← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: Alex Acosta And His Epstein Related Congressional Deposition (Part 10-12) (5/17/26)
00:43:30
When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal...
Loading summary
Transcript14 lines
- [00:01]
SpinQuest Advertiser 1
I'm here with spinquest, where you can play and win from the comfort of your own home with hundreds of slot games and all of the table games you love with real cash prizes. Right now, $30 coin packs are on sale for $10. For new users, it's all@spinquest.com that's s p I n q U-E-T.com SpinQuest is
- [00:24]
SpinQuest Advertiser 2
a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
- [00:30]
Alex Acosta
What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up where we left off with the Alex Acosta deposition that was given to the Congressional Oversight Committee. And once again Alex Acosta is doing the answering and the questions are coming from a whole host of people. Question Again, my experience in MPAs is limited to this one. It seems odd verging on concerning that it included a blanket immunity for the Southern District of Florida to both unnamed and foreknown co conspirators. Do you recall the origination of that line? Answer so, as you're aware, the matter is pending litigation and I don't want to create evidence, but I'm going to read from the OPR report. It's not that I'd be creating evidence, but Question yeah Answer I need to be careful here. Page 166 as the MPA drafting process concluded, Vilafana circulated to Lori and another supervisor a draft that contained the non prosecution provision. Let me actually start up a little bit before that. G On page 166, OPR examined the decision by the subjects who negotiated the npa Vilafana, Lori, and Acosta, to include in the agreement a provision in which the USAO agreed not to prosecute the any potential co conspirators of Epstein in addition to four named individuals. Other than the various drafts of the NPA and the federal plea, OPR found little contemporaneous records mentioning it. Drafts of the NPA and the federal plea show that the final language promising not to prosecute the provision expanded as not I'm sorry, not to prosecute. Let me not do. Let's start again. Drafts of the NPA and the federal plea agreement show that the final broad language promising not to prosecute any potential co conspirators of Epstein evolved from more narrow provisions sought by the defense. The provision expanded as Vilafauna and defense counsel exchanged drafts of it first a proposed federal plea agreement and then the npa, with apparently little analysis and no substantive discussion with the USAO about the provision. As the MPA drafting process concluded, Vilafana circulated to Lori, who was then the managing attorney in Palm beach, and another supervisor, a draft that contained a non prosecution provision, telling Lori it was some of the defense counsel's requested language regarding promises not to prosecute other people and commenting only I don't think it hurts us. In a reply email, Lori responded to another issue Vilafana had raised. But Lori did not comment on the provision, promising not to prosecute co conspirators or ask Villefana to explain why she believed the provision did not harm the government's interest. In a subsequent email about the draft, NPA Vilafana asked Lori for any other thoughts, but there is no indication that he provided further input. OPR found no document that suggested Vilafana and Lori discussed the provision further or that the other individual or individuals who were copied on Vilafana's email referencing the provision, her immediate supervisor, the supervisor designated to succeed Lori as manager of the West Palm beach office, and Vilafana's co counsel commented or had substantive discussions about it. Vilafana told OPR that because none of the three supervisors responded to observation that the non prosecution provision doesn't hurt us, Vilafana assumed that they agreed with her assessment and so they went through how it came to be and discussed that. And because it's pending. Question, no answer I don't think it's wise for me to comment. Question I totally understand that. So I'm not going to ask about your kind of like legal understanding of that language, what it means to you or anything, but the origination of the language I don't think is under a potential review. It's more what it means for Ms. Maxwell. So the provisions from the OPR report you read said that it was broadening of a less narrow version that defense counsel had suggested. Do you recall any conversation about why it was broader? So I don't recall any conversation about this. I ultimately approved the agreement and because as U.S. attorney, I ultimately approved it, I'm responsible for it. What's contained in the report, I have no recollection of this. My assumption as I approve the ultimate agreement is that we had very experienced attorneys and that this would have been brought through and negotiated. I was focused honestly on him going to jail, him serving as, you know, him having to register as an offender and the recovery and my edits to the agreement focused on the agreement was directing the state to take action. And I didn't think that as U.S. attorney I had the authority to direct the state. So I Changed it from directing the state to directing Epstein to work with this date. Question. Okay, so no answer. I have no question interrupts him again. No overall recollection about how the sentence came to be, how those four names came to be. Answer. No independent recollection of that question. All right. Do you have any recollection whether or not your office informed those four individuals that they were not going to be named in the prosecution agreement? I have no independent recollection question. And then based off what you just said, again, not trying, we don't want to interfere in any ongoing litigation either. But based off what you said, the past decision, is it your understanding that this language does not limit the Southern district of New York from prosecuting those individuals or other known co conspirators. So, you know, it's my. Was my understanding at the time, and as I read this, I would have been aware of the department's policy that any such provision authorized by