Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 22-23) (3/14/26)

Can you grab one more thing?

I'll come back up pretty soon.

At Amika Insurance, we know you'll always find ways

to look out for the people you love.

And with Amika Life Insurance, we'll

help build a plan to make sure you always can.

We're here to help protect the life you've built.

Really?

Yeah, I've got one.

Amika, empathy is our best policy.

Visit Amika.com and get a quote today.

Moorow, casino, American Social Casino.

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 is a free-to-play social casino.

No purchase necessary, 21 plus to play,

void work prohibited.

Sign up today for a generous welcome bonus.

Moorow, casino, American Social Casino.

Download the Moto Casino app today.

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 interview with the OIG inspectors.

Question, what do you think about the media's treatment

of line assistant redacted?

Answer, I think I wish her name wouldn't be in the media.

You know, to some extent, US attorneys,

when they take the job, realize that part of their job

is to take the slings and arrows.

And, you know, there are instances when AUSAs

were accused of misconduct, and I have always sort of felt

that was, I don't want to say below the belt,

but that's not what they take pay cuts,

that they take to go into federal service,

and, you know, I think the media coverage of this case

has been unfair, and has lost a lot of the complexities.

It's not surprising, because I mean here,

we're talking about a lot of those complexities,

and it takes a fairly sophisticated discussion,

but I think it's particularly unfair on redacted.

Question, in your attorney's written response,

he used the term relentless to characterize the team

of lawyers, the defense lawyers,

and in the Daily Beast article that you wrote,

you referred to the year-long assault on the prosecution

and the prosecutors.

You noted that the defense was more aggressive

than any of which I or the prosecutors in my office

had previously encountered.

You noted that the defense investigated prosecutors

and tried to disqualify too, and I believe

that those two are redacted and redacted.

Is that correct?

Answer, that's correct.

Question, and you also raised or noted or asserted

that there were investigations into the family lives

of individual prosecutors, accusations of bias,

and misconduct against individual prosecutors,

and even the thread of a book on prosecutorial zeal.

Do you still regard that characterization as accurate?

Answer, I do.

You know, whether I would use those same words now,

we can spend a lot of time talking about it,

and I'd wanna think about it,

but I do think that that's accurate.

I think this really was a raised earth type of matter

and in the office typical interactions,

the prosecutors know they have to come back to the office,

and so they would not, sorry, not the prosecutors,

it's getting late, the defense counsel.

And so they would not, it's not just the accusations

against the attorneys, but the mischaracterization.

I could go through the record,

and there are several instances where my words

or other USA words were being mischaracterized,

or we're going back to one of the redacted emails,

people walk out of the meeting,

believing they have an agreement,

and then that's unwound.

That is not, I don't know if that's typical in Washington,

but that's certainly not typical in the Miami office.

Question, all right, in the Daily Beast article,

I think you also use the term pack of dillos.

Answer, yes, question, what did you mean by that,

in particular?

Answer, could I see, could I, question,

I was afraid you'd ask,

I'd have it right in front of me,

and I don't at the moment.

Mr. Redacted, are you talking about the,

to whom it may concern letter?

Mr. Redacted, yes, Acosta, yeah.

Question, thank you.

And it's in reference on the second number page

of this copy to personal pack of dillos

in the middle of the page.

Answer, also individual prosecutors and their families

looking for personal pack of dillos

that provide a, so redacted, was my recollection,

she wasn't investigated.

Redacted and I, having encountered that in other cases,

I recall at one point they looked in,

redacted, and redacted's family and his background,

and I thought that was a little bit out of line.

Now, the next like, I don't know,

17 or 18 lines are all redacted.

At that point, I was trying to convey

is that this is not a typical behavior

by the defense council.

And despite all of this, my point was,

despite all of this, we did not budge.

Question, and again, that's not the focus of the question.

Redacted once again, the whole answer.

Question, all right.

Are there any other examples

where defense council came to you

that you have not otherwise

addressed with allegations about someone?

