Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And The OIG Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 7-9) (6/21/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And The OIG Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 7-9) (6/21/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
0:03
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
0:06
where we left off with the alex Acosta interview with
0:09
the OIG inspectors. Question, Okay, in Exhibit eight, you actually
0:16
got the in Exhibit seven, you can see that in
0:19
the bottom part of that that you received a copy
0:21
of the prosecution memo. On the second page of the
0:24
exhibit at the top, answer right, question redacted is forwarding
0:29
to you the prosecution memo? Answer rite question. In Exhibit eight,
0:34
you see that redacted as forwarding or sending that chain
0:37
excluding redacted. That is redacted redacted or redacted redacted and
0:41
you additional items in Operation Leap year and there's a
0:46
summary of the indictment, the evidence regarding the individual victims. Okay, so,
0:50
as of May eleventh, you had before you the prosecution memo,
0:54
the proposed indictment, and the substantial amount of additional information.
0:59
Did you read the prosecution memo? Answer right? So, I
1:03
don't recall, and I don't know you are going to say,
1:06
why don't I But this was a long time ago.
1:08
I don't recall if I read it or if I
1:10
went back to the office and sat down with redacted
1:12
and redacted and went over it. I can't recall from
1:15
this far, I can say that it looks, based on
1:18
this that I was at the US Attorney's conference. The
1:22
idea of printing this out on a hotel printer, I wouldn't.
1:25
I can't believe I would have printed this out on
1:28
a hotel printer. Question, let alone read it on an airplane?
1:32
Correct answer, Let alone read it on an airplane. That
1:35
would just not have been my practice. Question. But going
1:38
back arriving back to your offices, was it your practice
1:42
to take voluminous documents like this and go through them
1:45
yourself or did you rely on your senior staff? Answer?
1:50
I would typically rely on my senior staff. They're the
1:53
experienced ones that have seen these matters before. They would
1:57
go through it. We'd sit down, we'd talk about the issues.
2:00
We might have it in front of us, almost like
2:02
you've got all those binders there, but you know you're
2:05
calling my attention to particular issues, and we'd sort of
2:08
talk it through. Question and you recall doing that in
2:11
this case? Answer? I recall having discussions with senior staff
2:15
about the case. Question who answer is certainly redacted and
2:19
redacted at various points. I can't say that I did
2:23
that in May versus April versus June. I can't give
2:26
you timelines. Question, Well, we're talking about May, because you've
2:31
got the actual process. Answer. It would have been my
2:35
practice based on this to go back and discuss it.
2:38
And so based on my practice, I would have gone
2:41
back and likely discussed it. I doubt I would have
2:44
printed this out at whatever hotel I was at. Question
2:47
but even when you go back to the office, would
2:50
you have somebody printed out so you would have had
2:52
it available? Answer? I may have had someone printed out
2:56
so it's available. I may have focused on particular parts
2:59
of it. Question what kind of issues would you have
3:02
focused on? In other words, in other words, some might
3:05
go straight to the facts, some might be interested in
3:08
the legal theories. What was your approach? Answer? So I
3:12
think it depended on the case question. Okay, answer here,
3:16
you had legal questions and you also had witness issues,
3:19
and I would think that those would have been the
3:21
two primary areas. Question would you have gone through the
3:25
indictment and the prosecution memo and all of those other
3:28
materials or just relied on your experience seeing your people redacted?
3:32
And redacted answer as a general practice, probably some combination
3:37
as a general and general recollection. The concerns in this
3:41
case weren't about the sort of details of what happened,
3:44
because we believed he did what he did. The concerns
3:47
were about some of the legal issues around it and
3:50
some of the issues in terms of testimony. Question of victims,
3:54
answer of victims, question all right. On page nine Exhibit
4:01
nine is an email that you are not on, but
4:03
that notes that redacted as advising redacted, that you as
4:07
your memo and left Court's letter. Gerald left Court, new
4:11
York attorney who was one of the members of Epstein's
4:13
defense team. Did you know him? Answer? I did not.
4:17
Question did you ever encounter him? As far as you recall, answer,
4:22
I did not question, all right, he had according to
4:24
the documents, we have made two substantial submissions in February
4:29
of that year in an effort to dissuade them from
4:32
pursuing a prosecution, and we have every reason to believe
4:36
and no reason not to believe, that that's what it's
4:39
being referred to. Do you recall reviewing substantial submission from
4:42
Defense Council at this time attacking a very granular detail,
4:47
the credibility of witnesses and so on. Answer, I don't
4:50
recall reviewing those. Again, I recall discussions with my senior
4:54
team about issues that included credibility, and I'm not sure
4:58
if its credibility is the right word. But how the
5:00
victims would do on the stand question okay, and who
5:04
do you recall talking to about that? Answer? So some
5:07
combination of redacted and redacted would have been the likely
5:11
I recall the discussion. I don't recall whether it was
5:14
redacted or whether it was redacted or redacted, but the
5:17
logical inference would have been it would have been some
5:20
combination of redacted and redacted. Question Okay, redacted has told
5:25
us that during this period he was not actively involved
5:29
in the case. Question, but that redacted was. Would that
5:32
be consistent with your memory? Answer that sure, I mean
5:37
they were a team. They became more or less involved
5:39
based on needs. Question and was there any particular if
5:44
redacted was working with you directly on reporting on his
5:48
assessment of the case, was there any reason for redacted
5:51
to be involved? Answer? I might bounce ideas off him.
