EFTA00009116

Page 300 1 A Yeah. 2 right about that same time, he quite quickly 3 identified a potential problem, and that was the commitment 4 for the -- or, the agreement that the U.S. Attorney's Office 5 would identify the representative for the victims. Do you 6 recall him raising that? 7 A I don't recall him raising that as an issue, but I know it was an issue. Q All right. /t was an issue, and it was one that he 10 raised as soon as he came back. So, there was an effort, 11 which he conducted then in Ma absence to craft 12 an NPA addendum to address that issue. 13 Do you -- are you -- are you aware that MI received a copy of the NPA in November when Ken Starr wrote a letter to asking her to review the 22.55 portion of it? Do you -- do you remember that issue? A I remember that the issue was appealed to CEOS. Q Okay. Well, it was -- it was appealed initially by 19 letter to , raising an issue that was new to -- 20 that had not been raised with you, and that is what led to 21 your letter to Ken Starr on December 4. 22 A I will accept the timeline. Q Okay. 24 A It's difficult without all the documents -- Q Sure. EFTA00009116 Page 301 1 2 A -- but yes. Q And at the time theta/MEM saw the NPA, 3 he sent a message to MO about the -- about his view 4 of the NPA, and you didn't see it, but I just wanted to name 5 some problems that he identified with the disposition, and 6 get your reaction -- 7 A Mm-hmm. 8 Q -- to it. So, first, he says I'm not thrilled 9 about the agreement, but he acknowledges that's out of his 10 hands. He says in terms of the charging and sentencing 11 provisions, he's getting -- Epstein is getting a much better 12 deal than the average defendant, with the exception of 13 defendants who have done physical harm to their victims or 14 abused very young children, we haven't seen more egregious 15 conduct, because of its serial nature. The area we need to 16 be most careful about relates to the victims. 17 The U.S. should seek to ensure that the plea, which 18 is not giving him serious jail time, provides the best means 19 possible to address the harm he caused to the victims. That 20 generally means restitution and/or therapy. While the 21 agreement provides facility for the victims, the relevant 22 terms still seem pretty advantageous for the defendant, and 23 not all that helpful to the victims. 24 They get an attorney who will be paid by the 25 defendant, which involves at least some conflict of interest, EFTA00009117 Page 302 1 or they could hire their own attorneys on a contingency 2 basis, and they get waivers from the defendant when his plea 3 would facilitate their civil cases in any event. Then, they 4 still have to sue him to get anything. Most times with wealthy defendants, we make them 6 agree to a restitution fund, and then still provide that the 7 victims can sue the defendant independently if they choose. We always make them clearly admit their guilt, no nolo pleas. 9 This is incredibly important to the victims. I 10 would have taken the guy to trial unless the victims were 11 clearly against it, and I don't think most of them are here. 12 He then says to , who by this time is working 13 for -- 14 A Mm-hmm. 15 16 A Right. 17 Q So, that's the context in which he's addressing it. 18 specifies that, ' wouldn't and 19 shouldn't address the agreement." So, that -- so that the 20 issue that was then before put there by Ken 21 Starr, was the -- whether this 22.55 scheme or scenario set 22 out in the NPA was appropriate. It appears that she then 23 sent that back to you to address. 24 A Right. 25 Q But as far as commentary on the NPA, EFTA00009118 Pagel 303 if you had been aware of this perspective at the time you were -- that you and your people were fashioning the NPA, would that have been helpful to you in -- in deciding out to proceed? A So, may I? Q Yes. A Okay. I assume you've read the whole thing, but 8 let me just take a 9 Q I have. 10 A And so, a few comments. First, let me say, he was 11 part of the September meeting. 12 Q Me-hmm. 13 A And -- and to my recollection, these 14 perspectives -- so, so, at least the outlines of the 15 agreement were -- were disclosed at that meeting, and I don't 16 recall this type of communication at that time. 17 Q Okay. 18 A I also recall that there was a lot of back and 19 forth around this restitution fund concept, and our 20 perspective was that the restitution fund puts the victim at 21 a disadvantage -- 22 Q Me-hmm. 23 A -- because -- let me -- let me try to recreate. I 24 don't recall the details, but I recall that there was a 25 perspective that the restitution fund -- EFTA00009119 Page 304 Q MO-hmm. -- put the victims as a disadvantage -- 4 Mm-hmm. A -- and there is some reference to -- Q It's the -- A Was it an Alaska case? Q It's called the case. 5 MR. THE WITNESS I'm sorry? IC MR. 11 THE WITNESS NM 12 MS. or 13 THE WITNESS a=? 14 BY MS. 15 Q Yeah. 16 A And so to the extent that there were better ways of 17 crafting this, that certainly would have been -- been highly 18 relevant, because to my recollection, we were not wed to any 19 particular way of crafting it. 20 The -- the intent of the 22.55 was to come as close 21 as possible to putting the victims in the -- in the position 22 they would have been had he been tried and convicted 23 federally. And so, the answer to your question is yes. 24 Q Is yes, that would have -- 25 A Would have been helpful. EFTA00009120 Page 305 1 Q Okay. As you set about addressing the 22.55, you 2 consulted with . Do you recall that? 3 A I -- I recall consultations. I don't recall that 4 it was specifically with a but -- 5 Q Did you know her? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Okay, and do you recall the nature of your 8 interaction with her? 9 A I -- I don't. I know from contemporary review of 10 the record, that there is an e-mail from her. Q It's 41a. A 41a. Q And what I -- what I want to ask is, is simply, 41a is -- is an e-mail in which you ask -- you note to 15 , who was 16 A Right. Q -- one of her deputies, and she oversaw CEOS. She, 18 , mentioned to you that was looking at 19 this, which is the -- A 22.55. 21 Q -- 22.55, she contacts her counterpart in the civil 22 division, and there's an e-mail from him, 23 which is the second page of this exhibit, which he copies you 24 on. So, my question is, is this the extent of your 25 interaction with on this issue? EFTA00009121 Page 306 1 A I -- 12 years -- 2 Q Okay. 3 A -- after the fact, I don't remember. 4 Q Okay. All right. The -- in Exhibit 35, there is a 5 letter from Jay Lefkowitz in which -- I'm sorry, it's an e- 6 mail from Jay Lefkowitz. 7 A Exhibit? 8 Q Exhibit 35 to you, and this is substantially later, 9 but it has a sentence that -- or a phrase that we'd like to 10 ask you about, and -- all right, it's highlighted at the top. 11 It says, back in the beginning of -- back at the beginning of 12 January, when we both agreed that there were significant 13 irregularities with the deferred prosecution agreement, you 14 called a time out. Is that accurate? Did you and he agree 15 that -- 16 A No. 17 Q -- there were significant irregularities? 18 A No. 19 Q Okay. 20 A And if I could, there are -- there are several 21 instances where not just, to me, but to other people as well, 22 Jay recharacterizes conversations. 23 Q Recharactorizes them inaccurately? 24 A Inaccurately. 25 Q Or misleadingly? EFTA00009122 Page 307 1 A Or misleadingly. 2 Q All right. 3 A What I recall agreeing to at some point is there 4 was an appeal to the DAG, or there was an appeal in place, 5 and I basically said -- I think there was a letter that I 6 sent, saying if you want to appeal, go ahead. We're not 7 concerned about this. 8 Q MM-hmm. 9 A But that doesn't mean that I agree that there were 10 irregularities -- 11 Q All right. 12 A -- or that there was a time out, that's -- I'm part 13 of a department. I'm part of a hierarchy. If someone wants 14 to overrule me, that's okay by me. 15 Q All right. So, the NPA addendum was worked out, 16 and the defense team continued its sort of multi-pronged 17 assault. In the middle of the negotiations between 18 and Lefkowitz about the NPA addendum, that's when you had the 19 much commented on breakfast -- 20 A Correct. 21 Q -- on October 12, and you have stated publicly that 22 at -- perfectly accurately that the NPA was signed, and that 23 was a done deal. And so, that -- that this was not tied in 24 any way to any effort to influence the terms of the NPA, 25 fair? EFTA00009123 Page 308 1 A Fair, because the way this was reported was that I 2 negotiated it over breakfast. It was signed, and that's 3 really important. 4 Q Of course. There were, however, a number of open S issues -- 6 A Yes. 7 Q -- right? And in Exhibit 28, Jay Lefkowitz on page 8 two, this is an e-mail to you, acknowledges your -- your 9 breakfast on Friday. This is dated October 18, and -- and 10 following -- following up on -- your conversation with him 11 about the date for Epstein's plea. 12 So, he notes that, "You said you didn't want to 13 dictate a schedule to the state." So, all I want to note is 14 that when you had the breakfast, there was there was 15 there were issues still open that were the subject of 16 discussions between the defense and the U.S. Attorney's 17 Office. 18 And -- and so, I guess my question is, while that 19 was a meeting of convenience in a public place, in a location 20 where you had business later that day, a speech, I believe, 21 optically, do you understand the public concern that this was 22 sort of a one on one negotiation on pending issues? 23 A So, I -- I understand how there can be concern. 24 This, you know, it is -- it was not unusual -- in this case, 25 I actually very intentionally waited, and tried not to have EFTA00009124 Page 309 1 one on one meetings, but there are other instances where : 2 might from time to time have one on one conversations with 3 the opposing counsel. 4 I don't remember the breakfast. I can speculate 5 that one of the issues that was informing this was somewhere 6 around this time, and I can't say with certainty that this 7 was what it was, but somewhere around this time, there arose 8 allegations that had directed the designation to her 9 boyfriend's partner, or something along those lines. 10 Q A former -- I believe it was a former law school 11 classmate of her former -- of her then boyfriend. 12 A 1 don't -- yeah, and so I don't remember what the 13 details -- 14 Q Okay. 15 A -- were, but I know that that was a topic that he 16 wanted to raise -- 17 Q 18 A -- with me. 19 Q Did he at that breakfast? 20 A I honestly -- I don't recall the breakfast. 21 Q Okay. 22 A You asked me about one characterization of what I 23 said in the record, you know, of that breakfast. I think I 24 responded -- 25 Q Mm-hmm. EFTA00009125 Page 310 1 A through, or my counsel responded, and they're 2 pointing out that I seem fairly perturbed at how he 3 inaccurately characterized something that I said. And so, we 4 don't need to revisit that, but -- 5 Q Uh-uh. All right. If you look at Exhibit 27, 6 another sort of point, just to kind of -- 7 A All right. 8 MR. : Could we -- before we -- 9 MS. : Yes? 10 MR. : -- leave -- are we leaving the 11 breakfast meeting? 12 MS. : No. This is -- 13 THE WITNESS Okay. 14 MS. : -- this is directly related. 15 MR. : Okay. 16 BY MS. 17 Q And that is, Exhibit 27 is the second e-mail down, 18 is from to Jay Lefkowitz. The date is October 19 12, so that's the same day as your breakfast. 20 A Right. 21 Q And the date of it is not I'm sorry, the time is 22 9:48 a.m. Your breakfast was at 7:00. So, this would have 23 been pretty shortly after your breakfast, and writes 24 to Jay Lefkowitz with a copy to you and 25 stating that he just got off the phone with you, that is, EFTA00009126 1 S Page 311 just got off the phone with you, and then he furnishes 2 a revised paragraph one, which suggests -- I mean, I infer 3 from that that shortly after the breakfast, you had a phone 4 conversation with i a about a revision to this 5 paragraph, and that -- that that was likely something that 6 you talked to him about. Again, I'm not -- 7 8 9 A Right. Q -- suggesting that this -- A Again, I -- I don't -- I don't recall the 10 breakfast, so I can't say one way or the other. I -- I 11 take -- I take your point. I don't recall seeing this. 12 Q All right. Well, it was -- 13 A But -- 14 Q -- you were copied on it. Okay. All right. 15 you wanted to -- 16 BY MR. 17 Q I just wanted to point to Exhibit 30. 18 A Can -- can we back up a second? 19 MS. : Sure. 20 THE WITNESS , I'm not sure whether your 21 concerns are -- so, I would -- I would only raise the 22 question where -- or, the point where, based on this, and I 23 don't recall, so I can't speak, but is saying, Jay 24 suggests revision has been rejected. Here is our latest, 25 EFTA00009127 Page 312 1 And so, to -- there are multiple ways to read this. 2 One is that this was raised. Another is that we're rejecting 3 something that Jay had proposed, and -- 4 5 MS. : Mm-hmm. THE WITNESS -- because I was meeting with Jay, I 6 asked that not reject it until after I met with him, and 7 I -- I'm speculating, because I don't recall the topic, but 8 it does appear that it says, Jay suggested revision has been 9 rejected. Here is our latest. 10 MS. : All right. Thank you. 11 BY MR. 12 Q Can we just go to Exhibit 30 quickly? There's some 13 highlighted language. This is a letter from Lefkowitz to you 14 on October 23rd, 2007, where he recounts, again, the things 15 that happened, or his version of the October 12th breakfast 16 meeting. 17 A Yes. 18 Q Are you at that -- 19 A Yes. 20 Q -- at that point right there, Exhibit 30? 21 A Yeah, I'm there. 22 Q Okay. So, in the highlighted language, if you 23 could just take a look at that quickly? 24 A Yes. 25 Q So, he is recounting that you had assured him that EFTA00009128 1 EVEN/NG SESSION 2 6:00 P.M. 3 the office would not intervene with the state's attorney's 4 office, and -- or contact the civil claimants, or intervene S regarding the sentence that Epstein receives pursuant to a 6 plea agreement. 11 Q So, is he correct in his recounting that? A Can you -- can you find that for me? Q Yeah. A So, again, I don't have an independent 12 recollection. Oh, no, I'm looking -- 13 MS. : Oh, you have it. 14 THE WITNESS -- for something -- I don't have an 15 independent recollection of that breakfast, but in the 16 contemporaneous e-mails and the contemporaneous record, there 17 is correspondence between -- between and I, and you all 18 asked for this, and I I spoke with my counsel, who then 19 responded, and there's an e-mail exchange where there's an 20 October 20 -- this was an October 23rd e-mail -- October 23rd 21 letter. 22 And then there is a response that's drafted on 23 October 25th. I don't know if we can find that. From 24 to Jay that specifically addresses the point, and then I 25 respond -- runs that by me, and I respond -- I edit the EFTA00009129 Page 314 1 letter, and I move it -- I sort of emphasize -- like, I make 2 it firmer, and my edit says our office cannot and will not 3 agree to this, and then my comment to is, what do you 4 think of this rewrite? Is it too strong? S 6 7 BY MR.IIMIE: Q What day was that? A That was two days after this. I don't know if we 8 can find that in the -- in the chronological record. That 9 was October 25th. Let's just take a minute. Is that what 10 you have? 11 MR. : Sorry, apparently my ability to separate 12 paper has failed. 13 THE WITNESS Okay. So, this is -- 14 MR. : Oh, I see. 15 THE WITNESS So -- 16 MR. : Sorry, go ahead. 17 THE WITNESS So, October 25th, I'm writing to 18 what do you think of this rewrite? Is it too strong? And it 19 says, dear Jay, I'd like to take this opportunity to document 20 our conversation of October 24th which clarified some of the 21 representations in your October 23rd letter. 22 I write in particular because you indicated that 23 your intent in writing the letter was to memorialize our 24 conversations. Our agreement is limited to blank, blank, 25 blank, dot, dot, dot. EFTA00009130 Page 315 1 I specifically want to clarify one of the items 2 that I believe was inaccurate in the October 23rd letter. 