Of staff. Take a listen. I think that alex will probably be sharing more information with you all, but the reality is that the Defense Attorneys in that case actually tried to get alex removed because they thought that he was such an aggressive prosecutor. And as you heard alex say yesterday, we welcome the fact that there is additional evidence that can be prosecuted. The crimes are atrocities and certainly should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. So whether anything he says, question is will it change minds. Democrats may not be the only ones that want to show him the door. Blit compa politico reporting that Mick Mulvaney has urged President Trump to dismiss acosta and told trump that the continuing drip of damaging information surrounding the 2008 agreement acosta struck to keep Jeffrey Epstein from a heavy jail sentence would hurt the administration. Just yesterday President Trump praised acostas work in his cabinet, but you the president also saying this ive known him as being somebody that works so hard and has done such a good job, i feel very badly about that whole situation. But well be looking at that an. One thing is clear, the president has not completely closed the door on the possibility of firing his labor secretary and the longer this controversy casts a shadow over the trump administration, the more jeopardy for acosta. Joining me now to start things off, peter alexander, kasie hunt and also peter baker. Thanks to all of you for being with me this hour. Peter, i have to start with you. You are at the Labor Department there for secretary acostas remarks which were expecting in about a half hour from in yonow. We dont expect him to step down, right . Thats right. We are inside the Labor Department. Not often our cameras are in here. Well pan the camera over, you can see the podium, the lectern set for alex acosta, secretary of labor, to speak in the next 30 minutes. And we have new reporting to share. In a conversation with a person familiar with the matter, im told that President Trump spoke to secretary acosta yesterday afternoon and in that conversation, im told that the president urged acosta to hold this News Conference to address these questions from reporters relating to acostas role during that plea deal, the nonprosecution agreement in 2007, the plea deal finalized in 2008 as it relates to the case with Jeffrey Epstein. Now, the president you will remember didnt initially pick acosta as his labor secretary. His first choice, andy pozner. But he dwropped out. So keen interest in what we hear from acosta. The president saying that he is doing a fantastic job, saying that he to this point has been excellent. But notably in the comments from President Trump on tuesday, president did sort of distance himself from acosta saying he only first met him when i was going through that nomination process back in 2017. So all of that of course is the backdrop as we anticipate these comments from secretary acosta. And certainly tough questions from reporters. Certainly tough questions indeed. Great reporting there on the background of why we are going to hear from secretary acosta. Kasie hunt, over to you and get the view from capitol hill. I want to play you something that we heard from democrat tim kaine on morning joe earlier today as pressure mounts on capitol hill for acosta to go. Take a listen. The secretary of labor oversees Human Trafficking enforcement. Human trafficking claims. What victim of trafficking is going to think under secretary acosta that they are going to be protected by a department of labor when this guy sided with the trafficker against the victims in such an egregious case. That is the crux of what so Many Democrats are saying. Republicans not joining in. And we are now expecting acosta to go to capitol hill, right . Well, he has been invited to come to capitol hill. Important distinction. To testify. Whether to my knowledge, certainly our reporting here on the hill does not yet suggest that he has accepted the invitation from obviously he has appeared periodically before hearings that address the budget of the department of labor, that is a traditional thing. This is something separate. This is a hear Management Oversight Committee that would look directly at that nonprosecution agreement that democrats you heard tim kaine characterize it as a sweetheart deal for Jeffrey Epstein at potentially the expense of these victims. In fact that has been stated that the victims rights were not paid tankts to the way that they should be under the law. And so they want to schedule this for not next week, but the folk welow followining week. So well see if this is something that you feels as though he does need to attend. If the trump administrations track record on this says anything to us, it is that it is unlikely. But obviously this is a different set of circumstances from the mueller investigation. Of course republicans at this point are not joining in those calls as you referenced. I think that we can show even what they have tended to say when asked about this, which is that they defer to the president. Take a look. I think there is nothing that we didnt know before he was confirmed by the senate. And i think that we ought to let the courts do their job and rely on evidence that is produced in court rather than speculation and conjecture. The president will have to make that decision as well as the secretary to make a decision whether he wants to resign or not. Im not calling for that. Clearly all the new information as well as the old information continues to be troubling. He serves at the pleasure of the president. And im inclined to defer to the president to make that decision. Reporter so of course well have to see if obviously there is that