Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 10-12) (3/13/26)

President Barack Obama. Virginia, we are counting on you. Republicans want to steal enough seats in

Congress to raid the next election and wield unchecked power for two more years. But you can stop

them by voting yes by April 21st. Help put our elections back on a level playing field and let

voters decide not politicians. Vote yes by April 21st. Paid for by Virginians for fair elections.

You ain't heard about Moto Casino. Moto has real Vegas slides. Any game you can find on the

floor in Vegas you can play it on Moto. I like my slides hot. Moto's free to play like food stamps

in line at the grocery store at a funeral in traffic. Keep rise on the road. Hop on Moto Casino.

Moto Casino got jackpot to the bigger than my belly. Moto America's hottest free to play social

casino. Download the Moto Casino app today. Moto Casinos is social casino. What were prohibited

to purchase this story? Visit Moto.US for more details.

What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode

we're going to dive right back in to the Alex Acosta interview with the OIG inspectors.

Question, okay the victim you mentioned the victims coming into state court and you talked

about all the victims coming into state court. Do you have any idea what victims formed the basis

for the original charge that he was indicted on? Do you know whether it was one? Was it a felony

assault of a non-minor? Answer, uh-huh, question. It could have been. It was three instances to

felonize it. You don't know whether it was one person three times or three people. Answer,

I do not question and you don't know whether that person was a minor or not. Answer, I do not.

Question, all right. Answer, I would assume they were, but I do not. Question likewise,

do you know who was the victim or who the victims were? Who formed the basis for the 796.03 charge

to which Epstein ultimately pled in June of 2008? Answer, I did not at the time. I've read various

accounts of that, but that's based on matters that I've read and not an independent recollection.

Question, and what's your understanding? Answer, my understanding is that there is some,

that there is at least some issue in the media over whether the right or the best victims were

chosen from the prosecution's perspective. Question, and do you know, was there any indication

of who the victims were? Do you know who the victims were? Who were the subject of the state

charges? Answer, which particular names? No, I do not. Question, right. I'm not asking you other

than names. I just want to know if you know who they are or how many there were. Answer, I do not.

Question, right. It could be one right for this for the solicitation. It could be one conceivably.

Both the charges could relate to one victim. Answer, right. So those matters were very much a part

of the negotiation that redacted and to some extent, Andy were involved in.

Question, what makes you think that your people were negotiating which victims would form

the basis? Answer, fair point. Fair point. Answer, fair point. I withdraw. They may not have.

I don't know. I don't know how in the weeds and how much our folks as a federal system sort of

interacted with the state in terms of what punishment? There is at least some discussion in the media

regarding whether the punishment was a function of the victims and registration, and I can't speak

to that. Question, all right. Are you aware just as a point of interest that the public record of

the proceeding in the state court related to Epstein or utterly silent as to who or how many

victims form the basis of the charges to which he played? Answer, no, I was not aware. Question,

okay. So this idea of many victims coming forth in state court and so on or not is not it's not

really in play. All right. So you have a two year two years has been a two year state deal has

been announced by the team. Answer, yeah. Question with your knowledge and approval, right?

Because he wouldn't do it otherwise. Is that right? Answer, fair question, though at least one

was surprised. Do you know what drove the timing of the plea offer? In other words, why did it have

to be made at that point? Answer, I do not question. Okay, you know that redacted submitted his

resignation on the 23rd of July. Answer, I saw that in the documents question in the documents

and he submitted that to you among others. Answer, yeah. Question HR people. Well, when there was a

July 31st meeting at which the term sheet was presented, this document 15 is the term sheet

that was presented. As redacted indicated in her September 6 cover note. And you said you

approved it. You happen to be copied and forwarded this. Answer, let me, let me be accurate.

I approve these terms, whether it was this specific term sheet or another, another document that

might have been earlier that looked highly similar to this. My recollection is approving, you know,

approving a resolution that had him pleading to certain state counts that had a binding to your

plus recommendation. And that provided for 22.55 restitution. Question, but you don't know if it

was this sheet of paper. Answer, I can't say 12 years after the fact whether it was a specific

sheet or others. I based on the fact that this was in in the email, I think it's safe to assume,

to assume that it was this, but it's possible that there was a slight difference. Question,

alright, in fact, this is the same document with a couple of additional bullets that had to do

with the date of the entry of the plea is what was prepared by a redacted honor about the 31st

on or before the 31st of July. And this document has indicated here, along with the attached

guidelines, calculation is what was provided to the folks who met on the 31st of July.

