Mega Edition: Transcripts From The Alex Acosta Deposition (Part 7-9) (11/12/26) bölümünün tam dökümü

aware of anyone in the U.S. Attorney's Office 67 00:03:58.340 --> 00:04:02.250 asking Donald Trump about the article? Answer. I think, to that, 68 00:04:02.310 --> 00:04:07.080 cut off again. Mr. Neiman, let him answer. Acosta. I understand, 69 00:04:07.300 --> 00:04:10.139 but I want to provide a fulsome answer if I can. First, 70 00:04:10.219 --> 00:04:12.979 these are the words of the prosecuting attorney in the case. 71 00:04:13.879 --> 00:04:17.350 Cut off once again. Sir, that's not my question. I'm 72 00:04:17.509 --> 00:04:20.829 asking if you're aware. To that, Acosta cuts him off. 73 00:04:21.230 --> 00:04:24.100 I'm providing you. Cut off again by the person asking 74 00:04:24.139 --> 00:04:29.120 the question. if Donald Trump was interviewed, about women at Mar-a-Lago? Answer, 75 00:04:29.439 --> 00:04:32.199 I'm not aware of who was interviewed and not interviewed 76 00:04:32.220 --> 00:04:34.939 in the case generally because U.S. attorneys do not become 77 00:04:34.980 --> 00:04:38.069 involved in deciding who gets interviewed and who does not 78 00:04:38.089 --> 00:04:41.730 get interviewed. Question, I do believe you said in this 79 00:04:41.769 --> 00:04:44.649 hour the decisions are mine. You are the U.S. attorney. 80 00:04:44.970 --> 00:04:48.129 Is that right? Answer, so when I said the decisions 81 00:04:48.189 --> 00:04:51.360 are mine, you're taking my comments out of context because 82 00:04:51.420 --> 00:04:54.480 I said I am ultimately responsible for what my office does. 83 00:04:55.319 --> 00:04:58.300 I'm not pushing away blame. I'm not pushing away responsibility. 84 00:04:58.740 --> 00:05:00.899 That doesn't mean that the US attorney of a district 85 00:05:01.459 --> 00:05:05.560 with several hundred attorneys, even in high profile cases, directs 86 00:05:05.579 --> 00:05:09.139 who is interviewed and not interviewed. And so as a 87 00:05:09.199 --> 00:05:11.800 US attorney, I do not have knowledge who was interviewed 88 00:05:11.819 --> 00:05:14.459 in the case. As US attorney, I do not have 89 00:05:14.660 --> 00:05:18.319 knowledge who was interviewed in the Abramoff case, which we 90 00:05:18.350 --> 00:05:21.089 did as well. As US attorney, I do not have 91 00:05:21.149 --> 00:05:24.069 knowledge in who was interviewed in the UBS case, which 92 00:05:24.110 --> 00:05:26.939 was a major case. So as a U.S. attorney, my 93 00:05:26.980 --> 00:05:30.639 job was to allow my line prosecutors, our line prosecutors, 94 00:05:31.000 --> 00:05:34.620 line prosecutors that have great experience, one of whom, one 95 00:05:34.660 --> 00:05:37.240 of the supervisory attorneys of whom used to be the 96 00:05:37.259 --> 00:05:40.579 head of public corruption, public integrity here in Washington, to 97 00:05:40.620 --> 00:05:45.379 determine how to proceed with investigations. Question. Thank you. You 98 00:05:45.430 --> 00:05:49.009 have relied frequently on the OPR report and you'd with 99 00:05:49.069 --> 00:05:52.569 me that the OPR report outlines that you negotiated the 100 00:05:52.610 --> 00:05:57.500 non-prosecution agreement. Is that correct? Answer, that is not correct. Question, 101 00:05:57.540 --> 00:06:01.430 that's not correct. Answer, not what the OPR says. Question, 102 00:06:01.790 --> 00:06:05.790 did you have any role in negotiating the non-prosecution agreement? Answer, 103 00:06:06.230 --> 00:06:09.110 the OPR report says that I ultimately approved the term 104 00:06:09.149 --> 00:06:13.399 sheet that required two years, that required registration, and that 105 00:06:13.439 --> 00:06:17.220 required a mechanism for individuals to recover monetary, and so 106 00:06:17.259 --> 00:06:21.819 I approved that. Question understood. Answer, it was then negotiated 107 00:06:22.399 --> 00:06:27.089 after that by the AUSA's. The report also says, Question. 108 00:06:27.389 --> 00:06:30.949 Did you meet with Epstein's defense attorney? Answer. Let me finish. 109 00:06:31.250 --> 00:06:33.879 If I could finish my answer, please. The report, as 110 00:06:33.939 --> 00:06:36.920 I was saying, that also says that Epstein's defense attorneys 111 00:06:37.339 --> 00:06:40.160 then requested a meeting. It says that it went to 112 00:06:40.319 --> 00:06:43.459 our first assistant and I said, I bet you this 113 00:06:43.500 --> 00:06:46.660 case ends up in Washington because they had done was 114 00:06:46.699 --> 00:06:52.250 hire Mr. Starr. Question. And Mr. Lefkowitz. Answer. And Mr. Lefkowitz. Question. 115 00:06:52.810 --> 00:06:57.730 And Mr. Dershowitz. Answer. and Professor Dershowitz. And when they 116 00:06:57.769 --> 00:06:59.970 hired them, I predicted I got a phone call asking 117 00:06:59.990 --> 00:07:02.829 for a meeting. I predicted my career first assistant that 118 00:07:02.879 --> 00:07:05.560 the case would end up in Washington. I said we 119 00:07:05.579 --> 00:07:08.079 should meet with them so that the first time Washington 120 00:07:08.120 --> 00:07:11.079 hears about this is not the South Florida office refused 121 00:07:11.120 --> 00:07:13.540 a meeting. I then asked him to call the criminal 122 00:07:13.579 --> 00:07:16.660 division in D.C. and invite the head of child exploitation 123 00:07:17.079 --> 00:07:21.079 and obscenity section, who are the experts in this from Washington, D.C., 124 00:07:21.360 --> 00:07:24.060 down to the meeting so that the child exploitation and 125 00:07:24.360 --> 00:07:27.120 and obscenity section would be fully briefed on the case, 126 00:07:28.759 --> 00:07:30.860 fully briefed on how we were proceeding on the case, 127 00:07:31.379 --> 00:07:34.060 and they would know what we were doing because my 128 00:07:34.110 --> 00:07:37.430 prediction was that it would end up in Washington. Mr. Garcia, 129 00:07:37.509 --> 00:07:41.389 thank you, Mr. Acosta. I think we're going to move on. Mr. Garcia, 130 00:07:42.149 --> 00:07:44.930 I'm going to move on to Mr. Submaranian real quick, 131 00:07:45.290 -->

