Speaker 1: So Matt, I've been up since three am waiting for this.
Speaker 2: Story to drop. Better be a big one.
Speaker 1: It's huge, huge. This week we've got a special episode
Speaker 1: of Disclosure. Let's go, Let's go, Let's go. I'm investigative
Speaker 1: journalist Jason Leopold. I spend most of my days getting
Speaker 1: documents from the government.
Speaker 2: I'm attorney Matt Tappik, and I fight them in court
Speaker 2: to open their files when they don't want to.
Speaker 1: From Bloomberg and no smiling. This is Disclosure, a podcast
Speaker 1: about prying loose government secrets, the Freedom of Information Act,
Speaker 1: and the unexpected places that takes us. Cool shirt Jason
Speaker 1: Horror Business by the Misfits. This is my annual Halloween shirt.
Speaker 1: We are recording this on Friday, October thirty first, my
Speaker 1: favorite day of the year. Halloeen.
Speaker 2: I swear this is the coincidence I have on my
Speaker 2: annual Halloween original Misfits hoodie that I bring out every
Speaker 2: Halloween as I'm giving out candy to the local kids
Speaker 2: with the soundtrack of like Slayer and Decide and you
Speaker 2: know a bunch of like thrashing. Oh man, you threw
Speaker 2: in da side. So where you've been, you've been quiet?
Speaker 2: This week.
Speaker 1: Well, Matt, I've been working on a story at Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Epstein's story. By the looks of it, Yes, Matt, that
Speaker 1: is correct. There's a breakthrough in the Jeffrey Epstein case.
Speaker 1: Today Bloomberg is reporting this revelation.
Speaker 2: The scope of the investigation to Epstein may have been
Speaker 2: actually much larger than we previously knew.
Speaker 1: Congressman Robert Garcia, the ranking member on House Oversight, shared his.
Speaker 2: Alarm and this is a huge problem. Part of the
Speaker 2: investigation is incredibly troubling.
Speaker 1: You know, Jeffrey Epstein has been in the news a
Speaker 1: lot this year. Epstein, of course, is the wealthy and
Speaker 1: connected financier who is convicted of sex trafficking miners before
Speaker 1: his death and detention in twenty nineteen. So the news
Speaker 1: cranked up in the past year again when Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: on the campaign trail said that if he were elected,
Speaker 1: he put out the full files that the government has
Speaker 1: on Epstein. However, in July, the Trump administration backtracked, saying
Speaker 1: that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.
Speaker 2: Uh oh, how did that go over?
Speaker 1: Well, it's left a lot of unanswered questions about Epstein
Speaker 1: that go back almost twenty years to the first Epstein
Speaker 1: investigation we know about. That was the federal probe into
Speaker 1: allegations that he solicited sex with minors. A lot of
Speaker 1: the Epstein controversy dates back to that investigation and the
Speaker 1: deal that federal prosecutors struck. That deal led Epstein to
Speaker 1: plead guilty to lesser state charges in Florida and effectively
Speaker 1: shielded co conspirators from prosecution, and it left his accusers
Speaker 1: in the dark about the deal the Feds were striking.
Speaker 1: The outcome has been widely derided as far too lenient,
Speaker 1: and it let Epstein return pretty quickly to a social
Speaker 1: circles that also included a lot of well known, wealthy
Speaker 1: people like.
Speaker 2: Say, Prince Andrew. Well, Matt, it's just Andrew.
Speaker 3: Now Prince Andrew will no longer be a prince, something
Speaker 3: that has not happened in more than a century. King
Speaker 3: Charles stripping his brother of all his titles over his
Speaker 3: ties to the late convicted sex predator Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 2: Okay, so there's a lot out about Epstein, and yet
Speaker 2: you found something pretty big.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I definitely found something pretty big, Matt. I
Speaker 1: found out about a whole other line of federal investigation
Speaker 1: to Epstein that hasn't been reported ever. Nont allegations about
Speaker 1: sex trafficking or sex with minors, but something else, entirely
Speaker 1: money laundering. Wait what let me tell you, Matt, this
Speaker 1: really does change a lot about how we look at
Speaker 1: the whole Epstein affair. There's still big questions about his money,
Speaker 1: how a college dropout turned financial advisor built his fortune
Speaker 1: in the first place, And since you have found dead
Speaker 1: in his cell in twenty nineteen, those questions have only
Speaker 1: grown this summer. Senator Ron Wyden, he's a top Democrat
Speaker 1: on the Senate Finance Committee, stoke that fire.
