Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 5-8) (6/20/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 5-8) (6/20/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

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 get right
0:06
back to the Alexacosta interview with the OIG investigators. Question,
0:12
all right, so did you have any doubt that you'd
0:14
get a waiver if you applied for one? Answer? So
0:17
I'm now speculating. I don't recall, but I'm not sure
0:21
I would have said, is there a doubt that I'd
0:23
get a waiver? As opposed to is this something I
0:25
feel comfortable doing or not? Question? And this being the
0:29
prosecution or this being the applying for a waiver? Answer
0:34
applying for a waiver. And so you know, either Main
0:36
Justice gives it or doesn't give it, that doesn't mean
0:39
you don't apply for it if you think that it's
0:41
the right thing to do. So. For example, in the
0:44
UBS case, which was one of our big tax you know, prosecutions,
0:48
we asked for a Bank of Nova Scotia authorization to
0:52
the Bank of Nova Scotia. And I didn't think Main
0:55
Justice would you know. I push really hard and I
0:57
got into the weeds in that case that purpose, but
1:01
I still thought, let's go for it, and we did,
1:03
and Maine Justice didn't give into it and that's okay,
1:06
that's how it works. Question. Okay, so they denied that request. Answer,
1:11
they denied that request. And I say that as an
1:14
example as a typical matter. I don't think that's what
1:17
Maine Justice is going to say. As opposed to how
1:20
should we approach this matter? Question? I don't understand about
1:24
what you mean by how should we approach this matter? Answer?
1:27
So honestly, how do I explain this? So? I think
1:31
there's a difference in saying, let me predict how Maine
1:34
Justice will come out and follow that prediction, versus folks,
1:37
what do you all think? Okay, if we're comfortable with this,
1:40
let's write it up and let's see what Main Justice does.
1:44
One is trying to predict what folks in this building
1:46
are going to think. Another one is trying to predict
1:49
another one is just saying, what do we do in Miami?
1:53
What do we think? And let Maine Justice figure it out?
1:56
Question in which is the approach you typically took? Answer?
2:00
And my point is the approach that I typically took
2:02
is what do we think? And let Maine Justice give
2:05
it a thumbs up or a thumbs down? Question? All right?
2:09
And in this case, did you do that with regard
2:11
to the petite policy answer? So in this case, we
2:14
didn't get that far in that we didn't have to
2:17
submit to DOJ, but we were approaching it not based
2:21
on what main justice was going to think. But do
2:24
we feel is this the right outcome in this office? Question? So,
2:29
as I understand, the bottom line is that you didn't.
2:31
As I hear you, I believe you're saying that you
2:33
didn't stand down or in any way sees your limit
2:37
pursuing this case on batit policy grounds. Answer. So we
2:43
went forward with the matter although there were petit policy
2:46
concerns in the background. So you're setting this up as
2:49
a binary as a did was it as a binary?
2:53
You did not limit yourself on petite policy grounds? And
2:56
I'm pushing back a little bit because I don't think
2:59
that it's part as opposed to when you look at
3:02
the case, there are all sorts of factors, and it's
3:05
a factor in you know, how you think of a
3:07
matter going forward? Question? If you had those petit policy concerns,
3:11
you or your members or staff answer, I would say
3:15
a combination of me and my management staff. Question who answer,
3:22
I can't recreate gets cut off by the person asking
3:25
the questions. But who are you dealing with on this case? Answer?
3:30
Primarily it would be my first assistant and criminal chief.
3:33
As I typically so there is, as you know, to
3:36
sort of put it in main justice terms, you know,
3:38
a line attorney and a deputy section chief, and a
3:41
DAG and an AAG, and the AAG usually deals with
3:46
the section chief or the DAG. And so I was
3:48
dealing with my first assistant and my crim chief. Question right,
3:53
and they were in Miami. Answer And they were in Miami.
3:57
Question and by the way, redacted first line supervisor was redacted?
4:01
Answer correct? Question. Do you know why she was not
4:05
actively participating in the chain of command? Answer? I noticed
4:09
that in the correspondence, and I couldn't speak to that question,
4:13
all right, But it goes to the point that if
4:16
you look at the she reported to or redacted, who
4:20
are reported to redacted? Who are reported or redacted? Who
4:22
are reported to redacted? And so, as a typical matter,
4:26
I tried to empower my first assistant and my criminal
4:29
chief and my office heads and work through them, not
4:32
bypass them. Question in this particular case, with regard either
4:36
to petite policy or any other aspect, was there anyone
4:39
other than the group of five, if you will, in
4:42
that chain from you down to or redacted through redacted
4:46
and redacted that you were dealing with. Answer? I can't recall.
4:50
I can say, as a general matter, it would not
4:52
be unusual for me to walk down walk down the
4:55
hall and talk to someone that I trust and say, hey,
4:58
I've got this fact pattern. What do you think? Question?
5:01
Do you recall ever doing that in connection with this case? Answer?
5:05
I don't recall the specific briefings or who I talk to.
5:08
I'm just saying as a general matter that there are
5:10
folks on the eighth floor that were in management that
5:13
I would often just walk down the hall. Question, but
5:17
do you recall doing that in this case? Answer? I
5:20
don't recall. Question Okay, So we shared with you in
5:23
Exhibit three a pretty lively exchange between redacted and redacted.
5:28
We have no reason to believe you saw this before,
5:31
but it makes some representations about you, and that's why
5:34
we brought it to your attention. Question our answer, okay,
5:38
Question do you recall this emal ex change? Answer? I
5:41
don't recall the email ex change. Question I mean, didn't
5:47
you see it? Then? Do you recall having read it
5:49
before today. Answer, I recall reviewing it, yes, question, all right, okay,
5:54
So starting from the end redacted using redacted to BlackBerry,
5:57
which is a little confusing to begin with, off reacted
6:00
that a particular conversation he had with one of the
6:04
defense attorneys. At this point, what I want to do
6:07
is draw your attention to the comment and his response.