00:07:47.769 but before I do that really quick, I just wanted 132 00:07:47.790 --> 00:07:50.500 to be clear also, when you were during your time 133 00:07:50.879 --> 00:07:55.319 as U.S. Attorney, did you ever speak to Donald Trump generally? Mr. Acosta, 134 00:07:55.360 --> 00:07:58.680 I did not. Mr. Garcia, so you never, the entire 135 00:07:58.720 --> 00:08:01.050 time you were U.S. Attorney, you never once spoke to 136 00:08:01.079 --> 00:08:04.389 Donald Trump? Mr. Acosta, the entire time, let me be 137 00:08:04.430 --> 00:08:07.529 more clear. I did not speak with President Trump, with 138 00:08:07.569 --> 00:08:12.370 Donald Trump, before I was considered for Secretary of Labor. Mr. Garcia, 139 00:08:12.430 --> 00:08:16.730 thank you. Mr. Submaranian, I was going to ask you that, 140 00:08:17.089 --> 00:08:19.949 but had you met with him before, Acosta? There was 141 00:08:20.100 --> 00:08:22.220 one instance where I saw him in the lobby across 142 00:08:22.259 --> 00:08:25.040 the way, and I remember thinking, oh, that's Donald Trump. 143 00:08:25.759 --> 00:08:27.759 If you define that as a meeting, we didn't have 144 00:08:27.800 --> 00:08:30.500 a conversation. I just saw him kind of like seeing 145 00:08:30.519 --> 00:08:33.700 people in the room. Mr. Garcia, you never had a 146 00:08:33.720 --> 00:08:36.580 phone conversation? Also, not just a meeting, never a phone 147 00:08:36.620 --> 00:08:40.559 conversation of any kind with Donald Trump? Acosta, I did 148 00:08:40.600 --> 00:08:43.129 not have an in-person conversation. I did not have a 149 00:08:43.139 --> 00:08:50.029 phone conversation. Mr. Min, email. Acosta, we hadn't shaken hands. Submaranium, 150 00:08:50.740 --> 00:08:54.539 what about with any of his associates? Mr. Min, email, text, 151 00:08:54.659 --> 00:08:57.440 any of them? Acosta, no email to my recollection, no 152 00:08:57.480 --> 00:09:03.200 text to my recollection, no associates to my recollection. He 153 00:09:03.240 --> 00:09:05.080 moved in circles that I did not move in, to 154 00:09:05.100 --> 00:09:08.879 be honest. Mr. Frost, can I ask real quick? During 155 00:09:08.919 --> 00:09:11.649 the time that you were considering this case, did anybody 156 00:09:11.710 --> 00:09:14.230 reach out to you, you know, any form of communication, 157 00:09:14.269 --> 00:09:18.470 inquiring about it? Mr. Acosta, so the office got any 158 00:09:18.549 --> 00:09:22.149 number of communications? I assume you mean from the media? Mr. Frost, 159 00:09:22.190 --> 00:09:26.269 you personally. Mr. Acosta, and those have gone through, so 160 00:09:26.309 --> 00:09:28.389 it was 20 years ago. I don't know if a 161 00:09:28.409 --> 00:09:32.509 reporter at some point cornered me and asked me a question. Mr. Frost, 162 00:09:32.549 --> 00:09:36.210 anybody from D.C.? Acosta, so at some point the case 163 00:09:36.250 --> 00:09:39.669 was appealed to Washington, and at that point, then there 164 00:09:39.710 --> 00:09:44.610 were conversations, primarily letters that were provided Washington, but Not 165 00:09:44.639 --> 00:09:47.730 specifically around the NPA and considerations over it? Did anyone 166 00:09:47.769 --> 00:09:50.529 reach out to you from Washington? Anyone from local government 167 00:09:50.570 --> 00:09:54.370 in Florida? Anyone in South Florida? Mr. Acosta, so is 168 00:09:54.389 --> 00:09:58.470 your question before the non-prosecution agreement was signed? Mr. Frost, yes, 169 00:09:58.529 --> 00:10:06.529 before it was signed. Thank you for watching. Anyone that 170 00:10:06.549 --> 00:10:09.110 would reach out to you asking questions about this case 171 00:10:09.429 --> 00:10:12.000 or to provide there to that cut off by Acosta, 172 00:10:12.299 --> 00:10:15.179 I don't recall any communication from what you would term 173 00:10:15.220 --> 00:10:18.460 as donors. I'll just call them wealthy people. Mr. Frost, 174 00:10:18.500 --> 00:10:22.779 wealthy people. Acosta, I don't recall any communications. So I 175 00:10:22.799 --> 00:10:24.850 reached out to Washington to ask the head of child 176 00:10:24.889 --> 00:10:28.750 exploitation and obscenity section to come to our meeting because 177 00:10:28.789 --> 00:10:31.529 I wanted Washington to be fully briefed because I thought 178 00:10:31.570 --> 00:10:34.860 Washington would be brought into this. That was my reaching out. 179 00:10:35.250 --> 00:10:37.269 And so in that process, I'm sure that there was 180 00:10:37.289 --> 00:10:39.649 some back and forth so that the person could come 181 00:10:39.690 --> 00:10:43.049 to this meeting where, to be clear, I rejected every 182 00:10:43.149 --> 00:10:45.330 ask the defense made of me. And I said, we're 183 00:10:45.370 --> 00:10:48.679 going with the original decision that I made. All right, folks, 184 00:10:48.700 --> 00:10:50.360 we're going to wrap up right there. And in the 185 00:10:50.399 --> 00:10:52.320 next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick 186 00:10:52.440 --> 00:10:55.220 up where we left off. All of the information that 187 00:10:55.240 --> 00:10:58.600 goes with this episode can be found in the description box. 188 00:10:58.860 --> 00:11:01.500 What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the 189 00:11:01.600 --> 00:11:05.210 Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up with the 190 00:11:05.389 --> 00:11:08.889 Alex Acosta deposition that was given to Congress. Once again, 191 00:11:08.990 --> 00:11:12.029 Alex Acosta is answering the questions and a whole host 192 00:11:12.070 --> 00:11:17.039 of people are doing the questioning. Acosta, now going forward, 193 00:11:17.340 --> 00:11:21.019 your question was, Mr. Frost, when you were being considered 194 00:11:21.120 --> 00:11:24.700 to be the Secretary of Labor, Acosta, yes. Frost, in 195 00:11:24.720 --> 00:11:28.480 your conversations with Donald Trump or anyone in his administration, 196 00:11:28.779 --> 00:11:33.320 did you talk about the