Did they ever raise or imply that there were,

that there was information regarding you or whatever respect

that was in the nature of a sort of a threat

or a veiled warning?

Answer, so the book reference was that I might

be personally embarrassed by pursuing this matter

because I would be subject of the chapter

in a book on prosecutorial overreach.

Answer, and who is going to write that book?

Do you know?

Answer, Professor Dershowitz, question.

Okay, did you consider him a professional friend at all?

Answer, I had not, to my recollection met him.

I understand in this letter, I sort of grouped him in.

But I'd say for the record that it's hard to know

what my intent was in 2011.

But that's for simplicity of grouping individuals

because I did go to Harvard.

I may have run into him at Harvard,

but he was not my professor.

I didn't work for him as a teaching assistant.

I had some interest in criminal law,

so I may have chatted with him,

but that would have been it.

Question, and did you consult with him?

At all, in connection with your efforts,

your interest, and potentially teaching

or being involved in the sort of law school world,

either at Harvard or at Florida International

or anywhere else.

Answer, not to my recollection, at some point,

when I applied for the dean ship,

I wasn't aware of the dean ship until,

so let's take this, let's take this in part.

I thought about taking or looking at Harvard

for a teaching position to my recollection,

I never followed through on that.

Question, uh-huh, answer, I knew Alina Kagan

and may have had a conversation with her

about what would have been preliminary,

how does this process work?

But I don't recall talking if I took it that far,

and I'm not saying that I did,

this was a long time ago.

I never sort of went through,

the way law schools hire is very, they call it a meat market.

Take that for what it's worth,

it's something that happens at the hotels here,

at the Marriott Hotel, on Connecticut,

and it's very formalized process.

I never went through that,

I don't recall any conversation

with Professor Dershowitz about that,

to the extent I was thinking about it,

it'd be natural for me to talk to or adapt it,

but I don't recall talking to him,

with respect to a Professor Dershowitz,

with respect to FIU, the dean process is very decentralized,

to the extent the faculty members spoke to him,

I don't know.

To my recollection, and again, this is a long time ago,

I did not ask for a reference or a letter

or something to that regard, although I may have,

it was a very long time ago.

I was also no longer active in this case at the time,

question, alright, and what about with respect

to that same process on your part, Ken Star,

who actually was a dean of the law school at the time,

did he provide you with reference or advice,

answer, not to my recollection, question, alright,

answer, as the letter from Ken at the end,

there was, by that time, this was over,

there was some degree of tension between us

on my resolution of this matter,

question, but it also appeared to be tension

that both of you were eager to leave aside.

Answer, I'm a big believer,

and I had good relationships with the defense team.

I think lawyers can disagree and not be disagreeable,

and we would be in a better profession

if we all learn to do that.

Question, so would the world.

There is a sort of investigative journalist,

author, name, or dacted, answer, yes,

question, do you know that name?

Answer, yes, question, did you ever speak with her?

Answer, so she was the recipient

of the to whom it made concern,

letter at the Daily Beast.

Question, oh really?

Answer, yes, question, alright, alright, thank you.

We didn't know that.

Did she comment back to you on it?

Answer was long time ago, not on recall.

Question, so she wrote a book called Trafficking.

Have you read that?

About this case, answer, she did.

I haven't read it recently, but I read it a while ago.

Question, and she says in that book

that you told her a few years after the MPA was signed.

As she writes, he felt incapable of going up

against those eight powerful attorneys.

He felt his career was at stake.

Did you say that to her?

Answer, not to my recollection.

What I tried to do was for the record,

provide this letter to her,

and the purpose of this letter was to say

the exact opposite, which is, and you know,

we have this, you know,

and she had in this New York Times,

and I think the New York Times called it.

What's the word, like apology?

Does anyone know?

Yeah, apology, apology.

It's a fancy way of saying you're explaining yourself.

Answer, yeah, I looked it up,

and it's a little more derogatory than explaining myself

because I felt the need to look it up.

