EFTA00009329.pdf

Page 101 
1 
carefully -- the -- each -- each victim was tied to a 
2 
particular set of criminal activity. In other words, these 
3 
victims were not lumped in an aggregate sort of formless 
4 
petri dish. 
5 
A 
Yes. 
6 
Q 
They were individuals. 
had met -- was 
7 
meeting with them, *indeed was finding new victims along with 
8 
the FBI, and they were conducting individualized assessments 
9 
of the viability of each victim witness, and indeed 
10 
submitted a follow on pros memo, a pros memo addendum in 
11 
July, and another one in September, and tailored -- continued 
12 
to tailor her indictment -- proposed indictment to these 
13 
individualized acts. 
14 
The question -- when I -- when I hear the victims 
15 
referred to in the aggregate, I wonder what effort there was 
16 
to sit down and address each individual victim, because there 
17 
were so many, and a credibility issue that could be very 
18 
troubling with one victim, if -- or, two victims, or four 
19 
victims --
20 
A 
Fair. 
21 
Q 
-- could well be overcome by other victims who had, 
22 
not those credibility issues, perhaps others, and if I may 
23 
finish, that in the aggregate, when presented individually in 
24 
total, a kind of a persuasive case could be made that would 
25 
be impossible with one or two or three? Does that -- is that 
EFTA00009329

Page 102 
1 
a fair --
2 
A 
So, that is fair, and I think -- and your point 
3 
that we shouldn't sort of talk about the victims in aggregate 
4 
is a fair point. I would -- I would respond, and Ms. 
5 
goes into this in her affidavit a little bit, and 
6 
I've got it -- and I have a recollection of some discussion 
7 
of this between myself, and you're going to ask me who, so 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
another victim that said horrendous things happened, to what 
14 
extent does defense cast this as, they are trying to recover, 
15 
they're trying to do -- and so one of the concerns was when 
16 
you have victims that know one another, that brought one 
17 
another in, even if you've got similar patterns, if some of 
18 
them cast doubt, how would that be taken by -- by the jury? 
19 
Q 
Is that assessment or analysis your own, or is it 
20 
one that you developed with the people you talked to about 
21 
this case? 
22 
A 
So, that -- that assessment would have been, in my 
23 
general recollection, but also based on my practice, that 
24 
kind of witness assessment is the kind of thing that I would 
25 
have relied more on the AUSA -- on my management team for, 
let me just say I don't know who. 
But the concern is when you have victims that know 
one another, to what extent would defense -- if you've got 
two victims that say A happened, even if it's similar sets of 
facts, and another victim that said he did nothing wrong, and 
EFTA00009330

Page 103 
1 
because that was more within their -- their area of 
2 
expertise. 
3 
Q 
Right, and 
in particular was known as 
4 
a trial attorney. 
5 
A 
Right. 
6 
Q 
Correct? 
7 
A 
Right. 
8 
Q 
Do you recall having discussions with 
about 
9 
that? 
10 
A 
He would have been the logical --
11 
Q 
Right. 
12 
A 
-- person. I know that we had those discussions, 
13 
and we talked about what happened, how will they -- how will 
14 
they play out at trial, and -- and the takeaway was, it could 
15 
play out well, it could not play out well. 
16 
Q 
So, as of the time that all --
17 
A 
And again, I say they as a collective. 
18 
Q 
Right. 
19 
A 
Understanding that some would say exonerating 
20 
things. Some would have contradictory statements. Some may 
21 
not want to testify, and -- and so, that conversation was 
22 
had. 
23 
Q 
So, was had, it -- you and 
talked about it? 
24 
A 
I can't say -- 
and I can say, I recall the 
25 
discussion, you know, I don't know -- 12 years ago, you might 
EFTA00009331

Page 104 
1 
recall a discussion from 12 years ago. What -- what you 
2 
presented to me, for the record, I'm pointing to 
, or I'm 
3 
indicating 
the -- the issue about civil rights, do you 
4 
recall who else was in the room or wasn't in the room at the 
5 
time? 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
substance without remembering who was in the room at the 
15 
time. 
16 
Q 
And understanding --
17 
A 
Right. 
18 
Q 
-- that this was one case of thousands that were 
19 
under your --
20 
A 
Correct. 
21 
Q 
-- authority, although a particularly sensitive and 
22 
high profile one, but the -- a -- the question to you is, do 
23 
you know what individualized assessment 
did of 
24 
the victim witnesses? 
25 
A 
I -- I can't speak to that. 
A 
Yeah, I --
Q 
It's a rhetorical question. 
A 
It's a rhetorical question. 
Q 
We'll take it, I guess. 
A 
But --
Q
A 
-- you know, it's very -- it -- one can remember 
EFTA00009332

Page 105 
1 
Q 
Do you know whether he actually met with any of the 
2 
victim witnesses? 
3 
A 
I can't speak to that. 
Q 
Do you know whether 
went to West Palm 
5 
and sat down and actually went through the evidence as to 
6 
each one of the potential --
7 
A 
I --
8 
Q 
-- witnesses? 
9 
A 
I can't speak to that. 
10 
Q 
Do you know any of that information as to 
11 SNP 
12 
A 
Again, I can't -- I can't speak to that. I 
13 
would -- I would say that -- that 
was first assistant, 
14 
and to the extent he relied on the criminal chief, that would 
15 
be -- he used to be criminal chief, and so --
16 
Q 
Right. 
17 
A 
-- he would naturally view the role of criminal 
18 
chief as being important, and someone that would naturally 
19 
review matters before they went to the first assistant. 
20 
Q 
Okay. So, when you talk -- when you were -- as you 
21 
recall, having these conversations about the -- the victim 
22 
issues, as -- as matters of evidence, it -- it -- you cannot 
23 
tell us what the basis for 
analysis was? 
24 
A 
I can't. I mean, as a general matter, I don't 
25 
recall the specific. As a general matter, when I talk to 
EFTA00009333

Page 106 
1 
individuals about a case, I would assume that they had 
2 
informed themselves, and had done the diligence necessary to 
3 
have that discussion with me. 
4 
Q 
Do you remember him parsing out for you, or --
5
6 
Q 
-- you know --
7 
A 
-- I don't recall that --
8 
4 
-- the individual --
9 
A 
-- that level of granularity. 
10 
Q 
All right. The -- to finish my sentence, to the 
11 
individual witnesses, and you're saying you don't. 
12 
A 
Yeah. 
13 
Q 
And by witness, I mean victim witness. Did you 
14 
ever sit down with 
and have her present to 
15 
you each witness -- each victim as a potential witness, and 
16 
her individualized credibility issues, and how as a -- as a 
17 
prosecutor and an experienced trial attorney, 
18 
was going to overcome those issues? 
19 
A 
I don't recall doing that, and as a matter of 
20 
general practice, particularly when it came to what I'll call 
21 
trial issues --
22 
Q 
mm-bms. 
23 
A 
-- we had really experienced individuals in the 
24 
office, and that's not something that I would typically do on 
25 
this or other high profile cases, because they're the trial 
EFTA00009334

Page 107 
1 
lawyers. They -- this is what they do. I would tend to 
2 
focus more on the legal issues. 
3 
Q 
All right. I want to stay with the -- the witness 
4 
issues, and the evidence of that for the moment. 
5 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
6 
Q 
In Exhibit 3, this lively exchange between 
7 
and 
, she asks to make a presentation to you in the last 
8 
major paragraph of her e-mail on page four. She says, "I 
9 
would like to make a presentation to the U.S. Attorney, 
10 
and you, with our side of the investigation and a 
11 
revised indictment. The presentation will address the points 
12 
raised by Epstein's counsel, and will convince you of the 
13 
strength of the case." Bearing in mind that by this time, 
14 
and 
had in front of them --
15 
A 
Right. 
16 
Q 
-- her pros memo, her proposed indictment, this 
17 
analysis she did as evidenced in Exhibit 8, but also the 
18 
submissions from Jerry Lefcourt, and that -- that 
had 
19 
not had a chance to actually make a presentation to them. 
20 
response is on page three, his last paragraph. 
21 
He chides 
and tells her that, "You may 
22 
not dictate the dates and people you will meet with about 
23 
this or any other case. If the U.S. Attorney or the first 
24 
assistant desired to meet with you, they will let you know." 
25 
She, in her final response on page one points out that she's 
EFTA00009335

Page 108 
1 
not trying to dictate anything. She's just asking. Are you 
2 
aware that -- bear in mind, you didn't see --
3 
4 
A 
Correct. 
Q 
-- Exhibit 3, were you aware that 
5 
very much wanted to make a presentation to you and to 
6 
and 
about her case, and her evidence? 
7 
A 
So, I don't recall this. 
8 
Q 
By this, you mean --
9 
A 
I don't -- I don't recall being aware of this 
10 
request. 
11 
Q 
All right. 
12 
A 
As a -- as a general matter, it seemed that there 
13 
was communications going back and forth. And so, she 
14 
certainly felt comfortable e-mailing me when she wanted to, I 
15 
guess is my point, rightly or wrongly. And so, I wasn't 
16 
aware of that request, and --
17 
Q 
So, are you suggesting that she could easily have 
18 
e-mailed you and said, Alex, I really want to make a 
19 
presentation to you? 
20 
A 
I'm not suggesting -- let me -- what I'm suggesting 
21 
is from my perspective, there was a lot of communication in 
22 
this case, more than is typical. I wasn't aware of -- I 
23 
don't recall the request, but there was communication in this 
24 
case. 
25 
Q 
What do you -- what do you mean by communication? 
al 
• 
EFTA00009336

Page 109 
1 
I mean, there are a lot of e-mails, but --
2 
A 
There is. There are a lot of e-mails, right. 
3 
Q 
But a lot of them are because there are draft --
4 
later on, we have drafts and so on, but --
5 
A 
6 
Q 
-- we don't --
7 
A 
So, what I mean by that is, I do not recall an 
8 
impression that she wasn't being -- that she didn't have 
9 
access, or wasn't being heard. 
10 
Q 
To you? 
11 
A 
Correct. 
12 
Q 
You've already seen two e-mails here where she was 
13 
scolded pretty seriously, and in one case for approaching --
14 
A 
Correct. 
15 
Q 
and you without 
being 
16 
involved back when --
17 
A 
Correct. 
18 
Q 
was crim chief, and then here, she --
19 
the -- what 
says to her is quite strong, isn't 
20 
it? Would you have ever used that language to a subordinate? 
21 
A 
You've seen my e-mails and my style. 
22 
Q 
I think not. 
23 
A 
I -- so, what I -- what I am saying is, from my 
24 
perspective at the time to the best of my recollection, this 
25 
was not a case where she was not -- where she was frozen out. 
EFTA00009337

Page 110 
1 
This was a case where there was ample communication --
2 
MR. 
: Well --
3 
BY MS. 
4 
Q 
Did 
ever tell you, hey boss, this line 
5 
assistant, she's being a pain. You know, she's asked for to 
6 
make a presentation to you. Do you want to do it? 
7 
A 
I -- I don't -- look, this was 12 years ago. I 
8 
don't recall it. Whether he did or not, I can't say, but I 
9 
don't recall it. 
10 
Q 
If he or 
or even 
had 
11 
directly asked you for that opportunity, would you have 
12 
entertained it? Would you have agreed to a presentation from 
13 
the line attorney? 
14 
A 
As a general matter, if someone makes a direct --
15 
saying, this is a case that I have worked, I need to sit down 
16 
and talk to you, I would have said, yes. 
17 
Q 
Do you recall any occasion when a line assistant on 
18 
his or her own initiative came to you and made such a request 
19 
and you granted it? 
20 
A 
I don't, because it rarely got to that level. 
21 
from my impression and my recollection, we had pretty good 
22 
communications in the office. 
23 
Q 
All right, I'm sorry, I --
24 
MR. 
: That's okay. 
25 
MS. 
: -- cut you off. 
EFTA00009338

Page 111 
1 
BY MR. 
2 
Q 
You've talked about needing to respect the chain of 
3 
command. 
4 
A 
Right. 
Would there have been any repercussions for a line 
6 
assistant actually trying to approach you about this 
7 
presentation? 
A 
I would hope not. I mean, it's -- I think it's 
9 
important for line assistants to be respectful and to, you 
10 
know, let their supervisor know, and issues -- you know, and 
11 
to do it with -- with respect, and not go around supervisors, 
12 
but I would hope -- I mean --
13 
Q 
Well --
14 
A 
-- not --
15 
Q 
If she had raised it with a supervisor first, and 
16 
that supervisor said, no, that's not your place, would you 
17 
have expected her to have followed what the supervisor had 
18 
told her on that regard? 
19 
A 
Fair. Look, fair point. I'm not aware of this e-
20 
mail. I can't speak to that. AS a general matter, I 
would 
21 
-- you know, going back to where I started, you know, I would 
22 
at 6:00 o'clock walk around the office and say, how are 
23 
things going? What case are you working on? In part, 
24 
because I thought it was important to. 
25 
BY MS. 
EFTA00009339

Page 112 
1 
Q 
Did you wander up down -- up to West Palm and do 
2 
that too? 
3 
A 
Less often, but yes. 
4 
BY MR. 
5 
Q 
You talked a little bit about the experience of 
6 
your senior staff. 
7 
A 
Right. 
8 
Q 
What do you know about the experience 
9 
had in handling these types of cases? 
10 
A 
You -- when you say these types, you mean --
11 
Q 
Sex crimes --
12 
A 
13 
1 4 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
had 
25 
A 
I can't. 
Q 
-- cases involving children --
A 
I can't --
Q 
-- or child victims? 
A 
I can't speak to that. I don't know. 
Q 
What about 
A 
I can't speak to that. 
Q 
or 
A 
I can't speak to that. 
BY MS. 
Q 
But you do know that 
substantial experience with child sex crimes? 
EFTA00009340

Page 113 
1 
A 
2 
Q 
You named her PSA coordinator. 
3 
A 
I know that she had experience with prior cases. 
4 
Q 
All right. 
5 
A 
Yeah. 
6 
Q 
Okay. We're going to go for half an hour more, 
7 
then we'll take our break, and then we'll --
8 
A 
Okay. 
9 
Q 
-- come back. I -- and we will get back to that 
10 
other piece of the evidence and the legal issues --
11 
A 
Right. 
12 
Q 
-- and then -- and then we'll spend a lot of time 
13 
on the alternatives. Haven't forgotten that. In June of 
14 
2007, there was a meeting that defense counsel requested of 
15 
the sort of next level up from 
. In other words, 
16 
they had already made a --
17 
A 
Right. 
18 
Q 
-- presentation to the line assistant, and her 
19 
supervisor. They wanted to come to Miami and talk to, in 
20 
this case, 
and 
--
21 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
22 
Q 
-- and they did meet with them. Were you aware --
23 
do you have a recollection of whether you were aware that 
24 
they -- there was such a meeting? 
25 
A 
It -- so, / don't have a recollection, but it rings 
EFTA00009341

Page 114 
1 
a bell. I don't know if that distinction is a fair one. 
2 
Q 
Well, I can -- I may help amplify the bell a little 
3 
bit. One of the defense attorneys who was present there in 
4 
addition to Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, and Lillian Sanchez 
5 
was Alan Dershowitz. 
6 
A 
Yeah. 
7 
Q 
Does that ring a bell? 
8 
A 
So, it does. There's --
9 
Q 
Okay. 
10 
A 
I -- I can't say it's a recollection, but it sounds 
11 
like there -- it sounds right, and in my usual course, once 
12 
was meeting with someone, he would typically have let me 
13 
know. 
14 
Q 
All right. All right, and where would such a 
15 
meeting take place? Would it be in 
office? Was it 
16 
big enough? Or would you use the executive conference room? 
17 
A 
Based on the number of people, almost definitely 
18 
the executive conference room. 
19 
Q 
And is that -- do people have to go by your office 
20 
to get there? 
21 
A 
They do not. 
22 
Q 
Okay, and would you in a case like this make a --
23 
as you said a moment ago, pop your head in --
24 
A 
Right. 
25 
Q 
-- and say hello? 
EFTA00009342

