Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 16-18) (3/14/26)

Spring is here and the shopping list is long.

Time to make a lows run.

Buy three bags, get three free of stay green,

one cubic foot garden soil.

Plus, right now, members can earn four times the points

on an eligible purchase.

Start spring off strong with these deals and more.

Our best lineup is here at Loads.

Valid for $3.25, while supplies last.

Soil offer excludes a last-gen Hawaii.

Loads you program subject to terms and conditions.

See Loads.com slash terms for details.

Subject to change.

Point booster subject to exclusions

and more terms apply.

This is a message from sponsor into it TurboTax.

You've sent so many emails to your tax pro and nothing.

It feels like you're chasing updates.

But now your taxes are done for you by a TurboTax expert.

So you actually know what's happening.

You can match with an expert and just hand off

all your tax stuff to them right in the app.

So instead of guessing, you can feel confident

your TurboTax experts on it.

Now this is taxes.

Into it TurboTax, visit TurboTax.com to learn more.

Only available with TurboTax experts.

Real-time updates only in iOS mobile app.

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 the Alex Acosta OIG interview.

Question, this is where there is a mention

of computer equipment.

There is a provision later in that.

In that same paragraph that provides that

the federal grand jury investigation will be suspended

and all pending federal grand jury subpoenas will be held

in a bayance unless and until the defendant violates

any term of this agreement.

The defendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion

to intervene and quench certain grand jury subpoenas.

Both parties agree to maintain their evidence,

specifically evidence requested by or directly related

to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued

and including certain computer equipment in Violet

until all the terms of the agreement have been satisfied.

Do you view that this agreement to suspect

at least certain aspects of the federal investigation

to have been an appropriate concession answer?

You know, again, my focus was on certain points.

I would have assumed reading this that this was thought

through question, okay, question.

All right.

There is what's been criticized as a confidentiality provision

answer.

Yes, question, right?

And that's on the same page.

Page five paragraph number 13,

which provides that the parties anticipate

that this agreement will not be made part

of any public record.

And then there is an exception for FOIA

or a compulsory process from a court

in which the government will provide notice to Epstein.

That seems to be limited to the placing of this document

on the public record, right?

As opposed to sharing it or disclosing it

for whatever purpose to individuals.

Is that a distinction that makes sense answer?

That's a fair distinction upon reading this.

I'm not sure that it's a distinction that was,

I mean, I'm basing that on my reading currently

and not as a recollection question.

And in fact, the parties, both defense council

and even the U.S. Attorney's office,

took the position that this should have never been

or seen the light of day, even to be disclosed to,

you know, victims or other parties and interest

except for filing it or accept for sharing it

on a limited basis with law enforcement.

I think there were emails that talk about

if we share it, we'll tell them not to disclose it.

Answer, mm-hmm.

Question, is that the sort of overstating?

What this paragraph requires?

Answer possibly.

I can, you know, we can get into that

and we can discuss it.

I would need to understand a little bit more.

I know there was litigation around disclosure on this

and I need to understand much more of the position

that we took and the why before commenting on them.

Question, in Exhibit 23, there's a discussion

of whether the NPA is after it, has been signed,

could be revealed, the existence of it

could be revealed to the police chief or even the FBI

or the girls and redacted in the middle of the page one

or two thirds of the way down on page one of Exhibit 23

proposes that if we tell anybody about the NPA,

you just ask that the recipient of that information

not disclose it.

And you then at the top of the page to Lori

and to redacted and redacted who is going to take over

Lori's position as a managing AUSA and West Palm Beach

should talk with you about it on Wednesday.

You should talk about who will tell and how much

do you remember that conversation?

Answer, I don't.

I know that there were several concerns about leaks

and media and I imagine that we had

a conversation quite literally about who to tell

and how much question and how did you feel that this

at the time, as best as you recall,

did you feel that this clause bound you to not tell anyone?

Answer, so my recollection of the clause,

whether it was, whether it was this clause

or whether there was a discussion.

I was aware of this provision and my recollection

of this provision is at some point it was raised

as something that was the subject of negotiation.

Question, okay, answer, that the office policy was that

these types of deferred prosecution agreement

is not just made part of the public record.

Therefore, this is not a substantial concession

because in the typical course of business,

this would not be part of the public record.

Question, and that's because it's non-prosecution

as opposed to agreement as opposed

to a deferred prosecution agreement.

Answer, so deferred prosecution is not, you know,

if the non-prosecution is not typically part

of the public record, the deferred prosecution,

it makes sense that it follows the same.

And so it seemed that it seemed a concession.

I understand how it was perceived publicly after the fact

at the time, it seemed that we weren't giving up much

because the typical policy is this is not part

of the public record.

And individuals need to file a FOIA.

