Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Part 10-12) (5/17/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Part 10-12) (5/17/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
0:02
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
0:05
where we left off with the alex Acosta deposition that
0:08
was given to the Congressional Oversight Committee, and once again
0:12
alex Acosta is doing the answering and the questions are
0:16
coming from a whole host to people. Question again, my
0:20
experience in MPa is is limited to this one. It
0:24
seems odd, verging on concerning that it included a blanket
0:27
immunity for the Southern District of Florida to both unnamed
0:31
and four known co conspirators. Do you recall the origination
0:35
of that line?
0:36
Speaker 2: Answer?
0:36
Speaker 1: So, as you're aware the matter is pending litigation, and
0:39
I don't want to create evidence, but I'm going to
0:41
read from the OPR report. It's not that I'd be
0:44
creating evidence, but question Yeah, answer, I need to be
0:48
careful here, page one sixty six. As the NPA drafting
0:52
process concluded, Villa Fauna circulated to Lori and another supervisor
0:56
a draft that contained the non prosecution provision actually start
1:00
up a little bit before that. G On page one
1:03
sixty six, OPR examined the decision by the subjects who
1:07
negotiated the NPA, Villa Fauna, Lori, and Acosta to include
1:11
in the agreement a provision in which the USAO agreed
1:15
not to prosecute any potential co conspirators of Abstein in
1:19
addition to four named individuals. Other than the various drafts
1:23
of the NPA and the Federal Plea, OPR found little
1:27
contemporaneous records mentioning it dot dot dot. Drafts of the
1:31
NPA and the Federal plea show that the final language
1:34
promising not to prosecute dot dot dot the provision expanded
1:38
as not I'm sorry not to prosecute. Let me not
1:42
do dot dot dot, Let's start again. Drafts of the
1:45
NPA and the Federal Plea agreement show that the final
1:48
broad language promising not to prosecute any potential co conspirators
1:51
of Abstein evolved from more narrow provisions sought by the Defense.
1:56
The provision expanded as Villa Fauna and Defense Counsel changed
2:00
drafts of it, first to propose Federal Plea Agreement and
2:03
then the NPA, with apparently little analysis and no substantative
2:08
discussion with the USAO about the provision. As the NPA
2:13
drafting process concluded. Villa Fauna circulated to Lori, who was
2:16
then the managing attorney in Palm Beach, and another supervisor,
2:20
a draft that contained a non prosecution provision, telling Lori
2:24
it was some of the defense counsel's requested language, regarding
2:27
promises not to prosecute other people, and commenting only, I
2:32
don't think it hurts us. In a reply email, Lourie
2:35
responded to another issue Villa Fauna had raised, but Lourie
2:38
did not comment on the provision promising not to prosecute
2:42
co conspirators or asked Villa Fauna to explain why she
2:45
believed the provision did not harm the government's interest. In
2:49
a subsequent email about the draft NPA, Villa Fauna asked
2:52
Lorie for any other thoughts, but there is no indication
2:55
that he provided further input. OPR found no document that's jested.
3:00
Villa Fauna and Lori discussed the provision further, or that
3:04
the other individual or individuals who were copied on Villafana's
3:08
email referencing the provision her immediate supervisor, the supervisor designated
3:13
to succeed Lori as manager of the West Palm Beach
3:15
office and Villa Fauna's co council commented or had substantiative
3:19
discussions about it. Villa Fauna told OPR that because none
3:23
of the three supervisors responded to observation that the non
3:28
prosecution provision doesn't hurt us, Villa Fauna assumed that they
3:31
agreed with her assessment, and so they went through how
3:34
it came to be and discuss that. And because it's
3:37
pending question, no answer, I don't think it's wise for
3:41
me to comment.
3:42
Speaker 2: Question.
3:42
Speaker 1: I totally understand that. So I'm not going to ask
3:45
about your kind of like legal understanding of that language,
3:48
what it means to you or anything. But the origination
3:51
of the language I don't think is under a potential review.
3:54
It's more what it means for MS.
3:55
Speaker 2: Maxwell.
3:57
Speaker 1: So the provisions from the OPR report you read said
4:01
that it was broadening of a less narrow version that
4:03
defense counsel had suggested. Do you recall any conversation about
4:07
why it was broader? Answer? So, I don't recall any
4:11
conversation about this. I ultimately approved the agreement, and because
4:15
as US attorney I ultimately approved it, I'm responsible for it.
4:19
What's contained in the report. I have no recollection of this.
4:22
My assumption as I approved the ultimate agreement is that
4:26
we had very experienced attorneys and that this would have
4:29
been brought through and negotiated. I was focused, honestly on
4:33
him going to jail, him serving as you know, him
4:35
having to register as an offender, and the recovery, and
4:39
my edits to the agreement focused on the agreement was
4:42
directing the state to take action. And I didn't think
4:45
that as the US Attorney I had the authority to
4:47
direct the state, so I changed it from directing the
4:50
state to directing Epstein to work with the state.
4:54
Speaker 2: Question.
4:54
Speaker 1: Okay, so no answer, I have no question, interrupts him again,
4:59
No over recollection about how the sentence came to be,
5:03
how those four names came to be? Answer, no independent
5:06
recollection of that question. All right, do you have any
5:09
recollection whether or not your office informed those four individuals
5:13
that they were not going to be named in the
5:15
prosecution agreement?
5:17
Speaker 2: Answer?