6:11
And we're looking at page three. So in the third paragraph,
6:14
it was made clear to you by the US Attorney
6:17
and the first assistant from the time when you were
6:20
first authorized to investigate mister Epstein that the office had
6:23
concerns about taking the case because of batite policy and
6:27
a number of legal issues. And then later he says
6:30
that you were never given authority or authorization by anyone
6:33
to seek an indictment in the case. And then on
6:36
the first page, redacted presents her version of that original
6:40
contact with you, meeting with you at the bottom of
6:42
the page. Halfway through the last paragraph, she says, my
6:45
recollection of the original meeting with Alex and redacted is
6:49
quite different than your summary. In that meeting, I summarized
6:53
the case and the state Attorney's office handling of it.
6:56
I acknowledge that we needed to do work to collect
6:59
the evidence of Stabis wishing a federal nexus, and I
7:01
noted the time and month that I'm sorry, I noted
7:04
the time and money that would be required for an investigation.
7:08
I said, I was willing to invest time, and the
7:11
FBI was willing to invest the money, but I didn't
7:14
want to get to the end of it, to the
7:16
end and then have the office be intimidated by the
7:18
high powered lawyers. I was assured that would not happen.
7:22
Can you tell us which version of that initial version
7:26
is correct? Answer? So, again, I don't remember the initial briefing,
7:30
so I can't tell you which version is correct. I
7:32
would also say that it's possible neither version is correct
7:36
and that there's a little bit of truth. Now I'm
7:38
just speculating that there's a little bit of truth in
7:41
either one, because it's certainly possible to say, I hear
7:43
you righteous case, go forward and investigate work on the
7:47
federal nexus, which is what Exhibit three is saying, go
7:51
work on the federal nexus and find evidence for the
7:53
federal nexus. But we have concerns about batitit policy and
7:57
legal matters, so there's a lot of work to be done. Question, So,
8:02
what kind of direction does that amount to for the
8:04
line AUSA, what's her job? Then? Answer? So the job
8:08
would then be to go back and investigate, develop facts,
8:12
and report back. Question and if she developed enough facts
8:15
and support of law to present proposed prosecution? Answer right,
8:20
and so a lot of times in this he said
8:24
she said, there's a little bit of truth on both
8:26
sides of the discussion. I'm just saying, as a general matter,
8:30
your questions are sometimes either or, and sometimes it can
8:33
be a combination of both. Answer, all right, but in
8:38
fact you don't recall. Answer I'm speculating. Question, all right,
8:42
is there anything in either of those that two accounts,
8:45
two versions that you didn't say happened couldn't happen. Answer?
8:48
I can't, because I don't recall. I can't speak to that.
8:52
I would speculate that there's probably a little bit of
8:54
truth on both sides that if you read it closely,
8:57
you'll see that redacted acknowledges the need to work on
9:00
a federal nexus. So that goes to you know where
9:04
or mister redacted. I'm sorry, I'm using first names. Question,
9:08
it's all right question. This is an informal interview answer.
9:12
I'm going to just start using first names. I don't
9:15
mean that disrespectfully. Where you know, Redacted says, you know,
9:18
because of petit policy and legal issues, and Redacted is
9:21
acknowledging the legal issue because she's saying that they needed
9:25
work to do to collect the evidence establishing the federal nexus. Question.
9:29
All right. Back in two thousand and six, in this
9:34
exhibit number one, Redacted tells you in his email that
9:38
the indictment target date is August twenty fifth, two thousand
9:41
and six, In other words, very shortly thereafter, within a
9:45
month or so. Do you know why the line ausa
9:47
Redacted was keen on getting the federal case against Epstein
9:51
brought on a fairly on a quick basis answer. So
9:55
I can't speak to that, and I can I can
9:57
ask based on your record, Well, was that the state
10:01
indictment target date? Answer? Epstein had already been indicted and
10:08
arraigned on the indictment, So that's federal question. That's talking
10:13
about a federal indictment answer. All right. The point is
10:18
early on the investigative team, the FBI and Redacted were
10:22
hot to trot to get this case moving from a
10:24
federal standpoint that may well have been quite unrealistic, giving
10:29
all the issues that we've been discussing. But the question
10:31
is do you know why there was some urgency? Answer?
10:35
I haven't decided this idea. When was it initially brought
10:39
to the office? Question? It was brought to the office
10:42
in May of two thousand and six. Answer that would
10:46
be a really really fast timeline question, right, So the
10:49
question is aspirational though it may have been there was
10:53
hope to get it done quickly. So the question is
10:56
can you think of factors that would have led a
10:58
prosecutor to want to pursue this quickly? Answer? I don't recall.
11:04
I can speculate that redacted was very hard charging and
11:07
wanted to do a lot. Question what was your experience
11:10
of her? Answer? So based on this, I see you
11:13
know so exhibit too. He gets interrupted? Excuse me? Would
11:19
but just from your memory, is that your recollection of
11:21
how redacted operated? Hard charging? Answer? Yeah, I'd say so.
11:26
A lot of really good prosecutors are hard charging. That's
11:29
part of the job description. Question. Okay, did so in
11:34
the child sex offender context, are you familiar with the
11:37
belief on the part of the people who do that
11:40
kind of case, as did it redacted and redacted and
11:43
others in your office, that those offenders typically don't stop
11:46
offending even after somebody's onto them, so that there was
11:49
a concern that he that in this case Jeffrey Epstein
11:53
might be continuing to offend and therefore getting them off
11:56
the streets was a priority. Answer. I have heard that
12:00
discussed recently in the media. I don't recollect that back
12:04
in well, part of the discussion back in two thousand
12:06
and six. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here,
12:09
and then the next episode dealing with the topic, we're
12:11
gonna pick up where we left off. All of the
12:14
information that goes with this episode can be found in
12:17
the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to another
12:20
episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going
12:24
to pick up where we left off with the alex
12:26
Acosta interview with the OIG inspectors. Question. Do you recall that,
12:33
and this is just do you recall that she periodically
12:37
would give you in that early period of two thousand
12:39
and six updates written updates. Answer? I don't question. Do
12:44
you think that it was appropriate for a line USA
12:46
to be shooting emails updating a case that was under
12:49
investigation directly to you and your first assistant. Answer, it
12:53
was unusual, and so did I think of Look, I
12:56
can't reconstruct what I would have thought, but you know
13:00
you're asking not just what did I know, but what
13:02
I would have thought twelve years ago. But I can say,
13:04
based on the general practice, it would have been unusual.
