Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 9-12) (6/20/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 9-12) (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 dive right
0:05
back in to the alex Acosta interview with the OIG inspectors. Question, okay,
0:12
the victim. You mentioned the victims coming into state court,
0:15
and you talked about all the victims coming into state court.
0:18
Do you have any idea what victims form the basis
0:20
for the original charge that he was indicted on. Do
0:23
you know whether it was one was it a felony
0:26
assault of a non minor? Answer? Uh huh, question, it
0:30
could have been. It was three instances to felonize it.
0:34
You don't know whether it was one person three times
0:37
or three people. Answer. I do not question. And you
0:41
don't know whether that person was a minor or not. Answer.
0:44
I do not question, all right. Answer. I would assume
0:47
they were, but I do not question. Likewise, do you
0:51
know who was the victim or who the victims were,
0:53
who formed the basis for the seven nine to six
0:56
dot three charge to which Epstein ultimately pled in June
0:59
of twowo thousand and eight. Answer I did not at
1:02
the time. I've read various accounts of that, but that's
1:05
based on matters that I've read and not an independent recollection.
1:09
Question and what's your understanding? Answer? My understanding is that
1:14
there are some that there is at least some issue
1:17
in the media over whether the right or the best
1:19
victims were chosen from the prosecution's perspective. Question and do
1:24
you know was there any indication of who the victims were?
1:28
Do you know who the victims were who were the
1:30
subject of the state charges? Answer which particular names? No,
1:34
I do not question right. I'm not asking you other
1:38
than names. I just want to know if you know
1:40
who they are or how many there were? Answer, I
1:43
do not question right. It could be one right for this,
1:47
for the solicitation, it could be one. Conceivably both the
1:51
charges could relate to one victim. Answer right. So those
1:54
matters were very much a part of the negotiation that
1:57
redacted and to some extent Andy were involved in. Question
2:02
what makes you think that your people were negotiating which
2:06
victims would form the basis? Answer fair point, fair point answer,
2:12
fair point, I withdraw they may not have. I don't know.
2:15
I don't know how in the weeds and how much
2:17
our folks, as a federal system sort of interacted with
2:21
the state in terms of what punishment. There's at least
2:25
some discussion in the media regarding whether the punishment was
2:28
a function of the victims and registration. And I can't
2:31
speak to that question all right. Are you aware, just
2:35
as a point of interest, that the public record of
2:37
the preceding in the state court related to Epstein or
2:41
utterly silent as to who or how many victims form
2:44
the basis of the charges to which he pled. Answer no,
2:48
I was not aware. Question Okay, So this idea of
2:51
many victims coming forth in state court and so on
2:54
or not is not It's not really in play, all right.
2:57
So you have a two year two years has been
3:00
a two year state deal has been announced by the team.
3:04
Answer yeah, question with your knowledge and approval? Right, because
3:08
he wouldn't do it otherwise? Is that right? Answer? Affair question,
3:12
though at least one was surprised. Do you know what
3:15
drove the timing of the plea offer? In other words,
3:18
why did it have to be made at that point? Answer?
3:20
I do not. Question. Okay, you know that redacted submitted
3:25
his resignation on the twenty third of July. Answer I
3:30
saw that in the documents. Question in the documents and
3:34
he submitted that to you, among others. Answer yeah, question
3:39
hr people, Well, when there was a July thirty first
3:43
meeting at which the term sheet was presented, This document
3:46
fifteen is the term sheet that was presented, as redacted
3:50
indicated in her September sixth cover note. And you said
3:54
you approved it. You happened to be copied and forwarded
3:57
this answer. Let me let me be accurate. I approve
4:02
these terms, whether it was this specific term sheet or
4:05
another another document that might have been earlier that looked
4:08
highly similar to this. My recollection is approving, you know,
4:12
approving a resolution that had him pleading to certain state
4:15
counts that had a binding two year plus recommendation and
4:19
that provided for twenty two dot fifty five restitution. Question,
4:24
but you don't know if it was this sheet of paper. Answer.
4:27
I can't say, twelve years after the fact, whether it
4:30
was a specific sheet or others. I based on the
4:34
fact that this was in the email, I think it's
4:36
safe to assume to assume that it was this. But
4:40
it's possible that there was a slight difference. Question all right,
4:45
In fact, this is the same document with a couple
4:49
of additional bullets that had to do with the date
4:51
of the entry of the plea is what was prepared
4:54
by or redacted on or about the thirty first, on
4:58
or before the thirty first of July. And this document,
5:01
as indicated here along with the attached guidelines calculation, is
5:05
what was provided to the folks who met on the
5:07
thirty first of July. So on the thirty first of July,
5:11
it was redacted left court, redacted Sanchez And the purpose
5:16
of the meeting with Sloman, Menchell, Lori and redacted as
5:19
well as the case agent's was to present the plea offer.
5:23
And did you get briefed on how that plea offer went? Answer?