So on the 31st of July, it was redacted, left court, redacted Sanchez, and the purpose of the

meeting with Sloan, mental, Laurie, and redacted as well, as the case agents, was to present the

plea offer. And did you get briefed on how that plea offer went? Answer, I don't recall being

briefed, but in the regular course I would have been. Question, alright, and at that meeting,

there was an expression of concern by the defense team that Epstein wanted to avoid being incarcerated

in the state system because of concerns for his physical safety. And that concern was accommodated

to the extent that the U.S. Attorney's Office team agreed to explore federal resolution. How does

that square with your decision that a state plea is how this case was going to be decided? Answer,

so I think that I indicated later that it's a little bit more fluid than a decision here or a

decision, you know, than binary situations. My recollection is we were very focused on this

man should go to jail and this man should register. The two-year plea to the state charges seem

reasonable and seemed a way to go. We can't agree or disagree, reasonable in terms, not in terms of

what the most just outcome, but seem like a disposition that we would agree to. But ultimately,

the focus was on getting him to jail and if that meant exploring a 371, it's at least worth

exploring. And so I don't think that it was inconsistent because the focus really was on,

he needs to go to jail. Question, okay, in this case, the pushback resulted in the agreement to

explore a federal plea was because Epstein was afraid to be in prison. Why would the U.S. Attorney's

Office accommodate that? And here we're getting to, we're beginning to talk about, a major point

of criticism of the whole process and the outcome, and that is that it appeared that the U.S. Attorney's

Office was bending over backward to accommodate the concerns of Jeffrey Epstein. And in this case,

he was uncomfortable going to federal or state prison, but all child-sex predators who go to prison

are going to face some challenges, right? Answer, right. And I remember along the way, a heavy push

that he'd be incarcerated at his home under some kind of home confinement. And my reaction to that

was no way. Question, right? Answer. And okay, and you don't like prison, but that doesn't mean

you get to be incarcerated at your house, which is interesting because subsequently. And so

he gets cut off. Question because subsequently, what? You might as well finish. Answer well

because subsequently, the way that the state executed the terms of incarceration were not what I would

have expected. And so again, the focus from my perspective is he needs to go to jail.

If the team agreed to explore it, you know, the 371 was on the table to the extent he had been

I'm speculating now. This is not to make the record clear. Question, okay, thank you. Answer,

I'm speculating not recalling. I can speculate a 371 with the two-year rule 11 had been discussed

based on the contemporaneous record. And so to the extent it had already been discussed,

even if it was not the direction we were taking, would it have been unusual for folks in the room

to say, well, look, we discussed that. Let's go back. You know, let's see where it goes.

I can't fault to the extent it had been discussed. I can't fault anyone for saying let's go back

and look at it. I think that's distinguishable. At least from subsequent, he gets cut off.

Question, all right. At that point, the defense was given two weeks to take it or leave it.

And if not, you would indict. And there were several occasions when that kind of

ultimatum was made. Did that mean given all your concerns about barriers to what you would

consider a successful federal prosecution? Was that a bluff? Answer, no. Question, it was not.

Answer, it was not. Question, you were at some level, at least prepared to approve the

presentation of the presentment of the indictment answer. We should not have gone forward with these

negotiations. If we weren't ready to question, all right, answer to approve, whether in this form

or a different form and indictment. And I say that because it was very much a draft indictment

that hadn't been reviewed fully by the chain, but it wasn't a bluff. Well, by the time it had been

reviewed, it had there had there been some efforts to begin revising. Answer, yeah, question,

it wasn't finalized. Answer, yeah, some efforts to begin question exactly. Okay, looking at 11 AM,

this is a letter that redacted drafted the sort of actually respond to a counteroffer by the

defense. The counteroffer is presented in exhibit 10b, which is a letter from redacted Sanchez,

which we don't need to go into into detail, because as you've already pointed out essentially,

it was home confinement. And you know, very soft, very soft, landing counteroffer. In 11 AM,

redacted, tweaks redacted letter, you're copied on this and the date is August 2nd, Thursday,

and he notes that he hadn't discussed it in detail with you, but he wanted to, and he hope

that tomorrow, Friday the 3rd, he'd have a chance to. And what's notable here is that there are

strong language that the office believes that the federal interest would not be vindicated in the

absence of a two-year term of state imprisonment for Mr. Epstein. That offer was not meant

as a starting point for negotiation. It was the minimum term of imprisonment that will

obviate the need for federal prosecution. Answer your on paragraph 2. Question 1.