Epstein investigation, Acosta, the first time? Frost, 197 00:11:33.500 --> 00:11:37.629 before confirmation. Acosta, the first time that I recall. Neiman, 198 00:11:37.850 --> 00:11:41.990 before confirmation. Acosta, talking about this from the first time 199 00:11:42.049 --> 00:11:44.710 I was being considered for a position in the Trump 200 00:11:44.730 --> 00:11:48.490 administration to confirmation, the first time I recall talking about this. 201 00:11:49.049 --> 00:11:51.820 There may, I don't know, there are two points at 202 00:11:51.879 --> 00:11:54.559 which I may have at one point, at which I did, 203 00:11:54.879 --> 00:11:57.120 and one point at which I may have. The point 204 00:11:57.179 --> 00:11:59.720 at which I did, I was, I believe there were 205 00:11:59.779 --> 00:12:02.399 some stories, I forget where. I know in the Washington 206 00:12:02.440 --> 00:12:05.090 Post there was a story above the fold at one point, 207 00:12:05.379 --> 00:12:07.629 but I think that was later. And so I talked 208 00:12:07.649 --> 00:12:11.009 to the communications team because the communications team needed to 209 00:12:11.049 --> 00:12:14.110 be briefed about it, obviously. And so I had a 210 00:12:14.149 --> 00:12:17.610 conversation with the communications team. Mr. Frost, and then you 211 00:12:17.649 --> 00:12:21.470 said there was another? Acosta. And the other instance where 212 00:12:21.529 --> 00:12:23.730 I may have had communication, I don't recall if I 213 00:12:23.789 --> 00:12:26.129 did or if it was simply or if there was 214 00:12:26.190 --> 00:12:29.429 some written question or otherwise, but at some point, In 215 00:12:29.450 --> 00:12:32.480 the vetting process, a question may have arisen. And if 216 00:12:32.539 --> 00:12:36.779 the question arose, Frost, and you don't remember, Acosta, I 217 00:12:36.820 --> 00:12:39.840 honestly don't remember. But if the question arose, in the 218 00:12:39.860 --> 00:12:45.120 vetting process, where the FBI does its background, Frost, okay. Acosta, then, 219 00:12:45.490 --> 00:12:49.389 Frost cuts them off, very good, thank you. Jasmine Crockett 220 00:12:49.429 --> 00:12:52.950 pipes up, okay, so I've just got two questions. And 221 00:12:52.990 --> 00:12:55.490 you may be able to finish answering them before the 222 00:12:55.509 --> 00:12:58.120 end of this part. I still want them to get 223 00:12:58.179 --> 00:13:00.080 on the record because I'm going to have to go. 224 00:13:00.500 --> 00:13:02.799 You talked about how weak the case was, and there 225 00:13:02.820 --> 00:13:05.379 was a number of follow-up questions on that from Dave Min. 226 00:13:05.759 --> 00:13:08.299 I'm trying to figure out, are you aware as to 227 00:13:08.379 --> 00:13:11.659 whether or not any of Jeffrey Epstein's employees were ever 228 00:13:11.740 --> 00:13:15.870 interviewed as part of the investigation? Mr. Acosta, so again, 229 00:13:16.259 --> 00:13:18.809 as U.S. Attorney, I don't get involved in who

was 230 00:13:18.929 --> 00:13:24.169 to that cutoff by Crockett, okay? Acosta, interviewed. They may 231 00:13:24.210 --> 00:13:27.990 have been interviewed. They may not have been. Crockett, okay. Acosta, 232 00:13:28.409 --> 00:13:30.080 that was not, that was not the role that I 233 00:13:30.120 --> 00:13:33.559 played in this. Crockett, okay, I understand. And the only 234 00:13:33.620 --> 00:13:36.899 reason I ask is because you talked about basically how 235 00:13:36.940 --> 00:13:39.519 you all came together, and I'm aware that a lot 236 00:13:39.539 --> 00:13:42.830 of times there's basically like conferences that you pull together, 237 00:13:43.169 --> 00:13:45.889 your entire team, and you talk about these things, right? 238 00:13:47.190 --> 00:13:49.950 But it doesn't sound like you asked those questions in 239 00:13:49.990 --> 00:13:53.250 those meetings. either to know whether or not, well, did 240 00:13:53.269 --> 00:13:56.429 you go and do this, that, or whatever, the things 241 00:13:56.629 --> 00:14:00.169 to better the case and make the case stronger. But 242 00:14:00.289 --> 00:14:02.120 I'm going to hold that there, and if you have 243 00:14:02.169 --> 00:14:04.779 anything to provide as it relates to testimony of the 244 00:14:04.840 --> 00:14:07.659 things that you did to try to make the case better, 245 00:14:08.059 --> 00:14:10.179 or try to make sure that you had everything that 246 00:14:10.220 --> 00:14:12.399 you could to make sure that it was the best case, 247 00:14:12.740 --> 00:14:16.440 then please let us know on the record later. But 248 00:14:16.480 --> 00:14:18.379 the final question, because I want to kind of get 249 00:14:18.419 --> 00:14:20.720 to the end, is it sounds like you had a 250 00:14:20.759 --> 00:14:23.240 lot of meetings with lots of people, but it seems 251 00:14:23.279 --> 00:14:26.019 like the victims were left out of this. And ultimately, 252 00:14:26.100 --> 00:14:28.879 we know that there was a problem with you potentially, 253 00:14:29.279 --> 00:14:32.710 I don't know the exact language, violating statute that requires 254 00:14:32.769 --> 00:14:36.250 victims to be made aware. So while there are all 255 00:14:36.289 --> 00:14:39.549 these other conversations taking place, and I'm used to prosecution 256 00:14:39.590 --> 00:14:43.809 offices talking to victims and explaining to victims why they 257 00:14:43.850 --> 00:14:46.970 are going to have weaknesses in their cases, and explaining 258 00:14:47.049 --> 00:14:50.320 prior to making an offer. Because there have been victims 259 00:14:50.840 --> 00:14:53.700 that have been told prosecutors, yes, I hear you saying 260 00:14:53.720 --> 00:14:55.860 that the case is weak, but I want to testify, 261 00:14:56.200 --> 00:14:58.379 I want my day in court, I want to go forward. 