5:26
I don't recall being briefed, but in the regular course
5:29
I would have been question all right. And at that
5:32
meeting there was an expression of concern by the defense
5:35
team that Epstein wanted to avoid being incarcerated in the
5:38
state system because of concerns for his physical safety, and
5:42
that concern was accommodated to the extent that the US
5:45
Attorney's Office team agreed to explore federal resolution. How does
5:49
that square with your decision that a state plea is
5:52
how this case was going to be decided? Answer? So
5:55
I think that I indicated later that it's a little
5:57
bit more fluid than a decision here, or a decision,
6:00
you know, than binary situations. My recollection is we were
6:05
very focused on this man should go to jail, and
6:07
this man should register. The two year plea to the
6:11
state charges seem reasonable and seemed a way to go.
6:14
We can agree or disagree, reasonable in terms not in
6:18
terms of what the most just outcome, but seem like
6:21
a disposition that we would agree to. But ultimately, the
6:25
focus was on getting him to jail. And if that
6:28
meant exploring a three seventy one, it's at least worth exploring.
6:32
And so I don't think that it was inconsistent because
6:34
the focus really was on he needs to go to jail. Question. Okay,
6:38
In this case, the pushback resulted in the agreement to
6:42
explore a federal plea was because Epstein was afraid to
6:45
be in prison. Why would the US Attorney's office accommodate that?
6:49
And here we're getting to we're beginning to talk about
6:52
a major point of criticism of the whole process and
6:55
the outcome, and that is that it appeared that the
6:57
US Attorney's Office was bending over backward to accommodate the
7:01
concerns of Jeffrey Epstein, and in this case, he was
7:04
uncomfortable going to federal or state prison. But all child
7:07
sex predators who go to prison are going to face
7:11
some challenges, right answer, right. And I remember along the
7:15
way a heavy push that he'd be incarcerated at his
7:18
home under some kind of home confinement. And my reaction
7:21
to that was no way question right answer, And okay,
7:26
and you don't like prison, but that doesn't mean you
7:29
get to be incarcerated at your house. Which is interesting
7:32
because subsequently, and so he gets cut off. Question because
7:38
subsequently what you might as well finish answer well, because subsequently,
7:42
the way that the state executed the terms of incarceration
7:46
were not what I would have expected. And so again
7:49
the focus from my perspective is he needs to go
7:52
to jail. If the team agreed to explore it. You know,
7:55
the three seventy one was on the table to the
7:57
extent he had been on speculator. Now this is not
8:01
to make the record clear. Question, Okay, thank you, answer,
8:06
I'm speculating, not recalling. I can speculated three seventy one
8:10
with a two year rule. Eleven had been discussed based
8:12
on the contemporaneous record, and so to the extent it
8:16
had already been discussed, even if it was not the
8:19
direction we were taking, would it have been unusual for
8:22
folks in the room to say, well, look, we discussed that,
8:25
let's go back, you know, let's see where it goes.
8:30
I can't fault to the extent it had been discussed.
8:32
I can't fault anyone for saying, let's go back and
8:35
look at it. I think that's distinguishable, at least from
8:38
subsequent he gets cut off. Question all right. At that point,
8:43
the defense was given two weeks to take it or
8:45
leave it, and if not, you would indict. And there
8:48
were several occasions when that kind of ultimatum was made.
8:52
Did that mean, given all your concerns about barriers to
8:56
what you would consider as successful federal prosecution, was that
8:59
a blit answer? No question, It was not answer. It
9:04
was not question. You were at some level at least
9:08
prepared to approve the presentation of the presentment of the indictment. Answer.
9:13
We should not have gone forward with these negotiations if
9:16
we weren't ready to question. All right, answer to approve,
9:21
whether in this form or a different form, And indictment.
9:24
And I say that because it was very much a
9:26
draft indictment that hadn't been reviewed fully by the chain.
9:29
But it wasn't a bluff. Well by the time it
9:32
had been reviewed, it had there had there been some
9:36
efforts to begin revising. Answer, yeah, question it wasn't finalized. Answer, yeah,
9:43
some efforts to begin question exactly. Okay. Looking at eleven am,
9:48
this is a letter that redacted drafted to sort of
9:51
actually respond to a counteroffer by the defense. The counter
9:55
offer is presented in Exhibit ten B, which is a
9:58
letter from redacted Sanchez, which we don't need to go
10:01
into into detail because, as you've already pointed out, essentially
10:04
it was home confinement and you know, very soft, very
10:08
soft landing counteroffer. In eleven am, redacted tweaks redacted's letter.
10:13
You're copied on this, and the date is August second, Thursday,
10:17
and he notes that he hadn't discussed it in detail
10:20
with you, but he wanted to and he hoped that tomorrow,
10:23
Friday the third, he'd have a chance to. And what's
10:26
notable here is that there are strong language that the
10:29
office believes that the federal interest would not be vindicated
10:33
in the absence of a two year term of state
10:35
imprisonment for mister Epstein. That offer was not meant as
10:39
a starting point for negotiation. It was the minimum term
10:42
of imprisonment that will obviate the need for federal prosecution.