a U. S. Attorney does not bind outside of Florida. And a district court has held that. A court of appeals has held that it's pending in the supreme Court, and we know that they ended up denying it as well, by the way. And that's also the written policy of the U. S. Question. And kind of, I mean, and I understand it's still pending the final outcome, but. But kind of exemplified by the Maxwell case of the Southern district of New York did choose to move forward despite the provision being in place. That's correct. All right. I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of the CRVA because I don't have it memorized. I'm not a crime victim's lawyer, so I don't want to touch too much on the individual terms. My general understanding of that is it requires notification to potential victims prior to. I think you said prior to indictment. Is that fair? At the time, the office of legal counsel had written an opinion for the department. The cvra, I think was relatively new, had just been passed by Congress. A year or two prior, the office of legal counsel had written an opinion that said it does not attach until an actual indictment. So it doesn't even attach pre indictment. So it doesn't at the time, until indictment. And just interject here. Epstein's lawyers knew this. That's why they ended up going with the npa. They think everybody's stupid, man. They really think everybody's dumb and nobody's been paying attention. Breaking news. We're paying attention, so save the happy horeshit for somebody else. Mr. Acosta, question. So I Guess. I mean, was there ever actually an indictment in the case? Answer. There was not. Question. Question. So was there? Is it based off of the OLC opinion, your understanding is that if there was not an indictment, if it goes with the non prosecution agreement and there is not a plea in court, that victims would not have been notified. So not only is it my understanding, but the justice department in this 300 page report found that there was no misconduct, no violation of law, no violation of policy. No, because it was the Justice Department's position that it did not attach and the litigation that was cited, the Justice Department through multiple administrations, through the Bush administration and then in subsequent administrations, both Republican and Democrat kept taking that position that there was no violation because the CVRA did not attach. Question. On October 10th, Mr. Lefkowitz sent you a letter saying that it was cited in the OPR report. No federal agent or employee of of the U.S. attorney's office should contact the victims to inform them of the resolution of the case. And then two days later you had breakfast. So I'm going to ask you about the breakfast, but I would think that most of us are lawyers in the room. Is there a difference between should and could? I would say there is, but you know, as the record will show later, we basically said that he's wrong and we can do what we want questions. So you aren't precluded from notifying? We weren't precluded. I think, I think that phrase that I remember from the report said what you are suggesting is a gag order and the U.S. attorney does not accept a gag order. Was it odd for defense counsel to suggest to you how to work with victims in an ongoing case? Well, not this defense counsel question. Can you explain that a little bit more? I think we've talked about how the defense counsel skirted the line question. So this is one instance of them telling US Attorneys how to interact with victims in an ongoing case. Do you have other examples off the top of your head answer of defense lawyers doing that? No. Question. In this case, do you have other examples of Mr. Lefkowitz, Mr. Dershowitz or Mr. Starr? Answer. So in this, then he's cut off again telling you back to Acosta who once again answers, you know, in the very context you mentioned, they were going to be breakfast. And then after the breakfast, the breakfast took place in Palm Beach. I was giving a speech there. It was a convenient location. And after the breakfast I called my first assistant and debriefed him. And I don't have independent recollection of this, this again is based on the Justice Department's report finding that there was no impropriety, nothing wrong with the breakfast. And then he emails the first assistant saying that I had agreed to something which I had not agreed to. And we had to email him something back saying, you're wrong, Acosta did not agree to such a thing. Question do you have any other examples off, off the top of your head of one of those three individuals trying to like Acosta cuts them off? I think there are multiple examples in the record where they would claim that there was an agreement, but there was none and vice versa. Question no, I'm more interested in defense attorneys for Mr. Epstein attempting to interfere in in the U.S. attorney's office ability to work with, interview or notify victims. So this is one example of that. Answer so question where a defense attorney is telling you they read of the law and read it as an attempt to block you from talking to victims. Are there others? Answer I understand the question now. So one of the issues that arose was as a result of our seeking a mechanism, a way for the victims to recover money. We set up a system whereby he would concede liability and they would in essence just argue over amounts. Question huh. Defense counsel argued that the way that it was set up was a conflict of interest and that we couldn't proceed. And that was one of the grounds on which they appealed to Washington. And my first assistant and defense counsel had a vigorous exchange over a number of weeks over that topic. We wanted the victims to be able to recover and we thought once he signed he meant what he said and after he signed he tried to get out of it. Question did defense counsel ever try to interfere with your ability to work with FBI or other investigators in order to gather information? Answer not to my knowledge. But again, as I said before, I would typically direct the FBI how to gather their information or our line attorneys and to gather information. Question Understanding OPR found the breakfast was fine. I'm just wondering, like what was the discussion at breakfast regarding informing the victims?
