Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 23)

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 y incluye impuaces y cargos de velocidad de datos moviles a reducer después de 20 guías al mes. ¡Hey, this is Bired Winthrop, founder of American Giant. I started this company because I was fed up with cheap clothes that didn't last and a system that ship manufacturing overseas. We believed we could still make incredible hoodies, t-shirts and pants right here in the U.S., with American cotton, American factories and people earning real wages. That's what American Giant stands for, building clothes that actually last. Get 20% off your first order when you use promo code giant20 at American-giant.com.

1:03That's 20% off when you use code giant20 at American-giant.com. 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 U.S. 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

2:05work 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 answers 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

3:09associated 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 do 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

4:10fairly and with dignity and respect answers 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'll 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

5:12could 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 that's where we were and that's why I think this case would have been very different than 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 are relying on them to keep you informed

6:13and for their judgment answer so I was the US attorney I certainly relied on my staff but ultimately I was the 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 10th 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 have 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 ok I just wanted to be

7:13very 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 imported 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 I 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 approach 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

8:19internet 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 he was I'm not aware of it question all right the defense counsel ever say to you that Epstein had that status answer not to my recollection question all right 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 craving the coffee flavor you love but without the caffeine kachavas got you covered with

9:22their newest coffee flavor this all in one nutrition shake delivers bold authentic flavor crafted from premium decaffeinated 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 go to kachava.com and use code news new customers get 15% off their first order that's KAC hva.com code news craving the coffee flavor you love but without the caffeine kachavas got you covered with their newest coffee this all in one nutrition shake delivers bold authentic flavor crafted from premium decaffeinated Brazilian beans quality nutrition shouldn't be complicated just two scoops of kachavas all in one nutrition shake and you've got 25 grams of protein 6 grams of fiber greens and so much more whether you're craving that coffee taste to kickstart your morning ritual or as a nutrient packed reward to round out your afternoon kachava keeps you fueled and satisfied wherever your day takes you

10:22plus it actually tastes delicious no fillers no nonsense just the good stuff your body craves and for the times you feel like switching it up you've got seven flavors to choose from all with the highest quality ingredients treat yourself to the flavor and nutrition your body craves go to kachava.com and use code news new customers get 15% off their first order that's KAC hva.com code news 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 coxmovo incluye equipo de wifi y garantía de precio de dos años en tu plan no esperes gambia te hoy a cox requiere coxmovo que garantía de precio no incluye impuestos y cargos velocidad de datos móviles se reduza después de 20 gigas al mes. Question all right without reservation answer no and no all right excellent thank you

11:25a couple of final questions answer can I address is the second issue that has come up at times question yes answer there are also media reports that this was because of cooperation and some financial matters I don't know where that may have I don't know where that may have come from answer all right 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 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 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

12:29many of the records but the fact is there's a gap in the holdings and this is despite the fact that is you know doubt no the law requires that us attorney records be maintained and archived indefinitely 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 the department had some sort of records retention software that automatically retain the emails is that not accurate question there was there was a switch over from a period in which the record retention responsibility resided with each US 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 a costa 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

13:32but 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 were 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 sent but not received question yes answer just checking question and likewise 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 because it was an ongoing matter but do you have any idea why there are not any in those records of yours that were sent answers so I have a recollection that when I left there were some binders that I passed along

14:36to 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. adacted no mr. adacted 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 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

15:41it 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 mr. adacted I'm going to defer to mr. adacted for that mr. adacted 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 mr. adacted 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

16:44in the description box mobile include the wifi equipment and warranty of the price of two years in your plan do not expect it change today to cox requires the mobile code to limit the warranty of the price you do not include the prices and the speed of the mobile data is reduced after 20 months