Speaker 4: Now somewhere in the Treasury Department, mister President, locked away
Speaker 4: in a cab a drawer, is a big Epstein file.
Speaker 1: Wyden said. His panel reviewed records compiled by the Treasury's
Speaker 1: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, also known as FINN, said, and
Speaker 1: those records revealed that major banks processed more than one
Speaker 1: point five billion in suspicious transactions.
Speaker 2: That's billion with a B.
Speaker 1: Yeah, one point five billion that Epstein allegedly used to
Speaker 1: traffic women or in suspicious transactions that looked a lot
Speaker 1: like money laundering.
Speaker 4: Four seven hundred and twenty five Wire transfers flowing in
Speaker 4: and out of just one of mister Epstein's bank accounts.
Speaker 4: That is more than four thousand potential lines of investigation.
Speaker 1: So my new story, Matt, shows that almost twenty years ago,
Speaker 1: federal prosecutors were going down a similar path following Epstein's
Speaker 1: money until they just stopped.
Speaker 2: Okay, tell me where does this start?
Speaker 1: All?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: So I've been learning quite a bit about Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 1: these past few months because I've been going through a
Speaker 1: trove of emails eighteen thousand emails from Epstein's private Yahoo
Speaker 1: email account obtained by Bloomberg. And these emails show Epstein,
Speaker 1: in his own words, they've never been released before. They
Speaker 1: detail a methodical and callous approach he took to recruiting
Speaker 1: young women, his close partnership with Glain Maxwell, and the
Speaker 1: support he received from an array of high powered associates, attorneys, academics, bankers.
Speaker 2: So when is he writing all these emails?
Speaker 1: These emails from Epstein's inbox span a twenty year timeframe.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 1: But the message traffic was most active between like two
Speaker 1: thousand and five and two thousand and eight, which is
Speaker 1: critical because that happens to be a pivotal period for Epstein.
Speaker 1: That was the period when he came under scrutiny by
Speaker 1: Florida officials. And it's when the Palm Beach Police Department
Speaker 1: and a criminal investigation into a local man that teenage
Speaker 1: girls refer to simply as Jeff. So this first investigation
Speaker 1: into allegations relating to sex with minors started locally, but
Speaker 1: then about a year later, in two thousand and six,
Speaker 1: in came federal prosecutors from the Southern District of Florida.
Speaker 2: So how do you know what the feds we're looking into?
Speaker 2: Do you have documents from their investigation?
Speaker 1: For the most part, No, I don't. What I have though,
Speaker 1: are Epstein's emails, So I'm not seeing the investigation itself,
Speaker 1: just how Epstein and his lawyers reacted and shaped their
Speaker 1: legal strategy. From the start, he cast this whole thing
Speaker 1: as an unfair probe into him, despite that it focused
Speaker 1: on his involvement with underage girls, which by then investigators
Speaker 1: had known about for years.
Speaker 2: So did you get these records through foya?
Speaker 1: No, Matt, I have other ways of getting records.
Speaker 2: Could you foya the DOJ and ask for the prosecutor's records?
Speaker 1: Yeah? You could, and in fact, a lot of people
Speaker 1: have FOYA DOJ, FBI and even some other agencies for
Speaker 1: Epstein's records, which are the records that make up the
Speaker 1: Epstein files. And in fact, way back in twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: Radar Magazine had filed a Fouer request with the FBI
Speaker 1: for Jeffrey Epstein related records and they got about one
Speaker 1: thousand pages released, but it took them suing the FBI
Speaker 1: to get those records, and the bureau withheld thousands of
Speaker 1: other pages. That lawsuit is still pending, it's still happening
Speaker 1: right now, and so it's happening alongside the pressure that's
Speaker 1: coming on the Trump administration to release the Epstein files.
Speaker 1: So there is active foil litigation. There's still a bunch
Speaker 1: of Fouyer requests that have been filed for Epstein records.
Speaker 2: So we may be learning more through some government records
Speaker 2: later on possibly. Okay, So where does the money laundering
Speaker 2: investigation come in?
Speaker 1: Okay? So, documents in Epstein's inbox show that in November
Speaker 1: of two thousand and six, prosecutors issued us a pace
Speaker 1: for Epstein's personal income tax returns for the previous two years.
