tv Making Money With Charles Payne FOX Business July 10, 2019 2:00pm-3:00pm EDT
capitol hill. we'll have the details what he said and what he meant with the things that he said. but first, i want head over to jennifer schoenberger at the federal reserve with the release of the fed minutes this is important as well. jennifer. reporter: charles, fed members circling around the notion of a rate cut. it is really a question of when, not if, internal discussions among fed officials at their policy meeting three weeks ago many think that the case for somewhat more accommodative policy has strengthened. several members thought additional accommodative policy would be warranted if trade tensions and slowing global growth continue to weigh on the outlook. federal officials think a rate cut could help blunt a shock to the economy, act as good risk management. there were some members thought that a rate cut was not yet warranted, that more data needed to be collected. when the fed met three weeks ago, they felt uncertainty to downside risks on slowing global
growth and trade had notably increased. they said significantly in the minutes. the fed thinks that trade tensions are weighing on business investment and business confidence. they discussed this at length at their meeting. while the base case is for a continued expansion in the economy, many attach, quote, significant odds to scenarios with less favorable out comes. now it is interesting to note that the fed did discuss how the markets expect a rate cut and that is creating more loose financial conditions. that perhaps if they weren't pricing in a rate cut, then the market would be more vulnerable to some of these uncertainties like slowing growth growth and change. was surprising to see fed officials more on the same page in terms of the out look on the economy and a rate cut would be warranted at one point and there was a small group in the fed that said not quite yet. back to you. charles: that group seems to get smaller, right, jennifer?
reporter: exactly. that is very interesting about this, charles. everyone seemed to be very concerned about the trade tensions, effect of tariffs, what that is doing to business investment. that the risks to the downside are markedly higher now. charles: thank you very much. flock of doves. fed chair jay powell told congress, his statement said since june trade tensions, global economy, economic concerns that continue to weigh on our economy and our outlook, that signaled the fed will cut-rates at the end of this month, but did he give us and indication how off? edward lawrence live on capitol hill. he has a recap of powell's testimony. edward. reporter: everyone was looking for 25 basis points, 50 basis points. the fed chairman did not give an indication on that front. he laid the groundwork if they do cut rates at the end of this month now. what is driving the market today, what is driving the market that federal reserve chairman jerome powell says inflation is muted. he said several members of the
fomc as you heard there were concerned about the inflation under their target of 2% range. that in itself from the federal reserve members could mean a rate cut is coming. the reserve undershot 2% target goal according to powell. he again believes they will be under that. 1.5, 1.6% with core pce. powell adds uncertainty in the trade war, trade tensions and the global economic slowdown have also seeped into the u.s. economy by businesses, not putting out, fixed income. fixed invests, occur more frequently as they had in the last year. he testified getting rid of some of that uncertainty would help. that includes, passing ratifying usmca. >> having it passed would remove a real bit of the uncertainty that that is weighing on the outlook. i think it would be quite a positive thing from that standpoint. reporter: it interesting, that
the fed focused around trade. a lot of members congress asked questions about trade related to this. they asked if the trade policy, tariff policy has impacted economy. now fed powell powell said the tariffs may work in the short term to get countries to the table but in the long-term it would add uncertainty to the economy. >>' agreed to begin discussions again with china that is a constructive step, that doesn't remove the uncertainty we see as overall weighing on the outlook. the bottom line for me, uncertainties on global growth and wade continue to weigh on the outlook. reporter: he is threading a needle here. comments and testimony leaning toward rate cut. he is not indicating how deep that cut will be. charles: edward lawrence, thank you very much. stocks hitting highs earlier in
the session after powell's written statement was released. we saw the market struggle during the question and answer period of his testimony. how clear was powell and what are the ramifications? let's bring in former dallas fed advisor, danielle dimartino booth, heather zumarriaga, and kaltbaum capital management president, gary kaltbaum. let me start with you, danielle, when you sat down, you think 50 basis point in july back on the table? >> he was so much more dovish i think the the greatest optimists were hoping for. by the time he finished his testimony the markets priced in 33% probability of a 50 basis point cut in july? that had been completely priced out prior to this testimony. so that is how much he is delivered. i think everything keys off of one word that you hear both in his testimony, in his statement and in the minutes. that is many. there is a broad consensus or at least the fed is trying to communicate that there is a broad consensus. remember just a few months ago,