interview with Savannah Guthrie with somebody who says that she was raped, and there could potentially be more information coming forward as this case unfolds. But right now, that is the status quo here on capitol hill. Mounting pressure on capitol hill and all eyes will be watching secretary acostas press availability. Well play some of savannahs interview. But first the reporter who led the coverage, jewelry blulie brk you for joining me. I want to get your perspective and i just want to set up something that you tweeted yesterday after acosta took to twitter to defend himself, he said now that new evidence and additional testimony is available, new york prosecution offers an important opportunity to more fully bring him to justice. You replied except the record shows you had the evidence in 2007. Remember the 53 page indictment, the phone records, the trash pulls, the flight manifests, the witnesses who worked for epstein. So julie, what did acosta know and when did he know it . Well, he certainly knew enough to put together a 53 page indictment and they had, you know, 36 women who had told basically the same story, they had corroborating evidence of those stories, including phone records that showed that epstein called these girls, messages that said, you know, rebecca is coming at 3 00 and soandso at 4 00. He had all their phone numbers. There was a report card from one of the girls found in his home in palm beach. I mean, the evidence was overwhelming. So i think that it is true that new york has come up with some new evidence, but that doesnt absolve him of why he decided to put this into a nonprosecution agreement giving epstein immunity. Just very quickly, the relationship between President Trump and epstein, the president took great pains yesterday to try to distance himself. And yet the New York Times reporting on at least one party that the two attended together more than two dozen women there, and just the two men that occurred in florida. What do you know about their relationship . The president says they had a falling out 15 years ago and hes not a fan. My understanding is the falling out regarded a real estate deal that they were competing for. And mr. Epstein i think got the short end of the stick on that deal. That is my understanding. And there is also some information that perhaps mr. Trump was not happy with the way that mr. Epstein had come on to at least one young girl, the daughter of a member at maralago. Weve never been able to confirm that, but mr. Trump has told people about that, that he had asked mr. Epstein not to come to the club anymore. Savannah guthrie did speak with one woman who says that she was a victim of jeffity epstein. She is not a part of this recent case. But this is what she told savannah and then i want to bring in peter baker. He raped me. Forcefully raped me. Knew exactly what he was doing. And i dont think cared. What hurts even more is that if i wasnt afraid to come forward sooner, then maybe he wouldnt have done to other girls. I feel really guilty, to this day i feel really guilty. Peter, all of this just adding to the mounting pressure on alex acosta who is really speaking to an audience of one, right . Well, thats right. I think that your interpretation of the president s comments is exactly on, which is to say that he expressed sympathy for acosta without actually guaranteeing the job. He made clear that the job is on the line. The president told him to give this press Conference Today in effect to say okay, you go out there and defend yourself and if you can do it, if you can successfully turn the story around, then fine. But if you cant, then the implication anyway is that his job is perhaps in jeopardy here. So youre right, it is a rather important moment for him if he wants to remain in the cabinet. He will have to convince the audience of one. And he has to convince the outside audience in a way that convinces that audience of one that he did a good job. And weve seen the president do this before. He puts people who are in trouble on his team out there for a Public Defense in a way. And some people have done it well, some people havent. Well see how this goes in a few minutes at the Labor Department. Peter, just to follow up on that very point, lets take a step back. This is a president who is no stranger to digging in. So while he did leave the door open, these are some of the moments where we see him really get defensive and as you point out stand by some of his past cabinet secretaries. I guess the question is what does acosta have to do to survive this. Yeah, that is a great question. Sometimes he does dig in. He dug in on roy moore after pretty horrific allegations of Sexual Misconduct with young women. He dug in with Brett Kavanaugh and other instances. But having said that, he let loose tom price his Health Secretary for abusing travel privileges and hes let go of others who came under fire that he decided were a distraction. So no real way if beingfor acos know which direction it is heading until he gives this press conference and sees how it flies. We may know pretty quickly. The president has been known to tweet his reaction to things. Or he may go quiet for a while and wait to see the reaction, watch his fox news and others to see how it goes over. I think youre right, well all be watching our twitter feeds very closely as this press conference gets under way to see what the real time or reaction may be for President Trump. Appreciate i appreciate it. Well continue to track this. And we have new reporting this afternoon on the resignation of britains ambassador to the u. S. He announced his departure just days after the leaked memos in which he called President Trump inept, insecure and incompetent. He decided overnight that