Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 7-9) (3/12/26)

At the UPS store, we understand the importance of a first impression.

That's why we're here to help you put your best foot forward and be unstoppable with our printing services,

with high quality paper stock options.

Banners, business cards, venues, and more,

we make sure your small business stands out and your message reaches the masses.

After all, we're the one-stop, print-that-pop store.

Most locations are independently owned, product services prices and hours of operation may vary.

See center for details.

The UPS store, be unstoppable.

Come into your local store today and get your print on.

This is a message from sponsor Intuit 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.

Intuit TurboTax, visit TurboTax.com to learn more.

Only available with TurboTax experts, real-time updates, only an 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 interview

with the OIG inspectors.

Question, okay, in Exhibit 8, you actually got the in Exhibit 7.

You can see that in the bottom part of that that you received a copy of the prosecution

memo on the second page of the Exhibit at the top.

Answer right.

Question redacted is forwarding to you, the prosecution memo.

Answer right, question in Exhibit 8.

You see that redacted is forwarding or sending that chain excluding redacted.

That is redacted, redacted, redacted, redacted, and you.

Additional items in Operation Leap Year.

And there is a summary of the indictment.

The evidence regarding the individual victims, okay?

So as of May 11th, you had before you, the prosecution memo, the proposed indictment,

and the substantial amount of additional information.

Did you read the prosecution memo?

Answer right.

So I don't recall, and I don't know you are going to say why don't I, but this was

a long time ago.

I don't recall if I read it, or if I went back to the office and sat down with redacted

and redacted and went over it.

I can't recall from this far.

I can say that it looks based on this, that I was at the US Attorney's Conference.

The idea of printing this out on a hotel printer, I wouldn't, I can't believe I would have

printed this out on a hotel printer.

Question let alone read it on an airplane, correct?

Answer let alone read it on an airplane.

That would just not have been my practice.

Question but going back, arriving back to your offices, was it your practice to take

voluminous documents like this, and go through them yourself, or did you rely on your

senior staff?

Answer I would typically rely on my senior staff.

There are the experienced ones that have seen these matters before.

They would go through it, we'd sit down, we'd talk about the issues, we might have it

in front of us, almost like you've got all those binders there, but you know, you're

calling my attention to particular issues, and we'd sort of talk it through.

Question, and you recall doing that in this case?

Answer I recall having discussions with senior staff about the case.

Question who?

Answer is certainly redacted, and redacted at various points.

I can't say that I did that in May versus April versus June.

I can't give you timelines.

Question while we're talking about May.

Because you've got the actual process.

Answer it would have been my practice based on this to go back and discuss it, and so

based on my practice, I would have gone back and likely discussed it.

I doubt I would have printed this out at whatever hotel I was at.

Question, but even when you go back to the office, would you have somebody printed out

so you would have had it available?

Answer I may have had someone printed out so it's available, I may have focused on

particular parts of it.

Question what kind of issues would you have focused on?

In other words, in other words, some might go straight to the facts.

Some might be interested in the legal theories.

What was your approach?

Answer so I think it depended on the case.

Question okay?

Answer here, you had legal questions and you also had witness issues.

And I would think that those would have been the two primary areas.

Question would you have gone through the indictment and the prosecution memo and all of those

other materials or just relied on your experience seeing your people redacted and redacted?

Here is a general practice, probably some combination.

As a general and general recollection, the concerns in this case weren't about the

sort of details of what happened because we believed he did what he did.

The concerns were about some of the legal issues around it and some of the issues in terms

of testimony, question of victims, answer of victims.

Question all right, on page nine, exhibit nine is an email that you are not on but that

notes that redacted is advising redacted that you as your memo and left court's letter

Gerald left court, New York attorney, who was one of the members of Epstein's defense

team.

Did you know him?

Answer, I did not.

Question, did you ever encounter him as far as you recall?

Answer, I did not.

Question all right.