5:55
I mean he was he was the right across. So
5:57
we work closely. But you know redacted was a crime
6:00
chief and if he was in the weeds, Redacted and
6:04
I would speculate would sort of much like me, defer
6:07
to his judgment because they've known each other and they've
6:10
worked together and they had a good working relationship. Question
6:15
and is it do we understand correctly that as first
6:18
assistant Redacted has a brief that really encompassed the entire office? Answer?
6:24
He did, he supervised the civil, the criminal, the appellate,
6:28
and the forfeiture. Question. All right, there is here in
6:32
this email that you did not see back in the
6:34
day Exhibit nine, a pushback from redacted regarding the rush
6:38
that Redacted is in to pursue the case. And he says,
6:42
this is obviously a very significant case and Alex wants
6:45
to take his time in making sure he is comfortable
6:48
before proceeding. Can you tell us what the basis would
6:51
be for or was for that assertion by redacted? Answer? So,
6:57
I can't tell you from the recollection what the basis
6:59
is is. I can speculate that the material is being
7:02
transmitted Friday morning. He gets cut off the eleventh answer
7:07
by Acosta. Yeah, so Friday morning. It hasn't been reviewed
7:11
by anyone in the management chain, much less approved and
7:14
edited and redacted that Monday is saying, why don't I
7:18
have a decision, and so truly extenuating circumstances, typically you'd
7:25
give you know it, it'd have to go through the
7:27
management chain up to the US attorney. And so he's
7:30
pushing back saying, it's been a day or it's been
7:33
a weekend. I'm just reading between the lines here. Question
7:37
who had authority to sign off on the Epstein prosecution
7:40
to say indict answer? So as a delegated matter, redacted
7:45
had signature authority, as did as did it redacted? As
7:50
did it redacted? And obviously I did. As a practice matter,
7:53
this is something that would have gone through the chain
7:56
and that we would have then discussed. Question, but why
7:59
have level is it? Because, as redacted says, obviously a
8:03
very significant case answers So at my level, not only
8:07
because of the facts, because it's not about the facts,
8:10
but I do think that there are legal issues that
8:12
implicated policy that we were thinking through. Question and what
8:17
were the legal issues and what were the policy issues? Answer?
8:21
So the legal issues and also factual issues in terms
8:24
of the witnesses. So the legal issue, so there's an
8:27
email from redacted based on you know, the contemporaneous record
8:31
that alludes to some of this. In my experience at
8:34
the Civil Rights Division, trafficking cases involved, you know, I
8:38
can describe some some horrific cases of girls being held
8:41
against their will. You know, you add CP matters with
8:45
young women, sometimes incredibly young, that the office prosecuted. As
8:50
trafficking laws were being developed, there was a lot of
8:53
discussion about what's the difference between trafficking and solicitation, And
8:57
the discussion took place as the trafficking laws were being developed,
9:01
and so this implicated that, and it implicated what the
9:05
local and what is federal? Question? All right? So in
9:08
the first you're talking in the first category, you're talking
9:11
about the individual charges that had been that were proposed,
9:14
which included both trafficking and coercion and enticement or enticement
9:20
answer correct question, all right? And in the latter you
9:24
felt that did you to what extent did the witness victim?
9:27
Witness kind of credibility issues implicates policy answer, So I
9:32
think I said that policy and victim in that In
9:35
that there was certainly discussion between me and my management
9:39
about concerns as to how the victims would sort of
9:41
stand up in court. Question, so, what would make you
9:45
comfortable before proceeding? What would you what at the point
9:49
would have made you comfortable about proceeding? Answer? So I
9:53
think that at this point, I don't think it's what
9:55
would have or would not have made me comfortable? And
9:59
I'm speculating. I think it came in on a Friday.
10:02
Let's talk this through. Question, But you've just identified for
10:06
us issues in your mind had to be resolved. Question
10:11
all right, okay, at that point, does your recollection have
10:15
any doubt that some form of indictment or charging instrument
10:18
against Epstein was likely to become viable? Answer? So it
10:23
was a case that I thought it very important that
10:26
we do something. How that something played out, I think
10:29
had all along been a matter of discussion. Question as
10:33
something other than what the US Attorney's Office does, which
10:36
is prosecute. Answer well, no, I mean what the US
10:40
Attorney's Office does is ensure that justice is served. Question right, answer,
10:45
and in partnership with state attorneys. And sometimes that means
10:48
state attorneys take the lead. Sometimes that means that the
10:51
US Attorney's Office takes the lead. And a lot of
10:54
times we actually you know, we would share staff because
10:57
sometimes it made sense, you know, for one part or
11:00
the other to take the lead. So writ large, I
11:04
thought throughout it was a very important that something happened.