he could not go on undertider the circumstances. He wrote the Current Situation is making it impossible for me to carry out my role as i would like. I believe in the current circumstances the responsible course is to allow the appointment of a new ambassador. And while that may be music to President Trumps ears, who tweeted, quote, we will no longer deal with him, staffers in the United States and leaders in britain dont necessarily share that assessment. I have told him that it is a matter of great regret that he has felt it necessary to leave his position as ambassador. Good government depends on Public Servants being able to give full and frank advice. Joining me now, andrea mitchell. Thanks so much for being here. You have new reporting on this and how this all came about. I think the pressure just overnight was unbearable for the ambassador who is such a professional, a veteran, 29 year in the foreign service. You heard theresa may, they spoke this morning before she went to commons. And even Boris Johnson who is a trump ally praising him and bemoaning the fact that the cables were leaked, that there has to be a private communication channel between any ambassador and the front office back home. The pressure just became too great. And obviously there have been tensions between President Trump, outgoing prime minister. Do we know who might replace him . And of course this is against the backdrop over the fight of a new prime minister. The overriding likely successor is Boris Johnson. Very trumplike. Close to trump. He was critical of trump back when he was the mayor of london, bemoaning the muslim ban and other things against their policies. But now very close to donald trump. And there are some reports that it could even be nigel farage, a trump friend who is the head of the brexit party. That would inject politics which is never done in great britain, but weve seen stranger things. This is an instance where the president of the United States contrary to what the state department was saying tweeting that the ambassador was wacky and stupid, which he is not. The embassy is staff is devastated because they think that he has been a superb ambassador. And the United States often says that it has no closer ally than the uk. How does this impact this very important diplomatic relationship . It is just the latest problem that youve observed close up when you were at that News Conference at checks oers o echg a year ago and the president praised Boris Johnson, embarrassing the ambassador as she was hosting him. There have been a lot of problems. Weve seen the protests again, some of the delay of the state visit for at least a year. And now this. This has been incredibly upsetting to the british establishment. Just remarkable. Andrea, thank you for joining us. Still ahead, gut wrenching allegations of assault and retaliation inside a Detention Center for Migrant Children. Julia ainsley will join moog with her reporting. And we continue to follow the breaking news where alex acosta will speak in just minutes about the controversial plea deal he negotiated a decade ago. We will carry that live, you dont want to miss it. Were oscar mayer deli fresh and you may know us from. Your very first sandwich, your mammoth masterpiece. And. Whatever this was. Because we make our meat with the good of the deli and no artificial preservatives. Make every sandwich count with oscar mayer deli fresh. Whenso if you find your. Com, you get troom at a lower rate,tee. Hilton is like. Were gonna match that rate and give you an extra 25 off. What would travel sites do if you found a different price . Thats not my problem, its your problem. Book at hilton. Com and get the hilton price match guarantee. Thats ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. Its a situp, banana bend at the waist im tryin keep it up. Youll get there. Whoahoahoa 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. Ensure max protein. There is a shocking new report that details horrific conditions and treatment of Migrant Children at the border. Allegations involving Sexual Assault and retaliation to their protests. Julia ainsley and Jacob Soboroff obtained accounts from those children as told to government case managers. A 16yearold boy said when he and others complained about you how their water and food tasted, agents took the mats out of their cells and forced them to sleep on the floor. And a 15yearold girl said during what was supposed to be a routine patdown, one officer put his hands in her bra and groped her. In the last hour Gabe Guttierez toured a brand new facility to be used for unaccompanied Migrant Children. And here with me now, Julia Ainsley and joining us from texas Gabe Guttierez. Thanks to you both for being here. Julia, i have to start with you and this new reporting. It is tough to read. It is tough to talk about. What is the latest that you found . It is tough. But it is important not to get numb to it. First ill tell you how it is different. There are reports in he will pats so he awill el paso and rio ground about the bad conditions. Cbp blamed a lot on overcrowding. What weve learned about what happened in yuma goes beyond overcrowding with that Sexual Assault allegation, that was given as a firsthand account from a child to a Government Official over a month ago. And we are just now learning about this. So the question is, how did this happen and how have we not learned about the accountability about who was responsible for incidents like these. And i guess the question is, is there an outrage factor. Marc short was asked about it. Lets listen. What is the white houses response to allegations that 15yearold girl was sexually assaulted . I think that my understanding is that cbp hats an investigation undergoing