when bullard dissented, the idea -- charles: right. he was the lone maverick. >> but minutes from that meeting revealed there was a lot of dissent, a lot of disagreement on the committee. this is the flip side. the complete opposite of it. they're painting a picture of cohesive unit outside of one or two super hawks. but otherwise focus on that word many. charles: heather that could be a key these sieve unit of doves. i'm not sure what a flock of doves are called. neel kashkari, doesn't get a note. he advocated 50 basis points. what have you heard from the minutes, jennifer's testimony and the what does it mean for the market? >> i think the markets are liking the fact the fed will remain accommodative. there are three key things, take wais i heard fed chair powell say. one, crosscurrents reemerged since may. a weakness in global growth could impact the u.s. economy. he is blaming tariffs for the
trade uncertainty. that is outside of the fed's scope of policy. so, there is nothing really, the fed's hands are tied on imminent issue of china trade situation. so he just has to react to it and that's why they are quote, unquote, dovish as you say. charles: you know, gary i think the fed to a degree powell may be using the tariff thing as a smokesscreen for having made a mistake in december, add as certain type of urgency. i want to ask you something else as a critic of the federal reserve in the first place. did you find it amazing, first of all, alexandria ocasio-cortez asked perhaps one of the best questions, getting the fed to admit their policy of, this whole thing they believed in so long, that higher wages and low unemployment instantly meant inflationary pressure. he admitted the so-called phillips curve hasn't worked. i thought that was remarkable admission on his part, particularly since the fed has been losing a lot of
credibility. >> phillip has left the building, let me put it that way. i've been against the central banks for a very long time because i just believe they have been reacting to markets and not economies. we're being told right now we have the greatest economy ever, we have gdp in the 3s, unemployment in the 3s, oh, but my goodness gracious we have to lower rate down to 2.25 or maybe even 2%? for me it is all about the markets. i think the economy is in decent shape. it is not the greatest ever. certainly not the worst. i think we have a big race to the bottom. i was just, charles, there were 14 junk bonds in europe that have negative interest rates, junk bonds. you have italy doing a 50 year bond at 2.8%. they have massive debt, spending problems. for whatever is going on, rates are coming lower. markets love it as long as the economies don't fall into real bad recession. looks like the big cap indices
are headed higher. i will say this, small caps, mid-caps are not moving, transports aren't moving. financials are not moving. quite the split tape. stay on the large caps. >> that is the problem. if everybody globally is lowering rates and central banks around the world remain accommodative, germany, negative 30 something basis points at some point in time that is making it very difficult for us to hike rates because we're in an interconnected global economy now. that is the problem. >> i don't think rate hikes are even going to be part of the discussion for a very long time. if you look back at the history, the average monthly rate cut is about one quarter point, when the actual rate cutting cycle gets started. the fact that many members of the committee stated in the minutes that they have concerns beyond potentially just reversing that one december rate hike, jay powell didn't talk about the insurance rate cut today. and i think that goes to show
you this is going to be, you know, today's priced in three rate cuts this year all over again. that means, to gary's point, this will be a race to the bottom. it wouldn't take us a few months before we were back at zero bound before the election. charles: by the same token he answered congresswoman tlaib's question, are you comfortable being able to combat the next downturn with limited amount of rate cuts? he is happy with the tools he has. >> he is alluding to quantitative easing. charles: quantitative easing is always there for them. let me ask, their neutral rate, where they want -- it has come down a lot since september. >> of course it has come down. they forced it down. charles: another democrat brought up the point that wages are just now starting to go up. why would the federal reserve even entertain hiking rates when mainstream america hasn't had a raise, real raise in decades and snub that? >> with all deference to the congressman average weekly wages topped out at 4% in january. they have since declined to
2.7%. whatever the fed is doing -- charles: the fed shin raise rates? >> no, they should not be raising rates, not at all? >> could i interject? the best friend of this fed has been the market itself. the 10-year down to 2% gives them cover. it enables them. they can go down to 1 1/2, 1.75 on fed funds. i have to tell you, low rates on the long end are already doing the job. they're already providing a tailwind for whatever this economy needs to combat whether the tariffs are having problem. whether europe is slowing down. whether china is slowing down. for me, you know what i think longer term, the debt and deficits, i found quite interesting that powell said, debt is unsustainable but then he says we have to raise the debt ceiling to get those two things out. help me, lord. >> they need help from the fiscal side of the equation. the. charles: tell you what. he admitted a lot today, you know what? a lot of this stuff they're just not sure of.