5:18
Speaker 1: I have no independent recollection. Question and then, based off
5:22
what you just said, again, not trying, we don't want
5:25
to interfere in any ongoing litigation either, but based off
5:28
what you said, the past decision is that you're understanding
5:31
that this language does not limit the Southern District of
5:34
New York from prosecuting those individuals or other known co conspirators. Answer,
5:40
so you know, it's my was my understanding at the time,
5:43
and as I read this, I would have been aware
5:46
of the Department's policy that any such provision authorized by
5:49
a US attorney does not bind outside of Florida. And
5:53
a district court has held that, a court of Appeals
5:56
has held that it's pending in the Supreme Court, and
5:59
we know that they ended up denying it as well,
6:02
by the way, and that's also the written policy of
6:05
the US Question and kind of I mean, and I
6:09
understand it's still pending the final outcome, but kind of
6:12
exemplified by the Maxwell case of the Southern District of
6:15
New York did choose to move forward despite the provision
6:18
being in place. Answer, that's correct, answer, all right. I
6:22
don't want to get into the nitty gritty of the
6:24
CRVA because I don't have it memorized. I'm not a
6:27
crime victims lawyer, so I don't want to touch too
6:29
much on the individual terms. My general understanding of that
6:33
is it requires notification to potential victims prior. I think
6:37
you said prior to indictment. Is that fair answer? At
6:41
the time, the Office of Legal Counsel had written an
6:44
opinion for the Department. The CVR, I think was relatively new,
6:49
had just been passed by Congress a year or two prior.
6:52
The Office of Legal Council had written an opinion that said,
6:55
it does not attach until an actual indictment. So it
6:58
doesn't even attach pre indictment. So it doesn't at the
7:02
time until indictment. And just to interject here, Epstein's lawyers
7:06
knew this. That's why they ended up going with the NPA.
7:10
They think everybody's stupid. Man, They really think everybody's dumb,
7:14
and nobody's been paying attention breaking news. We're paying attention.
7:18
So save the happy horseship for somebody else. Mister Acosta. Question,
7:22
So I guess, I mean, was there ever actually an
7:25
indictment in the case?
7:27
Speaker 2: Answer? There was not? Question, so was there? Is it?
7:30
Speaker 1: Based off of the OLLC opinion? Your understanding is that
7:34
if there was not an indictment, if it goes with
7:36
the non prosecution agreement and there is not a plea
7:39
in court, that victims would not have been notified. So
7:44
not only is it my understanding. But the Justice Department,
7:48
in this three hundred page report, found that there was
7:50
no misconduct, no violation of law, no violation of policy,
7:54
because it was the Justice Department's position that it did
7:57
not attach and the litigation that was cited. The Justice
8:00
Department through multiple administrations, through the Bush administration and then
8:04
in subsequent administrations, both Republican and Democrat kept taking that
8:09
position that there was no violation because the CVRA did
8:13
not attach.
8:14
Speaker 2: Question.
8:15
Speaker 1: On October tenth, mister Lefkowitz sent you a letter saying
8:18
that it was cited in the OPR report, no federal
8:21
agent or employee of the US Attorney's Office should contact
8:24
the victims to inform them of the resolution of the case.
8:28
And then two days later you had breakfast. So I'm
8:30
going to ask you about the breakfast. But I would
8:33
think that most of us are lawyers in the room.
8:35
Is there a difference between should and could answer? I
8:39
would say there is, But you know, as the record
8:41
will show later, we basically said that he's wrong and
8:45
we can do what we want. Questions, So you weren't
8:47
precluded from notifying answer. We weren't precluded. I think I
8:53
think that phrase that I remember from the report said
8:56
what you were suggesting as a gag order and the
8:58
US attorney does not accept order. Question was it odd
9:02
for defense counsel to suggest to you how to work
9:06
with victims in an ongoing case? Well, not this defense
9:11
council question. Can you explain that a little bit more?
9:13
Speaker 2: Answer?
9:14
Speaker 1: I think we've talked about how the Defense Council skirted
9:17
the line. Question, So this is one instance of them
9:20
telling US attorneys how to interact with victims in an
9:24
ongoing case. Do you have other examples, off the top
9:27
of your head answer of defense lawyers doing that? No
9:30
question in this case. Do you have other examples of
9:33
mister Lefkowitz, mister Dershowitz, or a mister Starr answer? So
9:37
in this then he's cut off again, telling you back
9:41
to Acosta, who once again answers. You know, in the
9:43
very context you mentioned, they were going to be breakfast,
9:47
and then after the breakfast, the breakfast took place upon beach.
9:50
I was giving a speech there. It was a convenient location.
9:54
And after the breakfast, I call my first assistant and
9:56
a briefdom and I don't have independent recollection of this. This
10:00
again is based on the Justice department's report finding that
10:04
there was no impropriety, nothing wrong with the breakfast, and
10:07
then he emails the first assistant saying that I had
10:10
agreed to something which I had not agreed to, and
10:13
we had to email him something back saying you're wrong,
10:15
Acosta did not agree to such a thing. Question, do
10:20
you have any other examples off the top of your
10:22
head of one of those three individuals trying to like
10:25
Acosta cuts them off. I think there are multiple examples
10:28
in the record where they would claim that there was
10:30
an agreement but there was none, and vice versa.
10:34
Speaker 2: Question.
10:34
Speaker 1: No, I'm more interested in defense attorneys from mister Epstein
10:37
attempting to interfere in the US Attorney's office ability to
10:41
work with, interview or notify victims. So this is one
10:45
example of that. Answer. So, question where a defense attorney
10:49
is telling you they read of the law and read
10:51
it as an attempt to block you from talking to victims,
10:54
are there others? Answer? I understand the question now. So
10:58
one of the issues that arose was as a result
11:01
of our seeking a mechanism a way for the victims
11:03
to recover money, we set up a system whereby he
11:07
would concede liability and they would, in essence, just argue
11:11
over amounts. Question Uh huh answer. Defense counsel argued that
11:16
the way that it was set up was a conflict
11:18
of interest and that we couldn't proceed, and that was
11:21
one of the grounds on which they appealed to Washington,
11:24
and my first assistant and Defense counsel had a vigorous
11:27
exchange over a number of weeks over that topic. We
11:30
wanted the victims to be able to recover, and we
11:33
thought once he signed, he meant what he said, and
11:36
after he signed, he tried to get out of it.