He had according to the documents we have made two substantial submissions in February

of that year in an effort to dissuade them from pursuing a prosecution and we have every

reason to believe and no reason not to believe that that's what it's being referred to.

Do you recall reviewing substantial submission from defense counsel at this time, attacking

a very granular detail, the credibility of witnesses and so on, answer, I don't recall

reviewing those.

Again, I recall discussions with my senior team about issues that included credibility

and I'm not sure if it's credibility is the right word, but how the victims would

do on the stand.

Question, okay, and who do you recall talking to about that?

Answer, so some combination of redacted and redacted would have been, the likely I

recall the discussion, I'd or recall whether it was redacted or whether it was redacted

or redacted, but the logical inference would have been, it would have been some combination

of redacted and redacted.

And okay, redacted has told us that during this period, he was not actively involved

in the case, question, but that redacted was, would that be consistent with your memory?

Answer, that sure, I mean, they were a team, they became more or less involved based

on needs question, and was there any particular if redacted was working with you directly

on reporting on his assessment of the case?

Was there any reason for redacted to be involved?

Answer, I might bounce ideas off him, I mean, he was, he was the right across, so we

work closely, but you know, redacted was a criminal chief.

And if he was in the weeds, redacted and I would speculate would sort of, much like me,

deferred to his judgment, because they've known each other and they've worked together

and they had a good working relationship.

Question, and is it, do we understand correctly, that as first assistant, redacted has a brief

that really encompassed the entire office?

Answer, he did, he supervised the civil, the criminal, the appellate, and the forfeiture.

Question, alright, there is here in this email that you did not see back in the day exhibit

9, a pushback from redacted regarding the rush that redacted is in to pursue the case.

And he says this is obviously a very significant case, and Alex wants to take his time in making

sure he is comfortable before proceeding.

Can you tell us what the basis would be for or was, for that assertion by redacted?

Answer, so I can't tell you from the recollection what the basis is.

I can speculate that the material is being transmitted Friday morning, he gets cut off,

the 11th answer by Acosta, yeah.

So Friday morning, it hasn't been reviewed by anyone in the management chain, much less

approved than edited, and redacted that Monday is saying, why don't I have a decision?

And so absent truly, extenuating circumstances, typically you'd give, you know, it'd have

to go through the management chain up to the US attorney, and so he's pushing back, saying

it's been a day or it's been a weekend, I'm just reading between the lines here.

Question, who had authority to sign off on the Epstein prosecution to say in-die, answer

so as a delegated matter, redacted had signature authority.

As did, as did redacted, as did redacted, and obviously I did, as a practice matter, this

is something that would have gone through the chain.

And that we would have then discussed, question, but why about your level?

Is it because, as redacted says, obviously a very significant case?

Answer so at my level, not only because of the facts, because it's not about the facts,

but I do think that there are legal issues that implicated policy that we were thinking

through.

Question and what were the legal issues and what were the policy issues?

Answer so the legal issues and also factual issues in terms of the witnesses.

So the legal issue, so there's an email from redacted based on, you know, the contemporaneous

record that alludes to some of this.

In my experience at the Civil Rights Division, trafficking cases involved, you know, I can

describe some, some horrific cases of girls being held against their will, you know,

you had CP, matters with young women, sometimes incredibly young, that the office prosecuted.

As trafficking laws were being developed, there was a lot of discussion about what's

the difference between trafficking and solicitation, and the discussion took place as the trafficking

laws were being developed.

And so this implicated that and it implicated what the local and what is federal.

And all right, so in the first, you're talking in the first category, you're talking about

the individual charges that had been that were proposed, which included both trafficking

and coercion and enticement or enticement.

Answer correct.

Question all right.

And in the latter, you felt that did you, to what extent did the witness, victim witness,

kind of credibility issues, implicates policy?

Answer so I think I said that policy and victim in that.

And that there was certainly discussion between me and my management about concerns as to

how the victims would sort of stand up in court.

Question so what would make you comfortable before proceeding?

What would you, what at the point would have made you comfortable about proceeding?

