Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And The OIG Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 4-6) (6/21/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And The OIG Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 4-6) (6/21/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
0:02
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, or again right back to
0:06
Alex Acosta and his interview with the OIG inspectors, turning
0:12
to exhibit to This is an email that was forwarded
0:15
to you by redacted. The original forwarded email is from
0:18
redacted copying redacted, and it essentially relates to a dust
0:22
up between redacted and redacted over the chain of command
0:26
and her workload. But in the first paragraph, she specifies
0:29
that when I first heard about the Epstein investigation, I
0:32
spoke with redacted about it. Redacted was not here. Redacted
0:37
said that she would back me up on the case.
0:39
But I knew what happened to the state prosecution and
0:43
can happen to the federal prosecution if the US Attorney's
0:45
Office isn't on board. So I spoke with redacted about
0:48
the case, and he spoke with Alex, and they gave
0:51
me the green light. So that actually appears to be
0:54
initial contact with Redacted that she's talking about prior to
0:57
the briefing with you, so way early when the case
1:01
first came in in May of two thousand and six,
1:04
do you recall being contacted or having a conversation with
1:08
redacted about the case. So early answer again, the early
1:12
recollection whenever, whenever it might have taken place, was I
1:16
was made aware of the matter. It seemed a reasonable
1:18
matter to pursue. And that's the level of detail that
1:21
I recall. Questions. So, if Redacted said back in the
1:24
day that she got from you the green light, did
1:29
you understand her to be being authorized to authorize? Maybe
1:33
too strong of a word, but answer to pursue question Yeah,
1:39
answer to someone. You know, I'm speculating here, but there's
1:43
a case and they want to know should we spend
1:46
our time on this? And the answer is that it
1:48
seems reasonable? Sure? Question? Okay, And do you recall making
1:53
that explicit to her? Answer? I don't, and it wouldn't
1:57
have been my practice to sort of make it explicit. Yeah,
2:00
go spend your time, as opposed to thank you for
2:03
letting me know. That sounds reasonable? Question? All right? Answer
2:07
and whatever you know details It looks like based on
2:09
Exhibit one, there was subsequent follow up between her and
2:13
redacted or with her and the management teams, and they said,
2:17
you know, go back work on a B and C question.
2:21
Do you know what redacted was talking about when she
2:23
referred to something happening to a federal prosecution if the
2:26
US Attorney is not on board. Had there been a
2:29
case in which you were not supportive of a particular
2:32
prosecution that was being proposed? Answer? None, None that I recall,
2:38
and I knew what had happened to the state prosecution
2:40
can happen to a federal prosecution if the US Attorney
2:43
is not on board. I don't recall any federal prosecution
2:46
that I wasn't supportive of, at least in this context.
2:51
Question what do you mean by this context? Answer? It
2:55
was my way of narrowing an answer, So I didn't
2:57
spend the time to go through every office and every
2:59
divis for the most part, as I sit here, I'm
3:02
sort of running through each office. I don't recall any
3:06
And if I could use this based on exhibit too,
3:08
I'm not sure that she's referring to a specific case
3:11
as opposed to concerns that the state prosecution started at point,
3:15
you know, with charges that require jail time and ended
3:18
up somewhere else. It may have been because management wasn't question,
3:25
but that's current reading of They get interrupted by Acosta. Yeah,
3:30
an interruption again. But this time by the person asking
3:33
the questions this rather than recollection. Answer that's my reading.
3:39
Question all right, Based on the early description you got
3:42
of the case, did you have any idea how many
3:45
victims were involved? Answer? I did not. Did you know
3:49
what the name of the case was? Was the investigation
3:52
name was? You know, cases get names? Answer so I
3:55
know based on the review of the correspondence, I may
3:58
have known that. Then I did not independently recall it.
4:02
Question that being Operation Leapier Answer correct? Question all right,
4:07
and do you know where that came from? Answer? Well,
4:10
I mean other than February twentieth, Yeah, I don't know.
4:14
Question Well, the original allegations that came in involved twenty
4:18
eight victims, and then subsequently redacted advised that she was
4:22
uncovering more victims, so there were over thirty. Question well
4:26
over thirty. Answer I don't recall knowing that. Question But
4:31
is it reasonable that the number of victims would be
4:33
one of the factors that you would have been informed
4:36
about at the time? Answer I don't know. It all
4:40
depends how detailed that briefing was. Again, as a typical matter,
4:44
early on, this is what is being done. I would
4:47
trust my ausas and my management staff to pursue it.