11:39
Question did Defense council ever try to interfere with your
11:41
ability to work with FBI or other investigators in order
11:45
to gather information.
11:47
Speaker 2: Answer?
11:48
Speaker 1: Not to my knowledge, but again, as I said before,
11:51
I would typically direct the FBI how to gather their
11:53
information or our line attorneys had to gather information. Question
11:58
understanding OPR found the breakfast was fine. I'm just wondering, like,
12:02
what was the discussion at breakfast regarding informing the victims?
12:07
Speaker 2: Answer?
12:08
Speaker 1: So, as I told HPR, I don't remember twenty years
12:11
later what the discussion was. I can infer at the
12:14
time he was trying to recuse our lead prosecutor, Miss
12:16
Villa Fauna. Part of the mechanism for her seeking recovery
12:20
for the victims was to appoint what, for simplicity's sake,
12:23
we would call the special Master to follow this process.
12:27
Miss Villa Fauna had recommended someone who was known or
12:30
a friend or someone associated with her boyfriend, and defense
12:33
counsel claimed that she had acted unethically and improperly and
12:37
was looking to recuse her. Based on the timing, I
12:40
can see how I would want to know what their
12:43
allegations are. Miss Villa Fauna is a key part of
12:45
the case. She was probably in the process of negotiating
12:48
these issues, negotiating the victim recovery issues and notifying victims,
12:54
and I can infer that's what I would have viewed
12:56
the topic as Now, whether a defense counsel brought something
12:59
else or not, that that's up to them. Question is
13:04
it common for defense counsel to seek information to cause
13:07
recusal or does it more often just kind of come
13:09
up in the course of practice. Answer, It's not unheard
13:13
of for defense counsel to seek refusal or generate conflicts
13:16
of interest. In this case, I didn't think they had
13:19
a basis, and I did not recuse miss Villa Funa.
13:22
I thought their attempt to recuse my first assistant was
13:25
much more egregious. All right, we're gonna wrap up right
13:28
here and in the next episode dealing with the topic,
13:31
we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of
13:33
the information that goes with this episode can be found
13:36
in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to
13:39
another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're
13:43
gonna get right back to the alex Acosta deposition that
13:46
was given to the Congressional Oversight Committee. Once again, alex
13:51
Acosta's answering questions from a whole host of people.
13:56
Speaker 2: Question.
13:58
Speaker 1: I'm going to go back to the end, but I
14:01
want to ask just kind of your own thoughts and
14:03
if you ever had conversations about it. Epstein obviously hired
14:06
two people that could have potentially created a conflict for you.
14:10
Do you think he did that on purpose? Answer? I
14:12
think it was clear. He hired two attorneys from Kirkland
14:15
one because having work with me, they would know my
14:18
thinking and my style too. They could likely get an
14:21
appeal to Washington, DC. And I think yes, I think
14:24
he did that. He hired someone that had previously worked
14:28
with my criminal chief. He hired someone that had been
14:30
a partner with my first assistant. I believe he hired
14:33
an ausa in our office that may have been privy
14:36
the hallway conversation about the case. So there is a
14:39
pattern here that we were well aware of. He hired
14:43
someone he had an association with the managing attorney of
14:46
the Palm Beach office.
14:47
Speaker 2: Question.
14:48
Speaker 1: And I mean, it's one thing to hire those people
14:50
because they might know how opposing counsel thinks. But all
14:54
the facts kind of point to an attempt to subvert
14:56
the case answer. So let me make one thing clear
15:00
as you're going there. The Office of Professional Responsibility at
15:03
Department of Justice looked at all these contacts. They looked
15:07
at everyone involved, They looked at all the emails, they
15:10
looked at every communication, and they found no one proper conduct.
15:13
They found no one proper influence. They found Niemen on
15:17
your behalf, Acosta, on no, not only my behalf, but
15:21
on behalf of everyone in the US Attorney's office, mister Neieman, right, Acosta.
15:26
No one proper influence, no wrongdoing. So this is something
15:29
that was fully looked at, fully considered, Yeah, what about
15:33
the year's worth of missing emails, mister Acosta, and so
15:38
you know, he hired who he hired. But we proceeded
15:41
the way we wanted to proceed, and the record shows
15:43
that from before these two attorneys were brought on board,
15:46
where I approved for two years the registration and the
15:49
recovery mechanisms to the ultimate plea, what changed was negotiations
15:55
among the child team. Questioned by mister redaktid and I
15:59
want to be I'm not suggesting that you should declare
16:02
a conflict or like you guys were in the best
16:04
position to figure that out. What I'm suggesting is that
16:08
it looks like it's another defense tactic in an attempt
16:11
to get even closer to the line of intentionally hiring
16:14
people that would conflict answer a failed question, interrupting mister Acosta,
16:20
lead prosecutor out answer a fel defense tactic because so
16:25
one of the Justice Department policies on recusals is that
16:28
you don't just recuse, because then every defense attorney could
16:31
simply recuse. All the good attorneys and experienced attorneys in
16:35
the US Attorney's office. Question, I'm going to introduce Exhibit
16:39
three it's two letters by mister adacted. Question. While we
16:45
pass that out, I'll describe them. It's two letters send
16:48
from the FBI's West Palm Beach to they're adapted, but
16:51
two victims notifying them in regards to the Epstein case.
16:55
One from May thirtieth, two thousand and eight, and one
16:58
from January tenth. Have you seen these letters prior to today?
17:03
Speaker 2: Answer?