on that. What are you hearing from inside the administration, is anyone saying enough is enough, this cannot stand . So far inside were not hearing that. Were hearing a lot of calls like senator schumer on the senate floor said this is a cultural problem. There is a toxic culture in customs and border protection. What weve heard from dhs is that there is an Inspector General investigation, but not clear that they would kick to the point of a criminal filing or even discipline or firing this person and removing them. We havent heard that yet. And the way that this account was described, there were multiple witnesses and she very vividly remembers the man who did this to her. And not only did this happen to this girl, but there were stories of a little boy who was in the same pair of underwear for ten days because he was too afraid to ask the agents for anything else. One boy was too afraid to tell the agents that his clothes were wet from crossing the river when they made him sleep outside. Because that was the culture in this place that these guards were people to be feared, not people to request any kind of assistance from. And were learning about the horrific conditions that julia and jacob are reporting on as you are taking a tour of one of these new facilities again yet to be opened. Tell us what you saw inside. Reporter actually this facility that im at right now that i toured actually did open a few days ago on june 30th. Right now it has just over 200 unaccompanied minors. But it will have at one point up to 1300. It at least has the capacity for up to 1300. So when it is not opened fully yet, but they are ramping up. So what i want to make clear is some context. The things that julia and jacob are reporting on, those facilities are cbp processing centers, those allegations out of arizona. This facility is run by the department of health and Human Service and the office of Refugee Resettlement or o. R. R. This is basically the next step in the process. Once these migrants are processed by cbp, unaccompanied minors are brought to facilities like this. There are about 168 of these facilities across 23 states. But what is significant about this one, this is going to be one. Largest ones. Youve heard about the one in homestead, florida. And some Officials Say that they are looking to shut down the facility in homestead, florida. They are also looking to open up new facilities in other major cities including they are looking for locations in san antonio, dallas ft. Worth, in houston, atlanta and phoenix. So what i want to tell you about this facility, through the end of the year up to 300 million have been allocated just for this facility alone. Right now they are spending about 750 to 800 per day on each child here. So let me tell you what we saw in the last hour or two. Behind me, that white structure you can see back there, that is a dining hall, a soft sided facility as hhs refers to it, also known as a tent, that is where kids go there and they have their meals. It is air conditioned. They have also went to their dormitories, the rooms are about 160, 18 8 o180 square feet and are bunk beds with four children in each room. And we went in a classroom where they were taught english. We saw the pledge of allegiance written in english and spanish in those classrooms. Hhs says that it is preparing for this migrant surge to continue even though they have seen the numbers drop in the last several weeks. And we know that you will continue to track it. Gabe guttierez, really appreciate your reporting. Julia ainsley, as well. Fantastic reporting. We now want to take another live look at the Labor Department where in just minutes, secretary alex acosta will make his first Public Comments amid growing calls to his resignation, triggered by his involvement years ago in a controversial and lenient deal with registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. When acosta takes the podium, you you will see it here live. U. We are expecting to hear from secretary of labor alex acosta any minute now. He will be speaking to reporters for the very First Time Since Jeffrey Epsteins arrest this weekend about his role in coordinating a lenient plea agreement for the multimillionaire and registered sex offender. This deal is getting new scrutiny because of epsteins new arrest in new york, but again, acosta negotiated the deal a decade ago when he was a u. S. Attorney in florida and acosta has faced questions about epstein before. Take a look. In this case we deemed it necessary to become involved and we early on had discussions within the office and we decided that sentence or how should i future that mr. Epstein should plead guilty to two years, strernlg as a sex offender and concede liability so victims could get recentity tulgs. And if that were done, federal interests would be satisfied and we would defer to the state. Joining me now, kelly odonnell, tom winter, julie brown back with us, jake sherman and also chuck rosenberg. Thanks to all of you. Kelly, i want to start with you at the white house. What are we expecting when acosta takes that podium in just moments . Well, in addition to the remarks that the secretary has, there will be an audience of one critically watching this. And that is the president who based on our teams reporting encouraged his labor secretary to do a News Conference to try to address the persistent questions that have embroiled him in this controversy and the way that it of course then reflects on the administration and to some extent on the president himself with the president being questioned about his own personal contacts in the past with Jeffrey Epstein and his confidence or lack thereof in secretary acosta. At this point the president has publicly embraced acosta says