And so by saying it's not part of the public record,

and individuals need to follow FOIA,

if that is viewed as a concession, it really isn't.

Question, so how would, I mean, did, is it,

is it understandable that Epstein would not want this

document to see the light of day

because it describes the existence and nature and scope

of the federal investigation and also is concession

to liability under 2255.

Answer, it's understandable.

It was also my impression at the time

that it would see the light of day

because if victims have 2255 the ability to get 2255,

they obviously have to hear about it from somewhere

and given the press interest, eventually,

this would be FOIA'd.

And so from my thinking at the time rightly or wrongly,

this is a concession that's basically saying

will follow off as policy.

And we're likely going to be FOIA'd on this anyhow

and it can play out in the FOIA.

And so is this really a concession?

Question, all right.

Another piece of the agreement is something that is absent

and that sort of typical language that you find, I think,

in pretty much any federal plea agreement,

which is this agreement only the defendant understands

that this agreement only binds the US attorney's office

for whatever district he or she is in.

Answer, right?

You know, and that, and that truly,

what you would call global dispositions

are unusual answer, right?

For the federal government answer, and I would note, you know,

and this is after the fact that it does say

this district agrees question, okay, understood.

And it's also has you as a party,

not the Department of Justice answer, right?

Question, but it does omit that standard language

and you know whether that was done sort of by mistake

or consciously answer, I can't speak to that.

Question, all right, another piece is phrasing

that you injected when you address the first,

where was it was towards the end,

where you talked about injecting the best effort language.

Answer, yes, question, okay, does it?

What, I believe you made clear why you did that,

that is to avoid the appearance of having

the federal government be dictating anything,

but why rely on the best efforts

and to what extent is that even enforceable?

Answer, so first let me,

let me say that it was not to avoid the appearance.

It was to avoid the actual legal discovery dictating,

but so Epstein understands that he has no authority

to require to undertake discussions

and to use if he did not plead,

then there was no agreement.

Question, no, no, no, no, sorry.

I don't mean to, it appears in paragraph.

Number 11, Epstein shall use his best effort

to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced no later

than the set date.

And then in the first paragraph

after number to clause 11,

he will use his best efforts to ensure compliance

with certain procedures and best efforts

to convince the judge of the Florida court

to accept his binding recommendation.

So best efforts kind of become a sticking point

and enforcement didn't it, because what does it mean?

What does best effort mean?

Answer, so I think it's fair to say that one of the issues

that came up after this was entered

into the US Attorney's office,

at least from my perspective,

was in a little bit of a bind

because we had agreed to this,

yet he wasn't turning himself in.

And so how do we deal with that?

And so that's not a phrase that I focused on at the time,

but I understand your point.

All right, I'm going to move on from those.

Question, is there anything else on those NPA clauses?

Answer, finally, let me, let me just say you didn't ask.

We had an incredibly experienced attorney in the office.

I assumed rightly or wrongly that the language

had been thought through and vetted,

and you know, sitting here 12 years later,

I understand the issues that have arisen from it.

But at the time, these were not issues

that were focused on.

Question to your knowledge,

who was involved in the drafting,

other than redacted and redacted on your side?

Answer, right.

Question and, Lori, and you to some extent?

Answer, so I can't say 12 years after the fact.

But again, redacted Lori,

very experienced head of the Palm Beach office,

has prosecuted any number of cases.

Question, again, just to keep perspective and context,

the final week that this was being negotiated,

redacted Lori was in Washington

and bouncing back and forth on the weekends,

because he was in transition to the front office there

in the criminal division in this building.

And that's a factor in terms of being able to give attention

to some detail, would you agree with that?

It could be a factor.

Answer, so it could be a factor.

On the other hand, I'd say that redacted

wasn't leaving the department.

He is professional.

He knows this stuff.

And you would expect a professional

if they're reviewing a document,

whether they're on vacation,

whether they're looking to move

from one part of the department to another

that you would expect them to review it,

you know, fulfilling their responsibility

to sort of focus in and make sure that

that is, that it encompasses what it should.

And that's not a criticism of redacted.

That's saying, well, that might be a factor.

That doesn't lessen from my perspective,

reliance on his expertise.

Question understood.

After the MPA was signed and redacted came back.

Answer, yeah, question right about that same time.

He quite quickly identified a potential problem

and that was about the commitment for or the agreement

that the US Attorney's Office

would identify the representative for the victims.

Do you recall him raising that?

Answer, I don't recall him raising that as an issue,

but I know it was an issue.

Question, all right, it was an issue.

And it was one that was raised as soon as he came back.

So there was an effort which he conducted then

in redacted's absence to craft an MPA addendum

to address that issue.

Are you aware that redacted received a copy

of the MPA in November when Ken Star wrote a letter

to redacted asking her to review the 2255 portion of it?