- [12:38]
SpinQuest Advertiser 1
I'm here with Spin Quest where you can play and win from the comfort of your own home with hundreds of slot games and all of the table games you love with real cash prizes. Right now, $30 coin packs are on sale for $10 for new users. It's all@spinquest.com that's s P I N Q U-E-S-T.com Spinquest is a free to
- [13:01]
SpinQuest Advertiser 2
play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
- [13:08]
Alex Acosta
Answer so as I told OPR. I don't remember 20 years later what the discussion was. I can infer at the time he was trying to recuse our lead prosecutor, Ms. Vilafana. Police part of the mechanism for her seeking recovery for the victims was to appoint what for simplicity's sake, we would call the special master. To follow this process. Ms. Vilafana had recommended someone who was known or a friend or someone associated with her boyfriend. And defense counsel claimed that she had acted unethically and improperly and was looking to recuse her. Based on the timing, I can see how I would want to know what their allegations are. Ms. Vilafana is a key part of the case. She was probably in the process of negotiating these issues, negotiating the victim recovery issues and notifying victims. And I can infer that's what I would have viewed the topic as. Now, whether defense counsel brought something else or not, that that's up to them. Question Is it common for defense counsel to seek information to cause recusal or does it more often just kind of come up in the course of practice? It's not unheard of for defense counsel to seek recusal or generate conflicts of interest. In this case, I didn't think they had a basis and I did not recuse Ms. Vilafana. I thought their attempt to recuse my first assistant was much more egregious. Alright, 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 in the description box. What'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 deposition that was given to the Congressional Oversight Committee. Once again, Alex Acosta is answering questions from a whole host of people. Question. I'm going to go back to the npa, but I want to ask just kind of your own thoughts and, and if you ever had conversations about it, Epstein obviously hired two people that could have potentially created a conflict for you. Do you think he did that on purpose? I think it was clear he hired two attorneys from Kirkland. One, because having work with me, they would know my thinking and my style. Two, they could likely get an appeal to Washington D.C. and I think yes, I think he did that. He hired someone that had previously worked with my criminal chief. He hired someone that had been a partner with my first assistant. I believe he hired an a USA in our office that may have been privy to hallway conversation about the case. So there is a pattern here that we were well aware of. He hired someone. He had an association with the managing attorney of the Palm beach office. Question and I mean, it's one thing to hire those people because they might know how opposing council thinks, but all the facts kind of point to the an attempt to subvert the case Answer So let me make one thing clear as you're going there. The Office of Professional Responsibility at Department of justice looked at all these contacts. They looked at everyone involved. They looked at all the emails, they looked at every communication and they found no improper conduct. They found no improper influence. They found Neiman on your behalf. Acosta on no, not only my behalf, but on behalf of everyone. The U.S. attorney's office. Mr. Neiman Wright Acosta. No improper influence, no wrongdoing. So this is something that was fully looked at, fully considered. Yeah. What about the year's worth of missing emails? Mr. Acosta and so, you know, he hired who he hired, but we proceeded the way we wanted to proceed. And the record shows that from before these two attorneys were brought on board, where I approved for two years 30, the registration and the recovery mechanisms to the ultimate plea, what changed was negotiations among the trial team. Question by Mr. Redacted and I wanna be I'm not suggesting that you should declare a conflict or like you guys were in the best position to figure that out. What I'm suggesting is that it looks like it's another defense tactic in an attempt to get even closer to the line of intentionally hiring people that would conflict. Answer a failed question interrupting Mr. Acosta lead prosecutor out Answer a failed defense tactic because so one of the Justice Department policies on recusals is that you don't just recuse because then every defense attorney could simply recuse all the good attorneys and experienced attorneys in the U.S. attorney's office. Question I'm going to introduce exhibit three. It's two letters by Mr. Redacted. Question. While we pass that out, I'll describe them. It's two letters sent from the FBI's West Palm beach to their redacted but two victims notifying them in regards to the Epstein case, one from May 30, 2008 and one from January 10, 2008. Have you seen these letters prior to today? Answer I don't recall. Question okay, I'm going to focus more on the timeline and one sentence versus the whole notification. So looking at 1-10-1, which the COVID page is Exhibit 