13:07
And my best guess as to how I would have
13:10
reacted would have been, Hey, redacted, this is unusual. Is
13:13
the chain being fully informed? Are feathers being ruffled? Figure
13:18
it out? Because you know you asked me early on
13:21
to characterize Redacted's qualities. I think one of the things
13:24
that I have said is that you was very good
13:26
at smoothing things over and sort of the interaction because
13:31
he was respected. And so I might say, that's kind
13:33
of unusual. Go figure it out. Question, but you wouldn't
13:37
necessarily jump on that chain yourself and be in direct communication. Answer.
13:42
I tended not to question, would she have sent this
13:46
to you something unusual if she thought that this was
13:49
a case that you wanted to be involved in? Answer?
13:52
Even in those I tried to be as general matter,
13:54
fairly sensitive to the chain because I had found that
13:57
if you start jumping the chain too much, even if
14:00
you become informed, managers feel, you know, out of the loop,
14:03
and that's not conducive to sort of allowing them to
14:06
do their job of supervising. It's a big enough office.
14:09
You have to empower your folks to do their jobs.
14:13
Question So the concern on your part would not be
14:15
that she was communicating directly to you, but that as
14:18
long as all of the chain was informed as well.
14:21
Answer yeah, I mean if you are redacted, or you know,
14:25
if you're redacted, or you know, you don't want to
14:27
talk to the line attorney before the line attorney talks
14:30
to your boss, and so it's not just informed, but
14:33
it's respecting your supervisor. And it's a difficult balance because
14:37
often really good ausays are also the ones, you know
14:41
that just want to get things done. Question did you
14:43
have any reason to believe during this investigative phase that
14:47
redacted was not pursuing this case this investigation adequately, appropriately
14:51
and fully? Answer no, I did not. Question did you
14:58
feel that she did not have appropriate oversight? Answer not
15:01
to my recollection question, Okay, did you feel that she
15:06
had any resource problems? That is did she have, as
15:09
far as you know, sufficient resources available to pursue her investigation?
15:14
Answer to my recollection, Yes, I noted her early. You know,
15:17
I noted more recently the email where you know that
15:21
was shared with me by redacted about resource concerns, and
15:24
I would just note that I would allow the management
15:26
chain to figure that out. Question all right, did you
15:30
at any point consider, based on what you then knew,
15:33
expanding the scope of the investigation. Did you ever suggest
15:36
or propose that, instead of simply looking at Epstein's conduct
15:39
in West Palm Beach this SIVI the girls, that the
15:43
federal authorities could use their resources to look at other
15:46
aspects of Epstein's activity. Answer, so, I think it's important
15:50
to take a step back. And I was aware of
15:53
any number of cases going on in the office, and
15:56
based on what that stage of case was at, I
15:58
would get more involved for it time. It wasn't my
16:01
practice to direct a ussays and how they should investigate
16:05
or what the scope of a case investigation should be.
16:08
The Miami office before I got there and after I left,
16:11
had a reputation for knowing their stuff. It's a large office,
16:14
it's got good people. I would assume that the Aussays
16:18
and their management would follow their natural leads. Question, All right,
16:22
where you will wear that during this period? And by
16:24
this period, I'm talking about the investigative period from the
16:28
time that the case came in in mid two thousand
16:30
and six up until May one, when Redacted put forth
16:35
her prosecution memo and proposed indictment. During the sort of
16:40
ten month period or almost a year, where you will
16:42
wear that defense Council for Epstein were reaching out or
16:45
Redacted and Redacted to pitch their view of how the
16:48
case should proceed. Answer, So, I don't have a specific
16:52
recollection of who reached out at what time. I would
16:55
assume as a general matter that defense Council Defense Council
16:59
were literally involved before the case came to the office,
17:02
and so I would assume that defense council would remain
17:05
involved while the office was investigating. I say that not
17:09
based on independent recollection. But why would they stop being involved? Question?
17:14
And is it your experience as a US attorney that
17:17
it was common or uncommon for defense counsel to approach
17:20
the line prosecutor and supervisor to make whatever pitch they
17:24
want with respect to a prosecution. Answer fairly common question?
17:30
All right. And was it also common for those approaches
17:33
to be entertained, in other words, for the line a
17:36
USA and supervisor to meet with defense counsel And did
17:41
you view that as appropriate? Answer? As a general matter,
17:45
it was typical. It happened before I got there, and
17:47
it's probably happening now. Question, And you view it as
17:51
an appropriate part of the process, do you answer? I
17:54
think a usays need to have discretion to meet with
17:56
defense counsel, and defense counsel certainly should be able to
18:00
present perspectives. Question. There's an outlook. This is Exhibit four,
18:05
and this is something it's really sort of a point
18:07
of information here. This is an outlook that shows you
18:12
and redacted and redacted had a schedule a meeting with
18:14
Roy Black. Question. Roy Black a prominent attorney, a local
18:21
criminal defense attorney at the time in the Miami area.
18:24
This was a meeting scheduled in your office for the
18:26
twenty third of February two thousand and seven. Do you
18:29
have any he was he at the time was one
18:32
of Epstein's attorneys. Do you have any idea whether that
18:35
this meeting related to Epstein or some other case? Answer?
18:39
I don't. I noticed that I don't know whether it
18:42
was this or another matter. Oh, I'm sure, mister Acosta,
18:45
you have no idea. Are you guys hip to the
18:47
bullshit yet? And again not even my own words. These
18:50
people are sinking themselves with their own bullshit. Question, but
18:56
you have not particular recollection of a meeting with him
18:59
on Epstein and the Epstein matter. Answer, I don't question
19:03
at this time. Answer. And let me note I think
19:07
most of the correspondents was from other attorneys and not him.
19:10
And so yeah, another lie. There's a ton of emails
19:14
from Roy Black and to Roy Black. Question all right,
19:19
are you okay? Do you want to take a short break? Answer?
19:24
Let's what time is it? Oh? Eleven? Question five minutes? Answer? Yeah,
19:28
So they take a five minute break, then they come back.