11:08
There were concerns all along. I can speculate that this
11:11
is just a reflection of those continuing concerns. Question as
11:16
expressed by you to redacted in the ordinary course, answer
11:21
as developed as a group throughout this if we go
11:24
back to what exhibit question June of two thousand and six, answer,
11:30
so Exhibit three says in that meeting, I summarized the
11:34
case in the state attorney's office handling it. I acknowledged
11:38
that we needed to do work to collect evidence establishing
11:41
a federal nexus, and I noted the time and money
11:44
that would be required for an investigation. And so as
11:47
far back as the initial meeting there is discussion about
11:50
the federal nexus and whether this is a state or
11:54
federal case. Question all right. Exhibit seven is an early
11:58
email from redacted to you early meeting. It precedes the
12:02
one we just looked at, and early in that it's
12:05
right as you're receiving the prosecution memo and you ask
12:09
him have you read the memo? And curious why you
12:13
ask redacted rather than redacted. Answer, I don't recall. I
12:17
can speculate, and I have two thoughts that I'll speculate.
12:20
One is redacted to her direct supervisor, and I might
12:24
be thinking her second line supervisor. So why is redacted
12:28
sending me this? Redacted? Have you read this? Ie? Did
12:31
you jump the chain? Secondly, I think I may have
12:34
wanted to have multiple opinions on this. It's most likely
12:37
that I had talked to redacted already because Redacted and
12:40
I talked more often. And I'm asking another person in
12:43
the management chain, Hey, what do you think let's have
12:46
multiple opinions on the table here? Question? Well, is this
12:50
the first time other than redacted that we see you
12:53
getting a recommendation? Answer? Right? Question? When Redacted says he
12:58
thinks that you should charge him, the office should charge Epstein.
13:02
He has issues with a charging strategy proposed by redacted,
13:05
but one he says, we all need to get on
13:08
the same page as to whether the statute covered the
13:10
conduct and whether the conduct is the type we should charge.
13:14
I think the answer to both is yes, although there
13:17
is some risk on some of the statutes. He proposes
13:20
that the office start with a complaint, which is not unusual,
13:23
is it? Answer? It happens yes, question all right, which
13:28
allows the defendant to be arrested and ideally detained, and
13:32
then the defendant is then highly motivated or incentivized to
13:35
work a pre indictment resolution. That's what redacted is proposing.
13:40
He also notes that it's important, in his view, to
13:43
cap them with conspiracy accounts to make a plea attractive,
13:47
and the court could give us a hard time with
13:49
that if we had to dismiss indicted accounts. All right, folks,
13:53
we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next
13:55
episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where
13:57
we left off. All of the information that goes with
14:00
this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
14:04
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
14:08
this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
14:10
off with Alex LaCosta and his interview with the OIG inspectors. Question. Okay,
14:17
the proposed indictment included one conspiracy, a conspiracy that has
14:21
a five year statutory maximum, and this notion is that
14:25
Epstein be charged with a five year conspiracy count and
14:28
take it from there. Do you know what he was
14:30
referring to when he noted that a court could give
14:33
you a hard time in dismissing indicted counts in the case. Answer, So,
14:38
as a typical matter, once there's an indictment, the pre indictment, well,
14:42
by definition, a pre indictment resolution comes off the table.
14:46
But in cases of this nature, the resolutions tend to
14:49
happen before indictment because once the indictment is done, at
14:53
least in South Florida, dismissal of charges, for example, you know,
14:57
if saying, let's think about a three seventy one with
15:00
a five year cap at rule eleven, that's something that's
15:03
out Florida judges they tend not to you know, dismissing
15:06
a number of accounts and then doing a rule eleven
15:09
is not something that judges tend to do. Question all right,
15:12
Two pieces to that. One is the issue of dismissing
15:16
substantiative accounts substantative counts. Was that a particular concern in
15:21
the case because of the nature of the conduct represented
15:24
in the substantative accounts? Answer? So, your question, you asked
15:28
a general question and then you're moving to a specific
15:33
but as a general matter, not just in this case,
15:35
but in other cases it was rare that the office
15:38
after in cases like this, after a full charge was done,
15:42
that the substantative counts were dismissed. So, for example, in
15:45
the public corruption cases that I referenced earlier at U
15:48
Palm Beach, those were all negotiated pre indictment and agreed to,
15:53
and then by the time the case was indicted, it
15:56
was all sort of set on autopilot. Questions. So typically,
16:00
in my experience, a disposition like that results in a
16:03
criminal information not an indictment. Question. Are you saying that
16:08
you would go ahead and indict then? Answer? No, What
16:11
I'm saying is that there were it was all negotiated
16:14
in advance, and then there was information and the information
16:18
would go forward, not an indictment question. All right, answer,
16:22
And so that is how a member of a high
16:24
profile case typically proceeded as opposed to indict and dismiss question.