10:47
Answer you're on paragraph two. Question one question. It's the
10:54
first long paragraph. And then he also states that you
10:57
in the last paragraph, the US Attorney Attorney Acosta has
11:01
asked me to communicate that the two year term of
11:04
incarceration is non negotiable. Answer, yes, question, that's pretty firm.
11:09
That's a line in concrete that is setting right answer
11:14
right question. And eleven B is the letter as it
11:17
actually went out the next day. Answer and it's got
11:20
the same language. Question, it's identical, it has the same language.
11:24
It has one typo corrected. This is redacted the last
11:27
day in the office. Answer yes, question, and he's got
11:32
after that. Do you think that this was and or
11:35
the appropriate timing to extend this offer or to set
11:38
this as the minimum offer? Or was it something that
11:41
you would have liked to have seen more fully developed
11:43
in negotiations with defense counsel. Answer I'm sorry, I don't
11:48
understand your question. When you say more fully developed question, well,
11:54
you have two years. Would further consideration have led the
11:57
US Attorney's Office to decide that, well, maybe the two
12:00
years is too much of a giveaway, we should stick
12:03
with a five year federal plan. Answer? Yeah, so I
12:06
can't speculate this far after the fact whether waiting an
12:10
additional time period and further discussion would have changed things.
12:13
I can tell you how we came up with it.
12:16
That's a lot of speculation. Question would you say that
12:19
redacted was as the criminal chief was essentially the driver
12:24
of the resolution presented in this letter? Answer? I can't. Again,
12:29
you're asking me to speak on something from twelve years ago,
12:32
I can't speak to it. I was aware of multiple prongs.
12:34
I approved it. If we had you know, if at
12:37
some point if your question is, if at some point
12:40
there had been a let's sit down and reconsider a meeting,
12:44
would we have gone in a different direction? Perhaps, But
12:47
I can't twelve years after the fact speculate as to
12:50
what may have happened if something had happened. Question all right, answer,
12:57
that's just a lot of hypotheticals. Question understood. The question though,
13:01
is whether Matt Mentchell, who was the author of this
13:04
who first raised it with Lily Sanchez in an informal discussion,
13:09
and who presented it to the US Attorney's Office team.
13:12
Was this really is baby? Answer? I can he gets
13:15
cut off? Question approved by you? Answer? I can't. I
13:18
don't remember who I talked to about what, and so
13:21
it wouldn't be fair for me. You know, I can't
13:23
single out any one person as having a greater or
13:26
lesser role. Question Well, you are not the architect of this,
13:30
right you approved it as you've described it. Answer? No,
13:34
I haven't said I wasn't the architect. What I said
13:37
is I don't recall. Answer I recall approving it. Yeah,
13:41
you know, I think what I'm trying to convey is
13:44
these discussions are a bit more fluid than I think
13:47
any one single architect. You've got multiple lawyers, they interact
13:50
on a daily basis, they talk back and forth. To
13:54
sort of put it in an OPR context, there's probably
13:57
not going to be a single author of the report.
14:00
You're all going to go back and forth, and there
14:02
might be someone that maybe there is a single author
14:05
who knows, But I think it's difficult to say that
14:07
there's a single person. And ultimately I was us attorney,
14:11
so I approved it. Question to your knowledge, did anyone
14:15
in the chain of that five person chain or anyone
14:19
else disagree with that offer? Answer? To my knowledge, I
14:24
think Redacted at some time may have felt uncomfortable. But
14:27
whether there was explicit disagreement or not, I don't recall
14:31
in terms of my management chain, I don't recall any disagreement.
14:34
Question that you were aware of, answer that I was
14:37
aware of. I recall discussions. So for example, redacted might
14:42
say I might proceed with a three seventy one with
14:44
a two year cap under rule eleven. But then we
14:47
move in this other direction, and I don't recall anyone
14:50
saying let's take a time out, let's reconsider. Question. All right, answer,
14:56
and let me just clarify. I think at various points
14:58
in the case, and it's hard. It's hard to sort
15:01
of single out the timeline misredacted was supportive or maybe
15:05
I wish we'd go in a different direction, and that
15:07
sort of went in and out a little bit. Question
15:11
on her part. Answer, Yes, all right, folks, we're going
15:15
to wrap up right here, and in the next episode
15:17
we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of
15:19
the information that goes with this episode can be found
15:22
in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to
15:25
another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're
15:29
going to pick up where we left off with alex
15:31
Acosta's interview with the OIG Inspectors. Question, let me ask
15:37
you this, Having reached the decision that you approved that
15:40
this was the offer and the term sheet or the terms.
15:44
Having that decision made, would you have expected the line
15:47
USA to frustrate that or to not abide by that
15:50
since it was your decision. Answer no, with the caveat
15:54
that if at any point someone felt truly uncomfortable, I
15:57
would expect them to come and talk to me about.