262 00:14:58.919 --> 00:15:02.539 And I've heard prosecutors go forward simply because victims are saying, 263 00:15:02.840 --> 00:15:05.330 we want to go forward. It doesn't sound like that 264 00:15:05.370 --> 00:15:08.509 was done. If it was done, please let us know. 265 00:15:08.850 --> 00:15:12.370 But it's my understanding that Sarah Kellan, Nadia Marcinkova, and 266 00:15:12.529 --> 00:15:16.370 Adriana Musinska, I'm messing that up, that they were being 267 00:15:16.409 --> 00:15:19.889 investigated as co-conspirators, or that they were being included in 268 00:15:19.909 --> 00:15:24.190 the NPA, either before or after it was signed. But 269 00:15:24.350 --> 00:15:26.929 is that common practice in the Southern District of Florida, 270 00:15:26.970 --> 00:15:30.470 number one? And how can you explain including young women 271 00:15:30.750 --> 00:15:33.929 in a non-prosecution agreement without their knowledge at the request 272 00:15:34.250 --> 00:15:40.080 of a clear serial sexual predator, Mr. Acosta? Okay, so 273 00:15:40.120 --> 00:15:41.840 that was a lot of questions. Let me try to 274 00:15:41.899 --> 00:15:45.120 take the gist of this. I'm reading from the case 275 00:15:45.179 --> 00:15:48.519 agent's warrant statement. I believe you cited litigation where they 276 00:15:48.539 --> 00:15:53.299 filed suit under the CVRA. Ms. Crockett, yes. Acosta, so 277 00:15:53.379 --> 00:15:55.759 first at the time, and it's all since changed, but 278 00:15:55.799 --> 00:15:58.539 at the time, it was Department of Justice position that 279 00:15:58.559 --> 00:16:02.509 the CVRA did not attach until indictment. And that was 280 00:16:02.529 --> 00:16:05.889 the written position under an Office of Legal Counsel decision. 281 00:16:06.330 --> 00:16:08.210 And so things have changed, but I want to be 282 00:16:08.250 --> 00:16:12.070 very clear up front. The Office of Professional Responsibility reviewed 283 00:16:12.110 --> 00:16:14.740 this matter fully. And there are some things I agreed 284 00:16:14.759 --> 00:16:18.080 with the question earlier where I agreed with the criticism 285 00:16:18.139 --> 00:16:21.200 of OPR, but OPR found out that we did not 286 00:16:21.259 --> 00:16:24.539 violate any law, we did not violate any department policy, 287 00:16:25.000 --> 00:16:27.769 and there was no misconduct with respect to victim notification. 288 00:16:28.750 --> 00:16:31.710 Reading from the case agent's sworn declaration, many of the 289 00:16:31.750 --> 00:16:35.429 victims were troubled about the existence of the investigation. Some 290 00:16:35.470 --> 00:16:39.080 victims who were identified through the investigation refused to even 291 00:16:39.120 --> 00:16:44.059 speak to us. During interviews conducted from 2006 to 2008, 292 00:16:44.059 --> 00:16:48.139 continuing after the agreement was signed, no victim expressed a 293 00:16:48.159 --> 00:16:51.750 strong opinion that Epstein be prosecuted. And so that was 294 00:16:51.830 --> 00:16:54.690 actually filed in response to the claims that you made 295 00:16:54.730 --> 00:16:58.169 and that you quoted from that litigation. That is the 296 00:16:58.210

--> 00:17:01.470 litigation that proceeded and the declaration was filed as a 297 00:17:01.509 --> 00:17:05.299 response to the claims that you made. Now with respect 298 00:17:05.319 --> 00:17:08.599 to victim notification, very briefly, one of the issues that arose, 299 00:17:09.000 --> 00:17:11.109 and this went to a little bit of your question 300 00:17:11.420 --> 00:17:13.730 about some of the difficulties that I will own with 301 00:17:13.750 --> 00:17:16.990 the proceeding on the state, was that we included a 302 00:17:17.029 --> 00:17:21.029 provision that allowed the victims to recover monetary damages. And 303 00:17:21.190 --> 00:17:24.809 our prosecuting attorney and the FBI case agent started notifying 304 00:17:24.829 --> 00:17:28.190 the victims. And this isn't my recollection, let me be clear. 305 00:17:28.670 --> 00:17:32.059 This is what the OPR discussed and found. Because, you know, 306 00:17:32.079 --> 00:17:36.559 I was not, as U.S. attorneys, supervising victim notification. This was, 307 00:17:36.599 --> 00:17:40.450 you know, left to the prosecuting attorneys and the supervisory chain. 308 00:17:41.130 --> 00:17:44.150 And this is what OPR found. And so they became 309 00:17:44.190 --> 00:17:47.490 concerned that they were generating more impeachment evidence because if 310 00:17:47.549 --> 00:17:51.519 victims became aware that they could recover monetarily, they would 311 00:17:51.559 --> 00:17:54.160 have when they're put on the stand. Can you imagine 312 00:17:54.180 --> 00:17:56.339 how the questioning would go? Is it true that if 313 00:17:56.380 --> 00:18:02.509 this person is convicted, you stand to recover $ 100, 000? or $ 150, 000, 314 00:18:01.109 --> 00:18:05.950 or whatever the amount was. And because of that, they 315 00:18:06.029 --> 00:18:10.069 went to their professional responsibility officer, their ethics officer, and said, 316 00:18:10.369 --> 00:18:14.859 we feel uncomfortable continuing with the victim notifications. And the 317 00:18:14.920 --> 00:18:17.759 ethics officer at the time said, if you feel uncomfortable, 318 00:18:18.000 --> 00:18:21.420 then don't go forward. And so the notifications, based on 319 00:18:21.460 --> 00:18:25.440 my understanding of the OPR report, proceeded by saying that 320 00:18:25.460 --> 00:18:28.490 the investigation is ongoing and because at the time, the 321 00:18:28.529 --> 00:18:30.890 appeal was pending in D.C., and we didn't know how 322 00:18:30.930 --> 00:18:34.029 it would turn out. And so, that is the decision 323 00:18:34.069 --> 00:18:36.529 that was made. It was made with the best intention 324 00:18:36.569 --> 00:18:39.079 of preserving the case, and it was made in conjunction 325 00:18:39.119 --> 00:18:44.339 with the professional responsibility officer of the office. Redacted, we're 326 00:18:44.380 --> 00:18:48.180 going to end the Democratic round there, but before we do, Ms. Stansberry, 327 00:18:48.420 --> 00:18:51.420 can you please introduce yourself on the record? Ms. Stansberry, 328 00:18:51.829 --> 00:18:56.009 I'm Melanie Stansberry from New Mexico. Thank you for being here. Mr. Acosta, 329 00:18:56.029 --> 00:19:02.299 how are you? Mr. Ansari. Hi. Yasemin Ansari, Arizona's third. Acosta, 330 00:19:02.319 --> 00:19:06.039 how are you? Great. We'll go off the record. So 331 00:19:06.079 --> 00:19:08.579 they go off the record, then they come back. Question. 