17:04
Speaker 1: I don't recall. Question okay, I'm going to focus more
17:07
on the timeline and one sentence versus the whole notification. So,
17:11
looking at January tenth one, which the cover page is
17:15
exhibits ninety seven. It's the first sentence in that letter,
17:18
and then in the second letter it's the second full paragraph,
17:22
but it reads, this case is currently under investigation. This
17:25
can be a lengthy process, and we request your continued
17:28
patients while we conduct a thorough investigation. By January tenth,
17:32
two thousand and eight and May thirtieth, two thousand and eight,
17:35
the case was no longer under investigation.
17:38
Speaker 2: Is that correct? Answer?
17:40
Speaker 1: So?
17:40
Speaker 2: That is not accurate? Question? Okay?
17:43
Speaker 1: Answer so, and this was looked at by the Office
17:45
of Professional Responsibility, by the Justice Department, and again they
17:49
found no wrongdoing. I don't have an independent recollection, but
17:52
based on the Justice Department's conclusions, let me try to
17:55
walk you through it. Question okay, answer. He had signed
17:59
a PLA in September. Our expectation was he signed I'm sorry,
18:03
he had signed the agreement in September. Our expectation was
18:07
he signed the agreement, he'd go take the plea, he'd
18:09
go to jail, We're done. But he did not do that.
18:13
And so my understanding at the time was that we
18:16
did not just sit around, but that the prosecuting attorney
18:19
and the case agent continued to work the case because
18:22
we did not know if we would have to go
18:24
to trial or not. And so the case was not
18:27
done because he was not in jail. And so during
18:29
that time the case as a technical matter and an
18:32
actual matter was under investigation. The prosecuting attorney and the
18:37
case agent started notifying the victims of the actual agreement.
18:41
They then became concerned because they, in essence, were saying,
18:45
here's an agreement, and he goes to jail, and you'll
18:47
have the opportunity to recover what for these victims would
18:51
have been substantial sums. And they became concerned that they
18:56
were generating evidence that would undermine the case because in
18:59
the usual court he would be pleading, but he's not,
19:03
uh huh answer, he's challenging this on appeal. And so
19:07
they went to the Professional Responsibility Officer again this is
19:11
from OPR, not my independent recollection, and they asked the
19:14
Professional responsibility officer what should we do? And the Professional
19:18
Responsibility officer said, in essence, if you feel comfortable with this,
19:22
then just stop. And so they proceeded. But at the
19:26
same time, the FBI generated these letters which were accurate.
19:29
But let me sort of say, this is another area
19:32
where I understand why victims felt that this wasn't you know.
19:35
I think opr's view was, you know, they found that
19:38
we complied with the rules in the law, but said
19:41
it wasn't fully forthright. And I understand that, and in retrospect,
19:45
we were focused again send them to jail registration and
19:49
should have probably thought more about how the victims would
19:51
have viewed it. Question all right, I appreciate that and
19:55
appreciate the timeline. So just for clarity, when these letters
19:58
went out, your understand was that that was still an
20:01
investigation that was happening. So again I wasn't aware that
20:05
the letters were going out, says Acosta, because US attorneys
20:08
don't get involved in this as a typical matter. But
20:11
that was my word, yes question, And then he gets
20:16
cut off by Acosta. I'm sorry that was that would
20:18
be my understanding, yes question. And then your understanding too,
20:22
is that so we get back to the like kind
20:24
of notifying of the victims, and that the ethics advice was,
20:28
if it's going to mess up the case, it's still
20:31
it's permissive, right, so, like you could make the determination
20:34
whether or not to notify, whether or not it's going
20:37
to mess up the case.
20:38
Speaker 2: Answer.
20:39
Speaker 1: And at some point the office had the Appellate Division
20:42
check either independently or check with Washington on that, and
20:46
was told that that's when they were told specifically that
20:50
the CVRA did not attach until indictment. Question, all right,
20:54
And we talked about the addition of the forename co
20:56
conspirators a little bit. And I know that you don't
20:59
get into kind of picking and choosing who gets interviewed.
21:02
But do you recall if those four.
21:04
Speaker 2: Women were interviewed? Answer?
21:05
Speaker 1: I do not recall, and I wouldn't have reason to recall.
21:09
Speaker 2: Question.
21:09
Speaker 1: The pom Beach Police Department attempted to interview those people
21:13
and were, according to their report told by Alan Dershowitz,
21:16
that those four women were out of the country. Do
21:18
you have any knowledge of that?
21:19
Speaker 2: Answer?
21:20
Speaker 1: I have no knowledge of that question. I won't ask
21:23
the follow up. Would it be odd that the primary
21:25
suspect's lawyer is communicating with the Pombach PD regarding four witnesses?
21:31
Speaker 2: Answer?
21:31
Speaker 1: Again, I was not involved, you know, in how the
21:33
investigation proceeded. Question And then to your knowledge again understanding
21:38
that you're not picking and choosing who gets interviewed. Did
21:41
anyone in your office or the FBI ever interview miss Maxwell?
21:45
Speaker 2: Answer?
21:45
Speaker 1: To my knowledge, they did not. I recall reading somewhere
21:48
in the Justice Department report that I believe our lead
21:51
prosecutor wasn't aware of Maxwell. I think at some point
21:55
she said she didn't recognize the name, but I could
21:57
be wrong. That's just a vague recollection question. And again
22:01
on prefacing all this with the understanding that you're not
22:04
picking and choosing and would have no and don't have
22:07
recollection of whether or not they were interviewed, it seems
22:11
odd and verging on not a fulsome investigation to enter
22:14
into this level of agreement without interviewing these types of people,
22:17
do you agree?
22:19
Speaker 2: Answer?
