EFTA00009229

Page 1
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
x
INTERVIEW OF R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA :
x
Washington, D.C.
Friday, October 18, 2019
Interview of:
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
a witness of lawful age, taken on behalf of the United States
Department of Justice in the above-entitled action, before
Beth Roots, Notary Public in and for the District of
Columbia, in the offices of the U.S. Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., commencing at 9:34 a.m.
Diversified Reporting Services, Inc.
EFTA00009229

Page 2
APPEARANCES:
On Behalf of the Department of Justice:
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
On Behalf of the Witness:
GORDON D. TODD, ESQ.
T.J. HERRON, ESQ
Sidley Austin LLP
1501 K Street Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20005
EFTA00009230

Page 1
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
x
INTERVIEW OF R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA :
x
Washington, D.C.
Friday, October 18, 2019
Interview of:
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
a witness of lawful age, taken on behalf of the United States
Department of Justice in the above-entitled action, before
Beth Roots, Notary Public in and for the District of
Columbia, in the offices of the U.S. Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., commencing at 9:34 a.m.
Diversified Reporting Services, Inc.
EFTA00009229

Page
PROCEEDINGS
2 Whereupon,
3 R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn,
5 was examined and testified as follows:
6 EXAMINATION
BY MS.
Q So, would you tell us your name, please?
A Rene Alexander Acosta.
Q And Mr. Acosta, you're accompanied by your
11 attorney, Gordon Todd, is that correct?
2 ,
• And Mr. Todd, would you identify the associate you
have with you?
MR. HERRON: Yes, T.J. Herron.
MS. : H-e-r-r-o-n?
17 MR. HERRON: Correct.
18 MS. : Thank you. Mr. Acosta, I'm
19 I am a counsel with the Office of Professional
20 Responsibility here at the Department of Justice, and with me
21 are my fellow OPR counsel, and IIII
22 . We are in a conference room at the Department of
23 Justice main building on today, October 18, 2019, and we're
24 starting at about 9:30 in the morning. Before we start, I'd
25 just want to put on the record that Mr. worked in
EFTA00009231

Page 4
1 the Civil Rights Division at the time that you were the AAG
2 heading that division, and I believe had an occasion to
3 briefly meet you in connection with a matter.
4 THE WITNESS: Could I ask what section?
5 MR. I was in the special litigation
6 section.
7 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay.
8 MR. : And I provided Mr. Acosta some
9 talking points for a press situation that we had in that
10 case.
11 THE WITNESS: 14141.
12 MR. : Yes.
13 THE WITNESS: Probably.
14 BY MS.
15 Q All right. Thank you. Mr. Acosta, OPR is
16 investigating two things. As you know, one, whether one or
17 more federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida
18 U.S. Attorney's Office may have committed professional
19 misconduct by entering into the non-prosecution agreement, or
20 NPA, in 2007 with Jeffrey Epstein, who at the time was under
21 investigation by that office, and the FBI, for engaging in
22 widespread sexual misconduct involving underage females.
23 The second thing we're investigating is Judge
24 Marra's finding of February of this year, 2019, that the
25 government may have violated -- or, actually, he found the
EFTA00009232

Page 5
1 government did violate the CVRA, or Crime Victims' Rights Act
2 when it entered into the MPA without first providing the
3 victims with notice and a reasonable right to confer with the
4 government.
5 You are a subject of the OPR investigation, that
6 is, one of -- somebody whose conduct is being reviewed and
7 evaluated by OPR, and specifically as U.S. Attorney at the
8 time for the Southern District of Florida, you had the
9 ultimate authority over the Epstein for a period of two and a
10 half years, as we understand it, from the time the line AUSA
11 first briefed you and then criminal chief
12 in July of 2006, and until you were formally
13 recused from the case on or about the 8th of December, 2008,
14 after notifying the executive office of the U.S. Attorneys
15 that you were seeking employment with Kirkland S Ellis, a
16 firm of which two attorneys, Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz had
17 been representing Jeffrey Epstein. Is that correct?
18 A We may -- we may get into it a little bit later,
19 but I think the characterization of my seeking employment is
20 not accurate, we can talk about that a little bit later.
21 Q All right. We have the documents that relate to
22 that. So, that's what we're -- we're basing it on.
23 A Correct.
24 Q And I believe the term that's used is seeking
25 employment.
EFTA00009233