Page 115 
1 
A 
Right. As a typical matter, I probably would not, 
2 
because then it very rapidly turns into a meeting with me as 
3 
opposed to a --
4 
Q 
Mn-hmm. 
5 
A 
-- meeting with --
6 
Q 
14M-hmm. Okay. 
7 
A 
If that makes sense. 
8 
Q 
There was some written submissions also submitted. 
9 
Pretty substantial ones. These addressing more of the legal 
10 
issues --
11 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
12 
Q 
-- both before and after this. Did someone -- and 
13 
if so, who -- brief you about what happened at the meeting, 
14 
and what was contained in the written submissions? 
15 
A 
So, I do not recall a briefing. I would assume 
16 
that, again, based on practice, there's a senior level 
17 
meeting in the office. Based on practice, 
would have 
18 
told me, and then afterwards, he would have said this is what 
19 
happened. 
20 
Q 
All right, but you have no actual recollection of 
21 
what happened in this case? 
22 
A 
I have no actual recollection of -- other than the 
23 
meeting sounding familiar, I have no recollection. 
24 
Q 
So, Exhibit 50 in this packet, it's almost at the 
25 
end. It's the next to last, really, is a letter that 
EFTA00009343

Page 116 
1 
IMP 
offered to the DAG -- the then DAG --
2 
A 
Yes. 
3 
Q 
-- in June of 2008, a whole year later. The DAG, 
4 
Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, and this is -- you 
5 
certainly recall that there was an appeal, if you will, a 
6 
small appeal to the DAG's office --
7 
A 
Right. 
8 
Q 
-- by defense counsel, and 
submitted a 
9 
fairly substantial accounting of what had gone before in the 
10 
case, and he also submitted a number of other documents 
11 
relevant to that. 
12 
He says on page three that at this June 26th, 2007 
13 
meeting, which he characterizes arguments, legal and factual, 
14 
were presented against a federal indictment, and 
15 
writes that, "The arguments and written materials provided by 
16 
the defense were examined by the SDFL and rejected." Do 
17 
you -- is that consistent with any understanding you have of 
18 
what happened at this meeting? 
19 
A 
So, I don't recall, so I'm going to speculate, and 
20 
the speculation is that by the time this happened, we were 
21 
fairly far along in how we were viewing this matter. 
22 
Q 
This being 2008, or --
23 
A 
No, June. 
24 
Q 
June 26th, 2007. Okay. 
25 
A 
You know, and as I reviewed the documents, I tried 
EFTA00009344

Page 117 
1 
to establish a timeline, but clearly, by July 31st, we had --
2 
you know, we had sort of concluded how we were approaching 
it. 
4 
And so, I'm going to speculate that when he said 
the arguments and written materials provided to defense 
6 
counsel were examined by the SDFL and rejected, it was they 
7 
asked us to drop the matter, and we said we're not dropping 
8 
the matter. 
9 
Q 
Okay. Okay, and by the way, is -- just to clean 
10 
this up, this letter was -- to the DAG, was signed by 
11 
under your type name, as is --
12 
A 
Right. 
13 
Q 
-- standard but you're not cc'd on it. Do you 
14 
do you recall why you didn't sign this letter? why it was 
15 
sent by 
16 
A 
17 
18 
A 
I do not recall. 
19 
Q 
I just -- that's a -- that's a point of interest. 
20 
and so, I'll draw your attention to 
21 
A 
All right. 
22 
Q 
-- Exhibit 49, which is actually dated the day 
23 
prior, that is, June 2, 2008, and this is 
an e-mail to 
24 
you from 
25 
A 
Yes. 
III, who is -- was and is the ethics --
EFTA00009345

Page 118 
1 
Q 
-- officer for the U.S. Attorney's Office, correct? 
2 
Reporting back to you an assessment by the executive office 
3 
of U.S. Attorneys general counsel's office that they did not 
4 
see you as having an either actual or apparent conflict of 
5 
interest that would necessitate your recusal from the Epstein 
6 
matter by virtue of the fact that you apparent, according to 
7 
this, intended to seek employment with Harvard Law School. 
8 
A 
Right, or was considering seeking. 
9 
Q 
Was considering. All right. Right. Should you 
10 
seek employment, it says. So, is it -- is it reasonable for 
11 
us to infer that this potential recusal --
12 
A 
Right. 
13 
Q 
-- was pending at the time the letter to Mark Filip 
14 
was being drafted, and that's why it went out over 
15 
signature, and without you as a CC? 
16 
A 
So, I would not infer that. 
17 
Q 
Okay. 
18 
A 
In part because it was potential -- and in part 
19 
because 
had the facts at his disposal, and was 
20 
the natural -- this was a very detailed letter. I did not 
21 
feel that -- I'm speculating here -- as a general matter, 
22 
things don't have to go out under my name, and some letters 
23 
went out under his name, and some letters went out under my 
24 
name, and the ones that went out under my name tended to be 
25 
ones that I had more authorship in, and the ones that went 
EFTA00009346

Page 119 
1 
out under his name in this case were the ones that he had 
2 
more authorship in. And so, I would just say that this was 
3 
the continuing course of that. 
4 
Q 
Okay. Thank you. Minor technical issue. 
5 
BY MS. line: 
6 
Q 
Would you have read the letter before it went out? 
7 
A 
Probably. I would say in my usual course, he would 
8 
have shown it to me, but not always. 
9 
Q 
Not always letters that would have been sent to the 
10 
Deputy Attorney General's Office, or just letters in general? 
11 
A 
Well, he would have 
I think he would have shown 
12 
this to me because it's going to the deputy's office. The 
13 
flip side is, I trust 
. I think he's a professional. 
14 
Something that I -- so, an important distinction tc 
15 
draw, I remember talking to an AUSA that had spent time at 
16 
main justice, and contrasting the experience of an AUSA with 
17 
the experience of a trial lawyer here, and sort of the line 
18 
was you can't send a letter from main justice without three 
19 
letters of approval, whereas an AUSA in their case typically 
20 
doesn't even get approval from their line supervisor. And 
21 
so, as a usual matter, particularly in this case, 
would 
22 
run letters by me. 
23 
That doesn't mean that every letter had to be run 
24 
by me, and you know, I was certainly aware that the letter 
25 
was being transmitted. I was aware of the appeal to D.C. 
EFTA00009347

Page 120 
1 
had comfort in what we had done, and so I thought the appeal 
2 
would be fine, and if I was out of the office, or if there 
3 
was some reason that I wasn't going to be consulted, 
was 
4 
quite capable of doing it without my review. 
5 
Q 
But if you were in the office, it would have been 
6 
typical for him to run it by you first? 
7 
9 
10 
11 
A 
It would have been. 
BY MS. 
Q 
Did you read the letter in preparation for --
A 
I did. 
Q 
-- this, and is there anything in it that is --
12 
that in your view is not accurate? 
13 
A 
I think it's accurate. I think the letter, as it 
14 
should be, is an advocacy piece for what the office has done 
15 
as opposed to a, on the one hand, on the other hand, analysis 
16 
piece. But at this point, we're defending the actions of the 
17 
office, and I think it appropriately should be an advocacy 
18 
piece. 
19 
Q 
All right. Do you disagree with any of the points 
20 
of advocacy, or the points made in advocacy? 
21 
A 
We -- we'd have to go through it --
22 
Q 
All right. 
23 
A 
-- paragraph by paragraph. 
24 
Q 
Okay. Okay. 
25 
A 
But --
EFTA00009348

Page 121 
1 
2 
3 
4 
Q 
But nothing struck you so much that you --
A 
I think --
Q 
-- recall? 
A 
-- I think he fairly presented the totality of 
5 
everything to the DAG for the DAG to review her for whoever 
6 
the DAG designated, and I think that was -- that was an 
7 
appropriate presentation. 
8 
Q 
All right. Thank you. So, now I'd like to launch 
9 
into -- and before we break for lunch, sort of the core 
10 
question. 
11 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
12 
Q 
Which we addressed a little bit earlier, and that 
13 
is who at the U.S. Attorney's Office made the decision to 
14 
resolve this case with an offer of a two year state plea, and 
15 
why? 
16 
A 
Right. So, how we got to the two years, I can't 
17 
tell you, because I can give you my general impression. 
18 
Ultimately, all the cases in the U.S. Attorney's Office were 
19 
under me. 
20 
Ultimately, I saw what we'll call that, you know, 
21 
three pronged resolution, two years -- you know, registration 
22 
and restitution, and ultimately that was approved on my 
23 
authority. 
24 
Q 
So, who came -- did you -- did you come up with it? 
25 
Was it your idea --
EFTA00009349

Page 122 
1 
A 
2 
Q 
-- of an issue? 
3 
A 
I don't -- I don't know. The -- this is 
4 
reconstructing conversations -- I'm going to speculate now. 
5 
This was not, let's all get in a room and figure out the 
6 
resolution in the next half hour. 
7 
Q 
Mh-hmm. 
8 
A 
But this was a course as things are discussed and 
9 
there's a back and forth over the course of some days or a 
10 
week or two, and then people get together and discuss, and a 
11 
view develops, and then the office proceeds with that. But 
12 
ultimately -- let me -- let me just sort of push back. Look, 
13 
ultimately, I approved it, and so, I --
14 
Q 
Okay. 
15 
A 
-- accept that. I'm not -- I'm not pushing away 
16 
responsibility for it. I'm just saying I can't recall how we 
17 
got to, for example, two years. I can speculate as to 
18 
particular parts of it, but I can't -- you know, but 
19 
ultimately I'm not pushing away responsibility. 
20 
Q 
I understand, and we're going to delve into that 
21 
A 
Right. 
22 
Q 
-- that two years -- shortly, but I want to turn 
23 
back to Exhibit No. 3, in which sort of the statement that 
24 
launches this -- what I keep calling a lively exchange, is on 
25 
page four, the -- the statement from 
, and this 
EFTA00009350

Page 123 
1 
is in response to an inquiry from
 to her management, 
2 
not including you, about what conversations any of them has 
3 
had with defense counsel --
4 
A 
Right. 
5 
Q 
-- about any resolution, because her plan was to 
6 
talk to Lilly Ann Sanchez about working a plea to federal 
7 
time concurrent to the state -- whatever the state time was, 
8 
and in response, 
tells her, "I told Lilly that a state 
9 
plea with jail time and sex offender status may satisfy the 
10 
USA," meaning the U.S. Attorney --
11 
A 
Right. 
12 
Q 
-- I believe. So, that's a -- that's a closed 
13 
quote after USA. Had he discussed that with you? How did he 
14 
know that that might satisfy you? 
15 
A 
So, I don't recall. I can 
I can speculate based 
16 
on Mr. 
course of conduct, I don't think he would 
17 
have raised that possibility in a case of this profile 
18 
without having discussed it with me. 
19 
Q 
But you have no specific --
20 
A 
I have no --
21 
Q 
-- recollection? 
22 
A 
-- specific recollection, but I don't think he 
23 
would have done that without having come by and said. 
24 
Q 
All right. At this point, bearing in mind that you 
25 
don't have any specific recollection, at this point, do you 
EFTA00009351

Page 124 
1 
believe you had any understanding of what amount of jail time 
2 
was in play at this point when 
tells Lilly Ann 
3 
Sanchez --
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
A 
I can't pinpoint that timeline --
Q 
All right. 
A 
-- to that degree. 
Q 
All right. 
A 
Of accuracy. 
Q 
He also says later in this e-mail that he told this 
10 
to Lilly Ann Sanchez a couple of weeks prior before the June 
11 
26th meeting. 
12 
A 
Correct. 
13 
Q 
All right. Were you aware that 
had 
14 
been communicating directly with Sanchez about the case, and 
15 
specifically that he represented that you might go for a 
16 
state disposition if it included jail time and sex offender 
17 
registration? 
18 
A 
I -- I don't recall whether I was aware or not. I 
19 
recall at some point adopting the concept of jail time plus 
20 
registration, and then plus restitution. And so, I don't 
21 
know when that would have happened. Let me also speculate 
22 
that the U.S. Attorney might go 
could also refer to, this 
23 
is being talked about, no final decision has been made. 
24 
Q 
Right. If 
had made that informal 
25 
discussion comment to Lilly Ann Sanchez without having told 
EFTA00009352

Page 125 
I 
you, without having gotten your clearance ahead of time to 
2 
tell her that, would that -- would that surprise you, or 
3 
would you have expected him to consult with you about whether 
4 
it was okay to go ahead and raise this? 
5 
A 
So, as a general matter, yes, but -- and let me 
6 
let me explain that. AUSAs on occasion, and because this is 
7 
a high profile -- higher profile case -- a criminal chief may 
8 
run an idea across opposing counsel and say, look, I don't 
9 
have authorization. 
10 
I don't know how the office will react, but it's 
11 
certainly possible that X, Y, or Z may work out. And that's 
12 
a very different conversation than, you know, the office will 
13 
accept. 
14 
And so, a lot of that really depends on how that 
15 
conversation goes, and you know, certainly if he's 
16 
representing my view, I would expect him to check on what my 
17 
view is, if he's, as criminal chief, saying, this is 
18 
something that I could support. I don't know how the office 
19 
will react, that may -- you know, but I can run it up the 
20 
flagpole, that might be a different type of conversation. 
21 
Q 
Okay, and did you know Lilly Ann Sanchez? 
22 
A 
I did. She was an AUSA in the office. 
23 
Q 
And she left about a month after you came on board? 
24 
A 
Was it that -- was it that quick? 
25 
Q 
That's our information, yes. 
EFTA00009353

Page 126 
1 
A 
Okay. 
2 
Q 
Although she apparently remained a periodic 
3 
present. 
4 
A 
Hence, the wasn't that quick. 
5 
Q 
Did you know that she'd been 
6 
at major crimes? 
7 
A 
I don't remember that. 
deputy 
8 
Q 
All right. Did you -- what did -- what did you 
9 
remember about her? And had you had any dealings with her 
10 
after she left the office up to this point? 
11 
A 
So, I remember that she was in the office, that she 
12 
was a senior attorney. Whether within the management 
13 
structure or not, I -- I didn't recollect until you just 
14 
raised it, and that I can't swear to it, but it rings a bell 
15 
that she was in major crimes, and she was someone that you 
16 
would see at bar functions that would --
17 
Q 
Ma-hmm. 
18 
A 
-- she -- she was active in the local bar, and I 
19 
would see her on occasion at a bar function and say hello. 
20 
Q 
All right. Did you encounter her in connection 
21 
with a case, to your recollection, in the period before 
22 
Epstein? 
23 
A 
I'm hesitating not to avoid, but I'm running 
24 
through my --
25 
Q 
Ma-hmm. 
EFTA00009354

Page 127 
1 
A 
Not that I recall. 
2 
Q 
What's your impression of her as a 
as a 
3 
practitioner? 
4 
A 
She did -- she did quite well after she left the 
5 
office. She set up -- I think she set up her own practice. 
6 
Q 
At the time -- at this time, she was with something 
7 
called Fowler White Burnett. 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
A 
Okay, so --
Q 
She --
A 
-- she went to Fowler White. 
Q 
-- subsequently --
A 
She subsequently set up her own practice, and I 
13 
thought she's done well for herself. 
14 
Q 
Okay. Were you aware that 
had a close 
15 
personal relationship with Lilly Ann Sanchez, both because 
16 
they had worked together as chief and deputy chief --
17 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
18 
Q 
-- in major crimes, but also because they'd had a 
19 
dating relationship sometime prior? 
20 
A 
I don't recall them having dated, but I don't 
21 
Q 
Do you recall knowing that they had dated in the 
22 
past? 
23 
A 
I don't recall knowing that, and in all candor, 
24 
that's not the kind of thing I ask about. 
25 
Q 
But in this case with her representation of 
EFTA00009355