3 Your office claims that this office would not intervene with 4 the state attorney's office regarding this matter, or contact 5 any of the individuals, potential witnesses, or potential 6 civil claimants, and their respective counsel in this matter, 7 and neither your office nor the FBI would intervene regarding 8 the sentence Mr. Epstein received. 9 I'm quoting Jay's letter. As we discussed and 10 hopefully clarified, and as the U.S. Attorney previously 11 explained in an earlier conference call, such promises equate 12 to the imposition of a gag order. Our office cannot and will 13 not agree to this. It is the intent of this office to treat 14 this matter like any other case. 15 Thus, as is typical, we do not desire or intend to 16 "intervene" the state attorney's office. The non-prosecution 17 agreement provides sufficient mechanisms to achieve the goals 18 of the federal investigation. You should understand, 19 however, that there are some communications that are typical 20 in these matters. 21 And so, I go on, and so my point is this was 22 pretty -- based on -- if you reviewed my -- my e-mails and 23 language, for me to write something up saying, what do you 24 think of this rewrite, is it too strong? 25 Q Mist-hmm. EFTA00009131 Page 31E 1 A And to edit language to, our office cannot 2 and will not agree to this, is not my agreeing with this 3 characterization, but my polite way of saying, this ain't 4 what I said. 5 Q Mn-hmm. 6 A Let me be clear. 7 Q And then -- 8 A Again, no independent recollection. This is just 9 based on inferring from the contemporaneous e-mails. 0 Q Okay. 1 BY MS. What I would like to do is ask a couple of questions in a couple of areas about the main justice review. Q Then take a short break, and then has some 6 questions that are CVRA related, and then we have some summary questions. 8 A 9 Q Is that all right? 20 A Can I -- before you -- you move on, can I address 21 something that was getting at, but it's getting late, 22 so I'm going to circle back to -- to -- 23 Q Please. 24 A -- something that I thought you would bring up. 25 MS. : Sure. EFTA00009132 Page 317 1 THE WITNESS So, I think something to talk about 2 is, pre-agreement and post-agreement, I think are different, 3 and one concern that I had, and I certainly shared with -- 4 with Mr.e was once it was signed -- so, we had the 5 initial issues with the case. 6 Once the agreement was signed, we now have an 7 overlying issue of, is there is the agreement binding? To 8 what extent it's binding. And so, you -- your question was, 9 why this level of process after the agreement was signed, and 10 I said I think you'll get back to that. And I think to some 11 extent, there are two parts to that. 12 One is, the office shouldn't be afraid of review. 13 We're part of the Department of Justice, and review, whether 14 it by main justice or now you all, is -- is part of the 15 process. 16 17 18 19 20 21 criminal case, but we're litigating a civil/criminal issue on 22 top of that, which is, did the agreement bind? And that's 23 something that did inform the exhausting amount of process 24 that they -- that they received, which didn't change any of 25 the outcome. And so, to the extent that they want to appeal to main, it would be unseemly to sort of say, don't review us, and I don't think it would help reviewing this, but the second part of it is if we were to walk away from the agreement, that not only are we litigating the underlying EFTA00009133 Page BY MS. 2 Q Didn't bind what? 3 A So, if we were to walk away, were -- could we still 4 prosecute? 5 Q I see. 6 A Right? Because having signed that, we were now 7 parties to an agreement, and that would overlay any sort of 8 prosecution. And So, you had these collateral issues coming. 9 BY MS. 10 Q Just to make sure we're clear, are you saying that 11 there is -- there would have been difficulty in declaring a 12 breach so that you could then indict? 13 A Correct, and so we'd have to litigate over a 14 breach, because as much as they had collateral challenges, 15 they are very careful in saying, this is not a breach, we 16 would just like review. 17 And so, one of the issues that overlaid the post -- 18 the October going forward time period is on top of this, do 19 we now want litigation over a breach? And so, I think that 20 is why the post-agreement time period is different than the 21 pre-agreement -- 22 MS. Mm-hmm. 23 THE WITNESS -- time period. 24 BY MS. 25 Q But was part of that problem the result of the EFTA00009134 change from, here is the date that you must comply, to, you 2 must use best efforts to comply? 3 A Possibly. I would -- whether it was that, or 4 others, or other parts of the agreement, we can talk about, 5 but how -- once the agreement was signed, and they do not -- 6 and they start pushing the date, there becomes a legal issue 7 over, are they really in breach or not? 8 And I'm not -- I understand your perspective. I'm 9 just saying, you know, earlier I said that there was a 10 difference. You asked about the process, and I said from my 11 perspective, there's a difference between the pre-agreement 12 and the post-agreement time period. 13 And much of that difference is informed by, if we 14 declare a unilateral breach, how does this hold up in court? 15 Because now there's a signed agreement that the United States 16 is a party to. 17 Q And are you saying that part of the reason, or 18 maybe all of the reason that you continued to give 19 accommodations and process and delay was because of the 20 concern that you couldn't actually win a breach argument? 21 A I think that was a consideration. Another part of 22 the considerations are if someone -- if a party wants to 23 take -- I mean, main justice gave a lot of process. It 24 wasn't -- it wasn't, you know, it wasn't just to -- to 25 but it was up to the -- it was just up to the assistant EFTA00009135 Page 32C 1 attorney general for criminal division, to be polite, but it 2 was up to the DAG. 3 And so, if main justice is going to give this 4 degree of process, we should -- we should be in the position 5 of saying go forward, as opposed to, I don't think it looks 6 positive for the office to be viewed as fearing department 7 review. 8 Q But were you giving the impression to the 9 Department of Justice that you were the one who wanted this 10 review so that they felt like, well, it's not just these defense attorneys who we can blow off, it is an United States Attorney who is asking for this review, and so therefore we 13 need to give the courtesy of reviewing this? 14 A I don't think I asked for it as opposed to saying, 15 if you would -- so, from the very beginning, they said that 16 they're going to take this to the Deputy Attorney General and 17 Attorney General. 18 And I said, if you want to, fine. They just 19 finally did, but that was not -- that was not -- I think they 20 raised that as early as August or September. And so, I'm not 21 surprised that it ended up there. I also thought it was 22 important to not be in the position of fearing review. 23 think if you look at the contemporaneous record, there's an 24 effort on our part to expedite the review. 25 BY MS. EFTA00009136 Page 321 1 Q But there's a difference between, have at it, go, 2 do what you want, up at main, and getting that -- 3 Right. 4 Q -- that non-opposition, and actually sending a 5 signal to -- in the -- in the case of the criminal division, 6 the assistant attorney general, in the case of the DAG's 7 office, Mark Filip or his assignee, that you supported their 8 review, that the -- this appeal process. You could have 9 said, look, we're going to go ahead and get on with our 10 business. 11 If they want to -- if -- you could have not so much 12 opposed a review, but not seconded their request for -- the 13 defense request for reviews, or not in fact invited the 14 reviews. 15 A So, I'd be curious as to the timeline. I would 16 take issue with, I invited the reviews, and I question 17 whether, did they initiate the reviews on their own, and then 18 I said have at it, or did I -- based on -- I mean, you've got 19 more of a record than I do, or did I invite -- I don't -- I 20 would say I did not invite the reviews. 21 Q Well, let me -- bad terminology, perhaps. Let me 22 ask you this. If -- would've -- did you convey to the 23 criminal division that you wanted them to review this matter, 24 as requested by the defense attorneys? 25 A So, from my perspective, I'm thinking back 12 -- EFTA00009137 Page 322 1 Q Min-hmm. 2 A -- 12 years now. The very reason that we invited 3 to come down to Miami back in August was a sense that it 4 would end up up here. And so, if it's going to end up up 5 here, let's bring down. 6 Let's make him part of the initial meeting. You 7 know, if there are concerns, let's raise these. Let's 8 address them. Let's get them out so that we don't end up, 9 after we go forward with all of this, back in front of 10 and And it's much better to involve main justice 11 earlier. 12 And so, I would say I was trying, if anything, 13 to to involve main justice so that we didn't end up where 14 we were, and it had been my expectation that that October 15 date would have been met. 16 The collateral reviews afterwards, the collateral 17 appeals, obviously did not go as -- as we planned, and -- and 18 it was my sense, we were going to end up at main justice one 19 way or another. 20 Q So, my question is in December, after the December 21 meeting -- 22 A Right. 23 Q -- that you had with defense counsel, and they told 24 you they were going to go to main justice. 25 A Correct. EFTA00009138 Page 323 1 Q To the criminal division. Did you convey to main 2 justice criminal division that you wanted them to conduct the 3 review that defense counsel were seeking? 4 A So, I don't recall what I may or may not have 5 conveyed. I think my recollection was, if they want a 6 review, that's their right. We're not -- as a department, 7 we're not in the business of telling individuals that they 8 can't take something to your supervisor, or your superior. 9 Whether -- whether main justice takes this on or not is 10 ultimately at their discretion. 11 Q Would it surprise you to learn that the criminal 12 division front office understood you to be requesting their 13 review, the review that was sought by defense counsel? 14 A Would it surprise me? Perhaps. My -- my -- my 15 understanding -- recollection is we shouldn't fear it. If 16 they want it -- 17 Q mm-hmm. 18 A -- that's their right. I thought by inviting 19 down in the first place that we had at least tried to address 20 that early on, but I also thought that we might end up there 21 in the first place. 22 Q Were you -- were you aware that a decision was made 23 to grant the decision by your office to grant defense 24 counsel's request their insistence that 25 role in the criminal division review be limited to review EFTA00009139 Page 324 1 only, and that he not be permitted to -- or that the criminal 2 divisions -- that the -- I'm sorry, I misspoke. That because 3 IIIMINIMIllhad already been involved in essentially 4 being a prosecutor on the case -- 5 A Right. 6 Q -- that the -- the criminal division and CEOs' role 7 vis a vis this review should be review only. That is, they 8 should be taken off the case as a -- as a partner? 9 A So, I sought e-mails to that affect in the record. 10 I don't have an independent recollection 12 years -- 11 Q you -- 12 A 13 Q Do you think you were involved in that decision? 14 A To take them off? 15 Q Yes. 16 A To my recollection, I wanted them on as a partner, 17 and I think the contemporaneous -- 18 Q ME-hmm. 19 A -- e-mails from is, can you please come on 20 board? 21 Q But that was earlier, before this review process? 22 A No. No. Even after the -- 23 Q All right. 24 A -- review process, I think there are 25 contemporaneous e-mails where we're saying it's important EFTA00009140 Page 325 1 that you be part. If we go to trial, it's important that you 2 be part of the trial. As I -- as I went through the record, 3 at least I remember -- 4 Q Me-hmm. 5 A -- an e-mail, perhaps from to that I'm 6 copied on saying, hey, can you reconsider? It's important 7 that you be part of this. 8 9 10 11 12 Q Reconsider the review only limitation? A No, no. Reconsider being a part of the trial Q Oh. All right. A -- team. Q All right. So, to be clear, do I understand that 13 you -- correct me, that you don't have a recollection one way 14 or the other whether you requested the criminal division to 15 conduct the review, or could it have happened, or -- 16 A So -- 17 Q -- what? 18 A -- to the extent I -- again, I'm going back -- 19 Q Nm-hmm. 20 A -- 12 years. To the extent there is a request to, 21 it would be in the context of, this is going to Washington. 22 We're not fearful of this. Have at it. 23 Q And you would have conveyed that to Washington? 24 Not just to the defense attorneys, is that correct? 25 A I imagine in some way. It's -- EFTA00009141 Page 326 1 5 Q All right. BY MS. Q And just one -- A Yeah. Q -- just one point. This one -- this one was a 6 little bit of an -- 7 A Yeah. 8 Q -- odd posture, however, because you had a signed 9 agreement. And so, you know, basically a contract between 10 parties -- 11 A Right. 12 Q -- and particularly on Mr. Epstein's side, a party 13 who was -- who was extremely well represented. So, was there 14 any consideration on your part, instead of saying, hey, 15 everybody's got a right to review, knock yourself out, go up 16 to Washington, as opposed to saying something like, that ship 17 has sailed, guys. You signed this agreement. We're going 18 forward. You don't go forward. You're in breach. End of 19 story? 20 A So, his counsel are raising serious issues that go 21 to ethics and go to fundamental relationships between 22 sovereigns. Is this 22.55 appropriate as a matter of federal 23 policy? Is what we're doing an overreach, you know, is what 24 we're doing contrary to law? Are we extracting -- I'm 25 characterizing. This may or may not EFTA00009142 Page 327 1 Q MM-hmm. 2 A -- be accurate. Are we extracting unduly? Are we 3 using criminal law to extract civil concessions in an 4 ethically suspect way? Those are serious issues. That isn't 5 just, is this a good case? 6 Those are -- those are genuine issues. I happen to 7 think that, as I recall, that we were in the right or we 8 wouldn't have agreed to it, but by the same token, let's 9 assume that main justice ultimately disagreed. Is that from 10 a main justice perspective? And maybe I'm coming at this 11 from a -- you know, being informed by having been at main 12 justice. 13 Q mm-hmm. 14 A Where there was talk about, can you believe what 15 this AUSA -- this AUSA may have done or may not have done 16 without consulting, that these are serious issues. They 17 establish precedent. 18 They -- you know, maybe the DAG would have said, 19 this is not the kind of thing we'd support, and this is 20 wrong. And so, at the end of the day, let's move forward, 21 but if -- once these issues are raised, I don't think a U.S. 22 Attorney should say main justice should not review this. 23 I think we're part of one department, and these are 24 valid issues. Main justice doesn't need to take months to 25 review this. Main justice can expedite their review, but EFTA00009143 Page 328 1 those are valid issues for the deputy and the AAG to review. 2 Q But one could look at it and say, well, those are 3 all issues that the defense certainly knew about before they 4 signed that agreement, and having signed the agreement, they 5 are waiving all of that. That's what contracts are for. 6 You've got all these issues, don't sign the contract. 7 A And if I could, I think there's a December letter. 8 I don't know if it's -- if it's in the exhibits, but there's 9 a December letter that I wrote that, for me, is -- 10 Q This is the 19th? 11 A Maybe it's the 19th. Let me -- 12 Q Or the -- 13 M . The 19th is the -- your sort of 14 ill-fated NPA addendum effort. 15 THE WITNESS No. No, a letter to -- to Ken Starr 16 that I -- that I wrote. But -- 17 MR. : The 4th letter is to Ken Starr. 