But the New York Times called this letter an apology.

Question, hmm, answer.

And this was recently, and I say this

because then folks read the letter,

they read it as this is why, you know,

I think sometimes they selectively read language.

They say if you want to go fast, go alone,

but if you want to go far, go together.

At Amika Insurance, we know what matters most to you.

And we work even harder to protect it together.

As a mutual insurance company,

we're built for our customers and prioritize your needs.

Amika, empathy is our best policy.

Visit amika.com and get a quote today.

Here's golf legend, John Daly.

Hell yeah, these winds are pulling up faster than my divorces.

I only spend on moto, America's social casino.

You know, I've won a couple of majors,

and on moto, I've won majors,

grads, and epic jackpots on their classic Vegas slots

with huge, huge bonus rounds.

Moto Casino adds new games and awards players,

three coins every single day.

Grip it and spend it on moto casino.

Download the Moto Casino app today.

Moto Casinos is a social casino.

We're prohibited.

No purchase necessary.

There's a moto.com US for more details.

The prosecutor is an agent in the case.

And what followed was a year-long assault.

I used the word assault.

As it was more aggressive than anything in which I,

or the prosecutors in my office, had previously encountered.

Mr. Epstein hired an army of legal superstars,

Harvard professor, Dershowitz, former judge,

and then Pepperdine, lodging Ken Star,

former deputy assistant to the president,

then Kirkland and Ellis Law partner, J. Lefkowitz,

and several others, including prosecutors

that formally worked in the US attorney's office.

The child exploitation section.

I'm not sure who that was.

Of the Department of Defense.

Question, Department of Defense.

Answer, no, no, in child exploitation.

And obscenely section of the Justice Department.

Defense attorneys next requested a meeting with me.

And they read that as saying,

there were all these powerful lawyers in the case,

but they then go on to talk about it.

Despite this army of attorneys,

the office held firm to the terms first presented

to Mr. Black in the original meeting.

Question, so what I understand you saying,

is that the panopoli, this pantheon of attorneys,

did not have the influence on you, that's alleged.

Answer, and the purpose of this letter,

as to despite all of that, we held firm.

So how can you say that there is influence if we held firm?

And I would also, I'm sorry, gets cut off, no, no.

Continues, I would also note,

I think we talked about this.

And those terms were developed before many of these individuals

came on board.

So it's not like these terms were developed

because, oh, now these individuals are on board.

Question, all right.

And of course, we haven't talked about the work release issue,

but I think that speaks, the record speaks for itself on that.

So I'm not sure, I'm clear.

Did you have an interview or give,

have a conversation with Ms. Redacted,

or just center this letter?

Answer, I spoke with her briefly saying,

I'm not going to speak on the record.

I'm not going to address even off the record details of the case,

but I will provide a letter to you.

I've had a lot of requests over the years to talk about the case.

There were enough requests coming, that I thought it was important

to provide a statement to defend the actions of the office.

I didn't want it to be one reporter in particular,

because I did not want to play favorites.

And so I provided, to whom it made concern letter,

it was a public letter, but then I gave it to her.

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 diving right back in

to the Alex Acosta interview with the OIG investigators,

and we're getting close to the end here.

Question, and just one thing on work release issue.

Did you tell the defense that the US Attorney's Office

would not object if he got work release,

as long as he's treated like every other defendant?

Answer, so I don't recall what I may or may not have said

specifically around work release.

My recollection of our general position is you're pleading

and stay court to incarceration of 18,

now it's 18 months, it was 24.

Whether it was 18 or 24, this would have been any conversation

I would have had, would have been after the agreement was signed.

It's our expectation that he be treated just like everyone else.

If it was typical to provide that kind of work release

in these cases, that would have been news to me,

I certainly would not have expected that,

and I think based on our subsequent communication

with the State Attorney's Office,

that was not what our office envisioned.

By the same token, I don't want to think our office

envisioned that he be treated worth,

that the typical offender.