he is doing a good job and he feels badly about this. And the white house is measuring very carefully the public fallout as people learn more about the deal that went down back in 2007 2008 involving then u. S. Attorney alex acosta and how that has been reflected over time. Especially with the Southern District of new york getting involved and details and more alleged victims coming forward. All of this shining a light on what was the judgment of acosta at that time when he had so much knowledge and access to information about the alleged crimes of Jeffrey Epstein who pleaded guilty then and has entered a not guilty plea now. So the political fallout is one of the metrics to be watching today, can acosta quiet the calls for his resignation broadly from democrats. Republicans have said largely that any cabinet secretary serves at the pleasure of the president and the president is one of the people who wants secretary acosta to try to clear his name or defend himself or explain this somehow to quiet the controversy. And julie, as we await secretary acostas appearance, lets me have you break down. It was a nonprosecution agreement that was struck. A lot of democrats say that it was sweetheart deal for someone who was a sexual predator. Help us to understand what happened. Well, this was about 36, 34 girls who were molested over many years. Mr. Epstein had a whole organization, this wasnt just a oneoff or anything like that. He had a whole organization set up where he had schedulers and pilots and people who were helping him, enabling him totrye girls. Certainly prosecutors knew the depth of this crime. And i think what sometimes is not talked about by mr. Acosta was why did he limit the scope of this investigation, number one. Why did he seal the deal, number two. Why did the sentencing judge not know about the deal. Why did the victims not know about the deal. If this was such a good deal as he has often mentioned given the information he believes that they had, then why was it sealed. Chuck, let me bring you in on this very point. The defense acosta says that i dealt with the evidence that i had at the time. But as julie points out, this was sealed. So talk about that, what do you make of all of that when you put it together. Julie asks the right questions, the really important questions. So i have a couple thoughts. First, there is no reason to seal this other than to protect epstein. And you wonder why you would protect a pedophile. Second, if mr. Acosta really thought he didnt have sufficient evidence at the time, seems like he did, but if he really did not, there is another option. You continue your investigation. You dont have to close a case. You dont have to permit a defendant to enter into a nonprosecution agreement. That is an extraordinary measure. It is highly unusual. So if you dont have it, and we dont literally know whether he had it or not, you just let the fbi continue to do its work until you have a quantum of evidence, the necessary proof, to charge this guy in federal court. So julies reporting i think has uncovered lots of really important facts. That is my big question, why close the thing. If you dont have it, continue to investigate. And chuck, here is secretary acosta. Lets listen in. Good afternoon. Let me start by reiterating that im pleased that the new york prosecution is Going Forward. They have brought these charges based on new evidence against Jeffrey Epstein who is now a registered sex offender and this is a very, very good thing. His acts are despicable. And new york prosecution offers an important opportunity to more fully bring epstein to justice. In 2008, a major newspaper described the epstein prosecution like this, a florida grand jury, that is a grand jury convened by the District Attorney of palm beach county, had charged epstein with a lesser offense. At that time the epstein legal team was elated. He would have avoided prison all together. But then the United States Attorneys Office in miami became involved. Epstein got an ultimatum. Plead guilty to a charge is that would require jail time and registration or face federal charges. And that was the week more than ten years ago that epstein went to jail. Times have changed and coverage of this case has certainly changed since that article. Facts are important and facts are being overlooked. This matter started as a state matter. It was prosecuted initially by the state of florida and not by the u. S. Attorneys office. In 2006, a grand jury convened by the state attorney, the District Attorney of palm beach count canit county, reviewed the evidence and recommended a single charge that would have resulted in no jail time at all. No registration as a sexual offender. And no restitution to the victim. Further, the state Attorneys Office allowed epstein to self surrender and arraigned him the following morning. Simply put, the palm beach state Attorneys Office was ready to let epstein walk free, no jail time, nothing. Prosecutors in my former office found this to be completely unacceptable. And they became involved. Our office became involved. Our prosecutors as this 2008 article recounts presented the ultimatum. Plead guilty to more serious charges, charges that required jail time, registration and restitution, or we roll the dice and bring a federal indictment. Is without the work of our prosecutors, epstein would have gotten away with just that state charge. Now, many today question the terms of that ultimatum. What is called the nonprosecution agreement. Good prosecutor will tell you that these cases are complex, especially when they involve children. And even more so in 2006. Ive shared with those in this this room today and will make available publicly an affidavit followed by the career prosecutor in a