perhaps they will start changing. we'll see. >> we'll see it when we see it, won't we? charles: gary, thanks a lot. meanwhile calls from both republicans and democrats for his resignation. we're talking about labor secretary alex acosta. he will hold a news conference later this hour. sources are telling fox he is expected to provide a forceful defense of his handling of jeffrey epstein's non-prosecution agreement. that was a decade ago in florida. we'll bring you those comment. his comment to you live as they're happening. joe biden making waves again, this time revealing he earned $15 million in two years after leaving the white house. middle class joe. revelations come same day as bernie slammed billionaire tom steyer entering the race because he is too rich. will the same treatment happen to joe? ♪
office, the 2020 front-runner disclosed he and his wife earned $15 million since 2017. they say mostly through speaking and book deals. not bad, right? this comes on the back of billionaire tom steyer announced he was entering the race, news bernie sanders did not embrace. >> i like tom personally but i do have to say as somebody who in this campaign has received two million campaign contributions, averaging i believe $19 a person, i am a bit tired of seeing billionaires trying to buy political power. so i like tom. he is a good guy, but he is a friend of mine but i'm not a great fan billionaires getting involved in the political process. charles: co-chair of sanders campaign, california congressman ro khanna. >> thank you, charles for having me on. charles: bernie sanders had to
defend the fact he is in the 1% with money he made. some people wondering where he comes down on the idea, okay, vice president joe biden, $15 million in two years. that is not exactly middle class stuff and is that a symptom of a society overpays certain people, whether it is celebrities or folks with power or access to power or something you think sanders will be okay with? >> look the vice president was in the middle class for most of his life. when he became vice president he had very little savings. i don't begrudge him after lifetime of service he went out and wrote books and made speeches, as long as he is not self-financing the campaign i really don't think that should be an issue. charles: that is the distinction between him and a billionaire like tom steyer? >> exactly. no one has a problem with tom steyer running. no one has a problem with him talking about climate change. he should commit he will not spend his own fortune. that he will do what 23 other candidates are doing, doing hard
work of raising funds, getting actual public support. what rubs people the wrong way, to say i'm going to try to spend my fortune to try to buy votes. charles: do you feel like there is some sense of on a roy any though? you have democratic candidates achieved the american dream, running on platforms that the american dream is dead? >> no. i think people believe that the american dream is very much possible. what they want to see more people have opportunity to the american dream. look, fdr was extraordinarily wealthy but he had policies that expanded opportunity for most americans. people in this country don't begrudge wealth. they don't begrudge success. they want to make sure everyone has a equal opportunity to achieve that. charles: do you think, i know you've been a pretty big advocate, this week we had the cbo sort of score higher minimum wage. they to $10, $12, $15. do you think that is the best way to get that going? get the so-called middle class
and lower income households on their way toward the american dream? or could there be a better way than that? >> it is one of the solutions. we need to invest in education. we need to create more technology opportunities. look, amazon went to $15 wage, they're a trillion dollar company. they're still a trillion dollar company. it didn't hurt the stock but helped 350,000 workers. what we're saying in a economy with trillion dollar corporations creating extraordinary wealth, let's make sure everyone working hard has some stake in it. we can afford to be paying workers $15, when we see huge increases in their productivity. charles: it is always interesting when someone in the government starts to talk about private industry as we. in other words, private industries in our country are part of the public domain. >> they're still american -- charles: you know how that can spare people off? >> they're american companies. i do believe companies have an
obligation to this country, we all do, whether you're a congressman, whether you're a ceo. i think your first obligation, your first duty is to the united states of america before anything else. you have an obligation to this nation. charles: before i let you go, joe biden, by almost every account got roughed up a little bit in the first debate. his numbers drifted a little bit. he made an apology. he made some shifts. do you think this will force him to shift even further to the left in the coming days ahead of the next debate? >> i think he will have to articulate bolding progressive policies to match the moment. i hope these debate don't become personal. i don't want character attacks on the vice president. i hope the debate will be about foreign policy. who will advocate for more restraint, more war. about trade deals. who will go after the bad trade deals. who will bring back the manufacturing base. let's leave the personal stuff out of it. charles: sir, if we can make that the rule also for the general election i think most
americans would be happy as well. >> i agree with that, charles thanks for having me on. charles: secretary acosta will have a 2:30 news conference overalls for his resignation involving that 2018 plea deal with jeffrey epstein. we'll bring it to you live. first president trump issuing a strong warning to iran, that their rogue behavior will not be tolerated. fox news national security analyst, walid phares here in studio with his expert analysis next. how is going? ♪
can't see what it is yet.re? what is that? that's a blazer? that's a chevy blazer? aww, this is dope. this thing is beautiful. i love the lights. oh man, it's got a mean face on it. it looks like a piece of candy. look at the interior. this is nice. this is my sexy mom car. i would feel like a cool dad. it's just really chic. i love this thing. it's gorgeous. i would pull up in this in a heartbeat. i want one of these. that is sharp. the all-new chevy blazer. speaks for itself. i don't know who they got to design this but give them a cookie and a star.