Page 128 
1 
somebody in a matter being ultimately supervised by... 
2 
would you have expected= to disclose to you that 
3 
he'd had a prior romantic relationship with Lilly Ann 
4 
Sanchez, a member of Epstein's defense team, if only to 
address a potential appearance of impropriety or conflict of 
6 
interest? 
7 
A 
I think some of that might have depended on how 
8 
recently. Was it ten years ago? Was it two years ago? If 
9 
they were in the supervisory chain that this happened, that 
10 
could raise other -- other issues. So, if to the extent --
11 
so, for example, 
disclosed to me a potential conflict --
12 
Q 
Mm-hmm. 
13 
A 
-- to the extent that these arise, if there is a 
14 
potential conflict, I'd like to know. I was aware of 
15 
conflict. I said, keep going. 
16 
Q 
And in fact, 
, you're talking about the 
17 
Herman --
18 
A 
Yes. 
19 
Q 
-- connection, the prior --
20 
A 
Yes. 
21 
Q 
-- short lived law firm connection. Are you aware 
22 
that 
in fact vetted that through 
your 
23 
ethics person? 
24 
A 
I am -- I don't recall that independently, but I 
25 
recall knowing about it. He may have told me he vetted it 
EFTA00009356

Page 129 
1 
through 
IIIIII is highly respected in the office, 
2 
and --
3 
Q 
Mm-hmm. 
4 
5 
A 
-- that would be the appropriate --
Q 
So, are you also aware that 
raised, 
6 
again with 
III, the potential, again, appearance of a 
7 
conflict of interest, or appearance of impropriety, because 
8 
of his supervision of the Epstein case, and his concurrent 
9 
close friendship with Mike Tein, who was an attorney who was 
10 
representing Epstein, as well as Guy Lewis, former U.S. 
11 
Attorney? 
12 
A 
So, I was not aware of that. 
13 
Q 
You were not aware of it, but -- but I guess what 
14 
I'm -- what I'm noting is that both 
and 
15 
perceived appearance issues, and went through the process 
16 
that's provided for them to get the blessing to go ahead and 
17 
proceed with the case by the -- the blessing by the ethics 
18 
expert --
19 
A 
Right. 
20 
Q 
-- but 
apparently did not in this case 
21 
vis a vis Lilly Ann Sanchez. 
22 
A 
Yeah. 
23 
Q 
Does that surprise you, or disappoint you, or 
24 
perplex you, or do you care? 
25 
A 
I would want to know more. 
EFTA00009357

Page 130 
1 
Q 
Right. 
2 
A 
But certainly it would provide -- I would want to 
3 
know more before saying I'm disappointed, but again, was it 
4 
ten years ago? Was it two years ago? What's the 
5 
continuing -- there are a lot of facts, but certainly it --
6 
that's the kind of -- it's the kind of discussion one would 
7 
typically have with 
8 
Q 
And in this case, what we're talking about is an 
9 
informal conversation, or informal discussion, to use 
10 
own term, with Sanchez as opposed to any of the 
11 
other attorneys in Epstein's team about a particular 
12 
resolution that we're going to spend all afternoon talking 
13 
about, because it has some problematic aspects. Okay? So, 
14 
you see why we're --
15 
A 
I get it. No, I get it. 
16 
Q 
Okay. 
17 
BY MR. 
18 
Q 
So, before we break, I'm -- should he have talked 
19 
about this potential resolution with the line assistant 
20 
before actually making it? 
21 
A 
In a typical case, yes. So, in a typical case, I 
22 
fostered communication. I would -- I would come -- I'd get 
23 
involved in cases, but we'd want to know what the line 
24 
assistant thinks, and they can agree or disagree, but we'd 
25 
want -- we'd want input. 
EFTA00009358

Page 131 
1 
BY MS. 
2 
Q 
What do you make of this really acid tone between 
and IIIII? Between 
and 
in this Exhibit 3 
4 
exchange? I mean, 
is really -- as I read it, it's 
pretty strong. 
6 
A 
I -- I can't -- I -- I'm not sure what to make of 
7 
it. 
8 
Q 
All right. All right. There are a couple of --
9 
let's -- could we go off the record for a split second? 
10 
11 
12 
Off the record.) 
BY MS. 
Q 
Okay, back on the record. Going back to Exhibit 
13 
No. 3, there are a few things here that we think are 
14 
important to raise with you, albeit you not having seen this 
15 
at the time. 
16 
says that the -- she complains 
17 
about this soft -- that's my term -- plea offer that 
18 
extended to Epstein through Lilly Ann Sanchez. She says that 
19 
such an offer is completely unacceptable to the FBI, ICE, the 
20 
victims, and me, meaning 
. Did you have an 
21 
understanding of what the FBI's position about prosecuting 
22 
this case was? 
23 
A 
My recollection of interaction with the FBI is with 
24 
who was the SAC, and as I recall, he supported 
25 
the eventual direction of this case. 
EFTA00009359

1 
Page 132 
1 
Q 
Is he the individual who you identify I believe in 
2 
actually your -- your attorney's written response as the SAC 
3 
who called you to congratulate you about the --
4 
A 
He is. 
5 
Q 
-- the case? About the result? 
6 
A 
Yes. 
7 
Q 
And was SAC 
-- in that same written 
8 
response from your attorney, there's a mention that he was 
9 
present at many meetings on this case? 
10 
A 
He was present at, at least some, and in part that 
11 
was at my request, because this was a high enough profile 
12 
case that I wanted to bring him into this. 
13 
Q 
So, the -- we know he was present at the December 
14 
14, 2007 meeting, right? 
15 
A 
Yeah. 
16 
Q 
With Ken Starr and company. He is not present 
17 
at -- to -- according to our investigation, at any other case 
18 
with defense counsel. Others are. His ASAC, 
is 
19 
present. 
20 
A 
So, recollections aren't nearly as good as 
21 
documents. I don't recall the December meeting. I would 
22 
have said that he was present at the September meeting, but 
23 
it may be that I am, because this was so long ago, mixing the 
24 
two. 
25 
Q 
Okay. 
EFTA00009360

Page 133 
1 
A 
Because I thought he would have come to the 
2 
September meeting. 
3 
Q 
No, according to all the information we have, just 
4 
so you know --
5 
A 
Right. 
6 
Q 
was there as ASAC, but not --
7 
actually, I'm not sure she was at the -- at any rate, she 
8 
was -- she was --
9 
A 
Right. 
10 
Q 
-- he was present, 
was present at the 
11 
December meeting only. 
12 
A 
Right. 
13 
Q 
So, just so --
14 
A 
Fair. 
15 
Q 
Okay. Would he have been present at meetings other 
16 
than with defense counsel meetings about this case? 
17 
A 
Typically no. Typically, he and I would have 
18 
talked on the phone or had discussion, and I know that he was 
19 
aware of the matter. 
20 
Q 
so --
21 
A 
I recall his being aware of the matter, and 
22 
generally positive as to the direction that we were going. 
23 
Q 
By the direction or the eventual outcome? 
24 
A 
The eventual outcome. 
25 
Q 
All right. So, what about the prosecution? Do you 
EFTA00009361

Page 134 
1 
know what the FBI's view was about the prosecution? 
2 
A 
I can't speak to the timeline. I would have -- and 
3 
I'm contradicting the documents here, but I would have -- if 
4 
you had asked me, said that he was present at the September 
5 
meeting, and was aware of the terms that were presented at 
6 
the September meeting. Clearly, I'm --
7 
Q 
Right. 
8 
A 
-- my recollection is incorrect, and I take that 
9 
for what it is. 
10 
Q 
Just to finish on -- with this point though, my 
11 
question was an understanding of the FBI's position of the 
12 
case, not the ultimate disposition. In other words, as of --
13 
as of the date of Exhibit 3, there was no deal on the table. 
14 
So, the question is, what was the FBI's view about the case? 
15 
A 
So -- so, I -- I'm not trying to be difficult. At 
16 
some point, when you say view, the FBI, to my recollection, 
17 
thought that what Mr. Epstein did was sordid and disgusting 
18 
and that we should proceed. How we proceeded, I don't recall 
19 
having -- hearing specific views as to the how as opposed to 
20 
the, we should. 
21 
Q 
All right. Let's -- thank you. Let's take a 
22 
break, 45 minutes. Thank you. 
23 
(Off the record.) 
24 
BY MS. 
25 
Q 
All right. We're going to go back on the record. 
EFTA00009362

Page 135 
1 
We're beginning after the break at 1:30 in the afternoon. 
2 
Thank you. 
3 
A 
Before get started --
4 
Q 
Yes. 
5 
A 
-- you referenced an e-mail from 
that wasn't 
6 
part of the packet. 
7 
Q 
Correct. 
8 
A 
Is that something that I could see and review, or 
9 
is there discomfort on that? 
10 
Q 
Yes. No, I am not -- as long as we make it on the 
11 
record. Do you -- do you need to do it now, or can we do it 
12 
during the next break? 
13 
A 
It depends how long -- how long is it? It would 
14 
just take --
15 
Q 
One page. 
16 
A 
-- a minute, if you don't mind. 
17 
Q 
Do you want to go off the record while Mr. 
18 
Acosta --
19 
(Off the record.) 
20 
BY MS. 
21 
Q 
All right. On the record again. For the record, 
22 
Mr. Acosta has just reviewed and e-mail from-
23 
to 
, and 
24 
dated July 18, 2007 at 2:07 p.m. It's one that I described 
25 
to Mr. Acosta a moment -- this morning. Do you have any 
EFTA00009363

Page 136 
1 
comments? 
2 
A 
I don't. 
3 
Q 
All right. Before we broke, we were -- I mentioned 
4 
your statement about SAC
 having attended many 
5 
meetings. That to be clear was a representation you made in 
6 
your March 2007 letter to the Daily Beast, not the written 
7 
response. 
8 
Looking briefly at -- back at Exhibit 3 and 
9 
-- you don't have to read it yourself. 
10 
representation that in her view the plea offer 
11 
was completely unacceptable to the victims. Do you -- do you 
12 
believe that she was correct in her view that the victims' 
13 
views should have been solicited before a plea offer was 
14 
made? 
15 
A 
So, I would have to think that was one through. 
16 
There were concerns -- and I don't know about the timeline 
17 
about communications with the victims. They're sort of laid 
18 
out in the 
affidavit. So, whether or not victims' 
19 
views were elicited is something I think was the focus of the 
20 
trial team and not something that I was focused on at least 
21 
at this time. 
22 
Q 
But do you believe as a matter of sort of principle 
23 
that the views of victims should be elicited before a plea 
24 
offer --
25 
A 
Right. 
EFTA00009364

1 
Q 
-- is made? 
2 
A 
So, as a general matter, yes. 
3 
Q 
Okay. 
4 
A 
I think that the -- the reason I'm pushing back is 
5 
because you're saying plea offer, and the CVRA does talk to 
6 
plea offers as opposed to a situation where deferring 
7 
prosecution in favor of a state is a very different thing 
8 
than a plea offer, and at the time, that was not a, it must. 
9 
That was a depending on the facts and circumstances, that's a 
10 
judgment call. At least that's how the department, to my 
11 
understanding, viewed it. 
And was it also your view that it would have, as a 
13 
general matter, it's a better practice or better approach to 
14 
talk to the victims before? 
15 
A 
As a general practice, yes. 
16 
Q 
All right. Do you think that would have been 
17 
particularly important in this case where the proposal 
18 
involved sending the case back to the state, which the 
19 
victims were aware had already mishandled the case to begin 
20 
with? 
21 
A 
So, a few -- there are -- there are a few things in 
22 
that question that I think are packed. Whether the victims 
23 
were aware and were of the view, from my perspective and my 
24 
recollection, were of the view that the state had mishandled 
25 
the case, I can't speak to. 
EFTA00009365

1 
Page 138 
Some of the victims were, to my recollection, 
2 
exonerating him. There was concern that some of the victims 
3 
were more on his side than on the prosecution's side. And 
4 
so, that judgement call of which victims are notified and how 
5 
much I think is something that really is a judgement call 
6 
that needs to be done almost on a case by case basis by 
7 
individuals that are aware of sort of the facts and 
8 
circumstances surrounding each victim. 
9 
In the general 
in a general case, you want to 
10 
have fulsome communication. I can understand in cases where 
11 
victims might be giving exonerating information, where -- or, 
12 
there is restitution at stake, that could be different. 
13 
Q 
And by the people involved, are you talking at 
14 
the -- at the trial team level? 
15 
A 
At the trial team level with whatever appropriate 
16 
supervisors 
17 
Q 
MM-hram. 
18 
A 
-- are engaged in the victim notification issues. 
19 
Q 
And in this case, that would not include you, is 
20 
that correct? 
21 
A 
That -- I don't recall cases where I got -- where I 
22 
became part of the victim notification judgements. 
23 
BY MS. 
24 
Q 
Did you ever issue an instruction to the trial team 
25 
that they should not consult with the victims before the NPA 
EFTA00009366

Page 139 
1 
was signed? 
2 
A 
So, not that I recall. I know that there's some 
3 
instances where after the NPA was signed, I said, you know, 
4 
I'm directing that we withhold notification for five days, or 
X period of time to work this out. 
6 
But before the NPA was signed, I don't recall -- in 
7 
all candor, I don't recall discussions about victim 
8 
notification until after the NPA was signed. I don't know if 
9 
there's e-mail traffic before the NPA was signed, but I don't 
10 
recall victim notification issues until after the NPA was 
11 
signed. 
12 
Q 
Okay. 
13 
BY MR. 
14 
Q 
And I just -- one more question on this topic is 
15 
that prior to -- we interviewed other people, obviously, in 
16 
this --
17 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
18 
Q 
-- case, and we interviewed Ms. 
, and one 
19 
of the things that she told us, she has a recall of a -- of a 
20 
meeting with you present, Mr. 
, and Mr. 
, where 
21 
this issue of victim notification was discussed in the 
22 
timeframe of prior to the FBI, and at that meeting, she was 
23 
specifically instructed that we are not going to talk about 
24 
it with the victims. Do you recall that meeting? 
25 
A 
I don't -- I don't recall. If that's her 
EFTA00009367

Page 140 
1 
recollection, that's her recollection. I don't -- I don't 
2 
recall that. I -- I recall knowing that there were issues 
3 
around victim notification. I recall, particularly after the 
4 
NPA was signed, I recall efforts, I believe, to notify as it 
5 
was being signed -- to notify the victims of the upcoming 
6 
state plea. 
7 
Q 
Mm-hmm. 
8 
A 
And I recall discussions -- if not discussions --
9 
let me not say discussions -- a general concern about the 
10 
victim notification, what does that do? Because the victim 
11 
is also a witness, and a --
12 
Q 
Mm-hmm. 
13 
A 
-- potential witness, and in some cases and adverse 
14 
witness. And so, how does all that balance out? 
15 
Q 
Okay. Well, we're going to drill down into 
16 
those --
17 
A 
Right. 
18 
post-NPA issues later on. 
19 
A 
Right. 
20 
Q 
Just now, focusing on --
21 
A 
Right. 
22 
pre-NPA, before it's signed, when the 
23 
negotiations are going back and forth. 
24 
A 
Right. 
25 
Q 
You have memory of this topic coming up? 
EFTA00009368

Page 141 
1 
A 
I don't recall discussing the victim notification 
2 
issues. 
3 
Q 
Okay, and what would your response be though to --
4 
are you -- are you aware of the CVRA litigation that went on? 
5 
6 
7 
8 
A 
Yes. 
Q 
From Judge Marra? 
A 
Yes. 
Q 
So, one of the issues that comes up in Judge 
9 
Marra's decision is, he made a finding that the government 
10 
violated the CVRA because they didn't inform -- consult with 
11 
the victims --
12 
A 
Right. 
13 
Q 
-- prior to signing the NPA, and there is a 
14 
perception, or he -- from his opinion that the government did 
15 
this -- failed to communicate that in order to eventually 
16 
keep the victims in the dark and protect the resolution. Why 
17 
is that an incorrect assumption? 
18 
A 
And so -- so, I would say that 
sets out her 
19 
reasoning in her affidavit. She talks about --
20 
BY MS. 
21 
Q 
Are you referring to the -- her 2017 affidavit? 
22 
A 
Her 2017 affidavit. She talks about -- I believe 
23 
she notified at least some victims, and it became an issue, 
24 
and there's concern -- you know, you have this NPA. 
25 
Whether -- whether or not that NPA will ultimately remain is 
EFTA00009369