22:19
Speaker 1: So, again, I don't know. I was not involved in
22:21
how investigation proceeded. We have very very good prosecutors in
22:25
the Southern District of Florida, and my approach would have
22:28
been to trust them to proceed as they saw appropriate,
22:32
unless it's Villa Fauna, right, because she wanted to proceed
22:35
a different way. Question and so with that trust, when
22:40
they proposed a non prosecution agreement, it was your belief
22:43
that when they had checked all the kind of investigatory
22:46
boxes to make sure that this was the best path forward. Answer,
22:49
That would be my belief and expectation in this and
22:52
other cases. Question all right, I want to go back
22:56
to the agreement itself. I just have some kind of
22:59
like fourquers of the agreement type questions. If it's a
23:02
you don't recall your thoughts at the time, that's fine.
23:05
If you have an opinion about it now, that's fine too,
23:08
Answer all right. Question on page one. The first kind
23:12
of stipulation is that so most of the document refers
23:15
to minor females, and did you find any evidence of
23:18
mister Epstein trafficking non minor females. Answer not to my
23:22
recollection question. And then what would kind of like constitute
23:26
a breach of this agreement on mister Epstein's side, answer, Well,
23:30
it requires him to take certain steps on page three.
23:33
You know it outlines one, two, three, four, and so on.
23:36
And you know, ultimately, if he didn't plead, if he
23:40
didn't serve the term as outlined in the agreement, or
23:42
if he didn't take any of.
23:43
Speaker 2: The other steps, it would be a breach. Question.
23:46
Speaker 1: And then the actual kind of like agreement of what
23:49
the gel confinement would look like, what would work release
23:52
look like, what Paroller home confinement would look like? Was
23:55
all out of your hands. Answer. So one of the issues, Look,
23:59
we never expected that we handed this to the state
24:01
attorney and the Palm Beach County. They had no jail time.
24:04
We gave him jail time. We never expected them to
24:07
do anything less than say outstanding, great and have him
24:10
serve his time. Particularly when you look at into the
24:13
details of the work release. The way he obtained that
24:16
work release is troubling at best, and I think that
24:19
was outlined in a letter from our office. Question question,
24:23
and we'll get to some of that a bit later.
24:25
Just to your recollection. Would it be common in a
24:27
parole agreement or a home confinement agreement to require that
24:30
the convicted individual not commit any other crimes while on
24:34
home confinement or parole. Answer so, I would think so,
24:38
and I think that'd be part of the state's management
24:41
of their prisoners. Question but again not up to the
24:45
US answer. Again, not up to the US attorney. He's
24:49
within the state system. Question if he were to breach parole,
24:53
would that have a breach of the MPa?
24:56
Speaker 2: Answer?
24:56
Speaker 1: I would have to read the NPA question. Okay, answer,
25:00
and a lot more detailed before I give an opinion
25:02
like that. All Right, we're gonna wrap up right here,
25:05
and in the next episode we're gonna pick up where
25:07
we left off. All of the information that goes with
25:10
this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
25:14
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
25:17
this episode, we're gonna get right back to alex Acosta.
25:20
And as farce of a deposition question, did Miss Villa
25:25
Fauna ever approach you with the evidence that mister Epstein
25:28
was violating the NPA?
25:29
Speaker 2: Answer?
25:30
Speaker 1: There were certainly discussions within the office as how to
25:33
proceed on work release. But I don't think that was
25:36
viewed as evidence. I think that was viewed as to
25:39
be honest. I think it was viewed as the office
25:41
was hoodwinked. Question hoodwink by whom? Answer the state attorney
25:46
in part or the state let me? Because the state
25:50
attorney would say, the Pombach sheriff, it was not what
25:52
we expected. We expected quote unquote continuous confinement. We were
25:56
given assurance of continuous confinement, which system in the Palm
26:00
Beach correctional hierarchy chose to give this to him. Is
26:03
not what we expected, and we made it pretty clear
26:06
that we didn't think that it was appropriate. Question you
26:09
said earlier, a lot earlier, at this point that the
26:11
state was an unfair partner. You might have said a
26:14
different word, but answer, I think an unreliable partner is
26:18
what I said. Question unreliable partner. Is this part of
26:22
the evidence that supports that statement?
26:24
Speaker 2: Answer? Yes, it is.
26:25
Speaker 1: Question do you have any other support for them being
26:28
an unfair partner? Answer? So. One of the issues in
26:31
the case was, I believe we got notified on a
26:33
Friday afternoon that he was taking his plea Monday morning.
26:37
I would expect that a law enforcement partner would give
26:40
us at least a business day and I'm not being
26:42
sarcastic here on a plea of this nature. And so
26:45
our attorneys were left to scramble and work with the
26:48
Palm Beach State Attorney's Office and victim notification on very
26:51
very short notice. And I think that led to some
26:54
of the feelings of lack of forthrightness on the part
26:57
of the victims. Question, You've discussed some of the you know,
27:00
I'm paraphrasing the shadiness of his work release detail and
27:04
where he was working. Does the Florida Science Foundation ring
27:07
a bell about his work release?
27:10
Speaker 2: Answer? It does?
27:11
Speaker 1: Question, and sitting here today, what's your understanding of the
27:14
Florida Science Foundation answer? When I was referencing shady, I
27:18
think I used troublesome because I tend to just for
27:21
the record, I tend to believe in being professional and
27:24
opting over the combative, and I sometimes understate I've been
27:29
told that that's a bad habit, so shady might be
27:31
a better term. I believe that that's part of what
27:34
I considered shady. Question, and I'm going to maybe jump
27:38
a little bit out and will introduce these documents together
27:41
as exhibit for question while they're being passed out. So
27:46
it's the articles of incorporation for Bruce Reinhart pa his
27:49
law firm, and the articles of incorporation for the Florida
27:52
Science Foundation. Was Bruce Reinhart an employee in the US
27:56
Attorney's office while you were there?
27:57
Speaker 2: Answer?