16:00
Question And can you recall any instance in which an ausa,
16:05
a line AUSA came and talked to you about a
16:08
disposition that he or she was uncomfortable with. Answer? Yes,
16:13
so I'll give you an example. I don't recall who
16:16
before you ask me, but there was this AUSA who
16:20
was new to the office who impressed the hell out
16:22
of me. I'm sorry that's not the appropriate language. Who
16:25
impressed me significantly. He had inherited a case, and it
16:28
was a fraud case, and the bigger players had been
16:31
charged and he was basically given a lesser player to
16:34
basically just finish up on right. It was a done deal.
16:38
The person was ready to plead to some minor account,
16:40
no jail time, and he felt comfortable with it and
16:43
went to a supervisor and then ultimately came up to
16:46
me and I had a discussion with this person about it,
16:49
and it ended up with my telling him to go
16:52
back and call the defense counsel and tell them we
16:54
were dropping the case, which for a new AUSA in
16:58
the office is pretty good and unusual. But if this
17:01
person really felt that this lesser player wasn't deserving, then
17:05
that was the right thing to do. And so I
17:08
don't think that the person was not punished for it.
17:11
If anything, you know, I recounted that story to others.
17:14
Question okay, a question shifting gears a little bit about
17:18
US Code eighteen twenty two dot fifty five. Answer, yes, okay.
17:24
Question not to be confused with twenty eight US Code
17:27
section twenty two to fifty five, which every prosecutor is
17:30
familiar with. So whose idea was that it's a civil
17:35
provision a civil It's not restitution, it's damages, it's damages
17:39
recovery provision in the criminal Code. Answer right. Question who
17:44
came up with that? Answer? I can't speak to who
17:46
came up with that? Question? Okay? Answer I can speak
17:51
to the reasoning behind it. Question your reasoning or the
17:54
proponent's reasoning. Answer of my recollection of the reasoning as
17:58
to why we thought it was a important question and
18:01
the importance was to provide a mechanism for recovery of damages.
18:05
Answer yeah, I mean the victim's bad situation, and we
18:11
and here is will go on? Question all right? Answer
18:15
I might circle back on something. Question so is it
18:18
fair to say that a fairly had ever heard of
18:21
it before? Had you come across it before? Answer? I
18:25
don't know, but I don't think so. Question okay, so
18:28
is it fair to say it was novel to the office,
18:30
to you and to the team. Answer I don't think
18:33
it's fair to say that it's novel to the office.
18:36
Question well, do you recall whether anybody in the team
18:40
had experience with US Code eighteen, section twenty two to
18:43
fifty five in a criminal case. Answer I don't have
18:48
a recollection of any discussion as to whether people had
18:51
experienced with this or not. Question did you believe that
18:55
any legal research was needed or should be undertaken to
18:58
ensure that the procedure was in fact legally sound when embedded,
19:02
as it was in this case in a criminal plea. Answer, So,
19:06
I would have expected to the extent that there were concerns. Again,
19:11
we had an incredibly experienced between the various individuals on
19:15
my management team, we probably had fifty years plus of
19:19
criminal experience. I would have expected, to the extent of
19:22
their concern for those concerns to be raised. Question did
19:27
you raise any such concerns about it? Or did it
19:29
seem to make sense to you? Answer? From my perspective,
19:33
I don't know if it was at the time or
19:35
subsequent to it reading it, and it seemed it seemed
19:39
to make sense. Question Okay, after a dacted's letter went
19:43
out on the third of August, you almost immediately, it
19:45
appears you received a telephone call from Kirkland dan Ellis.
19:49
Is that correct? Answer? I don't recall it independently, but
19:52
that's what the record shows. Question all right, and that's
19:56
reflected in Exhibit twelve. Do you remember who called you? Answer?
20:00
I do not. Question, do you recall it? Apparently was
20:04
from the context of this exhibit twelve and caption Epstein.
20:08
Question it appears that the call is related to Epstein.
20:11
Correct answer. Correct again, I don't remember the phone call,
20:15
but from the email, I accept that it happened. Question, so,
20:19
what had been your knowledge and relationship with Ken Starr
20:23
of Kirkland Ellis up to this point? Answer? So I
20:27
had been an associate at Kirkland. I think I indicated
20:31
that it was from ninety four to ninety What was it?
20:34
Was it ninety six or ninety seven? Question? Couple of years? Answer?
20:38
For a couple of years. I worked on at least
20:40
one case that I recall with them. I was the
20:43
junior associate on merits brief that he argued. He at
20:47
the time was also a special counsel and so he
20:50
wasn't in the office nearly as much because he was
20:52
double hitting as special counsel and partner. Question all right,
20:57
and what about redacted? Answer? So redactive was a partner
21:00
at the time. I don't recall working with him on
21:03
any particular case, although I think I work with him
21:06
on at least a matter. He was on my hallway.
21:09
He had an outside office. I had the typical inside office.
21:13
Answer had you had any interaction any contact with them
21:16
in the intervening years, socially or professionally? Answer off and
21:21
on I was in Washington, you know, Ken Starr was
21:24
in Washington. I think redacted had moved to New York
21:28
but then came back to Washington to be in the administration,
21:32
and he was in the policy office. And we may
21:34
have not have, may have we likely interacted? Question and
21:39
while you were here at the criminal at Civil Rights Division?
