Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 18)

0:00¿Quieres mejor internet? Cox Internet de 300 Megas tiene las velocidades rápidas y confiables que buscas. Perfecto para streaming y gaming y trabajar desde casa. Todo por solo $45 dólares al mes cuando agregas CoxMobo. Incluye equipo de Wi-Fi y garantía de precio de dos años en tu plan. ¡Yeah! ¡No esperes! ¡Gambia te hoy a Cox! Requiere CoxMobo que irán a limitar garantía de precio no incluyen puestas y cargos de velocidad de datos moviles se reduza después de 20 guicas al mes. OmahaStakes semi-annual sale es aquí. Se ve 50% site wide on legendary stakes gourmet burgers, chicken, pork, seafood, and more. Plus, get an extra $35 off with promo code audio at OmahaStakes.com. Shop now to save 50% site wide on stakes and more during OmahaStakes semi-annual sale. Plus, get an extra $35 off with promo code audio at checkout. That's OmahaStakes.com promo code AUDIO. Minimum purchase may apply, see site for details.

1:00What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to 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 OK, question, then take a short break, and then redact it has some questions that are CVRA related, and then we have some summary questions. Answer OK, 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?

2:01And to what extent is 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 in 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 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?

3:02Because 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 overlay 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.

4:05But 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, give 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

5:06for 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 was 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, fine, they just finally did. But that was not, that was not, I think,

6:06they raised 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 up at 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 assignee 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

7:08on 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.

8:09And 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?

9:10The 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 Council's 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.

10:11Question, 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'll 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?

11:14He 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 as counsel, are raising serious issues that go to ethics and go to fundamental relationships

12:15between 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, mm-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 establish precedent. You know, maybe the DAG would have said,

13:16this 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 dendomefford. Acosta, no, the letter to Ken Star that I wrote.

14:19The fourth letter to Ken Star? Acosta, I'm sorry. Question, is it the December 4th letter? Acosta, yeah, probably. It's the December 4th letter. ¿Quién es mejor internet? Cox's internet de 300 megas tiene las velocidades rápidas y confiables que buscas. Perfecto para streaming y gaming y trabajar desde casa. Todo por solo $45 dólares al mes cuando agregas Cox's mobile, incluye equipo de Wi-Fi y garantía de precio de dos años en tu plan. ¡No esperes! ¡Gambia te hoy a Cox! Requiere Cox's mobile gigante de garantía de precio no incluye impuestos y cargos velocidad de datos moviles a reducer después de 20 gigas al mes. Craving the coffee flavor you love, but without the caffeine. Cachavas got you covered with their newest coffee flavor. This all-in-one nutrition shake delivers bold, authentic flavor, crafted from premium de caffeinated Brazilian beans with 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber, greens and so much more. Treat yourself to the flavor and nutrition your body craves.

15:22Go to cachava.com and use code news. New customers get 15% off their first order. That's KAC, H-A-V-A.com code news. ¿Quién es mejor internet? Cox's internet de 300 megas tiene las velocidades rápidas y confiables que buscas. Perfecto para streaming y gaming y trabajar desde casa. Todo por solo $45 dólares al mes cuando agregas Cox's mobile. Incluye equipo de Wi-Fi y garantía de precio de dos años en tu plan. ¡No esperes! ¡Gambia te hoy a Cox! Requiere Cox's mobile gigante de garantía de precio no incluye impuestos y cargos velocidad de datos moviles a reducer después de 20 gigas al mes. ¿Redacto? Sí, no tengo un día. ¿Quién? All right, que es el que raro. Acosta, yo creo que... Yo estoy en p4. Yo he respondido personalmente en un detalle a tus comentarios porque me acuerde sobre la voz y la integridad de la casa. Yo he respondido personalmente y en detalle también

16:22porque tu letra troubled me en un número de niveles. Puedes entender de las negociaciones. El 22-55 fue la primera vez en diciembre de julio 31. Y, ¿no? Y una de estos cuatro puntos en el de 2007. Tu edad de la Defensa de Defensa ha sido conmigo. En septiembre de septiembre, yo meté. Después de considerar las argumentas y después de conferir con el FBI y redacto, nuestro obfés ha decidido proceder con el indictment. En ese momento, me ha hecho la ley, our prosecutors, a la ley de presentación para allowing para tu appeal, our decision if you choose. Tú chose no. Instead, tú elegiste entrar en el NPA. Desde la señal de la agreement, los feds en nuestro obfés se han agregado a muchas luces que han habilitado, aunque los exchanges en el tiempo eran un poco litigas. ¿Quién? ¿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

17:23to redacted about raising 22-55 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 surprise 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 the ley. 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,

18:23resolved 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.

19:25If 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,

20:26a 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.

21:28Answer, 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 was 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 going to wrap up this episode right here.

22:28And 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. This is Byard Winthrop, founder of American Giant. We make all our clothing right here in the US with American cotton and American workers. Get 20% off your first order when you use code giant20 at american-giant.com.