civil matter related to the epstein case. She talks about the challenges faced. She talks about the victims being scared and traumatized. Refusing to testify. And how some victims actually exonerated epstein. Most had significant concerns about their identities being revealed. The acts that they had faced were horrible. And they didnt want people to know about them. And she goes on to write that, quote, after the fact people allege that epstein would have been easily convicted. As the prosecutor who handled the investigation, she says in this affidavit, these contentions overlook the facts that existed at the time. Her description of these facts are corroborated by the fbi case agent whose affidavit ive also shared today. Thousands of prosecutors around the nation this week are weighing guilty pleas versus trials. These cases as i said are hard. They require a prosecutor to ask whether a plea that guarantees jail time and guarantees registration, to ask whether that plea versus going to trial, how do you weigh those two. If going to trial is viewed as the roll of a dice. The goal here was straightforward. Put epstein behind bars, ensure that he registered as a sexual offender, provide victims with the means to seek restitution, and protect the public by putting them on notice that sexual predator was in their midst. This case people have said was unusual. And it was. It was complicated by the fact that this matter started as a state investigation. A state grand jury brought that single completely unacceptable charge. A state official allowed epstein to self surrender. And so it is unusual because it is unusual for a federal prosecutor to intervene in a state matter such as this. Weve seen cases recently, different set of facts, different i dont want anyone to say im comparing these cases, but weve seen other cases where state prosecutors let folks go with no seven tent and people shake their heads. In this case the federal office intervened before the plea and said stop because if that plea is taken at the state level, you are going to face serious federal issues. Today we know a lot more about how victims trauma impacts their testimony and this too is important. Our juries are more accepting of contradictory statements, understanding the trauma impacted memories work differently. And today our judges do not allow victim shaming by Defense Attorneys. I have viewed the victim interviews. They are hard to watch. Because i know that my former colleagues, the men and women of my office, wanted to help them. I wanted to help them. That is why we intervened. And that is what the prosecutors of my office did. They insisted that he go to jail and put the world on notice that he was and is a sexual predator. Epsteins actions absolutely deserve a stiffer sentence. For years there have been rumors of investigations in other jurisdictions. And he should be prosecuted in any state in which he committed a crime. If there are other states in which he committed crimes, if there are other states that can bring state charges, they should consider those as well. And so i absolutely welcome in new york prosecution. It is the absolutely right thing to do and im happy to take question questions. Eric. How would you describe your relationship with the president . Did you feel that this is changing that . My relationship with the president is outstanding. He has i think very publicly made clear that ive got his support. He spoke yesterday in the oval office. He and i have spoken. Let me add i keep reading about articles about my relationship with me and mr. Mulvaney. And he called me this morning to say, if asked, that our relationship is excellent too and that any articles to the contrary are in his words bs. And so im here, im defending this case, that is my job. Tom. Secretary, a lot of people are watching this News Conference including several young women who say that they were teenagers when Jeffrey Epstein sexually assaulted them. They say that they went to you looking for help and they didnt hear back from you until it was too late. Do you owe them an apology . So youre raising the issue of victim notification. And in the documents that ive circulated, ive addressed the issue of victim notification as well. The career prosecutor in this case had a difficult decision to make. And she didnt make it alone. She made it in consultation with the fbi and she made it in consultation with the office. The agreement that had been negotiated had an unusual provision. Even though this was a state case, the victims would have the opportunity to receive restitution. Epstein would be required to pay for them to hire a lawyer to bring a case against him, a case in which he would have to plead no contest and provide them with restitution. And the concern these are the words of the career prosecutor. That, quote, she did not want to share with the victims that the office was attempting to secure for them the ability to obtain monetary compensation because she is aware that if she disclosed that and the negotiations fell through, epsteins counsel would use this to question the victims credibility. And her concerns were not hypothetical. Within of epsteins attorneys had already asked one of the victims, quote, now tell me about when the federal prosecutors told you about getting money. And so when the agreement was signed shortly after the agreement was signed, epsteins counsels indicated that epstein may not comply with the agreement. And the agreement was appealed at very levels within the justice department. And she details in this affidavit, an affidavit that is also corroborated by the fbi case agent, how she and he and the office was concerned that epstein might not comply. And we would have to go to trial. And we had to weigh