18 THE WITNESS I'm sorry? 19 MR. : Is it the December 4th letter? 20 THE WITNESS Yeah, it's probably -- 21 MR. : December 4? 22 THE WITNESS It's the December 4th. 23 MS. : Yeah, it didn't have a date. 24 MS. : All right. That's the one you 25 wrote -- EFTA00009144 Page 329 1 THE WITNESS So -- 2 MS. : -- to him -- 3 THE WITNESS -- so -- 4 MS. : -- in response to the -- 5 THE WITNESS So -- 6 MS. -- 22.55 issue. 7 THE WITNESS I think, you know, I -- you know, I'm 8 starting on page four. I have responded personally in some 9 detail to your concerns because I care deeply about both the 10 law and the integrity of this office. I have responded 11 personally and in detail as well, because your letter 12 troubled me on a number of levels. Upon your understanding 13 of the negotiations are. The 22.55 was first discussed July 14 31st. 15 You know, and one of these four points in -- in the 16 middle of 2007, your defense team decides -- asked to meet 17 with me. On September 7th, I met. After considering of the 18 arguments, and after conferring with FBI and 19 our office decided to proceed with the indictment. At that 20 time, I offered to delay -- our prosecutors to delay 21 presentation to allow you to appeal our decision if you 22 choose. You chose not to. 23 Instead, you elected to enter into the NPA. Since 24 the signing of this agreement, the feds in our office have 25 addressed several issues that have arisen, although the EFTA00009145 Page 330 1 exchanges at the time were a bit litigious. 2 BY MS. 3 Q This -- could I -- could I thought point out -- 4 i•. Yeah. 5 Q -- that this letter is in response to not the at 6 the request for a review by the criminal division, that comes 7 later. This is in response to Ken Starr's letter to 8 about -- raising 22.55 -- 22.55 issues that had not 9 been raised with you before. 10 A Right, which is -- which is in essence a review. 11 mean, he -- they're coming to main justice, and you know, 12 it's against these many previous foregone opportunities to 13 object that I receive with surprise your letter requesting an 14 11th hour after the fact review of our agreement. Although 15 it happens rarely, I don't mind this office's decision being 16 appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our 17 prosecutors to delay. 18 Indeed, I'm confident in our prosecutor's evidence 19 and legal analysis. I nonetheless 20 directed them to consult with subject matter experts in the 21 criminal CEOS division to confer to our interpretation of the 22 law before proceeding with this indictment. So, I guess, you 23 know, we consulted CEOS. 24 I'm thus surprised to read a letter addressed to 25 the department headquarters that raises issues that either EFTA00009146 Page 331 1 have not been raised with this office previously, or have 2 been raised and in fact resolved in your client's favor. 3 I'm troubled likewise by the apparent lack of 4 finality in this agreement. The AUSAs have been negotiating 5 with defense counsel and have for sometimes complained to me 6 regarding the tactics used by the defense team. It appears 7 to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, 8 defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution 9 collaterally. 10 Q So, this is your protest of, it sounds like Starr's 11 effort to bypass you and go to with new issues? 12 A It is, and I'm pushing back in that, was I inviting 13 this, or was I sort of saying -- you know, that said, there 14 must be some closure on this matter. 15 Some in our office are deeply concerned that 16 defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges 17 to provisions of this agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has 18 entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement 19 difficult, if not impossible to unwind. In closing, I ask 20 that you consult with co-counsel. 21 If after consultation with your defense team you 22 believe that our agreement is unethical, unlawful, or 23 unconstitutional, I'd ask us that you notify us immediately 24 so we can discuss the matter by phone or in person. I've 25 consulted the chief prosecutor in this case who has advised EFTA00009147 Page 332 1 me that she's ready to unwind the agreement and proceed to 2 trial if necessary, or appropriate. 3 Q So, are you suggesting that this represents your 4 protest of their appeal to 5 A So o' Q -- on this point? 7 A So, protest is a is a loaded word. What I'm 8 suggesting is, this is not an invitation to appeal to main 9 justice. This is sort of saying, enough is enough is enough. 10 Q But Mr. Acosta, in fairness, this, to clarify -- 11 A Right. 12 Q -- this is in response to a letter directed to 13 dated November 28th -- 14 A Right. Q -- 2007 raising issues that he had not raised with 16 you. The appeal subsequently that I was asking about was -- 17 A Right. 18 Q -- an appeal for a de novo review -- a de novo 19 review of the whole case. 20 A Understood, and my -- the reason that I -- that I 21 read this, you know, is this is not -- on the one hand, I'm 22 saying we do not fear review, but I don't -- this is not an 23 invitation to defense counsel to do a de novo -- I am not 24 inviting them. I'm not saying, let's have more review. I'm 25 saying, enough's enough. If they appeal, that's fine, but EFTA00009148 Page 333 1 this is not an invitation to appeal. 2 Q But there was nothing you could do to stop their 3 appeal, right? Except indict? 4 A And so the department shouldn't stop an appeal to main justice by -- you know, by threatening. 6 Q Fair enough. 7 A Because main justice has a right to review. 8 Q I should have said that -- that this -- that this 9 appeal process was stymying progress in resolving the Epstein 10 case. 11 A It was. 12 Q And you had no way -- you had no recourse, other 13 than, at least theoretically, you could have just said, you 14 know, we're -- 15 A Right. 16 Q -- going to tear it up and indict, because you're 17 in breach, in effect. 18 A Which would have raised civil litigation -- 19 Q Litigation. 20 A -- overlays, which is the point that I thought 21 merited -- 22 Q All right. 23 A -- at least flushing out. 24 BY MS. : 25 Q So, short of the department itself getting a move EFTA00009149 Page 334 1 on, and getting this thing through expeditiously, did you 2 feel like you just had to sit there and wait for everything 3 to get done? 4 A I'm not sure sit there and wait, but -- but 5 ultimately, the case did not get better with time, and there. 6 was frustration on our apart about, you know, the witnesses 7 are not getting better. You know, time 8 Q They're getting older. 9 A They're getting -- which goes back to how a juror 10 may see them. 11 MS. : Right. 12 THE WITNESS And I do recall conversations of their 13 getting older, you know, this case is not getting better. We 14 now have the civil overlay that we need to deal with. And 15 so, yes, that -- there was process, but while there was, 16 should we just call it a day, all of that factored into, 17 well, if the department is reviewing the department is 18 reviewing. 19 BY MS. 20 Q Okay. Are you -- what is your view of whether the 21 criminal division's review encompassed the NPA itself? 22 A So, the criminal division, by its terms, did not 23 did not encompass the -- the NPA. I would say that's 24 different than the deputy's review that encompassed the 25 totality of the -- of the circumstances. EFTA00009150 Page 335 1 Q Okay. Did you discuss the -- did you have 2 conversations with the DAG -- with Mark Filip about this 3 case? 4 A Not to my recollection. 5 Q Okay, and we've already talked about the submission 6 that made on behalf of your office? 7 A Which -- which -- yes, which I thought was a 8 fulsome submission, and included the draft indictment, the 9 NPA. I believe it included the term sheet and other 10 documents. 11 Q Did you or anyone else to your knowledge ask ODAG 12 to review or assess the NPA, or approve it? 13 A Not to -- before signature, not to my recollection, 14 but it was part of the ultimate review when submitted 15 the matter to the deputy, he included the -- 16 Q It was -- 17 A -- the agreement. 18 Q It was included. Their very brief letter, you 19 remember -- 20 A Mm-hmm. 21 Q -- the letter that 22 A Yes. 23 Q -- authored, that he authored. Addressed really 24 only the issue of the appropriateness of the case for 25 prosecution in your office. It did not in any way reference EFTA00009151 Page 336 1 the disposition, the plea agreement, or the NPA. 2 A So -- so, it was a brief letter. Based on 3 submission, I would have read that letter as, they had all 4 the material in front of them, and they were saying that 5 there was no misconduct or abuse of discretion. 6 Q That's correct, but they did not say that they 7 contacted -- that they addressed or assessed, reviewed even. 8 They didn't say they reviewed or approved the NPA. 9 A They -- I again, you know, I -- if the letter is 10 here, I don't know, but -- 11 Q Yeah. I have it right here. It's not marked as an 12 exhibit, but this is an letter to Jay Lefkowitz and 13 Ken Starr dated -- 14 A Right. 15 Q -- June 23, 2008 It states that this office, 16 meaning the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, has 17 completed a thorough review of the U.S. Attorney's handling 18 of the matter involving your client. 19 A And -- 20 Q And addresses the -- or, states that they've 21 received and reviewed submissions from both parties, and then 22 states that the deputy attorney general, "Will intervene only 23 in the most unusual of circumstances," in a U.S. Attorney's 24 matter, and, "we do not believe such intervention is 25 warranted here. Even if we were to substitute our judgement EFTA00009152 Page 337 1 for that of the U.S. Attorney, we believe that federal 2 prosecution of this case is appropriate. Moreover, having 3 reviewed your allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and 4 the facts underlying them, we see nothing in the conduct of 5 the U.S. Attorney's Office that gives us any reason to 6 alter," -- 7 A Right. 8 Q -- "our opinion." 9 A And so, so, if I could point out, this office has 10 completed a thorough review of the U.S. Attorney's handling 11 of the matter. And so, handling is a broad -- is a broad 12 term, and in reference to, we believe that federal 13 prosecution of this case is appropriate, the way I recalled 14 reading that is, the federal prosecution of this case, the 15 argument was that the agreement was inappropriate because 16 this case should not have even been prosecuted, and therefore 17 that the disposition -- the federal prosecution of this case, 18 was appropriate. 19 And so, the handling of the matter, we reviewed the 20 handling of the matter, not -- not the agreement, but the 21 handling of the matter, and that the ultimate disposition, 22 if -- you know, is at least not an abuse of discretion, or is 23 appropriate. 24 Q That's how you read it? 25 A That -- that is how I read it. EFTA00009153 Page 338 1 Q And did you ever discuss that -- did you ever 2 discuss with anyone in ODAG what the scope of their review 3 was? 4 A Not to -- not to my recollection. It was a fulsome 5 submission. 6 Q Correct, but if -- if -- but the issues presented 7 by the defense were essentially federalism issues, right? 8 A So, the -- the -- again, this is -- this is based 9 on, you know, as much recollection as contemporaneous record. 10 The issues presented by the defense were, it -- in essence, 11 it was the heart of the non-prosecution agreement, which is, 12 was it -- was it an abuse of discretion to -- to proceed in 13 this case in the way that we did on the grounds that there 14 may not -- there should not have been a federal prosecution 15 in the first place, or that we were using federal criminal 16 law to -- to elicit a civil outcome. 17 And so, I don't think it's fair to sort of 18 narrow -- you can't -- you can't say that our handling was -- 19 you know, that their handling was reviewed without reviewing 20 the non-prosecution agreement. 21 Q Do you have any reason to believe that the -- that 22 either ODAG or the criminal division did -- well, that the 23 ODAG, let's stick with that -- 24 A Right. 25 Q -- did in fact review the NPA, other than to be EFTA00009154 Page 339 1 aware it existed, whatever its status might have been? 2 A So, again, it was clearly submitted. It was 3 clearly referenced. 4 Q ME-hmm. 5 A And it was clearly part of the complaint. The 6 complaint -- the heart of the complaint about our office was 7 that we were using this agreement to impose civil liability. 8 And so, I think it is fair to infer if the complaint 9 implicates the agreement, that the agreement would have been 10 reviewed. 11 Q That -- but that's your inference. You don't have 12 any -- you don't -- didn't have any specific communications 13 with ODAG -- 14 A I don't -- 15 Q -- to that effect? 16 A I don't recall a specific communication. 17 Q All right. Okay. I would like to take a short 18 break. We're getting there. 19 A I hear you. 20 Q There is -- 21 A I'm good. 22 Q -- one area that my colleague, will 23 take on -- 24 A Mm-hmm. 25 Q -- which has to do with the CVRA EFTA00009155 Page 340 1 A Right. -- and then we have some kind of wind up questions. 3 A Okay. 4 MR. IIIIIIII Can we -- before we take a break, 5 can I just -- 6 MS. IIIIIIII/ Yes. 7 MR. IME I'll try to queue up what's going to 8 be coming next -- 9 THE WITNESS Mm-hmm. 10 MR. -- and maybe that'll help us move 11 through it, because -- 12 THE WITNESS Right. 13 MR. -- you've been through a very long 14 day. 15 THE WITNESS Yeah. 16 MR. We appreciate your -- the time 17 you've put into this. You've been here for quite a long 18 time. 19 THE WITNESS Well, yeah. 20 BY MR. 21 Q The area that I want to discuss after the break has 22 to do with the ultimate notification to the victims about the 23 resolution of the case, the state plea, and the result of the 24 federal investigation, and there's going to be -- we have 25 documents that are in your -- that are already marked there EFTA00009156 Page 341 1 that might be helpful if you take a look at a couple of them 2 so we don't have to go through -- maybe during the break so 3 we don't have to go through them one by one, or I can just 4 give you a very quick overview of sort of where we're going. 5 / want to find out basically how you were getting 6 from there -- what would be the -- the state asking for the 7 U.S. Attorney's Office to make the notification to the 8 victims about the upcoming state plea that happens in 9 November of 2007. 10 That would be document 32b, to the defense then 11 finding out that the government want to notify the victims by 12 letter, and then demanding that they see the letter and have 13 some kind of comment on it. That would be document 33, an e- 14 mail from Lefkowitz. 15 Then we have an exchange of letters, but the one 16 I'd like you to look at is document 37, which is a letter 17 coming from to the defense -- not now, but you know, 18 during the break. So, I want to find out how we get from 19 that document, 36, where is writing -- 20 MS. 36. 21 BY MR. 22 Q -- as letter saying that -- citing the CVRA 23 regulations saying that the government is obligated to notify 24 the victims about the resolution of the case, and attaching a 25 draft letter to the victims telling them the time and date of EFTA00009157 Page 342 1 the state resolution and plea, inviting them to come. 2 To ultimately a letter from you coming on the 19th 3 of December 2007, which is No. 41b agreeing to not notify the 4 victims of the state plea, and agreeing with the defense to 5 have the state be responsible for putting out that 6 notification. 7 And then we end ultimately with a letter or draft 8 letter that we have that goes out to the victims in the case 9 on -- after the plea in July. Well, we have the draft I'm 10 going to show you, which comes in June, showing that the 11 letter was clearly meant to be sent after the plea as per the 12 agreement, and that is document number 51. 13 14 15 16 17 A Okay. That's -- Q So, it's a lot to -- A That's a -- Q -- unpack there. A That's a lot to unpack. We should probably take it 18 a step at the time? 19 Q Yes. I just wanted to -- 20 A All right. 