Answer so I think that at this point, I don't think it's what would have or would not

have made me comfortable.

And I'm speculating here, I think it came in on a Friday, let's talk this through.

Question but you've just identified for us issues in your mind had to be resolved.

Question all right.

Okay.

At that point, do you, does your recollection have any doubt that some form of indictment

or charging instrument against Epstein was likely to become viable?

Answer so it was a case that I thought it very important that we do something.

How that something played out, I think had all along been a matter of discussion.

As something other than what the U.S. Attorney's Office does, which is prosecute?

Answer well no, I mean what the U.S. Attorney's Office does is ensure that justice is served.

Question right answer.

And in partnership with state attorneys and sometimes that means state attorneys take

the lead.

Sometimes that means that the U.S. Attorney's Office takes the lead.

And a lot of times we actually, you know, we would share staff because sometimes it made

sense, you know, for one part or the other to take the lead.

So writ large, I thought throughout, it was a very important that something happened.

There were concerns all along.

I can speculate that this is just a reflection of those continuing concerns.

Question as expressed by you to redacted in the ordinary course.

Answer as developed as a group throughout this.

If we go back to what exhibit?

Question June of 2006.

So exhibit three says in that meeting, I summarized the case in the state attorney's office handling

it.

I acknowledged that we needed to do work to collect evidence establishing a federal nexus.

And I noted the time and money that would be required for an investigation.

And so as far back as the initial meeting, there is discussion about the federal nexus.

And whether this is a state or a federal case?

And all right, exhibit seven is an early email from redacted to you.

Early meeting, it precedes the one we just looked at.

And early in that, it's right as you're receiving the prosecution memo.

And you ask them, have you read the memo?

And curious why you ask redacted rather than redacted answer, I don't recall.

I can speculate.

And I have two thoughts that I'll speculate.

One is redacted her direct supervisor.

And I might be thinking her second line supervisor.

So why is redacted sending me this redacted?

Have you read this?

I.e. did you jump the chain?

Secondly I think I may have wanted to have multiple opinions on this.

It's most likely that I had talked to redacted already because redacted and I talked more

often and I'm asking another person in the management chain, hey, what do you think?

Let's have multiple opinions on the table here.

Then, well, is this the first time other than redacted that we see you getting a recommendation?

Answer right.

Question, when redacted says he thinks that you should charge him, you the office should

charge Epstein.

He has issues with the charging strategy proposed by redacted, but one, he says, we all need

to get on the same page as to whether the statute covered the conduct.

And whether the conduct is the type we should charge.

I think the answer to both is yes.

Although there is some risk on some of the statutes, he proposes that the office start

with a complaint, which is not unusual, is it?

Answer, it happens, yes.

Question.

All right, which allows the defendant to be arrested and ideally detained.

And then the defendant is then highly motivated or incentivized to work a pre-enditement resolution.

That's what redacted is proposing.

He also notes that it's important, in his view, to cap him with conspiracy counts to make

a plea attractive.

And the court could give us a hard time.

With that, if we had to dismiss indicted counts.

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 pick up where we left off with Alex Acosta and his interview

with the OIG inspectors.

Question.

Okay, the proposed indictment included one conspiracy, a conspiracy that has a five-year

statutory maximum.

And this notion is that Epstein be charged with a five-year conspiracy count and take

it from there.

Do you know what he was referring to when he noted that a court could give you a hard

time in dismissing indicted counts in the case?

Answer.

So as a typical matter, once there's an indictment, the pre-enditement, well by definition,

a pre-enditement resolution comes off the table.

But in cases of this nature, the resolutions tend to happen before indictment, because once

the indictment is done, at least in South Florida, dismissal of charges, for example,

you know, if saying, let's think about a 371 with a five-year cap at Rule 11, that's

something that's out Florida judges.

They tend not to, you know, dismissing a number of accounts.

And then doing a Rule 11 is not something that judges tend to do.

Question.

All right.

Two pieces to that.