the issue of how much to disclose against the issue of if we have to go to trial, we want to win, we want to put epstein away, and talking about this would allow him to make the argument at trial that their testimony was compromised. And so when she was finally when it was finally clear that epstein would comply with the agreement, she talks about how she made efforts to notify the victims, how that was a friday afternoon at 4 15 and that she learned that the state had scheduled the plea for 8 30 the following monday. And she talks about how over the weekend she made every effort to notify the victims at that time. Sir. [ you describe it as an ultimatum. And i wanted to draw your attention to [ inaudible ] says prosecutor should seek charges only if the prosecutor believes [ inaudible ] evidence sufficient to support the conviction. Do you have any reason to doubt that it was in the interests of justice. Did you believe, sir, that the evidence against epstein would have been sufficient to secure conviction beyond a reasonable daughter for federal offenses . And if so, why was it not in the pursuit of justice to charge him with these crimes . So again, i would prefer you to the documents ive provided. There is a big gulf between sufficient evidence to go to trial and sufficient evidence to be confident in the outcome of that trial. And so if i could and ill give you a followup in a minute. But if i could, and so when this case and i provided a letter that outlines some of the time line of this. In july of 2007, the career staff from my office met and they said these are the four points that you will have to do in state court. And if not, we will proceed federally. They were very serious that they would proceed federally. That does not mean that they were confident in the final outcome. And one of the tough questions in these cases, what is the value of a secured guilty plea with registration versus rolling the dice. And i know that in 2019 looking back on 2008 things may look different. But this was the judgment of prosecutors with dozens of years of experience. If you look through that letter, you will see this was not a Single Person making those decisions. You wanted it follow up. You describe rolling the dice with the charges. And i understand that youre saying now that it is never a slam dunk. But it seems like youre making this out to be a case in which you held the possibility of a federal indictment over the head of mr. Epstein to get him to plead to a lesser crime and that in and of itself is against the a. D. A. I do not think that the office violated the a. B. A. Standards by negotiating strongly and forcefully. Sir. So standing here today, are you basically saying that you feel that you did everything you could, you got the best deal you could get and you have no regrets . We believe that we proceeded appropriately, that based on the evidence and not just my opinion, but ive shared the affidavit, based on the evidence, there was value to getting a guilty plea and having him register. Look, no regrets is a very hard question. At my confirmation hearing i was asked a similar question. One of the issues that i raised is we expect a lot more transparency today. As you watch these victim interviews, its very obvious that the victims feel that this was not a sufficient outcome. These victims were traumatized. We cant begin to understand what they went through. And they look at this and they say, but why . And so you always look back and you say what if. What i can say is at the time, and ive provided a timeline, ive provided information about the individuals involved. This was the view of the office. There is a value to a sure guilty plea because letting him walk, letting what the state attorney was ready to do go forward would have been absolutely awful. Secretary . Yes, ben penn from bloomberg law. In light of the attention this week on your handling back in 2008 victims of sex trafficking, i wanted to ask about your role today as a secretary of labor you have oversight through the wage and Hour Division of certifying visas for victims of Human Trafficking, including sex trafficking and just last week your wage and Hour Division issued a new policy that would essentially allow the agency its being criticized by a lot of people ive talked to for allowing the agency to remove itself or to virtually remove itself from continuing to refer these visas by referring them to other agencies. What was the purpose that far policy . So if you read the policy, that is not what it does. Our wage and hour administrator after she was confirmed came in, and she reviewed the policies. And she put in place a requirement that a criminal prosecutor be consulted any time one of these issues is brought to the divisions attention. That seems very reasonable. Dont we want criminal prosecutors to be consulted whenever someone says that they are victim of trafficking . And that prosecutor will be consulted. And even if that Prosecutor Says this is not a case that we are Going Forward with, the division will still consider whether to issue that visa on the facts. So that is a mischaracterization of her decision and her policy. Senator. Yes . Could you go into a bit more detail about where and how you exactly negotiated this deal . Did you meet with epsteins attorney alone at a Marriott Hotel . So, you know, ive read this and one of the things i find interesting is how facts become facts because theyre in a newspaper as opposed to the record. I pulled up i found out the details of that meeting because i scratch my own head about it. And i provided you a timeline in a letter of the negotiations that make it very clear that this was negotiated by career prosecutors. Im going to answer your question. The meeting that