4:51
It wouldn't be here are all the facts associated with
4:54
the case. Just to heads up, there's a high profile
4:57
case involving a very wealthy man abusing young wa women.
5:00
A state attorney is prosecuting, but you know there's dissatisfaction.
5:04
I wanted to give you the heads up, both to
5:06
inform me but also so that I'm aware in my
5:09
interactions with other pombage officials. Question, Okay, based on whatever
5:14
information you got at the time, did you think that
5:17
there was a federal interest to be served by pursuing
5:19
a federal prosecution potentially? Answer? Yes, question and what was
5:25
that answer? So the exploitation of young women? He gets
5:30
corrected now by the investigator. Girls, He corrects himself. Girls,
5:36
the investigator, I want to be all right, Look, I
5:39
know for the sort of glossary convention that we are
5:42
using is we can use this in the interview as
5:45
girls for the victims who at the time of the
5:48
conduct were miners, and women for those who were not,
5:51
even though the girls at a later date became age
5:54
of majority. A. Costa responds, fair, question, Okay, so here
5:59
we're really talking about girls. Answer okay. Question who are
6:04
the victims? Acosta? Yeah, yeah, question okay, Acosta, girls, minor females.
6:11
I just don't sometimes that term is viewed differently. Question right, answer, So, yeah,
6:17
the exploitation of girls or minor females, and that certainly
6:21
is an important federal interest. Question well, and is the
6:24
number and the breadth of the scheme the scope of
6:27
the activity also a factor there? In other words, it
6:30
wasn't one or two women on two occasions. Answer, So,
6:35
there's several factors that probably go into what's the federal interest.
6:39
The acts, the sordidness of the acts, the number, the
6:43
likelihood or the importance of the registration was important to
6:46
my mind because that goes to future prevention, to putting
6:50
the community on notice. Question and were you aware that
6:53
the individual in this case, Epstein also at homes and
6:56
other districts that were it was an interstate activity on
7:00
his part, the interstate travel and so on to that.
7:04
Acosta's lawyer pipes in, I'm sorry, let me just we're
7:07
still in the original intake timeframe misredacted. Yes, Acosta, yeah,
7:13
again for the intake time I can I can't speak
7:16
to the details because I don't remember what the extent
7:19
of that that intake briefing was? Acosta asked, if he
7:24
can ask a question, was there was there a clear
7:28
briefing as opposed to a heads up based on the record? Question? Yes,
7:32
that redacted came to Miami to conduct a briefing of
7:35
you and they get cut off by a redacted question
7:39
her again redacted, in order to tell you about this
7:42
case and get from you a green light so that
7:45
they could proceed with it. Answer, I asked, because I
7:48
were calling an email and I don't know what the
7:51
time would have been where she's coming to Miami, And
7:54
redacted says, why don't you stop by my office? First? Question? Right?
7:59
And and I keep I would I would speculate that
8:02
why don't you stop by my office first? Is why
8:04
don't you give me a bunch of details? And then
8:07
we will walk across to the US attorney and fill
8:10
him in. And so that would have been almost a
8:12
two tiered discussion. And I don't know if that if
8:16
that timeline on that email is when you say briefing,
8:19
Acousta continues, I'm speaking just based on a review of
8:23
the record, not based on recollection here. Question all right,
8:27
so you have to be clear you have no recollection
8:30
of any specific briefing in two thousand and six. Answer,
8:34
I accept that I was made aware of the matter.
8:37
Question Okay, Answer, I can't say how or in what
8:41
context or to what degree of detail question or by
8:44
whom answer, or by whom I knew the matter. It's
8:47
easier to recollect, at least for me what I knew,
8:50
as opposed to who told me what? Question? All right?
8:53
All right? At this point did you have if you
8:56
at any point did you have any reservation about investigating
9:00
and potentially prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein a reservation stemming from his
9:04
wealth and reported standing in the community at all and influence?