21 Q -- give you an overview, because I think that some 22 of what you had mentioned earlier -- and I know -- I know 23 it's -- 24 A Yeah. 25 Q -- been a long time, so -- EFTA00009158 Page 343 1 A Yeah. 2 Q -- I'll try to orient you for the timelines. So, 3 if you'd just have a -- I've highlighted the sections of 4 those letters that we want to talk about, and if you have a S chance while we're taking a break to look through them, that 6 may help orient you so that we're not -- 7 A Right. 8 10 11 12 13 Q -- spinning our wheels on this. I don't want to waste any of your time. A Fair. MS. : All right. Off the record. (Off the record.) MS. : All right. Back on the record. 14 MR. : Are we back on the record? 15 MS. : Yes. 16 BY MR. 17 Q Okay, great. So, I know I gave you a lot to unpack 18 over the short break we just had. One -- basically what 19 we're trying to get to find out is how the -- your decision 20 making process regarding the victim notification issue. So, 21 maybe if you could just give us a -- anything with your 22 December 19th decision, could you give us an explanation 23 about how you got there? 24 A So, I think we should probably take this in stages. 25 Q Okay. EFTA00009159 Page 344 1 A As a general matter, I recall that there was back 2 and forth regarding -- after the agreement -- regarding how 3 to notify the victims, and there was back and forth between 4 and Jay Lefkowitz and around all that. 5 Sorry, I'm losing my voice. 6 I recall that there was an issue in particular that 7 was raised that I tried to address in the letter, and I 8 recall at the end of the day, it was my impression that once 9 there was an agreement for him to plead, that there was an 10 attempt by to provide notice to the victims, but it was 11 a very -- it was I think on a Friday, and he was pleading on 12 a Monday morning or something along those lines. 13 And finally, I recall that the view of the office 14 was that the CVRA did not apply, and so that this was a 15 16 17 18 19 20 g Okay. 21 A And look, let me -- let me add, I -- so, I think 22 it's important -- so, I came in and out of the case at 23 stages, and -- and I was involved in certain aspects more 24 than others, and while we had a long discussion about the 25 terms sheet and matters like that, while I was clearly discretionary balancing that included consideration of what impact notification of the 22.55s would have at trial -- the 22.55 provision, if we had to go to trial. So, we can -- we can unpack that, but those are my -- my general recollections. EFTA00009160 Page 345 involved in at least one dispute around the 22.55, the nuts 2 and bolts of how victims were notified is not something that 3 I have a recollection about. 4 Q Okay. Fair. 5 A But we can unpack it. 6 Q Okay. Let's start with the Exhibit 33. So, there, 7 we have an -- as you can see, it's an e-mail from Lefkowitz - 8 9 A Mm-hmm. 10 Q -- to you, and to ISM, objecting to the 11 letter being sent to the victims, unless the defense gets to 12 review it. And later on in some of your other 13 correspondence, you discuss that you -- you extended to the 14 defense the courtesy of allowing them to review these 15 letters. Is this the genesis of that courtesy? 16 A I can't -- I don't have a recollection as to what 17 the genesis might be. I know that there was back and forth 18 between our office and the defense about the -- that letter. 19 Q Okay, but as you can see on 33 that you're not on 20 the response from but instructs to 21 send the proposed letter to Lefkowitz, and -- 22 A Yeah. 23 Q -- I assume that wouldn't have done that had 24 you objected to it. 25 A Again, I don't -- I don't recall any specific EFTA00009161 Page 346 1 conversation. As a general matter, this is not something I 2 was getting into the weeds on unless I had to. There was a 3 lot of back and forth. 4 Q MM-hmm. 5 A a is someone that I trusted. He was handling 6 this matter. He's incredibly experienced. I know that there 7 were concerns and issues around the impact that notification 8 would have on the witnesses. I know there were -- there were 9 issues around the language, and I trusted that folks were 10 working those out. 11 Q Mm-hmm. One of the -- the criticisms that's come 12 post, you know, the CVRA -- 13 A Right. 14 Q -- litigation that's been the government allowing 15 the defense to have review of these letters, or potential 16 victim notification letters coming out of the government, and 17 that that's unusual. Have you ever -- have you had any other 18 cases where you've let the defense review such documents? 19 A I've had no other cases where I'm even aware of 20 victims being notified, because I assume it all operates 21 without it rising to management level. 22 Q MM-hmm. 23 A And so this is the first and only time that how 24 individuals are notified, to my recollection, was even in the 25 executive suite. EFTA00009162 Page 347 1 Q Mm-hmm. Isn't that usually done -- accomplished by 2 almost a computerized task? 3 A I -- I would assume so, so yes. 4 Q And it's a -- given that that's the usual way that 5 notifications are made by a victim witness specialist, who is 6 usually that person? 7 8 A Yes. Q Do I have that right? And so, the FBI has their 9 victim witness specialist? 10 11 A Yes. Q And your office, the U.S. Attorney's Office has 12 dedicated people who do that job as well? 13 A Correct. 14 Q So, why in this case, not direct, the -- this -- 15 this notification to that person to be done in the usual 16 course, why elevate to something that the defense is going to 17 be able to review? 18 A So, so, I can't address the second half of that, 19 but the first half of that question, why -- why was it 20 elevated? You know, I think addressed some of that in 21 her, was it 2017 affidavit, and -- and so, we had an 22 agreement that had been signed, and we also had substantial 23 questions as to whether that agreement -- whether ultimately 24 Jeffrey Epstein would plead in court or not. 25 And so, one of the questions is, how do you deal EFTA00009163 4 Page 348 1 with notification of a possibility, where that possibility 2 could be used to impeach potential future witnesses who are 3 also the victims, and that is a matter that was being worked 4 out by the AUSAs in the office. 5 Q And the -- and the impeachment is what? 6 A And so, the impeachment -- and I -- I would -- : 7 believe went into it in some detail, is you stand 8 you, Miss Victim, stand to gain quite a bit of money if 9 there's a conviction, correct? 10 Isn't -- weren't you aware of this agreement, if we 11 have to go to trial? Weren't you aware of this agreement? 12 And this isn't based on my recollection. This is based on 13 the affidavit, where she says that she had concerns 14 that the impeachment go along -- somewhere along the lines 15 of, were you aware that if Mr. Epstein's convicted, you stand 16 to receive substantial sums? Yes. Were you influenced by 17 this? 18 And there was some -- according to her affidavit, 19 this isn't my independent recollection, this is according to 20 her affidavit, there had already been dispositions of the 21 victims -- of at least some of the victims that raised these 22 issues. And so, I do think it was a valid concern by the 23 AUSAs how these notifications took place. 24 Q Okay, but isn't that the -- that type of line of 25 cross examination the same for any case where there's a super EFTA00009164 Page 349 1 wealthy defendant? 2 A It may be. The 22.55 may make it a little 3 different because it's automatic, but ultimately, these are 4 the judgements that line attorneys make, and as U.S. 5 Attorney, I think it's appropriate to back up their judgment 6 unless there was some reason for me to believe it was 7 incorrect. 8 Q Was there any thought ever to just giving the 9 victims notification that there will be a proceeding that 10 will end the federal case, just separating that in a -- maybe 11 a later notification about the 22.55? 12 A I can't speak to what thought there was or was not. 13 I can say around this time frame, it was far from clear that 14 there would ever be -- that Epstein would ever go into court, 15 and we were thinking we may have to just go to trial, because 16 these collateral attacks keep going. 17 Q Okay. Okay. Let's get back on track to the -- the 18 question that I asked earlier about allowing the defense the 19 courtesy to look at these letters. Is -- can you just remind 20 us again, what was -- what was the reasoning that you're -- 21 that they're allowed to look at the -- 22 A So -- 23 Q -- victim notification letters? 24 A I can't speak to that. This is something that -- 25 that and would have handled. I think that, you EFTA00009165 Page 350 1 know, I'm responsible for the office. I'm not shirking, I'm 2 just saying that this is -- that this was for the most part 3 within their wheelhouse, and not something that -- that I was 4 involved in. I can -- I can speculate. 5 6 Q Sure. A The agreement was notifying them -- the letter was 7 notifying them of certain rights in the agreement, and 8 therefore, this is a time when we weren't sure what was 9 happening with the agreement. And so, perhaps this was a way 10 to -- to address some of the concerns around the 22.55. I 11 don't know. I'm just speculating. 12 Q Okay. Let's move onto Exhibit 36. This is a 13 letter that goes out to Lefkowitz under signature. 14 You are cc'd on the letter. 15 A All right. 16 Q And what he is doing is sending a draft victim 17 notification letter, which is attached as the attachment 18 there, dated December 6th, 2007. And I wanted to get your 19 impressions of -- if you go to page three of the letter, 20 please? And that -- the first little paragraph there, when 21 it -- 22 A Mm-hmm. 23 Q -- refers to the Victims' Rights and Restitution 24 Act, and then ultimate for the CVRA, if you could just read 25 that paragraph to yourself, please? EFTA00009166 Page 351 1 A Are you referring to paragraph 10? 2 Q I'm sorry, I'm not on the -- I'm on the letter, 3 not -- I'm sorry, I'm on the -- 4 A Oh. 5 Q -- left -- the letter to -- 6 A Sorry. 7 Lefkowitz, not the draft letter. This one right 8 here. 9 A The additionally? 10 Q Yes, additionally, pursuant to the Victims' Rights 11 and Restitution Act of 1990, our office is obligated, 12 etcetera. 13 A Okay. 14 Q Do you agree with that language? That 15 interpretation of the victims' rights, as far as the 16 notification? 17 A So, let's -- let's sort of take this -- this one 18 sentence at a time. With respect to notification of other 19 information that we were supposed to disclose, the statute 20 requires that we provide victims with the earliest possible 21 notice of -- I -- I will assume that that is a restatement of 22 the statute. 23 I don't have it in front of me, but let's assume 24 that that's a restatement of the statute. Just as in 18, 25 these sections are not limited to -- the victims, through EFTA00009167 Page 352 1 this federal -- should be appropriately informed that a non- 2 pros does not require to forego its legal obligation. On a 3 sentence by sentence basis, I mean, do I agree, sitting here? 4 Sure, but I would want to sort of sit down before I gave a 5 legal opinion and spent more time with it, but -- 6 Q Okay, because coming out of your office, sort of 7 this and that -- well, let's go to the next page, page four. 8 A Yeah. 9 Q There is a citation to the right to confer in the 10 first paragraph there, citing the CVRA's reasonable right to 11 confer with the attorneys of the government in this case. 12 A Okay. 13 Q So, we have -- you know, it looks like to me -- I 14 mean, let's -- 15 A Right. 16 Q -- well, it -- it appears that there is two 17 references to the CVRA obligations that the government has 18 that ultimately the government argues that it did not have. 19 Can you explain why that is a correct interpretation? 20 A So, what I can say is I recall -- so, it looks like 21 at least some of the victims were notified. I recall a 22 discussion and a view that the CVRA did not require it -- it 23 was discretionary, because it wasn't -- the case had not 24 indicted, so it did not attach on its terms. That doesn't 25 mean that it's not something you aspire to. That just means EFTA00009168 Page 353 1 it wasn't legally binding. 2 Q So -- and in the same manner though, while the CVRA 3 isn't legally binding, it also doesn't prevent you from 4 notifying the victims, does it? S A It does not, no. 6 Q And you have the discretion to notify, should you 7 choose to. 8 A Correct. 9 Q Okay. And so, if you look at the letter that's 10 attached to this, this is a draft that goes out where on page 11 one -- two -- page three of the letter, and the second to 12 last paragraph, the letter is giving notice of Mr. Epstein's 13 change of plea and sentencing that will occur on -- well, at 14 this time, it was December 14th at 2007, and it gives the 15 address, and it says underneath there you are entitled to be 16 present and make a statement under oath. 17 If you choose, you can submit a written statement 18 under oath, etcetera, etcetera. So, this is a letter that's 19 actively inviting victims to come to the state. Would you 20 agree that that's inviting victims to come to the state plea? 21 A That -- I think that's fair. 22 Q And with the letter's reasoning that the government 23 is sending -- would like to send this letter because it 24 believes it's obligated to, because it resolves the federal 25 case? EFTA00009169 Page 354 A So, I -- I don't want to speak to the reasoning, 2 but it's clearly a draft that the government is saying, it 3 intends to send. 4 Q Okay. Now, ultimately, just this is not a 5 question, just -- 6 A Got it. 7 Q -- some information that will help to move us 8 along. 9 A Right. 10 Q The -- obviously, this letter is never sent. Ms. 11 drafts, we have them, and I'm not going to show 12 them to you, 30 letters, copies of the letter 13 A Right. 14 Q -- to different victims, addresses them, puts them 15 in envelopes, and is then told not to send the letters. 16 A All right. Well, the plea never -- it's scheduled 17 for December 14th, so yeah. 18 Q Yes, but one of the issues that's still percolating 19 until the end of December is who is going to make this 20 notification? Because as you can expect, the defense pushes 21 back on this letter. 22 And so now we go to the -- the -- number 39, 23 please? And this is a December 11th, 2007 letter from Ken 24 Starr to you, and if you look on page two, at the front -- at 25 the top of the -- the top of the page there, he is -- this EFTA00009170 Page 355 1 letter is complaining about an oral notification that Ms. 2 gave to a -- one of the defense -- one of the 3 victim's attorneys that a letter would be coming. 4 And so, Mr. Starr is writing you to complain about 5 it, and he mentions in -- later in that paragraph that we 6 have thought that the notification process had been in 7 abeyance until completion of our ongoing discussions with 8 respect to that process. So, were you having discussions 9 with Mr. Starr about the process at this time? 10 A I don't recall discussions. I -- I think there was 11 at least correspondence, or -- I'm sorry, where are you? I 12 was reading the -- reading the letter. This -- I'm sorry, 13 where are you? What paragraph? 14 Q Let's take a look -- and it's been a long day. 15 Let's slow down here. We're on the second page of the Starr 16 letter. 17 A Yes. 18 Q And it would be this and that, the -- the language 19 in there -- in the second sentence, which goes towards the 20 bottom. 21 A This notification, but quite apart from our 22 substantive concerns, which -- we had thought the 23 notification process had been in abeyance until the 24 completion. That appears not to be so. This is 25 respectfully -- so, where does it imply that I was having EFTA00009171 Page 356 1 I don't recall communications with Mr. Starr, that's why I'm 2 curious where -- at least verbal communications. I'm curious 3 where you're reading that from. 4 Q I thought he -- he's saying, we had thought that 5 the notification process had been held in abeyance until 6 completion of our ongoing discussions. Are you saying that 7 that's -- he's -- 8 A So, I don't know where that may have come from, and 9 I don't recall. I recall at one point -- I think I sent a 10 letter saying we'll hold off for a week. I don't recall the 11 date of that letter, while you review some matters. Where 12 the abeyance came from, I can't -- I can't speak to. 13 Q Okay. Let's go to Exhibit 41b. This is your 14 December 19th letter, and what I'd like to draw your 15 attention to is page two, the second to last paragraph there. 