is our latest redacted. All right, thank you question.
23:33
Can we just go to Exhibit thirty quickly? There are
23:36
some highlighted language. This is a letter from Lefkwitz to
23:39
you on October twenty third, two thousand and seven, where
23:42
he recounts again the things that happened or his version
23:45
of the October twelfth breakfast meeting. Question are you at
23:48
that point right there Exhibit thirty? Answer? Yeah, I'm there.
23:52
Question Okay, So in the highlighted language, if you could
23:55
just take a look at that quickly? Answer yes. Question
23:58
So he's recounting that you had assured them that the
24:02
office would not intervene with the State Attorney's office and
24:05
or contact the civil claimants or intervene regarding the sentence
24:09
that Epstein receives pursuant to a plea agreement. Answer yeah.
24:13
Question so is he correct and is recounting that? Answer?
24:17
Can you find that for me? Question? Yeah? Answer so again,
24:21
I don't have an independent recollection. I'm looking for something.
24:25
I don't have an independent recollection of that breakfast. But
24:28
in the contemporaneous emails and the contemporaneous record, there is
24:32
correspondence between redacted and I and you all ask for this,
24:36
and I spoke with my counsel who then responded, and
24:40
there's an email exchange where there's in October twentieth, this
24:44
wasn't October twenty third email October twenty third letter, and
24:47
then there's a response that's drafted on October twenty fifth.
24:51
I don't know if we can find that from redacted
24:53
to Jay that specifically addresses the point. And then I respond,
24:57
redacted runs that by me, and I respawn, I edit
25:01
the letter, and I move it sort of emphasized, like
25:03
I make it firmer, and my edit says our office
25:06
cannot and will not agree to this. And then my
25:10
comment to redact it is, what do you think of
25:12
this rewrite? Is it too strong? Question? What day was that? Answer?
25:17
That was two days after this? I don't know if
25:19
we can find that in the chronological record that was
25:22
October twenty fifth. Let's just take a minute. Is that
25:25
what you have redacted? Sorry, apparently my ability to separate
25:31
paper is felled. Okay, sorry, go ahead, Acosta. So October
25:36
twenty fifth, I'm writing to redacted, what do you think
25:39
of this rewrite? Is it too strong? And it says,
25:42
dear Jay, I'd like to take this opportunity to document
25:45
our conversation of October twenty fourth, which clarified some of
25:48
the representations in your October twenty third letter. I write,
25:52
in particular because you indicated that your intent in writing
25:55
the letter was to memorialize our conversationsreen is limited to
26:01
blank blank blank dot dot dot. I specifically want to
26:04
clarify one of the items that I believe was inaccurate
26:08
in the October twenty third letter. Your office claims that
26:11
this office would not intervene with the State Attorney's office
26:14
for regarding this matter or a contact any of the
26:16
individual's potential witnesses or potential civil claimants and their respective
26:21
counsel in the matter, and neither your office nor the
26:24
FBI would intervene regarding the sentence mister Epstein received I
26:29
quoting Jay's letter. As we discussed and hopefully clarified, and
26:33
as the US Attorney previously explained in an earlier conference call,
26:36
such promises equate to the imposition of a gag order.
26:40
Our office cannot and will not agree to this. It
26:44
is the intent of this office to treat this matter
26:46
like any other case. Thus, as is typical, we do
26:49
not desire or intend to intervene in the State Attorney's office.
26:53
The non prosecution agreement provides sufficient mechanisms to achieve the
26:57
goals of the Federal investigation. You should understand, however, that
27:02
there are some communication that are typical in these matters,
27:05
and so I go on, and so my point is
27:08
this was pretty based on if you reviewed my emails
27:11
and my language for me to write something up saying
27:14
what do you think of this rewrite? Is it too strong?
27:18
And to my edit redacted language too Our office cannot
27:22
and will not agree to This is not my agreeing
27:24
with this characterization, but my polite way of saying this
27:27
ain't what I said. Let me be clear again, no
27:31
independent recollection. This is just based on inferring from the
27:35
contemporaneous emails. Question. Okay, all right, folks, we're gonna wrap
27:40
up right here, and then the next episode dealing with
27:42
the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off.
27:46
All of the information that goes with this episode can
27:48
be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
27:51
welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
27:55
we're gonna get right back to the Alex LaCosta interview
27:58
with the OIG and question. What I would like to
28:03
do is ask a couple of questions in a couple
28:06
of areas about the main justice review. Answer. Okay, question
28:11
then take a short break and then redact. It has
28:14
some questions that are CVR related, and then we have
28:17
some summary questions. Answer, okay, question is that all right? Answer? Well,
28:23
before you move on, can I address something that redacted
28:25
was getting at? But it's getting late, so I'm going
28:27
to circle back something that I thought you would bring up.