Page 6
1 A That -- that is the term used in the e-mail. I
2 think I addressed that in my -- I believe Mr. Todd addressed
3 that in the letter that was sent to --
4 Q All right.
5 A -- OPR.
6 Q All right. Thank you. So, we recognize that
7 you're not longer with the Department of Justice --
8
A Right.
9 Q -- and that it is your choice to come and talk to
10 us, and we very much appreciate your willingness to
11 voluntarily do so and help us figure this case out. OPR
12 provided you with a few thousand pages of records, e-mails,
13 and correspondence and some other documents that reflect your
14 involvement in the Epstein matter over that two and a half
15 year period.
16 Now that you've had a chance to review, I hope,
17 those e-mails and other documents, we hope you can be
18 specific in helping us understand what happened. Have you in
19 fact been able to review those documents?
20 A Yes, I have.
21 Q Thank you. OPR asked you for a written response to
22 certain questions, and we've received and reviewed a written
23 response prepared and submitted not by you, but by your
24 attorney, Mr. Todd, on your behalf. Have you reviewed his
25 response to --
EFTA00009234

Page 7
1 A Yes.
2 Q -- you?
3 A Yes, I have.
4 Q And will you now under oath subscribe to that
5 response as if you had submitted to it yourself?
6 A So, Mr. Todd spoke to me and conveyed the
7 investigation that I provide him. I believe he conveyed that
8 information accurately, and the statements that he ascribes
9 to me in that letter I believe are accurate.
10 Q All right. Do you have any changes or corrections
11 to that written response?
12 A No, I do not.
13 Q Is there anything in it that you do not agree with?
14 A Again, I think that the statements that he ascribes
15 to me are accurate, and I agree with them.
16 Q All right. So, we are going to accept that
17 statement as representing accurately your -- what you would
18 have responded if you had responded to us directly. Is that
19 correct?
20 A I -- yes, the statements, he basically gives my
21 positions, and I believe that he gave my positions
22 accurately.
23 Q Perfect. Thank you. So, as we ask questions and
24 refer to documents, we would like you to correct any
25 misstatements in our questions, or any misstatements or
EFTA00009235

Page 8
1 errors that are in the documents themselves, because we want
2 to make sure the entire record --
3 A Mm-hmm.
4 Q -- is correct. Also, there's been an enormous
5 amount of publicity about the Epstein case, particularly this
6 year, including about the events and decisions made back in
7 2006 to 2010 that are the subject of our investigation. And
8 so as best you can, we ask you to try to answer today from
9 your knowledge, understanding, and recollections as of that
10 period of time. However, to the extent you are asked or do
11 speak retroactively, retrospectively, we'll just make it
12 clear that you're doing so.
13 A All right.
14 Q Okay?
15 A And if I could just say, one of the difficulties is
16 with everything that -- all the publicity and all the
17 documents that have made it to the press and in litigation
18 distinguishing between recollection versus after the fact
19 Q Right.
20 A -- speculation, and I will try, but I would
21 appreciate reminders along the way, because it's, it's an
22 important distinction, but it's kind of hard sometimes.
23 Q we recognize particularly the importance of it.
24 A Right.
25 Q That's -- that's precisely the heart of --
EFTA00009236

Page 9
1 A Yeah.
2 Q -- our matter. So, Mr. Acosta, your professional
3 background is a matter of public record. I have a couple of
4 questions. By what state bar are you currently licensed?
5 A So, I am inactive in I believe inactive in
6 Pennsylvania and also in D.C.
7 Q All right, and not in Florida?
8 A Not in Florida.
9 Q So, are -- is it -- do I understand that you are
10 not currently an active member of any bar?
11 A I would have to confirm with D.C. I said not
12 inactive in Pennsylvania and in D.C. because I am not certain
13 whether I'm currently active or inactive in D.C. I am not
14 currently practicing, and so I would have renewed under
15 either active or inactive.
16 Q All right.
17 A And we can --
18 Q we --
19 A We can --
20 Q We --
21 A We can verify that and get that.
22 Q We would appreciate it if Mr. Todd could let us
23 know your current status. I also would like to know the
24 status -- your bar status in the period of 2006 through 2008.
25 Do you know what that was?
EFTA00009237

Page 10
1 A Most likely -- I can -- I can speculate. I don't
2 know as a fact. Mostly likely active in D.C.
3 Q Mm-hmm.
4 A And inactive in Pennsylvania.
5 Q Okay, but likely active somewhere, correct?
6 A Yes. Yes, I think that's a requirement.
7 Q Yes, that is a --
8 A And so --
9 Q -- requirement.
10 A So, it would be D.C., the distinction between
11 active and inactive in D.C. is more minor, as I recall, than
12 Pennsylvania where there's a large fee difference.
13 Q All right, thank you, and we look forward to
14 hearing confirmation of that from you, Mr. Todd. So, after
15 serving nearly two years as the assistant attorney general in
16 charge of the department's civil rights division, you were
17 presidentially appointed the interim U.S. Attorney for the
18 Southern District of Florida in June of 2005, and then as we
19 understand it, you were formally nominated as U.S. Attorney
20 in June of 2006, and after being confirmed by the United
21 States Senate, you were sworn in by the U.S. Attorney -- as
22 U.S. Attorney in late October 2006.
23 A I think that may be inaccurate. I would have to
24 confirm. When you say presidentially appointed, I believe it
25 may have been appointed by the chief judge at the request of
EFTA00009238