19:30
All right, back on the record at eleven twelve. Having
19:33
broken at eleven, mister Acosto, we're going to move on
19:36
in the timeframe. I mentioned a moment ago May of
19:39
two thousand and seven, when Redacted submitted her prosecution memo
19:43
of more than eighty pages and her proposed indictment. Her
19:46
initial proposed indictment, which was more than fifty pages. She
19:50
submitted that by transmittal memo to her entire chain redacted, redacted, redacted,
19:55
redacted and redacted? And you, was that a typical way
19:59
for an indictment and proposed prosecution the memo to come?
20:03
Answer to my recollection, it was not. And I don't
20:06
recall that happening in other cases. I'm trying. I'm hesitating
20:10
just because I'm trying to think through if there's I
20:13
don't have any recollection of it happening in another case.
20:17
Question why do you think it happened in this case?
20:20
And who caused it to happen? Answer? I don't know.
20:23
I don't know. Question all right, all right? So when
20:28
you before you saw it, I don't know if you
20:30
even knew about it. By reference to Exhibit six, you
20:33
learned essentially from redacted that the FBI was planning to
20:36
do a press conference two weeks after that, and redacted
20:39
told redacted, this office has not approved the indictment. Therefore,
20:44
please do not commit us to anything in this time.
20:47
Were you eventually in that email chain and did it
20:49
get to you apparently by blind carbon because there is
20:52
no indication you actually get it? Answer right, question, but
20:57
you advise Alicia Valley, who I think was your press
21:01
that redacted hasn't even finished recommendation to redacted. I e.
21:06
We are a long way off. So did you have
21:08
any idea why the FBI was planning a press conference
21:11
on Epstein? Answer? I don't know if I did, I
21:15
don't recall if I did. Question how typical was it
21:19
for the FBI to plan a press conference on an
21:21
indicted on a case that was being indicted at the
21:23
time of an indictment or arrest without coordinating with you
21:28
and your office? Answer under redacted, Highly atypical? Question was
21:33
he the sack at the time? Answer? He was a sack?
21:36
He was a sack. I know he was the sack
21:39
at the time as of September, and I'm almost certain
21:41
that he was a sack at the time. Question all right,
21:45
and when you said that we are a long way
21:47
off and redacted hasn't even finished or recommendation to redacted,
21:52
do you know whether you had any idea what she
21:54
was actually submitted in her prosecution memo and that she
21:57
made a recommendation to redacted. Answer? I can't recollect, but
22:02
I'll take my words as reflective of If I say
22:05
she hasn't finished her recommendation, then I assume she hasn't
22:08
finished her recommendation. Question does that mean, as you look
22:13
at your own words, does that suggest to you that
22:16
you were unaware as of that moment that she actually
22:19
submitted her prosecution memo. Answer? That suggests that I would
22:23
not have been aware that she submitted it, if you know,
22:26
because it sounds like I'm saying she hasn't even submitted
22:28
her memo. Question all right, answer, We're a long way off.
22:33
But again this is based on practice, not recollection. Question
22:38
all right, and when you said that you're a long
22:39
way off, did that reflect if you recall an assessment
22:43
of the length of time to get a prosecution memo,
22:46
a recommendation, and an assessment of that or your expectation
22:51
that even when you saw a prosecution memo and an indictment,
22:54
it would be a long process before it was approved. Answer,
22:58
so I would assume, And again this is just based
23:00
on speculating from the way that I write that, I'm
23:03
thinking she hasn't submitted her recommendation to redacted and redacted
23:08
needs to review it. He may you know, he'd probably
23:11
want to talk to her say it needs to be scrubbed.
23:14
You know, this could be this isn't happening next week,
23:16
et cetera. Question all right, do you have any reason
23:20
to believe that whatever that process is that you were
23:22
describing would be any different, in particular measure in this
23:26
case from an ordinary complex case. Answer So, from my language,
23:31
I would take it that it's the same process, but
23:34
that there is a process and the process hasn't yet
23:37
been followed. Question all right, okay. Answer so it would
23:42
be the typical process in a typical complex case. Question
23:46
all right, and is it fair to characterize this as
23:48
a relatively complex case given the legal issue? Answer? I
23:53
think it is. Yes. All right, folks. We're going to
23:56
wrap up right here, and in the next episode, we're
23:58
going to pick up where we left off. All of
24:00
the information that goes with this episode can be found
24:03
in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to
24:07
another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're
24:10
going to pick up where we left off with the
24:12
alex Acosta interview with the OIG inspectors. Question, Okay, in
24:19
Exhibit eight, you actually got the In Exhibit seven, you
24:24
can see that in the bottom part of that that
24:26
you received the copy of the prosecution memo on the
24:28
second page of the exhibit at the top, answer right question,
24:33
redacted is forwarding to you the prosecution memo. Answer rite question.
24:38
In Exhibit eight, you see that redacted as forwarding or
24:41
sending that chain excluding redacted. That is redacted redacted or
24:45
redacted redacted and new additional items in Operation leap year.
24:50
And there's a summary of the indictment, the evidence regarding
24:53
the individual victims. Okay, so, as of May eleventh, you
24:57
had before you the prosecution memo, the opposed indictment, and
25:01
the substantial amount of additional information. Did you read the
25:05
prosecution memo? Answer right? So, I don't recall, and I
25:09
don't know. You are going to say, why don't I
25:12
But this was a long time ago. I don't recall
25:14
if I read it, or if I went back to
25:16
the office and sat down with redacted and redacted and
25:19
went over it. I can't recall from this far. I
25:22
can say that it looks based on this that I
25:24
was at the US Attorney's conference. The idea of printing
25:28
this out on a hotel printer, I wouldn't. I can't
25:31
believe I would have printed this out on a hotel printer. Question,
25:35
let alone read it on an airplane. Correct answer, let
25:38
alone read it on an airplane. That would just not
25:41
have been my practice. Question. But going back arriving back
25:44
to your offices, was it your practice to take voluminous
25:49
documents like this and go through them yourself or did
25:52
you rely on your senior staff? Answer? I would typically
25:56
rely on my senior staff. They're the experienced ones that
26:00
I have seen these matters before. They would go through it.