Page 142 
I 
a very open question, because from our office's expectations, 
2 
we expected him to plead shortly after that, and he did not. 
3 
And so, are we going to trial or are we not is a 
4 
very open question, and I think there is -- has to be 
5 
discretion, where there is no legal requirement. There has 
6 
to be discretion to judge how much you can tell the victims 
7 
and when. 
8 
BY MR. 
• 
9 
Q 
Okay, just -- just one other point, and this is 
10 
that -- we've reviewed --
-- Ms. 
declaration, and the 
notifications that she's referring to there, those 
discussions take place after the signing of the NPA. So, 
we're just talking about here still --
A 
Right. 
Q 
-- just the pre-NPA --
18 
A 
Yeah. 
19 
Q 
-- pre-signing of that. So, does that change your 
20 
answer at all? 
21 
A 
Again, I don't -- I don't recall the victim 
22 
notification being issued before the NPA. I recall a lot of 
23 
discussions afterwards. I don't recall. That doesn't mean 
24 
they didn't happen. That just means I don't recall them. 
25 
Q 
Was there any concern with you or among any of the 
EFTA00009370

Page 143 
1 
other people involved in this negotiation phase that if the 
2 
victims were to find out that we are negotiating this NPA 
3 
that it will blow up the NPA, that it will cause us trouble 
4 
in some way? 
5 
A 
Our -- my focus before the NPA was signed was, here 
6 
are -- here are these terms. You know, and then for the 
7 
team, go negotiate this. And so, from my perspective, it was 
8 
much more of a, what are the terms, than the victim 
9 
notification issues around that. 
10 
BY MS. 
11 
Q 
Right, but just to follow up 
12 
A 
Right. 
13 
Q 
-- did you hear any discussion amongst the people 
14 
that you were dealing with --
15 
A 
16 
Q 
-- that they were afraid that the victims might 
17 
raise such objections, or go to the press that this whole 
18 
thing would be -- you know, come to a -- come to a halt? 
19 
A 
So, I tried to think -- I don't recall -- I believe 
20 
we notified the victims in advance of the state hearing so 
21 
that they would be aware. We didn't notify them before we 
22 
signed the NPA to my recollection, but we certainly notified 
23 
them of the state hearing. And so, I was aware generally of 
24 
what was being done, but the NPA and what we -- you know, the 
25 
NPA was the focus, not the victim notification --
EFTA00009371

1 
2 
3 
MS. 
THE WITNESS: 
MS. 
Page 144 
: When --
-- part of that. 
: -- when you talk about -- go ahead. 
4 
MR. 
: 
We -- we're going to get into the 
5 
plea --
6 
THE WITNESS: Right. 
7 
MR. 
: -- and what we're --
8 
MS. 
: All right. 
9 
THE WITNESS: Right. 
10 
MR. 
: -- a little bit later on. 
11 
THE WITNESS: Right. 
12 
BY MR. 
13 
Q 
Just one -- can I just direct you to --
14 
A 
Yeah. 
15 
Q 
-- document number 15? 
16 
MS. 
: Exhibit 15? 
17 
THE WITNESS: Yeah. 
18 
BY MR. 
19 
Q 
Okay. So, do you -- that was an e-mail that is 
20 
from Ms. 
to 
, then forwarded to you? 
21 
A 
Yeah. 
22 
Q 
Do you see the reference in there where she 
23 
mentions that she spoke to 
, or 
24 
reminded her -- where is it? 
25 
MS. 
: It's in the second paragraph --
EFTA00009372

Page 145 
1 
THE WITNESS: Yeah, no, I --
2 
MS. S 
: 
in the middle. 
3 
THE WITNESS: I see it. 
4 
MR. 
: The middle --
5 
THE WITNESS: It's highlighted. 
6 
BY MR. 
7 
Q 
Could you just read that? The agents and I have 
8 
not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which 
9 
as i 
politely reminded me, is required under the law. Do 
10 
you -- do you -- do you recall that e-mail? 
11 
A 
I -- again, I don't recall this specific e-mail. 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
and 
17 
how you interact with -- with victims who are also potential 
18 
witnesses, and I was aware -- I support what the office did. 
19 
I'm not backing away from it. 
20 
I'm just saying I can't, 12 years later, 
21 
reconstruct what the thought process was other than there was 
22 
no legal obligation. It was a discretionary issue, and this 
23 
is how the discretion was exercised. 
24 
Q 
But did -- do you remember -- so, there's two 
25 
things. Any -- do you remember any discussions coming up 
My recollection is a view that there is no requirement to 
notify, because it's not a plea, it's deferring in favor of a 
state prosecution. 
And therefore, it becomes a discretionary issue, 
what notification is appropriate is really a function of 
EFTA00009373

Page 146 
1 
about the topic of what we have to do as far as notification 
2 
in the pre-NPA negotiations? 
A 
I -- again, I really don't. I know there was a lot 
of discussion after the NPA. I don't recall pre-NPA 
discussions on this. 
6 
Q 
Last question on this. 
7 
A 
Sure. 
8 
MS. 
: By him. 
9 
THE WITNESS: Yeah. 
10 
BY MR. 
11 
Q 
You're getting at least forwarded to you an e-mail 
12 
from the trial attorney in the case showing that she is 
13 
concerned about the notification issue, and she's raising at 
14 
least the -- referencing the head of --
15 
A 
Right. 
16 
Q 
-- CEOS about this issue. Did this ring any bells 
17 
to you? Raise any --
18 
A 
So, from this, I would infer that a discussion was 
19 
had as to what the obligations had -- were, and whether we 
20 
had to or not, because -- so, I think it's fair to infer she 
21 
is, you know, e-mailing my first assistant. 
22 
I don't know what the attachment here -- oh, the 
23 
attachment here is the term sheet, so to speak, and my first 
24 
assistant is forwarding it to me in large part so that I get 
25 
the attachment, and I think from here, it's fair to infer 
EFTA00009374

Page 147 
1 
that -- that some conversation or discussion was had. I 
2 
don't remember the conversation or discussion. 
3 
My focus was on the terms. I'm willing to accept 
4 
that the conversation was had. My recollection of the 
5 
obligations under the CVRA is that they did not attach, 
6 
because this was not an indictment, it was not a plea, and 
7 
that it was entirely discretionary how we proceeded, and 
8 
therefore how you proceed is a function of, should you notify 
9 
victims? 
10 
Yes, but there are concerns because they're also 
11 
witnesses. There are concerns because we are going out of 
12 
our way to provide for restitution, and all of that played 
13 
into a complex calculus. 
14 
Q 
That was it. 
15 
BY MS. 
16 
Q 
So, you said that there was a view that there's no 
17 
requirement to notify the victims. Who was that view coming 
18 
from? 
19 
A 
I can't -- I can't speak to person A, B, or C. 
20 
can say that if -- if the office thought there was a legal 
21 
obligation, there are too many professionals involved in this 
22 
that if they thought there was a legal obligation to notify, 
23 
they would have done so. 
24 
At some point in this process, whether it was pre 
25 
or post, I know that there was some explicit consideration of 
EFTA00009375

Page 148 
1 
what are the obligations, and some discussion of, this is not 
2 
the obligations don't attach until indictment, and therefore, 
3 
this is a discretionary matter. 
4 
Whether that happened in September or in August or 
5 
October, I can't speak to. But I know that that was -- that 
6 
was talked about, and I think later on in the record, there's 
7 
an e-mail from our appellate chief in a different case that 
8 
highlights, well, there is this Texas case that just ruled 
9 
the other way. So, clearly, it's an issue that had been 
10 
talked about, and I recall it being talked about. I just 
11 
can't tell you the when, or the with who. 
12 
Q 
And would there have been any -- you've spoken on 
13 
one concern --
14 
A 
Right. 
15 
Q 
-- concerning impeachment of the victims regarding 
16 
their --
17 
A 
Yeah. 
18 
Q 
-- financial aspect of the NPA. Would there have 
19 
been any downside to consulting with the victims concerning, 
20 
hey, the U.S. Attorney's Office is considering a resolution 
21 
short of a plea that involves charges in state court. How do 
22 
you feel about that, victims? 
23 
A 
So, there may not have been a downside. It's 
24 
difficult to recreate. My understanding, going back 12 
25 
years, was that the victims would be aware of what was 
EFTA00009376

Page 149 
1 
happening in the state court and have an opportunity to speak 
2 
up at the state court hearing. 
3 
Q 
And where does that -- where does this come from? 
4 
A 
So, my understanding is that when he was going to 
5 
go into state court that they would have been notified that 
6 
that was an all-encompassing plea, that that state court 
7 
sentence would also mean that the federal government was not 
8 
proceeding. 
9 
Q 
But again, in terms of --
10 
A 
Before -- your point is before it was signed. 
11 
Q 
Correct, so that they could have input --
12 
A 
Right. 
13 
Q 
-- into trying, perhaps, if they wanted to, to 
14 
persuade you that that --
15 
A 
Right. 
16 
Q 
-- was not a good idea. 
17 
A 
It may have -- it may have been a -- look, looking 
18 
back on it, it may have been a very good idea. I can't speak 
19 
to what the thought process was then, other than it was 
20 
discretionary and it was not legally required. 
21 
Q 
But at least as we sit here today, you cannot 
22 
recall a particular problem that somebody brought up to you 
23 
and said, we should not consult because of this problem? 
24 
A 
I don't recall that, and clearly, given the way 
25 
it's played out, it may have been much better if we had. 
EFTA00009377

Page 150 
BY MS. 
2 
Q 
In the last 15 or --
A 
Right. 
4 
Q 
-- 20 minutes, you've several times referred to 
discussions and we. 
A 
Right. 
7 
Q 
I want to make it clear that so far, the people who 
were involved in this case, the Epstein case in your shop 
were you, 
, and 
If -- is 
there anyone else who was involved in those discussions other 
than those five? 
2 
A 
Not to my recollection at this phase. 
13 
Q 
Okay. Okay. I just want to make sure --
14 
A 
Yes. 
15 
Q 
-- we understand who you --
lE 
A 
Yeah. 
Q 
-- who is encompassed --
8 
A 
Right. 
19 
Q 
-- in that general discussion --
2C 
A 
Right. 
21 
Q 
-- of -- of the matter. Okay. So, on July 26, so, 
22 
we're now a month after that -- that presentation by the 
23 
defense counsel to the team, including 
and 
24 
A 
Correct. 
2 
Q 
There was a meeting in Miami, and it was, again, 
EFTA00009378

Page 151 
1 
among 
by telephone, 
2 
, as well as the two case agents --
3 
A 
Mm-hmm. 
4 
and 
. Did you 
5 
know them, by the way? 
6 
A 
I did not, not to my recollection. 
7 
Q 
Okay, and also their supervisor, 
? Did 
8 
you know 
9 
A 
Somewhat. 
10 
Q 
All right, and they were all in West Palm, of 
11 
course. 
12 
A 
Yeah. 
13 
Q 
And then ASAC 
14 
A 
Yeah. 
15 
Q 
Do you recall her? 
16 
A 
Somewhat. 
17 
Q 
All right. They arrived -- or, at least, the trial 
18 
team -- the investigative team arrived ostensibly to discuss 
19 
the case. It turned out to be a very brief meeting 
20 
essentially consisting of 
coming in, announcing 
21 
that you had decided on a two year state resolution, and then 
22 
essentially leaving without 
that is, 
left the 
23 
meeting without discussion. 
24 
This was -- this has been described to us as 
25 
stunning to the investigative team. They had no idea this 
EFTA00009379

Page 152 
1 
was coming. This was -- they were completely blindsided. 
2 
The question is, were you aware that 
was going 
3 
to announce that you had decided on this resolution? 
4 
A 
So, I don't recall that, but I had decided and 
S 
endorsed this resolution at some point. And so, the fact 
6 
that I don't recall doesn't mean that -- I wasn't at the 
7 
meeting, I don't recall. But I clearly had endorsed this 
8 
resolution, and so --
9 
Q 
Mm-hmm. 
10 
A 
-- his announcement would have been consistent with 
11 
my decision. 
12 
Q 
And again, that decision was reached without 
13 
consultation and discussion with -- and input from the line 
14 
AUSA. Does that trouble you? 
15 
A 
Sitting here today, I wouldn't have said that there 
16 
was no input from the AUSA. So, to the extent that she felt 
17 
there was no consultation or input, that would. From my 
18 
perspective, trying to recreate things from 12 years ago, 
19 
there had been discussions and consultations, and she had 
20 
spoken with 
and 
and -- and it would have been my 
21 
guess that views were known and articulated, and there was 
22 
good communication back and forth. 
23 
Q 
But again, that's your expectation of your people, 
24 
is that correct? 
25 
A 
Correct. 
EFTA00009380

Page 153 
1 
Q 
Okay. So -- and also, from our interviews, it --
2 
there's -- our -- it's our understanding that you popped your 
3 
head into that meeting and said hello to the folks --
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
A 
Okay. 
Q 
-- gathered. Do you have any --
A 
Again, I --
Q 
-- recollection of that? 
A 
-- I don't remember the meeting. 
Q 
All right. 
10 
A 
I may have -- I may have done that. 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
Q 
And it's not --
A 
Right. 
Q 
-- completely uncharacteristic of you? 
A 
Right. 
Q 
Okay. 
A 
It's not. 
Q 
All right. 
A 
No, because that was an internal meeting. That 
19 
wasn't --
20 
Q 
Right, or -- correct, as opposed to the --
21 
A 
Right. 
22 
Q 
-- scenario we were discussing this morning. Ail 
23 
right, this deal, and we're not talking about 
24 
A 
Right. 
25 
Q 
-- the term sheet yet, two major prongs me want to 
EFTA00009381

Page 154 
1 
talk about. One -- the first one is forgoing federal 
2 
prosecution, right? Going for a state only disposition, and 
3 
I talked to you this morning about the five -- sort of the 
4 
five ways a case could proceed when it comes from the state. 
5 
You can either decline it and give it back to the state. You 
6 
can go ahead and indict, but the guy -- let the defendant or 
7 
defendants go to trial, or plead to the indictment. You can 
8 
indict, negotiate a deal, although you talked about some of 
9 
the issues there, and you can also file a complaint and 
10 
negotiate pre-indictment, or negotiate something. 
11 
A 
Right. 
12 
Q 
So, why was it that all of those other options were 
13 
rejected, and the state only deal was settled on? 
14 
A 
So, let me -- let me back up a minute, because I 
15 
think it was a little more -- a little more fluid. The way 
16 
the matter came to the office was, the state wasn't doing 
17 
enough. 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
Alternatively, we could look at a pre-indictment 
24 
resolution, and at various points, the office went back and 
25 
forth between a federal pre-indictment resolution, and a 
It didn't provide for prison time. It didn't 
provide for registration, and then you had the restitution 
issue. There were legal issues, which I'm sure we'll talk 
about. There were witness issues. And -- and we could go to 
trial, potentially, and we may or may not prevail. 
EFTA00009382

Page 155 
1 
state pre-indictment resolution. I think you showed me an 
2 
exhibit where
 said a 371 with the rule 11. There was 
3 
some discussion of other statutes at some point. I don't 
4 
recall the timeline. 
5 
And so ultimately, the focus was as an initial 
6 
matter, what -- how do we get this to resolution with some 
7 
flexibility for state versus federal? I think -- not I 
8 
think. I -- you know, there was a preference for deferring 
9 
to the state. 
10 
Q 
Where does that come from? What --
11 
A 
In part because the legal issues are to some exter. 
12 
also present in a federal resolution, because that then 
13 
becomes a precedent for other similarly situated cases. 
14 
Q 
Did you want to avoid a precedent? 
15 
A 
So, should we talk about the legal issues? Because 
16 
we 
we say we keep coming back to the legal issues, but --
17 
Q 
All right. Talk about the legal issues. 
18 
A 
So -- so, when I was at civil rights, one of the 
19 
areas of responsibility that I had was trafficking. I was 
20 
very supportive. We set up some of the first human 
21 
trafficking task forces. I thought civil rights really 
22 
became aggressive. I think III 
was one of the point 
23 
people. 
24 
We brought in 
to be a point person on 
25 
human trafficking. One of the background issues that -- that 
EFTA00009383