16:30
And that's the experience of the Southern District of Florida
16:32
in general. Answer, it was in particularly in the Palm
16:36
Beach office, with other high profile cases that were there
16:40
at the time. Question, do you recall in any case
16:42
in which a judge in an indicted case refused to
16:45
dismisscounts when the government in an indictment under those circumstances. Answer.
16:51
I don't recall specific cases, but I can say that
16:54
typically in the higher profile cases, you'd negotiated with opposing
16:57
counsel presenting information, the information would have agreed to an
17:02
agreed guideline and it would proceed in that way. Question understood.
17:07
But in this case, I'm focusing on the assertion by
17:10
redacted that the court could give us a hard time,
17:13
and that's a little different from, you know, exercising discretion
17:16
to negotiate and proceed by information. So is there any
17:20
judge that was particularly concerning with regard to an unwillingness
17:25
to dismiss answer? So, first, this is twelve years ago,
17:29
and I don't recall any specific judge, but I can
17:32
sort of say that was not the practice of the office.
17:35
The practice of the office was to proceed by information
17:39
rather than indictment with dismissal. Because there is more, you
17:43
can lay out more what you negotiated. I think later
17:47
there's a letter from redacted that sort of presents the
17:51
same perspective. Question you said, in a case of this nature,
17:54
the resolution happens before indicting. What is a case of
17:58
this nature? Answer higher profile, higher profile cases. Questions So
18:04
not necessarily a sex offense case. Answer not necessarily sex offenses. No,
18:09
no higher profile cases. This was just a So I
18:13
would say it's a combination of all of the above.
18:16
And to my mind, one of the parts of this
18:18
case is the legal theories were, if not novel, there
18:21
were novel within the Southern District of Florida, at least
18:25
some of the legal theories. And well, we'll probably get
18:28
into that question. Did his wealth make it a high
18:31
profile case? Answer? Well, it was clearly in the paper,
18:35
and so that made it a high profile case. I
18:37
don't think. I don't think it was his wealth. I
18:39
think it was all of the above. This was a
18:42
matter that the state attorney had been ready to charge
18:45
that the federal government is now jumping into and saying
18:48
by its presence that the state did not do enough.
18:52
That in and of itself makes it a very high
18:55
profile case. I can't remember any other instance, certainly during
18:59
my time, when we jumped in and said, you know,
19:01
the state drop charges, and so we're going to do more.
19:05
Question as opposed to or as distinguished from when you
19:08
described a few moments ago a situation in which the
19:11
federal authorities and the state authorities kind of work together
19:14
to sort out what would be charged where, and do
19:17
it cooperatively? Answer? And that was more cooperative? I would
19:23
you know, I do recollect that, and I think the
19:25
record bears this out that this was not a particularly
19:28
cooperative relationship between US and the state attorney. If I could,
19:33
if I could return I think your question the way
19:35
you posed your question, you set a recommendation from redacted
19:39
and let me let me push back a little bit
19:41
on that, saying what are your thoughts? Have you read it?
19:44
What are your thoughts? And he says, yes, we can
19:46
talk next week. My current thoughts are it's very different.
19:50
Then we've sat down, we've discussed this. This is my
19:53
now informed position. Question understood, And I should have been clearer.
19:59
I was referring to to his recommendation that if you
20:01
were going to proceed, you should start with a complaint.
20:04
Just to be clear. Answer and I'm just saying initial
20:09
thoughts gets cut off. Question all right, So were you
20:12
aware that redacted bootleg the copy of the pro's memo
20:15
to redact it at CEOs? Answer? I was not. Question
20:19
he did at the time? Answer okay? Question and did
20:23
you know redacted? Answer a little bit. I certainly knew
20:25
of them. Had you encounter him when he was chief
20:29
of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section? Answer right? Question
20:35
in the criminal division here correct? Had you encountered them
20:38
while you were in this building? Also? Answer? Most likely?
20:41
I knew of him enough that I correspond and shose
20:44
and I recall asking to involve him pretty early on question.
20:48
So it does read as if you were acquainted with him.
20:52
Answer yeah, question all right? And did you have any
20:55
did his opinion his views as chief of CEOs and
20:58
as redacted who had been in AUSA in Miami? Did
21:02
his view's influence on your thinking about the case? Answer?
21:07
I don't think at this time I was aware that
21:09
redacted had been consulted? Answer all right? And in July,
21:13
Just so you know and I have, this is not
21:16
something you saw. He provided a fairly strong statement by
21:19
emailt or redacted and redacted, which he advises that he
21:23
reviewed the prosecution memo closely. It's terrific. He says, redacted
21:28
did a terrific job, and he says we agree with
21:30
her legal analysis her charging decisions are legally sound, and
21:34
then Redacted goes through the different statutes and concludes that
21:38
they are all properly charged and that although there are
21:41
some issues legally, that in his view we should prevail,
21:45
our position should prevail, and that he also reviewed the
21:49
arguments contained in the letters from defense counsel and he
21:52
found none of their arguments persuasive. So, at least as
21:55
of July eighteenth, your three levels of supervisors down, y're
22:00
on notice that CEOs was on board and wanted to
22:03
see the case move forward. But is it am I
22:06
correct an understanding that at the time you were unaware
22:09
of that answer? I do not recall being aware of
22:12
that question. All right, okay, if you had been aware
22:16
of it, if they had sent this, I don't want
22:19
to overstate it, but it's pretty strong endorsement for the
22:21
proposed prosecution. Would you have been influenced by that answer? Sure?