Speaker 1: Then in February two thousand and seven, a money laundering
Speaker 1: probe was opened, and around the same time, prosecutors focused
Speaker 1: on a pattern of transactions in which Epstein directed some
Speaker 1: of his employees to withdraw large amounts of cash to
Speaker 1: disperse to women around the world he exploited, and that
Speaker 1: was the basis for a potential charge of operating an
Speaker 1: unlicensed money transmitting business. So these emails show Matt that
Speaker 1: the lead federal prosecutor on this case requested that a
Speaker 1: grand jury issue subpoenas for every financial transaction conducted by
Speaker 1: Epstein and his six businesses dating to two thousand and three.
Speaker 1: And I also reported that prosecutors sent subpoenas to some
Speaker 1: major banks.
Speaker 2: And so, according to the emails, when Jeffrey Epstein learned
Speaker 2: that the investigation had been broadened into financial crimes, how
Speaker 2: did he take that? Oh?
Speaker 1: He was furious, in part because the prosecutor contacted one
Speaker 1: of his longtime wealth management clients, Les Wexner. Les Wexner
Speaker 1: is the billionaire businessman behind Victoria's Secret and Bath and
Speaker 1: body Works, and Epstein's emails showed that not long after
Speaker 1: the prosecutor's conversation with Wexner, Wexner then took steps to
Speaker 1: end Epstein's role as his wealth manager.
Speaker 2: I'm guessing that didn't go over too well with Epstein.
Speaker 2: So what did he do?
Speaker 1: Epstein pulled in some high powered lawyers, including Harvard law
Speaker 1: professor Alan Dershowitz and former independent counsel Ken Starr, and
Speaker 1: the lawyers launched an aggressive campaign to discredit the federal
Speaker 1: prosecutor's attempts to follow the money and pressure higher ups
Speaker 1: to remove the prosecutor and others from the case or
Speaker 1: scuttle it entirely. Dershowitz told Bloomberg that he does not
Speaker 1: recall any involvement in the discussions related to allegations of
Speaker 1: money laundering, and ken Starr died in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 2: Now that's interesting, Jason, because listeners on this pot are
Speaker 2: going to hear a lot about the fact that when
Speaker 2: famous people die, you can foia the FBI and see
Speaker 2: what files there are, which you normally can't get while
Speaker 2: they're alive because it's considered an invasion of privacy, But
Speaker 2: once they've died you can get records.
Speaker 1: Which you know very well is my knee jerk reaction.
Speaker 1: Whenever someone prominent dies.
Speaker 2: I usually find out about famous people dying when I
Speaker 2: get a text from Jason about his foyer requests before
Speaker 2: I've even seen it in the news. And so I
Speaker 2: took a look on the FBI vault. That's where they
Speaker 2: post records that are frequently requested if they've been requested
Speaker 2: multiple times, and sure enough, there are hundreds of Ken
Speaker 2: Starr pages. All right, let's get back to this story here.
Speaker 2: So who is the federal prosecutor that's issuing these subpoenas
Speaker 2: and talking to Epstein's client.
Speaker 1: So the lead prosecutor here was an assistant US attorney
Speaker 1: for the Southern District of Florida. Her name is Marie
Speaker 1: Villa Fania. She left that office in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: and she declined to comment on the story. But we
Speaker 1: already know some things about her broader prosecution. By May
Speaker 1: two thousand and seven, she had drafted a fifty three
Speaker 1: page indictment and an eighty two page prosecution memo. And
Speaker 1: we know from a Justice Department report that came out
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty that Villa Fanya urged her superiors to
Speaker 1: move swiftly because she believed that Epstein was continuing to
Speaker 1: sexually abuse girls. But the report says that Villa Fanya
Speaker 1: was stonewalled by senior officials at the office who saw
Speaker 1: her as too aggressive.
Speaker 2: Interesting, So that Justice Department report from twenty twenty does
Speaker 2: that mention that the Florida prosecutor was looking into financial crimes.