27:58
Speaker 1: So you just disclosed something I did not know. Question? Okay, answer,
28:02
Bruce Reinhart was an employee. He was in Ausa that
28:06
worked in the Palm Beach office during this inaudible. I
28:09
knew that he had left to work for Epstein while
28:11
the case was pending. I did not know that he
28:14
was the one that filed these articles of incorporation. Question,
28:18
So that gets to some of my questions. Was he
28:20
directly involved in the Epstein investigation while at the US
28:23
Attorney's office?
28:25
Speaker 2: Answer?
28:25
Speaker 1: So, I would not have knowledge as to whether he
28:28
was directly involved. He was not part of the core team.
28:31
But within any office, as might be the case in
28:33
any congressional office or others, there are sometimes hallway discussions.
28:38
Speaker 2: Question.
28:38
Speaker 1: Here are things hugeau with colleagues near the water cooler,
28:41
that kind of thing. Answer, And the pom Beach office
28:44
is much smaller than the Miami office, and so I
28:47
can't speak to what he did or did not know. Question,
28:51
And it's my understanding he left officially left the US
28:53
Attorney's Office in January of two thousand and eight. Is
28:56
that your understanding now? Answer? I don't recall, but I
29:00
know he left, and I know he left at some
29:01
point while the case was pending appeal. Question all right,
29:05
will flip to his incorporation paperwork. You have it up
29:09
in the top right corner of the first page. It
29:11
says filed October twenty third, two thousand and seven. That's
29:15
three ish months prior to him officially leaving the US
29:18
Attorney's Office. To the best of your recollection and knowledge,
29:21
is it ethically questionable to begin private practice while still
29:25
in the US Attorney's Office? Answer yes, question is it
29:29
actually unethical to do so? Answer yes. Question did you
29:33
have knowledge of this at the time? Answer no, So
29:36
I'm sorry to clarify he filed this under Bruce Reinhardt
29:41
PA before he left the US Attorney's Office. Answer a question, Yes, sir,
29:46
he filed it on October twenty third, two thousand and seven.
29:49
We pulled this right off the Florida Corporation website. And
29:52
then it's our understanding that his last day in the
29:55
US Attorney's office was January first, two thousand and eight.
29:58
We're going to flip to the next one, the one
30:01
with the big sharpie writing on it. The first page
30:03
on this one is not as interesting, but the second
30:06
page is the beginning of the articles of incorporation for
30:09
the Florida Science Foundation. And this was incorporated. The stamp
30:12
says November one, two thousand and seven, so about a
30:15
week after mister Rhinhart's incorporation. Answer yes question, and I
30:21
want to compare the second page of the Florida Science
30:23
Foundation to the first page of mister Ryinhart. Article two
30:27
for mister Ryinhart says the principal place of business is
30:30
to fifty Australian Avenue, Sweet fourteen hundred in West pom Beach, Florida.
30:35
And Article two of the Florida Science Foundation says two
30:38
hundred and fifty Australia Avenue, Sweet fourteen hundred, West pom Beach, Florida.
30:43
Speaker 2: On its face, looking.
30:44
Speaker 1: At this, does it appear that mister Ryinhart and the
30:47
Florida Science Foundation, which was a front for mister Epstein,
30:50
shared the same office. Answer on its face, it does, yes. Question.
30:55
Would that be of concern to you? Answer? Yes, question?
30:59
And then again, it's our understanding that mister Reinhart's first
31:02
clients were mister Epstein's maid Sarah Kellen and mister Epstein's pilots.
31:06
Would that be unethical to shift straight from a US
31:08
attorney's office working on the case and then taking them
31:12
as defense clients. Answer, so, I recall the office was
31:15
troubled by mister Reinhart leaving and shifting to Epstein related clients.
31:20
I don't know what conversations he had with the ethics officials,
31:23
But shady question, do you recall any conversation about mister
31:27
Reinhart taking Epstein's clients at the time? Answer? I recall
31:31
some conversations at some point. I don't know what that
31:34
time period would be.
31:35
Speaker 2: Question. I'm going to not.
31:38
Speaker 1: Ask you to speculate, but it would certainly appear like
31:41
there was some coordination here mister Reinhardt's articles of incorporation
31:45
being at the same address a week before the Florida
31:48
Science Foundations in Corporation, and then him taking their clients.
31:52
We've talked a lot about to that. Acosta interrupts. What
31:56
is most troubling is that this was before he left
31:58
the office.
31:59
Speaker 2: Question.
31:59
Speaker 1: We've talked a lot about mister Epstein's defense counsel attempting
32:03
to find conflicts of interest in your office. Is this
32:06
a conflict of interest? Not in your office, but is
32:09
mister Reinhardt taking Epstein's clients a conflict of interest?
32:13
Speaker 2: Answer?
32:14
Speaker 1: So, as a technical matter, whether it's a conflict would
32:17
have to do if he was involved in the case.
32:19
As an ethical matter. As a professional matter, all of
32:22
us thought it was deploring.
32:24
Speaker 2: Question.
32:25
Speaker 1: All right, thank you. After that, they have a quick recess.
32:28
Then they're back and another unnamed person is asking questions. Question,
32:33
Good afternoon, mister Acosta. I'd just like to turn back
32:36
to the federal investigation in your office and make sure
32:39
we have a complete understanding of the players, and to
32:42
begin with the members of the US Attorney's Office who
32:45
handled the case. We've spoken about Miss Villafuna, the line prosecutor.
32:49
I understand that Jeffrey Slowman was also part of the team.
32:52
Answer he was question okay, And he was the chief
32:56
of Criminal Division from two thousand and four to two
32:59
thousand and six and first assistant to US attorney in
33:02
your office from October two thousand and six. Answer I
33:06
can vouch for the dates, but that generally sounds correct.