16 A Yes. 17 Q So, could you tell us how your decision making 18 around this paragraph, how you got to this decision? 19 A So, so, you're asking me to recreate -- I -- at 20 some point, the issue clearly moved from interacting 21 with defense counsel to -- to my desk, and my recollection 12 22 years after the fact is -- so, you're saying we shouldn't 23 notify them about the state proceeding, and sure, the 24 state -- this was negotiated between Epstein and the state 25 attorney. EFTA00009172 Page 357 1 We did not direct the state proceeding. So, 2 whatever state process is appropriate for the state process 3 will be given. But with respect to the federal resolution, 4 we intend to provide victims with notice of the federal 5 resolution as required by law, and your question is if we 6 thought it was discretionary. 7 I recall our believing it was discretionary, but 8 you could also -- it doesn't hurt to in a letter say we're 9 kind of required to do this, and I think it was the right 10 thing to provide them notice of the federal resolution. 11 And once that resolution was reached, and part of 12 the key word is what the resolution is, my understanding is 13 that made efforts to notify victims of that resolution 14 and let them know that -- that there would be a hearing the 15 following Monday, that they should attend, because these -- 16 it would bring an end to the case. 17 Q Well, let's just back up real quick. As far as -- 18 so, do you -- as far as the state attorney notifying people 19 of -- victims of the -- 20 A Right. 21 Q -- state resolution, did you have any concerns with 22 that particular part of it? 23 A So, difficult to recreate the thought process 12 24 years later, but ultimately you've got federal, and you've 25 got state, and the state attorney will do what the state EFTA00009173 Page 358 1 attorney thinks is appropriate. It's not for me to direct 2 the state attorney. 3 I'm inferring, based on this language, it's not for 4 me to direct the state attorney, or for our office to direct 5 the state attorney's office on its obligations with respect 6 to the state outcome. 7 Q Okay. I'm just asking because, you know, the whole 8 case came to your office because of some issues with the 9 state attorney's resolution of the case. So, now it's going 10 back, and they're going to be in charge of the notification. 11 Did that raise any flags with you, or did you have any 12 concern about whether it would be done correctly, or done at 13 all? 14 A So, again, you've -- I -- this has come up in 15 different contexts, and I think it's -- there was obviously a 16 concern about how it was being charged, but that doesn't mean 17 that they will not fulfill whatever obligations they have. 18 Let's not assume that -- that the state attorney's office is 19 full of bad actors. 20 Q Okay. 21 BY MS. 22 Q But even if not assuming that they're full of bad 23 actors -- 24 A Right. 25 Q -- it's going to be difficult for them to notify EFTA00009174 Page 359 1 the victims, wasn't it, that they didn't even necessarily 2 know the same list as the federal victims, because you had 3 found more victims. 4 A So, we could certainly have shared that list with 5 them. I mean, there are -- there are ways that this could 6 have happened. I don't know how -- what the communication 7 were, but as a conceptual matter, having the state notify 8 them of the state hearing and having the federal government 9 say, and this is the federal resolution, is consistent with 10 the law. 11 Q But since the federal resolution is tied to the 12 state plea, is -- why not just combine the two of them in the 13 notification? Here's the federal resolution. We're tying it 14 to the state plea, and here's -- 15 A Right. 16 Q -- the date of the state plea? 17 A I can't speak to the why not. I can -- you know, I 18 can speak to my belief that this would be consistent with 19 law. That could also be one approach. I can't speak to why 20 A versus B. 21 Q Did somebody instruct you that -- or did you have a 22 conversation consulting with somebody about whether this was 23 the better approach? 24 A I -- I would have said -- you know, based on 25 practice -- not recollection, but based on practice, I would EFTA00009175 Page 36C 1 have sat down with , most likely, since he was handling 2 this matter, and we would have talked about it. I would 3 not have sent this without running it by at least if 4 not other individuals in the office. I don't know if based 5 on your record there is -- there's e-mails with drafts, but 6 you know, every document that I'm aware of was sort of shared 7 within the management team, and this would have been one of 8 those. 9 Q With respect to that one specific decision about 10 this should be at the discretion of the state's attorney, did 11 you consult with anybody in D.C. about that issue? 12 A I don't recall consulting with someone in D.C. 13 about this issue. I recall a general perspective that the 14 CVRA as a technical matter did not attach because ultimately 15 this was not -- it hadn't -- this was not an indictment. 16 BY MR. 17 Q Oh, can we -- before we leave this letter -- 18 A If I could, I -- I -- and I understand your 19 questions, but I feel some obligation to raise the tension 20 between, did you consult in D.C. versus should you allow D.C. 21 review. And so, just, you know, we certainly were allowing 23 review, but U.S. Attorney's Offices don't consult on every 24 matter, especially offices that have the kind of 25 experience -- EFTA00009176 Page 361 1 MS. Mm-hmm. 2 THE WITNESS -- that Miami does. 3 MR. Back to me? 4 MS. in Mm-hmm. 5 MS. Mm-hmm. 6 MS. : Back to you. 7 BY MR. 8 Q Before we finish with this latter from the 19th, 9 can we look at page three, please? There is -- if you could 10 read the first paragraph on page three to yourself, please? 11 A Okay. 12 Q Could you -- in that section, you mention that 13 prosecutors had asked you to declare a breach, and you 14 resisted. Can you discuss that? 15 A So -- sure. That's -- that's referencing -- I 16 think increasing frustrations by the -- by the prosecutors, 17 and I think that's reflected in contemporaneous e-mails 18 saying, why don't we just rip this up? 19 And I recall conversations with and that goes 20 a little bit to what we talked about earlier, which is 21 concern that a unilateral breach would overlay not just the 22 initial issues that we had, and not just the fact that the 23 victims are getting older and the case isn't getting better, 24 but then we have, was the unilateral breach a valid breach, 25 or was it not a valid breach? EFTA00009177 Page 362 1 And is -- is the delay justified or not justified. 2 And ultimately, that additional -- that additional 3 liability -- not liability, that additional legal uncertainty 4 was -- would have made the case even harder, because they S were very careful to always say there is no breach. 6 MS. Mm-hmm. 7 THE WITNESS Let me -- let me address, because I 8 went on to read the next paragraph as well. And so let me 9 circle back to an earlier issue -- 10 MR. Great. 11 THE WITNESS -- because I at least want to address 12 it because the next paragraph then says, and it's clear that 13 I'm increasingly frustrated. It's against that -- that my 14 frustration with it appears to be an 11th hour appeal weeks 15 before the now scheduled July 4th plea date. That said, the 16 issues raised are important and must be fully vetted 17 irrespective of timelines concerns. We hope to preserve the 18 July 4th date. 19 I understand defense counsel shares our -- with 20 this in mind, and in the event the defense counsel may wish 21 to seek review of our determination in Washington, I spoke 22 this past Monday with Attorney Gen confirming if it's 23 possible appearing to ask her to grant the potential request 24 for review, and to in fact review this case in an expedited 25 manner in an attempt to preserve the July 4th date. EFTA00009178 Page 363 1 MR.IIIIF: January 4th. MS. : That address -- January. 3 THE WITNESS I'm Sorry, the January 4th plea date. 4 Sorry, it's -- 5 BY MS. 6 Q And that addresses the question I was asking. 7 A And that goes to the question you're asking, and 8 again, I'm recreating and I'm speculating. Having that 9 following the -- another 11th hour appeal here, I would say 10 I -- I wouldn't say, let's appeal this again. I think I'm 1 saying pretty clearly, it's against my frustration with what 12 appears to be an 11th hour appeal weeks before the now 13 scheduled July -- January 4th plea date that this is not an 14 invitation to do another appeal, because the appeal is 1 5 already in Washington. 16 But my -- my saying, if -- if we're going to do 17 this appeal, let's get it over and done with, then I'm sort 18 of speculating based on the language, so that we can get this 19 pled on January 4th, and let's not put it off until after the 20 holidays. 21 Q But you did say, "To ask her to grant the potential 22 request," -- 23 A Which is -- 24 Q -- "for review." 25 A Which is why I wanted to on my own raise it, EFTA00009179 Page 364 1 because is that saying please appeal me, or is that saying -- 2 this is an 11th hour appeal that you have now taken to 3 Washington. 4 It is December 19th. We're about to go into the 5 holidays. There's a January 4th plea date. This should not 6 be another way to put it off. And so, if you're going to do 7 this, I'm going to try to expedite it so we can get this 8 done. 9 Q And in fact, it took until May -- 10 A Yeah. 11 Q -- 15. 12 A And it did, and apologies, I just realized my voice 13 is -- 14 Q All right. 15 A -- rising. So, I don't know if that's my 16 frustration at reading this again, or it's getting late, but 17 it -- but it was a frustrating matter. Apologies. 18 BY MR. 19 Q Let's just move to Exhibit 46. So, this is an e- 20 mail from Ms. to you and discussing how she 21 has interviewed some victims that day. There's a mention 22 that one of the victims said that she would rather not get 23 any money and she'd have she would rather have Epstein 24 spend a significant time in jail. Did that piece of 25 information go into your character list at all about how the EFTA00009180 Page 36 1 case should be resolved? 2 A So, again, not based on recollection, because this 3 is maybe if not 12, 11 years ago. 4 Q Okay. 5 A But at this point, there had been an agreement. 6 The agreement was signed. It was being reviewed. Based on 7 this e-mail, we're trying to get and expedite the criminal 8 division, because I -- I see it says please reach to to 9 make her decision. 10 And I -- I think at this point, as I said, if -- 11 we knew earlier -- if we knew that it was going to go this 12 long and take all of this, I think we may have approached the 13 case differently, but we were so far along on this, there was 14 a signed agreement. 15 The United States can't unwind an agreement just 16 because it's frustrated, or just because some victim 17 indicates that they don't like it. That's not -- you know, 18 if the agreement is not legally valid, if there are some 19 other concerns, but I don't think this in and of itself would 20 have been grounds for unwinding an agreement. 21 Q Do you think it's misleading for the government to 22 have been interviewing these witnesses and preparing them for 23 a trial when there's already a signed NPA that resolves the 24 issue? 25 A So, that was part of the judgement that there's a EFTA00009181 Page 366 1 signed agreement, but based on the course of conduct, is that 2 agreement really an agreement that will be honored? And so 3 there was an ongoing investigation as well, because we didn't 4 know if we'd go to trial, and I know that -- not I know. 5 My recollection is that the judgement was until we 6 know that this agreement is really going to be performed 7 fully, that to inform victims of the possibility of civil 8 recovery is problematic, and -- and I can't say that 9 judgement's incorrect. That -- I think that's a valid 10 judgement. 11 Q Fair enough, and then the last question on this e- 12 mail is at the bottom, Ms. invites you to attend 13 interviews with four of the girls who would be coming in the 14 following day. 15 A Mm-hmm. 16 Q Did -- did you attend? 17 A I -- I did not, and as U.S. Attorney, I don't think 18 I attended -- that's not -- that wasn't typical for our 19 office. 20 Q Would -- was that ever -- had you ever had that 21 type of request come from a line assistant? 22 A Not to my recollection, but I also tended not to 23 have communications come from line assistants in the first 24 place. 25 Q Were you at all curious, given the -- you discussed EFTA00009182 Page 367 1 the issues with the witnesses in this case -- 2 A Right. 3 Q -- that, potential impeachment, and that -- you 4 know, that caused you to -- that went into the negotiation phase. Did you have any interest in seeing these people -- 6 even interacting with them personally so you could make your 7 own assessment? 8 A So, any interest is -- 9 Q Would there be value in doing that? 10 A So, we had very experienced prosecutors. It's not 11 just interacting with the -- the -- the victims were in a 12 really hard position. It's not -- how I would draw a 13 distinction between a victim being interviewed by an agent, 14 and how a victim holds up in court, in a public setting under 15 cross examination, and in that, I don't think anyone in the 16 office was questioning the pain or the suffering of the 17 victims. I think that the issues were how would they hold up 18 in court, which are uniquely trial issues. 19 what Okay. Then let's move onto what what 20 was your understanding that -- that the federal government 21 was going to do as far as the notification about the 22 resolution of the case? 23 A So, my understanding was that once we believed that 24 the case was going to be -- that the -- that the plea was 25 going to go forward, that we would notify the victims of the EFTA00009183 Page 368 1 resolution, and of the agreement, and how -- basically, how it played out. 3 Q Now, are you saying now -- now, you had agreed to 4 not notify -- well, did you -- I mean, you're -- one would 5 read your December 12th -- 19th letter as an agreement that 6 the federal government is not going to notify the victims of 7 the state plea. That's -- and that will end that part of the 8 case. Is that correct? 9 A So, so, I would parse my letter differently, and 10 this is 12 years after the fact, and so this isn't based on 11 recollection, but on my reading and my understanding of the 12 course of conduct in this case, sitting here now. 13 Q Me-hmm. A My understanding was that our office was 15 notified -- was it on a Friday afternoon? 16 Q Yes. 17 A That he would be pleading on Monday, and that at 18 that time, made efforts to notify victims that he would 19 be pleading, and that that would terminate the federal 20 resolution of this matter, and that the victims should attend 21 that hearing, which wasn't the state resolution of the case. 22 It was the federal resolution. 23 Q And so, you -- you're saying that the state plea 21 was also the federal resolution of the case? 5 Based on my understanding of what happened, that's EFTA00009184 Page 369 1 how my recollection -- based on having reviewed the record, 2 that's how I believe it proceeded, although I think 3 attempted to do so, couldn't reach some attorneys, and 4 exercised best efforts to let them know, but did not get 5 ahold of all of the victims -- 6 Q Let's -- 7 A -- over the weekend. 