9:09
Answer No, And we had prosecuted lots of influential folks
9:12
in this office. So while he had wealth, it's not
9:15
unusual ubs was in the office at the time I
9:19
mentioned several high profile Palm Beach public corruption cases. Questions,
9:23
So there was no concern about possible negative blowback in
9:26
the press or the community or even at Main Justice
9:29
if he went if he went after someone like Epstein. Answer,
9:33
there was no concern stemming from his wealth or his status.
9:36
Question what would have it stem from? Answer? At some
9:39
point I think there was concern regarding the law, and
9:43
we'll probably get into that. I alluded to that earlier
9:45
in the overview. I don't know if that would have
9:48
been developed this early on. But that's not a function
9:51
of his wealth. That's a function of the fact pattern question. Right. Okay, So,
9:56
as you mentioned petite policy concern petit policy, could you
9:59
tell tell us what your position was on the policy
10:02
as it applied in this case, as you understood it
10:05
from the beginning. Answer? So the policy you know on
10:09
its face doesn't specifically apply. Based on exhibit one, I'm
10:13
now inferring, not recalling, it looks like either redacted on
10:16
our own or redacted as for a or mister redacted
10:21
as for a petite policy waiverm memo to be prepared
10:24
in part on the assumption that the state prosecution may
10:27
or may not have gone for it. I don't know,
10:31
but I do recall that early on this was unusual
10:34
because it had been had been arrested or arraigned. It
10:38
was going forward on the part of the state. And
10:40
so here's the big bad federal government stepping in and
10:43
on sovereign you know, state, saying you're not doing enough
10:47
and to my mind, when you know, the whole idea
10:49
of the petit policy is to recognize that the estate
10:52
has you know, has independent entity, and that we should
10:56
presume that what we're doing is correct even if we
11:00
don't like the outcome, except in the most unusual of
11:03
circumstances question and what kinds of Well, so the petit
11:09
policy exists because there's a recognition that there are cases
11:13
that are appropriately pursued. I mean, you are the head
11:16
of the Civil Rights Division, after all. Answer correct, Which
11:19
is why I say, except in the most appropriate of
11:21
circumstance question right, answer. But let me add that, based
11:26
on this I was comfortable, you know, saying let's go
11:28
forward because the lack of jail time, you know, to
11:31
use to use petit policy language, a plea that did
11:34
not include jail time or registration would seem like a
11:37
manifest injustice. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up
11:40
this episode right here, and in the next episode dealing
11:42
with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off.
11:45
All the information that goes with this episode can be
11:48
found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome
11:52
to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
11:55
We're going to get right back to the alex Acosta
11:58
interview with the OIG investigators. Question, all right, so did
12:03
you have any doubt that you'd get a waiver if
12:05
you applied for one? Answer? So I'm now speculating. I
12:10
don't recall, but I'm not sure I would have said,
12:12
is there a doubt that I'd get a waiver? As
12:14
opposed to is this something I feel comfortable doing or not? Question?
12:19
And this being the prosecution or this being the applying
12:23
for a waiver? Answer applying for a waiver. And so
12:26
you know, either Main Justice gives it or doesn't give it,
12:29
that doesn't mean you don't apply for it if you
12:31
think that it's the right thing to do. So for example,
12:34
in the UBS case, which was one of our big
12:37
tax you know, prosecutions, we asked for a Bank of
12:40
Nova Scotia authorization to the Bank of Nova Scotia, and
12:44
I didn't think Maine Justice would, you know. I push
12:47
really hard and I got into the weeds in that
12:49
case for that purpose, but I still thought, let's go
12:52
for it, and we did and Main Justice didn't give
12:55
into it. And that's okay, That's how it works. Question. Okay,
12:59
So they denied that request. Answer, they denied that request.
13:03
And I say that as an example as a typical matter.
13:07
I don't think that's what Main Justice is going to say.
13:09
As opposed to how should we approach this matter? Question?
13:13
I don't understand about what you mean by how should
13:16
we approach this matter? Answer? So, honestly, how do I
13:20
explain this? So I think there's a difference in saying,
13:23
let me predict how Maine Justice will come out and
13:26
follow that prediction, versus folks, what do you all think? Okay,
13:29
if we're comfortable with this, let's write it up and
13:32
let's see what Main Justice does. One is trying to
13:35
predict what folks in this building are going to think.