33:09
Question and then Matthew Menchell answer Menchell, question Menchell Andrew
33:14
Lorie answer correct, I'm pronouncing I'm pronouncing it correctly. Answer yes, Lori.
33:19
He was managing an attorney for the Palm Beach office
33:21
and then went on to be the chiefs of staff
33:24
for the Criminal Division. Question anyone else I have it
33:28
named who belongs on the list?
33:30
Speaker 2: Answer?
33:30
Speaker 1: I think that would be the core team. Other individuals
33:33
may have been consulted from time to time, but I
33:35
think that that would be the core team. Question what
33:38
about FBI agents on the case? Do you recall any
33:41
of their names?
33:42
Speaker 2: Answer? I do not.
33:43
Speaker 1: Question did you ever interact with them during the investigation?
33:47
Speaker 2: Answer?
33:47
Speaker 1: I believe they were in one or two meetings, but
33:50
as a general matter, I would not interact with them.
33:53
I did interact from time to time with the special
33:56
agent in charge. Question do you recall the person's name?
34:00
Answer John? I forgot his last name.
34:02
Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
34:03
Speaker 1: Question and then mister Epstein's legal team answer yes. Question
34:07
and it's a fairly Fullsome list at least to my understanding.
34:11
First name is Roy Black. Do you recall mister Black?
34:14
Answer yes. Question did you know him at the time
34:17
the investigation started?
34:19
Speaker 2: Answer? I did?
34:20
Speaker 1: Question and how answer He'd litigated other cases in the office,
34:24
he was well known. I'd met him socially. Miami's legal
34:27
community is smaller than Washington. You get to know the attorneys.
34:32
I also thought it was important, and I did you
34:34
know I met with well known defense attorneys from time
34:37
to time just to see their assessment of how the
34:39
office was proceeding. Question did you have a social relationship
34:43
with mister Black?
34:44
Speaker 2: Answer?
34:45
Speaker 1: I don't think so. Question Gerald Lefcourt answer, I know
34:49
the name, I did not know much beyond that question
34:52
Guy Lewis. Answer so, Guy Lewis, If the question is
34:56
who he was, I assume that your question. Question, so
35:00
I understand that he was a former US attorney and
35:02
you're a predecessor in the Southern District of Florida.
35:05
Speaker 2: Is that right?
35:06
Speaker 1: Answer? I thought he was a predecessor one before me.
35:10
Question Okay, so you've answered the first question. The second
35:13
is whether you knew him at the time the investigation started.
35:17
Speaker 2: Answer? I knew him.
35:18
Speaker 1: I think he had served in main Justice for some
35:20
period of time. We had interactions from time to time. Question.
35:24
It's also my understanding that mister Lewis was close friends
35:27
with mister Lorie in your office at the time. Is
35:30
that right answer? I will accept your understanding. I don't
35:33
have independent recollection question Lily Ane Sanchez answer. So she
35:39
was in our office when I first started the office.
35:41
She later left for private practice. Question and represented mister Epstein.
35:46
Answer and represented mister Epstein. Question, and that was immediately
35:51
after she left the office. If I'm correct, answer, I
35:54
can't speak to the timeline question and she had been
35:58
mister I'm sorry ment Menchell question mister Minchell's deputy at
36:03
the office before she left. Is that right answer?
36:06
Speaker 2: That's correct? Question?
36:08
Speaker 1: And I understand she also dated them for a period
36:10
of time. Answer. During the Office of Professional Responsibility investigation,
36:14
it came out that they had dated previously. Question, Jay Lefkowitz,
36:20
We've spoken about if I understood your testimony earlier. You know,
36:23
mister Lefkowitz from your time at Kirkland as an associate.
36:26
Is that correct answer? Correct? In the mid nineties, I
36:29
believe question, and please tell me if I'm mischaracterizing. But
36:33
I understood you to say that you may have had
36:37
an assignment from mister Lefkowitz. Answer it was more than
36:41
twenty years ago. I don't recall working with them on something.
36:44
But that doesn't mean that in the course of being
36:47
a young associate you don't get an assignment from a partner.
36:51
Did you have any contact with mister Lefkowitz between the
36:54
time you left Kirkland and the inception of the Epstein investigation. Answer,
36:59
so he was in the Bush administration in a white
37:02
House role from time to time. We may have had
37:05
some info to contact. I don't recall what the white
37:08
house role he was In question, I understand that he
37:11
was the former General Counsel of omb under President George W.
37:15
Speaker 2: Bush.
37:16
Speaker 1: Is that consistent with your understanding? Again, I remember a
37:19
white house role. If you looked him up, you have
37:22
more information at this point than I do. Question, Ken
37:25
Starr is also at Kirkland. I believe you said that
37:27
you knew mister Starr from Kirkland.
37:29
Speaker 2: Is that right? Answer? So, I did work with the case.
37:32
Speaker 1: It was a Supreme Court it was a full Supreme
37:35
Court matter, and I did work with him on that.
37:37
Speaker 2: I was a junior associate. On the team.
37:39
Speaker 1: Question and mister Starr, of course is the former Clinton
37:43
Whitewater special prosecutor, and that was prior to your tenure
37:46
at Kirkland. Is my chronology correct?
37:50
Speaker 2: Again?
37:51
Speaker 1: Did you have any contact with mister Starr between the
37:53
time you left Kirkland and the inception of the Epstein investigation?
37:57
Speaker 2: Answer?
37:58
Speaker 1: If I could go back, I'm not sure your chronologe
38:00
is correct, because I remember that mister Starr was out
38:03
of the office quite a bit while I was at
38:05
Kirkland working on some matters. So if it wasn't that matter,
38:09
it would have been another similar, non Kirkland special assignment matter.
38:13
Speaker 2: Question.