97, it's the first sentence in that letter and Then in the second letter, it's the second full paragraph, but it reads, this case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. By January 10, 2008 and May 30, 2008, the case was no longer under investigation. Is that correct? So that is not accurate. Okay, so. And this was looked at by the Office of Professional Responsibility, by the Justice Department. And again, they found no wrongdoing. I don't have an independent recollection, but based on the Justice Department's conclusions, let me try to walk you through it. Okay. He had signed the plea in September. Our expectation was he signed. I'm sorry, he had signed the agreement in September. Our expectation was he signed the agreement, he'd go take the plea, he'd go to jail, we're done. But he did not do that. And so my understanding at the time was that we did not just sit around, but that the prosecuting attorney and the case agent continued to work the case because we did not know if we would have to go to trial or not. And so the case was not done because. Because he was not in jail. And so during that time, the case as a technical matter and an actual matter was under investigation. The prosecuting attorney and the case agent started notifying the victims of the actual agreement. They then became concerned because they in essence were saying, here's an agreement and he goes to jail and you'll have the opportunity to recover what for these victims would have been substantial sums. And they became concerned that they were generating evidence that would undermine the case because in the usual course he would be pleading, but he's not, uh huh answer. He's challenging this on appeal. And so they went to the professional responsibility officer. Again, this is from opr, not my independent recollection. And they asked the professional responsibility officer, what should we do? And the professional responsibility officer said, in essence, the, if you feel comfortable with this, then just stop. And so they proceeded. But at the same time, the FBI generated these letters which are accurate. But let me sort of say this is another area where I understand why victims felt that this wasn't, you know, I think OPR's view was, you know, they found that we complied with the rules in the law, but said it wasn't fully forthright. And I understand that. And in retrospect, we were focused, again, send them to jail registration and should have probably thought more about how the victims would have viewed it. Question. All right, I appreciate that and appreciate the timeline. So just for clarity. When these letters went out, your understanding was that that was still an investigation that was happening. So again, I wasn't aware that the letters were going out, says Acosta, because U.S. attorneys don't get involved in this as a typical matter. But that was my word. Yes. Question. And then he gets cut off by Acosta. I'm sorry, that was. That would be my understanding. Yes. Question and then your understanding too is that so we get back to the like kind of notifying of the victims and that the ethics advice was if it's going to mess up the case, it's still, it's permissive. Right. So like you could make the determination whether or not to notify whether or not it's going to mess up the case. Answer and at some point the office had the Appellate Division check either independently or check with Washington on on that and was told that that's when they were told specifically that the CVRA did not attach until indictment. Question all right. And we talked about the addition of the four name co conspirators a little bit and I know that you don't get into kind of picking and choosing who gets interviewed, but do you recall if those four women were interviewed? I do not recall and I wouldn't have reason to recall. Question the Palm Beach Police Department attempted to interview those people and were, according to their report, told by Alan Dershowitz that those four women were out of the country. Do you have any knowledge of that? I have no knowledge of that. Question I won't ask the follow up would it be odd that the primary suspect's lawyer is communicating with the Palm Beach PD regarding four witnesses? Answer Again, I was not involved, you know, in how the investigation proceeded. Question and then to your knowledge again understanding that you're not picking and choosing who gets interviewed, did anyone in your Office or the FBI ever interview Ms. Maxwell? Answer to my knowledge they did not. I recall reading somewhere in the Justice Department report that I believe our lead prosecutor wasn't aware of Ms. Maxwell. I think at some point she said she didn't recognize the name. But I could be wrong. There was that's just a vague recollection. Question and again, I'm prefacing all this with the understanding that you're not picking and choosing and would have no and don't have recollection of whether or not they were interviewed. It seems odd and verging on not a fulsome investigation to enter into this level of agreement without interviewing these types of people. Do you agree? Answer so again, I don't know I was not involved in how investigation proceeded. We have very, very good prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida and my