8 Q Before we get too deep into that, let's just take a 9 quick look at Exhibit 51. So, this is an e-mail forwarded to 10 you from from January -- June 25th, 2008. So, that is 11 five days prior to the plea in this case. 12 A Yes. 13 Q Or, the state court plea, and the attachment there, 14 you'll notice is a letter with a notification of identified 15 victims, and the letter is written, would you disagree -- 16 it's written with, on June 30th, Epstein pled guilty. Do you 17 see that? 18 A Yes. 19 Q So, the inference -- it appears to be that this 20 letter was to be sent after the plea. 21 A I -- I see that. I also -- based on my review of 22 the record, where I think I'm recalling the 23 affidavit, where she said that she made an attempt to notify 24 the victims as soon as she was made aware that he would be 25 pleading -- that he would be pleading in state court. EFTA00009185 1 2 3 Page 370 Q Well, the -- what says in affidavit -- A Correct. Q -- I believe is that she made notification, and the 4 police department -- Chief police department made 5 notifications. Is that -- is that correct? Does that ring a 6 bell? 7 A 8 MR. TODD: Do you have a copy of the affidavit, so 9 we can just look at it? 10 MR. : Do you have affidavit e- 11 mail? 12 MS. : It's right here. One copy. 13 THE WITNESS I'll hand it back. 14 MR. : Almost done. 15 THE WITNESS So, relevant to this paragraph 34, and 16 then another paragraph, these and other attacks and efforts 17 to avoid the NPA's terms led the FBI investigative team, the 18 office, and me to conclude that prosecution at trial remained 19 a possibility, and we should prepare as such. 20 This meant that the victim notification letters had 21 to cease, because one, we no longer knew whether Epstein 22 would perform under the NPA, and hence, we did not know 23 whether providing information about the NPA would be 24 accurate, until we believed that Epstein, through his 25 counsel, would attempt to use victim notification concerning EFTA00009186 Page 371 1 the NPA to suggest that victims had been encouraged by the 2 FBI or the office to overstate the victimization for monetary 3 compensation. And then fast forwarding because you can read 4 it on your own. 5 On Friday, June 27th at approximately 4:15, 6 received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement, 7 and learned that Epstein's state court change of plea was 8 scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Monday. 9 The Palm Beach Police Department and I attempted to 10 notify the victims about the hearing in the short time 11 available to us. I specifically called to Attorney Edwards 12 to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. 13 I believe it was during this. I never told that 14 the state charges involved other victims, and neither the 15 state court charging instrument nor the factual proffer 16 limited the procurement of prostitution charges to a specific 17 cell. 18 So, that was what I was referring to. Again, 19 am -- I am basing this based on my review of the affidavit 20 and not on recollection of how this may or may not have 21 proceeded 12 years ago. 22 Q Okay. You know, would it surprise you to learn 23 that Ms. only communicated with Mr. Edwards that 24 day? That's because she was under the direction from a 25 manger to only contact Edwards regarding this -- the EFTA00009187 Page 372 1 potential plea for that Monday? 2 A The affidavit said she attempted to notify the 3 victims, so I can't speak to that. 4 Q Okay. 5 A And I don't have an independent recollection of 6 this going back 12 years. 7 Q Were you aware that Ms. was directed to 8 have no communication with the state's attorney's office, and 9 probably during the later period of the case in 2008? 10 A Not to my recollection. 11 Q Okay, so did you have -- would you not recall 12 hearing anyone directing her to not communicate with the 13 state attorney's office? 14 A I can't speak 12 years later, what role I may or 15 may not have had. I question how, if we need -- if there is 16 a -- an attempt to schedule a plea in all that, how can there 17 not be communication? But I can't -- I can't say whether I 18 did or did not. When I say I have no recollection, I mean 19 that in the broadest sense of the word. 20 Q Okay. In your December 19th letter, you -- you did 21 agree that the state attorney's office would notify the 22 state's victims, right? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And do you have any idea how that was to be 25 accomplished? EFTA00009188 Page 373 1 2 A I can't speak to that, no. Q And would you have any knowledge of who the state 3 victims are? 4 A I would infer that -- that our office would have 5 had sufficient communication with the state attorney's office 6 to communicate who the victims were in this case, because it 7 was an ongoing -- it was an ongoing matter, and -- but I 8 don't know. 9 Q Do you want to go on? 10 MS. Okay. Are you -- are you done with 11 your -- that portion at least, for the moment? 12 MR. =mg Yes. Thank you. 13 BY MS. 14 Q I'd just want to clarify something you said a 15 moment -- 16 A Sure. 17 Q -- ago, Mr. Acosta. You said you referred to the 18 agreement, the NPA, as having been -- it was signed and was 19 being reviewed. Were you talking about Washington? 20 A Right. 21 Q The criminal division, but we established earlier, 22 did we not, that the NPA was not the subject of the criminal 23 division review. They expressly declined to review it. 24 A I stand corrected. 25 Q Okay. I just wanted to be clear on the record. EFTA00009189 Page 374 1 Thank you. So, we -- we've had a lot of conversation about 2 facts. We are fortunate in this case to have a plethora of 3 documents upon which we can rely even 12 years or so after 4 the fact, and we've tried to plum your -- the depths of your 5 memory as to the events. 6 Are there any facts -- any conversations, any 7 incidents, anything based on the questions that you've heard 8 here today that you recall, have recalled, that you want to 9 tell us about, want us to know? 10 A So, give me a minute to just sort of think this 11 through. 12 Q Of course. 13 A I think we've covered most of the issues pretty 14 clearly. I guess I would have two general comments. The 15 first is, whether folks agree or disagree with the initial 16 two years, you know, registration and restitution. 17 The office's focus was on having Mr. Epstein go to 18 jail at a time when, from our perspective, these -- these 19 cases were, at least presented with these facts, federally at 20 least unusual, and that most trafficking cases involved 21 different -- a different sort of nexus. 22 It involved bringing individuals into the country, 23 or holding individuals against their will, or doing something 24 like that, and -- and this will go to my second point which 25 is, you know, sitting here, we now see several high profile EFTA00009190 Page 375 1 individuals who abused power, and have now been prosecuted -- 2 who were known at the time who abused drugs, like Bill Cosby 3 and -- who were -- there were rumors at the time, and you 4 know, and -- and so, looking back, maybe it was the right 5 call. 6 Maybe it wasn't the right call, but there is some 7 degree of -- I'm not sure what the right adjective is. 8 Frustration, that -- and certainly, some of this goes to me, 9 but I think a lot of this goes to and the individuals 10 involved, that the attempt to put someone in jail as opposed 11 to decline the case and say this is just a state case, 12 that -- that the -- that the federal issues are too tricky, 13 that ultimately, this is sort of novel interpretations, that 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 the attempt to come up with an outcome has rebounded in the way that it has, and I'm not -- I'm not saying, look, that that's life, and I understand that. But I do think it's important to look back on this, and try to be in the shoes of the thought process in 2006 and '07 when trafficking prosecutions were fairly new, when, you know, more so than today, some jurors may have looked at this as prostitution, and were -- perhaps more so than today -- judge's tolerance for victim shaming may have both caused 23 more hesitation on the part of victims, but also created more 24 issues at trial. And so, I think we've touched on that, but 25 I think as we sort of wrap up -- EFTA00009191 Page 376 1 Q MM-hmm. 2 A -- this portion of it, it's important to just 3 restate that. 4 Q And -- and to -- in addition, are there any facts 5 that you -- conversations, or anything that you -- 6 7 A Fair, you did ask this. Q -- that we have -- that we've not really elicited 8 from you that you want us to know? And to be clear, you'll 9 have an opportunity to -- 10 11 12 13 14 15 A Right. Q -- supplement this. A Not that I can think of Q All right. A -- sitting here. Q All right. How do you respond to public criticism 16 that the defense attorneys -- the Epstein defense team, were 17 gaining extraordinary access to an influence on prosecutors 18 from the line level all the way up through the department? 19 A So, I would point out early on in the case -- when 20 I said early, you pushed back, but from my perspective, early 21 on in the case. Not when it was first investigated, but when 22 it first bubbled up for decision. 23 Q And that would be mid-2007? 24 A Mid-2007. June-ish, May to June 2007, May, June, 25 July. We determined, here are -- here is what we'd need for EFTA00009192 Page 377 resolution. And I -- I think I addressed some of this in the 2 Daily Beast's letter. 3 Q Mm-hmm. 4 A Because we were receiving criticism back then, and 5 I think that letter has been misconstrued to some extent, 6 because it was not, oh, here are influential people, we're 7 backing off. 8 It was, we, early on, set three criteria. Two 9 years, registration, restitution. Despite all these 10 attorneys, despite all these appeals, despite all these 11 efforts, the office did not budge with the caveat of the 24 !2 to 18 months, which we've discussed, and from my perspective, 13 despite all of that, I backed the office in sticking by that 14 resolution in the various appeals to Washington. 15 And so ultimately, it was a year-long process, but 16 we ended up a year later exactly where we started with the 17 caveat of the 24 to 18. And so, to the extent that there was 18 influence, there was -- there was no change in position. 19 Q Well, my question was access. That this team of 20 defense attorneys -- 21 A Right. 22 Q -- had extraordinary access, that they asked for 23 meetings, they -- 24 A Right. 25 Q -- pressed for -- with communications, and they had EFTA00009193 Page 378 that access. Was -- did that seem extraordinary to you? 2 A So, they asked for a meeting with me before the 3 agreement was signed. 4 Q Mm-hmm. 5 A I granted that. That's not the first and only time 6 that I granted a meeting to -- to defense attorneys. I don't 7 think it's atypical, particularly as a case is coming to -- 8 to resolution for a U.S. Attorney to sit down and meet 9 with opposing counsel, and I can think of several cases where 10 that happened There was certainly a lot of access in 11 Washington. I would speak to -- you know, I think that's a 12 question to direct to this building. 13 Q MM-hmm. 14 A Because the process here was lengthy, and 15 frustrating. But I think we successfully held firm in our 16 positions, despite all the process in this building. 17 Q And again, my focus is not on your response, but on 18 the access. 19 A And -- 20 Q Based on the prominence and the -- the prominence 21 of the defense attorneys. If these had been local attorneys, 22 your sort of average criminal defense attorney from, you 23 know, name where they hang out in -- 24 A Right. 25 Q -- Miami coming to you and pressing for this, you, EFTA00009194 1 writ large, the department, do you believe they would have 2 had the same or a comparable level of access? 3 4 5 A So -- Q I don't know the answer. I'm asking. A Yeah. So, I guess I'd respond this way. If an 6 attorney after meeting with my management staff asked for a 7 meeting with me, I believe I did and would have granted it, 8 and I can think of several matters on which those types of 9 meetings were granted. And so, that was not unusual. 10 Q All right. 11 A With respect to the back and forth after the 1 2 agreement was signed? This was an unusual agreement, and to 13 some extent, as a result, the back and forth quickly 14 elevated, particularly because matters would elevate in 15 particular when they were being addressed at main justice. 16 That would be one natural way for matters to elevate within 17 the office. And so, the fact that they were being addressed 18 and reviewed, and letters were coming here, would naturally 19 elevate the way the matter was treated in Miami. 20 Q In particular, Jay Lefkowitz had ready access to -- 21 of course, he was involved in the negotiations with 22 directly in creating the NPA, but after that, it appears from 23 the record that he was often contacting you, and running or 24 going above the people who worked for you, and on numerous 25 occasions, you -- again, my characterization -- reprimanded EFTA00009195 Page 380 1 him, or instructed him not to do that, and to direct his 2 communications to the line attorney or her supervisors. Is 3 that -- is that -- 4 A 5 Q -- a fair characterization? 6 A Yes, on -- I think on several occasions, I said 7 direct them, and again, that was after the agreement was 8 signed, but yes. 9 Q But there were many issues still pending, correct? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Okay, and that was his ability to reach out to you 12 as a function of your personal association. Is that fair? 13 A So, I don't think that's a fair characterization. 14 I think it -- you could also say that it was the ability 15 of -- a function of his -- his insistence in not doing what 16 we asked, and the fact that in a typical course, a Miami 17 attorney would not have done this, because they would have to 18 interact with the office on an ongoing basis. 19 Q Mm-hmm. 20 A And so, the repeat litigator behaves very 21 differently than the one time razed earth litigator. 22 Q Mm-hem. Razed, R-a-z-e-d? 23 A Correct. 24 Q Is it reasonable to -- for us to understand that 25 you have followed the media coverage of what happened in the EFTA00009196 Epstein case over the years? Q In your view overall, and in whatever specific respect you wish to address, is -- has it been accurate or $ not so? 6 A I think it has been inaccurate in several ways, and 7 we can go through them, but -- 8 Q If you could just tick those off? 9 A So, I think it's inaccurate in that it has been 10 characterized as our approving a state plea, and -- 11 Q Mm-bean. 12 A -- the complexity of this case was a state plea, 13 and we were deferring to -- in favor of a state prosecution 14 has been lost, and it's something that I have attempted to 15 correct, but it's very difficult to sort of explain that in 16 the media. 17 You know, this is a bad analogy, and so I haven't 18 used it in the media, but I've thought about it, and so I'll 19 share it. So, after the Jessie Smollett plea in Chicago, 20 there was some discussion of whether the federal government 21 should bring charges, and I remember the media saying that, 22 and I haven't used this analogy, because I don't want to 23 compare, and I think it would be disrespectful to compare the 24 facts of that case to what happened to these victims, and I 25 still -- and I don't want the comparison to be drawn, but EFTA00009197 Page 382 1 there is a legal comparison, right? 2 The U.S. Attorney in Chicago could have stepped in 3 and said, whether or not the state takes this plea, we may 4 investigate this federally, and sort of stopped that plea 5 from going forward, or at least put a wrench in those gears, 6 or the U.S. Attorney could have pursued that under petite 7 policy, and did not. 8 And so, our stepping into this sort of reminded me 9 of how many times cases that are viewed as a manifest 10 injustice do occur, and yet the federal government does not 11 step in? And the fact that we stepped in has been construed 12 as, this became a federal prosecution, and sort of going -- 13 going to -- is it or -- 14 15 A sort of question earlier, the 16 distinction between -- it was not a manifest injustice versus 17 this was the right outcome, is something that I think has 18 been lost in the coverage of this matter. 