13:38
Another one is trying to predict another one is just saying,
13:41
what do we do in Miami? What do we think?
13:45
And let Main Justice figure it out? Question? In which
13:48
is the approach you typically took? Answer? And my point
13:51
is the approach that I typically took is what do
13:54
we think? And let Maine Justice give it a thumbs
13:56
up or a thumbs down? Question? All right? And in
14:00
this case, did you do that with regard to the
14:02
batite policy? Answer? So, in this case, we didn't get
14:05
that far in that we didn't have to submit to DOJ,
14:09
but we were approaching it not based on what main
14:12
justice was going to think. But do we feel is
14:16
this the right outcome in this office? Question? So, as
14:19
I understand, the bottom line is that you didn't. As
14:22
I hear you, I believe you're saying that you didn't
14:24
stand down or in any way sees your limit pursuing
14:28
this case on batite policy grounds. Answer, So we went
14:33
forward with the matter although there were petit policy concerns
14:37
in the background. So you're setting this up as a
14:40
binary as a did was it as a binary? You
14:44
did not limit yourself on petite policy grounds? And I'm
14:47
pushing back a little bit because I don't think that
14:49
it's part as opposed to when you look at the case,
14:53
there are all sorts of factors, and it's a factor
14:56
in you know, how you think of a matter going forward?
14:59
Question if you had those petite policy concerns, you or
15:02
your members or staff? Answer? I would say a combination
15:06
of me and my management staff. Question who answer, I
15:13
can't recreate gets cut off by the person asking the questions?
15:17
But who are you dealing with on this case? Answer?
15:20
Primarily it would be my first assistant and criminal chief.
15:24
As I typically so there is, as you know, to
15:26
sort of put it in main justice terms, you know,
15:28
a line attorney and a deputy section chief, and a
15:32
DAG and an AAG, and the AAG usually deals with
15:36
the section chief or the DAG. And so I was
15:39
dealing with my first assistant and my crim chief. Question right,
15:43
and they were in Miami. Answer and they were in Miami.
15:47
Question and by the way, redacted first line supervisor was redacted?
15:52
Answer correct? Question. Do you know why she was not
15:55
actively participating in the chain of command? Answer? I noticed
15:59
that correspondence, and I couldn't speak to that question all right,
16:04
But it goes to the point that if you look
16:08
at the she reported to or redacted, who are reported
16:11
to redacted? Who are reported or redacted, who are reported
16:13
to redacted? And so, as a typical matter, I tried
16:17
to empower my first assistant and my criminal chief and
16:20
my office heads and work through them, not bypass them.
16:23
Question in this particular case, with regard either to petite
16:27
policy or any other aspect, was there anyone other than
16:30
the group of five, if you will, in that chain
16:33
from you down to adacted through redacted and redacted that
16:37
you were dealing with. Answer I can't recall. I can say,
16:41
as a general matter, it would not be unusual for
16:44
me to walk down walk down the hall and talk
16:46
to someone that I trust and say, hey, I've got
16:49
this fact pattern. What do you think? Question? Do you
16:52
recall ever doing that in connection with this case? Answer?
16:55
I don't recall these specific briefings or who I talk to.
16:58
I'm just saying as a general that there are folks
17:01
on the eighth floor that were in management that I
17:04
would often just walk down the hall. Question, but do
17:07
you recall doing that in this case? Answer? I don't recall.
17:12
Question Okay, So we shared with you in Exhibit three
17:15
a pretty lively exchange between redacted and redacted. We have
17:19
no reason to believe you saw this before, but it
17:22
makes some representations about you, and that's why we brought
17:25
it to your attention. Question or answer? Okay, question do
17:29
you recall this EML ex change? Answer? I don't recall
17:32
the email ex change. Question I mean, didn't you see it? Then?
17:38
Do you recall having read it before today? Answer? I
17:41
recall reviewing it. Yes. Question all right, okay, So starting
17:45
from the end redacted using redacted to BlackBerry, which is
17:48
a little confusing to begin with, notifies redacted that a
17:52
particular conversation he had with one of the defense attorneys.