Speaker 1: No, there's not a single mention in that report about
Speaker 1: financial crimes, but we know it from Epstein's inbox. And
Speaker 1: I also talked to a former law enforcement official who
Speaker 1: was familiar with the case, and that person said the
Speaker 1: evidence Villafani collected was serious enough that she wrote in
Speaker 1: the prosecution memo that Epstein should be charged with money
Speaker 1: laundering and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. And this
Speaker 1: person also said that the probe lasted eighteen months and
Speaker 1: turned up at least tens of millions of dollars in
Speaker 1: questionable financial transactions. And Matt, what is really important here
Speaker 1: is that these details have never been disclosed. So everything
Speaker 1: that we know about the Epstein investigation that took place
Speaker 1: in two thousand and six through two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: for the most part, center on the sex crimes. There's
Speaker 1: never been any disclosure around financial crimes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is really good stuff. So that's what we
Speaker 2: know about the indictment. It's just a draft indictment, Jason, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the indictment has never been publicly released. It was
Speaker 1: never filed with the court along with that eighty two
Speaker 1: page prosecution memo, and to this day it remained shrouded
Speaker 1: in secrecy.
Speaker 2: So he was never indicted for the things that the
Speaker 2: lengthy memo and draft indictment were contemplating.
Speaker 1: No. Never, Let's jump to July two thousand and seven.
Speaker 1: She and another prosecutor are then directed to enter into
Speaker 1: the negotiations with Epstein and his legal team on a
Speaker 1: non prosecution agreement.
Speaker 2: So she works up the materials towards an indictment, but
Speaker 2: her superiors decide, we're not going to do that, let's
Speaker 2: go negotiate a deal instead.
Speaker 1: Well that's the implication. So the Justice Department report that
Speaker 1: was released in twenty twenty that basically examined the integrity
Speaker 1: of the non prosecution agreement, as well as our emails,
Speaker 1: show that prosecutors wanted Epstein to plead guilty to sex
Speaker 1: crimes with a minor, register as a sex offender, paid
Speaker 1: damages to an undisclosed list of victims, and spend two
Speaker 1: years in prison, but Epstein's lawyers rejected that, and a
Speaker 1: month in these negotiations stalled.
Speaker 2: So what happens after that?
Speaker 1: Well, then on August sixteenth, two thousand and seven, Villafania
Speaker 1: requested that a grand jury issue subpoenas for Epstein's financial
Speaker 1: records dating back to two thousand and three. And on
Speaker 1: the same day she also sent a letter informing Epstein's
Speaker 1: defense attorneys that she would continue investigating his finances as
Speaker 1: long as the non prosecution agreement remained unsigned. And in
Speaker 1: the emails you can see Epstein and his lawyers are
Speaker 1: grappling with this, so they prepare a twenty two page
Speaker 1: document titled in Ree Grand Jury Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 2: Hey, it's in RAY.
Speaker 1: I like to say in reere, you really because I
Speaker 1: have no idea. Yeah, I mean that's what I usually said.
Speaker 1: In ray. That's legal speak for with regard to grand
Speaker 1: jury investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. And you can see from
Speaker 1: the track changes that there are a lot of edits
Speaker 1: here from Jee and those are at Stein's initials, and
Speaker 1: there's a line in it from Villafania that says, quote,
Speaker 1: in other words, if the sex offense cases resolved, the
Speaker 1: office would close its investigation into other areas as well.
Speaker 1: The matter has not been and it does not appear
Speaker 1: that it will be resolved, So the money laundering investigation continues,
Speaker 1: and requests number six, seeking records of every financial transaction
Speaker 1: conducted by Epstein and his six businesses from January first,
Speaker 1: two thousand and three to the present will not be withdrawn.
Speaker 2: So the prosecutor is basically saying, plead did the sex
Speaker 2: offense charges? Or we're continuing on with the money laundering investigation.
Speaker 1: Well, it's hard to say for sure, but he signs
Speaker 1: the non prosecution agreement on September twenty fourth, two thousand
Speaker 1: and seven, one day before Villafania says she was prepared
Speaker 1: to indict him, and he would ultimately agree to plead
Speaker 1: guilty to two sex charges, state level charges, not federal charges.
Speaker 2: And that's what led to all these criticisms. The deal
Speaker 2: was way too easy.
Speaker 1: On it in part yes and the fact that it
Speaker 1: later came out the women who had accused Epstein didn't
Speaker 1: know the Feds were making this deal.
Speaker 2: So Epstein agrees to the deal, the money laundering investigation goes.
Speaker 1: Away, and that's that not exactly. I'll tell you what
Speaker 1: happens after the break. So it's September two thousand and seven.
Speaker 1: Epstein has just agreed to admit sex charges as part
Speaker 1: of this non prosecution agreement. But according to the Epstein
Speaker 1: emails we obtained, the federal investigation and the money laundering
Speaker 1: probe didn't end there. The prosecutor, Marie Villafana, she kept
Speaker 1: both the sex crimes and financial crimes investigations open as
Speaker 1: she began working with Epstein's attorneys to reach an agreement
Speaker 1: on certain terms of the plea deal, and Epstein was incensed.