22:26
I would have. I mean I respected or redacted and
22:29
clearly wanted him to be part of the team and
22:31
later invited him down and so on. So yes, question, okay,
22:35
all right, do you know why they wouldn't have shared
22:37
your people wouldn't have shared this with you? Answer, I
22:40
don't know, question all right. So, as far as based
22:44
on the briefings that you got in this time period
22:48
when there was an effort to try to figure out
22:50
what you were going to do, were there any issues
22:53
of concern of fact or evidence or the charges that
22:56
were left unaddressed? In other words, if there were issues
22:59
about victim credibility, were steps being taken to address those? Answer?
23:04
Unaddressed is again it's a very binary. It's not about
23:09
addressed versus unaddressed. And so let me sort of come
23:12
at it if I can try to get there. There
23:15
were concerns around some legal issues. There were concerns about
23:18
how the victims would do when put on the stand.
23:21
Question right answer. As a general matter, we thought there
23:25
was enough if we had to go forward, we could,
23:27
as an ethical matter go forward. That doesn't mean that
23:30
there was not value in a pre indictment resolution. And
23:34
so here you have redacted based on this exhibit saying
23:37
we need to get on the same page as to
23:39
what the charge pre indictment resolution cap them with conspiracy
23:43
count to make up the attractive So a five year cap,
23:47
something less than five years. You have redacted in Raffid
23:50
David that was submitted to the court saying she favored
23:53
a pre indictment resolution. And so it's not a have
23:56
you addressed everything, yes or no, as opposed to putting
23:59
all of this, how do we move forward? Question? Right?
24:03
But there is a binary point here, and that is
24:05
you either indict or you don't indict. You either present
24:09
an indictment to the grand jury or you don't. Right,
24:11
that's a decision, right answer, So I would actually push
24:15
back in that many cases, it's not quite that binary.
24:19
In many cases you sit down with the opposing counsel
24:21
and say, look, we can go to a grand jury
24:24
and we can present this indictment and indict or we
24:26
can resolve this now. If we resolve this now, this
24:30
is the path that we can go forward. Alternatively, we
24:33
can go here. And so it's not an a versus
24:36
B question. I understand that nuance. But the decision to indict,
24:41
I mean you either indict or you don't. If you
24:43
don't indict, it's for any number of reasons. If under
24:47
the circumstances, the choices that are available are you have
24:51
a case that's been brought, taking it from the state,
24:54
you can decline it, send it back to the state,
24:56
make it go away. Whatever. Answer right, we're not interested.
25:01
You can indict, You can indict and go to trial.
25:04
These are the subcategories. Or you can indict and have
25:07
the defendant plead to the indictment. Or you can indict
25:10
and work a post indictment pleed deal, which raises the
25:13
issue you talked about, Or you can negotiate. Or you
25:16
can charge, proceed by complaint and do as Redactive with
25:20
suggesting work a pre indictment but post charge disposition, or
25:24
you can work a precharge disposition. Right. I mean, that's
25:27
really that's the parade of possibilities. Answer sure, that's more
25:33
than indictment or don't indict. That's six or seven options. Question.
25:37
I understand that that's how it'll play out. But the
25:40
decision as to whether to indict is binary. You're either
25:43
indicting or you're not indicting. The act of indicting is
25:47
something that either happens or doesn't happen. That's all I'm saying.
25:51
Answer sure, question. Okay, So that's what I'm getting at
25:55
with respect to the indictment. So as you're looking at
25:58
this case, it's as if you're doing sort of one
26:02
analytical track, which is what do we do with the case.
26:05
The other piece of that, and a track that could
26:07
have been followed exclusively, is what do we need to
26:11
do to get an indictment that is legally sound and evidentiary,
26:14
evidentiary solid. I'd like to focus on that track because
26:18
they're not unrelated. Answer sure question, if you never get
26:23
down do we have a viable indictment road and you're
26:27
not going to be able to do anything in the
26:29
other road. So at this point you have identified, and
26:32
you have collectively you and your people had identified some witnesses,
26:36
victim witnesses issues, and some legal issues. My question is
26:40
where steps being taken I use the term address Let
26:44
me let me clarify with respect to the witness as
26:47
the FBI and the line attorney, with the assistants perhaps
26:50
of the grand jury, taking steps to corroborate shore up
26:53
victim witness testimony, find new victims, find additional evidence, and
26:57
so on. Answer so take in that in part is helpful.
27:02
So with respect to the witness issues, I recall and
27:05
redacted goes into much more detail in heraffid David, but
27:08
I recall concerns that were communicated to me in essence
27:12
in sort of a summary. My impression of recollection of
27:15
these girls are young, they're impressionable, they're scared, will they
27:18
stand up in court? There are any number of there's
27:21
any number of things that could be used against them.