Do you remember the issue?

Answer, I remember that the issue was appealed to CEOS.

Question, well, it was.

It was appealed initially by the letter

to redacted raising an issue that was new to redacted

that had not been raised with you.

And that is what led to your letter to Ken Star

on December 4.

Answer, I'll accept that timeline.

Question, okay.

And at that time redacted saw the MPA.

He sent a message to redacted about,

about his view of the MPA and you didn't see it.

But I just wanted to name some problems

that he identified with the disposition

and get your reaction.

So first he says I'm not thrilled about the agreement,

but he acknowledges that's out of his hands.

He says in terms of the charging and sentencing provision

he's getting, Epstein is getting a much better deal

than the average defendant.

With the exception of defendants

who have done physical harm to their victims

or abused very young children,

we haven't seen more egregious conduct

because of its serial nature.

The area we need to be more careful about

relates to the victims.

The U.S. should seek to ensure that the plea,

which is not giving them serious jail time,

provides the best means possible to address the harm

he caused to the victims.

That generally means restitution and or therapy.

While the agreement provides facility for the victims,

the irrelevant terms still seem pretty advantageous

for the defendant and not all that helpful for the victims.

They get an attorney who will be paid by the defendant

which involves at least some conflict of interest

or they can hire their own attorney on a contingency basis

and they get waivers from the defendant

when his plea would facilitate their civil cases

in any event.

Then they still have to sue him to get anything.

Most times with wealthy defendants

we make them agree to restitution fund

and then still provide the victims can sue

the defendant independently if they choose.

We always make them clearly admit their guilt.

No, no, no, please.

This is incredibly important to the victim.

If I would have taken the guy to trial

unless the victims were clearly against it

and I don't think most of them are here,

he then says to redacted who by this time

is working for redacted.

So there is context in which he's addressing it.

Redacted specifies that redacted wouldn't

and shouldn't address the agreement.

So that the issue that was then before redacted

put there by Ken Star was whether the 2255 scheme

or scenario set out and the NPA was appropriate.

It appears that she then sent that back to you at the address.

But as far as commentary on the NPA

if you had been aware of this perspective at the time

you were that you and your people were fashioning the NPA

would you have been helpful to you in deciding

how to proceed?

Answer, so may I question yes.

Answer, okay, I assume you've read the whole thing

but let me just take, well, I have a few comments.

First, let me say he was part of the September meeting

and to my recollection these perspectives.

So at least the outline of the agreement

were disclosed at the meeting

and I don't recall this type of communication at this time.

Question, okay, answer.

I also recall that there was a lot of back and forth

around this restitution fund concept

and our perspective was that the restitution fund

puts the victim at a disadvantage

because let me try to recreate.

I don't recall the details, but I recall

that there was a perspective that the restitution fund

put the victims at a disadvantage

and there's some reference to was it an Alaska case?

Question, it's called the redacted case.

Witness, I'm sorry.

Then the whole bunch of redacted parts here,

back to Acosta.

And so to the extent that there were better ways

of crafting this, that certainly would have been

been highly relevant because to my recollection,

we were not wed to any particular way of crafting it.

The intent of 2255 was to come as close as possible

to putting the victims in the position

they would have been had they tried and convicted federally.

And so to answer your question is yes.

Answer, it would have been helpful.

All right folks, we're gonna wrap up right here

and in the next episode dealing with the topic

we're gonna 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 gonna dive right back in

to the Alex Acosta interview with the OIG inspectors.

Question, okay.

As you said about addressing 22.55,

you consulted with redacted.

Do you recall that?

Answer, I recall consultations.

I don't recall that it was specifically with redacted,

but question, did you know her?

Answer, yes, question.

Okay, and do you recall the nature

of your interaction with her?

Answer, I don't.

I know from contemporary review of the record

that there is an email from her.

Question, it's 41a, answer 41a.

Question, and what I wanna ask you is simply 41a

is an email in which you ask, you note to redacted

who was redacted, one of her deputies,

and she oversaw CEOS.

She redacted mentioned to you that redacted was looking

at this, which is the 22.55.

She contacts her counterpart in the Civil Division redacted,

and there's an email from him,

which is the second page of this exhibit,

which he copies you on.

So my question is, is this the extent of your interaction

with redacted on this issue?

Answer, I, 12 years, after the fact, I don't remember.

Question, okay, all right, the exhibit 35,

there is a letter from J. Lefkowitz,

in which I'm sorry, it's an email from J. Lefkowitz.

Answer, exhibit, question, exhibit 35 to you.

And this is substantially later,

but it has a sentence that or a phrase

that we'd like to ask you about,

and all right, it's highlighted at the top.