Question, well, did you know that redacted was in fact trying

to make sure that he didn't get work release?

Answer, yes, and so I don't see any reason

why I would have contradicted that, that's my point.

Question, all right, you've mentioned the number of times

that the sexual offender registration

was one of the three important prongs for you and the office.

Answer, yes, question.

What was it that you saw the sex offender registration

as accomplishing?

Answer, so to some extent it's putting the community on notice

that irrespective of whether he's in Florida

or elsewhere, he's a registered sex offender.

To some extent, I don't know if this,

but I'll say it anyhow, this was a serious crime

and there's a public sanction associated with this,

and I thought to the extent that he committed the types

of acts that typically are associated with registration

that should go forward.

But the primary motivation there was put the public on notice

that he is a registered sex offender.

Question, and did you see any conflict with that

as being the goal with the provision in the MPA

that the MPA was going to be kept confidential

and the communication in which the US Attorney's Office

was having with the defense about continuing

to keep things confidential?

Did you see any inconsistency between those two?

Answer, no, in that I genuinely was of the opinion

that the MPA would go public,

and certainly his public, his state court plea,

would be public, and his registration would be public,

and so what he did would be known.

Question, and given what you know about these offices

back and forth on notifying the victims,

do you think looking at the entire course

of conduct of the office that the victims were treated fairly

and with dignity and respect?

Answer, so I want to be careful,

not because I'm fudging,

but because it's a complex question.

If looking back in hindsight,

we know that there would be what was it?

Two, eight-month periods?

Do we have an agreement?

Do we not have an agreement?

Is this concluded?

Is this not concluded?

Is this an ongoing investigation?

How do we deal with all these notification issues?

If we had foreseen all of that,

I think I've said before that something I certainly think

should have been considered,

and it's very possible we would have done something very different,

but that was not foreseen.

And so it's then a very difficult judgment to be made

because there is an agreement.

There is concern as to if we go to trial,

how do you address this?

There is, you know, going to the affidavit,

at least one instance,

and I'm merging my recollection here,

and my knowledge after the fact,

because your question sort of calls

for an after-the-fact assessment.

So you've got the redacted affidavit,

which points out the defense council,

did all they could,

but is using this to impeach

and weaken witness credibility in a case,

where there's already questions around witness credibility.

And so it's a very imperfect situation,

with discretionary judgments,

to do the best, to sort of balance all of these factors.

Is that the best outcome?

Probably not,

but that's where we were.

And that's why I think this case

would have been very different.

Then it was October 24th,

he would have gone in and pled,

and taken his time,

and served his time,

like many other people have done,

as opposed to mount all these legal challenges,

that we then had to work through.

Question,

and I'll preface my question,

with the fact that we're still investigating this.

We've made no conclusions with respect to this,

but if OPR determines that your office

should be criticized for its handling of this,

does the criticism fall on you,

or does it fall on your senior managers?

Because a non-prosecutor,

you were relying on them to keep you informed,

and for their judgment.

Answer is so,

I was US Attorney.

I certainly relied on my staff,

but ultimately,

I was US Attorney,

and I don't think it's justifiable, or fair,

to sort of say this was on them.

I was sufficiently aware of matters

that it was my office,

and while I'll say that it was,

I might not recall this,

or I was relying on A, B, or C,

for guidance,

or to handle the matter,

ultimately I think those judgments

always sort of bubble up.

Question,

in your press conference,

you reference?

I think July 10, 2019,

press conference,

you reference victims,

what they went through,

was horrific.

You said,

and then you said,

I've seen the videos,

I've seen the interviews,

I've seen the interviews

on television,

of the victims,

and their stories.

Just to be clear,

are you talking about interviews,

and television coverage,

and videos recently,

or back in 2006?

Answer,

recently.

Question, okay.

I just wanted to be very clear about that.

The US Attorney,

manual requires us all in the department,

to conduct the fair,

even-handed administration

of the federal criminal law.