27:24
Some of them are and this is uncomfortable, but some
27:26
of them thought he actually cared for them, and that's
27:30
not a typical in these cases. They were sort of
27:33
to develop those thoughts and they're wrong, but they are
27:36
what they are and were actually saying he did nothing wrong.
27:39
And because many of them knew one another, how would
27:42
that all play out? And so it would have been
27:44
my assumption, particularly given you know how much work redacted
27:48
was doing on this case. Misredacted was doing on the case,
27:52
and she, in combination with the FBI, would be pursuing
27:55
those matters and looking to develop the evidence and corroborate
27:58
and throughout the process, it would have been my assumption
28:01
and hope that she was continuing to develop the facts,
28:04
because that can only help question. So, as US attorney,
28:08
would it indeed have been your expectation? Answer yes, question,
28:13
and the expectation that her that all those interim supervisors
28:16
would have been supporting her and encouraging her and guiding
28:19
her answer, it would have been, that's what happens in
28:22
typical cases. Question right, answer, Just because we're having a
28:26
legal discussion doesn't mean you stop pursuing leads. All right, folks,
28:29
we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode,
28:32
we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of
28:34
the information that goes with this episode can be found
28:37
in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to
28:40
another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're
28:44
gonna pick up where we left off with the OIG
28:47
interview of alex Acosta. Question. Okay, I just want to
28:53
sort of round out the little bit of this the
28:56
state the state only resolution. You use the term a
28:59
couple of times, backstopping. What do you mean by that? Answer?
29:03
What I mean by that is a sense that the
29:06
state wasn't doing enough, and perhaps backstopping is a polite
29:09
way of saying encouraging the state to do a little
29:12
bit more. Question all right, did you have any discussions
29:16
about whether this disposition comported with the Ashcroft memo in
29:21
that you were hunting to the state for a minor charge,
29:24
for a fairly minor charge, what your office had already
29:27
understood from the evidence was a quite wide ranging scheme
29:31
of predatory my term behavior regarding minor victims. Answer, so,
29:36
I don't recall a discussion around the Ashcroft memo. I
29:40
would characterize that we did differently in that there are
29:43
any number of instances where the federal government or the
29:46
state government can proceed and state charges are substantially less
29:50
and different, and on a fairly regular basis, the federal
29:53
government allows the state, not allows, but stands aside and
29:57
lets the state proceed. But in this case, you actually
30:01
had an active investigation that had been proceeding for a year. Answer. So,
30:06
let's take a drug context, where there might be any
30:09
number of active investigations where the federal charges can be
30:13
rather substantial, but ultimately the federal government says, just let
30:17
the state proceed with this, or violent crime cases where
30:20
the federal government could bring gun charges using a felon
30:23
in possession or another mandatory minimum, but the state goes
30:27
forward with So in that sense he gets cut off question,
30:31
but the state goes forward with what answer forward with
30:34
different charges that have a lesser term. And so I
30:38
don't think it's unusual we can talk about, you know,
30:41
whether this was the best disposition or not. But I
30:44
don't think it's unusual to have a fact pattern that
30:47
are under investigation that proceed in state court, where the
30:51
disposition is different then and would have been if it
30:54
had proceeded in federal court. Question, all right, do you
30:58
have anything on that redacted on the two years or
31:02
something else redacted? No, I'm going back the two years redacted? Okay?
31:07
Question did you think did you believe at the time
31:10
if this was part of your thinking that because it
31:13
was so important to get sex offender registration and even
31:16
later developed damages monetary damages for the victims under the
31:20
state plea arrangement, that pretty much the only thing that
31:24
the government had the federal government had to give in
31:27
the negotiation was jail time. If you wanted three things
31:31
you've said, jail time, sex offender status, and some kind
31:35
of restitution or damages or mechanisms sex offender registration. There's
31:41
really no give there. You either register or you don't.
31:44
I'm being binary again. I'm sorry, it's binary. And likewise
31:49
the monetary recovery provision. So really the only thing to
31:52
negotiate is time, right answer, And so your question is
31:57
why did we not start at three, so we ended
31:59
up at two. Question, Well, that's a consequence of what
32:04
I was asking. Answer, So again my recollection is I
32:07
understood this to reflect what he would have received, as
32:11
opposed to some arbitrary let's start at three, so we
32:14
end up at two. I'm sorry, do you have a question? Question? No,
32:18
go ahead? Answer? You know. I also from my perspective, was,
32:23
you know, early on when we said firm on the
32:26
two years, I thought two years would have been the
32:28
right outcome. We ended up on eighteen months. I can't
32:31
say how. There are some documents that might help, but
32:35
I was least initially firm on those two years. Question right,
32:40
when you say I thought the two years was the
32:42
right amount, is that based on your understanding that that's
32:45
what he would have gotten in the state? Answer? Correct.
32:49
And the point I'm trying to convey there is that
32:52
this wasn't, to my understanding, a random number, but it
32:55
was informed by this is what he would have received,
32:58
and therefore it's reasonable agree or disagree with the analysis.