approach would have been to trust them to proceed as they saw appropriate. Unless it's Villafauna. Right. Because she wanted to proceed a different way. Question and so with that trust, when they proposed a non prosecution agreement, it was your belief that when they had checked all the kind of investigatory boxes to make sure that this was the best path forward. Answer that would be my belief and expectation in this and other cases. Alright, I want to go back to the agreement itself. I just have some kind of like four corners of the agreement type questions. If it's a, you don't recall your thoughts at the time, that's fine. If you have an opinion about it now, that's fine too. Alright, on page one, the first kind of stipulation is that so most of the document refers to minor females. And did you find any evidence of Mr. Epstein trafficking non minor females? Answer not to my recollection. Question and then what would kind of like constitute a breach of this agreement on Mr. Epstein's side? Answer well, it requires him to take certain steps. On page three, you know, it outlines 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on. And you know, ultimately if he didn't plead, if he didn't serve the term as outlined in the agreement or if he didn't take any of the other steps, it would be a breach. Question and then the actual kind of like agreement of what the jail confinement would look like, what would work release look like, what parole or home confinement would look like was all out of your hands. So one of the issues, look, we never expected that. We handed this to the state attorney and the Palm beach county. They had no jail time. We gave them jail time. We never expected them to do anything less than say outstanding. Great. And have him serve his time. Particularly when you look at into the details of the work release, the way he obtained that work release is troubling at best. And I think that was outlined in a letter from our office.
- [25:23]
SpinQuest Advertiser 1
I'm here with spinquest where you can play and win from the comfort of your own home with hundreds of slot games and all of the table games you love with real cash prizes. Right now thirty dollar coin packs are on sale for ten dollars free for new users. It's all at spinquest.com that's S P I N Q U-E-S-T.com Spinquest is a
- [25:46]
SpinQuest Advertiser 2
free to play social casino. Void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
- [25:53]
Alex Acosta
Question, question and we'll get to some of that a bit later. Just to your recollection, would it be common in a parole agreement or a home confinement agreement to require that the convicted individual be. Not commit any other crimes while on home confinement or parole? So I would think so, and I think that'd be part of the state's management of their prisoners. Question. But again, not up to the US Again, not up to the US Attorney. He's within the state system. If he were to breach parole, would that have a breach of the mpa? I would have to read the NPA Question. Okay. Answer in a lot more detail before I give an opinion like that. All right, we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode, we're gonna 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 gonna get right back to Alex Acosta and his farce of a deposition. Question. Did Ms. Vilafana ever approach you with the evidence that Mr. Epstein was violating the NPA? Answer. There were certainly discussions within the office as how to proceed on work release, but I don't think that was viewed as evidence. I think that was viewed as. To be honest, I think it was viewed as the office was hoodwinked. Question. Hoodwinked by whom? Answer. The state attorney in part or the state? Let me. Because the state attorney would say the Palm beach sheriff. It was not what we expected. We expected, quote, unquote, continuous confinement. We were given assurance of continuous confinement. Whichever system in the Palm beach correctional hierarchy chose to give this to him is not what we expected. And we made it pretty clear that we didn't think that it was appropriate. Question. You said earlier, a lot earlier at this point, that the state was an unfair partner. You might have said a different word, but I think an unreliable partner is what I said. Unreliable partner. Is this part of the evidence that supports that statement? Yes, it is. Do you have any other support for them being an unfair partner? So one of the issues in the case was, I believe we got notified on a Friday afternoon that he was taking his plea Monday morning. I would expect that a law enforcement partner would give us at least a business day. And. And I'm not being sarcastic here, on a plea of this nature. And so our attorneys were left to scramble and work with the Palm Beach State Attorney's office and victim notification on very, very short notice. And I think that led to some of the Feelings of lack of forthrightness on the part of the victims. Question, you've discussed some of, you know, I'm paraphrasing the shadiness of his work release detail and where he was working. Does the Florida Science foundation ring a bell about his work release? Answer. It does. Question. And sitting here today, what's your understanding of the Florida Science Foundation? Answer. When