Welcome to Motocasino, where the excitement never ends. With thousands of the hottest

free-to-play social casino games, fastest payouts, and the best promotions in the industry.

No tricks or gimmicks owned and operated in the USA. Motocasino is a free-to-play social

casino. No purchase necessary 21 plus to playboy prohibitive. Sign up today for a generous welcome

bonus.

Download the Motocasino app today. President Barack Obama. Virginia, we are counting on you.

Republicans want to steal enough seats in Congress to raid the next election and wield unchecked

power for two more years. But you can stop them by voting yes by April 21st. Help put our elections

back on a level playing field and let voters decide not politicians. Vote yes by April 21st.

for mobility, make it the best hoodie ever. And a double-lined hood and reinforced elbow patches

means this hoodie will last. Born from a commitment to support the communities that create its

products, every American giant piece is made in America and designed to last. No exceptions.

The result is durable clothing like the premium Slub Crew T, no BS high-rise pant,

and slim rough neck pant that become part of your life. Snag the hoodie that will bring you

comfort for life. The American giant classic fool zip and save 20% off your first order at american-giant.com

when you use code staple 20 at checkout. That's American-giant.com code staple 20.

Question it's the first long paragraph. And then he also states that you in the last paragraph

the US Attorney, US Attorney Acosta has asked me to communicate that the two-year term of incarceration

is non-negotiable answer yes question that's pretty firm that's a line in concrete that is

setting right answer right question and 11b is the letter as it actually went out the next day answer

and it's got the same language question it's identical it has the same language it has one

typo corrected this is redacted the last day in the office answer yes question and he's got after

that do you think that this was and or the appropriate timing to extend this offer or to set this

as the minimum offer or was it something that you would have liked to have seen more fully developed

in negotiations with defense counsel answer I'm sorry I don't understand your question when you say

more fully developed question well you have two years would further consideration have led the US

attorney's office to decide that well maybe the two years is too much of a giveaway we should stick

with a five year federal plan answer yeah so I can't speculate this far after the fact whether

waiting an additional time period and further discussion would have changed things I can tell you how

we came up with it that's a lot of speculation question would you say that redacted was as the

criminal chief was essentially the driver of the resolution presented in this letter answer I

can't again you're asking me to speak on something from 12 years ago I can't speak to it I was

aware of multiple prongs I approved it if we had you know if at some point if your question is if

at some point there had been a let sit down and reconsider meeting would we have gone in a different

direction perhaps but I can't 12 years after the facts speculate as to what may have happened

if something had happened question all right answer that's just a lot of hypotheticals question

understood the question though is whether Matt mental who was the author of this who first raised it

with Lily Sanchez in an informal discussion and who presented it to the US attorney's office team

was this really is baby answer I can he gets cut off question approved by you answer I can't I don't

remember who I talked to about what and so it wouldn't be fair for me you know I can't single out

any one person as having a greater or lesser role question well you were not the architect of this

right you approved it as you've described it answer no I haven't said I wasn't the architect what

I said is I don't recall answer I recall approving it yeah you know I think what I'm trying to convey

is these discussions are a bit more fluid than I think any one single architect you've got multiple

lawyers they interact on a daily basis they talk back and forth to sort of put it in an OPR context

there is probably not going to be a single author of the report you're all going to go back and

forth and there might be someone that maybe there is a single author who knows but I think it's

difficult to say that there's a single person and ultimately I was US attorney so I approved it

question to your knowledge did anyone in the chain of that five person chain or anyone else

disagree with that offer answer to my knowledge I think redacted at some time may have felt

uncomfortable but whether there was explicit disagreement or not I don't recall in terms of my

management chain I don't recall any disagreement question that you were aware of answer that I was

aware of I recall discussions so for example redacted might say I might proceed with a 371 with a

two year cap under rule 11 but then we move in this other direction and I don't recall anyone saying

let's take a time out let's reconsider question all right answer and let me just clarify I think

at various points in the case and it's hard it's hard to sort of single out the timeline Mr.