Page 156 
1 
informed the time and all those prosecutions and also the 
2 
development of the trafficking law was, what is the 
3 
distinction between trafficking and solicitation, and how --
4 
and what is the distinction between a truly federal case and 
5 
a local case? 
6 
Because there was a lot of concern at the time 
7 
about federalizing something that is traditionally local. 
8 
Now, that was 12 years ago, and I think that those concerns 
9 
are no longer in play today nearly -- and certainly not to 
10 
the extent that they were 12 years ago. 
11 
Q 
This was the state of play at the time you were the 
12 
AAG for --
13 
A 
At the AAG and afterwards as I was U.S. Attorney to 
14 
some extent, there was a lot of discussions about 
15 
federalizing state issues generally, and certainly in the 
16 
legislative issues that went back and forth, that was -- that 
17 
was a consideration. 
18 
Q 
Wasn't that trend very swift as of -- was it '06 
19 
when the Adam Walsh Act was enacted? 
20 
A 
So -- so, sure. I think we're trending in a 
21 
certain direction. 
22 
Q 
All right. 
23 
A 
And I think that trend has continued and 
24 
accelerated, but these were very -- these were valid, in my 
25 
opinion, considerations at the time, and one question to be 
EFTA00009384

Page 157 
1 
considered is, how would a court look at this -- because 
2 
different judges may look at these statutes differently. And 
3 
how would a court consider federal nexus issues? 
4 
And so, that was, to my mind, an important 
5 
consideration, because this was at the time to some extent 
6 
uncharted territory, and while we might prevail, and probably 
7 
would prevail, we may not have, and how is that weighed 
8 
against a certain plea with registration that would make sure 
9 
that the public knew that this person was a sex offender? 
10 
Q 
Okay, a couple of things. One, did you engage in 
11 
that -- that discussion, based on your experience, with 
12 
? Did -- did you -- did you engage in that kind of 
13 
conversation? 
14 
A 
I don't recall who I may have talked to, but this 
15 
was -- when -- when -- you will see in the record reference 
16 
to legal issues. This -- these were the legal issues, at 
17 
least to my mind, that that's referring to. 
18 
Q 
But did you sit -- I mean, not to be silly about 
19 
it, but --
20 
A 
Right. 
21 
Q 
-- did you sit in your office and ponder them, or 
22 
did you in the context of --
23 
A 
We would have -- we would have discussed them. 
24 
Q 
All right, we, being you, and --
25 
A 
I and -- whether it's 
or 
or 
EFTA00009385

Page 158 
1 
wouldn't have sat and pondered them on my own, but we would 
2 
have had some level of discussion about these. 
So, conversely, is it your understanding that --
that those three guys understood from you at least your 
perspective on these legal issues? 
A 
I -- let me -- let me push back. Those -- those 
7 
three professionals, because they are --
8 
Q 
Oh --
9 
A 
Yeah. 
10 
Q 
I'm sorry. 
A 
Well, in this context, it's --
12 
Q 
Colleagues, yes. 
13 
A 
Yeah. Yeah. So, there were two large buckets of 
14 
issues. One was the witness issues, and on those, I would 
15 
have deferred more to folks that are experienced trial 
16 
prosecutors. The other one are these legal issues. 
17 
Q 
Mis-hmm, 
18 
A 
And you see it with the fed -- with the reference 
19 
at the very beginning to the federal nexus --
20 
Q 
Mit-hmm. 
21 
A 
-- and you see it throughout where -- these were 
22 
discussions that we had, and from the very beginning, what is 
23 
the federal nexus, and how do we make it clear that we are 
24 
not stepping on something that is a purely local matter, 
25 
because we don't want bad precedent for the sake of the 
EFTA00009386

Page 159 
1 
larger human trafficking issue. 
2 
Q 
Did you have those conversations with your three 
3 
subordinate colleagues in this case? 
4 
A 
I would have had those conversations with those 
5 
colleagues. Whether it was with all three, or with two, I 
6 
can't recall, but I would have had those conversations. 
7 
Q 
And do you recall whether anyone -- anyone among 
8 
them pushed back as, for example, 
indicated 
9 
his view of some of those issues? 
10 
A 
So -- so, I don't recall specific pushback. I 
11 
can 
I can say where we concluded, which is there 
we are 
12 
comfortable enough with the law to believe that we are 
13 
that if we need to go to court, we can do so ethically, and 
14 
we have a good chance of winning. Because if we could not go 
15 
forward --
16 
Q 
Of course. 
17 
A 
Then -- then we just can't go forward, right? No 
18 
matter what outcome you want. Was it a slam dunk? Was there 
19 
some legal risk? Yes, there was some legal risk. 
20 
Q 
Mr. Acosta, you use the term a roll of the dice in 
21 
your press conference. 
22 
A 
Yes. 
23 
Q 
In -- there's a different -- I mean, at one end, 
24 
you have a slam dunk. I would submit that no criminal 
25 
prosecution --
EFTA00009387

Page 160 
1 
A 
Right. 
2 
Q 
-- is a slam dunk. 
3 
A 
Correct. 
4 
Q 
Likewise, I would ask you to comment on whether any 
5 
prosecution is really a roll of the dice, given that a 
6 
prosecuting authority, in this case, the U.S. Attorney's 
7 
Office, will have always done investigation, persuaded at 
8 
least a majority of grand jurors to -- that they -- that 
9 
there is sufficient proof to bring an indictment --
10 
A 
Right. 
11 
Q 
and so on. Do you -- do you -- would you still 
12 
hang your hat on a roll of the dice hook? 
13 
A 
So, I don't know if I would use that exact phrase. 
14 
Q 
All right. 
15 
A 
But let me -- let me just say, because you --
16 
prodding grand jurors. From our perspective, sitting in the 
17 
office in 2006 and 2007, this is a case that someone comes to 
18 
you and says, this has been presented, we have no reason to 
19 
believe the state attorney acted -- we're not happy with what 
20 
they did, but we have no reason to believe that there was 
21 
funny business. 
22 
Q 
Misconduct? 
23 
A 
Misconduct. 
24 
Q 
All right. 
25 
A 
And let's assume that there is no misconduct, 
EFTA00009388

Page 161 
1 
because you don't want to assume that again still. So, the 
2 
state attorney took this, reviewed it, presented it to a 
3 
grand jury, and the grand jury came out with this kind of 
4 
recommendation. That at least is indicative of some -- some 
5 
other authority looking at this and making a judgement as to 
6 
what it looks like. 
7 
Q 
Are you aware that at least at the investigative 
8 
and line assistant level, there was -- they had understanding 
9 
and reason to believe that the state prosecutors had put in 
10 
witnesses into their grand jury and set about impeaching 
11 
them? I'm not --
12 
A 
Right. 
13 
Q 
-- suggesting that this is misconduct, but it's a 
14 
way of approaching evidence before a grand jury, and if they 
15 
did that, it would be perhaps charitably for the purpose of 
16 
making it abundantly clear to the grand jurors how the 
17 
witness would fair --
18 
A 
Right. 
19 
Q 
-- or not fair under aggressive cross-examination 
20 
at a trial and so on. 
21 
A 
Right. 
22 
Q 
So, were you aware of that at the time? 
23 
A 
I was not. 
24 
Q 
You were not. 
25 
A 
Right. 
EFTA00009389

Page 162 
1 
Q 
You were not aware that that was an actual concern 
2 
and understanding --
3 
A 
That -- that there was --
4 
Q 
-- by your team? 
A 
That there was a concern that they basically --
6
 
Tanked the case. 
7 
A 
Tanked. 
8 
Q 
Yes. 
9 
A 
So, there was -- I --
10 
Q 
You -- I just --
11 
A 
12 
Q 
You didn't know that? 
13 
A 
I was aware of a concern about how the state 
14 
attorney -- how aggressive they were. 
15 
Q 
Right. 
16 
A 
There's a -- there's a distance between how 
17 
aggressive they were versus tanking a case. 
18 
Q 
Right, but I am telling you the concern by your 
19 
people at the ground level 
20 
A 
Right. 
21 
Q 
-- was the latter. 
22 
A 
Understood. 
23 
Q 
Okay. 
24 
A 
Aware of lack of aggression, tanking the case, very 
25 
specifically, I mean, there might have been, hey, you know, 
EFTA00009390

Page 16 -:
1 
is there -- this looks really odd, but you've given a level 
2 
of granularity as to highly unusual conduct. So, my point, 
3 
there is at least a perspective coming out of the state. 
4 
There are legal concerns. 
5 
We believed -- at the end of the day, I thought we 
6 
would prevail, but they're valid, and then you overlay that 
7 
with witness concerns, and concerns as to how juries, which 
8 
were different in 2006 on these issues. 
9 
Q 
What do you base that on, by the way? 
10 
A 
It's --
11 
Q 
Because you're not a trial attorney anymore. 
A 
So, experience with how juries in South Florida 
3 
looked at these matters, and with how South Florida looked a-. 
the project Safe Neighborhood -- I'm sorry, --
It's childhood. 
16 
A 
Project Safe Childhood run initiative generally, 
17 
and so there had been -- there had been prior instances where 
18 
we had talked about this, and we had gotten some pushback. 
19 
Q 
From --
20 
A 
From within the office, from within the FBI. 
21 
Q 
On what? 
22 
A 
On -- on sort of sex cases more generally. 
23 
Q 
And pushback in what regard? 
24 
A 
Where should we put our resources? And so, there 
25 
was -- there was just a general -- just general pushback. 
EFTA00009391

Page 164 
1 
Q 
Okay, but there are a couple things there. One is, 
2 
the juries -- the juries -- the petite juries, and 
3 
which --
4 
A 
Right. 
-- you -- I'd still like the answer on. 
6 
A 
Yeah. 
7 
Q 
And then the other is the FBI being loath to muck 
8 
around with these cases that they were not --
9 
A 
Yeah. 
10 
Q 
-- yet --
11 
A 
So --
12 
Q 
-- engaged with. 
13 
A 
So, let's -- let's take them one at a time, you 
14 
know, and -- and in all candor, I think we're looking at this 
15 
through a 2019 lens. You know, at the time, and I've said 
16 
this in different forms, but you know, Weinstein was known 
17 
and about, and actions weren't taken, and Bill Cosby was 
18 
known about. And they're each -- go with me. They're each 
19 
different --
20 
Q 
All right. 
21 
A 
-- but I do think the public looked at these cases 
22 
differently in 2006, and there are at least some 
23 
individuals -- I'm not saying it was the right view -- but 
24 
there are at least some individuals who would have looked and 
25 
said, this is a solicitation case, not a trafficking case. 
EFTA00009392

Page 165 
1 
Q 
All right. Who in your office 
who in the U.S. 
2 
Attorney's Office ever said that? 
3 
A 
So, this was -- this came up in the context of, how 
4 
would the victims do in court? And it wasn't just, you know, 
5 
how will they be impeached, but how will jurors look at the 
6 
fact patterns around this generally? 
7 
Q 
And who was -- who was talking --
8 
A 
I can't --
9 
Q 
about that? 
10 
A 
I can't say. I know that it was discussed. I 
11 
can't say A, B, C, or D. I 
12 
Q 
Well, it wouldn't have been D, because it would --
13 
D would be 
, and I think you would agree with 
14 
me that she would not --
15 
A 
I would agree --
16 
Q 
-- concede that. 
17 
A 
I would agree with you. 
18 
Q 
All right. 
19 
A 
With that, but my point is that when we're 
20 
talking -- so, when you're looking at victims in court today, 
21 
I think it's fair to say that the way we approach -- there's 
22 
been -- you know, there's been a lot of changes in victim 
23 
shaming, and the degree to which all of that is permitted. 
24 
The degree to which I think the public understands 
25 
that -- that girls, minor females, may be scared and may 
EFTA00009393

Page 166 
1 
testify differently. And I'm suggesting that it's important 
2 
to sort of think back to 2006 and understand that these 
3 
issues may have been viewed differently. 
4 
Q 
You -- you're -- you have not -- since leaving the 
5 
U.S. Attorney's Office -- been engaged in the investigation 
6 
and prosecution or handling in any respect of child sex 
7 
crimes, is that correct? 
8 
9 
A 
That is correct. 
Q 
So, on what do you base this -- is it -- is it a --
10 
your cultural observation? Your perspective on the evolution 
11 
of popular culture, not in a derogatory way, that leads you 
12 
to that assessment? 
13 
A 
So, on a few -- certainly the law has changed, and 
14 
the law has become much more aggressive. So, for example, I 
15 
believe the law on proof of age has changed where proof of 
16 
age is no longer required. 
17 
Q 
The law has, but the case law even at this time was 
18 
already --
19 
A 
What was --
20 
Q 
-- reasonably clear on that. 
21 
A 
Was reasonably clear, and certainly moving in that 
22 
direction. 
23 
Q 
Correct. Wouldn't you have wanted to be at the 
24 
forefront of this? 
25 
A 
So, I believe I was at the forefront of trafficking 
EFTA00009394

Page 167 
1 
issues, and I think if you were to look at my civil rights 
2 
record, I really was at the forefront of trafficking issues. 
3 
Q 
Even the U.S. Attorney's Office had a very robust, 
4 
as we discern it now, a very robust initiative. It maybe 
5 
wasn't a formal initiative, but commitment to prosecute these 
6 
cases. 
7 
A 
Correct, and -- and I fully supported that. All 
8 
the more reason why, if there is an issue, and there is a 
9 
potential for some judge, rightly or wrongly, whether I agree 
10 
or not -- because you can't always predict -- even though you 
11 
think you'll prevail, you can't always predict where holdings 
12 
go. To --
13 
Q 
Are you talking about on appeal? 
14 
A 
On appeal or in trial to 
15 
Q 
Right. 
16 
A 
-- to issue a negative precedent on travel for 
17 
purpose of, or on federal nexus, and if you think back at the 
18 
time, on appear, there were -- there's a lot of case law on 
19 
commerce clause and federal nexus. 
20 
Q 
Right. 
21 
A 
And so, I think that that is an important and valid 
22 
factor that goes into the decision making that assesses the 
23 
risk of trial, not just from the -- this -- you know, how the 
24 
victims will testify in this particular case, but also what 
25 
this means to the greater -- to the greater effort. 
EFTA00009395

Page 168 
1 
Q 
I understand that completely. What I -- what I am 
2 
not hearing is where a voice other than you and your team in 
3 
this case was being heard, like 
Did --
4 
did you --
5 
A 
And --
6 
Q 
-- talk to him about these issues? Because --
7 
A 
Not --
8 
Q 
-- CEOS --
9 
A 
Not to --
10 
Q 
-- was at the forefront of --
11 
A 
Not to my recollection. 
12 
Q 
All right. Wouldn't --
13 
MR. TODD: Let 
finish her questions. 
14 
THE WITNESS: Okay. Sorry. Sorry. 
15 
MS. 
: We're all --
16 
THE WITNESS: I apologize. 
17 
MS. 
: We're on a mutual role here. 
18 
THE WITNESS: Okay. 
19 
BY MS. 
20 
Q 
But wouldn't -- if you'd had those concerns, 
21 
perfectly well founded, why not reach out and engage with 
22 
CEOS and see what their assessment was about the 
23 
vulnerability that this case might expose your office to? 
24 
A 
So, I can't reconstruct that 12 years later. You 
25 
know, one interesting question is would CEOS have come to 
EFTA00009396