26:02
We'd sit down, we'd talk about the issues. We might
26:05
have it in front of us, almost like you've got
26:08
all those binders there, but you know you're calling my
26:11
attention to particular issues, and we'd sort of talk it through.
26:14
Question and you recall doing that in this case answer?
26:18
I recall having discussions with senior staff about the case
26:21
question who answer is certainly redacted and redacted at various points.
26:26
I can't say that I did it. Did that in
26:29
May versus April versus June? I can't give you timelines. Question, Well,
26:34
we're talking about May, because you've got the actual process. Answer.
26:39
It would have been my practice based on this, to
26:42
go back and discuss it. And so based on my practice,
26:45
I would have gone back and likely discussed it. I
26:48
doubt I would have printed this out at whatever hotel
26:51
I was at. Question, but even when you go back
26:54
to the office, would you have somebody printed out so
26:57
you would have had it available? Answer? I may have
27:00
had someone printed out so it's available. I may have
27:03
focused on particular parts of it. Question what kind of
27:06
issues would you have focused on? In other words, in
27:09
other words, some might go straight to the facts, some
27:12
might be interested in the legal theories. What was your approach? Answer? So,
27:17
I think it depended on the case. Question? Okay, answer here,
27:21
you had legal questions and you also had witness issues,
27:25
and I would think that those would have been the
27:27
two primary areas. Question Would you have gone through the
27:30
indictment and the prosecution memo and all of those other
27:34
materials or just relied on your experience seeing your people
27:37
redacted and redacted? Answer as a general practice, probably some combination,
27:42
as a general and general recollection. The concerns in this
27:46
case weren't about the sort of details of what happened,
27:49
because we believed he did what he did. The concerns
27:52
were about some of the legal issues around it and
27:55
some of the issues in terms of testimony. Question of victims,
28:00
Answer of victims. Question all right on page nine. Exhibit
28:06
nine is an email that you are not on, but
28:09
that notes that redacted as advising redacted that you has
28:13
your memo and left Court's letter Gerald left Court, new
28:16
York attorney who is one of the members of Epstein's
28:18
defense team. Did you know him? Answer? I did not question.
28:23
Did you ever encounter him as far as you recall?
28:26
Answer I did not question. All right, he had According
28:30
to the documents, we have made two substantial submissions in
28:34
February of that year in an effort to dissuade them
28:37
from pursuing a prosecution, and we have every reason to
28:41
believe and no reason not to believe that that's what
28:44
it's being referred to. Do you recall reviewing substantial submission
28:47
from defense Council at this time attacking a very granular detail,
28:52
the credibility of witnesses and so on. Answer, I don't
28:56
recall reviewing those. Again, I recall discussions, well my senior
28:59
team about issues that included credibility and I'm not sure
29:03
if its credibility is the right word. But how the
29:05
victims would do on the stand? Question Okay, and who
29:09
do you recall talking to about that? Answer? So, some
29:12
combination of redacted and redacted would have been the likely
29:16
I recall the discussion. I don't recall whether it was
29:19
redacted or whether it was redacted or redacted, but the
29:23
logical inference would have been it would have been some
29:25
combination of redacted and redacted. Question Okay, redacted has told
29:30
us that during this period he was not actively involved
29:34
in the case. Question but that redacted was would that
29:38
be consistent with your memory? Answer that sure, I mean
29:42
there were a team. They became more or less involved
29:45
based on needs. Question And was there any particular if
29:49
Redacted was working with you directly on reporting on his
29:53
assessment of the case, Was there any reason for redacted
29:56
to be involved? Answer? I might bounce ideas off. I
30:00
mean he was, he was the right across, so we
30:03
work closely, but you know redacted was the criminal chief
30:06
and if he was in the weeds, Redacted and I
30:09
would speculate, would sort of much like me, defer to
30:12
his judgment because they've known each other and they've worked
30:16
together and they had a good working relationship. Question and
30:21
is it do we understand correctly that as first assistant,
30:24
Redacted has a brief that really encompassed the entire office answer,
30:29
he did he supervised the civil, the criminal, the appellate,
30:33
and the forfeiture question. All right, there is here in
30:37
this email that you did not see back in the day.
30:40
Exhibit nine a pushback from redacted regarding the rush that
30:44
redacted is in to pursue the case, and he says,
30:47
this is obviously a very significant case and Alex wants
30:51
to take his time in making sure he is comfortable
30:53
before proceeding. Can you tell us what the basis would
30:56
be for or was for that assertion by redacted? Answer, So,
31:02
I can't tell you from the recollection what the basis is.
31:06
I can speculate that the material is being transmitted Friday morning.
31:09
He gets cut off the eleventh answer by Acosta. Yeah,
31:14
so Friday morning, it hasn't been reviewed by anyone in
31:17
the management chain, much less approved and edited, and Redacted
31:21
that Monday is saying, why don't I have a decision?
31:25
And so, as in truly extenuating circumstances, typically you'd give
31:30
you know it, it'd have to go through the management
31:33
chain up to the US attorney. And so he's pushing
31:35
back saying, it's been a day, or it's been a weekend.
31:39
I'm just reading between the lines here, question who had
31:43
authority to sign off on the Epstein prosecution to say
31:46
indict Answer so as a delegated matter, redacted had signature authority,
31:53
as did as did it redacted? As did it redacted?
31:56
And obviously I did. As a practice matter, this is
31:59
something that would have on through the chain and that
32:01
we would have then discussed. Question But why about your level?
32:06
Is it? Because as Redacted says, obviously a very significant case.
32:10
Answers so at my level not only because of the facts,
32:13
because it's not about the facts, but I do think
32:16
that there are legal issues that implicated policy that we
32:19
were thinking through. Question and what were the legal issues
32:23
and what were the policy issues? Answer? So the legal
32:27
issues and also factual issues in terms of the witnesses.