One is the issue of dismissing substantive counts, substantive counts.

Was that a particular concern in the case?

Because of the nature of the conduct represented in the substantive counts?

Answer.

So your question, you asked a general question.

And then you're moving to a specific, but as a general matter, not just in this case,

but in other cases, it was rare that the office after, in cases like this, after a full

charge was done, that the substantive counts were dismissed.

So for example, in the public corruption cases that I referenced earlier at a Palm Beach,

those were all negotiated pre-indipement and agreed to.

And then by the time the case was indicted, it was all sort of set on autopilot.

Question.

So typically, in my experience, a disposition like that results in a criminal information,

not an indictment.

Question.

Are you saying that you would go ahead and indict then?

Answer.

No.

What I'm saying is that there were, it was all negotiated in advance.

And then there was information, and the information would go forward, not an indictment.

Question.

All right.

Answer.

And so that is how a member of a high profile case typically proceeded as opposed to indict

and dismiss.

Question.

And that's the experience of the Southern District of Florida in general.

It was in particularly in the Palm Beach office with other high profile cases that were there

at the time.

Question.

Do you recall in any case in which a judge in an indicted case refused to dismiss counts

when the government in an indictment under those circumstances?

Answer.

I don't recall specific cases, but I can say that typically in the higher profile cases

you'd negotiated with opposing counsel presenting information.

The information would have agreed to an agreed guideline, and it would proceed in that

way.

Question.

Understood.

But in this case, I'm focusing on the assertion by redacted that the court could give

us a hard time, and that's a little different from, you know, exercising discretion to negotiate

and proceed by information.

So is there any judge that was particularly concerning with regard to an unwillingness

to dismiss?

So first, this is 12 years ago, and I don't recall any specific judge, but I can sort

of say that was not the practice of the office.

The practice of the office was to proceed by information rather than indictment with

dismissal because there is more you can lay out more what you negotiated.

I think later there's a letter from redacted that sort of presents the same perspective.

Question.

You said in a case of this nature, the resolution happens before inditing.

What is a case of this nature?

Answer.

Higher profile.

Higher profile cases.

Question.

So not necessarily a sex offense case.

Answer.

Not necessarily sex offenses.

No.

No.

Higher profile cases.

This was just a, so I would say it's a combination of all of the above.

And to my mind, one of the parts of this case is the legal theories were, if not novel,

they were novel within the Southern District of Florida, at least some of the legal theories.

And well, we'll probably get into that.

Question.

Did his wealth make it a high profile case?

Answer.

Well, it was clearly in the paper, and so that made it a high profile case.

I don't think it was his wealth.

I think it was all of the above.

This was a matter that the state attorney had been ready to charge that the federal government

is now jumping into and saying by its presence that the state did not do enough.

That end and of itself makes it a very high profile case.

I can't remember any other instance, certainly during my time, when we jumped in and said,

you know, the state dropped charges, and so we're going to do more.

Question.

As opposed to or as distinguished from when you described a few moments ago, a situation

in which the federal authorities and the state authorities kind of worked together,

to sort out what would be charged where and do it cooperatively answer.

And that was more cooperative.

I would, you know, I do recollect that and I think the record bears this out that this

was not a particularly cooperative relationship between us and the state attorney.

If I could, if I could return, I think your question, the way you posed your question,

you set a recommendation from redacted and let me, let me push back a little bit on

that saying, what are your thoughts?

Have you read it?

Have you read your thoughts?

And he says, yes, we can talk next week.

My current thoughts are, it's very different than we've sat down, we've discussed this.

This is my now informed position.

Question understood.

And I should have been clear.

I was referring to his recommendation that if you were going to proceed, you should

start with a complaint.

Just to be clear, answer and I'm just saying initial thoughts gets cut off.

And all right.

So were you aware that redacted bootleg the copy of the pro's memo to redact it at CEOs?

Answer I was not question.

He did at the time answer, okay, question.

And did you know redacted answer a little bit?