33:02
But it was an inform number to begin with. Question,
33:06
but don't you recall how the analysis was done or
33:09
conducted or that analysis? Answer? I don't recall that question
33:14
or even whether it was accurate. Actually, answer again, I
33:17
don't recall that question, and I understand that explanation. Answer right,
33:24
question what it's tied to. But was there any consideration
33:28
because this case was not about one or two victims.
33:31
It was a very large scheme by this older, wealthy
33:34
man to essentially turn miners into prostitutes, have sex with
33:37
them or all sex, get other people involved. You've described
33:41
it in prior statements as grotesque and deserving a punishment.
33:44
What I'm not hearing through this process is anybody taking
33:47
a look at this overall conduct and saying, what is
33:50
the appropriate punishment for this man's conduct? Was there such
33:53
a consideration and did you feel that two years adequately
33:57
punished him for the scope of his conduct? Answer a
34:00
fair question, and perhaps going back to where we started,
34:03
which is petit. To my mind, at the time, there
34:06
was a distinction between what would be the adequate punishment
34:09
if this was a purely federal case versus what is
34:13
necessary so that it's not, to put it in petit language,
34:16
a manifest injustice, so that it would have had to
34:20
come to the office in the first place, And that
34:24
I think is the important distinction. Because if the two
34:26
years is what he would have received, and therefore it
34:30
would not have come into the office under Petit, then
34:33
if there is a state disposition to that, that is
34:35
one possible outcome. It would be a different outcome if
34:39
this was truly a federal prosecution independent of the state,
34:42
which goes back to the point I was making about
34:45
concern about a federal precedent with this kind of sentence,
34:48
because then when the next person comes along, they say, well,
34:52
here is this precedent under three seventy one or whatnot.
34:56
And so this was rightly or wrongly, And I understand
34:59
the pushback an analysis that distinguished between what is necessary
35:03
to prevent manifest injustice versus what is the appropriate federal
35:08
outcome to that. Agree or disagree with that logic is
35:11
one thing, But did I explain the logic question? You've
35:15
explained the logic question. And I'm going to push back
35:19
a little bit on that, because the Petite policy specifically
35:22
says it does not apply where the state conduct is
35:25
only a minor part, an insignificant part of the entire
35:28
course of conduct, And they give examples about where you
35:32
have some type of rico scheme and the state has
35:34
indicted or convicted the perpetrator based on something that could
35:38
be one single overt act in the government conspiracy. And
35:42
doesn't that really show what is going on here that
35:46
what the state had done was really just a small,
35:49
minor part of the scheme, that the federal government had
35:52
a real opportunity to punish them for this entire course
35:55
of conduct. Answers. So possibly, But if I can circle
35:59
back to your question previously, it's interesting that you characterize
36:03
this as he's turning these girls into prostitutes. And then
36:07
I think that's really interesting because in twenty nineteen, thirteen
36:11
years afterward, despite all the changes in the law, there
36:14
is still some element somewhere that says he's turning these
36:17
girls into prostitutes. Whereas this was a typical trafficking case
36:21
of the kind that you'd see in the lew Debacca days,
36:24
where you know, I was called modern day slavery. That's
36:27
a very different fact pattern. So you know, a girl
36:30
who's held captive is forced to serve multiple men per day,
36:34
where this part of an ongoing business arrangement. And so
36:37
I hear what you're saying. But if they're at this table,
36:41
at least some element of that characterization is live, what
36:45
would it mean in two thousand and six when these
36:48
laws are still being developed? And that consideration rightly or
36:51
wrongly was part of this analysis. Question was it explicitly?
36:56
In other words, was that aspect of it the perception
37:00
that this case was perhaps activity that in which the
37:03
victims cooperated? Was that part he gets interrupted here by
37:09
a costa? No, No, let me let me distinguish. I
37:11
didn't say the perception that this was activities in which
37:15
the victims cooperated. What I was going to, what I've
37:19
gone to before, is would jurors Is there at least
37:22
one juror that might say, Look, we've got conflicting victim testimony.
37:26
Some of them said he did nothing wrong. They all
37:29
knew each other, They kept going back and taking payment.
37:32
Is this trafficking or is this prostitution. I'm not saying
37:35
I agree with that, and I don't think that prosecutors do.
37:39
I'm saying, is there is there at least the possibility
37:42
of that question? Was that articulated to you by the
37:45
people who were listening to by redacted and redacted and
37:48
redacted answer, So that certainly was part of the discussion.
37:53
When I talk about the victim issues, would at least
37:55
some jurors view it that way rightly or wrongly? Question?