Page 169 
1 
mind versus civil rights crim, because coming from civil 
2 
rights crim, I -- you know, my primary trafficking contacts 
3 
would have been --
4 
Q 
Did you pick up the phone and --
5 
A 
Not --
6 
Q 
-- call them? 
7 
A 
Not to my recollection. 
8 
Q 
So, I guess what I'm -- what I'm getting at is you, 
9 
based on substantial experience and a commitment to these 
10 
cases in your office -- the U.S. Attorney's Office -- had 
11 
formed your own analytical analysis -- your own analysis 
12 
legally. 
13 
You've told us you've discussed this or made those 
14 
issues and concerns known to the people who were below you, 
15 
at least immediately below you, and that it -- that's where 
16 
it sort of rested. There was not an effort to go out and 
17 
enhance or add to your understanding of the case, and legal 
18 
issues. 
19 
A 
So, to my recollection, I don't recall, and it's --
20 
we'll get into perhaps -- you know, I -- from my impression, 
21 
I actually thought I was being more aggressive than main 
22 
justice would feel comfortable with, and --
23 
Q 
More aggressive in what respect? 
24 
A 
In my interpretation and how comfortable I was 
25 
going forward than main justice, and we can get into that, 
EFTA00009397

Page 170 
1 
but I thought I was being more aggressive, not less, and so I 
2 
had these concerns. I did not vet them at main justice. 
3 
Q 
Okay. When you said more -- more aggressive, are 
4 
you talking about the fact that you crafted this state 
5 
disposition, or that you were more forward leaning on the 
6 
potential of prosecuting Epstein federally? 
7 
A 
More forward leaning. 
8 
Q 
And yet you didn't. You didn't -- you didn't lean 
9 
sufficiently far forward to actually pull the trigger and 
10 
have an indictment returned. 
11 
A 
So, I would push back on that, and that from my 
12 
perspective, we were leaning forward, because we did 
13 
prosecute him by deferring to the state, and ensuring that at 
14 
the state --
15 
Q 
All right. 
16 
A 
-- he had a sentence that he -- where he went to 
17 
jail. 
18 
Q 
All right. Okay. I want to sort of move on. I 
19 
want to ask you a question about 11C1C, please, that you 
20 
mentioned earlier. 
21 
A 
Okay. 
22 
Q 
And sort of alluded to here, when we --
23 
A 
Right. 
24 
Q 
-- talked about judges, and we talked about 
25 
dismissing charges from an indictment. Was your -- what was 
EFTA00009398

Page 171 
1 
your position as U.S. Attorney with regard to the binding 
2 
pleas in an 11C1C plea agreement? 
3 
A 
We used them very rarely. 
4 
Q 
But why? 
5 
A 
As a typical matter, judges did not like them. 
6 
Q 
And -- and was that something that as U.S. 
7 
Attorney, you engaged with the judges on, or was that simply 
8 
a matter of seeing what they did with them? 
9 
A 
It -- it happened before I got there. I suspect it 
10 
continued to happen after I left. 
11 
Q 
All right. Okay. That said, were there some 
12 
occasions in which the office, if you recall at all, did do 
13 
11C1C --
14 
A 
There --
15 
Q 
-- plea agreements? 
16 
A 
-- may have been. I don't recall. 
17 
Q 
Okay. All right. 
18 
MR. 
: And 
, before we move onto --
19 
MS. 
: Yes. 
20 
MR. 
-- another issue, can I --
21 
MS. 
: Yeah. I'm --
22 
MR. 
: -- go back a second --
23 
MS. 
-- still with federal -- I'm still 
24 
on the federal prosecution, but go ahead. 
1 
25 
BY MR. 
EFTA00009399

=,=3e,
1 
Q 
We had talked about the -- you talked about the 
2 
state grand jury, and how their decision informed your 
3 
decision, and you said, well, what state grand jury did with 
4 
this. What was your understanding of what this was? Like, 
5 
what exactly the state grand jury looked at? 
6 
A 
So, so, let me back up. I said it was a factor 
7 
that informed, not just --
8 
9 
Q 
I understand. 
A 
-- determined. So, my understanding is that at 
10 
least some core amount of facts were presented, and I 
11 
understand that since it was at the state, the FBI may have 
12 
found additional witnesses, but when it was presented, the 
13 
very reason the office took it in the first place was because 
14 
it was presented to the state, and it went to a grand jury, 
15 
and the recommendation from the grand jury was for a -- you 
16 
know, a statute that would not require jail time, and that 
17 
seemed wrong. 
18 
But the very fact that it was presented to a grand 
19 
jury certainly was one of several factors that we considered, 
20 
because it at least indicated some level of how individual 
21 
jurors may view this. 
Q 
Do you have any recollection that the state grand 
23 
jury presented a single witness, who, as 
talked about 
24 
earlier, that they impeached? 
2i 
have -- I have read that it was a single witness. 
EFTA00009400

Page 173 
1 
Since then, I don't have an independent recollection of that. 
2 
Q 
Okay. 
3 
BY MS. 
4 
Q 
And were you -- how familiar were you with Florida 
5 
state criminal procedure? 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
Florida bar. 
13 
A 
Correct. 
14 
Q 
Correct. So, really any knowledge you had would 
15 
have sort of been picked up? 
16 
A 
I should -- I should point out that a number of 
17 
AUSAs in Florida are not a member of the Florida bar, so 
18 
that's not unusual. 
19 
Q 
Oh, okay. No -- I'm not -- I'm not --
20 
A 
Right. 
21 
Q 
-- suggesting --
22 
A 
Right. 
23 
Q 
-- otherwise. 
24 
A 
And in federal employment, you can move from 
A 
It depends what -- what area. 
Q 
Well, you never practiced there, right? 
A 
Correct. 
Q 
I forget what law school you went to. 
A 
Not Florida. 
Q 
Not in Florida, and you were not a member of the 
25 
Q 
Right. 
EFTA00009401

Page 174 
1 
A 
Yeah. So, I had been U.S. Attorney for quite a 
2 
while, and then I -- you know, I think we would have been 
3 
interacting with the state system sufficiently, and if there 
4 
was something that I had questions on, I could certainly ask. 
5 
Q 
Were you aware that in the Florida system, grand 
6 
juries ware not required to be used to bring federal criminal 
7 
charges except in capital cases? 
8 
9 
A 
Yes. 
Q 
Okay, so even bringing a case to a grand jury was 
10 
an -- in a non-capital context, was somewhat unusual? 
11 
A 
An indication that there were some concerns or 
12 
something, so the state attorney, presenting it in the best 
13 
possible light, is looking to test the case. 
14 
Q 
All right, and without getting into any substance, 
15 
did you at any point become aware of the kind of reaction 
16 
that the line AUSA, 
, was getting from the 
17 
federal grand jurors to whom she was presenting? 
18 
A 
I did not. 
19 
Q 
All right. Another aspect of concern that I think 
20 
you mentioned in your press conference was the concern about 
21 
labelling or putting the girls -- the girls -- the victims in 
22 
a position where they would be labelled as prostitutes, 
23 
right? Do you recall --
24 
A 
I'm not sure --
25 
Q 
-- mentioning that? 
EFTA00009402

Page 175 
1 
A 
-- I phrased it that way, but I -- I take -- I take 
2 
your --
3 
Q 
We'll defer to the record. 
4 
A 
Right. 
5 
Q 
But -- but you did -- you did express concern, and 
6 
our understanding is there was some expression of concern in 
7 
the U.S. Attorney's Office among the folks about the victims 
8 
having to self-identify, or --
9 
A 
Right. 
10 
Q 
-- admit that they were sort of prostitutes. The 
11 
disposition that was reached in the state -- and that -- and 
12 
that -- avoiding that was something to be desired --
13 
A 
Yes. 
14 
Q 
-- right? 
15 
A 
Yes. 
16 
Q 
The charge to which Epstein was ultimately require 
17 
to plead guilty did just that. It was a solicitation to 
18 
prostitution of minors. Was that -- did that factor in at 
19 
all as a -- as a -- as an issue of -- that -- that was not 
20 
being addressed at all --
21 
A 
Right. 
22 
Q 
-- by the state disposition? 
23 
A 
So, I -- I was aware of and signed off on this 
24 
three point 
25 
Q 
The term sheet? 
EFTA00009403

Page 176 
1 
A 
-- it's in here somewhere -- term sheet. In terms 
2 
of the negotiation over which state statute was used, and 
3 
which victims, that is something that -- that -- to my 
4 
understanding, was being handled by Ms. 
, and from 
5 
my perspective, she would certainly have had sensitivity to 
6 
that. 
7 
Q 
And do you have any idea how that three -- those 
8 
three counts or charges were reduced to simply one? 
9 
A 
I do not. That would be a function of the course 
10 
of the negotiations. 
11 
Q 
Why was -- why wasn't any reasoning for this 
12 
disposition -- deferring to the state -- set forth in 
13 
writing? Why didn't anyone do a memo explaining what your 
14 
reasoning was, or what the office's reasoning was? 
15 
A 
I can't speak to that directly, but I can say that 
16 
it would have been unusual. I don't recall other cases where 
17 
there was a, this is the reason for our disposition type 
18 
memo. At least not memos that came to me. 
19 
Q 
Okay. I'm showing you two, and the caption is --
20 
is all that's relevant here, but there are two memos that are 
21 
both dated February 2006, and March 2006. One of them is in 
22 
fact addressed to you from 
, and it attaches a 
23 
memo, which is a require for pretrial diversion to resolve 
24 
case against an individual named Ronald Sasse, S-a-s-s-e. 
25 
And it is a child pornography possession case in 
EFTA00009404

Page 177 
1 
which the conclusion was that the defendant merely possessed 
2 
it, and that it was a case that should be resolved by 
3 
pretrial diversion, and I'm just only bringing that to your 
4 
attention --
5
 
Right. 
6 
Q 
-- as well as this second one that I'll show you, 
7 
to show you that there are cases involving, you know, child 
8 
sex crimes, where it's -- the office did see fit to set forth 
9 
its analysis and reasoning for the proposed result. 
10 
The second document, dated February 15, 2006, is a 
11 
memo, not to you, but to 
in his capacity as chief 
12 
of the criminal division, and it requests authorization to 
13 
enter into a plea agreement with a five year cap, and it --
14 
it is a C1C plea, and the handwritten notes indicate that the 
15 
supervisors concurred in it. Again, I'm simply suggesting 
16 
that there -- that there are at least some examples where the 
17 
office, you know, in these kinds of cases --
18 
A 
Right. 
19 
20 
A 
So --
21 
Q 
-- put it to paper. 
22 
A 
So, I can only speculate. 
23 
Q 
mm-hmm. 
24 
A 
And questions I would have is, to what extent was 
25 
this put on paper, because it was a case that 
or others 
EFTA00009405

Page 17E 
1 
were not involved with. So, this was the way that in this 
2 
case, the chief of the -- you know, the economic crimes, or 
3 
in this case, you know, at 
is chief of the criminal 
4 
division, we're communicating information rather than walking 
5 
in and having a discussion. 
6 
We're just communicating it on paper as a way to 
7 
obviate a discussion. In this particular case, there were --
8 
there was discussion, there was communication, and so a memo 
9 
to sort of establish -- in other words, is this a required 
10 
approval memo, or is this a memo that says, in lieu of 
11 
getting together, where are the facts, let me know what you 
12 
think. 
13 
Q 
All right, and was there not a practice, or even a 
1 4 
requirement in the office that plea dispositions should be 
15 
memorialized in writing in -- in -- with the rationale? 
4 
A 
So, to the extent that a line attorney might be 
17 
seeking permission from a supervisor --
18 
Q 
Mm-hmm. 
19 
A 
-- on a plea disposition, I would think that they 
20 
would communicate that in writing as the cleanest, most 
21 
typical way when you've got 20 or 30 line attorneys and one 
22 
supervisor. That is not necessarily the only way, and 
23 
certainly as U.S. Attorney, I don't recall a -- you know, a 
24 
practice of memorializing to me what plea dispositions would 
25 
be. 
EFTA00009406

Page 179 
1 
Q 
Okay, and in this case, you were involved in the 
2 
case, right? 
3 
A 
And in this case, I was involved, and so to be 
4 
clear, I'm not -- I -- I'm not saying that I disagreed with 
5 
this, and I'm not walking away with it. And so, to the 
6 
extent that I may have in a meeting said this looks good, 
7 
that may have obviated a need to --
8 
Q 
All right. 
9 
A 
-- write that up. 
10 
Q 
Okay. Thank you. Another aspect of the state 
11 
resolution that raises concern -- and it -- and let me make 
12 
clear that -- that many of our questions are framed in this 
13 
way, but we are also reflecting a concern that's been 
14 
expressed in the press, and in the public, and by others. 
15 
A 
I understand. Understood. 
16 
Q 
So --
17 
A 
Understood. 
18 
Q 
-- we're sort of coming through that lens. So, 
19 
another aspect of the state resolution that raises concern 
20 
is, doesn't it appear that the -- that by going -- sending 
21 
this matter back to the state, there's more federal 
22 
interference, more federal involvement in the state process 
23 
than there would have been if you had just kept the case? 
24 
A 
So in hindsight, one of the issues I think in this 
25 
case is after the agreement, and you know, we keep calling it 
EFTA00009407

Page 180 
1 
a non-prosecution agreement, and I kept saying call it an 
2 
agreement to defer in favor of state prosecution. 
3 
Q 
A DPA instead of an NPA? 
4 
A 
Right. 
5 
Q 
Why wasn't it called a DPA, by the way? 
6 
A 
I don't know. There's one e-mail where I suggested 
7 
putting in reference to petite policy. 
8 
Q 
Right. 
9 
A 
And 
said, looks strange, take it out. 
10 
There's another e-mail in the record where I keep saying --
11 
everyone keeps calling it an NPA, call it a deferred to 
12 
state. So, I can't -- you know, I can't say why not, but 
13 
it's an important distinction. 
14 
Q 
But if you had said -- it -- I don't want to go --
15 
A 
Yeah. 
16 
Q 
to far afield, but if you had said, uh-uh, call 
17 
it, no, call it a deferred prosecution 
18 
A 
Right. 
19 
Q 
-- agreement, they would have changed it, right? 
20 
A 
They would have, and I -- I actually asked that we 
21 
have a clause based -- I don't have the independent 
22 
recollection of this, but based on the record that we include 
23 
a clause saying that we were doing this in light of the 
24 
petite policy to defer, and 
pushes back and says, 
25 
I haven't seen that, and he's the local expert, so I deferred 
EFTA00009408

Page 181 
1 
to him. I take responsibility, but it's an important 
2 
distinction. And so -- I'm sorry, I just lost track of your 
3 
question. 
4 
Q 
We were talking about, doesn't this involve more 
5 
federal interference? 
6 
A 
Could I -- could I grab a Red Bull from you that I 
7 
bought? 
8 
9 
0 
11 
break? 
3 
MR. HERRON: Yeah. 
THE WITNESS: Sorry, just a --
MS. 
: Do you want to take a five minute 
THE WITNESS: Would you mind? 
MS. 
: Not at all. 
14 
THE WITNESS: Yeah. 
15 
MS. 
: Call it, please, at any time. 
16 
THE WITNESS: Let me grab the Red Bull. 
MS. 
: Off the record. 
(Off the record.) 
BY MS. 
All right. Thank you. All right. Back on the 
21 
record. So, Mr. Acosta, I was asking you about -- didn't 
22 
this -- didn't this resolution end up injecting the feds into 
23 
the state business in a pretty aggressive way? 
24 
A 
And -- and so what I was saying is in hindsight, 
25 
one of the -- one of the issues here is I think this would 
EFTA00009409

Page 182 
1 
have gone very differently if after the agreement to defer in 
2 
favor of state prosecution, all the victims knew about this, 
3 
they had gone into state court, he had pled October --
4 
whatever the date was -- had been sentenced, had served his 
5 
sentence, and case over. 
6 
And so, one -- you know, to the extent there are 
7 
lessons learned, an attempt to provide a -- an attempt to 
8 
backstop the state here, rebounded, because in the process, 
9 
it got convoluted, and complex, and ended up being arguably 
10 
more intrusive than it would have had this just been, here is 
11 
what we'll do, go back to the -- if you go back to the state 
12 
and work this out, but --
13 
Q 
Would that have required or depended on cooperation 
14 
from the state authorities? 
15 
A 
So, I think I was clear, and my recollection is 
16 
this was an issue where I said it is up to you, and one of 
17 
the -- I edited a few parts of this. I got involved 
18 
selectively. 
19 
Q 
Exhibit 21b is --
20 
A 
Oh. 
21 
Q 
-- your edits. 
22 
A 
Okay. So, let's -- before I say I think, let's go 
2.3 
to --
24 
Q 
But --
25 
A 
-- 21. 
EFTA00009410