iran's activities. with europe pushing back, how will iran react? here to discuss fox news national security analyst walid phares. walid, i was anxious about this, because it felt like iran had europe over a barrel. now to see that the europeans stepping up, first uk seize ad ship on its way to syria, then the official sanction or at least comment, maybe feels like europe won't blink? >> the trump administration is moving strongly on this issue. it is having an effect on europe, also remember we have arab coalition, saudi, eau, jordan, egypt, it is working. we need to message the iranian leadership, if you cross certain red lines there will be a different kind of business. charles: would additional sanctions be the message? would they hear that loud and clear? >> the sanctions have to be put, there is no doubt about it. really receiving people from the opposition, doing in iran what we're doing in venezuela with
guaido. charles: how do we do that? there is a tougher nation. a lot of unrest on the ground but hard to penetrate it? >> we can link up with but the real exiles are what we work with, they, the exiles in the arab world, europe, america, many who are american citizens are ones that could help us. charles: what do you think iran does next? they are a long ways from the nuclear limit they agreed to. a long ways from nuclear bomb material but they threaten continue to ratchet up the ability he have six at this days? >> charles, they're trying to scared the europeans to point epsilon. charles: what happens when the realization they can't bully europe, europe is on our side, the world is on our side, what do they do next? >> terrorism. charles: terrorism? >> yes, sir. charles: wow. i want to ask but the uk pam ambassador to the united states, kim darroch.
he bashed the trump administration. will this mend the situation between the two nations? they have a conservative government coming in. that was pretty tough language for an ambassador? >> well all ambassadors, most of them, i know that, i know many of the diplomatic core in washington they do say things like that sometimes, not with the media. the problem it was leaked. at the end of the day the relationship between the u.s. and uk will strong, not because of that incident but public opinion here and there. they're getting together. charles: corbyn, jeremy hunt and boris had a debate yesterday. it was brought up, boris sided with trump. hunt sided with ambassador. does that change the brexit vote? >> i don't think so. brexit will be decided by the public in britain and by the europeans in brussels. charles: i got less than a minute. ask you about border apprehensions, down 28%. looks like mexico certainly stepped up what happens next.
>> that is what we spoke about many years, an agreement with mexico will do it. mexico will need to do more not just on our border guess what? from the southern border. the flow is coming from central america we need to help them. charles: narrow funnel, should be easier job. apparently they have deployed a lot of national guards people. >> they did. we need to join with them. if we cooperate with then, we seal it off, they need to go to their south as well. charles: walid, always fantastic having you as guest, but especially in studio. >> thank you, sir. >> we're waiting for secretary acosta to take questions from the media, handling in 2018 case involving billionaire financeer jeffrey epstein. we'll bring it to you live as it happens. president trump sounding off on calls to boycott home depot, after cofounder bernie marcus strongly supported the president's re-election bid. within one week america loses two icons who fought against conventional wisdom, lee lee
lee iacocca, rosser row. why their missions are still reverberating today. ♪ under this buttonwood tree, is where people first gathered to form the stock exchange which brought people together to invest in all the things that move us forward. every day, invesco combines ideas with technology, data with inspiration, investors with solutions. because the possibilities of life and investing are greater when we come together. ♪ content on their endless quest, to nowhere.s, run hopelessly in their cage. but perhaps this year, a more exhilarating endeavor awaits.
charles: we go to labor secretary acosta. >> let me start by reiterating that i'm pleased the new york prosecution is going for war. they 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 the new york prosecution offers an important opportunity to more fully bring epstein to justice. in 2008 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 attorney's office in miami became involved. epstein got an ultimatum. plead guilty to a charge that would require jail time and registration, or, face federal charges. and that was the week more than 10 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. attorney's office. in 2006 a grand jury convened by the state attorney, the district attorney of palm beach county, reviewed the evidence, and recommended a single charge. and that charge would have resulted in no jail time at all,
no registration as a sexual offender and no restitution to the victim. further, the state attorney's office allowed epstein to self-surrender and arraigned him the following morning. simply put, the palm beach state attorney's office was ready to let epstein walk free, no jail time, nothing. prosecutors in my former office found this to be completely unacceptable. they became involved. our office became involved. our prosecutors as the 2008 article recounts, presented an ultimatum, plead guilty to more serious charges, charges that required jail time registration and restitution or we would roll the dice and bring a federal indictment. 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 non-prosecution agreement. a good prosecutor will tell you that these cases are complex, especially when they involve children. even more so in 2006. i've shared with those in this room today, will make available publicly an affidavit filed 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 didn't want people to know about them.