redacted was supportive or maybe I wish we'd go in a different direction and that sort of went

in and out a little bit question on her part answer yes all right folks we're going to wrap up

right here and in the next episode we're going to pick up where we left off all of the information

that goes with this episode can be found in the description box what's up everyone and welcome

to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles in this episode we're going to pick up where we left

off with Alex the Costa's interview with the OIG inspectors question let me ask you this

haven't reached the decision that you approved that this was the offer and the term sheet or the

terms having that decision made would you have expected the line USA to frustrate that or to not

abide by that since it was your decision answer no with a caveat that if at any point someone

felt truly uncomfortable I would expect them to come and talk to me about it question and can

you recall any instance in which an a USA align a USA came and talked to you about a disposition

that he or she was uncomfortable with answer yes so I'll give you an example I don't recall who

before you ask me but there was this a USA who was new to the office who impressed the hell out of

me I'm sorry that's not the appropriate language who impressed me significantly he had inherited a

case and it was a fraud case and the bigger players had been charged and he was basically given

a lesser player to basically just finish up on right it was a done deal the person was ready to

plead to some minor account no gel time and he felt comfortable with it and went to a supervisor

and then ultimately came up to me and I had a discussion with this person about it and it ended up

with my telling them to go back and call the defense council and tell them we were dropping the case

which for a new a USA in the office is pretty gutsy and unusual but if this person really felt that

this lesser player wasn't deserving then that was the right thing to do and so I don't think that

the person was not punished for it if anything you know I recounted that story to others

question okay a question shifting gears a little bit about us code 18 22.55

answer yes okay question not to be confused with 28 us code section 2255 which every prosecutor

is familiar with so whose idea was that it's a civil provision a civil it's not restitution

it's damages it's damages recovery provision in the criminal code answer right question

who came up with that answer I can't speak to who came up with that question okay answer I can

speak to the reasoning behind it question your reasoning or the proponents reasoning answer

my recollection of the reasoning as to why we thought it was important question and the importance

was to provide a mechanism for recovery of damages answer yeah I mean the victims bad situation

and we and here is well go on question all right answer I might circle back on something question

so is it fair to say that's a fairly had ever heard of it before had you come across it before

answer I don't know but I don't think so question okay so is it fair to say it was novel to the

office to you and to the team answer I don't think it's fair to say that it's novel to the office

question well do you recall whether anybody in the team had experience with US code 18 section

22.55 in a criminal case answer I don't have a recollection of any discussion as to whether people

had experience with this or not question did you believe that any legal research was needed

or should be undertaken to ensure that the procedure was in fact legally sound when embedded

as it was in this case in a criminal plea answer so I would have expected to the extent that

there were concerns again we had an incredibly experienced between the various individuals on my

management team we probably had 50 years plus of criminal experience I would have expected to

the extent of their concern for those concerns to be raised question did you raise any such

concerns about it or did it seem to make sense to you answer from my perspective I don't know if

it was at the time or subsequent to it reading it and it seemed it seemed to make sense question

okay after it acted as letter went out on the 3rd of august you almost immediately it appears

you received a telephone call from Kirkland and Ellis is that correct answer I don't recall

it independently but that's what the record shows question alright and that's reflected in exhibit 12

do you remember who called you answer I do not question do you recall it apparently was from the

context of this exhibit 12 and caption Epstein question it appears that the call is related to

correct answer correct again I don't remember the phone call but from the email I accept that it

happened question so what had been your knowledge and relationship with Ken star of Kirkland Ellis

up to this point answer so I had been an associate at Kirkland I think I indicated that it was from

94 to 90 what was it was a 96 or 97 question couple of years answer for a couple of years I worked

on at least one case that I recall with them I was the junior associate on merits brief that he

argued he at the time was also special counsel and so he wasn't in the office nearly as much because

he was double hitting as special counsel and partner question alright and what about redacted answer

so redacted was a partner at the time I don't recall working with them on any particular case

although I think I work with them on at least a matter he was on my hallway he had an outside

office I had the typical inside office answer had you had any interaction any contact with them

in the intervening years socially or professionally answer off and on I was in Washington you know

Ken star was in Washington I think redacted had moved to New York but then came back to

Washington to be in the administration and he was in the policy office and we may have not have

may have we likely interacted question and while you were here at the criminal at civil rights

division answer correct question alright were you friends were you professional acquaintances

were you what how would you characterize that answer we were professional acquaintance that had

worked together several years ago that continued to interact question is that true as to the two

of them answer I mean it's hard to characterize these things I think it's fair to say question

did Ken star know who you were answer yes question and obviously redacted as well answer yes question

okay so what was your reaction to being contacted by them by their firm them presumably one of them

perhaps answer so I don't know who called based on the email I can infer that it was one of them

question mm-hmm answer and you know I think my reaction is captured by not the email but

by Jeff's comment I don't have a clear recollection but I'm going to speculate and

fur that I heard they were being brought onto the case and I probably walk down to Jeff's office

and said hey Kirkland is coming onto the case I bet you I bet they're going to come on to try and

take this thing to DC and then I get a phone call and you know I tell Matt who tells Jeff and you

know I didn't know maybe Kirkland made a call to you're right unbelievable and then I say they're

likely to go to DC we should strategize a bit my concerns behind that are we'll DC look at this

as sort of a legally troubled going back to the earlier points that I made about the policy

issues around the trafficking issues up here in DC and I really do think he should go to jail

and so I want to strategize a bit question so did you have a concern about the fact that you

that the defense team was sort of appealing you to the big house answer I think based on this