I was referencing shady, I think I use troublesome because I tend to. Just for the record, I tend to believe in being professional and opting over the combative. And I sometimes understate. I've been told that that's a bad habit. So shady might be a better term. I believe that that's part of what I consider shady. Question and I'm going to maybe jump a little bit out and we'll introduce these documents together as Exhibit 4. Question while they're being passed out. So it's the articles of incorporation for Bruce Reinhart Pennsylvan and the articles of incorporation for the Florida Science Foundation. Was Bruce Reinhart an employee in the U. S. Attorney's office while you were there? Answer. So you just disclosed something I did not know. Question. Okay, answer. Bruce Reinhart was an employee. He was an AUSA that worked in the Palm beach office during this. Inaudible I knew that he had left to work for Epstein while the case was pending. I did not know that he was the one that filed these articles of incorporation questions. So that gets to some of my questions. Was he directly involved in the Epstein investigation while at the U.S. attorney's office? So I would not have knowledge as to whether he was directly involved. He was not part of the core team. But within any office, as might be the case in any congressional office or others, there are sometimes hallway discussions, hear things you chat with colleagues near the water cooler, that kind of thing. And the Palm beach office is much smaller than the Miami office. And so I can't speak to what he did or did not know. And it's my understanding he left, officially left the U.S. attorney's office in January of 2008. Is that your understanding now? Answer I don't recall, but I know he left and I know he left at some point while the case was pending appeal. Question. All right, well, flip to his incorporation paperwork. You have it up in the top right corner of the first page. It says, filed October 23, 2007. That's 3ish months prior to him officially leaving the US Attorney's office. To the best of your recollection and knowledge, is it ethically questionable to begin private practice while still in the U.S. attorney's office? Yes. Question Is it actually unethical to do so? Yes. Did you have knowledge of this at the time? No. So I'm sorry to clarify. He filed this under Bruce Reinhardt, Pennsylvania, before he left the U.S. attorney's office. Question yes, sir. He filed it on October 23, 2007. We pulled this right off the Florida Corporation website. And then it's our understanding that his last day in the U.S. attorney's office was January 1, 2008. We're going to flip to the next one, the one with the big Sharpie writing on it. The first page on this one is not as interesting, but the second page is the beginning of the articles of incorporation for the Florida Science foundation. And this was incorporated. The stamp says November 1, 2007. So about a week after Mr. Reinhart's incorporation. Yes. Question and I want to compare the second page of the Florida Science foundation to the first page of Mr. Reinhart. Article two for Mr. Reinhart says the principal place of business is 250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 in West Palm Beach, Florida. And article two of the Florida Science foundation says 250 Australia Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, Florida. On its face, looking at this, does it appear that Mr. Rinehart and the Florida Science foundation, which was a front for Mr. Epstein, shared the same office? On its face it does, yes. Would that be of concern to you? Yes. And then again, it's our understanding that Mr. Rinehart's first clients were Mr. Epstein's maid, Sarah Kellen, and Mr. Epstein's pilots. Would that be unethical to shift straight from a U.S. attorney's office working on the case and then taking them as defense clients? Answer so I recall the office was troubled by Mr. Reinhardt leaving and shifting to Epstein related clients. I don't know what conversations he had with the ethics officials, but shady Question do you recall any conversation about Mr. Reinhart taking Epstein's clients at the time? Answer I recall some conversations at some point. I don't know what that time period would be. Question I'm going to not ask you to speculate, but it would certainly appear like there was some coordination here, Mr. Reinhart's articles of incorporation being at the same address a week before the Florida Science Foundation's incorporation and then him taking their clients. We've talked a lot about to that Acosta interrupts. What is most troubling is that this was before he left the office. Question We've talked a lot about Mr. Epstein's defense counsel attempting to find conflicts of interest in your office. Is this a conflict of interest? Not in your office. But is Mr. Reinhardt taking Epstein's clients a conflict of interest? Answer. So, as a technical matter, whether it's a conflict would have to do if he was involved in the case. As an ethical matter, as a professional matter, all of us thought it was deploring. Question. All right, thank you. After that, they have a quick recess, then they're back and another unnamed person is asking questions. Question. Good afternoon, Mr. Acosta. I just like to turn back to the federal