Speaker 1: He and his attorneys immediately took steps to back out
Speaker 1: of the agreement he'd sign, and on October fifteenth, two
Speaker 1: thousand and seven, Epstein sends himself an email and attached
Speaker 1: a word document he wrote titled did you know that.
Speaker 2: I see some of that in the story? So what
Speaker 2: does it say?
Speaker 1: Okay? So this document contains twenty nine complaints about the
Speaker 1: federal investigation. It portrays his victims as unreliable witnesses and
Speaker 1: drug abusers vuying for his money, and it casts the
Speaker 1: investigators and prosecutors as biased, inept, and unethical. And he
Speaker 1: says he was unfairly targeted by the financial investigation. Here
Speaker 1: are a few bullet points. Point twenty she begins a
Speaker 1: money laundering investigation without the necessary requirement of specified illegal funds.
Speaker 1: Point twenty one she says she is contemplating charging a
Speaker 1: violation of a money transmitting statue, though Epstein has no
Speaker 1: such business, so he's lashing out. His email is becoming
Speaker 1: pretty frantic. You could see Epstein venting a about the
Speaker 1: prosecution in another email he wrote in November two thousand
Speaker 1: and seven to Jimmy Kain, the former chief executive officer
Speaker 1: of bear Stearns, and another friend.
Speaker 2: Matt read the subject subject line this is how crazy Jason?
Speaker 2: What does Epstein write?
Speaker 1: Okay, so this is a lengthy email and he starts
Speaker 1: off this email Matt by writing, my team consists of
Speaker 1: professionals with over two hundred and fifty years of criminal experience.
Speaker 2: Wait, wait, criminal experience or criminal justice experience.
Speaker 1: No, No, two hundred and fifty years of criminal experience.
Speaker 2: Look, my guys know about crime, and what they're telling
Speaker 2: me this isn't a crime.
Speaker 1: Well. What I do think you need to know about
Speaker 1: Epstein's emails is they contain so many typos and grammatical errors,
Speaker 1: misspelled words, and we just publish it as he wrote it.
Speaker 1: So yeah, but yes, two hundred and fifty years of
Speaker 1: criminalist sparents.
Speaker 2: I'm going to jump into or two and just note
Speaker 2: his email address is littlest Jeff at yahoo dot com.
Speaker 1: That's how it reads. That's how it reads littlest Jeff.
Speaker 1: But it's actually Little Saint Jeff, which is the name
Speaker 1: of the island he bought.
Speaker 2: Oh it looks like Littlest Jeff. Yeah, but it's Little
Speaker 2: Saint Jeff.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So the email goes on to say, in an
Speaker 1: abundance of care, we have also consulted with outside experts
Speaker 1: and former Justice Department officials. The clear and unanimous consensus
Speaker 1: is they find the conduct outrageous and frankly, not one
Speaker 1: of them has been able to recall seeing anything like
Speaker 1: this before. And among the outrageous behavior he accuses the
Speaker 1: FEDS of is demanding that he registers a sex offender
Speaker 1: and pay his quote alleged victims a minimum of one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty thousand dollars each. In his letter to Kane,
Speaker 1: he accuses the federal government of engaging in quote virtual extortion.
Speaker 2: I get to say, I mean, this guy's facing some
Speaker 2: pretty serious stuff. And I think he's worth a lot
Speaker 2: of money at this point, and he's quibbling over the
Speaker 2: amount of money to be paid to the victims.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he is questioning whether they are actually victims. That's
Speaker 1: what is laid bare in these emails during the course
Speaker 1: of the government's investigation and prosecution, and this particular email
Speaker 1: goes on to say, quote, they demanded a jail sentence
Speaker 1: for someone who had no criminal history, no violence, drugs,
Speaker 1: no position of authority. Then when they were confronted with
Speaker 1: an extensive brief as to why these statutes did not apply,
Speaker 1: they threatened to bring a money crime based on an
Speaker 1: illegal money transmitting business, even though no such business ever
Speaker 1: actually existed.
Speaker 2: I get to say, as a lawyer, this guy sounds
Speaker 2: like a nightmare of a client. So anyway, now you
Speaker 2: have an email a week later, what's that about.