What's your view,

as to how the handling of this case

comported, with that principle?

Answer, so I don't think it was fair,

and even-handed.

You know, after the fact,

may look back and say,

that two years may not, you know,

it shouldn't have been a manifest injustice standard,

it should have been,

sort of,

denovo.

Let's treat this like a new prosecution.

That's a judgment.

You'll all make,

but those judgments were made

with the eye towards fairness,

and impartiality,

and once those judgments were made,

despite all the attorneys involved,

and despite all the litigation,

and all the stuff,

all the appeals to DC,

you know, we stuck to that position,

and I think that speaks to the way

the office approached the matter.

Question, alright,

I spoke sort of offline earlier,

about an issue that was raised

in the press conference,

that was not clearly answered,

on your part,

in that context.

And the question was,

is this, on page 15,

of the internet transcript,

of that press conference,

you were asked whether,

you ever made aware of Mr. Epstein,

as an intelligence asset of some sort?

And you, in your response,

said you could answer it,

couldn't address it directly,

because of guidelines.

Can you clarify, first of all,

were you ever made aware of that?

Answer, if you was,

I'm not aware of it.

Question, alright,

did defense counsel ever say to you

that Epstein had that status?

Answer, not to my recollection?

Question, alright, answer,

and to clarify,

I also don't aware the press reports

from multiple sources,

not from multiple sources,

but from multiple media outlets,

that I told someone,

that he was an intelligence asset.

I don't know where that came from.

So there are questions,

that I may be asked publicly,

that I don't think it's right,

for me to comment,

as to what classified information I may,

or may not have,

because that's not the kind of stuff

you'd get into,

but the answer is no,

and no.

Question, alright,

without reservation,

answer, no and no.

Alright, excellent.

Thank you.

A couple of final questions.

Answer, can I address

as a second issue?

That has come up at times?

Question, yes.

Answer, there are also

media reports that this was

because of cooperation

in some financial matters.

I don't know where that may have,

I don't know where that may have come from.

Answer, alright, thank you.

And we are familiar

with that, what you're referring to.

Answer, was there

cooperation related to financial matters?

Question, we didn't ask you about it.

Answer, okay.

Answer, okay.

Question, as you can tell,

OPR obtained many electronic records.

Mainly emails,

but other electronic holdings

from the department.

The Department of Justice, however,

has not been able to find

or recover a portion

of your email account

as US Attorney

that contained emails

received by you

between May 26, 2007

and March 2008.

Answer, correct.

At Amika Insurance,

we know it's not just

what's inside your home

that matters.

It's who you share it with.

That's why we work even harder

to protect it.

And as a mutual insurance company,

we're built for our customers.

We prioritize your needs

and are here for you

when you need us.

Amika, empathy is our best policy.

Visit amika.com

and get a quote today.

Here's Golf Legend,

John Daley.

Hell yeah, these wins

are pulling up faster

than my divorces.

I only spend on Modo,

America's Social Casino.

You know, I've won a couple

of majors.

And on Modo, I've won

majors, grads, and epic jackpots

on their classic Vegas slots

with huge, huge bonus rounds.

Modo Casino adds new games

and awards players

free coins every single day.

Grip it and spend it

on Modo Casino.

Download the Modo Casino app today.

Modo Casinos is Social Casino.

What we're prohibited

to purchase this is Modo Doppi West

for mortgage.

Modo Casino,

America's Social Casino.

Question.

A period of time

rather relevant to this.

We've obtained many records,

of course,

from senders

and from other people copied.

So, we have many of the records,

but the fact is,

there's a gap in the holdings.

And this is despite the fact,

that as you know doubt,

no, the law requires

that U.S. Attorney records

be maintained

and archived.

And definitely,

can you give us any insight?

Any idea how that might be the case?

Answer.

I can't.

And my recollection

was after several issues

that took place in the department,

had some sort of

records retention software,

that automatically retained the emails.

Is that not accurate?

Question.

There was.

