Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 2)

0:00What'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 investigators. Question, so we talked about the personnel, high level personnel changes you made sort of after your first year there. Redacted had, we understand, been functioning de facto as a first assistant while redacted was not. He, we understand, redacted, had been first assistant but he stepped away and redacted came in to essentially take over his brief until he was formally appointed first assistant. Is that consistent with your memory? Answer, so you might have characterized that more strongly than I would have. Question, okay. Answer again, it's difficult to recreate from back then, but there was certainly a transition period for Mr. Redacted to Mr. Redacted and if I could, because when you said high level changes, my intent, it was a great office, great professionals.

1:00My intent in elevating Mr. Redacted was just you go from criminal chief, the first assistant, and I don't recall Mr. Redacted prior position, but I know that he was also elevated. I think he might have been major crimes, but question, that's correct. Answer, I could guess it. Question, we can verify that. Answer, okay. Question, yes, what was your assistant of redacted? His capabilities, his judgment, and his working relationship with you on a day-to-day basis. Answer, outstanding. He had been in the office for decades, he was respected by everyone. He had a very good tone to him, he was someone, you know, I wanted individuals around me, that were respected within the office, and that were trusted, and that had been there for a long time, and then I think I was very lucky to have that in my management team. And as we understand it, your office, as US attorney, was sort of on the one side of the reception area, and the first assistant's office is on the other side, is that correct?

2:04Answer, that's correct. Question, so did you and Redacted have any sort of easy back and forth? Question, open door. Answer, into each other's offices, multiple times a day. Question, all right. And given that he had experienced throughout his career at the department in the criminal arena, and you had not, to what extent would you rely on him, among others for guidance, perspective, information, and so on? Answer, I named the first assistant because I valued his guidance and his perspectives, and I thought those were valuable. Question, okay, you also, as we pointed out, appointed redacted to succeed redacted, as criminal chief effect of October of 2006, and he served for about ten months before he left for a private practice. He left at the beginning of August, 2007. What did you, you said you didn't recall as we sit here today, what section he come from? Answer, right. I guess it was major crimes.

3:06Question, all right, were you, what was the assessment of redacted? Answer, outstanding as well. And if I could say, when I say I don't recall, but I guess, when you're going back twelve years, sometimes you get an impression, but you can't say it's a recollection, and that's going to come up multiple times today, just because it's a while ago. Question, as long as we make that distinction, both are helpful. Answer, right. And so, whether it's a recollection or a construction after the fact, I can't say that, but you know, I thought that one of the helpful factors with redacted is he had spent a lot of time, and major crimes is the most active, active unit. I assume you all know that, the structure in the office. But major crime is, not major crimes, it's sort of the entry level crimes, and I value the fact that he had trained, and you know, so many AUSAs, and really spent a lot of time reviewing the major crimes chief, as opposed to the other chiefs, who spend a lot of time reviewing the work of AUSAs, and so he would be someone who was very experienced

4:12and able to get into the weeds. Question, and he, in fact, was around during that time period, had gone back in the courtroom, if you recall, to actually try a major case, do you recall that? Answer, I didn't until you just said so. Question, major, fraud. Answer, I didn't until you mentioned it, and now there's something in the back of my head that's saying that sounds right, but I can't give you more detail. Question, all right, what was your assessment of redacted and sort of working style and particularly working with you? Answer, you know, again, positive. You know, we didn't, I didn't see him, as often as Mr. redacted. Question, was he located on the same floor? Answer, he was located on the same floor, but not within the same suite. Answer, and that affects interaction, but a positive working relationship. Question, all right, and to what extent would you, as criminal chief, was he relied on by you as distinguished from redacted with regard to the criminal matters pending?

5:16Answer also relied on. Depending, that would depend, almost on the matter, question, okay, as in a typical situation, Acosta answers, he would bring things to redacted, who would then bring them to me, along, and so he would bring things to redacted, and then depending on their discussion, they might both walk into my office, but he would typically run things through redacted before coming to me. Question, were there occasions when he would come to you directly? Answer, sure, that's why I said in typical. After it's difficult to sort of recreate the interactions, but he certainly could come by and come to me directly, and in some cases, I would say probably would. Question again, it's being a large office with several physical locations, and we understand it's a very high volume of cases. And particularly in the criminal context, is it fair to say you didn't review every prosecution as it was brought? Answer, it's not just fair, but accurate.