investigation in your office and make sure we have a complete understanding of the players. And to begin with, the members of the U S. Attorney's office who handled the case. We've spoken about Ms. Vilafana, the line prosecutor. I understand that Jeffrey Sloman was also part of the team. Answer. He was. Question. Okay. And he was the chief of criminal division from 2004 to 2006 and first assistant to U.S. attorney in your office from October 2006. I can't vouch for the dates, but that generally sounds correct. And then Matthew Menshel. Menschel. Menschel. Andrew Laurie. Correct. I'm pronouncing it correctly. Yes. Lori. He was managing attorney for the Palm beach office and. And then went on to be the chief of staff for the criminal division. Anyone else I haven't named who belongs on the list. I think that would be the core team. Other individuals may have been consulted from time to time, but I think that that would be the core team. What about FBI agents on the case? Do you recall any of their names? I do not. Did you ever interact with them during the investigation? I. I believe they were in one or two meetings, but as a general matter, I would not interact with them. I did interact from time to time with the special agent in charge. Do you recall the person's name? John. I forgot his last name. I'm sorry. And then Mr. Epstein's legal team. Yes. And it's a fairly fulsome list, at least to my understanding. First name is Roy Black. Do you recall Mr. Black? Yes. Did you know him at the time the investigation started? I did. And how? He'd litigated other cases in the office. He was well known. I'd met him socially. Miami's legal community is smaller than Washington. You get to know the attorneys. I also thought it was important and I did. You know, I met with well known defense attorneys from time to time just to see their assessment of how the office was proceeding. Did you have A social relationship with Mr. Black? I don't think so. Gerald Lefcourt. I know the name. I did not know much beyond that. Guy Lewis. So Guy Lewis, if the question is who he was, I assume that's your question. So I understand that he was a former U.S. attorney and your predecessor in the Southern District of Florida, Is that right? I. I thought he was the predecessor, the one before me. Okay. So you've answered the first question. The second is whether you knew him at the time the investigation started. I knew him. I think he had served in Maine justice for some period of time. We had interactions from time to time. It's also my understanding that Mr. Lewis was close friends with Mr. Lorre in your office at the time. Is that right? I will accept your understanding. I, I don't have independent recollection. Lily Ann Sanchez. So she was in our office when I first started the office. She later left for private practice. Question. And represented Mr. Epstein. And represented Mr. Epstein. And that was immediately after she left the office, if I'm correct. I can't speak to the timeline. And she had been. Mr. I'm sorry. Menschel. Menshell. Question. Mr. Menshel's deputy at the office before she left, Is that right? Answer. That's correct. Question. And I understand she also dated him for a period of time. Answer. During the Office of Professional Responsibility investigation, it came out that they had dated previously. Question. Jay Lefkowitz, we've spoken about if I understood your testimony earlier, you know Mr. Lefkowitz from your time at Kirkland as an associate, is that correct? Answer. Correct. In the mid-90s, I believe. Question. And please tell me if I'm mischaracterizing, but I understood you to say that you may have had an assignment from Mr. Lefkowitz. Answer. It was more than 20 years ago. I don't recall working with him on something. But that doesn't mean that in the course of being a young associate, you don't get an assignment from a partner. Did you have any contact with Mr. Lefkowitz between the time you left Kirkland and the inception of the Epstein investigation? Answer. So he was in the Bush administration in a White House role. From time to time. We may have had some info to contact. I don't recall what the White House role he was in. Question. I understand that he was the former general counsel of OMB under President George W. Bush. Is that consistent with your understanding? Again, I remember a White House role. If you look them up, you have more information at this point. Than I do. Question Ken Starr is also at Kirkland. I believe you said that you knew Mr. Starr from Kirkland. Is that right? Answer so I did work with the case. It was the Supreme Court. It was a full Supreme Court matter and I did work with him on that. I was a junior associate on the team. Question and Mr. Starr, of course, is the former Clinton Whitewater special prosecutor. And that was prior to your tenure at Kirkland. Is my chronology correct again? Did you have any contact with Mr. Starr between the time you left Kirkland and the inception of the Epstein investigation? Answer if I could go back, I'm not sure your chronology is correct because I remember that Mr. Starr was out of the office quite a bit while I was at Kirkland working on some matters. So if it wasn't that matter, it would have been another similar non Kirkland special assignment matter.