Speaker 1: Epstein is sending himself an email with a file he's
Speaker 1: intending for his attorneys to send to the top federal
Speaker 1: prosecutor in southern Florida, Alex Acosta. The documents called Acosta Challenge.
Speaker 1: It criticizes Prosecutor Villafana, who's leading the investigation, especially our
Speaker 1: focus on his alleged financial crimes. And he also false
Speaker 1: the department for ignoring its own policy of so called
Speaker 1: horizontal equity, which is supposed to ensure a level playing
Speaker 1: field in prosecutions.
Speaker 2: He's saying they're prejudiced against rich people. That's his argument.
Speaker 2: They're prejudiced against rich people. So tell me more about
Speaker 2: what that letter says.
Speaker 1: Okay, here's part of it. The policy clearly implies that
Speaker 1: a man of wealth should be treated no differently than
Speaker 1: any of those less fortunate. That has certainly not happened here.
Speaker 1: Though many cases of a similar and even more serious
Speaker 1: nature have been resolved with a sentence of house arrest.
Speaker 1: We were told that it was not available to my
Speaker 1: client because it would be considered manshin arrest. My client,
Speaker 1: under investigation for a sex offense, has been asked for
Speaker 1: his income tax returns, all bank accounts, his medical records,
Speaker 1: threatened with a money laundering charge, though the minimum prerequisite
Speaker 1: of a specified unlawful activity could not be described.
Speaker 2: Okay, So Epstein's high powered lawyers are engaging with US
Speaker 2: Attorney Alex Acosta. That's the alex Acosta.
Speaker 1: Yes, the alex Acosta. Matt the US Labor secretary. In
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's first administration, and years before he got that job,
Speaker 1: he was a US attorney for the Southern District of
Speaker 1: Florida who oversaw the Epstein prosecution and the deal he
Speaker 1: worked out. That deal finally came together in June of
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, nine months after Epstein signed his
Speaker 1: non prosecution agreement and after relentless letters from Epstein's lawyers.
Speaker 1: In its final form, the agreement allowed him to escape
Speaker 1: federal charges, serve a reduced jail sentence, and shield his
Speaker 1: co conspirators from prosecution. Alex Acosta signed off on the
Speaker 1: plea deal.
Speaker 2: So what does this mean for a costa now?
Speaker 1: Well, Matt, I'm glad you asked. Last month, Acosta met
Speaker 1: with a House committee on Oversight in Government Reform, and
Speaker 1: during that interview, Representative Melanie Stansbury, she's a New Mexico
Speaker 1: Democrat on the committee, asked Acosta whether his office had
Speaker 1: discussed potential financial crimes and whether that factored into the
Speaker 1: decision not to pursue federal charges.
Speaker 2: So what did he say? What was his answer?
Speaker 1: Well, according to the transcript of this interview the committee
Speaker 1: released this month, Acosta answered, quote, I don't recall a
Speaker 1: financial aspect and then he went on to say, to
Speaker 1: my recollection, the discussion was focused on the sex crimes.
Speaker 2: And so what do the emails the you obtained?
Speaker 1: And to that, well, the emails and documents from Epstein's
Speaker 1: Yahoo account show that prosecutors in Acosta's office discussed the
Speaker 1: financial crimes component of the investigation with Acosta and copied
Speaker 1: him on correspondence about it. I spoke with Senator Ron
Speaker 1: Wyden's office for my story, and in a statement he
Speaker 1: said the new details quote only raise additional questions about
Speaker 1: Acosta's truthfulness. And then Wyden also said that the best
Speaker 1: case scenario, according to his story that's a Costas story,
Speaker 1: is that it was by incompetence rather than by choice,
Speaker 1: that he allowed Epstein to go on trafficking women and
Speaker 1: girls for another decade.
Speaker 2: Wow, So what is Acosta said?
Speaker 1: So? Acosta's attorney told Bloomberg that he stands by his testimony.
Speaker 1: He said that back in two thousand and six, the
Speaker 1: Southern District of Florida employed over two hundred attorneys working
Speaker 1: on countless investigations, and although Acosta approved of the EPSO matter,
Speaker 1: he did not direct that or any investigation. That's what
Speaker 1: his attorney said, So.
Speaker 2: This whole financial crimes investigation of Epstein that happened almost
Speaker 2: twenty years ago, but it managed to stay pretty quiet.
Speaker 2: This has never been out there.