19 I think a second issue that has been lost in the 20 coverage of this matter is, there are references to Prince 21 Andrew, and Alex Dershowitz and Governor Richardson and Bill 22 Clinton, and thing happening in London, and the so called 23 Lolita Express where things may have happened on airplanes. 24 And so, this is viewed from the public as this international 25 matter, where the victims were local, the actions, to my EFTA00009198 Page 383 1 recollection, was local. 2 And so, the distinction between this Palm Beach 3 incident and what the media likes to cover, which is, you 4 know, was, you know, did Mr. Epstein force a minor to have 5 sexual relations with Prince Andrew, is a very different fact 6 pattern both in terms of the public perception of forcing a 7 minor to have sex with a third party, that they have -- you 8 know, that is outside the solicitation context. 9 It's sort of -- I'm travelling with these women, and forcing them to have sex, versus a more local matter 11 that -- I don't want to say solicitation, because I think 12 we've covered that, but that some may view as that. 13 Q Mm-hmm. 14 A And I think those are two major elements -- 15 Q Right. A -- that have been lost in the coverage. 17 Q The case has been criticized as having involved 18 improper influences, or favors, or payments that affected 19 decisions that were made within your office, and you're aware 20 of all those -- 21 22 Q -- allegations as well. In connection with this 23 case. Were you yourself ever offered any -- any payments, or 24 any favors, or any promises or job assistance or anything 25 like that -- EFTA00009199 Page 384 3 4 A No. Q -- in connection with this case? A No. Q And to your knowledge, was there any such offer to 5 anyone associated with this case in your office? 6 7 A Not to my knowledge. Q It's been asserted also that the -- the handling of 8 the case in the office was affected by Epstein's wealth and 9 influence in the Palm Beach community. Do you -- what is 10 your -- what's your response to that criticism? 11 A Again, my response would be, you know, sometime in 12 May or June we came up with these three points, and we stuck 13 to them, and -- and you know, I -- despite all of this, you 14 know, when people make these assertions, somewhere along the 15 way, the fact that we stuck to those points is lost and is 16 not talked about. 17 And so, we did stick to those points. You know, 18 and -- and questioned whether the case would have come to us 19 in the first place but for -- and so, you know, I think that 20 could also go the other way. 21 Q I don't understand that. 22 A That it's highly unusual for a case to be brought 23 to the state -- to the U.S. Attorney's Office after the state 24 attorney declined not declines, but -- 25 Q Fails to fully prosecute? EFTA00009200 Page 385 A Right, and so, so one question that at -- that also 2 doesn't get asked is, you know, to what extent was this case 3 brought to us in the first place because of this, because of 4 his profile? 5 Q In other words, are you suggesting that his wealth and influence in the community affected the state authorities? 8 A I'm not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is 9 the case came in, the case proceeded, and someone can make 10 the argument that the only reason that Chief brought it to us was because it had such a high profile -- are there 12 other matters that take place in Palm Beach that a state 13 attorney declines in the first place that isn't brought to 14 the state attorney because it doesn't rise to that 15 Q You mean to the V.S. Attorney. 16 A -- to the -- to the U.S. Attorney because it 17 doesn't rise to that profile. 18 Q All right. All right. 9 BY MS. 20 Q Well, in fairness, he might've done it because of the number of victims too, right? 22 A He may have. I don't know. What I'm suggesting is 23 we tried to treat it fairly, not looking at, hey, how wealthy 24 is he, but also not saying we need to do this because he is 25 so wealthy. EFTA00009201 Page 386 1 2 Q What do you think about the media's treatment of 3 the line assistant, =ME? 4 A I think she -- I wish her name wouldn't be in the 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 not why they take the pay cuts that they take to go into 12 federal service, and you know, I think the media coverage of 13 this case has been unfair, and has lost a lot of the 14 complexities. 15 It's not surprising, because I mean, here, we're 16 talking about -- about a lot of those complexities, and it 17 takes a fairly sophisticated discussion, but I think it's 18 particularly unfair on 19 Q In your attorney's written response, he used the 20 term relentless for -- to characterize the team of lawyers -- 21 the defense lawyers, and in that Daily Beast article that 22 you -- 23 F.• 24 Q -- wrote, you referred to the yearlong assault on media. You know, to some extent, U.S. Attorneys, when they take the job, realize that part of their job is to take the slings and arrows. You know, there are instances when AUSAs were accused of misconduct, and -- and I always sort of felt that that was -- I don't want to say below the belt, but that's 25 the prosecution and the prosecutors, you noted that the EFTA00009202 Page 387 1 defense was, "More aggressive than any of which I or the 2 prosecutors in my office had previously encountered." You 3 noted that the defense investigated prosecutors and tried to 4 disqualify two, and I believe that those two are 5 and . Is that -- 6 A That is correct. 7 Q All right. A Yeah. 9 Q And you also noted, or asserted that there were 10 investigations into the family lives of individual 11 prosecutors, accusations of bias and misconduct against 12 individual prosecutors, and even the threat of a book on 13 prosecutorial zeal. Do you still regard that 14 characterization as accurate? 15 A I do. You know, whether I would use those same 16 words now, we can spend a lot of time talking about it, and 17 I'd want -- 18 Q All right. 19 A -- to think about, but I do think that's accurate. 20 I think this really was a razed earth type of matter, and in 21 the office's typical interactions, the prosecutors know they 22 have to come back to the office. And so, they would not 23 sorry, not the prosecutors. It's getting late, though. The 24 defense counsel. 25 And so, they would not -- it's not just the EFTA00009203 Page 388 1 accusations against the attorneys, but the 2 mischaracterization. I -- you know, I could go through the 3 record, and there's several instances where my words, or 4 other AUSAs words are being mischaracterized, or where 5 going back to one of the Mlle -mails, people walk out of the 6 meeting believing they have an agreement, and then that's 7 unwound, and -- that that is not -- I don't know if that's 8 typical in Washington, but that's certainly not typical in 9 the Miami office. 0 Q All right, in that Daily Beast article, I think you also used the term peccadillos. What did you mean by that in particular? 14 A Could I see the -- could I see the -- 15 Q Mm-hmm. I was afraid you'd ask that. I have it right in front of me, and I don't at the moment, but -- MS. Are you talking about the to whom it 8 may concern letter? MR. : Yes. 20 THE WITNESS Yes. 21 BY MS. 22 Q Yes. Thank you, and it's a reference on the second 23 numbered page of this copy, to personal peccadillos, in the 24 middle of the page. 25 A Also, individual prosecutors and their families EFTA00009204 Page 389 looking for personal peccadillos that provide a -- so, 12 14 was, to my recollection, she wasn't investigated. I tri and I haven't encountered that in other cases. I recall it -- at one point, they also looked in , and family, and his background, and I thought that was little out of line. Q Q 15 F. :8 Q EFTA00009205 Ni 13 14 15 A tl lilt the point I was trying to convey is, this is not a -- this is not typical behavior by defense counsel. Q Did -- A And despite all this, my point was, despite all this, we did not budge. Q And again, that's not the focus of -- Right. Q -- of this guestion.I 16 A 17 19 Q Q All right. Are there any other examples where defense counsel came to you that have not otherwise been 21 addressed with -- Q -- allegations about someone -- 25 A I'm hesitating -- EFTA00009206 Page 391 1 Q -- else -- 2 A -- just because I'm trying to think through, and 3 not to my recollection, no. 4 Q Did they ever raise or imply that there were 5 that there was information regarding you of whatever respect, 6 that was in the nature of a sort of a threat, or a veiled 7 warning? 8 A So, the book reference was that I might be 9 personally embarrassed by pursuing this matter, because I 10 would be the subject of a chapter in a book on prosecutorial 11 overreach. 12 Q And who was going to write that book? Do you know? 13 A Professor Dershowitz. 14 Q MM-hmm. Okay. Did you consider him a professional 15 friend at all? 16 A I had not, to my recollection, met him. I -- I 17 understand in this letter I sort of grouped him in. 18 Q ma-hmm. 19 A But I would -- I'd say for the record that it's 20 hard to know what my intent was in 2011, but that's for 21 simplicity of grouping individuals, because I did go to 22 Harvard. 23 I may have run into him at Harvard, but he was not 24 my professor, and I don't -- I didn't work for him as a 25 teaching assistant. I had some interest in criminal law, so EFTA00009207 Page 392 1 I may have chatted with him, but -- but that would have been 2 it. Q And did you consult with him at all in connection with your efforts -- your interest in potentially teaching or being involved in the -- sort of the law school world, either at Harvard, or at Florida International, or anywhere else? A Not to my recollection. At some point when I 8 applied for the deanship -- I wasn't aware of the deanship 9 until -- so, let's -- let's take this -- let's take this in 0 part. I thought about looking at Harvard for a teaching 1 position. To my recollection, I never followed through on 2 that. Q Mn-bmm. A I knew Elena Kagan, and may have had a conversation with her that would have been a preliminary, how does this 6 process work? But I don't recall taking it -- if I took it that far, and I'm not saying that I did -- this was a long time ago -- I never sort of went through -- the way law 19 schools hire is a very -- they call it the "meat market." 20 Q Min-hmm. 21 A Take that for what it's worth. It's something that 22 happens at the hotels here, at the -- at the Marriott here 23 in -- on Connecticut, and it's a very formalized process, and 24 I never -- 25 Q Mm-hmm. EFTA00009208 Page 393 1 A -- went through that. I don't recall any 2 conversation with Professor Dershowitz about that. To the 3 extent I was thinking about it, it'd be natural for me to 4 talk to but I don't recall talking to him. With 5 respect to Professor Dershowitz, with respect to FIU, the 6 dean process is very decentralized. 7 To the extent a faculty member spoke to him, I 8 don't know. To my recollection, and again, this is a long 9 time ago, I did not ask him for a reference or a letter or 10 something to that regard, although I may have. It was a 11 long, long time ago. I was also no longer active in this 12 case at the time. 13 Q All right, and what about with respect to that same 14 process on your part, Ken Starr, who actually was a dean of a 15 law school at the time? Did -- did he provide you with a 16 reference, or -- 17 A Not -- 18 Q -- advice? 19 A Not to my recollection. 20 Q Ail right. 21 A As -- as the letter from -- from Ken at the end, 22 there was some -- by the time this was over, there was some 23 degree of tension between us on my resolution of this matter. 24 Q But it also appeared to be tension that both of you 25 were eager to leave aside. EFTA00009209 Page 394 1 A I'm a big believer, and I had good relationships 2 with the defense bar. I think lawyers can disagree and not 3 be disagreeable, and we would be a better profession if we 4 all learned to do that. 5 Q So would the world. 6 A Yes. 7 Q There is an -- sort of investigative journalist 8 author named 9 A Yes. 10 Q Do you know that name? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Did you ever speak with her? 13 A So, she was the recipient of the do -- to whom it 14 may concern letter at the Daily Beast. 15 Q Oh, really? 16 A Yes. 17 Q All right. All right. Thank you. I didn't -- we 18 didn't know that. Did she comment back to you on it? 19 A It was a long time ago. I don't -- I don't recall. 20 Q So, she wrote a book called trafficking. Have you 21 read that -- 22 A She did -- 23 Q -- about this case? 24 A She did. I haven't read it recently, but I read it 25 a while ago. EFTA00009210 Pane 395 1 Q And she says in that book that you told her a few 2 years after the NPA was signed that as she writes, "He felt incapable of going up against those eight powerful attorneys. He felt his career was at stake." Did you say that to her? 5 A Not to my recollection, and what I tried to do was, 6 for the record, provide this letter to her, and the purpose 7 of this letter was to say the exact opposite, which is -- and 8 you know, we have this -- you know, and she and the New York 9 Times, and I think the New York Times called it -- what -- 10 what's the word? Like, apologia? Does anyone know what -- 11 Q Apologia. 12 A Apologia. 13 Q It's a -- it's an -- 14 A -- 15 Q -- apology. It's a fancy way of saying -- 16 17 Q -- you're -- 18 A Ye4h. 19 Q -- explaining yourself. 20 A Yeah. I looked it up, and it's a little more 21 derogatory than explaining yourself, because I felt a need 22 Q Ma-ham. 23 A -- to look it up, but the New York Times called 24 this letter an apologia. 25 Q Ma-ham. EFTA00009211 Page 396 1 A And this was recently, and I say this, because when 2 folks read this letter, they read it as, this is why, you 3 know, we had these -- they -- I think sometimes they 4 selectively read language. The prosecutors and agents in 5 this case -- and what followed was a yearlong assault. I 6 used the word assault as it was more aggressive than anything 7 in which I or the prosecutors in my office had previously 8 encountered. 9 Excuse me. Mr. Epstein hired an army of legal 10 superstars, Harvard Professor Dershowitz, former judge and 11 then Pepperdine lodging Ken Starr, former deputy assistant to 12 the president then Kirkland & Ellis law partner Jay 13 Lefkowitz, and several others, including prosecutors that 14 formerly worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office, the child 15 exploitation section -- I'm not sure who that was -- of the 16 Department of Defense, and they -- 17 Q Department of Defense? 18 A No, no, in the child exploitation and obscenity 19 section of the Justice Department. Defense attorneys next 20 requested a meeting with me. And they read that as saying 21 these -- there were all these powerful lawyers in the case, 22 but they don't then go on to talk about, despite this army of 23 attorneys, the office held firm to the terms first presented 24 to Mr. Black in the original meeting. 25 Q So, is it your -- so, what I understand you saying EFTA00009212 Page 397 1 is that the panoply, this pantheon of attorneys did not have 2 the influence on you that's alleged? 3 A And -- and the purpose of this letter was to say, 4 despite all this O 9 10 1 Q Right. A -- we held firm. So, how can you say that there's influence if we held firm? Q So, the -- A And I would -- I would also -- I'm sorry. Q No, no. A I would also note, and I think we talked about 12 this, that those terms were developed before many of these 13 individuals came on board. 14 Q Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. 15 A So, it's not like these terms were developed 16 because, oh, now these individuals are on board. 17 Q All right. And we haven't, of course, talked about 18 the whole work release issue, but -- 19 R Yeah. 20 Q -- I think that speaks -- the record -- 21 A Yeah. 22 Q -- speaks for itself on that. 23 A Yeah. 24 BY MS. 25 Q So, I'm not sure I'm clear. Did you have an EFTA00009213 interview, or give a -- have a conversation with Ms. 2 aside -- or, just sent her this letter? 