I certainly knew all of them.

Question had you encountered him when he was chief of the child exploitation and obscenity

section?

Answer right question in the criminal division here, correct?

Had you encountered him while you were in this building also?

Answer most likely I knew all of them enough that I correspond in shows and I recall asking

to involve them pretty early on.

Question so it does read as if you were acquainted with him.

Answer yeah, question all right.

And did you have any that is opinion his views as chief of CEOs and as redacted who had

been in a USA?

In Miami, did his views influence on your thinking about the case?

Answer I don't think at this time I was aware that redacted had been consulted.

Answer all right and in July just so you know.

And I have this is not something you saw.

He provided a fairly strong statement by email to redacted and redacted which he advises

that he reviewed the prosecution memo closely.

It's terrific he says redacted did a terrific job and he says we agree with her legal analysis.

Her charging decisions are legally sound and then redacted goes through the different

statutes.

And concludes that they are all properly charged and that although there are some issues

legally that in his view, we should prevail.

Our position should prevail.

And that he also reviewed the arguments contained in the letters from defense counsel and

he found none of their arguments persuasive.

So at least as of July 18, your three levels of supervisors down were on notice that CEOs

was on board and wanted to see the case move forward.

What is it?

Am I correct in understanding that at the time you were unaware of that answer?

I do not recall being aware of that question.

All right.

Okay.

If you had been aware of it, if they had sent this, I don't want to overstate it, but it's

pretty strong endorsement for the proposed prosecution.

Would you have been influenced by that answer?

Sure I would have.

I mean, I respected redacted and clearly wanted him to be part of the team and later invited

him down and so on.

So yes.

Question.

Okay.

All right.

Do you know why they wouldn't have shared your people wouldn't have shared this with you?

Answer.

I don't know.

Question.

All right.

So as far as based on the briefings that you got in this time period, when there was

an effort to try to figure out what you were going to do, were there any issues of concern

of fact or evidence or the charges that were left on addressed?

In other words, if there were issues about victim credibility, where steps being taken

to address those answer on addressed is again, it's a very binary.

It's not about addressed versus unaddressed.

And so let me sort of come at it if I can try to get there.

There were concerns around some legal issues.

There were concerns about how the victims would do when put on the stand.

Question, right answer.

As a general matter, we thought there was enough if we had to go forward we could as

an ethical matter go forward.

That doesn't mean that there was not value in a pre-indipment resolution.

And so here you have redacted based on this exhibit, saying we need to get on the same

page as to what the charge pre-indipment resolution, cap them with conspiracy count to make

up the attractive.

So a five year cap something less than five years you have redacted in our affidavit

that was submitted to the court saying she favored a pre-indipment resolution.

And so it's not a have you addressed everything yes or no as opposed to putting all of this

how do we move forward question right but there is a binary point here and that is you

either indict or you don't indict you either present an indictment to the grand jury or

you don't right that's a decision right answer.

So I would actually push back in that many cases it's not quite that binary.

In many cases you sit down with the opposing counsel and say look we can go to a grand

jury and we can present this indictment and indict or we can resolve this now.

If we resolve this now this is the path that we can go forward alternatively we can go

here and so it's not an a versus b question I understand that nuance but the decision

to indict I mean you either indict or you don't if you don't indict it's for any number

of reasons if under the circumstances the choices that are available or you have a case that's

been brought taking it from the state you can decline it send it back to the state make

it go away whatever answer right question we're not interested you can indict you can indict

and go to trial these are the subcategories or you can indict and have the defendant plead

to the indictment or you can indict and work a post indictment plea deal which raises

the issue you talked about or you can negotiate or you can charge proceed by complaint and

do as redacted was suggesting work a pre indictment but post charge disposition or you

can work a pre charge disposition right I mean that's really that's the parade of possibilities

answer sure that's more than indictment or don't indict that's six or seven options

question I understand that that's how it'll play out but the decision as to whether to

indict is binary you're either inditing or you're not inditing the act of inditing