17:56
At this point, what I want to do is draw
17:58
your attention to the comment and his response. And we're
18:02
looking at page three. So in the third paragraph, it
18:05
was made clear to you by the US Attorney and
18:08
the first assistant from the time when you were first
18:11
authorized to investigate mister Epstein that the office had concerns
18:15
about taking the case because of batite policy and a
18:18
number of legal issues. And then later he says that
18:20
you were never given authority or authorization by anyone to
18:24
seek an indictment in the case. And then on the
18:27
first page, redacted presents her version of that original contact
18:31
with you, meeting with you at the bottom of the page.
18:33
Halfway through the last paragraph, she says, my recollection of
18:37
the original meeting with Alex and redacted is quite different
18:41
than your summary. In that meeting, I summarized the case
18:44
and the state Attorney's office handling of it. I acknowledged
18:47
that we needed to do work to collect the evidence
18:50
establishing a federal nexus, and I noted the time in
18:53
month that I'm sorry. I noted the time and money
18:56
that would be required for an investigation. I said, I
18:59
was willing to invest time, and the FBI was willing
19:02
to invest the money, but I didn't want to get
19:05
to the end of it, to the end and then
19:07
have the office be intimidated by the high powered lawyers.
19:11
I was assured that would not happen. Can you tell
19:13
us which version of that initial version is correct? Answer? So, again,
19:19
I don't remember the initial briefing, so I can't tell
19:21
you which version is correct. I would also say that
19:24
it's possible neither version is correct and that there's a
19:27
little bit of truth. Now I'm just speculating that there's
19:30
a little bit of truth in either one, because it's
19:32
certainly possible to say, I hear you righteous case, go
19:36
forward and investigate work on the federal nexus, which is
19:39
what Exhibit three is saying, go work on the federal
19:42
nexus and find evidence for the federal nexus. But we
19:45
have concerns about petite policy and legal matters, so there's
19:49
a lot of work to be done. Question So what
19:53
kind of direction does that amount to for the line AUSA?
19:56
What's her job? Then? Answer? So the job would then
19:59
be a go back and investigate, develop facts and report
20:03
back question and if she developed enough facts and support
20:06
of law to present reposed prosecution. Answer right, and so
20:11
a lot of times in this he said, she said,
20:15
there's a little bit of truth on both sides of
20:17
the discussion. I'm just saying, as a general matter, your
20:21
questions are sometimes either or and sometimes it can be
20:24
a combination of both. Answer, all right, but in fact
20:28
you don't recall. Answer. I'm speculating, question, all right, is
20:32
there anything in either of those that two accounts, two
20:35
versions that you didn't say happened, couldn't happen? Answer? I can't,
20:39
because I don't recall. I can't speak to that. I
20:42
would speculate that there's probably a little bit of truth
20:45
on both sides that if you read it closely, you'll
20:47
see that redacted acknowledges the need to work on a
20:51
federal nexus. So that goes to you know where or
20:54
mister redacted. I'm sorry, I'm using first names. Question. It's
20:58
all right question. This is an informal interview. Answer. I'm
21:03
going to just start using first names. I don't mean
21:05
that disrespectfully. Where you know redacted says you know because
21:09
of petit policy and legal issues, and Redacted is acknowledging
21:12
the legal issue because she's saying that they needed work
21:16
to do to collect the evidence, establishing the federal nexus. Question.
21:20
All right, Back in two thousand and six, in this
21:24
exhibit number one, Redacted tells you in his email that
21:29
the indictment target date is August twenty fifth, two thousand
21:31
and six, In other words, very shortly thereafter, within a
21:35
month or so. Do you know why the line ausa
21:38
Redacted was keen on getting the federal case against Epstein
21:41
brought on a fairly on a quick basis answer. So
21:45
I can't speak to that, and I can I can
21:48
ask based on your record, was that the state indictment
21:52
target date answer? Epstein had already been indicted and arraigned
22:00
on the indictment, So that's federal question. That's talking about
22:04
a federal indictment answer. All right. The point is early
22:09
on the investigative team, the FBI and Redacted were hot
22:13
to trot to get this case moving from a federal standpoint.
22:17
That may well have been quite unrealistic giving all the
22:19
issues that we've been discussing. But the question is, do
22:22
you know why there was some urgency. Answer, I haven't
22:26
the slightest idea. When was it initially brought to the office? Question?