21:42
Answer correct? Question? All right? Were you friends? Were you
21:46
professional acquaintances? Were you what? How would you characterize that? Answer?
21:52
We were professional acquaintance that had worked together several years
21:55
ago that continued to interact. Question is that true as
21:59
to the two of them? Answer? I mean it's hard
22:02
to characterize these things. I think it's fair to say. Question,
22:06
did ken Starr know who you were? Answer yes, question
22:10
and obviously redacted as well, answer yes. Question okay, So
22:15
what was your reaction to being contacted by them by
22:17
their firm? Then presumably one of them? Perhaps? Answer so,
22:22
I don't know who called. Based on the email, I
22:25
can infer that it was one of them. Question mm hmm. Answer,
22:29
and you know, I think my reaction is captured by
22:31
not the email, but by Jeff's comment, I don't have
22:35
a clear recollection, but I'm going to speculate infer that
22:39
I heard they were being brought onto the case, and
22:42
I probably walked down to Jeff's office and said, Hey,
22:44
Kirkland is coming onto the case. I bet they're going
22:48
to come on to try and take this thing to DC.
22:51
And then I get a phone call, and you know,
22:53
I tell Matt, who tells Jeff, and you know, I
22:56
didn't know. Maybe Kirkland made a call to You're right, unbelievable.
23:00
And then I say they're likely to go to DC.
23:03
We should strategize a bit. My concerns behind that are,
23:07
will DC look at this as sort of illegally troubled,
23:09
going back to the earlier points that I made about
23:12
the policy issues around the trafficking issues up here in DC,
23:16
And I really do think he should go to jail,
23:19
and so I want to strategize a bit. Question, So,
23:22
did you have a concern about the fact that you
23:25
that the defense team was sort of appealing you to
23:28
the Big House? Answer? I think based on this, I
23:31
almost predicted that it would happen. And Jeff is saying
23:35
you were right, unbelievable. Where I in some way, shape
23:39
or form predicted that something would someone would be hired,
23:42
or something would happen to take this all up to DC.
23:46
Question and had you had experience with other cases, other
23:49
instances in which defense team went to DC while you
23:53
were at the US Attorney's office while you were the
23:56
US attorney? Answer? Yes, question was that a concern to team? Answer?
24:01
It wasn't a concern. It was how do we address
24:03
this so that we can back our position and our office?
24:07
Question did you have concerns about the disposition that was
24:10
underway about Main Justice scrutiny of the NPA scheme? Answer? So,
24:16
I had no concerns about Maine Justice scrutiny of the
24:19
NPA scheme. In fact, I invited Drew to come down
24:22
and he was part of the meeting where we discussed
24:24
the NPA. And so I say that because if I
24:27
had concerns, I wouldn't have invited him. If anything, my
24:31
concern was is Main Justice on board or are we
24:34
going to basically be told to drop this case when
24:36
it goes up to Maine Justice. Question in your email
24:40
to redacted when Sloman's on vacation, you say that you
24:44
make reference to a process fel that the attorneys in
24:46
the defense team want to go to DC on the
24:49
case on the grounds of a process. Fel that I
24:52
have not met with him, and you express concern that
24:55
it would delay matters. Is that what led you to
24:57
agree to meet with the defense team on the seventh,
25:00
the September Answer? It is. My concern was if they
25:03
came up to DC and the first talking about was
25:07
the UCAUS attorney didn't even agree to meet with us,
25:10
that's not the best foot to start with when you're
25:13
having your case reviewed. Question. So what was your understanding
25:17
of what the purpose of the meeting on September seventh
25:20
was supposed to be? Answer? They wanted to argue they
25:24
being defense counsel, wanted to argue why we should not
25:27
pursue the case. Question and in this case it was
25:31
Starr and left Kowitz from kirk Landellis and Liliane Sanchez.
25:34
I believe who met with you? Answer pair, I remember
25:37
it was Starr and Leftkowitz. I don't know if it
25:39
was lilian Question all right, and our information is it
25:44
was you, Drew Osterbon Sloman redacted, and John McMillan. Do
25:49
you know John McMillan Answer vaguely. Question all right, he
25:54
was an AUSA as well. Answer right? Question correct in
25:58
West Palm Beach. Answer right? And if I could just
26:01
add again, I invited Drew, So Drew became fully aware
26:04
of that, and my concern in getting Drew into the
26:07
meeting was to not have them appeal us and then
26:10
having Drew say not a good case. Question all right,
26:14
So were you aware that Drew Osterband had, in preparation
26:17
for this gone to West pom Beach and actually gone
26:20
through the evidence and met with the case agent and
26:22
the line AUSA. Answer I was not. Drew is an
26:26
independent actor and could do Yeah, what he thought was appropriate.
26:30
Question does that seem like an appropriate thing for him
26:33
to have done in your eyes? Answer? Sure? Question okay?