is something that either happens or doesn't happen that's all I'm saying answer sure

question okay so that's what I'm getting at with respect to the indictment so as you're

looking at this case it sounds as if you're doing sort of one analytical track which

is what do we do with the case the other piece of that and a track that could have been

followed exclusively is what do we need to do to get an indictment that is legally sound

and evidentiary evidentiary solid I'd like to focus on that track because they're not

unrelated answer sure question if you never get down do we have a viable indictment

road and you're not going to be able to do anything in the other road so at this point

you have identified and you have collectively you and your people had identified some witnesses

victim witnesses issues and some legal issues my question is where steps being taken I use

the term address let me let me clarify with respect to the witness as the FBI and the

line attorney with the assistance perhaps of the grand jury taking steps to corroborate

shore up victim witness testimony find new victims find additional evidence and so on

answer so taken that in part is helpful so with respect to the witness issues I recall

and redacted goes into much more detail in our affidavit but I recall concerns that

were communicated to me in essence in sort of a summary my impression of recollection

of these girls are young they're impressionable they're scared will they stand up in court

there are any number of there's any number of things that could be used against them

some of them are and this is uncomfortable but some of them thought he actually cared

for them and that's not a typical in these cases they were sort of the develop those

thoughts and they're wrong but they are what they are and we're actually saying he did

nothing wrong and because many of them knew on another how would that all play out

and so it would have been my assumption particularly given you know how much work redacted was

doing on this case misredacted was doing on the case and she in combination with the

FBI would be pursuing those matters and looking to develop the evidence and corroborate

and throughout the process it would have been my assumption and hope that she was continuing

to develop the facts because that can only help question and so as us attorney would

indeed have been your expectation answer yes question and the expectation that her that all

those interim supervisors would have been supporting her and encouraging her and guiding her answer

it would have been that's what happens in typical cases question right answer just because

we're having a legal discussion doesn't mean you stop pursuing leads all right folks we're

in a 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 the OIG interview of Alex Acosta question okay I just want to sort of round

out the little bit of this the state the state only resolution you use the term a couple of times

backstopping what do you mean by that answer what I mean by that is a sense that the state wasn't

doing enough and perhaps backstopping is a plight way of saying encouraging the state to do a

little bit more question all right did you have any discussions about whether this disposition

imported with the Ashcroft memo in that you are hunting to the state for a minor charge for a

fairly minor charge what your office had already understood from the evidence was a quite wide

ranging scheme of predatory my term behavior regarding minor victims answer so I don't recall

a discussion around the Ashcroft memo I would characterize that we did differently in that there

are any number of instances where the federal government or the state government can proceed

and state charges are substantially less and different and on a fairly regular basis the

federal government allows the state not allows but stands aside and let's the state proceed

question but in this case you actually had an active investigation that had been proceeding for a

year answer so let's take a drug context where there might be any number of active investigations

where the federal charges can be rather substantial but ultimately the federal government says just

let the state proceed with this or a violent crime cases where the federal government could bring

gun charges using a felony in possession or another mandatory minimum but the state goes forward

with so in that sense he gets cut off question but the state goes forward with what answer forward

with different charges that have a lesser term and so I don't think it's unusual we can talk about

you know whether this was the best disposition or not but I don't think it's unusual to have a

fact pattern that are under investigation that proceed and state court where the disposition is

different than and would have been if it had proceeded in federal court question all right you

have anything on that redacted on the two years or something else redacted no I'm going back

the two years redacted okay question did you think did you believe at the time if this was part

of your thinking that because it was so important to get sex offender registration and even later

develop damages monetary damages for the victims under the state plea arrangement that pretty

much the only thing that the government had the federal government had to give in the negotiation

was gel time if you wanted three things you've said gel time sex offender status and some kind of

restitution or damages or mechanisms sex offender registration there is really no give there

you either register or you don't I'm being binary again I'm sorry it's binary and likewise the

monetary recovery provision so really the only thing to negotiate is time right answer and so your

question is why did we not start at three so we ended up at two question well that's that's a

consequence of what I was asking answer so again my recollection is I understood this to reflect

what he would have received as opposed to some arbitrary let's start at three so we end up at two