22:32
It was brought to the office in May of two
22:34
thousand and six. Answer. That would be a really really
22:37
fast timeline question, right, So the question is aspirational though
22:42
it may have been there was hope to get it
22:44
done quickly. So the question is can you think of
22:47
factors that would have led a prosecutor to a want
22:51
to pursue this quickly? Answer? I don't recall. I can
22:55
speculate that redacted was very hard charging and wanted to
22:58
do a lot. Question what was your experience of her? Answer?
23:02
So based on this, I see you know so exhibit
23:04
too he gets interrupted? Excuse me? Would but just from
23:10
your memory, is that your recollection of how redacted operated
23:14
hard charging? Answer? Yeah, I'd say so. A lot of
23:17
really good prosecutors are hard charging. That's part of the
23:20
job description. Question Okay, did so in the child sex
23:25
offender context? Are you familiar with the belief on the
23:28
part of the people who do that kind of case,
23:31
as did it redacted and redacted and others in your
23:34
office that those offenders typically don't stop offending even after
23:38
somebody's onto them, so that there was a concern that
23:41
he that in this case, Jeffrey Epstein might be continuing
23:45
to offend and therefore getting them off the streets was
23:48
a priority. Answer. I have heard that discussed recently in
23:52
the media. I don't recollect that back in well, part
23:55
of the discussion back in two thousand and six. All right, folks,
23:58
we're gonna wrap up right here, and then next episode
24:00
dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where
24:03
we left off. All of the information that goes with
24:06
this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
24:10
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
24:13
this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
24:15
off with the alex Acosta interview with the OIG inspectors.
24:21
Question do you recall that, and this is just do
24:25
you recall that she periodically would give you in that
24:29
early period of two thousand and six updates written updates? Answer?
24:33
I don't. Question. Do you think that it was appropriate
24:35
for a line USA to be shooting emails updating a
24:38
case that was under investigation directly to you and your
24:42
first assistant? Answer? It was unusual, and so did I
24:45
think of Look, I can't reconstruct what I would have thought,
24:49
but you know you're asking not just what did I know,
24:52
but what I would have thought twelve years ago. But
24:54
I can say, based on the general practice, it would
24:57
have been unusual. And my best guess as to how
25:00
I would have reacted would have been, Hey, redacted, this
25:03
is unusual. Is the chain being fully informed? Are feathers
25:07
being ruffled? Figure it out? Because you know you asked
25:11
me early on to characterize Redacted's qualities. I think one
25:14
of the things that I have said is that you
25:16
was very good at smoothing things over and sort of
25:19
the interaction because he was respected, And so I might say,
25:24
that's kind of unusual. Go figure it out. Question, but
25:27
you wouldn't necessarily jump on that chain yourself and be
25:30
in direct communication. Answer. I tended not to question, would
25:36
she have sent this to you something unusual if she
25:38
thought that this was a case that you wanted to
25:40
be involved in? Answer? Even in those I tried to be,
25:44
as general matter, fairly sensitive to the chain, because I
25:47
had found that if you start jumping the chain too much,
25:50
even if you become informed, managers feel, you know, out
25:53
of the loop, and that's not conducive to sort of
25:56
allowing them to do their job of supervising. It's a
25:59
big enough office. You have to empower your folks to
26:02
do their jobs. Question So the concern on your part
26:05
would not be that she was communicating directly to you,
26:08
but that as long as all of the chain was
26:11
informed as well. Answer yeah, I mean if you are redacted,
26:15
or you know, if you're redacted, or you know, you
26:17
don't want to talk to the line attorney before the
26:20
line attorney talks to your boss, and so it's not
26:22
just informed, but it's respecting your supervisor. And it's a
26:26
difficult balance because often really good aussays are also the ones,
26:31
you know, that just want to get things done. Question
26:34
did you have any reason to believe during this investigative
26:36
phase that redacted was not pursuing this case this investigation
26:40
adequately appropriately and fully? Answer No, I did not. Question
26:48
did you feel that she did not have appropriate oversight?
26:51
Answer not to my recollection. Question Okay, did you feel
26:56
that she had any resource problems? That is, did she have,
26:59
as far as you no sufficient resources available to pursue
27:03
her investigation? Answer to my recollection, Yes, I noted her early.