26:38
Would you describe the meeting? Oh and to other people
26:41
who were there again Asach Val Parlav and Junior Ortiz
26:45
the SSA. So the meeting I think was in West
26:49
pom Beach. Answer yes. Question So what do you recall
26:53
about the meeting the dynamics, who spoke? How did it
26:56
go down? Answer? I recall there was a lot of people.
26:59
I think your star spoke most of the time. My
27:02
recollection as best as I can you know with the
27:05
caveat I thought redacted was there and clearly wasn't. So
27:09
presented several arguments. I then either left the room with
27:12
my team or I think I most likely asked them
27:15
to leave the room. I then went around to gets interrupted,
27:19
asked who to leave the room the defense. I then
27:22
went around the table. I said does anyone have any
27:24
concerns or something to that effect, and then, hearing none,
27:28
I asked them to come back in and I reaffirmed
27:30
the position of the office. Question. In other words, you
27:35
sort of decided, you ruled from the bench as it were.
27:38
Fair enough answer, fair enough question, Okay, you didn't take
27:43
under advisement. You gave them what your position was right
27:46
then and there. Answer, that's my recollection. I don't know
27:50
if you have information contrary question. Okay, answer that's my recollection.
27:56
Question okay. So is it fair to say it was
27:59
more of a presentation on the part of Ken Starr
28:02
and decide rather than a debate or a discussion. Answer.
28:05
I think that's fair to say. I may have asked
28:08
a question or two, but my recollection was not a negotiation.
28:12
But oh, let's hear you out question and so we
28:16
understand it was mainly a federalism presentation as opposed to evidence.
28:21
Is this accurate answer? I believe that's accurate. Yes. Question,
28:25
And in your letter to ken Start dated The letter
28:28
is actually not dated, but we know that it was
28:31
sent on the fourth of December of two thousand and seven,
28:34
and it's in this package. You noted which exhibit. Mister
28:37
Gonzalez asks thirty four. Question, thank you, exhibit thirty four.
28:43
You note on page four, I'm sorry, page five you
28:45
refer to a federalism argument, and you say that after
28:48
considering the arguments and conferring with the FBI and Drew Osterban,
28:53
you decided to proceed with the indictment, but that would
28:56
delay presentation of the indictment to allow the defense to
29:00
appeal to DC. Does that mean that you didn't find
29:03
federalism argument sufficiently persuasive to you to change your position. Answer? Yes,
29:09
with the position defined as some concern, but if we
29:13
need to, if we don't come to a resolution based
29:16
on the sheet, then we indict. All right, folks, we're
29:18
going to wrap up right here and in the next
29:20
episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up
29:23
where we left off. All of The information that goes
29:26
with this episode can be found in the description box.
29:29
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
29:32
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to dive right
29:35
back in to the alex Acosta interview with the OIG inspectors. Question,
29:42
I'm sorry when you say some concern, some concern about
29:45
the federalism argument. Answer, yeah, going back to what we
29:49
talked about with respect to the earlier conversation about solicitation
29:53
versus trafficking and the federal nexus. But back in July,
29:57
we had decided that we would be going forward and
30:00
that either there is this pre indictment resolution or we
30:03
go forward with an indictment. The September meeting did not
30:07
alter or shift our position. Question, even though you had
30:12
some federalism concerns of your own, they didn't rise to
30:15
a sufficiently high level answer. So their request was to
30:19
drop the matter and going back again understood, there is
30:23
a legal risk, there is witness risk, all of these.
30:26
If we can get a pre indictment resolution, good, If not,
30:29
the indictment was not a bluff, it was real question.
30:33
So I mean Ken Starr is of course well known.
30:37
Answer right question. He was listeneder in general, you know,
30:41
et cetera, et cetera. Did you find his arguments well
30:44
set forth impressive? Answer? So you're asking for something that's
30:48
twelve years old. If I had to characterize, by the
30:51
time this meeting took place, there had been a fair
30:54
amount of thought around these There had been a fair amount,
30:58
and at least I felt comfortable that while there was
31:01
some legal risk we needed, you've got to balance the
31:04
legal risk and the president risk with outcome, and mister
31:08
Epstein should go to jail and should register. And I
31:11
felt comfortable enough to basically reiterate our position that question.
31:16
But my question with respect was did you enjoy the joy,
31:20
the give and take with a man of mister Starr's standing?
31:24
Answer no, question, no, not at all. Answer no, not
31:29
at all, because it would have been easier to not
31:32
have the meeting in the first place. Question all right,
31:35
do you recall an exchange where you the person to
31:38
whom he was directing most of his comments. Answer most likely,
31:43
question and you recall any exchange with him about the
31:46
fact that sort of an observation that the two of
31:49
you and he were the only two people in the
31:52
room who had been presidentially nominated and Senate confirmed to
31:55
any position, so that the two of you had that
31:58
kind of commonality. Does that ring a bell? Answer? Was
32:02
he trying to butter me up? Question? Was he? I mean?
32:06
Was he? Answer? Look, this was twelve years ago. I
32:09
don't recall. You know. I think as we talk about this,
32:12
it's important to note that the position did not change.