38:14
Speaker 1: Okay answer, And I think your second question was did
38:17
I have contact with him? Again, He's a well known
38:19
Washington figure. I'm sure I would have come into contact
38:22
with him at some event. At some point we spoke
38:25
about Alan Dershowitz. Jack Goldberger answer yes, question do you
38:29
know mister Goldberger? Answer not to my recollection question? Are
38:33
you aware that he represented mister Epstein?
38:36
Speaker 2: Answer?
38:37
Speaker 1: I am not based on independent recollection, but I've obviously
38:40
reviewed material.
38:42
Speaker 2: Question.
38:42
Speaker 1: It's my understanding that mister Goldberger's law partner at the
38:45
time of the State's investigation into mister Epstein was married
38:49
to the assistant state attorney who was handling the Epstein case,
38:53
and that once mister Epstein retained mister Goldberger, the assistant
38:56
state attorney was removed from the case on the basis
38:59
of a conflict of interest. Did you become aware of that? Answer?
39:03
I have read that. I don't requalif I became aware
39:05
of that twenty years ago.
39:07
Speaker 2: Question.
39:08
Speaker 1: Next name Martin Weinberg. Do you know mister Weinberg? Answer again,
39:12
I don't know him, but I recognize the name. Question
39:15
do you recognize him as one of Epstein's attorneys? Answer?
39:19
I will accept that assertion. Question getting close to the
39:22
end of the list, But the next name is Joe Whitley.
39:25
Answer yes. Question do you know mister Whitley? Answer?
39:28
Speaker 2: I do.
39:29
Speaker 1: He was I believe, the US Attorney for the Northern
39:32
District of Georgia, I believe, and was in private practice
39:35
by this time. Question it's my understanding that he also
39:38
served as acting US Associate Attorney General under President George H. W.
39:43
Speaker 2: Bush.
39:44
Speaker 1: Is that consistent with your understanding?
39:47
Speaker 2: Answer? I don't remember.
39:48
Speaker 1: Question, And it's also my understanding that mister Whitley joined
39:52
the legal team after the NPA was signed?
39:54
Speaker 2: Is that right? Answer? I'll accept your assertion. Question.
39:58
Speaker 1: And finally, I don't a name, but I noted that
40:01
the OPR report notes that the former Principal Deputy Chief
40:04
of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section or CEOs as
40:09
you've been referring to it, join the defense team after
40:12
the NPA was signed. Were you aware of that?
40:15
Speaker 2: Answer?
40:15
Speaker 1: I don't recall being aware of that, but I've read
40:18
it in the report. Question do you know who that
40:20
individual is? Answer? I do not question. So that's obviously
40:24
a somewhat substantial list answer I believe. I called it
40:28
an army question. An army seems act. It's typical for
40:33
there to be, you know, movement between DJ and private
40:36
legal practice. Sort of the prominence of these individuals, as
40:39
well as the closeness to their relationship with certain people
40:42
in your office, both personally and in terms of the
40:45
closeness in the time to their tenures in your office,
40:48
from your standpoint, seems somewhat exceptional. Did you ever have
40:52
any concerns about that answer? At the time we were
40:55
there was clearly a bit of a pattern here, right,
40:57
and everyone from my perspective, talked to the at the folks.
41:01
Everything was disclosed to my understanding at that time, and
41:04
something that we had to be very careful about because
41:07
on top of that, there were instances where he attempted
41:09
to recuse our prosecutors. A defendant doesn't go to recuse
41:13
prosecutors simply by hiring people that are associated with them
41:17
or else the criminal justice system breaks down because wealthy
41:20
people can just hire armies and get rid of the
41:22
most experienced prosecutors. And so, yes, we were aware of it,
41:27
I believe managed it. We acted entirely appropriately. The Office
41:31
of Professional Responsibility reviewed all that and they found no impropriety.
41:35
They found no improper influence. They found that everyone acted
41:39
as they should have.
41:40
Speaker 2: Question.
41:41
Speaker 1: But to be more specific about the concerns, so you
41:44
mentioned the prospect of necessitating refusal. Answer yes, question, is
41:49
that the inquiry that the Ethics Office engaged in that
41:52
you just described. Answer No, The Ethics Office engaged in
41:57
a full review of everyone's relationships with prior attorneys and
42:00
they went person by person in this OPR report and
42:03
found that there was no impropriety, no improper influence, and
42:06
no favoritism. Question where in the OPR report. Does it
42:10
conclude that?
42:11
Speaker 2: Answer?
42:12
Speaker 1: I believe there's an entire section beginning out of page
42:16
one forty, beginning on page one forty, proceeding through it
42:19
looks like page one sixty nine. Question, So that section
42:23
speaks to the motivations of the attorneys in your office
42:26
in negotiating the NPA, if I understand it correctly. I
42:29
think I'm asking more specifically about concerns about the closeness
42:33
of the ties between mister Epstein's attorneys and their ability
42:36
to potentially influence staff in your office, whether it's NPA
42:40
itself or meetings or just access in general. Was that
42:44
a concern that was ever raised? Answer?
42:47
Speaker 2: I believed all of us were aware.
42:49
Speaker 1: And had discussions with the Ethics Council, and it was
42:52
known by the office, and you know, all of us
42:55
proceeded in the way that we thought was correct and professional.
42:58
Speaker 2: Question.
42:59
Speaker 1: Do you remember specific conversations with the Ethics Council?
43:02
Speaker 2: Answer?
43:03
Speaker 1: I believe the Office of Professional Responsibility talks about how
43:06
various individuals consulted with them. In my case, it was
43:09
publicly known that I had worked at Kirkland, and there
43:13
was no concern at the time, and there was no
43:15
concern found by the office, a professional responsibility. All right, folks,
43:19
we're gonna wrap up right here, and then the next
43:21
episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where
43:23
we left off. All of the information that goes with
43:26
this episode can be found in the description box.