6:18I recall a conversation with a US attorney from a small district early on at one US attorney's conference where we compare notes, and the interaction of an office with 30 prosecutors is very different than one with a few hundred. Questions, so when you did engage on a criminal case, would you, whether it was planned prosecution or a case heading to trial, would you generally rely on written submissions, or would you, this is really an inquiry into your style, or would you have everybody together and talk about it, or would you rely on your most immediate subordinate to be briefing you? Which one of those kinds of approaches did you take? Answer, I would say that really depended and probably varied based on individual needs. For the most part, I would most likely just speak with my first assistant and or criminal chief and assess what else needed to be done. In other words, you would sort of do it on a sort of verbal or based on oral interaction

7:19and presentation as opposed to going through stacks of paper. For the most part, I would say that that was typical. I don't want to say that that case was every single time, but that was typical question alright, and to that extent did you go out and about to encounter the line attorneys or for example, was that something that you were able to do and wanted to do? Or yes and yes. And you know, when I started, I made it a point of walking every floor and meeting everyone. And towards the end of the day, I would also if I could make it a point particularly of major crime, of just walking down to the floor and seeing who was there and what they were doing and sort of popping my head in and just saying hi, because I think that's the right thing to do. Question, okay. Was that a way to support the troops, or was it more of a way for you to find to become informed about what was going on? Answer probably a little bit of both to support the troops, but also to get the temperature of the office and see how matters are progressing.

8:22Question, you at the criminal or rather the Civil Rights Division had experience with human trafficking and child sex trafficking cases? Answer correct, under your supervision. We understand that you brought that concern or your concerns about those issues with you to the U.S. Attorney's Office. And that we know that, under your tenure, the U.S. Attorney's Office had many successful prosecutions involving conduct ranging from internet child pornography to international sex tourism, to victimizing children in particular. In mid 2007, you, according to press reports, you set up a new special prosecution unit to focus on among other things, sex crimes against children. Could you tell us what importance those kinds of cases help for you as U.S. Attorney? Answer sure. If I could, if I could just back up a little bit because the question goes, the special prosecution's unit, and let me address that part of it, there are a few things that are embedded there.

9:23Answer, there's the special prosecution unit that was set up because there was some issue that I thought was important to pursue in particular. And one of those was sort of trafficking issues. Another one was the gun violence, and the intent of special prosecutions was to have a group of individuals that would sort of be dedicated and not part of the usual major crimes group. So it wasn't exclusively I or question may have implied it was exclusively for sex crimes. Question, they cut them off, oh no. Question no, I understand it was not answer. And so I thought it was sufficiently important. And so it was one of the one of the initiatives that we were certainly pursuing. Question, and was that something that you can to which you brought your experience as head of civil rights division as well? Answer it was. I think not I think I know when I was at a civil rights that that's something that I'd put particular emphasis on. And I thought civil rights really stepped up and did a great job on that.

10:26Question did you yourself recognize you were never a prosecutor as such? Answer, right? Question, but did you ever have experience being involved in a prosecution that's sort of the nitty gritty of the prosecution of that kind of case? Sort of seconding yourself to a trial team, for example, or an investigation? Answer so if by nitty gritty, you mean seconding myself to a trial team, the answer would be no. Question, all right? Answer, there are a number of cases that I recall being briefed on and talked about. Interrupted question. But at that high level, answer, correct? Question, all right. The department set up in 2006, a PSC program, a project saved childhood program focused on internet child pornography and appointed you as the first coordinator. And she was also course the line attorney on the Epstein case. How well did you know redacted and can you, can you give us your assessment of her capabilities, judgment and her interaction with you?

11:27Answer. How well did I know her prior to appointment? I don't recall. I'm not, I don't think I knew her particularly well, prior to appointment. She was clearly respected within the office, and I don't recall, but I can't speculate that she was appointed based on recommendations of management and her interest in some combination and prior work and some combination thereof. You asked me to characterize and I think she was good, strong, professional, AUSA. Question, do you have any, did you have any negative, you know, anything less than fully positive in your assessment of her? Answer, no. Question, I think she was good, strong, and a dedicated AUSA. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up episode two right here. 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.