32:16
Whatever exchange we may have had, our position did not change. Question.
32:21
Right after this meeting, within a few days and further
32:23
into the resolution that had been offered redacted and redacted,
32:27
LORI met with the State Attorney's office to sit down
32:30
and try to work out how this thing would work.
32:33
And mind you, this was before, well before the NPA
32:36
is actually formulated. Did you learn what happened at that meeting?
32:39
Do you know how it evolved? Answer? I may have.
32:43
I don't recall, you know, sitting here today. Question all right,
32:47
it's at this meeting that somehow the three charges that
32:50
you specified your office specified in the term sheet became one.
32:54
So suddenly Epstein was depleted only to one charge. And
32:57
this was agreed to by the US Attorney's Office. Folks
33:00
who were there, do you know how or why that happened? Answer?
33:04
I haven't the slightest idea question. If you had known,
33:08
if they had called you on the phone, sort of
33:11
the mid trial call to the boss asking what you
33:14
wanted them to do, what would you have said? Answer? So,
33:18
from my perspective, you know, when I indicated I approved
33:21
this term sheet, this is the minimum. I meant what
33:24
I said. I also recognize that ausas in the usual course,
33:28
needs some degree of discretion to negotiate. And so my
33:32
assumption after that September meeting, I think indicated that there
33:36
was a deadline that was fairly short, and that redacted
33:40
and redacted and some working together would go back and
33:43
work out an agreement based on those terms. And you know,
33:46
in the give and take, if they think that this
33:49
is an important concession, that's within their discretion. But I
33:53
would have been comfortable with sticking with the charge sheet
33:56
with Something that drove me is when when I said
33:58
something as a general, I didn't bluff. I really meant
34:02
what I said. Question, So in that term sheet, I
34:05
mean to be fairer. That mental letter says is two
34:08
years answer write question, is the minimum? If the decision
34:13
to agree to let them plead to one as opposed
34:15
to all three had no impact on that two years?
34:18
Would you have cared? Answer fair enough? And so going
34:22
back to where you know, to an earlier discussion, can
34:25
I get another red bull? Going back to an earlier discussion.
34:28
I think I indicated that the charges, the state charges
34:31
I wasn't familiar with, and so if in the give
34:34
and take those charges changed, my focus was on two
34:37
years registration and restitution as long as those charges were
34:41
captured the conduct in some appropriate way. Question. So later,
34:46
rather much later, the Defense Council admitted that at this
34:49
meeting they thought that under misinformation from the State Attorney's
34:53
office that the charge that they got the US Attorney's
34:56
Office or somehow the US Attorney's Office approved the seven
35:00
ninety three, seven ninety six to dot Zho three charge
35:03
was not sex offender registrable. And that's a pretty major mistake, right,
35:09
I Mean, it goes right to the heart of it,
35:11
to one of your major concerns. Answer, And they tried
35:15
to get us to change that, and I said, no question,
35:18
the defense tried to get you off sex offender registration
35:21
answer pretty vigorously. Question right, But at this point the
35:27
focus is on the charge and the defense is one
35:29
might characterize it as trying to pull a fast one
35:32
by agreeing wholeheartedly to plead the one charge knowing or
35:35
at least believing incorrectly that it was not registerrable, and
35:40
the US Attorney's office not having that belief but thinking
35:43
it was registerrable. So there's a disconnect. There is error,
35:48
and the error stems as they later learned from the
35:50
ASA herself. So as we look at that and wonder
35:55
whether that shouldn't have raised some concern that this plan
35:59
to put things back in the hands of the state,
36:01
which had kind of mishandled the case to begin with,
36:04
was at this point even a good idea because they
36:07
were continually well I won't characterize it but less than reliable.
36:12
Is that a fair comment or a concern answer? So
36:16
one question I would have is at one point did
36:19
we become aware that there had been First the error
36:21
was in our favor, not the defense's favor, because we
36:24
redacted got it right as opposed to the ASA question
36:28
correct answer. And secondly, at what point did our team
36:32
become aware of them trying to pull a fast one?
36:34
Was it before or after the signing of the NPA?
36:38
Question it was well after answer right question. But the
36:43
point here is that the US Attorney's Office folks were
36:46
not familiar with the state procedure, the state criminal procedure,
36:49
and the ins and outs of the sentencing and incarceration
36:53
as you learn later. So didn't this put the US
36:55
Attorney's office side at a substantial disadvantage in trying to
36:59
play in the sandbox in which both defense Local Defense
37:03
Council and the assays were very comfortable answer possibly, although
37:08
I would point out that it was the AUSA who
37:11
got it right question eventually answer not eventually, the AUSA
37:17
was correct in her analysis, so in this case she
37:20
was more familiar than the state attorneys question not by
37:24
practice but by research, answer by research. So my point
37:29
is we had good people that were able to if
37:31
they weren't familiar with something. The research clearly worked question,
37:35
but it took as you saw in the process of
37:38
dealing with the work release and all of that, it
37:41
took a lot of work to keep up with those
37:43
errors answer, Which is why I say, in hindsight, if
37:47
given all the effort that took place after this deferred
37:50
to the state was reached, if all of that it
37:52
had been known, I really think the analysis would have
37:55
proceeded differently, because that was a lot of work. That
37:59
was probably as much work, if not more than a
38:01
trial question right, right, right. Meanwhile, and we'll talk about
38:06
the actual text of the NPA in a moment, but
38:09
following that, No, actually before it was being finalized, before
38:14
it was finalized or redacted was working to identify a
38:17
federal charge, as we discussed before. In that process, she
38:21
came up with a plan that would have resulted cobbling
38:24
things together in an eighteen month sentence instead of twenty
38:27
four months. Somehow that became the new floor, the new standard.