I almost predicted that it would happen you ain't heard about moto casino moto has real Vegas slides

any game you can find on the floor in Vegas you can play it on moto I like my slides hot

motos free to play like food stamps in line at the grocery store at a funeral in traffic keep

on moto casino moto casino got jackpants are the bigger than my bed moto america's hottest free

to play social casino download the moto casino app today moto casinos the social casino what we're

prohibited to purchase this is moto dock us for more days

this is bired winthrop founder of american giant I started this company because I was fed up with

cheap clothes that didn't last and companies that shipped manufacturing overseas we believed we

could still make incredible clothing right here in the u.s with american cotton and american

workers earning real wages that's what we stand for making clothes that actually last get 20% off

your first order when you use code giant 20 at american dash giant dot com craving the coffee

flavor you love but without the caffeine kachavas got you covered with their newest coffee flavor

this all-in-one nutrition shake delivers bold authentic flavor crafted from premium decaffeinated

Brazilian beans quality nutrition shouldn't be complicated just two scoops of kachavas all-in-one

nutrition shake and you've got 25 grams of protein six grams of fiber greens and so much more whether

you're craving that coffee taste to kickstart your morning ritual or as a nutrient packed reward

to round out your afternoon kachava keeps you fueled and satisfied wherever your day takes you

plus it actually tastes delicious no fillers no nonsense just the good stuff your body craves

and for the times you feel like switching it up you've got seven flavors to choose from all

with the highest quality ingredients treat yourself to the flavor and nutrition your body craves

go to kachava dot com and use code news new customers get 15% off their first order that's kac

h a v a dot com code news and jeff is saying you were right unbelievable where i in some way

shape or form predicted that something would someone would be hired or something would happen

to take this all up to dc question and had you had experience with other cases other instances

in which defense team went to dc while you were at the u.s attorney's office while you were

the u.s attorney answer yes question was that a concern to you answer it wasn't a concern

it was how do we address this so that we can back our position and our office question did you

have concerns about the disposition that was underway about main justice scrutiny of the npa scheme

answer so i had no concerns about main justice scrutiny of the npa scheme in fact i invited

drew to come down and he was part of the meeting where we discussed the npa and so i say that

because if i had concerns i wouldn't have invited him if anything my concern was is main justice

on board or are we going to basically be told to drop this case when it goes up to main justice

question in your email to redacted when slum is on vacation you say that you make reference

to a process fell that the attorneys in the defense team want to go to dc on the case on the grounds

of a process fell that i have not met with them and you expressed concern that it would delay

matters is that what led you to agree to meet with the defense team on the 7th of september

answer it is my concern was if they came up to dc and the first talking about was the u.c.

u.s attorney didn't even agree to meet with us that's not the best foot to start with when

you're having your case reviewed question so what was your understanding of what the purpose

of the meeting on september 7th was supposed to be answer they wanted to argue they being defense

counsel wanted to argue why we should not pursue the case question and in this case it was star

and left quits from Kirkland Ellis and the lian sanchez i believe who met with you answer fair

i remember it was star and left quits i don't know if it was lian question all right and our

information is it was you drew austrabon sloman redacted and john mcmillan

do you know john mcmillan answer vaguely question all right he was an a us a as well answer right

question correct and was pond beach answer right and if i could just add again

i invited drew so drew became fully aware of that and my concern in getting drew into the meeting

was to not have them appeal us and then having drew say not a good case question all right so

were you aware that drew austrabon had an preparation for this gone to west pond beach

and actually gone through the evidence and met with the case agent and the line a us a answer i

was not drew is an independent actor and could do yeah what he thought was appropriate question

does that seem like an appropriate thing for him to have done in your eyes answer sure question

okay would you describe the meeting oh and to other people who were there again a sack val parlov

and junior rt's the ssa so the meeting i think was in west pond beach answer yes question

so what do you recall about the meeting the dynamics who spoke had it go down answer i recall