32:31
So the legal issue. So there's an email from redacted
32:34
based on you know, the contemporaneous record that alludes to
32:37
some of this. In my experience at the Civil Rights Division,
32:41
trafficking cases involved. You know, I can describe some some
32:45
horrific cases of girls being held against their will. You know,
32:48
you add CP matters with young women, sometimes incredibly young,
32:53
that the office prosecuted as trafficking laws were being developed,
32:57
there was a lot of discussion about what's the difference
33:00
between trafficking and solicitation, And the discussion took place as
33:04
the trafficking laws were being developed, and so this implicated that,
33:08
and it implicated what the local and what is federal? Question?
33:13
All right? So in the first you're talking in the
33:15
first category, you're talking about the individual charges that had
33:18
been that were proposed, which included both trafficking and coercion
33:22
and enticement or enticement answer correct question, all right? And
33:28
in the latter you felt that did you to what
33:30
extent did the witness victim? Witness kind of credibility issues?
33:34
Implicates policy? Answer? So I think I said that policy
33:38
and victim in that In that there was certainly discussion
33:42
between me and my management about concerns as to how
33:45
the victims would sort of stand up in court. Question, So,
33:50
what would make you comfortable before proceeding? What would you
33:53
what at the point would have made you comfortable about proceeding? Answer?
33:57
So I think that at this point, I don't think
34:00
it's what would have or would not have made me comfortable.
34:04
And I'm speculating here. I think it came in on
34:07
a Friday let's talk this through. Question but you've just
34:11
identified for us issues in your mind had to be resolved.
34:16
Question all right, okay, at that point, does your recollection
34:20
have any doubt that some form of indictment or charging
34:23
instrument against Epstein was likely to become viable? Answer? So
34:28
it was a case that I thought it very important
34:31
that we do something. How that something played out, I
34:34
think had all along been a matter of discussion. Question
34:38
as something other than what the US Attorney's Office does,
34:41
which is prosecute. Answer well, no, I mean what the
34:45
US Attorney's Office does is ensure that justice is served
34:48
question right, answer, and in partnership with state attorneys. And
34:52
sometimes that means state attorneys take the lead. Sometimes that
34:56
means that the US Attorney's Office takes the lead. And
34:59
a lot of time we actually, you know, we would
35:01
share staff because sometimes it made sense, you know, for
35:04
one part or the other to take the lead. So
35:08
writ large, I thought throughout it was very important that
35:11
something happened. There were concerns all along. I can speculate
35:16
that this is just a reflection of those continuing concerns.
35:20
Question as expressed by you to redacted in the ordinary course.
35:25
Answer as developed as a group throughout this If we
35:29
go back to what exhibit question June of two thousand
35:34
and six, answer, So Exhibit three says, in that meeting,
35:39
I summarized the case in the state attorney's office handling it.
35:42
I acknowledged that we needed to do work to collect
35:45
evidence establishing a federal nexus, and I noted the time
35:48
and money that would be required for an investigation. And
35:52
so as far back as the initial meeting there is
35:54
discussion about the federal nexus and whether this is a
35:58
state or federal case. Question all right. Exhibit seven is
36:03
an early email from redacted to you early meeting. It
36:06
precedes the one we just looked at, and early in
36:10
that it's right as you're receiving the prosecution memo and
36:14
you ask them have you read the memo? And curious
36:18
why you ask redacted rather than redacted answer, I don't recall.
36:22
I can speculate, and I have two thoughts that I'll speculate.
36:25
One is redacted to her direct supervisor, and I might
36:29
be thinking her second line supervisor. So why is redacted
36:33
sending me this? Redacted? Have you read this? Ie? Did
36:36
you jump the chain? Secondly, I think I may have
36:39
wanted to have multiple opinions on this. It's most likely
36:42
that I had talked to redacted already, because Redacted and
36:46
I talked more often, and I'm asking another person in
36:48
the management chain, Hey, what do you think Let's have
36:52
multiple opinions on the table here? Question well, is this
36:56
the first time other than redacted that we see you
36:58
getting a recommendation? Answer right? Question? When Redacted says he
37:03
thinks that you should charge him, you the office should
37:06
charge Epstein. He has issues with a charging strategy proposed
37:10
by redacted, but one. He says, we all need to
37:13
get on the same page as to whether the statute
37:15
covered the conduct and whether the conduct is the type
37:18
we should charge. I think the answer to both is yes,
37:21
although there is some risk on some of the statutes.
37:25
He proposes that the office start with a complaint, which
37:28
is not unusual, is it? Answer it happens yes? Question
37:33
all right, which allows the defendant to be arrested and
37:35
ideally detained, and then the defendant is then highly motivated
37:39
or incentivized to work a pre indictment resolution. That's what
37:43
redacted is proposing. He also notes that it's important, in
37:47
his view, to cap them with conspiracy accounts to make
37:50
a plea attractive, and the court could give us a
37:53
hard time with that if we had to dismiss indicted accounts.
37:57
All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here. In
38:00
the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick
38:02
up where we left off. All of the information that
38:05
goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
38:09
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
38:12
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
38:15
where we left off with Alex LaCosta and his interview
38:19
with the OIG inspectors. Question, Okay, the proposed indictment included
38:24
one conspiracy, a conspiracy that has a five year statutory maximum,
38:29
and this notion is that Epstein be charged with a
38:31
five year conspiracy count and take it from there. Do
38:35
you know what he was referring to when he noted
38:37
that a cord could give you a hard time in
38:39
dismissing indicted counts in the case answer. So, as a
38:43
typical matter, once there's an indictment, the pre indictment, well,
38:47
by definition, a pre indictment resolution comes off the table.