was alleged was a breakfast meeting that took place after the agreement was negotiated, not before. The agreement was signed in september. After the agreement was negotiated, one of epsteins attorneys asked for a meeting, asked for a hearing. I was giving a speech, i was staying at a hotel. I agreed to have a brief meeting i believe at 7 00 a. M. Rather than open the office i spoke with that attorney. And then i referred that attorney to the career prosecutors, nothing changed in that agreement. They continued to litigate the matter. They continued to appeal the matter to washington, and nothing changed with one exception. There was an addendum that made clear that epstein had to pay for any attorney that a victim that represented a victim in the cases against epstein. And so, yes, i met with opposing counsel. It was a breakfast meeting because i was staying at the hotel. It was after, after not before, and not part of the negotiations, but it was after the agreement had been negotiated. And that could be confirmed simply by looking at the date on the agreement and the date on the meeting. Do you think it was a good idea to do that . So, number one, the agreement had already been locked in place. So the agreement wasnt going to change. Before that agreement, i was very careful to not negotiate this. Our career attorneys negotiated the agreement. Secondly, id point out we live in a city where people have breakfast meetings all the time. We dont open an office at 7 00 in the morning just to have a meeting. You have it over breakfast. Secretary acosta, its not standard for a nonprosecution agreement to include a let me answer this. Ill come back to you. Dont the young girls i wanted to give an opportunity. Ill come back to you in a minute. Thank you, sir. You mentioned several times that you and the prosecutors in your office werent sure that you could secure a win in this case. But the very purpose of the cvra is to give the victims an opportunity to weigh in. And a federal judge ruled that you broke federal law by not doing so. Do you think that your thinking wouldve been different had you followed the law and consulted the victims . So, first, let me point out we followed Department Policy. Department policy at the time made very clear, and this is in a written statement that was sequential issued by what is called the office of Legal Counsel which is the chief policymaking, the chief legal arm of the department of justice, that these situations with nonprosecution agreements are not covered by the cvra at the time because the cvra according to Department Policy does not attach until a case is actually brought. Now i understand that the judge had a different view, and i understand that the judges view was that Department Policy did not comply with the laws. And thats the way our system works. Our system works in that a judge can say what the Department Policy is, is not consistent with the law. Now, let me also point out since then a few years ago congress amended the cvra, and congress amended it explicitly to say that nonprosecution agreements would be in fact covered. And that is a good thing. As i said at my confirmation hearing, we expect a lot more transparency. If we had had more transparency, perhaps this case wouldve gone differently. Ive laid out the reasons why there were concerns about providing all the details to the victims before epstein plead. But the department of justice has been very clear throughout multiple president ial administrations, throughout multiple attorneys general that the departments position is that there was no violation of the law. Secretary im sorry, your name and who youre with . Im Kaitlyn Collins for cnn. Would you make this same agreement today . So these questions are always very difficult. Because we now have 12 years of knowledge and hindsight, and we live in a very different world. Todays world treats victims very, very differently. Todays world does not allow some of the victimshaming that could have taken place at trial 12 years ago. Todays world understands that when interviewing victims when illiciting testimony, that testimony can sometimes be contradictory that memories are difficult. And so i dont think we can say, you know, take a case that is this old and fully know how it would play out today. But these victims say you failed them. I understand what the victims say, and im not here to try to say that i can stand in their shoes or that i can address their concerns. Im his or her to say we did what we did because we wanted to see epstein go to jail. He needed to go to jail. But he was out of jail before he found out about this agreement. He needed to go to jail. And that was the focus. John . Mr. Secretary, can i ask you a question about the etter alexander from nbc. To be clear, dozens of girls were allegedly molested. Why didnt you just keep investigating in that followup . So, the victims of which we were aware were part of this. Under the agreement in the Southern District of florida, the investigation ceased, and they had the opportunity to proceed civilly. That does not mean that the investigation had to cease nationwide. And as we see today, as we saw in new york, investigations could certainly and obviously proceeded in other districts. How could you be enforced to Human Trafficking laws given the history with this case . I started one of the first Human Trafficking task forces at the department of justice. I have been aggressive prosecuting Human Trafficking. We stood we stepped in, in this case. And we stopped a bad state. So i understand from todays perspective that people scratch their heads and they say why. Here is the question to ask. How many other times have you seen a u. S
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.