27:08
You know, I noted more recently the email where you
27:10
know that was shared with me by redacted about resource concerns,
27:15
and I would just note that I would allow the
27:16
management chain to figure that out. Question all right, did
27:20
you at any point consider, based on what you then knew,
27:23
expanding the scope of the investigation. Did you ever suggest
27:27
or propose that, instead of simply looking at Epstein's conduct
27:30
in West Palm Beach, this will be the girls that
27:33
the federal authorities could use their resources to look at
27:36
other aspects of Epstein's activity. Answer, so, I think it's
27:40
important to take a step back. And I was aware
27:43
of any number of cases going on in the office,
27:46
and based on what that stage of case was at,
27:49
I would get more involved. For a time, it wasn't
27:51
my practice to direct a usays and how they should
27:54
investigate or what the scope of a case investigation should be.
27:58
The Miami office, before I got there and after I left,
28:01
had a reputation for knowing their stuff. It's a large office,
28:05
it's got good people. I would assume that the ausas
28:08
and their management would follow their natural leads. Question all right,
28:12
where you will wear that during this period? And by
28:15
this period, I'm talking about the investigative period from the
28:18
time that the case came in in mid two thousand
28:21
and six up until May one, when Redacted put forth
28:25
her prosecution memo and proposed indictment. During the sort of
28:30
ten month period or almost a year, where you will
28:33
wear that defense Council for Epstein were reaching out or
28:35
Redacted and Redacted to pitch their view of how the
28:39
case should proceed. Answer, So, I don't have a specific
28:43
recollection of who reached out at what time. I would
28:46
assume as a general matter that Defense Council Defense Council
28:50
were clearly involved before the case came to the office,
28:53
and so I would assume that Defense Council would remain
28:56
involved while the office was investigating. I say that not
29:00
based on independent recollection. But why would they stop being involved? Question?
29:04
And is it your experience as a US attorney that
29:07
it was common or uncommon for defense counsel to approach
29:11
the line prosecutor and supervisor to make whatever pitch they
29:14
want with respect to a prosecution Answer fairly common question,
29:20
all right? And was it also common for those approaches
29:23
to be entertained? In other words, for the line a
29:26
USA and supervisor to meet with defense counsel, and did
29:31
you view that as appropriate? Answer? As a general matter,
29:35
it was typical. It happened before I got there, and
29:38
it's probably happening now. Question, And you view it as
29:41
an appropriate part of the process. Do you answer? I
29:44
think a usays need to have discretion to meet with
29:47
defense counsel, and defense counsel certainly should be able to
29:50
present perspectives. Question. There's an outlook. This is Exhibit four,
29:56
and this is something it's really sort of a point
29:58
of information here. This is an outlook that shows you
30:02
and redacted and redacted had a schedule a meeting with
30:05
Roy Black. Question. Roy Black a prominent attorney, a local
30:11
criminal defense attorney at the time in the Miami area.
30:14
This was a meeting scheduled in your office for the
30:17
twenty third of February two thousand and seven. Do you
30:19
have any he was he at the time was one
30:23
of Epstein's attorneys. Do you have any idea whether that
30:26
this meeting related to Epstein or some other case? Answer?
30:29
I don't. I noticed that. I don't know whether it
30:33
was this or another matter. Oh, I'm sure, mister Acosta,
30:36
you have no idea. Are you guys hipped to the
30:38
bullshit yet and again not even my own words. These
30:41
people are sinking themselves with their own bullshit. Question but
30:47
you have not particular recollection of a meeting with him
30:50
on Epstein and the Epstein matter. Answer, I don't question
30:53
at this time. Answer, And let me note I think
30:57
most of the correspondents was from other attorneys, not him.
31:01
And so yeah, another lie. There's a ton of emails
31:04
from Roy Black and to Roy Black. Question all right,
31:09
are you okay? Do you want to take a short break? Answer?
31:14
Let's what time is it? Oh? Eleven? Question five minutes? Answer, yeah,
31:19
So they take a five minute break, then they come
31:20
back all right, back on the record at eleven twelve.