28:32
So I think something to talk about is pre agreement
28:34
and post agreement, I think are different. And one concern
28:37
that I had and I certainly shared with mister redacted,
28:41
was once it was signed. So we had the initial
28:43
issues with the case. Once the agreement was signed, we
28:47
now have an overlying issue of is there is the
28:50
agreement binding and to what extent it's binding? And so
28:54
your question was why this level of process after the
28:57
agreement was signed, and I said, I think you'll get
29:00
back to that. And I think to some extent there
29:02
are two parts to that. One is the office shouldn't
29:05
be afraid of review. We're part of the Department of Justice,
29:07
and review, whether by main Justice or now you all,
29:11
is part of the process. And so to the extent
29:14
that they want to appeal to Maine, it would be
29:16
unseemly sort of to say, don't review us, and I
29:19
don't think it would help reviewing this. But the second
29:22
part of it is we if we were to walk
29:24
away from the agreement, that not only are we litigating
29:28
the underlying criminal case, but we're litigating a civil criminal
29:31
issue on top of that, which is did the agreement bind?
29:35
And that's something that did inform the exhausting amount of
29:39
process that they received, which didn't change any of the outcome.
29:44
Question didn't bind? What answer? So if we were to
29:47
walk away, could we still prosecute question? I see answer right?
29:53
Because having signed that, we were now parties to an
29:55
agreement and that would overlay any sort of prosecution. And
29:59
so you had these collateral issues coming question. Just to
30:04
make sure that we're clear, are you saying that there
30:07
would have been difficulty in declaring a breach so that
30:11
you could then indict. Answer correct, And so we'd have
30:14
to litigate over a breach because as much as they
30:17
had collateral challenges, they are very careful in saying this
30:21
is not a breach. We would just like review. And
30:24
so one of the issues that overlaid the post the
30:27
October going forward time period is on top of this,
30:30
do we now want litigation over a breach, and so
30:34
I think that is why the post agreement time period
30:36
is different than the pre agreement time period question, but
30:40
was part of the problem. The result of the change
30:42
from here is the date that you must comply to.
30:45
You must use best efforts to comply. Answer. Possibly I
30:50
would whether it was or others or other parts of
30:53
the agreement we can talk about. But once the agreement
30:56
was signed and they do not and they start pushing
30:59
the date, there becomes a legal issue over are they
31:02
really in breach or not. I understand your perspective. I'm
31:07
just saying, you know, earlier I said that there was
31:09
a difference. You asked about the process, and I said,
31:12
from my perspective, there is a difference between the pre
31:14
agreement and the post agreement time period, and much of
31:18
that difference is informed by if we declare a unilateral breach,
31:22
how does this hold up in court? Because now there's
31:25
a signed agreement that the United States is party to. Question.
31:29
Are you saying that part of the reason or maybe
31:31
all of the reason that you continue to give accommodations
31:34
and process and delay was because of the concern that
31:37
you couldn't actually win a breach argument. Answer. I think
31:42
that was a consideration. Another part of this consideration if
31:46
a party wants to take I mean, Main Justice gave
31:48
a lot of process. It wasn't you know, it wasn't
31:51
just too redacted, but it was up to it was
31:54
up to the Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Division to
31:57
be polite, but it was up to the dag bingo.
32:01
This is what I've told you, folks, from the very beginning,
32:03
Maine Justice was the one who put this deal together.
32:06
I don't care what a Costa says, and so if
32:11
Maine Justice is going to give this degree of process,
32:14
we should be in the position of saying go forward,
32:16
as opposed to I don't think it looks positive for
32:19
the office to be viewed as fearing department review question.
32:23
But were you giving the impression to the Department of
32:26
Justice that you were the one who wanted this review
32:29
so that they felt like, well, it's not just these
32:31
defense attorneys who we can blow off. It's a United
32:34
States attorney who was asking for this review, and so
32:37
therefore we need to give the courtesy of reviewing this answer,
32:41
I don't think I asked for it, as opposed to
32:43
saying so from the very beginning they said that they're
32:46
going to take this to the Deputy Attorney General and
32:49
the Attorney General, and I said, if you want to, fine,
32:53
They just finally did. But that was not that was
32:56
not I think they raised that as early as August
32:59
or September, and so I'm not surprised that it ended
33:01
up there. I also thought it was important to not
33:05
be in the position of fearing review. I think if
33:08
you look at the contemporaneous record, there's an effort on
33:11
our part to expedite the review redacted question. But there's
33:16
a difference between have at it, go do what you
33:19
want up at Maine and getting that non opposition and
33:23
actually sending a signal in the case of the Criminal Division,
33:27
the Assistant Attorney General in the case of the Dag's office,
33:30
Mark Philippe or his assignee that you supported their review
33:35
and this appeal process. You could have said, look, we're
33:38
going to go ahead and get on with our business
33:41
if you could have not so much to posed a
33:43
review but not second, did their request for the defense
33:47
request for review or not in fact invited the reviews answer.
