Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Interview With OIG Inspectors (Part 7-9) (3/13/26)

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 impuestos y cargos de velocidad de datos móviles se reduza después de 20 guías al mes.

1:25¿Cuál es la información de la información? ¿Tienes que decir la memoria de la persecución? ¿Entre correcto? Así que no me recuerdo. Y no sé lo que vas a decir. ¿Por qué no? Pero esto fue un tiempo antes. No me recuerdo si me reto. O si me went a la casa y me quedó en redacto y me quedó en redacto. Y me quedó en redacto y me quedó en redacto. No me recuerdo de esta manera. Me puedo decir que es que se ve, sobre todo, que me fue en el U.S. Attorney's Conference. La idea de prensar esto en un hotel printer. Me puedo decir que yo no puedo decir que yo me quedó en el hotel printer. ¿Cuál es la pregunta de que me reto en un aeropuerto? ¿Entre? ¿Entre? ¿Entre? ¿Entre? ¿Entre en un aeropuerto? Eso no ha sido mi práctica. ¿Cuál es la pregunta de que me reto, o que me reto en la casa? ¿Cuál es la pregunta de que me reto? ¿Tienes que tomar los volúmenes de documentos como esto y hacerle a vosotros o a vosotros o a vosotros? ¿Entre? ¿Entre? ¿Entre? ¿Entre? ¿Entre? ¿Tienes la experiencia? Hay que ver estos deteriorados antes de mirar esta experiencia.

2:27they'd go through it, weed sit down. We'd talk about the issues. We made it in the 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 do you recall doing that in this case? Answer. I recall having discussions with senior staff about the case. Question. Answer. Certainly redacted and redacted at several points. I can't say that I did that in May versus April versus June, I can't give you timelines. Question well 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. 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,

3:27I 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? Answer as 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 were not on, but that

4:34notes 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 its 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?

5:36Answer, so some combination of redacted and redacted would have been the likely I recall the discussion. I don't 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. Question, okay, redacted as 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 were 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

6:40and 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 encompass the entire office. Answer, he did. He supervised the civil, the criminal, the appellate, and the forfeiture. Question, all right. There is here in this email that you did not see back in the day, exhibit nine, 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 and making sure he is comfortable before proceeding. Can you tell us what the basis would be for or was for that assertion by redacted answers. So I can't tell you from the recollection what the basis is. I can speculate that the materials being transmitted Friday morning, he gets cut off the 11th answer by a cost. Yeah. So Friday morning, it hasn't been reviewed by

7:42anyone in the management chain, much less approved and 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 indict, answers 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 answers. 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.

8:46Question and what were the legal issues and what were the policy issues answers. 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. Question, 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.

9:51Question, 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. In 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. Who is the best internet? Cox's internet of 300 megas has the speed, fast and reliable speeds that you look for. Perfect for streaming and gaming and working from home. All for only $45 per month when you add CoxMobo. Include a team of Wi-Fi and

10:56guarantee a price of two years in your plan. Don't wait. Change today to Cox. Require CoxMobo gigante de garantía de presión, incluye impuestos y cargos, velocidad de datos moviles, reduce después de 20 gigas al mes. Question, all right, okay, at that point, do you, does your recollection have any doubt that some form of indictment or charging instrument? Again, Stepstein 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 the long been a matter of discussion. Question has something other than what the US Attorney's Office does, which is prosecute? Answer, well, no, I mean what the US 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 US Attorney's Office takes the lead. And a lot of times we actually, you know, we would share staff because sometimes it made sense,

11:59you 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. Answer, 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, question, 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

13:05that, 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. Question, 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

14:09the 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-indipement 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 and died at 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

15:11Acosta, 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, answers. So as a typical matter, once there's an indictment, the pre-indipement, well, by definition, a pre-indipement 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

16:15of 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

17:18would 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. Answer, 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

18:25unwillingness to dismiss? Answer, 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,

19:27and 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, 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 in 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 work 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,

20:27that 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? What are 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 complain. Just to be clear. Answer, and I'm just saying, initial thoughts gets cut off. Question, 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.

21:33Answer, 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 them. Answer, yeah. Question, all right. And did you have any, did his opinion, his views, as chief of CEOs, and as redacted, who had been an AUSA? 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 then 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

22:36statutes, 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. But is it am I correct in understanding that at the time you were unaware of that?

23:37Velocidad de datos moviles reduza después de 20 quicas al mes. 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, were steps being taken to address those answer on addressed is again, it's a very binary.

24:38It'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 indictment 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 indictment resolution cap on 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 indictment 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

25:40grand 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 are 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 plead deal,

26:43which raises the issue you talked about, or you can negotiate, or you can charge, proceed by complain, 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 indicting or you're not indicting. The act of indicting is something that either happens or it 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

27:46I 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 to 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.

28:48Will 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 atypical in these cases. They were sort of to 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 it 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

29:50have 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 stopping. 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 comported with the Ashcroft memo in that you were hunting to the state for a minor charge

30:54for 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 lets 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

31:57goes 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 in state court where the disposition is different than and would have been if it had proceeded in federal court question all right do 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 with gel time if you wanted three things you've said gel time sex offender

33:04status 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

34:11say 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

35:11prior 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 a fair question and perhaps 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 or 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

36:13back 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 371 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 policy 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

37:14show 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 the 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

38:20and 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

39:22part 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

40:23but 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.

41:36Today, a cox requires a consumable gigant limited guarantee of depression or including puestas e cargos velocidad de datos moviles reduce a después de 20 gigas al mes 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 oppress 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

42:36two 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 view 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 gel time was a manifest injustice if he had gone to jail for two years 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 gel time that the federal government may not agree with but that doesn't mean the federal

43:39government reprasecutes those cases the instances where the federal government reprasecutes 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 gel 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 gel time the state when it brings a second case and there is minimal gel 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

44:42happens all the time and any number of context in Florida that doesn't mean that all those cases get reprasecuted 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 gel 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 informed the outcome question and are you including this petite policy in your consideration of the legal issue answer

45:47yes yeah I think that they're all tied together all right folks we're in a 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