It says, back in the beginning,

back at the beginning of January,

when you both agree that there was significant irregularities

with a deferred prosecution agreement,

you called the timeout.

Is that accurate?

Do you and he agree that?

Answer, no.

Question, there was significant irregularities?

Answer, no.

Question, okay, answer, and if I could,

there are several instances where not just to me,

but to other people as well,

J recharacterizes conversations.

Question, recharacterizes them,

inaccurately, answer, inaccurately.

Question, or misleadingly?

Answer, or misleadingly?

Question, all right.

Answer, what I recall agreeing to at some point,

is there was an appeal to the DAG,

or there was an appeal in place,

and I basically said, I think there was a letter

that I sent saying if you want to appeal, go ahead.

We're not concerned about this.

But that doesn't mean that I agree

that there were irregularities,

or that there was a timeout.

I'm part of that department.

I'm part of a hierarchy.

If someone wants to overrule me, that's okay by me.

Question, all right.

So the NPA addendum was worked out,

and the defense team continued its sort of multi-pronged assault

in the middle of the negotiation

between redacted and left quits about the NPA addendum.

That's when you had the much commented on breakfast

on October 12th, and have stated publicly

that at, perfectly accurately, that the NPA was signed,

and that was a done deal.

And so this was not tied in any way to any effort

to influence the terms of the NPA, fair?

Answer, fair, because the way this was reported

was that I negotiated it over breakfast.

It was signed, that's really important.

Question, of course, there were, however,

a number of open issues, right?

And then exhibit 28 J. left quits on page two,

this is an email to you,

acknowledges your breakfast on Friday.

This is dated October 18th,

and following up your conversation with them

about a date for Epstein's plea.

So he notes that you said you didn't want to dictate

a schedule to the state.

So all I want to note is that when you had the breakfast,

there was, there were issues to open

that were the subject of discussion

between the defense and the US attorney's office.

And so I guess my question is,

while that was a meeting of convenience

in a public place, in a location,

where you had a business later that day,

of speech I believe, optically,

do you understand the public concern

that this was sort of a one-on-one negotiation

on pending issues?

Answer, I understand how there can be concern.

This, you know, it was not unusual in this case.

I actually very intentionally waited

and tried not to have one-on-one meetings,

but there are other instances where I might

from time to time have one-on-one conversations

with the opposing counsel.

I don't remember the breakfast.

I can speculate that one of the issues was informing

this was somewhere around this time,

and I can't say with certainty that this was what it was.

But somewhere around this time,

there were Rose allegations that redacted,

had directed the designation to her boyfriend's partner

or something along those lines.

Question, I believe it was a former law school classmate

of her former of her then boyfriend.

Answer, yeah, so I don't know the details,

or what they were, but I do know that there was a topic

that they wanted to raise.

With me, question, did he at the breakfast?

Answer, honestly, I don't recall the breakfast.

Question, okay, answer.

You asked me about one characterization of what I said

in the record, you know, of the breakfast.

I think I responded, or my counsel responded

that they're pointing out that I seem fairly perturbed

at how inaccurately characterized something that I said.

And so we don't need to revisit that,

but he gets cut off.

All right, if you look at exhibit 27,

another sort of point, just a kind of,

they get cut off with questions about breakfast

and they decide to keep going.

Question, and that's exhibit 27.

It's the second email down is from redacted

to J. Lefkowitz.

The date is October 12th, so that's the same day

as your breakfast.

Answer, right.

Question, and the date of it is not,

I'm sorry, the time is 948.

Your breakfast was at seven.

So this would have been pretty shortly after your breakfast

and redacted rights to J. Lefkowitz with a copy to you

and redacted stating that he just got off the phone with you.

That is redacted, just got off the phone with you,

and then he furnishes a revised paragraph one,

which suggests, I mean, I infer from that shortly

after the breakfast.

You had a phone conversation with redacted

about a revision to this paragraph,

and that was likely something that you talked to him about.

Again, I'm not suggesting that this,

they get cut off by Acosta again.

I don't recall the breakfast,

so I can't say one way or the other.

I take your point, but I don't recall seeing this.

Question, all right, well, it was your copied on it.

Okay, all right.

You wanted, I just wanted to point out exhibit 30.

Answer, can we back up a second?

I'm not sure whether your concerns are,

so I would, I would only raise the question where

or the point where based on this,

and I don't recall, so I can't speak,

but redacted is saying J suggests revision has been rejected.

Here is our latest redacted.

And so too, there are multiple ways to read this.

One is that this was raised.

Another is that we're rejecting something

that J had proposed.

And because I was at the meeting with J,

I asked that redacted and I rejected

until after I met with him.

I'm speculating because I don't recall the topic,

but it does appear that it says J suggested revision

has been rejected.