33:51
So I'd be curious as to the timeline I would
33:54
take issues with. I invited the reviews, And I questioned
33:57
whether did they initiate the reviews on their own? And
34:00
then I have said, have at it? Or based on
34:03
I mean, you've got more than the record than I do.
34:06
Or did I invite? I would say I did not
34:09
invite the reviews? Question, Well, bad terminology. Perhaps. Let me
34:13
ask you this, did you convey to the Criminal Division
34:17
that you wanted them to review the matter as requested
34:20
by the defense attorneys? Answer? So, from my perspective, I'm
34:24
thinking back twelve years now. The very reason that we
34:27
invited redacted to come down to Miami back in August
34:30
was a sense that it would end up here. And
34:33
so if it's going to end up here, let's bring
34:35
redacted down, let's make them part of the initial meeting.
34:39
You know. If there are some concerns, let's raise these,
34:41
let's address them, let's get them out so we don't
34:44
end up after we go forward with all of this
34:46
back in front of redacted and redacted, and it's much
34:50
better to involve Maine Justice earlier. And so I would
34:53
say I was trying, if anything, to involve Main Justice
34:56
so that we didn't end up where we were, And
34:59
it had been my expectation that October date would have
35:02
been met the collateral review. Afterwards, the collateral appeals obviously
35:08
did not go as we planned, and it was my
35:11
sense we were going to end up at Maine Justice
35:13
one way or the other. So my question is, in December,
35:18
after the December meeting that you had with the Defense
35:20
Council and they told you that they were going to
35:23
Maine Justice to the Criminal Division, did you convey the
35:26
Main Justice Criminal Division that you wanted them to conduct
35:29
the review that Defense Council were seeking. Answer? So, I
35:33
don't recall what I may or may not have conveyed.
35:36
I think my recollection was if they want a review,
35:39
that's the right. We're not as a department. We're not
35:42
in the business of telling individuals that they can't take
35:45
something to your supervisor or your superior. Whether Main Justice
35:49
takes this or not is ultimately at their discretion. Question,
35:54
would it surprise you to learn that the Criminal Division
35:56
Front office understood you to be requesting their review the
36:00
review that was sought by Defense Counsel? Answer? Would it
36:05
surprise me? Perhaps my understanding recollection is we shouldn't fear it.
36:10
If they want it, that's their right. I thought by
36:13
inviting Redacted down in the first place, that we had
36:15
at least tried to address that early on, but I
36:18
also thought that we might end up there in the
36:21
first place. Question were you aware that a decision was
36:24
made to grant the decision by your office to grant
36:27
defense counsel's request their insistence that redacted's role in the
36:31
Criminal Division review be limited to review only and that
36:35
he not be permitted, or that the Criminal Division. I'm
36:38
sorry I misspoke that because Redacted had already been involved
36:42
in essentially being a prosecutor on the case the Criminal
36:45
Division in CEO's role vis a vee, this review should
36:49
be review only, that they should be taken off the
36:52
case as a partner. Answer, so I sought emails to
36:55
that effect in the record. I don't have independent recollection
36:59
of twelve years. Question do you think you were involved
37:03
in that decision? Answer to take them off? Question yes,
37:07
answer to my recollection, I wanted them on as a partner,
37:10
and I think the contemporaneous emails from redacted can you
37:14
please come on board? Question but that was earlier before
37:18
this review process. Answer no, no, even after review process.
37:23
I think there are contemporaneous emails where we're saying, it's
37:26
important that you be a part if we go to trial.
37:30
It's important that you be part of the trial. As
37:33
I went through the record, at least I remember an
37:35
email perhaps from redacted to redacted that I'm copied on, saying, Hey,
37:40
can you reconsider it's important that you be part of
37:42
this question? Reconsider the review only limitation answer? No, reconsider
37:49
being part of the trial? Question? All right, So to
37:52
be clear, do I understand that you correct me that
37:55
you don't have any recollection one way or the other,
37:57
whether you requested the Criminal Division to conduct the review
38:01
or could it have happened? He cuts her off. So
38:05
to the extent again, I'm going back twelve years, To
38:08
the extent there is a request to it would be
38:11
in the context of this is going to Washington, We're
38:14
not fearful of this, have at it question, and you
38:17
would have conveyed that to Washington, not just the defense attorneys.