- [39:44]
SpinQuest Advertiser 1
Whether it's slots or live dealers, Spinquest.com has the fun and action you're looking for with Spinquest exclusives. Blackjack, roulette, baccarat and even live dice with craps and bubble craps. The games never stop so you don't have to. And right now new users get $30 coin packs for just 10 bucks. Play now@Spinquest.com SpinQuest is a free to
- [40:09]
SpinQuest Advertiser 2
play social casino, voidware, prohibited visits. BenQuest.com for more details
- [40:15]
Alex Acosta
Question okay, answer and I think your second question was, did I have contact with him again? He's a well known Washington figure. I'm sure I would have come into contact with him at some event, at some point. Question we spoke about Alan Dershowitz, Jack Goldberger. Answer yes. Question do you know Mr. Goldberger? Answer not to my recollection. Question Are you aware that he represented Mr. Epstein? I am not based on independent recollection, but I've obviously reviewed material. It's my understanding that Mr. Goldberger's law partner at the time of the State's investigation into Mr. Epstein was married to the assistant state attorney who was handling the Epstein case and that once Mr. Epstein retained Mr. Goldberger, the assistant State attorney was removed from the case on the basis of a conflict of interest. Did you become aware of that? I have read that. I don't recall if I became aware of that 20 years ago. Question next Martin Weinberg. Do you know Mr. Weinberg? I don't know him, but I recognize the name. Do you recognize him as one of Epstein's attorneys? I will accept that assertion getting close to the end of the list. But the next name is Joe Whitley. Yes. Do you know Mr. Whitley? Answer. I do. He was, I believe, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, I believe, and was in private practice by this time. Question. It's my understanding that he also served as acting U.S. associate Attorney General under President George H.W. bush. Is that consistent with your understanding? Answer I don't remember. Question. And it's also my understanding that Mr. Whitley joined the legal team after the NPA was signed. Is that right? I'll accept your assertion. And finally, I don't have a name, but I noted that the OPR report notes that the former principal Deputy Chief of the Child Exploitation and obscenity section, or CEOs, as you've been referring to it, joined the defense team after the NPA was signed. Were you aware of that? I don't recall being aware of that, but I've read it in the report. Do you know who that individual is? I do not. Question. So that's obviously a somewhat substantial list. I believe I called it an army. An army seems apt. It's typical for there to be, you know, movement between DOJ and private legal practice. Sort of the prominence of these individuals, as well as the closeness to their relationship with certain people in your office, both personally and in terms of the closeness in the time to their tenures in your office, from your standpoint, seems somewhat exceptional. Did you ever have any concerns about that at the time? We were. There was clearly a bit of a pattern here. Right. And everyone, from my perspective, talked to the ethics folks. Everything was disclosed to my understanding at that time, and something that we had to be very careful about, because on top of that, there were instances where he attempted to recuse our prosecutors. A defendant doesn't go to recuse prosecutors simply by hiring people that are associated with them. Or else the criminal justice system breaks down because wealthy people can just hire armies and get rid of the most experienced prosecutors. And so, yes, we were aware of it. We, I believe, managed it. We acted entirely appropriately. The Office of Professional Responsibility reviewed all that and they found no impropriety. They found no improper influence. They found that everyone acted as they should have. But to be more specific about the concerns. So you mentioned the prospect of necessitating recusal. Yes. Is that the inquiry that the ethics office engaged in, that you just described? No, the ethics office engaged in a full review of everyone's relationships with prior attorneys, and they went person by person in this OPR report and found that there was no impropriety, no improper influence, and no favoritism. Question. Where in the OPR report does it Conclude that. Answer I believe there is an entire section beginning of page 140. Beginning, beginning on page 140. Proceeding through. It looks like page 169. Question. So that section speaks to the motivations of the attorneys in your office in negotiating the mpa. If I understand it correctly. I think I'm asking more specifically about concerns about about the closeness of the ties between Mr. Epstein's attorneys and their ability to potentially influence staff in your office, whether it's MPA itself or meetings or just access in general. Was that a concern that was ever raised? Answer, I believed all of us were aware and had discussions with the Ethics Council and it was known by the office and you know, all of us proceeded in the way that we thought was correct and professional. Do you remember specific conversations with the Ethics Council? Answer I believe the Office of Professional Responsibility talks about how various individuals consulted with him. In my case, it was publicly known that I had worked at Kirkland and there was no concern at the time and there was no concern found by the Office of Professional Responsibility. All right folks, we're gonna wrap up right here and in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
- [45:31]
SpinQuest Advertiser 3
What's up baby? It's Bretzky and I'm here to tell you that spinquest.com is giving out free Sweets coins. All you gotta do is purchase a ten dollar coin pack and guess what? They're gonna give you the coins from a thirty dollar coin pack that lets you play all your favorite games like Blackjack, Wanted, Dead or Wild. And we're talking real cash prizes, baby. Spinquest.
- [45:53]
SpinQuest Advertiser 2
Com Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.