38:51
But in cases of this nature, the resolutions tend to
38:55
happen before indictment, because once the indictment is done, at
38:58
least in South Florida, dismiss of charges for example, you know,
39:02
if saying, let's think about a three seventy one with
39:05
a five year cap at rule eleven, that's something that's
39:08
out Florida judges they tend not to you know, dismissing
39:11
a number of accounts and then doing a rule eleven
39:14
is not something that judges tend to do. Question all right,
39:17
Two pieces to that. One is the issue of dismissing
39:21
substantiative counts. Substantative counts. Was that a particular concern in
39:26
the case because of the nature of the conduct represented
39:29
in the substantative accounts? Answer? So your question, you asked
39:34
a general question and then you're moving to a specific
39:38
but as a general matter, not just in this case,
39:40
but in other cases, it was rare that the office
39:44
after in cases like this, after a full charge was done,
39:47
that the substantative counts were dismissed. So, for example, in
39:51
the public corruption cases that I referenced earlier at U
39:54
Palm Beach, those were all negotiated pre indictment and agreed to,
39:58
and then by the time the case was indicted. It
40:01
was all sort of said on autopilot. Questions, So, typically,
40:05
in my experience, a disposition like that results in a
40:09
criminal information, not an indictment. Question. Are you saying that
40:13
you would go ahead and indict then? Answer? No, What
40:16
I'm saying is that there were it was all negotiated
40:19
in advance, and then there was information, and the information
40:23
would go forward, not an indictment question. All right, answer,
40:27
And so that is how a member of a high
40:29
profile case typically proceeded as opposed to indict and dismiss.
40:34
Question and that's the experience of the Southern District of
40:37
Florida in general. Answer, It was in particularly in the
40:41
Palm Beach office, with other high profile cases that were
40:45
there at the time. Question do you recall in any
40:47
case in which a judge in an indicted case refused
40:50
to dismiscounts when the government in an indictment under those circumstances. Answer?
40:56
I don't recall specific cases, but I can say that
40:59
typically in the higher profile cases you negotiated with opposing
41:03
counsel presenting information, the information would have agreed to an
41:07
agreed guideline and it would proceed in that way. Question
41:11
understood but in this case, I'm focusing on the assertion
41:15
by redacted that the court could give us a hard time,
41:18
and that's a little different from, you know, exercising discretion
41:21
to negotiate and proceed by information. So is there any
41:26
judge that was particularly concerning with regard to an unwillingness
41:30
to dismiss answer? So, first, this is twelve years ago,
41:34
and I don't recall any specific judge, but I can
41:37
sort of say that was not the practice of the office.
41:41
The practice of the office was to proceed by information
41:44
rather than indictment with dismissal because there is more, you
41:48
can lay out more what you negotiated. I think later
41:52
there's a letter from redacted that sort of presents the
41:56
same perspective. Question you said, in a case of this nature,
42:00
the resolution happens before indicting. What is a case of
42:03
this nature? Answer? Higher profile, higher profile cases? Questions So
42:09
not necessarily a sex offense case. Answer, not necessarily sex offenses. No,
42:14
no higher profile cases. This was just a So I
42:18
would say it's a combination of all of the above.
42:21
And to my mind, one of the parts of this
42:23
case is the legal theories were, if not novel, there
42:27
were novel within the southern District of Florida at least
42:30
some of the legal theories. And well, we'll probably get
42:33
into that question. Did his wealth make it a high
42:36
profile case? Answer? Well, it was clearly in the paper,
42:40
and so that made it a high profile case. I
42:42
don't think. I don't think it was his wealth. I
42:45
think it was all of the above. This was a
42:47
matter that the state attorney had been ready to charge
42:50
that the federal government is now jumping into and saying
42:53
by its presence that the state did not do enough.
42:57
That in and of itself makes it a very are
43:00
you high profile case? I can't remember any other instance,
43:03
certainly during my time, when we jumped in and said,
43:06
you know, the state drop charges, and so we're going
43:08
to do more. Question as opposed to, or as distinguished
43:13
from when you described a few moments ago a situation
43:16
in which the federal authorities and the state authorities kind
43:19
of work together to sort out what would be charged where,
43:22
and do it cooperatively? Answer? And that was more cooperative.
43:28
I would you know, I do recollect that, and I
43:30
think the record bears this out that this was not
43:33
a particularly cooperative relationship between us and the state. Attorney
43:37
if I could, if I could return, I think your
43:40
question the way you posed your question, you set a
43:42
recommendation from redacted and let me let me push back
43:45
a little bit on that, saying, what are your thoughts?
43:48
Have you read it? What are your thoughts? And he says, yes,
43:51
we can talk next week. My current thoughts are it's
43:54
very different. Then we've sat down, we've discussed this. This
43:58
is my now informed position. Question understood, And I should
44:03
have been clearer. I was referring to his recommendation that
44:06
if you were going to proceed, you should start with
44:08
a complaint. Just to be clear. Answer and I'm just
44:13
saying initial thoughts. Gets cut off. Question all right, So
44:17
were you aware that redacted bootleg the copy of the
44:20
prose memo to redact it? At CEO's answer, I was not.
44:24
Question he did at the time? Answer? Okay, question and
44:28
did you know redacted? Answer a little bit. I certainly
44:30
knew of them. Had you encountered him when he was
44:34
chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section answer right?
44:39
Question in the Criminal division here? Correct? Had you encountered
44:43
them while you were in this building? Also answer? Most
44:46
likely I knew of him? Enough that I corresponded shows
44:50
and I recall asking to involve him pretty early on question.
44:54
So it does read as if you were acquainted with him.
44:57
Answer yeah, question all right? And did you have any
45:00
did his opinion, his views as chief of CEOs and
45:04
as redacted who had been in AUSA in Miami, did
45:08
his view's influence on your thinking about the case? Answer?
45:12
I don't think at this time I was aware that
45:14
redacted had been consulted. Answer all right, and in July,
45:18
just so you know and I have this is not
45:21
something you saw. He provided a fairly strong statement by
45:24
emailt or redacted and redacted, which he advises that he
45:28
reviewed the prosecution memo closely. It's terrific, He says, Redacted
45:33
did a terrific job, and he says we agree with
45:36
her legal analysis, her charging decisions or legally sound. And
45:39
then redacted goes through the different statutes and concludes that
45:44
they are all properly charged and that although there are
45:46
some issues legally, that in his view we should prevail,
45:50
our position should prevail, and that he also reviewed the
45:54
arguments contained in the letters from defense counsel and he
45:58
found none of their arguments persuasive. So at least as
46:01
of July eighteenth, your three levels of supervisors down were
46:05
unnotice that CEOs was on board and wanted to see
46:08
the case move forward. But is it am I correct
46:12
an understanding that at the time you were unaware of that? Answer?