Page 11
1 the Attorney General. The chief judge has appointing
2 authority.
3 Q Okay.
4 A And you'd have to go back and confirm whether it
5 was either an AG designation or the chief judge --
6 Q All right.
7 A -- which is different than presidential.
8 Q And I understand, and again, I would appreciate if
9 you could --
10 A Yeah.
11 Q -- follow up on that --
12 A I -- I'm --
13 Q -- Mr. Todd.
14 A -- not certain how to confirm that. That's
15 something that in all candor the department would know --
16 Q All right.
17 A -- much better than I.
18 Q Then we will pursue it. My point is that there was
19 a change in your status from interim to -- you -- the U.S.
20 Attorney with the -- with the full --
21 A Correct.
22 Q -- confirmation. How if at all did that change in
23 status affect your view of and your exercise of your
24 authority as U.S. Attorney?
25 A So, it's difficult to recall. You're now asking
EFTA00009239

Page 12
1 that just ten years back, but even further back. I was
2 interim for a sufficiently long period of time that -- that
3 by the time the change in status took place, I would
4 speculate that I was, in my mind, the, you know, acting as
5 U.S. Attorney whether you have an adjunctive interim, or
6 acting in front of your name or not.
7 You know, I -- I had great people. I don't recall
8 when -- when came on board as first assistant, but he
9 was my crim chief, and I thought for the continuity of the
10 office it was important to promote him to first assistant,
11 and --
Q He was promoted actually effective October of 2006.
3 You made a series -- according to e-mails -- the
14 announcement -- the personnel announcement was made to be
15 effective in October 2006 naming as criminal
16 chief, and as first --
17 A Right.
18 Q -- assistant.
19 A Right, and they -- they were both long serving
20 professionals within the office, and basically, as my
21 recollection, everyone just moved up one wrung.
22 Q Okay.
23 A You would know better than I, because you have
24 those records. And so, sitting here today, I don't recall
25 any specific way in which that shift would have impacted --
EFTA00009240

Page 13
1 Q All right.
2 A -- my thinking.
3 Q You had not served as a -- as a prosecutor before,
4 and had -- didn't have direct criminal experience is my
5 understanding.
6 A The -- that is correct. I had supervised -- civil
7 rights, for example, had supervised criminal prosecutions,
8 but I had not been a line prosecutor previously.
9 Q So, as the U.S. Attorney supervising a couple of
10 hundred --
11 A Right.
12 Q -- line prosecutors, most involved in criminal
13 work, how -- what -- what -- what interested you most, or
14 appealed to you most as you undertook your -- and carried out
15 your duties as U.S. Attorney?
16 A What interested me and appealed to me. So, the
17 work of the office, I mean, the -- it's a broad question, but
18 the work of --
19 Q )t-hmm.
20 A -- that office and any U.S. Attorney's Office I
21 think is incredibly impactful to any local community, and I
22 very much enjoyed being a part of the effort to bring folks
23 to justice, to move policy initiatives. You know, I recall
24 early on, we identified healthcare fraud
25 Q Ha-hmm.
EFTA00009241

Page 14
1 A -- as one big -- one big area, and we had one of
2 the largest out of our -- the largest healthcare fraud
3 initiative. You know, we focused quite a bit on gun
4 violence, and we did a great job on that, and it's one of
5 those jobs where people feel very good about what they do,
6 and it's great to be part of it. I'm sure what --
7 Q No, that's --
8 A -- okay.
9 Q That's helpful. It just gives us a
10 A Yeah.
11 Q -- some perspective.
12 A Yeah.
13 Q Was there any aspect of it that you particularly
14 disliked?
15 A To the extent you're dealing with personnel issues,
16 I think personnel issues are -- are rarely the preferred part
17 of any executive function.
18
Q You mean the conflicts among attorneys, things like
19 that, or performance issues?
20 A Performance issues.
21 Q All right.
22 A And you know, when you've got -- in any large
23 office, you get personnel issues, disciplinary issues, and
24 those are never --
25 Q Mm-hmm.
EFTA00009242