Here is our latest redacted.

All right, thank you.

Question, can we just go to exhibit 30 quickly?

There are some highlighted language.

This is a letter from left quits to you

on October 23rd, 2007, where he recounts again,

the things that happened, or his version,

of the October 12th breakfast meeting.

Question, are you at that point right there, exhibit 30?

Answer, yeah, I'm there.

Question, okay, so in the highlighted language,

if you could just take a look at that quickly,

answer, yes, question.

So he's recounting that you had a shirt on

that the office would not intervene

with the state attorney's office

and or contact the civil claimants

or intervene regarding the sentence

that Epstein receives pursuant to a plea agreement.

Answer, yeah, question.

So is he correct and is recounting that?

Answer, can you find that for me?

Question, yeah, answer.

So again, I don't have an independent recollection.

I'm looking for something I don't have

an independent recollection of that breakfast,

but in the contemporaneous emails

and the contemporaneous record,

there is correspondence between redacted and I

and you all ask for this

and I spoke with my counsel who then responded

and there's an email exchange

where there is an October 20th,

this wasn't October 23rd email, October 23rd letter.

And then there's a response that's drafted on October 25th.

I don't know if we can find that from redacted to J

that specifically addresses the point

and then I respond redacted, runs that by me

and I respond, I edit the letter

and I move it sort of emphasize like I make it firmer

and my edit says our office cannot

and will not agree to this.

And then my comment to redact it is,

what do you think of this rewrite?

Is it too strong?

Question, what day was that?

Answer, that was two days after this.

I don't know if we can find that in the chronological record

that was October 25th.

Let's just take a minute, is that what you have?

Redacted, sorry, apparently my ability

to separate paper is failed.

Okay, sorry, go ahead.

Acosta, so October 25th, I'm writing to redacted,

what do you think of this rewrite?

Is it too strong?

And it says, you're J.

I'd like to take this opportunity to document

our conversation of October 24th,

which clarified some of the representations

in your October 23rd letter.

I write in particular because you indicated

that your intent in writing the letter

was to memorialize our conversations.

Our agreement is limited to blank blank blank dot dot dot.

I specifically want to clarify one of the items

that I believe was inaccurate in the October 23rd letter.

Your office claims that this office

would not intervene with the state attorney's office

regarding this matter or a contact

any of the individual's potential witnesses

or potential civil claimants

and their respective counsel in the matter

and neither your office nor the FBI would intervene

regarding the sentence Mr. Epstein received.

I'm quoting J's letter.

As we discussed and hopefully clarified

and as the US attorney previously explained

in an earlier conference call,

such promises equate to the imposition of a gag order.

Our office cannot and will not agree to this.

It is the intent of this office to treat this matter

like any other case.

Thus, as is typical, we do not desire

or intend to intervene in the state attorney's office.

The non-prosticution agreement provides sufficient mechanisms

to achieve the goals of the federal investigation.

You should understand, however,

that there are some communication

that are typical in these matters.

And so I go on and so my point is this was pretty

based on if you're reviewed my emails

and my language for me to write something up saying,

what do you think of this rewrite?

Is it too strong?

And to my edit, redacted language to our office

cannot and will not agree to this

is not my agreeing with this characterization

about my polite way of saying this ain't what I said.

Let me be clear, again, no independent recollection.

This is just based on inferring

from the contemporaneous emails.

Question?

Okay.

All right folks, we're gonna wrap up right here

and in the next episode dealing with the topic,

we're gonna 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.

And in this episode, we're gonna get right back to

the Alex Acosta interview with the OIG inspectors.

Question?

What I would like to do is ask a couple of questions

in a couple of areas about the main justice review.

Answer, okay, question.

Then take a short break and then redacted,

it has some questions that are CVRA related

and then we have some summary questions.

Answer, okay, question is that all right?

Answer?

Well, before you move on, can I address something

that redacted was getting at, but it's getting late.

So I'm going to circle back something that I thought

you would bring up.

So I think something to talk about is pre-agreement

and post-agreement, I think are different.

And one concern that I had and I certainly shared

with Mr. Redacted was once it was signed.

So we had the initial issues with the case.

Once the agreement was signed, we now have an overlying issue

of is there is the agreement binding

and to what extent it's binding.

And so your question was why this level of process

after the agreement was signed.

And I said, I think you'll get back to that.

And I think to some extent there are two parts to that.

One is the office shouldn't be afraid of review.

We're part of the Department of Justice and review

whether by main justice or now you all is part of the process.

And so to the extent that they want to appeal to main,

it would be unseemly sort of to say, don't review us.

And I don't think it would help reviewing this,

but the second part of it is we, if we were to walk away

from the agreement that not only are we litigating

the underlying criminal case,

but we're litigating a civil criminal issue

on top of that, which is did the agreement bind

and that's something that did inform the exhausting amount

of process that they received,

which didn't change any of the outcome.