Speaker 1: Well, there was a hint of it, remember in the
Speaker 1: emails that I read. The lead prosecutor in the case,
Speaker 1: Marie vill Fanya. She was on the receiving end of
Speaker 1: a lot of attacks from Epstein's attorneys, and at one
Speaker 1: point she responded in a five page letter to one
Speaker 1: of the lawyers. She writes, quote, the time has come
Speaker 1: for me to respond to the ever increasing attacks on
Speaker 1: my role in the investigation and negotiations. And that letter
Speaker 1: made its way into a court filing in a twoenty
Speaker 1: sixteen lawsuit filed by Epstein's victims. So the letter was public,
Speaker 1: but no one ever picked up on it. And at
Speaker 1: the bottom of one of the pages, Villa Fania included
Speaker 1: a footnote and she calls out the Epstein lawyer for
Speaker 1: quote unfounded allegations in your letter about document demands, the
Speaker 1: money laundering investigation, contacting potential witnesses, speaking with the press
Speaker 1: and the like.
Speaker 2: So she mentions a money laundering investigation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there was a mention, one breadcrumb, easy to miss,
Speaker 1: but now we have way more.
Speaker 2: So when I see this, Jason, I mean, I'm thinking
Speaker 2: there's got to be all kinds of foyas to be asking, right.
Speaker 1: So there are a ton of foyas that could be
Speaker 1: filed for this material. And you know, as I said earlier,
Speaker 1: Mad this these records presumably make up what's in the
Speaker 1: Epstein file. So the letters that were sent to the
Speaker 1: government by Epstein's attorneys could be requested through the FOYA.
Speaker 1: But the Justice Department of the FBI has already said
Speaker 1: that they are not releasing any more records from the
Speaker 1: so called Epstein files. What could the public request through
Speaker 1: FOYA from say, the Department of Justice or FBI.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean prosecutor records, FBI records. These things are
Speaker 2: all what are called agency records under FOYA, and so
Speaker 2: they're subject to disclosure unless an exemption applies. And when
Speaker 2: you get into criminal kinds of records and law enforcement records,
Speaker 2: there's a lot of things that can be with held,
Speaker 2: names of people who are alive, whether they're a witness
Speaker 2: or a suspect or just incidentally mentioned. It's often hard
Speaker 2: to get those. I mean, you can sometimes overcome that
Speaker 2: with sufficient public interest and I think there's an awful
Speaker 2: lot of public interest, in legitimate public interest in getting
Speaker 2: to the bottom of the Epstein prosecution and how all
Speaker 2: this stuff was handled. You know, you can have withholdings
Speaker 2: based on ongoing investigations, but at this point Epstein has died.
Speaker 2: They're not going to charge him with anything further. You know,
Speaker 2: I suppose there could be others who maybe there's still
Speaker 2: some active investigations, but I haven't heard of that, and
Speaker 2: that seems kind of unlikely. And you have like investigative
Speaker 2: techniques and things like that that you know, they could say, well,
Speaker 2: we were using these secret techniques and if we disclose
Speaker 2: them then it would be harmful to other investigations. So
Speaker 2: I think that in general, there should be things that
Speaker 2: the public could know under foyer around this, especially given
Speaker 2: the high public interests and disclosure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and none of this would be controversial for the
Speaker 1: government to process. I mean, for example, if I wanted
Speaker 1: to gain access to the various letters that went to say,
Speaker 1: the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida
Speaker 1: and correspondence around that, would that be withheld under attorney
Speaker 1: client privilege, no deliberative process, or could I get that
Speaker 1: could we get that.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, if you're talking, you're talking about the exchange
Speaker 2: of letters between the prosecutors and Epstein's lawyers. Yeah, yeah, No,
Speaker 2: definitely not privileged. I mean, it's the opposite of privilege.
Speaker 2: You're disclosing it to your adversary, So that's not privilege.
Speaker 2: It's not going to be deliberative process because they're not
Speaker 2: like deliberating together, they're adverse to each other. Right, So
Speaker 2: now that the government's internal discussions about how to respond
Speaker 2: to a letter from Epstein, then you're going to run
Speaker 2: into some exemptions around attorney work product and potentially attorney
Speaker 2: client privilege and deliberative process and stuff like that. But
Speaker 2: all that back and forth, that's not going to be privileged.
Speaker 2: There could be some privacy redactions or some other things
Speaker 2: like that, but that's the opposite of privileged. Yeah.
Speaker 1: That raises the question as to why the Justice Department
Speaker 1: MVFBI made the final decision in July that they would
Speaker 1: not release any additional files from the Epstein investigation files.