she goes on to write that, quote, after the fact, people alleged that epstein would have been easily convicted. as the prosecutor who handled the investigation, she says in this affidavit, these contentions oh look the facts that existed at the time. her description of these facts are corroborated by the fbi case agent whose affidavit i 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 prosecutor to ask whether a plea that guaranties jail time and guaranties registration, to ask whether that plea versus going to trial, how do you weigh those two?
if going to trial is viewed as the role of a dice. the goal here was straightforward, put epstein behind bars, insured he registered as a sexual offender, provide victims with the means to seek restitution, protect the public by putting them on in the that a 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 loud epstein to self-surrender. and so it is unusual for a federal prosecutor to intervene in a state matter such as this.
we have seen cases recently, different set of facts, different, i don't want to say anyone i'm comparing these cases but we've seen other cases where state prosecutors let folks go with no sentence and people shake their heads m this case the federal intervened before the plea was taken and said stop, because if that plea is taken at the state level, you're 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 that 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's what the prosecutors of my office did. they insisted that he go to jail and put the world on in the that he was and is a sexual predator. epstein's 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 this new york prosecution.
it is the absolutely right thing to do, and i'm happy to take questions. eric. reporter: >> how would you describe your relationship with the president, the news, cycle here with epstein changing that? >> my relationship with the president is outstanding. he has, i think very publicly made clear that i have 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, our relationship is excellent too. and that any articles to the contrary are in his words, bs. and, so it is, i'm here. i'm defending this case. that's my job.
tom? reporter: abc news. secretary, a lot of people are watching this news conference, including several young woman who say they were teenagers when jeffrey epstein secondly assaulted them. they say you went to you looking for help, they didn't hear back until it was too late. do you owe them an apology? >> so, you're raising the issue of victim notification and, in the documents that i have circulated, i have addressed the issue of victim notification as well. the career prosecutor in this case had a difficult decision to make, she didn't 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. 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 if she disclosed that, and the negotiations fell through, epstein's counsel would use this to question the victim's credibility and her concerns were not hypothetical. one of epstein's attorneys already asked one of the victims, quote, now tell me when the federal prosecutors told you about getting money. so when the agreement was signed shortly after the agreement was
signed, epstein's counsel indicated that epstein may not comply with the agreement, the agreement was appealed at various 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. we would have to go to trial. we had to weigh the issue of how much to disclose against the issue, 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. she talks about how over the weekend she made every effort to notify the victims at that time. reporter: why did -- reporter: mr. secretary you earlier described the approach -- [inaudible] as openly to mr. epstein. i wanted to draw your attention to -- [inaudible] s supported by probable cause. admissible evidence would be
sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and in terms of justice. did you believe, sir, that the evidence against epstein was not sufficient to secure conviction beyond a reasonable doubt for the federal offenses leading to non-prosecution agreement? and if so, why was it not in issues of justice to charge him with these crimes? >> again i would refer you to the documents i have 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, i will give you a follow-up in a minute, but if i could, and so when this case, and, i provided a letter that outlined some of the timeline of this, in july of 2007, the career staff from my
office met and they said these are the four point that you will have to do in state court. 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. 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 2018, things may look different but this was the judgment of prosecutors with dozens of years of experience. if you look through that letter, you see this was not a single person making those decisions. wanted to follow up. reporter: you described [inaudible] roll the dice with charges, and
i understand you're saying now that it is never a slam-dunk but, it seems, it seems you're making this out to be a case in which you withheld possibility of a federal indictment over the head of mr. epstein to plead to a lesser crime. that in of itself is against the aba -- >> i do not think that the office violated the aba standards by negotiating strongly and forcefully. reporter: 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 we proceeded appropriately. that based on the evidence, and not just my opinion, i have 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. ad my confirmmation hearing i was asked a similar question and one of the, one of the issues that i raised we expect a lot more transparency today. as you watched these victim interviews, it is very obvious that the victims feel that this was not a sufficient outcome. these victims were traumatized. we can't begin to understand what they went through. and they look at this, they say, but why? and so you always look back and you say, what if? what i can say is at the time, and i provided the timeline, i 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. reporter: yes, ben penn from bloomberg law. you know, in light of the attention this week on your handling of, back in 2008 victims of sex trafficking i wanted to ask about your role today as 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 essentially allowed agency, criticized a lot of people i talk to allowing the agency to completely remove itself or virtually remove