Question didn't bind what answer.

So if we were to walk away, could we still prosecute?

Question, I see answer, right?

Because having signed that,

we were now parties to an agreement.

And that would overlay any sort of prosecution.

And so you had these collateral issues coming.

Question, just to make sure that we're clear,

are you saying that there would have been

difficulty in declaring a breach

so that you could then indict answer correct?

And so we'd have to litigate over a breach

because as much as they had collateral challenges,

they are very careful in saying this is not a breach.

We would just like review.

And so one of the issues that overlaid the post,

the October going forward time period is on top of this.

Do we now want litigation over a breach?

And so I think that is why the post-agreement time period

is different than the pre-agreement time period.

Question, but was part of the problem,

the result of the change from here is the date

that you must comply to, you must use best efforts

to comply.

Answer, possibly.

I would whether it was or others

or other parts of the agreement we can talk about.

But once the agreement was signed and they do not

and they start pushing the date,

there becomes a legal issue over,

are they really in breach or not?

I understand your perspective.

I'm just saying, you know, earlier,

I said that there was a difference.

You asked about the process and I said from my perspective,

there is a difference between the pre-agreement

and the post-agreement time period.

And much of that difference is informed by

if we declare a unilateral breach.

How does this hold up in court?

Because now there's a signed agreement

that the United States is party to.

Question, are you saying that part of the reason

or maybe all of the reason that you continue

to give accommodations and process and delay

was because of the concern

that you couldn't actually win a breach argument?

Answer, I think that was a consideration.

Another part of this consideration,

if a party wants to take, I mean main justice

gave a lot of process, it wasn't, you know,

it wasn't just too redacted, but it was up to,

it was up to the assistant attorney general

for criminal division to be polite, but it was up to the DAG.

Bingo, this is what I've told you folks

from the very beginning.

Main justice was the one who put this deal together.

I don't care what a costus says.

And so if main justice is going to give this degree

of process, we should be in the position

of saying go forward as opposed to,

I don't think it looks positive for the office

to be viewed as fearing department review.

Question, but were you giving the impression

to the department of justice that you were the one

who wanted this review so that they felt like,

well, it's not just these defense attorneys

who we can blow off, it's a United States attorney

who is asking for this review.

And so therefore we need to give the courtesy

of reviewing this answer.

I don't think I asked for it as opposed to saying.

So from the very beginning, they said that they're going

to take this to the deputy attorney general

and the attorney general.

And I said, if you want to find, they just finally did.

But that was not, that was not I think they raise that

as early as August or September.

And so I'm not surprised that it ended up there.

I also thought it was important to not be in the position

of fearing review.

I think if you look at the contemporaneous record,

there's an effort on our part to expedite the review,

redacted question, but there's a difference

between have at it, go do what you want of it main

and getting that non-opposition and actually sending

a signal in the case of the criminal division,

the assistant attorney general in the case

of the DAG's office, Mark Philippe,

or his assigned that you supported their review

and this appeal process.

You could have said, look, we're going to go ahead

and get on with our business.

If you could have not so much opposed to review,

but not seconded their request for the defense request

for review or not in fact invited the reviews answer.

So I'd be curious as to the timeline.

I would take issues with, I invited the reviews

and I question whether did they initiate the reviews

on their own?

And then I have said have at it or based on I mean,

you've got more than the record than I do,

or did I invite?

I would say I did not invite the reviews.

Question, well, bad terminology perhaps.

Let me ask you this, did you convey to the criminal division

that you wanted them to review the matter

as requested by the defense attorneys?

Answer so from my perspective, I'm thinking back 12 years now,

the very reason that we invited redacted

to come down to Miami back in August was a sense

that it would end up here.

And so if it's going to end up here,

let's bring redacted down,

let's make them part of the initial meeting.

You know, if there are some concerns, let's raise these,

let's address them, let's get them out.

So we don't end up after we go forward with all of this

back in front of redacted and redacted.

And it's much better to involve main justice earlier.

And so I would say I was trying if anything

to involve main justice so that we didn't end up

where we were and it had been my expectation

that October date would have been met.

The collateral review, afterwards, the collateral appeals,

obviously did not go as we planned.

And it was my sense, we were going to end up

at main justice one way or the other.

So my question is in December, after the December meeting

that you had with the defense council

and they told you that they were going to main justice

to the criminal division.

Did you convey to main justice, criminal division

that you wanted them to conduct the review

that defense council were seeking?

Answer so I don't recall what I may or may not have conveyed.

I think my recollection was if they want to review,

that's the right.

We're not as a department, we're not in the business

of telling individuals that they can't take something

to your supervisor or your superior.