332 00:19:09.140 --> 00:19:11.730 So just for a clean record, the Epstein case in 333 00:19:11.750 --> 00:19:18.490 the Southern District of Florida was resolved via non-prosecution agreement, correct? Answer, yes. Question. 334 00:19:19.210 --> 00:19:21.710 I want to differentiate a little bit. Did you approve 335 00:19:21.750 --> 00:19:24.650 the terms of the NPA itself? You've been using term sheet. 336 00:19:24.990 --> 00:19:27.269 I think that language that you've been using. Is there 337 00:19:27.289 --> 00:19:30.130 a difference between the two? Answer. So the term sheet 338 00:19:30.380 --> 00:19:33.359 was the initial proposal that was presented to the defense. 339 00:19:33.799 --> 00:19:37.000 I believe in late July. The ultimate agreement differed primarily 340 00:19:37.319 --> 00:19:41.900 as we've already discussed from 24 to 18. Question. Uh-huh. Answer. 341 00:19:42.059 --> 00:19:44.910 And I approve both. Question. Okay. Is there a difference 342 00:19:45.210 --> 00:19:49.529 between the non-prosecution agreement and the kind of plea agreement? Answer. 343 00:19:49.569 --> 00:19:52.940 There is. Question, what is it? Answer, so a non-prosecution 344 00:19:52.960 --> 00:19:56.400 agreement is typically kept in the U.S. Attorney's Office and 345 00:19:56.440 --> 00:19:59.240 it's an agreement not to prosecute. And in this case, 346 00:19:59.279 --> 00:20:02.109 it was a deference to the state that would be 347 00:20:02.180 --> 00:20:06.579 prosecuting pursuant to these terms. Question, are plea agreements traditionally 348 00:20:06.619 --> 00:20:12.119 more public than non-prosecution agreements? Answer, non-prosecution agreements traditionally are 349 00:20:12.160 --> 00:20:15.619 not public. Question, okay. Answer, or at least were not 350 00:20:15.680 --> 00:20:20.029 public traditionally at the time. Question, at that time, so 351 00:20:20.069 --> 00:20:23.890 a non-prosecution agreement like wouldn't be, I'm sure PACER didn't 352 00:20:23.930 --> 00:20:27.150 exist in 2006, but wouldn't go online or wouldn't be 353 00:20:27.190 --> 00:20:29.849 available at a courthouse for the public to view? Answer, 354 00:20:29.869 --> 00:20:31.910 it would not. It would be kept at the U.S. 355 00:20:31.930 --> 00:20:35.339 Attorney's Office. Question, Was that the part of the rationale 356 00:20:35.380 --> 00:20:40.000 to choose a non-prosecution agreement versus a plea agreement? Answer, 357 00:20:40.039 --> 00:20:43.920 it was not. Question, did defense counsel ever suggest that 358 00:20:43.960 --> 00:20:46.700 they

wanted it to remain private? Answer, so at some 359 00:20:46.740 --> 00:20:49.509 point in the process, that came up. And that came 360 00:20:49.630 --> 00:20:52.809 up in the negotiation process. As a matter of fact, U.S. 361 00:20:52.869 --> 00:20:56.289 Attorney policy, it would remain within the U.S. Attorney's Office, 362 00:20:56.630 --> 00:21:01.410 but it's always subject to Freedom of Information Act. Question, okay, 363 00:21:01.450 --> 00:21:04.190 but from your side of the negotiating table, it being 364 00:21:04.250 --> 00:21:08.900 private was not pivotal in the negotiation? Acosta, it being 365 00:21:08.960 --> 00:21:12.880 private was not pivotal at all. Question, was there ever 366 00:21:12.940 --> 00:21:17.500 discussion enforcing a plea agreement versus an NPA? Answer, I 367 00:21:17.539 --> 00:21:20.539 don't understand the question of forcing a plea agreement. Question, 368 00:21:21.000 --> 00:21:24.180 so it was obvious the defense team's interest for an NPA, 369 00:21:24.549 --> 00:21:28.029 because one rationale, I would think, would be that it's 370 00:21:28.069 --> 00:21:30.200 not a public document. Did it ever come up in 371 00:21:30.240 --> 00:21:33.390 conversation of the U.S. Attorney's Office that they would prefer 372 00:21:33.410 --> 00:21:38.009 a public document versus the NPA? Answer, I wasn't part 373 00:21:38.049 --> 00:21:40.930 of the team that negotiated this. And so I can't 374 00:21:40.970 --> 00:21:44.130 speak as to what came up in conversation. The ultimate 375 00:21:44.150 --> 00:21:47.759 plea was in state court. Question, uh-huh. Answer, so we 376 00:21:47.799 --> 00:21:50.240 need to be, well, let me separate out the terms. 377 00:21:50.700 --> 00:21:53.019 The plea was in state court. It was a public 378 00:21:53.039 --> 00:21:56.250 state plea. the federal resolution that we were going to 379 00:21:56.289 --> 00:22:01.569 withhold prosecution pending the state plea and serving his term. Question, okay. Answer, 380 00:22:01.950 --> 00:22:07.069 as we envisioned it, under continuous confinement in the state court. Question, okay. 381 00:22:07.210 --> 00:22:09.049 Thank you. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up 382 00:22:09.089 --> 00:22:11.150 right here. And in the next episode, dealing with the 383 00:22:11.170 --> 00:22:13.359 topic we're going to pick up where we left off. 384 00:22:13.940 --> 00:22:16.259 All of the information that goes with this episode can 385 00:22:16.279 --> 00:22:19.670 be found in the description box. What's up everyone and 386 00:22:19.730 --> 00:22:23.700 welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, 387 00:22:23.720 --> 00:22:25.799 we're going to pick up where we left off with 388 00:22:25.980 --> 00:22:32.119 Alex Acosta and his trip to speak to the U.S. Congress. Question. 