there was a lot of people i think mr star spoke most of the time my recollection as best as i

can you know with the caveat i thought redacted was there and clearly wasn't so presented several

arguments i then either left the room with my team or i think i most likely asked them to leave the

room i then went around to gets interrupted asked who to leave the room the defense i then went

around the table i said does anyone have any concerns or something to that effect and then hearing

i asked them to come back in and i reaffirmed the position of the office question in other words

you sort of decided you ruled from the bench as it were fair enough answer fair enough question

okay you didn't take under advisement you gave them what your position was right then in there

answer that's my recollection i don't know if you have information country question okay answer

that's my recollection question okay so is it fair to say it was more of a presentation on the

part again star and decide rather than a debate or a discussion answer i think that's fair to say

i may have asked a question or two but my recollection was not a negotiation but let's hear you out

question and so we understand it was mainly a federalism presentation as opposed to evidence

is this accurate answer i believe that's accurate yes question and in your letter to

can start dated the letter is actually not dated but we know that it was sent on the 4th of

December of 2007 and it's in this package you noted which exhibit mr. Gonzalez s 34 question

thank you exhibit 34 you note on page four i'm sorry page five you refer to a federalism argument

and you say that after considering the arguments and conferring with the FBI and drew

austrabon you decided to proceed with the indictment but that would delay presentation of the

indictment to allow the defense to appeal to dc does that mean that you didn't find federalism

arguments sufficiently persuasive to you to change your position answer yes with the position

defined as some concern but if we need to if we don't come to a resolution based on the sheet

then we indict all right folks we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode

dealing with the topic we're going to pick up where we left off all of the information that goes

with this episode can be found in the description box what's up everyone and welcome to another

episode of the Epstein Chronicles in this episode we're going to dive right back in to the

Alex Acosta interview with the olig inspectors question i'm sorry when you say some concern some

concern about the federalism argument answer yeah going back to what we talked about with respect

to the earlier conversation about solicitation versus trafficking and the federal nexus but back in

july we had decided that we would be going forward and that either there is this pre indictment

resolution or we go forward with an indictment the September meeting did not alter or shift our

position question even though you had some federalism concerns of your own they didn't

rise to a sufficiently high level answer so their request was to drop the matter and going back

again understood there is a legal risk there is witness risk all of these if we can get a pre

indictment resolution good if not the indictment was not a bluff it was real question so i mean

can stars of course well known answer right question he was listed in general you know etc etc

did you find his arguments well set forth impressive answer so you're asking for something that's

12 years old if i had to characterize by the time this meeting took place there had been a fair

amount of thought around these there had been a fair amount and at least i felt comfortable that while

there was some legal risk we needed you've got a balanced legal risk and the precedent risk

outcome and mr. Epstein should go to jail and should register and i felt comfortable enough to

basically reiterate our position that question but my question with respect was did you enjoy the

joy the give and take with a man of mr. star standing answer no question no not at all answer no

not at all because it would have been easier to not have the meeting in the first place

question all right do you recall an exchange where you the person to whom he was directing most

of his comments answer most likely question and you recall any exchange with him about the fact that

sort of an observation that the two of you and he were the only two people in the room who had been

presidentially nominated and senate confirmed to any position so that the two of you had that kind

of commonality does that ring a bell answer was he trying to butter me up question was he

i mean was he answer look this was 12 years ago i don't recall you know i think as we talk about

this it's important to note that the position did not change whatever exchange we may have had

our position did not change question right after this meeting within a few days and furtherance

of the resolution that had been offered redacted and redacted Lori met with the state attorney's

office to sit down and try to work out how this thing would work and mind you this was before

well before the NPA is actually formulated did you learn what happened at that meeting do you know

how it evolved answer i may have i don't recall you know sitting here today question all right

it's at this meeting that somehow the three charges that you specified your office specified

in the term sheet became one so suddenly Epstein was to plead only to one charge and this was

agreed to by the u.s attorney's office folks who were there do you know how or why that happened

answer i haven't the slightest idea question if you had known if they had called you on the phone

sort of the mid trial call to the boss asking what you wanted them to do what would you have said

answer so from my perspective you know when i indicated i approved this term sheet this is the

minimum i met what i said i also recognized that a us a's in the usual courts need some degree

of discretion to negotiate and so my assumption after that September meeting i think indicated

that there was a deadline that was fairly short and that redacted and redacted and some working

together would go back and work out an agreement based on those terms and you know in the give

and take if they think that this is an important concession that's within their discretion