Whether main justice takes this or not

is ultimately at their discretion.

Question, would it surprise you to learn

that the criminal division front office understood you

to be requesting their review, the review that was sought

by defense council?

Answer, would it surprise me?

Perhaps my understanding recollection is we shouldn't fear it.

If they want it, that's the right.

I thought by inviting redacted down in the first place

that we had at least tried to address that early on.

But I also thought that we might end up there in the first place.

Question, were you aware that a decision was made

to grant the decision by your office

to grant defense councils request their insistence

that redacted's role in the criminal division review

be limited to review only, and that he not be permitted

or that the criminal division, I'm sorry, I'm a spoke,

that because redacted had already been involved

in essentially being a prosecutor on the case,

the criminal division and CEO's role vis-a-vis

this review should be review only.

That they should be taken off the case as a partner answer.

So I sought emails to that effect in the record.

I don't have independent recollection of 12 years.

Question, do you think you were involved in that decision?

Answer to take them off.

Question, yes, answer to my recollection.

I wanted them on as a partner.

And I think the contemporaneous emails from redacted,

can you please come on board?

Question, but that was earlier before this review process.

Answer, no, no, even after review process,

I think there are contemporaneous emails

where we're saying it's important that you be a part.

If we go to trial, it's important that you be part of the trial.

As I went through the record, at least I remember an email,

perhaps from redacted to redacted that I'm copied on,

saying, hey, can you reconsider?

It's important that you're be part of this.

Question, reconsider the review only limitation.

Answer, no, reconsider being part of the trial.

Question, all right.

So to be clear, do I understand that you correct me?

That you don't have any recollection,

one way or the other,

whether you requested the criminal division

to conduct the review or could it have happened?

He cuts her off so to the extent again,

I'm going back 12 years to the extent there is a request to,

it would be in the context of this is going to Washington.

We're not fearful of this.

Have at it.

Question, and you would have conveyed that to Washington,

not just the defense attorneys, is that correct?

Answer, I imagine in some way.

Question, all right.

Just one more point.

This one, this one was a little bit of an odd posture.

However, because you had signed the agreement,

and so you know, basically a contract between parties

and particularly on Mr. Epstein's side, a party

who was extremely well represented.

So is there any consideration on your part

instead of saying, hey, everybody's got a right to review,

knock yourself out, go to DC,

as opposed to saying something like, that ship is sailed.

You sign this agreement, we're going forward,

you don't go forward, you're in breach, end of story.

Answer, so is counsel, are raising serious issues

that go to ethics and go to fundamental relationships

between sovereigns.

In this 22.55 appropriate, as a matter of federal policy,

is what we're doing and overreach, you know,

is what we're doing contrary to law?

Are we extracting, I'm characterizing,

this may or may not be accurate?

Are we extracting, unduly?

Are we using criminal law to extract civil concessions

in an ethically suspect way?

Those are serious issues, that isn't just,

is this a good case?

Those are genuine issues, I happen to think,

as I recall, that we were in the right

or we wouldn't have agreed to it,

but by the same token, let's assume

that main justice ultimately disagreed.

Is that from main justice perspective?

And maybe I'm coming at this, you know,

being informed by having been at main justice.

Question, hmm, answer, where there was talk about,

can you believe what this AUSA,

this AUSA may have done or may not have done

without consulting, that these are serious issues.

They established precedent, you know,

maybe the DAG would have said,

this is not the kind of thing we'd support

and this is wrong.

And so at the end of the day, let's move forward.

But if once the issues are raised,

I don't think a US attorney should say main justice

should not review this.

I think we're part of the department

and these are valid issues.

Main justice doesn't need to take months to review this.

Main justice can expedite their review,

but those are valid issues for the deputy

and the AAG to review.

Question, but one could look at it and say,

well, those are all issues that the defense

certainly knew about before they sign that agreement

and having signed that agreement, they are waving all of that.

That's what contracts are for.

You've got all these issues.

Don't sign the contract.

Answer, and if I could,

I think there's a December letter.

I don't know if it's in the exhibits,

but there's a December letter that I wrote.

Maybe it's the 19th.

The 19th is you sort of ill-fated NPA,

a Dendemefford.

Acosta, no, the letter to Ken Star that I wrote.

The fourth letter to Ken Star, Acosta, I'm sorry.

Question, is it the December fourth letter?

Acosta, yeah, probably.

It's the December fourth letter.

Redacted, yeah, it didn't have a date.

Question, all right, that's the one you wrote.

Acosta, I think, you know, I'm starting on page four.

I have responded personally in some detail to your comments

because I care deeply about both the law

and the integrity of the office.

I have responded personally and in detail as well

because your letter troubled me on a number of levels

upon your understanding of the negotiations are.