389 00:22:32.599 --> 00:22:35.240 I'm going to introduce, I think it's Exhibit 2, the 390 00:22:35.420 --> 00:22:41.420 actual NPA. So this non-prosecution agreement in the Epstein matter, 391 00:22:41.599 --> 00:22:44.599 just for the record, this looks like the non-prosecution agreement 392 00:22:44.660 --> 00:22:47.769 that you approved. Answer, it does. And it has signatures, 393 00:22:47.829 --> 00:22:51.950 so yes. Question, I believe from everybody. Answer, yes. Question, 394 00:22:52.250 --> 00:22:55.490 and it was originally signed in September of 2007, but 395 00:22:55.529 --> 00:22:57.549 he did not plead and stay court until the summer 396 00:22:57.589 --> 00:23:01.230 of 2008. Is that your recollection as well? Answer, that's 397 00:23:01.289 --> 00:23:04.609 my recollection. Question, do you recall as to why the 398 00:23:04.650 --> 00:23:08.230 large delay there? Answer, yes, because after he signed it, 399 00:23:08.509 --> 00:23:11.730 we expected him to plead right away, like defendants typically do. 400 00:23:12.349 --> 00:23:15.809 And then he started challenging it, collaterally. He started challenging 401 00:23:15.849 --> 00:23:18.140 the authority of the office to enter into the agreement, 402 00:23:18.500 --> 00:23:21.720 and then he started appealing to Washington, D.C., to the 403 00:23:21.740 --> 00:23:26.660 criminal division, and then subsequently, the deputy attorney general. Question, 404 00:23:27.259 --> 00:23:29.720 and you have said before, but in your experience, it's 405 00:23:29.740 --> 00:23:32.390 kind of strange for someone to agree to an agreement 406 00:23:32.730 --> 00:23:36.759 and then attempt to backtrack? Answer, in my experience... It 407 00:23:36.799 --> 00:23:39.660 hadn't happened previously. And let me just add, in the 408 00:23:39.720 --> 00:23:41.880 experience of I think I can speak for our office, 409 00:23:42.269 --> 00:23:45.950 everyone was upset. Question, is there my own kind of 410 00:23:46.069 --> 00:23:50.079 intellectual curiosity? I mean, he signed it. Your office signed it. 411 00:23:50.349 --> 00:23:53.049 Was there any reason to go through the delay? Could 412 00:23:53.069 --> 00:23:55.230 you not summon him to court and say you have 413 00:23:55.289 --> 00:23:58.849 to follow the agreement? Answer, so at various points in 414 00:23:58.890 --> 00:24:03.130 the delay process, I think everyone, at some point, everyone 415 00:24:03.150 --> 00:24:05.880 became frustrated and said, why don't we just declare a breach? 416 00:24:07.059 --> 00:24:09.599 One thing, we did not foresee all these appeals and 417 00:24:09.660 --> 00:24:12.559 all the collateral attacks, and I will accept that criticism. 418 00:24:13.089 --> 00:24:15.710 But having signed this, if we declare a breach, now 419 00:24:15.750 --> 00:24:18.710 we're litigating as to whether or not it's a valid breach. 420 00:24:19.430 --> 00:24:22.430 If it's because it's unilateral breach, and now we're putting 421 00:24:22.509 --> 00:24:26.089 off the criminal trial and the criminal prosecution that much 422 00:24:26.130 --> 00:24:29.519 longer as we go through the litigation of, so

once 423 00:24:29.579 --> 00:24:32.819 it's signed, do we have the grounds to withdraw? And 424 00:24:32.859 --> 00:24:35.759 we had discussions at various points about whether we should 425 00:24:35.799 --> 00:24:39.440 or should not But ultimately, you know, he was appealing 426 00:24:39.480 --> 00:24:42.200 to Washington. We were shocked, but Washington heard him out. 427 00:24:42.779 --> 00:24:45.779 I asked Washington to expedite the appeals because I wanted 428 00:24:45.839 --> 00:24:48.210 it just done and I wanted him in jail. But 429 00:24:48.230 --> 00:24:50.529 you know, Americans do have a right to appeal decisions 430 00:24:50.910 --> 00:24:54.849 of U.S. attorneys to their bosses. Question, but you had 431 00:24:54.930 --> 00:24:59.410 said like he was appealing after he agreed to it. Answer, look. Question, 432 00:24:59.509 --> 00:25:05.119 which is unprecedented. Answer, it's absurd. It is absurd and unprecedented, 433 00:25:05.519 --> 00:25:07.509 but it is what it is. And if we declared 434 00:25:07.549 --> 00:25:11.299 a unilateral breach, now something that's already been delayed is 435 00:25:11.319 --> 00:25:14.019 going to be further delayed as we litigate whether or 436 00:25:14.059 --> 00:25:17.160 not we had a right to breach. Question, and then 437 00:25:17.180 --> 00:25:19.759 the appeals process, you said the head of criminal division 438 00:25:19.799 --> 00:25:23.349 in D.C. and the D.A.G., is that correct? Answer, he 439 00:25:23.410 --> 00:25:26.250 appealed to criminal division. I think the head of criminal 440 00:25:26.269 --> 00:25:29.490 division delegated that down. And then he appealed to the 441 00:25:29.529 --> 00:25:33.470 deputy attorney general. Question, so, well, I just, I won't 442 00:25:33.509 --> 00:25:36.390 testify for you. What did the criminal division, what was 443 00:25:36.410 --> 00:25:40.609 their decision? Answer, the criminal division supported the office, and 444 00:25:40.650 --> 00:25:44.869 then the deputy attorney general supported the office. Question, who 445 00:25:44.910 --> 00:25:48.130 was the DAG at the time? Answer, I'm sorry, I 446 00:25:48.150 --> 00:25:51.490 should remember, and I don't. Question, that's okay, that's one 447 00:25:51.509 --> 00:25:54.880 we can figure out. But the deputy attorney general's office 448 00:25:55.059 --> 00:25:59.380 supported your U.S. attorney's office decision in the matter? Answer, 449 00:25:59.420 --> 00:26:02.180 they authorized us to go forward. Bingo. What have I 450 00:26:02.220 --> 00:26:06.160 been telling you? That's Mr. Philippe that I've been talking 451 00:26:06.200 --> 00:26:08.450 about for how long? You just got to read in 452 00:26:08.470 --> 00:26:13.269 between the lines, folks. Answer. They authorized us to go forward. Question. 453 00:26:13.309 --> 00:26:16.509 All right. Was there any delay between the DAG approval 454 00:26:16.809 --> 00:26:19.809 and the final plea in state court? Answer. Once the 455 00:26:19.829 --> 00:26:23.210 Deputy Attorney General authorized it to go forward, then the 456 00:26:23.230 --> 00:26:26.480 plea in state court proceeded. I don't want to say expeditiously, 457 00:26:26.539 --> 00:26:30.799 but in relatively short order. Question. Were you not aware 458 00:26:30.859 --> 00:26:33.819 of any appeals to the State Attorney General? Answer. I 459 00:26:33.859 --> 00:26:37.119 was not aware of any appeals to the Attorney General. Question. 460 00:26:37.539 --> 00:26:41.900 In non-prosecution agreements generally, this one sounds pretty unprecedented in 461 00:26:41.960 --> 00:26:45.019 its number of appeals and steps. But does a U.S. 462 00:26:45.079 --> 00:26:50.640 attorney have the authority to enter into them without Washington approval? Answer. Yes. Question. 