Page 15
1 A -- those are never fun.
2 Q MM-hmm. So, we talked about the personnel -- high
3 level personnel changes you made sort of after your first
4 year there. I= had, we understand, been functioning
5 de facto as a first assistant while IS was not.
6 He -- we understand had been first assistant, but
7 he stepped away, and ME NM came in to essentially take
8 over his brief until he was formerly appointed first
9 assistant. Is that consistent with your memory?
10 A So, you might have characterized that more strongly
11 that I would have.
12 Q Okay.
13 A Again, it's difficult to recreate from back then,
14 but there was certainly a transition period from Mr.
15 to Mr. , and if I could, because when you
16 said high level changes, my intent -- it was a great office.
17 Great professionals. My intent in elevating Mr. was
18 just you go from criminal chief to first assistant, and I
19 don't recall Mr. prior position, but I know that he
20 was also elevated. I think he might have been major crimes,
21 but --
22 Q That's correct.
23 A -- I'd be -- I'd be speculating.
24 Q We can --
25 A I could guess it.
EFTA00009243

a e 1
1 Q We can verify that.
2 A Okay.
3 Q Yes. What was your assessment of His
4 capabilities, his judgement, and his working relationship
5 with you on a day to day basis?
6 A Outstanding. He had been in the office for
7 decades. He was respected by everyone. He had a good tone
8 to him. He was someone, you know, I wanted individuals
9 around me that were respected within the office and that were
10 trusted and that had been there for a long time, and then I
11 think I was very lucky to -- to have that in my management
12 team.
13 Q As we understand it, your office as U.S. Attorney
14 was sort of on one side of the reception area, and the first
5 assistant's office is on the other side. Is that correct?
_E A Thi,t Ls _erred.
17 Q Or, at the time --
18 A Correm
19 Q -- that was correct. So, did you and
20 have a sort of easy back and forth --
21 A Walking --
22 Q -- open door?
23 A -- into each other's offices multiple times a
24 day --
4 All right.
EFTA00009244

Page 17
1 A -- kind of relationship.
2 Q All right, and given that he had had experience
3 throughout his career at the department in the criminal arena
4 and you had not, to what extent would you rely on him, among
5 others, for guidance, perspective, information, and so on?
6 A I named him first assistant because I valued his
7 guidance and his perspectives and I thought those were
8 valuable.
9 Q Okay. You also, as we pointed out, appointed
10 to succeed as criminal chief effective
11 October of 2006, and he served for about ten months before he
12 left for private practice. He left at the beginning of
13 August --
14 A Mm-hmm.
15 Q -- 2007. What -- you -- you did -- you said you
16 didn't recall, as we sit here today, what section he'd come
17 from.
18 A Right. I guessed it was major crimes.
19 Q All right. Were you -- what was your assessment of
20
21 A Outstanding as well, and if I could say, when I say
22 I don't recall but I guess, when you're going back 12 years,
23 sometimes you get an impression but you can't say it's a
24 recollection, and that's going to come up multiple times
25 today, just because it's a while ago.
EFTA00009245

Page 18
1 Q As long as we make that distinction --
2 A Right.
3 Q -- both are helpful.
4 A Right, and so -- so, whether it's a recollection or
5 a construction after the fact, I can't can't say, but
6 you know, I -- I thought that one of the helpful factors with
7 is he had spent a lot of time -- and major crimes is the
8 most active -- active unit. I assume you all know the
9 structures of the office --
10 Q Mm-hmm.
11 A -- but major crimes is not major crimes, it's sort
12 of the entry level crimes, and I valued the fact that he had
13 trained and, you know, so many AUSAs, and really spent a lot
14 of time reviewing -- the major crimes chief as opposed to the
15 other chiefs spends a lot of time reviewing the work of
16 AUSAs, and so, he would be someone who is very experienced
17 and able to get in the weeds.
18 Q And he in fact was around -- during that time
19 period, had gone back in the courtroom, if you recall, to
20 actually try a major case. Do you recall that? /t was a --
21 A I didn't until you --
22 Q -- major fraud case.
23 A -- mentioned -- I didn't until you mentioned it,
24 and now there's something in the back of my head that's
25 saying that sounds right, but I can't give you more detail.
EFTA00009246

Page 19
1 Q All right. What was your assessment of
2 sort of working style, and particularly working
3 with you?
4 A You know, again, positive. You know, we didn't --
5 I didn't see him as often as Mr. , but --
6 Q He -- was he located on the same floor?
7 A He was located on the same floor, but not within
8 the same suite.
9 Q MM-hmm.
10 A And -- and that -- that affects interaction, but a
11 positive working relationship.
12 Q All right, and how how -- to what extent would
13 you, as criminal chief, was he relied on by you as
14 distinguished from with regard to the criminal
15 matters pending?
16 A Also relied on. Depend -- that would depend almost
17 on the matter for --
18 Q Okay.
19 A -- as in a typical situation, he would bring things
20 to who would them bring them to me along, and so he
21 would bring things to , and then depending on their
22 discussion, they might both walk into my office. But he
23 would typically run things through before coming to me.
24 Q Were there occasions when he would come to you
25 directly?
EFTA00009247