3 A I spoke to her briefly saying, I'm not going to 4 speak on the record. I'm not going to address even off the 5 record details of this case, but I will provide a letter to 6 you. I've had a lot of requests over the years to talk about 7 this case. 8 There were enough requests coming that I thought it 9 important to provide a statement to defend the actions of the office. I didn't want it to be to one reporter in 1 particular, because I did not want to play favorites. And 12 so, I provided a to whom it may concern letter that was a 13 public letter, but then I gave it to her. 14 MS. : All right. Go on? 15 BY MS. 16 Q And just one thing on the work release issue. Did 17 you tell the defense that -- that the U.S. Attorney's Office 18 would not object if he got work release as long as he was 19 treated like every -- like every other defendant? 20 A So -- so, I don't recall what I may or may not have 21 said specifically around work release. My recollection of 22 our general position is, you're pleading in state court to 23 incarceration of 18 -- it's now 18 months, it was 24. 24 Whether it was 18 or 24, this would have been -- any 25 conversation I would have had would have been after the EFTA00009214 Page 399 1 agreement was signed. 2 It's our expectation that he be treated just like 3 everyone else, if -- if it was typical to provide that kind 4 of work release in these cases, that would have been news to S me. I certainly would not have expected that, and I think 6 based on our subsequent communications with the state 7 attorney's office, that was not what our office envisioned. 8 By the same token, I don't think our office envisioned that 9 he be treated worth that the typical offender. 10 Q Well, did you know that was in fact trying to 11 make sure that he didn't get work release? 12 A Yes. And so, I don't see any reason why I would 13 have contradicted that, is -- is my point. 14 Q All right. You've mentioned a number of times that 15 the sexual offender registration was the -- one of the three 16 important prongs for you and the office. 17 A Yes. 18 Q What was it that you saw the sex offender 19 registration as accomplishing? 20 A So, to some extent it's putting the community on 21 notice that, irrespective of whether he's in Florida or 22 elsewhere, he's a registered sex offender. To some extent, I 23 don't know if this is -- but I'll say it anyhow. This was a 24 serious crime, and there is a public sanction associated with 25 this, and I thought to the extent that he committed the types EFTA00009215 Page 400 1 of acts that typically are associated with registration that 2 that should go forward, but the primary motivation there was, 3 put the public on notice that he is a registered sex 4 offender. 5 Q And did you see any conflict with that as being a 6 goal with the provision in the NPA that was -- that the NPA 7 was going to be kept confidential, and the communications in B which the -- in which the U.S. Attorney's Office was having 9 with the defense about continuing to keep things 10 confidential? Do you see any inconsistency between those 11 two? 12 A No, in that I -- I genuinely was of the opinion 13 that this NPA would go public, and certainly his public 14 his state court plea would be public, and his registration 15 would be public. And so, it would -- what he did would be 16 known. 17 Q And given what you know about these office's back 18 and forth on notifying the victims, do you think, looking at 19 the entire course of conduct of the office, that the victims 20 were treated fairly, and with dignity and respect? 21 A So, I want to be careful, not because I'm fudging, 22 but because it's a complex question. If, looking back in 23 hindsight, we knew that there would be a -- what was it? Two 24 eight months period, when -- do we have an agreement, do we 25 not have agreement, is this concluded, is this not concluded? EFTA00009216 Page 401 1 Is this an ongoing investigation? 2 How do we deal with all these notification issues? 3 If we had foreseen all of that, I think I've said before, 4 that -- that something I certainly think should have been 5 considered, and it's very possible we would have done 6 something very different. 7 But that was not foreseen. And so, it's then a 8 very difficult judgement to be made, because there is an 9 agreement. There is concern as to if we have to go to trial, 10 how do you address this? 11 There is, you know, going to the 12 affidavit, at least one instance -- and I'm merging my 13 recollection here, and -- and my knowledge after the fact, 14 because your question sort of calls for an after the fact 15 assessment. 16 So, you've got the affidavit, which 17 points out that defense counsel did all they could, but is 18 using this to impeach and weaken witness credibility in a 19 case where there's already questions around witness 20 credibility. 21 And so, it's a very imperfect situation with 22 discretionary judgements to -- to do the best, to sort of 23 balance all these factors. Is that the best outcome? 24 Probably not, but that's where the -- that's where we were, 25 and that's why I think this case would have been very EFTA00009217 Page 402 1 differently if what was it, October 24 2 Q MM-hmm. 3 A -- he would have gone in and plead and taken his 4 time and served his time like so many other people have done 5 as opposed to mount all these legal challenges that we then 6 had to work through. 7 Q And I'll preface my question with the -- with the 8 fact that we're still investigating this. We've made no 9 conclusions -- 10 A Mm-hmm. 11 Q -- with respect to this, but if OPR determines that 12 your office should be criticized for its handling of this -- 13 A Right. 14 Q -- matter, does that criticism fall on you, or does 15 it fall on your senior managers? Because as a non- 16 prosecutor, you were relying on them to keep you informed, 17 and for their judgement. 18 A So, I was the U.S. Attorney. I certainly relied on 19 my staff, but ultimately, I was the U.S. Attorney, and I 20 don't think it's justifiable or fair to sort of say this was 21 on them. I was sufficiently aware of matters that -- that -- 22 it was my office, and -- and while I'll say that I was -- I 23 might not recall this, or I was relying on A, B, or C for 24 guidance, or to handle this matter, ultimately, I think those 25 judgements always sort of bubble up. EFTA00009218 Page 403 1 BY MS. 2 Q In your press conference, you reference -- this is 3 the -- I think July 10, 2019 press conference. You referenced victims, what they went through was A Mm-hmm. 6 Q -- horrific, you said, and then you said, I've seen 7 these videos. I've seen the interviews. I have seen the 8 interviews on television of these victims, and their stories. 9 Just to be clear, are you talking about interviews and 10 television coverage and videos recently, or back in 2006 11 and -- 12 A Recently. 13 Q -- 2007? Okay. I just wanted to be very clear 14 about that. The U.S. Attorney's manual requires us all in 15 the department to conduct the fair, even handed 16 administration of the federal criminal laws. What's your 17 view as to how the handling of this case comported with that 18 principle? 19 A So, I do think it was fair, and even handed. We -- 20 you know, after the fact, may look back and say that two year 21 may not have -- you know, it shouldn't have been a manifest 22 injustice standard. It should have been, you know, a sort of 23 a de novo, let's treat this as a new prosecution. 24 That's a judgement you'll all make, but -- but 25 those judgements were made with an eye toward fairness and EFTA00009219 Page 404 1 impartiality, and once those judgements were made, despite 2 all the attorneys involved, and despite all the litigation, 3 and all the -- all the stuff, all the appeals to Washington 4 and the -- you know, we stuck to that position. 5 Q Mm-hmm. 6 A And I think that speaks to the way the office 7 approached this matter. 8 Q All right. We -- I -- we spoke sort of offline 9 earlier about an issue that was raised in that press 10 conference that was not clearly answered on your part in that 11 context, and the question was -- and this is on page 15 of 12 the internet transcript of -- 13 A Right. 14 Q -- that press conference. You were asked whether 15 you were ever made aware that Mr. Epstein was "an 16 intelligence asset of some sort." And you -- you in your 17 response you said you couldn't answer it -- couldn't address 18 it directly because of guidelines. Can you clarify -- first 19 of all, were you ever made aware of that -- 20 A If he was -- 21 Q -- assertion? 22 A -- I'm not aware of it. 23 Q All right. Did defense counsel ever say to you 24 that Epstein had that status? 25 A Not to my recollection. EFTA00009220 Page 405 Q All right. 2 A And -- and to clarify, I also don't know where 3 press reports from multiple sources -- not from multiple 4 sources, but from multiple media outlets that I told someone that he was an intelligence asset. 6 I do not know where that came from. If -- if I can just -- so, there are questions that I may be asked publicly, 8 that I don't think it's right for me to comment as to what 9 classified information I may or may not know, because that's 10 not the kind of stuff you'd go into, but the answer is no, 11 and no. 12 • All right. Without reservation, without any -- A No, and no. • All right. Excellent. Thank you. A couple of ▪ final questions. As you can tell -- 16 A Can I -- can I -- 17 Q Yes. 18 A -- address as second issue that has come up at 19 times? 20 Q Yes. 21 A There are also media reports that this was because 22 of cooperation in some financial 23 Q Me-hmm. 24 A -- financial matters. I don't know where that may 25 have -- I don't know where that may have come from. EFTA00009221 Page 406 1 Q All right. Thank you, and we are familiar with 2 that, what you're referring to. 3 A Was -- was there cooperation related to financial 4 matters? 5 6 7 Q We didn't ask you about it. A Okay. Q As you can tell, OPR obtained many electronic 8 records -- 9 A Yeah. 10 Q -- mainly e-mails, but other electronic holdings 11 from the department. The Department of Justice, however, has 12 not been able to find/recover a portion of your e-mail 13 account as U.S. Attorney that contained e-mails received by 14 you between May 26th, 2007, and March 2008. 15 A Correct. 16 Q A period of time rather relevant to this. We have 17 obtained many records of course from senders and from other 18 people copied. So, we have many of the records, but the fact 19 is, that's a -- 20 A Mm-hmm. 21 Q -- gap in the holdings, and this is despite the 22 fact that as you no doubt know, the law requires that U.S. 23 Attorney records be maintained and archived -- 24 A Right. 25 Q -- indefinitely. Can you give us any insight, any EFTA00009222 Page 407 idea why that might be the case? 2 A I can't, and my recollection was after -- after 3 several issues that took place, the department had some sort 4 of records retention software that automatically retained 5 these e-mails. Is that not accurate? 6 7 8 Q There was a -- there was a switchover from -- A Right. Q -- a period in which that record retention 9 responsibility resided with each U.S. Attorney's Office, and 10 at the switchover, it became centralized. A Right. And this appears to have sort of gotten lost in 13 the -- 14 A Been caught in the switchover. I -- my 15 recollection is that there was some automatic retention 16 mechanism -- 17 Q Okay. 18 A -- and I can't address that, although there's 19 certainly a fulsome -- a fulsome record. 20 Q But just to ask the inevitable question -- 21 A Right. 22 Q -- did you take any action to discard, destroy, or 23 dispense with any official records -- 94 F. Not -- 7 Q -- related to this matter? EFTA00009223 Page 408 1 A Not to my recollection. I think there's a fulsome 2 record, and not to my recollection. 3 Q All right, and is there any particular gap that 4 you've discerned in the records that we've provided to you? 5 A Not that I recall. Do you have the e-mails that I 6 sent, out of curiosity? 7 Q We do. 8 A Okay. So, you have the sent, but not received. 9 Q Yes. 10 A Just checking. 11 Q And lik , we retrieved from the federal records 12 center -- 13 A Right. 14 Q -- records that were boxed up and sent there, hard 15 copy documents, after your term ended, and there is nothing 16 that relates to the Epstein case. There were records that 17 were maintained that were kept in the main office -- 18 A Right. 19 Q -- after you left, because it was an ongoing 20 matter, but it -- do you have any idea why there are not any 21 in the records of yours -- 22 A So -- 23 Q -- that were sent? 24 A So, I have a recollection that when I left, there 25 were some binders that I passed along to , because it was EFTA00009224 Page 409 1 an ongoing case, and we sort of had binders out that sort of 2 had correspondence back and forth. 3 Q All right, and you've already made we've 4 we -- I asked you about facts, but you addressed a sort of a 5 broader statement to us for the record about the case. Is 6 there anything else you want to tell us at this point? 7 A Give me a second to -- 8 Q Sure. 9 A -- sort of think this through. 10 Q In fact, if you'd like to take a quick break and 11 talk to your attorney, and that will be the last question. 12 A Do we need a break? 13 MR. : No. 14 MS. : Your attorney says god no. 15 THE WITNESS I will -- I will follow up on this. 16 MS. All right. 17 THE WITNESS Nothing that I -- if something comes 18 up, my understanding is that we're receive the transcript, 19 and have enough time given the length of this to review and 20 comment. 21 BY MS. 22 Q Exactly, yes, and for the record -- 23 A Right. 24 Q when the transcript is prepared, which should be 25 within a couple of weeks, we'll ship that off to your EFTA00009225 Pac,- 1 attorney. 2 A Mm-hmm. 3 Q We'll ask you to review it, to make not only any corrections, but also clarifications, and to add to it -- 5 A Mm-hmm. 6 Q -- if you feel having read something that it needs 7 to be clarified or expanded upon, you're invited to do so. 8 A And if I could ask one -- one other question. Is 9 there -- and I'm not familiar enough with the way OPR 10 operates, and this may be suigeneris, so you may not be 11 prepared to answer, if there is a report as opposed to a 12 letter, which is what I typically am familiar with, will that_ 13 report be shared in advance for comment? 14 Q I am going to -- 15 A Or is that to be determined? 16 MS. I am going to defer to Ms. 17 for that. 18 MS. : That's a question that doesn't need to 19 be on the record. Do you have anything else that you'd want 20 to put on the record before we close out? 21 THE WITNESS: I do not. 22 MS. All right. 23 MS. : All right. Thank you. I want to 24 extend our great appreciation for your willingness -- 25 THE WITNESS No problem. EFTA00009226 1 MS. Page 411 -- to come in and help us with this 2 case. 3 THE WITNESS So, so, let me -- now that we're off 4 the record, let me say -- 5 MS. : Are we off the record? 9 THE REPORTER: Not yet. THE WITNESS Not yet? Oh. MS. No? THE REPORTER: You didn't say it. 10 MS. : All right. That's it. We're off 11 the record. 12 (Whereupon, at 8:38 p.m. the interview of r". 13 Alexander Acosta was concluded.) IA * * * 15 1 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 EFTA00009227 Page 412 CERTIFICATE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) I, Beth Roots, Notary Public, before whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing pages was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was reported by me by electronic record, and thereafter reduced to typewritten form; that said deposition is a true record of the testimony given by said witness; that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition was taken; and, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties thereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of this action. Beth Roots Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia My commission expires: April 30, 2020 EFTA00009228