38:20
Is that correct answer? I imagine in some way? Question?
38:25
All right, Just one more point, this one. This one
38:29
was a little bit of an odd posture, however, because
38:33
you had signed the agreement and so you know, basically
38:35
a contract between parties, and particularly on mister Epstein's side,
38:39
a party who was extremely well represented. So is there
38:43
any consideration on your part instead of saying, hey, everybody's
38:47
got a right to review, knock yourself out, go to
38:50
DC as opposed to saying something like that ship is sailed,
38:54
you sign this agreement, We're going forward. You don't go forward,
38:57
you're in breach. End of story. Answer, So as counsel
39:01
are raising serious issues that go to ethics and go
39:04
to fundamental relationships between sovereigns. In this twenty two fifty
39:08
five appropriate as a matter of federal policy. Is what
39:12
we're doing in overreach, you know, is what we're doing
39:15
contrary to law? Are we extracting I'm characterizing this may
39:19
or may not be accurate. Are we extracting unduly? Are
39:23
we using criminal law to extract civil concessions in an
39:26
ethically suspect way? Those are serious issues. That isn't just
39:31
is this a good case? Those are genuine issues. I
39:35
happen to think as I recall that we were in
39:37
the right or we wouldn't have agreed to it. But
39:39
by the same token, let's assume that Main Justice ultimately disagreed.
39:44
Is that from main Justice perspective, and maybe I'm coming
39:47
at this, you know, being informed by having been at
39:50
Main Justice question mm hmm. Answer where there was talk
39:54
about can you believe what this AUSA this AUSA may
39:58
have done or may not have done without consulting that
40:01
these are serious issues. They establish precedent, you know, maybe
40:05
the DAG would have said this is not the kind
40:08
of thing we'd support, and this is wrong, and so
40:10
at the end of the day, let's move forward. But
40:13
if once the issues are raised, I don't think a
40:16
US attorney should say Main Justice should not review this.
40:20
I think we're part of the department and these are
40:22
valid issues. Maine Justice doesn't need to take months to
40:26
review this. Main Justice can expedite their review. But those
40:30
are valid issues for the Deputy and the AAG to review. Question.
40:35
But one could look at it and say, well, those
40:37
are all issues that the defense certainly knew about before
40:40
they signed that agreement, and having signed that agreement, they're
40:43
waiving all of that. That's what contracts are for. You've
40:47
got all these issues. Don't sign the contract. Answer, And
40:51
if I could, I think there's a December letter. I
40:54
don't know if it's in the exhibits, but there's a
40:56
December letter that I wrote. Maybe it's the nineteenth. The
41:01
nineteenth is you sort of ill fated NPA A dendum effort? Acosta. No,
41:07
the letter to ken Starr that I wrote, the fourth
41:10
letter to ken Starr, Acosta, I'm sorry. Question, is it
41:15
the December fourth letter? Acosta? Yeah, probably it's the December
41:20
fourth letter redacted. Yeah, it didn't have a date. Question.
41:25
All right, that's the one you wrote, Acosta. I think
41:29
you know. I'm starting on page four. I have responded
41:33
personally in some detail to your comments because I care
41:36
deeply about both the law and the integrity of the office.
41:39
I have responded personally and in detail as well, because
41:42
your letter troubled me on a number of levels. Upon
41:45
your understanding of the negotiations are the twenty two p.
41:49
Fifty five was first discussed July thirty first, you know,
41:53
and one of these four points. In the middle of
41:55
two thousand and seven, your defense team decides asked to
41:58
meet with me on September seventh. I met. After considering
42:03
of the arguments, and after conferring with the FBI and redacted,
42:06
our office decided to proceed with the indictment. At that time,
42:11
I offered to delay our prosecutors to delay presentation to
42:15
allow you to appeal our decision if you choose, You
42:18
chose not to. Instead, you elected to enter into the NPA.
42:22
Since the signing of the agreement, the Feds in our
42:25
office have addressed several issues that have arisen, Although the
42:29
exchanges at the time were a bit litigious question, Could
42:33
I point out that this letter is in response to
42:37
not at the request for a review by the Criminal
42:39
Division that comes later. This is in response to ken
42:43
Star's letter to redacted about raising twenty two to fifty
42:46
five issues that had not been raised with you before.
42:49
Answer right, which is in essence or review? I mean
42:53
their coming to Main Justice, and you know it's against
42:56
these many previous, foregone opportunities to object that I receive.