There was a switchover

from a period in which

the record retention

responsibility

resided with each U.S. Attorney office.

And at the switchover,

it became centralized.

Answer.

Right.

Question.

And this appears to have

sort of gotten lost

in the,

he gets cut off here

by Acosta.

Answer.

Been caught in the switchover.

My recollection

is that there was some

automatic retention mechanism.

Question.

Okay.

Answer.

And I can't address that,

although there's certainly

a full sum record.

Question.

But just to ask the inevitable question.

Did you take any action

to discard, destroy,

or dispense

with any official records?

Related to this matter.

Answer.

Not to my recollection.

I think there's a full sum record.

And not to my recollection.

Question.

All right.

And is there any particular gap

that you've discerned in the records?

That we've provided to you?

Answer.

Not that I recall.

Do you have the emails

that I sent out of curiosity?

Answer.

We do.

Answer.

Okay.

So you have the scent,

but not received.

Question.

Yes.

We retrieved from the federal record center.

Records that were boxed up and sent there.

Hard copy documents.

After your term ended.

And there is nothing that relates to the Epstein case.

There were records that were maintained.

That were kept in the main office after you left.

Because it was an ongoing matter.

But do you have any idea

why there are not any of those records of yours

that were sent?

Answer.

So I have a recollection

that when I left,

there were some binders

that I passed along to redacted

because it was an ongoing case.

And we sort of had binders

out of that sort of had correspondence back and forth.

All right.

And you've already made.

We've already asked you about the facts,

but you addressed sort of a broader statement to us

for the record about the case.

Is there anything else you want to tell us at this point?

Answer.

Give me a second to think this through.

Question.

In fact, if you'd like to take a quick break

and talk to your attorney.

And that will be the last question.

Answer.

Do we need a break?

Mr. redacted?

No.

Mr. redacted?

Your attorney says no.

Acosta, I'll follow up on this.

Nothing that I, if something comes up,

my understanding is that we're received the transcript

and have enough time given the length of this

to review and comment.

Question exactly.

Yes, and for the record,

when the transcript is prepared,

which should be within a couple of weeks,

we'll ship that off to you and your attorney.

We'll ask you to review it

to make not only any corrections but clarifications

and to add to it if you feel you have read something

that it needs to be clarified or expanded upon.

You're invited to do so.

Answer.

And if I could ask one other question.

I'm not familiar enough with the way OPR operates

and this may be weird,

so you may not be prepared to answer

if there's a report as opposed to a letter,

which is what I typically am familiar with.

Will that report be shared in advance for comment?

Or is that determined?

Misredacted?

I'm going to defer to misredacted for that.

Misredacted?

That's a question that doesn't need to be on the record.

Do you have anything else that you'd want to put on the record

before we close out?

Acosta, I do not.

Misredacted?

All right.

Thank you.

I want to extend our great appreciation

for your willingness to come in and help us with this case.

All right.

We're off the record.

All right, folks.

So there you have it.

The complete and unabridged version of Alex Acosta's interview

with the OIG inspectors.

All of the information that goes with this episode can be found

in the description box.

At Amika Insurance,

we know it's not just what's inside your home that matters.

It's who you share it with.

That's why we work even harder to protect it

and is a mutual insurance company

we're built for our customers.

We prioritize your needs

and are here for you when you need us.

Amika, empathy is our best policy.

Visit amika.com and get a quote today.

Here's golf legend, John Daly.

Hell yeah, these winds are pulling up faster than my divorces.

I only spend on moto, America's social casino.

You know, I've won a couple of majors.

And on moto, I've won majors, grads, and epic jackpots

on their classic Vegas slots with huge, huge bonus rounds.

Moto Casino adds new games and awards players

free coins every single day.

Grip it and spend it on moto casino.

Download the Moto Casino app today.

Moto Casinos is our social casino.

We're prohibited.

No purchase necessary.

Visit Moto.US for more details.

Moto Casino,

America's social casino.