463 00:26:51.440 --> 00:26:53.880 What are they? Again, a general question. What kind of 464 00:26:53.940 --> 00:26:57.900 crimes are they normally used for? Answer. So non-prosecution agreements 465 00:26:58.000 --> 00:27:01.210 are typically used more... for the white collar setting. In 466 00:27:01.250 --> 00:27:04.650 this case, it was different because it's a non-prosecution on 467 00:27:04.670 --> 00:27:07.990 a federal crime, but it's a non-prosecution in deference to 468 00:27:08.009 --> 00:27:11.430 an alternative prosecution in the state where the case began 469 00:27:11.809 --> 00:27:16.309 so he could proceed as police initially had thought appropriate. Question, 470 00:27:16.410 --> 00:27:19.269 so not, I mean, this is kind of an untraditional 471 00:27:19.309 --> 00:27:23.440 non-prosecution agreement generally, but they're not traditionally used in sex 472 00:27:23.480 --> 00:27:27.539 crimes or, answer, that's correct. Question, or other violent crimes, 473 00:27:29.259 --> 00:27:32.339 This is the kind of hot-button issue going into September 29th, 474 00:27:32.680 --> 00:27:36.460 but are non-prosecution agreements binding on all U.S. attorneys within 475 00:27:36.509 --> 00:27:39.650 the United States? Answer, they are not. And I'm sure 476 00:27:39.670 --> 00:27:43.329 you're aware that matter is pending in the Supreme Court. Question, 477 00:27:43.390 --> 00:27:46.710 but a district court has said that... And an appeals 478 00:27:46.730 --> 00:27:50.150 court has said... Answer, a district court has said that... 479 00:27:50.450 --> 00:27:52.400 And an appeals court has said that... And that is 480 00:27:52.440 --> 00:27:56.900 the position of the Department of Justice. Question, while U.S. attorney... 481 00:27:57.339 --> 00:28:00.640 Had you used non-prosecution agreements prior to this one? Answer, 482 00:28:00.900 --> 00:28:04.980 not to my recollection. Question, did you use one after? Answer, 483 00:28:05.019 --> 00:28:08.680 not to my recollection. Question, and just, you were there 484 00:28:08.740 --> 00:28:10.900 for a number of years, and this was the only 485 00:28:10.940 --> 00:28:16.109 case that was a non-prosecution? Answer, so

non-prosecution agreements are typically, 486 00:28:16.549 --> 00:28:18.849 are more typical in the types of cases that are 487 00:28:18.890 --> 00:28:23.150 litigated in Washington or in other districts. Question, okay, you 488 00:28:23.170 --> 00:28:28.019 said white-collar cases? Answer, yes. Question, More common financial or 489 00:28:28.099 --> 00:28:31.859 tax crimes, those kinds of things? Answer, correct. Question, all right. 490 00:28:32.240 --> 00:28:34.859 We've touched on this kind of around the topic an 491 00:28:35.019 --> 00:28:37.519 awful lot today. And there was an awful lot of 492 00:28:37.579 --> 00:28:40.089 back and forth in the last hour, but just this 493 00:28:40.140 --> 00:28:42.769 is a broad question. So as briefly as you can, 494 00:28:43.089 --> 00:28:46.069 and to the best of your recollection, why a non-prosecution 495 00:28:46.089 --> 00:28:50.349 agreement in this case? Answer, so ultimately the question was, 496 00:28:50.470 --> 00:28:53.230 do we proceed federally or do we defer to the state? 497 00:28:53.730 --> 00:28:56.930 It came from the state. The state police wanted certain charges, 498 00:28:57.430 --> 00:29:01.190 I understood, that would result in two years. It entered 499 00:29:01.230 --> 00:29:03.509 the office in the context of, we may have to 500 00:29:03.529 --> 00:29:07.009 proceed with a double prosecution. And the fact is, I 501 00:29:07.049 --> 00:29:10.849 understood them, were local facts. We felt comfortable that we 502 00:29:11.009 --> 00:29:13.329 felt we had an agreement or an argument for an 503 00:29:13.390 --> 00:29:16.509 interstate case. That is, if we had to go to trial, 504 00:29:16.769 --> 00:29:19.819 we had no issue going to trial. But everyone favored 505 00:29:19.839 --> 00:29:23.519 a resolution that was negotiated. But because of all those issues, 506 00:29:23.940 --> 00:29:27.019 it seemed that a state resolution at the time made sense. 507 00:29:27.799 --> 00:29:31.710 As I said before, I note OPR's comments. If we had, 508 00:29:31.789 --> 00:29:35.910 I think, what I told the Office of Professional Responsibility was, 509 00:29:36.250 --> 00:29:38.410 if we had foreseen all the issues that the state 510 00:29:38.450 --> 00:29:41.240 resolution raised, we would not have gone down that path, 511 00:29:41.799 --> 00:29:43.819 and I don't advise others to go down that path, 512 00:29:44.380 --> 00:29:46.940 but we didn't foresee them at the time. And when 513 00:29:46.980 --> 00:29:49.400 I say we, again, that's on me. I will take 514 00:29:49.440 --> 00:29:53.130 responsibility for that. And in the sense, I think OPR 515 00:29:53.170 --> 00:29:57.329 was generally correct. Question, and prior to the execution of 516 00:29:57.349 --> 00:30:00.319 the NPA... It was largely believed in the office that 517 00:30:00.359 --> 00:30:03.680 a negotiated agreement was, I'm going to use the phrase, 518 00:30:04.140 --> 00:30:06.740 the like safer outcome. It was going to result in

519 00:30:06.759 --> 00:30:10.220 jail time. Answer, it was a superior outcome because it 520 00:30:10.240 --> 00:30:13.119 would result in jail time. It would result in registration. 521 00:30:13.539 --> 00:30:15.930 It would send a signal to the community. And I, 522 00:30:16.420 --> 00:30:20.130 you know, credited or cited for multiple people. It was 523 00:30:20.190 --> 00:30:22.349 the sense that you didn't have to put the victims 524 00:30:22.589 --> 00:30:24.750 that didn't want to go through a trial through a trial. 