37:59
And you were call having those conversations. Answer, I recall
38:03
having not only how would the witness stand up in court,
38:07
but how would jurors view them? And then the second
38:09
part of that is as it goes up in the
38:12
appellate process with respect to the federal nexus and so
38:16
I hear you, but you know it's the sort of
38:19
one of the factors, and so yeah, question. What I'm
38:24
getting at, though, is that there doesn't seem like there
38:28
was consideration or a discussion about is this two years
38:32
capturing the scope of his conduct versus we're just going
38:35
to tie it to this potential state crime that could
38:37
have been charged. Answer affair, and I would say that
38:41
the two years was not meant. So the petit policy
38:44
has several prongs. And to my recollection, the petita analysis
38:48
was not based on and let's not even call it
38:50
petita analysis. That overstates it. But it was much more
38:54
of a is this a manifest injustice? And if the
38:57
original and so you sort of see it in an
38:59
exhibit three, this would not have been brought to the
39:02
office in the first place. If you know if he
39:05
had pled to jail time and registration, and rightly or wrongly,
39:09
that was understood from the beginning of the case and
39:12
was a factor in how the case was viewed. Question
39:16
And how do you know that it wouldn't have that
39:18
it wouldn't have been upset with a minimal jail time
39:22
even if there was sex registration. Answer. So I can't,
39:26
twelve years later say how we knew that. I can't
39:29
say that. My general impression was that this was proceeding
39:33
at the state, that there were certain charges, and that
39:35
those charges changed when it went to the grand jury,
39:39
and that it went from I think they even changed
39:42
the ASA involved. Question they did. Answer. I can't speak
39:48
for certain, but you probably have that from the record,
39:52
and that when they changed the ASA involved and took
39:55
it to the grand jury, the charges that came back
39:58
were substantially less. Question do you remember the circumstances? Did
40:03
you know the circumstances under which that ASA was changed? Answer?
40:07
I don't know. Question all right. By the way, do
40:10
you remember an occasion in which redacted came to your
40:12
office in Miami to oppress you on what was going
40:15
to be happening with the federal case. Answer, I don't
40:18
recall question. You don't recall answer, I don't recall question.
40:24
So before we leave this one little thing, So, if
40:27
this case had come into the federal system as a
40:30
part from the taken the digression through the state system,
40:35
do you think that the two years was an appropriate
40:37
punishment given the scope of his conduct? Answer? I think
40:41
that if it had come into the federal system apart
40:43
from the whole state and the petique consideration and all
40:46
of that, we may have ended up in a different place.
40:49
I viewed the two years, to my recollection, as a
40:52
manifest injustice standard and not an appropriate punishment standard. Question
40:58
meaning whether it was manifestly unjust that he got two years?
41:01
Answer no, whether it was so let me let me rephrase, no,
41:05
jail time was a manifest injustice if he had gone
41:08
to jail for two years in the state system and
41:11
registered the question of whether it would have come to
41:14
the office at all, and to my recollection, the consensus
41:17
was and redacted based on Exhibit three, agrees with that
41:22
that it would have never come to the office in
41:24
the first place, because we would not view that under
41:27
petite as a manifest injustice. There are any number of
41:31
cases that are prosecuted around the country where an individual
41:34
gets a jail time that the federal government may not
41:37
agree with, but that doesn't mean the federal government reprosecutes
41:40
those cases. The instances where the federal government reprosecutes the
41:45
state case are pretty rare to my knowledge, and so
41:48
under the petite standard, the manifest injustice, it would have
41:52
been a manifest injustice to have zero jail time and
41:55
zero registration. But if the original charges had remained, that
41:59
would have been different. Matter. That does not mean that
42:02
this is the best outcome in the state system, and
42:05
so perhaps beating a you know, an issue. But let
42:08
me maybe give an example. One concern that I had
42:11
was that in the violent crime side, the state brings
42:14
a case the you know, there is a deferment, no
42:17
jail time. The state when it brings a second case
42:20
and there's minimal jail time, well, now the person has
42:23
done three violent crimes, they have a gun. They go
42:26
to federal and it's like, please don't do that, pretty
42:28
please don't do that. You know, we're going to punish
42:31
you a little bit. And then all of a sudden
42:33
incomes the federal government with the big, big punch to
42:36
the face because the federal sentences are so different than
42:39
the state sentences, and that happens all the time and
42:43
any number of context in Florida. That doesn't mean that
42:45
all those cases get reprosecuted as gun cases in Florida.
42:50
That means that we understand that Florida system is very
42:53
different than the federal system. And so the way we
42:56
looked at it, at least based on my recollection those
42:59
two years, was not what we would have received if
43:02
this was a purely federal case. But would this case
43:05
have been prosecuted by the federal system additionally if he
43:08
had received jail time and registration in the state system? Question,
43:14
is it fair to say that this particular concern about,
43:17
for lack of a better word, federalism or the petit
43:20
policy was a primary concern of yours versus any of
43:24
your employers in terms of redacted or redacted answer, I
43:29
think it's fair to say that I focused more on
43:30
the legal side of things, and my team focused more
43:33
on the trial and how this would play out at trial,
43:36
and both of them, both of them sort of informed
43:39
the outcome. Question And are you including this petite policy
43:43
and your consideration of the legal issue answer. Yes, yeah,
43:47
I think that they're all tied together. All right, folks,
43:50
we're going to wrap up right here, and in the
43:52
next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up
43:54
where we left off. All of the information that goes
43:58
with this episode can be found in the description box.