The 2255 was first discussed July 31st, you know,

and one of these four points in the middle of 2007,

your defense team decides, ask to meet with me.

On September 7th, I met.

After considering of the arguments

and after conferring with the FBI and redacted,

our office decided to proceed with the indictment.

At that time, I offered to delay our prosecutors

to delay presentation to allow you to appeal

our decision if you choose.

You chose not to.

Instead, you elected to enter into the NPA.

Since the signing of the agreement,

the feds in our office have addressed several issues

that have arisen, although the exchanges at the time

were a bit litigous question.

Could I point out that this letter is in response

to not at the request for a review

by the Criminal Division that comes later?

This is in response to Ken Star's letter to redacted

about raising 2255 issues that had not been raised

with you before.

Answer, right, which is, in essence, a review.

I mean, they're coming to main justice,

and you know, it's against these many previous

foregone opportunities to object that I receive,

which surprised your letter requesting an 11th hour

after the fact review of our agreement.

Although it happens rarely,

I don't mind this office decision being appealed

to Washington and have previously directed

our prosecutors to delay.

Indeed, I'm confident in our prosecutors' evidence

and legal analysis.

I nonetheless directed them to consult

with subject matter experts in the Criminal CEOs' division

to confer to our interpretation of the law

before proceeding with the indictment.

So I guess, you know, we consulted CEOs.

I'm not surprised to read a letter

addressed to the department headquarters

that raises issues that either have not been raised

with this office previously, or have been raised,

and in fact resolved with your client's favor.

I'm troubled likewise by the apparent lack

of finality in the agreement.

The AUSAs have been negotiating with Defense Council

and have for some time complained to me

regarding the tactics used by the defense team.

It appears to them that as soon as resolution

is reached on one issue, Defense Council finds ways

to challenge the resolution, clatterily.

Question, so this is your protest.

It sounds like Star's effort to bypass you

and go with new issues.

Answer, it is, and I'm pushing back in that,

and I was inviting this, or I was sort of saying, you know,

that said, there must be closure on the matter.

Some in our office are deeply concerned

that Defense Council will continue to mount

collateral challenges to provision of the agreement.

Even after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea

and thus rendered the agreement difficult

if not impossible to unwind.

In closing, I ask that you consult with co-counsel.

If after consultation with your defense team,

you believe that our agreement is unethical,

unlawful, or unconstitutional.

I'd ask that you notify us immediately

so we can discuss the matter by phone or in person.

I've consulted the chief prosecutor in the case,

who has advised that she's ready to unwind the agreement

and proceed to try and live necessary or appropriate.

Question, so are you suggesting

that this represents your protest

of their appeal to redacted?

Answer, so protest is a loaded word.

What I'm suggesting is that this is not invitation

to appeal to main justice.

This is sort of saying, enough is enough is enough.

Question, but Mr. Acosta and fairness,

this to clarify, this is in response to a letter directed

to redacted dated November 28th.

2007, raising issues that had not been raised with you.

The appeal subsequently that I was asking about

was an appeal for denovo review,

a denovo review of the whole case.

Answer understood, and the reason that I read this,

you know, is this is not on one hand,

I'm saying we do not fear review,

but this is not an invitation to defense counsel

to do a denovo, I'm not inviting them,

I'm not saying let's have some more review,

I'm saying enough is enough.

If they appeal, that's fine,

but this is not an invitation to appeal.

Question, but there was nothing you could do

to stop their appeal, right, except indict, answer,

and so the department shouldn't stop an appeal

to main justice, you know, by threatening, question fair enough.

Answer because main justice has a right to review.

Question I should have said that,

that this, this appeal process was stymying progress

in resolving the Epstein case.

Answer, it was question, and you had no way,

you had no recourse other than at least theoretically,

you could have just said, you know,

we're going to tear it up and indict

because you're in breach in effect.

Answer which would have raised civil litigation.

Answer overlays, which is the point

that I thought merited at least flushing out.

Question, so to be short of the department itself,

getting a move on and getting this thing through expeditiously,

did you feel like you just had to sit there and wait

for everything to get done?

Answer, I'm not sure it would sit there and wait,

but ultimately the case did not get better

with time, and there was frustration on our part,

you know, the witnesses are not getting better.

You know, time, question, they're getting older,

answer, they're getting, which goes back

to how a juror may see them, redacted right, Acosta,

and I do recall conversations of them getting older, you know,

this case is not getting better.

And now we have the civil overlay that we need to deal with.

And so yes, there was process, but while there was,

should we just call it a day, all of that factored into well

if the department is reviewing the department is reviewing.

All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up this episode right here,

and in the next episode we're gonna pick up

where we left off.

All of the information that goes with this episode

can be found in the description box.