Speaker 1: Like we were just discussing, like the various correspondents that
Speaker 1: took place between the prosecutors and Epstein's lawyers. I mean,
Speaker 1: some of that has been disclosed in civil litigation as exhibits.
Speaker 1: But based on what I've seen in Epstein's emails and
Speaker 1: what I've reported through this story, it's really clear that
Speaker 1: there are a lot of records that the Justice Department
Speaker 1: NFBI have that could appease many of those who are
Speaker 1: clamoring for some more info from so called Epstein files.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, this is the maddening thing I've seen,
Speaker 2: and you've seen over and over again, both political parties,
Speaker 2: all levels of government running on a campaign saying we're
Speaker 2: going to be transparent, and when the time comes, yeah, no,
Speaker 2: we're not going to be so transparent after him. So, Jason,
Speaker 2: what's the takeaway?
Speaker 1: When I talked to Ron Wyden, he said money laundering
Speaker 1: charges would have been a centerpiece in what he called
Speaker 1: any serious prosecution of Epstein. He said, resolving the federal
Speaker 1: money laundering case is part of the government's non prosecution
Speaker 1: agreement was a staggering This charriage of justice, and another
Speaker 1: expert I spoke with, a former top money laundering prosecutor,
Speaker 1: said if the money laundering investigation had continued, it's possible
Speaker 1: that prosecutors may have been able to identify other individuals
Speaker 1: and institutions that facilitated Epstein's sex trafficking operation or recovered
Speaker 1: more restitution for his victims. And beyond that. It's a
Speaker 1: reminder that there's just more to the Epstein story, and
Speaker 1: you can see how the prosecutor's files could shed some
Speaker 1: light on one of the central mysteries of Epstein, the
Speaker 1: source of his money. If prosecutors were following the money
Speaker 1: long before the public demand full accounting of his case,
Speaker 1: what other evidence might they have gathered.
Speaker 2: In that presumably is still in the files.
Speaker 1: So that's it for this week. Since this is a
Speaker 1: special episode, we won't have a public episode now next week,
Speaker 1: but subscribers will be able to access our next episode
Speaker 1: then and you won't want to miss it.
Speaker 2: Here's why we should estimate how many presidential records would
Speaker 2: fit inside the toilet.
Speaker 1: There were these big sinkholes both at the White House
Speaker 1: and on mar A Lago's lawn.
Speaker 2: Matt sinkholes, sinkholes. There is a chance that some intrepid
Speaker 2: splunkers could find these documents in the sewers system.
Speaker 1: Either I want to go on a sewer tour.
Speaker 2: You really want to go on a sewer tour?
Speaker 1: This feels like I don't know a Nicholas Cage movie
Speaker 1: That's next Tuesday. Early access for subscribers from Bloomberg and
Speaker 1: No Smiling. This is Disclosure. The show is hosted by
Speaker 1: Matt Topic and me Jason Leopold. It's produced by Heather
Speaker 1: Schroing and Sean Cannon for No Smiling. Our editor for
Speaker 1: Bloomberg is Jeff Grocott. Our executive producers for Bloomberg are
Speaker 1: Sage Bauman and me Jason Leopold, and our executive producers
Speaker 1: for No Smiling are Sean Cannon, Heather Schrowing and Matt Topic.
Speaker 1: The Disclosure theme song is by Nick, with additional music
Speaker 1: by Nick and Epidemic Sound. Sound design and mixing is
Speaker 1: by Sean Cannon. Special thanks to my co authors on
Speaker 1: this story, Jeff cow Max Abelson, Harry Wilson, Afa Benni Morrison,
Speaker 1: and ser Yarmantu. For more transparency news and important document thumps,
Speaker 1: you can subscribe to my Weeklyfoya Files newsletter at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com slash Foya Files. That's Foia Files. To get
Speaker 1: every episode early on Apple Podcasts. Become a Bloomberg dot
Speaker 1: Com subscriber today. Check out our special intro offer right
Speaker 1: now at bloomberg dot com Slash Podcast Offer or click
Speaker 1: the link in the show notes. You'll also unlock deep
Speaker 1: reporting data and analysis from reporters around the world.
Speaker 2: We'll see you again next Tuesday. What's up Ella? She
Speaker 2: only wants to growl at being up. Rip my face off,
Speaker 2: I
Speaker 1: Said, get your punk inside, girl,