but i would have been comfortable with sticking with the charge sheet with something that drove me

is when when i said something as a general matter i didn't bluff i really meant what i said

question so in that term sheet i mean to be fair that mental letters says is two years answer

right question is the minimum if the decision to agree to let them plead to one as opposed to all

three had no impact on that two years would you have cared answer fair enough and so going back to

where you know to an earlier discussion can i get another red bull going back to an earlier

discussion i think i indicated that the charges the state charges i wasn't familiar with

and so if in the given take those charges changed my focus was on two years registration

and restitution as long as those charges were captured the conduct in some appropriate way

questions so later rather much later the defense counsel admitted that at this meeting they thought

that under misinformation from the state attorney's office that the charge that they got the

u.s attorney's office or somehow the u.s attorney's office approved the seven ninety three seven

ninety six dot o three charge was not sex offender registrable and that's a pretty major mistake

right i mean it goes right to the heart of it to one of your major concerns answer and they tried

to get us to change that and i said no question the defense tried to get you off sex offender

registration answer pretty vigorously question right but at this point the focus is on the charge

and the defense is one might characterize it as trying to pull a fast one by agreeing whole

heartedly to plead the one charge knowing or at least believing incorrectly that it was not

registrable and the u.s attorney's office not having that belief but thinking it was registrable

so there's a disconnect there is error and the error stems as they later learned from the

ASA herself so as we look at that and wonder whether that shouldn't have raised some concern

that this plan to put things back in the hands of the state which had kind of mishandled the case

to begin with was at this point even a good idea because they were continually well i won't

characterize it but less than reliable is that a fair comment or a concern answer so one question

i would have is at well point did we become aware that there had been first the error was in our

favor not the defense's favor because redacted got it right as opposed to the ASA question correct

answer and secondly at well point did our team become aware of them trying to pull a fast one

was it before or after the signing of the NPA question it was well after answer right question

but the point here is that the u.s attorney's office folks were not familiar with the state

procedure the state criminal procedure and the ins and outs of the sentencing and incarceration

as you learn later so didn't this put the u.s attorney's office side at a substantial disadvantage

in trying to play in the sandbox in which both defense local defense counsel and the ASA's were

very comfortable answer possibly although i would point out that it was the a USA who got it right

question eventually answer not eventually the a USA was correcting her analysis so in this case

she was more familiar than the state attorneys you ain't heard about moto casino moto has real

vagus slots any game you can find on the floor in vagus you can play it on moto i like my slots hot

motos free to play like food stamps in line at the grocery store at a funeral in traffic keep

guys on the road hop on moto casino moto casino got jackpotter bigger than my belly moto america's

hottest free to play social casino download the moto casino app today moto casinos the social

casino board were prohibited to purchase this story visit moto dock u s for more to take

finding great candidates to hire can be like well trying to find a needle in a haystack sure

you can post your job to some job board but then all you can do is hope the right person comes along

which is why you should try zip recruiter for free at zip recruiter dot com slash zip

zip recruiter doesn't depend on candidates finding you it finds them for you it's powerful technology

identifies people with the right experience and actively invites them to apply to your job you get

qualified candidates fast so while other companies might deliver a lot of hey zip recruiter finds

you what you're looking for the needle in the haystack see why four out of five employers who

post a job on zip recruiter get a quality candidate within the first day zip recruiter the smartest

way to hire and right now you can try zip recruiter for free that's right free at zip recruiter dot com

slash zip that zip recruiter dot com slash zip zip recruiter dot com slash zip warning the

following zip recruiter radio spot you are about to hear is going to be filled with efforts when

you're hiring we at zip recruiter know you can feel frustrated for learn even like your efforts

are futile and you can spend a fortune trying to find fabulous people only to get flooded with

candidates were just fine fortunately zip recruiter figured out how to fix all that and right now

you can try zip recruiter for free at zip recruiter dot com slash zip with zip recruiter you can forget

your frustrations because we find the right people for your roles fast which is our absolute

favorite f word in fact four out of five employers who post on zip recruiter get a quality candidate

within the first day fantastic so whether you need to hire four 40 or 400 people get ready to

meet first rate talent just go to zip recruiter dot com slash zip to try zip recruiter for free

don't forget that zip recruiter dot com slash zip finally that zip recruiter dot com slash zip

question not by practice but by research answer by research so my point is we had good people

that were able to if they weren't familiar with something the research clearly worked question but

it took as you saw in the process of dealing with the work release and all of that it took a lot of

work to keep up with those errors answer which is why I say in hindsight if given all the effort