43:00
Would surprise your letter requesting an eleventh hour after the
43:04
fact review of our agreement, although it happens rarely. I
43:07
don't mind this office decision being appealed to Washington, and
43:11
have previously directed our prosecutors to delay. Indeed, I'm confident
43:15
in our prosecutor's evidence and legal analysis. I nonetheless directed
43:20
them to consult with subject matter experts in the Criminal
43:23
CEO's Division. To confer to our interpretation of the law
43:27
before proceeding with the indictment. So I guess you know
43:31
we consulted CEOs. I'm thus surprised to read a letter
43:35
addressed to the Department headquarters that raises issues that either
43:39
have not been raised with this office previously, or have
43:42
been raised and in fact resolved with your client's favor.
43:46
I'm troubled likewise by the apparent lack of finality in
43:49
the agreement. The Ausays have been negotiating with Defense Counsel
43:53
and have for some time complained to me regarding the
43:56
tactics used by the Defense team. It appears to them
44:00
that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue,
44:02
Defense Counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. Question,
44:08
so this is your protest? It sounds like Starr's effort
44:12
to bypass you and go with new issues. Answer it is.
44:18
And I'm pushing back in that, And I was inviting this,
44:21
or I was sort of saying, you know that said
44:24
there must be closure on the matter. Some in our
44:27
office are deeply concerned that Defense Council will continue to
44:31
mount collateral challenges to provision of the agreement, even after
44:35
mister Epstein has entered as guilty plea and thus rendered
44:38
the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind. In closing,
44:43
I ask that you consult with co counsel. If after
44:46
consultation with your defense team, you believe that our agreement
44:49
is unethical, unlawful, or unconstitutional, I'd ask that you notify
44:55
us immediately so we can discuss the matter by phone
44:58
or in person. I've consulted the chief prosecutor in the case,
45:02
who has advised that she's ready to unwind the agreement
45:06
and proceed to trial if necessary or appropriate. Question. So
45:10
are you suggesting that this represents your protest of their
45:14
appeal to adacted? Answer? So, protest is a loaded word.
45:19
What I'm suggesting is that this is not invitation to
45:22
appeal tomand justice. This is sort of saying enough is enough?
45:25
Is enough? Question? But mister Acosta, in fairness this to clarify,
45:30
this is in response to a letter directed to or adacted,
45:33
dated November twenty eighth, two thousand and seven, raising issues
45:38
that had not been raised with you. The appeal subsequently
45:42
that I was asking about was an appeal for dnovo review,
45:45
a d'novo review of the whole case answer understood. And
45:50
the reason that I read this, you know, is this
45:53
is not On one hand, I'm saying we do not
45:56
fear review, but this is not an invitation to defense
46:00
counsel to do a di novo. I'm not inviting them.
46:03
I'm not saying let's have some more review. I'm saying
46:06
enough is enough. If they appeal, that's fine, But this
46:10
is not an invitation to appeal. Question. But there was
46:14
nothing you could do to stop their appeal right except
46:16
indict answer, And so the Department shouldn't stop an appeal
46:19
to main Justice, you know, by threatening question fair enough answer,
46:24
because Main Justice has a right to review question. I
46:28
should have said that that this this appeal process was
46:31
stymying progress and resolving the Epstein case. Answer. It was question,
46:37
and you had no way, You had no recourse other
46:40
than at least theoretically, you could have just said, you know,
46:43
we're going to tear it up and indict because you're
46:45
in breach in effect answer, which would have raised the
46:49
altigation answer overlays, which is the point that I thought
46:54
merited at least flushing out question. So to be short
46:58
of the Department itself getting a move on and getting
47:01
this thing through expeditiously. Did you feel like you just
47:04
had to sit there and wait for everything to get done? Answer?
47:07
I'm not sure it was sit there and wait. But
47:09
ultimately the case did not get better with time, and
47:12
there was frustration on our part. You know, the witnesses
47:15
are not getting better, you know time question, they're getting older?
47:20
Answer they're getting which goes back to how a jurm
47:23
may see them redacted? Right, Acosta and I do recall
47:28
conversations of them getting older. You know, this case is
47:31
not getting better, and now we have the civil overlay
47:34
that we need to deal with. And so, yes, there
47:37
was process, but while there was should we just call
47:40
it a day? All of that factored into well, if
47:42
the Department is reviewing, the Department is reviewing. All right, folks,
47:46
we're gonna wrap up this episode right here, and then
47:48
the next episode we're going to pick up where we
47:50
left off. All of the information that goes with this
47:53
episode can be found in the description box.