Page 183 
1 
Q 
But before me talk about 21b, as a general matter, 
2 
you talked earlier about the more -- the sort of more 
3 
typical, usual way in which the U.S. Attorney's Office and 
4 
local authorities 
prosecutive authorities would work, and 
5 
that is cooperatively, and would decide who gets what, and --
6
 
Right. 
7 
Q 
-- who has what responsibilities. Here, there was 
8 
not such cooperation, apparently. 
9 
A 
There wasn't, and I was going to say, to my 
10 
recollection, we can look at whether it's in 21b or not, one 
11 
of my edits was make it clear that it's up to him to figure 
12 
this out with the state attorney, because we as federal 
13 
prosecutors are not going to walk in and dictate to the state 
14 
attorney. 
15 
Q 
But in affect, you did. 
16 
A 
17 
Q 
By -- you did -- you did it through Epstein. 
18 
A 
I understand. And so, in an attempt to -- in 
19 
an attempt to reach a resolution, particularly as convoluted 
20 
as this got, I do think a lesson learned is that it ended up 
21 
perhaps being worse that if we would not have in the first 
22 
place. 
23 
Something -- I -- we, my team, we very much thought 
24 
that it was important that he go to jail. That it was 
25 
important that he register. How we got to that ending is 
EFTA00009411

Page 184 
unusual, and as an attempt to factor in, here are all the 
2 
issues around the federal statutes, the concerns about 
3 
trafficking law, here are the victim issues as to trial, and 
4 
how -- you know, here is -- here are all these things. And 
5 
so, on the one hand, deferring to state 
to the state, 
6 
appears -- appears logical. 
7 
On the other hand, the way it played out was a lot 
8 
more confrontational with the state than I would have hoped, 
9 
particularly because rather than go back to the state and 
10 
work it out, in the collateral -- subsequent collateral 
11 
attacks, they almost tried to state to circumvent and to --
12 
you know, to get the state to circumvent and undermine our 
13 
agreement. 
And that was -- when you say they, you mean the 
defense team? 
So, you could have -- you could have obviated that 
18 
whole thing if you had just offered the same result, which 
17 
would be a plea to a criminal charge with, for sake of 
2C 
argument, a two-year cap, which would have required a C1C 
plea. 
22 
A 
Right. 
23 
Q 
And you'd get your restitution, because federal law 
24 
requires it. They would have been able to proceed under 18 
25 
USC 22.55 anyway, and he would have gone to jail and been 
EFTA00009412

Page 165 
1 
registered as a sex offender. All just within the normal 
2 
course of doing business as the U.S. Attorney's Office. Why 
3 
not pursue that? Who was -- who was calling the shots that 
4 
said, yeah, we'll do it, but it's got to be with the state? 
5 
Was that the defense? 
6 
A 
So, something that -- that wasn't the defense. 
7 
Something that I think is important to sort of lay out here, 
8 
is the -- the -- sort of the terms sheet was developed really 
9 
early in the case. 
10 
Q 
Excuse me, it's dated, it's presented to the team 
11 
by 
on the 31st of July. Do you consider that 
12 
early? 
13 
A 
So, from -- let me -- let me clarify from my 
14 
perspective. It was developed and approved by me before I 
15 
became involved with interactions with the defense team. 
16 
Q 
In the sense that you only met with the defense 
17 
team for the first time in the person of Ken Starr and Jay 
18 
Lefkowitz and company on the 7th of September. 
19 
A 
And it wasn't the 7th of -- yeah, the 7th of --
20 
Q 
The 7th of September. 
21 
A 
-- September. 
22 
Q 
2007. 
23 
A 
And that is important, because it goes to -- there 
24 
is a lot of buzz in the media, did they influence this 
25 
outcome? To my recollection, they may not even have been 
EFTA00009413

Page 186 
1 
attorneys of record in this case, and I don't know when they 
came onto the case. 
3 
Q 
Well, there's an e-mail in the package that 
4 
indicates that you got a call from K and E 
5 
6 
8 
9 
A 
Right. 
Q 
-- on -- on or about the 6th of August. 
A 
After the terms sheet was --
Q 
Correct. 
A 
-- presented, and so I say that because we can --
10 
we can -- and probably will talk about whether those terms 
11 
were the best judgement or not, but once those terms were 
agreed and approved, with the exception of the 24 to 18 as a 
13 
material, and then we can talk about how that happened, we 
14 
stuck, and I backed the office, and I backed 
in her 
15 
negotiations on those. And so, I just -- I think that's 
16 
important to note. 
17 
Q 
I understand. I -- that's not, for the moment, the 
18 
focus. 
19 
A 
Fair. 
20 
Q 
It's the terms themselves, and in this case, the 
21 
state court disposition, everything that you wanted to get 
22 
with the state court disposition, you could have gotten with 
23 
a federal plea --
24 
A 
We --
Q 
-- much more easily. 
EFTA00009414

Page 18-
1 
A 
We could have, and there was certainly some 
2 
consideration of a 371, and that may be -- you know, in 
3 
retrospect, it would have obviated a lot of issues. 
4 
Q 
So, who said no, that's not --
5 
A 
So --
6 
Q 
-- acceptable? 
7 
A 
So, there is e-mails that at the time 
spoke to 
8 
me about it. I don't recall, but I'll take responsibility 
9 
for -- for favoring -- or, not for favoring, but if that's --
10 
if that's what happened, I will take responsibility. From my 
11 
perspective, and my recollection, there are two -- two 
12 
factors here. 
13 
Well, I don't know if it's two factors, but at 
14 
least two factors. One, concerns about how this interacts 
15 
with federal law, and what precedents this might mean for 
16 
other trafficking cases. Two, a southern district's general 
17 
dislike for rule 11, and -- and then third, there were other 
18 
federal statutes that were considered at various points, and 
19 
I remember looking at those and saying, yeah, I don't -- it 
20 
doesn't quite -- it doesn't quite fit. 
21 
Q 
To -- just to be clear, that process of looking for 
22 
the square peg that --
23 
A 
24 
Q 
-- would fit into the round hole of -- of the two 
25 
years that had been committed to was a process that came 
EFTA00009415

Page 188 
1 
before the NPA was actually negotiated, at a time when 
2 
was working with defense counsel to see if there 
3 
was a federal charges that could be within the two year --
4
 
Correct. 
5 
Q 
-- scope that would allow Jeffery Epstein to serve 
6 
his time in a federal facility, rather than in a state 
7 
facility. Is that --
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
A 
That --
Q 
-- is that correct? 
A 
-- iS correct. 
Q 
Okay. 
A 
And I recall -- I recall at least one of those 
13 
ideas, and I recall that my general reaction to it was, we're 
14 
pushing the law that just looks odd, and we don't want to go 
15 
there. 
16 
Q 
Are you talking the assault on an airplane, or the 
17 
obstruction of a witness, or --
18 
A 
I actually -- my recollection is not about the 
19 
assault on the airplane --
20 
Q 
Okay. 
21 
A 
-- but about his home being a special maritime 
22 
jurisdiction. 
23 
Q 
Oh. 
24 
A 
Which is -- no. 
25 
Q 
Definitely square peg in round hole. 
EFTA00009416

Page 189 
1 
A 
Right. 
2 
Q 
Correct? But there were -- so, I guess it -- is 
3 
it -- is it -- is it accurate that from your standpoint, an 
4 
11C1C federal disposition was not going to be acceptable? 
5 
That that's not something that you would approve? 
6 
A 
It would have been unusual, I don't recall with 
7 
specificity, but I can -- based on circumstances, infer that 
8 
it would have been unusual, and -- and I would have looked at 
9 
it and said this isn't -- this isn't typical. I'm not 
10 
comfortable. 
11 
Q 
So, why not -- why not offer the five year hit, and 
12 
say that's it? 
13 
A 
I wish I could speculate. I mean, I could sit here 
14 
and speculate after the fact. I can speak to what I recall. 
15 
I can speak to what I approved. I can speak to the 
16 
considerations that went into it. There are all sorts of 
17 
things that in hindsight we may or may not have done, which 
18 
may have worked out well or not. I -- I can't answer that. 
19 
Q 
So, I guess -- I guess the -- sort of the big 
20 
unanswered as yet question is, why was there a fixation on 
21 
the two years when that's not something that comported with 
22 
anything that was possible in the federal scheme? 
23 
A 
So, speaking to the two years, I don't remember 
24 
with specificity. I -- let me give you my general 
25 
recollection --
EFTA00009417

Met-hum. 
2 
A 
-- and then let me speculate. 
3 
Q 
Mel-hmm. 
4 
A 
My general recollection is that there were earlier 
5 
charges, you all may know those in more detail than I do, but 
6 
there were earlier state charges that were brought. 
7 
8 
Q 
That were brought? 
A 
That -- I'm sorry, not that were brought, that were 
9 
contemplated. 
10 
Q 
Of which there is no public record? 
11 
A 
There is -- I don't know if there's public record 
12 
or not. I can just say my recollection is that there were 
13 
earlier state charges that were contemplated. The state 
14 
attorney chose to not pursue those earlier state charges and 
15 
take it to a grand jury. 
16 
From public information, my understanding is that 
7 
that's why Chief 
became upset. My general 
18 
recollection is that the two years represented what he would 
19 
have received if the original recommendation, or the original 
20 
view of the state attorney's office had gone through, and it 
21 
hadn't been brought to the grand jury, and I would -- I would 
22 
sort of point to -- you know, in this Exhibit 3 -- I thought 
23 
it was in Exhibit 3. 
24 
Somewhere, there's a reference to -- as you can see 
25 
it -- Exhibit 3, page three, as you and the agents conceded, 
EFTA00009418

Page 191 
1 
had Epstein been convicted of a felony that resulted in a 
2 
jail sentence and sex offender status, neither the FBI nor 
3 
our office would have interceded. 
4 
Q 
But that is completely silent as to what those 
5 
original charges may have been, or --
6 
A 
7 
Q 
-- how they related to --
8 
A 
I understand. 
9 
Q 
Okay. 
10 
A 
And so, so, to just close the loop, my 
11 
understanding is that those two years reflected what that 
12 
would have been such that the case would not have come to 
13 
federal authorities in the first place. 
14 
Q 
Okay. Where did that information come from? Who 
15 
said, oh, those charges would have resulted in a two year 
16 
sentence? Was that something that was analyzed by your 
17 
office, or did it come from defense counsel, or --
18 
A 
19 
Q 
-- from who? 
20 
A 
I can't -- I can't speculate. It had to come from 
21 
someone. 
22 
Q 
It did not come from you, is that correct? 
23 
A 
So, I would not have the knowledge to know what 
24 
that charge would have resulted. As an initial matter, a 
25 
penalty that says up to blank years is rarely that number of 
EFTA00009419

Page 192 
1 
years, right? 
2 
Q 
Right. 
3 
A 
By the time you apply guidelines and all that, and 
4 
so I would not have the knowledge to know how to calculate 
5 
that state sentence. 
6 
Q 
And in fact were you aware that Florida did have 
its own state guidelines -- sentencing guidelines? 
8 
A 
Generally, I -- I know that --
9 
Q 
Right. 
A 
-- there is a process. 
11 
Q 
Right. 
12 
A 
Might I at some point have said, you know, Mr. or 
13 
Ms. AUSA, or management team member, if this had been done 
14 
the right way in the state, what would he have gotten, and 
15 
someone comes back to me, possibly, maybe someone at some 
16 
point had said, look, this would never have come to us if it 
17 
was done the right way in the state, and this was the term 
18 
that he would've gotten. 
19 
At some point in this process, my general 
20 
understanding is we got to that two years based on not 
21 
random, but based on, this was the calculation that he would 
22 
have received. 
23 
Q 
Right, and to make sure we understand, is that your 
24 
actual recollection, or is it your belief based on what you 
2. 
know happened that that's the way it --
EFTA00009420

Page 193 
1 
A 
So --
2 
Q 
-- happened? 
3 
A 
So, it is my recollection of my understanding, 
4 
which is convoluted, so let me --
5 
Q 
yeah. 
6 
A 
/t is how I recall viewing the term sheet when I 
7 
approved it. 
8 
Q 
Okay. 
9 
A 
How it got into -- and so, if we got to the term 
1 0 
sheet --
11 
Q 
It's 21 -- no, it's not. 
12 
A 
It's -- it's one of these exhibits. 
13 
MR. 
15. 
14 
BY MS. 
15 
Q 
Thank you, 15. 
16 
A 
15. So, if we go to the terms sheet, Epstein 
17 
pleads guilty -- contender to an information follow 
18 
charging him with -- these particular statutes are -- I am 
19 
not familiar with, but I would have assumed that either 
20 
or someone else would have selected them appropriately. It 
21 
makes a binding recommendation to serve at least two years in 
22 
prison. 
23 
Q 
Let me back up if I could. Those three statutes, 
24 
did you understand those three statutes to be the three 
25 
statutes that -- or, to be the statutes that the state 
EFTA00009421

Page 194 
1 
originally was going to bring? 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
A 
I can't speak to that. 
Q 
You don't know. 
A 
I don't know. 
Q 
So, you don't know what the statutes were? 
A 
Yeah. 
Q 
Okay. 
A 
Yeah. You know, it makes a joint binding 
9 
recommendation at least two years in prison 
My -- my 
10 
understanding, my recollection of my understanding, when I 
11 
reviewed these terms, is that that reflected what he would 
12 
have received if he had -- if the state had gone through with 
13 
an initial -- with an initial charge, and from our 
14 
perspective at the time, that would have obviated the need in 
15 
the first place to have engaged federal authorities. Agree 
16 
or disagree with the logic, I'm trying to explain the logic. 
17 
Q 
Mm-hmm. No, I understand. Thank you for that 
18 
clarification. Is it -- you posited a couple of 
19 
possibilities that you might have said, you know, gee, what 
20 
would --
21 
A 
Right. 
22 
Q 
-- he be looking at if --
23 
A 
Right. 
24 
Q 
-- the state had done what it originally set out to 
25 
do or was supposed to do. Is it -- how also likely is it 
EFTA00009422

Page 195 
1 
that someone came to you, one of your people, and said, hey, 
2 
I suggest we go with two years, because the same reason. 
3 
A 
It's --
4 
Q 
In other words, it came from --
5 
A 
Right. 
6 
Q 
-- somebody else to you, and you agreed. 
7 
A 
So, it's very difficult to reconstruct this in 
8 
retrospect, in part because I don't want to leave the 
9 
impression that there was one meeting where this was 
10 
discussed --
11 
Q 
MM-hmm. 
12 
A 
-- as opposed to, you've got -- you're sitting 
13 
across the hall from someone, you're sitting down the hall 
14 
from someone. There are ongoing discussions, how do we 
15 
resolve a matter that has some thorny legal questions, some 
16 
difficult victim witness questions, and this is the kind of 
17 
back and forth where I might have indicated a concern, 
18 
someone was trying to address that concern, or I might have 
19 
asked the question. It -- it's --
20 
Q 
Well, you've already told us that you did express 
21 
concern --
22 
A 
Right. 
23 
Q 
-- about the case, and somebody -- and you were 
24 
having conversations with 
25 
correct? 
, possibly 
EFTA00009423

Page 196 
1 
A 
Correct. 
2 
Q 
And is it possible 
does it -- is it reasonable 
3 
that one of them might have come up with a solution for you 
4 
to your problems? 
5 
A 
And that's the point that I'm --
6
 