that took place after this deferred to the state was reached if all of that had been known I really

think the analysis would have proceeded differently because that was a lot of work that was probably

as much work if not more than a trial question right right right meanwhile and we'll talk about

the actual text of the NPA in a moment but following that no actually before it was being finalized

before it was finalized or adapted was working to identify a federal charge as we discussed before

in that process she came up with a plan that would have resulted cobbling things together

in an 18 month sentence instead of 24 months somehow that became the new floor the new standard

do you know how that came about and who actually agreed to that answer I don't I reference the one

email where I think redacted says the argue 12 question right answer I said 24 we agreed 18 I assume

in the given take this was an agreement that was reached question but that was 18 as to the potential

federal charges it somehow became imported into the state disposition answer I can't speak to

that this was something that the trial team was negotiating and from my perspective these were

the terms that we wanted these were the terms that I expected if they came back and said no deal

disappointed but go forward but they tried to get a deal and he gets cut off their question the

defense tried answer no the prosecutors and to some extent you know they and the given take of

any negotiation I don't think it's unfair for an a USA to give up some things question but you had

stated clearly to not only the defense team through the mental letter but also I believe at the

end of September seven meeting that two years was the deal so did somebody come to you and say

looks like it's going to be 18 months and allow you to then approve that answer I don't recall if

someone came to me separately or independently of the final judgment I clearly approved it at some

point and so to the extent it was approved that that's on me but I would argue that you know

someone's negotiating one says 24 another side says 12 they say let's agree to 18 to some extent as

US attorney I think I have to back the negotiating discretion of my a USA's but you explain quite

eloquently the reasoning for the two year plea as being what Epstein would have faced if he had

been prosecuted you know absentia but the state appropriately and then suddenly without any

apparent relationship to that analysis the 18 months pops up from an effort to try to get federal

charges and so how do you how does that not undercut the basis for the two years answer so I can

provide the reasoning for the two years I can also though think as a supervisor a US attorney

it's important to understand that when individuals go out in the field negotiations take place

and if every time there is some give they need to come back to the US attorney or there is a fear

that the US attorney will not back us and you know there is a certain I think there's a management

issue there in that if an a USA speaking on behalf of the US makes an argument or an agreement

as long as that agreement is within a certain range the US attorney should back that because they're

the ones that are in or on the ground they're on the line they're the ones that are managing the case

and it's sort of unfair to consistently second guess those late night I don't want to characterize

it as late night negotiations but those that give and take that happens sometimes in a conference room

or on the phone question do you know exactly what give and take occurred in this case regarding

the 18 months answer I do not I read that one document question okay answer but I do not question

really quick I agree with what you're saying in principle but in this case you had a almost like

a mandatory two years is a minimum that the US attorney will accept under those circumstances

where you have come out and said this is the minimum that will accept would you have expected them

to have to come back to you to get approval for any kind of reduction in that amount answer

would I have expected them I think Miss Redacted was in a tough position because opposing council

was coming at her it was a tough negotiation would I have wanted two years yes what I falter

for a green day 18 months I don't think that's fair to her question you could have said no right answer

I could have but it was she agreed to it the process had gone further down and to some extent

I think that there is a need to respect the process I guess I was getting you know this is not

the only case where a supervisor sort of says this is the standard and at some point things move

and you've got to provide some discretion question all right okay folks we're gonna wrap up right

here and in the next episode dealing with the topic we'll pick up where we left off

all of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box

welcome to moto casino where the excitement never ends with thousands of the hottest

free-to-play social casino games fastest payouts and the best promotions in the industry no tricks

or gimmicks owned and operated in the USA moto casino was a free-to-play social casino no

purchase necessary 21 plus-to-play void with prohibitive side up today for a generous welcome bonus

download the moto casino app today finding great candidates to hire can be like well

trying to find a needle in a haystack sure you can post your job to some job board but then

all you can do is hope the right person comes along which is why you should try zip recruiter

at zippercrooter.com slash zip zippercrooter doesn't depend on candidates finding you it finds

them for you it's powerful technology identifies people with the right experience and actively

invites them to apply to your job you get qualified candidates fast so while other companies

might deliver a lot of hey zippercrooter finds you what you're looking for the needle in the haystack

see why four out of five employers who post a job on zippercrooter get a quality candidate

within the first day zippercrooter the smartest way to hire and right now you can try zippercrooter

for free that's right free at zippercrooter.com slash zip that zippercrooter.com slash zip zippercrooter.com