itself to certify visas referring them to other agencies. how can you defend, what is the purpose staff policy? >> if you read the policy, that is not what it does. our wage and hour administrator after she confirmed, she came in and reviewed the policies. she put in place a requirement that criminal prosecutor be consulted anytime one of these issues is brought to the division's attention. that seems very reasonable. don't we want criminal prosecutors to be consulted when ever someone says they're a victim of trafficking? that prosecutor will be consulted. 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. yes? >> reporter: go into more detail where and how you exactly
negotiated this deal? did you meet with epstein's attorney alone at a marriott hotel? >> so, you know, i have read this and one of the things i find interesting is how, how facts become facts because they're in the newspaper as opposed to the record. i pulled up, i found out the details of that meeting because i scratched my own head about it. i provided you a timeline and a letter of the negotiations that make it very clear that this was negotiated by career prosecutors. the, i'm 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 epstein's 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. 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. 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. yes, i met with opposing counsel. it was a breakfast meeting because i was staying at the hotel. it was afters after, not before, not part of the negotiations, after the agreement had been negotiated. that can be confirmed by simply looking at the date on the agreement and the date on the meeting. reporter: good idea to do that? >> so, number one, the agreement had already been locked in place. so the agreement wasn't going to
change. it was, before that agreement i was very careful to not negotiate this. our career attorneys negotiated the agreement. secondly i would point out, we live in city where people have breakfast meetings all the time. you don't open an office at 7:00 in the morning just to have a meeting. you have it over breakfast. reporter: secretary acosta is that standard for a non-prosecution agreement -- >> let me do. i had called. i will come back to you. reporter: don't young girls. >> i want to give him an opportunity. come back to you in a minute. reporter: thank you, sir. you mentioned several times that you and the prosecutors in your office weren't sure that you could secure a win in this case. but the very purpose of the, of the cbra is to give the victims an opportunity to weigh in. federal judge ruled that you broke federal law by not doing so. do you think, you're thinking would have been different had
you followed the law, consulted the victims? >> first let me, 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 subsequently issued by what is called the office of legal counsel which is the chief policy making, the chief legal arm of the department of justice, that these situations with non-prosecution agreements are not covered by the cbra at the time because the cbra, 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 judge's view was that the department policy did not comply with the law. and that's 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, congress amended the cbra. congress amended it explicitly to say that non-prosecution agreements would be in fact covered. that is a good thing. as i said at my confirmation hearing. you know, we expect a lot more transparency if we had had more transparency perhaps this case would have i have laid out the reasons why there were concerns about providing all the details to the victims before epstein pled. but the department of justice has been very clear throughout multiple presidential administrations, throughout multiple attorneys general that the department's position is that there was no violation of the law. i'm sorry, your name and who
you're with? reporter: katelin collins for cnn. would you make the same agreement today? >> these questions are always very difficult, because we now have 12 years of knowledge and hindsight and we live in a very different world. today's world treats victims very, very differently. today's world does not allow some of the victim shaming that could have taken place at trial 12 years ago. today's world understands that when interviewing victims, when eliciting testimony, that testimony can be sometimes contradictory, that memories are difficu difficult. and so i don't think we can say, you know, take a case that is this old and fully know how it would play out today. reporter: these victims say you failed them. >> i understand what the victims
say, and i'm not here to try to say that i can stand in their shoes or that i can address their concerns. i'm here to say we did what we did because we wanted to see epstein go to jail. he needed to go to jail. reporter: but he was out of jail -- >> he needed to go to jail and that was -- that was the focus. john? john? reporter: mr. secretary, can i ask you a question about -- reporter: pete alexander. to be clear, dozens of girls were allegedly molested. why didn't you just keep investigating? >> so the victims of which we were aware were part of this and under the agreement in the
southern district of florida, the investigations 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 have proceeded in other districts. reporter: how can you be trusted to enforce human trafficking laws as secretary of labor given your history with this case? >> so i have been -- 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 today's perspective that people scratch their heads and they say why. here's the question to ask. how many other times have you seen a u.s. attorney's office