I'm sorry do you have a question question no go ahead answer you know I also from my perspective

was you know early on when we sat firm on the two years I thought two years would have been

the right outcome we ended up on 18 months I can't say how there are some documents that might

help but I was least initially firm on those two years question right when you say I thought the

two years was the right amount is that based on your understanding that that's what he would have

gotten in the state answer correct and the point I'm trying to convey there is that this wasn't to

my understanding a random number but it was informed by this is what he would have received and

therefore it's reasonable agree or disagree with the analysis but it was an informed number to begin

with question but don't you recall how the analysis was done or conducted or that analysis answer

I don't recall that question or even whether it was accurate actually answer again I don't recall

that question and I understand that explanation answer right question what it's tied to but

was there any consideration because this case was not about one or two victims it was a very

large scheme by this older wealthy man to essentially turn miners into prostitutes have sex with

them oral sex get other people involved you've described it in prior statements as grotesque and

deserving of punishment what I'm not hearing through this process is anybody taking a look at this

overall conduct and saying what is the appropriate punishment for this man's conduct

was there such a consideration and did you feel that two years adequately punished him

for the scope of his conduct answer fair question and perhaps going back to where we started which

is petite to my mind at the time there was a distinction between what would be the adequate

punishment if this was a purely federal case versus what is necessary so that it's not to put

it in petite language manifest injustice so that it would have had to come to the office in the

first place and that I think is the important distinction because if the two years is what he

would have received and therefore it would not have come into the office under petite then if there

is a state disposition to that that is one possible outcome it would be a different outcome if this

was truly a federal prosecution independent of the state which goes back to the point I was making

about concern about a federal precedent with this kind of sentence because then when the next

person comes along they say well here is this precedent under three three seventy one or what not

and so this was rightly or wrongly and I understand the pushback and analysis that distinguish

between what is necessary to prevent manifest injustice versus what is the appropriate federal

outcome to that agree or disagree with that logic is one thing but did I explain the logic

question you've explained the logic question and I'm going to push back a little bit on that because

the petite policies specifically says it does not apply where the state conduct is only a minor part

and in significant part of the entire course of conduct and they give examples about where you

have some type of rico scheme and the state has indicted or convicted the perpetrator based on

something that could be one single overt act in the government conspiracy and doesn't that really

show what is going on here that what the state had done was really just a small minor part of the

scheme that the federal government had a real opportunity to punish him for this entire course of

conduct answer is so possibly but if I can circle back to your question previously it's interesting

that you characterize this as he's turning these girls into prostitutes and then I think that's

really interesting because in 2019 13 years afterward despite all the changes in the law there

is still some elements somewhere that says he's turning these girls into prostitutes whereas this

was a typical trafficking case of the kind that you'd see in the Lou de Baca days where you know I

was called modern day slavery that's a very different fact pattern so you know a girl who's held

captive is forced to serve multiple men per day where this part of an ongoing business arrangement

and so I hear what you're saying but if they're at this table at least some element of that

characterization is live what would it mean in 2006 when these laws are still being developed

and that consideration rightly or wrongly was part of this analysis question was it explicitly

in other words was that aspect of it the eye perception that this case was perhaps activity

that in which the victims cooperated was that part he gets interrupted here by Acosta no no let me

let me distinguish I didn't say the perception that this was activities in which the victims

cooperated what I was going to what I've gone to before is what jurors is there at least one

juror that might say look we've got conflicting victim testimony some of them said he did

nothing wrong they all knew each other they kept going back and taking payment is this trafficking

or is this prostitution I'm not saying I agree with that and I don't think that prosecutors do