Okay. 
7 
A 
-- trying to make. It's certainly possible, and 
8 
it's difficult to reconstruct that 12 years after the fact. 
9 
Q 
All right. All right. I want to go back to wind 
10 
up this -- this concern about engagement with the federal --
11 
I mean, engaging the federal system into the state process. 
12 
21b is the exhibit that is your comments really on the very 
13 
final version of --
14 
A 
Right. 
15 
Q 
-- the NPA on September 24, and the -- the language 
16 
is quite striking to us in this regard, looking at the -- at 
17 
the first e-mail there, you've talked about deleting the 
18 
petite policy portion upon 
recommendation, and 
19 
inserting global resolution language which you've proposed. 
20 
And then you then say, "I'm not comfortable with 
21 
requiring the state attorney to enter into a joining 
22 
recommendation," and then you propose essentially taking out 
23 
a mention of the state attorney's office regarding the -- the 
24 
sentence recommendation, and then you also note, "I'm not 
25 
comfortable with requiring a state court to stick with our 
EFTA00009424

Page 197 
1 
timeline," and you ask that the reference be softened -- your 
2 
term is to soften. 
3 
You also use soften below when you talk about 
4 
your -- making it -- a concern about making Epstein an agent 
5 
of the U.S. regarding negotiations. So, you're really -- and 
6 
then at the very top, in the -- in the later follow up e-
7 
mail, you express concern about, "Do we really need to set a 
8 
date for his reporting? I'm very nervous about that. If I 
9 
were a judge, / would be upset by the federal government 
10 
telling a state court how to manage their calendar. Can we 
11 
delete?" 
12 
A 
Right. 
13 
Q 
So, clearly you're very mindful, right, of the 
14 
importance of not injecting the federal sovereign into the 
15 
state sovereign. 
16 
A 
Correct. 
17 
Q 
Fair? All right, but yet, this whole set up, the 
18 
whole NPA did require certain actions to occur, however they 
19 
came about, in the state, because of the federal requirement. 
20 
A 
Yes. 
21 
Q 
And why was that a good idea? 
22 
A 
In hindsight, the complexity that this took on 
23 
clearly is something that -- that if I was advising a fellow 
24 
U.S. Attorney today, I would say, think it through. I do 
25 
think it would have played differently if he had actually not 
EFTA00009425

Page 198 
1 
done all the collateral deals and stuck to what was --
2 
3 
4 
5 
Q 
But that came later. 
A 
It --
Q 
This is before it's signed. 
A 
It came 
it came later, but let me -- let me at 
6 
least say that, and stuck to October 26th, but look, I 
7 
understand your point, and -- and the response that I can 
8 
give was, you have -- we had these concerns, but we also 
9 
thought it was very important that he serve some real 
10 
punishment, and that he register. And whether -- whether we 
11 
balance that or not, a lot of people are going to be 
12 
questioning for a long, long time, but that's how we balanced 
13 
it. 
14 
Q 
Because the state disposition was not a 
15 
precondition to achieving those two objectives. You could 
16 
have done it with a federal plea, serving time --
17 
A 
Arguably --
18 
Q 
-- and the offender registration. 
19 
A 
Arguably, we could have done it with a federal plea 
20 
if judges would have gone -- if judges would have gone for 
21 
rule lls, which in the Southern District they tend not to, 
22 
but arguably. 
23 
Q 
Okay. Okay. I just wanted to --
24 
A 
And you know, again, this is -- this is a hindsight 
25 
thing, but yes. 
EFTA00009426

Page 199 
1 
Q 
It is, but what we're focusing on is not so much 
2 
the hindsight as the -- at the time, did this make sense? 
3 
And it seems that you all were putting in so much effort, and 
4 
it was so hard to make this come together and work, that 
5 
it -- it's striking that it didn't collapse of its own -- of 
6 
its -- of its own weight. 
7 
A 
And to that point, let me say, you know, it's also, 
8 
if I had to speculate, one question that I'd -- that I'd ask 
9 
is, everyone's putting in all this effort. You know, 
10 
put in a lot of work on the negotiations with the defense 
11 
counsel that were somewhere between zealous and difficult. 
12 
Q 
Meaning defense counsel were --
13 
A 
Yeah. 
14 
Q 
-- between zealous and --
15 
A 
Yeah. 
16 
Q 
-- difficult? 
17 
A 
Yeah. Whether there's zealous advocates or cross 
18 
line to rude, we can have conversations about, and at what 
19 
point, you know, would it have proceeded differently if folks 
20 
said, let's take a big step back, and let's seriously 
21 
reconsider? But everyone was very, let's get the job done, 
22 
let's put him in jail. And I -- look, I'm speculating in 
23 
hindsight. 
24 
Q 
But could you not have pulled the plug at any time 
25 
before it was signed? I mean, clearly by the morning of that 
EFTA00009427

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: had finding new

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: assessments eed endum in

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 1S a fair poi goe I've got it -

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: in : !

Size: 27 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and

Size: 45 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: th abo

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and tal and I can say,

Size: 43 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: it -- you and : and I don't know -

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: -- what you to or rights, do

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: to me, for ing , th who else was

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: question t ent

Size: 45 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: stion to you is did

Size: 44 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: wen through the evi

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: that. her went through

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: to

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: OI ? A

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: can't speak hat was the crimina

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: for ean, as a ge:

Size: 56 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: evidence, it -- i ana a general matt

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: witness, I ith -- each vic

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: I mean victi and ach victim as a p

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: how as a -- ey,

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: S a -- a S as a

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: een in the last

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 0 In and sh major paragr

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: a ey, I In

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: pestrer I an , 0 TT ****** -

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: strength and A

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: gth of the C and had Right.

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: also the hat had to them.

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ot had a chance t res He chide

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: esponse 1S on pag des , an dates and people I

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and to

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: hat to you and to

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: to idence?

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: very much 6 and A

Size: 45 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: to make a abo I don't recal

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: to and So, I don

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Correct. : and back when --

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: out

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: bei

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Correct. : at

Size: 25 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: orrect. - was

Size: 45 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: say have ever use

Size: 19 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ld you have hat -- - -

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: case where MR. : W BY MS.

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : Well -- — : ev

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: eve being a pain.

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Did she's being

Size: 25 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: or for that O

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: or you for th

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ity, would you ha had

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ven portunity, w

Size: 18 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: right, I R. : T : T

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MR. : That's S MS. :

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MR. : 've talked a

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ught it was impo MS. :

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: often, but MR. : talked a li

Size: 39 x 11 pixels

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: nce

Size: 13 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: speak to out speak to

Size: 59 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: to that. I don ? to that.

Size: 13 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: peak to th peak to th

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: peak to th ? peak to th

Size: 33 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: speak to ? speak to

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: spe Or I can't spe

Size: 59 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: speak to tha MS. : you do know that

Size: 33 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: hat child sex cr

Size: 39 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: had crimes?

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: sex crime

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: efense counsel . H

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: hat defense rom

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: sor. They w se, Mm-hmm.

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: wanted to and

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: They wanted a -hmm.

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ome to Miami a :

Size: 25 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: to come to and

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: like th wa know.

Size: 49 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and where would in off executive conf

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: senior 1 WO ave said t

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: at the

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: at the hat

Size: 39 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 1 off 2 A

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: sub had gone befor

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and what had gon

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and factua and ials provided

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: clean

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: to clean by

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: this up, t und A

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: A

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: recall wh by : A I --

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: I : : ? I do not reca

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: that is, Ju rom Yes.

Size: 19 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: =, wh

Size: 51 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: to Mark Filip ver

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: part becau : ha -- this was

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: A In pa use -- natural --

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ld you have : MS. y. Thank you.

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: it's going ust . I that I --

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: rvisor. And se, wou

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: if there ed, was

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ould have been. S. : you read the let

Size: 43 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: lively exchang an

Size: 13 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: a live rom

Size: 33 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: rom to conversations

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: to the st tel time and s

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: So, I don' cou that nos

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: A So, I do Mr. C raised that p

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: anding of wh hen tel

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: hat about the

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: had out the case, a

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: no final decis had Lilly Ann Sanch

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ou rin If to Lilly A

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ick. een

Size: 51 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: de I

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: hat Ann Sanchez,

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ha anchez, both b

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: e to you tha - by Page 12

Size: 45 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: 1 somebody in 2 WC 3 he'd had a

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: timately sup ted to ationship wi

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ther -- othe le, dis -hmm.

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: is a

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ere 1S a of

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: битоб

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: , yo

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Q -- sh hat in thics person?

Size: 38 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: nnection. Are ugh

Size: 19 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: , y

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: . is

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ugh

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ate -- rai gain, appearan

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ropriate : that al, again, a

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: So, are you ith of interest,

Size: 19 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: are you als th terest. or

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: but -- but oth and went through

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: but I guess wh and the process

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ap Sanchez.

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: but ly Ann Sanch

Size: 26 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: -- it's th . this case, w

Size: 60 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: informal conv own other attorne

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MR. : before we b

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : make of

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: you make o

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MS. do you make

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and exchange?

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: What do you and ? B I mean,

Size: 19 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: really acid in -- as I r

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: really a and lly -- as

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: of this r and is really

Size: 13 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: or this een a is real

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ? Between is

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MS. back on +

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : on the -

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: record.) : ack on the

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: time. this soft --

Size: 45 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: say -- that's my

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: oft -- tha

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: mplains hat he says that

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: unacceptable to . D BI's position abo

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: letely unacce ing the FBI's po

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: A My rec who eventual dir

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: be eventua

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: the even

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: SAC : attorney, ther

Size: 69 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: at any other case AC, is

Size: 70 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Right. : was I'm not sure she w

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: was

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: the reco MS. right. W

Size: 18 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: record.) : We're ao

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : We're

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: the record ight. We'

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: om tha

Size: 43 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: the record.) : ight. On the r

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: the reco MS. right. O

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: For the rec from and

Size: 18 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: 3 4 dated J

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: 8. 2007 at o

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: 18, 2007 07 asnf SPU

Size: 42 x 14 pixels

Surrounding text: from and that I descr:

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: to ated July 18,

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: dated Jul

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and e-mail fr a p.m. It's one

Size: 19 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: iewed and e 2:07 p.m.

Size: 38 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: 2007 at 2:07 p

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: described

Size: 45 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Before we brok SAC hav clear was a re

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and

Size: 63 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: - I

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: u and plea offer

Size: 70 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: rep 1 was completely

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: munication elicited

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ommunicati the elicit

Size: 30 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ations wit aff elicited is is

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: the victim n MS. : you ever issu

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MR. : I just -- one

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : -- one m

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Ms. a recall O

Size: 31 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: an recall of a -

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: us, she has a Mr. an ication was dis

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: call of a -- , wh in the

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: hat se about --

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: affidav MS. you referr

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Ifidavit. : referring

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: referrin

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: idavit. S : ferring to

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MR. : just -- just

Size: 63 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Ms. de that she's referr

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: around .. : but just +

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ht, but just : MS. issues aroun

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MS. : I THE WITNESS: --

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: THE WITNESS: -- MS. : 1 MR. : We

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MS. MR. : 0

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: THE WITNESS: Ri MR. : - : - MS. :

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MR. : -- MS. : A P THE WITNESS: Rig

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: THE WITNESS: Ri MR. : : - THE WITNESS: Ri

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: WITNESS: Right MR. : one -- can I j

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: -- document numbe MS. I .. [x] .. THE WITNESS: Yea

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: So, do V

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: MR. So, do

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: , , do you : ------ ---

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: : So, do you

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: to eah.

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: Yeah.

Size: 25 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: Ms. I Yeah.

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: do you -- t to , th

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: to -- where is

Size: 63 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: erence in there wh I , or here is it?

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: where she or

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: mentions that rem MS.

Size: 19 x 10 pixels

Size: 18 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: MS. .

Size: 38 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: minded her -- I .. : I

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: THE WITNESS: Yea MS. : .. I THE WITNESS: I S

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: THE WITNESS: I MR. : : - THE WITNESS: It

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: WITNESS: It's MR. : you just read

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: not reached as pol you -- do y

Size: 57 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: Sure. MS. : B THE WITNESS: Yea

Size: 50 x 12 pixels

Surrounding text: WITNESS: Yeah. MR. : 're getting at 1

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: was it. MS. : you said that

Size: 18 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: : 15 or -- --

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MS. : the last 15 or

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: anvone 'no UT

Size: 45 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: case, lse who was inv

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: yone else wh

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: apste , , an involved in

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: tein case in your and . I in those discussi

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: presentation ing and

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: by the .

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: by the and

Size: 45 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: as well as the

Size: 39 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: as we / long

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: by two case age

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: the two C

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Page

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: биошь . 2 , as 3 A Mm- -

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Mm-hmm. hem, by the wa

Size: 70 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: hmm. and the way?

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and

Size: 51 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: !

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: tion. or,

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ! ? - D

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Okay, and now Somewhat.

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ay, and also ? mewhat.

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: I

Size: 19 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: SAC

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: be a very brie com WO year state r

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: a V of a two year

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: tate resolut is,

Size: 45 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: resolution, and lef

Size: 27 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: completely hat on this resol

Size: 45 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: pletely blindsi was resolution?

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: been discu and views wer

Size: 19 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: scussions a and an were known

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: indictment I ere sai ission of oth

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: I thought

Size: 18 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: ght civil r was

Size: 11 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: C1

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: of the back

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: in of the

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: to backgrou

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: t the backgr

Size: 26 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: gage in ith ind of

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 1 that -- tha 2 ? D 3 conversation

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: you, and S or

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: or , I

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: : r or

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ether anyone le,

Size: 63 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: anyone -- anyone ! ind

Size: 58 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: it 1. UPTNOM ha an ould not --

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: M as 'ITEM be she would no

Size: 76 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: a than you and your

Size: 18 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: other than ke

Size: 30 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Wouldn't : Let fin Okay. Sor

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: WITNESS: Oka : W WITNESS: I a

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: WITNESS

Size: 43 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: THE WITNESS: I MS. : THE WITNESS: O

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: : w E NESS: Oka

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Okay. : -- -- if

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: oKa : ldn't -- i --

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ouldn't --

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: WITNESS: MS. wouldn't

Size: 24 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: Okay. All I MR. : A MS.

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: , b Yes.

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: right. And , : Yes.

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: : Y : -- ano

Size: 31 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: . And : : - - a

Size: 18 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: :

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: . and : Y : -- go

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: MR. : -- a MS. : MR. : -- g

Size: 18 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: R. .. S S.

Size: 31 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: MS. eral prosecut

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: : : osecution.

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: : prosecutio

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: prosecutio :

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: that the S as ta

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 1 were you -- how : MS. - .r.

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: oint become a SA, rors to whom

Size: 19 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: aware of th wa she was or

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ecome aware of whom she was

Size: 43 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: -- that -- to m , an had sensitiv

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Ms. have had S

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: March 2006. an pretrial dive

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and March for pretri

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and Mar rom for pret

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: document, to ion, and i

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ent, dated Feb in and it request

Size: 12 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: da and it

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: what exten or

Size: 12 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: what ext hat O

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: -- you kr ow, is unicating ir

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: sai e-mail in the

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Right. And other e-mail

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: this in pus local exp

Size: 18 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: doing this the local

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: doing t and he's the lo

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: THE WITNESS: Sor MS. : D D

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: THE WITNESS: Wou MS. : N : N THE WITNESS: Yea

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: THE WITNESS: Yea MS. : o THE WITNESS: Let

Size: 56 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: THE WITNESS: Let MS. : O (Off the record.)

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: the record.) S. : right. Thank yo

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Excuse me, i on

Size: 32 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: K EX by early?

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: that happened ked in I think that

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ime spo responsibili

Size: 32 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: Page 188 hen there

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: 1 before the NP 2 was 3 was a federal

Size: 37 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: public infor ief bec is that the tw

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: It's -- it's MR. : 1 BY MS.

Size: 57 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: : 15. MS. : you, 15.

Size: 31 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: - I am her ly. It

Size: 44 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: and somebody po

Size: 26 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: case, and S th

Size: 38 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: ou were

Size: 24 x 10 pixels

Surrounding text: and you were bly

Size: 25 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: you've talk pon languag

Size: 50 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: talked about rec language which y

Size: 24 x 11 pixels

Surrounding text: I'd ask ow, defense