31:24
Having broken at eleven, mister Acosto, we're going to move
31:26
on in the timeframe. I mentioned a moment ago May
31:29
of two thousand and seven when redacted submitted her prosecution
31:33
memo of more than eighty pages and her proposed indictment,
31:37
her initial proposed indictment, which was more than fifty pages.
31:41
She submitted that by transmittal memo to her entire chain redacted, redacted, redacted, redacted,
31:46
and redacted, and you was that a typical way for
31:50
an indictment? And proposed prosecution the memo to come. Answer
31:54
to my recollection, it was not, and I don't recall
31:57
that happening in other cases. I'm trying. I'm hesitating just
32:01
because I'm trying to think through if there's I don't
32:04
have any recollection of it happening in another case. Question
32:08
why do you think it happened in this case and
32:10
who caused it to happen? Answer? I don't know. I
32:14
don't know. Question all right? All right, So when you
32:19
before you saw it, I don't know if you even
32:20
knew about it. By reference to Exhibit six, you learned
32:24
essentially from redacted that the FBI was planning to do
32:27
a press conference two weeks after that, and Redacted told redacted,
32:31
this office has not approved the indictment. Therefore, please do
32:35
not commit us to anything in this time. Were you
32:37
eventually in that email chain? And did it get to
32:40
you apparently by blind carbon because there is no indication
32:44
you actually get it. Answer right, question, but you advise
32:48
Alicia Valley, who I think was your press person that
32:53
redacted hasn't even finished recommendation to redact it. I e.
32:56
We are a long way off. So did you have
32:59
any idea why the FBI was planning a press conference
33:02
on Epstein. Answer, I don't know if I did, I
33:06
don't recall if I did. Question how typical was it
33:09
for the FBI to plan a press conference on an
33:11
indicted on a case that was being indicted at the
33:14
time of an indictment or arrest without coordinating with you
33:18
and your office? Answer under redacted, Highly atypical. Question was
33:24
he the sack at the time? Answer? He was a sack.
33:27
He was a sack. I know he was the sack
33:29
at the time as of September, and I'm almost certain
33:32
that he was a sack at the time. Question all right,
33:35
and when you said that we are a long way
33:38
off and redacted hasn't even finished a recommendation to redacted,
33:42
do you know whether you had any idea what she
33:44
was actually submitted in her prosecution memo and that she
33:48
made a recommendation to redacted? Answer? I can't recollect, but
33:52
I'll take my words as reflective of If I say
33:56
she hasn't finished her recommendation, then I assume she hasn't
33:59
finished her recommendation. Question does that mean, as you look
34:04
at your own words, does that suggest to you that
34:06
you were unaware as of that moment that she actually
34:09
submitted her prosecution memo. Answer that suggests that I would
34:13
not have been aware that she submitted it, if you know,
34:16
because it sounds like I'm saying she hasn't even submitted
34:19
her memo. Question all right, answer, we're a long way off.
34:24
But again this is based on practice, not recollection. Question
34:28
all right, And when you said that you're a long
34:30
way off, did that reflect if you recall an assessment
34:33
of the length of time to get a prosecution memo,
34:37
a recommendation, and an assessment of that or your expectation
34:41
that even when you saw a prosecution memo and an indictment,
34:45
it would be a long process before it was approved. Answer,
34:49
so I would assume, And again this is just based
34:51
on speculating from the way that I write that, I'm
34:54
thinking she hasn't submitted her recommendation to redacted and redacted
34:58
needs to review it. He may you know, he'd probably
35:02
want to talk to her say it needs to be scrubbed.
35:04
You know, this could be this isn't happening next week,
35:07
et cetera. Question all right, do you have any reason
35:10
to believe that whatever that process is, that you were
35:13
describing would be any different in particular measure in this
35:16
case from an ordinary complex case. Answer. So, from my language,
35:21
I would take it that it's the same process, but
35:24
that there is a process and the process hasn't yet
35:27
been followed. Question all right, okay, answer so it would
35:32
be the typical process in a typical complex case. Question
35:36
all right, and is it fair to characterize this as
35:39
a relatively complex case given the legal issue? Answer? I
35:44
think it is. Yes. All right, folks. We're going to
35:46
wrap up right here, and in the next episode, we're
35:48
going to pick up where we left off. All of
35:51
the information that goes with this episode can be found
35:54
in the description box.