I'm saying is there is there at least the possibility of that question was that articulated to you

by the people who were listening to by redacted and redacted and redacted answers so that certainly

was part of the discussion when I talk about the victim issues would at least some jurors view it

that way rightly or wrongly question and you recall having those conversations answer I recall

having not only how would the witness stand up in court but how would jurors view them and then

the second part of that is as it goes up in the appellate process with respect to the federal nexus

and so I hear you but you know it's the sort of one of the factors and so yeah question

what I'm getting at though is that there doesn't seem like there was consideration or a discussion

about is this two years capturing the scope of his conduct versus we're just going to tie it

to this potential state crime that could have been charged answer affair and I would say that the

two years was not meant so the petite policy has several prongs and to my recollection the petite

analysis was not based on and let's not even call it petite analysis that overstates it but it

was much more of a is this a manifest injustice and if the original and so you sort of see it in

exhibit three this would not have been brought to the office in the first place if you know if he

had pled to gel time and registration and rightly or wrongly that was understood from the beginning

of the case and was a factor in how the case was viewed question and how do you know that it wouldn't

have that it wouldn't have been upset with a minimal gel time even if there was sex registration

answer so I can't 12 years later say how we knew that I can't say that my general impression was

that this was proceeding at the state that there were certain charges and that those charges

changed when it went to the grand jury and that it went from I think they even changed the

ASA involved question they did answer I can't speak for certain but you probably have that from

the record and that when they changed the ASA involved and took it to the grand jury the charges

that came back were substantially less question do you remember the circumstances did you know the

circumstances under which that ASA was changed answer I don't know question all right by the way

do you remember an occasion in which redacted came to your office in Miami to press you on what

was going to be happening with the federal case answer I don't recall question you don't recall

answer I don't recall question so before we leave this one little thing so if this case had

come into the federal system as a part from the take in the digression through the state system

do you think that the two years was an appropriate punishment given the scope of his conduct answer

I think that if it had come into the federal system apart from the whole state and the petite

consideration and all of that we may have ended up in a different place I've viewed the two years

to my recollection as a manifest injustice standard and not an appropriate punishment standard

question meaning whether it was manifestly unjust that he got two years answer no whether it was

so let me let me rephrase no jail time was a manifest injustice if he had gone to jail for two

in the state system and registered the question of whether it would have come to the office at all

and to my recollection the consensus was and redacted based on exhibit three agrees with that

that it would have never come to the office in the first place because we would not view that

under petite as a manifest injustice there are any number of cases that are prosecuted around the

country where an individual gets a jail time that the federal government may not agree with but

that doesn't mean the federal government re prosecutes those cases the instances where the

federal government re prosecutes a state case are pretty rare to my knowledge and so under the

petite standard the manifest injustice it would have been a manifest injustice to have zero jail time

and zero registration but if the original charges had remained that would have been a different

matter that does not mean that this is the best outcome in the state system and so perhaps

beating a you know an issue but let me maybe give an example one concern that I had was that in

the violent crime side the state brings a case the you know there is a deferment no jail time

the state when it brings a second case and there is minimal jail time well now the person has

done three violent crimes they have a gun they go to federal and it's like please don't do that

pretty please don't do that you know we're going to punish you a little bit and then all of a

sudden incomes the federal government with the big big punch to the face because the federal

sentences are so different than the state sentences and that happens all the time in any number of

context in Florida that doesn't mean that all those cases get re prosecuted as gun cases in Florida

that means that we understand that Florida system is very different than the federal system

and so the way we looked at it at least based on my recollection those two years was not

what we would have received if this was a purely federal case but would this case have been

prosecuted by the federal system additionally if he had received jail time and registration

in the state system question is it fair to say that this particular concern about

for lack of a better word federalism or the petite policy was the primary concern of yours

versus any of your employers in terms of redacted or redacted answer I think it's fair to say that I

focused more on the legal side of things and my team focused more on the trial and how this would

play out at trial and both of them both of them sort of inform the outcome question and are you

including this petite policy in your consideration of the legal issue answer yes yeah I think that

they're all tied together 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