46:16
I do not recall being aware of that. Question all right, Okay,
46:20
if you had been aware of it, if they had
46:22
sent this, I don't want to overstate it, but it's
46:25
pretty strong endorsement for the proposed prosecution. Would you have
46:29
been influenced by that? Answer? Sure, I would have. I
46:32
mean I respected or redacted and clearly wanted him to
46:35
be part of the team, and later invited him down
46:38
and so on. So yes. Question okay, all right. Do
46:41
you know why they wouldn't have shared your people wouldn't
46:43
have shared this with you? Answer? I don't know. Question
46:47
all right. So, as far as based on the briefings
46:50
that you got in this time period when there was
46:54
an effort to try to figure out what you were
46:56
going to do, were there any issues of concern of
46:59
factor evidence or the charges that were left unaddressed? In
47:03
other words, if there were issues about victim credibility, were
47:06
steps being taken to address those? Answer? Unaddressed is again
47:12
it's a very binary It's not about addressed versus unaddressed.
47:16
And so let me sort of come at it if
47:18
I can try to get there. There were concerns around
47:21
some legal issues. There were concerns about how the victims
47:24
would do when put on the stand. Question right. Answer.
47:28
As a general matter, we thought there was enough if
47:31
we had to go forward. We could, as an ethical
47:33
matter go forward. That doesn't mean that there was not
47:36
value in a pre indictment resolution. And so here you
47:39
have redacted based on this exhibit saying we need to
47:43
get on the same page as to what the charge
47:45
pre indictment resolution cap them with conspiracy count to make
47:49
up the attractive so a five year cap, something less
47:53
than five years. You have redacted in Raffid David that
47:56
was submitted to the court saying she favored a pre
47:58
indictment resolution. And so it's not a have you addressed everything?
48:02
Yes or no? As opposed to putting all of this
48:05
how do we move forward? Question right? But there is
48:09
a binary point here, and that is you either indict
48:12
or you don't indict. You either present an indictment to
48:15
the grand jury or you don't. Right that's a decision,
48:17
right answer, So I would actually push back in that
48:21
many cases it's not quite that binary. In many cases,
48:25
you sit down with the opposing counsel and say, look,
48:27
we can go to a grand jury and we can
48:29
present this indictment and indict, or we can resolve this now.
48:33
If we resolve this now, this is the path that
48:36
we can go forward. Alternatively, we can go here. And
48:39
so it's not an a versus B question. I understand
48:43
that nuance. But the decision to indict, I mean you
48:47
either indict or you don't. If you don't indict, it's
48:50
for any number of reasons. If under the circumstances, the
48:53
choices that are available are you have a case that's
48:57
been brought, taking it from the state. You can decline it,
49:00
send it back to the state, make it go away.
49:02
Whatever answer right question, We're not interested. You can indict,
49:07
You can indict and go to trial these are the subcategories.
49:11
Or you can indict and have the defendant plead to
49:14
the indictment. Or you can indict and work a post
49:16
indictment pleed deal, which raises the issue you talked about.
49:20
Or you can negotiate, or you can charge proceed by
49:23
complaint and do as redacted with suggesting work a pre
49:27
indictment but post charge disposition, or you can work a
49:30
precharge disposition, right. I mean, that's really that's the parade
49:34
of possibilities. Answer sure, that's more than indictment or don't indict.
49:40
That's six or seven options. Question. I understand that that's
49:43
how it'll play out. But the decision as to whether
49:46
to indict is binary. You're either indicting or you're not indicting.
49:50
The act of indicting is something that either happens or
49:54
doesn't happen. That's all I'm saying. Answer sure question. Okay,
49:59
so that's that's what I'm getting at with respect to
50:01
the indictment. So as you're looking at this case, it
50:05
sounds as if you're doing sort of one analytical track,
50:08
which is what do we do with the case. The
50:10
other piece of that, and a track that could have
50:13
been followed exclusively, is what do we need to do
50:16
to get an indictment that is legally sound and evident
50:19
evidentiary solid. I'd like to focus on that track because
50:23
they're not unrelated. Answer sure question. If you never get down,
50:30
do we have a viable indictment road, and you're not
50:33
going to be able to do anything in the other road.
50:35
So at this point you have identified and you have
50:38
collectively you and your people had identified some witnesses, victim
50:42
witnesses issues, and some legal issues. My question is where
50:46
steps being taken I use the term address let me
50:49
let me clarify with respect to the witness as the
50:52
FBI and the line attorney, with the assistants perhaps of
50:55
the grand jury, taking steps to corroborate Shore up victim
50:59
witness testimony, find new victims, find additional evidence, and so on.
51:03
Answer so taken, that in part is helpful. So with
51:08
respect to the witness issues, I recall and redacted goes
51:11
into much more detail in Raffid David, but I recall
51:14
concerns that were communicated to me in essence, in sort
51:18
of a summary. My impression of recollection of these girls
51:21
are young, they're impressionable, they're scared, will they stand up
51:24
in court? There are any number of there's any number
51:27
of things that could be used against them. Some of
51:29
them are and this is uncomfortable, but some of them
51:33
thought he actually cared for them, and that's not a
51:36
typical in these cases. They were sort of to develop
51:39
those thoughts and they're wrong, but they are what they
51:42
are and were actually saying he did nothing wrong. And
51:45
because many of them knew one another, how would that
51:47
all play out? And so it would have been my assumption,
51:51
particularly given you know how much work redacted was doing
51:54
on this case. Misredacted was doing on the case, and she,
51:58
in combination with the FBI, would be pursuing those matters
52:01
and looking to develop the evidence and corroborate and throughout
52:04
the process, it would have been my assumption and hope
52:07
that she was continuing to develop the facts, because that
52:10
can only help question and so, as US attorney, would
52:13
it indeed have been your expectation answer, yes, question, and
52:18
the expectation that her that all those interim supervisors would
52:21
have been supporting her and encouraging her and guiding her. Answer,
52:25
it would have been that's what happens in typical cases.
52:28
Question right, answer. Just because we're having a legal discussion
52:32
doesn't mean you stop pursuing leads. All right, folks, We're
52:35
gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode,
52:37
we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of
52:40
the information that goes with this episode can be found
52:43
in the description box