38:31
Do you know how that came about and who actually
38:33
agreed to that? Answer? I don't. I referenced the one
38:37
email where I think redacted says he argued twelve question right, answer,
38:42
I said, twenty four, we agree to eighteen. I assume
38:45
in the give and take this was an agreement that
38:48
was reached. Question, But that was eighteen as to the
38:53
potential federal charges. It somehow became imported into the state disposition. Answer.
38:59
I can't speak to that. This was something that the
39:02
trial team was negotiating, and from my perspective, these were
39:06
the terms that we wanted. These were the terms that
39:08
I expected. If they came back and said no deal, disappointed,
39:12
but go forward. But they tried to get a deal
39:16
and he gets cut off there question the defense tried
39:18
answer no, the prosecutors, and to some extent, you know
39:22
they and the give and take of any negotiation. I
39:25
don't think it's unfair for an AUSA to give up
39:28
some things. Question, But you had stated clearly to not
39:33
only the defense team through the mental letter, but also
39:36
I believe at the end of September seventh meeting that
39:39
two years was the deal. So did somebody come to
39:41
you and say, looks like it's going to be eighteen
39:44
months and allow you to then approve that answer? I
39:47
don't recall if someone came to me separately or independently
39:50
of the final judgment. I clearly approved it at some point,
39:54
and so to the extent it was approved that that's
39:57
on me. But I would argue that you know someone's negotiating.
40:00
One says twenty four, another side says twelve. They say
40:04
let's agree to eighteen. To some extent, as US attorney,
40:08
I think I have to back the negotiating discretion of
40:11
my ausas. But you explain quite eloquently the reasoning for
40:16
the two year plea as being what Epstein would have
40:19
faced if he had been prosecuted, you know, absentia, but
40:23
the state appropriately and then suddenly, without any apparent relationship
40:27
to that analysis, the eighteen months pops up from an
40:30
effort to try to get federal charges. And so how
40:33
do you how does that not undercut the basis for
40:36
the two years answer? So I can provide the reasoning
40:39
for the two years. I can also, though, think as
40:43
a supervisor a US attorney, it's important to understand that
40:46
when individuals go out in the field, negotiations take place,
40:50
and if every time there is some give, they need
40:53
to come back to the US attorney or there is
40:55
a fear that the US attorney will not back us.
40:57
And you know, there is a certain I think think
41:00
there's a management issue there in that if an AUSA
41:03
speaking on behalf of the US makes an argument or
41:06
an agreement, as long as that agreement is within a
41:09
certain range, the US attorney should back that because they're
41:12
the ones that are in or on the ground, they're
41:15
on the line, they're the ones that are managing the case.
41:18
And it's sort of unfair to consistently second guess those
41:21
late night I don't want to characterize it as late
41:24
night negotiations, but those that give and take that happen
41:28
sometimes in a conference room, are on the phone. Question,
41:32
do you know exactly what give and take occurred in
41:34
this case regarding the eighteen months? Answer? I do not.
41:38
I read that one document question. Okay, answer, but I
41:43
do not question really quick. I agree with what you're
41:46
saying in principle. But in this case, you had a
41:49
almost like a mandatory two years is a minimum that
41:52
the US attorney will accept under those circumstances where you
41:57
have come out and said this is the minimum that
41:59
will accept. Would you have expected them to have to
42:02
come back to you to get approval for any kind
42:04
of reduction in that amount? Answer? Would I have expected them?
42:09
I think misreadacted was in a tough position because opposing
42:13
counsel was coming at her. It was a tough negotiation.
42:16
Would I have wanted two years? Yes? Would I falter
42:20
for agreeing to eighteen months? I don't think that's for
42:22
to her question, you could have said no, right answer,
42:26
I could have, but it was she agreed to it.
42:29
The process had gone further down and to some extent,
42:32
I think that there is a need to respect the process.
42:36
I guess I was getting. You know, this is not
42:38
the only case where a supervisor sort of says this
42:41
is the standard, and at some point things move and
42:44
you've got to provide some discretion question. All right, okay, folks,
42:50
we're going to wrap up right here, and in the
42:51
next episode dealing with the topic, we'll pick up where
42:54
we left off. All of the information that goes with
42:57
this episode can be found in the description box.