525 00:30:25.690 --> 00:30:28.640 And there was a continuum. We talk about the victims 526 00:30:28.740 --> 00:30:30.910 as if they had one view, and you know multiple 527 00:30:30.950 --> 00:30:35.589 victims with different views. Question. We're there. I'll read you. 528 00:30:35.789 --> 00:30:39.730 It's page 40 of the OPR report. Villafana, the lead 529 00:30:40.230 --> 00:30:42.650 line prosecutor on the case, told OPR that she was 530 00:30:42.779 --> 00:30:47.279 angry when she received Menchel's July email explaining that he 531 00:30:47.299 --> 00:30:50.819 had proposed to Sanchez revolving the federal investigation through a 532 00:30:50.839 --> 00:30:55.079 state plea. In Villafana's view, the proposed state resolution didn't 533 00:30:55.119 --> 00:30:58.940 make any sense and didn't correspond to department policy requiring 534 00:30:58.960 --> 00:31:02.480 that a plea offer reflect the most serious, readily provable offense. 535 00:31:03.160 --> 00:31:06.059 In her view, a plea to a state charge obviously 536 00:31:06.099 --> 00:31:10.200 would not satisfy this policy. Did Ms. Villafana ever express 537 00:31:10.599 --> 00:31:13.299 to you your concerns regarding the language of the NPA, 538 00:31:13.680 --> 00:31:17.529 was the question. Answer, Ms. Villafana ended up negotiating the 539 00:31:17.549 --> 00:31:20.490 language of the NPA. I think it's fair to say 540 00:31:20.549 --> 00:31:24.720 that she would have preferred a federal resolution. I think 541 00:31:24.759 --> 00:31:27.859 my supervisory staff differed from her in that they were 542 00:31:27.900 --> 00:31:30.920 comfortable with the state resolution, although to some extent the 543 00:31:30.960 --> 00:31:34.640 federalism concerns. The deference to the state, if I'm being 544 00:31:34.680 --> 00:31:37.500 fair in all of this, primarily comes from me. And 545 00:31:37.539 --> 00:31:40.160 I think OPR found that, and I think OPR was 546 00:31:40.180 --> 00:31:43.910 fair in that judgment. Question, so it's Ms. Villafana's words, 547 00:31:43.970 --> 00:31:47.829 not yours, but just your interaction with her? And with 548 00:31:47.950 --> 00:31:51.009 others negotiating this agreement or getting to this agreement, would 549 00:31:51.049 --> 00:31:53.430 it be fair to characterize her, and you've said this, 550 00:31:53.849 --> 00:31:57.470 as in favor of a negotiated resolution, but not necessarily 551 00:31:57.509 --> 00:32:00.710 in favor of the state resolution. Answer, I think that 552 00:32:00.750 --> 00:32:04.210 would be fair. Question, okay, I just wanted to kind of, 553 00:32:04.230 --> 00:32:07.089 you know, dissect that because it was a little confusing. 554 00:32:07.930 --> 00:32:11.130 Do you ever recall who first initiated the negotiations with 555 00:32:11.210 --> 00:32:15.720 Epstein's defense regarding the NPA? Answer, I do not. Question, 556 00:32:16.140 --> 00:32:19.119 were there ever any concerns regarding using an NPA versus 557 00:32:19.140 --> 00:32:22.400 going to trial? Answer, so ever is a very broad word, right? 558 00:32:23.480 --> 00:32:26.599 I think this is 20 years ago, thinking back, these conversations, 559 00:32:26.640 --> 00:32:29.779 sometimes they happen around the table. Sometimes they also happen 560 00:32:29.819 --> 00:32:32.569 in a hallway. You know, the first assistant had his 561 00:32:32.619 --> 00:32:35.049 office right next to mine. We shared a suite. The 562 00:32:35.069 --> 00:32:37.970 criminal chief had his office down the hall. You get together, 563 00:32:38.049 --> 00:32:41.529 you talk about things, and the proposal formed. And ultimately, 564 00:32:41.589 --> 00:32:44.990 I approved it. But the proposal, people come together, they 565 00:32:45.089 --> 00:32:48.069 generate a consensus. What do you think? What do you think? 566 00:32:48.349 --> 00:32:51.970 How do we go forward? But ultimately, look, I approved it. 567 00:32:52.319 --> 00:32:56.740 and so I was a U.S. attorney, and I take responsibility. Question, 568 00:32:57.420 --> 00:33:00.230 would you characterize the process as like a rigorous debate 569 00:33:00.509 --> 00:33:03.690 that led to this outcome versus trial? Answer, I think 570 00:33:03.710 --> 00:33:06.970 there was a fulsome and rigorous debate, and that simply 571 00:33:07.009 --> 00:33:09.490 wasn't one meeting that happened over a number of days, 572 00:33:09.579 --> 00:33:13.759 if not weeks, where ideas would be discussed back and forth. Question, 573 00:33:14.119 --> 00:33:16.460 and then while I'm going to have two different time periods, 574 00:33:16.819 --> 00:33:19.460 while I was being negotiated prior to being signed in 575 00:33:19.480 --> 00:33:23.990 September of 2007, Do you recall negotiations regarding the longer 576 00:33:24.069 --> 00:33:27.630 moving forward off of how the defense counsel was acting 577 00:33:28.089 --> 00:33:32.170 or any new information answer? There was some, I don't 578 00:33:32.210 --> 00:33:34.710 recall them, but I've read in the OPR report that 579 00:33:34.750 --> 00:33:38.009 there were some discussions about not longer moving forward, no 580 00:33:38.049 --> 00:33:41.309 longer moving forward. And it was based largely on defense 581 00:33:41.329 --> 00:33:44.269 counsel getting very close to the line of what's proper 582 00:33:44.569 --> 00:33:47.150 and not proper for a defense counsel to do. And 583 00:33:47.190 --> 00:33:50.329 my view on that is I understand defense counsel are 584 00:33:50.369 --> 00:33:54.079 who they are. I understand they're frustrating. And I understand 585 00:33:54.099 --> 00:33:57.539 that they agree and then say they didn't agree. But 586 00:33:57.599 --> 00:34:00.339 that's the decision that we had. We should make a 587 00:34:00.380 --> 00:34:03.319 good faith effort to follow through on what we thought 588 00:34:03.420 --> 00:34:06.619 was the right approach, despite defense tactics that were frustrating 589 00:34:06.700 --> 00:34:09.860 at best. And you asked earlier, I'd say bordered on 590 00:34:09.949 --> 00:34:13.309 it's not frustrating and unprofessional. And it came very close 591 00:34:13.329 --> 00:34:15.210 to the line. All right, folks, we're going to wrap 592 00:34:15.269 --> 00:34:17.369 up right here. And in the next episode, dealing with 593 00:34:17.389 --> 00:34:19.650 the topic, we're going to pick up where we left off. 594 00:34:20.030 --> 00:34:22.219 All of the information that goes with this episode can 595 00:34:22.260 --> 00:34:24.070 be found in the description box.